PDA

View Full Version : Michael Moore



Ak47
04-22-2004, 07:50 PM
Who likes him? I'm reading his first book right now (i think it was his first) Stupid White Men. So far its really good; his writing may be biased but it is still factual (a lot more than some of this **** people dig up on the forums). He's got a great sense of humor and can make some of the less interesting topics more exciting IMO. Anyone else read his books or anything?

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 07:56 PM
I think Micheal Moore is an idiot.

Reborn79
04-22-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Ak47
Who likes him? I'm reading his first book right now (i think it was his first) Stupid White Men. So far its really good; his writing may be biased but it is still factual (a lot more than some of this **** people dig up on the forums). He's got a great sense of humor and can make some of the less interesting topics more exciting IMO. Anyone else read his books or anything?

I've read 'Stupid White Men' and 'Dude, Where's My Country?' Both are good books. I also really liked Bowling for Columbine (haven't seen 'Roger and Me' yet). I agree with his views, and especially enjoy how he pisses conservatives off so much. :)

Edit: I also went to one of his rallies in Portland last October...thousands of people were there, and it was really cool. If he ever comes to a town near you I'd suggest you go.

mariners216
04-22-2004, 08:40 PM
I loved Stupid White Men, thought Dude, Where's My Country? was pretty good also. Bowling For Columbine was very interesting.

In short I'm a big fan.:cool:

Starsky
04-22-2004, 08:51 PM
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy". They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow...and they will win".
-Michael Moore


They should drop this worthless tub of lard to the soldiers in Fallujah.

rookejr
04-22-2004, 08:56 PM
Too bad if you do any research on his work you will see that it is anything but factual. That is the problem with people that read his stuff. They think its all true and they're like, "Oh my god, he's so right. America does suck" But then if you research any of it, its all BS. Somebody posted a link a while back to a site that takes Bowling for Columbine piece by piece and disproves what seems like every point he makes, as well as pointing out shading editing and outright lies in his movie. People, you need to start thinking for yourselves, or at least researching the crap that you read.

Heavily Armed
04-22-2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy". They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow...and they will win".
-Michael Moore


They should drop this worthless tub of lard to the soldiers in Fallujah.

Moore sounds like a marxist moron.

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 09:02 PM
I'd like to be mad at him for being loose with the facts a lot, but he's entertaining and has such a knack for pissing off mindless conservative Hannity-worshipping zombies that I have to like him a little.

Starsky
04-22-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Heavily Armed
Moore sounds like a marxist moron.


Go ahead, look the quote up...he said *exactly* that.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79


Edit: I also went to one of his rallies in Portland last October...thousands of people were there, and it was really cool. If he ever comes to a town near you I'd suggest you go.

I'd go there and use the Right to bear arms and use my gun to sniper his ass. I sincerely hate Micheal Marxist Moore.

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I'd go there and use the Right to bear arms and use my gun to sniper his ass. I sincerely hate Micheal Marxist Moore.

My, my ... this must be compassionate conservativism here.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by rookejr
Too bad if you do any research on his work you will see that it is anything but factual. That is the problem with people that read his stuff. They think its all true and they're like, "Oh my god, he's so right. America does suck" But then if you research any of it, its all BS. Somebody posted a link a while back to a site that takes Bowling for Columbine piece by piece and disproves what seems like every point he makes, as well as pointing out shading editing and outright lies in his movie. People, you need to start thinking for yourselves, or at least researching the crap that you read.


I think it's bowlingfortruth.com

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I think it's bowlingfortruth.com

That site is pretty trashy, even if Moore's editing is questionable. Too much of the "fact-checking" there is just opinionated rebuttal.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
My, my ... this must be compassionate conservativism here.


Heh, see I'm just acting like the beloved liberal hero, Kerry by flip flopping around. :D

Starsky
04-22-2004, 09:06 PM
The real question is what does Michael Moore do with the earnings from his books? Does he give the money to welfare, healthcare, housing programs?

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Heh, see I'm just acting like the beloved liberal hero, Kerry by flip flopping around. :D

Don't make me pull out the Bush flip flop list again here, boy. :p

Reborn79
04-22-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy". They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow...and they will win".
-Michael Moore


They should drop this worthless tub of lard to the soldiers in Fallujah.

And what's wrong with that quote? I agree with him. I find it amusing that the administration is calling the fighters in Iraq 'terrorists' or a 'minority'.

So the Iraqis are terrorists for DEFENDING their country from an invader (us)? That makes sense!


And before you go on mentioning the attack that killed 68 Iraqis...that was an incident that simply shows how desperate these people are to get us out of their country. Those specific people are indeed murderers, for they killed innocents...I am in no way defending them.


It IS an uprising, and you can keep on denying it as long as you want.

And as far as them 'winning', it is true. We will leave Iraq eventually, and they will get their way. Democracy will likely not last in Iraq, and the people will revert back to 'in-fighting' and whatnot. But we WILL leave Iraq, as this violence will continue and won't end until the U.S./British are out of Iraq entirely.

Bush could have avoided this entire ****ed up situation in the first place, but no. Now we NEED to stay in there, at least until we get a government up (we'll see how long that'll last...). These people are NOT animals, however. I simply say that a democracy won't work because there are so many devoutly religious and strictly divided groups of Muslims in Iraq, and it is unlikely they will ever unite (except to get us out of Iraq).


So in conclusion, YES, Moore's statement makes sense. And I am not a ****ing 'marxist' or 'communist'. Now try and get a better retort when you reply to this.

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
The real question is what does Michael Moore do with the earnings from his books? Does he give the money to welfare, healthcare, housing programs?

Who gives a f@#k, other than conservatives like yourself desperate to find something liberal-related to b1tch about?

Heavily Armed
04-22-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Go ahead, look the quote up...he said *exactly* that.

I believe it. Sounds exactly like the moronic drivel Moore spews.

Starsky
04-22-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
And what's wrong with that quote? I agree with him. I find it amusing that the administration is calling the fighters in Iraq 'terrorists' or a 'minority'.

So the Iraqis are terrorists for DEFENDING their country from an invader (us)? That makes sense!


And before you go on mentioning the attack that killed 68 Iraqis...that was an incident that simply shows how desperate these people are to get us out of their country. Those specific people are indeed murderers, for they killed innocents...I am in no way defending them.


It IS an uprising, and you can keep on denying it as long as you want.

And as far as them 'winning', it is true. We will leave Iraq eventually, and they will get their way. Democracy will likely not last in Iraq, and the people will revert back to 'in-fighting' and whatnot. But we WILL leave Iraq, as this violence will continue and won't end until the U.S./British are out of Iraq entirely.

Bush could have avoided this entire ****ed up situation in the first place, but no. Now we NEED to stay in there, at least until we get a government up (we'll see how long that'll last...). These people are NOT animals, however. I simply say that a democracy won't work because there are so many devoutly religious and strictly divided groups of Muslims in Iraq, and it is unlikely they will ever unite (except to get us out of Iraq).


So in conclusion, YES, Moore's statement makes sense. And I am not a ****ing 'marxist' or 'communist'. Now try and get a better retort when you reply to this.


What about the quote is wrong? Everything. Here you are defending and affirming slander like this:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy". They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow...and they will win".
-Michael Moore



He is saying people who murder American troops, murder Iraqis, murder civilians, burn bodies, hang bodies from bridges, dance on bodies, murder hostages in cold blood, plant bombs and remotely detonate them far away *are not* the enemy and ...are Minutemen...i.e Patriots who were admired and viewed as heroes.


The terrorists represent far less than 1% of Iraqs 25,000,000 population. So, yes they are the minority and you are both factually and morally wrong. You have got to be among the fringe, mental-ward leftists if you agree with statements like that.

BIONIC MAN
04-22-2004, 09:21 PM
he would be creamed on the o,reilly factor

mariners216
04-22-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by BIONIC MAN
he would be creamed on the o,reilly factor
speaking of being loose with the facts..

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
He is saying people who murder American troops, murder Iraqis, murder civilians, burn bodies, murder bodies, dance on bodies, murder hostages in cold blood, plant bombs and remotely detonate them far away *are not* the enemy and ...are Minutemen...i.e Patriots who were admired and viewed as heroes.


From the perspective of many Iraqis, yes, they are.

If you don't understand why this might be ... well, you've stumbled onto the reason why the whole war is going badly, as well as why the whole neoconservative idea that America can eliminate all evil from the earth, comic-book superhero style, is patently moronic.

Reborn79
04-22-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
What about the quote is wrong? Everything. Here you are defending and affirming slander like this:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy". They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow...and they will win".
-Michael Moore



He is saying people who murder American troops, murder Iraqis, murder civilians, mutilate bodies, murder bodies, dance on bodies, murder hostages in cold blood *are not* they enemy, plant bombs and remotely detonate them far away...are Minutemen...i.e Patriots who were admired and viewed as heroes.


The terrorists represent far less than 1% of Iraqs 25,000,000 population. So, yes they are the minority and you are both factually and morally wrong. You have got to be among the fringe, mental-ward leftists if you agree with statements like that.


First off, this is war. Soldiers are NOT 'innocent civilians'. The vast majority of these attacks from these 'insurgents' were aimed at American forces. Of course, I am NOT in ANY WAY supporting the attacks on the American soldiers. I am simply saying that killing a civilian on the street and killing a soldier who is occupying your country in wartime is different (again, I am not defending the killings of the soldiers, I am merely pointing out that a difference DOES exist between those two things).


And I guess these 'minority' insurgents taking over two big cities are just the 'minority', and represent nothing of the wider Iraqi population, who are happy to finally live in a 'democratic, stable, and free nation'.

You know, NewsMax and Fox News aren't the ONLY news sources that are out there to get your news from. :)


And 'Minutemen': The reference was to the fact that THIS was the BEGINNING, as the minutemen 'lead the way' so to speak to spread the message.

And also, about 'mutilating civilians'....those 'civilians' were mercenaries. There's a LITTLE difference. An armed foreigner in your country in wartime...they obviously didn't deserve to die that terrible death, but once again, they were not 'innocent civilians'. They were armed, and they were essentially soldiers.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but it is MINUTE 'altertions' like those that can make a big difference. This is a lesson on 'spin' and how it works.

BIONIC MAN
04-22-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
speaking of being loose with the facts.. o,reilly would have him for breakfast before he could raise his double chin.

goblin6
04-22-2004, 09:55 PM
And also, about 'mutilating civilians'....those 'civilians' were mercenaries. There's a LITTLE difference. An armed foreigner in your country in wartime...they obviously didn't deserve to die that terrible death, but once again, they were not 'innocent civilians'. They were armed, and they were essentially soldiers.
No they are NOT essentially soldiers they were security guards. Many were former soldiers but not anymore. Providing security for memebers of the Iraqi governing council and other people involved in the rebuilding so the rest of the Iraqis can have running water and electricity.
They are not soldiers, and the people involved in this whtever you want to call it are terrorists, not rebels. They are criminals.

That is all I got to say.


Oh and Michael Moore is a complete jackass. ;)

Reborn79
04-22-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by BIONIC MAN
o,reilly would have him for breakfast before he could raise his double chin.

Actually O'Reilly wouldn't let Moore say one word. He'd just shout him down and then tell the producers to 'cut his mike'. Man, that's pretty unprofessional, right?

No respectable newscaster would do such a thing...


http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/foreign/glick.html



:D

Starsky
04-22-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
And also, about 'mutilating civilians'....those 'civilians' were mercenaries. There's a LITTLE difference. An armed foreigner in your country in wartime...they obviously didn't deserve to die that terrible death, but once again, they were not 'innocent civilians'. They were armed, and they were essentially soldiers.



Protecting food convoys. Yes, those evil Americans deserved it. The Iraqi Patriots who mutilated their bodies are better than Paul Revere or even all the Minutemen in 1776!

Reborn79
04-22-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by goblin6
No they are NOT essentially soldiers they were security guards. Many were former soldiers but not anymore. Providing security for memebers of the Iraqi governing council and other people involved in the rebuilding so the rest of the Iraqis can have running water and electricity.
They are not soldiers, and the people involved in this whtever you want to call it are terrorists, not rebels. They are criminals.

That is all I got to say.


Oh and Michael Moore is a complete jackass. ;)

They were armed. That is 'all' I have to say. They were not contractors, they were mercenaries, as even you admitted. Former soldiers for hire. A.K.A. mercenaries. Of course they didn't deserve to die, BUT, to put them on the same level as a typical 'civilian' is wrong, no matter how you look at it. Again, THEY WERE ARMED (and to top it off were foreigners in a war-zone).

And defending your country from an invader is not terrorism....I don't know what dictionary you looked up the word in. Of course, when I speak of this, I speak of the actions against the Americans.

Reborn79
04-22-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Protecting food convoys. Yes, those evil Americans deserved it. The Iraqi Patriots who mutilated their bodies are better than Paul Revere or even all the Minutemen in 1776!


Jesus christ...where exactly did I say they deserved it? If you actually read my post, you'd realize I said the opposite.

My point was that they were not civilians. Simple as that. Did that mean they deserved to die? No. Were they doing a good deed? Yes.

Were they civilians? No. They were A) Armed. B) In a war zone. There are different kinds of rules in war, and not everything is 'crystal clear'.

When you go into a war zone ARMED, I'm sorry, but you sure as hell aren't a civilian. There are reasons why journalists in war zones are protected...it's because THEY ARE NOT ARMED.

goblin6
04-22-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
They were armed. That is 'all' I have to say. They were not contractors, they were mercenaries, as even you admitted. Former soldiers for hire. A.K.A. mercenaries. Of course they didn't deserve to die, BUT, to put them on the same level as a typical 'civilian' is wrong, no matter how you look at it. Again, THEY WERE ARMED (and to top it off were foreigners in a war-zone).

And defending your country from an invader is not terrorism....I don't know what dictionary you looked up the word in. Of course, when I speak of this, I speak of the actions against the Americans.
So they were armed. You might as well have said "Well, they wee American" , oh wait you basically did.They were engaged in IN NO HOSTILE ACTIONS they protected people and convoys, that was it. They were security people, not mercenaries. A mercenary is someone hired to fight in a foreign army.

Starsky
04-22-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Jesus christ...where exactly did I say they deserved it? If you actually read my post, you'd realize I said the opposite.

My point was that they were not civilians. Simple as that. Did that mean they deserved to die? No. Were they doing a good deed? Yes.

Were they civilians? No. They were A) Armed. B) In a war zone. There are different kinds of rules in war, and not everything is 'crystal clear'.

When you go into a war zone ARMED, I'm sorry, but you sure as hell aren't a civilian. There are reasons why journalists in war zones are protected...it's because THEY ARE NOT ARMED.


That point is: The people doing the ambushes, mutiliation, detonating remote bombs and running are not in any way comparable to the Paul Revere, the American Revolution, or the Minutemen.


There is a vital difference. The Minutemen were fighting to cast off tyranny. The terrorists, mutilators, kidnappers, Iranian agents, Baathists, and Sadr supporters are fighting to establish tyranny, over a population who wants no part of it

On the same page?

goblin6
04-22-2004, 10:14 PM
Civilian noun- A person following the the pursuits of civil or nonmilitary life.


A security guard armed or not is not a soldier- therefore they are civilian.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Jesus christ...where exactly did I say they deserved it? If you actually read my post, you'd realize I said the opposite.

My point was that they were not civilians. Simple as that. Did that mean they deserved to die? No. Were they doing a good deed? Yes.

Were they civilians? No. They were A) Armed. B) In a war zone. There are different kinds of rules in war, and not everything is 'crystal clear'.

When you go into a war zone ARMED, I'm sorry, but you sure as hell aren't a civilian. There are reasons why journalists in war zones are protected...it's because THEY ARE NOT ARMED.

Just because your armed doesn't mean your not a civilian, in that case half of the U.S aren't civilians. And because your're in a war zone armed doesn't mean that your not a civilian. It must be nice being an idealist....

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by goblin6
Civilian noun- A person following the the pursuits of civil or nonmilitary life.


A security guard armed or not is not a soldier- therefore they are civilian.


Bump, I guess those rent-a-cops at the mall aren't civilians either...

Starsky
04-22-2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Bump, I guess those rent-a-cops at the mall aren't civilians either...


You guys are missing the point. He is wrong on the whole premise of his argument, not just the civilian aspect.


Michael Moore's original statement is factually wrong. The terrorists, mutilators, bombers, kidnappers, criminals, Baathists, and Sadr supporters are not Patriots, Minutemen, or "not are enemies"(in Moore's words).


They do not enjoy broad popular support, they attack native Iraqis, they are fighting to establish tyranny..not cast it off, and as the soldiers in Iraq will tell you they are "enemies". Moore was wrong, and Reborn79, you are wrong.

goblin6
04-22-2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
You guys are missing the point. He is wrong on the whole premise of his argument, not just the civilian aspect.


Michael Moore's original statement is factually wrong. The terrorists, mutilators, bombers, kidnappers, criminals, Baathists, Sadr supporters are not Patriots, Minutemen, "not are enemies"(in Moore's words).


They do not enjoy broad popular support, they attack native Iraqis, they are fighting to establish tyranny..not cast it off, and as the soldiers in Iraq will tell you they are "enemies". Moore was wrong, and Reborn79, you are wrong.

No I am not, you were handling it fine Starsky, basically you said the same thing I would have.

Yeesh I go away for a bit and everyone is a critic. :D

LordNeon
04-22-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
They do not enjoy broad popular support, they attack native Iraqis, they are fighting to establish tyranny..not cast it off, and as the soldiers in Iraq will tell you they are "enemies".

Given the ever-rising rate of desertion from the Iraqi police forces - and the fact that those former recruits are finding their way into the opposition militias - the claim that they aren't enjoying broad popular support is looking less and less tenable.

batfonso
04-22-2004, 10:39 PM
It's such a joke to call this a war. If this really was a war the U.S. military would've obliterated the opposition months ago because they wouldn't have to worry about not bombing Mosques.

Jimineye
04-22-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
You guys are missing the point. He is wrong on the whole premise of his argument, not just the civilian aspect.


I realize that his arguement is wrong, but like Goblin said you were handling it just fine.

kmac12
04-23-2004, 08:18 AM
Michael Moore is an ultra-left wing radical. Even many democrats distance themselves from him. Thats why he got booed at the Academy Awards (or maybe it was the Oscars).

The same way I would distance myself from Pat Buchanan. I may agree with some of his ideas, but I do not agree with his radical nature or tactics.

Reborn79
04-23-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
You guys are missing the point. He is wrong on the whole premise of his argument, not just the civilian aspect.


Michael Moore's original statement is factually wrong. The terrorists, mutilators, bombers, kidnappers, criminals, Baathists, and Sadr supporters are not Patriots, Minutemen, or "not are enemies"(in Moore's words).


They do not enjoy broad popular support, they attack native Iraqis, they are fighting to establish tyranny..not cast it off, and as the soldiers in Iraq will tell you they are "enemies". Moore was wrong, and Reborn79, you are wrong.


Once again, the attacks on 'native Iraqis' are aimed at those supporting the U.S. The vast majority of attacks are against the 'Coalition' troops, which is understandable as we are an invader in their country. They have every right to defend themselves. Bush put us in the sick situation where neither side can win- I don't want anyone to die (Americans/British etc or Iraqis), but I also believe that this IS a war (no matter how the administration wants to spin it), and as we are invading their country, they have a right to defend themselves.


Here's a situation: We are invaded by China. Do we, as citizens, not have the right to fight back? Are we to be called 'terrorists' if we attempt to fight back at the invading Chinese? I mean, the situation is similar in that respect.

Yes, exploding cars in front of American-supported Iraqi police stations is stupid and terrible in the fact that innocent Iraqis are killed. However, you have to understand that their intention is NOT to 'terrorize' the populace, but to push out the Coalition troops.

I simply LOVE how everything is in black and white for you, Starsky. The sad thing is, the real world is not black and white. It takes a developed mind to really grasp the fact that there is more than one viewpoint on every issue, and many times it is NOT an issue of simply 'right and wrong'.

With people like you running this country, the nation would go to ****....



















Wait, it IS being run by people like you, and it IS going to ****.

kmac12
04-23-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Wait, it IS being run by people like you, and it IS going to ****.

There is not absolute proof that this country is going to ****. That is your opinion.

For someone who says that there is more than black and white, I am suprised at your b&w claim that the country is going to ****.

Reborn79
04-23-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
There is not absolute proof that this country is going to ****. That is your opinion.

For someone who says that there is more than black and white, I am suprised at your b&w claim that the country is going to ****.

Sure, there are viewpoints that believe this country is 'thriving' under Bush's great economic plans....

I guess I'm crazy....

'Three years after the recession started, the nation is mired in debt. Historically high consumer debt levels, near record high budget deficits, and record trade and current account deficits are burdening households, tax payers, and the nationís economic future.'

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44826



For more information, I'd suggest you read some of the articles on this site:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=13838

kmac12
04-23-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Sure, there are viewpoints that believe this country is 'thriving' under Bush's great economic plans....

I guess I'm crazy....

'Three years after the recession started, the nation is mired in debt. Historically high consumer debt levels, near record high budget deficits, and record trade and current account deficits are burdening households, tax payers, and the nation?s economic future.'

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44826



For more information, I'd suggest you read some of the articles on this site:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=13838

I am not going to debate issues about where the country is headed. I am sure that I can find articles that show the contrary to your belief. It would be a circular debate.

I was just stating that your opinion was very black and white. There are aspects of this country that need to be improved and vice versa.

Obviously, many feel that the economy is turning around and that jobs are being created. These issues are debatable, but only time will tell.

Reborn79
04-23-2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
I am not going to debate issues about where the country is headed. I am sure that I can find articles that show the contrary to your belief. It would be a circular debate.

I was just stating that your opinion was very black and white. There are aspects of this country that need to be improved and vice versa.

Obviously, many feel that the economy is turning around and that jobs are being created. These issues are debatable, but only time will tell.

All right, I'll admit that the issue is black and white, no matter how strongly I feel about it. I'd be interested in seeing some sites that offer a differing viewpoint, just to read up on them.

kmac12
04-23-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
All right, I'll admit that the issue is black and white, no matter how strongly I feel about it. I'd be interested in seeing some sites that offer a differing viewpoint, just to read up on them.

The seven economic indicators all going up.

http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/

Also, there are alot more positive articles then there used to be. Though subject matter of these is always debatable.

During this election year, many republicans will come out with articles and stuff about how great things are and democrats will do the opposite. Nature of the political game I guess.

You can rest assured that it is somewhere in the middle.

Victorian guy
04-23-2004, 04:21 PM
Michael Moore-

Entertaining; that's it. His pseudo-documentaries are edited to make his positions on issues seem stronger.
His solution? Pretty pathetic. Very simplistic- I'd like to see Moore manage the USA by his own maxims.

That all aside, he raises a lot of good points about corporate greed and complacency in 'Roger and Me', and some points about USA's violent culture in 'Bowling for Columbine'

15u
04-23-2004, 09:32 PM
i honestly do not know how anyone could enjoy bowling for columbine. that movie pissed me off so much. the movie was full of half truths and exaggerations. he rambled on about a whole bunch of different stuff. he even went to canada and talked about public health care. yeah, public health care sure has a lot to do with violence :rolleyes: . moore is a moron.

axiombiological
04-24-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by rookejr
Too bad if you do any research on his work you will see that it is anything but factual. That is the problem with people that read his stuff. They think its all true and they're like, "Oh my god, he's so right. America does suck" But then if you research any of it, its all BS. Somebody posted a link a while back to a site that takes Bowling for Columbine piece by piece and disproves what seems like every point he makes, as well as pointing out shading editing and outright lies in his movie. People, you need to start thinking for yourselves, or at least researching the crap that you read.

There have been several magazines/ezines, etc. which have torn up his books and his documentary (if you can stretch the word that much). Even some on the left don't like his free spirited use of references since it diminishes the credibility of other like minded individuals.

Moore is ideologically pathetic.....and he is hideous to look at.

Jimineye
04-24-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by a. americanus
Did you know Moore's web site is maintianed by a Canadian company and the server is in Canada? Pathetic.


Yep. What is that about keeping jobs here in America? I guess Bush is to blame for Moore sending his web designers to Canada. :rolleyes:

gympunk
04-24-2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by a. americanus
Did you know Moore's web site is maintianed by a Canadian company and the server is in Canada? Pathetic.

Michael Moore isn't an elected official, doubt he can do anything to keep jobs in the US. By using a Canadian company did he cost someone in the US a job, or make some company fold? the amount of money involved in maintaining a webset is negligible really....

Jimineye
04-24-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by gympunk
Michael Moore isn't an elected official, doubt he can do anything to keep jobs in the US. By using a Canadian company did he cost someone in the US a job, or make some company fold? the amount of money involved in maintaining a webset is negligible really....


He owns the website, therefore he chooses what company will host it for him. He chose a Canadian company.

Debaser
04-25-2004, 12:37 AM
I really don't what the big deal is. Canada is not some third-world country where little children with nimble fingers are working for fractions of a penny. But I suppose it depends on his beliefs on outsourcing.

gympunk
04-25-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Jimineye
He owns the website, therefore he chooses what company will host it for him. He chose a Canadian company.

And....? Has he made some sort of pledge never to buy any good or service that isn't American? Are his shoes made in America, what about his truckers hat & glasses, I doubt his computer terminal is made in America! Yeah he's a hypocrite of the worst kind!
My guess is he probably personally knows the persons doing his website & they do it in trade for the exposure.....
What few semi-famous media people I know work that way....

Jimineye
04-25-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by gympunk
And....? Has he made some sort of pledge never to buy any good or service that isn't American? Are his shoes made in America, what about his truckers hat & glasses, I doubt his computer terminal is made in America! Yeah he's a hypocrite of the worst kind!
My guess is he probably personally knows the persons doing his website & they do it in trade for the exposure.....
What few semi-famous media people I know work that way....


Good point if he wants to bitch about outsourcing he better start buying made in America stuff only.