nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Micheal Moore, fat clown or champion of truth?

lastlaugh

I noticed somebody posted a link to a Micheal Moore video recently.

Personnally, I can't stand him. I watched Bowling for Columbine when it was out and found him most annoying.

I think he a big fat mess who needs to shave and get some exercise.

Charlton Heston would have been well within his rights to kick his fat ass out the door for setting him up like he did.

Also that free gun when you open a bank account thing was staged.

Anyway, what do you think of him and his documentories?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

old hippy

whiteonion wrote: »

Of course Michael Moore simplifies things, most Americans lack the proper education to understand information unless you dumb it down to the lowest common denomitator.

Sweeping generalisations are a product of dumbing down, in my book.

KeithAFC

Biggins wrote: »

He's not perfect but at least he is a voice that is still opposing spun versions of events by state heads and bodies.
As long as there is someone like him to question and someone to stand up for those that need help, who am I to say the man is totally wrong and say he should stop?

Just because he might ask questions, doesn't mean much or that he knows much.

dark crystal

sock puppet wrote: »

Well I suppose American leaders lie enough so what's the harm if a filmaker does it so he can make more money?

Damn right. It's time we started getting tough on the sick and infirm.

Heston didn't seem so sick and infirm during those gun rallies.....

Hookah

He is prone to hyperbole and a bit of exaggeration, but it's for a good cause, so he get's my vote.

thebostoncrab

Gnobe wrote: »

Charlton Heston was the head of the NRA, the association that was promoting gun culture at rallys nearby right after columbine, and many other shootings across the country. Can't he answer tough questions? Moore was well in his rights to ask him, since nobody else does probably.

Hestons alzheimers was becoming noticable around the time. I agree with alot of what MM has to say, but that interview was low. Do I agree with the NRA coming in after Columbine and other gun related tragedies and doing pro-gun rallies? No, but two wrongs do not make a right.

sock puppet

old hippy wrote: »

These lies and propaganda; would that be according to Republicans, Tea Party types and PNAC folk?

No these would be the lies in his documentaries. Juts because you're blinded by politics doesn't mean everyone else is. You shouldn't project your own flaws onto others.

Biggins

KeithAFC wrote: »

Just because he might ask questions, doesn't mean much or that he knows much.

True - however in some subjects he, himself is very well versed in topics - as we all are in our own areas.
...And at least he and similar are willing to prise under covers and get alternative answers too.

Its that or be left in the darkness of a one-side spin.
At least with another view - regardless of who throws it out there - allows the ability of further independent assessment and thought.
Not just be treated as a mindless drone and made swallow just one version/spin of events.

whiteonion

KeithAFC wrote: »

Just because he might ask questions, doesn't mean much or that he knows much.

http://www.livescience.com/3211-14-percent-adults-read.html

"Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills. "
What I say holds true.

Does this sound like a population who are educated and clued up about things in general?

dark crystal

sock puppet wrote: »

No these would be the lies in his documentaries. Juts because you're blinded by politics doesn't mean everyone else is. You shouldn't project your own flaws onto others.

What lies did he tell exactly?

OutlawPete

Biggins wrote: »

...And Fox news to boot!

Just as much truth on Fox, as there is on Sky, NBC and the rest of the liberal left leaning media moguls.

Biggins wrote: »

If someone like Moore is willing to at least question their schite, I say fair play.
...At least one more is doing it.

He isn't just 'questioning' it though, if that was all, I would agree with you, but he puts massive spin on almost everything he presents to the public.

old hippy

sock puppet wrote: »

Damn right. It's time we started getting tough on the sick and infirm.

That's exactly what I said to that Simon Wiesenthal

lastlaugh

actuallylike wrote: »

Interesting, you ask what do we think about his documentaries and you just go on about his appearance and speaking manner. What did you think of the content of his documentaries or was he too annoying and fat to understand?

As annoying or overweight as you think he may be, have a look at this speech he gave in Wisconsin, amazing speaker!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw

My personal insults towards him are a result of my revulsion at his sickening methods, I mean look at him shuffling around the place waving the picture of the little girl after ambushing Heston http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50

He might have some valid points somewhere but the good is taken out of it by his 'editing'.

KeithAFC

whiteonion wrote: »

http://www.livescience.com/3211-14-percent-adults-read.html

"Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills. "
What I say holds true.

Does this sound like a population who are educated and clued up about things in general?

I find that hard to believe to be honest. People see "science" and think of "fact".

whiteonion

KeithAFC wrote: »

I find that hard to believe to be honest. People see "science" and think of "fact".

It was released by their own department for education. Why would they want to exaggerate this figures? Anyways back to the main topic. Michael Moore says that right wingers don't want to hear so instead they stoop to character assasination and calls him a fat pig. Shooting the messenger is very popular activity amongst these "people".

Biggins

OutlawPete wrote: »

Just as much truth on Fox, as there is on Sky, NBC and the rest of the liberal left leaning media moguls.

No - totally wrong.
Fox news is so bad, for example: its banned from televising in Canada as its news actually breaks the laws there.
See:
* http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html
* http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/174824-fox-news-banned-canada.html
* http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/?p=4240

Other news networks do put their own spin on things but Fox news has been recognised as producing MANY outright blatant complete lies.

He isn't just 'questioning' it though, if that was all, I would agree with you, but he puts massive spin on almost everything he presents to the public.

He does put his own spin on some items but while he does so, he ALSO produces independent evidence and allows the viewer/listener to decide with an alternative choice or come to a conclusion that the truth might lie somewhere in between.

ScumLord

He uses all the dark sides of journalism to get his point across, I wouldn't agree with his methods but they are the American way he's pulling on the heart strings just like all journalists in America do, I guess it's what works in the US.

I don't see what he looks like has anything to do with it.

old hippy

sock puppet wrote: »

No these would be the lies in his documentaries. Juts because you're blinded by politics doesn't mean everyone else is. You shouldn't project your own flaws onto others.

You assume a lot, don't you? Please stop spreading your insidious lies and propaganda about me.

What documentary lies would these be, exactly?

Biggins

I find Moore irritating to say the least at times but at least he willing to uncover lies which some would rather stay hidden and allow the masses to be abused otherwise.
As the saying goes, sometimes 'a necessary evil!'

old hippy

whiteonion wrote: »

http://www.livescience.com/3211-14-percent-adults-read.html

"Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills. "
What I say holds true.

Does this sound like a population who are educated and clued up about things in general?

There's over 200 million in the States. 32 million people isn't most Americans.

Do the math, O educated one.

thebostoncrab

old hippy wrote: »

You assume a lot, don't you? Please stop spreading your insidious lies and propaganda about me.

What lies would these be, exactly?

Name a film, he has plenty of examples of spinning in most of them (Columbine being the worst).

And I'll again say this, I agree with alt of what Moore says, however I hate how he goes about it and how he spins alot of ****.

Duggy747

Biggins wrote: »

I find Moore irritating to say the least at times but at least he willing to uncover lies which some would rather stay hidden and allow the masses to be abused otherwise.
As the saying goes, sometimes 'a necessary evil!'

Willing, yes, which I don't have a problem with myself. I commend that sort of attitude but I don't like to have facts or points stretched to gain my attention by any docu-maker.

For me, it cheapens the case and makes me wonder how much truth am I actually being told. Funny how it works like that on both sides of the spectrum :pac:

sock puppet

old hippy wrote: »

You assume a lot, don't you? Please stop spreading your insidious lies and propaganda about me.

What documentary lies would these be, exactly?

Lol. Why bring up Fox News then? Why would I want to spread propaganda about you? This is the first (I think?) time that I've ever encountered you I believe.

Moore claims in his documentary that Bin Laden used his "expert CIA training" to launch his attacks on the World Trade Centres. I'd be oblidged if you could find proof of this.

Biggins

Duggy747 wrote: »

Willing, yes, which I don't have a problem with myself. I commend that sort of attitude but I don't like to have facts or points stretched to gain my attention by any docu-maker.

For me, it cheapens the case and makes me wonder how much truth am I actually being told. Funny how it works like that on both sides of the spectrum :pac:

Merit in what you say but again I say that at lest he or his ilk is producing alternative views.
We are then (if we are non-lazy enough) are able to at least look at different sides and come to our own conclusions.

We might come to the conclusion that Moore is off his head on a rant about something but we might also decide that he has exposed some underlying truths too!
(...And you can be sure, somewhere some good investigative journalists will take advantage of such further material and run with it hopefully)

I would rather Moore continue in what he does (I might not like his methods of getting it across to say the least sometimes) than have him silenced.

Biggins

sock puppet wrote: »

Moore claims in his documentary that Bin Laden used his "expert CIA training" to launch his attacks on the World Trade Centres. I'd be obliged if you could find proof of this.

Its on record even by the CIA that they trained and funded his men during the Afgan war with the Russians and their occupation of that country.
This is WELL, WELL known.

See:
* http://www.futurepower.net/paz/cia_trained_bin_laden.htm
* http://www.rense.com/general71/al.htm

Now others say different and say its all spin. Only to be expected to be honest.

Edit: Just a quick follow up...

In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by the country's already repressive government.
PDPA chose a radical land reform that ultra-selected peasants, trade union rights, etc. The PDPA supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.
These ideas enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment, many mullahs are/ were also big landlords and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organising resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington feared spread of Soviet influence to its allies in Pakistan, Iran,etc and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.
(Remember the trial of Oliver North?)

Following an internal PDPA struggle in December 1979, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This hardened the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy and the commoners supported them subsequently.

Between 1978 and 1992, besides on the ground help, the US its said funded alone at least US$6 billion (some say up to $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions.

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was organised by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. The plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw but also it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilise the Soviet Union.
(look how that turned out and bite the whole world in the ass!)

Brzezinski's grand plan coincided with the then Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq's own ambitions to dominate the region. Washington's liked mujaheddin faction for example was one of the then most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's dislike for terrorism/some methods did not apply to this unsavoury “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

The eventual CIA trained/backed mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992 (forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city killing at least 2000 civilians) and eventually the Russians pulled out and ran out of the country completely within days.
What was left behind was to some great extent a huge dis-organised vacuum and subsequently (like post WW2 India/Pakistan time-line and subsequent unrest) political gaps were filled with all-sorts and including the Mujaheddin and later Taliban offshoots.

Thats the short version.

Duggy747

Well, naturally, I prefer he keeps poking a thorn in people's side and bringing things to light for others to carry on with or to work off.

Just in general with many docu-makers I don't like certain methods they use to get their points across, not singling Moore out at all.

old hippy

sock puppet wrote: »

Lol. Why bring up Fox News then? Why would I want to spread propaganda about you? This is the first (I think?) time that I've ever encountered you I believe.

Moore claims in his documentary that Bin Laden used his "expert CIA training" to launch his attacks on the World Trade Centres. I'd be oblidged if you could find proof of this.

Where did I bring up Fox News & how do you know that I'm blinded by politics if you've never encountered me before?

Very odd.

Bin Laden fought in the Mujahadeen against the invading Russians. The rebels were trained and armed by the CIA.

That sounds like training to me...

Biggins

old hippy wrote: »

Where did I bring up Fox News & how do you know that I'm blinded by politics if you've never encountered me before?

Very odd.

Bin Laden fought in the Mujahadeen against the invading Russians. The rebels were trained and armed by the CIA.

That sounds like training to me...

Indeed and sadly in irony, the very same weapons that was given to Bin Laden and co, were eventually turned on American soldiers years later.

...And thats not even getting to the later weapons lost years later!
(http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons/)

sock puppet

old hippy wrote: »

Where did I bring up Fox News & how do you know that I'm blinded by politics if you've never encountered me before?

Very odd.

Bin Laden fought in the Mujahadeen against the invading Russians. The rebels were trained and armed by the CIA.

That sounds like training to me...

Sorry my mistake it was the Tea Party. Still though I don't see why questioning Michael Moore automatically makes someone a Republican supporter?

Yes the CIA funded the Mujahadeen. It's been disputed that Bin Laden received training. Maybe he did, but why didn't Moore aknowledge that this was by no means an irrefutable fact?

df1985

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4

Panthro

Or champion of the fat clowns, ahh who knows.