Michael Moore

[anobody]

for everything people think they know there are thousands more things hidden from the masses because you all couldnt take it

michael moore has his lil blinkered opinions and is a high school bully in his tactics of enforcing that on others

bush is a trigger happy child

rise up americans and take your country back before it gets any more comical

 

[Brino]

michael moore has his lil blinkered opinions and is a high school bully in his tactics of enforcing that on others

I think Michael Moore was more likely to be the one being picked on by bullies in high school.

rise up americans and take your country back before it gets any more comical

Were trying!

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Problems with the wifey Sanchez? No disrespect but you can it's called hypocrisy. And though it's not a charming aspect people still do it and have the right to do it. Even Michael Moore. If the republicans and conservatives are going to fight fire with fire then kudos to Moore for doing the same.

My point was, Moore cries foul at the way the media has either sheltered Bush, or not revelaled all the facts. But what happens, Moore does the same. F9/11 is filled with inaccuratices and flasehoods, along with half truths. He only shows what helps his point, and leaves out things that would give a more balanced look. So, we are allowed to question Bush, but not Moore? Micheal Moore made the decision on his own to be in the public eye, and by doing so, he should be willing to step up and hold himself accountable, just as he feels some politicains have to do so as well.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

DS: I'm not sure of what you're talking about here... I take it you're trying to argue an anti-Moore point, but it seems your only condemnation is that he took a point of view that the mainstream media didn't.

I don't care what side Moore takes, just don't cry about the side the media takes, and then go ahead and do the same yourself. F9/11 is a movie that has intentional left out key facts, not for timeline purposes, but to make others look bad. Its a cheap shot movie. Its a movie he is passing off as factual. Moore himself is guilty of what he is claiming the media has done, mislead the public. Thats what bothers me. Go ahead, bash George W. Bush, I could care less. But don't do it with lies and dishonesty.

RE: Double standard... None whatsoever. First, your argument is apples and oranges. In one case, someone is asking that another person who has been hammering his work without ever even seeing it check the movie out. In the other, someone is asking someone else for an interview that's being refused. They're in no way connected in the way you're trying to argue, the way I'm reading it. In fact, their only commonalities are pissed off conservatives who aren't getting vital information. One by choice, and the other because he doesn't have the resume or credentials that would command an interview with anyone of Moore's stature.

OK, not sure what is going on in this piece, but to be clear, I have seen F9/11. Like I said before, Moore has made himself a public figure, and has gained finacially from it. Public figures are allowed to be questioned. Moore seems to have no problem bashing Republicans, yet won't step up and answer his critics. The people who aren't getting vital info, are the people who believe F9/11 to be factual and correct. And furthermore, who was Micheal Moore when he made Roger & Me? Someone with a weak resume and credentials? If not Micheal Wilson, they why not someone else? Moore made a point that he does not appear in other peoples movies, yet a quick check proves that to be a lie. Its one thing to avoid Wilson, but to mock him along the way, just shows the true character of Micheal Moore.

(But, as I said before, Moore should placate the little douchebag in my view. Just don't answer any of his questions and use the interview as an opportunity to just rant. From what I saw on the Daily Show, the guy wouldn't have the talent to cut together something damaging out of a well spewed diatribe. )

The Daily Show purposely editted it to look that way (you know, how Moore does the same). I'm sure if someone followed Moore around when he was making his movies, and then cut together pieces to give a different view, Moore would look foolish as well.

This is my whole point, Moore expects everyone to answer his questions, and be in his movies, yet won't do the same for another filmmaker. Why?All as I want is for Moore to answer why he, and I am assuming here, left out so many pieces of information, and purposely mislead the people who paid to see his movie

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

http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html

 

[georges]

I don't care what side Moore takes, just don't cry about the side the media takes, and then go ahead and do the same yourself. F9/11 is a movie that has intentional left out key facts, not for timeline purposes, but to make others look bad. Its a cheap shot movie. Its a movie he is passing off as factual. Moore himself is guilty of what he is claiming the media has done, mislead the public. Thats what bothers me. Go ahead, bash George W. Bush, I could care less. But don't do it with lies and dishonesty.



OK, not sure what is going on in this piece, but to be clear, I have seen F9/11. Like I said before, Moore has made himself a public figure, and has gained finacially from it. Public figures are allowed to be questioned. Moore seems to have no problem bashing Republicans, yet won't step up and answer his critics. The people who aren't getting vital info, are the people who believe F9/11 to be factual and correct. And furthermore, who was Micheal Moore when he made Roger & Me? Someone with a weak resume and credentials? If not Micheal Wilson, they why not someone else? Moore made a point that he does not appear in other peoples movies, yet a quick check proves that to be a lie. Its one thing to avoid Wilson, but to mock him along the way, just shows the true character of Micheal Moore.



The Daily Show purposely editted it to look that way (you know, how Moore does the same). I'm sure if someone followed Moore around when he was making his movies, and then cut together pieces to give a different view, Moore would look foolish as well.

This is my whole point, Moore expects everyone to answer his questions, and be in his movies, yet won't do the same for another filmmaker. Why?All as I want is for Moore to answer why he, and I am assuming here, left out so many pieces of information, and purposely mislead the people who paid to see his movie

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

http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html

nice answer dirty sanchez :thumbsup: you prouved exactly what i was trying to tell people for a long time.

regards

georges:georges:

 

[bibo]

Goddammit . stop seeing bush as evil. always the same propaganda that i hear in France, if many people vote for Bush are they all idiots? no they don't like weak people and i understand plainly.
I don't care of the compass. People prefer someone with authority to a weak person.
Bush extremist ? He is just protecting the interests of his country.

Without disrespect:
Replace Bush with Stalin or Breshnew or Hitler in this quote and it would still sound familiar wouldn´t it?

And no, I`m not comparing Bush with Hitler! I just want to point out the emptiness and biassed context of arguments like "...just protecting his country" and "...don´t like weak people".

Maybe after all Mr. Bush isn´t THAT strong if a simple book made by a polemic political commedian is able to create such an enormous pile of uncontrolled wrath. Just a thought.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Interesting thing I read in the paper yesterday.

The question was poised, how many millions of lives would have been saved if a premitive strike had been launched against Hitler? Instead, they waited until Hitler threatened the enitre world, not just his own people.

Bash Bush all you want, but when you back Moore's attempt to support Saddam, you lose all credibility.

 

[bibo]

I`m not bashing Bush, I`m just bashing the attempt to launch a subterfuge pseudo-dictatorship and to kill freedom of speech and democracy. `cuz that´s what your entire Nation is based upon and it´s something to be proud of. People like Moore are one aspect of that but you can´t live without them when you want to avoid damaging your own ideals.

Premitive strikes against Hitler saving lives... comon! This is a well known underhanded political and philosophical trick. Nobody knows what would have happened if Hitler would have been killed. Killing dictators tends to give them martyr status. Even if the attempts of his officers would have been successful, his ideas would have remained. Hitler needed to destroy himself and his country to get rid of the demon.
However, the idea behind a question like this is way too easy to see through: Deducing a right to launch premitive strikes against anything under the premise to save lifes and justify war whenever it fit´s your political goals. That´s the same thing that happened in Iraq btw. so the intention behind this question is quite obvious isn´t it.

As for supporting Saddam and credibility...
May I remind you that the US were supporting, feeding and hatching Saddam for years in the 70ies and 80ies? May I also remind you that guys like Bin Laden are former allies of the US and that you payed him millions of Dollars during the USSR/Afghanistan wars? Credibility has a long memory.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

First off, I ain't American. So, blaming me is off, much like most of Moore's facts.

Second, what would it have taken for you to get on board with the removal of Saddam from power? How many innocent people would need to be killed before you admitted his reign needed to end? The reasoning and motives for Bush to go after Saddam weren't the greatest, but dictators need to be dealt with, and not just over looked. I'm sure if a nuke went off and killed most of your friends and family, you'd be changing your tune on a premitive strike. It had to be done, and it was. Now, lets move forward and get everything settled in place.

Third, bin Laden publically thanked the US for their help defeating the Russians a number of years ago, and now he is bent on killing Americans. Maybe the bigger issue is what is going on in that part of the world, and not this part.

Here's a news flash, the outcome of the November election, will not change the feelings people from that part of the World have for people who have been granted freedom. They will hate Americans no matter if Bush is in charge or not. You wait and see how badly they'll want to blow things up if Hillary becomes the Pres.

 

[bibo]

I never questioned that the removal of Saddam is a positive thing. But there´s a slight flaw in your glorifiying image of the US: Removing Saddam was never a proclaimed reason for that war. It was just a side effect that came in handy to make the war morally untouchable. The reasons for that war was a. connections to Al Quaeda and b. weapons of mass destruction. Both reasons turned out to be false assumptions.
Saddam was just a dictator like many others. Kim for example. NKorea HAS nuclear weapons. And they HAVE threatened the world to use them. The people in NKorea ARE being oppressed just as bad as the people in Iraq were. Still, the western world doesn´t give a shit about Korea.

Third, bin Laden publically thanked the US for their help defeating the Russians a number of years ago, and now he is bent on killing Americans. Maybe the bigger issue is what is going on in that part of the world, and not this part.

Bin Laden was good enough to serve the US as a toy against the Commies. It´s an american creation and without weapons and money from the US, he´d been long dead. His views on western culture and the US were always the same, there´s nothing new. The distorted image of Bin Laden being the crazy muslim that came out of nowhere to fight his war against America is wrong.
Now look what´s happening in that part of the world. Bombs are being blown up left right and middle in Iraq and even the moderate, almost democrat muslims want the US to leave their country. Some ultra right Israel folks and some fanatic palestinians are happily bombing the shit out of each other. And yeah, you can´t deny it, the pictures of the US soldiers abusing their prisoners also made an impression. All this creates hatred. Lots, tons of hatred, way too much to handle with a couple of tanks and aircraft carriers and sweet speeches of freedom. There are indeed things that can´t be solved by violence.

They will hate Americans no matter if Bush is in charge or not

True of course! The current situation isn´t Bush´s fault. He just happens to be the poor guy that´s in charge at the time and he made the fatal decision to attack something that can´t be attacked with the weapons he has.
The current situation is the result of a long process. Terrorism doesn´t come out of the blue. Some clever guy once said: War is the terrorism of the rich against the poor. Terrorism is the war of the poor against the rich.
Think about it.

 

[georges]

Without disrespect:
Replace Bush with Stalin or Breshnew or Hitler in this quote and it would still sound familiar wouldn´t it?

And no, I`m not comparing Bush with Hitler! I just want to point out the emptiness and biassed context of arguments like "...just protecting his country" and "...don´t like weak people".

Maybe after all Mr. Bush isn´t THAT strong if a simple book made by a polemic political commedian is able to create such an enormous pile of uncontrolled wrath. Just a thought.

emptiness? Protecting your country against terrorists and all possible threats is protecting your country's interest.Biased no absolutely not like some people who try to pass mr moore for an angel when it is not the case and who say he says the truth.
Between GWB and JFKerry there is a whole difference one has less authority and the other decide to use force when it is necessary.
Mr Moore whoever he is should really study what are the cia and the fbi and how they work.It will be useful for him before blaming someone.He also should see what was done under clinton.

 

[bibo]

You still don´t graps that I`m not defending Moore and his arguments, but the ABILITY to DO what he does, do you?

And yes, emptyness. Exactly that. All leaders in history have always claimed to protect their country, regardless whether they were left or right, commies or faschists. Protecting your country is a pseudo-argument (one could call it euphemism again) to cover up everything you want, from apartheit to monitoring people, from censoring books and movies to throwing nuclear bombs.

But that´s ok, dude, no problem. Go on. You´re one of the guys who will always deny the truth even if they´re being asked by their children how "this could have happened". Been there, done that.

 

[georges]

You still don´t graps that I`m not defending Moore and his arguments, but the ABILITY to DO what he does, do you?

And yes, emptyness. Exactly that. All leaders in history have always claimed to protect their country, regardless whether they were left or right, commies or faschists. Protecting your country is a pseudo-argument (one could call it euphemism again) to cover up everything you want, from apartheit to monitoring people, from censoring books and movies to throwing nuclear bombs.

But that´s ok, dude, no problem. Go on. You´re one of the guys who will always deny the truth even if they´re being asked by their children how "this could have happened". Been there, done that.

Some examples: hadn't roosevelt, truman ,keenedy and reagan done something good for their country?Once again i am talking for developped countries.
I don't cover anything i want i just want law being respected.Censoring is hard thing.When the book goes too far then it is necessary.Plus it is always difficult to be right in censoring.
Idon't deny the truth what i deny is those called facts stated by mr moore that make a lot of people blind.Don't worry for me i know how to answer to children i am not that stupid.

 

[Brino]

Bash Bush all you want, but when you back Moore's attempt to support Saddam, you lose all credibility.

First of all Moore isnt supporting Saddam just because he's against the war in Iraq. I ask you again and I ask georges too
these three questions

"why is america in iraq and not in sudan? because when it comes to oppressing human rights..."

"why is america in iraq and not in iran? because when it comes to weapons of mass destruction..."

"why is america in iraq and not in libia? because when it comes to threatening the usa with terrorist acts..."

You can't attack Saddam for these reasons and leave all the other countries in the world that do the same alone.

First off, I ain't American. So, blaming me is off, much like most of Moore's facts.

Is it just me or does it seem extremely odd that all the people who support Bush arent American and all the people who are against Bush are American. Weird!

My point was, Moore cries foul at the way the media has either sheltered Bush, or not revelaled all the facts. But what happens, Moore does the same. F9/11 is filled with inaccuratices and flasehoods, along with half truths. He only shows what helps his point, and leaves out things that would give a more balanced look. So, we are allowed to question Bush, but not Moore? Micheal Moore made the decision on his own to be in the public eye, and by doing so, he should be willing to step up and hold himself accountable, just as he feels some politicains have to do so as well.

Are you even reading the links I'm giving to support F9/11 or are you only reading the links I'm giving that are against it? If you read the links that support F9/11 youd see that's not true. Michael Moore created the War Room to answer his critics so he is holding himself accountable. There's a difference between Michael Moore and the Media. The media are supposed to be unbiased Moore on the other hand doesnt need to be. He has even admitted that he made F9/11 for the purpose of getting Bush out of office. Though there is questionable editing and a few halftruths in F9/11 we shouldnt let those shift our focus from all the truths in F9/11. What about all the things in F9/11 that are true?

The Daily Show purposely editted it to look that way

I find it quite believable that he's a bumbling idiot. After all what other documenteries has he done? He's an amateur and thus he could be exactly as the Daily Show made him out to be.

emptiness? Protecting your country against terrorists and all possible threats is protecting your country's interest.Biased no absolutely not like some people who try to pass mr moore for an angel when it is not the case and who say he says the truth.

I hope your not talking about me. I'm not biased and I dont try to pass Moore off as an angel or somebody who always tells the truth. I admit that Moore sometimes uses questionable editing and halftruths infact I believe that one day that will be his downfall. Nonetheless not everything in his documentaries is a lie. In every one of my posts I try to present both sides with my links so I'm not completely biased.

Between GWB and JFKerry there is a whole difference one has less authority and the other decide to use force when it is necessary.

Yea Kerry's the one who will only use force when neccessary not Bush.

He also should see what was done under clinton.

Dont bring Clinton into this. You'll lose. Trust me!

 

[Ranger]

I never questioned that the removal of Saddam is a positive thing. But there´s a slight flaw in your glorifiying image of the US: Removing Saddam was never a proclaimed reason for that war. It was just a side effect that came in handy to make the war morally untouchable. The reasons for that war was a. connections to Al Quaeda and b. weapons of mass destruction. Both reasons turned out to be false assumptions.

Well, guess what, the 9/11 report does state a connection as does the upcoming Senate report. In fact, in the upcoming Senate report, it documents how Saddam trained Al Quaeda on chemical weapons.In regards to WDM, they have found shells of Sarin. Ohh, right, that not enough evidence for you and your doubters.

Next time you walk into your kids room and find a pipe, roach clip, papers, maybe some foil......................are you going to believe that he/she got rid of all of the contraband and is just keeping around the tools?

I read through this thread and all I read is hatred. NO MATTER WHAT GEORGE BUSH DOES YOU WILL HATE HIM. When he craps in the morning, you will hate him for using too much toilet paper. When he gives his next speech, you will hate him for having a flag on his lapel. Get over it.

You are not going to convince me, georges, DS, et al to switch to your beliefs. You and foxfilm can put up one million websites to visit and it will be filled with the same crap that the one million websites that we put up will have.

So everyone, take a deep breath and lighten the f*** up. Go drink a beer, kick the cat and piss on the seat.

(Bilbo, this rant is not directed at you despite I started with your quote.).

Ranger:glugglug:

 

[Brino]

Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly
Rumble at the DNC
Round One
Let's get it On!
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

The Counter to Michael Moore's War Room
http://moorewatch.com/index.php

And just to show that I have a softer side
Even though I know I'm going to regret it
A funny Picture of John Kerry
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040726/ids_photos_ts/r4086761383.jpg&e=3&ncid=1756

 

[georges]

1)I hope your not talking about me. I'm not biased and I dont try to pass Moore off as an angel or somebody who always tells the truth. I admit that Moore sometimes uses questionable editing and halftruths infact I believe that one day that will be his downfall. Nonetheless not everything in his documentaries is a lie. In every one of my posts I try to present both sides with my links so I'm not completely biased.

2)Yea Kerry's the one who will only use force when neccessary not Bush.

3)Dont bring Clinton into this. You'll lose. Trust me!

1) no i am not taking about you. but about bibo

2) kerry is not that strong he doesn't propose and doesn't present a concrete program against terrorism.Lack of authority + no plans for fighting terrorism + n, plans for the presidential campaign=weakmindedness and failure

3)haha no i won't lose ther will be enough arguments to batter his fucking loosy head. he has failed to stop ben ladenists so he is responsible indirectly of what happened to america.

 

[Brino]

Hi goerges,

2) kerry is not that strong he doesn't propose and doesn't present a concrete program against terrorism.Lack of authority + no plans for fighting terrorism + n, plans for the presidential campaign=weakmindedness and failure

You know that by saying that kerry's weak on terrorism your indirectly saying that bush is weak on terrorism. There policies on fighting terrorism and there policies on Iraq are almost the same.

3)haha no i won't lose ther will be enough arguments to batter his fucking loosy head. he has failed to stop ben ladenists so he is responsible indirectly of what happened to america.

The millenium attacks were stoped under Clinton and that was without the patriot act. He would have done something about the USS Cole bombing but that was late in his presidency and the CIA and FBI couldnt confirm that Bin Laden was behind it before he left office. The Bush administration didnt pick that issue up when the presidency was transfered to them. And again I say that maybe if Clinton wasnt consumed with fighting off Republican attack dogs he would have done even more about terrorism.

 

[Brino]

You know I wish there were more conservatives on this board to argue with.

 

[georges]

Hi goerges,
1)You know that by saying that kerry's weak on terrorism your indirectly saying that bush is weak on terrorism. There policies on fighting terrorism and there policies on Iraq are almost the same.

2)The millenium attacks were stoped under Clinton and that was without the patriot act. He would have done something about the USS Cole bombing but that was late in his presidency and the CIA and FBI couldnt confirm that Bin Laden was behind it before he left office. The Bush administration didnt pick that issue up when the presidency was transfered to them. And again I say that maybe if Clinton wasnt consumed with fighting off Republican attack dogs he would have done even more about terrorism.

hi brino

1):nono: for me kerry and bush have two diffrent characters and personalities that means that kerry would have other reaction than gwb has.

2) the cia and the fbi couldn't confirm??? weak excuse. because france trapped Carlos the famous terrorists (real name vladimir illich sanchez ramirez) by having finger prints and by having photographies of him at all airports and railway station before he could put bomb on a high speed train.
For ben laden they should have opened their eyes more wider and controlling everyone from the bag to the last pocket as well as seeing on the pc if he wasn't a terrorist especially people coming from countries of where the 9/11 hijackers come from.
tenet failed.Would it have been richard bissell or john karamessines or allen dulles that would have never happened.

regards

georges