Michael Moore for President!!!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles79 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Deaky's Right Nut wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As with anything, the truth IS out there, it is just a matter of whether or not you let your personal politics, or in Moores case, your personal hatred of President Bush, cloud you from picking out fact from fiction.[/QUOTE]

So what's the truth to you... that those WMD exist, and there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime?[/QUOTE]

John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, stood on the floor of the Senate October 9, 2002, and said this.

(Videotape, October 9, 2002):

SENATOR JOHN KERRY, (D-MA): Mr. President, when I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.

Hillary Clinton, the senator from New York, the former first lady, back in October of 2002: "It's clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological, chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed."

The "uproar" over Iraq is nothing more than blatant partisan Politics at it's worst.



There are hundreds more quotes, from BOTH sides of the aisle, conveying the same things. Were Kerry and Hillary lying, too? Or, did they get the same info that the entire world had at the time, and make the best desicion that they could?

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, but now it is politicaly expedient to bash Bush for doing, what at the time, and still is, the right thing in ousting Saddam. All of the rest is partisan Bull.

no thanks!!!


i would take bill again over this dingbat anyday (ew did i say that?)

moore's agenda simply is simply too one sided for me--

I love Michael Moore's movies and other media, and views in general. However I'm not so blind as to not see that he does twist things around for entertainment purposes, and sometimes quite unfairly.

I can't comment on the new movie, not having seen it, but here's an example from Bowling For Columbine:

There's a segment about a little boy who found a gun at his uncle's house and shot a girl. He was staying at the uncle's house because his mom had to work so much.. and go out of town on a bus to a job, thanks to a welfare program of some sort that takes groups of workers to far away jobs for low pay.

Okay, so Moore finds out that Dick Clark ('American Bandstand') owns this 50s rock 'n' roll cafe that the mother was working at when her son was involved in the shooting.

So he decides to blame Dick Clark for the whole tragedy, because he only pays minimum wage and the woman had to work a 2nd job (or something like that, I'm relying on memory here) and had to be away from her son for so long, resulting in him needing to stay with the uncle.

He CONFRONTS Dick Clark as Mr. Clark is getting into a minivan to go somewhere.. Dick of course has no idea what he's talking about, and under pressure of having cameras on him and being asked accusatory questions, he just takes off without answering, making him look bad.

That's Michael Moore's style.. pick an easy target for blame and twist things around enough to make them seem 'guilty' of something, and then confront them with cameras rolling and they inevitably make themselves look bad (notice I didn't say 'he makes them look bad')

Dick Clark's government-approved wages did not result in the shooting, the inattentive uncle of the boy did. He was entrusted to watch the boy, and left a gun out where the child could find it. It's as simple as that. But that's not dramatic enough for a segment in the movie.

So I see that there is a degree of manipulating facts for dramatic effect/entertainment value, but I still enjoy the movies. You just have to keep an open mind and don't instantly condemn all of Moore's targets without thinking about what you've been told first.

The Anti - Moore reader: Volume 1

RE: Topic title. I believe at one stage Michael Moore was going for the green party nomination for this years presidential election.

Here is an opinion piece by Christopher Hitchens. He's no Bush/neo-con aplogist (he mde his name as a leftist journo)but he agrees with those of us who know Moore to be hypocritical, manipulative, exploitative and all around lying gitface:

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


As for Moore's 'Limousine leftism' (thanks flashman), here is an article detailing his, and his fellow 'gucci radicals' public speaking appearance demands:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13616

For a list of distortions, half truths and outright lies in his hit 'documentary' bowling for columbine:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Also, as if further evidence of his odd conception of the 'truth' were needed, on his official site he has a list of (sponsored links) to 'real news' sites, one of which is 'the onion'.
(NB IMO The issue is not that they charge for their appearances - they have to eat like the rest of us - rather, it is disingenuous for these people to rail at America's corrupt materialst values and the evils of the profit motive and then demand a multi thousand dollar fee and all the trimmings for an hour or so's work).

The following passage was originally extracted from Moore's Blog entry on September 12th 2001. Do we need any further illustration of his idiocy?

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

So, if they did vote for Bush then they deserved to die?

If documentaries are supposed to show only facts, then I assume all of you believe in UFOs? After all, there's hardly a night goes by on US cable without some pro-UFO, pro-Roswell documentary. Strange and bizarre happenings in the Bermuda Triangle must also exist, according to that logic. Holiday in Atlantis anyone? Stonehenge was built by aliens? It must all be true...

Why should Moore or anyone else who makes a political documentary or movie spend his money and devote his time to giving equal airtime or creedence to the opposition? Moore isn't claiming neutrality at all. He freely admits his political leanings and that he wants Bush out of office. yet you hold him to a neutrality standard that you won't hold yourselves or your politicians to. You need to learn the difference between provable facts and the editorialising that puts those facts into a context. As far as I can see, (based on what I've read, and that's a lot more than many of you obvioulsy) Moore's facts are essentially correct. However, his editorialising of those facts is what's controversial. That doesn't make the movie factually inaccurate however.

Some of you aren't rising above the level of propagandists yourselves when it comes to making logical criticisms of this movie. In fact, I doubt those making the biggest noise have even seen it (I'm looking at you Flashman). Isn't it propaganda to criticise (or smear) a movie you haven't seen? Matt, didn't you criticise Bowling For Columbine and yet you admitted at that stage you had never watched it? I have learned that arguing with the "hear no evil, see no evil" crowd is like beating one's head against a brick wall, when I would much prefer instead beating Harvey's head against that wall :)

ps I have read two of Hitchen's books and a load of articles and I can assure you he is very much now pro-Bush, pro-neocon, quite unlike his earlier writings. He is also backtracking on many of his views about the war, now that many lies have been exposed. He is the guy, remember, that said it is okay that over 100 million native americans died because that led to the formation of the United States. That should tell you something about his fetish for power, why he disowned his British citizenship for American citizenship, and why he has turned his back on the Left (some of whom have treated Hitchens shamefully it must be said).

Thanks for the links, Wreckage :) I found this:

[QUOTE]
4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family.
[/QUOTE]

So I was wrong.. it WAS Dick Clark's fault! Everyone knows that the horrible rock & roll devil music he helped to shove down American's throats for so many years always leads to drug use, which in turn led to this tragedy.

I agree to an extent with Moore, but I don't like the way he manipulates certain issues to proove his point. So I can understand why so many people don't like him...

Yet I think it's absolutely pathetic that many people who oposse Moore criticize those who support him for being manipulated and blinded from the reality, when they have also been manipulated and blinded by the lies of George W. Bush themselves, and still think that he's been a great president after almost 4 years of an awful administration and atrocious policies of all kinds.

People should open their eyes more and not believe every single thing that people like Michael Moore or George W. Bush say.

Moore doesn't blame Dick Clark for the killing. Try starting with one of those "facts" you're so concerned about. He blames Clark for paying minimum wage (gasp! what a bastrd Moore is!) and the State Govt. for its Welfare to Work program which forced the kid's mother to leave him with her shithead brother (despite working two jobs -at minimum wage- she had been evicted from her rented apartment a few weeks previously).

....tumbleweed blowing through this thread....

Who, me? I stand by what I said. Dick Clark's wages did not result in the girl being shot, which is what was implied in the chain of events. Dick Clark should be thanked for participating in a government approved program to let welfare recipents work. If he gets to pay them smaller wages, so be it.

I hate Bush. He is the worst US president in history.

"Who, me? I stand by what I said. Dick Clark's wages did not result in the girl being shot, which is what was implied in the chain of events."

Let me make it simple for you. The mother was working two jobs, both minimum wage. She worked long hours, day and night. It took 60 mins by bus just to get to one job. Despite this effort, she didn't make enough money to pay the rent on her apartment so she was evicted. She also didn't make enough to hire a babysitter to sit with her kid at least five nights a week so she could work at Dick Clark's mall. Therefore she moved in with her brother because she had no other option. Moore's point is that the Welfare to Work program meant that she had to work or lose her welfare. That put her in this impossible situation. And because employers pay minimum wage only, many working class people are condemned to poverty wages. Those who criticise the mother for leaving her kid with her asshole brother REFUSE to discuss why she was put in that position. They blame the mother, the brother, the kid etc but refuse to look at the wider social reasons and consequences. Moore's point is, is this a fair system? Should someone working two jobs and long hours still not make enough money to pay the rent or spend time with her kid? If your attitude is "fuck `em, that's life" then fair enough. But if you want to get involved in a debate about the issues of BFC then at least stop misrepresenting whay Moore is actually saying.

"Dick Clark should be thanked for participating in a government approved program to let welfare recipents work. If he gets to pay them smaller wages, so be it."

You can suck up to the rich all you want, but don't expect Moore to be so docile.