It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Clint Eastwood Threatens Michael Moore With Death

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I wonder, if Michael Moore does not really report the full reality of a situation in what he portrays, alot of people say they hate the liberal mentality, and most say what he portrays on film is of that mentality; then why do people want to pay money to go watch the movies he makes? I don't call what he has been making documentaries myself, (more like political reality spoofs). I also don't think he wants to be a celebrity. As reverse psychology goes even bad publicity is publicity. I've only seen "Bowling for Colombine" out of the movies he's realesed; but I do think there is irony (and some comic lack of identity) when it comes to the views on this mans films. Most people I've ever heard of having watched any of his films say "quietly" that they liked his statements in both "Bowling for Colombine" and "Fahrenheit 911". So the way things appear to me is people enjoy stereotyping their agitation for his actions to make these movies as "liberal"; while alot of peoplewill still buy a ticket to watch what he's saying or possibly uncovered. To me, everyone has a right to their own point of view; but why not back up distain for something you don't like by not paying for more of it to be made. Hmmm, maybe people like the liberal point of view barring what is usually said about those labeled "liberal". Or maybe Michael Moore's movies aren't really a "liberal" point of view. Maybe his movies are just to the point for once, and people do like that; they just don't like his way of getting to that point because they're not used to that point being made without the struggles of a lifetime of viewed censorship complemented by a conditioned response of ignorance.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by existence]

[edit on 13-1-2005 by existence]




posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Good job Eastwood, I bet that made fat moore feel a bit unconfortable.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
It's clearly a joke.

He made a statement, then a funny remark.

Liberals take things like this as personal, so get a sense of humor, won't they?

-wD



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I agree, people definitely need to see the humor in a thing like this. People seem to look for things to hate these days way too much. It's kind of foolish but true; the more you laugh about things the less you tend to zone with one frame of mind.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
"Don't take life seriously, you'll never get out alive" That's true to an extent, but sometimes you must decide to take the world seriously in a fight for truth, justice, or righteousness. Seeing as we weren't present at the ceremony, there is no way to judge the intended seriousness of EDIT:Eastwood's quote according to many criteria. But, as with most articles in ATSNN, we won't ever know the real truth as we are but fleeting text. It's a lot easier to take the side of the article though.


[edit on 13-1-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Just like anything else a person doesn't witness first hand it is perception that speaks the mind. But when the mind speaks what you perceive from someone elses statement about something they have not perceived first hand either, then judgement tends to come from other factors within the mind that may not have anything to do with the subject at hand. The point about laughing more in life was not meant to say one should laugh your way through life. The point was meant to say that personal judgement of a thing tends to be less clouded by other factors within yourself when even a hint of those things that lead to the "fight or flight" mentality don't overwhelm your point of view.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by existence]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Some people take things too seriously. I mean Clint Eastwood is an actor just like Ronald Reagan was. Although I do remember the joke Ronald Reagan once made about outlawing Russia. He just casually said "we begin bombing in 5 minutes"

radio.about.com...

I heard that Russia went on immediate military alert. Ronald Reagan was taken seriously.

On the other hand maybe this Moore guy appears to be a punk from Eastwood's movie. That punk may be feeling lucky since he hasn't met Mr. Eastwood's friend yet.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Would any of you Moore bashers care to provide a specific reference to any of his inaccuracies? Calling him fat and liberal or biased is well and good, but if your going to call the man a liar, let's see some specifics. And as far as documentaries are concerned, well, yeah they are always biased. The person that made the Jane Goodall documentary probably favored chimpanzees, the person that made refer madness probably opposed marijuana. Get real. If you hate the man so much, take up your camera and walk the talk, I will put you in touch with distribution companies for independent film if you like, but Moore had the balls to say what he said and put it out there. Moore isn't new to to this either, he was walking his talk when alot of you guys were still wondering where Smurfette came from. Hell guys, Ficus won a congressional seat.
Bellyaching about his documentary from the seat of your chair is real impressive.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
oOoOoo what a tough man~!! he's exercising his rights to sin!! good for him!

and that moore character, who gives a damn honestly, he's always trying to be taken too seriously...moore is a mainstream version of conspiracy dorks, and just like mainstream music, undermines an entire generation of people who could be taken serious..but alas, he's as bad for you as pop music...even if there was a clean cut good msg in pop music, you wouldn't listen to the cliche person presenting their form of entertainment...so why should anyone listen to someone as cliche as moore, no matter what he could show you or try to prove..nobody is going to want to listen to someone as popular as pop music, disconnect from your simulation..



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
It's clearly a joke.

He made a statement, then a funny remark.

Liberals take things like this as personal, so get a sense of humor, won't they?

-wD


Maybe because they are tired of the right wing hate brigade. That "if it disagrees with you kill it" mentality.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Jam, try reading the story; Clint did not say he was going to Mike's house, he said if Mike came to HIS house. See the difference? That's even better, if Mike comes to Clint's house with a weapon. It'd be especially ironic seeing how Moore is a pathelogical liberal and did that little propaganda "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Maybe he comes to Clint door packing a Costco box of Ho'Ho's and beans. Now thats what I call a WMD



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Jam, try reading the story; Clint did not say he was going to Mike's house, he said if Mike came to HIS house. See the difference? That's even better, if Mike comes to Clint's house with a weapon. It'd be especially ironic seeing how Moore is a pathelogical liberal and did that little propaganda "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.


That was my point. If Moore is not accepted at Eastwood's house, then surely it will work both ways. In that movie Bowling for Columbine I never heard moore's explicit opinion. If anything, he was upset that guns are used offensively such as...the Columbine movie which is what the movie was titled after.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Would any of you Moore bashers care to provide a specific reference to any of his inaccuracies? Calling him fat and liberal or biased is well and good, but if your going to call the man a liar, let's see some specifics.
.................


This has been covered many times already twitchy, there is a whole section in these forums for that ball of tard.

Anyway, first in his movie bowling for Columbine ( I wasn't even aware of what that movie was until they showed it once in showtime...and i watched the thing....) he makes people believe that there is a bank somewhere in the states, I forgot where now, where you can open a savings account (i think it was a savings account) and you can walk out with a weapon... Total lie, you have to go through the same process as if you are buying a weapon.

Second, he tried to paint Iraq as a tranquil and peaceful place before the war, when in reality about 2,000,000+ Iraqis have died by the peaceful sanctions of the UN and by Saddam's hand together, and it was still going on right up to the beginning of the war. Saddam's sons could do pretty much anything they wanted which included murdering their whole football team if they lost, or murdering the boyfriend, or husband, of any women if one of Saddam's sons fancied her...and of course he would rape her too...among other things.

Humm, what else can i say off the top of my head...
Oh yes, he stated that everyone who died in the flights in 9/11 were just a bunch of "scaredy-cats", he obviously had no idea that at least the people in one of the flights fought with the hijakers and brought down the plane, not to mention that the ball of lard did not care that he insulted the memory of innocent people who died by the hands of a bunch of jackasses.

One last one, the ball of tard erroneously stated that Bush allowed for all the relatives of Bin Laden to leave the States, and Clark himself said this was not true, that it was him who thought it best for the family of Bin Laden to leave the country and he made it happen, not Bush.

I made a small list, longer than this one, in the forum that was reserved for the ball of tard, if you want to see some more of his lies. His work lacks any true research, he exagerates, and many times right up mades up stuff to try to sell his movies and books to those people that don't know any better.



[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyway, first in his movie bowling for Columbine ( I wasn't even aware of what that movie was until they showed it once in showtime...and i watched the thing....) he makes people believe that there is a bank somwhere, I forgot where now, where you can open a savings account (i think it was a savings account) and you can walk out with a weapon... Total lie, you ahve to go through the same process as if you are buying a weapon.

I don't know of any Bank that sells fire arms. This sounds like maybe you missed his point, which is that it very easy in this country to obtain a fire arm, as easy as it is to open a bank account in supplying the same credentials, etc.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Second, he tried to paint Iraq as a tranquil and peaceful place before the war, when in reality about 2,000,000+ Iraqis have died by the peaceful sanctions of the UN and by Saddam's hand together, and it was still going on right up to the beginning of the war. Saddam's sons could do pretty much anything they wanted which included murdering their whole football team if they lost, or murdering the boyfriend, or husband, of any women if one of Saddam's sons fancied her...and of course he would rape her too...among other things.

He didn't try to paint Iraq as a peaceful area, he showed some footage of Iraqi children playing at playground. They have both children and playgrounds in Iraq. Here again you missed the point, which was that Iraqi people are people. They had a culture, they had kids playing in playgrounds, this isn't an inaccuracy, or a lie. The man never said Iraq was a peaceful utopia.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh yes, he stated that everyone who died in the flights in 9/11 were just a bunch of "scaredy-cats", he obviously had no idea that at least the people in one of the flights fought with the hijakers and brought down the plane, not to mention that the ball of lard did not care that he insulted the memory of innocent people who died by the hands of a bunch of jackasses.

I think that is what we in the media business would call an opinion. As much as you may disagree with it, there is a big difference between an opinion and a lie. You have yet to point out any specific inaccuracies. I honestly think you fail to understand what a documentary is all about here, like I said earlier, the people that made the Jane Goodall documentary were probably partial to chimpanzees and her cause, so no, they probably didn't show Chimp Poachers playing in a park with their kids. Am I to understadn that a position that doesn't agree with your opinion is an inaccuracy? The media does this fevery day, 365 a year. No, Moore didn't lie about anything. If you wan't a all encompassing, all sides represented news story or documentary, well you are chit out of luck because there aren't any. Ever. But like I said, you have yet to point out anything even remotely resembling a lie.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Winner of Palmes d'Or (peak prize) at Cannes Film Festival.

People's Choice award for best movie 2004, over The Incredibles and every other piece of Hollywood.

Biggest grossing documentary film of all time.

How exactly did Moore "blow it"?

He will spin Clint Eastwood's threat out and dine on it for a long time, in the same way he got stuck into Charlton Heston's inept fronting of the NRA. With great celebrity comes no responsibility.



He won some awards that are given by a bunch of snot nosed wine sipping elitist liberals who sit around, picking movies that most people really dont like or think are that great. I find that the whole film critics cabal is about the most useless bunch who somehow think they know better than the rest of us what makes a film good. Oh yeah, Im impressed.


Moore did blow it. Farenheit 911 was a waste. instead of gathering FACTS about 9/11, facts that are easily verifiable, and putting them together to show the very real possibility that Bush and friends not only knew 9/11 was gonna happen, but may have even aided and abbetted indirectly, but on prupose, he instead stunk up the movie screen with a bunch of liberal cliches, stereotypes, and false representations.

he could have used his documetary skills to actually produce a film that could have stirred up a tide of suspicon and maybe even got people to REALLY wonder about 9/11, but all he did was make money for himself, and, because much of the stuff in his joke of a movie was false and easy to discredit, it also helped to persuade people to think that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are also a bunch of lies.

Moore is a worthless piece of fecal material who should be flushed down the toilet with the rest of his ilk, for instead of using the opportunity to really help turn the tide against Bush, he only lined his pockets and pushed his own petty agendas. Id threaten the fat bastard with death too if he ever showed up on my doorstep.

But I seriously doubt that Mr Eastwood's comment can be taken at face value or really mean much. people in Hollywood always say crazy stuff that usually is said in cyncism or as a joke. I highly doubt it was a real death threat.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Twichy...you forgot the part where i said that Moore stated that it was president Bush alone who made sure all the Bin Ladens were out of the country, and Clark, who is no friend of president Bush, said this was not true.

You can also look at the other points given at the forum dedicated to this ball of lard.

BTW, if you do show let's say a group of Cubans dancing and singing at a party and only portray that to people that do not know much about Cuba, these people will think that the govenrment of Cuba must be good, hey these people are dancing and singing right?.... In fact you will be misleading people to believe a lie....which is what Moore did....

An opinion can be based in a lie too, if you don't do any research on the subject...his opinion about the people that died in the flights in 9/11 is based in a lie...if he did research like he has claimed he would have known that people fought the extremists and wouldn't have made such a comment. He either lied that he made research to make his books and movies or he knowingly lied to the people about those who died in the flights of 9/11...


[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I tell you how "P.C" we can get, I've been given a warning for my first post on this thread.

All the Americans i've spoken to have expressed what I said.

Maybe I'm talking to the right people. Maybe in your OPINION i'm not. Maybe I haven't spoken to ENOUGH people, maybe its enhanced by the opinions I read coming out of America by thinkers within that nation.

A sure sign of Tyranny is the "slap down" for expressing opinion. A Warning for expressing opinon what is this, SCHOOL?

Why don't you ask Greg Palast what he thinks of being labelled "Black Helicopter Brigade" because he discusses Election Fraud U.S.A.

Everyone wonders who runs this site. "It's a joke folk, it's a joke".

I didn't want sexual relations with those people.







[edit on 1/17/2005 by Chaosica]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Winner of Palmes d'Or (peak prize) at Cannes Film Festival.

People's Choice award for best movie 2004, over The Incredibles and every other piece of Hollywood.


He won some awards that are given by a bunch of snot nosed wine sipping elitist liberals who sit around, picking movies that most people really dont like or think are that great. I find that the whole film critics cabal is about the most useless bunch who somehow think they know better than the rest of us what makes a film good. Oh yeah, Im impressed.




Errr.... no, People's Choice is... People's Choice.

What makes a film good? I would certainly trust the judgment of people trained in film over a bunch of snot nosed popcorn munching eternal adolescents who have never seen anything outside of the Hollywood action blockbuster genre or teenage dirtbag comedies. Oh yeah, I'm converted.

You see? Disparaging labels work however you want them to.

Film is a medium for people from all walks of life all over the world. I think the jury largely sees in favor of Mike Moore, but there are obvious reasons that people will be motivated to speak out loudly against him.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyway, first in his movie bowling for Columbine ( I wasn't even aware of what that movie was until they showed it once in showtime...and i watched the thing....) he makes people believe that there is a bank somwhere, I forgot where now, where you can open a savings account (i think it was a savings account) and you can walk out with a weapon... Total lie, you ahve to go through the same process as if you are buying a weapon.

I don't know of any Bank that sells fire arms. This sounds like maybe you missed his point, which is that it very easy in this country to obtain a fire arm, as easy as it is to open a bank account in supplying the same credentials, etc.

You didn't see the film, did you? If you had, you'd know that the scene was taken out of context and mangled by Moore to try to make a point:
Michael at the Bank
Be sure to read the section entitled "Staged Scene".



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join