Michael Moore is delusional

[GaryAdams]

"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."



i stand by what i said in my first post, funny how 2 tried to attack me, but after i called them on it not another word was said.



btw wvrevy i have seen the movie,reminds me of his early work, check out the movie Candian Bacon.
i wonder how many people from Canada like the way he sees them?
maybe if he was a better screenplay writer we wouldnt have to be putting up with the junk he turns out now?

 

[Bobbles]

I have not seen the MM movie F911 and really don't have to.
I think, after seeing BfC, that he has some good points but not all are not accurate.

But the same attitude that Gary Adams speaks about coming from the "anybody but Bush" side, exists also on the pro-Bush side. Don't you think so or is it totally one-sided?

Bad feelings against the other political side haven't reached this feverish a pitch since, perhaps, the Lincoln-Douglass presidential election.

I wish we could, somehow, figure out how to argue the political differences and not moronic personal attacks of both sides.

 

[jrydberg]

Bobbles, I'd agree with most of what you said. No one has a monopoly on behaving badly

It's really not that difficult to argue political differences in a civil, respectful manner. But people have to want to do that.

 

[shortbun]

originally posted by Gary Adams

i stand by what i said in my first post, funny how 2 tried to attack me, but after i called them on it not another word was said.


I'm pretty sure I'm one of the "attackers" that didn't respond. Too busy campaigning for Kerry to bother until now. GA-as to my "weak attempt at sarcasm", glad you caught that. If your "meetings" took place as you state, they were hardly occassions where you "met" Michael Moore. When one meets someone, there is an acknowledgement of the other's existence
which did not take place here. Glad though that you cleared up
your "meetings" with Michael Moore. Your first post and this one
make it sound like you've actually met the man to have more credibility in your statement.

BTW, I did make it to Zanesville for the Kerry/Edwards appearance and I've been busy organizing a Moms For Kerry
rally too. I'm helping to set up a local phone bank and getting volunteers for that as well. Later this fall, I won't have time for
DISing except rarely. So, don't worry about my campaigning Gary - or was that a "weak attempt at sarcasm?" Watch Ohio's vote tally late on November 2nd.

Anybody but Bush, you say? The democrats had five or six
guys running that were better than Bush and many more
who didn't run. It's not a matter of "anyone", just selecting
which better qualified candidate we wanted. Notice how most
of us fell right in when the majority made their opinions known.
The ABB campaign was just to show how disgusted and worried
some people were about the future of this country-it was a statement of the condition of things and how clearly we see the
need for a new president. Take what you need and leave the rest, I speak the truth.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Bobbles

But the same attitude that Gary Adams speaks about coming from the "anybody but Bush" side, exists also on the pro-Bush side. Don't you think so or is it totally one-sided?
.

I think it's more one sided that not. In the beginning, the Dems had about 10 candidates running for the Dem nomination. Even back then there was the "anyone but Bush" mentality. Although I don't really think that ANYONE would want Big Al Sharpton over Bush. Would they?

I heard some on this board admit that they aren't 100 percent for what all Bush does but he's still better than Kerry. They also said that they would have considered others on the Dem ticket had they won the nomination.

On the other hand, most that are for Kerry are so because they don't like most of anything Bush does and feels that Kerry (even though he has a questionable track record) has to be better than Bush.

Ergo, "anyone but Bush".

 

[TinkHappy]

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

Just want to clarify...

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

this was a joke

 

[Geoff_M]

But the same attitude that Gary Adams speaks about coming from the "anybody but Bush" side, exists also on the pro-Bush side. Don't you think so or is it totally one-sided?

As one political commentator put it... When we see Ann Coulter sitting next to a former President of the US in the Presidential box at the Republican National Convention, then saying "both sides are just as bad" might ring a little more true.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
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).

He did say that--I read it in the transcript. There are other outright lies. Things like--Bush cut the terrorism funding at the FBI. Well, you worked for the govt., right? You know that the fiscal year begins in October and the budget during the first 9 months of Bush's administration came from the Clinton administration. So that statement is just untrue.

There are little picky things--like saying Porter Goss doesn't have an 800 number, when in fact he does have a toll-free number, 866 or something like that. There was something in there about Saudi Arabia getting security in front of their embassy when no other country does--completely untrue. Come on. Is that really okay?

And there are things I think are pretty big. The whole pipeline segment. From outright lies, like Enron benefitted from the deal, to the subtleties--implying Bush supported it and met with the Taliban in Texas. In fact, Clinton met with them and supported it and Bush did neither. The movie implies the pipeline was actually built--in fact, I think even when faced with evidence to the contrary, jennyanydots still wouldn't believe the pipeline was never built. That they were showing pictures of a different pipeline being built. The pipeline project was dead in the water by the time Bush took office. And Moore lies again when he says Afghan's new president was a consultant for the company building the pipeline.

I find the pipeline lies to be particularly insidious because they perpetuate the evil conspiracy theories of going into Afghanistan for financial gain. But apart from the actual lies in this film, I think it's completely disingenuous to try to say that there are no lies, so there's nothing wrong with it.

The evidence of what's wrong with this film can be found on every thread about this movie on this board. You seem to think it doesn't matter what people take away from it. But when so many people are taking away the same false impressions--it's really undeniable that it's unintentional. You seem to want to absolve Moore of that. I just can't. It is intentional and he is taking people's money to lie to them and commit all sorts of other unethical sins--like taking footage from other news sources without authorization and not giving people the benefit of everything they said being shown or the context in which they said it shown. Almost every segment of this movie is distorted in some way from what is reality.

You just can't ignore all that. It's just not okay to do that and I have a hard time believing you think it's okay to do that.

 

[Galahad]

When we see Ann Coulter sitting next to a former President of the US in the Presidential box at the Republican National Convention

Do you think she'll be doing that or something similar at this year's convention?

 

[Geoff_M]

Do you think she'll be doing that or something similar at this year's convention?

Somehow, I don't think she'll (though perhaps a better analogy would be the person that wrote the conspiracy filled "The Clinton Chronicles") be given the same VIP status that Moore was given at the bash in Bean Town.

 

[Galahad]