• 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.

Moore the Fool

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

a_unique_person said:
The problem people have with him is not that they can see errors in his work, but that so much of it is true.

Amen AUP.

If I become a rightwing shill of dishonesty can I get lots of govt contracts (assuming the rightwing nuts retain power)?

Is there some secrect RNC memo that tells it's minions to go out and trash Michael Moore? If the "right" believes their message is the "true" message, why do they rely on attacking the left rather than promoting all the "good" that they have done for america?

Charlie (off to see F911 soon) Monoxide
 
Emphasis mine:

The Fool said:
Just saw the film....won't tell you how on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.

Its a major Bush bashing, roughly equivalent to the bashing Moore gets from Bush-ites. As I will never understand how such a person became the President of such a great nation I won't comment any further . Except to say, see the film....its not what you may expect. I was quite disturbed by some things I saw, and they were not fabrications or lies. They were opinion, one mans opinion.

I have to agree with this. I saw the film last weekend and it seems to me that the right wing shills that have been bashing Moore since before the movie came out must have been watching a completely different movie (oh wait....they haven't seen it at all!)
I didn't find the movie angry at all. There was no shouting, no ranting, no incitment to burn down the white house, no calling Bush the anti-christ. The entire movie was a mostly poignant reflection on what has happened over the last four years.
There are facts presented in the movie and they have been checked and rechecked for accuracy. Then there are Moore's own opinions which he really doesn't force on anybody (IMO). He presents the facts in a manner which supports his own conclusions (would you expect anybody to anything else?) and offers his opinion of what it means but he doesn't forcefully assert his opinion as the truth.
It presents some unplesantly brutal images at some points (IMHO the R rating is justified) making it hard to watch those parts while it is really very funny at other points.
 
Random said:
I have been reading much of the right-wing commentary on Moore’s new film (which I have not seen yet) and have noticed a few trends.

First, I have noticed that many of the more vocal F911 haters have not actually seen the film, and they are quite proud of it. “I am not going to give dime one to Moore to have him lie to me for two hours”, seems to be the consensus. Nevertheless, these people seem to be the ones who are most adamant about what a horrible film this is.

The second thing I have noticed is that few people are attacking the accuracy of the facts presented in Moore’s current film. Other than a great deal of yelling about whether or not members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to fly before anyone else in America or out of the country (which Moore apparently got technically right, although I understand he does leave a false impression), most of the arguments against the new film seem to amount to a few dozen variations of “Michael Moore is biased/opinionated/fat”.

I don’t find that really surprising, after getting hammered on Bowling for Columbine, Moore almost certainly went over this film with a fine tooth comb looking to weed out anything that was not technically true. I seriously doubt he allowed anything in the film that the nitpicker crowd could hammer him on this time.

I will probably have more to say after I have actually seen the film.

Bravo! The Weinsteins hired the fact checker from the _New Yorker_ and had five or six others vet the film.

You see, when Moore creates what might be interpreted as a false impression, his opponents go absolutely nuts. He's lying to the people. Now, when the Bush administration continually gives the impression that 9/11 and Iraq are inextricably linked -- apparently even says so explicitly in a letter to Congress -- and over 50% of the population buys it, then... change the subject, please.

Moore has called the film an Op-ed. You don't have to agree with everything he says. In fact I was interviewed by a newspaper afterward and said the movie was "not coherent" because he skips around to throw a lot of stuff at Bush. Whether it's right or wrong, people are naturally more trusting of their <strike>elected</strike> leaders.
 
Re: Re: Moore the Fool

EvolveNow said:


it always gives me a chuckle to read or listen to some non-sensical doofus attack a book or movie or TV show without them ever having seen it.

You really should change your avatar if you want to be taken seriously. Making yourself appear to be a cranky pot-head will do little towards making others believe that you have credibility.


And what really puts me on the floor is the fact that you haven't seen the thing so you simply go out and search for other's opinions to co-opt for yourself. Here's an idea!....Why don't you get your lazy a** out to the theatre and see the thing so you can form an opinion allllll your own....or you could simply continue blithering on like an uniformed dolt.

Well, being as RT has an actual J-O-B that takes him long hard miles from home I doubt he could be termed as "lazy". Not only that, those of us who do actually work for a living prize our free time. Wasting a couple of hours time, as well as giving $8 to a rich polemicist, would make dolts of us indeed....but I doubt we'd be better informed.

I put it to you that I do not NEED to see F911 to know enough about it to elect not to see it. I (and you I bet) do this all the time. For example, I dearly wanted to see "Troy" until it was savaged by the critics. As my money and time are precious to me I hate to spend either to see a "dog" at the theatre where even a humble diet coke will set me back $3!

Of course I don't need to see a Moore film to know that I don't need to see a Moore film! I also have never been to Tokyo, and yet it is my informed opinion that it is peopled primarily by those of Japanese descent. I have never been to the moon, and yet I know without going that it's not made of quicksand or green cheese. Just because a person has not experienced something firsthand does not mean they may not form an a-priori opinion of it.

Ahhh yes the oft quoted Mr. Hitchens...the official mouthpiece of the Power Vocabulary club. Hitchens has a real talent for burying his point among so many poly-syllabic, arcane words that I find him somewhat difficult to read. In fact, in my opinion Hitchens is a knee-jerk reactionary and a simple contrarian. If you told Hitchens that water is wet, he would come up with an angry piece stating how in fact water is not wet and he is the only one who knows the truth about it. Ya, I don't care for the man or his ramblings. BUT I make every effort to read what he has to say regardless of how I feel about it. I like to at least be informed about the things that I bitch about/disagree with. Could you possibly do me the favour of informing yourself before you condemn something RT? Couldja? Huh?

M

Your ad-hominum @ Hitchens contributes nothing to your post, besides making you appears again to be a cranky pot-head. Why don't you find something besides cheap old Mexican ragweed, it might give you a more mellow buzz....as well as a more polite and mature demeanor.

-z
 
Now these are strange times...I find that I totally agree with Rikzilla...

...and with Roadtoad, of course, which is not so strange at all.
 
Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

rikzilla said:

For example, I dearly wanted to see "Troy" until it was savaged by the critics. As my money and time are precious to me I hate to spend either to see a "dog" at the theatre where even a humble diet coke will set me back $3!

Well you missed out there too then. I quite enjoyed "Troy" myself. It wasn't excellent or a classic but it was good summer movie fun. As for the over priced diet coke, buy one somewhere else and sneak it in.
Nobodies saying you HAVE to go see F9/11 to decide if you want to watch it or not. They are saying you have to see F9/11 before you can try and debate the content or merits or the film.
Now I fully expect you to argue with me that "Troy" was crap even though you didn't see it. :D
 
Ahhh yes the oft quoted Mr. Hitchens...the official mouthpiece of the Power Vocabulary club. Hitchens has a real talent for burying his point among so many poly-syllabic, arcane words that I find him somewhat difficult to read.

Not exactly the most devastating criticism of a journalist I've ever read.

Shame, shame on you, Hitchens, you polysyllabilic writer, you.
 
Random said:
I have been reading much of the right-wing commentary on Moore’s new film (which I have not seen yet) and have noticed a few trends.

You do realize that at least some of the commentary (on here at least, probably elsewhere too) comes from people on the "left", yet who strongly disagree with Moore's use of facts in his films.

Random said:
First, I have noticed that many of the more vocal F911 haters have not actually seen the film, and they are quite proud of it. “I am not going to give dime one to Moore to have him lie to me for two hours”, seems to be the consensus. Nevertheless, these people seem to be the ones who are most adamant about what a horrible film this is.

First of all, people do have a right to boycott products or companies they disagree with.

Secondly, you have to separate out why people are criticizing a film. I have not seen Bowling for Columbine, as a result I have no right to comment on how entertaining it is, how well filmed it is, etc. However, I have seen information in the media (mainstream media that is) about the film's content to know that there were problems with some of the facts presented in the movie.

If its a documentary, then having incorrect facts does make a movie "horrible" (whereas a drama or action movie does not have the same requirements.)

Now, at this point I don't know enough about the content of F 9/11 to know if he presented incorrect facts. Perhaps he got things right. I resever judgement for now.

Random said:

I don’t find that really surprising, after getting hammered on Bowling for Columbine, Moore almost certainly went over this film with a fine tooth comb looking to weed out anything that was not technically true. I seriously doubt he allowed anything in the film that the nitpicker crowd could hammer him on this time.

Well, one of the frustrating things is, Moore doesn't have a problem with the "facts" in Bowling for Columbine. Had he come out and said "yes, we got some things wrong", or "we had to leave out some stuff to make the movie flow better" I'd have no problem. But, instead he attributes criticism to some "right wing republicans", which does nothing to address the criticisms that were brought up.
 
from EvolveNow:
Ahhh yes the oft quoted Mr. Hitchens...the official mouthpiece of the Power Vocabulary club. Hitchens has a real talent for burying his point among so many poly-syllabic, arcane words that I find him somewhat difficult to read. In fact, in my opinion Hitchens is a knee-jerk reactionary and a simple contrarian.
Could not agree more. A total waste of a good mind.

I haven't seen the film (we'll get it out on video, wide-screen isn't where I want to see Michael Moore. The new Arthur film, that I'll go and watch) but I've read a lot of comment on it. What I need is a resume of the factual errors, since I haven't yet sifted any from the mass.
 
CapelDodger said:
What I need is a resume of the factual errors, since I haven't yet sifted any from the mass.

I've seen it (then downloaded it and watched it again), and I don't think you're going to find many factual errors. Any significant ones would have already come out by now.
What you can argue is that Moore creates a false perception and draws invalid conclusions from the facts, which I think is sometimes true of the film. I haven't yet seen that done coherently, but then again I don't keep up with the anti-Moore sites.
 
Before I posted, I seriously was planning on seeing Farenheit 9/11. I honestly wanted to know (1.) what the hell Limbaugh was prating on about, and why he was so hot under the collar, and (2.) why Michael Moore was worth watching at all, because, frankly, I found his flick Roger and Me to be unwatchable.

After reading several critiques of the movie, including Goodman's, (yeah, she's a real right wing shill), I decided I had better ways to spend both my time and money. I don't always agree with people like Richard Cohen or Christopher Hitchens, and there's a hell of a lot of times when I wish like hell they'd shut up, but I'm grateful they DO speak up, because, quite frankly, (hold onto your hats, folks), I AM NOT ALWAYS RIGHT!!! There are, to put it bluntly, times when I AM WRONG!!!

Gee, what a concept! A person who posts on the JREF Forum actually admitting that they don't have all the f***in' answers! Whodathunkit?

What is so damned frustrating about Moore is that, yes, he's extremely intelligent, but because he can't get the facts right, he defeats his purpose. And worst of all for me, there are actually times when I find myself agreeing with Moore, but I can't stand to agree because his proposed solutions are so far out, it's embarassing.

Let me offer you a few examples:

Yes, we have WAY too many guns in America. Last figure I heard from the FBI is that we've got roughly 2.3 guns per person in the United States and its territories. Hell, I don't even own ONE, and you're telling me that we've got enough guns out and about for me to own at least TWO? I've got a brother-in-law who has several, and for a time, I wouldn't let my kids spend any time over at his house until I was damned sure that he had every single one of the things locked up, unloaded, and with the ammo secured well away from the pistols and rifles themselves.

Scary thing was, a few years ago, that the alarm went off in his house. He immediately leaps out of bed, throws a .38 to my sister-in-law and shouts, "SHOOT ANYTHING THAT MOVES!" and crabwalks down the hall with a .45 in his mitts.

Thankfully, the genius forgot to tell my sister-in-law how to reassemble a Colt Python .38. She missed a perfect opportunity. (Nuts....)

I tend to be hot tempered. I don't want a gun in the house because there's a good chance in a moment of rage, I'd pull it out. And once I get to that point, I'd be willing to bet I'd use it.

I'll be with that admission, I've not only done more to encourage gun control than Michael Moore, but I've also protected my Second Amendment rights as well. Considering the controversy over the scene in Bowling for Columbine involving the bank that was "giving away" hunting rifles, (were they or weren't they?), it seems like it would make more sense to encourage responsible gun ownership, or in my case, non-ownership.

I would also say I'm not a big fan of Dubya. If you've read what I've said before about the man, in other threads, you ought to know that by now. There are, in fact, reports of ties on George W. Bush's part to BCCI, and there's serious questions about his service record during Vietnam, (and yes, I demand answers from George the exact same way I demand answers from Bill).

You may or may not recall that I've got a kid who's a Ranger in the U.S. Army. I'm proud of my son, but I am not real happy with the President's claim during the 2000 election that "the cavalry is coming," especially when I watch what's happened with Abu Ghraib, and watching BG Janice Karpinsky's evasions and buck passing. My son sees it daily, and if we get the chance at TAM, I can tell you stories that will put your hair on end. Instead of riding in on a dazzling white stallion, George came in on the back of a Shetland pony.

Yeah, I think we have been lied to about Iraq. Yes, Iraq had ties to terrorists, but that wasn't the only reason we were told we were going in. Don't kid yourselves; Bush graduated from Harvard Business School. Just to get in, you have to be near the top in your college graduating class. This is a very smart man. I find it very difficult to believe that someone in this administration did not know that the intelligence used to put us into this fight was flawed, and badly. You couldn't get past the primaries if you were that dumb!

I'm sorry, but I don't think Moore is helping anyone except Michael Moore. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's call it what it is.
 
Hitchens claims -
"Ann Clwyd MP, the founder of the [U.S. State Dept. funded] organisation Indict, has long been arguing that the British government should be a party to this trial as well".

Hear, hear. Let's charge Tony Newton, the tory minister at the DTI who went to Baghdad mere months after the Halabja atrocity in '88 with £340 million of UK taxpayers money in the form of export credits for that naughty Saddam Hussein. He must have felt really chastened by that punishment.

Newton's guilt is a no-brainer since you are either "for or against" the terrorists and it's rather hard to argue you are against someone to whom you've just offered £340 million on favourable terms. Still, he deserves a fair trial.

After Newton has been dealt with, shouldn't we try every single member of the government involved with the decision to bankroll Saddam Hussein at the height of his atrocities?

Somehow I don't think a power worshipping dolt like Hitchens had that in mind, nor the useful idiot Ann Clwyd.
 
Toad, I don't think you actually said where he was factually wrong. If there is something wrong with Moore, it is that he is an American, that is the way you guys go about things, like it's all showbiz. He just happens to mix his showbiz with his facts.

Here in Australia, we are more in the British tradition, don't make such a song and dance, just present the facts in an interesting way. (Not that cultural imperialism isn't changing that, slowly).

The bank did give out free guns for a new account, that is not in dispute, the only quibble was over how he staged it all. How much is it a matter of handing a gun over a counter to someone, like BFC says, and how much is it different in reality.

I think your real problem is that you are scared of what F911 will show you. As people who have seen it have said, it is a lot more than just an attack on Bush, it also shows the results of his actions at a human level. These people aren't 'facts'.

You appear to be a reasonable, thinking person, who does not swallow the whole gun lobby story uncritically. The issue of what F911 tries to portray with Bush may be just a little frightening for you. Your brother in law making an idiot of himself, you can handle, your elected government doing the same thing is perhaps a little hard to handle.
 
a_unique_person said:
Toad, I don't think you actually said where he was factually wrong. If there is something wrong with Moore, it is that he is an American, that is the way you guys go about things, like it's all showbiz. He just happens to mix his showbiz with his facts.

Here in Australia, we are more in the British tradition, don't make such a song and dance, just present the facts in an interesting way. (Not that cultural imperialism isn't changing that, slowly).

The bank did give out free guns for a new account, that is not in dispute, the only quibble was over how he staged it all. How much is it a matter of handing a gun over a counter to someone, like BFC says, and how much is it different in reality.

I think your real problem is that you are scared of what F911 will show you. As people who have seen it have said, it is a lot more than just an attack on Bush, it also shows the results of his actions at a human level. These people aren't 'facts'.

You appear to be a reasonable, thinking person, who does not swallow the whole gun lobby story uncritically. The issue of what F911 tries to portray with Bush may be just a little frightening for you. Your brother in law making an idiot of himself, you can handle, your elected government doing the same thing is perhaps a little hard to handle.

I don't think it's so much that. There were fabrications and errors, which is what you almost come to expect anymore in this arena. The Round Mound of Sound, (Limbaugh), is notorious for a lot of it, and I'm sorry that Moore seems to feel this is justified. What the hell, that's entertainment.

I'm not afraid of what I might see. Rather, I'm somewhat depressed that I'll see what I already know. I simply do not trust George W. Bush, for the same reason I didn't trust Bill Clinton: they lie.

To put it another way, my life out on the road requires that I have FACTUAL information on what's ahead, and that it be accurate. I there's an accident ahead of me, (10-33), I had damn well better know where it is, how far the backup is on the freeway, and if emergency vehicles are on scene. Someone's life is at risk in those moments, and, dammit, I don't have time to try and guess what's coming up when I've got 80,000 lbs. gross to keep under control. I keep the CB on, and I listen to the AM band for traffic and weather information. Hopefully, with advance warning, I can either reroute, or I can weather it out.

A few months ago, however, I was in the mountains, and found myself in the middle of a snowstorm with another driver. Our oh-so-generous employer "forgot" to provide us with necessary snow chains, because, hey, we're not supposed to be in the snow in the first place(!). Unfortunately, no one bothered to tell "Mother Nature," and about halfway down the hill, my flatbed decided to get tail-happy. I cut off the jake brake, accelerated slightly, and used the trailer's brakes and brought it back into line, but just the same, I wasn't happy that I'd almost jackknifed up in the mountains. Had the trailer come around as it wanted to, you'd be reading my obit here, not my posts. The trailer would have sliced right through the cab, and I'd have been crushed to death.

I understand that a nation at war cannot share some information. But, geez, at least make damn sure the information you do share is accurate and truthful. If you can't do that, STFU, already, because you're more of a hazard when you open your mouth.

It's one of the bigger beefs I have with John Ashcroft, with my biggest complaint being that he seems to have forgotten that this Nation is ruled by law, not fiat. I won't even get started on that one; you'll be stuck reading this for days.
 
Roadtoad said:
Don't kid yourselves; Bush graduated from Harvard Business School. Just to get in, you have to be near the top in your college graduating class. This is a very smart man.
I was under the impression he was a "legacy," not to mention a C student (as he himself has pointed out in speeches).
 
Re: Re: Moore the Fool

a_unique_person said:
If you have any questions, he has actually set up a contact on his website, IIRC, where you can ask them. Please do so, if you have any, and let us know what sort of answer you get. [/B]

Did you actually think before posting this? Should we just ask Scott Peterson if he did something wrong then blindly accept his answer? I don't care what fallacy you wish to pull out based upon this, because you are the one telling us to use it and accept it. "Gee, Mr. Moore, don't you think it odd that you claim Bush let the Bin Laden family go and and praise Richard Clarke, yet Clarke says they left because of his decision and after the FBI did in fact have time to talk with them?" "No, Troll, I was right in the movie which I call an op-ed" "Gee Mr. Moore, thanks for the factual evidence":rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

Troll said:


Did you actually think before posting this? Should we just ask Scott Peterson if he did something wrong then blindly accept his answer? I don't care what fallacy you wish to pull out based upon this, because you are the one telling us to use it and accept it. "Gee, Mr. Moore, don't you think it odd that you claim Bush let the Bin Laden family go and and praise Richard Clarke, yet Clarke says they left because of his decision and after the FBI did in fact have time to talk with them?" "No, Troll, I was right in the movie which I call an op-ed" "Gee Mr. Moore, thanks for the factual evidence":rolleyes:
Lol....
Never mind A_U_P thinking before he posts troll....do you ever check into anything at all? This guy says he authorised it...that suits your viewpoint so you accept that, I remind you that this clown has also previously stated in a sworn statement before the 911 commission that he did not authorise it. He even specifically stated that he refused to authorise it.....
But thats ok, he says something different now and you probably were not even aware that he is contradicting a previous sworn statement...still, ignorance is bliss eh? Do some reading. Start Here.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

The Fool said:

Lol....
Never mind A_U_P thinking before he posts troll....do you ever check into anything at all? This guy says he authorised it...that suits your viewpoint so you accept that, I remind you that this clown has also previously stated in a sworn statement before the 911 commission that he did not authorise it. He even specifically stated that he refused to authorise it.....
But thats ok, he says something different now and you probably were not even aware that he is contradicting a previous sworn statement...still, ignorance is bliss eh? Do some reading. Start Here.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

You do realize that all through that link Clarke still claims responsibility stopped at him, right? It is just others having doubts but no evidence and their refusal to accept Clarke's admission to it. If I recall Clarke was the hero of many for his comments that people took as an indictment against the Bush administration, I have no issue doing lengthy searches.

Sundog stated:

"My disgust at the treatment of the HERO Richard Clarke at the hands of slimeball Republicans has me in an absolute fit today. How DARE they threaten him with contempt? No matter who it is, no matter how patriotic: criticize Shrub, and they'll go straight to character assassination, and then try to put you in jail!"


Now granted, Sundog is no AUP, but is there a disention among the ranks among you guys? But you say Clarke isn't to be trusted? Perhaps you should take AUP's suggestion and mail Moore and ask him if he knows that since he spends a good portion of his op-ed film praising him.

*edited to define the "him" I suggested mailing
 
Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

Troll said:


Did you actually think before posting this? Should we just ask Scott Peterson if he did something wrong then blindly accept his answer? I don't care what fallacy you wish to pull out based upon this, because you are the one telling us to use it and accept it. "Gee, Mr. Moore, don't you think it odd that you claim Bush let the Bin Laden family go and and praise Richard Clarke, yet Clarke says they left because of his decision and after the FBI did in fact have time to talk with them?" "No, Troll, I was right in the movie which I call an op-ed" "Gee Mr. Moore, thanks for the factual evidence":rolleyes:

I was not suggesting that at all. I was just seggesting that if you query a point, he has a mail address there you can ask a question. You may disagree with the answer, or believe it is incorrect, but you can ask for clarification of a point you do not think has been presented correctly. This is not a legal process, however. If he is to be tried for what he says in the film, then I guess we use other standards.
 

Back
Top Bottom