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.

 

Michael Moore preparing to turn sights on Wall St

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 





Moore is just using his fortunate status to peddle his own agenda- all of this output if filled with lies, distortions and propaganda

You still haven't answered; Whats the beef?
What exactly is the selfish agenda he is supposedly peddling

How do you know what stance he will take, if his new "Wall St." Documentary has not been aired yet.
I think you protest too much




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


I can't respond for blueorder but from reading his books and watching TV Nation and his "documentaries" his agenda is simply party line supporting for first greens and if they have no viable options he jumps to dems.

I commend him for pointing out problems but his "more government is the answer" naivety coupled with his unfaltering support for a political party makes his "investigation" and subsequent "conclusions" essentially worthless.

It was actually because of TV Nation and his first books that I realized I was conservative and later very much libertarian bordering on anarchistic.

I generally like what he was pointing out as issues but his "big government as solution" answers always drove me crazy.

His mental development seems to have halted at the age of 14 or so and his subsequent popularity and "word as gospel" status is helping to retard the development of generations of young people as well as the more susceptible adults among us. Like my co-worker who still thinks Obama W. Bush is different from George W. Bush and cites his stance on Gitmo as an example. I guess she hasnt been paying attention the past week or so.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Talk about easy target.


Seriously, they should have went after Wall Street after the Enron collapse.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
I have never seen such vitriol over one man's work. Is all of wall street on this forum? Are you guys shaking in your boots or something?
ANY light being shone on this fiasco is a good thing; regardless of the political views of the guy holding the light.

If he manages to bring a few more factoids to the surface; then that is a good thing. I will be able to make up my own mind on the conclusions.
Meanwhile, quiver on.



HIS FILMS ARE FILLED WITH LIES, HALF TRUTHS, DISTORTIONS AND TAINTED WITH HIS OWN AGENDA!- open your mind and don't be a sheep



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
You still haven't answered; Whats the beef?


I answered it- a "documentary" filmmaker who fills his "documentaries" with lies and half truths and does so to serve his own political leanings (leanings which I oppose)- that is my sirloin sir



What exactly is the selfish agenda he is supposedly peddling




Yeah, wonder what agenda it is, wonder if it is a small government non liberal agenda mmmmmmm




How do you know what stance he will take, if his new "Wall St." Documentary has not been aired yet.
I think you protest too much



Clearly, he could astound me and completely do a 360 on his previous efforts- not likely is it- if you wish to be a moore lackey, that is your right



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
A little late imo, but this guy surely reaches a large audience, more then Aaron russo or Alex Jones for instance[worldwide]. I hope he will uncover new things but beginning with the 1913 drama where it all began..and that he twists and turns the truth, well i can cope with that, nothing compared with what the wallstreet gangs have been doing with the peoples money...



[edit on 22-5-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





I commend him for pointing out problems but his "more government is the answer" naivety coupled with his unfaltering support for a political party makes his "investigation" and subsequent "conclusions" essentially worthless.

Do you think he advocates "more Government"?
By switching from one party ideology to another, would it be too strange to think that maybe he is advocating that "each extreme", has its merits and faults. Being a fence sitter allows him to present the situation, and what's being done without the hypocracy, of bias.
Maybe he's indirectly suggesting that a new political paradigm is needed.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


I do believe he is an advocate of more government. His books always call for more regulation, more legislation and more "state" ownership.

Him hovering around the Greens then jumping to the Dems is hardly a dramatic political shift. Both the Greens and the Dems are in favor of more government but for Moore and many other less-thoughtful college-aged individuals the Greens have "alt" appeal. If you're lucky enough to find a college-aged kid who actually pays attention he'll state clear differences between the two and honestly prefer one over the other for valid reasons but both (essentially all parties save two or three fringe parties as well) promote big government solutions which in the long run dissolve individual freedoms and personal liberty.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I am nobodies lacky SIR;
and certainly not a lacky to your point of view.

Instead of diatribe after rephrased questions, get to the heart of the problem without others having to extract it from you- at which point you get bothered.
You may not like the man or what he says, some of his concepts are over simplified for a wider audience; does that make everything he does B.S?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
I have never seen such vitriol over one man's work.


Rush Limbaugh.

Case Closed.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Altho we have not heard from him in a while.....i thought perhaps he had fallin in to a playpen full of hambugers and bon bons and ate himself into oblivion......

Nope, hes back, hes fat......and hes on a roll!


Talk about distortions. What has his weight got to do with his movies? Are you any more believable because you've called him down over his size?

If I'm not mistaken, he challenged Big Health and Big Pharma to prove him wrong...didn't happen.

I don't seem to recall him being successfully sued, or handing out apologies for telling fibs. I'd be tempted to say that if there are any whoppers about, they come from those who disagree with him.

You may not like the mirror he holds up, but you don't win by saying he's fat.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
As far as twisting the truth and telling lies, well, there's lots of that on here so far. Its a pretty common human trait (ability?). You guys are no better than Moore in that regard.

Very few straight shooters in the crowd. Everyone has their agenda.

Once again, I am at least happy someone is tackling the issue. The more muckraking the better when it comes to this type of cancer on our society.

The problem is, we will never get away from being our typically selfish human selves. People always want "less government" when it comes to other people's agendas and "more government" when it comes to their own.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno People always want "less government" when it comes to other people's agendas and "more government" when it comes to their own.


I can honestly say I do not. I have to desire to lead or to be lead. I just want to be left alone and I would pass that on to anyone else by default.

Less government is is my only agenda. For everyone.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Talk about distortions. What has his weight got to do with his movies? Are you any more believable because you've called him down over his size?


Technically, in terms of his movies? Very little, if anything- but this bully deserves to be bullied back, and if his fatness is one such attack so be it. If he is so concerned about the environment why does he not stop eating so much and give up meat. methinks he doesnt really give a damn



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Michael Moore, IMHO, is nothing more than a 'wannabe' artist. He focuses on the real issues, but the 'art' he creates is full of nothing more than his own ideals and views.

Before you go ballistic on that comment, I KNOW that that is the entire point of true art.

However... he does not create art. He is a charlatan forcing his point of view, full of lies and deceit, on the public as a 'documentary', when in fact, it is nothing more than a tale of fiction with facts interwoven within.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Moore is a moron. Anyone who thinks he is does what he does to raise awareness is morons.

He does it for the money.

I thought this idiot had gone away. But I guess he saw his next gravy train when Wall St. went into cardiac arrest.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


So because he "has a go", we should accept what he says no matter how un-true his information is and no matter how much it deflects attention from the real issues? We should all endorse his propaganda films just because we aren't corporate shills and therefore aren't capable of making films that make a true impact?

Just to clarify, are these our only three options?:

1: Follow everything Michael Moore says unconditionally.
2: Commit to being a mouthpiece for Corporate America.
3: Shut up.

I'd love to make my own films and have them make an impact, but the problem is my masters don't own the media, so I couldn't get my word out there quite as well as he can.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

1: Follow everything Michael Moore says unconditionally.



No one is saying that.

Michael Moore obviously puts his spin on everything, but doesn't every documentarian?

I have seen his movies, and while some of them I agree with wholeheartedly, some I found a bit less-than-tasteful (Bowling for Columbine). Fahrenheit 911 was fantastic, and he outdid it with Sicko.

If you have the ability to look past the slant, you can see that he raises some very valid points. More importantly, he can actually reach a large enough audience to make an impact. If you can manage to get over your preconceived notions and Moore's 'liberal agenda' then you can make up your own mind, which is really the true purpose of a documentary.

The truth will set you free.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


YAY!!
Who is excited? Ravenshadow is excited.

He's so funny and obnoxious and I think everyone he interviews totally hates him. But he does a really good job.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 





So because he "has a go", we should accept what he says no matter how un-true his information is and no matter how much it deflects attention from the real issues? We should all endorse his propaganda films just because we aren't corporate shills and therefore aren't capable of making films that make a true impact?

I never said anyone had to accept his testimony as truth.
Thats the wonderful thing about being human, to be able to make your own decisions on things, isn't it.
Also I never said that I believe everything that he puts forth as evidence.
I also never forget that No documentary can ever be objective.
Whether you enjoy his books or documentaries or not, I dont really care.
At this point for me he's more believable than you.
Whendid you say you were going to start making films?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join