Michael Moore Hates America

Let's just agree that both Flint and Cleavland can be really shitty places.

 

wow, i just read this whole thread. i had some comments brewing as i was reading it but i forget them now (silly me).

some good points though......

 

No, Jozak, I simply have enough years in political circles to recognise the difference between propaganda and open questioning examination of issues in the broader context of our overtly aggressivistic national culture as is the case with Moore's films. Nowhere does Moore enjoin Americans to any other action than to begin rejecting media spin and demanding fuller accountability from political as well as corporate leaders. How one chooses to do so is left open ended to fuel the national debate.

You on the other hand are so clearly spun by right wing polemic - which seeks to attack the individual's character since it cannot face the issues with intellectual honesty - that you jumped right on the bandwagon and simply right off the man's work on the say so of purely ideologically driven pundits.

The treament of your stock in trade anti-Moore arguments was duly provided. I suggest you give it a fair examination and deal with the issues addressed rather than continuing your personal ad hominem tirades.

 

Thanks for that tedious diatribe.

Can you really say that Jozak is "clearly spun by right wing polemic" "cannot face the issues with intellectual honesty" "jumped right on the bandwagon" is driven by "purely ideologically driven pundits" and "stock in trade anti-Moore arguments"...

...and then fault him for "personal ad hominem tirades"?

Maybe your "years in political circles" haven't quite as much for you as you would like to think.

 

Insofar as his posts have continuously been comprised exclusively of attacks on Moore's character rather than on the issues and facts claimed to be "propaganda", Yes I can address Jozak's intellectual dishonesty without any contradiciton to my previously stated position. I and others here have provided substantive points related to the issue under discussion, Jozka and the other right wing polemicists here have not.

One shouldn't have to explain to you the difference between taking someone to task for relying on polemic to avoid dealing substantively with the issue itself and "personal attack".

 

Intellectual dishonesty? I have never lied about anything on here. Moore lied, or, as I put it, changed things to make the video become a comedy. It is a work of satire, and if you view that as a documentary one has to question your intellectual honesty.

Your thinking is so simple minded--I am all of a sudden a "right winger" becasue you say so? I don't think anyone on this site who reads my posts can come to that conclusion unless they don't know what they are talking about, or are too stupid to comprehend phrases and paragraphs.

I think it's funny how you bitch about so called "right wingers" when they make a "personal attack", but when you do it, it's permissible. Oh and it's Jozak, get it right or don't put my name in one of your brain-dead, biased posts. Right Winger, LOL...yeah, that will be the day.

 

Man, you really like the word "polemic"!

A little too much, I think.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

Where polemic is used it shall be rightly named as such, deal with it.

Jozak, lol. Once again ranting on about things not even remotely suggested. Did I say you "lied" about anything? No. Did I spell your name wrong? No (incapable of comprehending the use of the possesive perhaps?).

As for Moore, he did not lie and that has been duly debunked for the desperate twisting of what Moore presents in his film that we have come to expect from those who prefer to cling tenaciously to their ideological leaders despite the repeated revelations of lies, abuses of office, and utter refusal to legitimately account for themselves.

Moore researches and checks his work, otherwise he would have been dragged into court long ago and sued in the most public fashion for liable.

If your pundits bothered to perform even a fraction of the necessary investigative effort (or like Moore, devote an entire team to the task) they wouldn't be left with a leg to stand on other than the hatred they evince in their routine character assassinations.

But best to let Mr. Moore defend himself against critics...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

 

Insofar as Jozka is not the possessive of Jozak, we shall 'lol' at you, not with you, for your error and arrogant refusal to acknowledge it. Deal with that.

Insofar as your comment regarding Michael Moore being sued for 'liable', we shall lol at you again as it is more likely that he would be liable for libel then sued for liable, as it were.

I shall also note that your post continues to refer to "ranting", Jozak being "incapable of understanding the possessive", Moore's critics' "desperate twisting", "utter refusal to legitimately account for themselves" and the "hatred the evince in their character assassinations". When are you going to stop the invective and actually debate some real points, hypocrite?

 

OOh goodness, what better an illustration of the repeated avoidance of the issues when the facts show the willful ideological blindness that you and your ilk regularly subscribe to. I mistyped Jozak in one instance, and regardless of the discussion at hand, this is what you choose to focus on. lol.

Neither of you belong in a DEBATE forum until you leanr what debate actually is and perhaps learn to shape your ideology according to the facts rather than vice versa (as has been clearly shown to be the case for those polemic sites provided as any kind of "proof" that Moore lied about any statement of "fact" contained in his film(s) ).

And for you of all people to call anyone a hypocrit when you have not yet presented anything but snide quips to any discussion is utterly astounding. Perhaps when you and Jozak actually confine your comments to the issues others wont find it necessary to waste their time chiding you.

 

I am deeply, deeply sorry that you have to waste your time chiding me and my ilk.

 

First off, I'm definitely not Michael Moore's biggest fan. He's crass, oversimplifies issues, fudges facts and lacks an overall structure to his arguments. That said, he makes some very good points, which deserve attention. And for the record, he's *NOT* an extreme leftist, only in America could that kind of gross misrepresentation of the political spectrum take place.

The issues at hand are that:

a) America had more murders than any other industrialised nation country, even accounting for size.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Did Moore fudge the figures he used in the film? Perhaps. But not enough to make up for these differences...America simply has more crime than similar countries.

Why is this? America's lax gun control probably helps. America's gun culture (from redneck to Tupac) definitely helps. America's levels of urban povery (also well above any other similar country) are an unquestionable source, as is the criminal "justice" system with far higher incarceration rates than any other similar nation.

I live in Canada, in a run-down urban centre which happens to be the third biggest destination for immigrants. Toronto, an hour's drive away, if not the most ethnically diverse place on the planet, is close to it. And we don't see anywhere near the kind of violent crime described by the Americans here. There's more to this than issues of race, and those that are blaming ethnic diversity for America's rates of violence should be ashamed of themselves.

The more you get into these statistics, though, you see that America is in a leaque of it's own - from crime to poverty to pollution to workplace safety to the number of fat people, America CONSTANTLY FALLS BEHIND. How does this happen in the richest nation on the planet? Aren't you guys supposed to be the "leaders of the free world"?

These statistics can't be true! They must be commie/hippie lies made up by people with long hair and no jobs! America is great dammit!!!

Or perhaps the nationalistic fervor has blinded Americans to what's really going on.

I suspect that was the point.

 

It still amazes me how some people still think that Bowling for Columbine was full of mistruths, for heavans sake Michael Moore is an established film/documentary maker he isn't some bloody schoolkid submitting his first video for a media studies assignment! do you honestly think he wouldn't have had teams of lawyers going through every single part of the film to check everything just in case it did fall back on him?

America is the land of the Predatory Lawyer and yet not one accusation written about BFC has ever stuck, why do you think that is? i'll tell you why Michael Moore made damn sure nothing could stick before he released the film. Sure you'll get people who are opossed by the film purely for their own self intersets but as much as they (or you) harp on about it nothing can be proven.

I'm not American and I neither hate nor love America, but I do have grat respect for someone who has the guts to stand up and say look whats happeing in the real world (this also applies to Mark Thomas from the UK).

 

Micheal Moore is just another publicity vampire who thinks he has found the perfect audience, that's real prostitution for you! Let's face it, he had to trade in his soul the minute he decided to become a member of the media. Watching Columbine is hard enough, trying to sort out the genuine from the contrived but for me it all went out the window when he decided to 'confront' Charlton Heston. Neither came out of it at all well but Moore loses it on pure ignorance alone.

 

Why should Charlton Heston be immune? just because he made a few films and has lots of money doesn't mean to say that he shouldn't be shamed for his actions in the NRA namely taking their pro gun lobby to not one but two places where guns have killed children if he had any decency at all he would have postponed those visits and don't even think about quoting the "its a free country" crap, his actions there were quite despicable.

 

Rockman, that's exactly how I see it, although the same could be said for Limbough or Coulter or Hannity - they shamelessly distort and mislead but that doesn't change the fact that they are often correct too.

So what? Do we owe him deference for being "established"? Should we not question "established" people"

This logic suggest that nothing can ever be wrong in any media, which is obviously absurd. Secondly, the fact that you get something wrong in a news story does not leave you open to a lawsuit. America is overzealous at things like product liability, but in terms of media it (thankfully) leaves a pretty wide margin for "honest" mistakes. If Moore suggests Lockheed Littleton makes WMD and it doesn't, what is the liability? Lockheed makes WMDs elsewhere, so how is Lockheed really harmed? Can we prove Moore knowingly and maliciously lied? In this case "oops" is an ironclad defense.

Similarly, if the bank made a special arrangement for the rifle to be picked up in the bank so Moore could film it, when all other customers picked them up at a gun shop, and he doesn't mention the two week waiting period before he got it, did he lie? No, he just didn't mention it. And he really did pick the gun up there, he just didn't mention that was a special arrangment. OOPS. He mislead and distorted, but he didn't lie.

How do you become "a member of the media"? Since Michael Moore is independent, he is not employed by anyone.

 

Thats actually not true my friend. Littleton did indeed make ICBM and missile weapons systems, it is well documented regardless of what some Lockheed corporate goon wishes to deny. Hardly surprising that should deny the fact since the anti-Moore bandwagon of (as previous mentioned by myself and others) twisted claims swung into overdrive.

Moore is doing his rightful civic duty in stirring the public debate on issues this administration has bent over backwards trying to hush up with hate-filled labels ("friend of terrorists", "anti-American", "Un-American", etc..) duly spewed out at all who dare to hold our elected leaders accountable. You can bet if Clinton had as much wanton betrayal of the public trust, outright lies, and the body counts of our two consecutive unwarranted wars to his name, the right wing would have had him spitroasted over a slow flame before his first term had ended. But with Bush, the right wing acts as if he is above the law and above reproach.

The hypocrisy of it all makes Moore's efforts a much needed dose of rationale!

But once again, let us let Mr. Moore speak for himself on the matter...

 

to be perfectly honest, everyone, i find the stong, polarized reactions to moore to be more interesting and significant than the man himself, or his work. why do we react so strongly to a filmmaker? what does that say about us as a culture, and as individuals? why are we so polarized? people either love him & think he's a genius or hate him and think he's a fraud.

 

all of you that are talking about Moore's other movies, trying to relate those movies to this one..This is from The New York Times "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.)

 

Just because someone makes alot of movies or documentaries and wins an Oscar does not mean he's right or not out-of-line on some of his behaviors.

Awards simply meant that your movie or doc either entertained the masses or made some ripples in the pond.

and a team of lawyers doesnt force truths to be told in a film.

artistic liscence doesnt have to adhere to the truth or facts...it simply states the opinion of the filmmaker.


Michael Moore makes movies based on his opinions.Then he edits them to his favor.


when you make a film...you film hours and hours of footage.sometimes upwards of atleast 72 hours of footage that you have to condense into 2 hours.


guaranteed..sitting on his cutting room floor,there is plenty of footage that made Michael Moore look like a total jackass and they completely contridicted his idea for the film.


we may not even be watching remotely close to what even really happened. especially in the Charlton Heston case.

the only ones that really know are Michael,Charlton,and whatever crew Michael involved in both the filming of that segment and the editors he had help him with that segment.No doubt,all had to sign agreements not to discuss the outakes with the press and public.

I dont mind Michael Moore in general.I loved his movie "Downsize this".I like his books.

I did not like Bowling for Columbine.I think he's being hypocritical.From what I understand he's been a gun-toting member of the NRA for like 15 years or so.So it only came off as goofy to me.