NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Moore, the well known filmmaker. We know how he's egotistical and hypocritical, and his mistruths (http://www.moorelies.com) and dishonest tactics (http://www.moorewatch.com) are widely known and well documented. (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com) But the question remains, is he lying or just stupid? If he's fully intelligible of what's he doing, and what actually happens in the full rolls of film, then he is a resourceful and smart man at editing; but he would be lying since he knows better. Or does he sincerely believe in what he's doing? Does he just not bother to fully look things up, or doesn't note the significance of statistics? Then we could surely brand him as intellectually challenged. It's an interesting question.

*puts up a sign by Valued Knowledges cage that says "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"*

What? No both option? What is this. But back to the topic, you cant not know what you are doing when you are splicing interviews together. So-hes a liar. But hes not the smartest guy in the world either.

Can you tell its bias when there is no non bias answer?
Nothing like : a well-known film maker as a choice?

I said stupid, though yes he is a liar. I would also say a hippocrit. But over all a big fat loudmouthed jackass lying piece of... well, I'll just stop now.

What? No both option? What is this. But back to the topic, you cant not know what you are doing when you are splicing interviews together. So-hes a liar. But hes not the smartest guy in the world either.

exactly, though i found 9/11 very entertaining, he lies about the truth and has made an arse of himself.

Of course he lies and spreads mistruths, just as the Bush administration does. He's on the extreme left side, just as fundamentalists are on the right side. Therefore, it stands that his movies and books are also extremeist, over-dramatic, and exaggerated. That doesn't mean that they don't contain some truth, however, just that he's extreme..

Michael Moore, the well known filmmaker. We know how he's egotistical and hypocritical, and his mistruths (http://www.moorelies.com) and dishonest tactics (http://www.moorewatch.com) are widely known and well documented. (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com) But the question remains, is he lying or just stupid? If he's fully intelligible of what's he doing, and what actually happens in the full rolls of film, then he is a resourceful and smart man at editing; but he would be lying since he knows better. Or does he sincerely believe in what he's doing? Does he just not bother to fully look things up, or doesn't note the significance of statistics? Then we could surely brand him as intellectually challenged. It's an interesting question.
Probably like so many people on here on nationstates that don't bother to research the statements they make, and/or tow the partyline catchphrase of the last couple of days. It's just easier sometimes not to keep up with actual information and if it works to your advantage to argue your idea/point around something you may not have personally experienced, then usually enough other people will follow you if you present a good and clicking form of charisma and/or oration. For example, your idea of "we" surely branding anyone about anything. Who's the "we" in your statement? Are you leaving it to me or anyone else here to assume there is a plurality about you while having a singular perspective? Probably not. It probably is just easier to have yourself act like a majority in order to quell insecurities on the reader/respondant's part, regardless of factual accuracy. So maybe to critique you by your own questions ....? You and whatever else "we" constitutes? Just askin'.

Kind of a loaded Poll question. While I don't think he is my savior, he could be a savior IF people took the time to learn the message?

He is certainly not a liar and definitely not an idiot!! :D

Can you tell its bias when there is no non bias answer?
Nothing like : a well-known film maker as a choice?
It is a beat on Moore thread, we could let them go to it? Perhaps they will get it out of their system?

Kind of a loaded Poll question. While I don't think he is my savior, he could be a savior IF people took the time to learn the message?

He is certainly not a liar and definitely not an idiot!! :D


How isnt he a liar, if he doesnt tell the truth. Now I know Democrats dont know the definition of "is", and this is another commen sense question, but I dont know if you will understand it. Liars dont tell the whole truth. Micheal Moore doesnt tell the whole truth, thus Micheal Moore is a liar. Its pretty simple.

How isnt he a liar, if he doesnt tell the truth. Now I know Democrats dont know the definition of "is", and this is another commen sense question, but I dont know if you will understand it. Liars dont tell the whole truth. Micheal Moore doesnt tell the whole truth, thus Micheal Moore is a liar. Its pretty simple.
That would be your take on it and you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. The fact is that there is a LOT of truth in his film and as usual, the truth hurts?

It is a beat on Moore thread, we could let them go to it? Perhaps they will get it out of their system?

Heh heh... beating Michael Moore, sounds like fun! :sniper:

Perhaps they will get it out of their system?

Would you mind joining my movement to get conservatism classified as a mental illness based on that University of California study a few years back? I want to park in the handicapped parking spaces at Wal-Mart.

He is certainly not a liar and definitely not an idiot!! :D

He certainly is a liar.

There's too many examples out, for a complete list read the book Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.

He's not idiot, because he sued the magazine he worked for for firing him (he never met the deadlines and was a plain jackass) and WON!

He also got fired from his first job on an assembly line IN TWO DAYS!

Point out one time when Michael Moore lied. And please show your sources. And just so you know, I don't consider anything from Fox News reliable.

He certainly is a liar.

There's too many examples out, for a complete list read the book Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.

He's not idiot, because he sued the magazine he worked for for firing him (he never met the deadlines and was a plain jackass) and WON!

He also got fired from his first job on an assembly line IN TWO DAYS!
You obviously don't like Moore, but could you explain how he is a liar?

Are people really that angry that his movie is so successful?

"Beat on Moore" all you want--his domestic sales beat out anyone else's right now.

The reality is that I didn't particularly care for that movie--there was only ONE point that I thought was important. The rest was grandstanding. I'm definetly a liberal, just to clarify my point of view here.

The point that was definitive for me--

Donald Rumsfeld saying how this was the MOST humane war, the SAFEST, the LEAST CASUALTIES, the BEST AND MOST ADVANCED TARGETING SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD--

followed up by seeing the actual point of view of a tank machine gunner shooting people who you realise are children;

carpet bombing entire cities;

dead children covered in napalm.

I understand that war is hell. I have yet to see a reasonable link between Iraq and terror.

I know no one thinks that we need one now--but let me remind you all, we authorised a war to fight the TERRORISTS who ATTACKED US, and to get WMDs.

Now that have all seen copies of the document stating that a country sold more Plutonium to Iraq then it is capable of producing; signed by a cabinet member of that country who has been retired for OVER A DECADE and never had any authority what so ever to conduct transactions for the government; which our "great" CIA and incredibly "capable" President said was DEFINITIVE proof ("We KNOW they have WMDs, we have SEEN them") where is the justification for the war?

Saddam was evil! It's funny that that wasn't good enough for the United States Congress and Senate, and Bush had to "lie" in order to come up with reasons that turned out to be false, isn't it?

The problem--is that people are emotional--instead of logical. At the end of the day, killing over 10,000 people, sinking BILLONS of dollars into a project when we are already in debt, does not justify removing from power a petty desert rat dictator with neither weapons nor capabilities nor plans to strike at us.

Furthermore--I don't know if anyone realises this. Iraq had shifted it's oil to Euros, because we have been devaluing our dollar to increase our trade power. This hurt the price of Arab oil, thus causing most countries to shift to the Euro from the Dollar. The day that Bush declared we had "won" Iraq he made a command to shift the Oil back into dollars--even though it is more damaging to the Iraqi economy.

I'm glad we are "rebuilding" and "doing everything we can" to help those poor Iraqi citizens, exploited by their government, a man who answered to no one but his pocketbook and his religion.

Can you tell its bias when there is no non bias answer?
Nothing like : a well-known film maker as a choice?

*works a little moddy magic*

I remember that they assembled a group of people who found nothing unfactual about Farenheit 9/11, but that Moore uses intense emotions and certain ways of interpretting data in his movies that although aren't unfactual, can be misleading.

Point out one time when Michael Moore lied. And please show your sources. And just so you know, I don't consider anything from Fox News reliable.


www.moorelies.com
http://www.moorelies.com/articles/
www.mooreexposed.com
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
www.moorewatch.com
www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
www.BowlingForTruth.com


That should start you off.

Whether or not that I disagree, or disagree with what Michael more has to say, I still have a problem him. It is my firm belief that ALL media (T.V new, even film) should be unbiased. It should be up to people to make their own decision. And whether or not we would like to admit it films like Fahrenheit 9/11 are extremely bias towards certain unnamed parties. My point given the right situation, and proper editing you can make anyone look like the bad guy.

For the record I’m not saying that is what Michael more has done, I just don’t know. What I am saying is that due to the bias opinion that the his movies are portraying that they should not be released.

For the record I would consider myself a liberal, but look down on what extreme views that are presented in Fahrenheit 9/11. I am sure that there are factors out there that either Michael Moore didn’t put in the movie, or did not know about. Until ALL the facts are known we can not take the WORD of a sole person as the whole truth.

Kind of a loaded Poll question. While I don't think he is my savior, he could be a savior IF people took the time to learn the message?

He is certainly not a liar and definitely not an idiot!! :D

Moore is brilliant at making sentences that are technically true but give a false impression.

In Bowling for Columbine, you may remember, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." When I heard that I was thinking Charlton Heston, that bastard. What he leaves out (and what I later found out) is that the NRA cancelled all the events (several days of workshops, luncheons, gun exhibits etc.) they could legally cancel. From Heston himself:


As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.


The only thing left in Denver was the annual meeting--the date in location set years in advance--that was required by state law to be held (by NY nonprofit laws). The meeting could be legally rescheduled--if at least 10 days notice was given to all the members. Needless to say, there just wasn't time to notify all 4 million NRA members so quickly. So while out of sensitivity the cancelled all that they legally could, the annual meeting by legal necessity stuck. But Michael Moore leaves this fact out and gives a pretty false impression while leaving the words technically true.

Another instance of technically true but leaving a false impression: the “Wonderful World” montage. You may recall a scene that showed gun toting middle easterners riding in a car, with the caption:


2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid"


What Moore leaves out is that the U.S. did not actually send those millions of dollars to the Taliban government, but to U.S. and international agencies to that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. So, technically he was right. The aid was given to Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it (note he never actually said the aid was given to the Taliban government). But by putting the word "aid" in quotation marks and showing a picture of gun toting middle easterners, he conveys a somewhat different impression than what actually happened.

Initially I actually liked Michael Moore, and his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary. I'm pro-gun control, so I was pretty sympathetic. But when I became disillusioned with his misleading tactics (however sympathetic I am to some of his political views), I don't appreciate his work as much as I used to.

I'm a social liberal/fiscal moderate, and I HATE MOORE!

The only way to topple your political opposition w/o making a fool of urself is to present both sides in as unbiased a manner as possible, then say why your persuasion is better - Moore does not do that, and I hate him for that

He's your typical pied piper propagandist. Good with the wording of things and even better at deception. I see that many people have been lead off a cliff by him.

exactly, though i found 9/11 very entertaining, he lies about the truth and has made an arse of himself.

HOW THE HELL DID YOU FIND 9/11 ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OVER 3,000 PEOPLE DIED YOU PHYSCO

wait.... are you french??

HOW THE HELL DID YOU FIND 9/11 ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OVER 3,000 PEOPLE DIED YOU PHYSCO

wait.... are you french??
He meant Fareihieght 9/11, fool. I pity the fool that is confused.

o thank you so much for correcting me..... i feel really bad now :(
sry

Kind of a loaded Poll question. While I don't think he is my savior, he could be a savior IF people took the time to learn the message?

He is certainly not a liar and definitely not an idiot!! :D
What CH said! :D

www.moorelies.com
http://www.moorelies.com/articles/
www.mooreexposed.com
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
www.moorewatch.com
www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
www.BowlingForTruth.com


That should start you off.
Yeah and you keep trying to poliferate these garbage web sites. I have seen Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 and it all appears that most of the salient "Facts" are there for everyone to digest. Some people just can't handle the truth and will go to any length to discredit the individual.

Well I am not buying it and anyone with half a brain, who actually SAW the movie, would find it extremely difficult to discredit what has been presented.

I have seen Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 and it all appears that most of the salient "Facts" are there for everyone to digest.


See post #23 in this thread.

Moore is brilliant at making sentences that are technically true but give a false impression.

In Bowling for Columbine, you may remember, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." When I heard that I was thinking Charlton Heston, that bastard. What he leaves out (and what I later found out) is that the NRA cancelled all the events (several days of workshops, luncheons, gun exhibits etc.) they could legally cancel. From Heston himself:



The only thing left in Denver was the annual meeting--the date in location set years in advance--that was required by state law to be held (by NY nonprofit laws). The meeting could be legally rescheduled--if at least 10 days notice was given to all the members. Needless to say, there just wasn't time to notify all 4 million NRA members so quickly. So while out of sensitivity the cancelled all that they legally could, the annual meeting by legal necessity stuck. But Michael Moore leaves this fact out and gives a pretty false impression while leaving the words technically true.

Another instance of technically true but leaving a false impression: the “Wonderful World” montage. You may recall a scene that showed gun toting middle easterners riding in a car, with the caption:



What Moore leaves out is that the U.S. did not actually send those millions of dollars to the Taliban government, but to U.S. and international agencies to that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. So, technically he was right. The aid was given to Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it (note he never actually said the aid was given to the Taliban government). But by putting the word "aid" in quotation marks and showing a picture of gun toting middle easterners, he conveys a somewhat different impression than what actually happened.

Initially I actually liked Michael Moore, and his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary. I'm pro-gun control, so I was pretty sympathetic. But when I became disillusioned with his misleading tactics (however sympathetic I am to some of his political views), I don't appreciate his work as much as I used to.


Thank you. You proved the point that I was trying to make in an earlier post

Kind of a loaded Poll question. While I don't think he is my savior, he could be a savior IF people took the time to learn the message?

He is certainly not a liar and definitely not an idiot!! :D

He is one of the few real American patriots around.

He's a propagandist.

He isn't an idiot.

But he is a liar.

it would be interesting to note that moorelies.com (The only site I looked at) never says that moore actually lied. It says he put a heavy bias on his reporting, but it never says that he made something up and tried to pass it as truth

Fritzburgh, isn't he Canadian?

He is one of the few real American patriots around.


Which is why he insults Americans while in Europe? Calling them the stupidest in the world, and full of corruption? Yep a real patriot he is, insulting our country in front of our "allies".

Moore is brilliant at making sentences that are technically true but give a false impression.

In Bowling for Columbine, you may remember, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." When I heard that I was thinking Charlton Heston, that bastard. What he leaves out (and what I later found out) is that the NRA cancelled all the events (several days of workshops, luncheons, gun exhibits etc.) they could legally cancel. From Heston himself:



The only thing left in Denver was the annual meeting--the date in location set years in advance--that was required by state law to be held (by NY nonprofit laws). The meeting could be legally rescheduled--if at least 10 days notice was given to all the members. Needless to say, there just wasn't time to notify all 4 million NRA members so quickly. So while out of sensitivity the cancelled all that they legally could, the annual meeting by legal necessity stuck. But Michael Moore leaves this fact out and gives a pretty false impression while leaving the words technically true.

Another instance of technically true but leaving a false impression: the “Wonderful World” montage. You may recall a scene that showed gun toting middle easterners riding in a car, with the caption:



What Moore leaves out is that the U.S. did not actually send those millions of dollars to the Taliban government, but to U.S. and international agencies to that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. So, technically he was right. The aid was given to Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it (note he never actually said the aid was given to the Taliban government). But by putting the word "aid" in quotation marks and showing a picture of gun toting middle easterners, he conveys a somewhat different impression than what actually happened.

Initially I actually liked Michael Moore, and his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary. I'm pro-gun control, so I was pretty sympathetic. But when I became disillusioned with his misleading tactics (however sympathetic I am to some of his political views), I don't appreciate his work as much as I used to.
I appreciate your honesty in regards to this issue, whatever your take may be in this regard.

As far as I am concerned, Michael Moore was so pissed off about the shootout at Columbine that he delivered a message to the world:

There are too many guns in the US

It is too easy to get a gun in the US

There are too many people being shot in the US

The murder rate in the US is 3 times higher than in Canada (mostly gun related). Actually, there were more murders in Chicago than there was in ALL of Canada. That is just 1 city.

How many more Columbines will it take for the message to sink in? How many more people will have to die?

Except the problem is not the guns themselves, it is the people(or something). Canada is not exactly gun-free.

Fritzburgh, isn't he Canadian?
No. He hails from Flint, Michigan.

he ate my family

I appreciate your honesty in regards to this issue, whatever your take may be in this regard.

As far as I am concerned, Michael Moore was so pissed off about the shootout at Columbine that he delivered a message to the world:

There are too many guns in the US

It is too easy to get a gun in the US

There are too many people being shot in the US

The murder rate in the US is 3 times higher than in Canada (mostly gun related)

How many more Columbines will it take for the message to sink in? How many more people will have to die?

Actually, his message in "Columbine" was much deeper than that. When I saw "Columbine," I figured, "Oh, boy, here comes another plea for gun control." But Moore points out that Canada has as strong a gun culture as the U.S. (think hunting), and that it is just as easy to get a gun in Canada as it is in the States. The difference is a general culture of fear that seems to be uniquely American. The film is far more thought-provoking and less one-sided than its reputation would suggest.

Except the problem is not the guns themselves, it is the people(or something). Canada is not exactly gun-free.
Well as long as the rhetoric spins, people will die. Yeah people kill people, but people with guns kill even more people.

Canada has strict gun control laws. you certainly won't see any bank here promoting:

"More Bang For the Buck"

Actually, his message in "Columbine" was much deeper than that. When I saw "Columbine," I figured, "Oh, boy, here comes another plea for gun control." But Moore points out that Canada has as strong a gun culture as the U.S. (think hunting), and that it is just as easy to get a gun in Canada as it is in the States. The difference is a general culture of fear that seems to be uniquely American. The film is far more thought-provoking and less one-sided than its reputation would suggest.
Actually it is more difficult to get a gun in Canada. You need to have a permit to buy one and that takes time. Your background is thoroughly checked out.

Bowling for Columbine was much better than Fahrenheit 9/11, it was much more honest. Moore decided to take the ignoble route of "by any means necessary" with the latter. BFC did not fabricate facts, but it was still heavily biased in its presentation of them -not noting the relevances of the drastically higher population in the USA, or its much higher level of urbanization, to its higher death rate. I can't remember for certain if it makes a distinction between murders and gun-related murders, although if it didn't, that would be one more example. BFC raises good questions, but it fails to honestly answer them.

I found it interesting that one of Moore's fellow ideologues of the left, while significantly more intelligent and honest, Christopher Hitchens, wrote in Slate.

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

pretty much sums up my view on Moore, his fans, and his film.....I simply cannot find an intelligent person that can say "this is the truth" and coherently defend this movie when presented with verifiable facts. you leftists got a worst of Bush movie. you easily could have made a very flattering movie best of Bush and titled it slightly differently. i truly believe the modern left, which i term as leftists and are represented by the likes of barbara streisand, michael moore, and countless "whoops we don;t matter as much as we think we do" pseudo-intellectual eurolefists and "damn, we never mattered"america hating left wing canadians (continental term was on purpose) can't see the forest for the trees,tired, mindless, baseless, scream over your dissent from their opinion because they don't have a point crap spouting modern left.
just so everyone knows my bias, and i consider myself socially LIBERAL, a real liberal by the definition of the word..... which truly means responsibility goes with every right, both are sancrosanct and one without the other are invalid.....which is what propagandist "documentaries" violate badly as irresponsible journalism and truth twisting to the extreme. just to challenge, please back up any of Moore's points other than his vivid portrayal of war and sympathy for the "patriots" who run and hide into a mosque when confronted by US forces on the ground.....Moore has a seriously schizophrenic view of his country. He would love it, if we tried to be different. Like Europe, maybe, nevr mind their declining, rotting states(check out France on economy and population trends) after state....but hey, poor people have insurance someone else paid for them, they're better.....

yes, this is intense scorn for people who have the hate america first michael moore brand of leftism. the real left, the old left of the 60's, had a point sometimes. the modern left doesn;t, other than simply opposing what they view as strength versus what they view as weak, and somehow represent themselves as altruistic. sickening, really.

Well as long as the rhetoric spins, people will die. Yeah people kill people, but people with guns kill even more people.

Canada has strict gun control laws. you certainly won't see any bank here promoting:

"More Bang For the Buck"

despite our strick gun law, in order to get around the problem all you have to do is know the right people. For the right price I can get a hold a illegal weapons, its not that hard.

Well as long as the rhetoric spins, people will die. Yeah people kill people, but people with guns kill even more people.

If the solution taken to reduce violence in the USA is to ban guns, it is only an alleviation of the symptoms. Also considering that most gun deaths in the USA are not accidental, but rather close-range shootouts between people intending to kill each other, this statement is not all that significant.

Where was all the fervor during Roger & Me? The Big One? The Awful Truth? When he was critical of Clinton....when does Moore hate america? Oh, when he speaks out against St. George. One aceptance speach and suddenly he's the devil. Your problem with Moore is that he disagrees with you. Own it, accept it.

The complaints against Bowling for Columbine are so unfocused it feels like reading a review of the blurb on the back of the video. Only one person in this thread has even touched on what that film was actually about.

Michael Moore did not invent editing. Michael Moore did not invent personality driven documentaries. Michael Moore did not invent argumenative filmmaking. Michael Moore did not advertise his films as 'Fair & Balanced.'

I saw an interesting question on the imdb.com thread for F9/11: Why do you hold Michael Moore to a higher standard of truth than the current administration, or, say, a certain news channel?

Thanks, Antileftist. A liberal does not have to agree with Moore. What disgusts most about politically oriented citizens -left, right, or otherwise- is that they are willing to lap up ANY claims supporting what they already believe, regardless of how true or relevant they may be. I hear my parents complaining about celebrities coming on TV and speaking against Bush, saying "Their opinion shouldn't count, they're not experts!" To which I think(i don't get into political discussions with family members), "1) their opinion is just as valid as yours, and 2) if they were speaking IN FAVOR OF Bush, you would be singing a different tune." Disgusting? Absolutely.

and i believe the right does it mroe than the left, but both do it ridiculously, as far as pile on with talking points rather than investigate the issue....i amn starting to believe the country of US is simlpy divided by true believers and people who hate their perception of the other side, than by issue agreement....it really is too bad, always ALWAYS question authority or popular sentiment, regardles of the side it is coming from.

For a long time, one of the main problems I had with the Democratic party(not liberals as a whole, but rather the Dem. party specifically) was their unwillingness to have a stand of their own. Before this years Dem. convention, their main purpose seems to have been simply to oppose whatever the Republicans said. Which is, needless to say, why I enjoyed watching the Dem. convention -they finally grew their own balls.

If anyone says that Michael Moore isn't a liar, then they're obviously ignorant or already so driven by their hate for the president that they'll believe any venomous propaganda already put out by the Democratic party.

What do you call someone who falsifies documents, splices interviews together to make them concede to his points, shows obvious disregard for United States trademark and copyright laws by taking a page 36 editorial from an Illinois newspaper and turning it into a front page headline (that NEVER existed), and sits and makes rude gestures towards a speaker at a national political convention? Several words come to mind here.

Unfortunately, our soldiers are fighting for Michael Moron's rights to spew such bull.

I challenge ANYONE to pull something factual from that movie.

I saw an interesting question on the imdb.com thread for F9/11: Why do you hold Michael Moore to a higher standard of truth than the current administration, or, say, a certain news channel?

Oh, are we talking about CNN and their obvious political bias here? Who else would make Michael Moron a commentator for the Republican convention?

Which is why he insults Americans while in Europe? Calling them the stupidest in the world, and full of corruption? Yep a real patriot he is, insulting our country in front of our "allies".


Have you been paying attention, we have lost most of our so called "allies." They boo us in national events and if you go into their forums they have been saying this for a while.

Oh, are we talking about CNN and their obvious political bias here? Who else would make Michael Moron a commentator for the Republican convention?
Nice dodge.

For a long time, one of the main problems I had with the Democratic party(not liberals as a whole, but rather the Dem. party specifically) was their unwillingness to have a stand of their own. Before this years Dem. convention, their main purpose seems to have been simply to oppose whatever the Republicans said. Which is, needless to say, why I enjoyed watching the Dem. convention -they finally grew their own balls.


funny, I saw that in both parties. It's the get nowhere and have to do nothing party line.

I disagree. A large amount of Republican motivation comes directly from Christian belief. Another significant amount comes from economic interests(i.e., business backing). There is still certainly a good deal of what I was talking about in the Republican party, but I would not say it was anywhere near the amount encountered in the Democratic party.

wtv, moore does tell most truth, and if he's lies sometimes, he's a liar? well i guess everyone on earth is a liar then huh? take his shiite for wuts its worth, trust me, if it came down to a election of him v bush, i'd take him, i think we've ALL learnt that anyone but bush will do.....except a monkey.....monkies are just as dangerous.

I think I need to remind people of a few things...


Is Michael Moore fat? Yes, well, he is. Its plain observation.

Is he a slob? I don't know...don't know him personally.

Is he a liar? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Truths are often a matter of perspective. He's human, like you or I...and even the President. But that's besides the point I'm trying to make.

Does he have his own opinions? Well, yes, that's quite evident. Are people allowed to disagree with him? Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and so is Michael Moore.

Freedom of speech is a two way street. When I hear most Michael Moore opponents bashing him, its usually because of his weight - or because he tells "lies" (these "lies" I hear Michael Moore's opponents say he tells, but they won't elaborate on). They give no real reason why to anything.


So far, most of what I have heard is "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid lying idiot"...but no one is willing to back up their opinion. Were you spoon-fed that opinion, or did you jump to a conclusion all by yourself? Maybe you overheard someone else say it, and therefore without question you made it your mantra about this guy.

Also, his personal history or his work ethic have little to do with the man's opinions or what-have-you.

As to myself, I agree with Mr. Moore on a few things. He's got the right idea for a few aspects of how this country should be run. I don't agree with him on everything, as no one will totally agree on everything.

To make a long story short - BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS! :mad:



Stroudania :sniper:

Liar. The man's clearly not stupid, though he clearly believes that his audience is.

o.k., I can today jump on the internet and find tons of websites on either side of this story. Media is completely unreliable these days. I am willing to listen to those who are involved with the fightin and/ or are living in Europe and actually seeing what is going on. All of it is biased. Even when Columbine really took place, I saw two differen news stations take a quote I had seen earlier, live, and make it into two seperate stories, none of which were true. I can only go on facts then, India is the fastest growing ecoonomy in the world, some of our major companies who have moved IT operations etc. there are......sbc, comcast, verizon, microsoft, dell etc. etc. Oil companies are reporting record gains yet complaining about lack of refineries and growing oil prices. Etc. Does anyone want to talk about facts that really matter and how we can fix them? The Michael Moore, republican-democrat, conservative-liberal thing isn't going to work and if we continue to choose our arguments and party distinctions by our convictions (gay or no gay marriage etc.) we will never deal with any real problems in this country.

My biggest question is why are people so quick to shoot down people like Michael Moore when its pretty much common knowledge that the major news networks like Fox and CNN have told more and/or worse lies.

Fuuraibou, theres nothing righteous happening in iraq "thanks" to the US, they've only started caused and hopefully will end, chaos over there.

I found it interesting that one of Moore's fellow ideologues of the left, while significantly more intelligent and honest, Christopher Hitchens,

Hitchens hasn't been part of the left for years. I'm tempted to apply the thread title to your post but that would be beneath me. :D

What are the choices here? An idiot a liar or my savior? I say neither, so I voted for the 4th option. This is not a fair and impartial poll to say at least!

WEll, Mike is an intelligent man. He also seems to be a nice guy if you get to know him. He is a good arguer, he seems intelligent but he is the BIGGEST liar since Stalin.

I mean, seriously. he is TOTALLY Biased, he is extremely radical, and alot of people who are very political(americans, non-americans, democrats, republicans all) say that hes too extreme, he doesnt use the right facts, and he is actually quite communist. And these are people who study politics for a living. And most of them arent even AMERICAN, but they have been educated in an American system from Childhood and speak mostly English.

I have nothing against him, but i DO have something against his Propaganda Filled movies.

An example of Moore's lies:

On page 20, Moore quotes a New Yorker piece on page 4 of his book noting that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after 9-11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe."
Moore writes that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" The statement is still false in that a September 20, 2001 Boston Globe article notes that the Bin Ladens apparently chartered their own plane. They did not get a "free trip" as Moore tells us.


Moore states that the FAA permitted overseas flights after 9-11 and before the bin Ladens flew out of the country in their chartered jet. If, as he states, the airspace was open what is Moore's point?

From the 9/11 Commision report, emphasis is again mine:


Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion


(Source: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

So, the airspace was open when the Saudis flew out on a chartered flights from September 14 after they had been interviewed and screened by the FBI. The bin Ladens flew out on September 20. So, Moore lied about the date the Saudis flew out, he lied about how they obtained the flight and he omitted the fact that the airspace had opened when the Saudis flew out. Not to mention his inference it was Bush who ordered the flights out when it was in fact Clarke.

Even though I'm British, I believe that Michael Morre has done an excellent job in exposing and shaming the corporate pigs who seemt o have America under their control.
I thought the U.S.A was a democracy, not a corporate dictatorship.
Michael Morre is a saviour to the American people.

Even though I'm British, I believe that Michael Morre has done an excellent job in exposing and shaming the corporate pigs who seemt o have America under their control.
I thought the U.S.A was a democracy, not a corporate dictatorship.
Michael Morre is a saviour to the American people.

*sigh* The united States ISNT a Corporate Dictatorship. Listen, buddy. Next time you insult my country, at least do it after you spend more than 5 minutes watching the news.

I dont make assumptions about Britain, because i dont watch stuff about Britain. Sure, i watch BBC world, but thats NOTHING like being a U.K. Citizen. So unles youve LIVED the the U.S. Fairly recently, dont make quick assumptions.

The USA is, ATM, an oligarchy -but only because most people are too lazy to vote, and most of those who DO vote are too lazy to vote on anything but the Presidential elections. When we refuse to participate, our lives are in the government's hands, but when we DO participate, the government is in OUR hands. This is how corporate statism comes about -negligence by part of the populace.

I dont make assumptions about Britain, because i dont watch stuff about Britain.Then that's a choice for you, but you can't assume the same of everyone. Sure, i watch BBC world, but thats NOTHING like being a U.K. Citizen. So unles youve LIVED the the U.S. Fairly recently, dont make quick assumptions.Do you have to be an Iranian citizen to condemn torture there?

I mean, seriously. he is TOTALLY Biased, he is extremely radical, and alot of people who are very political(americans, non-americans, democrats, republicans all) say that hes too extreme, he doesnt use the right facts, and he is actually quite communist. And these are people who study politics for a living. And most of them arent even AMERICAN, but they have been educated in an American system from Childhood and speak mostly English.

The man has an agenda, get real, of course he is biased. He never said anything else.
As for your political "experts", maybe they should change their study object or get rid of their american education. There isnt such a thing as "quite communist" and Moore is left without being even near communism.

While i do not like the style Moore uses for his films, which are presented as "semi-documentaries", he does bring facts to attention which are true. Exaggeration and selection of presented facts does make for poor journalism, but nonetheless, most things he mentions do hold up to truth.

You're speaking of Farenheit 911 because you've seen it, didn't you?

You all are living overwhelmed by USA information so YOU KNOW NOTHING. :headbang:

For istance do you know Komeini? Do you know what happend between SSSR and Bin Laden in the 70's? And betwen Hussein and komeini in the 80's? Pinochet? Argentina? Desaparecidos? Who do you think has armed Bin Landen and Hussein? :confused:
Have you ever read Noam Chomsky?

I didn't see Farenheit 9-11 and i think i'll never do it because i don't need it! :cool:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/189866

ow common this poll sucked u had to do it like this

michael moore =
*stupid
*liar
*both last points
*my savior
*someone who brings the truth
*a good film maker

so in fact the maker of this poll is stupid

Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Shawn Hannity
Bill O'Reilly (oh wait, he's a moderate, not a registered republican)

These mass-media pundits command a much wider audience and demand agreement with their party line or you're an assumed traitor and moron. Moore is completely harmless, merely a peddler of propaganda and nothing more or less. I don't agree with him but I respect him and trust he's doing what he thinks is right.

Therefore, he's neither a liar or my savior, so I chose the fourth option, but I think Amerikkka needs him right now to provide a feeble attempt at balance in politics.

well i did saw both fahrenheit and bowling for columbine and i can't say anything else about it but this:
i think about 80 % is true
i do think moore has his own agenda
but that doesn't mean that both movie's were really good and they gave information that other networks / movie's didn't
so that is why i like this movie :P and moor of course to

btw doesn't have every public person his own agenda :P

well i did saw both fahrenheit and bowling for columbine and i can't say anything else about it but this:
i think about 80 % is true
i do think moore has his own agenda
but that doesn't mean that both movie's were really good and they gave information that other networks / movie's didn't
so that is why i like this movie :P and moor of course to

btw doesn't have every public person his own agenda :P

If you do not think moore has his own agenda you have lived a sheltered life.

I would say he is both idiot and liar

Probably like so many people on here on nationstates that don't bother to research the statements they make, and/or tow the partyline catchphrase of the last couple of days. It's just easier sometimes not to keep up with actual information and if it works to your advantage to argue your idea/point around something you may not have personally experienced, then usually enough other people will follow you if you present a good and clicking form of charisma and/or oration. For example, your idea of "we" surely branding anyone about anything. Who's the "we" in your statement? Are you leaving it to me or anyone else here to assume there is a plurality about you while having a singular perspective? Probably not. It probably is just easier to have yourself act like a majority in order to quell insecurities on the reader/respondant's part, regardless of factual accuracy. So maybe to critique you by your own questions ....? You and whatever else "we" constitutes? Just askin'.


I must agree with this.

And more over, which would you prefer: someone who is slightly unintelligent and strives to get the country back in shape, or someone who IS unintelligent, since IQ test have been taken on Bush's account and he only has an IQ of 80 or 90 (if I'm not mistaken), which is below average (in america, which in turn isn't renowned to be the place with the most intelligent people) and strives to get as rich as possible, at your expence? Just another view on the situation.

And he could be lying (Moore), but then his sources would have to be lying, and I have read some of his source's books and newspapers, and they do seem to be accurate, since they were there. (i.e.: the dictators invested by USA in Chili, one of his sources actually worked in the administration of Chili at that time, so he would know...)

I must agree with this.

And more over, which would you prefer: someone who is slightly unintelligent and strives to get the country back in shape, or someone who IS unintelligent, since IQ test have been taken on Bush's account and he only has an IQ of 80 or 90 (if I'm not mistaken), which is below average (in america, which in turn isn't renowned to be the place with the most intelligent people) and strives to get as rich as possible, at your expence? Just another view on the situation.

And he could be lying (Moore), but then his sources would have to be lying, and I have read some of his source's books and newspapers, and they do seem to be accurate, since they were there. (i.e.: the dictators invested by USA in Chili, one of his sources actually worked in the administration of Chili at that time, so he would know...)
Interesting. Find me these IQ tests taken by Bush.

He's not stupid. He may be a liar, but I think not. I believe he just misses out some truths and shouts about others, so as to only give one side of the story. That doesn't make him a liar, though it is decietful.

He isn't my saviour either, but I do take part in stupid polls, so what do I choose?

Actually, his message in "Columbine" was much deeper than that. When I saw "Columbine," I figured, "Oh, boy, here comes another plea for gun control." But Moore points out that Canada has as strong a gun culture as the U.S. (think hunting), and that it is just as easy to get a gun in Canada as it is in the States. The difference is a general culture of fear that seems to be uniquely American. The film is far more thought-provoking and less one-sided than its reputation would suggest.


Indeed. One example: there was this guy (forgive me , I haven't seen the movie in a while) which he interviewed at home. His home was in the middle of nowhere, yet still he had a hunting rifle (i can understand that: for hunting) and a hand gun or 2 (I can't understand this: who is going to be a threat, you're in the middle of nowhere). he didn't even know who Gandhi was.

Moore also explicitly says that the American Media conditions its citizens to fear all outside. Even in Europe (which isn't as peaceloving as everybody thinks :) ) there isn't as much violence and car-crashes and so on on the news. And why does it always has to be the black man who did it (like Moore also depicted). Every day it's reported on the news that an Afro-American man has mugged this or that, that he murdered this or that.

This is the message of Bowling for Columbine: not too many guns, but too much conditioning and 'brainwashing' (for lack of better term), which leads to the use of those guns.

Canada, just across the river from Detroit, had less mortalities in the whole of the country, than Detriot, ONE city. These mortalities linked to guns of course. Guns are the second layer of the movie, next to the habit of putting fear into the citizens hearts.

It's not going to be that easy to gt the IQ tests, since this would prove that the president of the USA is in fact a retard. And as i mentioned, i could be mistaken, and if I didn't, my apologies. It was leaked from a newspaper, the results from the tests, but to my horror i can't seem to remember the name. I don't mean to beat Bush (although i am against his way of doing business, and his policies), i only mean to point out that Moore isn't as dumb as most people here seem to think. I can imagine that some members here are reublicans, but I am democratic, and I cannot abide the fact that some people are fierce supporters of Bush's regime. Imagine this: exactly yhe same scenario as for Iraq, but now you 'are' Iraqi. Saddam thinks you will attack his country, and that you will do this by means of mass destruction weapons. He invades USA and pumps your family full of lead. Oh yeah, don't forget, he also has a hidden agenda. The Twinky Industry is growing in USA, but declining in Iraq, so he further wages war on USA, just so he can get a little more money.

Do you agree (the Bush supporters I mean)? Well you should, because this is exactly what Bush has done.

Do you agree (the Bush supporters I mean)? Well you should, because this is exactly what Bush has done.
What industry is comparable to the twinky industry? And Bush doesen't have troops go around on orders pumping random civilians full of lead. :rolleyes: There is another difference, also. The USA is still a democracy even if Bush is in power, whereas Iraq was a dictatorship, and comparing Saddam to Bush as equals is madness. Interesting you can't find the IQ scores, too.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm ~the bin ladens
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html ~o'reilly's interview with moore.

moore is a liar, simple fact. those sources which prove it are somehow discredited to the uniformed people on this site. moore is a good mutilator of truth, which makes him somewhat intelligent. now those who say Bush is a moron and that he's lied to the public...well wouldn't that also make him somewhat intelligent since people do believe in the man.

I mean clearly both men have their agenda's. Moore's is to discredit america and to spread hatred of it. Bush's is to secure america as well as to protect social security, health care, businesses, etc.
So of course they're going to say what they can to make their case. Of course the information varies on the crebility of it, like Moore's is just plan false and some of Bush's wmd's infomation was misinformed..but hey we all know what Bush haters do to get their way. :headbang:

exactly, though i found 9/11 very entertaining, he lies about the truth and has made an arse of himself.

Which just proves your a idiot.. i mean Republican i checked it out 9/11 there wernt any miss truths in the movie


AND for the record i know for a fact that Moore is a Card carying Comunits and has gone on record as saying he dosent like either party

And VK your miss truths are only so from your WHite Super conservitive midwest(im guessing) perspective when you deside to THINK FOR YOU ƒ¨ç?ˆ© Self intead of theting your religon and political party do it for you MAYBE I at least care what u think

What industry is comparable to the twinky industry? And Bush doesen't have troops go around on orders pumping random civilians full of lead. :rolleyes: There is another difference, also. The USA is still a democracy even if Bush is in power, whereas Iraq was a dictatorship, and comparing Saddam to Bush as equals is madness. Interesting you can't find the IQ scores, too.


Iwas merely pointing out the copmlete banality of the war in Iraq. What was the reason for the war: Saddam was a threat?
Wake up, he has been a threat for decades.
The oil industry was what I meant by twinky industry (a metaphore).
And I didn't mean that they were pumping random people full of lead, but that there were far to many casualties (military and citizens).

my point is: war is not neccesary, not from any point of view. this goes for every single government on this planet, not only the one in USA

Iwas merely pointing out the copmlete banality of the war in Iraq. What was the reason for the war: Saddam was a threat?
Wake up, he has been a threat for decades.
The oil industry was what I meant by twinky industry (a metaphore).
And I didn't mean that they were pumping random people full of lead, but that there were far to many casualties (military and citizens).

my point is: war is not neccesary, not from any point of view. this goes for every single government on this planet, not only the one in USA
It isn't necessary, but that dosen't mean we shouldn't do it. Whats wrong with taking out a dictator, even if he's been in power for 25 years?

I gotta love snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm ~proves Bush doesn't have a low IQ

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=george+bush&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
If the link doesn't work, just type in George Bush in the search engine.

It isn't necessary, but that dosen't mean we shouldn't do it. Whats wrong with taking out a dictator, even if he's been in power for 25 years?


I'm just trying to live in an imaginary world here, but you could have taken him out long before he grew powerful enough to bomb your country to the ground.
And the same with Osama: the CIA GAVE him and his troups weapons. They TRAINED them. If this isn't asking for trouble, then I don't what is. You can just as well kick a cobra in the head and hope he doesn't bite you.

I gotta love snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm ~proves Bush doesn't have a low IQ

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=george+bush&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
If the link doesn't work, just type in George Bush in the search engine.


So because it wase a jibe, Bush has a large IQ? I don't think so. Even if there weren't any IQ tests (I admit, I thought there actually were IQ test results, although I never read it on snopes.) Bush can very well have a low IQ.

I'm just trying to live in an imaginary world here, but you could have taken him out long before he grew powerful enough to bomb your country to the ground.
And the same with Osama: the CIA GAVE him and his troups weapons. They TRAINED them. If this isn't asking for trouble, then I don't what is. You can just as well kick a cobra in the head and hope he doesn't bite you.
We could have and we should have, too bad we stopped in 1991. And Osama rejected American back in the 1980's as well. We supported the rebels in general vs the USSR, but Osama himself is a different story.

I mean clearly both men have their agenda's. Moore's is to discredit america and to spread hatred of it.

Whoa, kinda harsh, don't you think? Got any evidence to back that up? From watching his movies and reading his books (or at least one of them), I'd say he quite likes his country. He's just (to put it diplomatically) concerned about what it is becoming, and what the guys in charge seem to do. He's certainly not out to spread hatred of America, but rather to open the eyes of Americans to see what's going on around them (speaking from Moores perspective here).

Personally, I think Moore lacks any sense of diplomacy. He gets extremely worked up about something and then practically parts oceans to try and do something about it. I believe that what he's saing is quite valid, and it's clear (IMO) that he has the evidence to back it up. But unfortunately he presents it in a very biased and harsh manner, so his rivals pass it off as lies/propaganda, and he ends up preaching to the converted - this certainly seems to be the case with his latest movie.

Ironically though, his lack of diplomacy is what makes him so popular. If he didn't present his films in the way he does, people would barely be interested in it.

I'm not surprised people have passed Moores stuff off as lies. Nobody (me included) likes being insulted for something they believe in, and then be expected to change sides afterwards - it's human nature.

And for the record, documentaries are very rarely impartial these days - Moores movie is an extreme example of that.

Whoa, kinda harsh, don't you think? Got any evidence to back that up? From watching his movies and reading his books (or at least one of them), I'd say he quite likes his country. He's just (to put it diplomatically) concerned about what it is becoming, and what the guys in charge seem to do. He's certainly not out to spread hatred of America, but rather to open the eyes of Americans to see what's going on around them (speaking from Moores perspective here).

Personally, I think Moore lacks any sense of diplomacy. He gets extremely worked up about something and then practically parts oceans to try and do something about it. I believe that what he's saing is quite valid, and it's clear (IMO) that he has the evidence to back it up. But unfortunately he presents it in a very biased and harsh manner, so his rivals pass it off as lies/propaganda, and he ends up preaching to the converted - this certainly seems to be the case with his latest movie.

Ironically though, his lack of diplomacy is what makes him so popular. If he didn't present his films in the way he does, people would barely be interested in it.

I'm not surprised people have passed Moores stuff off as lies. Nobody (me included) likes being insulted for something they believe in, and then be expected to change sides afterwards - it's human nature.

And for the record, documentaries are very rarely impartial these days - Moores movie is an extreme example of that.


Sometimes it frightens me to see my own thoughts on screen, when it wasn't me who typed them :)

"wait are you French?" (paraphrased from earlier post)

Well what a grown up and thought provoking statement (question I suppose) that is. What a moronic racist little KKK Nazi turd you really are. Why do you hate a democratic sovereign nation so much? Because it wouldn't do what you wanted? When was any US citizen able to tell France or Britain what they have to do? Hmmmm?

As long as twats like you keep spouting bigotted and racist rubbish like this, a huge amount of the world will (wrongly) enjoy the spectacle of USS Cole and the 11-9-01 carnage. Why don't you think a little about how you look from outside of the US of A?

I'm British and proud of it. I don't have to visit the USA to know what it and it's people are like. Your cultural imperialism is doing a grand job of showing me that your "free" nation is owned by corporations. And please stop using the term "leader of the free world". I live in a free (ish) democracy and Bush or any other yank president is no leader of mine.

As for free and democratic... Yeah right... Where exactly? In Soviet Russia the people could vote for one of a few for a Communist hopefuls... In your country you can choose between two Capitalist hopefuls? Free? Democratic? Bollocks mate. You're owned by Pepsi, MacDonalds and a bunch of German and Japanese mega-corps.

Having said all that, there are a load of good yanks in there... Michael Moore being one of them. And if you like, I don't mind being called a pinko subversive bleeding heart lefty liberal. After all, I call bigots is right-wing nazi loving nut-jobs. ;)

Oh yeah, remember the free-speech thing you're all so uptight about. You have it in the USA, we don't have such a right in the UK yet... Just remember that when you're foaming at the mouth trying to diss me up proper styleee!

Cheers all. I enjoyed getting that off my chest.

Sometimes it frightens me to see my own thoughts on screen, when it wasn't me who typed them :)

ooh, I must be telepathetic... :p :D

I can't quite see how anyone can claim Moore to be an Idiot. He's made something like $20 Million telling the world such blindingly obvious facts like the war in Iraq isn't supported by many around the world, Bush had used his family influence to get what he wants, and senior republican members seem more interested in furthering their own causes and lining their own nests than anything else.
well, duhhh.
But he's made a fortune from it. And you say he's an idiot?

to make a documentary that has netted 120 million dollars.

So it would appear that the generel american republic dont really "get" Mr.moore or what he is saying. Having read "Stupid white men" and found it to be a good book, entertaining at least.
"Bowling for columbine" was , as a standalone piece of film making at least, well made and also pretty entertaining.
The gun culture in "The land of the free" is as legitimate a target as any for satire and I'm sure Mr. moore would love all this vitriol aimed at him, for if nothing else it keeps his profile high . It's called P.R.

What makes Michael Moore relevant is the things he tellsl the truth about. If you could see how the recruiters fawn over these young men in local inner city at risk schools, telling far greater lies than what Moore is accused of, it would make you sick. George W.'s immediate family will not be receiving a letter about a family member dying in Iraq: several of my students already have :mp5:

Moore is not a liar....all these facts are actually true..but he just puts all that sh** into his point o view,
which is blaming everything on Bush. Bush couldn't have done it all by himself, hes just too stupid to!

isnt it funny? You people call moore a liar and stupid, when Bush is a gigantic liar, and a gigantically stupid man, much more of both that Moore and Clinton put together. Cheneys smarter, but even more of a liar, making hitler look like honest abe. Micheal moore may a be a maniac, but we all know theres nothing more dangerous to republicans than a maniac with a point.

Fodzonia: Here here my friend, well said.

Well what a grown up and thought provoking statement (question I suppose) that is. What a moronic racist little KKK Nazi turd you really are.

Ironic, but I fail to see how you haven't fallen into the same pitfall of "grown up and thought provoking questions".


As long as twats like you keep spouting bigotted and racist rubbish like this, a huge amount of the world will (wrongly) enjoy the spectacle of USS Cole and the 11-9-01 carnage. Why don't you think a little about how you look from outside of the US of A?

Twats? Must be one of those words they teach you in "Grown-up 101", your freshman year in college.


I'm British and proud of it.
Great.

I don't have to visit the USA to know what it and it's people are like.

What?!?! I thought you were contradictory before, but now....this is shear ludicrousness


Your cultural imperialism is doing a grand job of showing me that your "free" nation is owned by corporations. And please stop using the term "leader of the free world". I live in a free (ish) democracy and Bush or any other yank president is no leader of mine.

Yup, I'm glad we have an adult-minded political mind here who can see beyond his own polarity of belief...

The sarcasm brimmeth over.


As for free and democratic... Yeah right... Where exactly? In Soviet Russia the people could vote for one of a few for a Communist hopefuls... In your country you can choose between two Capitalist hopefuls? Free? Democratic? Bollocks mate. You're owned by Pepsi, MacDonalds and a bunch of German and Japanese mega-corps.

And...the UK is so much different? I fear that the commercialism you're protesting here (at least what you're protesting in the second part) is found all around western civilization...Yes, even in Great Britain, and yes, even in France.


Cheers all. I enjoyed getting that off my chest.


That makes one of us.

Whether or not that I disagree, or disagree with what Michael more has to say, I still have a problem him. It is my firm belief that ALL media (T.V new, even film) should be unbiased. It should be up to people to make their own decision. And whether or not we would like to admit it films like Fahrenheit 9/11 are extremely bias towards certain unnamed parties. My point given the right situation, and proper editing you can make anyone look like the bad guy.

For the record I’m not saying that is what Michael more has done, I just don’t know. What I am saying is that due to the bias opinion that the his movies are portraying that they should not be released.

For the record I would consider myself a liberal, but look down on what extreme views that are presented in Fahrenheit 9/11. I am sure that there are factors out there that either Michael Moore didn’t put in the movie, or did not know about. Until ALL the facts are known we can not take the WORD of a sole person as the whole truth.



You're right, TV News, Newspapers and Radio News should not be biased. However, documentaries are not considered journalistic, and pretty much any entertaining documentary should have a point of some kind.

Now see if you can get someone to defend why Fox News should be allowed to broadcast propaganda as fact and slant every story to the right?

:) well said!!
I dunno about you, but I pretty much ignore any posts that start with the Hitler/Nazi comparisons, because they're so outtta whack its not funny.

Michael Moore isn't stupid...he got millions and millions of dollars for what he did. He's quite smart, good business man.

And he prooved again that the biggest part of the Americans are sheep with no own will or political thought. They just follow the biggest herd.

Before Moores movies and when almost no american had seen his work everybody bood at him and still were pro-bush. But when eventually many of the americans saw his films the big cyclopic god converted them and they became fierce anti-Bush and anti-war protesters. At a sudden point the flock was big enough to "not be square" for others to follow and the herd grew. Not because of Bush's bad policies and war craving, but because they're following the masses. A true anti-war, anti-bush protester would have seen that bush was no good from the start and shouldn't be looking at the masses before taking up the "weapons" against bush.

Anyhow, that's my view. I think Americans trust their TV to much. Together with religion, media is the ideal tool to mould the people to your views. Haven't you seen how many movies came out when the war started? Just to make the american patriotism grow and become pro-war? "Behind enemy lines", "Black hawk down", and probably a lot more I don't know of. Soldiers aren't heros, both sides kill and fight for their masters interests. They both kill ennocent souls too, bombing hospitals is an ideal strategy to get the enemy on their knees. Its a bit like shooting people but nog killing them. Then your enemy will be forced to help the poor bastard. That's the reason why mines aren't designed to kill anymore. Cripled enemies are much harder to cope with when in war. It seems horrid, but its in every good war book and every army that is in a serious war (conquering and shit) and not on a peacefull mission, uses these tactics.

Bah, ik ben weer aan het doordraaien.

Actually, his message in "Columbine" was much deeper than that. When I saw "Columbine," I figured, "Oh, boy, here comes another plea for gun control." But Moore points out that Canada has as strong a gun culture as the U.S. (think hunting), and that it is just as easy to get a gun in Canada as it is in the States. The difference is a general culture of fear that seems to be uniquely American. The film is far more thought-provoking and less one-sided than its reputation would suggest.

yay! Somone who understands. The film Bowling for Columbine isn't about the need for very strict controls on guns.. it's about how the governement and the media create the 'fear' that makes people WANT to have guns.

As for the poll, he's FAR from stupid and he's not strictly a liar. He's a film maker, a maker of propaganda and more importantly, he gets people thinking and talking about the subject matter. Whether you like him or not, someone who makes people aware of matters and makes them search for further evidence to either prove or discredit him, is doing a fine job of educating the populace.

Stupid poll, Moore isn't my savior... he isn't stupid and he isn't a liar. Want to call him smart, but nope the poll is biased.

I dunno about you, but I pretty much ignore any posts that start with the Hitler/Nazi comparisons, because they're so outtta whack its not funny.


sorry thats true...well said, exept that part

I wanted a both option....and also possibly a hypcrite option and a bag fat ball of disgusting slime option as well.

I actually did go see the movie and I got thrown out cause I caused disturbance cause of it was LIES, FILTH, and CRAP!!!

Any movie was better than that anarchist filth. I had to take a shower I felt so dirty fro watching it.

I wanted a both option....and also possibly a hypcrite option and a bag fat ball of disgusting slime option as well.

I actually did go see the movie and I got thrown out cause I caused disturbance cause of it was LIES, FILTH, and CRAP!!!

Any movie was better than that anarchist filth. I had to take a shower I felt so dirty fro watching it.


STupid people like stupid presidents

Well from reading these forums and watching US TV (especially the 'News' shows), I've come to the conclusion that Americans are very sensitive about any perceived slight and take any and every critical comment, no matter how it's framed (as constructive, satire or whatever) as an offensive attack on the American way of life and themselves personally. They invariably get very defensive and look to attack the messenger, rather than critique the message.
I guess this is what happens when you grow up in a culture that constantly bombards you with messages that your county is right and better than everyone else's. The Fortress mentality I suppose you could call it.


And before anyone says, I know this is a generalisation, and lots of you Yanks aren't this defensive about your country and culture. But it's pretty true about the majority, I think.

You're right, TV News, Newspapers and Radio News should not be biased. However, documentaries are not considered journalistic, and pretty much any entertaining documentary should have a point of some kind.

Now see if you can get someone to defend why Fox News should be allowed to broadcast propaganda as fact and slant every story to the right?

How can they possibly not be biased? Every newspaper/TV station or Radio station is owned by someone (even if it's the state). The owner/MD/CEO of that media HAS an opinion.. only robots don't have opinions, so it's impossible not to put at least a slight slant on any news.

It seems worse in teh US, where the competition between TV stations is more intense, so they have to be more radical and outrageous to compete for viewers.

Personally, I think Moore lacks any sense of diplomacy. He gets extremely worked up about something and then practically parts oceans to try and do something about it. I believe that what he's saing is quite valid, and it's clear (IMO) that he has the evidence to back it up. But unfortunately he presents it in a very biased and harsh manner, so his rivals pass it off as lies/propaganda, and he ends up preaching to the converted - this certainly seems to be the case with his latest movie.

Ironically though, his lack of diplomacy is what makes him so popular. If he didn't present his films in the way he does, people would barely be interested in it.

I'm not surprised people have passed Moores stuff off as lies. Nobody (me included) likes being insulted for something they believe in, and then be expected to change sides afterwards - it's human nature.

...and there goes my little island of sanity, floating off into the storm of hatred and anger.

Bye-bye little island, bye-bye!

*Waves to little island of sanity disappearing into the storm of hatred and anger*

;)

STupid people like stupid presidents
Stupid people believe stupid lies.

Stupid people believe stupid lies.

Stupid people believe.... ah screw it, I'm tired and going to bed. :p

Hi members of this forum

Michael moore is defintly not an idiot. He's critic of George W Bush i believe is very true. wheter or not he truely belives in his case no one can know. But aint it funny that i think it was 14 of the high jackers where saudi but who the USA go against...Iraq cauz of oil. Meanwhile as a saudi ambassador admits the bin Laden famely was rushed out of the country. The only thing left to say is... BUSH IS A TRAITOR :headbang:

The strangest thing I keep hearing is that Moore is "far left". He doesn't appear to be calling for an immediate end to capitalism. He isn't advocating public nudity, or any other radical concepts. He appears merely to be a pacifist, a supporter of the welfare state and the protection of individual rights through trade unionism and government scrutiny of corporate affairs and wishes for a less biased and less negative media.

In the USA, that might make him a raving socialist. Here in the UK, that description would probably fit your average Labour party voter (funnily enough, they're in power right now...)

Iraq cauz of oil

Yea... I certainly see the US setting up oil wells this very minute...

Here's a good review of F 9/11:

• Moore's favorite anti-administration interviewee is former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke. Yet the film never mentions that it was Clarke who gave the order to spirit the bin Laden family out of America immediately after 9/11. Moore makes much of this mystery; why didn't he ask Clarke about it ?

• At one point of the film, he portrays GIs as moronic savages who work themselves up with music before setting out to kill. Later, he depicts them as proletarian victims of a cynical ruling class, who deserve sympathy and honor for their sacrifice.

• The film's amusing (if bordering on racist) Saudi-bashing sequences rely for their effect on the audience having forgotten that President Bill Clinton was every bit as friendly with Prince Bandar (or "Bandar Bush," as Moore calls him) and the Saudi monarchy as his successor. In general, the movie is packed with points that Moore assumes his audience will never check, or are either lies or cleverly hedged half-lies:

• Moore says that the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. But wait —the Bushes aren't billionaires. If you watch the film a second time you'll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.

• Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking at the idea now, but nothing has come of it so far, and in any case Unocal has nothing to do with it.

• In a "congressmen with no kids at war" stunt, Moore claims that no one in Congress has a son or daughter fighting in America's armed services, then approaches several congressmen in the street and asks them to sign up and send their kids to Iraq. His claim would certainly surprise Sgt. Brooks Johnson of the 101st Airborne, the son of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). And for that matter the active-duty sons of Sen. Joseph Biden and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others.


The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s long two hours lasts only a few minutes. It's Moore's file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.

What Moore presumably doesn't know, or simply doesn't care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren't allowed to visit — on pain of death.

You certainly don't have to be a fan of Bush or his policies to be offended by "Fahrenheit 9/11" lies, half-lies and distortions, or by Moore's shockingly low expectations of his audience.

OK, I'm out of here. Other people can fight about this, but I got to go.

Well from reading these forums and watching US TV (especially the 'News' shows), I've come to the conclusion that Americans are very sensitive about any perceived slight and take any and every critical comment, no matter how it's framed (as constructive, satire or whatever) as an offensive attack on the American way of life and themselves personally. They invariably get very defensive and look to attack the messenger, rather than critique the message.
I guess this is what happens when you grow up in a culture that constantly bombards you with messages that your county is right and better than everyone else's. The Fortress mentality I suppose you could call it.


And before anyone says, I know this is a generalisation, and lots of you Yanks aren't this defensive about your country and culture. But it's pretty true about the majority, I think.

nicely put

Michael Moore isn't stupid...he got millions and millions of dollars for what he did. He's quite smart, good business man.

That doesn’t prove anything, just look at Jim Carry movies. He makes a lot of money because he gives people what they want. And so does Moore. He doesn’t even have to try to be successful. He can make a movie about conservative bathing habits and still rake in a fortune because he already has an establish audience who think that he’s the shit. Just like I’m sure that Limbaugh could make a movie about liberal bathing habits and still rake in the dough. Success does not always equal intelligence.


And he prooved again that the biggest part of the Americans are sheep with no own will or political thought. They just follow the biggest herd.
He actually had to prove that? What a waste of time. Anybody with any sense could put enough together to realize that.

Before Moores movies and when almost no american had seen his work everybody bood at him and still were pro-bush. But when eventually many of the americans saw his films the big cyclopic god converted them and they became fierce anti-Bush and anti-war protesters. At a sudden point the flock was big enough to "not be square" for others to follow and the herd grew. Not because of Bush's bad policies and war craving, but because they're following the masses. A true anti-war, anti-bush protester would have seen that bush was no good from the start and shouldn't be looking at the masses before taking up the "weapons" against bush.
I think anti-Bush sentiments started long before Moore's movies came out

Anyhow, that's my view. I think Americans trust their TV to much.
Especially in this day an age where TV spends more time raising children that parents do.

Together with religion, media is the ideal tool to mould the people to your views. Haven't you seen how many movies came out when the war started? Just to make the american patriotism grow and become pro-war? "Behind enemy lines", "Black hawk down", and probably a lot more I don't know of.
Television is a medium as are movies. Even commercials are a medium. Just because it’s media doesn’t mean that it’s reliable. Even the news agencies are prone to throwing in their own two bits. An ideal news source is one that just states all available facts and avoids adding anything special such as personal bias. But that doesn’t lead to good ratings.

Well from reading these forums and watching US TV (especially the 'News' shows), I've come to the conclusion that Americans are very sensitive about any perceived slight and take any and every critical comment, no matter how it's framed (as constructive, satire or whatever) as an offensive attack on the American way of life and themselves personally. They invariably get very defensive and look to attack the messenger, rather than critique the message.
I guess this is what happens when you grow up in a culture that constantly bombards you with messages that your county is right and better than everyone else's. The Fortress mentality I suppose you could call it.


And before anyone says, I know this is a generalisation, and lots of you Yanks aren't this defensive about your country and culture. But it's pretty true about the majority, I think.

That's a nice post.

But it's exactly the opposite about the "a culture that constantly bombards you with messages that your county is right and better than everyone else's."

American teens love to think of themselfs as "rebels" and love "taking it to the man" and really love to jump in and help attack someone. And because of libeal controled rap, (I don't see any Texans rapping :)) this is having a very bad effect on George Bush. Michael Moore must have figured this out, because he said that he'll "sneak anyone in" to see F 9/11 that's under 17. (It's rated R).

I've got one main problem with Moore: I read in the Economist (either that or the International Herald Tribune) that he has told Europeans that Americans are "stupid". This really gets me mad because those "stupid" Americans are working to protect his right to make films like 9/11, sometimes paying the ultimate price for it- yet, nonetheless, he continues his tirade against his homecountry.

Actually, Moore is one of the smartest people in the nation, in terms of business sense, at least. He's identifed his market, panders to it shamelessly and has gotten stinking rich for his efforts. Moore has a good handle on what his audience believes, he makes films and write books which validate those beliefs and has, therefore, created a number of products that sell like crazy. Brilliant! That's just capitalism in action, and there's nothing wrong with that in the U.S.

If you do not think moore has his own agenda you have lived a sheltered life.

But...he...DOES think Moore has his own agenda.

Did you READ the post you were responding to?

Again, we hear that "he's hating the country that allows him to do movies like this".
I got some news: USA isn't the only country in the world with freedom of speech. He could go almost anywhere, for example in Europe, and he'd get even more backing then he get's in the US.

You see, in Europe, news broadcasts are VERY different from American ones.
Why? They don't play patriotic to the US, and try to keep the facts straight. So alot of the "God bless America"-stuff is left out, and when you leave out that an d the plead for patriotism in Bush's speches, what have you got left? Nada, zip, nothing, zilch.

Again, we hear that "he's hating the country that allows him to do movies like this".
I got some news: USA isn't the only country in the world with freedom of speech. He could go almost anywhere, for example in Europe, and he'd get even more backing then he get's in the US.

You see, in Europe, news broadcasts are VERY different from American ones.
Why? They don't play patriotic to the US, and try to keep the facts straight. So alot of the "God bless America"-stuff is left out, and when you leave out that an d the plead for patriotism in Bush's speches, what have you got left? Nada, zip, nothing, zilch.

I dont believe this. Listen, they DO say god bless america type stuff once in a while, but have you even SEEN U.S. news? They dont say it that often. Usually they just say how bad the economy is an how Bush is causing problems...

Do you even WATCH U.S. news? Its all pesimistic, and all the Stations, except FOX, of course, hate Bush. So he has gotten pretty good coverage by those Stations.

How do i know? Well because i watch U.S. news EVERY DAY! I also watch BBC World, and DW-TV(a german Intl news station), and they are nearly the same as the U.S. news, just without the Mentos Commercials. Oh, and none of them are Politically Biased either...

Actually, his message in "Columbine" was much deeper than that. When I saw "Columbine," I figured, "Oh, boy, here comes another plea for gun control." But Moore points out that Canada has as strong a gun culture as the U.S.


That's what I thought to, and I even said it in a message board once (before I was disillusioned). Then someone directed me to actual statistics. The gun culture of the U.S. is a lot stronger than Canada's. It's just that Moore gives a somewhat different impression in Bowling for Columbine. The real stats? The guns per capita for the U.S. more than three times greater than Canada's.


(think hunting), and that it is just as easy to get a gun in Canada as it is in the States.


Another false impression. Canada has always had stronger gun laws than the U.S.

See http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm if you want to verify my claims BTW.

The complaints against Bowling for Columbine are so unfocused it feels like reading a review of the blurb on the back of the video.


See post #23 in this thread.


Michael Moore did not invent editing.


He didn't invent lies of omission either.

michael moore invented eating

Is he a liar? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Truths are often a matter of perspective. He's human, like you or I...and even the President. But that's besides the point I'm trying to make.
Freedom of speech is a two way street. When I hear most Michael Moore opponents bashing him, its usually because of his weight - or because he tells "lies" (these "lies" I hear Michael Moore's opponents say he tells, but they won't elaborate on).


Really? See post #23 in this thread.


To make a long story short - BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS! :mad:


Again, see post #23.

See post #23 in this thread.



He didn't invent lies of omission either.
Oddly enough, you edited my post to make your point stronger, leaving out the context of my question so that post #23 would be an answer. But it doesn't actually touch on what was called for in my original post, any attempt at understanding the documentary, rather instead needling details that avoid the intitial question of the post and intent of the documentary. I suspect some personal disallusionment should be on the way? No, probably not.

Post #23 is the same sort of unfocused complaints I was talking about. RIF.

michael moore invented eating
I'm not following. What did we do for sustanence before Michael Moore?

I'm not following. What did we do for sustanence before Michael Moore?

we didn't eat


we lived off of the "energey"

I cannot believe that there is yet another thread of this nature. This only proves to me that you neocons are just angry because Micheal Moore called Bushy out. Is Moore crass? Yes he is. Is Moore biased? Yes he is. Is Moore abrasive? You bet yo sweet ass he is. The point is, however, that none of these things make him a bad filmaker. He is a patriotic american. I liked the movie but I took it with a grain of salt. The fact is that if you take away the stylized cuts and fancy editing the truth remains relatively intact.

Michael Moore, the well known filmmaker. We know how he's egotistical and hypocritical, and his mistruths (http://www.moorelies.com) and dishonest tactics (http://www.moorewatch.com) are widely known and well documented. (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com) But the question remains, is he lying or just stupid? If he's fully intelligible of what's he doing, and what actually happens in the full rolls of film, then he is a resourceful and smart man at editing; but he would be lying since he knows better. Or does he sincerely believe in what he's doing? Does he just not bother to fully look things up, or doesn't note the significance of statistics? Then we could surely brand him as intellectually challenged. It's an interesting question.

He is neither. He edits/leaves out facts (he is a bit of a bastard, but he's getting better), which is not lying. Bush is lying.

He is neither. He edits/leaves out facts (he is a bit of a bastard, but he's getting better), which is not lying. Bush is lying.
A half truth is still a half lie. Which is worse than telling a total lie. Because of the element of truth it gives the lie more credibility and people will be more willing to accept the entire thing as being all true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tisthammerw
Moore is brilliant at making sentences that are technically true but give a false impression.

In Bowling for Columbine, you may remember, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." When I heard that I was thinking Charlton Heston, that bastard. What he leaves out (and what I later found out) is that the NRA cancelled all the events (several days of workshops, luncheons, gun exhibits etc.) they could legally cancel. From Heston himself:



The only thing left in Denver was the annual meeting--the date in location set years in advance--that was required by state law to be held (by NY nonprofit laws). The meeting could be legally rescheduled--if at least 10 days notice was given to all the members. Needless to say, there just wasn't time to notify all 4 million NRA members so quickly. So while out of sensitivity the cancelled all that they legally could, the annual meeting by legal necessity stuck. But Michael Moore leaves this fact out and gives a pretty false impression while leaving the words technically true.

Another instance of technically true but leaving a false impression: the “Wonderful World” montage. You may recall a scene that showed gun toting middle easterners riding in a car, with the caption:



What Moore leaves out is that the U.S. did not actually send those millions of dollars to the Taliban government, but to U.S. and international agencies to that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. So, technically he was right. The aid was given to Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it (note he never actually said the aid was given to the Taliban government). But by putting the word "aid" in quotation marks and showing a picture of gun toting middle easterners, he conveys a somewhat different impression than what actually happened.

Initially I actually liked Michael Moore, and his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary. I'm pro-gun control, so I was pretty sympathetic. But when I became disillusioned with his misleading tactics (however sympathetic I am to some of his political views), I don't appreciate his work as much as I used to.


I appreciate your honesty in regards to this issue, whatever your take may be in this regard.

As far as I am concerned, Michael Moore was so pissed off about the shootout at Columbine that he delivered a message to the world:

There are too many guns in the US

It is too easy to get a gun in the US

There are too many people being shot in the US

The murder rate in the US is 3 times higher than in Canada (mostly gun related). Actually, there were more murders in Chicago than there was in ALL of Canada. That is just 1 city.

How many more Columbines will it take for the message to sink in? How many more people will have to die?

There are way too many Canucks in Canuckia.

It's too easy to produce a Canuck in Canuckia.

Too many people are being Canucked in Canuckia.

The Canuckicide rate in Canuckia is horrendously higher than in the US (mostly Canuck related). Actually, there were more Canuckicides in Canuckstan (provincial capitol) than there were in ALL of the US. That's just one city..!

How many more Canuckumbines will it take for the message to sink in?

How many more people will have to Canuck..!?

Waaaalll, Mikey told us half the truth about the Saudi "escape" from the US of A. And he also exaggerated a coupla other incidents in his little film to make his point.

And Bush told us a complete lie about weapons of mass destruction

And Cheney's former company, which he probably has a ton of stock in, is making a huge profit off the suffering of the Iraqi people and has been cited for overcharging the USofA for it's so-called services to our poor suffering brothers and sisters serving in that hellhole country.

And Rumsfeld has refused to send sufficient troops over there against the advice of all his generals so that our fellow americans are dying and being maimed in record numbers.

And meanwhile at home, Ashcroft is trying to get meter readers, postmen and librarians to spy on us hapless cits and holding people incommunicando in prison indefinitely with no charges.

So you tell me, who is the bigger threat and liar? Michael? Don't make me fall on the floor laughing.

Would you mind joining my movement to get conservatism classified as a mental illness based on that University of California study a few years back? I want to park in the handicapped parking spaces at Wal-Mart.
Good one. Humour is good in these threads.

Are people really that angry that his movie is so successful?

"Beat on Moore" all you want--his domestic sales beat out anyone else's right now.

The reality is that I didn't particularly care for that movie--there was only ONE point that I thought was important. The rest was grandstanding. I'm definetly a liberal, just to clarify my point of view here.

The point that was definitive for me--

Donald Rumsfeld saying how this was the MOST humane war, the SAFEST, the LEAST CASUALTIES, the BEST AND MOST ADVANCED TARGETING SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD--

followed up by seeing the actual point of view of a tank machine gunner shooting people who you realise are children;

carpet bombing entire cities;

dead children covered in napalm.

I understand that war is hell. I have yet to see a reasonable link between Iraq and terror.

I know no one thinks that we need one now--but let me remind you all, we authorised a war to fight the TERRORISTS who ATTACKED US, and to get WMDs.

Now that have all seen copies of the document stating that a country sold more Plutonium to Iraq then it is capable of producing; signed by a cabinet member of that country who has been retired for OVER A DECADE and never had any authority what so ever to conduct transactions for the government; which our "great" CIA and incredibly "capable" President said was DEFINITIVE proof ("We KNOW they have WMDs, we have SEEN them") where is the justification for the war?

Saddam was evil! It's funny that that wasn't good enough for the United States Congress and Senate, and Bush had to "lie" in order to come up with reasons that turned out to be false, isn't it?

The problem--is that people are emotional--instead of logical. At the end of the day, killing over 10,000 people, sinking BILLONS of dollars into a project when we are already in debt, does not justify removing from power a petty desert rat dictator with neither weapons nor capabilities nor plans to strike at us.

Furthermore--I don't know if anyone realises this. Iraq had shifted it's oil to Euros, because we have been devaluing our dollar to increase our trade power. This hurt the price of Arab oil, thus causing most countries to shift to the Euro from the Dollar. The day that Bush declared we had "won" Iraq he made a command to shift the Oil back into dollars--even though it is more damaging to the Iraqi economy.

I'm glad we are "rebuilding" and "doing everything we can" to help those poor Iraqi citizens, exploited by their government, a man who answered to no one but his pocketbook and his religion.
You rock.!

If anyone says that Michael Moore isn't a liar, then they're obviously ignorant or already so driven by their hate for the president that they'll believe any venomous propaganda already put out by the Democratic party.

What do you call someone who falsifies documents, splices interviews together to make them concede to his points, shows obvious disregard for United States trademark and copyright laws by taking a page 36 editorial from an Illinois newspaper and turning it into a front page headline (that NEVER existed), and sits and makes rude gestures towards a speaker at a national political convention? Several words come to mind here.

Unfortunately, our soldiers are fighting for Michael Moron's rights to spew such bull.

I challenge ANYONE to pull something factual from that movie.
I'm one of probably many. If you take the spin out of the commentary or simply turn off the volume on his talking, and watch the video portions themselves SANS CLIPS you will see quite a bit of the movie speaking for itself. Bush did respond regarding the Iraq issue to one of his conventions by saying that Hussein did try to kill his daddy. Try watching it and comparing it and get over yourself. Name any Iraqi who is personally challenging your right to give your bull about Michael Moron (sic) (another weak and common "conservative" tactic - change the name or nature of your topic to suit you on a sophomoric or infantile level) and explain to any of them how they need to die for your freedom. I challenge you back.

I think I need to remind people of a few things...


Is Michael Moore fat? Yes, well, he is. Its plain observation.

Is he a slob? I don't know...don't know him personally.

Is he a liar? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Truths are often a matter of perspective. He's human, like you or I...and even the President. But that's besides the point I'm trying to make.

Does he have his own opinions? Well, yes, that's quite evident. Are people allowed to disagree with him? Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and so is Michael Moore.

Freedom of speech is a two way street. When I hear most Michael Moore opponents bashing him, its usually because of his weight - or because he tells "lies" (these "lies" I hear Michael Moore's opponents say he tells, but they won't elaborate on). They give no real reason why to anything.


So far, most of what I have heard is "Michael Moore is a big fat stupid lying idiot"...but no one is willing to back up their opinion. Were you spoon-fed that opinion, or did you jump to a conclusion all by yourself? Maybe you overheard someone else say it, and therefore without question you made it your mantra about this guy.

Also, his personal history or his work ethic have little to do with the man's opinions or what-have-you.

As to myself, I agree with Mr. Moore on a few things. He's got the right idea for a few aspects of how this country should be run. I don't agree with him on everything, as no one will totally agree on everything.

To make a long story short - BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS! :mad:



Stroudania :sniper:
Hallelujah! Rock on.

I must agree with this.

And more over, which would you prefer: someone who is slightly unintelligent and strives to get the country back in shape, or someone who IS unintelligent, since IQ test have been taken on Bush's account and he only has an IQ of 80 or 90 (if I'm not mistaken), which is below average (in america, which in turn isn't renowned to be the place with the most intelligent people) and strives to get as rich as possible, at your expence? Just another view on the situation.

And he could be lying (Moore), but then his sources would have to be lying, and I have read some of his source's books and newspapers, and they do seem to be accurate, since they were there. (i.e.: the dictators invested by USA in Chili, one of his sources actually worked in the administration of Chili at that time, so he would know...)
Thank you. Good luck to you, Eaghlean.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm ~the bin ladens
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html ~o'reilly's interview with moore.

moore is a liar, simple fact. those sources which prove it are somehow discredited to the uniformed people on this site. moore is a good mutilator of truth, which makes him somewhat intelligent. now those who say Bush is a moron and that he's lied to the public...well wouldn't that also make him somewhat intelligent since people do believe in the man.
Charisma =/= intelligence.
I mean clearly both men have their agenda's. Moore's is to discredit america and to spread hatred of it. Bush's is to secure america as well as to protect social security, health care, businesses, etc.
So of course they're going to say what they can to make their case. Of course the information varies on the crebility of it, like Moore's is just plan false and some of Bush's wmd's infomation was misinformed..but hey we all know what Bush haters do to get their way. :headbang:
Generalizations =/= truth. Generalizations moreoften are shortcuts for the lazy, imprecise, and current self-assumed "conservative" representation. Don't forget the "name adjustments".
Tah!

Moore is a liar, and anyone who doesn't believe it is sad.

I gotta love snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm ~proves Bush doesn't have a low IQ

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=george+bush&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
If the link doesn't work, just type in George Bush in the search engine.
To be "fair and balanced", like any rational person would, they would garner many sources for a good base of information. I would suggest that, besides atomz, you type in lycos, google, yahoo, or any of the plethora other search engines at our "disposal" and punch up topic line George W. Bush IQ. Then round off the rough edges of your average! Yay!
If you have that much time, how 'bout typing up "weapons of mass destruction" in the google search bar and punch "i'm feeling lucky" ...
tah!

Moore is a liar, and anyone who doesn't believe it is sad.
Well actually Bill, I am a very happy guy :D , who just happens to believe that Michael Moore is not a liar.

So tell me Bill, why are you so upset with Moore, that you think he lies?

Actually, in regards to this poll, only 38% think Moore is a liar or an idiot, so you are definitely in the minority.

I can't quite see how anyone can claim Moore to be an Idiot. He's made something like $20 Million telling the world such blindingly obvious facts like the war in Iraq isn't supported by many around the world, Bush had used his family influence to get what he wants, and senior republican members seem more interested in furthering their own causes and lining their own nests than anything else.
well, duhhh.
But he's made a fortune from it. And you say he's an idiot?
Touche! I hear he's got a best 'o' collection of DVD or something coming up late or mid October ... anyone else heard that? Beat the Nov. 2 rush (Rush)!

Touche! I hear he's got a best 'o' collection of DVD or something coming up late or mid October ... anyone else heard that? Beat the Nov. 2 rush (Rush)!
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Hi members of this forum

Michael moore is defintly not an idiot. He's critic of George W Bush i believe is very true. wheter or not he truely belives in his case no one can know. But aint it funny that i think it was 14 of the high jackers where saudi but who the USA go against...Iraq cauz of oil. Meanwhile as a saudi ambassador admits the bin Laden famely was rushed out of the country. The only thing left to say is... BUSH IS A TRAITOR :headbang:
Hi Death Claw! *waves with one more muscled and textured but NOT death-oriented hand than the other, busy on the keyboard)

Well actually Bill, I am a very happy guy :D , who just happens to believe that Michael Moore is not a liar.

So tell me Bill, why are you so upset with Moore, that you think he lies?

Actually, in regards to this poll, only 38% think Moore is a liar or an idiot, so you are definitely in the minority.

Ahem

How is he in the minority? It is true that, at the time I typed this post, 40% of people said he was stupid or a liar. However, only 24% said he is their saviour, and 35% didnt like the poll.

Hang on a minute

Oh- actually the MAJORITY of people think that he is a liar or an Idiot, rather than a saviour. Just because less than 50% of people agree with something doesnt mean that they dont have a majority (for an analogy, say in the election, Kerry got 41% of the vote, Bush 38%, and other candidates got 21% between them. Kerry got less than 50% of the vote- but he got the most votes, so he wins!)

Moore isn't even worth arguing over. His opinions hold no water, and are impossible to back up. His movies are just a bunch of lies and conspiracy theories welded together in a slightly commical fashion.

You know what pisses me off about you idiots who hate everything that Moore says, and parrot Fox News, when they call him a liar?


Do you realize that the ability to challenge and question the government and its leaders, is what this country was founded on?

Moore has more in common with the founding Fathers like Jefferson, and Washington than Bush will EVER possess.


Right or wrong, wether you agree with him or not, Moore is standing up for what he believes in and making people listen to him.
This is the same principle that our forefathers stood up for against another tyrant named George, over 200 years ago.
They saw injustice, and they spoke out.

The world listened.

You people who call Moore a liar and question his patriotism should read some history books and remember what patriotism REALLY is.

It doesnt matter what he says, or if hes right or wrong.
As an American, you should support his right to say it.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death, for your right to say it."

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Is that a prolonged sob or a lovelorn call?

You know what pisses me off about you idiots who hate everything that Moore says, and parrot Fox News, when they call him a liar?


Do you realize that the ability to challenge and question the government and its leaders, is what this country was founded on?

Moore has more in common with the founding Fathers like Jefferson, and Washington than Bush will EVER possess.


Right or wrong, wether you agree with him or not, Moore is standing up for what he believes in and making people listen to him.
This is the same principle that our forefathers stood up for against another tyrant named George, over 200 years ago.
They saw injustice, and they spoke out.

The world listened.

You people who call Moore a liar and question his patriotism should read some history books and remember what patriotism REALLY is.

It doesnt matter what he says, or if hes right or wrong.
As an American, you should support his right to say it.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death, for your right to say it."

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry.
Rock on!

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]You know what pisses me off about you idiots who hate everything that Moore says, and parrot Fox News, when they call him a liar?


Do you realize that the ability to challenge and question the government and its leaders, is what this country was founded on?


The question isn't CAN he promote lies, for you are correct in saying that it is part of what the nation was founded upon. No, the question is SHOULD he promote lies.

No one is attempting to deny him his right to free speech. But it appears to be a majority opinion that he is using that right for malicious purposes.

Ahem

How is he in the minority? It is true that, at the time I typed this post, 40% of people said he was stupid or a liar. However, only 24% said he is their saviour, and 35% didnt like the poll.

Hang on a minute

Oh- actually the MAJORITY of people think that he is a liar or an Idiot, rather than a saviour. Just because less than 50% of people agree with something doesnt mean that they dont have a majority (for an analogy, say in the election, Kerry got 41% of the vote, Bush 38%, and other candidates got 21% between them. Kerry got less than 50% of the vote- but he got the most votes, so he wins!)
Methinks you doth think too much?

[QUOTE]


The question isn't CAN he promote lies, for you are correct in saying that it is part of what the nation was founded upon. No, the question is SHOULD he promote lies.

No one is attempting to deny him his right to free speech. But it appears to be a majority opinion that he is using that right for malicious purposes.


Only if you consider speaking out against a tyrant, malicious.

I call it the right thing to do, under any means necessary.

Only if you consider speaking out against a tyrant, malicious.

How is Bush a tyrant? Disagree with his views or what he's done in the world, but would you not agree that tyrant is a touch strong?

Also, it's sad when in order to "speak out against a tyrant" you have to lie and splice scenes and the like. That doesn't help his cause.

How is Bush a tyrant? Disagree with his views or what he's done in the world, but would you not agree that tyrant is a touch strong?


I call holding over 1000 people in various detention facilities, without a trial, or lawyers, or even charges filed against them, actions of a tyrant.

I call being responsible for the deaths of over 10,000 people, when the actual causes for the war are still unclear, the actions of a tyrant.

I could go on all day, but I wont......I call George Bush a tyrant.

Thanks, Antileftist. A liberal does not have to agree with Moore. What disgusts most about politically oriented citizens -left, right, or otherwise- is that they are willing to lap up ANY claims supporting what they already believe, regardless of how true or relevant they may be. I hear my parents complaining about celebrities coming on TV and speaking against Bush, saying "Their opinion shouldn't count, they're not experts!" To which I think(i don't get into political discussions with family members), "1) their opinion is just as valid as yours, and 2) if they were speaking IN FAVOR OF Bush, you would be singing a different tune." Disgusting? Absolutely.

This shows that people love hearing what they want to hear. Which is why Liberals love F9/11, because its what they wanted to hear, and why Conservatives didnt like it, because its what they didnt want to hear. Very few people actually open their mind up. I my self am guilty of doing this.

I call holding over 1000 people in various detention facilities, without a trial, or lawyers, or even charges filed against them, actions of a tyrant.

I call being responsible for the deaths of over 10,000 people, when the actual causes for the war are still unclear, the actions of a tyrant.

I could go on all day, but I wont......I call George Bush a tyrant.


Tyrant: An absolute ruler; a sovereign unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty.

uhhh definantly not bush... so uhhh dont call him tyrant

Tyrant: An absolute ruler; a sovereign unrestrained by law or constitution; a usurper of sovereignty.

uhhh definantly not bush... so uhhh dont call him tyrant

Have you not heard how Bush may call for a delay in the election due to "terrorist threat"?

Cheney , in his haliburton days, operated in Iran, against the wishes of the whitehouse. Bush knew this. It continues to this day.

Bush allows event to happen in direct opposition to the constitution, and law of the land.

He is a tyrant.

I saw an interesting question on the imdb.com thread for F9/11: Why do you hold Michael Moore to a higher standard of truth than the current administration, or, say, a certain news channel?
What's wierd is this question got ignored on imdb.com, too. I attributed it to the fact that it was a film board and not focused on politics, but the fact that it's being passed over here is a little disapointing.

Have you not heard how Bush may call for a delay in the election due to "terrorist threat"?

Cheney , in his haliburton days, operated in Iran, against the wishes of the whitehouse. Bush knew this. It continues to this day.

Bush allows event to happen in direct opposition to the constitution, and law of the land.

He is a tyrant.


Last Time I checked a tyrant doesnt, have a VP or Senate, or a House of Representitaves, or a Supreme Court all Making sure that he doesnt do anything against the constitution.

I really fail to see how the Cheney thing has anything to do with him being a Tyrant...

Give me an Example of him opposing the constitution and law of the land..

I'm finding it rather amusing how one-sided the actual information-presentation is in this thread. If you sort through it, you'll see over a dozen links and several long specific references to dozens of this "so-called lies" Michael Moore made. They range across the board from conservative Fox to liberal MSNBC (in fact, I liked the MSNBC one more than the Fox one, it's more thorough). The burden of proof has very obviously been met by the critics of Moore here.

I don't see a single link to a defense of Moore. I see a lot of broad statements and assumptions about the amount of lying Moore is doing (from zero to not much) without any actual research to show for such a figure. I see bad generalizations on both sides, and obviously we have a lot of unnformed people making statements...but FFS, can't ONE Moore proponent show an organized disproof of the accusations in question?

Richard Clarke, who Moore CITED in his film, who dislikes Bush and wrote a book against him, said that Michael Moore's film was not accurate. He said he lied. If his own SOURCES say he's not telling the truth, how can he be telling the truth?

And then I hear stuff about Moore being a patriot. On what freaking grounds? It's funny that the actual educated liberals even hate Moore as well. I'll give you a nice quote from someone; you "liberals" (I quote the term since I think most educated liberals don't even agree) who say you like Moore, I would have you find out by your own research who said this before you continue:

"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government."

It might surprise you, since most of you claim to be fans of his. This isn't a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats alike are against Moore's views.

Consider this juicy one Moore said in F911:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

Wait, whose government is he saying will lose then if the Iraqis will win?

He closes F911 with the statement "One evil empire down, one to go."

Sounds really patriotic.

Moore on Americans in this interview in the UK: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13583626_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE-AWKWARD-CONSCIENCE-OF-A-NATION-name_page.html

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing. National Geographic produced a survey which showed that 60 per cent of 18-25 year olds don't know where Great Britain is on a map. And 92 per cent of us don't own a passport.""

Sounds really patriotic.

I love this tidbit from this interview with ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Entertainment/Politics/tapper_moore_transcript_040626-1.html

"TAPPER: But the film, you don't as a narrator of the film, discuss Richard Clarke's involvement in that part of the decision to let bin Laden family members to fly out of the country.

MOORE: Because it was the FBI who ultimately gave the information to Richard Clarke, that's correct."

So he doesn't hold Clarke responsible or even criticize him for acting on the information he was given by intelligence...but he calls Bush a liar for doing the same with Iraq? He doesn't just bias the facts, but he also contradicts himself. Contradicting oneself is a form of lying.

Really, come on Moore fans, pick up the pace here. We've given you the objective material to show you our side. Now give us the objective facts to support yours.

M. Moore is hilarious when he is not talking about politics. When he gets into politics, he just blows.

I have a question for Michael Moore, would he have done F/911 if the prez was a democrat and did exactly the same thing?

Last Time I checked a tyrant doesnt, have a VP or Senate, or a House of Representitaves, or a Supreme Court all Making sure that he doesnt do anything against the constitution.

I really fail to see how the Cheney thing has anything to do with him being a Tyrant...

Give me an Example of him opposing the constitution and law of the land..


The law says that if I am arrested, I have the right to a fair trial, by a jury of my peers.

Yes?

Hmm...funny that the people who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, have been given no such thing.

Torture is also illegal, and its been shown that Bush probably knew about the abuses in Abu Graib.

The Cheney thing DOES have revelance, becuase he was operating in a country that is not freindly to America, against THE WISHES OF THE WHITEHOUSE , and Bush allowed it.

Would you care to know how many international treaties Bush has broken?

Haliburton, was awarded nearly all the contracts for the war......no other bids were accepted.

Coincidence?

I think not.


Tyrant.

Tyrant, tyrant, tyrant!

M. Moore is hilarious when he is not talking about politics. When he gets into politics, he just blows.

I have a question for Michael Moore, would he have done F/911 if the prez was a democrat and did exactly the same thing?


Yes.

Moore is a Liberal Independant.

M. Moore is hilarious when he is not talking about politics. When he gets into politics, he just blows.

I have a question for Michael Moore, would he have done F/911 if the prez was a democrat and did exactly the same thing?
He did spend a lot of time criticizing Clinton, but that was at a time when conservatives didn't seem to care about Moore. It's only when he gives an acceptance speech that suddenly Moore is the devil. Odd that.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]The law says that if I am arrested, I have the right to a fair trial, by a jury of my peers.

Yes?

Hmm...funny that the people who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, have been given no such thing.

Torture is also illegal, and its been shown that Bush probably knew about the abuses in Abu Graib.

The Cheney thing DOES have revelance, becuase he was operating in a country that is not freindly to America, against THE WISHES OF THE WHITEHOUSE , and Bush allowed it.

Would you care to know how many international treaties Bush has broken?

Haliburton, was awarded nearly all the contracts for the war......no other bids were accepted.

First of all, the TERRORISTS held at Grantanamo Bay are NOT citizens of the U.S., nor were they being held on U.S. soil. So that kinda rules out that whole bit

Give me a link or a name of a publication or SOMETHING that shows that President Bush in any way knew about what was going on at Abu Ghraib. To say that it's been shown that he probably knew about something is an empty statement without some proof.

Third, if Cheney was doing any opporating in a country not totally friendly to the U.S., which I'm not totally sure is illegal unless we have some sort of special deal regarding that country, he was doing it under Slick Willy, because as soon as he became Bush's running mate, he relieved himself of his position at Halliburton.

No, I would not care to hear how many "International Treaties" Bush has broken, because I feel that at a certain point, Bush was obligated to do what was right regardless of the feelings of the United Nations. France can't push us around forever. Also, give me the names of the treaties and how Bush broke them. So I guess what I'm saying is yes, I would like to know about the treaties.

And finally, the fact that Halliburton recieved the contracts for the reconstruction may not have been a coincidence, but you can't say that it in any special way benefits the administration because of the lack of ties between Cheney and Halliburton. They may have picked Halliburton because they know they could get the job done or something??. It's up to you to prove otherwise as far as that goes.

I'm done.

Methinks you doth think too much?

Methinks thou art a fellowe Shakespearephile.

I do not think too much, but I like accuracy. Until moore produces any evidence for any of his claims (by that i mean evidence, not a soundbite from someone who hates Bush), then he is an idiot and a liar, and the people who believe him are even bigger idiots.

"I think that Americans are actually mushrooms that fly". There we are- now you all need to believe me, because I have done what Michael Moore did. I thought of something really random, and I said it, and people believed me!

"Jews smell and are not worthy of life"- now ive said something controversial, about an easy target. Hey- why arent hundreds of you writing to support me?!

Michael Moore got lucky because he has dumb-fuck editors.

NB the view about Americans or Jews are not ones actually held by myself, but were used to illustrate a highly amusing point. Namely Moore has made the uneducated his minions!

[QUOTE]

First of all, the TERRORISTS held at Grantanamo Bay are NOT citizens of the U.S., nor were they being held on U.S. soil. So that kinda rules out that whole bit

Give me a link or a name of a publication or SOMETHING that shows that President Bush in any way knew about what was going on at Abu Ghraib. To say that it's been shown that he probably knew about something is an empty statement without some proof.

Third, if Cheney was doing any opporating in a country not totally friendly to the U.S., which I'm not totally sure is illegal unless we have some sort of special deal regarding that country, he was doing it under Slick Willy, because as soon as he became Bush's running mate, he relieved himself of his position at Halliburton.

No, I would not care to hear how many "International Treaties" Bush has broken, because I feel that at a certain point, Bush was obligated to do what was right regardless of the feelings of the United Nations. France can't push us around forever. Also, give me the names of the treaties and how Bush broke them. So I guess what I'm saying is yes, I would like to know about the treaties.

And finally, the fact that Halliburton recieved the contracts for the reconstruction may not have been a coincidence, but you can't say that it in any special way benefits the administration because of the lack of ties between Cheney and Halliburton. They may have picked Halliburton because they know they could get the job done or something??. It's up to you to prove otherwise as far as that goes.

I'm done.


Im Pro Bush, but he has failed to ratify the Kyoto convention. Possibly the most important International treaty of the last 10 years, and America and Russia ignore it. For good reason too!

Why on earth does this thread starter has the name Valued Knowledge :p

first of all i'm not reading the hundreds of posts above.. just give my opinion on michael moor

I like him- he makes some exellent points in his books and film which are very true, but thats not why i like him... he balances things out in america- we hear things pro government all the time and michael moor whether he rants and raves gets a point wrong it dosn't matter- he helps alot to put things in perspective when observing the current US gov and its actions.

Ahem

How is he in the minority? It is true that, at the time I typed this post, 40% of people said he was stupid or a liar. However, only 24% said he is their saviour, and 35% didnt like the poll.

Hang on a minute

Oh- actually the MAJORITY of people think that he is a liar or an Idiot, rather than a saviour. Just because less than 50% of people agree with something doesnt mean that they dont have a majority (for an analogy, say in the election, Kerry got 41% of the vote, Bush 38%, and other candidates got 21% between them. Kerry got less than 50% of the vote- but he got the most votes, so he wins!)
Ahem
Using your logic, the majority of people think him a saviour or don't agree with the poll (59%). In fact the majority of ppl think him a saviour or a liar or don't agree (92%). That's a hugely overwheming majority!
Being stupid and being a liar are two different things, so by combining them really all that you've done is manipulate the stats to fit your own personal view. Doesn't prove anything really.
Is Michael Moore stupid? No, because of the various reasons above.
Is he a liar? Pretty much a rhetorical (and asinine) question isn't it? I mean who isn't?

first of all i'm not reading the hundreds of posts above.. just give my opinion on michael moor

I like him- he makes some exellent points in his books and film which are very true, but thats not why i like him... he balances things out in america- we hear things pro government all the time and michael moor whether he rants and raves gets a point wrong it dosn't matter- he helps alot to put things in perspective when observing the current US gov and its actions.

Dude... almsot no one sys pro-government things anymore! Only FOX news does, and that why everyoen says they're pro-republicans, jus tbecause they say Pro-government AND anti-government things.

Pay attention more.

My view of the government that they should be respected...doesn't matter what president is in there. They are ou Nation leaders thus should be respected and honored.

What Micheal Moor is doing is he not only disrespecting the government but he's raping it as well. The guys a scumbag and a loser.

Oddly enough, you edited my post to make your point stronger, leaving out the context of my question so that post #23 would be an answer.


I quoted the text that was relevant to post #23. How does the context change the fact that post #23 answers part of what you wrote?


But it doesn't actually touch on what was called for in my original post, any attempt at understanding the documentary, rather instead needling details that avoid the intitial question of the post and intent of the documentary.


I wasn't interested in the "initial question" (whichever one you're referring to) I was interested in the complaints against Bowling for Columbine. Incidentally, there was some criticism in e.g. Roger and Me, nonetheless good/bad documentaries in the past then don't justify lies of omission in Bowling for Columbine. There are legitimate complaints against that documentary, and I provided some examples. That's all I was talking about.


Post #23 is the same sort of unfocused complaints I was talking about. RIF.

How is it unfocused? I focused on specific examples.

I just found out that there is a Michael Moore movie that actually I do like.

lol, ur a bit ignorant Knowledge, multiple publications including Newsweek and Time did an independent review of all the facts in Farenheit 9/11, and they only found 3 things wrong...

lol, ur a bit ignorant Knowledge, multiple publications including Newsweek and Time did an independent review of all the facts in Farenheit 9/11, and they only found 3 things wrong...

Where did you get that information from? Capital Hill BLue?

Listen buddy, Michael Moore is as politcally biased as a human being can possibley get. het doesnt listen to the republicans AT ALL. Seriously not ONE BIT. At least i LISTEN to democrats. I listen to what they say and i point thigns out when they're good OR bad. Michael Moore, however, is a geniunly 100% bush-bashign communist. YOu can tell he's a communist, because he practically SAYS it in everything he does.

I quoted the text that was relevant to post #23. How does the context change the fact that post #23 answers part of what you wrote?



I wasn't interested in the "initial question" (whichever one you're referring to) I was interested in the complaints against Bowling for Columbine. Incidentally, there was some criticism in e.g. Roger and Me, nonetheless good/bad documentaries in the past then don't justify lies of omission in Bowling for Columbine. There are legitimate complaints against that documentary, and I provided some examples. That's all I was talking about.



How is it unfocused? I focused on specific examples.
RIF.

I'm not running in circles anymore for you people about wether or not Moore invented editing. Until your 'interested' in the initial question, I'm not chasing your tail.

lol, ur a bit ignorant Knowledge, multiple publications including Newsweek and Time did an independent review of all the facts in Farenheit 9/11, and they only found 3 things wrong...

Time and Newsweek are not exactly neutral sources, liberal. They are both notoriously left-leaning.

Where did you get that information from? Capital Hill BLue?

Listen buddy, Michael Moore is as politcally biased as a human being can possibley get. het doesnt listen to the republicans AT ALL. Seriously not ONE BIT. At least i LISTEN to democrats. I listen to what they say and i point thigns out when they're good OR bad. Michael Moore, however, is a geniunly 100% bush-bashign communist. YOu can tell he's a communist, because he practically SAYS it in everything he does.


I formally accuse you of not knowing what a communist is.

I formally accuse you of not knowing what a communist is.
Shall it be death by firing squad or something novel like the guillotine?

Shall it be death by firing squad or something novel like the guillotine?


Sily Canadians, always crying out for the blood of the damned....

Seriously....

No, I just want him to accurately describe what a "communist" is, and what they believe in....

...or shut the hell up.

Sily Canadians, always crying out for the blood of the damned....

Seriously....

No, I just want him to accurately describe what a "communist" is, and what they believe in....

...or shut the hell up.
Hell let me know what you find out please, because if Michael Moore is a Communist, that would make me a sympahizer <<<<<shudder>>>>> :eek:

Time and Newsweek are not exactly neutral sources, liberal. They are both notoriously left-leaning.
WOLF!!!!!! Seriously, I'm not kidding this time!!!! THERE'S A BIG ASS WOLF!!!!!!! No, really........

Good lord! But these fora move along very quickly don't they?

I would have carried on the discussion here but there have been a good five pages since my one and only tirade. Don't fret, I've read them all as I'm very interested in this argument/discussion/flamefest.

Anyway, I'm quite surprised at the number of US people who post here, I really thought that this site was more international and cosmopolitan than this. However, that doesn't alter the fact that there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in these places.

To my points... I started my argument with accusations of Nazism by a poster purely because I see such bald statements of hatred to a whole peoples as akin to what was pronounced by the Fascist movement in the 1930s and 40s. To dehumanise your enemies and make it easier to promote a hatred against them. So you find that "all Jews are money-grubbing evil rapists" and "the French are all cowardly bullies" both evoke a broad hatred of a generalised part of the world's society. Neither is good and both are racism pure and simple. Replace the word 'black' in all the anti-French rubbish posted by these so-called neo-cons and see how you feel about their statements then.

As for my use of certain words... Like "twats" for instance... Why shouldn't I use that word? It's a common term on this side of the Atlantic. Don't assume that I'm about to kow-tow and type in a way that pleases you, just because you can't understand what I'm saying. I have to watch (actually I mostly enjoy ;) ) lots and lots of US TV over here. I don't know, but it seems that 50% of what's broadcast in the UK is American. I feel that gives me a fair insight into how the US works. Oh yes, I also watch US news programmes regularly, and I must say that CNN seems as US-centred and right-wing as anything else US. LOL... If that's considered 'liberal' and left-wing, then I'm seriously sacred by what's happening in your country. ;)

Anyway, as has been said earlier, the real argument shouldn't be about how much of a liar Michael Moore is, but how come as much disection, argument and criticism isn't aimed at the media as a whole? How come right-wing religious fundamentalist TV and publications aren't taken to task as much? And how about whatever Fox, ABC, NBC, CNN etc. etc. can say every day of every week of every year? Why aren't they ridiculed as much as this? Newspapers? Periodicals?

Michael Moore is not being unpatriotic. He loves the USA. He loves what the USA stands for. What he doesn't like is the way (he believes) his country sometimes flouts national law, international law, moral and ethical codes and general common sense. He wants America to change somehow, and that's all that he's trying to do. Whether you like him or not shouldn't stop you from seeing that what he wants is the same thing as Bush, Clinton and those crazy right-wing nut jobs living in Nazi strongholds in Alabama, and the looney militia boys armed to the teeth against Federalism in Oregon! He wants to make the USA "better".

So argue for or against him, but argue the stands and the "lies". Not the fact that he's a large man, or that he's a 'communist'... LOL! He's certainly not a commie... And I should know, I've met a lot of them visiting East Berlin before the wall came down.

Another essay... Shame real-life has to drag me away from here so much... I look forward to the next few pages before I can return.

Oh yeah... Finally... Thanks for not flaming me or calling me a troll etc. I thought because I was away for a few days and unable to reply to any responses to my post that I may have been totally dissed by you lot here. I appreciate it. Keep up- the good work. :eek:

Probably like so many people on here on nationstates that don't bother to research the statements they make, and/or tow the partyline catchphrase of the last couple of days. It's just easier sometimes not to keep up with actual information and if it works to your advantage to argue your idea/point around something you may not have personally experienced, then usually enough other people will follow you if you present a good and clicking form of charisma and/or oration. For example, your idea of "we" surely branding anyone about anything. Who's the "we" in your statement? Are you leaving it to me or anyone else here to assume there is a plurality about you while having a singular perspective? Probably not. It probably is just easier to have yourself act like a majority in order to quell insecurities on the reader/respondant's part, regardless of factual accuracy. So maybe to critique you by your own questions ....? You and whatever else "we" constitutes? Just askin'.


Why do you insist on putting speech marks on 'we'? Punctuate correctly!

First of all, allow me to state that upon viewing both Farenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine I was rather disappointed. Reason being - I have heard all of the ideas mentioned (except those directly connected to occasions) and arguments. All of those ideas and arguments were served to me by Pravda and other news sources in the USSR (during Reagan, Bush Sr., and to lesser extent Clinton presidencies).

I have also seen interviews and programs by Michael Moore before - while living in the UK. Yes he bashed Clinton during Clinton years - but never to the degree he does Bush. And he bashed Americans (also less then lately).

Insofar as general bias of TV news in the US - when I came from the UK to the US (and had no cable access) everything first seemed pretty centrist to me (after BBC, and ITN). I will say that before coming to the US I actively liked Democratic Party platform (what I knew of it). Still , I started noticing little inconsistencies in news coverage, that were bringing memories of Soviet TV. Then I got cable and got interested in US politics - and found that I was sitting pretty much between official party platform - and that I liked Fox News coverage better.
So now, I would say that there is a left bias in vast majority of US news sources, there is US News & World Report that seemed to be pretty centris or neutral, there is right-ish Fox News, there are extremely conservative right like Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts, and there are rightwing radical kooks, like Washington Times and Michael Savage (and Chomsky I guess). Oh, and, coming back to the topic, there is Michael Moore to the radical left.

Insofar as holding Moore to a higher standards than Bush - all right then, exactly why is Democratic Party and Kerry Campaign trying to hold a few existing pro-Bush 527s to a higher standard then all the pro-Kerry 527s?

And no, I don't really like Bush, I disagree with a lot of things he has done and is doing, but the guy is trying to stand up and I respect that. If I voted in the current US elections I would've hoped for a viable third party candidate (not Nader) but failing that probably would've picked Bush as lesser of evils (and known evil).

Insofar as holding Moore to a higher standards than Bush - all right then, exactly why is Democratic Party and Kerry Campaign trying to hold a few existing pro-Bush 527s to a higher standard then all the pro-Kerry 527s?


Doesn't really answer the question, does it? Or is the answer "I perceive that one person does it, ergo I do it?" (except that the Kerry campaign regularly denounces ads that attack Bush that are uncalled for or unsubstantiated. All they where asking for is a little reciprical action on the part of the Bush campaign. Instead they got smokescreen. I'm not sainting them, but it's hardly the desparity that you paint here.)

This is an old school Bush defence, "Clinton did a bad thing, so it's okay for Bush to do some bad things...." ('Grant did some bad things, so now presidents can do all kinds of crazy crap.....').

Anyway, as has been said earlier, the real argument shouldn't be about how much of a liar Michael Moore is

Actually, it should be, and has been in this topic. Consider this from Miriam-Webster dictionary:

slander
Function: noun
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL

Slander is criminal in the United States. Therefore, if Moore is lying to defame Bush, he is committing slander and thus violating not only moral law but federal law; this is a very serious issue, and not the same as just "bad reporting" in general. Unfortunately, slander must be filed by the victim, and Bush cannot politically take the move of filing slander cases. Hence Moore is stooping down to the level of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY just to get his point across.

He loves the USA. He loves what the USA stands for.

Let's take a list of Moore's positions:
- He has openly called Americans as a whole stupid.
- He has openly supported countries at war with ours and called our country evil in its actions.
- He has encouraged countries in their military fight against the United States and has expressed hope that they will win.
- He expresses utter contempt for capitalism as a whole, constantly citing people as morally wrong for pursuing profit regardless of the reason...while he sits in a mansion as now a multi-millionaire.
- He expresses wishes to destroy the current US government system and reinstitute a new one (comparing it to taking down Saddam).
- He defames our young men in the military by showing minorities of them who take delight in killing as examples of "how evil our country is."
- He encourages the families of those young men that he groups together and labels as evil to oppose the government of the United States saying it killed their sons...even though he has openly encouraged Iraqis to rise up against the United States, which would be encouraging the killing of American soldiers.

He wants to make the USA "better".

Basically he wants a completely centrally managed economy with no class system. Basically he wants socialism (Miriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods). This would involve a complete overthrowing of our democratic system, including the Constitution. Which is why he opposes government leaders both Republican and Democrat, advocates an overthrow of the government (as he put it himself, "regime change"), encourages Americans to be killed in foreign countries, and openly badmouths Americans as a whole overseas (see my post where I linked to a UK interview). Which is why he hates America unless you throw out every single thing that America stands for all the way down to the Constitution. He has no love for America in any way, shape, or form unless displaying it meets his political ends.

hey he may be a liar but he is not an idiot he made a ton off that movie he probably doesn't care whether it's trus it's all about the money and hey it worked ;)

I'm not going to go too nuts, because using the anti-Moore standard, you only need a little to denounce the whole argument.
Actually, it should be, and has been in this topic. Consider this from Miriam-Webster dictionary:

slander
Function: noun
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL

Slander is criminal in the United States. Therefore, if Moore is lying to defame Bush, he is committing slander and thus violating not only moral law but federal law; this is a very serious issue, and not the same as just "bad reporting" in general. Unfortunately, slander must be filed by the victim, and Bush cannot politically take the move of filing slander cases. Hence Moore is stooping down to the level of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY just to get his point across.
ssssstttttttrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeetttttttttccccccchhhhhhhh. but that's not what I came for.

But it should be kept in mind once you list these:

Let's take a list of Moore's positions:
- He has openly called Americans as a whole stupid.
Mostly to underline what we need to do with our public schools and the way we as a population gather information, but that's a little nuanced for this argument, so I'll move on.

- He has openly supported countries at war with ours and called our country evil in its actions.
Protesting the war supports the enemy. Oceana has always...no, still to nuanced....

- He has encouraged countries in their military fight against the United States and has expressed hope that they will win.
sigh....

- He expresses utter contempt for capitalism as a whole, constantly citing people as morally wrong for pursuing profit regardless of the reason...while he sits in a mansion as now a multi-millionaire.
Here's one of the things I came for. Paraphrased from The Corperation "There are good corperations out there, good companies that serve the greater good, provide a service responsably. Those are fine. Then there are those that do not..."

- He expresses wishes to destroy the current US government system and reinstitute a new one (comparing it to taking down Saddam).
That crazy commie, calling for an election....(that was what he was talking about. You would be against twisting words, wouldn't you? I mean, that's your beef with Moore, so you yourself wouldn't do it, would you? Hmmm?)

- He defames our young men in the military by showing minorities of them who take delight in killing as examples of "how evil our country is."
Paraphrased from F9/11: "A soldier give the greatest gift to his country, to sacrifice himself for it. And the only thing they ask is that they not be used unless it is absolutely neccisary. This president has betrayed that promise." Oh yeah, he hates 'em....
- He encourages the families of those young men that he groups together and labels as evil to oppose the government of the United States saying it killed their sons...even though he has openly encouraged Iraqis to rise up against the United States, which would be encouraging the killing of American soldiers.



Basically he wants a completely centrally managed economy with no class system. Basically he wants socialism (Miriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods). This would involve a complete overthrowing of our democratic system, including the Constitution. Which is why he opposes government leaders both Republican and Democrat, advocates an overthrow of the government (as he put it himself, "regime change"), encourages Americans to be killed in foreign countries, and openly badmouths Americans as a whole overseas (see my post where I linked to a UK interview). Which is why he hates America unless you throw out every single thing that America stands for all the way down to the Constitution. He has no love for America in any way, shape, or form unless displaying it meets his political ends.
I have yet to see him call for socialism, but I constantly see people use that as a boogeyman. Whatever. If nothing else, your argument has contained all of the elements that have been criticized about Moore, so applying that standard we must dismiss you as a whole.

I'm not going to go too nuts, because using the anti-Moore standard, you only need a little to denounce the whole argument.

Not really, the anti-Moore standard is the same as most standards: establishing a general pattern. Also, keep in mind that stretching and deceiving aren't the same thing. To stretch something is to give accurate information to a greater or lesser degree; to lie or deceive is to take information and present it in a way that completely misrepresents or contradicts the original information.

Mostly to underline what we need to do with our public schools and the way we as a population gather information, but that's a little nuanced for this argument, so I'll move on.

Fair enough, but if he did really feel care for his country, why did he choose to express it in such a deliberately insulting manner toward Americans as a whole? He could have said "uneducated" or "uninformed" and it would have had the same meaning without him coming across in such a spiteful, condescending way. Moore is a presentor, he's a media person, he's VERY well-tuned with how he presents himself and that's how he's made his money. I don't believe that he simply "didn't say it how he meant it." I give the man more credit than that; he's extremely intelligent and talented at what he does (basically, producing persuasive propaganda for the American psuedo-intellectual), just dishonest about it and more concerned with his viewpoints than presenting things truthfully.

Protesting the war supports the enemy. Oceana has always...no, still to nuanced....

I'm referring to when he says in F911: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." This isn't just protesting the war. This is openly and specifically supporting those who violatently oppose and kill Americans.

The Corperation[/i] "There are good corperations out there, good companies that serve the greater good, provide a service responsably. Those are fine. Then there are those that do not..."

Capitalism inherently comes with cons. This fact will always exist as long as you have a free market.

That crazy commie, calling for an election....

How is he calling for an election? He hates Bush, he hates Clinton, and he only accepts Kerry because he's Moore's only hope of putting Bush out. He's not in support of anyone leading the country who doesn't want to destroy these large corporations he dislikes.

Paraphrased from F9/11: "A soldier give the greatest gift to his country, to sacrifice himself for it. And the only thing they ask is that they not be used unless it is absolutely neccisary. This president has betrayed that promise." Oh yeah, he hates 'em....

You did see the part where he shows the soldiers counting kills and laughing about their bloody hits and plays "Let The Mother-F-ers Burn" over US military action, right?

You also left the last on unaddressed:

- He encourages the families of those young men that he groups together and labels as evil to oppose the government of the United States saying it killed their sons...even though he has openly encouraged Iraqis to rise up against the United States, which would be encouraging the killing of American soldiers.

I have yet to see him call for socialism

Of course, once again he's a smart guy who knows about public image and manipulation. Nobody would take him seriously if he openly proclaimed to support socialism. Socialism is a set of governmental ideas. He can adopt most all of them (as he has) without being forced to say he's a socialist. Everyone recognizes that his views are all socialist in nature though since his problems mostly lie with the consequences of capitalism and his solutions mostly involve taking socialist approaches to the problem to fix it.

Of course, once again he's a smart guy who knows about public image and manipulation. Nobody would take him seriously if he openly proclaimed to support socialism. Socialism is a set of governmental ideas. He can adopt most all of them (as he has) without being forced to say he's a socialist. Everyone recognizes that his views are all socialist in nature though since his problems mostly lie with the consequences of capitalism and his solutions mostly involve taking socialist approaches to the problem to fix it."Everyone" recognises he's a socialist yet he doesn't declare it openly? What would be the point in that?

Not really, the anti-Moore standard is the same as most standards: establishing a general pattern.
This I'm not seeing so much. What I see is people applying one standard to Moore, and another to Bush and the like.
Also, keep in mind that stretching and deceiving aren't the same thing. To stretch something is to give accurate information to a greater or lesser degree; to lie or deceive is to take information and present it in a way that completely misrepresents or contradicts the original information.
Don't know how well that holds up in your analysis, but I'll let it slide.



Fair enough, but if he did really feel care for his country, why did he choose to express it in such a deliberately insulting manner toward Americans as a whole? He could have said "uneducated" or "uninformed" and it would have had the same meaning without him coming across in such a spiteful, condescending way. Moore is a presentor, he's a media person, he's VERY well-tuned with how he presents himself and that's how he's made his money. I don't believe that he simply "didn't say it how he meant it." I give the man more credit than that; he's extremely intelligent and talented at what he does (basically, producing persuasive propaganda for the American psuedo-intellectual), just dishonest about it and more concerned with his viewpoints than presenting things truthfully.
The A to B on that is hard to follow. He could have been nicer, which somehow equates to a "didn't say it how he meant it," which leads back to a dishonesty? I don't follow that at all. When he talks about 'stupidity' it has always been when discussing our schooling and information gathering, which can be substandard. I just can't trace the argument your making, the A to B just doesn't work.



I'm referring to when he says in F911: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." This isn't just protesting the war. This is openly and specifically supporting those who violatently oppose and kill Americans. I'll have to give this caveat, I do not remember this sentence in the film, but it has been a while since I've seen it so I won't say it wasn't there. Robert MacNamara talks about seeing the enemy the way the enemy sees themselves as neccisary in not getting stuck, sites it as the primary problem of the Vietnam war ("We saw it as an extension of the cold war, not as they saw it- as a civil war"-From Fog of War. Is MacNamara supporting the N. Vietnamese, or just trying to see it the way they do?

Here's one of the things I came for. Paraphrased from The Corperation "There are good corperations out there, good companies that serve the greater good, provide a service responsably. Those are fine. Then there are those that do not..."
I just wanted to fix that.

Capitalism inherently comes with cons. This fact will always exist as long as you have a free market.
Nice dodge, but strangly it puts you on track. Now you're arguing the argument and not the arguer. Ah, if only it would continue....



How is he calling for an election? He hates Bush, he hates Clinton, and he only accepts Kerry because he's Moore's only hope of putting Bush out. He's not in support of anyone leading the country who doesn't want to destroy these large corporations he dislikes.
Last president that took on corporations got carved into a mountain. If the government doesn't in some way protect us from corporations, who will? Calling for a candidate who will do that is hardly calling for a toppling the government, and taking a euphamism about 'regime change' and turning that into "OMG, He wants to destroy the government....", well-maybe you should get fitted for that tin foil hat, chicken little...



You did see the part where he shows the soldiers counting kills and laughing about their bloody hits and plays "Let The Mother-F-ers Burn" over US military action, right?
Yeah, saw it. They were a product of what he was arguing about. I don't understand here, are you saying he scripted it? Created it? If it is happening we should ignore it and hope it will go away? What's your argument here?


You also left the last on unaddressed:

- He encourages the families of those young men that he groups together and labels as evil to oppose the government of the United States saying it killed their sons...even though he has openly encouraged Iraqis to rise up against the United States, which would be encouraging the killing of American soldiers.

I still don't see him saying "raise up Iraqi's," but we've seen the way you see that. His premise, and this has been covered, is that their lives have been used frivolously (greatest gift, etc.) so this is consistant. I guess what you are implying is that the woman in the film was coerced. That logic is explained by you below:



Of course, once again he's a smart guy who knows about public image and manipulation. Nobody would take him seriously if he openly proclaimed to support socialism. Socialism is a set of governmental ideas. He can adopt most all of them (as he has) without being forced to say he's a socialist. Everyone recognizes that his views are all socialist in nature though since his problems mostly lie with the consequences of capitalism and his solutions mostly involve taking socialist approaches to the problem to fix it.
As I can take it, your complaint is what you believe is his implied intent, behind the words and actions. Such a close and speculative reading, and one not being applied to other agendas, which wraps me back around to the original question:
Why the different standard?

here's an ass

http://www.littlefriendsranch.com/Daisy3new.jpg

Obviously he is both. He is an idiot for holding the veiws that he does and he is a liar as has been proved beyond doubt.

Slander is criminal in the United States. Therefore, if Moore is lying to defame Bush, he is committing slander and thus violating not only moral law but federal law; this is a very serious issue, and not the same as just "bad reporting" in general. Unfortunately, slander must be filed by the victim, and Bush cannot politically take the move of filing slander cases. Hence Moore is stooping down to the level of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY just to get his point across.

But it's still not been proved that he lies. I've seen plenty of disection of small parts of two films where he may have been remis and omitted certain facts (name a politician who doesn't do this on a daily basis... I mean even Jeb Batlett does this and he's more popular than most of the presidents of the last 50 years ;) ). I'm sure that he and the producers and the distributors and the final film company put an army of lawyers all over that film... The fact that it's not been dragged through the courts yet is no coincidence. As far as illegal activity goes, prove it. In this country a man is innocent until proven guilty.



Let's take a list of Moore's positions:
- He has openly called Americans as a whole stupid.

So have a lot of people. It's not against the law, and as has been stated above, it takes strong arguments to get people to look at why this stereotype of the 'dumb yank' is so prevalent outside of the USA.

- He has openly supported countries at war with ours and called our country evil in its actions.

As far as international law is concerned, there are no countries at war with the USA. Haven't been for a long time. In fact Bush makes good use of this fact to hold 'combatants' in Guantanamo in direct defiance of human rights and prisoner of war legislation. So Moore can't activeley support 'the enemy'.

As for calling the USA evil in its actions, I agree. I also think that the UK was evil in it's actions to kow-tow to Bush and his mad war. Lincoln thought slavery was evil... Therefore before the civil war he'd have agreed that the USA was evil in its actions in that course. Did that make Lincoln a traitorous dangerous socialist? No of course not. He's within his rights to actively denounce government policy.

- He has encouraged countries in their military fight against the United States and has expressed hope that they will win.

Well I don't know about this one... Where and when did this happen?

- He expresses utter contempt for capitalism as a whole, constantly citing people as morally wrong for pursuing profit regardless of the reason...while he sits in a mansion as now a multi-millionaire.

LOL... Yeah. Nobody's perfect. I'm quite happy to espouse socialism and liberal values in my privately owned house with two cars and a wide-screen TV and DVD etc... :eek: But I think you'll find it's not capitalism per se that he's against so vehemently, but corporate consumerist capitalism as we're seeing coming to the fore nowadays. Short-termism, greed, and the impact on society that this sort of selfishness engenders.

- He expresses wishes to destroy the current US government system and reinstitute a new one (comparing it to taking down Saddam).

I don't think he's exhorting armed revolution in the USA! For a start how's he going to arm his revolutionaries whilst he's so pro gun-control? But choosing a national leader from two ultra-rich, capitalist, corporation backed Federal parties shows about as much choice as was allowed Soviet citizens in the 50s 60s and 70s.

- He defames our young men in the military by showing minorities of them who take delight in killing as examples of "how evil our country is."

To be honest, he doesn't even need to do this, if he has at all. We've all seen what happened in Abu Graibe. And I've seen plenty of US TV and films which show just how gung-ho and pumped up the US military is. I think the US military is a dangerous institution, and it actively encourages that sort of thinking and behaviour from its squaddies.

- He encourages the families of those young men that he groups together and labels as evil to oppose the government of the United States saying it killed their sons...

If, as he and I believe, the war was and is illegal, and totally against the best interests of the USA and the world in general then gathering a lobby group to change governmental position is every citizen's right.

even though he has openly encouraged Iraqis to rise up against the United States, which would be encouraging the killing of American soldiers.

I'd like to see a quote or reference to this one please. I've never heard him openly encourage the killing of anyone.

Basically he wants a completely centrally managed economy with no class system.

Sounds good to me, and is his right as a free American living in the USA.

Basically he wants socialism (Miriam-Webster: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods).

Again sounds bloody good to me, but to each his own. He wants a certain style of government in the USA. What's wrong or illegal in that? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned.

This would involve a complete overthrowing of our democratic system, including the Constitution. Which is why he opposes government leaders both Republican and Democrat, advocates an overthrow of the government (as he put it himself, "regime change"),

No it wouldn't. It's hardly likely to happen but all it would need would be for him to stand as an independent candidate in the presidential elections, and for a mood-swing to sweep the USA and give him a mandate by voting him into office. LOL... As I said, it's hardly likely to happen, but it's an alternative to your scare-mongering.

As I said above, Republican? Democrat? What are the idealogical differences between these two centrist, capitalist corporate parties? To liberals (and European liberals especially) where's the choice?

encourages Americans to be killed in foreign countries, and openly badmouths Americans as a whole overseas (see my post where I linked to a UK interview).

Whooah there... Encourages Americans to be killed? Where's the proof of this one? Who sent 'the boys' in? Bush. I can put your point back at you on that one. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell have 'encouraged Americans to be killed overseas' by sending them into illegal operations. Prove to me that Moore has done the same please.

As for badmouthing Americans overseas... He has yes. So have a lot of other Americans. I have American friends and they say a lot worse to me about you all than Moore does, and some are not even as liberal as him. I'd badmouth us Brits if I were abroad too. In fact I have done in the past. Knowing about and pointing out your own country's shortcomings is nothing to be ashamed of.

Which is why he hates America unless you throw out every single thing that America stands for all the way down to the Constitution. He has no love for America in any way, shape, or form unless displaying it meets his political ends.

I'm sorry but you've lost me there. He doesn't hate America. He loves his country but wants to see a return to what he believes are the true values of the nation. You may not agree that it reflects what you believe are the true values of your nation, but Freedom Of Speech allows his right to do it.

Look at your Constitution... Take out all the Ammendments and see where it differs from Moore's vision of the USA. And other than gun control where it differs from Bush's come to that. The Constitution protects the freedoms of speech and expression... The very reason we're arguing here.

I appreciate the time taken to reply to my post. Reasoned argument and debate like this is great... It's the hate and unargued stupidity that winds me up. ;) ;)

But it's still not been proved that he lies. I've seen plenty of disection of small parts of two films where he may have been remis and omitted certain facts (name a politician who doesn't do this on a daily basis... I mean even Jeb Batlett does this and he's more popular than most of the presidents of the last 50 years ;) ). I'm sure that he and the producers and the distributors and the final film company put an army of lawyers all over that film... The fact that it's not been dragged through the courts yet is no coincidence. As far as illegal activity goes, prove it. In this country a man is innocent until proven guilty.





So have a lot of people. It's not against the law, and as has been stated above, it takes strong arguments to get people to look at why this stereotype of the 'dumb yank' is so prevalent outside of the USA.



As far as international law is concerned, there are no countries at war with the USA. Haven't been for a long time. In fact Bush makes good use of this fact to hold 'combatants' in Guantanamo in direct defiance of human rights and prisoner of war legislation. So Moore can't activeley support 'the enemy'.

As for calling the USA evil in its actions, I agree. I also think that the UK was evil in it's actions to kow-tow to Bush and his mad war. Lincoln thought slavery was evil... Therefore before the civil war he'd have agreed that the USA was evil in its actions in that course. Did that make Lincoln a traitorous dangerous socialist? No of course not. He's within his rights to actively denounce government policy.



Well I don't know about this one... Where and when did this happen?



LOL... Yeah. Nobody's perfect. I'm quite happy to espouse socialism and liberal values in my privately owned house with two cars and a wide-screen TV and DVD etc... :eek: But I think you'll find it's not capitalism per se that he's against so vehemently, but corporate consumerist capitalism as we're seeing coming to the fore nowadays. Short-termism, greed, and the impact on society that this sort of selfishness engenders.



I don't think he's exhorting armed revolution in the USA! For a start how's he going to arm his revolutionaries whilst he's so pro gun-control? But choosing a national leader from two ultra-rich, capitalist, corporation backed Federal parties shows about as much choice as was allowed Soviet citizens in the 50s 60s and 70s.



To be honest, he doesn't even need to do this, if he has at all. We've all seen what happened in Abu Graibe. And I've seen plenty of US TV and films which show just how gung-ho and pumped up the US military is. I think the US military is a dangerous institution, and it actively encourages that sort of thinking and behaviour from its squaddies.



If, as he and I believe, the war was and is illegal, and totally against the best interests of the USA and the world in general then gathering a lobby group to change governmental position is every citizen's right.



I'd like to see a quote or reference to this one please. I've never heard him openly encourage the killing of anyone.



Sounds good to me, and is his right as a free American living in the USA.



Again sounds bloody good to me, but to each his own. He wants a certain style of government in the USA. What's wrong or illegal in that? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned.



No it wouldn't. It's hardly likely to happen but all it would need would be for him to stand as an independent candidate in the presidential elections, and for a mood-swing to sweep the USA and give him a mandate by voting him into office. LOL... As I said, it's hardly likely to happen, but it's an alternative to your scare-mongering.

As I said above, Republican? Democrat? What are the idealogical differences between these two centrist, capitalist corporate parties? To liberals (and European liberals especially) where's the choice?



Whooah there... Encourages Americans to be killed? Where's the proof of this one? Who sent 'the boys' in? Bush. I can put your point back at you on that one. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell have 'encouraged Americans to be killed overseas' by sending them into illegal operations. Prove to me that Moore has done the same please.

As for badmouthing Americans overseas... He has yes. So have a lot of other Americans. I have American friends and they say a lot worse to me about you all than Moore does, and some are not even as liberal as him. I'd badmouth us Brits if I were abroad too. In fact I have done in the past. Knowing about and pointing out your own country's shortcomings is nothing to be ashamed of.



I'm sorry but you've lost me there. He doesn't hate America. He loves his country but wants to see a return to what he believes are the true values of the nation. You may not agree that it reflects what you believe are the true values of your nation, but Freedom Of Speech allows his right to do it.

Look at your Constitution... Take out all the Ammendments and see where it differs from Moore's vision of the USA. And other than gun control where it differs from Bush's come to that. The Constitution protects the freedoms of speech and expression... The very reason we're arguing here.

I appreciate the time taken to reply to my post. Reasoned argument and debate like this is great... It's the hate and unargued stupidity that winds me up. ;) ;)



I'm impressed with your ferver, and tenacity to abolish the illusion that Moore is only a dumb-ass who made his movies to get money. Someone who is dumb would not stand up to a whole country and its regime (especially if this country is renowned for its 'tolerance' for criticism at their expence). I applaud your post.

Sorry for the messy quote, but read the post above to get all the info.

To Fodzonia:

Thank you for your excellent post that clearly came down on the side of reason. Well thought out answers!! :)

My view of the government that they should be respected...doesn't matter what president is in there. They are ou Nation leaders thus should be respected and honored.

What Micheal Moor is doing is he not only disrespecting the government but he's raping it as well. The guys a scumbag and a loser.

Your spelling says more than I ever could, not to mention the statement itself. Did Dubya post this under a pseudonym?

Have you not heard how Bush may call for a delay in the election due to "terrorist threat"?


Yes--he needs more time to find Osama and bring him out as a pre-election surprise.

Moore is brilliant at making sentences that are technically true but give a false impression.
In Bowling for Columbine, you may remember, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association." When I heard that I was thinking Charlton Heston, that bastard. What he leaves out (and what I later found out) is that the NRA cancelled all the events (several days of workshops, luncheons, gun exhibits etc.) they could legally cancel. From Heston himself:
The only thing left in Denver was the annual meeting--the date in location set years in advance--that was required by state law to be held (by NY nonprofit laws). The meeting could be legally rescheduled--if at least 10 days notice was given to all the members. Needless to say, there just wasn't time to notify all 4 million NRA members so quickly. So while out of sensitivity the cancelled all that they legally could, the annual meeting by legal necessity stuck. But Michael Moore leaves this fact out and gives a pretty false impression while leaving the words technically true.
Another instance of technically true but leaving a false impression: the “Wonderful World” montage. You may recall a scene that showed gun toting middle easterners riding in a car, with the caption:
What Moore leaves out is that the U.S. did not actually send those millions of dollars to the Taliban government, but to U.S. and international agencies to that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. So, technically he was right. The aid was given to Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled it (note he never actually said the aid was given to the Taliban government). But by putting the word "aid" in quotation marks and showing a picture of gun toting middle easterners, he conveys a somewhat different impression than what actually happened.
Initially I actually liked Michael Moore, and his "Bowling for Columbine" documentary. I'm pro-gun control, so I was pretty sympathetic. But when I became disillusioned with his misleading tactics (however sympathetic I am to some of his political views), I don't appreciate his work as much as I used to.
Absolutely right. This is why I've always supported Function over Form (how something works over how something looks). Bowling for Columbine seemed reasonable, but I thought he was too judgemental when it came to Farenheit 9/11.

I don't support Bush (but am against Kerry). I believe that his strategy is a bit drab, basically shooting anything that moves. What we need is someone who has the same views, but a little more tact. Say, someone who would have waited for Iraq to make a move to protect his own position, at the very least.

On a side note, why "Farenheit 9/11"? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with "Farenheit 451" ("The temperature at which books burn"), but, so far, Bush has not publically burned any books. Even outside the literal meaning, Farenheit 451 was about the destruction of knowledge to protect a fascist government (America is currently not a fascist government, by the way). Here, Moore is the one who is mixing truths to attack Bush.

Wheres both.

Opinionated? Yes. Lies? Ummmm, where?

"Everyone" recognises he's a socialist yet he doesn't declare it openly? What would be the point in that?

The fact that the people who don't realize that his views are socialist still see him as some sort of valid information source and think he is "insightful" without realizing the aim of his logic.

This I'm not seeing so much. What I see is people applying one standard to Moore, and another to Bush and the like.

How so? Having intelligence that turns out not to be true and conveying it while it is believed by all experts to be valid is not the same as deliberately contradicting or covering the facts.

Don't know how well that holds up in your analysis, but I'll let it slide.

It's not something that just slides. Establishing the difference, legally, between slander and exaggeration is crucially important since that's where the standard lies that you say is different but is not. Slander, by dictionary definition, is "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation." A misrepresentation is considered slander.

The A to B on that is hard to follow. He could have been nicer, which somehow equates to a "didn't say it how he meant it," which leads back to a dishonesty?

No, you lost me. We were talking about Moore calling Americans stupid. I don't think he was lying and I do think he meant it how he said it (considering Moore is an extremely precise and deliberate man in how he presents his views). The man is a master of public image and presentation of words; he KNEW when he was on European press that he was deliberately INSULTING Americans, and it was his goal. He's playing two sides; he's exploiting Americans who dislike Bush and trying to sound like he's a "patriot" to those in our country, then he goes overseas and wins support by bashing America as a whole. This guy isn't stupid; he knows how to appear to be a down-to-earth, honest guy (notice how, despite the fact that he is a multi-millionaire, he generally presents himself as a rough, unshapely commoner who could be the humble guy working at your local McDonalds; this is also part of his image to try to avoid addressing the fact that he's one of the rich exploiters that he criticizes; he exploited Columbine to further his political views and sap upon Americans "looking for answers", and with F911 he did the same thing, making a film which actually had nothing to do with 9/11 and using 9/11 to market it since it's a "patriotic" cause).

When he talks about 'stupidity' it has always been when discussing our schooling and information gathering, which can be substandard.

Why doesn't he say substandard then? I think the man is intelligent enough to know the difference between calling someone "stupid" and calling them "educationally substandard" or "undereducated." If the guy wants to play word precision games about how "technically" Saddam never "killed" an American, then I don't see why we should not apply that same standard which he demands to the precision of the rest of his descriptions. He's the one playing multiple standards to fit his motivations. Check out any critical review of F911 for an outstanding list of all of the double standards he expresses (I mentioned one regarding Clarke, for example, which even Clarke himself resented because he realized it was unfair and misleading to try to blame Bush for his actions).

I do not remember this sentence in the film, but it has been a while since I've seen it so I won't say it wasn't there.

It most definitely was. He just slipped it in during one of the glorifications of the Iraqi people as being victims. He's very slick with his words, and he threw a completely outrageous message in there without anyone fussing. Look it up for yourself. This wasn't some issue of ambiguities. Moore DIRECTLY supported Iraqi efforts to kill and drive out US troops; there's NOTHING else the statement referring to "the Iraqis rising up against the occupation" (e.g. those who attack the US military) and calling them a "revolution" and saying "they will win" could mean! And he says this in the section just because he tries to act like he sympathizes with the woman who lost her son! He's a forked-tongue serpent, expressing support for Iraqis killing US soldiers then simply using that poor woman as a tool to promote his anti-Bush agenda. I cannot but describe that as a very wicked thing.

Calling for a candidate who will do that is hardly calling for a toppling the government, and taking a euphamism about 'regime change' and turning that into "OMG, He wants to destroy the government....", well-maybe you should get fitted for that tin foil hat, chicken little...

I'm sorry, but once again, I don't think the guy is an idiot. Please recall for me the last line from F911 and tell me how that is not supporting opposition to the US government as a whole.

I don't understand here, are you saying he scripted it? Created it?

No, I'm saying that once again he is playing a double standard, deliberated demonizing ("portraying as a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin") our men in the military and glorifying Iraqi violent opposition as a righteous revolution then trying to win the sympathy of their relatives after they die. It's disgusting.

I still don't see him saying "raise up Iraqi's,"

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

As I can take it, your complaint is what you believe is his implied intent, behind the words and actions. Such a close and speculative reading, and one not being applied to other agendas, which wraps me back around to the original question:
Why the different standard?

I don't have a different standard. What actions has Bush committed that are even close to the level of demonizing our own troops and praising our enemies during wartime?

The fact that it's not been dragged through the courts yet is no coincidence.

You really think Bush would take the political move of filing a slander suit against Michael Moore? Give me a break. He'd get his ass dragged up and down the streets as "putting down free speech" by the liberals. It would be Moore's dream if he did sue him. So no, it's not a coincidence: Bush would be committing political suicide if he tried to attack Moore. Moore took these steps knowing that not only is he virtually immune politically (since when any candidate attacks a "third party" serious reprecussions come), but even if he did get fined for damages, the profits from the movie would cover said fines and Bush would not have a chance at winning the election. This doesn't change the fact that it is slander ("the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"). There's no dispute over the fact that he misrepresented the facts to defame Bush. Even Clarke, who disapproved of Bush, openly criticized Moore.

Well I don't know about this one... Where and when did this happen?

In F911, I've quoted it many times, in fact I did earlier in this post yet again.

To be honest, he doesn't even need to do this, if he has at all. We've all seen what happened in Abu Graibe. And I've seen plenty of US TV and films which show just how gung-ho and pumped up the US military is.

How shameful to stick the labels of movies and isolated incidents to the thousands of young men who honestly and bravely serve our country. Go serve your country yourself before criticizing them. It's sickening that you would have no hesitation to smear mud in the faces of those who stand in the line of fire and die for your freedoms daily.

I'd like to see a quote or reference to this one please. I've never heard him openly encourage the killing of anyone.

Once again, see above; he's openly encouraged the Iraqis who violently oppose the United States (the fact that he uses the term "minutemen" leaves no doubt that he's talking about armed resistance, not peaceful protest) and has expressed hope that they will win.

Sounds good to me, and is his right as a free American living in the USA.

Except that this would involve the overthrow of the Constitution, which is what he wants. Gun control was just his springboard after Columbine since he saw the chance to take advantage of confused Americans who couldn't think of a better solution than gun control. In doing so he got his foot in the door with the idea of putting the Constitution aside for the greater good of his social ideals.

Again sounds bloody good to me, but to each his own. He wants a certain style of government in the USA. What's wrong or illegal in that?

Because, he is advocating overthrow of the Constitution and democracy. That's pretty much textbook anti-American. And there have been laws banning such speech, as communist organizations were jailed during the Cold War.

No it wouldn't.

Yes, it would. Our current government, under the Constitution, is established solidly as a democratic republic, not a socialist state. There is no way that it could become socialist without throwing out the Constitution. The Constitution is more than the Bill of Rights you know.

Whooah there... Encourages Americans to be killed? Where's the proof of this one?

Once again, see above.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell have 'encouraged Americans to be killed overseas' by sending them into illegal operations.

That's like saying I'm encouraging my children to be shot by taking them to school. School shootings happen; it's not what we hope for. We send them overseas praying for their safe return.

I have American friends and they say a lot worse to me about you all than Moore does

That doesn't make it right, it just makes them shameful to their own country.

You may not agree that it reflects what you believe are the true values of your nation, but Freedom Of Speech allows his right to do it.

The values that he preaches: defeat of American troops oversea in Iraq, socialism, etc. have never been and never will be American values. They represent all that America as a nation has fought against for the last hundred years.

Look at your Constitution... Take out all the Ammendments and see where it differs from Moore's vision of the USA.

It is completely opposite. Take out the ammendments and you have a democratic republic made up of independent states joined by a weak central government. Have you ever even read the American Constutiton? It could NEVER be a socialist collective. And be that as it may, the Amendments cannot and will not be "taken out"; they are considered to be just as much part of the Constitution as the original text.

I appreciate the time taken to reply to my post. Reasoned argument and debate like this is great... It's the hate and unargued stupidity that winds me up

I agree.

tenacity to abolish the illusion that Moore is only a dumb-ass who made his movies to get money

I certainly don't think he's a dumb-ass. He's a capitalist GENIUS, exploiting the hatred of capitalism to gain money in the capitalist fashion! Not only exploiting two of the nation's worst tragedies to advocate his political views, but making a ton of money doing so. Bravo Mr. Moore, you have shown us a new low for capitalism, and stand for one of the most shining examples of capitalism being abused by manipulative hypocrites.

Have you not heard how Bush may call for a delay in the election due to "terrorist threat"?

To be frank, that's bullshit. It's just catch material for controversial news stories.

Opinionated? Yes. Lies? Ummmm, where?

Did you even read the dozens of links that have been posted in this thread? Clarke, who he SOURCED in his movie, said he didn't tell the truth. If your source says you lie...

I believe the last line of the film was a response to a famous clip of Bush flubing the "Fool me once..." saying where Moore said "I couldn't agree more." or something like that. I don't see that as being "Overthrow the government." Just don't vote for Bush. Ultimately this is a back and forth and others are here doing a fine job on your arguments, so I'll just summarize by saying what I see is a stretch. And I still argue that this close reading, implied meaning standard you are applying to Moore doesn't seem equally applied.

The fact that the people who don't realize that his views are socialist still see him as some sort of valid information source and think he is "insightful" without realizing the aim of his logic. <snip edit>

Yes, it would. Our current government, under the Constitution, is established solidly as a democratic republic, not a socialist state. There is no way that it could become socialist without throwing out the Constitution. The Constitution is more than the Bill of Rights you know. <snip edit>

The values that he preaches: defeat of American troops oversea in Iraq, socialism, etc. have never been and never will be American values. <snip edit>

Have you ever even read the American Constutiton? It could NEVER be a socialist collective. <snip edit>

I certainly don't think he's a dumb-ass. He's a capitalist GENIUS, exploiting the hatred of capitalism to gain money in the capitalist fashion! Not only exploiting two of the nation's worst tragedies to advocate his political views, but making a ton of money doing so. Bravo Mr. Moore, you have shown us a new low for capitalism, and stand for one of the most shining examples of capitalism being abused by manipulative hypocrites. <snip edit>

Make your mind up time... So which do you believe? In the same post you accuse him of being an anti-capitalist socialist and the lowest kind of capitalist genius...

Sorry but you just shot your whole argument in the foot with that one.

I've singled this point out for this post as it involves large edits to the original. To keep the context and not take your quotes out of context (as you've done very well with mine in the same sort of misrepresentation and editting that you accuse Moore of) I'll respond to your last post in my next post coming soon.

On a side note, why "Farenheit 9/11"? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with "Farenheit 451" ("The temperature at which books burn"), but, so far, Bush has not publically burned any books. Even outside the literal meaning, Farenheit 451 was about the destruction of knowledge to protect a fascist government (America is currently not a fascist government, by the way). Here, Moore is the one who is mixing truths to attack Bush.


Fahrenheit 9/11, meaning 9 Nov. , the WTC, remember? I've not seen the film yet, but I am pretty sure that is what he was aiming at, and not the destruction of books, or the destruction of a 'fascist' governement. He is trying to let people see that is the man/men (woman/women) on top who 'make' the governement (for lack of better term). He is merely trying not tot let Bush get elected yet another term, and trying to get a decent president, one who doesn't shoot at anything moving (as posted above.)

The fact that the people who don't realize that his views are socialist still see him as some sort of valid information source and think he is "insightful" without realizing the aim of his logic.

You bandy the word socialist around as if it's some kind of insult to you personally. I feel that you're confusing Soviet communism for broadband socialism. I know you're American and therefore don't easily see a difference, but us Europeans see Soviet style communism as a very different thing to socialism. In fact there are openly and proud socialist goverments in Europe, but not communist. Democracy and socialism are not exclusive... Socialism and capitalism are not actually mutually exclusive as our (European) examples have shown.

How so? Having intelligence that turns out not to be true and conveying it while it is believed by all experts to be valid is not the same as deliberately contradicting or covering the facts.

LOL... How do we know that they thought it was true up until the bitter end? You believe what the government say out of hand? The British government is still in serious trouble over this exact point...

It's not something that just slides. Establishing the difference, legally, between slander and exaggeration is crucially important since that's where the standard lies that you say is different but is not. Slander, by dictionary definition, is "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation." A misrepresentation is considered slander.

Hmmmm...It's only slanderous if the recipient of the slander says and proves as much. OK, so it's a moot point. As I said earlier, he's innocent until proven guilty. In fact looking back over your posts I'd guess that a lot of people could accuse you of slandering Moore with your claims of anti-Americanism.

No, you lost me. We were talking about Moore calling Americans stupid. I don't think he was lying and I do think he meant it how he said it (considering Moore is an extremely precise and deliberate man in how he presents his views). The man is a master of public image and presentation of words; he KNEW when he was on European press that he was deliberately INSULTING Americans, and it was his goal. He's playing two sides; he's exploiting Americans who dislike Bush and trying to sound like he's a "patriot" to those in our country, then he goes overseas and wins support by bashing America as a whole. This guy isn't stupid; he knows how to appear to be a down-to-earth, honest guy (notice how, despite the fact that he is a multi-millionaire, he generally presents himself as a rough, unshapely commoner who could be the humble guy working at your local McDonalds; this is also part of his image to try to avoid addressing the fact that he's one of the rich exploiters that he criticizes; he exploited Columbine to further his political views and sap upon Americans "looking for answers", and with F911 he did the same thing, making a film which actually had nothing to do with 9/11 and using 9/11 to market it since it's a "patriotic" cause).

I've answered this point in my last post, but I just want to take you up on the quote I've highlighted... So what! SO WHAT! I thought the USA guaranteed freedom of expression! Isn't it anti-American to force someone to dress and look as you want. What he chooses to wear, and look like is purely down to him. Fact is that Moore is (or was) a working class man before making his money as a political writer and broadcaster. Sorry he doesn't fit your stereotyped image of that... Dressing alike? Crikey! Sounds like Maoist thinking to me. ;) ;)

Why doesn't he say substandard then? I think the man is intelligent enough to know the difference between calling someone "stupid" and calling them "educationally substandard" or "undereducated." If the guy wants to play word precision games about how "technically" Saddam never "killed" an American, then I don't see why we should not apply that same standard which he demands to the precision of the rest of his descriptions. He's the one playing multiple standards to fit his motivations. Check out any critical review of F911 for an outstanding list of all of the double standards he expresses (I mentioned one regarding Clarke, for example, which even Clarke himself resented because he realized it was unfair and misleading to try to blame Bush for his actions).

As much as you may hate the idea, it's not against the law in any part of the world that I know of to call Americans 'stupid'. It was perhaps a silly thing to do, and under my racism/Nazi post earlier in this thread I'd have to call him racist through that remark. Sure he rebrands the message for the different countries... Everyone does...

It most definitely was. He just slipped it in during one of the glorifications of the Iraqi people as being victims. He's very slick with his words, and he threw a completely outrageous message in there without anyone fussing. Look it up for yourself. This wasn't some issue of ambiguities. Moore DIRECTLY supported Iraqi efforts to kill and drive out US troops; there's NOTHING else the statement referring to "the Iraqis rising up against the occupation" (e.g. those who attack the US military) and calling them a "revolution" and saying "they will win" could mean! And he says this in the section just because he tries to act like he sympathizes with the woman who lost her son! He's a forked-tongue serpent, expressing support for Iraqis killing US soldiers then simply using that poor woman as a tool to promote his anti-Bush agenda. I cannot but describe that as a very wicked thing.

Right... This one needs dealing with properly so here's what you quote Moore as saying from a film in one of your earlier posts. I've not seen F 911 yet (although I've seen other Moore films and read his books) so I'll assume your quote to be correct...


"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

You've obviously read this statement differently to me and a few others here on the board. I agree that what you say makes sense, but think about the quote a little more, try taking it in another context... I can easily see your point, try and see mine.

This statement is meant as a warning. A warning to all about what the war in Iraq has produced. He's warning you in a way that you'll understand, using terminology and symbology that's dear to American hearts and minds. He's equating what's happening in Iraq to the American Revolution...

Let's use another example... Northern Ireland where fanatical murdering terrorism has been rampant for 30-odd years. I'm English and British. Although I'm a liberal, let's assume for the moment that one of my family was killed in one of the many bombings that happened in Northern Ireland and the mainland UK (and I grew up in London so I know about terrorism). To me, the IRA are a bunch of terrorists... But to an awful lot of Bostonians, New Yorkers and Chicagoans they're not insurgents, or terrorists or the enemy... They are freedom-fighters, Minutemen, oppressed and occupied by a foreign army. I respect that people think that way... It's just that I don't think like that about the IRA...

What Moore is trying to say and what I'm clumsily trying to explain is that these 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' in Iraq do not see themselves as such. They're a force like the revolution, the minutemen. Think how proud you feel about those Minutemen (terrorists) winning a revolution against the British... That idea of overthrowing the yolk of occupation, fighting an army that gets it's orders from half a world and a whole culture away... It's a difficult thing to fight. All that Moore is doing here is warning about the consequenses of what has happened (is happening) in Iraq. A fanatical band of fighters who although seen by the world as 'terrorists', see themselves as the Iraq equivalent of Minutemen. Those sorts of people are dangerous... And as shown in history entirely capable of winning.

I see nothing other than your interpretation in Moore's statement that shows he's actively supporting the killing of Americans, supporting a war against the USA, or even being un-American. He's guilty of emotive language and symbolism that is guaranteed to be understood by the vast majority of US citizens... Misunderstood as well... Sure, as has been shown by these posts.

I'm sorry, but once again, I don't think the guy is an idiot. Please recall for me the last line from F911 and tell me how that is not supporting opposition to the US government as a whole.

Sorry, still not seen the film. Please don't spoil it for me by giving away the ending. ;) ;) ;)

No, I'm saying that once again he is playing a double standard, deliberated demonizing ("portraying as a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin") our men in the military and glorifying Iraqi violent opposition as a righteous revolution then trying to win the sympathy of their relatives after they die. It's disgusting.

As I've shown above, he's not glorifying Iraqi violent revolution. And I stand by my last argument about using a political lobby on the rest here.

I don't have a different standard. What actions has Bush committed that are even close to the level of demonizing our own troops and praising our enemies during wartime?

I refer you once again to my point above... Where has Moore praised the 'enemy'? The troops do a good job of making themselves look bad thanks to Abu Graibe.

You really think Bush would take the political move of filing a slander suit against Michael Moore? Give me a break. He'd get his ass dragged up and down the streets as "putting down free speech" by the liberals. It would be Moore's dream if he did sue him. So no, it's not a coincidence: Bush would be committing political suicide if he tried to attack Moore. Moore took these steps knowing that not only is he virtually immune politically (since when any candidate attacks a "third party" serious reprecussions come), but even if he did get fined for damages, the profits from the movie would cover said fines and Bush would not have a chance at winning the election. This doesn't change the fact that it is slander ("the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation"). There's no dispute over the fact that he misrepresented the facts to defame Bush. Even Clarke, who disapproved of Bush, openly criticized Moore.

So he's not been proven guilty of slander... In your definitions you yourself are a slandering liar! I have proof too:

"<Moore's> a forked-tongue serpent,"

I've seen pictures of Michael Moore, lots of them. I've seen him talking on TV and in films... I've never seen this 'forked-tongue' you claim he has. Prove that he has a forked-tongue please. And as far as I recall from my schooldays, serpents are generally cold-blooded, egg-laying reptiles of a genus far removed from humanity. I'd always held the belief that Michael Moore like most other 'people' (love him or hate him) is a human being. I.e. not a reptile/serpent.

You still haven't shown proof of Moore slandering Bush.

In F911, I've quoted it many times, in fact I did earlier in this post yet again.

And this time I've shown how you're mistaken.

How shameful to stick the labels of movies and isolated incidents to the thousands of young men who honestly and bravely serve our country. Go serve your country yourself before criticizing them. It's sickening that you would have no hesitation to smear mud in the faces of those who stand in the line of fire and die for your freedoms daily.

Pfffft... In my free country it's a matter of personal choice and consciense whether I join the armed forces or not. It's also my right and priviledge to freedom of speech and I'm using my personal experience as a basis for my arguments and points here. How shameful of you to try and denigrate my conscience and freedoms by implying that I have no right to my ideals and beliefs unless I join a military machine. Using your analogy... Why don't you go and make a political documentary before critisising documentary makers? LOL... Your point sounds pretty silly now doesn't it.

It's sickening that you can't see how your country and military are portrayed in the cinemas and on the TVs in other countries around the world. LOL... Even if I did join the British Army (which I can't due to age anyway), how would I then be suddenly able to comment on how I perceive the American armed forces? Your emotive statement makes no sense at all.

And remember those Minutemen? They fought and died to ensure that your nation was seperated from mine. Your military do NOT stand in the line of fire for me! They do NOT die for my freedom every day. They fight and die for the government of the USA. Sorry but the UK is still a sovereign nation (nominally), not a part of the USA and long may it remain.

Finally for this quote, I've seen Abu Graibe... I've seen films and TV in which the US armed forces are portrayed... I'm going by my experiences as will the vast majority of people the world over. If Hollywood and US TV are getting how the US military behaves drastically wrong... Where's the thread holding them to standards? Pffffft... I had a lot more respect for you before this...

Once again, see above; he's openly encouraged the Iraqis who violently oppose the United States (the fact that he uses the term "minutemen" leaves no doubt that he's talking about armed resistance, not peaceful protest) and has expressed hope that they will win.

Once again... No he's not.

Except that this would involve the overthrow of the Constitution, which is what he wants. Gun control was just his springboard after Columbine since he saw the chance to take advantage of confused Americans who couldn't think of a better solution than gun control. In doing so he got his foot in the door with the idea of putting the Constitution aside for the greater good of his social ideals.

It wouldn't involve the overthrow of the constitution. I suggest you read my previous post more thoroughly. As I said, however unlikely, he could become president within the constitution.

Because, he is advocating overthrow of the Constitution and democracy. That's pretty much textbook anti-American. And there have been laws banning such speech, as communist organizations were jailed during the Cold War.

Hmmmm... Yes I remember McCarthyism... That was good? Oh dear... :headbang:

I refer you to my point about democratic elections, however unlikely. Where's the proof that Moore is advocating overthrow of democracy and the constitution? Lat time I read his texts, he was very much pro-democracy and the constitution. If I thought you would, I'd suggest reading Dude, Where's My Country.

Yes, it would. Our current government, under the Constitution, is established solidly as a democratic republic, not a socialist state. There is no way that it could become socialist without throwing out the Constitution. The Constitution is more than the Bill of Rights you know.

Republics and socialism are not mutually incompatible. France being a case in point. And if enough people voted for a socialist minded president (unlikely I know, but possible), I think you'd find that you'd have a socialist government, and your constitution.

As I said a lot earlier, I think you're confusing socialism with Soviet communism which are very different things.

Once again, see above.

Once again, ditto.

That's like saying I'm encouraging my children to be shot by taking them to school. School shootings happen; it's not what we hope for. We send them overseas praying for their safe return.

DUH... Yeah right... It's a known hazard of shooldays that you're being put in the front line in a warzone... DUH! :rolleyes: Much too reactionary and emotive to argue against I'm afraid.

That doesn't make it right, it just makes them shameful to their own country.

It makes them shameful to you. And whether anyone thinks they're right or wrong doesn't stop the fact that the USA is getting bad press around the world from a lot of it's own citizens. Like you I'm arguing from a lifetime of personal experience... And I've experienced a lot of Americans bad-mouthing their nation, as is their right.

The values that he preaches: defeat of American troops oversea in Iraq, socialism, etc. have never been and never will be American values. They represent all that America as a nation has fought against for the last hundred years.

I thought America fought for freedom, democracy and stuff like that! Freedom of speech to critisise the goverment/country/people. The democratic process that could produce a president and government of a political leaning that you don't like.

Moore preaches defeat of America in Iraq? I've shown where you've gone wrong on this one... More proof needed if you want to keep this argument up. And yet again... Socialism is something that could happen in the USA. Kennedy ring any bells to you?

It is completely opposite. Take out the ammendments and you have a democratic republic made up of independent states joined by a weak central government. Have you ever even read the American Constutiton? It could NEVER be a socialist collective. And be that as it may, the Amendments cannot and will not be "taken out"; they are considered to be just as much part of the Constitution as the original text.

As a British citizen I've never actually read the American constitution, no. Have you read it through? I've got a bloody good idea of what it contains and says though... As I said, I have a lifetime of US TV, film, book, media experiences to go by, probably more than a lot of Americans! I'm politically interested, intelligent, resourceful and open minded. I think I know enough to argue my case, but I'll check up if neccessary and admit when I'm wrong (rarely ;) ;) ;) ).

As for socialism again... It's a bad word in your mind isn't it? But why? A lot of Europe does very well with socialist governments.

I agree.

Excellent. I don't know where you live, but I'm off out to a pub this evening with friends. At 10:30 GMT, I'll drink a pint with you as long as it's not too early where you are. If not, think of me as I raise my glass to debate.

I certainly don't think he's a dumb-ass. He's a capitalist GENIUS, exploiting the hatred of capitalism to gain money in the capitalist fashion! Not only exploiting two of the nation's worst tragedies to advocate his political views, but making a ton of money doing so. Bravo Mr. Moore, you have shown us a new low for capitalism, and stand for one of the most shining examples of capitalism being abused by manipulative hypocrites.

Answered in previous post.

To be frank, that's bullshit. It's just catch material for controversial news stories.

Haven't heard that story over here...

Did you even read the dozens of links that have been posted in this thread? Clarke, who he SOURCED in his movie, said he didn't tell the truth. If your source says you lie...

Yep... Read the books, seen some of the films, visited the website, read the anti-Moore sites, argued here and elsewhere about Moore... How much pro-Moore stuff have you looked at?

Yeah, well, Moore directed "Canadian Bacon". That makes him just fine in my book.

both would seem to be the appropriate answer.

The guys not the saint some people make him out to be, and his documentaries are extremely biased and do use some suspect information.

On the other hand though, these aren't outright balls-out lies like the famed WoMD one. And his 'lies' (more in common with obi-wans "From a certain point of view" for the most part) dont really have the same effect do they? I dont think anyone went to war over Bowling For Columbine (except fanboys, politicians and other denizens of the deep, dark places). Oh, and where was this proof they had? Why have we not seen it since the event? If they had proof (of which they assured us repeatedly), where are the weapons? It was a flimsy excuse to go in, remove someone whos given them trouble in the past, take what they want, and sustain the aura of panic and fear that leads to people voting in this "Warrior-President" (A horrifying thought. Not so far from the Jihad's and Crusades as we'd like to think eh?)

No matter what you think of the guy, his documentaries raise extremely valid points. You get to see the bleak horror of Flint, Michigan. The selfish apathy of big business. And the bloody farce that is Gun-Control (Cop-killer bullets for sale in WalMart), and the patriot act (Undercover cops in a limp-wristed middle-aged group of pacifists).

Moore is a hypocrite - yes, and a liar - as well as being more than a tad impractical and excitable when it comes to solutions to the problems he shows, but dont let the views you have of him obscure the serious and important issues that his documentaries expose (even if its all for his own agenda). And besides, there is actual proof that some extremely suspect actions were taken by the Bush party and its supporters, which led to his election. Hell, havent you seen that video where they ask the governors aide about the electoral rolls and he flees the office without another word (literally LEGS IT).


Oh, and I'm proud to be a socialist. Perhaps not the socialists you think of, but a socialist none the less. I dont understand the problem you'd have with this; Socialism to me means the empowerment and improvement of everbody in society, the removal of the aristocratic cliques which dominate the upper echelons of power, etc. Basically just improving the lot of everyone instead of just myself and my friends, Helping The Helpless, actual freedom, whatever.

I dont get the whole patriot thing though. How is it unpatriotic to be against war, exploitation and Bush? Im sure someone once told me America was a democracy, but nowadays it seems to be more of a monarchy.

oh, and lumana?

You're an idiot.

What Moore is trying to say and what I'm clumsily trying to explain is that these 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' in Iraq do not see themselves as such. They're a force like the revolution, the minutemen. Think how proud you feel about those Minutemen (terrorists) winning a revolution against the British... That idea of overthrowing the yolk of occupation, fighting an army that gets it's orders from half a world and a whole culture away... It's a difficult thing to fight. All that Moore is doing here is warning about the consequenses of what has happened (is happening) in Iraq. A fanatical band of fighters who although seen by the world as 'terrorists', see themselves as the Iraq equivalent of Minutemen. Those sorts of people are dangerous... And as shown in history entirely capable of winning.
I agree with your interpretation 100%. There are a few Americans here that believe that comment made by Moore is "un-patriotic", and I say to them, that is a load of BS.

If some other country attacked mine, I am going to defend her anyway I can, and I cannot for the life of me, see how the media from the invading country could possibly call me an "insurgent" or "terrorist". I would view the invasion forces as the "terrorists", and I would be the "patriot" or "freedom fighter" defending MY country. Especially if the invading country were going to try and impose their will, their lifestyle, and their religion upon me.

For Americans to try and cast Moore in a bad light because of his statement, then they clearly are guilty of not being able to rationalize the essence of his message. If anything Moore does not like the fact that his fellow Americans are dying in the Iraqi dustbowl for unjust reasons. Moore wants his fellow Americans to wake up and smell the coffee, and Fahrenheit 911 provides the needed message.

Michael Moore is a stupid liar.

oh, and lumana?

You're an idiot.

Please Libitia... You made a great post before this one. One that I thought was probably the fairest on this thread yet, and then you throw this line in?

There are idiots on this thread, fortunately they tend to come in, throw in some awful smart-alec insulting one-liner and don't come back.

However I've found my argument with Lumana has been very engrossing and enlightening. Whatever he/she thinks of Michael Moore, the reasoning behind the arguments put up by Lumana have been anything but idiotic. I've enjoyed the sparring here.

If you need to call someone here an idiot, at least put up substantiated reasons for your attack. You're very much in danger of sounding like a bigger idiot (which by your first post you most certainly aren't) yourself with these kinds of posts.

Having said that, welcome to the debate.

CancuckHeaven... Thanks for the kind words. I was rather tripping over my own typing fingers with that argument... Glad you were able to navigate your way around it. Cheers.

Gee, what a fun thread to read. And still no one has any facts that disprove Moore's 9/11 movie.

Seems like the rightwing way. You disagree with someone so you bury your head in the sand and shout at the top of your lungs that the person is a liar and unpatriotic. Put your hands over your ears and refuse to hear anything.

Gee, what a fun thread to read. And still no one has any facts that disprove Moore's 9/11 movie.

Seems like the rightwing way. You disagree with someone so you bury your head in the sand and shout at the top of your lungs that the person is a liar and unpatriotic. Put your hands over your ears and refuse to hear anything.
You forgot....with their eyes closed and their mouths wide open?

I believe the last line of the film was a response to a famous clip of Bush flubing the "Fool me once..." saying where Moore said "I couldn't agree more." or something like that.

I'm sorry, I was thinking the wrong film. In <a href="http://industrycentral.net/director_interviews/MM02.HTM">this interview</a> Moore cited the last line of his film <i>The Big One</i> as being "One evil empire down, one to go" and explained that he was definitely talking about taking down the current American economic system completely by taking out the current government and putting in his own pro-socialist government. That was the one I meant to refer to.

Note his rather flat answer to the question "Is it okay to say you think capitalism on some level is okay?"

Make your mind up time... So which do you believe?

He's a man with socialist ideals exploiting capitalistic means to further them. Hence why I called him a hypocrite at the end of the statement you quoted. I believe this is the view that I've been givng the whole time, isn't it? He's good at exploiting capitalism, but he does so in efforts to abolish it. He figures "Hey, as long as capitalism is here I win with my money, and when it's not I win with my ideals. I win either way." He loves playing both sides of everything to benefit himself.

Fahrenheit 9/11, meaning 9 Nov. , the WTC,

You do mean September 11, right? And there's no doubt that the movie title was a play on Fahrenheit 451. The question is was it more than just a play on words, and I think that's a valid one.

Democracy and socialism are not exclusive... Socialism and capitalism are not actually mutually exclusive as our (European) examples have shown.

The US Constitution is in staunch opposition to Moore's ideals. Please take a few courses in as every American has to, or at least do some actual research and READ the freaking thing, before commenting on what is and isn't American.

LOL... How do we know that they thought it was true up until the bitter end?

Because three independent investigations by US (bipartisan), British, and Russian intelligence all agreed unanymously that there was no deception by any of the world leaders about the facts that they had? It's a matter of fact now; please don't go playing cards that were thrown out of the deck months ago, it just shows you're behind on actual world events.

Hmmmm...It's only slanderous if the recipient of the slander says and proves as much.

That's equivalent to saying if I killed my roommate now, it's only murder if they find the body and bring me to court on it. Obvious either way I've still murdered him. Prosecution or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether his claims were slanderous or not.

I thought the USA guaranteed freedom of expression!

Of course, he is free to pretend he is someone who he is not. And we are free to call him on his deception. Of course, you'd also be free to be ignorant of it and follow him like he's a god. None of these things have any bearings on an intelligent debate. The fact is, the man deliberately portrays himself in a manner to misguide his audience. It's not illegal; it is part of his general manipulative nature.

As much as you may hate the idea, it's not against the law in any part of the world that I know of to call Americans 'stupid'.

Nor did I say it was. This was addressing the point of people calling him "patriotic."

You've obviously read this statement differently to me and a few others here on the board.

I've copy-pasted off the same page every time I quoted him. That's bullshit.

, but think about the quote a little more, try taking it in another context

The only context I could think of in which that quote could be morally acceptible was if he was an Iraqi terrorist who supported violent uprising against the US. He is not, he claims to be an American. No American who says something this utterly anti-American (in the literal sense of advocating the killing of Americans) should be called "patriotic."

He's equating what's happening in Iraq to the American Revolution...

Exactly, he's trying to say that we are evil and the Iraqis are righteous and that their violent uprising is justified and that we as Americans, just as we supported our revolution, should support them; he's asking Americans to betray their country. The irony is that he's using an American metaphor regarding "minutemen" to oppose America itself.

A fanatical band of fighters who although seen by the world as 'terrorists', see themselves as the Iraq equivalent of Minutemen.

And we do not. People slicing off the heads of Americans peacefully working to rebuild their country and sending the videos to their families are terrorists, period. It is irrelevant what they "see themselves as." Our American revolution involved killing soldiers, not civilians. Especially not our own people, as these suicide bombers repeatedly do. The analogy is sickeningly ridiculous. These people are not minutemen to most of the Iraqis; they are traitorous followers of a fallen regime which murdered their families and left them in poverty and led their country to ruin. Moore's view is shared principally by terrorists and those sympathetic to them, and not the Iraqi people at large. I know young men as friends who have served in Iraq. The people there are not terrorist-lovers, they don't condone the continued bloodshed, and they hate these terrorists because they cut their power, their gas lines, and kill their law enforcement and civilians alike. They do nothing beneficial for the country and the Iraqi people realize it.

Sorry, still not seen the film.

You're defending Moore having not even SEEN the film?! I actually didn't mind Bowling of Columbine relatively, and I was hoping F911 would be good when I went to see it (I actually went on my birthday to), and it was the worst piece of biased, misrepresented, slanderous garbage against Bush I have ever seen. I've seen liberals who have valid criticisms of Bush and are fair about presenting them; Moore is not one of them. His criticisms are based on his own fantasy world where Clarke was a hero, Iraq all hates America, and Bush intentionally lied to Congress.

In fact, Clarke rebuked his film, Iraq is generally in support of the United States (nobody wants to hear on the news though "the Iraqi people were happy today"; the news saves their Iraq headlines for "Iraqi suicide bomber kills 40"; do some research outside of the liberal media and you'll find that these same people who hate America are the ones killing their own police too; they're former party members), and three independent investigations by the American, Russian, and British intelligence agencies found no indications at all that Bush was lying. These are all just dellusions that Moore has in his head and he has made up and twisted facts to support them.

As I've shown above, he's not glorifying Iraqi violent revolution.

Just watch the film.

I refer you once again to my point above... Where has Moore praised the 'enemy'?

All throughout F911 when he shows Americans as evil and sadistic, then Iraqis as peaceful victims, deliberately demonizing our own troops and supporting rebellion again the US. Once again I point you to the quote about "militiamen."

You still haven't shown proof of Moore slandering Bush.

His accusations that Bush allowed specific flights out were completely false. The dates were false, the lack of interrogation was false, and the person who he cited approving it was false. Clarke himself (a Bush opponent) who did the approving pointed this out. It is a fact that Moore lied.

It's sickening that you can't see how your country and military are portrayed in the cinemas and on the TVs in other countries around the world.

That has nothing to do with who they actually are. Movies are movies, reality is reality.

Finally for this quote, I've seen Abu Graibe... I've seen films and TV in which the US armed forces are portrayed

Did you even read the investigation reports as to what happened or who was responsible though? If so, please cite for me who they found responsible for it. I'll give you a hint: it's not Bush, Rumsfeld, or the whole military at large.

If Hollywood and US TV are getting how the US military behaves drastically wrong... Where's the thread holding them to standards?

There's never been a thread holding Hollywood to standards. Hollywood's portrayal of life is fantasy, period. To believe otherwise is to become delluded between reality and the fantasy of a bunch of script writers. I get my facts and conclusions about reality from reality. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "It's just a movie?" Sadly, because of people like you who apparently don't get out into the real world and learn about the real world and instead take movies as reality, that saying doesn't apply.

As I said, however unlikely, he could become president within the constitution.

That's nice. He couldn't pass any of his socialist ideals though, even as President. They're unconstitutional, period.

Where's the proof that Moore is advocating overthrow of democracy and the constitution?

Please study Moore's work a little more, especially his earlier movies condemning the US and glorifying Russia. If you don't have the time for that, there are plenty of links within the past 15 pages that you can check. I'm getting tired of arguing with someone who is defending someone he hasn't even done any serious research about.

Republics and socialism are not mutually incompatible.

How can I make this any more clear? THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN THE FORM OF A SOCIALISM GOVERNMENT. It's REALLY simple. Our democratic, freedom-assuring government is defined there, and socialism couldn't be implimented without defying them.

And whether anyone thinks they're right or wrong doesn't stop the fact that the USA is getting bad press around the world from a lot of it's own citizens.

Hence why I try to give it good press by rebuking said ignorant people. I freaking live in America and I'm politically active, don't try to act like you have a better personal perspective than I do.

I thought America fought for freedom, democracy and stuff like that! Freedom of speech to critisise the goverment/country/people.

Yes, he's free to, and I'm free to say he's not "patriotic" for doing so.

I've shown where you've gone wrong on this one...

No, you haven't. You've shown how he justifies himself in thinking that Iraq should win. You most definitely did not show that he didn't say that Iraq should win. You know why? Because he did. Quit trying to twist the facts. He referred to them as "militiamen" and "revolutionaries" and said they would defeat us. He glorified them and demonized us. You have to be a vegetable not to get the message.

As a British citizen I've never actually read the American constitution, no.

Yet here you are trying to educate me on it? I've taken two years of education on it and another half year on American Government in general.

As I said, I have a lifetime of US TV, film, book, media experiences to go by

You're killing me. Why the hell would you get your information from the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY? It's specifically designed to display views of reality that you like! Since you don't like Americans, it's designed to make you happy in not liking Americans!

How much pro-Moore stuff have you looked at?

None in this thread, because, as I commented in my first post, the pro-Moore side seems to just be spouting a ton of opinions and very little actual research source material.

Yeah, well, Moore directed "Canadian Bacon". That makes him just fine in my book.

Ouch, I have to give Moore a point on that one.

outright balls-out lies like the famed WoMD one

Please show me an independent/bipartisan investigation that concluded this. Three from US, British, and Russian intelligence concluded that it was not a lie. I've debated a lot of people on this, and seen Moore even debate on this, and there's been no source that I've ever seen that had facts to say that Bush told an open lie. If you said my country's name is Lumana, you would not be telling a lie. If I changed it, you would still have not told a lie; you acted upon the best information that was available at the time.

No matter what you think of the guy, his documentaries raise extremely valid points.

Correction: he raises valid issues. Whether we went to war or not is a valid issue. Moore's slanderous points about it were not valid points.

How is it unpatriotic to be against war, exploitation and Bush?

He's not against war (he supports Iraqi "militiamen" killing US civilians and their own citizens in Iraq), he's not against exploitation (considering his films are exploitive in nature themselves), and he's not just against Bush (Bush just makes an easy target for him, since he can go grouping together "war, greed, capitalism" and call them all evil with one stone; you know, guilt by association) but against capitalism as a whole.

oh, and lumana?

You're an idiot.

I love you too.

If some other country attacked mine, I am going to defend her anyway I can

The problem is, you realize, that 50-70% or more of the casualties as the result of these attacks he supports as "militiamen" are Iraqi civilians, right? And that many of them don't even target American soliders, but try to take out law enforcement, electricity, and oil lines to hurt the population of Iraq? And you do realize that most of Iraq doesn't support them because they do so, correct? They're considered as "patriotic" in Iraq as those who went and beat up Arabs after 9/11 were considered in America.

There's absolutely no comparing this kind of open terrorism with valid revolution. These "militiamen" are killing their own people in far greater numbers than the Americans are.

For Americans to try and cast Moore in a bad light because of his statement, then they clearly are guilty of not being able to rationalize the essence of his message.

The essence of his message is that what we call "terrorism" can be sympathized with and even supported because we as Americans had our own revolution which was somehow comparible to theirs. The fact is, there is no comparison between suicide bombers knocking out their own city infrastructures and killing their own people with Americans who took up arms and fought directly against the British armed soldiers. It's disgusting that he would try to manipulate people into thinking "If you're American, you should sympathize with Iraq."

And still no one has any facts that disprove Moore's 9/11 movie.

Are you blind, stupid, or just plain lying?

Oh dear Lumana... You really do lead a blinkered, sheltered and uncooperative life don't you? I'm starting to feel sad that you really don't want to listen to anyone, but just keep shouting the same rubbish again and again, louder and louder... Typical bully tactics that make you look like the idiot you were called earlier.

I'm also saddened to see that you're still carrying on editting and cherry-picking little bits of arguments from here and there, and using quotes out of context... Something you're rabidly accusing Michael Moore of doing right here in this thread! LOL... Read back over my post and see that I'm quoting you wholly and fully so that there's no misdirection. Something which you're not even very good at.

OK... Here we go again... *sigh*

I'm sorry, I was thinking the wrong film. In <a href="http://industrycentral.net/director_interviews/MM02.HTM">this interview</a> Moore cited the last line of his film <i>The Big One</i> as being "One evil empire down, one to go" and explained that he was definitely talking about taking down the current American economic system completely by taking out the current government and putting in his own pro-socialist government. That was the one I meant to refer to.

Note his rather flat answer to the question "Is it okay to say you think capitalism on some level is okay?"

You've still not answerd my question (what a surprise). How are you defining Socialism? France is socialist, capitalist and democratic. Sweden is socialist, capitalist and democratic. Holland is socialist, capitalist and democratic, the UK is socialist (nominally) capitalist and democratic... So how on Earth can you still go round claiming that socialism is absolutely opposed to capitalism and democracy? I put it to you again... If you see 'Socialism' as sybolising the tyrannical way that communist Russia was ruled for most of the 20th century, then I'm afraid you've got your head stuck right up your arse.

If you're accusing Moore of supporting Soviet style communism, then say so... Stop hiding behind your lie of claiming that socialism is anathema to democracy and capitalism. It isn't, as any half intelligent political student would be able to tell you.

He's a man with socialist ideals exploiting capitalistic means to further them. Hence why I called him a hypocrite at the end of the statement you quoted. I believe this is the view that I've been givng the whole time, isn't it? He's good at exploiting capitalism, but he does so in efforts to abolish it. He figures "Hey, as long as capitalism is here I win with my money, and when it's not I win with my ideals. I win either way." He loves playing both sides of everything to benefit himself.

ROFL! Another question neatly dodged! And you're scraping the bottom of the barrel... Again... PLEASE define what YOU mean by socialism, as I think you're misrepresenting a very important worlwide political belief system here.

I bet you'd throw a major fit if I kept misrepresenting capitaism as fascism! Before you start denouncing a political belief system it helps to know what the beliefs actually are!

You do mean September 11, right? And there's no doubt that the movie title was a play on Fahrenheit 451. The question is was it more than just a play on words, and I think that's a valid one.

Yes... It's just that away from the USA, the rest of the world write dates differently. Hence away from the USA we would have referred to September 11 2001 as 11-9-2001. So seeing 9-11 should mean November 9th if we hadn't already had to take the Americanisation of the date into account. The fact that everyone refers to it as 9-11 now though doesn't mean we use your date system. Some mistakes are likely, but I think the original there was just a wind-up.

I reckon you're right here, you have posed a valid question. But it's not one I feel I can answer as I've not read the origianl Fahrenheit 451.

The US Constitution is in staunch opposition to Moore's ideals. Please take a few courses in as every American has to, or at least do some actual research and READ the freaking thing, before commenting on what is and isn't American.

How can a constitution oppose a person? LOL... Sorry that was a bit trite wasn't it. OK... Here we go...

I've told you a few times now... I'M NOT AN AMERICAN! I don't have to read the whole thing verbatim. I'll ask you again *sigh* (another question unanswered) Have you actually read the whole constitution? I've read parts, I've seen a copy, I've heard it quoted in the media (which includes news and documentaries as well as 'entertainment'). I know enough about it to be able to talk about it. In fact I bet I know more about your constitution than 50% of the US population!!!

I've told you before... I'm politically aware. I'm intelligent... I know how many beans make five. Your belittling and insulting tone appearing in this post, along with your misrepresentation and selective editting show you're already out of your depth and struggling with a lot of the more fundamental points of the situation. Proof? Your continual denial to explain your version of socialism!

Because three independent investigations by US (bipartisan), British, and Russian intelligence all agreed unanymously that there was no deception by any of the world leaders about the facts that they had? It's a matter of fact now; please don't go playing cards that were thrown out of the deck months ago, it just shows you're behind on actual world events.

Oh dear... If you knew a little more about UK politics you wouldn't be saying things like this. Who's the one that's behind? Three independent investigations... So why are there still questions about how much Blair knew and when? And if Blair knew, surely Bush would have known as well! You may be throwing cards from the deck that don't fit your narrow-minded view, but I've NEVER cheated in a card game in my life, and I ain't gonna start now.

That's equivalent to saying if I killed my roommate now, it's only murder if they find the body and bring me to court on it. Obvious either way I've still murdered him. Prosecution or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether his claims were slanderous or not.

ROFL!!! Oh dear AGAIN!!! Another kneejerk style misrepresentation of my argument! Perhaps you ought to read through posts twice in future rather than skimming them and not understanding what's being said...

If you 'killed' your room-mate, it doesn't necessarily mean you murdered him/her. Unless of course you admit to 'murder' in which case you're self-confessing guilt. (*sigh* why do I try with these silly points?) If you refute the murder allegation, then you are only 'a murderer' after a trial in which prosecution and defense have put forward the facts and a jury has found you guilty.

YET AGAIN! Innocent until proven guilty!!! Slander is a legal term and has a very tight legal definition. Come ON... Smell the coffee... THINK about what's being said here, rather than just marching blindly into your cul-de-sac of blinkered thinking.

Of course, he is free to pretend he is someone who he is not. And we are free to call him on his deception. Of course, you'd also be free to be ignorant of it and follow him like he's a god. None of these things have any bearings on an intelligent debate. The fact is, the man deliberately portrays himself in a manner to misguide his audience. It's not illegal; it is part of his general manipulative nature.

And your point is? Do you think Bush doesn't dress up for the occasion? Do you think Blair doesn't dress up to suit an audience? Jeeeeez... You can comment on Moore's dress style all you like. It just shows that your political arguments are insufficient for your stand.

You say "None of these things have any bearings on an intelligent debate." yet it was you who brought this subject up in the first place! BANG! Another bullet in the Lumana foot... It must be very painful by now. ;)

Nor did I say it was. This was addressing the point of people calling him "patriotic."

BZZZZZZZT! WRONG! Blatant lie by Lumana revealed shock horror! ;) You railed against him being in Europe and calling all Americans stupid. Please go back and review the posts before trying to wriggle out of a tight corner. I repeat, there are Americans everywhere who dislike what the US government is doing and agreeing with Moore's sentiments. They're free to do so no matter how much you'd like to shut them up.

I've copy-pasted off the same page every time I quoted him.

*Yawn* And don't we know it!

That's bullshit.

*sigh* More reasoned debate I see... Violence is the last resort of a lost argument. And swearing like that is violence in my book. Come and talk like that to my face and see what happens. You've just TOTALLY lost any respect I had for you. You want to start ignorant street-brawling swear contests? You couldn't handle the pressure. You'd throw a punch and end up in hospital. PLEASE... Reasoned debate.

The only context I could think of in which that quote could be morally acceptible was if he was an Iraqi terrorist who supported violent uprising against the US. He is not, he claims to be an American. No American who says something this utterly anti-American (in the literal sense of advocating the killing of Americans) should be called "patriotic."

LOL!!! Spot the closed mind. The blinkered approach. The unmoveable belief in righteousness. See an argument, ignore an argument. See a point, misrepresent the point. You're not even reading what I type are you? And if you are, it's not going in at all is it? You're not even thinking about what I put up here are you? I've studied what you've put here, and I've admitted I see your point, I'm just saying that there's more than one context to your quote. I and others do not see it as being anti-American. We don't see where he advocates the killing of Americans... But we can see where you can infer that. You're not even willing to try are you? *sigh*

Exactly, he's trying to say that we are evil and the Iraqis are righteous and that their violent uprising is justified and that we as Americans, just as we supported our revolution, should support them; he's asking Americans to betray their country. The irony is that he's using an American metaphor regarding "minutemen" to oppose America itself.

No he's not... And you're obviously not interested in what I've put. I've explained it twice now, and your mind is closed. He's not asking for support for traitorous acts, he's warning of what's happening in the country.

And we do not. People slicing off the heads of Americans peacefully working to rebuild their country and sending the videos to their families are terrorists, period. It is irrelevant what they "see themselves as." Our American revolution involved killing soldiers, not civilians.

BZZZZZZT! Wrong again. Your uprising used guerrilla and terrorist tactics to bring a reign of chaos over large swathes of the eastern seaboard of the USA. And if you believe that your insurgent minutemen terrorists never attacked civilian targets than it just goes to show that you know nothing about the American Revolution. Blacks especially were massacred during that war to stop them siding with the abolitionist British. Check it out.

Again, I've used emotive language in the above paragraph, my terrorists are your patriots and freedom fighters. And it does matter what "they" think. If they don't see that these "peaceful" Americans dropping bombs from 40,000 feet and shelling the crap out of large parts of cities are rebuilding their country to a US specification, then there will always be terror attacks against US and coalition targets. As we in the UK know from vast experience, a war on terrorism isn't an easy thing to finish, let alone win.

A lot of Americans sponsored murderous Irish terrorists to bomb pubs, cinemas, museums, bandstands... Places where innocent civilians gathered and died horribly. I'm sure those same Americans thought of the IRA terrorists as freedom fighters and minutemen. When you can appreciate the belief behind a cause, you can start to act on the cause rather than the effect. I think that's Moore's point that you've quoted again and again.

Especially not our own people, as these suicide bombers repeatedly do. The analogy is sickeningly ridiculous. These people are not minutemen to most of the Iraqis; they are traitorous followers of a fallen regime which murdered their families and left them in poverty and led their country to ruin. Moore's view is shared principally by terrorists and those sympathetic to them, and not the Iraqi people at large. I know young men as friends who have served in Iraq. The people there are not terrorist-lovers, they don't condone the continued bloodshed, and they hate these terrorists because they cut their power, their gas lines, and kill their law enforcement and civilians alike. They do nothing beneficial for the country and the Iraqi people realize it.

Using the Irish analogy above, you'd be surprised at how few Northern Irish and British citizens supported the IRA, yet they were still seen as freedom-fighters with a just cause by some Americans. So what's your point again?

You're defending Moore having not even SEEN the film?!

Yes that's right. Look at the subject header... "Michael Moore: Idiot or Liar?" Where does it say "Only for people who've seen F 911"? Please keep up and pay attention. I'm arguing pro-Moore because as I said in my last post (which you may not have read properly judging by your response) "I've not seen F 911 yet (although I've seen other Moore films and read his books)" Do you want me to list all the Moore material I've seen and read? Is there a minimum Moore take-in test that I may have failed? JAYZUS MAN! Where do you get off telling me I can't participate in a debate about Moore because I've not seen one film? What are you trying to do, get some kind of willy-wagging contest going here?

How much Moore material have you actually seen and read? How competent are your arguments? Do you have the requisite word amout in your Moore library? For crying out loud I don't expect you to answer any of these questions... I'm just showing you how pathetic your statement is.

I actually didn't mind Bowling of Columbine relatively, and I was hoping F911 would be good when I went to see it (I actually went on my birthday to), and it was the worst piece of biased, misrepresented, slanderous garbage against Bush I have ever seen. I've seen liberals who have valid criticisms of Bush and are fair about presenting them; Moore is not one of them. His criticisms are based on his own fantasy world where Clarke was a hero, Iraq all hates America, and Bush intentionally lied to Congress.

Personal subjective point raised above and you are perfectly entitled to it so I'll pass straight on.

In fact, Clarke rebuked his film, Iraq is generally in support of the United States (nobody wants to hear on the news though "the Iraqi people were happy today"; the news saves their Iraq headlines for "Iraqi suicide bomber kills 40"; do some research outside of the liberal media and you'll find that these same people who hate America are the ones killing their own police too; they're former party members), and three independent investigations by the American, Russian, and British intelligence agencies found no indications at all that Bush was lying. These are all just dellusions that Moore has in his head and he has made up and twisted facts to support them.

LOL... At last we can agree on something. The media is famous for prefering bad news over good news any day of the week. It's one of the more annoying facts of life. And funnily enough something Moore pointed out a lot in Bowling For Columbine and in his books.

Bush lying? I refer back to my point above.

Moore delusional? Do you know what the word means? Surely you're slandering Michael Moore in your own definition of the word slander? And if he's not delusional then you're all out lying. Either way, BANG! Oh dear, is that another hole in your shoe?

Just watch the film.

I intend to, but I'm certainly not following your orders. I'll watch it because I want to and not because you told me to.

All throughout F911 when he shows Americans as evil and sadistic, then Iraqis as peaceful victims, deliberately demonizing our own troops and supporting rebellion again the US. Once again I point you to the quote about "militiamen."

Supporting rebellion against the USA? I've already put this one to bed... Keep up mate.

What quote about "militiamen"? I've not seen a quote about "militiamen" here. Or do you mean Minutemen as used in your Moore quote I posted earlier? If so why have you changed from Minutemen to militiamen? And if you are pointing me to your quote from Moore, I'll redirect you to my replies to that quote in my last post and this one.

His accusations that Bush allowed specific flights out were completely false. The dates were false, the lack of interrogation was false, and the person who he cited approving it was false. Clarke himself (a Bush opponent) who did the approving pointed this out. It is a fact that Moore lied.

This point has been argued all over the web, and the media in general. It seems that Moore did get this point wrong from what I've read, and this is the main argument that the whole of Moore's career should be ignored completely. I'm sure I can find out somewhere where Bush lied at some time... Oh yeah... His National Guard record may well contain a bunch of them. I hope you'll hold all of Bush's career in the same regard as you do Moore's.

That has nothing to do with who they actually are. Movies are movies, reality is reality.

*sigh* Like DUH! Fanks fer dat! I never did realised! *sigh*

Are you saying that the US military, in fact the USA in general is totally different to that which I've witnessed in film and print? LOL... I don't think so. I'm sorry but if you're impuning my ability to argue a point because I cite film, TV, books, magazines, newspapers and experience as a broad basis for my assumptions about the USA, then I'm afraid I'll have to ask you how you can talk so easily and authorititively about the goings on in countries of the middle east! Been there? Have you ever left the USA in fact? How can you use the American Revolution in your arguments? Were you there? Did you witness it personally? Or did you, like me, learn about it through films, TV, books, etc etc... Oh I forgot, you already proved you know very little about the actual American Revolution earlier.

Did you even read the investigation reports as to what happened or who was responsible though? If so, please cite for me who they found responsible for it. I'll give you a hint: it's not Bush, Rumsfeld, or the whole military at large.

Where did I claim it was? I suppose you're referring to Abu Graibe here. I've not read the investigation repeorts, no. Have you? Come on, it'd be easy for me to lie and claim I've read every document there is, but I don't do that. Have you read this investigation report thoroughly or are you like me going by what you've seen and heard reported, read in newpapers, journals and books?

Anyway, I don't need to read any investigative report to know that there were US military personel in that awful prison doing horrendous things to the prisoners. US men and women allowed to get away with humiliation and degradation of other humnan beings. US citizens with a US supplied unifiorm and mandate in that place denying prisoners their basic human, religious and civil rights just to get their own jollies. Humiliating and torturing Iraqis in exactly the same way that Saddam Hussein did. Deny that do you? Because if you do you're dangerously close to being a revisionist. Holocaust? What holocaust?

There's never been a thread holding Hollywood to standards. Hollywood's portrayal of life is fantasy, period. To believe otherwise is to become delluded between reality and the fantasy of a bunch of script writers. I get my facts and conclusions about reality from reality. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "It's just a movie?" Sadly, because of people like you who apparently don't get out into the real world and learn about the real world and instead take movies as reality, that saying doesn't apply.

Now you're off with the insults. Another proof to me that you know you're on shaky ground. If you can't attack the argument, attack the arguer. *sigh* Two can play at that game and you'll notice I've not been quite so nice to you in return because of certain tones and insults contained within your post.

But anyway... So again, everything film and TV entertainment show is so unlike reality that it must be disregarded as pure fantasy? LOL!! And again the delusion insult... Tut tut tut... I thought better of you.

Are you saying that the war in Viet Nam was absolutely nothing like it was depicted in Platoon? Apocalypse Now? Full Metal Jacket? Are you trying to tell me that Saving Private Ryan was totally unlike real events during the second world war? Are you trying to say that films like Blackhawk Down, JFK and Thirteen Days have absolutely no basis in reality? Perlease...

I know what delusional means and if you actually believe that reality isn't like that then I'm pointing a finger firmly in your direction. Pfffft...

I get my facts and opinions from life experience. Which includes all manner of influences, factual, semi-fictional, fictional and fantasy. Unlike you though, I can learn from all these experiences and, yes... I can throw out the irrelevent rubbish and sift truth from my whole experience. To claim that you see life as totally different from the vast majority of the world is... *ahem*... delusional?

Finally you're making a huge assumption that you know me here! "People like <me> who don't get out into the real world"? Again insulting... Another lost argument there matey. Sorry to keep pointing out your weaknesses, but you need to learn from someone... I have a very active social life, job, house, family, grandchild... I also enjoy debate and the internet... You can make an assumption that I don't get out into the real world from what? Come on? You want to play at being pathetic, then back up your lame statements.

Again, slander by your definition and lyes by mine. I accuse you of being an ignorant lying slanderer. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION!!! GUFFAW!!! LOL and ROFL... :D

That's nice. He couldn't pass any of his socialist ideals though, even as President. They're unconstitutional, period.

Are you still confusing your political ideals? Aaawwwww... Bless... Come on, I've discounted this rubbish, try again or tell me what you think socialism is. LOL... Full stop!

Please study Moore's work a little more, especially his earlier movies condemning the US and glorifying Russia. If you don't have the time for that, there are plenty of links within the past 15 pages that you can check. I'm getting tired of arguing with someone who is defending someone he hasn't even done any serious research about.

Again, how much of Michael Moore's work do I have to have seen/read according to your minimum requirement, to have a point of view? And again you show yourself up for not actually reading or taking any notice of what I've said so far. I've read all his published books so far, I've been a regular visitor to his website for a few years now. I've seen two of his films... I've already admitted to having read anti-Moore propaganda sites, and I've read all the posts in this thread... How much have you done? OK, you've admitted you've seen two films... That's less than me so far? So I'll throw your argument back at you, I'm sick of arguing with someone who is attacking somebody he/she hasn't even done any serious research on.

BANG! Oh no... Not again... You really ought to be more careful where you point that gun. How many toes left now? ;)

How can I make this any more clear? THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN THE FORM OF A SOCIALISM GOVERNMENT. It's REALLY simple. Our democratic, freedom-assuring government is defined there, and socialism couldn't be implimented without defying them.

You can MAKE IT MORE CLEAR by defining what you think constitutes Moore's socialism. Explain why his socialist agenda is un-American and unconstitutional please. And yet again, are you confusing socialism for Soviet communism. Looking more and more likely the more I read your posts. I really don't think you understand modern politics at all!

Hence why I try to give it good press by rebuking said ignorant people. I freaking live in America and I'm politically active, don't try to act like you have a better personal perspective than I do.

You "freaking" live in America? Hey... calm down fella, take a chill pill maaan. Jeeeez, why get so worked up? The people bad-mouthing America to me (and those I've met who're more like you) are as ignorant and unignorant as you are mate. Such generalisations... "They don't think like me therefore they must be dumb!" DUH! Sorry mate but I think you might actually enjoy living in a Stalinist thought-police controlled state. Again I doubt your political intellect.

Politically active? In what way precisely? And if you mean you vote, then I'm politically active too. So you actually work for a political party? Lobby group? You're an actual active politician? Sorry mate, but politically active, means active... politically. Hence the reason I've never claimed such a thing. I don't work for any political ideal.

LOL... I don't have to act like I have a better political perspective than you. By reading our posts it'd be obvious to any right-thinking person that I actually posess a better political perspective than you. *sigh*

Yes, he's free to, and I'm free to say he's not "patriotic" for doing so.

Fair enough. We agree. We'll close this one then.

No, you haven't. You've shown how he justifies himself in thinking that Iraq should win. You most definitely did not show that he didn't say that Iraq should win. You know why? Because he did. Quit trying to twist the facts. He referred to them as "militiamen" and "revolutionaries" and said they would defeat us. He glorified them and demonized us. You have to be a vegetable not to get the message.

BANG! Surely there aren't too many bullets left in that gun... Oh dear look at your poor feet.

Again please note the shift from Minutemen to militiamen... Your argument is shifting... Come on pay attention there... Try reading the posts instead of rattling off drivel like this in your impotent rage.

*Yawn* I've stated my position, I've accepted how you've come to your position... You ignore the facts and opinions of others and blindy keep soldiering away with your blinkers on. You're getting boring now mate. So there's never two ways to read a statement? Haven't you heard of irony? Oh sorry, of course you've heard of it.

Yet here you are trying to educate me on it? I've taken two years of education on it and another half year on American Government in general.

*YAWN!* Yes, here I am. Yes, I am trying to educate you. I'm sorry you don't like being told the truth. But then I should've expected that from your position in this debate.

Now, you've disparaged and insulted me and accused me of not researching my subject properly. It would be oh so easy to come out with a line like "Only two and a half years of education? That would make you seven and a half years old." But because it's the sort of childish rubbish that you write thinking it grown-up political debate, I won't. ;)

You're killing me. Why the hell would you get your information from the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY? It's specifically designed to display views of reality that you like! Since you don't like Americans, it's designed to make you happy in not liking Americans!

Why the hell shouldn't I use the entertainment industry to form part of my beliefs and views? I suppose you've never watched a semi-fictional film? Never read a novel based in fact and reality? Remember your favourite word? Delusional? *wanders off whistling*... I direct you up to my previous point on this silly stand of yours.

"Since <I> don't like Americans"... Let's study this statement. You show me in these fora exactly where I've said I don't like Americans. Go on... Find the quote... Please, I'd love to see it. Slander and lies again. SLANDER AND LIES!!! Here's another word you may like to peruse alonside delusional. It's 'paranoid'. Yes PARANOID or PARANOIA.. Go look it up whilst the search engine for this forum comes back with "match not found". Bloody hell...

None in this thread, because, as I commented in my first post, the pro-Moore side seems to just be spouting a ton of opinions and very little actual research source material.

The films and books of Moore stand up for themselves. He's laid out his stall, and the opinions are coming from all sides. LOL... Very little research?... Wait for it... ;)

BANG! LOL! I've shown you here how your views don't stand up to close scrutiny. I've asked for you to elucidate some points and lo and behold... Nothing forthcoming. Where's your research? Watching the film? Not enough matey. You'll need new socks as well.

Ouch, I have to give Moore a point on that one.

Fair enough then. Another agreement.

Please show me an independent/bipartisan investigation that concluded this. Three from US, British, and Russian intelligence concluded that it was not a lie. I've debated a lot of people on this, and seen Moore even debate on this, and there's been no source that I've ever seen that had facts to say that Bush told an open lie. If you said my country's name is Lumana, you would not be telling a lie. If I changed it, you would still have not told a lie; you acted upon the best information that was available at the time.

Good point, and an excellent example. As I've said, Blair's still not out of the woods on this one, and it could backfire on Bush if it goes wrong for Blair. But the more time goes by on this one, the harder it'll be for accusations to stick. I doubt we'll ever know the truth in our lifetimes, so my earlier argument of innocent until proven guilty should be applied to this point. Can I paraphrase you please?

OUCH. I have to give you a point on that one.

Correction: he raises valid issues. Whether we went to war or not is a valid issue. Moore's slanderous points about it were not valid points.

Whether we went to war or not is not an issue... Fact is we did! The issue is whether we should have. That term slander again and it's been done to death above.

He's not against war (he supports Iraqi "militiamen" killing US civilians and their own citizens in Iraq), he's not against exploitation (considering his films are exploitive in nature themselves), and he's not just against Bush (Bush just makes an easy target for him, since he can go grouping together "war, greed, capitalism" and call them all evil with one stone; you know, guilt by association) but against capitalism as a whole.

I refer you again to my point above. He's never supported Iraqi militiamen killing anyone! Boy you really have a one track mind don't you. And why has Minutemen become militiamen again... I'm starting to see even more distortion, misrepresentation and lies in your argument. In fact I've proved more lies and misrepresented facts in just one of your posts than the anti-Moore camp have produced in a whole film! *sigh*.

I love you too.

No reply required.

The problem is, you realize, that 50-70% or more of the casualties as the result of these attacks he supports as "militiamen" are Iraqi civilians, right? And that many of them don't even target American soliders, but try to take out law enforcement, electricity, and oil lines to hurt the population of Iraq? And you do realize that most of Iraq doesn't support them because they do so, correct? They're considered as "patriotic" in Iraq as those who went and beat up Arabs after 9/11 were considered in America.

I broadly agree with you here. The terrorists are hurting more Iraqis than Americans, but then there are a lot more Iraqis there than Americans so they're the easier target. Especially the ones seen working with the USA. Police, oil company workers etc. Now we may disagree about a lot of things, but we're in accord on this point.

There's absolutely no comparing this kind of open terrorism with valid revolution. These "militiamen" are killing their own people in far greater numbers than the Americans are.

Dealt with above... It's that same point yet again.

The essence of his message is that what we call "terrorism" can be sympathized with and even supported because we as Americans had our own revolution which was somehow comparible to theirs. The fact is, there is no comparison between suicide bombers knocking out their own city infrastructures and killing their own people with Americans who took up arms and fought directly against the British armed soldiers. It's disgusting that he would try to manipulate people into thinking "If you're American, you should sympathize with Iraq."

ROFL! Again, please at least read one book about the American Revolution... And again, I direct you to my rebuttal earlier in this post and at length in my previous post.

Are you blind, stupid, or just plain lying?

Oh dear... What a silly way to end your post. Although I think you should reconsider the word lying... I mean I've already proved that you're a liar plenty of times in this post alone. Pot? Kettle?

By the way, I didn't raise my glass to you last night at 10:30 GMT as I was on the bus home by then. I did however crack a bottle of beer when I got home and I did drink your health at 10:57 pm GMT.

Despite the tone of these posts, I'll not revoke that toast to you. Cheers.

you folks must have a lot of time on your hands if you can type these extremely long posts. Well done :)

I really admire those who stand up for their opinions and believes. I myself am too much of a pleaser (meaning: I tend to please people over putting my point across). But I fully agree with Fodzonia. It's not that often that one does not have to correct or attribute to a post. I Agree with 95% of what he has posted.
Well done lads.

Gee, what a fun thread to read. And still no one has any facts that disprove Moore's 9/11 movie.

Seems like the rightwing way. You disagree with someone so you bury your head in the sand and shout at the top of your lungs that the person is a liar and unpatriotic. Put your hands over your ears and refuse to hear anything.

Wait until this real documentary comes out.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

I wonder why the liberal press isn't pumping up the release of this true film.