Michael Moore's final comments

Originally posted by rachlls
Michael Moore is a pompus arrogant arse. Nobody knew who he was until he made those totally uncalled for comments on national television.

This is kind of ridiculous for as an ATS member comment. Moore has had a widely syndicated TV show for years, and at least Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine were widely acclaimed well before Fahrenheit 911 was even conceived of.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by moxyone
Who gives a rat's arse what that lying windbag says, anyway.

He is laughing at his followers, all the way to the bank.

Why do people so argo when Michael Moore is mentioned? The reason is that some of hits on some home truths ,althrough he dose get a bit carried away.
You already know that George W. Bush is the farthest thing from a conservative. He�s a reckless spender who has run up record-breaking deficits and the biggest debt in our history.
Now theres a home truth people wouldnt bother posting a response if it wasnt true.

Bush refused to go after and capture Osama bin Laden. He fought, every step of the way, the investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Who on earth would oppose such a thing.
With this statement Moor seems to have forgotton that a US led force went into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Ladin. Bush went after Bin Ladin and then he took his eye off the 8 ball when he started that sideshow in Iraq.

Ive got mixed feelings about MM I'll admit.

I liked Bowling because it was in your face political satire, although I think he set some people up who didnt deserve to be ( and a couple who did).

I havent seen 9/11 because I was too broke to. I hope to get the opportunity when it comes out on video.

He has done some good things on his show, and I beleive he believes in what he thinks and wears his heart on his sleeve, as well as looking out for MM and making money like gunbusters (aint it grand when you can get rich doing something you love).

Sometimes (okay a lot of the time) he annoys the # out of me but he's no more polarised in his views than most of us....OMG did I say that.

I dont agree with his conclusions on a lot of things or some of his more pithier insults but at least as far as his right to express his views I would defend that.

Hope the elections go well for at least half of you all in the USA

Originally posted by craigandrew
I havent seen 9/11 because I was too broke to. I hope to get the opportunity when it comes out on video.

- Download it man, Moore's more than happy for people to do that.

Then if you like and you want to see the 'extras' buy the DVD.

I am a major fan of Michael Moore's work, but lately he's starting to sound like just another Internet crackpot.

It's too bad, because the man is bulging with talent.

As much as he craves the attention, I think he would be better served to focus on doing what he is good at: making movies.

Michael, please leave the stumping to the actors and musicians, or better yet, hire some to put into your next movie.

Although we're all entitled to our Michael Moore opinions, the subject here involves his final closing comments regarding the presidential elections 2004.

I've read over the responses and i'm disappointed that only 1 1/2 persons cared to actually comment on what Michael Moore had to say.

Something IMO is very honest to all voting Americans.

[edit on 2-11-2004 by syntaxer]

Originally posted by twitchy
The only serious rebuttal the GOP could muster to Moore was "he's fat".

No, it is lier. You can not argue with that.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush should be tried under the Trading with the enemy act that nailed his grandfather's little Nazi banking business with Harriman Bros.

Ok, your point is?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Im just happy that a liberal counterpart to Rush Limbaugh exists

You can not compare the two.

Originally posted by xpert11
You already know that George W. Bush is the farthest thing from a conservative. He�s a reckless spender who has run up record-breaking deficits and the biggest debt in our history.

We are fighting a global war, GLOBAL. That takes money.

Bush refused to go after and capture Osama bin Laden. He fought, every step of the way, the investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Wrong again but nice try

With this statement Moor seems to have forgotton that a US led force went into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Ladin. Bush went after Bin Ladin and then he took his eye off the 8 ball when he started that sideshow in Iraq.

The War on Terrorism is a global war so we must go where the terrorist hide and execute them.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by xpert11
You already know that George W. Bush is the farthest thing from a conservative. He�s a reckless spender who has run up record-breaking deficits and the biggest debt in our history.

We are fighting a global war, GLOBAL. That takes money.

Just take it easy, will you. The war is not global and isn't even a World War. It's an invasion of two countries in the Middle East and Central Asia.

As for reckless spending... A lot of the billions needed to finance the Iraq war effort weren't even included in the budget, to make it easier to pass the bill.. With the intention to ask for more money later... That's what we see happening. It's a bottomless pit indeed.

Second, instead of securing our ports and developing better intelligence, the money was sank into Iraq which was pretty useless from the terror standpoint.


Nobody doubts that any security effort takes money. This administration, however, proved itself as exceptionally bad at spending efficiently.

as mentioned by MaskedAvatar
This is kind of ridiculous for as an ATS member comment. Moore has had a widely syndicated TV show for years, and at least Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine were widely acclaimed well before Fahrenheit 911 was even conceived of.

So?
Because he (MM) has done such, does this 'protect' him from being stereotyped, ridiculed, etc.? I mean gee, seems many here have no problems calling the President of the United States whatever suites the bill....are you indicating that MM should recieve preferential treatment or something to that degree?

Furthermore, is this member, Rachlls or any other member, not entitled to say what he/she deems appropriate, as you and others have, regardless if you, and those same others, agree with it or not?


seekerof

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Im just happy that a liberal counterpart to Rush Limbaugh exists

You can not compare the two.

How can you possibly compare a radio personality who answers questions and defends his opinions live on radio with, I'm sorry here, A cowardly man who hides behind his half truth anti-america movies.

Maybe you can compare the two because are both overweight

Furthermore if you can't see that Moore, Eminem, etc. aren't exploiting this election for money you have to be blindfolded.

They both now their target audiences are 15-24 kids who are in their teenage angst years. They both know exactly what their audience wants to hear and they're serving it to you all on a silver platter. Gobble it up and make their capitalist pockets fatter. Oh wait, I forgot they ARE anti-capitalism

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

The War on Terrorism is a global war so we must go where the terrorist hide and execute them.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
There were no terrorist operating from Iraq. (1)
Saddam did not fund terrorist organizations and had no WMD's. (2)
Iraq was unable to use conventional power against neighbouring countries.
Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons.

1. Actually there WERE terrorists in Iraq, but:
-there are terrorist also in the USA..
- the only group was operating in the far north, in kurdish territory. It had/has de facto autonomy and the americans could have bombed the camp any time. Or could have sent in SF to take them out..

2. What Saddam did was sending money to those palestinians who had their houses destroyed by the Israelis. It was just for PR..
And he harboured Al Zarkawi, who now has the chaos "delivered" to him..
Now he is doing all the things he wanted, but didn't had the opportunity..

Saudi Arabia is a good example for countries who pump serious money into terrorism..

Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies, their ideology made it impossible for them to cooperate. Both of them are very strict in their beliefs. Bin Laden often used very harsh words about Saddam, and he actually volunteered to make Iraq something like a theocracy. Which is very far from the Iraqi secularized system of the Saddam era.

The war in Iraq alienated some of the allies, and whats worse (for America), it contributed to the growt of hatred against the USA in the Middle East. Hatred is a very usable tool in recruiting terrorists. And not to mention, those dictators who sit on the thrones of "partner" countries in the Middle East are having a very hard time explaining their subjects why they are so friendly towards America.

Do you remember the situation after 9/11? Overwhelming part of all the people on the globe were sympathetic towards america and were ready to help her defend herself.
What is the situation know?
Most of the people on the globe think the behaviour of the USA is threatening, and with full of greed.
Politics on a global scale is not a cowboy-style game, where the "bring it on" menatality achieves anything..

The USA jumped into a quagmire by choice, in the worst time possible. Osama is still free/alive, and he IS the simbol off terrorism/resistance to US domination. Although Al-qaida may be temporarily weakened, but just think about this: a man fleeing from the American forces gives a speech, and in the matter of days, the whole world hears it.. He is the Robin Hood of the muslim fanatics. And by now there are thousands who are willing to follow him to the bitter end..

So, all we have, is a not-so-good status quo in Afganistan, where the warlords still rule most of the country.
The icon of terrorism sending messages from an unknown location, and thus encouraging his supporters all over the world to attack wherever they can.
And the greatest problem, the war in Iraq which drains the resources of America, and breeds terrorism..

As for Michael Moore, he has the right to deliver the message he wants. He is a very talented, and is capable to influence great numbers of people. Yes, he edits his movies, and makes them more entertaining.
But if you open your eyes you can see that, even news channels are often leaning towards entertainment. I have read the "Stupid white man", and i disagree with it, but his films are just excellent. And until people actually want to see his movies, he won't stop. It's just capitalism..

EDIT: Ok, I acknowledge,this post is a "little bit" offtopic, but i simply couldn't stop writing...

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Judge DredD]

If you notice, Moore is encouraging Americans to vote. Not to vote democrat, libetarian or any other party besides republican.

Osama's speech writer...
Let's not forget that, in his list of accomplishments.

His biggest accomplishment in life, is his ability to determine HOW large his
potential audience is, for any given movie...He then, writes specifically FOR that audience..And they suck it up, like vermicelli.

He's a capitalist, and he likes money, more than the Truth..


I would call his movies:
Cinema for the Man who Thinks He's the Thinking man.
OR
Drivel for Dollars
Or
Pseudomentaries