michael moore is so gross

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

I am.

from my first post on this board until present (in which you were nice to me) you've always been an utterly useless presence.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

Don't confuse the man with the message.

I'm not. It's just that I can't help comparing Moore to another famous critic of American life, who was no less fat and no less irreverent... Bill Gaines, founder and editor of MAD magazine.

But what a difference.

First of all, Gaines and his "regular bunch of idiots" were often very critical of the USA, including being critical of its wars (Vietnam in particular), but they loved their country.

Moore hates it.

Gaines knew how to be critical not only of one side (although God knows MAD loved to skewer conservatives) but also of the other side (e.g., they skewed hippies and "Drug culture" guys as well).

Moore only criticizes his "enemies", while everything the other side does--the "other side" including also Hussein and bin Laden, not only hippies--is just fine, or at least ignored.

Gaines' "usual gang of idiots" was witty and its satire was, of course, always funny even when making a serious point. Off the top of my head, consider their skewering of racists in two cases: their "sing along with MAD" about race relations in the 1960s ("The Negro we Hired", sung to the tune of "The Girl that I Marry", etc.) and the Mad book about American racists ("See the American Nazi. He wears a Hitler mustache... and Himmler boots... and a Goering belly...").

Moore is deadly, deadly, deadly serious about everything. Everything is horrible, horrible, horrible and he's the world last, great hope against Bush and the undead. Not one laugh in his movies.

Gaines was self-depreciating and had a great sense of humor about himself as well as about others. He couldn't care less about formalities, and (as Dick Debartolo says in his book, "Good Days and MAD") never imagined that MAD magazine, or his position as its editor, had any pull.

Moore is a self-important egomaniac.

Gaines gave credit to co-workers and others who made the magazine a success. He rarely, if ever, took credit for his brilliance of putting the "usual gang of idiots" together and usually said it was all their doing--which, of course, wasn't true.

Ever heard of Moore giving co-credit to ANYBODY else for ANYTHING?

I could go on. No, it's not that Moore is fat that's the problem. Gaines was even fatter. It's not that Moore criticizes the right that is the problem. MAD did it (and still does) all the time (although, to be fair, since Gaines' death in 1994--and the recent deaths of Antonio Prohitas, Dave Berg, and George Woodbridge--it hasn't been nearly as good or popular.)

There is the old saying, "you should not judge people by how they look on the outside". True. But, when someone is good on the inside--like Gaines was--it is easy to ignore his physical ugliness; it doesn't matter and you hardly notice it. When someone is revoluting on the inside--like Moore--the physical ugliness tends to become emphasized, for some reason.

I don't know why. But that's the way it is, with me at least.

So......... 43-man squamish, anyone?

 

[coalesce]

Excellent point, Skeptic. I never thought of putting Michael Moore and William Gaines in the same sentence, but it's appropriate.

I think what's different between the two was the subtle difference in their respective agendas. Moore's is to attack what sees as being wrong (mainly the right wing) and Gaines' was to attack what he saw as being wrong (everything!) Moore paints his enemies as evil (which they may well be) and Gaines painted them as being every bit as absurd as they really were, irrespective of their political bent. Moore ought to also go after the left with equal fervor as the right, but then that would alienate his main support base.

Honestly, I would be more supportive of Moore were he more even-handed in his attacks. And I wouldn't mind seeing a right-wing documentarian go after the left because they could use a humbling or two as well. But if what Moore is presenting is fact (and I think there may be a lot of uncomfortable facts contained in this film), then I think the film should stand on its' merits, and not be weighed down by the filmmakers' baggage.

Michael

 

[Skeptic]

But if what Moore is presenting is fact (and I think there may be a lot of uncomfortable facts contained in this film), then I think the film should stand on its' merits, and not be weighed down by the filmmakers' baggage.

True. The problem is, however, that Moore's film tend to be so distorted and one-sided as to be more or less worthless as documentaries. As Christopher Hitchens said, it is one thing for a documentary to have a point of view, quite another to "argue" for the point of view by using innuendo, distortions, and ignoring of anything that doesn't fit.

Consider, for instance, the scene where Moore splices photographs of Iraqi children playing in a playground with Bush speaking for war with Iraq. The insinuation is very clear: Bush is there to attack these innocent children, who were living happily and without fear in Saddam's Iraq. This sort of thing, so obviously distortive, is self-defeating since even the dimmest bulb in the audience would instantly realize "laughing and playing children peacefully together" is not, exactly, an accurate depiction of Saddam's Iraq (especially if you happen to be a Kurdish child...) and that the American invasion was not likely to target children in playgrounds. Remember the "human shields" idiots--those "leftists activists" who flew in to Baghdad to serve as "human shields" in hospirals and schools... only to beat a hasty retreat back to Europe when it became clear Saddam wanted to use them as shields in factories and army bases, instead? Clearly they knew very well that being a human shield in a hospital or school is not dangerous since it's not going to be a target. So does Moore, of course.

If the description of the scene by the reviewers is accurate, it reminds me of the scene in "Bowling for Columbine" where Moore claims that there is a hysterical reaction in the media to a coming invasion of "killer African bees", insisting that the "real" cause of the panic among "middle (read: white) America" is that these are AFRICAN bees, and that that middle America is driven by the "corporate media" to fear African bees as violent and dangerous for the same reason (in Moore's view) that middle America is conditioned to fear African people as violent and dangerous. Apparently, Americans during that panic were acting in a "racist" manner toward the poor, misunderstood bees. Go figure.

It is this sort of thing, which Moore cannot resist, that makes his documentaries worthless. When "The was was a bad idea!" becomes "The war was a conspiracy against peaceful children by the evil corporate media to control the world, and by the way, they're out to get rid of superflous black people by killing them in Iraq as soldiers"; when "the media encourages false panics" become "the media brainwashes white people to hold racist views about bees!", you lose whatever truth there is in the original statement by the over-the-top insanity of the puffed-up statement.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

from my first post on this board until present (in which you were nice to me) you've always been an utterly useless presence.

Coming from an idiot like you, I will wear that as a badge of honor.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

michael moore is not credible and that has nothing to do with his weight.

what a fat slob.

I wouldnt say anything if he hadnt gone to great lengths to photoshop his fat ass back to skinny somehow on his book covers and movie posters...

Setting aside the unsupported "photoshop" contention, which is it: his credibility "has nothing to do with his weight," or--by dint of your mentioning it in the first place--it does?

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

(homophobic blather snipped)

This is a warning to you that this post is in violation of the jerk rule. This is your official warning. Further violations could lead to your being suspended from the forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kittynh

For the sake of newbies who might be wondering why there is not a more widespread response...

This American character is a known commodity here -- a commonplace, gollum-like, low intellect troll.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

I have just come to realize that I feel much the same way about your posts (Skeptic) as I do about Michael Moore's films... except he's got that whole "comedy" thing to his work and he's upfront about his work being biased.

I've read some really insightful things in your posts which I enjoyed and which gave me pause to think... and then I get disappointed because your personal opinion is so blatent and your arguments so one-sided that I fear you've lost any hope of making a lasting contribution. A regular Michael Moore Jr... except Michael really does make funny films and he's constantly reminding people that this is not supposed to be a fair and balanced thesis for any review board.

(snip)... but they loved their country.

Moore hates it.

Moore hates his country? Where you been? He's working his @rse off to save it... or at least in his opinion he is... and that's what you're commenting on... his feelings.... his feelings of.. love.. patriotism.. etc. What would cause you to speak for his feelings and to say something so backward? Same old, same old McCarthyism? I've seen you write insightful things before... I know you aren't thick... why write something you have to know is such a blatent lie and outright manure? It confuses me.

(snip)

the "other side" including also Hussein and bin Laden, not only hippies--is just fine, or at least ignored.

And this sickness... to list people on the "other side" of Bush and his pals and you list Hussein (supported and kept in power by Reagan and Bush1 until he invaded Kuwait) and bin Laden (family friend of Bush himself)... oh, and hippies... which we can all assume means the moderates and liberals who don't support the far-right.

This is like being mad about a Ronald Reagan war bonds film-short because the war department only criticizes its "enemies", while everything the other side does--the "other side" including also Mussolini and ToJo, not only the Allies--is just fine, or at least ignored. (The statement doesn't make any sense at all.)

(snip)

Moore is deadly, deadly, deadly serious about everything. Everything is horrible, horrible, horrible and he's the world last, great hope against Bush and the undead. Not one laugh in his movies.

OK, this at least is just a difference of opinion. I laugh when I see a traveling mosh pit visiting presidential candidates and the different ways they react to it. But I'm like most Americans... my sense of humor may not be that sophisticated... but we like MM.

(snip)
he couldn't care less about formalities, and (as Dick Debartolo says in his book, "Good Days and MAD") never imagined that MAD magazine, or his position as its editor, had any pull.

He didn't. They didn't. And have you ever seen Michael Moore? He's not exactly a guy who cares about formalities... no matter how many times people at the desk explain the "proper" way to reach a CEO... he just sits down on the couch in the lobby. Seriously, you aren't even trying to make sense, are you?

(snip)

Gaines gave credit to co-workers and others who made the magazine a success. He rarely, if ever, took credit for his brilliance of putting the "usual gang of idiots" together and usually said it was all their doing--which, of course, wasn't true.

Ever heard of Moore giving co-credit to ANYBODY else for ANYTHING?

See? What're you thinking when you type this stuff? Have you watched any of the films or televisions shows? Watch how he treats staff. Watch to see how he credits all the great people doing the work. If nothing else... try listening to the commentary tracks on Bowling for Columbine. He didn't do any... there IS a full commentary... but it's not him. He said he had his chance to express himself, so he let the interns and receptionist and other junior staff do the entire commentary by themselves. Have you ever heard of any other person in any form of media doing anything else like that? "lots of (any)s thrown in to make your choice of contrary examples easier"

(snip)

I have to admit that I think I'm wrong.
Your post does not have that much in common with Michael's work afterall. He's far more even-handed and openminded than you have been. He's far more fair to Bush and presents far more accurate statements than you do. I'm very disappointed.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

Who's laughing now?

I am.

Ya, you probably are....

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

I've read some really insightful things in your {Skeptic's} posts which I enjoyed and which gave me pause to think... and then I get disappointed because your personal opinion is so blatent and your arguments so one-sided...

I have a question. Does the one-sidedness of Skeptics arguments affect their validity or soundness?

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

Rush has at least slimmed down a lot over the years. Whether or not this is related to his admitted drug problem, I have no idea.

I don't understand how any skeptic could support Moore. He's been busted so many times for deception and misrepresenting situations in his film.

If you want to make a documentary about something that supports your political views, by all means do it. But have some integrity and don't cop out thinking the ends justify the means.

Because a man that slings feces, even for a noble cause, at the end of the day is still covered in feces himself.

Is it a deception to run a clip of Bush kissing up to his rich pals? The 'Haves' and the 'Have-Mores'? His 'base'? I agree he creatively edits, and the silly thing is, if you are doing a documentary of a President, there is enough material out there that you don't need to.

I think his Bush-hating clouded his film-making judgement. Me, I'm voting for Kodos.

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Setting aside the unsupported "photoshop" contention, which is it: his credibility "has nothing to do with his weight," or--by dint of your mentioning it in the first place--it does?

This post is about how fat and slobbish he is.

Im not talking about his half-truths and lies.

Im simply talking about how fat and slobbish the guy is.

you're just confusing yourself again in an effort to appear intelligent Im guessing.

you dont think he photoshopped his face and fat ass on the cover of 'Dude....." ?

come on........just look at it

 

[The Don]

What's the date on your picture ?

I know M lost a lot of weight (> 50lbs) at one point and seems from some pictures to have kept it off

Maybe he's less of a"slob" these days

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

What's the date on your picture ?

I know M lost a lot of weight (> 50lbs) at one point and seems from some pictures to have kept it off

Maybe he's less of a"slob" these days

this is from the cannes film festival

compare it to his book cover

the guy is a slob and photoshop isnt going to cover that up

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

I have a question. Does the one-sidedness of Skeptics arguments affect their validity or soundness?

Thank you for a valid and relevant question. I appreciate it.


No.
The one-sidedness of Skeptics arguments does not affect their validity or their soundness.

 

[Renfield]

Hitchens also made a big point about Richard Clarke authorizing the flights of the Bin Laden's out of this country. Here's what Clarke actually said:

“The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it -- or not. I spoke with at that time the number two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight.”

- Richard Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 Commission regarding Bin Laden’s family being aided by the government to leave the USA on 9/11, March 24, 2004

Got this from the Howard Sterne show website btw. We are living in a bazarro world when entertainers like Stern have to dispell myths put forward by the "reputable" (ie corporate) media.

 

[Renfield]

This post is about how fat and slobbish he is.

Ok, you got me! Hitchens did get one thing right! Of course, it was something that everyone with eyes to see knew about, but I guess that's something!

 

[Tony]

.

 

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

(polite bit snipped)

No.
The one-sidedness of S's arguments does not affect their validity or their soundness.

Of course, the factual errors and gross misrepresentations, on the other hand, do affect their validity and their soundness.

In my post I refer to his one-sided arguments as a common trait he holds with Michael Moore and how that disappoints me (from both of them). The strong bias/advocacy he displays is enmeshed in the factual errors and gross misrepresentations I discuss throughout the body of the post, so it's not worth mentioning in that. And finally, I mention that at least Michael Moore is actively promoting his film as an "Op-Ed Piece" and not as a scholarly work, while S isn't that clear... this forum is primarily a place for critical judgements afterall.

But to be fair and to be clear:
No, the one-sidedness of his arguments does not affect their validity or their soundness. It was the factual errors and gross misrepresentations that did that.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

Of course, the factual errors and gross misrepresentations, on the other hand, do affect their validity and their soundness.

In my post I refer to his one-sided arguments as a common trait he holds with Michael Moore and how that disappoints me (from both of them). The strong bias/advocacy he displays is enmeshed in the factual errors and gross misrepresentations I discuss throughout the body of the post, so it's not worth mentioning in that. And finally, I mention that at least Michael Moore is actively promoting his film as an "Op-Ed Piece" and not as a scholarly work, while S isn't that clear... this forum is primarily a place for critical judgements afterall.

But to be fair and to be clear:
No, the one-sidedness of his arguments does not affect their validity or their soundness. It was the factual errors and gross misrepresentations that did that.

My only problem with your post was the part I questioned. While I do not share or accept your position on Skeptic's posts, you are entitled to your opinion.

Thank you for the response.