Michael Moore is delusional

[GaryAdams]

sorry it took me so long to get back,i was out enjoying the weekend.

Wow Gary! Met MM twice and yet time to DIS. You must travelin some interesting circles. Tell us about your meetings

shortbun, your weak attempt at sarcasm is noted.

The first time i had the displeasure to meet MM was at a book signing im 98.
i was amazed at how 1 man can so belittle some young bookstore employees because he didnt like the type of bottled water or pens they had for him.
so much for him standing up for the working class,more like he was standing on them.
he spent over 20 mins just berating this poor girl,he had her in tears.

btw,i got out of line and didnt have him sign my book,no need to waste my time on him.

the 2nd encounter was last year.he happened to be dinning in the same restaurant we were in.
well old MM didnt let me down,he again choose to make a outcry about the waiter.
even pulled the matradie over and went into a long expletive- laden speech.
the best part was when he decided to bring in the waiters ethnic background.

btw,we had the same waiter and he was great.

so yes i have met him twice,and i stand by my first post on what i think of him!

just some friendly advice,try getting out from behind the keyboard now and then.
did you by chance go see Kerry this weekend? wasnt he in ohio? i would think such a strong supporter as yourself would have jumped at the chance to see him in person.

see you shouldnt lump people together until you know that person.
i voiced my opinion on a subject that i have personally seen, and because it doesnt match your view you attempted to belittle and verbally attack me.
i never once singled you out by name in my original post,but for some reason you felt the need to jump up and attack me.
maybe i hit alittle close to home when i talked about the "anyone but Bush"and MM cult crowd?

 

[GaryAdams]

yea know FIK,back on the old debate board you used to have good opinions now and then. what went wrong?

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?

perhaps some where in my post you could show me where i said people shouldnt see the movie?


just to save you some time i will cut and paste it so you dont have to go back a page.



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.




well?

oh thats right i didnt say that, you were just putting words in my mouth.

all i did was point out something to nancy about some people not letting other people have an opinion about a person.


so you have now gone from reading the minds of 3rd party voters to reading mine?
just wondering,in your post you sure acted like you knew what i was saying, and what i really ment.



guess i was right when i said in the first post that if i stated how i felt about the man i would attacked?

funny how that works isnt it?

 

[GaryAdams]

FIK,
have you ever seen the movie Canadian Bacon?
you should see it sometime. it wasnt the blockbuster F/911 is,but your good friend MM wrote and directed it.
pay close attention as to how MM treats Canadians and Canada.

 

[kbeverina]

Here's something I'd like to clarify about the Moore interview. I didn't see Bowling for Columbine. Isn't Michael Moore very pro-gun control?

Yet in the interview he said that the Iraqi people and the Jewish people should have "risen up" against their dictators? How in the world were they supposed to do that? That's his simple solution to those genocides?

 

[kbeverina]

The movie lies plenty. Not just misleads or gives false impressions (though it does plenty of that, too).

I'll throw one out that I've thrown out before--Moore says the Saudis own 7% of America. That's just completely false. I showed reports and the tables from the Census report on another thread.

 

[kbeverina]

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

Oh, and Moore's movies do NOT play fast and loose with the facts, as everything in the movie that is stated as fact IS a fact. It's his conclusions that should be questioned (whether you're inclined to believe him or not). Not even Shrub and his gang of pundits dare attack the FACTS...but they'll call him fat, make fun of his looks, and everything else to try to marginalize him.

The facts are there for anyone to see....if only they could be bothered to look.

I'm really surprised to see you post this. You said in an earlier post about Michael Moore that "the guy is (as usual) just a bit off base".

That's, of course, when you were disagreeing with something he did or said I guess.

And not everything stated in the movie is fact. That's absolutely untrue.

 

[MJames41]

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

Oh, and Moore's movies do NOT play fast and loose with the facts, as everything in the movie that is stated as fact IS a fact. It's his conclusions that should be questioned (whether you're inclined to believe him or not). Not even Shrub and his gang of pundits dare attack the FACTS...but they'll call him fat, make fun of his looks, and everything else to try to marginalize him.

The facts are there for anyone to see....if only they could be bothered to look.

Ok, then why is it when MM was asked about the "fact" of the Saudi's leaving before air space was opened, he continued to state that it was a fact even when George Stepenopolis (or however he spells his name) brought out that this was false, that the records do not actually show this. George would say "well this record says this" and MM would say "that record is wrong". Facts are facts, but MM likes to play loose with him, or ignore them when they don't fit his beliefs.

I have not seen Bowling for Columbine, nor have I seen F 9/11, nor will I. I have seen Mr. Moore's work before however. I don't claim MM is uniformed, I claim that he is an out and out lier who makes a living giving propoganda as truth. He makes Goebles look like an amatuer. He would sacrifice anyone and anything for his god - himself. Those are my conclusions based on the facts of his works that I have seen.

Please understand wrevy, this is not an attack on you. I disagree with you that F9/11 is factual, thats all.

 

[MJames41]

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. 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.

I haven't seen it, I've only seen MM on a few interviews about it. What I claim is in the film is based on what MM said was in the film.

 

[Bobbles]

I have always believed that Michael Moore is the Anti-Rush.

Rush Limbaugh, IMHO, has been at the top of the wacky spin world of the conservative talk radio circuit. (Though he is faced with a lot of competition these days!)

Michael Moore is simply the top of the wacky spin world of documentaries.

All in all I think it's a nice balancing act for the political "circus" we are living with these days.

 

[disneydad2]

This says it all:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

And it appears all attempts were made to keep it 'fair and balanced'.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I'm really surprised to see you post this. You said in an earlier post about Michael Moore that "the guy is (as usual) just a bit off base".

That's, of course, when you were disagreeing with something he did or said I guess.

And not everything stated in the movie is fact. That's absolutely untrue.

Again, it's HIS CONCLUSIONS that I find "off base" at times. He lets his hatred for Bush (regardless of how it was acquired) color his judgement, which makes him look...well...flaky.

But again, I have yet to see a single FACT that was stated AS such in the movie be disproven. Not ONE. (and I don't recall the 7% line from the movie, but may be wrong about that).

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MJames41
Ok, then why is it when MM was asked about the "fact" of the Saudi's leaving before air space was opened, he continued to state that it was a fact even when George Stepenopolis (or however he spells his name) brought out that this was false, that the records do not actually show this. George would say "well this record says this" and MM would say "that record is wrong". Facts are facts, but MM likes to play loose with him, or ignore them when they don't fit his beliefs.

That IS fact, whether snuffaluffagous agrees that it is or not Here's the article from Snopes.com talking about it:
Saudi Flight DID happen
It's a long article, but the facts are there for anyone to see.

Originally posted by MJames41
He makes Goebles look like an amatuer.

Would that be the same Joseph Goebbels that said, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." and "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." ? Or perhaps you meant Hermann Goerring, who said ""Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Careful with those nazi references, they tend to reflect the current administration a lot more than Michael Moore.

Originally posted by MJames41
Please understand wrevy, this is not an attack on you. I disagree with you that F9/11 is factual, thats all.

I realized that...that's why I wasn't attacking back

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by disneydad2
This says it all:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

And it appears all attempts were made to keep it 'fair and balanced'.

There's nothing new in this, nor does it actually accuse the movie of claiming something is factual when it isn't. All it does is question Moore's conclusions, which I've already stated is a GOOD idea.

Besides, even if someone were to completely disprove 98% of Moore's conclusions, the absolute undeniable fact that Bush sat in a classroom, completely uninformed about what was going on in the country, for 7 minutes after being told that the country was under attack. He had no clue what "attack" meant, and yet he did nothing....just followed along with the story.

You can discount EVERYTHING else in the movie, and that one seven minute span should tell you all you need to know about Bush's "leadership"

 

[HauntedMansionFreak]

Ironically, my college English class watched Bowling for Columbine about a month ago. I found it so interesting that I rented it for my family to watch last night. I still walk away with my mouth fell open at some of the things pointed out to me.

I don't know if everything he said or portrayed in that movie was factual and correct, but I DO know that no one has ever given me a reason for the murder rate in this country that sounded more logical that M. Moore's.

I come from a family of hunters and guns are a natural part of our family. My oldest son got his first when he was 5 years old. He was taught proper respect about the gun, is ALWAYS supervised when handling it, and the gun stays un-loaded and locked up when we are not using it. My son is now 11 and I couldn't be more proud of him as he realizes just how dangerous they are.

Now - with that said, I have always been a supporter of the NRA (and still am). Yet, I knew something just wasn't right when it came to this country's crime rate, but I could never put my finger on it. Sure, we have alot of guns - but so do alot of other countries.

Given the statistics of 7 milion guns in Canada and their yearly murder rate was (I believe) in the 200's, Japan in the 60's, and many other countries were noted with yearly murder rates between 39 and 300 (approx). When it gave the stastics for the US it was over 11,000 murders per year. The film went on to say how the government and media had conditioned the public with fear with decades of selected information. We have become the scardest nation in the world and react with panic and fear - killing our neighbors.

That made so much sense to me. I had never thought of it that way. When you place "x" amount of guns in a nation that is terrified of everything because of the crap it hears/sees on the news/media/government info than of course you are going to have a high crime rate. Canada does not feed their people the bull that we get - their people are not scared, and they don't kill each other at the drop of a dime.

So until someone can provide me with a more logical answer as to why we are such a murderous nation - having the same amount of guns as anyone else - then I am going to go on saying that Michael Moore is right on track.

I welcome his documentaries and plan on viewing his other works.

I am open to any facts and may someday change my opinion of him, but name calling and simply dis-agreeing with his views is not intelligent enough to win me over.

He gave me answers. Whether they are right or not - I don't know, but they are logical to me and they "fit". I haven't seen anyone else offer that here.

 

[TinkHappy]

Olive Stone and Michael Moore could be the same person...if you look closely

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by TinkHappy
Olive Stone and Michael Moore could be the same person...if you look closely

Name calling is the last refuge of those with no substantive argument.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Name calling is the last refuge of those with no substantive argument.

Yes, but have you ever seen them in the same room together? I think we got a Larry Bird/Big Bird thing going on...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MJames41
Yes, but have you ever seen them in the same room together? I think we got a Larry Bird/Big Bird thing going on...

No, but then I've never seen President Bush and bobo the chimp in the same room either

You decide:

(Sorry...couldn't resist sharing those We now return you to a substantive argument...)

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That IS fact, whether snuffaluffagous agrees that it is or not Here's the article from Snopes.com talking about it:
Saudi Flight DID happen
It's a long article, but the facts are there for anyone to see.

The point wasn't if the flight took place, it is acknowledged that it did, but Moore stated in the interview that it took place while all other flights were still grounded, that it was because of the Saudi influence with the Bush Administration. He was defending it like a man who needed this point for the rest of his beliefs to be correct. When confronted with proof that the dates of the flight were after airspace was opened (limited), he told everyone that the government (of course) lied about it.

Originally posted by wvrevy
Would that be the same Joseph Goebbels that said, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth." and "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." ?

This sounds exactly like MM. He just thinks (in my opinion) that he should be the state in the above quote. This is also why I strongly disagree that this movie is given a documentary status.

It is far easier for future generations to look at a movie rather than research the facts (anyone ever watch the movie "Hamlet" instead of trying to read it for an English paper?). How many will see this film in the future and think that 9/11 was all George Bush's fault? How many will wonder why we didn't go to war with the Saudi's? There are small minds from both sides of the political spectrum, and this feeds one set.

 

[PamOKW]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Name calling is the last refuge of those with no substantive argument.

See post above. (make that 2 posts above.)