[quote=Galapidate] 3. He's got balls to be able to criticize American society the way he does. Show the man some respect.[/quote]

Sigh. It's not about balls, when pants are down in a country where law actually honors the the 1st Amendment. It's about 1. money 2. publicity 3. money 4. political agenda 5. money. Shall I go on? :wink: Respect, indeed... I'd like to see the likes of M Moore show them balls Chinese dissidents (and, in the past, Russian dissidents in the ol' USSR) obviously have, being fully aware of the consequences to their lives and those of their loved ones. But, of course that is a moot point.

Michael Moore is neither the first nor the last it his kind. Gore Vidal and Chomsky are still around. At least Kurt Vonnegut wrote something arguably half-decent prior to his current ranting. Oh, and Mr. Soros is trying his hand at penmanship, while openly saying that he will give a substantial bundle of $$$ to whoever opposes Bush. What can one say - election year... :roll: :lol:

[quote=Civic_Zen]

First. Ignorance is bliss. Second, nobody in America thinks our government is perfect. I mean come on. Most do recognize that its the best form of democracy in existence, or on this planet any way.[/quote]

I disagree. Any democracy trying to impose itself on any other country is not acting in a democratic way. It's [i]dictating[/i] the world politics.

[quote=Civic_Zen]

He doesn't do a damn thing to try and address these problems. He just states the obvious and then makes it sound worse then it really is. He never brought up that Clinton ignored al Quada for 8 years, only that Bush did it for 8 months. U don't see the hypocricy there??[/quote]

Bush got slapped in the face with it. I still think Clinton was a better president despite his sexual overactivity... :?

That's why Bill Clinton was a better president.. because of his sexual activities.... If Bush had good sex.... he could relax and make better decisions. By the way what's with Cliton's new book??

[quote=turban]I think you've got to understand that Kill Bill is a fictitious Film. Moore's [b]'documentary'[/b], on the other hand, is apparently based upon fact. Also, apparently, Moore's documentary dishes out some rather large accusations. I haven't seen it as yet, and I'm going to be VERY sceptical about the whole thing.[/quote]

My lord, are people still under the assumption that Moore's films are actually documentaries?

He takes facts, he twists them, and he creates a spin. NO shit!

I get irritated when people claim he is irresponsible because he is making misleading, accusatory and inflammatory documentaries - his films aren't documentaries dumbasses! People who claim that he is "uncovering the truth" are equally idiotic. Sure, there is some truth deep down in there somewhere, but it ain't what appears on the big screen.

Either you think his movies are entertaining or not (I think they are a load of fun) - but don't take them as anything more than fact-inspired entertainment. Not worth getting all worked up over either way.

clinton was a better president than our current vacation-in-chief bush. but remember that both have/had a large team of monkeys behind working away.

the ingorance is bliss approach is part of the problem in america today. too many people are caught up in the daily grind of modern life to think outside of themselves. the obvious problem behind big media is not that appearent since they still get large ratings. those ratings and profits are apart of the problem with the media as well as who owns the media.

moore is just pointing out a part of the hypocrisy and is taking the heat for it. all long as he is making people think, he is succeeding.

of course people will use any means necessary to illustrate their point. and if you can reach at peoples emotions, esp fear, you will be able to control them all the better. oh and it helps to throw as much money at it as possible. the passions of christ was a good example of using peoples emotions and beliefs to make a buck.

[quote=phishfood]clinton was a better president than our current vacation-in-chief bush. but remember that both have/had a large team of monkeys behind working away.

the ingorance is bliss approach is part of the problem in america today. too many people are caught up in the daily grind of modern life to think outside of themselves. the obvious problem behind big media is not that appearent since they still get large ratings. those ratings and profits are apart of the problem with the media as well as who owns the media.

moore is just pointing out a part of the hypocrisy and is taking the heat for it. all long as he is making people think, he is succeeding.

of course people will use any means necessary to illustrate their point. and if you can reach at peoples emotions, esp fear, you will be able to control them all the better. oh and it helps to throw as much money at it as possible. the passions of christ was a good example of using peoples emotions and beliefs to make a buck.[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you. Well said (wish I could've made that point about Moore easier to understand). :)

[quote=dohturdima]Fuck David Moore and the horse he rode in on. This a-hole never wastes a moment to bash US of A with allegations even its staunchiest enemies burst their bellies laughing at. All that needs to be known about this character is he collects the mega$$$ from his "publications" and publicity stunts, while simultaneously shitting in the very hand that shells out the dough for his garbage. At the very least, he is a fucking hypocrite and inveterate liar, who never wastes a moment thrash the very freedoms that allow him to spew hogwash unimpeded.

Whew. That felt good! :D This Politics forum idea better stick 'round! :twisted:[/quote]

Anyone worked out who David Moore is yet? What sort of horse has he got?

[quote=turban] My lord, are people still under the assumption that Moore's films are actually documentaries?

He takes facts, he twists them, and he creates a spin. NO shit!

I get irritated when people claim he is irresponsible because he is making misleading, accusatory and inflammatory documentaries - his films aren't documentaries dumbasses! People who claim that he is "uncovering the truth" are equally idiotic. Sure, there is some truth deep down in there somewhere, but it ain't what appears on the big screen.

Either you think his movies are entertaining or not (I think they are a load of fun) - but don't take them as anything more than fact-inspired entertainment. Not worth getting all worked up over either way.[/quote]

Its because HE LABLES his film as a documentary. And it gets judged AS a documentary. And since he SAYS its a documentary, a lot of stupid assholes believe it, and then back him up because what he said was fact.

Why don't you go here [url]http://imdb.com/title/tt0310793/[/url]

And scroll down a couple lines. Now read. It says

Genre: Comedy / Documentary / Drama

Now go here, this is the 9/11 [url]http://imdb.com/title/tt0361596/[/url]

Genre: Documentary

That one doesn't even claim to be anything else. Now go here

[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary[/url]

doc?u?men?ta?ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now what does that say?? It says WITHOUT INSERTING FICTIONAL FUCKING MATTER. Sure, you "may" know that its not, but I doubt it. And who the Hell in Hollywood is allowing the fat fucking asshole prick cocksucker label his movies that way??? If your so fucking sick and tired of people talking about how he lables his films that way and how we shouldn't take it seriously, why don't you find whoever is responsible for allowing it and making them label it differently.

As long as Moore lables his films a documentary, and people allow him to do so. I will continue to wish for utter damnation upon his miserable life. And I will be there to spit on his grave after he dies from a heart attack within the next couple of years or so. Fat prick.

[quote=Civic_Zen]

[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary[/url]

doc?u?men?ta?ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now what does that say?? It says WITHOUT INSERTING FICTIONAL FUCKING MATTER. [/quote]

[b]What fictional material is in Farenheight 9/11?[/b]

I honestly don't see how he twists stuff so much, especially in Bowling for Columbine. The only thing I noticed was that he made Charleton Heston appear evil when he interviewed him, but Heston couldn't help it that he has a sickness (Alzheimer's?). Anyway, his books are sometimes twisting material, but those are books give his opinions of society and are meant to be twisted in his favor. How would you know he twists stuff in Fahrenheit 9/11 when you haven't even seen the movie? We can only find out when we see it.

[quote=Civic_Zen]Why don't you go here [url]http://imdb.com/title/tt0310793/[/url]

And scroll down a couple lines. Now read. It says

Genre: Comedy / Documentary / Drama

Now go here, this is the 9/11 [url]http://imdb.com/title/tt0361596/[/url]

Genre: Documentary [/quote]

Ahhhh - imdb says it is a documentary, so it must be, eh? The fact remains that people should be smart (or should I say not braindead) enough to watch one of his movies and realize that he is creating such a spin that it is no longer a genuine representation of the facts. I personally don't give a shit if Michael Moore or imdb or whoever labels it as a "documentary" - you get 20 minutes into any of his movies and it should be blatantly obvious that you can't take it at face value.

Are people really that stupid? Do people really let themselves be spoon-fed all of their political beliefs? People who don't think for themselves annoy me a helluva lot more than Moore ever will - and these morons are both on the right and left.

[quote] Now what does that say?? It says WITHOUT INSERTING FICTIONAL FUCKING MATTER. Sure, you "may" know that its not, but I doubt it. [/quote]

Actually, if you want to be technical about it, I don't think he is inserting fictional matter into his movies. He edits, cuts, traps people in "interviews", etc etc to create his own highly politicised impression (which is absolutely 100% subjective), but he is good at doing it all though (highly twisted) facts. That's his talent (along with eating double cheeseburgers). There is a fine line between lying and misleading. Ask Clinton. ;)

I still consider Moore's movies to be as much a documentary as a political commercial.

[quote]And who the Hell in Hollywood is allowing the fat fucking asshole prick cocksucker label his movies that way???[/quote]

People who see green. Come on - Bowling for Columbine turned a fat profit and I'm sure Fahrenheit 911 will do quite well as well. IMDB lists it at a $6M budget. With all the free publicity it's gotten, it is going to blow that away in the opening weekend. Morals aside (hey, we're talking Hollywood here ;) ), how many studios would turn down that sort of sure profit? I think the entire Disney contraversy was just cooked up as 100% free publicity. :D

[quote]As long as Moore lables his films a documentary, and people allow him to do so. I will continue to wish for utter damnation upon his miserable life. And I will be there to spit on his grave after he dies from a heart attack within the next couple of years or so. Fat prick.[/quote]

testy, testy..... ;)

Michael Moore is no more than the liberal Rush Limbaugh - a big fat obnoxious white guy who is great at getting media attention by being a cheap shot artist. I guess when he realized early-on that his career as an underwear model was out of reach, he had to figure out something else to do. 8)

While I fall much more on the liberal side of the spectrum, I certainly wouldn't consider myself a Michael Moore fan - after seeing him give a speech in Austin in 2002 filled with half erroneous anecdotes and half verbatim quotes from his book Stupid White Men (which seemed cheap even to a "commie lib" like myself), I ceased to take him seriously anymore as any sort of political analyst. He is entertaining, but I take him on the same level as a talk show host. But he doesn't especially piss me off either...

[quote=krelm] Michael Moore is no more than the liberal Rush Limbaugh - a big fat obnoxious white guy who is great at getting media attention by being a cheap shot artist. I guess when he realized early-on that his career as an underwear model was out of reach, he had to figure out something else to do. 8)

While I fall much more on the liberal side of the spectrum, I certainly wouldn't consider myself a Michael Moore fan - after seeing him give a speech in Austin in 2002 filled with half erroneous anecdotes and half verbatim quotes from his book Stupid White Men (which seemed cheap even to a "commie lib" like myself), I ceased to take him seriously anymore as any sort of political analyst. He is entertaining, but I take him on the same level as a talk show host. But he doesn't especially piss me off either...[/quote]

I couldn't agree more. I hate Rush Limbaugh just as much. They're both glutinous and greedy bastards. They deserve each other. I even blame Rush for making Moore so bad. Moore decided that he would become the same, just opposite politically, as Rush, and Rush is a fuck-wit so there you go.

And I am like you. I am neither liberal nor conservative, however I fall more on the conservative side of that spectrum. But I seriously hate Rush, almost Moore then Moore ;) but not quite. Moore is worse because he is making these big time movies that get seen by much more people. Rush at least has a very small audience as oppsed to this asshat. They both need to get their asses kicked, but Moore needs it much Moore. I will go now with my stupid word play.