NationStates Jolt Archive

Quotes from everybodies favorite rolly-polly lunatic.

Speaking about 9/11, "Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"http://www.refuseandresist.org/normalcy/091401moore.html

WTF???

From a comedy club rant, "the passengers were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes."
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030111-6357097.htm

What a dumb shit.

"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/13/3f8a2589eee03[/quote]

Yeah, Asshole, tell that to the 3000 dead.

And my all time favorite:
"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks,” he replied. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”
http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/002058.html

Don't confuse your idiocy with our apathy about the world.

Click here. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/189866)

Click here. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/189866)
Sucks that that guy uses the same name I generally use (why didn't I call my nation Walrustopia you ask....shut up, thats why....) That dude doesn't even look like a walrus....I have to earn this goofiness, dammit...

See, this just doesn't work.

People do Bush Quotes because Bush is just the biggest dumb fucker ever. He says the stupidest things, and even while he is saying them he mispronounces then, or forgets what he is saying. It's not because anyone hates him (although alot of people do).

It doesn't work with Moore.

Moore, like most competent people, does NOT mispronounce words or forget what he is saying. So trying to compare what could be called "Moore Quotes" with "Bush Quotes" is like trying to compare apples with cheese.

On the other hand, what he is actually saying isn't something you should just put down immediately. Some of the stuff that is inappropriate (I am a Moore supporter and I still think that it is inappropriate by the way) is also just sarcasm. He doesn't actually hold those opinions, he's just saying them to get a point across.

However the other stuff, which isn't sarcasm, is actually either the truth or a VERY good opinion, backed with loads of information. When he says, "There is no terroist threat in this country," he is telling the truth. Yes 9/11 happened but THAT WAS IT. When he says "Americans are the dumbest people in the world" well of course you are just going to immediately dismiss that because you don't like to hear it. I won't say he's right, because not all Americans are stupid, but I will say that a hell of a lot of you are, and sadly, so many of them are in positions of power, or at least get a voice out to the country.

Although I stick up for Moore, and everything that he is for (I don't see how you can't after reading his books and seeing his movies) I must admit that if I didn't stick up for him, he would look evil. :eek:

Ok, I'm done. Ball's in your court now.

I also enjoy how all the links are to conservative newspapers, you mean, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, I'm glad you're a moonie.

Ok, I'm done. Ball's in your court now.
Actually the ball is not in their court because it went right by them. In tennis this is called an "ace". I do believe that you "aced" your opponents. Three cheers!! :D

Actually the ball is not in their court because it went right by them. In tennis this is called an "ace". I do believe that you "aced" your opponents. Three cheers!! :D

So you are won over by someone saying quotes aren't relevant unless they have mispronunciations or misspellings? Someone who dismissed inappropriate comments as sarcasm with a wave of the wand. No wonder you are taken in by Moore.

So you are won over by someone saying quotes aren't relevant unless they have mispronunciations or misspellings? Someone who dismissed inappropriate comments as sarcasm with a wave of the wand. No wonder you are taken in by Moore.
Did I say that? Was I attacking Bush's misspeak? NOPE

I was supporting the Michael Moore side of the argument because after all, this thread was meant to attack Moore. :eek:

And my all time favorite:

Quote:
"They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks,” he replied. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”


http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/002058.html

Don't confuse your idiocy with our apathy about the world.

Are you saying that most Americans are interested in foreign news? On what I've heard the americans are one of the people who have the least interest in what happens outside their country in the world, and I had this info from bias research. Maybe people in certain states push the statistics down. Probably Americans are now very interested in anything that involves the word "terrorism", so in a way terrorism is a good thing. Thanks to terrorism americans have gotten some interest in foreign news. Maybe thats why the US goverment desided to go too war in the Middle East under false reasons, to get the 'ol interest in foreign nations back, some geography for the citizens. Do you see any news about foreign countries that doesn't involve terrorism?

Seeing what happens in foreign nations is very good to understand some conflicts, it puts everything into perspective and you begin to understand that not every country has got the same views on certain matters...

Here's a Michael Moore quote that could be no more true.

"I'll have, ummm... 3 quarter pounders and 8 large fries"

Did I say that? Was I attacking Bush's misspeak? NOPE

I was supporting the Michael Moore side of the argument because after all, this thread was meant to attack Moore. :eek:

No you weren't. You were commending someone for their post that stated that a thread based on Moore Quotes "doesn't work" because Moore doesn't mispronounce words like Bush does.
The poster then wrote off all Moore's "inappropriate" comments as sarcasm and you gave him 3 cheers and bleated about it being "an ace"

You said nothing in support of Moore. You just danced around like a little cheerleader on the sidelines.

Do any of u guys know the story of Michael Moore getting fed up with the constant Conservative domination of a seat (in the 2000 Bush-Gore Election, I think), and entering a ficus (fern) as the opposition candidate, and the ficus won but couldn't enter Congress (you draw your own conclusions as to why)?
Whats up with that?

PS I live in Australia and have a severely limited knowledge of American politics so plz dont make fun of me...

He tried to run a ficus tree for Congress, but was unable to get it on the ballot. He chronicled it on his tv show "The Awful Truth."

Why cant you parroting monkies actually have an original thought and come up with your OWN thread ideas?

Actually, there are some issues that he's right on.

For example, and I'm sorry, I'm american, but...WE'RE FUCKING IDIOTS. Face it folks, most of our population can't find half the countries we hate on a map. MORE then half of them can't pronounce their names. I'm suck and fucking tired of people talking about "eye-rack." It's "ee-rock!" Holy shit people are dumb.

I've seen pro-war and anti-war protester, and they're no better! They MISPELL the damn word! It's four letters long-NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

So, in conclusion...yes. Americans are fucking retarded when it comes to foreign affairs.



As for the comedy club thing, face it-he's a fucking comic, he's going to make fun of shit. Sooner or later, people WILL use 9/11 as a source of humour. I have NO doubt in my mind that there's been at least one comedian who's made fun of Pearl Harbor. Will they be successful? Will people find them funny? Hell, I dunno. But there's going to be someone who makes fun of it. Period.

They MISPELL the damn word!
Ironically, you have misspelled "misspell."

See, this just doesn't work.

People do Bush Quotes because Bush is just the biggest dumb fucker ever. He says the stupidest things, and even while he is saying them he mispronounces then, or forgets what he is saying. It's not because anyone hates him (although alot of people do).

It doesn't work with Moore.
who implied that this is a comparison with bush's quotes? are you saying that whenever someone makes a thread about so-and-so's quotes, it is a direct comparison with president bush's?

Moore, like most competent people, does NOT mispronounce words or forget what he is saying. So trying to compare what could be called "Moore Quotes" with "Bush Quotes" is like trying to compare apples with cheese.
I think your entire argument here is like cheese. stinky cheese. stinky french cheese.

On the other hand, what he is actually saying isn't something you should just put down immediately. Some of the stuff that is inappropriate (I am a Moore supporter and I still think that it is inappropriate by the way) is also just sarcasm. He doesn't actually hold those opinions, he's just saying them to get a point across.
what, that americans are idiots? that terrorism doesn't exist? is he the radical left's baghdad bob?

However the other stuff, which isn't sarcasm, is actually either the truth or a VERY good opinion, backed with loads of information. When he says, "There is no terroist threat in this country," he is telling the truth. Yes 9/11 happened but THAT WAS IT.
wtc attack 1
uss cole
both embassy bombings in africa

nope. there is no threat of terrorism to americans. that was all during the clinton administration.

When he says "Americans are the dumbest people in the world" well of course you are just going to immediately dismiss that because you don't like to hear it. I won't say he's right, because not all Americans are stupid, but I will say that a hell of a lot of you are,
please don't tell me you're british.

and sadly, so many of them are in positions of power, or at least get a voice out to the country.
yeah. a bunch of dumb shits are running the most powerful economy in the world. how does that work?

Athough I stick up for Moore, and everything that he is for (I don't see how you can't after reading his books and seeing his movies)
you read and watch his drivel and blindly believe everything he tells you and WE'RE the idiots?

yeah. a bunch of dumb shits are running the most powerful economy in the world. how does that work?

Yeah, well this economy isn't going to stay this way. Smart shits gave us our good economy, and dumb shits are just feeding off of the profits until their effect becomes noticeable. We're not going to stay the most powerful economy. Our time to fall is around 40 years overdue, or so my English teacher states.


you read and watch his drivel and blindly believe everything he tells you and WE'RE the idiots?
"Drivel" is an overly opinionated statement which is nothing less than a provocation for flaming. Why should you expect a response from that, besides this one? And blind belief wasn't indicated, nor stated, from his/her post (can't recall who you're quoting). Merely support.

No you weren't. You were commending someone for their post that stated that a thread based on Moore Quotes "doesn't work" because Moore doesn't mispronounce words like Bush does.
The poster then wrote off all Moore's "inappropriate" comments as sarcasm and you gave him 3 cheers and bleated about it being "an ace"

You said nothing in support of Moore. You just danced around like a little cheerleader on the sidelines.
I guess I am one of the best cheerleaders you will find when it comes to Michael Moore, even if it appears to have been done in a roundabout way. :D

Yeah, well this economy isn't going to stay this way. Smart shits gave us our good economy, and dumb shits are just feeding off of the profits until their effect becomes noticeable. We're not going to stay the most powerful economy. Our time to fall is around 40 years overdue, or so my English teacher states.
your... english teacher? :confused: your english teacher is pretending to be an expert on economics? give me a break. america will remain the world's most powerful economy for quite a while, as long as the defense spending stays at about 7% of the GDP.


And blind belief wasn't indicated, nor stated, from his/her post (can't recall who you're quoting). Merely support.
I was quoting the same person. that person said

Athough I stick up for Moore, and everything that he is for (I don't see how you can't after reading his books and seeing his movies)

that doesn't sound like blind belief to you?

I guess I am one of the best cheerleaders you will find when it comes to Michael Moore, even if it appears to have been done in a roundabout way. :D

In a poll thread a month or so back I voted that cheerleaders should be banned... :p

your... english teacher? :confused: your english teacher is pretending to be an expert on economics? give me a break. america will remain the world's most powerful economy for quite a while, as long as the defense spending stays at about 7% of the GDP. It's more like not pretending to be an expert on economics but looking back at history and noting that all great things generally fall within three hundred years or so, meh.


I was quoting the same person. that person said

Insert missing text here

that doesn't sound like blind belief to you?
Well, not necessarily, I interpreted that as he sticks up for Michael Moore and his opinions, not necessarily that he believes in all of that himself, but meh.

CanuckHeaven - about the last quote in your sig

http://experts.about.com/q/337/3679956.htm

bush never said those words.

It's more like not pretending to be an expert on economics but looking back at history and noting that all great things generally fall within three hundred years or so, meh.

... uh, no. the roman empire lasted several centuries, as did the greek. even if that statement was true, america has 250 years left. america became a superpowr at the end of ww2.

Well, not necessarily, I interpreted that as he sticks up for Michael Moore and his opinions, not necessarily that he believes in all of that himself, but meh.

he said that anyone who has seen any of moore's works should support everything moore says.

<reply which I am too apathetic to reply to since I really didn't care, just repeating something which was said, although notes that we shall fall eventually, and it seems like it's speeding up, but that's just a personal observation />
<my reply />



he said that anyone who has seen any of moore's works should support everything moore says.
Most certainly didn't see that... I suppose that would be blind support... but again, shines through, my apathy does.

<my reply />
thank you michael moore. I appreciate you incorrectly re-stating my post for comedic effect. it has failed. here's your reward - a day old doughnut.

CanuckHeaven - about the last quote in your sig

http://experts.about.com/q/337/3679956.htm

bush never said those words.
Actually, yes he did use those exact words. :eek:

Actually, yes he did use those exact words. :eek:
proof?

wtc attack 1
uss cole
both embassy bombings in africa

nope. there is no threat of terrorism to americans. that was all during the clinton administration.

1. Only the WTC attack 1 was on American soil.
2. Clinton had been president for so short of a time before the WTC attack that he couldn't act, so IMO the blame for that goes to Bush Sr.

proof?
Perhaps you should take the time to read the information that was supplied to you from the experts? You may find your proof there?

1. Only the WTC attack 1 was on American soil.
2. Clinton had been president for so short of a time before the WTC attack that he couldn't act, so IMO the blame for that goes to Bush Sr.

So then, by your reasoning, the blame for 9/11/01 falls on Clinton?

Canuck - I'm not that worried about Bin Laden either, he's Bin dead for a long time. Unless you can show me video proof that he's alive. When's the last time he released a VIDEO tape to Al Jazeera(sp?)?

1. I am a liberal
2. I agree with many of Michael Moore's ideas
3. I do NOT like Michael Moore at all

He is an expert at stretching the truth, taking things out of context (gee, kinda like many Bush supporters......but i digress), and just generally being, well, dishonest I suppose in his movies and books

I actually used to be a blind Moore supporter, just because I liked what he had to say. However, last year for a philosophy class we watched Bowling for Columbine in class and then had an assignment to go to the website http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ and any other sources we could find and basically see if we could find valid flaws with Moore's film. This assignment, and the discussion about it, definately changed my viewpoint of Moore. I haven't even bothered watching Fahrenheit 9/11, but from what I've heard, Moore has already taken some heat for some things he did in that "documentary," as well. I did specifically hear about one: he showed a newspaper headline (I think it was talking about the 2000 election, and the headline seemed to indicate that Gore won the recount), and the newspaper that he used complained about it because the newspaper they ran on that day had a different headline. There was a story in a different part of the newspaper that said the latest recounts suggested that Gore may have won Florida, but it wasn't something like "GORE WINS RECOUNT" on the front page, like Moore tried to suggest. Now, it may not seem like that big a deal, but the point of the matter is, if he has no problems doing minor things like that for little or no gain, then who can say what else he may also make up?

So then, by your reasoning, the blame for 9/11/01 falls on Clinton?

Canuck - I'm not that worried about Bin Laden either, he's Bin dead for a long time. Unless you can show me video proof that he's alive. When's the last time he released a VIDEO tape to Al Jazeera(sp?)?
Well you obviously can't prove that Bin Laden is dead. The fact also remains that terrorism has increased under Bush, even though Afghanistan and Iraq are BOTH occupied. Explain that away if you can? Hmmm didn't think so.

Besides, you would think that if Bin Laden was dead, some poor Afghani would drag his sorry carcass out and claim that $25,000,000 reward?

Alright all this is confusing I just want to know who shot Linda on my favorite soap opera.

Ever heard the maxim "never trust a fat priest"? Michael Moore is as grasping and self-serving as Cheney, and just as wilfully ignorant as Bush [if rather more articulate].

I hate the fact that even outside America you have to be pro-Moore if you are anti-Bush. Why to be left-wing or liberal is is necessary to spout pacifism; put down your own nation; race and gender, parrot suspect environmental scare stories; and attack business indiscriminately.

This sort of polarisation that tries to split the world into just two opposing camps is destructive, making it ever harder to compromise or work together. Both Moore and Bush are leading the way away from pix-and-mix politics [where one can assemble policies and ideas from both camps] and towards the sort of dogmatism that has proved so destructive in the past.

CanuckHeaven - about the last quote in your sig

http://experts.about.com/q/337/3679956.htm

bush never said those words.
Also about your sig, thank you for sucking up space with your blather. Feel free to cut it down to one quote.

I'm surprised we got to about 4 quotes before the whole thread got derailed by one persons idiotic comments. Let's try to remain focused, okay?

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.

1. Only the WTC attack 1 was on American soil.
2. Clinton had been president for so short of a time before the WTC attack that he couldn't act, so IMO the blame for that goes to Bush Sr.
you know, all four of those acts were perpetrated by al qaeda.

edit: I missed your point. did you have one?

stuff
you're referring to this: http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/just_the_fax_maam/

I'm surprised we got to about 4 quotes before the whole thread got derailed by one persons idiotic comments. Let's try to remain focused, okay?
that statement has backfired pretty hard over the last several months. google sadr protests.

Click here. (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/189866)


yeah, and then see the bush one, right here:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/131059

its has more truth to it and its a lot funnier

The fact also remains that terrorism has increased under Bush, even though Afghanistan and Iraq are BOTH occupied. Explain that away if you can? Hmmm didn't think so.
and I suppose that you have proof that bush is directly causing increases in terrorist attacks? hmm. didn't think so.

hmmm 9/11 wouldn't of happened if Clinton Took Binladen when he was offered his Head on a silver platter :headbang:

Besides, you would think that if Bin Laden was dead, some poor Afghani would drag his sorry carcass out and claim that $25,000,000 reward?

Arabs tend to be much more loyal to their causes than Americans and Europeans. If Bin Laden died in the company of underlings who believed in his cause, they would have disposed of the body properly and would guard the remains visciously to make sure the body never got into U.S. hands.

Back to the topic at hand.
"The librarians; now there's a terrorist organization you don't wanna get on the bad side of" I love that 1 :) taken surprisingly from his books (that is if ne1 bothered to read them) I got them on holiday as something to read. Where I do think he's a bit exaggerative, he does have facts behind them.
PLEASE don't burn me for admitting I actually like the guy cos he's funny, not cos he's anti-bush

... uh, no. the roman empire lasted several centuries, as did the greek. even if that statement was true, america has 250 years left. america became a superpowr at the end of ww2.



he said that anyone who has seen any of moore's works should support everything moore says.

well.. its not that america's economy will fall. Its that thers will rise. China and India for example.

........GDP-2003..............GDP -2050
....US 10.9 Trillion.........China 45Trillion
China 6.5 Trillion.........US 35Trillion
Japan 3.6 Trillion........India 27Trillion
India 3.0 Trillion........Japan 7 Trillion

So as u can see, The US isn't going to fall, its that china and India will rise much faster then the US or any other developed nation.
http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf

Also about your sig, thank you for sucking up space with your blather. Feel free to cut it down to one quote.
Well you see MunkeBrain that the quotes all go together to show Bush's biggest flip flop of all. Especially since he practically guaranteed that Bin Laden's head would be delivered on a silver platter.

Sooooo I will feel "free" to leave it as is. :eek:

and I suppose that you have proof that bush is directly causing increases in terrorist attacks? hmm. didn't think so.
Hmmmm I didn't say I was directly blaming him. However, since you brought it up, I have read that Iraq is now turning into a breeding ground for new terrorists due to the US invasion. Terrorist attacks against US interests abroad have increased not decreased. So $200 Billion later, what have we got?

Iraq and Afghanistan, about 15,000 dead civilians. Devestation in both countries.

Over 1,000 US soldiers dead, thousands more seriously wounded.

Suicide bombers galore.

Over $200 Billion of US taxpayer dollars spent.

Afghanistan slipping back into the hands of the warlords.

Iraq ruled by an Iraqi exile, and under tight US control through Bremer's Orders.

Bin Laden still at large.....

Yup....."Mission Accomplished".

yeah, and then see the bush one, right here:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/131059

its has more truth to it and its a lot funnier
Too funny...thanks for sharing!! :D

well.. its not that america's economy will fall. Its that thers will rise. China and India for example.

........GDP-2003..............GDP -2050
....US 10.9 Trillion.........China 45Trillion
China 6.5 Trillion.........US 35Trillion
Japan 3.6 Trillion........India 27Trillion
India 3.0 Trillion........Japan 7 Trillion

So as u can see, The US isn't going to fall, its that china and India will rise much faster then the US or any other developed nation.
http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf
you know, a lot of things can happen in 50 years. I don't think something like economics can be accurately predicted for more than a few years into the future.

I don't know what columns you're reading but from that report, china/india's GDPs are much lower and japan's is slighly higher for 2005.

hmmm 9/11 wouldn't of happened if Clinton Took Binladen when he was offered his Head on a silver platter :headbang:
See, the Democrats are to blame for 9/11 and the Patriot Act both. :p

well.. its not that america's economy will fall. Its that thers will rise. China and India for example.

........GDP-2003..............GDP -2050
....US 10.9 Trillion.........China 45Trillion
China 6.5 Trillion.........US 35Trillion
Japan 3.6 Trillion........India 27Trillion
India 3.0 Trillion........Japan 7 Trillion

So as u can see, The US isn't going to fall, its that china and India will rise much faster then the US or any other developed nation.
http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf

Unlikely. The political realities in China means that she will not be able to maintain that growth rate for long.

Hmmmm I didn't say I was directly blaming him. However, since you brought it up, I have read that Iraq is now turning into a breeding ground for new terrorists due to the US invasion. Terrorist attacks against US interests abroad have increased not decreased. So $200 Billion later, what have we got?

Iraq and Afghanistan, about 15,000 dead civilians. Devestation in both countries.

Over 1,000 US soldiers dead, thousands more seriously wounded.

Suicide bombers galore.

Over $200 Billion of US taxpayer dollars spent.

Afghanistan slipping back into the hands of the warlords.

Iraq ruled by an Iraqi exile, and under tight US control through Bremer's Orders.

Bin Laden still at large.....

Yup....."Mission Accomplished".

Here, educate yourself and get off the pro-terrorist media (hi Reuters!):

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html

Good news from Iraq and Afghanistan, on the right hand side.

Hmmmm I didn't say I was directly blaming him. However, since you brought it up, I have read that Iraq is now turning into a breeding ground for new terrorists due to the US invasion.

those terrorists are crossing the border from iran to destroy the new democratic government.

Terrorist attacks against US interests abroad have increased not decreased.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/29/092438.php

here, educate yourself for once.

Afghanistan slipping back into the hands of the warlords.
you mean just the south?

Iraq ruled by an Iraqi exile, and under tight US control through Bremer's Orders.

Bin Laden still at large.....
stop mentioning shit that can't be proven

Here, educate yourself and get off the pro-terrorist media (hi Reuters!):

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html

Good news from Iraq and Afghanistan, on the right hand side.

Blogs are lousy places to 'educate' yourself.

No matter where the terrorists/insurgents/whatever are coming from (I believe they are coming from all muslim nations) they are there, Sadr's army is showing little signs of ending their business and God knows what the future holds. They are all active because we invaded Iraq and they are the result from the war. Its irresponsible to say "Oh, its all their fault. Iraq would be free if it wasn't for them." when they simply would not exist if it wasn't for us. We created the conditions that allowed them to exist.

A nation will not fail because something good happened. Its the bad that risks plunging Iraq into civil war. A hundred acts of good can be erased with a single bad act.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/29/092438.php


Read it (past tense). There are plenty of factors (like situational differences between conditions in Iraq and Germany) that may hinder the defeat of 'werewolves' in Iraq.

1) Worldwide hatred of Americans by Muslims. (very important factor too)
2) Foreign fighters entering the fray on a few fronts.
3) Iraqi militias looking to grab power. (probably others waiting in the wings besides Sadr)
4) Germany was split in 2. Half was ruled by the authoritarian soviets and they weren't havin' no nazis.
5) Nazis still exist. Will we ever defeat terrorists or just keep them to a managible level?
6) Terrorists are global. Nazis centered in europe. See point 2.
7) Dedication. Since religion is a bigger factor and they are willing to kill themselves for their beliefs will they ever give up like the werewolves did?

There is probably more but its late and I have to get something.

those terrorists are crossing the border from iran to destroy the new democratic government.
What is your proof for this statement?


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/29/092438.php

here, educate yourself for once.
I think I do fairly well staying up to date without going to blog sites, such as the one you are suggesting.


you mean just the south?
Many diplomats view the accommodation of warlords as a "necessary evil" to ensure the stability of Afghanistan – the last thing needed now is another civil war.

The US-led coalition forces [are currently using] militiamen in their ongoing 'war against terrorism' – fighting against Taleban and al-Qaeda elements in the south and east of the country.

Analysts say that the security vacuum in Afghanistan, created since the fall of the Taleban, has increased the power of the armed factions. Warlords have become entrenched. There are reports that the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul, is lined with spotless Russian tanks and rocket launchers [now the property of these warlords.]


stop mentioning shit that can't be proven
What shit? About Bin Laden at large or Iraq under Bremer's Orders?

stop mentioning shit that can't be proven

Translation: stop mentioning stuff stuff that is the opposite of what I believe, since I'll only ignore it anyway.

What is your proof for this statement?
http://news.google.com/news?q=foreign%20fighters%20iraq&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn

I think I do fairly well staying up to date without going to blog sites, such as the one you are suggesting.
because people who have blogs are not credible? john kerry has a blog.

stuff
thanks for providing a source and/or a date.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-warlords1.htm

that was printed about 10 months ago. got anything more recent?

What shit? About Bin Laden at large or Iraq under Bremer's Orders?
both

"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." - Michael Moore

You know, actually, I agree with that. Iraqi rebels are only "terrorists" because Bush wants them to be. They may not win, but they are definitely not terrorists.

One more thing - I'd think Americans would be more circumspect about making fun of Moore's weight considering 1/3 of them are obese.

"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." - Michael Moore

You know, actually, I agree with that. Iraqi rebels are only "terrorists" because Bush wants them to be. They may not win, but they are definitely not terrorists.

One more thing - I'd think Americans would be more circumspect about making fun of Moore's weight considering 1/3 of them are obese.

Your right, probably not "terrorists" by definition but, if your supporting your country's soilders, as he says he does, then anyone trying to kill them is "the enemy."

As far as Moore goes. I haven't talked to a single person on either side of the political spectrum that when seriously pushed on the issue won't admit that its mainly one man's political rantings rather then a good documentary or even editorial. I really won't put money in the pocket of a man who has publicly called me a moron. Putting money in his pocket after that would indeed make me a moron. However I have seen clips here and there on various sites and the way he makes Clarke out to be a hero and then demonizes Bush about the Bin Laden family being allowed to leave the U.S. makes me giggle. Considering it was Clarke's descision and he has admitted (before the movie, if you want to call it that) that he gave the go ahead to let the family leave.

On a side note: The fact that this home video bullshit is even being considered for best picture makes me sick. There is no direction, acting, special effects, script, storyline (maybe a shaky one), or firm plot. Of course its lacking other things but, basically my point is that it isn't "cinema." Since when do interviews and random opinon's even qualify for a movie? Since Hollywood decided that they want to get this message out and screw the integrity of an acadamy award. Its ludicrous.

"I haven't talked to a single person on either side of the political spectrum that when seriously pushed on the issue won't admit that its mainly one man's political rantings rather then a good documentary or even editorial."

Well, now that I'm here, you have.

I think it's Best Documentary that Fahrenheit 911 is being considered for, not Best Picture. The entire documentary genre was pretty much ignored before Bowling For Columbine, at least as far as I know. Though this year there may be some other actual legitimate contenders, like The Fog Of War or Supersize Me, I think Fahrenheit will probably win. Should it win? Why not? And I'd say if you've only seen "clips here and there", you're in no position to judge its entirety.

By the way, the word "movie" isn't a honorary title or anything that you have to qualify for, it simply means a show you see in a cinema.

"I haven't talked to a single person on either side of the political spectrum that when seriously pushed on the issue won't admit that its mainly one man's political rantings rather then a good documentary or even editorial."

Well, now that I'm here, you have.

I think it's Best Documentary that Fahrenheit 911 is being considered for, not Best Picture. The entire documentary genre was pretty much ignored before Bowling For Columbine, at least as far as I know. Though this year there may be some other actual legitimate contenders, like The Fog Of War or Supersize Me, I think Fahrenheit will probably win. Should it win? Why not? And I'd say if you've only seen "clips here and there", you're in no position to judge its entirety.

By the way, the word "movie" isn't a honorary title or anything that you have to qualify for, it simply means a show you see in a cinema.
Fog of War won last years Academy Award for Best Documentary.

"I haven't talked to a single person on either side of the political spectrum that when seriously pushed on the issue won't admit that its mainly one man's political rantings rather then a good documentary or even editorial."

Well, now that I'm here, you have.

I think it's Best Documentary that Fahrenheit 911 is being considered for, not Best Picture. The entire documentary genre was pretty much ignored before Bowling For Columbine, at least as far as I know. Though this year there may be some other actual legitimate contenders, like The Fog Of War or Supersize Me, I think Fahrenheit will probably win. Should it win? Why not? And I'd say if you've only seen "clips here and there", you're in no position to judge its entirety.

By the way, the word "movie" isn't a honorary title or anything that you have to qualify for, it simply means a show you see in a cinema.

moore is entering it for best picture, not best documentary.

"F*ck all these small businesses, f*ck 'em all, bring in the chains."

*points at almighty sephiroth*

"F*ck all these small businesses, f*ck 'em all, bring in the chains."
as much as I think moore is just a capitalistic/political opportunist, I have to admit that it's probable that he never said those words.

Tag

"Kee-rist youse peoples iz funny."

How many terrorist attacks IN AMERICA since 9/11?
None.
And no goofy statements like "well, embassies are American territory!". I don't care if they're Bush's personal hygene administrator. Wasn't on this continent, wasn't in the 50 States, I don't care.

So the rest of the world gets blown up. Who cares? If they're not smart enough to head off terrorism - screw em. That's what permissiveness and stupidity gets you.

Welcome to the real world. There are tons of nutbars out there. Get used to it and act accordingly, or accept the consequences.

Next?

Okay, yes, in the three years since 9/11, terrorist attacks in America, none.

How many terrorist attacks in America in the three years before 9/11?

None either. Now, what changed in the three years before 9/11? The guy in the White House. The guy who ignored his terrorism briefings and took most of August 2001 off. Yes, in case you don't realise it yet, I am saying that I believe George W. Bush's laziness/apathy/incompetence caused 11 September.

All summer the CIA, FBI, etc., were getting wind of something big about to happen. The CIA even interrupted Bush's vacation to give him a briefing titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US". And for someone who all but ignored national security in 2001, I find it really weird that national security is Bush's main re-election platform.

moore is entering it for best picture, not best documentary.

As far as I know, that's just speculation. Chances are he'll go for documentary. Or maybe he's waiting for the end of the year to see what his competition is, but Fahrenheit was pretty dry in entertainment terms, in fact some of it was pretty painful, like being forced to hear John Ashcroft sing, so I doubt it could win Best Picture.

even moore admits that his documentaries are for entertainment purposes but 98% of the facts he brings up in his movie are very valid and interesting and the other 2% are debatable at worst. frankly i enjoyed bowling for columbine and farenheit 9/11 but i dont support michael moore cause i choose not to support anybodies ideals besides mine. also anybody that does insult michael moore on his weight is just being immature.

Okay, yes, in the three years since 9/11, terrorist attacks in America, none.

How many terrorist attacks in America in the three years before 9/11?

None either. Now, what changed in the three years before 9/11? The guy in the White House. The guy who ignored his terrorism briefings
did you even read the briefing that was released to the media? It did not say "terrorists are planning to hijack planes and crash them into the WTC, white house, and pentagon on or about 9/11/01".

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

for reference, here's a shot from (of?) manhattan island: http://www.tourbec.info/voyage/images/manhattan.jpg

did you want bush to create widespread panic and declare martial law in new york city?

and took most of August 2001 off.
typical bullshit from the left. he didn't take most of august 2001 off. not by a long shot.

The CIA even interrupted Bush's vacation to give him a briefing titled "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US".
do you understand how vague that sounds?

And for someone who all but ignored national security in 2001, I find it really weird that national security is Bush's main re-election platform.
because people can't change? because things don't happen in the course of four years?

As far as I know, that's just speculation. Chances are he'll go for documentary
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-06

I doubt it could win Best Picture.
Moore also hinted in a recent interview in Rolling Stone he would like the movie to play on television before the presidential election. According to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, playing on TV would invalidate its contention in the documentary category, but not for best picture. With the movie coming out on DVD Oct. 5, it's not clear whether the TV deal would happen.
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D84UEJN80.xml

even moore admits that his documentaries are for entertainment purposes but 98% of the facts he brings up in his movie are very valid and interesting and the other 2% are debatable at worst. frankly i enjoyed bowling for columbine and farenheit 9/11 but i dont support michael moore cause i choose not to support anybodies ideals besides mine. also anybody that does insult michael moore on his weight is just being immature.
moore is fat and distorts the truth to suit whatever reality he wants you to live in

Arguments I think it would be great if we all never had to suffer again:

Michael Moore is fat. Yes, yes he is. So is Limbaugh. So was/is Gingrich. Fat does not invalidate an opinion. Pointing it out might invalidate yours, since it is petty and has no substance.

F9/11 made money. Yes, yes it did. Unless you are advocating that all news and opinions come from altruistic and non-profit sources and you yourself only get news and criticism from altruistic non-profit sources this is a silly and empty argument.

X is not a documentary. Shut up. This is hands down the stupidest thing you can say. It is an indicator that you know nothing of film and should not be discussing it. DO NOT think that quoting dictionary.com and then putting up a link to michaelmooreinventededitingandwantstoeatyourbabies.com refutes that.

Michael Moore hates america. No, you hate america. Remember that thing, "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it...." You don't like what he's saying or how he says it, that debate is valid. He hates america is ridiculous and childish and ignores the base principal that the nation was founded on.

Sadly this will just encourage those retarded arguments.

This leaves: The opinions of the films (completely open and valid to argue), the implication of what is shown (Moore is the first to say that he is making his argument and using what backs that up. If you don't think you do that in your argument you are DELUSIONAL. Yes you may wiegh everything and you're some sort of sainted unbiased observer until the right solution flashes before like you where playing Dragonslayer-while I doubt that is true, but I'm sure more than one person believes they do that, when you make your argument you use what supports it), and the validity of what is shown is also a fair thing to argue.

One last thing: He did not invent editing. Only CSPAN shows whole speeches, quite acting stupid.

F9/11 made money. Yes, yes it did. Unless you are advocating that all news and opinions come from altruistic and non-profit sources and you yourself only get news and criticism from altruistic non-profit sources this is a silly and empty argument.
moore is a capitalist.

X is not a documentary. Shut up. This is hands down the stupidest thing you can say. It is an indicator that you know nothing of film and should not be discussing it. DO NOT think that quoting dictionary.com and then putting up a link to michaelmooreinventededitingandwantstoeatyourbabies.com refutes that.
f9/11 and BFC are not documentaries. from dictionary.com:

Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

moore's films failed to present facts obejctively.

Michael Moore hates america. No, you hate america.
what the fuck?

Remember that thing, "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it...." You don't like what he's saying or how he says it, that debate is valid. He hates america is ridiculous and childish and ignores the base principal that the nation was founded on.
moore doesn't hate america. he just says americans are morons whenever he gets a chance outside of america.

One last thing: He did not invent editing.
not the point of the "moore edits shit" argument.

moore is a capitalist.
RIF
X is not a documentary. Shut up. This is hands down the stupidest thing you can say. It is an indicator that you know nothing of film and should not be discussing it. DO NOT think that quoting dictionary.com and then putting up a link to michaelmooreinventededitingandwantstoeatyourbabies.com refutes that.
f9/11 and BFC are not documentaries. from dictionary.com:

Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

moore's films failed to present facts obejctively.
RIF


what the fuck?
RIF


moore doesn't hate america. he just says americans are morons whenever he gets a chance outside of america.


not the point of the "moore edits shit" argument.
RIF

RIF


RIF



RIF



RIF
RAFF

RAFF

RAFF

RAFF

RAFF

RAFF

RAFF

RAFF
http://www.rif.org/

[QUOTE=Goed]Actually, there are some issues that he's right on.

For example, and I'm sorry, I'm american, but...WE'RE FUCKING IDIOTS. Face it folks, most of our population can't find half the countries we hate on a map. MORE then half of them can't pronounce their names. I'm suck and fucking tired of people talking about "eye-rack." It's "ee-rock!" Holy shit people are dumb.

I've seen pro-war and anti-war protester, and they're no better! They MISPELL the damn word! It's four letters long-NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

So, in conclusion...yes. Americans are fucking retarded when it comes to foreign affairs.



Actually it's pronounced 'Iraq'. It is pronounced as it is spelt. I certainly take your last point, but question the necessity of using the word prior to retarded....unless it is a required necessity in the circles in which you mix.

Here, educate yourself and get off the pro-terrorist media (hi Reuters!):

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_chrenkoff_archive.html

Good news from Iraq and Afghanistan, on the right hand side.
What makes you think I give any relevance to pro-terrorist media? Not happening. Another thing that is not going to happen is to tie into any fuzzy feel good propaganda of any extreme right wing media.

f9/11 and BFC are not documentaries. from dictionary.com:

Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

moore's films failed to present facts obejctively.


Alright, I'll give you that, except that in a film context, a documentary is ANY non-fiction film.

Wait, hold on, did you just quote dictionary.com when the post you quoted above specifically told you not to?

did you want bush to create widespread panic and declare martial law in new york city?

No, of course not, but he could have taken some concrete action. Such as, oh, I don't know, actually hold a counter-terrorism meeting? Put law enforcement on alert? Increase airport security? Find everyone who looks even remotely Arabic and single them out for discriminatory interrogation? You know, everything they've done since the WTC attacks...?

"do you understand how vague that sounds?"

If JFK had gotten an intelligence briefing that said "Soviets determined to set up missiles to strike US" do you think he'd have said, "Ahh, too vague"?

Remember that this information came at the same time that the agencies were noticing suspicious people learning to fly planes and not caring about landing, an increase in "chatter", and signs that an attack was being planned or about to take place.

Unless you are advocating that all news and opinions come from altruistic and non-profit sources and you yourself only get news and criticism from altruistic non-profit sources this is a silly and empty argument.

Unless you've locked yourself in a sensory deprivation tank with a radio which can only be tuned to the BBC, you don't either.

because people can't change? because things don't happen in the course of four years?

You know, Kerry should hit back at the "flip-flopper" attacks with that. Seriously. I thought I understood American politics until idiotic stubborness became a virtue and open-mindness became a sign of weakness.


http://www.rif.org/
Hahahaha!

Well, considering that one of those quotes was from a Comedy Club, you can hardly use it as a legitimate political commentary!

But yes, I agree Michael Moore can say some dumbass stuff. I think it was in "Stupid White Men" that he said that the Palestinians should use 'Non-Violent Resistance' against their oppressors.

Can you imagine what the Israeli tanks would do to non-violent demonstrators?

Just imagine what would have happened to Ghandi if he had been a Palestinian? Not a pretty thought!

Moore is just another dumb naive American trying to offer his opinion on a conflict he has no knowledge of whatsoever!

Unless you are advocating that all news and opinions come from altruistic and non-profit sources and you yourself only get news and criticism from altruistic non-profit sources this is a silly and empty argument.

Unless you've locked yourself in a sensory deprivation tank with a radio which can only be tuned to the BBC, you don't either.


I wasn't saying I did. I was trying to create the only scenario where "Moore makes money off his films" was a valid argument, and even then it's a little sloppy.

Personnally I think Michael Moore is the one of the most idiotic people I know at this point in time.

As a Canadian perhaps I am a little pissed that he illegally tried to influence the Canadian election (Damn you Americans, stay out of our elections!), but I think I have some concrete arguments against him.

Firstly, he presented information in a distorted manner and called it a documentary. That just doesn't pass for me, I don't think its right ethically.

Secondly, I hate it when people bash 'white men' (maybe because I am one). You wouldn't see people seriously bashing 'black men' or 'asian men' in the same way. Why? Because its racist and its wrong. (I feel awful just saying 'black men') Now a light hearted comment or two is fine, but come on.. an entire book?

Thirdly, he is suffering from the political equivalent of glaucoma ('tunnel-vision'). To give an example, if the minute Bush was informed that a plane had hit the towers, Bush jumped to his feet, made an attempt to look brave, and dashed off to confront the crisis, Moore would say 'aha! He knew in advance that it was going to happen and was prepared for it!'. And when he continued to sit there and read a children's book to a class Moore says 'aha! He's indecisive, not at all a good leader!'

To sum that last paragraph up, no matter what the USA or Bush does, Moore and people like Moore will always find a reason to hate it.

To give an example, when I say 'It is a statistical fact that Americans are the most generous people in any country of the world' what would be your immediate response?

you know, a lot of things can happen in 50 years. I don't think something like economics can be accurately predicted for more than a few years into the future.

I don't know what columns you're reading but from that report, china/india's GDPs are much lower and japan's is slighly higher for 2005.

Opps! sorry Nudist Marxists. The values used for 2003 are PPP, while the Values for the 2050 estimate are GDP MER, I think China's GDP mer is currently 1.3 Trillion. And you are right, it is very differcult to accurately predict. But it would be quite easy for China to over take the US's total GDP because of its massive population.

Unlikely. The political realities in China means that she will not be able to maintain that growth rate for long.

What political realities? The Chinese government is the one that made this economic growth possible. The Chinese economy has grown at 8% a year, for more then 20 years. Most economists agree that it can contunue this growth for another 10-20 years. At that point it will most likely slow down to 5%.

As a Canadian perhaps I am a little pissed that he illegally tried to influence the Canadian election

Come on, do you really think people voted for the Liberals because of some comment Michael Moore made? I sure hope Canada isn't at the level where people base their decision on who to vote for on what some American documentary maker says. Besides, it's not like the choices were that great anyway. There was "Let's send troops to Iraq and lick Bush's ass!" and "Let's build a missile defence system and lick Bush's ass!"

Making a movie dedicated to slamming George W Bush is influencing an election. Making a remark in an interview is not.

To give an example, if the minute Bush was informed that a plane had hit the towers, Bush jumped to his feet, made an attempt to look brave, and dashed off to confront the crisis, Moore would say 'aha! He knew in advance that it was going to happen and was prepared for it!'
Pure speculation on your part.
And when he continued to sit there and read a children's book to a class Moore says 'aha! He's indecisive, not at all a good leader!'
Now I do truly believe that. Here is the Commander in Chief, sitting in a classroom, and knowing full well that his country was under "attack", and he did NOTHING!! He even sat there basically emotionless. Very scary to say the least, and if anything would lead me more to believe that "knew in advance that it was going to happen and was prepared for it!", to use your own words. Which of course that would be pure speculation on my part.

To sum that last paragraph up, no matter what the USA or Bush does, Moore and people like Moore will always find a reason to hate it.
I on the other hand believe that Moore loves his country and wants the people to wake up and open up their eyes. :eek:

Opps! sorry Nudist Marxists. The values used for 2003 are PPP, while the Values for the 2050 estimate are GDP MER, I think China's GDP mer is currently 1.3 Trillion. And you are right, it is very differcult to accurately predict. But it would be quite easy for China to over take the US's total GDP because of its massive population.

Are you insane? Just becuase China has such a huge population would not improve their chances of passing the US GDP. First of all, China has a negative population growth, otherwise known as an annual decline. The US is one of the highest growth rates in the world, and will probably pass China unless trends change in the next 100 years.

Furthermore, India has as big a population as China, would you also say they are capable of passing the US GDP? I would put my money on India lightyears before I ever would China. India speaks primarily English in its business climate, and improves upon that annually. Chine not only speaks a language only spoken primarily within its own borders, but it also has a thousand dialects of that language.

Money does not speak Chinese, it speaks English.

And on an unrelated point...The entire EU has a negative population factor currently, so they are not even on the probably list for growth globaly.

Just a few things to ponder...population density does not equal financial mass.

(pd) < (fm) = {US}

I had to add this edit:
China is less than 10% of our GDP...does that bring some perspective to your point of view? IF they ever did pass our GDP, then the world would have no fuel to power it. The technology required would make our current technology look like pre-civil war era. All industries would be so technological none of us would be able to function very well. It would be similar to bring people off of the Mayflower and plopping into current day New York and saying "Have a nice day, check up on you next year." Couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't happen.

Pure speculation on your part.

Now I do truly believe that. Here is the Commander in Chief, sitting in a classroom, and knowing full well that his country was under "attack", and he did NOTHING!! He even sat there basically emotionless. Very scary to say the least, and if anything would lead me more to believe that "knew in advance that it was going to happen and was prepared for it!", to use your own words. Which of course that would be pure speculation on my part.

I on the other hand believe that Moore loves his country and wants the people to wake up and open up their eyes. :eek:

Question:
When do you know your talking to an idiot liberal with no facts or fresh information to add to the debate?

Answer:
When their biggest comment is centered around the word "Scary, scared, or affraid".

Half of their comments and arguments are them being scared or affraid. Get a spine alreqady you limp wristed a-holes. Stop crying and being so scared. It's ok! We have G. W. Bush in the oval office. If anyone fuggs with you, just call a Republican, and we'll handle it.

Money does not speak Chinese, it speaks English.
It speaks English for now. It very well may speak Mandarin or Farsi in the not too distant future.

I'm tired of reading everyone's crap. Michael Moore is a big, fat, stupid, white man (read the book). Michael Moore sticks his foot in his mouth and covers it up by saying it's tongue in cheek and to look for the deeper meaning. There is no deeper meaning; the guy is stroking his own ego.

If you think you're smart because you listen to Moore, think on this: Michael Moore uses statistics like any other politician. Moore is trying to look good and to get you to think his way. He is in no way different from any of the politicians he slanders. Moore provides 'facts' for you to use to defend his points. These 'facts' are half-truths, which is in fact the ONLY point Michael Moore has ever made: if you tell the American people anything enough times, they'll believe it (Didn't Hitler say the same thing?). Michael Moore's proof for American stupidity is in the fact that you listen to him.

He is in no way different from any of the politicians he slanders... Michael Moore's proof for American stupidity is in the fact that you listen to him.

Then I take it you consider every politician and everyone who listens to any politician stupid? Well, I know they don't have the best track records as far as the truth goes, but even so, that's a little extreme.

The things that people say about Michael Moore can also be easily applied to any of the conservative nutjobs. Of course he's biased to his own opinions. No one is free of bias. But does that invalidate his opinions and arguments? Not any more then it would invalidate Bill O'Reilly. Not any more than it would invalidate Rush Limbaugh. If you say Michael Moore is a liar but don't admit that the right-wingers are too, then you are a hypocrite with double standards for what counts as the truth.

The quote, by the way, is from Vladimir Lenin, and it's "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

Half of their comments and arguments are them being scared or affraid. Get a spine alreqady you limp wristed a-holes. Stop crying and being so scared. It's ok! We have G. W. Bush in the oval office. If anyone fuggs with you, just call a Republican, and we'll handle it.

Kids, this is why when the doctor gives you anti-psychotic medicine, you make sure you take it.

I especially like how someone is attempting to use lines from a comedy routine he did as the basis for discreditation.

It's comedy. It's a joke. Conservatives are so negative and shrill they squeal at anything it seems.

Then again, in threads about mass murder and rogue nations arming themselves with nukes I've heard them type ' That's funny' ...so I guess they have some humor after all.

Question:
When do you know your talking to an idiot liberal with no facts or fresh information to add to the debate?

Answer:
When their biggest comment is centered around the word "Scary, scared, or affraid".

Half of their comments and arguments are them being scared or affraid. Get a spine alreqady you limp wristed a-holes. Stop crying and being so scared. It's ok! We have G. W. Bush in the oval office. If anyone fuggs with you, just call a Republican, and we'll handle it.

Hmmm. How can you tell you're talking to a nutjob like Perrien?

Answer: They scream about someone having no fact, while at the same time offering none of their own.

The exaggerate or straight make up shit. I personally don't think I've said I was afraid of anything on this forum (except another 4 years of Bush.)

If anyone "fuggs" with me, the last thing I'll want to do is call a Republican like G. W. Bush. He'd probably sit there for 7 minutes while he figures out what to do. Cheney would be no help, since he'd be in an undisclosed, secure location. Rumsfeld would insist on sending too few people to help me. Ashcroft would likely want to put me under 24/7 surveillance without my consent. Rice would deny I needed help. Rove would just try to figure out how to frame the Democrats for "fugging" with me. Ridge would issue an orange coded "fugging" alert, but only when something good is happening for the Democrats.

One of Michael Moore's most well-known and oft-repeated quotes:

"Two Big Macs, A large fries and an apple pie." -Michael Moore.

One of Michael Moore's most well-known and oft-repeated quotes:

"Two Big Macs, A large fries and an apple pie." -Michael Moore.

Yes, and Reagan liked jelly beans. So??

Yes, and Reagan liked jelly beans. So??

So, I'm saying that Michael Moore is a fat pasty slob.

In fact, if He and Rush Limbaugh ever were at an All-You-Can-Eat buffet together, I wouldn't be surprised if they got into a fight over the scraps. ;)

Time for me to see what this has evolved into.

I'm not impressed.

I'm tired of reading everyone's crap. Michael Moore is a big, fat, stupid, white man (read the book).

I HAVE read that book. I read it before anyone else in my country (New Zealand) had even heard of it, because I got a hold of a special manuscript.

To be blunt - I thought it was a peice of shit.

To me, writing, publishing and selling a political book is the final step of telling the public about your point of view. It is supposed to include an impressive amount of facts and evidence in order to change or support a person's view on something. And the book just doesn't cut it.

Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man is supposed to inform us of how everything that Moore has done is worthless. It doesn't. It does a PERFECT job of telling us that Michael Moore is a horrendous person. It completely discredits his personality. But it doesn't really discredit his work.

Here's an example: In their chapter, Stupid White Men, the Gospel According to Michael, between pages 47 and two lines on page 48, Hardy & Clarke say that Moore has told his readers "another unbelievaby outrageous whopper." They claim that in Chapter 8 of Moore's book Stupid White Men he tells his readers about how the Pentagon planned to spend $250 billion dollars on the production of 2800 Joint Strike Fighter planes. Then they attempt to discredit this information by saying that Moore claims they spent $250,000,000,000 per year. They show how someone called "Ben Fritz of Spinsanity.com" worked out that it was not in fact $250,000,000,000 spent in one year, it was a multiyear cost. "So much, we might say, for Moore's credibility as a researcher." they finish.

Is it just me, or have they missed the point? Moore might have said they spend $250 BILLION DOLLARS on a MODEL of ONE PLANE in one year and got it wrong, but to me it doesn't matter at all. What matters is that they were willing to spend TWO-HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS ON A FUCKING PLANE! I don't care if it was spent over one year, or whether it was spent over one hundred years!

Hardy & Clarke say a lot of points against Moore but they are all exactly the same as this. They all give you a lot of information that at first seems appealing but actually lours you away from the real point (although I am sure that is not their intention). As I said before, their book seems to discredit Moore's character and integrity rather than his findings. It does discredit his findings, but not in a way that makes them unbelievable, just in a way that makes you think how illogical the argument against him is.

Another strike against the book is it's negativity. Sure, their book is ABOUT negativity, as are most political books. But unlike other books, say, Stupid White Men, Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man is NOT funny, charming or charasmatic in any way. It is just plain negative, and after reading it for a while it begins to seem like a chore. Continuing to read it will result in you feeling that you'll accept their side, as long as you can get away from the pessimism. Don't get me wrong, books that put other people down are supposed to be negative - but Stupid White Men would not have sold half as well if it weren't funny, and Hardy & Clarke's book has no sense of that style at all.

As a final note: You shouldn't really be focused on Moore at the moment. He has done some amazing things - created eye-opening books and documentaries. But right now, the only purpose he really seems to serve is for people to say "Hah! Michael Moore is a bad person because of this, this and this, and that must mean that EVERYTHING he stands for is wrong!" and then for the other side (my side) to whip back and say, "No! You are wrong because of this, this and this!" We should not be arguing about Moore. We should be arguing about the issues in America because, lets face it - I like Moore. But there are more important things to be worrying about then using him as a personal scapegoat for claiming percevierence over the other side.

Once again -

I'm done. Ball's in your court now.

So, I'm saying that Michael Moore is a fat pasty slob.

In fact, if He and Rush Limbaugh ever were at an All-You-Can-Eat buffet together, I wouldn't be surprised if they got into a fight over the scraps. ;)

This is one of my points. Who cares if Moore is a fat slob? Alot of Americans are. Discredit his work, not his image.

This is one of my points. Who cares if Moore is a fat slob? Alot of Americans are. Discredit his work, not his image.

I'd have to care, first.

I haven't been this apathetic toward something that everybody else refused to shut up about since 'American Idol' became popular.

Please stop with the 'ball in your court'. We understand you feel you made your point amply. You did quite well. No one here is out to harm you. We both argue because we care (Dale Carnegie).


Is it just me, or have they missed the point?

Yes, you missed my point. Michael Moore parades about telling everyone they need to know the facts, they need to become informed. Michael Moore then goes on to be quite liberal with the research he's done and how he presents his facts. I do not mind his bias; I mind that he says one thing and then stretches the truth to make him look good.

I thought the book 'Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man' did quite well in supporting their opinion. I do also agree there are papers in the book which seem obsessed with his character. I don't like Michael Moore, but that isn't a good argument. The hypocrisy that is his persona is why I bother to write in this forum at all.



The quote, by the way, is from Vladimir Lenin, and it's "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."


Thank you for providing the proper source and quote.


Then I take it you consider every politician and everyone who listens to any politician stupid? Well, I know they don't have the best track records as far as the truth goes, but even so, that's a little extreme.


Quite the opposite, actually. I try to believe that somewhere in the core of everyone's heart, they wish to do well for another. In another topic on this forum I was thrashed for supporting a politician and what I believed was a simple mistake, not a political move.

The things that people say about Michael Moore can also be easily applied to any of the conservative nutjobs.

Too right. I do not argue this.


Of course he's biased to his own opinions. No one is free of bias. But does that invalidate his opinions and arguments?

Bias, ferver, or zeal, do not discredit anyone. Hypocrisy discredits Michael Moore.

Michael Moore may be a dreamer, but he's also very negative (in my mind). His message to everyone is that America is stupid, except if you believe what he says. Do you want to be a stupid loser on the wrong side?

I believe Moore's message should reach out and speak to me without him having to shout it. The manner in which he presents the truth should be such that when he is right, we cannot say otherwise; when wrong, we know it a mistake. He should admit when figures or ideals have been overblown to make a point. His points should be made clear and not 'buried'.

(Slap yourself, because you'll never believe this one) I understand Michael Moore's point and I do agree with him: America, the whole world, needs to become educated in the world around them. I do not agree with his antics. Spewing out half-truths, lies, or manipulating statistical figures to gain followers is exactly what Moore is supposedly preaching against. You cannot claim you are bettering society, making them informed, doing something the Man would never do, by spewing out lies and keeping the masses uninformed just like the Man.

This is my opinion of Moore. This is the reasoning behind my statement 'the guy is stroking his own ego'.


If you say Michael Moore is a liar but don't admit that the right-wingers are too, then you are a hypocrite with double standards for what counts as the truth.


Good sir, never would I take such a stance. Republicans, Democrats, Michael Moore and all other men have been liars at one point in their life. Some men call it folly while others make it their lives.

Thank you both for granting me audience.

His message to everyone is that America is stupid, except if you believe what he says.

Okay, well that must be your interpretation, because I honestly have never gotten that from either watching or reading his stuff.

You cannot claim you are bettering society, making them informed, doing something the Man would never do, by spewing out lies and keeping the masses uninformed just like the Man.

I think that's where we meet a brick wall in our argument because I don't think that he has done that. Yes, I do agree he goes a bit overboard in making his points, and I'm not saying he's NEVER stretched something to support his argument, but the thing is when you get down to it, most of the "micharel moore is a lying scumbaf looser he lies all the time!!!!!" isn't really because people take issue with his facts or even his interpretation of it - I feel most of this is founded in a disagreement with his opinion. So they comb through looking for every single slip Moore made factually and blow it out of proportion.

Like the thing with the fake headline from Fahrenheit 911 - it was one of the many of the other news clips and real newspaper headlines he used to get across the point that Gore would likely have won a recount. But one bad one and the Moore-haters triumphantly go "SEE?! HE'S A LIAR! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! LIARRRRRR!!!"

The irony is that many of the people who attack Moore for truth-bending do it with their own truth-benders.

I especially like how someone is attempting to use lines from a comedy routine he did as the basis for discreditation.

It's comedy. It's a joke. Conservatives are so negative and shrill they squeal at anything it seems.

Then again, in threads about mass murder and rogue nations arming themselves with nukes I've heard them type ' That's funny' ...so I guess they have some humor after all.
Michael Moore is a scumbag, and wether is was a comedy routine or not (it wasn't, by the way, it was him trying to earn points from leftist idiots in other nations) is not the point. He hates America, want's to bring it down, and get his idiot believers/followers/acolytes/tools to do his work for him by spreading his hate around the country.

He hates America, want's to bring it down

Yeah and that's obviously a bad thing. :rolleyes:


I'd have to care, first.

I haven't been this apathetic toward something that everybody else refused to shut up about since 'American Idol' became popular.

I was brought up to believe that you judge a person by their personality, not their character. Honestly, I don't see what's with all the fat bashing in this Topic anyway, especially since 1/3 Americans are overweight, and as most of you will probably sit at your computers for the majority of the day I wouldn't be surprised to see many people fit this catergory (I'm not targeting you, just generalising).

However I do agree with you about American Idol. What a load of bullshit.


His message to everyone is that America is stupid, except if you believe what he says.

Thing is, most Americans are pretty ignorant...

But I beg to differ. I don't think I have ever heard or heard him imply that if you don't believe his message then you are stupid. He implies other things, like that if you don't believe him then you're rooting for the murderous side, but I can't see what's wrong with that (or find a side that doesn't say that kind of thing, either).


Please stop with the 'ball in your court'.

I don't see what's wrong with it. It wasn't really meant to mean anything special, I just couldn't think of anything else to say, and it related to it.

Okay, well that must be your interpretation, because I honestly have never gotten that from either watching or reading his stuff.

I think that's where we meet a brick wall in our argument because I don't think that he has done that.

We think differently and may occasionally come to the same result.

Yes, I do agree he goes a bit overboard in making his points, and I'm not saying he's NEVER stretched something to support his argument, but the thing is when you get down to it, most of the "micharel moore is a lying scumbaf looser he lies all the time!!!!!" isn't really because people take issue with his facts or even his interpretation of it - I feel most of this is founded in a disagreement with his opinion. So they comb through looking for every single slip Moore made factually and blow it out of proportion.

What you say is true. I take a difference stance, as stated earlier. I don't mind stretching the truth as long as everyone knows what you're doing (Political Cartoons). Michael Moore seemingly goes through great lengths to pass off ideas or statistics that are not real as fact. I would have much more respect for the man if he stated what was overblown and why, rather than attacking those who 'attack' his work for truth-bending.

Like the thing with the fake headline from Fahrenheit 911 - it was one of the many of the other news clips and real newspaper headlines he used to get across the point that Gore would likely have won a recount. But one bad one and the Moore-haters triumphantly go "SEE?! HE'S A LIAR! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! LIARRRRRR!!!"

I absolutely concede your point. We differ in that you see it as one instance where it makes no difference; I see it as just another, one of many, liberally applied near-truth, sounds-good-so-we'll-put-it-on-film lie Michael Moore tells to make himself look good.

The irony is that many of the people who attack Moore for truth-bending do it with their own truth-benders.

Isn't it sad?

Thing is, most Americans are pretty ignorant...

But I beg to differ. I don't think I have ever heard or heard him imply that if you don't believe his message then you are stupid.

Americans are ignorant as a whole. They only prove their ignorance by fighting the current 'oppressive' government by way of rallying around Moore, a man who fibs and is caught quite possibly more often than any politician -- but it's OK because he's on our side.

But I beg to differ. I don't think I have ever heard or heard him imply that if you don't believe his message then you are stupid.

'DO YOU FEEL like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying...'

-Michael Moore, from his book 'Stupid White Men'

The implication is you aren't the dumb one, because you understand what Moore is trying to tell you. Those who fight against Moore are the idiots, because they don't understand him.

One thing I wanted to rant about was Michael Moore asking Americans where Iraq is. I would like to point out Iraq is in the Eastern hemisphere. I wouldn't be surprised if more Americans know where Chili is simply because they see the Western Hemisphere more often than they do the Eastern.

Concerning other countries knowing more about America than we do about their countries, I'd like to point out the Eastern hemisphere has many smaller countries. A great deal of the Western hemisphere is taken up by America, another good chunk of it by Canada. America is also a dominant country in the world. America's crazy politics, particularly recently when its President decided we should wage war on another country, puts America in the media spotlight.

The point is Michael Moore, I feel, deliberately exploits things he knows seem logical but aren't on review, because he knows he must only present them as fact and people will accept them. America may be ignorant, but I'd put down 2 to 1 we aren't much worse than any other country.


Originally Posted by Unequivocal Greatness
Please stop with the 'ball in your court'.

Quote by Northern Gimpland"
I don't see what's wrong with it. It wasn't really meant to mean anything special, I just couldn't think of anything else to say, and it related to it.

Ah. I misinterpreted your statement. My apologies. I hope you understand how some may find it threatening.

'DO YOU FEEL like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying...'

-Michael Moore, from his book 'Stupid White Men'

The implication is you aren't the dumb one, because you understand what Moore is trying to tell you. Those who fight against Moore are the idiots, because they don't understand him.


Important words highlighted. And you can get what someone is saying and still disagree with him. I think it's a real stretch to read that and think he's calling people who disagree with him stupid.

If you read the rest of the chapter, he's railing against inadequate funding for education in the States and the fact that 44 million adults are functionally illiterate. He isn't, repeat, HE IS NOT calling people who don't agree with him stupid, he is saying that the education system is in the crapper.

The "eighty million people" don't refer to anyone in particular. It's simply the population of the USA (280 million) minus the two hundred million. Right after that he comments on how he was impressed at people's knowledge of sports trivia. And he also says, "...it's proof the American mind is alive and well. It just isn't challeneged with anything interesting or exciting". That's not calling people stupid.

I find it funny that Republicans automatically think that the phrase "stone-cold idiots," applies to them.

Methinks they are a bit defensive.

Right after that he comments on how he was impressed at people's knowledge of sports trivia. And he also says, "...it's proof the American mind is alive and well.

The American mind is alive and well -- Well, it functions. I worked at a Juvenile Justice Center for a brief stint. The kids there couldn't read or do math. Those who could were in the 8th grade reading on a second grade level. Unsurprisingly, despite their inability to do remedial math and reading, they could sing along with every song on the radio. A student who could not be bothered to learn 2 + 2 - 2 = ? because he was learning disabled knew 40+ porn sites off the top of his head.

Some of these kids were without doubt learning disabled; some of these kids were on the smaller end of the IQ spectrum; more often then not they were ADD stacked with something else. Their minds did not fuction normally or well. Despite being shown greater things, these kids could not see passed being the alpha male and screwing anything that moved. Their minds, however, could assimilate information if pressed to. They learned the porn sites complete with the forward slashes to their favourite directory. Saying that the American mind is alive and well because one can learn, I feel, is not a valid correlation.


It just isn't challeneged with anything interesting or exciting". That's not calling people stupid.

When you say what another person is learning is trivial, you are saying, perhaps indirectly, but it is inferred none the less, that they are not an intellectual. Intellectuals pay attention to the important topics. Americans don't, says Moore; they pay attention to boring and uninteresting topics.

I beg to differ. Many people don't like politics. It's a lot more fun to rally around a game of football than it is to watch 'Senate' on CNN. Many people can't talk about politics without getting into a heated debate. Who, then, is more fun at a party: the guy who ruins everyone's time by talking about the good ol' days of the Reagan administration or the guy who's talking about the fourth quarter statistics of the favoured team losing 14-13? The latter is an interesting guy; the game is something to get excited about. Which politician do you want screwing you over next election: not so interesting or anything to get excited about.

I would agree it is every American's obligation to at least read one article by a nigh-unbias party to see if the candidate they intend to vote for is the one they want.

And now back to the show..

'DO YOU FEEL like you live in a nation of idiots? I used to console myself about the state of stupidity in this country by repeating this to myself: Even if there are two hundred million stone-cold idiots in this country, that leaves at least eighty million who will get what I'm saying...'

Reading the sentence with 'Even if' in bold does not make it positive to me. 'Even if I did my homework, I'd only get a C'. If the person puts forth effort in school, does their homework, makes an attempt, then they still -at best- could only acheive a C. You may read it otherwise, and this may be a fundamental difference in our characters, but to say it is a stretch to make this connection is a bit exaggerated or naive.

Most people having been given the option of being a person who exaggerates his claims or one who is naive tend to choose option 3: you don't know what you're talking about. This is the best I can do for you to convey my feeling of what Michael Moore has done. Moore (to me) has given you two options: Get what I'm saying or be a stone-cold idiot -- or option 3: 'SHUT UP MOORE!!!!'

The eighty million don't need to reference anyone in particular because you know you understand what Moore is saying, so you can't possibly be part of the 200 million. The eighty million who then do get what he's saying don't have to back him; you're right. It is, however, my belief that Moore feels he is doing what is best for the country. If such is so, then you could not possibly disagree with Moore because the alternative is so heinous you should see the errors in your ways and repent!

I hope I have provided at least some entertainment in your life. I have had much fun backing my position (I would not say 'defending myself'; I was never under attack). I only hope you realize Moore's persona and ideals may not come out as intended. There are people out there whom dislike Moore for good reasons but cannot figure out why.

To-mah-toh, to-may-toh.

With the first two paragraphs, you just said what my interpretation of the "Idiot Nation" chapter was.

I'm saying that I don't feel Moore was calling anyone stupid, neither do I think it was trying to say "Agree with me or you're an idiot." Is it not possible to get what someone is saying but disagree?

As an outsider frankly I'm completely bewildered at all the anti-Moore things going on in the States, "he hates America", "he makes stuff up", "he's a liar", "he's fat" etc., because it seems like a lot of fuss to be making over a political writer/filmmaker. I guess I'd have to be there to understand.

To-mah-toh, to-may-toh.

Toh-mah-toe. :D

Is it not possible to get what someone is saying but disagree?

We are proof it is possible.

As an outsider frankly I'm completely bewildered at all the anti-Moore things going on in the States, "he hates America", "he makes stuff up", "he's a liar", "he's fat" etc., because it seems like a lot of fuss to be making over a political writer/filmmaker. I guess I'd have to be there to understand.

People don't like hearing about how screwed up they are. People particularly don't care to be told how wrong they are by someone who enjoys the goods of America by telling Americans how screwed up we are while eating a big mac.

Moore has managed to obtain followers who tend to be more harmful than helpful in getting his point across. Moore doesn't step on a few toes, he smashes both feet.. and does it with a smile. His followers see this, and follow his example.

Those who may not disagree with Moore may find themselves put off by his antics. If you try to have a discussion about politics with most people, it turns sour really quickly. People leave upset and speak more fervently for their cause.

Moore can slander business, but you don't suggest the right-wingers should've died and not the lefties in New York on 9/11. No matter how much you may think it, common courtisy, a respect for human life, should tell you to not say anything at all.

There are plenty of things Moore does which can be debated. Moore has managed to assault Americans on all fronts, which is different from assaulting America. No one can escape Moore. That in itself is a bit annoying.

Many people consider Moore the antithesis to President Bush. I fail to see the difference: Michael Moore is a rich, white male with an exceptional marketing department, who, when he's not busy preying on the masses with half-truths, likes to stick his foot in his mouth; President Bush is a rich, white male with an exceptional marketing department, who, when he's not busy preying on the masses with half-truths, likes to stick his foot in his mouth.

Oh man was this fun. Our discussion here may just cause me to vote yes to a political freedom.

People don't like hearing about how screwed up they are.

Well, maybe it was in recognition of that that he called his TV show "The Awful Truth"?

Well, maybe it was in recognition of that that he called his TV show "The Awful Truth"?

Quite possibly. The show might make it if they brought it back.

So, I start a thread challenging the right to stop picking on easy targets (he's a comedian for god's sake) and take on some serious leftist thinkers. Their response? Yet another thread on Moore. *Applauds*

Just so you know, criticising Moore for presenting Americans as stupid, while simultaneously claiming he's a radical leftist, merely makes you look like a moron with no real understanding of politics. He's a left of centre liberal. Like Al Franklin. But not as funny.












Disclaimer: If you're offended by this post, it's probably about you