PDA

View Full Version : 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'



Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 12:50 AM
My opinion on Micahel Moore is less than appealing and I'm sure everyone knows how I feel so I'll skip MY rant about the man himself and post an article I just ran across that I found amusing.

Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'
NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 24, 2004

A just released book takes on Michael Moore as never before. Its title screams: “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.”
And surprisingly, this book has been published by the same publisher who gave us Michael Moore’s own runaway bestseller “Stupid White Men.”Apparently, more than a few people want to take revenge on Michael Moore and the timing couldn’t be better – with the release this week of his “documentary” attack piece on George Bush - Fahrenheit 9/11.

Moore is so terrified by his detractors he claims that he has already hired a cabal of lawyers. He says he will sue Bush supporters who he thinks may be preparing to slander him.

Moore's hypocrisy is obvious. Slate editor Jack Shafer says “Moore's hysterical, empty threats" to sue critics of his latest schlockumentary shows that he "appears to believe in free speech only for himself."

One possible target for Moore’s lawyers may be the publisher of his own book.

Moore’s one time publisher, ReganBooks, is out with a disturbing yet comical book that dismantles every cog of that propaganda machine marketed as Michael Moore.

David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke's "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" begins by unearthing his phony roots and goes right up to his latest "documentary."


Meet the Flint-drone: Everybody knows Moore is a blue-collar guy from Flint, Mich., right? That's how he always sells himself.

In reality, he was born and raised in the wealthy, lily-white town of Davison, Mich, the authors reveal. No wonder the clown prince of self-loathing developed such a complex about hating rich, stupid white males.


In a letter to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times last year, Moore still listed his town as Flint. In fact, despite his proclamations that "capitalism is a sin" and "an evil system," he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan.


Does not play well with others: Moore can't get along even with his fellow travelers.

Hardy and Clarke disclose how the radical magazine Mother Jones fired the "arbitrary" and "suspicious" Moore; how he started his feud with his replacement, David Talbot, who later founded Salon; how Ralph Nader's organization fired Moore; how he attacked Pauline Kael, Harlan Jacobson and other prominent critics who exposed the deceits of his schlockumentaries; how he lost a lawsuit for betraying fellow lefty activist Larry Stecco in "Roger & Me," etc.


Nor can the elitist Moore tolerate those lowly working classes and students he claims to represent.

"Big Fat Stupid White Man" gives details of how he abused the staff during a speaking engagement at London's Roundhouse Theater; how he castigated a student who dared question his hefty speaking fee; how he attacked a young documentary maker who had the nerve to give him a taste of the "Roger & Me" treatment, and so forth.

And don't forget his amusingly shrill denunciation of those awful blue-collar crewmen who, unlike his fellow multimillionaires in Hollywood’s left, booed him during his tirade at the Oscars.

The book presents one example after another, alternating between frightening and hilarious, to make a brilliant case for Moore having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


Then there's his feud with his former publisher, HarperCollins subsidiary ReganBooks, which gave us his best seller “Stupid White Men” and now brings us “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.”

ReganBooks, he claims, tried "to censor me and the things I wanted to say. They insisted I rewrite up to 50 percent of the book and that I remove sections that they found offensive to our leader, Mr. Bush." The company plotted "to 'pulp' and recycle all 50,000 copies of my book that were gathering dust in a warehouse," he insists.

However, ReganBooks issued a statement to NewsMax.com contradicting these allegations:

"Originally scheduled for release on September 11, 2001, the book was delayed by mutual agreement between author and publisher after the events of that day. Despite erroneous reports that have appeared in the press, the publisher never attempted to censor the book on partisan grounds, though the publisher and author did discuss replacing the original version of the book with an updated version to address the post-9/11 world. Ultimately, the decision was made to release the book in its original form, and it went on to become a huge success for both the publisher and the author. ReganBooks has since declined to exercise its option to publish another book by Mr. Moore."


After all, Moore and other members of the left-wing thought police can't bear a commitment to diversity of ideas.

Judith Regan, president and publisher of ReganBooks, noted that her company had produced books by Howard Stern and Moore as well as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

"As publishers, we have an obligation to publish a wide range of ideas, opinions, and perspectives," she said in a statement issued to NewsMax. "Our job is to publish voices on the left, on the right, and everywhere in between – to provide a broad range of opinion.”

"We agree with Michael Moore that free expression is one of our most important human rights," Regan said, "and publishing widely and freely is the only way to honor that tradition."


Unfortunately, Moore fights his critics' right to free expression, as Slate's Shafer noted and as Hardy and Clarke document at length.


Howlers in 'Columbine': Some of the distortions and falsehoods that plague the movie "Bowling for Columbine" are already well known, but Hardy and Clarke add details and reveal new whoppers.


Moore claims that National Rifle Association taunted the Denver area and the nation by holding "a large pro-gun rally" only days after the killings at Columbine High School.
In reality, the annual meeting had been planned well in advance, was required by law, could not have been changed in time to another city, and was stripped of all rallies and ceremony in deference to the community.


The movie depicts Charlton Heston as making his famous "cold, dead hands speech" in Denver.
In reality, the remarks came a year later in Charlotte, N.C., and Moore spliced bits of footage from that and another speech for maximum distortion. "It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things," Hardy and Clarke write.


The fantasy film claims that Heston exploited a school shooting in Mount Morris, Mich., by staging another "big pro-gun rally" in October 2002.
In reality, Heston’s appearance came eight months after the shooting, at a get-out-the-vote event in nearby Flint. Others campaigning in the area around that time included Al Gore, George W. Bush … and Moore himself, touting Ralph Nader.

The authors conclude: "Bowling for Columbine has less documentary value than the average Bugs Bunny cartoon. You see Heston giving a speech – but it's doctored. You see history – but unconnected facts are given a particular Moorewellian spin. You hear that a factory is making weapons of mass destruction – actually, it's building satellite launch platforms. You're led to believe that a rally was a response to a shooting, but it turns out it was eight months later, in anticipation of an election. You watch a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, but in reality it was an ad Moore himself assembled."


'Stupid' is as stupid does: Hardy and Clarke dissect "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where’s My Country?" along with the latter's celluloid ugly stepchild, Fahrenheit 9/11, to delve into the heart of Moore's pathology. A few highlights:


Moore harps on his portrayal of America as a "nation of idiots" (i.e., people who disagree with him) and illiterates.
In reality, the "statistics" he offers indicating widespread illiteracy include two sizeable groups: immigrants who are often fluent in other languages but not English, and the blind and visually impaired.


Moore, who after all graduated from high school, delights in ridiculing his countrymen’s poor grasp of geography. "The dumbest Brit here is smarter than the smartest American," he snickers to an audience in London.
But Moore chooses not to add an important fact: young adults worldwide performed badly on the National Geographic survey he so selectively cites.


He claims that Florida wrongly disenfranchised thousands of pro-Democrat criminals in the 2000 election. "Thirty-one percent of all black men in Florida" are felons, in his paranoid fantasy world. (No wonder this limousine liberal travels in such exclusive circles.)
In reality, the Miami Herald showed that Democrat-run counties violated state law and let the overwhelmingly Democrat felons vote illegally – more than 2,000 votes, most of which went to Gore.


Most importantly, "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" refutes Moore's wild attempts to implicate the president in 9/11. Every American should read these chapters. They are too detailed to summarize here, but one example will demonstrate this book's importance.

Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.


In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe.

Inspiration to terrorists: Moore's favorite claim: “THERE … IS … NO … TERRORIST … THREAT!" If so, why do terrorists take succor from him?

The most damning indictment of Moore in "Big Fat Stupid White Man": the salute offered by Imam Samudra, leader of the Muslim terrorist bombers who murdered 202 people, mostly Australians and other tourists, two years ago at Paddy's nightclub in Bali.

"I saw lots of whiteys dancing and lots of whiteys drinking there," Samudra told Indonesian police. The authors note, "It was 'Kill Whitey' (to quote a chapter heading in Stupid White Men) with a vengeance."


Samudra's attorney Qaidar Faisal concluded his defense by praising the Taliban and quoting from "anti-western texts" including Moore's "Stupid White Men."


Despite all the appalling revelations in "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man," it's hard to finish the book without feeling pity for this man.

Had he used his talents to make actual documentaries and write books devoid of distortion and mendacity, he could have offered a useful critique of the Bush administration's flaws.

Instead, fueled by a narcissism that springs from hatred of self and others, he mangles reality to dupe the uninformed, delight the blame-America-first crowd and even inspire terrorists.

He concentrates his venom on one politician and one party but damages a nation.

"Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" marks a confident step in undoing his damage.

Jebus
06-26-2004, 12:56 AM
You call Moore a hypocrite, and yet you support Limbaugh?

Anyway, sounds interesting. Think I'll read it.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 01:01 AM
I support a lot of Limbaugh's opinions, yes. ^_^- Just don't let that aspect about me ( that and my Moore disliking ) cloud your judgement on me. I am a 'rabid conservative' yes but that doesn't make me closed minded. A lot of people will probably discredit this article based on the fact that it's from Newsmax.com ( a clear Conservatic/Republican site ) Nonetheless, if you support Moore it'll interest you to know who he's going against with this book and the documentray "Michael Moore HATES America."
-sage nod-

Jebus
06-26-2004, 01:04 AM
Sounds good. I'm always open to new ideas. Even though I agree with him that American's are stupid, and I'm not a big fan of the country meself.

Its good to see you're open minded. A good example of which is you not flaming me as I expected after my taunt about Limbaugh. Good show.

Casey
06-26-2004, 01:05 AM
Sue anybody who makes fun of him ? Hey if Bush did that he'd be a millionare... Thats 'Freedom of Speech' for you...



THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT!

And I take it if he were president he wouldnt have the leader ship to do somthing about it, rather then living in a dream world, thinking battling terrorism is a unwinable battle. Its that pessimist thinking that doesnt bring us anywhere.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 01:14 AM
"And surprisingly, this book has been published by the same publisher who gave us Michael Moore’s own runaway bestseller “Stupid White Men.”
This brings a smile to my face. Anyone else? XD!


Its good to see you're open minded. A good example of which is you not flaming me as I expected after my taunt about Limbaugh. Good show.
Thank you. Just because you don't like Limbaugh that doesn't mean you are insulting me. ^_^- And it's good to know that you took the time to read the article instead of getting huffy and flaming ME.


Hey if Bush did that he'd be a millionare...
A LOT of people would be millionares . . . -sage nods-

Mr. Graves
06-26-2004, 01:37 AM
The same can easily be said about Rush. Espeially when he's a racist and was addicted to painkillers, which Moore is/has been guitly of neither. *snicker*

Shadow Nexus
06-26-2004, 01:38 AM
Ah, so Michael Moore contradicts himself. Yet everyone does.

About the whole manipulation this article claims to unveil, well, I don't know, I have the same reasons to believe this than I have to believe Moore: None. Maybe it's true that Moore did do that to the Heston speech, so then...why didn't the actor sue him? I think he should have a right to do so. And still, if that is in fact true, well...bad work. It still dosen't invalidate the points he does in that documentary.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 01:43 AM
The same can easily be said about Rush. Espeially when he's a racist and was addicted to painkillers, which Moore is/has been guitly of neither. *snicker*
-points her finger at menacingly then shakes her head- I won't retaliate. I shall just shut up and . . . nod my head and smile. :) -seeths-

Dingo Jellybean
06-26-2004, 02:49 AM
Rush Limbaugh is a fat, bloated, doping hypocrite. I'm glad his stupid talkshow isn't aired in my media market. But as for Michael Moore...

...I noticed you said you're a diehard Republican(well, you have to be if you support Bush). One thing you seem to assume about Michael Moore, from what I've seen, is that he seems anti-Republican and goes against your views. I'm pretty sure that's one of the roots of your hatred for Michael Moore.

The majority of the US shares your opinion. See, you keep posting what others think of him...but who cares? Your rants have been nothing more than "Michael Moore is fat and needs to die" or you just agree with anyone who bashes Michael Moore.

What people don't understand is that Michael Moore is more unAmerican than anti-American. The majority of the media itself has had a US education, and one thing about education...no matter where it is, is that education teaches and preaches patriotism. The media is suppose to be this unbiased news outlet, yet they broadcast him in a negative tone.

For example, my local news affiliate, FOX 5, reports about Farenheit 911 and only mentions how much criticism it has received. You call that unbiased? That's BS.

What I hate about Michael Moore bashers is that they always have to quote everyone else.

I do agree, to some degree, that many Americans are dumb. Probably not common sense dumb, but close-minded dumb. This country is so beleagered in its own patriotism that anything negatively said about this country is said to be blasphemous. The politicians elected in this country might hold degrees from high institutions(like Bush), but many of them are helpless without their advisors(like Bush). I'm not anti-Republican, I just think Bush is a complete moron who barely got his way to his degree. John McCain is a much better republican and better educated. Even many democrats agree with that one.

The reason why I hate all these stupid quoting articles is that they are all biased. And of all places, why the hell did you quote this article from Newsmax? The site is clearly Republican-favored. If you're going to quote, quote from an unbiased source, otherwise your statements look like crap.

Mr. Graves
06-26-2004, 02:59 AM
What people don't understand is that Michael Moore is more unAmerican than anti-American.

I agree with everything else, but I don't think he's un-american. He's questioning the way the current government is run, and he's doing what america was founded on. He's just using his right of free speech to do worthy cause. Not enough people question the government, I don't think.

Trumpet Thief
06-26-2004, 03:08 AM
Rush Limbaugh is a fat, bloated, doping hypocrite. I'm glad his stupid talkshow isn't aired in my media market.

:thumb:

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 03:22 AM
One thing you seem to assume about Michael Moore, from what I've seen, is that he seems anti-Republican and goes against your views. I'm pretty sure that's one of the roots of your hatred for Michael Moore.
My hatred for Michael Moore is not just because he doesn't share my personal opinion. Hell, if you want to look at it that way - A LOT of people don't share my opinion but I don't hate them. I like Limbaugh and you don't . . . I don't hate you.


Your rants have been nothing more than "Michael Moore is fat and needs to die" or you just agree with anyone who bashes Michael Moore.
No. There are plenty of statements made that I don't agree with. I don't think he's the devil and I never said based my dislike of him because he's fat and needs to die ( I don't wish death upon anyway but I know where you were coming from ). The things he's said about the American public pisses me off. His general cocky attitude angers me off. The fact that he pokes fun at the heros on Flight 93 ( something that I refuse to let go ) makes me dislike him further.


The media is suppose to be this unbiased news outlet, yet they broadcast him in a negative tone.
From what I've seen the majority of the news outlet has a liberal standpoint but I suppose that's just one's own perspective.


What I hate about Michael Moore bashers is that they always have to quote everyone else.
I was posting an article I had read on one of the sites I go to because I found the topic interesting and I found what they had to say about Michael Moore interesting. I understand the atricle bashes him a lot and if that upsets you I'm sorry. I've also seen many articles bashing Bush . . .


The reason why I hate all these stupid quoting articles is that they are all biased. And of all places, why the hell did you quote this article from Newsmax? The site is clearly Republican-favored.
I post from this particular news article from a strictly conservative website because I agree with what they say. I've been a fan of that site for quite some time.


If you're going to quote, quote from an unbiased source, otherwise your statements look like crap.
Then I guess they look like crap to you. I figured it better to post an article that I was reading rather than coming in here and saying, "Look! There's a book that calls Michael More fat and stupid!! I don't like him but I have no personal reason to cause I just quote what others say!" However, I guess that's how it came across from what you've said and I'm sorry if you perceived it that way.

:( You know, this is why I stay away from topics like this usually.

Dingo Jellybean
06-26-2004, 03:28 AM
NewsMax is clearly Republican-favored...why?

Those "Support Bush" ads all over the site is one clue. So quoting from them is never reliable.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 03:32 AM
Just because the page supports Bush does not make the information unreliable. So what if it is Republican-favored?

Dingo Jellybean
06-26-2004, 03:48 AM
Just because the page supports Bush does not make the information unreliable. So what if it is Republican-favored?

It doesn't make it's information reliable, but it just makes their opinion bias and unreliable when trying to quote from fact.

Because Moore is seen as anti-Republican in most eyes, of course a Republican-favored website will lash against Moore.

Shadow Nexus
06-26-2004, 04:00 AM
Um...I have a little question:
Is that supposed to be a..uh....news article? Seriously. I thought it was more like...an opinion column. If that is supposed to be a news article, then...I must say it's the worst news article I have ever read, since the writer keeps giving his/her opinion over and over.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 04:06 AM
You know. I'm not ignorant I and I understand that this 'article' is from a Republican based site. Nonetheless, I've seen COUNTLESS articles based on nothing more than Bush and discrediting him. I'm quite tired of hearing the whining about it. I posted it because I read it and found it interesting and decided to share it since Michael Moore has been a rather popular subject here. I've apologized if you perceived it in a light that is unflaterring. I don't know what else to tell you.

Shadow Nexus
06-26-2004, 04:11 AM
I'm just asking if thats a news article or an opinion column.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 04:15 AM
It's a NewsPage but with an obvious, strong Republican standpoint on everything. They don't just make up things to make the non-republic opinions look bad but do tend to use their opinions quite often ( which is why I'm drawn to them ).
If you'd like to see for yourself click here (http://focusin.ads.targetnet.com/ad/id=gdp11&opt=hhj&cv=210&uid=4721206).

Dingo Jellybean
06-26-2004, 04:16 AM
Um...I have a little question:
Is that supposed to be a..uh....news article? Seriously. I thought it was more like...an opinion column. If that is supposed to be a news article, then...I must say it's the worst news article I have ever read, since the writer keeps giving his/her opinion over and over.

It's an opinion column, but what Fuza tried to do (in my opinion) was quote off someone who supported her view.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 04:22 AM
It's a Newspage with opinions worked in to the information. If you'd like to think of it as a opinion column then that's just the way you see it. Nonetheless, what I was trying to do was share an article of expressive writing that I agreed with. I don't see how what I did was wrong just because you don't like what you read.

Dingo Jellybean
06-26-2004, 04:31 AM
It's a Newspage with opinions worked in to the information. If you'd like to think of it as a opinion column then that's just the way you see it. Nonetheless, what I was trying to do was share an article of expressive writing that I agreed with. I don't see how what I did was wrong just because you don't like what you read.

I never said it was wrong of you to quote it. I said it's unreliable information to back your statements up because your quoted statements are just bias.

Shadow Nexus
06-26-2004, 04:31 AM
It's an opinion column, but what Fuza tried to do (in my opinion) was quote off someone who supported her view.

I don't know whats wrong with that. I mean, if there is an article expressing what you think, just post it, and save the typing. I never do that, though, because I always have something against everything. De omnibus dubitatum.


If you'd like to see for yourself click here.

Not working:
http://fad-412.mtl4.targetnet.com//ads/banners/badurl.gif


But I'm gonna check the site...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200406/s1140162.htm

Heeh...thats even kinda cute.

And there's even links to rahter curious stuff

http://www.reagancoin2004.com/


Um, but yes, it looks like a quite biased site. That's OK, I like this kind of sites just to see opinions totally oposed to mine, after all, my ideology is far left. I tend to look more at conservative sites though, because I find opinion articles I can disagree with more interesting, I think in a way it's better than reading an article I agree with: It makes me do a critic.

Then again, I tend to disagree with left articles too.


Edit:
I'm sorry, I fail to understand this man (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/JoinBookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6447):

"Why conservatives should make no apologies about believing that America is a superior society, not because Americans are superior beings, but because our culture was founded on recognition of God-given natural rights"



Uh....so he is advocating chauvinism? I think thats exactly why so many people hate the US.

Kirobaito
06-26-2004, 06:26 AM
I do consider myself to be a Republican, but I would not call myself a diehard Republican. I'm much more liberal than most conservatives.

Americans are stupid, yes. I'm not afraid to admit that. Yet so is Michael Moore. He does not realize this. I have gotten the perception from him that he thinks that he is the undying prophet of mankind and that he is the only American that is not stupid. He accuses people of things that he is also doing, ie ignorance and stupidity. He is just as much a hypocrite as the people he criticizes. When he finally shuts up and leaves me alone, I will be a much happier person.

I will not see Fahrenheit 9/11, after seeing Bowling for Columbine and finding it to be full of utter crap. Thanks for this insightful article, Fuzakeru.

fire_of_avalon
06-26-2004, 06:46 AM
I dislike Michael Moore because he's quite full of himself, from my point of view. He depicts himself as this champion of the "little guy" or "the people without a voice". Nobody needs a champion who tries to make himself a champion. This is the same reason I strongly dislike Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Al Franken. In short, anyone who utilizes the media to further their political views I find to be rather egotistical, and if someone's ego impedes upon their "cause", then they aren't all that dedicated to that cause, are they?

And just so we all know where we stand, I'm very leftist. :)

The Captain
06-26-2004, 07:50 AM
I respect Moore only because he is actually taking on the Bush Administration. As a political figure, I find his views laughable and very sensationalisitic. However, I am glad that someone actually stands up to what has become the common trend today: Everyone having a love-in with the government.

The media was created to report on and sort of keep the government in check, yet after 9/11, that wall disappeared, and any criticism against the Bush Administration is met with such distain that it seems like they (The Media) MUST be crazy.

Jon Stewart made just this point this very night on Larry king, when he said to the effect that the media has become almost a part of the Administration instead of something aside from it.

What irkes me about this government, more than anything else, is ITS high and mighty self-righteousness. Whenever criticized, they react as if it's un-patriotic to doubt what is being said. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm of the feeling that if you lie, and are caught in the lie, you probably should tell the truth...

This goes either way, but right now, the Republicans are on the hot seat and it's only getting hotter with every day.

Take care all.

nik0tine
06-26-2004, 04:49 PM
i dont know about you all, but i like stupid fat white men much MORE than i do stupid, white, dishonest, illiterate cowboys.

Azure Chrysanthemum
06-26-2004, 05:34 PM
A confident step in undoing his damage? Is he to be considered some sort of threat now?

Come on, this "documentary" of his isn't going to do anything whatsoever. The hard-line Republicans and conservatives will whine about it and call him unpatriotic or whatever, and the hard-line Democreats and liberals will all think it's great. I can't see this effecting the election all that much anyways, most people's views are set in stone by this point.

nik0tine
06-26-2004, 05:39 PM
it changed my mothers views. she isnt voting for bush now. i can see how this could get people who dont pay attention to politics and just vote republican 'cos thats the thing to do (or in some cases, the christian thing to do). it definetly could put a few votes on john kerry's side i think.

Fuzakeru
06-26-2004, 06:24 PM
I have to agree with the point made that this movie is not going to affect MANY people's votes at all. The Republicans ( most of them anyway ) will continue to support Bush no matter what and hate Moore and the Democrats ( mostly ) will idolize Moore and hate Bush. -shrugs- It won't change much.
My feelings toward Moore and Bush aside - I just can't wait to see the perverbial crap hit the fan when these two medias come out against Moore and his retaliation towards them both ( as he has said he will ). I'll find it amusing to be honest regardless of what side I'm on.

DMKA
06-30-2004, 07:57 AM
I have to agree with the point made that this movie is not going to affect MANY people's votes at all. The Republicans ( most of them anyway ) will continue to support Bush no matter what and hate Moore and the Democrats ( mostly ) will idolize Moore and hate Bush. -shrugs- It won't change much.
My feelings toward Moore and Bush aside - I just can't wait to see the perverbial crap hit the fan when these two medias come out against Moore and his retaliation towards them both ( as he has said he will ). I'll find it amusing to be honest regardless of what side I'm on.
Do you have any idea how much of a hypocrite and a moron you made yourself look like with that statement? :p

Personally, I respect Moore for the fact that hes actually talking about the stuff no one else is bothering to talk about. namely, that joke for a presidential administration we have. I really enjoyed the film 'Bowling for Columbine', and it had alot of good points in it, and I agree with alot of what Moore says...hell, most of what he says.

And btw if you watch his interview on the Bowling for Columbine DVD you'll see that hes just as 'anti democrat' as he is 'anti republican'.

And still I don't get wtf this whole tradition of labeling yourself mindlessly under a political nametag is, and then you have to hate and bash the 'opposing' label.

So basically it all boils down to the stupidity that makes this country such a f**ked up place to live - 'you have opinions that oppose mine so I hate you'...

Ah well...guess the best thing to do to these matters is just laugh and forget about it.

Azure Chrysanthemum
06-30-2004, 08:22 AM
Well said DevilMayKickAss. Very well said indeed.

gokufusionss1
06-30-2004, 10:25 AM
From the initial read of that essay is seems the book is attacking moores character, which is a mistake and detracts from his real weakness his politics. Anyone who can't see that moores books and films are hugely doctored and spliced to cohere to his message needs to do some research.

nik0tine
06-30-2004, 01:30 PM
"From the initial read of that essay is seems the book is attacking moores character, which is a mistake and detracts from his real weakness his politics"
the conservatives usually dont hold valid arguments for anything, so they jsut attack a persons character instead.
and yes, devilmaykickass, you made some great points there.

DocFrance
06-30-2004, 03:37 PM
Ya know, this is just about all I see at this board in discussions like these.

Everyone: Bush sucks! Bush sucks! Bush sucks!
Fuzakero: Moore sucks!
Everyone: OMG you can't say that! You're a rabid conservative right-wing Republican bastard! Stop trying to opress us! WE'RE BEING OPRESSED!

nik0tine
06-30-2004, 03:41 PM
Ya know, this is just about all I see at this board in discussions like these.

Everyone: Bush sucks! Bush sucks! Bush sucks!
Fuzakero: Moore sucks!
Everyone: OMG you can't say that! You're a rabid conservative right-wing Republican bastard! Stop trying to opress us! WE'RE BEING OPRESSED!

lol

escobert
06-30-2004, 04:53 PM
Ya know, this is just about all I see at this board in discussions like these.

Everyone: Bush sucks! Bush sucks! Bush sucks!
Fuzakero: Moore sucks!
Everyone: OMG you can't say that! You're a rabid conservative right-wing Republican bastard! Stop trying to opress us! WE'RE BEING OPRESSED!
This is why I don't bother posting in most EoEo and world event topics. All it is is Bush bashing and conservative bashing.

The Captain
06-30-2004, 07:49 PM
If you're going to say that, you have to look at the other side too:

When someone says Bush suck, they will usually be bombarded with all sorts of the same thing against their beliefs. I don't believe Conservatives just sit idly either. Neither side is any better than the other.

Take care all.

DocFrance
06-30-2004, 10:04 PM
Yes, but the liberals here far outnumber the conservatives. When I see a "Bush sucks" thread, I usually see two or three posts saying "Bush doesn't suck," and those are usually just drowned out by everyone else chanting "Bush sucks." I wouldn't exactly call that being bombarded.

The Captain
06-30-2004, 11:29 PM
I personally don't think Bush sucks. It's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfie, and the people who weren't elected that my qualms are with.

Take care all.

Fuzakeru
07-01-2004, 12:14 AM
Do you have any idea how much of a hypocrite and a moron you made yourself look like with that statement?
I don't think I made myself look hypocritical at all. I hate Moore, make no mistake about that. I love Bush. -shrugs- What I was saying is that if you put that love/hate away I find it amusing how much controversy this is all going to cause on boths sides of the fence especially since the same company publishing this anit-Moore book is the same that published Moore's work.

The Man
07-01-2004, 12:33 AM
I've yet to find any valid reasons for anyone to dislike Fahrenheit 9/11 other than that they disagree with Moore's viewpoint. It's biased? Yeah okay, that means you disagree with his viewpoint. It doesn't point out the brutality of Saddam's regime? Why does it need to when the American media did such a good job hammering it into his heads? The fact that Moore does a good job representing his viewpoint should illustrate how well he handled his source material.

Granted, some of his earlier work has been questionably handled; that said, he had no idea that Heston was in the early stages of dementia when he filmed Bowling for Columbine, which is the most frequent criticism I hear of his work. I've yet to see any "rebuttal" of F9/11 that holds up to criticism; the piece that ran in Newsweek has been thoroughly dismantled, exposed as more fiction than Moore's work itself, and as for the Christopher Hitchens piece that ran in Newsweek the other day... please, I've yet to see a more poorly put together piece of rightist rhetoric in my life. There was no criticism of anything that had any basis in fact in Hitchens' piece; I only skimmed this article, but it looked like little more than "Wahh, Moore isn't 'fair and balanced' like Fox News" to me. As if Fox News were fair and balanced.

I could go on, but I'm not going to bother. Maybe there are some numerous overwhelming factual errors in Moore's works, but no one's convinced me of them yet. Until someone can point them out to me, and convince me that these errors are more numerous than those in the works of someone like Coulter or Limbaugh, I'm just going to interpret the backlash against Moore as Republicans not being able to take what they dish out.

Mr. Graves
07-01-2004, 01:28 PM
This is why I don't bother posting in most EoEo and world event topics. All it is is Bush bashing and conservative bashing.

That's because most of the people here seem to have their heads striaght. =D

Polaris
07-01-2004, 01:29 PM
I like him... :D

nik0tine
07-02-2004, 06:42 AM
That's because most of the people here seem to have their heads striaght. =D

lol. this guy's got it dead on man.

and divinity... i like him too, but there is no need to yell...

Azure Chrysanthemum
07-02-2004, 06:49 AM
It's the nature of Americans to hate each other. It's what we do best.

gokufusionss1
07-02-2004, 11:23 AM
i allways cosidered eating to be americas most honed skill.

Crazy the Clown
12-12-2004, 06:35 PM
The last thing I need is the lard-ass responsible for Roger & Me to tell me how to vote. He's got more chins than Chinatown.

MecaKane
12-12-2004, 08:12 PM
omg u got it rite brotha

mihalis
04-15-2005, 03:24 AM
I don't think I made myself look hypocritical at all. I hate Moore, make no mistake about that. I love Bush. -shrugs- What I was saying is that if you put that love/hate away I find it amusing how much controversy this is all going to cause on boths sides of the fence especially since the same company publishing this anit-Moore book is the same that published Moore's work.

Whether you love Michael Moore's work or you hate it, the fact is that it has served its purpose already: Mucho ticket sales at the box office, and an increased public awareness of the issues which are important to him. Imagine what our political debates would be like had Michael Moore never made Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling For Columbine!

No matter which side of any given issue you take, you should at least give due credit to the person (or group) that sparked the debate in the first place!

Sure, Michael Moore's films are one-sided! Bill O'Reilly's political commentary is one-sided as well. However, I respect the opinons of both of those people (and others), as well as their right to voice those opinions, regardless of whether I agree or disagree.

Personally, I consider myself a political independent (lowercase "i"--not the "Independent" party). I agree with some of the Republicans' positions (for example, the legislation to prevent frivolous malpractice lawsuits), but I agree with the Democrats on a few things as well (privatizing Social Security would defeat the purpose of the system).

Simply stating that you agree with any one person or group (even worse) on every issue is an open display of your ignorance. I suggest that you learn to think for yourself.

Yamaneko
04-15-2005, 03:27 AM
This thread is over five months old. Please don't revive old threads.