AH Michael Moore... a TRUE American.

[stalecracker]

I just watched Michael Moore accept his Oscar for the film... Bowling For Columbine. He decided to use his time to preach about the ficticious election, ficticious President and the ficticious war. Hmmmm... I know believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt the he is truly, and without a doubt, the single most self serving, pious, piece of shit excuse for a human being alive today. My opinion, I'm sure will change in the next day or so... but for now, he wins. As I watched his fat, sloven ass preach to promote himself and his productions (which is all he did tonight) I couldn't help but think of some American men in the hands of the enemy. I would personally like Michael Moore to burn in hell.

[carpal]

Gosh that makes me happy. I am happy that Michael Moore can say whatever the hell he wants on national t.v. And gee willickers am I glad that you can say that you want him to burn in hell.

what a glorious country this is folks! Free speech for life.

[OLSEN]

Are you saying that all people thats against the war should burn in hell? Thats a lot of people..

Or just Michael Moore because he took the chance to tell the world what he believes is right, at a time he knew they would hear him?

[stalecracker]

I'll apologize ahead of time to all I might upset with my view on this one...

Pro war? Anti War? I don't care, ultimately, what your views are. I am glad we live in a lace where we can speak our minds. We are free to do so. I also believe that when speech is no longer tempered by morals and/or ethics it becomes poison. The Motion Picture Academy asks the attendees to keep the war, pro or con, out of the awards. For many reasons . Primarily to keep it what it's supposed to be... a celebration of an Art. Moore, in keeping with his "avant garde', cuuting edge, scathing political persona" chose to illuminate the audience with rhetoric of the "ficticious world" he rallies against. I believe he did this for selfish reasons. I have never been a fan of his. He is a hardcore left wing . He uses his "causes" to promote himself. This was no exception.

.PZ. Glad yer happy, sunshine!

Olsen... read what I posted again and read what I wrote. Not what you think I said.

[mtw]

People seem to think of Michael Moore as a defender of the people from the injustice of corporate tyranny or something like that, but he tends to be a propagandist. He doesn't give complete facts and will try to use people's emotions to get people on his side.

[silent Insanity]

Thank you stalecracker i thought i was the only one

[OLSEN]

Stalecracker:

Lets asume he was only promoting his products,so what? i believe those products represent Michael Moore and Michael Moores view of the world, just as much of my artistic work represent myself and my view of the world. Though i cant be 100& certain if Moore is only in it for the money or not, i dont believe that to be the case, theres easier ways to get rich then to do the stuff hes doing. Therefor, i believe his outburst tonight was not ment to serve himself, but to make a statement he believes is right.

Reading your first post, i still believe my two questions were justified, but perhaps a bit aggresive.

Your second post cleared up a thing or two about your oppinion, so nevermind.

Peace out from a left wing .

[Lono]

yah Moore can be overly extreme some times, and i do think that he plays on peoples emotions more than he should,, and although i didnt watch the awards,,, what you described him as doing sounds pretty uncalled for.. but,, you have to understand that this guy is an investigative journalist,, not some hollywood head who digs up the dirt during the day and then hob knobs with celebritys at night. making people aware is his job and only passion. maby to him,, standing on a podium with the entire world watching you was just another perfect oppertunity to do his job. i can see the logic in that,, be it rude or self serving. did you watch Bowling For Columbine? it was actually a very good and honest film,, with very little "left wing" whorish additude.. it was supprisingly quite unbiased. well now he did give a little beating to the NRA,, but,, it was overall more of a socialogical film than it was a political film.
also he wrote a book which covered parts of the election called "stuped white men" and i think thats what he was refferencing when he spoke of the ficticious election, ficticious President and the ficticious war.
like any overly opinionated person who is passionet about there cause,, everything he says should be combed over before digestion. i certianly dont agree with everything he speaks of or even his intentions for that matter,, but, he has turned a lot of stones and disrupted a lot of water that would have never even been disturbed if it were not for him,, and i have to say that he is a very good writer and an excellent journalist, and im glad people like him are out there.

have any of you guys that really hate Michael Moore ever actually read any of his books,, or seen any of his movies, like "Roger and me" or "Bowling For Columbine", or attended one of his lectures? he travles around and gives lectures at colleges incase you didnt know.
i have,, and i think he deserves some credit.

People seem to think of Michael Moore as a defender of the people from the injustice of corporate tyranny or something like that, but he tends to be a propagandist. He doesn't give complete facts and will try to use people's emotions to get people on his side. hah! id like you to find me one politician who doesnt do that. it is an art that must be mastered like any other. theres a sea of shit on all sides and where the ones swimming in it. im not the type that will ride on another persons back but ill hear em out and try to keep my personal emotions and reservations from interfearing.

-Lono

[Mr.Magnetichead]

I love Michael Moore:D

[silent Insanity]

I thought his speech was pretty funny, especially the part where the celebritys that tend to be left wing were booing and yelling at him. The looks he was getting were also damn funny.

[cucaracha]

If Bush is going to heaven, I prefer hell ;)

I think its ok that he says what he want, and its also ok that you don't think he's ok :D

Seriously, the opportunity of free speech has to be guaranteed all time.

Its shocking for me that you don't see the US war prisoners (I mean - the US-Troops are the prisoners) on TV.

Thery're only few, but the US censor all contents.

(bad english this post)

[KayCustomz]

whos this micheal guy

[otis]

I was pretty impressed with hollywoods reaction to him last night. I thought he was going to get a standing ovation...
Wow, sanity does prevail in this world..althought he press want s you to believe it doesn't.

[stalecracker]

cucaracha

The reason you don't see U.S. OR Iraqi P.O.W.'s identified or shown in graphic detail is because to do so is a VIOLATION of the Geneva Convention! Get your facts together before you start with the U.S. censor rhetoric crap.

[cucaracha]

hm - Rumsfeld also criticized that heavily

but

The first thing I saw one or two days after the war begun were american soldiers who presented iraqi prisoners.

So Rumsfeld had either no clue or is just - stupid.

Sorry, but both sides break several laws in that war - but this isn't the right place, there's a war-thread.
Sorry for posting this off-topic :)
cu

[stalecracker]

Dude, I believe the Geneva Convention prohibits the "display of P.O.W.'s."
American or Foreign press showing prisoners being searched or detained is one thing. VIDEOTAPING the interrogation and broadcasting it is another. HOW many Iraqi P.O.W.'s have you seen being interrogated on T.V.?

I'd like to know.

[cucaracha]

You're right, the iraqi prisoners were shown by foreign TV-stations.

The american prisoners were shown by a TV-station called "Aljazeera". Its from Iraq, and I have no information how much the military or the government influences them, but it seems to be private (as far as you can say that from iraq)

The same thing on the other side, all content is watched by the us military before it's send. Maybe they should have cut those prisoners out.

But no one really forced the US soldiers to say their name - or its not on camera.
I would expect the iraqi to torture US war prisoners, of course.
We should remember that no war was "fair" in history, thats the nature of wars :doh:

The big problem with this war, nobody knows exactly what's going on. But always remember to look careful at both sides, I think.
I hope it's over soon :mad:

sorry again for abusing your thread :)
cu

[stalecracker]

Well, they were forced to give information. At least the ones shown gave name, rank, serial number. The tape was edited... people who did the analysis of the footage say the edits are obvious.

So what do you edit out if there is nothing to hide?

[bat]

Moore should know about fiction:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

bat

[tyboogie]

thanks bat--very informative

[bat]

My pleasure to be of assistance. I normally stay out of the political arena and debates (at least online, I enjoy theology and politics over tea or coffee). However, I caught the Moore speech at the Oscars and looked deeper into his 'documentary'.

bat

[stalecracker]

Here's a nice little look at Michael "Makin' It Up" Moore...

JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY

Unmoored From Reality
An ideological con artist is the favorite for an Oscar.

Friday, March 21, 2003 12:01 a.m.

With Hollywood in a fever pitch against the war in Iraq, Michael Moore is likely to win the Oscar for Best Documentary at Sunday's Academy Awards. "Bowling for Columbine," Mr. Moore's work of anti-American propaganda, has grossed over $15 million, an amazing sum for a film billed as a documentary. But the film, a merry dissection of America's "culture of fear" and love of guns, is filled with so many inaccuracies and distortions that it ought to be classed as a work of fiction.
Mr. Moore is naturally a big hit among the French. The jury at the Cannes Film Festival created a special, one-time only award to honor his film and then gave it a 13-minute standing ovation. "Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism," observes Andrew Sullivan in London's Sunday Times.





Mr. Moore plays into all of the worst stereotypes and distortions about America. "Bowling for Columbine" attempts to explain interventions by the U.S. military as rooted in an inherently violent domestic culture. "I agree with the National Rifle Association when they say, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people,' " he told NBC's "Today" show. "Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.' We're the only country that does this, and we do it on an personal level in our neighborhoods and within our families and our schools, and we do it on a global level. The American attitude is that we believe we have a right to just go in and bomb another country. This is where Bush is going right now, right?"
To make this strained connection, Mr. Moore tries to make us believe that the two mentally disturbed high school students who massacred their fellow students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., grew up in a community that has a sinister connection to the military-industrial complex. A Lockheed Martin factory in Littleton manufactures "weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Moore claims. The factory actually makes rockets that carry TV satellites into space. And the very title of Mr. Moore's film is based on a deception. It refers to the bowling class that the Columbine killers supposedly took the morning they committed their murders. The only problem is that they actually cut the class.

Forbes reports that an early scene in "Bowling" in which Mr. Moore tries to demonstrate how easy it is to obtain guns in America was staged. He goes to a small bank in Traverse City, Mich., that offers various inducements to open an account and claims "I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, I walked out with my new Weatherby," a rifle.

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Mr. Moore makes the preposterous claim that a Michigan program by which welfare recipients were required to work was responsible for an incident in which a six-year-old Flint boy shot a girl to death at school. Mr. Moore doesn't mention that the boy's mother had sent him to live in a crack house where her brother and a friend kept both drugs and guns--a frequently lethal combination.

Some of the fact-bending and omissions of "Bowling for Columbine" could charitably be chalked up to really sloppy research. (I called the chief archivist for Mr. Moore's film, Carl Deal, yesterday, but he hasn't called back.) Others show a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

David Hardy, a former Interior Department lawyer who delights in debunking government officials and pompous celebrities, has uncovered even more evidence of Mr. Moore's distortions. The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness. Another speech is described as being given immediately after the Flint shooting . In reality, it was made almost a year later. All of these and more inaccuracies can be found at Mr. Hardy's comprehensive Web site.

Ben Fritz ofSpinsanity.org also notes that Mr. Moore has "apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988" to buttress his claim that racial symbolism is frequently misused in American politics. His leading example is the case of Willie Horton, a murderer who became a major issue in the 1988 presidential campaign. Mr. Moore shows the Bush ad that generically attacked a prison furlough program in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts . Superimposed over the footage of prisoners entering and exiting a prison are the words "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." While the caption appears to be part of the original ad, Mr. Moore actually inserted it; the ad made no mention of Horton. (Another ad, sponsored by the National Security Political Action Committee, a conservative group independent of the Bush campaign, did mention Horton; it aired only briefly in a few cable markets.) The phony Moore caption also is inaccurate; Horton brutalized a Maryland couple and raped the wife, but didn't kill anybody while on furlough.





In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.
When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.

"Glaring inaccuracies?" Mr. Dobbs said.

"No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

Mr. Moore would deserve an Academy Award if there were an Oscar for Best Cinematic Con Job. If "Bowling for Columbine" is a comedy, most of its fans don't know it. They actually believe they're watching something that is in rough accord with reality.


Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



THIS one is good, as well.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp