NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite many attempts, my brain refuses to engage in thoughts on Michael Moore. Every time I try to force it, It responds by making me stuff a cupcake in my pants.


...damn. It happened again. :p

Edit: This thread is mine! *charges rent*

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

I don't think he's a talented filmmaker, I think both his points and presentation are cheap and I don't think the films are a) conducive to substansitive political discource b) much good. I do, however, respect that he's trying to change things for the better.

And why shouldn't documentaries (of whatever nature) appear in movie theatres?

Agreed, he mostly just tells half truths and portrays the other side as fools. Kind of like Penn & Teller. Entertaining nonetheless.

Oh, I'd also like to note the complete stupidity of the "why not move?" option on the poll.

Well they should obviously be in movie theaters, otherwise no one would see them. But by your own admission, his presentation is cheap, and quite frankly if he said that his movies were meant to entertain he'd be kidding himself. I just think major movie theaters are places for entertainment, but that's just my opinion.

My own admission? I'm not his dad. I didn't admit, I attacked.

Movie theatres are a place to see movies. His movies are movies. Personally, I'd rather see far less movies made purely for 'entertainment' but I'm not going to tell people who want to see 300 that the movie theatre isn't the place to go.

I don't think he's a talented filmmaker, I think both his points and presentation are cheap and I don't think the films are a) conducive to substansitive political discource b) much good. I do, however, respect that he's trying to change things for the better.

And why shouldn't documentaries (of whatever nature) appear in movie theatres?

Well they should obviously be in movie theaters, otherwise no one would see them. But by your own admission, his presentation is cheap, and quite frankly if he said that his movies were meant to entertain he'd be kidding himself. I just think major movie theaters are places for entertainment, but that's just my opinion.

he's done about as much good for his cause as greenday have for theirs. basically rallying a bunch of impressional kids who don't really understand what they're talking about besides that they're being 'rebels'. he has some good points but the way he presents them is disingenuous and more than a little exploitative.

my opinion of him is not really represented in that poll.

His films are interesting, they are presented in an engaging way. It's all a load of crap what he says, naturally, but still...

Unbelievably smug, so I don't really like him all that much.

His books actually piqued my interest in politics and world affairs. So, in that regard he's certainly an important figure to me anyway. Though I agree he makes far too much money out of what he does, and does tend to leave indiscrepancies in his work to tilt his argument somewhat.

Oh, I'd also like to note the complete stupidity of the "why not move?" option on the poll.

Because some people hold that opinion. In some people's minds, "I love him" or "I hate him" is just as stupid of a statement to make.

Because some people hold that opinion. In some people's minds, "I love him" or "I hate him" is just as stupid of a statement to make.

It's okay to love or hate a filmmaker. It's not okay to tell anyone who disagrees with you that that's just how America is and they can like it or lump it.

Like Chomsky, he's nothing more than a for-profit political incendiary, unlike Chomsky, he used to be funny. Since Bowling he's just been filled with too much mean spirited vitriol to really appeal to me.

Oh, not to mention a clever editor.

While I did like the overall message in Bowling for Columbine (gun ownership doesn't cause gun violence - the fearmongering media do), there were two parts I really disliked.

First, his grossly inaccurate portrayal of how one buys ammo in Canada.

And second, his ambush of Charlton Heston.

He's an entertainer. He does amuse me from time to time.

He does everything he accuses everyone else of. He tells half-truths, uses fear and then says certain things are satire when he gets called on it. He's just a self-loathing creature.

He fights for the right causes the wrong way

People are too hard on him. His stuff highlights important issues.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

Meh, I think the same of him as I do of Rush Limbaugh: Pundit.

He just happens to have a different medium and be on the other side of the political spectrum.

Therefore, I don't really think anything of him. Hes just another voice that I tune out.

His ambush of Heston was glorious!

Heston is a waste of skin. Anyone who goes to a city right after a tragic school shooting to hold a rally about how great guns are is a tool. And this is coming from a gun owner before someone makes me out to be anti-gun.

His ambush of Heston was glorious!

Heston is a waste of skin. Anyone who goes to a city right after a tragic school shooting to hold a rally about how great guns are is a tool. And this is coming from a gun owner before someone makes me out to be anti-gun.

Yes, holding an annual meeting for NRA members in Denver that couldn't be cancelled due to state law makes Heston the anti Christ!!! Oh, forget that he canecelled evey other scheduled event in Denver, he didn't cancel the one thing he legally couldn't.

And if you are so inclined, why not check out Heston's actual speech during that event: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

It's nicely contrasted to MM's edits.

I do have to pick out this one little snippet:
One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us.
How true that turned out to be.

Another thing. I found his movies to be really boring. I never understood how people can praise them so highly. Blinded by the politics is the only explanation. In terms of entertainment value, I found all of them to be really lacking. All they do is prove how ridiculous the ratings on sites like imdb are. They have all left-wing productions, no matter how mediocre in the top 10 rated movies of the year in a matter of days, with thousands of voters giving it a 10 without seeing it. Outfoxed being another example.

Yes, holding an annual meeting for NRA members in Denver that couldn't be cancelled due to state law makes Heston the anti Christ!!! Oh, forget that he canecelled evey other scheduled event in Denver, he didn't cancel the one thing he legally couldn't.

And if you are so inclined, why not check out Heston's actual speech during that event: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

It's nicely contrasted to MM's edits.

I do have to pick out this one little snippet:

How true that turned out to be.


I have to say, I find the idea that he couldnt cancel an NRA ralley in Denver to be utter BS. Show me that law.

Another thing. I found his movies to be really boring. I never understood how people can praise them so highly. Blinded by the politics is the only explanation. In terms of entertainment value, I found all of them to be really lacking. All they do is prove how ridiculous the ratings on sites like imdb are. They have all left-wing productions, no matter how mediocre in the top 10 rated movies of the year in a matter of days, with thousands of voters giving it a 10 without seeing it. Outfoxed being another example.

*sigh* maybe because what you find boring other people find fascinating? People are allowed to do that, you know, have differing opinions...

...

You done ranting about Michael Moore?:p

Ummm......this a message board that discusses people's opinions. I don't know what exactly gave you the idea in my post that I was suggesting that other people didn't a different opinion. I guess there's two types of people. Michael Moore fans and everyone else.

I live under a rock, and thus have never seen any of his films. Indeed, I only know of him because people accuse him of being an evil propagandist for the librul media.

Set me down for another "No Opinion".

He's an entertainer. He does amuse me from time to time.
Same here. He's a funny guy, and I share his political views. However, he is not objective or talented enough to make useful documentaries. I think of movies such as Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 as more movie adaptations of something like The Daily Show.

While I did like the overall message in Bowling for Columbine (gun ownership doesn't cause gun violence - the fearmongering media do), there were two parts I really disliked.

First, his grossly inaccurate portrayal of how one buys ammo in Canada.

And second, his ambush of Charlton Heston.
I agree with you on the last one. He'd already gotten Heston to foot-mouth plant himself, so there was no need for dragging out the photo. It was cheap, tacky and unnecessary.

I voted for all of them because the OP screwed the poll up.

One thing I dislike about his film-making skills is that it's influenced others into believing that this is the way to make documentaries. eg. "Supersize me".
What Moore makes are not documentaries. They're entertaining factual opinions exploring current social issues. I like them, and I agree with him on many of the issues, and I enjoy his filmmaking skills, but I don't view them as documentaries per se.

Despite many attempts, my brain refuses to engage in thoughts on Michael Moore. Every time I try to force it, It responds by making me stuff a cupcake in my pants.That is simple as your brain fails to register the fact that Micheal Moore is the only as crazy as you.

Despite many attempts, my brain refuses to engage in thoughts on Michael Moore. Every time I try to force it, It responds by making me stuff a cupcake in my pants.


...damn. It happened again. :p

Edit: This thread is mine! *charges rent*

:::pays LG two banana creme tacos:::

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

Over rated gas bag.

my opinion of him is not really represented in that poll.

Indeed. The option that wasn't allow for: "I think he gets too much credit for what he does."

Like Chomsky, he's nothing more than a for-profit political incendiary,
Meh, I think the same of him as I do of Rush Limbaugh

Indeed. And like both of them, his rants are not worth very much.

Therefore, I don't really think anything of him. Hes just another voice that I tune out.

I live under a rock, and thus have never seen any of his films. Indeed, I only know of him because people accuse him of being an evil propagandist for the librul media.

Set me down for another "No Opinion".

Rodger and Me was OK, but Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 were the equivillant of watching Rush for a couple of hours.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.He's a disagreeable man with disagreeable methods.

On the other hand, he was the only one to raise his voice at a time when everyone else bent over and took it up the ass from the Bush administration. In my opinion, that's hardly better than what he's doing.

I think he's most certainly biased, but entertaining. I wouldn't quote his movies or books to prove a point in a debate, but I would most certainly use them as first contact with a topic I'm not all that familiar with.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

He most certainly does lie. By intentionally misrepresenting the truth to suit his political thinking, he is lying.

Here's a definition of the word lie, from dictionary.com

lie

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G Lüge, ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn; (v.) ME lien, OE léogan (intransit.); c. G lügen, ON ljūga, Goth liugan]

—Synonyms 1. prevarication, falsification. See falsehood. 5. prevaricate, fib.
—Antonyms 1. truth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

He raises some interesting points about America, but the way he does it does not lead to any kind of progressive debate. His films are caught between being entertaining and being a documentary. I would prefer if he made straight documentaries that presented all the facts, and that he checked his 'facts' a bit more, not just those that support his arguments.

He is a refreshing contrast to the Ann Coulter's and Rush Limbaugh and all those other nut job windbags the US airwaves are polluted with. He pisses them off so much as he uses their methods, when the left usually don't.

As is usual I notice people getting on their soap box how he profits from it (and also a dig at Chomsky). What? They should give all their money to charity. This is just a weak attempt to try to belittle what they say. You have problem attacking the content, so, as usual, you go for the man.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

Well, despite the fact that I am not ashamed to say that I plan to attend graduate school in Europe and had thought of (until VERY recently, acknowledging who the new State President is going to be) returning to South Africa, I can safely say that I do not like Moore. I find him to be an obnoxious staple of what is called the "Ugly American". Fat, obnoxious, and generally disagreeable.

I don't "hate" the man, I find him disagreeable. He might well make points that need to be made, but he goes about them in a totally wrong manner. The fact that he willingly leaves out agruments against and purposefully misrepresents the other side make him as bad as those he's trying to oppose.

Yes, holding an annual meeting for NRA members in Denver that couldn't be cancelled due to state law makes Heston the anti Christ!!! Oh, forget that he canecelled evey other scheduled event in Denver, he didn't cancel the one thing he legally couldn't.


I have to say, I find the idea that he couldnt cancel an NRA ralley in Denver to be utter BS. Show me that law.
Yeah, I too would like to see what law would have been broken IF the NRA had cancelled that meeting.

And if you are so inclined, why not check out Heston's actual speech during that event: http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

It's nicely contrasted to MM's edits.
So the only thing that might not be true in Bowling for Columbine, regarding Heston's speech is the reference to "Cold dead hands"?

Hmmmm.

For the record however, I hate Moore. I hate BSers no matter their stance.

I have to say, I find the idea that he couldnt cancel an NRA ralley in Denver to be utter BS. Show me that law.

Under New York law, not for profits cannot cancel annual membership meetings. The NRA is a New York not for profit organization. It wasn't a "pro-gun rally" as you claim, it was their membership meeting.

The NRA is a New York corporation and a non-profit organization that is regulated by law. New York law requires the NRA to have annual meetings (to allow members to debate, pass resolutions, amend by-laws and choose officers).
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film4308/corrections

Are you done with the ignorance now? Are you ready to live in the world of fact?

So the only thing that might not be true in Bowling for Columbine, regarding Heston's speech is the reference to "Cold dead hands"?

Hmmmm.

That most definately isn't true, look at the transcript of the speech.

There's other edits that are despicible too.


I'm also not validating anything else MM claims in the movie, just had to correct an overly ignorant post. MM is an entertainer. Period. Going through and picking apart truth from fiction is like going through 300 and picking out truth from fiction.

Under New York law, not for profits cannot cancel annual membership meetings. The NRA is a New York not for profit organization. It wasn't a "pro-gun rally" as you claim, it was their membership meeting.


http://www.moviemistakes.com/film4308/corrections

Are you done with the ignorance now? Are you ready to live in the world of fact?

Except that we're talking about Denver. Not New York. Besides, I said show me he law.

Also, doesnt change the fact that it was a pro-gun rally, which your little wesite flat out says that it still kind of was.


But whatever, go back to your shrine of Heston. The man is perfect after all.

*sigh*


An annual NRA meeting = pro gun rally. Stop insulting our intellegence. The NRA is a group dedicated to making sure people can still own firearms. Therefore, they are pro gun, and when they get together, or "rally" shall we say, its a "pro gun rally.

ps- I have been no more insulting than you, so get off your high horse.

Except that we're talking about Denver. Not New York. Besides, I said show me he law.

Also, doesnt change the fact that it was a pro-gun rally, which your little wesite flat out says that it still kind of was.


But whatever, go back to your shrine of Heston. The man is perfect after all.

Except the NRA is incorporated in New York and therefore has to abide by New York law.

Here's the exact law, incidentally: NPCL §603

And please, less fact and more insults. It so proves your point.

It was an annual membership meeting. Get your facts straight.

So now it's your turn. You can prove one of the following:

A: New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law doesn't apply to New York NFP's if they conduct their annual membership meeting outside the state.

B: The NRA lied about it being an annual membership meeting and in fact none of the things that happen at a membership meeting happened at this meeting.

C: There is a federal law that overrides the state law.

*sigh*


An annual NRA meeting = pro gun rally. Stop insulting our intellegence. The NRA is a group dedicated to making sure people can still own firearms. Therefore, they are pro gun, and when they get together, or "rally" shall we say, its a "pro gun rally".

ps- I have been no more insulting than you, so get off your high horse.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.
I think he's a populist opportunist out to earn a bit of cash. As a result, while he may be correct occasionally (probably more often than I give him credit for), he is not a credible source of information.

*sigh*


An annual NRA meeting = pro gun rally. Stop insulting our intellegence. The NRA is a group dedicated to making sure people can still own firearms. Therefore, they are pro gun, and when they get together, or "rally" shall we say, its a "pro gun rally".

ps- I have been no more insulting than you, so get off your high horse.

Great job refuting none of my points.

Do you even know what an annual meeting for a NPF Corporation is?

That's when board members are chosen, annual reports are handed out, anything that must be voted on my the members is voted on, ect.

And let's break down NPCL § 603 point by point:
Meetings of members may be held at such place, within or without this state, as may be fixed by or under the by-laws or, if not so fixed, at the office of the corporation in this state.
So they can hold their membership meeting where ever they want.

A meeting of the members shall be held annually for the election of directors and the transaction of other business on a date fixed by or under the by-laws. Failure to hold the annual meeting on the date so fixed or to elect a sufficient number of directors to conduct the
business of the corporation shall not work a forfeiture or give cause for dissolution of the corporation, except as provided in paragraph (a) of section 1102 (Judicial dissolution; petition by directors or members; petition in case of deadlock among directors or members).
Pretty harsh penalty for not holding a meeting, wouldn't you say?

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

So there. I've proven that the meeting couldn't have legally be cancelled. Your turn.

PS- I haven't been insulting you. I've been pointing out your ignorance on the subject. Which, I've just proven you have.

Great job refuting none of my points.

Do you even know what an annual meeting for a NPF Corporation is?

That's when board members are chosen, annual reports are handed out, anything that must be voted on my the members is voted on, ect.

I dont even get the relevence of this. Regardless of how you paint it, an NRA rally is a pro gun rally.

Lets just end this. You adore the NRA and think they are the epitome of decent human beings, where as I think they're a bunch of rednecks and loons. Agree to disagree.

I think he's a populist opportunist out to earn a bit of cash. As a result, while he may be correct occasionally (probably more often than I give him credit for), he is not a credible source of information.I don't think his primary motivation is to earn cash or to be a populist. He was speaking out against the government while everyone else was busy catering them. There's nothing populist about that. His primary goal is to influence the political process to set things right, in his view.

Except the NRA is incorporated in New York and therefore has to abide by New York law.

Here's the exact law, incidentally: NPCL §603

And please, less fact and more insults. It so proves your point.

It was an annual membership meeting. Get your facts straight.

So now it's your turn. You can prove one of the following:

A: New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law doesn't apply to New York NFP's if they conduct their annual membership meeting outside the state.

B: The NRA lied about it being an annual membership meeting and in fact none of the things that happen at a membership meeting happened at this meeting.

C: There is a federal law that overrides the state law.
So the meeting could have been rescheduled for another place and time, OR according to the following, it actually could have been cancelled despite your claim?

§ 603. Meetings of members.
(a) Meetings of members may be held at such place, within or without
this state, as may be fixed by or under the by-laws or, if not so fixed,
at the office of the corporation in this state.
(b) A meeting of the members shall be held annually for the election
of directors and the transaction of other business on a date fixed by or
under the by-laws. Failure to hold the annual meeting on the date so
fixed or to elect a sufficient number of directors to conduct the
business of the corporation shall not work a forfeiture or give cause
for dissolution of the corporation, except as provided in paragraph (a)
of section 1102 (Judicial dissolution; petition by directors or members;
petition in case of deadlock among directors or members).

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

Half truths?? How? for example exposing the medical care that TERRORIST get at Guantanamo Bay is better than im able to get and im in the Army!!! Or by telling the truth about the 800+ billion dollars the Saudi's and the Bin Ladens have in American interest. Or by telling about Dick Cheney's millions of dollars that he has made as a result of his companies APC's that are currently in heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan? This is blood money, money made from the over 3,000 deaths of my brothers in arms! Several of which i knew personally, calling this propaganda is offensive to me and anybody who has lost a close friend or family member in this "War on Terror" It is easy for an outsider looking in to dismiss "Farenheit 911" as propaganda. For me i cant hardly do that, when i see a man get rich because of deaths among US soldiers. Then he tells me and you that this war is necessary to defeat terror abroad.911 occured because of our military bases in the middle east and our support of isreal, it is odvious these people dont want us there, we should leave!!Why wont we leave oil! When we have several technologies that can get us from A to B just as effective. But you say, well these vehicles arent reliable, they dont go fast, they're not manly ect. This is the propaganda my friends, presented to you by the oil companies that are backed by who??Good ole Dubyah and family who just happen to sit on boards of directors of major oil companies. Terror can be fought without firing one shot leave the middle east and impliment alternative energies, which we have.That is all they want, the same exact thing that we want not to have bases in their countries. How would we react to china opening military bases in America to protect their interest here, it wouldnt fly to well now would it. This is the same thing we are doing to them, yet we expect them to like it. Such a double standard. Micheal Moore is right how many of these politicians would send thier own sons to fight?Awnser me that.....Not a freakin one. Yes i volunteered for it, this is true. You know why i volunteered?
Because of the lack of jobs other than fast food jobs within 100 miles of where i live...why is this the case?NAFTA....yes i know what your thinking but Bill Clinton started NAFTA and i would agree with you. But this administration keeps it up. This is off the subject so i will get back to my point.....
What about health care? I know several elderly people who have to choose between eating everyday and staying alive because they cant afford both. While TERRORIST, enemies of America, Get probally the best healthcare in the United States and 3 squares a day. Does nobody else see a problem with this?? So yes I applaud Micheal Moore and wish him the best, I hope he continues to make his documentaries and i sure as heck hope they change minds. Shame on these news networks who use propaganda to keep simple minded people from even viewing Micheals work (Yes FOX news i mean you) And shame on anyone who tries to make him out to be a fool. Because he's not, he is the only one who has the balls to speak out agianst an odviously currupt system. A system who basis more importance on special interest than its own people. Also to anyone who is thinking i am a walking, talking contradiction you are wrong, dead wrong. I am not anti-american i am merely pro the American people, the backbone on which this nation was founded. These are the people the government should care about, not the people who hand out these big checks to control our leaders. Ask yourself this: When was the last time that anything that has happened in washington actually affected your life? Other than causing you to lose a loved one or friend due to misinformation and misrepresentaion of the facts by the Bush administration. I challenge you to give me a worthy example other than i got a couple hundred dollars a few years ago. It is time for a change and Micheal Moore is one of the few enlightened ones in this country that actually see's this. When will the rest of the American people see this, and elect somebody that is for the people by the people. Not some millionaire mayor or governor, who's only concern is to make a little more money they dont need. When will they elect somebody who represents them, the working class ordinary citizen?

Concerned Corporal

Michael Moore is enlightend?


Now Ive heard everything.

I like how you ignored Canuk e-owning you. I was about to (having just read your edited post and the law) but he did it for me.

I dont even get the relevence of this. Regardless of how you paint it, an NRA rally is a pro gun rally.

Lets just end this. You adore the NRA and think they are the epitome of decent human beings, where as I think they're a bunch of rednecks and loons. Agree to disagree.

I never once stated my opinion on the NRA. I pointed out your ignorance.

I never once stated my opinion on the NRA. I pointed out your ignorance.


I like how you ignored Canuk e-owning you. I was about to (having just read your edited post and the law) but he did it for me.

I never said it could be resceduled. They have to give at least 10 days notice according to the NPCL. They had no time.



Okay so the exceptions are:
Judicial dissoilution- The NFP wasn't dissolved.
Petition by directors or members- That didn't happen, nor would there have been time to ratify it.
Petition in case of deadlock among directors or members- again, didn't happen.



11 days is more than 10. They had time. How hard is it to post a notice where the meeting would be held so when people show up they know and go back home, or send out an email?

I love your lack of reading comprehension.

I love your stupidity.

So the meeting could have been rescheduled for another place and time, OR according to the following, it actually could have been cancelled despite your claim?



http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

I never said it could be resceduled. They have to give at least 10 days notice according to the NPCL. They had no time.

Failure to hold the annual meeting on the date so
fixed or to elect a sufficient number of directors to conduct the
business of the corporation shall not work a forfeiture or give cause
for dissolution of the corporation, except as provided in paragraph (a)
of section 1102 (Judicial dissolution; petition by directors or members;
petition in case of deadlock among directors or members).

Okay so the exceptions are:
Judicial dissoilution- The NFP wasn't dissolved.
Petition by directors or members- That didn't happen, nor would there have been time to ratify it.
Petition in case of deadlock among directors or members- again, didn't happen.

I like how you ignored Canuk e-owning you. I was about to (having just read your edited post and the law) but he did it for me.

I love your lack of reading comprehension. Please, point out what part of that law lets them cancel the meeting. And please, tell me how that comment has anything to do with the post of mine you quoted.

11 days is more than 10. They had time. How hard is it to post a notice where the meeting would be held so when people show up they know and go back home, or send out an email?

With members from all over the coutnry that had already bought their plane tickets. This is a national organization. They need enough of a quorum to hold elections. If they move the meeting, they might not get that.

And now you are flaming. Nice.



Because you haved flamed yet:rolleyes:


Stop insulting our intellegence.

I love your stupidity.

And now you are flaming. Nice.

Is me saying micheal more is enlightened all anybody got from that??Wow this country is in worse shape than i thought. And tell if he's not enlightened then who is dubyah (President Bush)? Somehow i get the impression that nobody care about the thoughts on Micheal Moore all i have seen is regurgetated garbage fed to you by the media. Pick up a rifle and travel to the great far away land of Iraq and tell me what your opinion is then

11 days is more than 10. They had time. How hard is it to post a notice where the meeting would be held so when people show up they know and go back home, or send out an email?

When did Denver Mayor Wellington Webb ask the NRA to reschedule for another time or place? Did he do it that day or the day after? If not, then yes, it was too late.

Because you haved flamed yet:rolleyes:


Stop insulting our intellegence.

Saying someone is ignorant when they repeatedly display a lack of knowledge of a subject isn't flaming.

You have said you didn't believe a law requiring an annual meeting for a NFPC existed. I proved it did.

You claimed a New York NFPC didn't have to abide by NY law when holding an annual meeting outside of New York. I proved it did.

Shall I go on? You are ignorant of how NFPCs work. Most work in a very similar way to New York. You've demonstrated you don't know the reason or the cause for an annal meeting for an NFPC.

As for saying you have a lack of reading comprehension, you continually insist I've said the NRA is fantastic and Charlton Heston is perfect. I have said no such thing. You believe you've seen that somewhere in my writing which means you aren't comprehending what I've written.

And feel free to report me if you do indeed believe I've flamed you. If the mods tell me I have, I'll gladly refrain from it in the future.

Im still waiting for the awnser what has happened in washington that has improved your lives for the positive recentley???

When did Denver Mayor Wellington Webb ask the NRA to reschedule for another time or place? Did he do it that day or the day after? If not, then yes, it was too late.

And keep in mind, the meeting would have more than likely had to be rescheduled by the end of the business day. So the NRA BOD would have had to meet, make a motion to rescedule the meeting, and get the rescedule notice out.

When did the first reports come out? The shooting started at 11:30 am, let's say the news was there by 11:45 am. A board member would have had to see the incident or be informed of it. So, noon. They would have had to contact the other board members and gotten enough of them for a quorum.

And yeah, if they didn't know that the mayor didn't want them there, how would they have known to even initiate such actions? Hindsight is 20/20. Looking back, I'm sure they wish they would have. That's assuming they could have.

Im still waiting for the awnser what has happened in washington that has improved your lives for the positive recentley???

I hear they opened a new thai restaurant that's to die for.


>>



<<



Oh! You mean on Capitol Hill! Um.....






....





....






Congress overrode a veto on the clean water bill.

You have said you didn't believe a law requiring an annual meeting for a NFPC existed. I proved it did.

You claimed a New York NFPC didn't have to abide by NY law when holding an annual meeting outside of New York. I proved it did.
I still don't think you have made your case. They still could have cancelled the meeting or rescheduled it?

§ 603. Meetings of members.

(b) ..... Failure to hold the annual meeting on the date so
fixed or to elect a sufficient number of directors to conduct the
business of the corporation shall not work a forfeiture or give cause
for dissolution of the corporation
Am I missing something here?

No i meant you personally not the enviroment or any other thing of that sort have they cut your taxes?Have they increased the value of the dollar?Decreased inflation?BTW inflation is higher than its been in 17 YEARS!!!

Are you safer? Can you goto a doctor any time you want as much as you want? or do u have to worry about HMO's saying its ok. Things that affect your everyday life personally.

BTW i bet you had to dig deep for the clean water bill thing huh?lol

I still don't think you have made your case. They still could have cancelled the meeting or rescheduled it?


Am I missing something here?

The meeting was fixed well in advance (IIRC, the site and the date were scheduled somewhere around 5 years previous).

§ 603. (b) A meeting of the members shall be held annually for the election
of directors and the transaction of other business on a date fixed by or
under the by-laws. Failure to hold the annual meeting on the date so
fixed or to elect a sufficient number of directors to conduct the
business of the corporation shall not work a forfeiture or give cause
for dissolution of the corporation, except as provided in paragraph (a)
of section 1102 (Judicial dissolution; petition by directors or members;
petition in case of deadlock among directors or members).

wow you guys really dont wanna see the truth you are focusing on irrelevant issues, they are done, over with. Focus on the present then the future unless you have a time machine then who scheduled what meeting when doesnt matter.

Michael Moore is a subversive and should dissappear under mysterious circumstances, never to be heard of again.

Because you haved flamed yet:rolleyes:


Stop insulting our intellegence.

Why should we? It's fun, especially when you can't even spell intelligence correctly or form coherent sentences. :p

Half truths?? How? for example exposing the medical care that TERRORIST get at Guantanamo Bay is better than im able to get and im in the Army!!! Or by telling the truth about the 800+ billion dollars the Saudi's and the Bin Ladens have in American interest. Or by telling about Dick Cheney's millions of dollars that he has made as a result of his companies APC's that are currently in heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan? This is blood money, money made from the over 3,000 deaths of my brothers in arms! Several of which i knew personally, calling this propaganda is offensive to me and anybody who has lost a close friend or family member in this "War on Terror" It is easy for an outsider looking in to dismiss "Farenheit 911" as propaganda. For me i cant hardly do that, when i see a man get rich because of deaths among US soldiers. Then he tells me and you that this war is necessary to defeat terror abroad.911 occured because of our military bases in the middle east and our support of isreal, it is odvious these people dont want us there, we should leave!!Why wont we leave oil! When we have several technologies that can get us from A to B just as effective. But you say, well these vehicles arent reliable, they dont go fast, they're not manly ect. This is the propaganda my friends, presented to you by the oil companies that are backed by who??Good ole Dubyah and family who just happen to sit on boards of directors of major oil companies. Terror can be fought without firing one shot leave the middle east and impliment alternative energies, which we have.That is all they want, the same exact thing that we want not to have bases in their countries. How would we react to china opening military bases in America to protect their interest here, it wouldnt fly to well now would it. This is the same thing we are doing to them, yet we expect them to like it. Such a double standard. Micheal Moore is right how many of these politicians would send thier own sons to fight?Awnser me that.....Not a freakin one. Yes i volunteered for it, this is true. You know why i volunteered?
Because of the lack of jobs other than fast food jobs within 100 miles of where i live...why is this the case?NAFTA....yes i know what your thinking but Bill Clinton started NAFTA and i would agree with you. But this administration keeps it up. This is off the subject so i will get back to my point.....
What about health care? I know several elderly people who have to choose between eating everyday and staying alive because they cant afford both. While TERRORIST, enemies of America, Get probally the best healthcare in the United States and 3 squares a day. Does nobody else see a problem with this?? So yes I applaud Micheal Moore and wish him the best, I hope he continues to make his documentaries and i sure as heck hope they change minds. Shame on these news networks who use propaganda to keep simple minded people from even viewing Micheals work (Yes FOX news i mean you) And shame on anyone who tries to make him out to be a fool. Because he's not, he is the only one who has the balls to speak out agianst an odviously currupt system. A system who basis more importance on special interest than its own people. Also to anyone who is thinking i am a walking, talking contradiction you are wrong, dead wrong. I am not anti-american i am merely pro the American people, the backbone on which this nation was founded. These are the people the government should care about, not the people who hand out these big checks to control our leaders. Ask yourself this: When was the last time that anything that has happened in washington actually affected your life? Other than causing you to lose a loved one or friend due to misinformation and misrepresentaion of the facts by the Bush administration. I challenge you to give me a worthy example other than i got a couple hundred dollars a few years ago. It is time for a change and Micheal Moore is one of the few enlightened ones in this country that actually see's this. When will the rest of the American people see this, and elect somebody that is for the people by the people. Not some millionaire mayor or governor, who's only concern is to make a little more money they dont need. When will they elect somebody who represents them, the working class ordinary citizen?

Concerned Corporal

I will admit, I don't think Michael Moore is a fool (after all, he is a multi-millionaire). However, I do believe Michael Moore is a liar. He has, in his "documentaries", intentionally misquoted people, misrepresented pictures, videos, and himself to people in order to get them on camera, made things up, and contorted facts to fit his pre-determined conclusions. Michael Moore isn't enlightened, he's just a rich, fat guy that has a strong opinion and no compunction about lying.

wow you guys really dont wanna see the truth you are focusing on irrelevant issues, they are done, over with. Focus on the present then the future unless you have a time machine then who scheduled what meeting when doesnt matter.

This thread is about Michael Moore, and what we think of him. Therefore, anything he's done is fair game for discussion.

better than being brainwashed and regurgetating propaganda. And have a little respect sunny boy you havent been shot at for a year, now have you. I dont mean living in Detroit either. I mean a war zone which you'll probally never see in your life. Ever seen a close friend die, or ever seen anybody have limbs blown off. Didnt think so, so have some respect i've served my nation right or wrong. What have you done set around and enjoyed your freedoms, you have no idea the sacrifices that are made every day so people like you can set around and gab about this crap. So if i had a typo of two i think i have earned the right not to have it pointed out by you. Goto Iraq for 12 months then you can call me on my typos

wow you guys really dont wanna see the truth you are focusing on irrelevant issues, they are done, over with. Focus on the present then the future unless you have a time machine then who scheduled what meeting when doesnt matter.

It is relevant. It's something portrayed in one of MM's so-called documentaries. Some people attest the reality is very different from what MM portayed. this is a thread about MM and what one thinks of him.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.

The notion that Michael Moore has an 'agenda' is just silly. What would that agenda be?

Michael Moore is no different than other documentary filmmaker. He sees a topic that he is interested in and he thinks others are interested in and explores it in film. 'Sicko' for example was about the deplorable state of healthcare in the U.S. He knew other people (the majority of Americans, in fact) were interested enough in the topic to give him an audience.

Some conservatives in the U.S. can't handle it when people point out problems with the status quo. They attack the messenger, calling him/her unpatriotic. It's just a tactic they use to divert people from discussing the real issues.

And what is Bush but another rich guy who see's nothing wrong with lying but people are dumb enough to vote for him and other like minded individuals

And what is Bush but another rich guy who see's nothing wrong with lying but people are dumb enough to vote for him and other like minded individuals

I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else that follows his line of thinking. Try again.

And what is Bush but another rich guy who see's nothing wrong with lying but people are dumb enough to vote for him and other like minded individuals

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about Michael Moore. If you want to talk about Bush, please start your own thread and stop hijacking this one.

i was making a comparitive point please read above that

He is to liberals as Michael Savage is to conservatives.

better than being brainwashed and regurgetating propaganda. And have a little respect sunny boy you havent been shot at for a year, now have you. I dont mean living in Detroit either. I mean a war zone which you'll probally never see in your life. Ever seen a close friend die, or ever seen anybody have limbs blown off. Didnt think so, so have some respect i've served my nation right or wrong. What have you done set around and enjoyed your freedoms, you have no idea the sacrifices that are made every day so people like you can set around and gab about this crap. So if i had a typo of two i think i have earned the right not to have it pointed out by you. Goto Iraq for 12 months then you can call me on my typos

Were you polishing a gun in your basement wearing only an old pair of briefs when you wrote this?

He most certainly does lie. By intentionally misrepresenting the truth to suit his political thinking, he is lying.

Here's a definition of the word lie, from dictionary.com

lie

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G Lüge, ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn; (v.) ME lien, OE léogan (intransit.); c. G lügen, ON ljūga, Goth liugan]

—Synonyms 1. prevarication, falsification. See falsehood. 5. prevaricate, fib.
—Antonyms 1. truth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

So basically, the vast majority of all politicians, pundits and other talking heads whose careers depend upon being perceived as someone a significant portion of a given demographic agrees with are all liars, too. Neat.

Drudge, Coulter, Larson, Limbaugh, Hannity, Franken, Smiley, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Rodham, Edwards, Romney...and so on and so forth. All liars. Cool. My country's government and related "reporting" mostly sucks, then.

i was making a comparitive point please read above that

I'm still not seeing any opinion or debate about Michael Moore and/or his work.

So basically, the vast majority of all politicians, pundits and other talking heads whose careers depend upon being perceived as someone a significant portion of a given demographic agrees with are all liars, too. Neat.

Drudge, Coulter, Larson, Limbaugh, Hannity, Franken, Smiley, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Rodham, Edwards, Romney...and so on and so forth. All liars. Cool. My country's government and related "reporting" mostly sucks, then.

Our journalism especially. We're ranked 53rd in the world for most free press IIRC.

So basically, the vast majority of all politicians, pundits and other talking heads whose careers depend upon being perceived as someone a significant portion of a given demographic agrees with are all liars, too. Neat.

Drudge, Coulter, Larson, Limbaugh, Hannity, Franken, Smiley, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Rodham, Edwards, Romney...and so on and so forth. All liars. Cool. My country's government and related "reporting" mostly sucks, then.

Of course politicians are liars. It's what they're good at. :p

Michael Moore is a bit better, but certainly no worse than Limbaugh and the like for the distortion of objectivity. Then again, isn't that what partisan entertainment is? Why on Earth would you set out to make a documentary that shreds your own point of view and alienates your target audience? Would Dick Cheney have made An Inconvenient Truth? Of course not.

Whenever I hear a right-wing AM flack misrepresenting a liberal point of view or ad hominem-ing a liberal, I take it with the same salt pill that I swallow when I watch Moore's films. However, the points Moore makes at least make me want to go check out statistics and see if they bear him out -- I know he's not objective, that's almost impossible anymore. Limbaugh just makes me wanna hold his mouth open and shit in it -- I know he's not objective either, but he'd never cop to it. I get the feeling that if you sat down with Moore off the record, you'd realize that he knows his audience and knows what he's doing.

I understand what the French give up to have the "paradise" portrayed in Sicko, and it isn't what the conservatives say it is. Doctors in socialized medicine nations are not poor -- if they were, they'd move.

I think anything that encourages you to look around at the things we take for granted or the ideas we take for granted is an overall good. Moore encourages me to think about things like my government, health care, the gun debate. I make up my own mind. Limbaugh flat-out beats you over the head with how correct he believes himself to be -- not encouraging anything but thoughtless devotion to his version of the truth.

I don't know when the truth became a commodity, but I don't like it. I miss Walter Cronkite. It has always been easier to listen to one source and believe everything you hear and read. However, that's just not possible anymore if your goal is an objective opinion. The best we can do now, it seems, is to hear as much as we can, and distill what we believe from the mass of spun facts and biased reporting. It's worth the effort, but it does take the effort...and intellectual effort is something with which the majority of my country seems to have a problem.

People, stop the personal comments about other posters. Remarks about people's reading comprehension (Snafturi), intellectual ability (Knights of Liberty) -- or even jokes about their wardrobe, Cannot think of a name -- can drag others off-topic and into flaming. Which is against the rules.

So can misrepresenting their opinions, KoL. You don't know enough about Snafturi to know whether he adores the NRA, or thinks Charlton Heston is perfect. If he doesn't, he'll be annoyed at your saying so and may answer hotly, though he knows he shouldn't. Likewise, Lebenscraum, your view that others "don't want to see the truth". That's why such remarks are called flamebaiting. Which is against the rules.

So cut it out and stick to the topic, which, as several posters have said, is Michael Moore and his work.

-- or even jokes about their wardrobe, Cannot think of a name -- can drag others off-topic and into flaming. Which is against the rules.


sorry

'sorright.

The meeting was fixed well in advance (IIRC, the site and the date were scheduled somewhere around 5 years previous).

§ 603. (b) A meeting of the members shall be held annually for the election
of directors and the transaction of other business on a date fixed by or
under the by-laws. Failure to hold the annual meeting on the date so
fixed or to elect a sufficient number of directors to conduct the
business of the corporation shall not work a forfeiture or give cause
for dissolution of the corporation, except as provided in paragraph (a)
of section 1102 (Judicial dissolution; petition by directors or members;
petition in case of deadlock among directors or members).
Read on MacDuff:

shall not work a forfeiture or give cause for dissolution of the corporation
Again....if I am missing something here, please let me know.

I've seen all his films. I find them entertaining and informative to some extent. However what he says doesn't effect my political views in anyway. He's just another guy talking politics, but happens to do it in a very good way.

Read on MacDuff:


Again....if I am missing something here, please let me know.

I'll take a crack at this. Now, I do not have the law in front of me, but I would theorize that not holding a membership meeting could lead to fines or other civil penalties, and could possibly lead to an organization losing it's non-profit status.

Again, my theory.

I'll take a crack at this. Now, I do not have the law in front of me, but I would theorize that not holding a membership meeting could lead to fines or other civil penalties, and could possibly lead to an organization losing it's non-profit status.

Again, my theory.
Well, I am certainly not a lawyer, but it does not appear that any fines or penalties would be levied.

Snafturi stated that it would be a violation of the law, but so far, it appears that he has not made his case as to the severity of any violation.

Well, I am certainly not a lawyer, but it does not appear that any fines or penalties would be levied.

Snafturi stated that it would be a violation of the law, but so far, it appears that he has not made his case as to the severity of any violation.

I would assume that the penalties would come later in the code. But surely there are penalties for violating the law.

While I did like the overall message in Bowling for Columbine (gun ownership doesn't cause gun violence - the fearmongering media do), there were two parts I really disliked.


Fun(?) fact.
Check out the state songs of Colorado. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs)

Fun(?) fact.
Check out the state songs of Colorado. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs)

I lol'd ironically.

Im still waiting for the awnser what has happened in washington that has improved your lives for the positive recentley???nothing for the last 6 years

"hi's problems with america" aren't personal, there humanity's and the planet, so his "moving" wouldn't very well solve them. rather what he's doing, is more heroic then any cartoon charicter wearing eye irritating colors of spanex.

i'm sure as a human being he's as flawed as the rest of us, but more power to his attempts to pry the sleeping public's head out of it's ass before we roll over a cliff of no return.

=^^=
.../\...

Despite many attempts, my brain refuses to engage in thoughts on Michael Moore. Every time I try to force it, It responds by making me stuff a cupcake in my pants.


...damn. It happened again. :p

Edit: This thread is mine! *charges rent*

I try to tend away from sensationalism, so despite the fact that his political views often mesh with mine to some extent, I don't make a point of seeing his movies.

See Bernard Goldberg's book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.

I wouldn't have ranked him as high as Goldberg did, but I definitely would have put him in the top 10.

In most of Moore's films his political leanings and careful editing betray his objectivity somewhat. Even though I share many of his political beliefs, I must admit his movies are very one sided, if not entirely innacurate.

With the exception of his last movie, "Sicko".

This movie actually moves across the aisle to both sides the political spectrum and addresses an important issue, and compares the American Health Care system to every other western nation, and shows how dead last we are.

We provide excellent health care at exhorbititant cost to only those who can afford it, instead of excellent care to those that are simply in need of it.

Every other western nation provides free health care to its citizens, and are ranked higher than the US, in terms of overall quality.

When three 9/11 Rescue workers who have developed lung and breathing conditions from inhaling dangerous substances from the air at ground zero, had to go to Cuba to recieve Medical care they could afford (free, as it turned out), this is a fucking problem.
Of all people who should be entitled to affordable medicine, these folks should rank pretty high, yet, they could not be treated in thier own country, becuase they werent insured.

Fidel Castro's Cuba.

I think this is Moore's best work as it plays to both sides of the system. It doesnt target one side, and Moore even manages to keep the jabs at the Bush administration to a minimum. (theres one or two, but it IS Moore afterall)

On that note, I could point out that the very same things most people are saying about Bush, is what Moore has been saying since 2000.
Looks like he's not such an "America-hating Liberal".

Not enough poll options. Where is the one for "misrepresents facts to get a totally erroneous point across."

I try not to think about him. Whenever I do, a little bit of my breakfast comes up.

(I feel the same about any ideologue, liberal or conservative - Coulter, Limbaugh, Moore - the same loud, ranting misinformation).

Canadian bacon is his best movie. *nod*

Canadian bacon is his best movie. *nod*

The only thing I found funny and enjoyable of his.

I personally like him. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. I know he's a propagandist, but so is the other side. At least somebody's speaking for us now too.

He's OK. Not the best source for infomation on certain issues but he is no more gilty than some of the right-wing ogiarchs out there.

Fun(?) fact.
Check out the state songs of Colorado. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_songs)

I lol'd ironically.

Uh...you do know that the columbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Columbine) is a flower, right? The school was named after the Colorado state flower. I fail to see any irony/"fun(?) fact"-ness in that.

Michael Moore is a genius film maker, regardless of your opinions on his political views.

I personally like him. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. I know he's a propagandist, but so is the other side. At least somebody's speaking for us now too.

Well, it's not like Mike's the FIRST liberal to lie to the public.
As for my own opinion... mostly, I just wanna see what would happen if I poked him in the belly. Like with a fork.
I see it going one of two ways:

1) He laughs pleasantly like the Pillsbury Doughboy, I smile warmly, and the movie fades out.
2) A tide of bullshit washes over my shoes and I run away screaming, pulling my own hair out.

Uh...you do know that the columbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Columbine) is a flower, right? The school was named after the Colorado state flower. I fail to see any irony/"fun(?) fact"-ness in that.

It's ironic because the name of the state flower is more well-known as being the name of the school where the state's most infamous shooting massacre happened.

It's ironic because the name of the state flower is more well-known as being the name of the school where the state's most infamous shooting massacre happened.

The school was named after the flower. The flowers have been mentioned in song, story, poetry and visual art longer than Colorado has been a state. The state adopted the song about columbine long before Littleton thought of building any school, let a lone CHS. There's no irony, therefore in the state's song having columbine as its subject or title. The post I quoted was acting like it was ironic that the state song had "columbine" in the title; it simply is not ironic, that's all.

Michael Moore is a genius film maker, regardless of your opinions on his political views.

Clearly. His skill at m aking propaganda would have made Hitler hose his shorts.

I was curious as to what people think of Michael Moore, in general.

To me, he's a very talented filmmaker who's good at what he does- that is, making very persuasive propaganda that helps people buy into his agenda. I'm not calling him a liar (he doesn't flat out lie, but he sure does leave out alot of truths in his films), but to be honest I don't think documentaries of that nature belong in mainstream movie theaters, no matter what side (right or left) they're on.
I more or less agree, though I do think his films deserve some kind of category of their own. "Editorial documentary" perhaps?

I have to admit, he's a good film maker. I think he blows it by overplaying things sometimes, and I certainly know he plays with editing when it suits him, but he also does some very good work.

As it happens, Himself and I recently watched Sicko for the first time. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that I teared up at a couple of places during that movie. Parents having to move into their daughter's storage room because their medical costs bankrupted them...:( Moore did a very good job of provoking empathy and emotional connection with his subjects.

As it happens, Himself and I recently watched Sicko for the first time. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that I teared up at a couple of places during that movie. Parents having to move into their daughter's storage room because their medical costs bankrupted them...:( Moore did a very good job of provoking empathy and emotional connection with his subjects.

I haven't seen Sicko so I can't comment on that one, but what you're describing sounds like the same approach he used in Bowling for Columbine which is little more than a form of movie sleight of hand.

For example, in one part he has you emapthizing wi th a single mom whose son goes to school where gun violence is a problem, all the while suggesting that there's a connection between that and the fact that there's a nearby Air Force Base. Or blaming the Columbine shootings on the proximity of a Lockheed Martin military weapons factory while dazzling you with the outrageous rhetoric of some gun rights advocates.

I haven't seen Sicko so I can't comment on that one, but what you're describing sounds like the same approach he used in Bowling for Columbine which is little more than a form of movie sleight of hand.

For example, in one part he has you emapthizing wi th a single mom whose son goes to school where gun violence is a problem, all the while suggesting that there's a connection between that and the fact that there's a nearby Air Force Base. Or blaming the Columbine shootings on the proximity of a Lockheed Martin military weapons factory while dazzling you with the outrageous rhetoric of some gun rights advocates.
First off, let me just say that BfC was not my favorite of Moore's movies, and I certainly agre that there were a number of problems with it. I also think Moore was much more heavy-handed in that one than in his recent film work, which hopefully indicates that he's learning a bit as he goes along.

The thing is, while the connections you're talking about fit into the category of "overplaying" that I was talking about, I also thought Moore was getting at a very interesting point.

Several extremely loud factions rushed to blame heavy metal music for school shootings, yet I never heard an equally loud faction blaming (for instance) the example set by our own government and our prevailing culture in regards to the use of force and the aggressive war.

I was a teen at the time, and I was pretty insulted to hear all these adults acting as though teens don't read the news or pay attention to anything beyond cloths, music, and MTV.

I also thought his points about the welfare parents was very important.

At my school they suddenly banned black coats after Columbine. For a little context, we'd already had METAL DETECTORS at our school for years. We'd had our share of bomb threats. We'd had a kid expelled for bringing a knife. This shit was nothing new, but all of a sudden the adults were taking our CD players and making us turn our MM t-shirts inside out. They were treating us like morons, as if listening to a certain band would turn us into psycho killers or something, ignoring the entire context of what happened at Columbine.

You do not start with healthy, well-cared-for children, then add some rock music and HEY PRESTO MURDERERS! Moore was right to point out that poverty and pre-existing family problems are far more accurate predictors of future violence. He was also right to point out that not all absentee parents are lazy assholes who don't care about their children.

Basically, what I liked about Moore's movie was that he challenged all the typical targets of blame. People jump to blame music, bad parents, guns, whatever. Moore points out that the music didn't do shit, the parents weren't necessarily bad people, and the guns don't have to be a problem in the first place. I appreciated that.