# The Michael Moore Super Thread- Merged



## K. Ash (15 Mar 2004)

I was just wondering what you ladies and gents thought of this guy?


----------



## Thompson_JM (15 Mar 2004)

this is gonna be one controversial thread..........  i can see it now!


----------



## Slim (15 Mar 2004)

His documentry is intersting (Bowling for Columnbine). However my concern with him is that he may be doing it just to stir up controversy.

Slim


----------



## Tpr.Orange (15 Mar 2004)

I dislike him, with an extreme passion. Some of his points are valid, such as the Bowling for Columnbine, walmart info. But in the end his views in regards to the men and women of the armed forces and his speech during the oscars last year absolutley made me sick


----------



## K. Ash (15 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Cpl Thompson:
> [qb] this is gonna be one controversial thread..........  i can see it now!     [/qb]


Nothing wrong with a little controversey now and then.


----------



## Danjanou (15 Mar 2004)

It‘s obvious that the whole Bowling for Columbine was carefully edited to reinforce what he had to say.

I found Roger and Me good, but his ego has since  become as big as his gut. Canadian Bacon was so bad you can‘t even find it in the bargain bin at Blockbuster. His TV series TV Nation had some good bits, but again he pushed his own holy than thou PC ego.

When Columbine opened at the Film Festival here in Toronto, he expected to be fawned over by the press and other film types. When it didn‘t happen he through a hissy fit and stormed out of town. Then there‘s his tacky little stunt at the Oscars last year.

This guys 15 minutes of fame were up long ago.

BTW "controversial topics" are ok, lets just keep it an adult level.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (15 Mar 2004)

Who saw the 2004 intro to the Oscars?

- *Return of the King battle outside Minas Tirith*

Moore:  Hobbits stop fighing!  This is a fictitious war, with ficti- 
*giant elephant squashes him with foot*


----------



## sm0ke (15 Mar 2004)

I agree with Danjanou.  Compare the theatrical release with the DVD release...a lot of the ‘factual‘ information changes from one to the other, as well as the way that certain statistical information is relayed to the viewer.  

When the film (columbine) first came out, I had a good deal of respect for Mr Moore... not so much now.  Some points he makes are quite valid, but it seems he doesn‘t pay much attention to the validity of his arguments, only to how many people are listening to him.

Im glad the guild at the oscar‘s last year had the intelligence to ignore his attempt at a free plug.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2004)

He‘s a two bit, egotistical shyster. He would trample anyones rights and skew any arguement to get the spotlight and a platform for his PC rants. And we all know, or should that Political Correctness is the podium of the self righteous. That‘s my .002 and opinion, and when it comes to this pus bucket, I really don‘t care what anyone else thinks. That‘s your opinion.


----------



## Exodeus (15 Mar 2004)

I think he brings some important issues into the spotlight (well, more than they are already), but his rants are over the edge. His performance (Oscars or Golden Globe awards (?) last year) was unacceptable. I don‘t care who you are or where you‘re from, speaking like that about your nation‘s leader on (international) television is not necessary.

As I was saying before, he brings up some great points, but he (just like anyone else) has to know where -and when- to draw the line.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (15 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by recceguy:
> [qb] He‘s a two bit, egotistical shyster. He would trample anyones rights and skew any arguement to get the spotlight and a platform for his PC rants. And we all know, or should that Political Correctness is the podium of the self righteous. That‘s my .002 and opinion, and when it comes to this pus bucket, I really don‘t care what anyone else thinks. That‘s your opinion. [/qb]


HUA your **** right!


----------



## stukirkpatrick (15 Mar 2004)

Just wait, according to the internet movie database, he is slated to make 2 more documentaries over the next 2 years.  One called Farenheit 9/11 (guess what that will be about? - the tagline is - the temperature freedom burns    )  and another on the American medical system (more trips to Canada anyone?).

Controversy for its own sake?  Or for money‘s?


----------



## Thompson_JM (15 Mar 2004)

Id say both.. his ability to cheeze people off has made him quite a bit of money.. but he sensationalizes far too much, and seems to tell alot of half truths. I did enjoy Bowling for columbine, and found it to be well done. but he sure as heck did overstep his bounds at the oscars. 
(though this years oscars were great when he got skooshed by the giant elephant thing.)

all in all he has some really good points and does bring up some interesting questions, and valid argurements. BUT, he does get far too PC and self rightious at times. but thats my opinion.  Do i like him? i like some of his points, but i dont care for him on a personal level.


----------



## Trey (16 Mar 2004)

Could there be a Moore if there were no Bush?

He may not be the best spokesperson for our cause, but he has the courage to speak out in a time where being ‘patriotic‘ means agreeing with your president.


----------



## GrahamD (16 Mar 2004)

He is a left wing extremist.

Simple as that, if you are already right wing oriented of course you‘re going to hate him.

Because he is an extremist, its natural that even some of the leftwingers (PC types as they‘re know around here) are going to feel that he crosses the line.

When someone goes to the extreme one way or another, most people get uncomfortable and when someone makes us uncomfortable we tend to dislike them, but we all need to realise that it‘s to our benefit that people like Moore (or whoever is the conservative equal to Moore) do what they do.  They piss people off and draw attention (good or bad) to issues that need to be discussed.  They spark healthy debate amoung people who would have never bothered to give these issues any real deep thought otherwise.

Personally I think it was lame to use the Oscars as a pulpit to spew his anti war propaganda, but I think it‘s right on that he exercised his right as an American to say whatever he felt like saying.  Anyone who would tell him to shut up has a pretty screwy view of freedom.  They have a right to never invite him again, and that was his and their choices to make respectively.
The very fact that he got up there and went off with his views demonstrates that he‘s not only into it for the money.  Sucking up to the Oscar commitee and other Hollywood types is where the money is at.  The money is not in pissing off the millions of people you impressed with your last movie.
Besides, is it really THAT bad that he would like to see those hundreds of thousands of youth be brought home out of the way of bullets and and bombs and the other horrors of war?
His view might be wrong in your opinion, but I at least, feel that he deserves some respect for putting himself out there to be cut down, insulted, hated, and ridiculed on those soldiers behalf (wether they agree with him or not).  It‘s what he belives in, right or wrong, and he made his stand.

I personaly disagree with his full on anti war opinions.  I belive that there will come a time when responsible governments in this world will need to make a definitive stand against dictatorship and eraticate not just one or two, but all of the brutal regimes that are the cause of so much human suffering.
It‘s not going to happen by sitting them down and making them watch Michael Moore movies.
They will need to be convinced in the language that they understand...

But there will always be a need for people like Moore who put resistance against the establishment, to question everything, to draw attention to the flaws, otherwise we could suddenly find ourselves under the total control of a power maddened government of our own.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely after all.
And that is what a political party would have (absolute power), if everyone just hushed up and politely accepted what happened around them so as to not make waves, or make people feel uncomforatable.

Ultimately I don‘t feel that liking Michael Moore or not liking him is what is important.  I think it is his extreme leftist views that make him a worthwhile subject of conversation.
He gives balance to a country that has plenty of public right wing views that it throws out into the world everyday on the evening news (anti abortion, Christian president, traditional American family unit, no gay marriage, no stem cell research, etc, etc,).
I find that he presents himself to be be distinctly unlikeable in everything that he does.  I don‘t think its by accident.  He‘s not trying to win popularity contests.  In the case of Bowling For Columbine, he‘s trying to not let you forget that 2 kids shot up their school, and schoolmates with nearly 1000 rounds of ammunition before they killed themselves.  He‘s reaching out to his fellow countrymen/women to try and stop them from killing each other with guns.


----------



## spacelord (16 Mar 2004)

speaking of Micheal Moore, google has a new top result for "miserable failure"


----------



## K. Ash (16 Mar 2004)

Interesting enough George Bush is second on that list.


----------



## nbk (16 Mar 2004)

I like Michael Moore, and I dont that is a suprise to anyone. In the world today most people are too afraid to speak out about what they see. He not only does it, but does it so much it annoys people.

Although all the right wing facists try to pick apart his documentary and bend its content around so much it makes you wonder if they even watched the same movie, he has taken the time to pick apart everything they said, provide explanations and show how silly these people seem.

I also like the fact he has a sense of humour about himself. As was stated, the 2004 Oscars ahd a moment where he made a parodie of his 2003 Oscar speech. 

I do, by the way, believe he was quite right to make that speech. He won his Oscar, he had the opportunity, he did what took some major balls, and spoke his mind. I was expecting to see his obituary the next morning at the hands of the Bush gestapo. He got the attention he wanted, and he injected some spark into an otherwise boring show.


----------



## dwild40 (16 Mar 2004)

Well let see his first claim to fame was when he and a buddy made their way from Flint Michigan to Germany to protest and film Ronald Reagan laying a wreath to commemorate Germany‘s WWII war dead.  Hey I would have gone over and protested that too.  Sure alot of them were "just following orders" however explain that to my father, his brother and my father-inlaw.
As for his present day work.  I‘ve spent the money and read all his books.  One has to know both sides to understand any issue and alot of what he has done I agree with and support.  Some I don‘t.
His Programs the "Awful Truth" & "TV Nation" were great.  The episode where he had the all black choir singing "What the world needs now is love sweet love," outside of a KKK meeting was amazing.
Or how about the farewell tour of communism when he had a truck adorned with a hammer and sickle tour in the southern US, hilarious.
Sure he has a personal bias but who doesn‘t.  Nme for me one individual who has an unbiased objective set of ethics.  
BTW he said he does not support the War in Iraq this does not mean he does not support the soldiers risking their lives.  Things have happened in the world that make the word "Patriot / Patriotic" convoluted from it‘s original meaning.  The most patriotic act any one individual can do is question their government.  We have that right in a democracy.  That right is slowly being eroded by an imposed shame on that act.  "How dare you question our leader."  Any way this is just my opinion from the world‘s smallest visible minority.  The individual.  And if we cannot do that maybe we‘ll be having memorials for Nazi War dead here.  
Tough to swallow isn‘t it?  Hard to imagine too.  However I hope it doesn‘t.  I‘m sure I‘ll be flamed, perhaps even see my rating drop, but one must stand by their convictions or any ill wind will blow you over.


----------



## spacelord (16 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by absent_element:
> [qb] Interesting enough George Bush is second on that list. [/qb]


Bush used to be first on that list (put there by the left wing wackos), but the right wing wackos have gotten it changed.


----------



## MAJOR_Baker (22 Apr 2004)

This is choice, what a fat ****!

For all those Michael Moore Fans....



> DUDE, WHERE‘S YOUR WEBSITE: MICHAEL MOORE OUT-SOURCING DESIGN, SERVER TO CANADA!
> 
> Advocate Michael Moore may have released a book titled DUDE, WHERE‘S MY COUNTRY?, and may have vaulted to stardom documenting worker‘s rights and corporate malfeasance in Flint, Michigan, but that has not stopped Moore from outsourcing his website design and servers -- to companies based in Canada!
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (22 Apr 2004)

Tell us how you really feel....


----------



## 48Highlander (22 Apr 2004)

whattayaknow, an officer I can agree with...


----------



## nbk (22 Apr 2004)

This is without a shadow of a doubt the greatest tragedy ever to befall your nation. This is a time when all americans must band together, regardless of partisan affiliations and unite behind their leader against a common enemy. This was a very newsworthy article, and I doubt any human being on the planet could have gone on living if they were not informed about this.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (22 Apr 2004)

WAY TO TELL IT SIR!


----------



## kaspacanada (24 Apr 2004)

At least the jobs are still in North America.  I mean, he didn‘t send the jobs to companies in India like Bill Gates and Microsoft did.


----------



## kbowes (26 Apr 2004)

I‘d be more interested in finding out the reasons as to why he ‘outsourced‘ to this Can. company. For all we know, it‘s possible that some US web design didn‘t want to get caught up in the politics that MM endorses. Get those facts first before you harpoon him in the bag.


----------



## kruger (26 Apr 2004)

Baker, can you please remove your head from your own ***? Moore has a large following because there is a lot of truth in what he says. As a pinko, commie Canadian I don‘t mind him spouting anti-US propaganda, but he kinda pisses me off with his anti-white race remarks, probably feeling guilty for colonialism or slavery.

Major, you seem very frustrated with Europeans and France in particular, may I remind you that you yourself are a European, and your country is the product of French geopolitical planning in North America.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Apr 2004)

I believe the major was born in Canada. How does this make him European?


----------



## mattoigta (26 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Napalm:
> [qb] Baker, can you please remove your head from your own ***? Moore has a large following because there is a lot of truth in what he says.  [/qb]


Yeah there is some truth, almost all of what he says are half-truths (and outright lies!) and he just presents them in a way to make it seem that they arent. (Examples: the campaign commercial he shows in Bowling For Columbine is 100% made up, the sliced and skewered speech by charleton heston) He leaves out so much of the story when it comes to alot of things, and he uses A LOT of objective things to prove a point (Such as in Bowling for Columbine - "this is the only ghetto i can find in canada!" or clips from the news saying "black male" repeatedly)

In Conclusion, Michael Moore is just another fat jackass exploiting the bleeding hearts while they idolize him. I anxiously await the documentary about him that another filmmaker is making.


----------



## kbowes (26 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Thanks  "Bruce," for the backstop!    :warstory:
> 
> I guess I would say I am a Canadian by birth, American by choice!          So again, no I am not a European, as for France, well they can BITE ME!
> [/qb]


Born Canadian uh? Why the change in citizenship?


----------



## kruger (26 Apr 2004)

Yeah, who would want to be an american? I don‘t see any merits in that, you have to deny your citizenship each time you go abroad or face being shot in the face, especially in muslim countries.

And yes, you are a European, It was France, Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Holland etc. that founded Canada and the US. So you are of European origin believe it or not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Apr 2004)

Napalm, If you came here just to be a jerk-off than you have done a fine job. Go somewhere else if you can‘t add to a topic.[hav‘ent you been banned already under a different name?]


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Apr 2004)

Tread lightly, napalm - or you will be gone.

That is not a suggestion.

Thanks in advance, for your cooperation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Apr 2004)

"Yeah, who would want to be an american?"

I‘d wager a guess and say someone who wants to be in a powerful technologically advanced military that isn‘t afraid to use the word "kill" or someone who doesn‘t like putting taxes towards a terrorists health care?


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Apr 2004)

who cares about origin.  I was born in europe and lived there untill I was 10.  3 years after moving to Canada I got my citizenship.  I don‘t care what you or anyone else has to say on the matter, I AM a Canadian.  I‘m not european-canadian, or canadian-european, or "of european ancestry" or any other half assed "special" category.  I‘m Canadian.


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 Apr 2004)

I can understand why Moore outsourced to a Canadian company as we do everything better.
However he really blew it on his stand about the wars both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing is more working class and blue collar than the men and women who serve in the armed forces. These are the root stock, the blood and guts and the heart of out great countries and if you are going to stand up for the little guy than no better place to start than the Armed forces of all countries. These people epitomize the values, morals and perserverance that make Canada and the United States the greatest countries in the world and the number one destination for immigrants the world wide.


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


I guess living in a border city the American influence is rubbing off.


----------



## Rick_Donald (30 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


I‘m sorry aboot that, eh. I‘ll go back to being a meek and mild, laidback, complacent Canadian and have another beer, eh.


----------



## Gryphon (30 Apr 2004)

good to see that the freedom of speech is well and good in america   

on a more moderating note:

Okay, i have to say that there is a sh!t load of protectionism in the American "Laissez-faire" economy... just for an example: lumber...

now, i do have anti-american sentiments, but it‘s generally either directed towards Washington, or towards the hypocratic side of the population...

however i do the same thing towards Ottawa and the hypocrites in Canada (yes, i hate hypocrites   :evil:  )

As well, i have to ask you Major Baker, what harm is it to out-source to Canada?

However, if if an american would go up to the white house and protest the US‘ involvment in Iraq, then that person would be labled as anti-US, non-us patriotic, etc. etc. etc. However, you still have free speech.. isn‘t that hypocracy on part of the Bush administration?

Okay, now to be fair, and attack some of my countrymen‘s comments:
NBK: if someone came up to you and told you that Paul Henderson didn‘t actually score the goal, canadians would care, the rest of the world wouldn‘t... News itself is subjective depending on who you report to..

Now for "why the change in citizenship" comment..
People leave, people come.. everyone has their own reasons to... Love, work, extreme dissatisfaction with the government, or maybe just bad experiences. Yes, the majority of us are "immigrants" however, it doesn‘t count when your family migrated here 2-3 hundred years ago..

and my last thing, i have to say to Ghost... Please refrain from saying that Canada has a "Terrorist health-care" system.... it‘s one of the things that as a Canadian I pride on having... we may not have the best health care system, but we have one.. and i am proud that my country will put the well being of it‘s nation in one of it‘s priority‘s list


----------



## Marauder (30 Apr 2004)

That‘s not freedom you smell in Windsor, that‘s diesel, smog, and carcinogens. Ahhh, the ole‘ familiar stench of Detroilet.


----------



## tabernac (30 Apr 2004)

> Why did my father have to sell his wheat to the CDN Wheat Board or risk going to jail if he sold it in Montana?


That really sounds like the way the Soviets did it. You HAD to sell it to the government, and they gave you s*** for money.     

BTW, Mjr Baker, I was born in the same hospital as you.


----------



## ghazise (1 May 2004)

To S_Baker,  The outsourcing of jobs to countries like Canada, is just part of the international economy and trade agreements,,, I believe what Michael Moore was trying to get at with free trade agreements with developing nations, is that when outsourced US jobs go to countries with very poor labor standards, these types of trade agreements, hurts the US and foreign labor economies.  Nobody benefits but companies execs. I do believe web designers, IT techs, Comp Sci guys in the US and Canada make comparable wages,,, and Michael Moore‘s website is not exploiting Canadian labor.


----------



## nULL (1 May 2004)

The wheat board gives farmers a guaranteed price on their wheat, and protects against predatory pricing from larger competitors, does it not?


----------



## Gryphon (2 May 2004)

and the canadian economy is most decidedly NOT laissez-faire


----------



## Slim (3 May 2004)

Radical change back to the origional topic!

If Micheal Moore was looking for a dangerous ghetto in Canada he wasn‘t looking very far...


I, for one, have had enough with the white bashing that seems so "in" these days!


----------



## rdschultz (3 May 2004)

The Major has a point.  Rent "Roger and Me" and try to tell me that Moore doesn‘t come off as a hypocrite.  Whether it hurts or hinders Americans (as outsourcing to countries with extreme labour price differences), him outsourcing to a Canadian firm, for whatever reason, makes him look like an *******.  If he really cared about all these American jobs, you‘d expect him to make an example out of himself.  I‘m not going to listen to an environmentalist tell me to recycle if he‘s got bald eagle carcasses overflowing from his garbage can.

Also, I think its important to point out that Moore doesn‘t just sell to Europeans and "others".   Unless "others" was a cover for Americans who like his movies who you refuse to acknowledge as Americans.  I believe Bowling for Columbine was fairly successful on the south side of the border as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 May 2004)

Moore also fabricated the scene where the bank manger gives him the gun, as they normally gave a voucher which would have been honoured at the gunshop.

Moore is a cheap and sleazy film maker who makes films that appeal to people who want to feel outraged about something. He may start off talking about an interesting subject, but he never climbs out of the intellectual gutter. He actually hurts decent discussion on issues as he belittles the other side of the issue and paints as fools or worse. There are far better film makers out there that deserve support, Moore is the documentary film equivalent of World Wide Wrestling, with about the same amount of truth involved.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (3 May 2004)

The part with the Oklahoma bombing related guy was interesting, but didn‘t really fit with Moore‘s argument - sure, he had a gun, but he was the kind of guy who would defend his house from the gov‘t with a board with a nail in it, if he had to.   

But did anybody else not really see the connection he was trying to make between the socially rejected teenagers who shot up Columbine high school and the Lockheed Martin Missile/Avionics plant in Colorado?


----------



## K. Ash (6 May 2004)

For all you Moore fans:


Disney blocks distribution of Moore film

Posted: Wednesday, May 5, 4:29pm EDT

"The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax Films division from distributing Michael Moore‘s documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which criticizes President Bush‘s handling of Sept. 11 and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden‘s. 
Moore attributes Disney‘s decision to concerns that the documentary will endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush‘s brother Jeb is governor. 

"I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter," Moore wrote Wednesday in a statement on his Web site. 

The filmmaker did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. 

Miramax confirmed that Disney told the company it can‘t release the film. "We hope to amicably resolve the situation in the near future," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik told The Associated Press. 

Disney representatives Zenia Mucha and John Spelich did not return calls early Wednesday. 

Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, such as an NC-17 rating or a budget of more than $30-35 million."


Don‘t your heart just bleed for him??


----------



## The_Falcon (7 May 2004)

Nope, he is just out to cause more Sh!t. I hope he has a heart attack from blowing out all that hot air of his.


----------



## xFusilier (7 May 2004)

Like him or not, Moore will probably get the last laugh. All he has to do is have Farenheit 9/11 make a profit.  Eisner is already on the outs with the Mouse‘s shareholders for allowing their partnership with Pixar to lapse (which was quite profitable for the Mouse) so this decision, depending on the amount of money that Farenheit 9/11 makes could just be another nail in Eisner‘s coffin.


----------



## The_Falcon (7 May 2004)

Well in order for it to make a profit, it needs to be released, which is not happening. It is being shown at Cannes and that is it.


----------



## xFusilier (7 May 2004)

Don‘t bet on it.  Bowling for Columbine made good coin and I wouldn‘t be supprised if someone picks it up to distrubute at Cannes.  Baring that I don‘t think Moore would have any problems securing financing to distribute it himself given the commercial success of Bowling for Columbine.


----------



## The_Falcon (7 May 2004)

Only if Disney gives up the rights to the distribution.  If it is contriversial they may hold on to it for a while.  ICP had the same problem when their album the The Great Milenko was released.  It POed quite a number of people and Disney pulled the album from the shelves and refused to release ICP from thier contract.  That is until ICP‘s Manager threaten the upper brass at Disney, that they would bring in the Juggalo‘s to burn Disneyland to the ground. ICP was soon released.  Point of my little story, Disney ain‘t going to let that movie be released without a fight.


----------



## K. Ash (8 May 2004)

ICP = Insane Clown Possee????


----------



## corporal-cam (8 May 2004)

S_Baker, on a different note... your attitude twoards the French is disgusting, I don‘t agree with everything Americans do but I don‘t tell them to bit me, ok well I used to but that was back when I was younger and immature, I may be only 15 but I can hadle a little decency. Ok back on topic yes michael moore streches the truth but so does bush so does kerry so does anyone with a bit of public attention. We need some people who‘ll tell it like it is... if those people exist.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 May 2004)

Yes, and there is only one ‘e‘ in posse


----------



## xFusilier (8 May 2004)

The Mouse isn‘t talking about holding the rights to the film to block release:


> Disney chief executive Michael Eisner agreed. "That film [Fahrenheit] 9/11will get a distributor easily," he told CNBC in an interview Wednesday from Disneyland.


This was reported in the AP on Thursday:  link 

The Mouse isn‘t stupid enough to try and block distribution of this film.  There are enough people in the world with deep pockets who dislike Disney‘s corporate policys who would gleefully back a lawsuit against the Mouse.

Lastly, Moore will find a distributor for this film, there are plenty of people in the world who would gladly fork out a couple of mil to give the Bush family and the Republican party the arsehole.


----------



## loyalcana (8 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Colin P:
> [qb] Moore also fabricated the scene where the bank manger gives him the gun, as they normally gave a voucher which would have been honoured at the gunshop.
> [/qb]


Actually according to michael moore‘s rebuttal website the bank in question was a licensed firearms dealership and even presented the bank‘s firearms license.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 May 2004)

I wonder how Michael Morre actually makes a living...I attempted to watch Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine at different times and fell asleep during both of them. He is one of the most boring and worse directors out there. If people did not bother with him he would deservedly fade away into nothingness.


----------



## ZipperHead (21 May 2004)

Reading through this thread proved a few things to me. 1) Don‘t believe everything you read on the Internet: I read the good Major‘s rant, and started to believe some of it, then went to the site of Mr Moores rebuttal. In essence, I tend to believe Mr Moore more than his attackers. Why? Reason and logic outweigh passion and hatred. 2) People sure get upset over the simplest things. If you hate something, don‘t watch it, or read it,or listen to it. That‘s the way I feel about dance music. Why waste time hating something that you can‘t control? I just don‘t listen to it, and I‘m as happy about a clam about it. Sure Mr Moore has an agenda, just the same as the NRA, GM, Lockheed, Charlton Heston, George W Bush all do. His is different than theirs, and he presents his the way he wants to. The more upset these people get, and resort to attacking him with lies and insults shows that he is closer to the truth than they want people to know. 

Calling somebuddy a fat F&*#! in a public forum is hardly the most professional thing to do, but I don‘t have the benefit of a commision to back me up on that, only common sense and courtesy. BTW, it‘s the Royal Alexandra Hospital (both my daughters were born there).

Al


----------



## Duotone81 (22 May 2004)

Well said Allan Luomala. Reminds me of the time I had to get a cast for my fractured ankle. I told the doctor that it hurt when I tried to move my toes. He said "well don‘t do that!"


----------



## Zoomie (22 May 2004)

I can quite honestly say that I have no clue what you people are so fired up about.  I have never heard of Michael Moore until tonight...  Quite the interesting read.   I believe that I will stay neutral (like the Swiss) and go back to enjoying life in paradise (aka BC).


----------



## ZipperHead (23 May 2004)

I love my country of birth, so much so that I joined it‘s military, so I could help protect it. I suspect that he also loves his country, seeing as how he still lives there (I assume). Maybe, just maybe, he is pointing out what he thinks is wrong with it, in the hopes that it might improve. You know, a place where people are free to say what they want, without being called a fat f%$$ in public forums, having their loyalty questioned. Just because you question the direction your country is going in doesn‘t mean that you are a traitor.

Rick Mercer does some of the same things that Michael Moore does, in a humorous way, and nobody questions his patriotism. Quite the opposite. One thing that grates on me about him is the way he constantly infers that all Americans are stupid, with his little series of "interviews" with Americans about Canada. Yes, many Americans have no clue about us, but in the same way some Canadians have no clue about Germany, for example.

Question your government, love your country.

Allan


----------



## K. Ash (24 May 2004)

Moore is a fame seeker nothing more. 

Once you pick through the bullshit you can begin to see it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2004)

arrgh it would seem a lenghty post I had about him and about the bank stuff has disappeared. I found some links that chewed up MM‘s rebuttal site also, will try to find the stuff again.


----------



## Long in the tooth (28 May 2004)

I was a fan of Michael Moore when he filmed Roger and Me.  Publication of Dude - Where‘s My country? confirms that he was a one hit wonder and should not now or ever in the future be allowed near a microphone or camera.  He‘s outlived his 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (28 May 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Well Allan, as I said before you can have your opinion and I can have mine.
> 
> As far as MM, if he thinks America is so bad (I wonder where I could have gotten that idea) then it seems to me he should get his fat *** and all his double chins on the next plane to where he thinks it is better, no wait...he seems to have this thing for Canada, maybe he can claim multi-million dollar refugee status.  If not that I am sure there can be some type of quota he could be allowed admitance.
> ...


For the love of god keep him, cause we sure dont want him.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2004)

Notice how he announces that he has more footage on the Berg beheading video, but will deal privately with the family, yea right


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 May 2004)

Well he must be doing something right.
No ones sued him yet.

But Micky Mouse gave him the best publicity he could ever wish for by refusing to distribute his latest film in the U.S..


----------



## Da_man (28 May 2004)

> Cannes, France /DenounceNewswire/ -- 24 May 2004 -- In a stunning
> move, controversial documentary filmmaker Michael Moore announced
> today that his latest film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", will be released by
> BitTorrent, the popular peer-to-peer file-sharing network.
> ...


So much for those who said he was in this for the money....


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (28 May 2004)

well, not necessarily. Alot of negativity has been thrown his way, maybe he‘s realised he‘s pissed a few too many people off. Afterall, what better way to win the public over again then produce them with a FREE video? 

i think this is a 1 time thing, doubt the next will be in torrent.


----------



## Scratch_043 (28 May 2004)

I love it, Moore is breaking more barriers and creating more controversy...Just Great...and the best part is, what he says is so true.

I will definatly be getting this off the net.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (28 May 2004)

some may be right, but his approach is often radical and a simple dive for publicity and attention. Bowling for Columbine was a great movie, but other than that, i dont like him.


----------



## jonsey (28 May 2004)

I was introduced to Michael Moore‘s work in my communications class (watched his first two films, "Roger and Me", which was on MoviePix earlier tonight, and "The Big One"). Not bad, interesting views. I take it with as much weight as any other documentary, as a basis to start my own research, if I feel the need to. 

And BitTorrent, amazing system. It‘s generally how I get my Linux Distributions.

Official Site: 
 http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/


----------



## ark (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Da_man:
> [qb] So much for those who said he was in this for the money.... [/qb]


I don‘t want to destroy your fun but next time you are quoting someone/something not on the board it would be nice to post the SOURCE.

With a quick google search I found that the article is a HOAX

  http://www.denounce.com/archives/000055.html  

and if your omission was intentional ... better chance next time


----------



## nULL (29 May 2004)

even though the article was a hoax, how many of us will get it off bittorrent anyway lol?


----------



## Genesis (29 May 2004)

Hmm, if it is a hoax this confuses the situation even more. This is at the top of the page from the link a couple of posts above.



> So, in the interests of clarifying that this article is not and was never intended to be a hoax, I‘m posting this disclaimer right at the top so you will see it. If you still don‘t see it, then go see an eye doctor.


----------



## ark (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Genesis:
> [qb] Hmm, if it is a hoax this confuses the situation even more. This is at the top of the page from the link a couple of posts above.
> 
> 
> ...


The thread starter is either intentionally or not trying to pass this story as true therefore it becomes a hoax over here. However the site to which I posted the link, is clearly stating that all articles found there are fake



> Recognized around the world as the best source for completely fictional news and information.
> When you‘re not looking for a reliable, accurate site for industry news, there‘s only one place to go: Denounce.
> 
> All fake. All the time.


therefore it is not a hoax over there.

Hope I‘m not too confusing


----------



## rdschultz (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Genesis:
> [qb] Hmm, if it is a hoax this confuses the situation even more. This is at the top of the page from the link a couple of posts above.[/qb]


Nah, they‘re clarifying that this was not a hoax.  They weren‘t trying to fool anybody.  Its still fake, but its not a hoax.

Here, this‘ll clear it up even more:

   http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hoax   

See, "An act intended to deceive or trick.".  This wasn‘t intended to deceive or trick, as that news site always posts made-up stories.


----------



## scm77 (29 May 2004)

Doesn‘t mattter if you have to pay or get it for free.  It‘s full of lies (just like his other films) and I won‘t be watching it either way.


----------



## Scratch_043 (29 May 2004)

what lies would those be??


----------



## Genesis (29 May 2004)

Ah, I understand. Well I feel like an idiot


----------



## tabernac (11 Jun 2004)

> As you may have heard by now, we finally have a distributor in America for "Fahrenheit 9/11." Actually, two of them! Lions Gate Films and IFC Films have agreed to aggressively distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" in theaters all across the country beginning three weeks from today on Friday, June 25th. We are, needless to say, extremely grateful for their courage (trust me, no matter what the potential box office may be, anyone who has considered taking on this distribution job has also met with a lot of pressure NOT to do it in the past month).
> 
> They will open it on a record number of screens for a documentary. There is no stopping it now!
> 
> ...



Ahh good ole Mikey Moore... Your opinion on this Mjr. Baker?


----------



## K. Ash (11 Jun 2004)

It almost makes me laugh at the fact that a politics forum on a Canadian army discussion board is dominated by Michael Moore an AMERICAN film  maker..But anyway I too look forward to the Major's response.


----------



## tabernac (11 Jun 2004)

As do I because the Major's responses to Michael Moore are a laugh and a half


----------



## Smoothbore (12 Jun 2004)

Is Michael Moore oriented to the left?


----------



## nbk (12 Jun 2004)

Smoothbore said:
			
		

> Is Michael Moore oriented to the left?



No hes not a very politically minded person. His films are usually quite shocking in their lack of political content.


----------



## scm77 (15 Jun 2004)

I find Michael Moores films to be quite fair and balanced.   He clearly doesn't have a political agenda...Yeah Right.  Check his website.  http://www.michaelmoore.com if your question is a serious one, you will find your answers there.

What's the deal with Chubby Moore and Canada?? I always see him on tv wearing Canada baseball caps.


----------



## Smoothbore (16 Jun 2004)

You got to give him credit  for gathering attention though, most people on this board have watched at least one of his documentaries.
He can't be stupid if he makes that kind of money.


----------



## Freight_Train (16 Jun 2004)

http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=3802
Michael Moore Has Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Footage ?
Published: June 14, 2004 
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Filmmaker Michael Moore had footage of prisoner abuse in Iraq long before the atrocities captured international attention, but decided to stay quiet until his new movie came out. Now he's questioning that decision.

"I had it months before the story broke on '60 Minutes,' and I really struggled with what to do with it," Moore told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision."

Moore captured the footage for his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which makes its debut in theaters nationwide June 25. It shows an American soldier fondling a prisoner's genitals through a blanket. Soldiers also laugh and pose for photos while putting hoods over Iraqi detainees.

"The stuff with the detainees in my movie is even more shocking than what we saw in that prison because it happens outdoors and is more commonplace," Moore said.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival in May. It is critical of President Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks and ties him to Osama bin Laden's family.

The film created controversy, and intense interest, when Disney Chairman Michael Eisner said he wouldn't let the film be distributed. Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group are now handling its distribution. It will be in 700 theaters, the largest opening for a Moore film.

Copyright 2004 Associated Press.


----------



## Smoothbore (16 Jun 2004)

Your point?


----------



## Freight_Train (16 Jun 2004)

???  This is a Michael Moore thread, isn't it?  Came across it this morning and posted it FYI, that's it.  Thanks for asking though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2004)

This is a Michael Moore thread, isn't it?

Exactly.
Seems like a good point to me.


----------



## Limpy (22 Jun 2004)

"Michael Moore a Fat F***".  I like it. Cracks me up every time I hear that monstrosity to the human race called that. The man reminds me of those consiences objectors of WW2. Facist sympathiser prehaps he is? Anyway preach on sir.


----------



## Danjanou (23 Jun 2004)

Appears he's now shoved his fat (censored) into our election. Just what I needed Michael Moore telling me how rto vote.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/06/19/505211.html 

It seems to have offended the nintendosniper brigade over at Military Photos, although I do think the cartoon is priceless.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17790


----------



## Limpy (23 Jun 2004)

Mr. Moore....
                    Please keep your ideological crap on your side of the border you fat, no all, waste of human flesh.

                                 Yours Truly,
                                                                     Pte. Clark    :soldier:


----------



## devil39 (24 Jun 2004)

Sorry, a self move from mess - political.   Michael Moore gets his rather large butt fed to him in this analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11.

If you have doubts about Michael Moore, you should read this article.

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

Quote:

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."


----------



## clasper (24 Jun 2004)

Apparently Ray Bradbury is also upset that his book title has been "lifted" by Moore.  He's asked for an apology, and asked for the film to be renamed.


----------



## Slim (24 Jun 2004)

I'm glad that the world at large is beinning to see through his self-promoting garbage and recognize it for what it is.

Slim :


----------



## NMPeters (24 Jun 2004)

I wish that were true Slim. Unfortunately, most people will read all this and wonder what the controversy is all about, spend their whatever dollars a movie costs these day to go see it, and Michael Moore ends up with a very healthy bank account. Why do you think he's going around shooting his mouth off? Controversy sells, and that's what's going to get people into the movie theatres. It's a shame really that he'll end up wealthy (or is already I don't know) as a result.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (25 Jun 2004)

I saw it today, and although ti was interesting, I wasnt impressed. he simply plays off the classic "my son is dead" emotional story, and he just goes on and on about Bush and oil. Into 10 minutes, i was already disgusted.


----------



## Military Brat (26 Jun 2004)

Yeah, I heard today that Michael Moore has assembled a "war room"(his own words) to respond to any attack on Farenheit 9/11 with "the truth".

The truth is that Michael Moore's film is one sided left wing propaganda aimed at getting John Kerry elected in November. 

The end. Period.


----------



## LeeYang (7 Jul 2004)

Wow, i sense much anger at Mr. Moore. Why you guys hate him so much? He is just speaking his mind. That is a freedom value no?


----------



## LeeYang (7 Jul 2004)

I vote to 'like' Michel Moore.

But I would like to note that I don't like that he does not wear clean clothes or shave.


----------



## SFontaine (7 Jul 2004)

Hey I love Freedom. If someone says "I don't like President Bush, here's why" and provides a detailed, fact filled reason why he dislikes the man then I'll say "Alright" and won't think any less of him. But if someone says "I HATE PRESIDENT BUSH" and provides a bunch of half truths and flat out lies as evidence then I get a little miffed. The guy makes up controversy (Like with his latest film, and all the bullcrap with disney) and makes up a bunch of dumb crap trying to make the President, and Americans, look like dimwitted morons then he earns my, and all likeminded sensible peoples, hate.

Head over here for an example of Moore getting destroyed, and his claims being proven wrong. The guy is a hack who makes up a bunch of shit to try and further his agenda.. And sadly people believe it.


----------



## LeeYang (7 Jul 2004)

That is a very interesting webpage Mr. SFontaine. I read a couple articles and it made some very interesting points. Do you think Mr. Moore is in it for the money? But also the webpage asked me to give money through pay pal, are they in it for the money too?  : Trust no one it seems.


----------



## nbk (7 Jul 2004)

LeeYang said:
			
		

> That is a very interesting webpage Mr. SFontaine. I read a couple articles and it made some very interesting points. Do you think Mr. Moore is in it for the money? But also the webpage asked me to give money through pay pal, are they in it for the money too?  : Trust no one it seems.



In capitalist countries, everyone does everything for money, Moore and that page included.

As a general rule of thumb take what everyone says with a grain of salt. Do not believe anyone fully. 

I always find it odd how the people who try to pick apart Moore's work focus on his sarcasm and take his obviously sarcastic statements as fact. This adds much to discredit them. They also use the US government as the sources to back up their criticism! The film criticizes the US government, so naturally going to the US government for "the truth" is going to give you opposing, biased, and false information. This discredits their criticisms even more.

As well, people find much strength with going with the majority of people. The majority of people do not even want to listen to Moore or any points because they think that if they don't have 100% commitment to their government, then they are supporting the enemy. Which is exactly what your government who wants to use you and the enemy who wants to fight you wants.

I don't see much difference who believe what Bush says is the absolute truth, the people who believe what Moore says is the absolute truth or the people who believe what Osama says is the absolute truth. They are all too weak to think for themselves and must group together and fanatically oppose the opposite side, and make silly webpages like that bowling for truth one.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jul 2004)

I'm a little hesitant to say it because of how many people here seem to hate him but I don't mind Michael Moore that much.

He's obviously showboating. Using conspiracy, hate for him, fear of terrorists and a million other things to get his voice heard.    I keep seeing everyonecalling him fat.   Yup he's huge and fat, it's disgusting.   Seems a little silly to use the guys size as an argument to discredit him. Well yes, he's overweight and so is something like 65% of north Americans.  Is he an average north American?
I watched bowling for lColumbine and his latest 9/11 movie. I didn't notice as much in the first one but in 9/11 i really started to get annoyed by his commentary. "What was bush thinking, what was going through his mind?"   Very irritating but then i began to think he HAS to ask this question because many people (ie   people who didn't vote) obviously can't think for themselves. I don't know too much about him. He makes movies, people either love him or hate him. He reminds me of the loud mouthed guy in highschool class that annoyed everyone but had just enough charisma fpr people to listen to him.

Someone mentioned a very good point on here. It was regarding not voting. People who choose not to vote because they don't like either party are helping the "bad guys" for lack of a better term just as much as if they voted against them.   Well personally I'd rather see a movie like this with facts like the attorney general who LOST a vote to a guy who was dead for a month.   I'd rather watch a movie like this, see all these facts, have it peek my interest and find out for myself if they are true or not than simply NOT hear the facts/lies at all and be ignorant about everything. Yes that makes me lazy that i need a movie to promt promote do some research. There's a few things i heard in the movie that motivated   me to read up on it myself.   I found a lot of the accusations/comments/ links in the government he made very interesting and some of them pretty scarry. I've seen people accuse him of being anti-american. He see's something in the government he doesn't like, he's speaking out about it, he's making LOTS of money off of it using fear and conspiricy,  being very loud about it. That doesn't sound ANTI american at   all...

EDIT because spell check barfed.


----------



## tabernac (8 Jul 2004)

You don't really like him do you? 


> he does not wear clean clothes or shave.


Thats the one side of Micheal Moore that I don't really like.


----------



## tabernac (8 Jul 2004)

BTW
Mjr. Baker, do you think that the content in his documentaries are all pig lard?


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Jul 2004)

I thought S_Baker might like to know that there is a ray of hope, in Canada...    

http://www.chargemoore.com/

I wasn't aware that he had made any comments regarding the Canadian election......


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Jul 2004)

Im 698


----------



## Harris936 (11 Jul 2004)

I'm 703.


----------



## Ian_M (11 Jul 2004)

720


Anyone happen to have a link to where he said it?


----------



## rcr (11 Jul 2004)

721.


----------



## clasper (11 Jul 2004)

If you google "stephen harper" & "michael moore" & election you get about 5000 hits, including CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc.

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&q=%22michael+moore%22+%22stephen+harper%22+election&meta=

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/24/canada/moore040624


----------



## nbk (11 Jul 2004)

Umm, how are you going to charge/imprison someone who is not a Canadian citizen, and resides in another country?

You could charge S_baker (If he is in fact an american) or any other non Canadian on these boards who chimed in on the elections as well.

This is pretty pathetic....shame on him for having an opinion...

EDIT: Found an artice about it http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/columns/danbrown220604.html



> Moore was in this country last week for the film's official Canadian premiere. He said that he pushed to have the movie released here before June 28, apparently over the protests of domestic distributors, who didn't want it to interfere with the federal vote.
> 
> "And I said, no, no, no. Even if it's just four days before the election, you've got to get something out there to inspire people to do the right thing here," Moore told the Toronto Star on Saturday. By doing the right thing, Moore means that Canadians should not vote for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who Moore believes is a Bush toady intent on slashing the social safety net.



Hmmm looks like Moore just asked people to "do the right thing" and was not "...in any way induce[ing] electors to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate..." The journalist put words into his mouth.

Again, this is a really pathetic petition, and shows how little ammunition people have when trying to discredit Moore or make him look bad.


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Jul 2004)

He should educate himself regarding our laws before he opens his mouth up in the media. Its the priciple. Just to show him that not EVERYONE wants to hear him. Shame on us "for having an opinion."


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Jul 2004)

LOL - you'll notice that nbk is always preaching that people should "think for themselves" but doesn't mind trying to sell his point of view...or will defend some people's right to have an opinion, but not others...


Anyway, I posted that site because I thought it was funny. I think they are making a point in a satirical light, more than they actually expect Michael Moore to be charged....


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Jul 2004)

From the CBC article provided by Clasper:



> You've got four days after it opens, to get people out to the polls to make sure that Mr. Harper doesn't become your next prime minister," he said.



So you are saying that the CBC "put words in his mouth", but the Toronto Star got it right? Just curious...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2004)

Much as I am tempted to support the petition Michael Moore thrives on attention.

Do we really want to give him oxygen?


----------



## SFontaine (11 Jul 2004)

nbk said:
			
		

> Umm, how are you going to charge/imprison someone who is not a Canadian citizen, and resides in another country?
> 
> You could charge S_baker (If he is in fact an american) or any other non Canadian on these boards who chimed in on the elections as well.
> 
> ...



Ahahahaha. Dude we have 2 movies and a big ol book.. We have more than enough ammo to discredit the man.


----------



## Harris936 (12 Jul 2004)

Yo nbk,



			
				nbk said:
			
		

> Umm, how are you going to charge/imprison someone who is not a Canadian citizen, and resides in another country?
> 
> You make a good point, that would be tricky. But consider this, Canada has an extradition treaty with the US.
> Also, if he ever enters Canada again (say to promote more of his commie propaganda) he could be arrested. My hope is that the threat of charges will teach him a lesson and maybe keep him from entering the country again.
> ...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Jul 2004)

Well, at least 981 of us think this is not "pathetic'

Not that I think anything will come of this, but it is nice to make an opinion known.

nbk, why don't you start your own petition against this petition - see how far it gets you.


----------



## nbk (12 Jul 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> LOL - you'll notice that nbk is always preaching that people should "think for themselves" but doesn't mind trying to sell his point of view...or will defend some people's right to have an opinion, but not others...



Thats because everybody is after Moore. I have alterior, unique views because there needs to be balance, not everyone should be thinking the same all the time. If everyone supported Moore, I would be pointing out any flaws he had, if I could find any. Thats the type of person I am. I restore balance and order to the universe. You dare oppose the workings of the very universe? Tisk tisk...



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> From the CBC article provided by Clasper:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's not saying "Don't vote for Harper" if you read his words in that article hes saying that Canadians should take in to consideration what electing Harper would mean to the country. And don't accuse me of putting words into his mouth, because if you read the whole article, not just the quote you took, that is what he is saying. He is not trying to sway people from voting for harper, he is just saying what a conservative government would do to the country.

As well neither of these articles mentions that he had made comments about the liberal party and they had their own problems that people should "consider". 



> You make a good point, that would be tricky. But consider this, Canada has an extradition treaty with the US.
> Also, if he ever enters Canada again (say to promote more of his commie propaganda) he could be arrested. My hope is that the threat of charges will teach him a lesson and maybe keep him from entering the country again.



I'm fairly sure they would not extradite someone for what is probably the most petty and insignificant crime in the entire criminal code. Especially since you could not possibly bend his words around enough to make it look like he was particularly condemning the government currently in power. So why would the government currently in power want to punish him?

"Keep him from entering the country again"??? You speak out against ze conservatives? Vere are your papers, bitte? Show us ze papers! Kein papers? Your access to ze Reich has been denied. Oberstleutnant, ezcort zis man out of ze land.



> Well, at least 981 of us think this is not "pathetic'
> 
> Not that I think anything will come of this, but it is nice to make an opinion known.
> 
> nbk, why don't you start your own petition against this petition - see how far it gets you.



As long as its not my opinion, right?

It would not make any sense for me to make a petition because my whole argument was that the idea of a petition was pathetic, so making a petition would be equally pathetic.


----------



## clasper (12 Jul 2004)

nbk said:
			
		

> He's not saying "Don't vote for Harper"



Actually that's pretty much exactly what he's saying.  It's quite clear he committed an offence of the Canada Elections Act.  I appreciate the contrariness of your views, but you're grasping at semantic straws here.

But why stop at Michael Moore.  With the pervasiveness of American media in Canada, why don't we charge all of those American right wing wackos that used liberal as a dirty word during our election campaign?  So what if they said "liberal" and not "Liberal"?  They're influencing politics in Canada, right?

You can make many arguments that a lot of Americans influenced the Canadian campaign, and yes they broke the letter of the law.  But this petition?  Just going to give Moore the publicity he thrives on.  The reactionary right did way more to promote Moore's film than he did.


----------



## Danjanou (12 Jul 2004)

nbk said:
			
		

> "Keep him from entering the country again"??? You speak out against ze conservatives? Vere are your papers, bitte? Show us ze papers! Kein papers? Your access to ze Reich has been denied. Oberstleutnant, ezcort zis man out of ze land.



NBK even by your "normal" Shit Disturbing attitudes this takes the case.


Edit" hmmm look what the auto censor substituted for s---.


----------



## nULL (12 Jul 2004)

He showed more responsiblity than 40% of the population by even voting. 

Good for him.


----------



## Alex (13 Jul 2004)

I used to be a lot like nbk. Sure, it's his opinion, but hardly anyone i know can take his movies with a grain of salt. Take Bowling for Columbine. The interview with the guy who supposedly helped Timothy McVeigh- obviously Michael Moore's opinion is going to look sooooo much better when he's debating with an uneducated guy who's probably pretty crazy. I also don't approve of him interfering in our election either- he can have his opinion, but when he tries to scare Canadian citizens into not voting for the conservatives.. that's none of his business. And most recently, one of my friends, who was going to join the reserves, was scared out of joining after seeing ferhenheit 911. Needless to say I've been persuading her since to reconsider.. she doesn't realize just what Michael Moore is. For me, when he starts persuading people to not want to serve their country, that is going to far.

On another note, I heard there was a documentary being made to counter Michael Moore's arguments. I can't wait for it to come out.


----------



## Harris936 (13 Jul 2004)

"I'm fairly sure they would not extradite someone for what is probably the most petty and insignificant crime in the entire criminal code. Especially since you could not possibly bend his words around enough to make it look like he was particularly condemning the government currently in power. So why would the government currently in power want to punish him?
"Keep him from entering the country again"??? You speak out against ze conservatives? Vere are your papers, bitte? Show us ze papers! Kein papers? Your access to ze Reich has been denied. Oberstleutnant, ezcort zis man out of ze land." 




                    I wouldn't consider it a petty and insignificant crime at all. Afterall, a general federal election is very important. 
I don't know why you're trying to liken my to a Nazi. That doesn't make sense for a number of reasons.

First off, what type of totalitarian state would deny somone entry to their country for attacking an opposition party? (Do true totalitarian states even have opposition parties? In Germany they were one of the first things Hitler got rid off)

Secondly, my advocacy that Moore be charged has nothing to do with the fact that he attacked the Tories. It would be the same if he went after the Grits or NDP. I simply can't believe the nerve of that man to come into this country and violate our laws by telling us how to vote.

Thirdly, all I'm doing is supporting the rule of law. That is, I wish to see the law applied equally to all. The rule of law was something conspicuously absent in Nazi Germany, and all totalitarian states.

Please take the time to consider these objections.

Regards,
Harris


----------



## spenco (15 Jul 2004)

Check out this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/14/moore_elxn040714.html


----------



## Scratch_043 (15 Jul 2004)

#1884, I came in a little late.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (18 Dec 2004)

SFontaine said:
			
		

> Head over here for an example of Moore getting destroyed, and his claims being proven wrong. The guy is a hack who makes up a bunch of shit to try and further his agenda.. And sadly people believe it.



No more, no less than any other media organization.

Let me apply a double standard to this topic of debate: those who full-heartedly argue that Michael Moore disinforms the public, and uses propaganda as a means to further his own agenda, yet refute the idea that CNN, and other U.S. media conglomerates are perpetrators of the exact same crime, different agenda.

So long as profit is a driving force of the mass media, and the media continues to be concentrated in the hands of a small proportion of private ownership, how can one ever fully be assured he/she is getting truly objective news? All mass media has some form of a spin on it.

Draw from multiple sources, including mainstream and alternative, and use them to formulate your own opinions on the matter.

Do not selectively point the finger at Michael Moore, when the media that comes through your television set at 6 o'clock and 11 o'clock respectively, is furthering an agenda of their own as well. 

Sadly, people buy into everything they hear on the news as well...


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (18 Dec 2004)

Limpy said:
			
		

> Mr. Moore....
> Please keep your ideological crap on your side of the border you fat, no all, waste of human flesh.



Reading through the posts, the only valid points that the many of you have made is that Michael Moore is overweight, and fosters ideological beliefs that the majority of you disagree with.

Don't use personal slander to discredit him, that's foolish. Instead, provide examples and evidence in an effort to disprove his logic and credibility.


----------



## Donaill (18 Dec 2004)

I agree with much of what is said on this post taht is pro MM or neutral towards him. He is very good at getting his point across to people. He does have alot of charisma. I dont have anything new to add so I will just restate some of the points that I agree with :

1- Moore uses propaganda in the same way that the right wing does.

2- Moore uses sarcasm and other word play to get his point across.

 I have read much of what Moore writes and I have seen the docudramas that he has released. I do believe that his train of thought does lay along the lines of the "little guy". To judge the guy now that he has found success and find him less then worthy is a stereotypical Canadian thing to do.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (18 Dec 2004)

Donaill said:
			
		

> Moore uses sarcasm and other word play to get his point across.



You bet, and this definitely isn't something specific to Michael Moore. Most politicians, film makers and others trying to appeal to the public execute a play on words in order to gain credibility and support:

The United States did not invade Iraq, it liberated Iraq.

He/she is not a terrorist he/she is a  freedom fighter/revolutionary.

Candidates ranging anywhere from left, right and all that is inbetween are guilty of this.


----------



## Donaill (18 Dec 2004)

Ahh yes. Propaganda and the media. It is funny how over the years the definition of terrorism has changed. Now before anyone jumps on me I do agree that what happened on 9/11 was terrorism. However...
For as long as I can remember the IRA has been pinned as terrorists. They were found guilty of many atrocities. Now I do not agree with much of the tactics they used, hiding bombs in public areas , etc. I do agree that the Catholics of Ulster were treated badly. That many innocent peopel were sent to prison in the name of English security. We have just lately found out that England also paid many Protestant para-militaries to carry out killings for the goverment/military. This is all part of the public record.

 My point in this rely is that propaganda and the media can either play up or play down events according to what will get them higher ratings or more goverment influence.  Moore is no different. He does the same thing to gain more influence with the working class people.  I can relate to Moore. I cannot relate to J.D. Irving or Prince Chucky.
 Until the human race grows up and finally decides that everyone should be treated fairly than we should not sit back and tell people like Moore to it down and shut up.


----------



## FredDaHead (18 Dec 2004)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I love my country of birth, so much so that I joined it's military, so I could help protect it. I suspect that he also loves his country, seeing as how he still lives there (I assume). Maybe, just maybe, he is pointing out what he thinks is wrong with it, in the hopes that it might improve. You know, a place where people are free to say what they want, without being called a fat f%$$ in public forums, having their loyalty questioned. Just because you question the direction your country is going in doesn't mean that you are a traitor.



There is a difference between questionning the direction your country is going, and making up "facts" and viciously attacking the government with those half-truths and lies. And did it cross your mind that he might still live there just so he can make more ficticious movies that get a "non-fiction" label, and make millions while pretending to be out for the little guy? Being from a mostly blue-collar background, I feel no kind of relation between me and that guy, and neither do a lot of my blue-collar friends.

The only people who really like that guy are _bourgeois_ who think it's cool to "fight for the little guy."



> Rick Mercer does some of the same things that Michael Moore does, in a humorous way, and nobody questions his patriotism. Quite the opposite. One thing that grates on me about him is the way he constantly infers that all Americans are stupid, with his little series of "interviews" with Americans about Canada. Yes, many Americans have no clue about us, but in the same way some Canadians have no clue about Germany, for example.



First, I don't see how Rick Mercer's humorous rants even begins to compare with Moore's slandering. The former comments, the latter attacks. Moore doesn't try to make people laugh, he tries to undermine the government and generally is an asshole. Rick Mercer makes fun of just about everyone and everything, too, and that's a HUGE difference between him and Moore.

As for Americans not knowing about Canada being the same as Canadians not knowing about Germany, that's an aweful comparison. The bulk of US and Canadian import/export is with each other, our governments seem to want us to be as close as possible, we have a special relationship, military-wise (NORAD), and we have a long history together. Basically, the US is Canada's sibling, like it or not. 

Do we share that with Germany? The only thing I can find about Germany through a short research, is that 3 German-owned merchant marine ships have Canadian flags "for convenience." Wow, that makes them like our brothers, doesn't it?


----------



## JudoChamp (18 Dec 2004)

Has anyone seen this blown off the top film? it kind of scares me!

But i kind of find it strange to find Micheal Moores facts are true if The republicans cant sue him for slander or libel? or they never even bothered too.


----------



## JudoChamp (18 Dec 2004)

www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/

Go to this website and tell me what you think, it was created way before Micheal Moores Fahrenheit 911, and i was wondering did Micheal moore do some research from this?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2004)

1. They did not sue because that would give Moore free publicity.

2. Individually, there are facts in the film, but since they are sliced and diced and taken out of any sort of context, Moore makes the "facts" irrelevant. I personally would have thought he could have made the same statement by animating a film with crayolas.

3. If you want to see propaganda done with real artistic style and flair, watch "The Triumph of the Will' or "Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl. "Battleship Potemkin" and "Prince Alexander Nevskii" by Sergei Eisenstein are also cinematic masterpieces. Unfortunately, the artists prostituted their great talent to support the two most monstrous regimes in the 20th century. Imagine if Micheal Moore was even 1/4 as talented as those two.


----------



## JudoChamp (19 Dec 2004)

??? But did you watch it? 

www.fahrenhype911.com


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2004)

I'll go see Blade 3, Constatine and Batman begins. 
I'm going to pass on any more Michael Moore films.


----------



## JudoChamp (19 Dec 2004)

FahrenHYPE 911 is not a Micheal Moore film, its a propaganda film produced by the republicans in October of 2004 to counter Micheal Moores Film Fahrenheit 911.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Dec 2004)

I watched the first 10 minutes or so of it before giving up. Compared to that lunatic Anne Coulter, Micheal Moore is a shining example of reason and honesty. Ergo, a movie which draws extensively on Anne Coulter interviews would have to have a hell of a lot of nudity to draw my attention.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2004)

Nice movie review, Ms Spears. I made the effort to sit through F 9/11, even when it was clear what sort of "documentary" I was watching (under five min actually). I may watch Farenhype 9/11 if I get the opportunity, but I think that battle is already over. 

Now if the great talents of Leni Riefenstah were available again, I would certainly want to see her films, and then make sure I stayed at home for a few days after in case I was "inspired" to do something.


----------



## JudoChamp (19 Dec 2004)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I watched the first 10 minutes or so of it before giving up. Compared to that lunatic Anne Coulter, Micheal Moore is a shining example of reason and honesty. Ergo, a movie which draws extensively on Anne Coulter interviews would have to have a heck of a lot of nudity to draw my attention.



Who the hell is Anne Coulter, She sounds like a dumb blonde, btw you called her a lunatic.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Dec 2004)

Too much of a resembalence to Celine Dion for my tastes. 

And no more comments about "dumb blondes" there, you!



> Nice movie review, Ms Spears. I made the effort to sit through F 9/11, even when it was clear what sort of "documentary" I was watching (under five min actually). I may watch Farenhype 9/11 if I get the opportunity, but I think that battle is already over.



*Shrug* I enjoyed Farenheit 9/11, but then I enjoy most Micheal Moore movies, and I'm a liberal, so perhaps you should give farehype a go? As long as gleeful self gratification is all you're seeking (and it might be easier with Ann Coulter than Micheal Moore).


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2004)

A documentary "documents" something, like a National Geographic special, or the "Lonely Planet Guide". Moore is clearly a propagandist, while from what I saw on an internet search (the Movie is not yet available here), Farenhype is best described as a polemic.

Anyway, the battle is over, Moore's distortions did not carry the election, lets go see something entertaining for a change.


----------



## 48Highlander (19 Dec 2004)

I haven't had a chance to watch Fahrenhype yet since as long as I know it's not available here, but I did just fine a way to download it, so if anyone (with a high-speed connection and a bit-torrent client) is interested...

http://62.212.84.26/search.php?query=fahrenhype&submit=Search


----------



## Donaill (20 Dec 2004)

The truth is that if you are right leaning than you will find fault with Moores books/movies/opinions. If you are left leaning you will see the factual  parts of Moores releases. I am a nationalist and support my country, unless it goes against what I see as ethically correct. Then I will use my power as a voter and a citizen to make a change in goverment. I believe that Moore is the same way. Now I have seen people attack him because he now has money. However Moore did not have alot of money years ago when he first started. "Roger and I" was not a big budget release. 
 Where my opinion may variate from Moores is that I believe in a strong social policy and a strong military. We need strong social policies to help those taht are less fortunate than ourselves. We also need a strong military to help defend this continent and to help defend others. Now I know some would say that that is not our job to do. All I have to say is this... If someone was breaking into your neighbors house would you just sit back and say that that was just sad and someone should do something about it? Well I dont want neighbors like that. Having Canada go to  places like Haiti and Rwanda gives me a sense of pride in being Canadian. Just as having a Canadian in Ulster gave me a sense of pride.

 Here is what I believe...

  You cannot go to another persons country, install a dictatorship that is brutal to its people and turn a blind eye because you financially benefit from it and not expect to have some sort of negative ramification from it some time in the future. Not every country in the world can be a Canada, with a high tolerance level. However I think it is important taht we do help those that want it. I think that it is important that we show Canadian values by actions and not by force, unless called for. What I mean by this is if we need to go some place to help stop a genocide or starvation than we protect/supply/teach. If we are in such a place and come under attack than we should stand up to the attackers and use deadly force if needed. 

  That is some of what I believe. Just one guys opinion in a sea of opinions.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2004)

Donaill said:
			
		

> You cannot go to another persons country, install a dictatorship that is brutal to its people and turn a blind eye because you financially benefit from it and not expect to have some sort of negative ramification from it some time in the future.



    Statements like that make me want to beat you with a 2x4.  You're doing the same thing that Michael Moore does:  making implications without providing any solid evidence.

    As far as moore goes, I think david letterman said it best:

[quote author=David Letterman]
When you look at the film in total...are there these things - if I were smarter, could I refute some of these points?  Shall I beleive you that everything means exactly what it looks like?  I mean, the presentation is overwhelming, but could a smarter man thatn me come in and say, "Yes, this happened, but it means nothing" "Yes, that happened but it means nothing"?  But put together in a puzzle it creates one inarguable , compelling circumstance.
[/quote]

    More masterfully weaves together truth, lies, half-trouths and implications, so that the end result always seems to factually support the point he's trying to make.  When breaken down to it's component parts though, his argument inevitably disintegrates.


----------



## Goober (20 Dec 2004)

IMO the movie was good for one reason. It got people talking.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Moore masterfully weaves together truth, lies, half-trouths and implications, so that the end result always seems to factually support the point he's trying to make.   When breaken down to it's component parts though, his argument inevitably disintegrates.



I think 48Highlander said it right in this quote. Now, as to what 'facts' in the movie are truth, half-truths or lies or implications, I have no idea, but people talk about it, and when millions of people start talking about certain 'facts' then the facts tend to get either verified, or proven wrong. This movie has spawned much debate, and alot of people have taken it upon themselves to disect these 'facts'. So for the person who is interested in knowning the truth behind these 'facts', the truth is out there.

What alot of people take issue with, is how Michael Moore strung together these 'facts' to support his view.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2004)

It didn't get people talking about it, it got people arguing about it.

I don't like Michael Moore's approach because he seeds it with a personal agenda that only encourages divisive argument.  And it has - the fracture of American society along political lines hasn't been so pronounced for a very long time.

I don't approve of every policy the American's have undertaken under Bush, and I've said so on these forums.  But Moore carries it to far, trying to say "Look, the President is a moron and a crook, therefore we can do no right."

In my mind, a better way to challenge policies would be to present the material in a manner that says "Look, this isn't really the best way to go about things, you are the C-in-C, so see what we have to say".  In this manner, you would engage Republicans who are not really keen on the chosen path as well, creating a much stronger piece of political commentary.

But he didn't, and now no-one with real interest in the matter takes him seriously.


----------



## JudoChamp (20 Dec 2004)

Bush is a crook, it seems like hes always lying to the american public, You change from an American TV station it tells the facts, then you change to a TV canadian station and it questions the truth.

But plz Dont flame me for saying that


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2004)

I might flame you if I understood what the hell you just said....


----------



## Infanteer (20 Dec 2004)

If you don't want to be "flamed", then give a coherent argument instead of spamming the board with a juvenile rant....


----------



## Slim (20 Dec 2004)

> Bush is a crook, it seems like hes always lying to the american public, You change from an American TV station it tells the facts, then you change to a TV canadian station and it questions the truth



Do you have ANY credible facts to back up this statement, or are you of the type who just says things like that to get a rise out of everyone?

Please qualify this statement so that we may respond to it appropriately...

Slim


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2004)

*Judo chops the judo champ*


----------



## Donaill (22 Dec 2004)

What evidence do you need in regards to the west installing its own dictators or at least backing them.
Saudi Arabia... Monarchy  that is has tortured at least one Canadian.
Saddam was backed by the US for years
Bin Ladin was trained by the US to overthrow the Soviet goverment

It is all political game playing. It is done in the belief that if we put someone in charge that we can control that we can benefit from it and perhaps the people will benefit from it as well

 Look at South America. Some of the dictators down there were placed in power by one foreign goverment or another. 

 Why all of this "If you dont have the paper work dont post it." stuff. What I am seeing alot of times is if it disagrees with a pro American , or right wing view than we are jumped on.  Show me the evidence that Manuel Noriega was put in by his own people and not a foreign power. Show me the evidence that proves that much of what goes on in the middle east is not more to do with oil and money.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2005)

He finally got the recognition he deserves:

http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/tks.asp


> MICHAEL MOORE GETS NO OSCAR NOMINATION; LEFTY BLOGGERS YAWN [01/25 02:01 PM]
> 
> So chalk me up as one of the folks who was really surprised that Oscar voters didn't give â Å“Fahrenheit 9/11â ? a Best Picture nomination.
> 
> ...


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jan 2005)

For anyone who still cares about this subject, go see FahrenHYPE 9/11.  It does an excelent job of totaly blowing Michael Moores collection of lies right out of the water.  For instance, the director shows interviews with 3 individuals who were also interviewed by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11.  All three of them are pissed as hell because Moore used selective questioning and editing to make it seem like they supported his point of view, when in fact none of them have anything but contempt for him and his theories.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

Read Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man.

  It does a lot to explain his actions (his manic depressive side) and blows his "facts" and his crockumentaries out of the water -- even my GF who is a Liberal (shudder) cant get around that people actually beleive his shlock - about as factual as Spiderman...


----------



## Stefan Moxness (26 Jan 2005)

I have to say that the quick jump on people who support Micheal Moore, calling his a fat whateverthehell is no better than what Micheal Moore is doing the the American government.  He (MM) points the finger and says Bush is wrong, he's a moron and no one should listen/follow him.  But what is different with the way many (not all) of those on this post have attacked Moore and those who support him, he's a fat whatever, he's a liar, he's this he's that, no difference to me.

as for MM versus the government and fahrenhype 9/11, this is just another propaganda war, the government does something, Moore does something to counter it, he does something, the government makes a movie to counter it.  There's likely as much truthbending in MM's movie as there is on CNN and in most media for that matter.

Moore made those people with enough of a mind to take his ramblings with a grain of salt go out and research on there own, look into the policies of their government and generally become smarter, better citizens of the fine nation they live in.  As for movies like fahrenhype they made those people again with enough of a brain to take it with a grain of salt go out and do the same things.  What's wrong with that?  Those who blindly follow MM, those who blindly follow whatever the government are not only fools but impediments to their society and nuisances to those trying to improve the quality of their life and their nation.

As far as the Canadian health care system being a terrorist system, I not only resent that greatly but I also think that what you said is as stupid and foolish as Moore.  How many American health care insurance providers have probably supplied health care to people related to terrorist cells? Are you going to label them terrorist health care insurers?  If you do you're mighty foolish, perhaps you shoudl famaliarise yourself with the policies of insuring people, they check only credit history and health history, how are they to know your politic bias, and why should they even know?  Likely no more, no less (proportionately) then us up here.  Please don't slander the Canadian nation, one of the best out there on the grounds of your blind hatred or passion, you're making yourself out to be no better then MM. Get your facts straight.  If you're going to bash on canada choose a better site then army.CA.


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

:

 Doe --

You right in some respects - problem is too many sheeple accept that MM is the gospel.   Am I a right winger - you got it pontiac!.   However I go about and ensure I read a fair amount of left leaning data as well to give me a balanced perspective.   However I try to stick to facts.   Moore shapes data - He does not specifically lie - but with editting and casual usage of terms he gives his audience an impression that it not factual or truthful.

 Look at Roger and Me as you cited -   Then go do a search for the "Facts" as Moore claims.  Do any of the dates line up?

Even funnier look at what happened to the poor guy that tried to Moore, Moore....      Moore flipped out and wanted his charged.


Moore knows that the majority of Canadians, Americans and Europeans are stupid - and they accpet what peopel can construe into a logical strcuture as fact, with very little questioning.   The fact his crockumentary won best Documentary is a testimony to the stupidity of the American public.

   If George Bush was really as EVIL as Fat Mike portrays him to be - Mike would have long ago had an accident like so many of the Clinton Whitewater witnesses...


----------



## Morgs (26 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In my mind, a better way to challenge policies would be to present the material in a manner that says "Look, this isn't really the best way to go about things, you are the C-in-C, so see what we have to say".  In this manner, you would engage Republicans who are not really keen on the chosen path as well, creating a much stronger piece of political commentary.



I understand, and completely agree with what you are saying, but for devils advocates sake lets say Moore goes about trying to get himself heard by engaging Democrats and Republicans alike, in a respectful manner. Do you really think the general public are going to take the time to listen to dry, "beat around the bush" (as close to a pun as i could get) interviews and still get the same left wing propaganda out of a documentary done like that? I think we all know the answer to that is no.

Unfortunately though, it is painfully clear that Moore does not want this. Lets face it, regardless of his political ideologies he is darn good at what he does, and could easily create that type of documentary if he wanted. It is a propaganda war between the left and the right, it really is as simple as that. You have people blindly following the Government and you have people blindly following Moore and his cronies. Then you have the relatively few who actually make informed decisions and cry when they see such blatant acts of trickery and deception on both sides, followed by the masses who take every word for granted. This is the problem, and i don't think there is any realistic solution to it.

And regardless of your beliefs I don't see the point of calling Moore "Fat Mike" or Bush a "Moron" or whatever (at least not on a discussion board like this)... Because what does it really show but your inability to portray at least some sense, and are people really going to think your post credible and take you serious when all you can do is throw around slander?


----------



## Stefan Moxness (26 Jan 2005)

KevinB, I couldn't agree with you more, that has always been my problem with movies like his and have always been the reason that normally when I discuss them I like to state that I take everything he says with a grain of salt.  I guess my perspective is too much that of an idealist where i assume/hope that everyone will posess half a brain and be able to see through the farce that is MM and use what he produces really only as an incentive to pursue research into what is really going on.  Please don't misread my previous post as trying to give merit to anything MM does/says, I simply wanted to say that in my idealistically created world MM really isn't a bad creation, he motivates intelligent people do deepen there knowledge and question what their government is doing in a similar manner that vote grabbing speeches by politicians could be used to stimulate further research into the wide world of politics.  Either way MM is for from being a great source on knowledge or facts, only a fool would not see through his blatant propaganda.

Cheers an be safe,

Doe


----------



## MagieNoire (26 Jan 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I'd kick his goat smelling *** all the way to his multi-million dollar Manhattan Apartment        What a piece of work he is, he is such a liar and fraud....he needs to be called out, him and all of his double chins!
> 
> What a fat F***!



When you're finished with him, I hope you plan on marching to Washington as well. There's a big Bush that could use a good pruning.

Steel toed boots should work just fine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2005)

This thread is about Michael Moore, not George Bush. Keep it on track. The rest of the rant has been moved to "Another Boring Rant...."


----------



## Slim (26 Jan 2005)

> When you're finished with him, I hope you plan on marching to Washington as well. There's a big Bush that could use a good pruning.
> 
> Steel toed boots should work just fine.



You know I happen to have quite a bit of respect for George W Bush and, frankly, find your comments rather   disturbing...

Please don't threaten people with violence here, even in jest. Its not funny and makes us all look like a bunch of children spatting in the playground...

After all we don't threaten violence to MM or others that (we feel) blatantly lie and deceave the population of North America, do we?

Thanks

Slim


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jan 2005)

Slim!  shhh!  it's been moved.


----------



## Slim (26 Jan 2005)

Ohh Sorry...

My bad


----------



## Gouki (26 Jan 2005)

Amazing .. Simply amazing.

When I first watched Fahrenheit 9/11, despite that I may not have the overall friendliest attitude about America, I remember thinking how some things just seemed too ... odd. That bank with the rifle scene, I thought how it seemed too simple and easy, the interview with Charleston Heston (damn it I cannot spell his name right) seemed too up front and .. scripted. It gave the appearance that the man implicated himself a bit too much. 

What really topped it off for me was when the mother who lost her son in Iraq was talking to that homeless woman or whatever who had that political stand up, and some woman came in flailing her arms saying "it's all for show! it's all for show!" then yelled "blame Al-Qaeda!" when the mother walked away .. talk about perfect timing huh? This woman - the supposed epitome of ignorance that Moore was basing this movie on, suddenly waltzes in right on que, spouting off at the mouth about everything Moore was just arguing against? I left the movie thinking "this was a good watch .. but things didn't add up" and that whole FOX thing .. if it were that easy to rig elections or alter results because of one person in a simple post, my God, America would already be a dictatorship from ballot rigging.

Reading that bowlingfortruth webpage really changed my outlook on Moore. While the page has a clear right wing slant, they did support everything they said quite well. More so than Moore did, way more so. Not only that, but what they said makes sense to some of those "odd" moments I mentioned.

Before, I was on the fence about Micheal Moore. As I mentioned previously, I do not view America in an extremely favourable light (I do not hate it) and I thought Micheal Moore *may* actually be trying to expose some of the problems with the country. However, in lieu of all this evidence and proof and refutes against him, I now believe Micheal Moore is not for anyone - save himself.

Ironic that someone who criticizes white men for being greedy SOB's who use people for their own profit .. has done the same.


----------



## Slim (26 Jan 2005)

> Ironic that someone who criticizes white men for being greedy SOB's who use people for their own profit .. has done the same.



Well you know that the best defense is a good offense! I'm glad that more and more people saeem to be waking up and realizing just what sort of person MM actually is...and the Left will soon find someone else to spew for them...

Slim


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jan 2005)

Well I heard a new conspiracy theory today.  I was doing some research and I stumbled across an article detailing how Moore rose to fame.  Turns out that a cusin of GW Bush was actually responsible for getting him started in the industry, and that Bush knew Moore before he became famous:



> Working on Blood in the Face inspired Moore to make his own documentary. A year later, before he began Roger and Me, Moore called on Rafferty for a tutorial. Rafferty taught Moore how to use a camera and helped to shoot and edit the film. Moore subsequently discovered not only that Rafferty had friends in high places but that the phrase "friends in high places" was a gross understatement: Rafferty's uncle is George Herbert Walker Bush.
> 
> There's a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where George W. Bush, during an early campaign event, spots Moore in the crowd and shouts, "Why don't you go find real work?" "Right before that line, he was going, 'Heyyy, Mike,' " Moore says, accentuating his Dubya impression with a wink and a stagy finger-point. "Kevin's his cousin. They had a screening of Roger and Me at Camp David." Moore chuckles, then continues, deadpan, "I'm grateful to any family that helped me become a filmmaker. I can never forget that."



So I made a post about this in another forum.  Within half an hour there were 3 different people therizing about the posibility that "maybe Michael Moore was hired by the Bush administration to make an easily rebuked movie so that he would take the attention away from all the OTHER documentaries".  Well, this conspiracy theory is still in it's infancy, so watch and shoot


----------



## KevinB (26 Jan 2005)

John Doe,

 No worries here -- You related to my GF - she had the same sort of ideas...  Unfortunately the cold hard truth of it seems you can force feed lots of crap to people and they accept it blindly.

 Read "Chain of Command" by Sy (MyLai4) Hearsh -- gives a alarmign account of the right - and I can see it pretty clearly.

 Unfortunately our world has polarised into such a state - and the if you are not with us you are against us line has been drawn.  I thus get drawn deeper to the right - not out of sympathy or concurance to all of the decisions - but out of alarm and disgust for the other options being presented by the opposition.



48th, Careful - you leak that and the Black Helicopters will come for you


----------



## Gouki (26 Jan 2005)

Yeah .. let's make a movie that criticizes the President right while he is fighting to maintain that title, and a movie that will give strength and greater voice to his left opposition .. because surely inciting the other side to fight harder will benefit their party!

This is some more of the funnier conspiracy theories I've heard.


----------



## Zipper (29 Jan 2005)

I find it interesting that you guys are doing exactly what Michael Moore makes his films for. To get people talking about the issues at hand. Yes, he may come at it from a particular point of view. But considering how that opinion is held in the States (IE. not shown or heard what so ever), then I guess showing it to the rest of the world makes sense. It got you talking didn't it?

As for him being rich and owning a condo in NY. What did you expect? For him to still be living in a shack in Flint Michigan? C'mon, he's successful. Deal with it.

The fact that he gives voice to a particular side of the story (blown up, and edited in certain ways) that would probably never be heard in the States is a good thing. Hate him all you want, but he is laughing all the way to the bank and will be a major contributor to the democratic party.

Quite frankly its refreshing to see a different opinion from someone (As well as John Stewart???) other then CNN and the Fox/Bush network.


----------



## Slim (29 Jan 2005)

> The fact that he gives voice to a particular side of the story (blown up, and edited in certain ways)



People will swallow anything if the packaging is good enough...the McDonalds restaurant chain is living proof of that.

Lots of people twist things around to suite their point of view, part of human nature is to try and "sweeten" your side of the story whenever possible. 

From my point of view he spends alot of time telling only one side of the story and has a dangerous biass toward anyone who has a difference of opinion. Hense is legal threats during the election down there.

That, to me, is evidence of a rather shaky position when the lights come on.

Slim 

Now Bruce...Leave it be!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2005)

Gee you must have hit the double delete button twice also... ;D
sorry bud I guess you took one away and so did I,...oops :-[


----------



## Zipper (31 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Lots of people twist things around to suite their point of view, part of human nature is to try and "sweeten" your side of the story whenever possible.
> 
> From my point of view he spends alot of time telling only one side of the story and has a dangerous biass toward anyone who has a difference of opinion. Hense is legal threats during the election down there.
> 
> That, to me, is evidence of a rather shaky position when the lights come on.



Could very well be. But could he be falling into the same trap that everyone with an opinion has (especially down there)? That being "I'll SUE!!" 

I get the feeling that both sides have valid points to make, but they have to go so far to either side of the issues to get anyone to listen to them, that they almost sound foolish. Ok, they really sound foolish. The loudest voice is the one everyone listens too. And how loud is a full length film?


----------



## Steel Badger (1 Feb 2005)

Gentles and Ladies all...

I offer some anti-moore:


"MICHEAL MOORE IS A BIG FAT STUPID WHITE MAN"

subtitled:"Dude, where's your integrity?"

David T Hardy and Jason Clarke

HarperCollins Books 2004


A critical look at Moore and his ability to commit fraud on a grand scale...Check out the famous "interview" with Heston...

Ahhh Micheal...what an apt pupil of  Goebbels you really are....


----------



## Zipper (1 Feb 2005)

And there is my case in point.

Moore on the far left screaming from the film screen.

Hardy and Clarke from the far right screaming from the pages of a book.

Ah, what a world of fools we live in.


----------



## pbi (2 Feb 2005)

I finally watched Fahrenheit 911. I'm no great fan of  George Bush, nor the Fox network, nor Rush Limbaugh and his ilk of mouth-foamers, but I found the movie to be rubbish. Really. I do not understand how it got the raves it did. It is IMHO so transparent and slanted that it reeks. 

Cheers


----------



## Slim (2 Feb 2005)

> I found the movie to be rubbish. Really. I do not understand how it got the raves it did. It is IMHO so transparent and slanted that it reeks.



PBI

I agree with you 100%. However the modern western world does not seem to be a fan of clarity of vision...Self flagelation is too much fun I guess.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Zipper (2 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I agree with you 100%. However the modern western world does not seem to be a fan of clarity of vision...Self flagelation is too much fun I guess.



If Bush and his administration is your idea of clarity of vision, then you truly live in a scary world. Yes he clearly is out to destroy the world to remake it in America's vision, and he is clearly ignorant of what truly goes on outside his own borders. Yes, he is clearly willing to sacrifice the individual freedoms of his own people for the supposed greater good of American world power.

Sounds like the place I would like to live...


----------



## pbi (2 Feb 2005)

Gents: it's a movie--nothing more.(And not a particularly good one at that...) I don't think it should be a cause for a CanAm flame war on this thread. Millions of Americans don't care much for Bush either, just like millions of Canadians didn't care much for Chretien.

Cheers


----------



## Zipper (2 Feb 2005)

Won't argue with that... ;D


----------



## Gouki (3 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> PBI
> 
> I agree with you 100%. However the modern western world does not seem to be a fan of clarity of vision...Self flagelation is too much fun I guess.
> 
> ...



I'lll never tire of how people in the courses of history so often think that their side, or their vision, is the correct one.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

Steve said:
			
		

> I'lll never tire of how people in the courses of history so often think that their side, or their vision, is the correct one.



Well, from where I'm standing, it's either a high quality of living for me and my family or living in a cave waiting for some other faction to cut my head off and play a game with it.

As you can see, my bags aren't packed to leave my imperfect society any time soon.


----------



## winchable (3 Feb 2005)

I loved Roger and Me, found bowling for columbine to be an extremely interesting look at something that no one had really talked about up to that point (His oscar acceptance speech was the start of his big slide I think) and despised Farenheit 9/11.
How can he attack politicians for being dishonest and acting on party values rather then for the American people when his film here is just more of the same.
I thought it had a few redeeming moments but in General I regret spending the money on it.


Though the scene where he attempts to enlist politicians sons is actually not as a original as one would think, and that appears to be many people's favourites (not here, but whom I talk to)
CCR anyone?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Feb 2005)

Thx Sherwood, bout time.


----------



## Jungle (6 Nov 2005)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/3/150518.shtml



> Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?
> 
> Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."


That's quite the "social spirit"...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Nov 2005)

Will this have any affect on all those Michael Moore fans out there?   They will ignore it all or call it a smear campaign; "Michael Moore wouldn't do that!"    :   If an eight figure bank account doesn't wake 'em up, nothing will.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :   If an eight figure bank account doesn't wake 'em up, nothing will.


I'm still trying to fugure out how all his fans think he's able to afford all those Macs he shoves down his throat. They all need to wake up and smell the Sanka.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to fugure out how all his fans think he's able to afford all those Macs he shoves down his throat. They all need to wake up and smell the Sanka.



I wasn't aware anyone needed an 8-figure salary in order to eat themselves into obesity...I should have thought the opposite was true, really; generally the poor and disempowered are helpless when it comes to controlling overeating or eating poorly.

Anyway, you paint with a rather broad brush here and don't really say anything other than to characterize an entire group of people as misinformed.  I'd be willing to bet there are "fans" of Mr. Moore who don't care how he affords to overeat.

Did you have anything significant to say about the actual article in question?  I'd hate to see an entire thread degenerate into insults and attacks on people simply because a) they are overweight or b) see logic and reason in Michael Moore's comments.   

I am certainly not a fan of Mr. Moore's work, though i thought Bowling for Columbine was an interesting bit of fiction.  These latest revelations are indeed interesting.  Let's save the hysteria and foaming at the mouth for the right-wing idiots, though.  One doesn't need to oppose a left-wing idiot by becoming one of the right wing idiots, do they?

Attack the message and not the man, and all that.

As for George's comments; I think hypocricy is always present in public figures.  John F. Kennedy ushered in a new era of space exploration, civil rights, even changed the way millions of men dress in public (he was the first President to go hatless, and by consequence so have we).  And yet he cheated on his wife.

Michael Moore is no JFK and has, I would argue, done more harm than he has good, with his hysteric ranting and misinformation campaigns.  I can't figure out what he has ever hoped to accomplish, except gain for himself some spotlight.  In that sense, hearing that he has his own self-interests at heart is neither surprising nor shocking, and really shouldn't be, either for those who believe in what he says, or those who oppose it.

Perhaps even one or two of his "fans" are smart enough to realize that, eh?   If fans of Michael Jackson can rationalize what he has done, or fans of O.J. Simpson can keep the faith, I am sure this will not be a setback to fans of Michael Moore.  And Mr. Moore will no doubt be able to rationalize or explain away these setbacks.  

I mean come on, we still have fans of Jean Chretien, for pity's sake.  Or for that matter the Federal Liberals.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Nov 2005)

Little vague, isn't it? What's the name of the foundation? It should be easy to look up the SEC filings to verify the article's validity, or is it just another right wing lie?  

I love Michael Moore, only because he makes conservatives squirm. Ownership of Halliburton stock is just smart investing, and it's nice to able to sit in on shareholder meetings and make informatrion requests, considering what he does.  Certainly, _he_ of all people, won't have any conflicts of interest. Unlike, say, the Vice President of the United States, or the Secretary of Defence.  Somehow conservatives never get wound up about THAT.

It's a sad fact that the right wing lie machine has poisoned political discourse to the extent that we need to fight fire with fire, but why hold back when your opponent won't?


----------



## Jungle (6 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> It's a sad fact that the right wing lie machine has poisoned political discourse ...


So the Right always lies, but the Left is always honest... ??  : Get real...


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Nov 2005)

> So the Right always lies, but the Left is always honest... ??  Roll Eyes Get real...



Well, they certainly ARE better at it, and sweeping generalizations, too.


----------



## armyvern (6 Nov 2005)

Well I just may lean a little to the left myself in some respects, but I am tired of Moore's sophistry and his tendancy to grandstand and sensationalize everything which he covers as 'fact.' Especially as he preaches the anti-establishment, anti-cooperation drivel to the masses (while apparently collecting same-said dividedend cheques in his rather large bank account).

Fact is, most of his die-hard fans tend to treat him like he is some sort of political saviour of their country. Probably about to bring down the Republican Regime single handedly, because they can't seem to vote them out of office down there, no matter what 'documentary' Mr. Moore tends to come up with, or which anti-war protest rally he is supporting on that given day.

Documentaries are factual, but in his case seem to expose the Entertainer he is. As comic relief, I find his 'docs' hilarious as to being 'factual docs??' This fan has seen better. This fan has smelled the Sanka and hopes that others will too.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Little vague, isn't it? What's the name of the foundation? It should be easy to look up the SEC filings to verify the article's validity, or is it just another right wing lie?
> 
> I love Michael Moore, only because he makes conservatives squirm. Ownership of Halliburton stock is just smart investing, and it's nice to able to sit in on shareholder meetings and make informatrion requests, considering what he does.   Certainly, _he_ of all people, won't have any conflicts of interest. Unlike, say, the Vice President of the United States, or the Secretary of Defence.   Somehow conservatives never get wound up about THAT.
> 
> It's a sad fact that the right wing lie machine has poisoned political discourse to the extent that we need to fight fire with fire, but why hold back when your opponent won't?



Wow... you have far larger testes than I do to say that on this site. Incidentally, I agree completely. I'd rather have Michael Moore than Ann Coulter any day - at least he's funny, all she has going for her are her looks and I'd truly love to ruin them for her with a mallet... muttering twit. 

Moore has to be taken with a grain of salt much of the time, though people too often love to dismiss everything he says as BS, which is unfortunate since he does make some genuinely logical and substantiated points. In a world where people are stupid and ignorant enough to watch Fox News seriously, you NEED people like Moore to even the scales, though I'm not sure that even he is capable of leaning far enough left and spinning sufficient amounts of rhetoric to counter Fox News' (and their ilk, like Coulter's) contribution to the stupidity level of humanity.


----------



## Slim (8 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Moore has to be taken with a grain of salt much of the time,



The problem isn't that you and I don't believe the fat b@stard its that the unwashed masses do.

Perception, more and more, is everything these days.


----------



## kcdist (8 Nov 2005)

Wow, Mr Ape. Strong views.

Two questions: 

Do you actually receive FOX news, or are you just parroting beliefs from others of your ilk that hold your same views?

Have you ever voiced similar concerns over Canada's taxpayer funded Liberal propaganda machine, the CBC?


----------



## Slim (8 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Wow, Mr Ape. Strong views.
> 
> 
> Have you ever voiced similar concerns over Canada's taxpayer funded Liberal propaganda machine, the CBC?



CBC =  >


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Nov 2005)

I think the honourable conservatives amongst us must realize one thing, that THE BUSH/NEOCONS DOWN SOUTH ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS! Witness Coulter et al. spewing hate in ALL directions. You can be a good conservative and still be opposed to the kind of dishonest fear mongering attack politics that is Karl Rove's signature. There are plenty of honorable conservatives down south too (John McCaine), but of course, they'll always be marganalized by the current cabal. I'd HATE for this kind of discourse to spread and become the norm up here too. The recent Sharia Law debacle is a great example of hysteria triumphing over 6th grade reading/comprehension.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I'd HATE for this kind of discourse to spread and become the norm up here too.



Did you read all the posts in this thread?



> The recent Sharia Law debacle is a great example of hysteria triumphing over 6th grade reading/comprehension.



Well said.  It's disturbing that so many posters in this very thread equated Moore's weight and personal grooming habits with his intelligence and abilities.  That's generally the last resort of someone with nothing significant to say themselves.  It certainly adds nothing to the idea of serious debate, unless one was debating weight control or good personal grooming.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (8 Nov 2005)

Michael Moore makes these controversial documentaries to shock people and make money. That is all.
I highly doubt he really beleives much of anything he preaches... How could he when he owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks in companys he claims to hate and are "destroying america".

He's just smarter than your average Bea-- .. Cheney!


----------



## Thirstyson (8 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Little vague, isn't it? What's the name of the foundation? It should be easy to look up the SEC filings to verify the article's validity, or is it just another right wing lie?
> 
> I love Michael Moore, only because he makes conservatives squirm. Ownership of Halliburton stock is just smart investing, and it's nice to able to sit in on shareholder meetings and make informatrion requests, considering what he does.  Certainly, _he_ of all people, won't have any conflicts of interest. Unlike, say, the Vice President of the United States, or the Secretary of Defence.  Somehow conservatives never get wound up about THAT.
> 
> It's a sad fact that the right wing lie machine has poisoned political discourse to the extent that we need to fight fire with fire, but why hold back when your opponent won't?



Lovely post.


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Nov 2005)

> And regarding the news services deal, ignore Fox, ignore the CBC (especially the CBC, I cannot stress that enough), ignore CNN (unless its a breaking story, they are excellent at picking those up, they just take it too far by analysing the s*** out of it) and ignore most other TV news services. I've found that CTV Newsnet is about as unbaised as you can get in Canada, and the BBC is decent at getting you world news/current events. Although they can be decidedly anti-American in the way they present some things, it's generally fairly good.



You know what I learned after a year in university? People who decide to IGNORE everything they don't like, and who dislike "analyzing the **** out of it",  to use your choice of terms, tend to be much less informed than their peers, and are prone to making fools of themselves when commenting on issues they don't understand.  George W. Bush didn't succeed BECAUSE of this attitude, but in spite of it. 

See, where would you be now if I just decided to ignore all the NRO garbage that gets posted here, instead of debunking it? I know, ignorance is bliss and all that....


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Nov 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Wow, Mr Ape. Strong views.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> ...



Receive it presently, absolutely not. I received it steadily in years past so yes, I do have a frame of reference for Fox News' tripe. I quite enjoyed watching O'Reilly and imagining all the toothless yahoos polishing their store-bought assault rifles in preparation for the coming apocalypse, stocking up on Bud Light, and nodding in complete agreement with everything he, Coulter, and other Fox pundidiots had to say. 

As for the CBC, I can't say I get a chance to see alot of it but just today I watched its coverage of a rescued muskox but failed to find the pro-liberal slant in it. I failed similarly watching the story on the Chinese quasi-Amazing-Race episode being filmed up north. Their coverage of the impending NDP-Lib split in the same broadcast didn't seem particularly pro-liberal either, though coverage did focus on the PM's response to Layton, as opposed to on Layton's statement itself. 

I agree with much of what Canadian conservatives have to say, though I likely disagree with more. I can respect what anyone has to say, assuming it has some basis in reason and fact and isn't being reinforced with painfully sappy patriotism and knee-jerk jingoist rhetoric. What I can't stand are the happily ignorant, hate/fear spewing neo-con gits that seem to be the staple of US media. Combine that with the "new morality" they're constantly dribbling from their backsides, apparently at Christian-Right prodding, and I find it nothing short of frightfully mindless and McCarthyistic. The democrats are similarly obnoxious - Clinton was no saint - but presently their political incompetence makes them far less worrying since they're not in a position of power. I turn on the television and whether it's Fox, CNN, or NBC, they have a steady diet of "WILL SEAGULLS DESTROY OUR NATION?!?!"/"AVIAN FLU HARBINGER OF JUDGEMENT DAY!!"/"DISPEPSIA - FIFTH HORSEMAN OF THE APOCALYPSE!!!" and similar idiocy. 

I share Britney's fear that such stupidity will, through some sad osmosis, become our standard as well.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Nov 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> So I should watch the garbage news channels to become more...informed? Sorry, I fail to see where your logic is leading.
> 
> And if you like watching CNN spend hours upon hours covering the escape of a prisoner from a Texas jail and recounting his capture minute by minute, well, I have better things to do with my news watching time. Thats called analysing the s*** out of everything.
> 
> But hey, whatever floats your boat. I prefer watching unbaised (as much as possible), credible and informative news sources (like CTV Newsnet and the BBC, sort of).



I have to agree that CNN is ridiculous in their coverage sometimes. 5 minutes after the event happens, they have 10 psychologists, a political analyst, and some idiot professional-turned-commentator providing in-depth analysis of how a piece of human feces ended up on the white house lawn and what repercussions it will have on the safety of the nation.


----------



## S McKee (9 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> You know what I learned after a year in university? People who decide to IGNORE everything they don't like, and who dislike "analyzing the **** out of it",   to use your choice of terms, tend to be much less informed than their peers, and are prone to making fools of themselves when commenting on issues they don't understand.   George W. Bush didn't succeed BECAUSE of this attitude, but in spite of it.
> 
> See, where would you be now if I just decided to ignore all the NRO garbage that gets posted here, instead of debunking it? I know, ignorance is bliss and all that....



You know what I learned after going to university? Young people with little or no life experience who go to university, aren't as smart or as informed as they think they are.

The "enlightened and educated" have posted as much garbage concerning Bush/Conservatives as have the "great unwashed masses" posted about Michael Moore. By the way if Michael Moore does own stock in Halliburton, that doesn't make him a smart investor or a guy who can get the inside goods on the company as you alluded to, it makes him a hypocrite.


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2005)

> So I should watch the garbage news channels to become more...informed?



Yes. You learn as much by watching things you don't agree with and analysing them as you do by watching things you agree with and analysing them, if not more since you're probably very familiar with the analytical process behind things you like and agree with.

You learn about how the other side breaks down an argument, you gain a broad knowledge base of points and counterpoints based on your analysis of arguments that you do not personally espouse.

Try and look at it from a university-type standpoint as broadening your knowledge base, giving you a liberal (not the dirty word liberal, but the all-encompassing term) database of news.

Finally if you're not convinced, you wouldn't go into a battle, you wouldn't go into a sports game, and you wouldn't go into a debate without breaking down your opponent piece by piece until you know them inside, outside, as well as you know your own forces/team whathaveyou so take a look at the otherside for yourself if only to know their tactics and ploys.


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2005)

Okay you're still completely missing it.

If you're looking for simple facts and reporting then there's wire sources, I use them for my job when getting sports news all the time, but if this is all your looking for than I'm sure you're in the know enough (I know you are) to see fact reporting and bias spin, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Where at any point did I tell you to get your opinions from these news sources?
Answer, I didn't.
Re-Read my post please, I think it's straight forward but if you think I told you to get opinions from overtly opinionated news sources then maybe it's not.

And I hope that last bit about watching al-jazeera wasn't meant seriously, when I said "the enemy" I didn't mean the enemy-enemy (I thought the inclusion of sports and debate would have made that clear) I meant opponent...actually I said opponent.


----------



## Yrys (28 Jun 2007)

Thank you , but no thank you , as by marrying a non-Canadian, we becoming financially responsible for the person for 10 years or so...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070628/Michael_Moore_020607/20070628?hub=Entertainment



> Filmmaker urges Canadians to marry 'Sickos' / CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> Michael Moore is so impressed with Canadian health care, he's urging Americans to hook up with a Canuck just for the free access.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jun 2007)

I've been rooked!  I don't have a National Health Insurance Card either.  Keeping the good perks from the immigrant again, huh?  Friggin' Britophobes.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (29 Jun 2007)

I like this guy.... he makes me laugh ;D


----------



## proudnurse (29 Jun 2007)

I was hoping he would have run out of idea's for making movies by now, from what I have read here... about this next film, looks like he's willing to grasp at anything. 

~Rebecca


----------



## Big Foot (29 Jun 2007)

Hmmm, the only national health insurance card which I have is my CF Blue Cross Card. No way I would trade that in. But seriously, what the heck is Michael Moore talking about?


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Jun 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> I like this guy.... he makes me laugh ;D



His cameo in Team America was by far his best appearance to date.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jun 2007)

Michael Moore is a big fat goof.
He is good at making propaganda, however.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2007)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> His cameo in Team America was by far his best appearance to date.



LOL -- yup...


----------



## CrazyCanuck (29 Jun 2007)

Seriously though I think he fuels a lot of anti-Americanism, especially in this country


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2007)

If Mr Moore actually had to get in a Canadian waiting line for surgical procedures (or even to see a family doctor) he'd change his tune pretty quick. Of course since he is wealthy enough to afford his own private doctor and hire medical specialists when needed, it is easy for him to wave his magic wand at the plebes and tell them what is best for them (but not limosine liberals like himself)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If Mr Moore actually had to get in a Canadian waiting line for surgical procedures (or even to see a family doctor) he'd change his tune pretty quick. Of course since he is wealthy enough to afford his own private doctor and hire medical specialists when needed, it is easy for him to wave his magic wand at the plebes and tell them what is best for them (but not limosine liberals like himself)



Yup. Big fat hypocrite. Just like 'Bowling for Columbine. NO ONE should have or need a gun says Moore..........what's that?............he did what?



> "NEW YORK —  Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night.
> 
> Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York. Burke was taken to Queens central booking and could potentially be charged with a felony for the incident.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danjanou (29 Jun 2007)

recce you just made my day with that


----------



## Mike Baker (29 Jun 2007)

Thanks recce, that was nice to read  ;D


----------



## CrazyCanuck (30 Jun 2007)

I bet his next movie is about America becoming a police state where possessions will be "unfairly sized." Or possibly something along the lines of "well if I can have it in Florida, why not NY too?"


----------



## Private Parts (2 Jul 2007)

Um, I'm sorry to disappoint; however:



> Dear Moorewatch Editors:
> 
> Our firm employs Patrick Burk.
> 
> ...



Posted at MooreWatch - http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/correction_to_moores_bodyguard_story


----------



## DBA (2 Jul 2007)

Luggage is certainly part of a person's possessions and is carried to and from the airport. You don't get a free ride just because you put a handgun in your luggage and check it. 

They only mention he wasn't performing bodyguard duties for Mr Moore Wednesday night and wasn't directly employed by him. I find that far too narrowly argued to be persuasive. If he was guarding Mr Moore then common sense says he was Mr Moore's  bodyguard. If he was travelling to/from such duty then he also could be referenced as Mr Moore's bodyguard. Just like if a limo driver drops off celebrity X and then promptly runs over and kills somebody the papers would make reference to X's limo driver. Doesn't matter if he was hired by a third party for just that night and the celebrity wasn't in the car anymore. 

Lastly about using exact legal terms I find that unpersuasive. The exact terms and meaning vary too much between jurisdictions for an argument about using a specific local term when speaking to a national audience.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2007)

Agreed. Just because he wasn't on duty at the time of his arrest, is irrelevant. The point of fact I was trying to make is the Moore believes we should not be armed or have access to firearms. However, it OK for him to employ armed bodyguards for his own protection. Kinda the same situation and justification Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin used.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Jul 2007)

I never watched the movie...but I remember that scene from the preview of "Sicko" where he and a bunch of other people complaining about America's health care system are on a barge just offshore from the US Naval base at Guatanamo.

Michael Moore is on a loudhailer demanding that he and these other people be allowed to get into the POW camp for suspected enemy combatants, because he claims they have better health care within the camp.

Anyways, I am surprised the US Marine artillery batteries on GITMO don't open fire on him... ;D

Or better yet...maybe a USMC Colonel who happens to look like Jack Nicholson will swim up to Moore's barge and shout to his face:

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!"  


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XdhqAaPzqw&NR=1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY


----------



## Greymatters (5 Jul 2007)

Regardless of what I think of Moore personally, his film is supposed to be a good examination of how badly the US system serves their population...or in this case doesnt serve the population.


----------



## Danjanou (5 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Regardless of what I think of Moore personally, his film is supposed to be a good examination of how badly the US system serves their population...or in this case doesnt serve the population.



Which given his track record and penchant for selective editing makes me wonder how bad their system is? 

My neice is a nurse in Texas and prior to that was a nurse here in Toronto and before that the Philipinnes.  She's in town on vacation and coming for dinner this weekend. i'll be sure to get her observations on this, which I would wager are more credible than Moore's.


----------



## Yrys (5 Jul 2007)

Insiders are usually more credible then outsiders...

except for the people working at the top of  an assurance cie, I would say.


----------



## time expired (5 Jul 2007)

Ah, Mr Moore the master of taken out of context comments. He is probably hedging
his bets on the future, when his over weight body begins to show the effect of a 
lifetime of abuse and he needs the US tax payers to pay for his medical treatment. 
                                                Regards


----------



## formerarmybrat23 (5 Jul 2007)

I have never been seriuosly ill or needed to go to the doctor more then once a year. I have heard the horror stories of wait lists and all that. I would still choose this system. As it is "free" (no monthly fee) I am willing to endure long waits in the ER and other such inconviences. All because if I had to pay for a hospital visit or a doctors visit I would never go. Basically because I couldnt afford it. I also know my mother couldnt afford it when I was growing up. We couldn't even afford the dentist even with CF benefits (which explains my horrible teeth). 

When thinking of this subject I am reminded another documentary done by the guy from "Super Size Me". In which he lived 30 days on minimum wage. At one point he got injured and had to go to the hospital, that visit was 600 dollars. There was no way he could ever pay it and I wondered how people survived down there. After seeing that I was thankful to be up north. No matter what the problems with the system, I wouldn't give it up.


----------



## Private Parts (6 Jul 2007)

formerarmybrat23 said:
			
		

> When thinking of this subject I am reminded another documentary done by the guy from "Super Size Me". In which he lived 30 days on minimum wage.


That would be Morgan Spurlock.  He did a series called _30 Days_, and that was the first episode.  Pretty interesting series.

http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/30days/main.html

As to everyone's comments on Moore, it looks like I'm in the minority (that's OK, I can live with that).  Where do I begin?

_Is Moore a hypocrite for supporting gun control and hiring an armed bodyguard?_
First things first, I don't consider Patrick Burk to be Moore's bodyguard any more than he is Clinton's bodyguard (ref the article I posted).  Having said that, is Moore a hypocrite?  On the surface, it appears he is.  On the other hand, it could be seen as the reality of a controversial public figure who has received death threats.  

_Does Moore quote people out of context?  Does he use facts selectively?_
I don't think he does that any more than the mainstream media.  And Moore doesn't claim to be "fair and balanced."

You see, it's a lot easier to attack the messenger than the message.  Which is easier to say?

_Michael Moore is a fat lying hypocrite!_
or
_George W is the best president the US has ever had!_

_Michael Moore is a fat lying hypocrite!_
or
_I want American-style healthcare!_

_Michael Moore is a fat lying hypocrite!_
or
_The insurance industry is above reproach, and puts its customers above the bottom line!_

I know, I'm exaggerating.  But I'm sure you can see my point.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

The thing to remember about Moore is that if he has a point of view he's going to select materials to support that point of view. It's the same with any political documentary which is advancing a certain political point of view on an issue.

As for the US health care industry, I think the WHO rated them at 37th in the world. All in all I would still prefer the health care up here over that in the United States, strangely enough the founder of moorewatch an anti-Michael Moore website was about to be forced to close down his site due to the fact he was nearly bankrupt because he had trouble paying his wifes medical bill's. 

Canada's healthcare system isn't perfect, and I think we should see what other nations are doing that can help us improve it, but the last place we should be looking at is the US since that system has proven to be faulty, and we don't really want middle class Canadian's to go bankrupt from medical bills.  

Hey Private Parts welcome to the minority!


----------



## civmick (9 Jul 2007)

FYI - marrying someone and bringing them in as family class means three years (not 10) obligation for social assistance repayments (even if they bunk off 10 minutes after they land at Pearson) but does not include OHIP as far as I know.  Also - while married applicants do undergo medicals, spouses are exempted from the undue cost to Canada rule for preexisting med conditions.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (9 Jul 2007)

> Canada's healthcare system isn't perfect, and I think we should see what other nations are doing that can help us improve it, but the last place we should be looking at is the US since that system has proven to be faulty, and we don't really want middle class Canadian's to go bankrupt from medical bills.



My wife has been battling cancer for the past 3 years, if we lived in the US, we would have went bankrupt after her first Chemotherapy treatments. Depending how many sessions are required per treatment. We would never have been able to pay the 100,000+ it has cost thus far for her treatments and care. 

 I say we have a very good system, is it perfect? No but no one is left out, no matter what their social status is. I hear horror stories of average everyday people lives in the US being destroyed because they can't afford to pay huge medical bills. They lose their homes, life savings and sometimes their lives. And the insurance companies, well that's a different story. 

I really never payed to much attention to our medical system up here, before she took sick, like most people I took it for granted,  but now everyday I thank my lucky stars, we have such a great system. 

As for waiting times, we never had to wait to get her in for treatments, from the time the cancer was diagnosed to the time she had her first treatment was 1 week. Also a plus, here in London Ontario we have one of the best cancer centres in Canada at our disposal with many of the best doctors.

I think that we could all learn something from moores film and that's not to take for granted what we have up here in Canada, because someday some of us may have to use it for more than a sprain or a broken bone and it won't end up destroying our lives. 

As for Mr. Moore being a hypocrite. well i believe he says what must be said for the little guy, he has the exposure the money and the knowhow to do just that. If some think that it makes him a hypocrite for hiring an armed bodyguard because other side doesn't like what he's saying and threatens him, so be it. Maybe those who are saying this should take a long hard look in their own backyard, I'm sure they'll find their even bigger hypocrites. I for one like his films, but again that's just me.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

I watched Sicko, and it's actually a good movie. It also shows what the healthcare system is like in countries overseas as well, specifically France and Great Britian.


----------



## Yrys (17 Jul 2007)

Deciding who lives and who dies
Health care rationing should be based on science, not status

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19748368/


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Jul 2007)

His movies/docos are nothing more than crap conspiricy theories with a simple cult following.

Anyone who actually believes these films needs their head read.

He is a disgrace to his own country, and should be exiled to Baghdad for 5 yrs as far as I am concerned.

It was good to watch him squirm on Larry King Live last week! His behaviour was that of a 'under endowed' ugly naked fat man, being caught coming out of ice cold water without a towel in front of a 1000 hot chicks. Caught outright in his deliberate deception towards the public.

Sensationalism. Shock-jock media facts twisted to support his own theories.

Moore = Loser, ya, with a CAPITOL 'L'.

Ha!


Wes


----------



## formerarmybrat23 (17 Jul 2007)

Ok wesley, we all have grounds to mistrust any Moore documentry. But this subject is not new to the media. It has been covered and will continue to be covered until the people of that country get up and say they had enough.  Though it will be hard to get any major topics in that country covered. Especially when "paris going to jail" or "lindsay goes to rehab" appears to be more important these days.

the media distracts. You'll find all the real news closer to page six, if at all.


----------



## Yrys (17 Jul 2007)

I've read an article yesterday about a journalist answering people questions about Angelina jolie
after he  interviewed her. He said he found it interesting that while some question if she was really 
interested in the humanitarian stuff, most ask question about her relations with Brat Pitt , and Jennifer Aniston,
instead of all the serious issues she's trying to raise.

It's still bread and circus, folks, that didn't change much in the last two millenias or so...


----------



## DaveTee (18 Jul 2007)

I just watched Sicko last night and I have to say it was a good movie. His others were ok, a lot of just jumping on the anti-Bush wagon and so on. However if this new movie, given his "selective editing" is even 1% true, then Americans are getting the short end from their insurance companies. I wouldn't call it a bad movie and I wouldn't be so quick to insult Michael Moore. Thank goodness for our health care.


----------



## punisher_6d (18 Jul 2007)

Wesley, what are you really trying to say? ;D

Canada's healthcare system isn't perfect either.  I listened to a piece on CBC radio a few weeks ago about family doctors here in Canada.  In a country of over 30,000,000 people, 5,000,000 don't have family doctors.  That's because there are too many people and not enough doctors.  Doctors are screening potential patients like employees coming in for an job interview.  It's a 'doctor's market' out there.  Sad thing is the doctors are unlikely to take new patients like seniors, or people with multiple health issues, or those with addictions or mental health concerns.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Jul 2007)

I am from Saskatchewan, so I know all about the strengths and weaknesses of public health. 12.5 yrs in Australia has also taught me alot, with a two tiered public and private hospital/healthcare system. Moore used bits and pieces, different information from the same surveys, chopped and changed, all to suit his purposes, and did not tell the whole truth, just twisted it to make things sound worse than they already are.

I think he is an idiot, and like I said, he has a cult following, some even wearing the good ole tinfoil hats. 

Bloody hell, its going on to 0100h here, and I am off to the farter!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

So Wesley are you against universal health care or for it???



> I think he is an idiot, and like I said, he has a cult following, some even wearing the good ole tinfoil hats.



Reference global warming thread.



> I am from Saskatchewan, so I know all about the strengths and weaknesses of public health. 12.5 yrs in Australia has also taught me alot, with a two tiered public and private hospital/healthcare system. Moore used bits and pieces, different information from the same surveys, chopped and changed, all to suit his purposes, and did not tell the whole truth, just twisted it to make things sound worse than they already are.



America is alot different from Australia.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So Wesley are you against universal health care or for it???
> 
> America is alot different from Australia.



I just don't like the way he does business, and how his 'docos' are formed, based on twisted info and not the full truth, with me the issue is Moore, NOT healthcare, so don't misunderstand me Sig.

I am awware of the US system.


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

It's a political documentary, so its no surprise that he gives his point of view. It's the same with a documentary from a Conservative perspective.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Jul 2007)

IMHO he is dishonest, see my point?

I don't like that.

Wes


----------



## Scott (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy,

Is it mere coincidence that you seem to post in all of the hot button topics here? Or are you just trolling? I suggest you read more and post less, seems that's been repeated a few times...

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> IMHO he is dishonest, see my point?
> 
> I don't like that.
> 
> Wes


Well, he is clever in his dishonesty.  For example, when he says "All the facts in my movie are true", he is actually saying nothing, for by definition a fact IS true!  It's like saying "That bachelor is unmarried": it's a tautology.  
Another example in Farenheit 911, some guy from the government says something about a "1-800" number.  Under him flashes the words "He's lying!"  Well, sorta.  It wasn't a "1-800" number, but rather a "1-888" number.  "1-800" of course is meant to mean any toll free number..
Besides, Moore is just a big fat goof.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Well, he is clever in his dishonesty ... Moore is just a big fat goof.



No he's not; he's a skilled propagandist.  People believe him so he's also a successful propagandist.


----------



## cameron (19 Jul 2007)

While I have admired some of Moore's past work, and i'm not ashamed to admit it, he's flown way over the cuckoos nest with this one :


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

> While I have admired some of Moore's past work, and i'm not ashamed to admit it, he's flown way over the cuckoos nest with this one



How so?

Personally my dad just had a stroke, I'm perfectly fine knowing that my family won't have to sell our business to pay them.


----------



## Yrys (20 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Personally my dad just had a stroke, I'm perfectly fine knowing that my family won't have to sell our business to pay them.



Good luck for your dad and your family.

Personnaly my dad dead years ago in a waiting list for a "minor routine" heart operation. That was in Quebec, 
before all the cuts that we saw a few years ago (retirements of nurses, etc).

More then 15 patients died in St-Hyacinthe hospital from a sickness then get IN the hospital .

And last week, a boy died in the suburd of Montréal. He went into a truck, got to the hospital,
got operated, was tranfert to "soins intensifs" to wait for stabilisation before transfert to better hospital
in Montréal. Said transfert was request at 2 h10 , mother say was done at 3:30, hospital talked
of a 50 minutes delay... Was declared dead upon arriving in Montréal.

Why would you ask ? Didn't they have an ambulance? Nope, not 1, but *2*.
The drivers of the ambulance that was suppose to take him were VERY vocally arguing with the dispatcher. 
He wouldn't let them go because of overtime. the second ambulance said it wasn't their zone to go...

Didn't see SICKO. But having our system describe as paradise (from reports of people that saw it) make me SICK !


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

I don't think Canada was described as a paradise. However it did show our system compared to America's, and according to the WHO our system does rank higher than the USA's.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jul 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Didn't see SICKO. But having our system describe as paradise (from reports of people that saw it) make me SICK !


If you do get sick, here's hoping it's minor and you don't require a visit to the hospital ;D


----------



## Yrys (20 Jul 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> If you do get sick, here's hoping it's minor and you don't require a visit to the hospital ;D



 When I'm sick, I prefer to go to a clinic then an hospital, less waiting time   .


----------



## cameron (22 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> How so?
> 
> Personally my dad just had a stroke, I'm perfectly fine knowing that my family won't have to sell our business to pay them.



My mother just had a cataract removed by a Cuban doctor, I have the greatest admiration for Cuba's  first rate health care system.  What I have a problem with, naive and old fashioned as this may sound is what Moore is proposing, getting married just to reap the benefits of gaining your spouses citizenship.  Yes people do it all the time, that doesn't necessarily make it right.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Feb 2008)

Wow...just wow. Is Michael Moore serious this time???  :rofl:

http://www.thenewsvault.com/cgi/xtra.pl?go=12026506021



> LOS ANGELES - "Sicko" director Michael Moore jokes that Fidel Castro would be a "ratings grabber" at Sunday night's Academy Awards show. Moore's Oscar-nominated documentary on the health-care industry concludes with a trip to Cuba, where he seeks care for a group of 9/11 responders who have experienced health problems.
> 
> They are greeted with open arms at a Havana hospital and given what appears to be top-notch care that they could not get in the United States.
> 
> ...


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (21 Feb 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Wow...just wow. Is Michael Moore serious this time???  :rofl:



Its Michael Moore...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2008)

Anything to get his fat ass in front of a camera and prolong his fifteen minutes.


----------



## Teflon (23 Feb 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anything to get his fat ass in front of a camera and prolong his fifteen minutes.



Ok boys, Michael Moore heading on stage, camera 3,... you've got your wide angle lens on right?,... pan across his ass as he struggles up the stairs to the stage,...... yes I know it's a looong pan but those 8 stairs will take him some time!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Feb 2008)

Well, if he can still make however many millions believe that Cuba has a respectable healthcare system (granted he's had a lot of help from Moore and others) ... http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm


----------



## Yrys (12 Sep 2009)

Moore wants to put 'stake in the heart' of capitalism

By: The Canadian Press, Date: Sat. Sep. 12 2009 4:45 PM ET

TORONTO — "Manifesto" was one of the titles being bandied around 
by Michael Moore for his new movie -- a fitting one given that his 
scathing attack on capitalism calls for nothing less than putting a 
"stake through the heart of the beast."

"Capitalism: A Love Story" examines the economic meltdown and 
subsequent bailout of Wall Street and calls on the audience to reject 
America's particular brand of free market economics in favour of a 
system based on the ideals of democracy.

Moore, who is promoting the movie at the Toronto International Film 
Festival, said Saturday that his latest work is really the culmination of 
two decades years of sounding the alarm about the disastrous conse-
quences for working people when capitalist greed runs rampant.

"Capitalists love their money and they not only love their money, they 
love our money," Moore said. "The upper one per cent have more 
financial wealth than the bottom 95 per cent. Seriously, when anthro-
pologists dig us up what do you think they're going to call that?"

Moore's documentary career began in 1989 with the release of 
"Roger and Me," in which the filmmaker chronicles his efforts to 
reach the top brass at General Motors to get some answers amid 
the economic ruin in his hometown of Flint, Mich. - which had 
been a booming auto town. In his television show "TV Nation" 
Moore took on other pillars of corporate America and in his 
documentary "Sicko" it was his country's health-care system 
under the microscope.

His latest film is "really is an extension of a lot of things that 
I've been saying for 20 years." A manifesto of sorts then?

"There's a point sometime back where I think that word was a 
potential title of this film," Moore said. "I really set out to make 
this film with the sort of attitude of, if I was not able to make 
another film after this... what would that film say? What would I 
put in that film knowing that it might be my last film for a while?"

*Wall St. tries to explain itself*

Exotic investment products, like the subprime mortgage securities 
that caught much of the blame for the global financial meltdown, 
are a main target in the movie. To show just how confusing these 
things are, Moore has Wall Street types and academics attempt 
to explain them. It doesn't go well.

The complex mathematical formulas thrown up on the screen that 
explain such products also do little to clarify exactly how they work - 
at least to the average person. Now Wall Street is at it again, Moore 
says, barely one year after the mortgage meltdown. This time it 
involves a proposal to turn so-called life settlements -- when ill or 
elderly people cash out on life insurance policies before they die -- 
into financial products to sell on the market.

"The dirtiest word in capitalism is enough, there's no such thing as 
enough. They want more and more and more," he said. "It's like a 
beast and you have to stop the beast... You can't regulate the beast, 
you really have to put a stake in its heart otherwise it will just find 
a new path."

It's not that he's against people making money. "I believe that I should 
make my money on my hard work and on my ideas and not sit around 
making money off money," he said. "I don't think we advance ourselves 
if we have a lot of people sitting around looking at the stock ticker on CNBC, 
hour by hour figuring, 'Where's my money going? What can I do to move 
my money around?"'

The film illustrates the stark contrast between those who are being turfed 
out of their homes and executives of bailed out banks who are receiving 
million-dollar bonuses. "People are already upset and they're confused by 
what's happened, especially in the last year. I'm trying to speak to that 
and hopefully channel it toward something positive," Moore said.

"That's what I'm calling for, a democratic economic system where you and 
I have a say in how this economy is run. That's all I'm asking for, that we
just apply the democracy that we love to our economy."

The film is due in Canadian theatres on Oct. 2. 



I'm not as harsh toward him as most people here, but he really got illusions 
of grandeur with "a stake in the heart of the beat" !

How can he think that a docu could do that to a system that is establish
in most country and people in others want it ?!???


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2009)

Michael Moore is more a propagandist than a documentarian. A fact that most of his audience fails to recognize.


----------



## gcclarke (13 Sep 2009)

Meh, I'm fine with the idea that the dude has an agenda to push. I like the guy. 

I don't have a problem with the fact that, for example, during the production of Sicko, he wasn't only out to produce a "documentary" comparing and contrasting health care in various countries. The fact that he was out to try to establish a system in the United States that actually covers those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to receive health care is not a problem with me. 

I still have to date enjoyed every movie of his that I've seen. As the books of this that I have read. I'm not going to discount everything the guy has to say just because he's a filthy socialist. Because, well, I'm Canadian, and that isn't a bad thing.


----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2009)

I remember in "Roger and Me" there was a guy called "Rivethead". We see him shooting hoops at the local mental health clinic after learning he will be laid off from the GM factory for the fifth time in five years. He describes his panic attacks, while on the radio the news report says tells the rats population is now greater than the human in Flint, Michigan due to garbage collection cutbacks. As Rivethead drives past rows of boarded up businesses and homes, the radio switches to The Beach Boys song:
"We could be married,
And then we'd be happy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4FRtrD9aQ
A good book about the times in Flint was "Rivethead: Tales from the assembly line". 
"I WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD THE FIRST TIME I EVER SET FOOT inside an automobile factory..."

I don't know how true it is, but I was told that if a man dropped dead at his station ( in the old days ) at those places, that they didn't even slow the line down. Just hustle another guy into the position.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Sep 2009)

> "Capitalists love their money and they not only love their money, they
> love our money," Moore said. "The upper one per cent have more
> financial wealth than the bottom 95 per cent. Seriously, when anthro-
> pologists dig us up what do you think they're going to call that?"


Funny.  Doesn't Mike like our money too?  Hypocrite.


----------



## Jammer (13 Sep 2009)

Perhaps he should save some food for the starving masses...he obviously is eating more than his fair share.


----------

