Authored by: norcalfella on Friday, July 02 2004

Just to level it out a bit here's another Michael Moore basher although the overconsumption joke (it was made in the film Anger Mangement in another form) is old and tired. To me, Moore's just not worth my time.

---
that's my take

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Wednesday, July 07 2004

Mark Morford seems to have a love-hate relationship with the work of Michael Moore, too.

"But in the end, Moore's own politics, and his film's unapologetic propagandist bent, don't really matter. What matters is how the movie has helped make radical dissent a healthy part of American discourse again. How Moore has re-opened the gates of independent thought and proved that the GOP's famous lightning bolts of spin and hate did not strike him dead as he did so. Helluva gift to the nation, that."

"Look. You can disagree with Moore's opinions and his often patronizing conclusions all you want. But you can't, after all, refute his facts. Moore's movie has done more than merely free up the pundits and the disgruntled military generals to speak out, or make timid reporters actually dig for truth again. He has done more than help put surprising words of dissent and criticism back into the mouths of congressmen and the major media."

"And for that reason, "Fahrenheit" is perhaps the most wonderfully patriotic film ever made."

Also, norcalfella loves Bush.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Tuesday, July 13 2004

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Wednesday, July 14 2004

They're not really documented lies, are they? I mean, the argument is that Michael Moore didn't make a coherent case. It's legitimate criticism, if true.

Also, what Anonymous said---if Michael Moore is a flaming-liar, and the only truths he told were those documented on that website, it would still indicate some bad stuff about the Bush family.

I haven't seen the movie, and will probably not see the movie, but I do like that it's getting folks to debate again, and it's enlightening some folks about the lies of Bush.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Thursday, July 22 2004

Pissed drunk and irresponsible, yeah. Let's assume that LR said the foulest thing possible. How childish would you have to be to get up and throw drinks and tear down posters? Hey, norcalfella, Bob Eubanks hates Michael Moore, too. Well, I guess that makes your case for you...I mean, someone else dislikes Michael Moore, so you're right, huh?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Thursday, July 22 2004

Republicans are worried about Moore's effect on voters. (Personally, I think they should be worried about GWB's corruption, lies, treason, and hatred for the U.S. as he destroys the economy, the environment, education, and individual liberties, and what that's doing to his electability.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Friday, July 23 2004

norcalfella: "Sorry, that's just not true. You don't have a gun handed over to you there is a waiting period - PERIOD. For f***'s sake you people never give it up."
Norcalfella, I would refer you to an index of Michigan's laws on gun ownership, put out by an organization bearing the name of a former Reagan employee. Michigan, for what it's worth, is where North County Bank & Trust is located. What's that it says? "WAITING PERIOD Is there a waiting period on gun sales? No". We people never give it up, because we're right. You're insisting that there is a waiting period, and there isn't. If there were a waiting period, would the bank maintain a vault of firearms on site? For your own sake, why don't you give it up when you don't have your facts straight.

norcalfella says: "Moore ADMITS it was staged, that is to say that is was set up ahead of time. He didn't just walk into the bank and get the gun. For crying out loud you have no clue about the facts so why do you continue to fight a losing battle on this subject?"
Well, he admits he got permission to film, not that he set up the transaction in advance. For crying out loud, I not only have the facts, but have provided links to facts, whereas you've provided links to editorials/smear pieces. He INSISTS, in fact, that he DID "walk into the bank and get the gun", with the only setup being getting permission to bring a camera in, and confirmation of the policy. Perhaps I'm continuing to argue because I'm right and you're wrong, and I know that either one of us will admit being wrong when we realize we are.

All of this, of course, is kind of silly. Someone posted something, above, suggesting this: Let's assume that Michael Moore is an America-hating, lying, fat bastard. I mean, hypothetically. Take only those facts from F9/11 he defends on his website with objective links as true. They still look quite bad for President Bush, and demonstrate that our current administration is corrupt, treasonous, and far more dangerous than a hating, lying, fat filmmaker.

Put up or shut up, norcalfella. Is there a waiting period? The Brady Campaign seems to think there isn't. Was the bank giving out guns in exchange for opening accounts? Their ad suggests so. Are any of the facts on Moore's defense of F9/11 inaccurate? I don't think so. Has Moore's presence led to discussion/debate such as this, and is that a good thing? Let's see some defensible facts, not opinion pieces. Let's avoid the name-calling. Heck, I wasn't planning to see F9/11, norcalfella, but I'll take you, if you prove your point.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dbsmall on Friday, July 21 2006

Christopher Hitchens is a whiny, self-absorbed "intellectual".  Also, he skewers Moore in this article.

[ Reply to This | # ]