Michael Moore admits his hypocracy!

Yeah, and his Rocky Mountain accent is gay too.

 

Why does every topic spin into a "Bush did this" argument?

Because of the many things he's done. And continues to do. For instance, George W. Bush is a member of a class of citizens called "drunk drivers." That class of citizens kills far more people per year than have ever died from terrorists. Since taking office, he's gone downhill from even THAT low mark.

 

I saw Farhenheit 9/11 tonight and I liked it. Nothing new, but entertaining- plenty of opportunities to laugh at Dubya! Lots of sad and frustrating parts too. I thought it was good. He wrapped it up nicely too. It was well done IMO.

 

I just read that 'bowling for truth' site you posted max.

There are a lot of valid points made about a lot of the 'poetic license' that Moore used, and I appreciate that and take it into my over-all opinion, of a film that really gave me food for thought.

But to be honest, there are a lot of points there that are pure semantics, and the author completely missing the point, or indeed being a bit of a cruel dude anyways. Look at the bit he says on Manson. Where Manson was asked the question "if you could talk directly to the kids at Columbine and the people in that community? What would you say?" The answer was "I wouldn't say a single word to them. I'd listen to what they had to say. That's what no one did". The author of the website then picks this clean stating that it would be pointless listening to Eric and Dylan as they would just produce "a violent anti-social vent". So this means that if someone is seriously mentally disturbed, or in a place in their mind where there is no escape, media induced or no, we just abandon them, and leave them to rot and fester?

Also there are plenty of times where the owner of the website simply misses the point, the subtle ironies of Moore's commentary are often laced with points that exaggerate a fact in order to highlight an ironic point being made. These 'facts' are often clearly marked as such.

The returning of the bullets to k-mart is purely symbolic of the need to highlight how easy it is to get access to lethal weapons in the most inauspicious of places, like in the 50's when Hustler was taken off the shelves of regular news agents for indecency, Moore seems to beleive that this kind of effort would be better spent moving bullets for automatic guns out of general stores such as k-mart and keeping them in specialist gun stores where their exclusivity lend them to their target market.

There are plenty of points like this where the meaning is lost, and this will happen again with Fahrenheit 911 I'm sure. Irony and satirical points are the main stay of Moore's poigiancy, sometimes facts are bent to support this but as far as I'm concerned, these so called 'bent facts' are rarely the point of the discussion, they are clearly ear-marked and I think to myself 'what would happen if that was a true statement' and realise that we're not actually that far from any of these flexed opinionated points at all, which is the underlying subtext of Moore's journalism. Moore uses a huge amount of reliance on the empathy and understanding of the audience, a multi-dimensional view as opposed to just a crisp account of proceedings without introspection.

In England we have a similar comedian/political 'adversary' called Mark Thomas. Along similar lines, Mark goes out and says and does things we all daren't not do, which is one of the reasons why Moore appeals, doing what we dare not do, saying what we are scared to say. This is the true value of their form and I'm glad they're there, otherwise I'm sure we'd all be left to rot and spew our "violent anti-social vent".

just a bit of food for thought

 

Let's face it, had Bush not been appointed President, this movie would not have been made. When the Nazi's invaded Paris and searched Picasso's house, they found his masterpiece painting "Guernica" about the bombing of the Spanish town of Guernica by the Nazi's. They asked him (and I'm paraphrasing this translation) "Did you do this?" to which he replied, "No, you did."

And what difference does it make what Michael Moore looks like? This continues to escape me... why do people continue to attack Moore because of his weight? What purpose does that accomplish? It certainly does nothing to discredit his work. So, do you hate Pavarrotti's singing because of his weight too, can't stand Hemmingway's books, what about Alfred Hitchcock's flicks? ...Orson Wells?? How shallow can you be?

Aside from the weight, issue, can you claify the "disgusting" comment? In what way is he disgusting? How do you know?

As for Mr. Moore's being "spineless," on what grounds do you make this judgement? Can you do so without also incriminating those he makes films about? Who was more spineless, Michael Moore or Roger B. Smith of General Motors? Michael Moore or George W. Bush? I challenge you to come up with an example of Spinelessness on Moore's part that I can't top with an example from G.W. Bush.

 

There are several fat and disgusting people I don't like. Michael Moore is just one of them. There is Rosie O'Donnel, Rossanne Barr, Oprah, Wilson Phillips (singing group), Meatloaf, and Pavorotti is fat and he sucks but I wouldn't go as far as to say he is disgusting. I guess unless he started profusely sweating. Monica Lewinsky was fat but I think it's cool that Clinton fucked her.

 

Oh, but you fail to forget Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh(He's a big fat idiot, mind you) Dick Cheney, and, just fer balance, Ted Kennedy.

 

OK so it appears that "fat" and "disgusting" are synonymous as far as you are concerned. I say this because aside from the weight issue, there is nothing remotely physically disgusting about Oprah nor Meatloaf (not anymore - sigh). Both are highly respected in their fields and have personal trainers and work hard to be clean, healthy, hygienic human beings (far more than the average American - Speaking of which, you must think that most Americans are disgusting as well, since obesity is a huge problem in this country). I might let you slide on Pavarotti, having seen his most recent Rigoletto (not good, he should stop trying to play that role, he can't cut it anymore), but it has nothing to do with his weight, as far as I'm concerned. And you think that it's cool that President Clinton shagged some "fat" chick (I use the term loosely, she was very curvy, one could say "ample," but I don't know if I would have called her fat).

All that is fine and well, so you have proven that you are as shallow as I thought you were. But you still haven't answered any of my other points. By what definition can you consider Mr. Moore "spineless?" The online dictionary's definitions of the word certainly don't apply to a man who has consistently gotten in the face so many evil wealthy politicians and businessmen (who have friends in higher places and high paid lawyers enough to make the average person afraid to even speak to them in the wrong tone of voice or look at them in a suspicious manner), especially now that the Patriot Act is in effect. He has stood up to police arrests and harassment, and to the Secret Service and still he keeps to his personal beliefs and values. He has not compromised in his unswerving dedication to exposing "the awful truth" to this day. Near as I can tell, the man has cajones so large I'm surprised he can walk! So, I'm interested in your criterion for this judgment.

It is my suspicion that you have none. You can't back up your claim that Mr. Moore is spineless, so you have chosen to ignore that part of my post. I don't give up so easily. Kindly back up your claim or admit that it was a poorly worded opinion (because of its obvious falsity) and buy a thesaurus – you need to enhance your vocabulary, buddy.

** Oh, BTW, MaxPower, don't bother citing those net sources you keep going on about. They have no credability, see my previous post at http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=43989&postcount=67

I'll be happy to discredit your other sources as well, if you like. I get off on that sh*t! Michael Moore may present facts in a non-objective manner, but they are still the facts. The real crux of the matter is that there is no such thing as objectivity. EVERYONE skews the facts to strengthen the argument they are making. Just look at the way political campaign ads throw numbers around as if they actually meant something - you can do anything with numbers if you push them around enough. At least Mr. Moore is brave enough to admit his biases, which is more than you can say of the large majority of the people you see in the media claiming to be giving you the "facts". That makes him the most critically sound "hyppocrite" I have ever heard of.

 

I have e-mailed George Lucas for absolute confirmation. Stay posted.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

 

Niraj Aryal,

Nice try. The author of that article is not the most reliable source, however. About a decade or so ago, I would have considered Christopher Hitchens to be a reliable source of information and a good person to cite if I wanted to feel safe about the credibility of my evidence. Today it is a different matter, though. It remains to be seen whether his arguments are valid, however, considering the number of fact checkers Michael Moore has working for him (something that even Mr. Hitchens mentioned in his article) I will wait to see what responses are made from both sides (let's face it, the crap is about to start flying fast and furious over this movie - it is an election year, after all).
I'd like to point you to a few articles written specifically concerning Mr. Hitchens' fall from journalistic grace. The man seems to have done a complete about-face on his own politics and journalistic ideals, yet he continues to publish and write as if he still had the respect that he once deserved, so it is easy to see where you might have made the mistake of reading his article without too much questioning of his facts and allegations.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/hitc-n27.shtml
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1179/article11370.asp
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2824
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id138.htm
http://www.fact-index.com/c/ch/christopher_hitchens.html

I've not had time to analyze his arguments myself, at this time. I have read them - I find his claim that the points in the line of argument that Moore presents in his film do not actually have anything to do with each other and do not prove his case. What is more, he claims that the premise of the film is founded on "a big lie and a big misrepresentation." He give us a line of reasoning which outlines his argument for the misrepresentation (though I believe it is greatly flawed, and even were it true I don't believe the "misrepresentation" is a big one - at worst, it might be a commonly held misconception, though at this moment I think it is the actual fact of the matter and not a misrepresentation at all) - I'll have to get back to you on this), but I can find no documentation of the "big lie" which he mentions. I don't have any idea what he is refering to. Perhaps you could point it out to me? I particularly like this phrase in the article "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point." That one actually made me giggle. Basically, he just said "Never mind what the facts are, this guy is wrong." And worse, he assumes that we will all just agree with him. I'm going to enjoy taking this article apart.

The article seems to spend as much time bashing anti-war sentiment concerning the goings-on in Iraq as Mr. Moores film. His line of reasoning there is questionable as well, often simply being (to paraphrase) "of course the system is skewed towards the rich, we've known that for years" as if that respons justifies the inequity in the system.

At this point (and I believe I will eventually prove this out) it appears that Mr. Moore's credibility is considerably higher than that of his critic, in your cited article, Mr. Hitchens. i will get back to the thread with a more in depth de-bunking of this article you citied, Unfairenheit 9/11 (clever), but I'm busy at the moment and it may take me til late tomorrow to lay complete waste to this hack.

Keep it up, though. Man, I really love this stuff!