Michael Moore

[Cheeky Monkey]

Look at the t-shirts on that Moorewatch site..."The greatest Bush-Cheney t-shirt ever made...FREEDOM ISN'T FREE - PEACE ISN'T PRETTY"...

I mean, how Orwellian...what next?..."WAR IS PEACE"?

makes me sick...

:throwup:

 

[georges]

What truly bothers me about Moore is his ************* to sit down and be interviewed by Micheal Wilson. Wilson has a bokk titled "Micheal Moore Hates America". It would be nice if Moore himself had the balls to subject himself to the same thing he surprises people in his movies with.

michael moore is a fucking pansy and a ballless man he hasn't got the courage to assume his opinion.He is a failure and a brainfart as well as a big stinky pig.:ak47: :ak47: :violent: :violent: :georges:

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

I doubt you get it georges, but The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did a thing on Wilson's book, and attempt to interview Moore. The whole thing was based around Wilson's inability to get a hold of Moore. Of course what happens, Moore shows up in the piece, sitting down for a ******** with the chick doing the piece for the Daily Show.

Why won't Moore answer Wilson request for an interview? Moore loves questioning why others won't answer his questions, why not answer someone else's fatman?

 

[Starman]

Originally posted by foxfilm
Hey Georges: Glad to hear folks are speaking politics at the car forum. Got a link for that?

Same for you, Starman. (Unless you'd rather we didn't have it. That's cool too.)

Well, the political board is in Swedish, so if you don't understand Swedish there's not so much point in me giving you the link. If any of you on this board understands Swedish, and would like to have the link, just PM me about it, and I will give you the URL.

I haven't found any interesting serious political boards in English yet, but if any of you have any links to some good ones I will take a look at them and see if I find anything that catches my fancy.

 

[foxfilm]

DS: My immediate response to Moore refusing to talk to the Anti-Moore documentary guy is: good point.

That bothers me a little too, but notice he isn't trying to sue the guy for using his name in the title of the documentary. And what the Daily Show piece proved is that the guy hammering Moore is a bit of a dufuss. So Moore is refusing an interview with a guy who up front is saying,"You're an asshole, and the entire premise of my piece is character assassination aimed at you personally."

Still, Moore should appear in the dork's movie. First mistake the man has made during the F911 saga. (His problem is he's acting like a republican. He's using his power to set the agenda instead of supporting the free flow of ideas with an interview. But still, I'd take a bullet for him before I would for George II.)

Not that anyone doesn't have the right to slam him any way they see fit. Return fire is just part of the kind of political advocacy that Moore is engaged in and it leads to an active dialogue that I'm confident he supports.

Georges: You are now living in the first era of my adult life where an administration was successful at diffusing and diverting attention from their own actions on a vitally improtant issue by pointing to the previous administration. Clinton didn't do it, Bush I didn't do it, Reagan didn't do it, Carter didn't do it. There was kind of a gentlemen's agreement that the retired president doesn't take shots at sitting presidents, and the sitting president doesn't take shots at the previous administration. Clinton's book doesn't nail Bush. But the favor is not being returned, and the result is just plain misleading.

Even if the Clinton administration was lax, it was positively ambitious in comparison to the Bush administration leading up to 9/11. You've got members of the anti-terrorism community begging to meet with the president, but he was too busy in Texas. These folks were unable to even contact the president directly for the entire month leading up to 9/11. They ignored a memo entitled: "Bin Laden to ****** US" Instead of beefing up, on 9/11 national security advisor Condi Rice was to give a speech on the administration's primary national security initiatave: More funding for Star Wars.

And when it happened?... Here's something interesting I found surfing:

"We've all seen the video. It figures prominently in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". It is the video of George Bush at Booker Elementary School being informed by Andy Card of the second impact of a passenger jetliner into the World Trade Center, then sitting there for several minutes reading about goats.

What damns the Bush administration is not what is in this video, but what SHOULD be in the video and is not. Ostensibly, Bush and Card are reacting to a surprise ******, but Bush does not act surprised, and Andrew Card does not act like a man delivering an unexpected piece of news but instead is merely delivering a progress report to which he already knows Bush will not have an
immediate response.

There is one more thing that should be in this video and isn't, and that is the Secret Service, the protective detail whose one and only job is the President's safety.

The fictional Sherlock Holmes solved the crime in "Silver Blaze" deducing that it is the owner of the house who is the criminal. How does he know?

Because the dog did not bark. The only criminal who could carry out the crime and not arouse the dog was a criminal the dog already knew as a friend, the dog's owner.

Now let us turn our Sherlockian logic on 9-11. Hijacked aircraft were wandering across the eastern half of the country. In theory nobody could have known how many there are or if more planes were not in the process of being hijacked.

How could they? Two of the planes had crashed into the World
Trade Center. There is an airport only four miles from Booker Elementary School, and Bush's presence at the school was in the news media days in advance. The Sarasota Herald Tribune announced Bush's visit to Booker on September 8th, given the 9-11 planners three days to include Bush as a target for a diving jetliner.

Nobody could have safely assumed he was not a
target.

And yet the Secret Service did not rush in and remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of the armored Presidential Limousine. That's their job. That's what they do in the case of a real surprise ****** with so many unknowns. They don't do anything else.

But the Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

Bush defenders try to explain away Bush's inaction as not wanting to upset the ********. Michael Moore explains away Bush's inaction by suggesting he hadn't been told to leave. But Michael Moore failed to follow that line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion; where were the people whose job
it is to get the President to a place of safety in event of ******, the people who would have, SHOULD have, pulled Bush out of there, ******** and public appearances be damned!

The Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

If the events of 9-11 were really a surprise to the United States
Government, then there is no way that the Secret Service could know there wasn't a hijacked or stolen plane headed towards Booker Elementary School that very second.

The Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

The Secret Service should be in that video but they are not. From their inaction, it is clear that the Secret Service KNEW FOR A FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT A TARGET OF ONE OF THE HIJACKED PLANES.

And the only way anyone could know that for a fact at that moment is to have known what the targets of the hijacked planes were, at that exact moment, standing there in
the school.

The Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark."

EVERYONE, PUT ANY PRESIDENT'S NAME IN THIS SCENERIO. REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. IF THIS IS THE STORY... AND IT IS... SHOULDN'T WE BE ASKING SOME PRETTY POINTED QUESTIONS?

What non-conspiracy related explaination is there for the most important potential casualty sitting in the same spot that has been advertised when your country is under suprise ******? Doesn't it just make sense that you take him to another location immediately?

Add this to the list along with "why weren't jets scrambled immediately after contact was lost with the airliners on 9/11, when professional golfer Payne fucking Stewart's plane was escorted when it went out of communication some time beofre."

Georges, I'm going to read the report myself before commenting any more on it's findings. I'm sure it's at least as comprehensive and forthright as the Warren Commission on Kennedy's assassination.

Questions... Questions... Questions...

 

[Brino]

If your to take President Bush's excuse for not leaving the school at face value it raises some disturbing conclusions. In essence it means that not scaring the ******** is more important than defending the U.S. from ******. Say what you want about John Kerry at least he's not a coward.

As for the 9-11 ****** being a conspiracy I'm still on the fence about that but I will go on the record as saying that I knew the moment Bush was elected president that the U.S. would be going to war with Iraq. The 9-11 ****** was an awfully convenient excuse for that war.

And to those that would say that Kerry is a Flip Floper well I'd rather have a flip floper as president than a guy whose motto is stay the course. Things change new knowledge is gained and new information is learned. The world is ever changing and we need to change with it. If Christopher Columbus "stayed the course" he would never have dared thinking outside the box and discovering the world was round. If the Founding Fathers "stayed the course" then the U.S. would still be apart of Britain. If the U.S. had "stayed the course" in it's early history then there would still be slaves here. Kerry has shown a willingness to change and accept new idea's where as Bush has chosen to ignore the world and do whatever the hell he wants.

BTW Bush is a Born Again Christian and as a Born Again Christian things in the MiddleEast have to be a certain way. Born Again Christians belive that jesus is going to come back one day and when he comes back he's going to exterminate all the jews in the Holy Land i.e. Israel. So it's in the best interest of his religion to keep the jews in israel and not barter a peace with the Palistinians. This is disturbing to me because it shows that Bush is letting his religion get in the way of his presidency. How can the United States be expected to seperate church and state when the president cant even do it? There are people in this world that live life according to a compass and there are people that live life by reading the entrails of chicken's like the Romans use to. Islamic extremists read entrails and they are crazy evildoers but when our president reads entrails he's a saint? This isn't a war on ****** it's a holy war but not just any holy war it's a holy war where oil is ***** and it's that way because Bush made it that way.

 

[Ranger]

:eek: :eek: :eek: I can't believe what I just read in your post, foxfilm. Great imagination!!!!! You need to spend your talent on writing a book( it would be political, so I probably wouldn't buy it ) instead of long posts.

Cheeky, you are right. I just want you to see that there are morons on both sides of the issue.

I could agree with georges more regarding that coward. He states that he will debate anyone. BS, I have heard him called out by many a conservative(O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) and he hides. My beef with Moore goes back to the BFC so-called documentary. You just don't make fun of people with Altzheimers. And if you do, I pray that someone in your ****** gets this terrible disease.

Ranger:glugglug:

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

DS: My immediate response to Moore refusing to talk to the Anti-Moore documentary guy is: good point.

That bothers me a little too, but notice he isn't trying to sue the guy for using his name in the title of the documentary. And what the Daily Show piece proved is that the guy hammering Moore is a bit of a dufuss. So Moore is refusing an interview with a guy who up front is saying,"You're an asshole, and the entire premise of my piece is character assassination aimed at you personally."

Still, Moore should appear in the dork's movie. First mistake the man has made during the F911 saga. (His problem is he's acting like a republican. He's using his power to set the agenda instead of supporting the free flow of ideas with an interview. But still, I'd take a bullet for him before I would for George II.)

Not that anyone doesn't have the right to slam him any way they see fit. Return fire is just part of the kind of political advocacy that Moore is engaged in and it leads to an active dialogue that I'm confident he supports.

The guy did appear to be a dork. But, the Daily Show's editting probably had a lot to do with that. Much like Moore's editting, they only showed what they wanted to show, and what they showed made someone look bad. I would have loved for someone else to follow Moore around when he was doing some of his films, and show what really happened.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Whatever your opinion on Moore, it can be agreed with all the publicity it is he who is the winner in all this.

 

[Brino]

The guy doing the anti-moore documentary is only doing it because he is a supporter of Bush, can't take criticism, and needs to have the last word. He's a hick doing a film attacking a person where as Moore was doing a film expressing his view on a political administration and it's policies. The guy is fucking childish it's like in grade school when somebody called you a name and you said na-uh you are. I'm rubber and your glue. He's a Childish Ass! So why should Michael Moore sit down and be interviewed by somebody attacking him just because they don't agree with his politics?

 

[georges]

Georges, I'm going to read the report myself before commenting any more on it's findings. I'm sure it's at least as comprehensive and forthright as the Warren Commission on Kennedy's assassination.

Questions... Questions... Questions...

a question to you foxfilm have you ever heard of allen dulles and john karamessines?They were implicated in the warren comission.Probably they and their friends wre asked or decided to destroy some proofs in order that the truth will not be known. Kennedy was shot not by one person but by two.there was soemone hidden near the green knoll who probably shot at the time than lee harvey osvald.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

The guy doing the anti-moore documentary is only doing it because he is a supporter of Bush, can't take criticism, and needs to have the last word. He's a hick doing a film attacking a person where as Moore was doing a film expressing his view on a political administration and it's policies. The guy is fucking childish it's like in grade school when somebody called you a name and you said na-uh you are. I'm rubber and your glue. He's a Childish Ass! So why should Michael Moore sit down and be interviewed by somebody attacking him just because they don't agree with his politics?

Because, if you are going to make a living slinging mud at others an only showing half truths and part facts, then you need to answer for your actions.

With Moore showing the pompus, childish behavior he has shown, it looks to me like he either can't defend himself, or knows he will look as bad as he has made others look in his films.

 

[Brino]

Because, if you are going to make a living slinging mud at others an only showing half truths and part facts, then you need to answer for your actions.

With Moore showing the pompus, childish behavior he has shown, it looks to me like he either can't defend himself, or knows he will look as bad as he has made others look in his films.

You missed my point. Moore is expressing his views about more than just bush but also the policies of his administration policies that effect the U.S., the world, and peoples lives. Moore cares about the direction the countries going in and he wants people to see his point of view so they can decide for themselves whether he's right or wrong and so they can start changing the direction the countries going in by first electing bush out of office.

The guy doing the anti-moore doc is just doing it because he hates moore and he wants other people to **** moore too. He wants to say that moore hates america and that he's a traitor just because moore doesnt agree with this administrations policies. Moore doesnt **** america if he did then why would he be doing these documentaries? He's doing these doc's because he doesnt like the direction the countries going in and he want's to change it for the better. Thats what this countries found on the right to protest

Moore shouldnt sit down with somebody who just want's to insult him because moore doesnt agree with his point of view. Moore has a right to his point of view and the guy doing the anti-moore doc has the right to his point of view and they both have the right to make a documentary about that point of view. But the person they are doing the documentary on also has the right to decline being interviewed. It's amazing that so much attention is being given to moore for declining to be interviewed by someone with a conflicting view. Well, guess what, I didnt see Bush being interviewed by moore and no one seems to be talking about that. Bush makes himself look bad and as far as I know everything in fahrenheit 9/11 is true granted it's from a liberal point of view but it's still true!

Now watch this drive!

 

[Togath]

umm well all i can say, is that anyone can make anything look true. To a point atleast. Anyways, yes Moore does have the right to make that film, and I have the right not to spend my money on some documentary and can go see something that is a little more entertaining like mean girls

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Brino, I understand your point, and Moores'. However, IMO, if Moore is going to put himself so front and centre in his films, I believe he should answer his critics questions and concerns. To me, it appears that he is hiding from the truth.

Like I've said, where was Moore and his camera when Clinton was making mistakes reguarding wars and battles, that resulted in Americans dying?

Moore gives the impression that his beliefs are fact, when he doesn't ever provide any evidence supporting it. Yet people buy into.

I have no problem with the concept of what Moore has done, I just believe he should either show the actual truth, or atleast answer for why he hasn't.

 

[ÆGEAN]

i saw it yesterday and it just shows how false GW is and how Al Gore should of been prez in the first place. none of this Iraq bullshit would of happened, instead we would of caught that bastard bin laden straight away.

 

[Brino]

Dirty Sanchez, I understand where your coming from too. I'm willing to admit when I might be wrong and I might be wrong about moore. I just found this site which supposedly lists all the inaccuracies of fahrenheit 9/11 but it also shows that moore is willing to answer his critics....sometimes. Anyway judge for yourself here it is

Premium Link Upgrade

I'm not sure whether I trust the guy who wrote that mainly because he sounds like a republican but it's interesting nonetheless. And about Clinton lets be honest I'm willing to bet that more people have died under bush than clinton. And clinton had enough people criticizing him without moore needing to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[parker]

The guy did appear to be a dork. But, the Daily Show's editting probably had a lot to do with that. Much like Moore's editting, they only showed what they wanted to show, and what they showed made someone look bad. I would have loved for someone else to follow Moore around when he was doing some of his films, and show what really happened.

I'm not against the idea of Moore facing his detractors but after seeing this guy I have a hard time not blaming MM for declining an interview. This chap making the doc seems more like a buffoon than anything. If a more professional critic were available, however, one that I respect, I'd be more than glad to see that interview.

What about Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure that would make for an "intelligent" interview!

 

[foxfilm]

Ranger: What about my post was "imagination"?

Keeping the post short since you evidently can't handle the intellectual challenge of long ones.

:hatsoff:

 

[foxfilm]

Brino: Thanks for the link to the neocon site. Adds to the debate! My question: Who the fuck is this guy? Judging by the list of books he's written ( Premium Link Upgrade ) he's definitely a pro *** guy, so I can understand why he has a problem with Moore. (Who, despite Columbine, is an NRA member)

DS: Re where was Moore when Clinton was in office? He didn't see the need for an expose. And neither did the majority of the country who lived through Starr's 50 million dollar debacle that was the Clinton bj scam.

He saw other issues as being more pressing, like HMO's refusing transplants for everday people. And in the process, he saved a guy's life.

It wasn't until our President decided to sit there like a dipshit while planes were attacking his country and then sent 900 (and counting) guyd off to their deaths for arguable reasons that he decided to take on the White House.

RE: Sites attacking Moore's facts... I buy what what Moore has to say. But maybe others don't. Again, I say, HE'S NEVER BEEN SUED, AND THERE'S STILL TALK OF A $10,000 REWARD FOR ANYONE WHO CAN PROVE HIS FACTS WRONG. Here's his response to sites like those referenced before: Premium Link Upgrade

Not only are these arguments strong; don't you think this is a heated and powerful enough situation to get him into trouble if the facts weren't together?

Regardless of what a dipshit character assassin like the documentary boy wants to put in a movie about him, and his reaction to said dipshit, Moore's facts are solid. Presented from a point of view, but facts nonetheless.

The question is whether or not you share his point of view. If you don't, that's cool. But let's not hammer the guy for having a point of view.