Printable View
I recently saw one of his movies called,"Bowling For Columbine". For those of you who dont know we know Columbine from the shooting there that occured. I live in Colorado, and I can plainly see that this guy is crazy. Have any of you seen this film? From what I can see, this man truely hates America.
I think saying that he hates America makes you sound pretty silly. That's
not to say however that he's not a liar and a bastard.
I haven't seen any of his movies because I know they're bullin the first
place so I'm not going to waste my time.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
.opt
He doesn't hate America. He's just doing what he's good at, distorting the truth to make money out of stupid people. Seriously, people need to realise that he too presents a bias to the audience in all of his documentaries...
I love Michael Moore. He's insanely liberal and more of a propoganda artist than someone who makes totally truthful documentaries. However, his movies DO contain some facts, and I think he often makes good points. If nothing else, his movies are good for a laugh (usually at the conservative right.)
Take the skinheads bowling, take them bowling!
I could walk across the street, and get hit by a car. Michael Moore would see it as I knew something, and the driver of the car whom was a dinner guest of a man who seen George W. Bush on TV once who was paid in some wierd way, to end my life.
The government would simply say that's not true, and the driver would say he was drunk. Michael Moor would still make a movie about it, and get a fat check.
Bipper
I'm quite liberal, have never seen any of his movies, and still hate him.
This reminds me of a thread by one of my all time favourite members.
Michael Moore: Genius or Bastard
I'm with Hsu on this one. He's a pompous windbag out to make money.
While I agree that the conservative right needs to be stopped, I feel that distorting facts and outright lying is not the way to get it done. The ends do not justify the means.
What Jebus and Hsu said.
Hates America. Yeah, just as Castro hated Cuba, Lenin hated Russia, Ho Chi Minh hated Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
The only true patriots are the people who stand up and say 'No! This is not what I want for my country!', not those who sit and think 'If the government says it, then it must be best for the nation'.
The State and the Nation are two seperate entities.
'Liberals' that don't support what is right are those who are too scared too truly opposse what is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
And if you've never seen his work, how can you hate him? Judging by what a few old neo-fascist republicans said? I thought you were 'liberal'?
Anyway, I think a distortion of the facts such as 'There are WMDs in Iraq' is of greater consequence than slightly biased presentation of facts. Michael Moore's films never left 10,000 dead. Maybe a few Republicans died of horror, but they're weird like that.
I love this whole "Michael moore hates America because he doesn't fall in line with my values" notion. It's truly hilarious. It really is.
Michael Moore does not lie - he distorts facts. His movies are more about making people look bad than anything else. It works extremely well too.
Actually, I don't trust our leaders any farther than I can throw them. My opinion of Michael Moore is based very little on political stance. He seems more like he's out to make a quick buck than to actually provide the public with truth. Distorting truths in order to stir up controversy so people will pay $6 at the theater to see a "documentary" seems like a shady tactic to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
It has very little to do with politics.
it's the hype around michael moore that makes him seem extra ridiculous.
I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11. It made me feel a bit ill.
I bought (because it was $5 on overtocked.com) Fahrenhype 9/11 (the counter to the previous) and it was just plain better. I mean, aside from my obvious bias because I think Micheal Moore is a classless ignorant jerk, it was made better, and had a more appropriate and informative tone than the Micheal Moore's movie.
I found some of the facts presented in Farenheit 9/11 really interesting and depressing. It's really difficult to separate the bias from the truth, though. I much preferred Bowling for Columbine--I think it was a far better movie. It was less biased, more entertaining, and far more informative and less speculation.
Well, you'll be happy to hear that a lot of the "facts" presented are just plain wrong. The counter to that movie covers a lot of things that are skewed, or just straight incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar With A Hat
I haven't seen it, but from what I hear a lot of the footage from the "documentary" is fabricated, which, to me, completely discredits the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar With A Hat
I suppose it's quite possible. The whole concept of Bowling for Columbine really interested me, though. It wasn't the "Make K-mart and Charleston Heston" part that was good. It was the presentation of just how many people die from gun violence in America every year, whereas many other countries have much, much smaller death rates in that area. I can't say I remember the movie perfectly, but I don't think Moore ever presented a reason for why we have more gun deaths than other countries. It's really worth thinking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I agree with a lot of what Moore says, but I don't always agree with how he says it. He has never claimed that his movies are unbiased documentaries, so anyone who expects them to present both sides of an argument is simply holding an unrealistic expectation of his work. I do think he would have more credibility if he did present both sides of the argmuents, though.
However, I think it's terribly amusing to see the right blow a gasket every time his name is mentioned. Someone posted a recent piece of his regarding the Hurricane Katrina response on FG, and then the reactions of a few rather stereotypical neocons to that piece on another board. Most of them consisted of nothing more than "ZOMG HOW DAER HE CRITICIZE TEH PRESIDENT," and another of them contained the entirely baseless assertion that Moore was great at criticizing and poor at actually bringing about changes (Moore had, I believe, raised twenty-something million dollars to aid victims of the disaster).
I've yet to see the frequently cited "Moore = Ann Coulter of the left" argument validated by examples of Moore calling for the assassination of journalists or politicians, by the way. That alone leads me to suspect that many of the people who criticize his works for lack of objectivity aren't being entirely objective themselves.
Again, I haven't seen that movie, but as I understand it he presented gun death statistics, while many other countries have fewer to no guns. We have more guns because it's in our Bill of Rights. However, he purposefully leaves out overall murder and violent crime statistics because they aren't really any lower than the U.S.'s, even though we have guns. For example, in the U.K. there are more muggings, which we attribute to the fact that muggers have no fear that their victim may have a gun on them.
Don't take my word for any of that though; that's just what I remember discussing with different people or reading somewhere... I haven't looked it up recently and that may not be entirely accurate.
You're right about the UK and other countries he mentioned for the most part, with one major exception: Canada. As many or more people there have guns, and they're exposed to just as much violence in the media as the United States, but they simply have way fewer gun deaths.
Did you miss completely miss this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar With A Hat
Michael Moore is just as bad as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and all the other conservative nutjobs.
The only liberal nutjob that I like is Al Franken, because he's actually funny.
For those of you who say you find it amusing how the "right-wings blow up" everytime he's mentioned...how about how the liberals blow up everytime Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are mentioned?
They're all idiots.
Because I think it's important, I'm repeating myself:
I've yet to see the frequently cited "Moore = Ann Coulter of the left" argument validated by examples of Moore calling for the assassination of journalists or politicians, by the way. That alone leads me to suspect that many of the people who criticize his works for lack of objectivity aren't being entirely objective themselves.
Ann Coulter has said things in the past such as "We should kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," and advocated the deaths of journalists and others. So I repeat, how exactly is Michael Moore on the same level as Ann Coulter?
So Moore just lying isn't enough? As I said, they're all idiots. Different degrees of idiocy, maybe, but I don't care to find out.
No, just lying is not enough to put you on the same level as people who compare Abu Gharib to college frat parties and call for the assassination of prettymuch anyone they don't like.
Yes, Raistlin, I did completely miss it because I don't go around looking for things to completely debase Michael Moore's movies. According to that site, more than what I thought of his movie was made up or skewed, but it's not like I was naive enough to think they were all cold, hard facts. Still, his points about the United States media thriving on fear and effecting the people, Canada having less gun deaths, and so on are still legitimate. So other countries have stricter gun laws. Maybe that's more important than anything else in the movie, and it's not even heavily discussed--why don't we have stricter gun laws? I sure as hell wish we did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
On a side note, I just bought Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" and plan on reading it soon. :p
he hates america because...he's fat...
not phat
but....just fat....chubby.....rubbery...he's a bouncy ball.
he's not just insane....
but he's passionately insane.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I don't trust much of anything I read unless it's from an unbiased source, and the American media certainly doesn't count as an unbiased source on American affairs. All the political sites out there have agendas - anti-Moore, anti-Coulter, anti-whoever, and often they're just as biased as the people they're lashing out against, and probably contain just as many lies. It all comes down to a matter of evaluating what you read and deciding whether it comes from a credible source or not. I still read several left-leaning blogs because I simply don't have the time to peruse all the news that comes out to find the stuff that's of interest to me, but I don't take anything there particularly seriously unless it comes from the New York Times or something. (Although of course, there are people who will argue that the New York Times has its own agenda too, but screw that).
...so you don't wish to look at things which may contradict your views?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar With A Hat
Of course the media thrives on bad stuff. The conservative media thrives on terrorism and various religious crap (the predominant emotion is fear), and the liberal media thrives on conspiracy theories and enviromental crap (the predominant emotion is anger). Neither of these are level-headed.
Also, they may have less gun-deaths (because, holy crap, they have less guns), but how about overall homicides? You're no less dead if the killer uses a knife.
Al Franken, also, is great. You should also get Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, I think it's called. It's pretty funny.
Of course, much of the stuff in Lies, and the Lying Liars who Tell Them are really misleading (especially about taxes), but most of the crap in that book and his first one (the aforementioned one about Rush) about the right-wing idiots are true. Also, one of his statements about the Homeland Security Act is misleading to the point of being completely false. I was intrigued enough by it to actually look it up (because if it was true, it was a "holy
But you can't make fun of the right-wing idiots unless you also recognize the left-wing ones. Such as Moore.
I'm under the impression that Moore is just as nuts as Coulter, he's just going the route of playing the sad-for-the-world martyr, while Coulter plays the look-at-me-say-crazy-
HahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuackI'm under the impression that Moore is just as nuts as Coulter, he's just going the route of playing the sad-for-the-world martyr, while Coulter plays the look-at-me-say-crazy-
That's the most accurate description about those two that I've seen yet. xD
I'm still yet to see how making a few, or even a lot of, inaccurate statements is anywhere near on the same level as railing out against drug addicts for a decade while being addicted to Oxycontin yourself, or calling for the deaths of journalists just because their views happen to differ from yours. But I guess I'm not going to get a straight-up answer on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
lmfao, I approve of this statement (even though I don't agree with it 100%)Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuackI'm under the impression that Moore is just as nuts as Coulter, he's just going the route of playing the sad-for-the-world martyr, while Coulter plays the look-at-me-say-crazy-
Not at all. It's just that I don't have extremely strong opinions on the subject, so I don't go looking for stuff to verify or contradict his statements. I just watch them, take it in, maybe contemplate a little, and move on with life. I won't object to reading it--that website certainly was interesting. I just don't go out looking for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
And I'd never consider Moore as crazy as Coulter, but then, I'm not a Christain, so my views on that subject would be very obviously biased.
Boil it down and he's just a spinner. Most of them are. So don't be spun.
I agree with Shlup. Ignorant and classless. I hope she really said that and I'm not misquoting, because that'd make you guys debase me for one little mistake. I mean what?
Oh, and he's not that good at the art portion of filmmaking either. Editting is bad and whatnot. I think he's a big dumdum. He makes me just as mad as Anne Coulter does, but Anne Coulter Anne Coulter ANNE COULTER dislkdnaskdlakjdsakl she is not cute dammit!
Yeah, Ann Coulter's in a category of her own.
Ok, so I rephrase: Michael Moore's along the same lines as Sean Hannity. Idiots, but idiots of a milder degree that aren't completely retarded.
EDIT: And I stand by my statement that Al Franken's the only funny liberal wacko. And he's pretty damn funny.
Yea, Micheal Moore's funny... but a sad funny. So fat. :(
But if it wasn't for Micheal Moore, Team America would have been significantly less awesome. That's an undeniable contribution to American filmmaking. :p
According to someone on my message board, Moore's actually lost a lot of weight in the last year or so. But he still needs to hit the weights. :p
And "Moore is the Hannity of the left" I can live with.
Hahahaha, at the last concert I went to, there was some guy who looked just like Michael Moore...and the kids in front of me are like, "Oh my god! It's Michael Moore! He's gonna eat us! Run away!"
That's your criticism? That's suppossed to be an intelligent statement? God...Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
Most of the anti-Moore arguments seem to be 'I dislike the facts he states' or 'I hate anyone with veiws that contradict my own tiny-minded ones'. Everyone on this topic just goes 'Oh, yeah, Moore's and idiot' without actually adding anything useful. People only hate Moore because they want to believe the idiotic facts and ideas that their given by the government, but he (Skillfully) tears them to shreads, and leaves people with the realisation that the world's in a pretty sucky state. Some people try to change this, others just gripe and try to return to their fluffy-pink-dream-world.
If you cana't wake up and look at the world around you, then don't bother lecturing others on the evils of 'Liberal nut-jobs'. They called Martin Luther King things like that, you know. I'm not saying that Moore is as great a man as Dr.King, but nobody cares for the self-righteous opinions of a few hateful neo-conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rage Aginst the Machine
Anyway, Moore isn't out to make money- he's been doing this for years. He wrote a left wing newspaper in the 80s (The Flint/Michigan Voice) and made Roger & Me, his first movie, when he was unemployed and going nowhere. He saw something bad, and wanted to change it. If that's wrong to you, you live in a screwed-up world.
Deriding someone's intellgence for a statement differing from your own opinion is a good way to get you banned from this forum. In fact, it just did. See you in two weeks.
~Void
Traitor, there are a lot of other points that are brought up in his article. Namely his method of completley distrorting the truth, and assuming manythings to get his theory from point a to point b. That is why I don't like him.
I am not going to pretend like the rest of the world is peachy in any means. I know somthign smells like facism, and that we are a thorne in the side of the world in some points. This is not about that, this is a bout a bulbous man, whom makes fictions, and calls it a documentory and thusly it gets labeld as documentry and passes on as raw fact. I absolutley HATE it. Like Azar said, it did allow plenty of material for Team America World Police. So I guess we can appreciate its cultural value, and rest easy knowing that actual intelligent people exist, whom know the smell of steamy piles of crap when they cross em.
Shlup was mereley aiding the point that he is indeed a fat sad man. Who cares? She also added many personal views, and I belive refered to Farehinhype 911, which gets her a cookie! :cookie:
I know, people don't like apposing views, and will simply shrug many people off as nuttjobs. However, the main difference between MLK jr and Moore is that MLK was right, and although he stood on a sedimental case, he prevailed. Moore is fighting a case of facts; and his weapon of choice seems to be bull
Bipper
Hahaha xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Moore
So no, he's not doing it for the money. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Moore again
On to the next statement.
That could be interesting, however, it's also false. The idea for Roger & me, and most of the documentation comes from union acitivists from Flint who thought at the time that Moore would help them, but quickly removed all mentions of their work/fight for GM employees to make it a movie about Moore. Read for yourself.Quote:
He wrote a left wing newspaper in the 80s (The Flint/Michigan Voice) and made Roger & Me, his first movie, when he was unemployed and going nowhere. He saw something bad, and wanted to change it. If that's wrong to you, you live in a screwed-up world.
Also, it should be noted that Moore isn't from Flint (low class suburb), but from Davison (upper middle class suburb).
OK, I can stand guys like Bipper, who know what they're talking about, even if I disagree with their veiws. But you're talking complete rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
Firstly, how does stating he lives in Manhattan make him 'doing it for the money'? Lots of people live in Manhattan. You're quote is entirely out of context, and meaningless as you used it.
As for the second quote, I dare say that it too is out of context, as few people announce that they are a multi-millionaire for no reason. Not even idiots like Bush. Also, I fail to see how the fact he comes from the suburb of a town (Flint is a town, not a suburb) means his veiws are less valid. Lenin was an upper-middle class lawyer. So were Castro and Trotsky. Che Guevara was a doctor. Ghandi was pretty well off aswell.
To Bipper: I don't think your accusation of 'distorting facts' is justified- Moore does, I admit, tend to favour statistics that add to his argument, but so does anyone. He's a left-wing activist, he's not trying to conduct and economic study. And compared to many people, such as Mr. Bush, he's pretty honest- he may say things like '60% of American adults aged 18-25 cannot locate the UK on a map', a seemingly random statistic, but he has never said anything like 'There are WMDs in Iraq'.
Wait, you can't stand me because I disgree with your view of Moore? Weren't you the one saying that "Most of the anti-Moore arguments seem to be 'I dislike the facts he states' or 'I hate anyone with veiws that contradict my own tiny-minded ones'", yet you fall into that same way?
The first quote is from one of his books (Stupid White Men). The second from a presentation he gave.
Where he comes from has a lot of relevance to his claim that he "comes from Flint", since he doesn't. He didn't grow up in a poor suburb/town or a poor family, but in a middle class suberb in a well doing family (with complete healthcare, too). Same goes with the Roger & Me origin. He didn't make it because he was feeling down or jobless or from Flint with the intent to help the employees of GM. The union activists there know he didn't. I mean, he didn't even credit them for the work they did in regards to defending the workers there. Did you even read the page I linked to, or were you too scared it would oppose your narrowminded view that Moore is the new prophet? Making movies is his job, he knows (and I'll admit that) well how to sell them and get the medias attention. Unionists in Flint would have given the profits of the movie to families who suffered from GM cutting down jobs, what did Moore do with the money?
Since you're talking about Gandhi, what did Gandhi do to fight for freedom? Bought a house in the most expensive part of the biggest city? Or on the contrary gave up, well, pretty much everything? Che Guevara, did he stay in a rich neighborhood, or didn't he go on the field through the hardships?
MATT DAMON!Quote:
Originally Posted by Azar With A Hat