Michael Moore is delusional

Originally posted by wvrevy
It truly amazes me how many people know ever-so-much about Mr. Moore and all of his beliefs, but then go on to say that they've never bothered seeing one of his movies.

So, in other words, they are accusing him of being uninformed...by remaining uninformed themselves


To me this part of his statement sounded like I shouldn't be able to state my opinion because I haven't seen the movie so I am uniformed. If I mistook it for something else...sorry. Again my opinion is not of the movie but of the man and I don't need to see the movie to have an opinion of him.
 
Originally posted by caitycaity
maybe i missed it, but i didn't see anyone say you weren't entitled to an opinion, just that if you haven't seen the movie, your opinion of the movue is uninformed.

And agian my opinion isn't of the movie it is of the man. I don't have an opinion on the movie because I haven't seen it.
 
I won't pay to see the movie, although I did appreciate Moore's efforts with Bowling. Overall I agree that he is pompous and self-righteous...two traits that don't sit well with me. Same can be said for O'Reilly, but at least he admits when he's mistaken. I think he's a smart, well-informed fella.

Regardless, here is the link to both the transcripts and video if anyone wants to check it out. I love it when O'Reilly tears into someone who thinks they know it all. ;)

Battle of the Imnotsurewhat: O'Reilly vs Moore
 
Originally posted by Nancy
I won't see the movie, but I also won't make comments about the movie...my comments are based on my impressions of MM in his interviews...which I have seen. I won't see movies with Tom Cruise in them because I don't like him as an actor...same thing in my book.....it's my opinion. I've probably missed some good movies that he has been in...but oh well, I'll get over it. I didn't see The Passion of Christ even though everyone told me that I HAD to see it. I did not want to sit through what the reviews said were graphic and disturbing scenes...not my type of movie.

Why can't people be allowed to have their opinions without being told unless they have seen the movie they aren't entitled to an opinion. I'm not basing my opinion on the actual movie, I don't have an opinion on the actual movie..I'm basing it on the person making the movie. My DH would like to see it because he thinks MM is funny! I told him he can by himself...I don't think he's funny.

And my comment on MM thinking everyone wants to hear his point of view was based on his speech he tried to make at The Oscars....at least I think it was the Oscars...all those award shows blend into each other after awhile and I don't want to be jumped all over if I have mistaken the award show that he got booed at and then the music started to get him off stage.

Nancy - well stated and ITA!
 

"What concerns me is that there are actually people (and I do NOT mean everyone who sees the movie) who will go see this movie and believe what Moore says without really looking into the facts, which would take some effort beyond sitting in a movie theater."

No problem....please tell me what was in the movie that was not fact and I'll be happy to look into it.

As I mentioned earlier, I've seen a lot of complaints about what was "said" or even implied in the movie and have to wonder if those people saw the same movie as I did.

For example, one complaint I saw was that Michael Moore claimed that the FBI was prevented from talking to the bin Ladens or Saudis that left the country after 9/11, yet he never made that claim nor did anyone else in the movie.
 
I SO dig Michael Moore. He's the real McCoy and he makes
those he mocks afraid. I guess if the shoe fits too tightly, it's
a bit uncomfortable. Everytime I hear someone complain that
he lies or misleads, I remember that famous Shakespearian quote
about protesting too much. Michael Moore loves America and
wants it to be better. He says what others are afraid to say.
 
Originally posted by vettechick99
I won't pay to see the movie, although I did appreciate Moore's efforts with Bowling. Overall I agree that he is pompous and self-righteous...two traits that don't sit well with me. Same can be said for O'Reilly, but at least he admits when he's mistaken. I think he's a smart, well-informed fella.

Regardless, here is the link to both the transcripts and video if anyone wants to check it out. I love it when O'Reilly tears into someone who thinks they know it all. ;)

Battle of the Imnotsurewhat: O'Reilly vs Moore

If you don't like pompous and self-righteous, you must HATE
the current POTUS! Wait, but you like O'Reilley...oh, I see-he
admits when he's wrong. Well, I don't know about that but I
sure know GWB does NOT have that trait. Glad to see you are
not supporting GWB!!!

BTW, I just read the FOX rendition of the moore/o'reilley discussion. It was edited for "clarity?" Well,anyway, I don't
see that o'reilley got over on Moore. O'reilley didn't want
to continue discussions several times and tried to lead Moore
into a discussion about WWII instead of the issue at hand.
Geez!
 
/
I, for one, am a proud Michael Moore supporter. Thats not to say though that I agree with everythings he says or does.
 
In another possible example of "lying for Justice", it appears that Mr. Moore used a doctored newspaper headline in his latest "documentary":

Pantagraph to Moore: Headline use 'misleading'

Explanation, apology sought

By Bill Flick
flick@pantagraph.com

BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has a message for Michael Moore, creator of the movie hit, "Fahrenheit 9/11":
If he wants to "edit" The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and "falsely represented" pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first.

In a letter drafted Thursday and sent to Moore and the movie's Santa Monica, Calif.-based distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment, the newspaper admonished him for his "unauthorized ... misleading" use of The Pantagraph in the film. He also was cited for copyright infringement.

The letter, drafted by J. Casey Costigan of the Bloomington law firm, Costigan & Wollrab, seeks an apology, an explanation of how such a strange discrepancy occurred in his movie and compensatory damages -- of $1.

"While we are highly flattered to be included in the movie," said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, "we are a bit disturbed that our pages were misrepresented."

Previous attempts to reach Moore through Lions Gate by phone and e-mail were unsuccessful.

In the film, Moore criticizes President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the president's and his associates' ties to Saudi Arabian oil interests.

In a moment early in the movie, newspaper headlines from around America that relate to the legally contested 2000 presidential election flash across the screen. One of them is purported to be from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of The Pantagraph.

But a check of that day's newspaper revealed the large headline prominently flashed in the movie -- "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election" -- never appeared in that edition.

Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition -- but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered "factual" news stories.


In the movie, The Pantagraph page, as shown, was not how a real page from the newspaper would have looked. Moore's version had a different typeface and a different headline size from what The Pantagraph uses. The newspaper's name, however, appears in the correct font.

The letter calls all of this a "misrepresentation of facts."

The discrepancy first came to light in a July 16 Bill Flick column.

Since then it has become a topic of newspaper articles, radio talk shows and various Web sites.

"In an instance that The Pantagraph prints materials in which there is a mistake," the Costigan letter to Moore reads, "it is corrected. It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard and correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film."

The letter calls into question the ethics of how Moore made his movie, a movie whose primary purpose is to call into question the ethics of the Bush White House.

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml
 
And agian my opinion isn't of the movie it is of the man. I don't have an opinion on the movie because I haven't seen it.


Nancy what you have to understand is that some people have become so "anyone but Bush"
that they have decided that no one can have a view other then theirs.

its rather ironic,i have seen the movie, and have had the chance to meet Michael Moore twice.
the funny part is,if i was to voice my dislike for the man,the "anyone but Bush" crowd would call me the anti-christ.

In some ways i hope this MM cult gets what they want and can see the real person.

i would love to see the looks on their faces after they have seen the racist,rude,anti-american,only worried about himself pompous fool they are all defending.
 
Originally posted by GaryAdams
Nancy what you have to understand is that some people have become so "anyone but Bush"
that they have decided that no one can have a view other then theirs.

its rather ironic,i have seen the movie, and have had the chance to meet Michael Moore twice.
the funny part is,if i was to voice my dislike for the man,the "anyone but Bush" crowd would call me the anti-christ.

In some ways i hope this MM cult gets what they want and can see the real person.

i would love to see the looks on their faces after they have seen the racist,rude,anti-american,only worried about himself pompous fool they are all defending.

Wow Gary! Met MM twice and yet time to DIS. You must travel
in some interesting circles. Tell us about your meetings, I'm
intrigued! BTW, I would not vote for anybody but Bush. I do agree that MM can be rude. Racist and anti-american are NOT
terms that describe. Besides, the rude shouldn't bother you
as GWB specializes in rude and pompous himself and those are
the traits you guys seem to want to celebrate in him. Want to talk mysogynist?
 
I read the transcript off of Foxnews.com, and thought that maybe if I switched to a liberal Democrat I would understand him...but then I thought I'd better not go there, I might not get back.
 
Hmmm....I noticed the Bill O'Reilly never answered MM as to whether he would sacrifice his child's life to the war in Iraq.

As to MM, I really have no opinion of him one way or the other. I never saw Bowling for Columbine. I don't watch him when he is on TV.

As for his movie, people took away from it what they wanted to take away from it. Much of what people are claiming was said or done in the movie is not what is actually there, it is what people took away from it.
 
Originally posted by ripleysmom
Hmmm....I noticed the Bill O'Reilly never answered MM as to whether he would sacrifice his child's life to the war in Iraq.


*edit* removed mistake.

But that's a red herring of a question.

And really, it's not Bill decision to make. It's his child's decision.
 
I base my opinion of Michael Moore on interviews I've seen of him--not his entertainment. That would be like defining Steven Spielberg based on the film, E.T.

I don't understand the deal about sacrificing your children in war? The last I knew children become legal adults at age 18. Parents lose the ability to control their actions. We can make suggestions, but we can no longer tell them what to do with their lives. Also, there is no draft. Every person currently in the military VOLUNTEERED to be there. They know what they're getting into and what they may be asked to do BEFORE they sign on the dotted line. At least my son knew--we made sure he fully understood the choice he was making.

So, the "sacrificing your children" bit makes no sense. Now, his other question, "Would you sacrifice your life?" made sense. Bill O'Reilly answered for himself, as an adult, the he would.

Jeanine Garafolo. Now THERE'S a nutcase.
 
Pompous and self-righteous?

If so, then only in response to the pomposity and self-righteousness of the Bush administration.
 
For you poor souls who think Michael Moore speaks the gospel truth, nobody said it better than Christopher Hitchens (a liberal with a brain).

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

There's so much good stuff in that column, but this stands out.

In a recent interview, he (Michael Moore) yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children).
 
Originally posted by ripleysmom
Hmmm....I noticed the Bill O'Reilly never answered MM as to whether he would sacrifice his child's life to the war in Iraq.

As to MM, I really have no opinion of him one way or the other. I never saw Bowling for Columbine. I don't watch him when he is on TV.

As for his movie, people took away from it what they wanted to take away from it. of what people are claiming was said or done in the movie is not what is actually there, it is what people took away from it.

EXACTLY

And that is what is driving people nuts. People took QUESTIONS away from it. It made them look at things in a new way.

You can squeal about Moore all you want. Who cares who likes or dislikes the man? This condescending attitude that anyone who thought this movie had something to offer is stupid, just shows how much they fear this movie.

And please ! Red Herrings? This administration thrives on red herrings. They perfected the concept of misdirection.
Nancy what you have to understand is that some people have become so "anyone but Bush"that they have decided that no one can have a view other then theirs
um pot....kettle? If you truly believed everyone was entitled to have their own opinion you would be urging people to see this movie and make up their own minds instead of trying to provide reasons why they should not see it. Honestly....if you truly believe this movie is so false, why not encourage people to go see it and make up their own minds. It certainly sounds like you are so afraid that those with less of an intellect than you might be swayed. If the falsehoods you claim abound, why do you assume that others will not see this for themselves?
 
Originally posted by ripleysmom
Hmmm....I noticed the Bill O'Reilly never answered MM as to whether he would sacrifice his child's life to the war in Iraq.

The day after, I caught O'Reilly's spin of how he wasn't going to answer that question because it brought the discussion to an emotional level. Talk about spin in the "No Spin Zone".

Of course, war is an emotional issue. People die. People come home wounded. Some are haunted by their experiences everyday of their lives. Thats why the decision to go to war should be a last resort, not the fulfilllment of a neo-con's dream.

But, when you've only got 6 or 7 members of Congress who have relatives fighting in this war, they don't have to think about that because, to the vast majority, it's somebody else's child.
 
Originally posted by Elwood Blues
But that's a red herring of a question.

And really, it's not Bill decision to make. It's his child's decision.

Good Lord, what spin. This one's approaching Beyblade territory.

Red Herring? Asking a man if he would be willing to send his child to liberate Fallujah is a damned good question and showed O'Reilly for the pompous gas bag that he is. I noticed his answer was along the lilnes of he would be willing to die for his country. Another rightwing phony who took deferment after deferment to avoid serving in Viet Nam but who now wrap themselves in the flag for this war.

Samuel Johnson had a wonderful phrase: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. "

And while we're talking about red herrings, here's the mother of all red herrings:

DIANE SAWYER:
"But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —"

PRESIDENT BUSH:
"So what's the difference?"
George W. Bush, President
Diane Sawyer Interviews President Bush.
12/16/2003
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top