• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

michael moore is so gross

Michael Moore is overweight, ergo he makes bad films.

Hmm.... well, guess we gotta toss out the entire works of Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles....bad movie makers all (fat).
 
Nie Trink Wasser said:
he's one of the pigs in the book animal farm.

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...

"But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."

hitchens
Click to expand...

You see him? That's you, that is.

Seriously, though, Trinky, what do you look like? Show some balls for once in your life and post a pic of yourself. It's obviously important when it comes to assessing the credibility of one's views.
 
How could any skeptic support Michael Moore? What is this, a religion now?

"Ye holy group of skeptics, those who share the sacred opinions of James Randi and Penn and Teller regarding films, must all agree that certain movies are SINFUL to watch...for they contain NOT the authorized truth."

Believe me, if I didn't like the show "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" so much, I would gladly call to attention a number of incidents where Penn and Teller manipulate the facts to suite their needs. Hmm, that second-hand smoke episode comes to mind...

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Randi and P & T, but there is no obligation to share their opinions on everything.
 
Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

The Central Scrutinizer said:


He's an award winning film maker and a millionaire. You are a loser. Who's laughing now?
Click to expand...

And he votes. Who's laughing now?
 
Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

Show some balls for once in your life and post a pic of yourself. It's obviously important when it comes to assessing the credibility of one's views. [/B]
Click to expand...


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

oh it shows "balls" to show my picture online ? wow thats a startling revelation.....

I GOTS ME SOME BALLS !

SatanicClaus.jpg
 
:roll: :roll: :roll:

And you had the hide to say John Kerry looked like Lurch!

Oh, my...

It's going to take me a while to clean up all this coffee on my monitor.
 
evilgoldtoesock said:
How could any skeptic support Michael Moore? What is this, a religion now?

"Ye holy group of skeptics, those who share the sacred opinions of James Randi and Penn and Teller regarding films, must all agree that certain movies are SINFUL to watch...for they contain NOT the authorized truth."

Believe me, if I didn't like the show "Bulls**t" so much, I would gladly call to attention a number of incidents where Penn and Teller manipulate the facts to suite their needs. Hmm, that second-hand smoke episode comes to mind...

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Randi and P & T, but there is no obligation to share their opinions on everything.
Click to expand...

Nobody stated such an obligation. I was just under the impression that honesty in the pursuit of one's aims would be high on the list of priorities for a self-professed skeptic.

Otherwise, what's the point in busting frauds if you're participating in fraud yourself?

And would having a shared set of ethics be such a bad thing anyway? What are you, 15, rebelling against 'the establishment'?
 
"If you're going to dedicate your career to ranting about the excesses of American capitalism, you probably shouldn't weigh 450 pounds."
Click to expand...
- Greg Giraldo on Michael Moore


I know his weight doesn't really detract from his filmaking ability or message, I just find this quote funny and think of it every time someone mentions that Moore is fat.
 
Now, don't get me wrong, I love Randi and P & T, but there is no obligation to share their opinions on everything. [/B]
Click to expand...


And that nicely sums up for me what's wrong with the Republican Party: diversity of thought is not allowed. There can be no room for something other than the party line, which has grown more stringent as time has gone on. That's not to say that the Democrats are bastions of free thinkers, but listening to the right wing media--which seems to be dominating the airwaves here in the US, no matter how much they claim that's the media liberally biased--it's so incredibly polarizing. Accept what we tell you or get the hell out the way.

That's democracy?

The idea of saying that Fahrenheit 451 is all propaganda and is all one sided by people who haven't even seen it because it hasn't opened yet, is also ridiculous. It's one thing if you actually see and and say it's a compost heap, but to say that something is garbage without seeing it is a bit closed-minded.

And why pick on Michael Moore's appearance? Because he's fat? He may be arrogant, obnoxious and all that, but don't confuse the man with the message. That's as simplistic as saying you'd rather have a tee-totaling vegetarian for a president as opposed to a boozer or a chain smoker who cheats on his wife as a leader.*

I'm also wondering if the Republicans are afraid of people seeing this. Are they nervous that people may actually take another view in account when making their decision this November? If the Republicans are so sure they are right, then why raise the fuss over a movie that they know to be untrue? Methinks they doth protest too much.

Michael

P.S.

The leaders I was referring to earlier were Hitler (a tee-totaling vegetarian), Churchill (a boozer) and FDR (a chain-smoker who had at least one mistress).
 
I agree with you; I'll probably see it myself.

If Republicans didn't cram xtian morality down our throats, I wouldn't be sitting on the fence for this election.
 
coalesce said:
The idea of saying that Fahrenheit 451 is all propaganda and is all one sided by people who haven't even seen it because it hasn't opened yet, is also ridiculous. It's one thing if you actually see and and say it's a compost heap, but to say that something is garbage without seeing it is a bit closed-minded.
Click to expand...

Pro-pa-gan-da (noun): the spreading of ideas, information, or allegations to further if positive, or damage if negative, a cause; (etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide - congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV)

I'm inclined to think that Moore's new film is anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist propaganda simply because all of his previous films were propaganda of the same vein. I'm pretty sure my assessment will be confirmed when I eventually see it. Like his previous movies, I refuse to pay even $.01 to see his crap - let him get rich off the dems, commies, and greenies.
 
Re: Re: michael moore is so gross

The Central Scrutinizer said:


He's an award winning film maker and a millionaire.
Click to expand...

Indeed so. "Let me show you the awful things capitalistic greed does as I side with the poor workers" had done wonders to Moore's bank account, let alone his lifestyle. Think there were many workers and poor in five-star hotel he stayed in during the Cannes festival, except for the servants?

What is sad about Moore is that he had the potential to be so much more than the hypocrticial, self-important schmuck that he in fact became. He made the artistically catastrophical (if financially brilliant) mistake of becoming a "brand name" for a particular kind of "counterculture". After becoming a franchise this way, he can no longer risk the loss of his audience, by making complicated movies that even attempts objectivity.

He knows what he needs to do: his potential audience wants Bush- and capitalist-bashing, and that's what they're going to get. Any other viewpoint, even as something to disagree with, is automatically off the film--not so much, I think, as a sinister conspiracy on Moore's part, but as not fitting with the "brand name".
 
Tony said:


Like Ken Lay? Halliburton? Or is it only "good" to cheat your way to wealth if you are a lefty?
Click to expand...

Are you now admitting that there is wrong-doing on the part of the Bush administration and Hiliburton?
 
Kodiak said:


Pro-pa-gan-da (noun): the spreading of ideas, information, or allegations to further if positive, or damage if negative, a cause; (etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide - congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV)

I'm inclined to think that Moore's new film is anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist propaganda simply because all of his previous films were propaganda of the same vein. I'm pretty sure my assessment will be confirmed when I eventually see it. Like his previous movies, I refuse to pay even $.01 to see his crap - let him get rich off the dems, commies, and greenies.
Click to expand...

But at least you're willing to see it. Even if you have a preconceived notion of what the movie will be like, and are pretty sure that your opinion won't change, at least you're willing to take a chance to see it. I'd rather that than a political party trying to suppress a movie becuase it shows a viewpoint they may not like.

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

Skeptic said:


Indeed so. "Let me show you the awful things capitalistic greed does as I side with the poor workers" had done wonders to Moore's bank account, let alone his lifestyle. Think there were many workers and poor in five-star hotel he stayed in during the Cannes festival, except for the servants?

What is sad about Moore is that he had the potential to be so much more than the hypocrticial, self-important schmuck that he in fact became. He made the artistically catastrophical (if financially brilliant) mistake of becoming a "brand name" for a particular kind of "counterculture". After becoming a franchise this way, he can no longer risk the loss of his audience, by making complicated movies that even attempts objectivity.

He knows what he needs to do: his potential audience wants Bush- and capitalist-bashing, and that's what they're going to get. Any other viewpoint, even as something to disagree with, is automatically off the film--not so much, I think, as a sinister conspiracy on Moore's part, but as not fitting with the "brand name".
Click to expand...

There is so much truth is what you say. Had he been a bit humbler, a bit more under-the-radar personality-wise, and allowed his work to stand on its own merits, a thread like this probably wouldn't exist.

Don't confuse the man with the message.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom