Michael Moore again proves himself to be the Democratic Party shill he is

Tonight, Michael Moore appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He's got a new look. He appeared on Leno's show shaven and dressed in a gray suit, as opposed to his usual scruffy, unkempt, jeans and Arby's sauce-stained t-shirt look. He reminded me of a used car salesman instead of the well-fed homeless person he has reminded me of in the past (no offense to homeless people).

So, as this massive figure walks onstage he is greeted by a cacophony of cheers, and some boos, from the audience. Moore sits down and Leno begins stroking his ego while feeding him the same generic, softball questions he usually does. And Moore goes into talking about how great his year has been, and what a success Fahrenheit 9/11 was, and how much money he has made off the movie.... the typical self-absorbed crap you would expect to hear from an egomaniac like Moore.

Several times he was booed.

So, here comes the interesting part...

In regard to the Presidential Elections, Leno asks Moore, "Well, what do you think happened?"

Moore's response:

"Well, I think Bush got more votes than Kerry." (laughs)

I wanted to puke, though I was hardly surprised by Moore's response.

But I thought that Moore was the voice of the left? I thought he cared more about presenting the truth than fattening his wallet and building his fame and schmoozing with Matt Damon?

If anyone is standing up against these stolen elections, shouldn't it be Moore? Shouldn't this be the perfect time for him to step back into the spotlight, to further flatter himself by saving the day and presenting us with the truth?

After all, if anyone has the ability to reach a large enough audience to present this evidence and make it have an affect, unfortunately it's Michael Moore. Not Greg Palast or Jon Rappoport or Wayne Madsen.

Well, Moore didn't say a single thing about the numerous cases of voter fraud and supression reported all across the country in the November 2nd elections.

He didn't talk about the 90,000+ extra votes coming from Ohio.

He didn't talk about the Bush/Diebold relationship.

He didn't talk about the thousands of votes that were thrown in the trash or not counted.

He didn't talk about the electronic voting machine errors and black box voting.

He didn't talk about the discrepancies regarding the exit polls in Ohio.

He didn't talk about anything that would point to the election being stolen, and has apparently bought into the pervading "Bush won" mentality that the Democratic Party has embraced.

Or so he wants us to believe.

Before the election, Moore was talking all tough, saying he "won't let them get away with it this time." What happened, Mike?

This has lead me to further believe that either Moore is indeed a money-grubbing, fame-loving shill for the Democratic Party, which I have always thought he was. Or, Moore is afraid of the reaction he might receive from his mainstream fanbase of sheep, by inferring that the election was stolen. After all, he might not any longer be able to sell his half-wit books to the minions of the herd mentality -- who keep the money flowing -- by making such a "rash" claim.

I am not trying to put Moore or his fans down, but this is something you should be asking yourselves and calling these people out on -- these people who are intentionally misleading you while profiting from it! Moore makes millions off of naive, impressionable people who believe that his only intention is to spread the truth. That is a flat-out lie, and Moore's body of work, as well as his actions (or lack thereof) proves this. These people need to be taken for what they are! And Michael Moore is a fraud who needs to be exposed as being the con-artist he is, and should not be taken any more seriously than a blowhard like O'Reilly or Limbaugh, who represent the opposite end of the false paradigm but support the same deception.

 

I didn't watch the Leno show, but I'm not suprised. The thing is he could have done a lot more than what he did to promote the cause he supposedly was championing - removing dubya from office. He could have taken some of his profits and turned them around and distributed his film to millions of people to whom it was not accessible - i.e. the poor.

I just felt that he made a big splash in June and could've really used that momentum towards something other than fattening his wallet, which right now is what appears to be his true motivation with F9/11.

 

hmmm..I didn't see it, but it sounds pretty nauseating. However, I have to ask, who is Moore to do anything about it? Why should people care what he thinks anyways? I know people do, but they shouldn't. Why would he have any more knowledge on the subject. I personally think the people who listen to him and value his opinion are already quite aware the election was rigged.

 

OMG, now Moore is in on the "Conspiracy?"

Unlike a loose cannon, Moore does his homework. Maybe it isn't the TIME to be throwing alleged allegations around. Maybe more information is needed. Maybe Moore feels he needs to actually find research with MERIT instead of Bush as Alien Reptile shit.

Presenting us with the truth? Maybe your view is as skewed as you think the mainstream Dem's is.

 

I doubt there is anyone on the Left who poured as much time, energy and effort, as well as money in to defeating Bush than Moore. Traveling to all those cities where he showed his movie, free of charge in many of them, does not come cheap. The setups, the scheduling, the promoting of the appearances, his get out the vote efforts registared thousands. But, if you are wondering where he is coming from now why don't you ask him.
He accepts email from any and all. Now whether he replies is up to you I suppose. See if you can get his attention.

Michael Moore Breaking News!

 

Michael Moore is basically the sheep-herder of the Left. I mean, I guess that he underestimates the average intelligence of the Democrat, since he really doesn't do much but pour a lot of emotional fuel into his movies and books, which are sometimes coupled with facts. But the guy, I mean, come on. He could be using his time to actually state facts that are clear and undeniable, but no, he would rather pursue the game of 'partisan' politics. He's a propagandist, no different than those Republican propagandists. He doesn't invite people to think for himself. That is why I cannot support anything he does.

I remember sending him a few emails, asking him "Why don't you do a movie that targets the 'war on drugs'?". Now that would be a target! But no, he'd rather pursue this bullshit game of 'partisan' politics. I can't forgive the asshole, because he is in a very unique position to make a very loud noise about the truth, and yet he keeps jerking himself and his Democratic friends off. Either he is a very pathetic and cowardly man who knows the truth, and is afraid to speak it, or else he is just as blind and stupid as his Republican counter-parts. I guess it doesn't really matter which, since I surely don't buy into any of his rhetoric.

 

Baaah....

 

Well, Moore claims to be out for the people and he's not. I couldn't care less, really. But I think Moore and his work is a total joke. And I am simply trying to expose him as the fraud he is.

I didn't really expect him to come out and present any of the evidence, but when asked, he didn't even elude to it.

The fact is people SHOULD'NT care what Moore has to say, because he's just another "one of them" as far as I am concerned.

 

Well said.

 

Who cares, most of 9/11 was lame anyway.

When I saw it, I was thinking, "Why are all of my friends swearing by this and going to see it numerous times? It's no better than the propaganda at the other end of the spectrum."

It was too long and too deceptive (much like the film's subject matter). Columbine was a much better effort, but it still succumbed to the lazy emotional tricks of the former.

As for his publications, I have much better things to do with my time than read a book whose title is "Dude, Where's My Country?"

Give me a fucking break.

 

You are drawing your conclusions and then looking for evidence to support them, rather than basing your conclusions on the evidence. In short, you see what you want to see. You don't WANT Bush to have won legitimately, so you look for evidence that supports that view while ignoring all other evidence.


I'm as anti-Bush as they come, but the fact of the matter is, Michael Moore is right - Bush got more votes than Kerry, both nationwide and in the states that mattered.

 

How can you be so assured of this? Where is your proof that Bush won legitimately? It cannot be proven with Black Box voting, which is exactly why they want that method of voting!
Besides, your argument that since people wanted Kerry to win, they draw the conclusion that the election was stolen, well many people who feel the election was stolen did not even support Kerry. They are mostly independents.
I think it's fine if you want to say you don't know if it was stolen or not, but to be confident that it wasn't seems strange, not to mention unfounded.

 

After further thought, I'm glad Moore is staying out of the fraud discussion. The last thing we need is his fat ass contributing. What could be more of a sure-fire way to have more people dismiss the notion of a stolen election than to have him spout off about fraud. Many people don't like him and if he suggested fraud, surely many folks would turn away from the possibility just because he suggested it.

God- Please. If he made a documentary about the war on drugs, you would still find something to criticize him about, it wouldn't go far enough...etc. Some people can't bash him enough. I, for one, like him just because he gets under so many people's skin.

 

He wouldn't MAKE a documentary on the WoD, simply because it is a BIPARTISAN clusterfuck, with no political advantage for the Dems. After all, Clinton presided over the most bullshit marijuana busts of ANY president in history.

The only parties calling for an end to the WoD are the Greens and the Libertarians, and questioning the legitimacy of such a "sacred cow" could draw attention to a lot of OTHER shit that the 2 major parties are in total agreement on.

 

Yeah, exactly, Ellis. If it doesn't have an advantage for his little Democrat friends, then he won't speak out against him. Thus, he is a sheep-herder, a propagandist, for the Left. He is not unbiased. He is Rielly and Lambaugh's counterpoints, as Rat stated in his first post.

 

I liked his older stuff better, when he was the tubby blue-collar guy pissing off the Man - be it GM or a random corporation feeding bug spray to human gunea pigs. It was funny and entertaining with a message. He wasn't even specifically partisan - the only person he was for was the little man.

I really hate how he's evolved into another talking head sleezebag.

I'll give Moore this - he does raise good questions in his work, even if you do have to take his information with a grain of salt.

 

it was a nice day today wasn't it?

 

Yes.

 

Then why would you expect him to make one? I guess I just don't understand what you guys expect from him, when did the expectations for Moore get so high? I think he is just an easy target for disgruntled people like you guys.

 

Does anyone actually think his is supposed to be unbiased? I don't get it. Are you doing any good by attacking Moore? Is it going to help anything?