I wish that I would have caught this thread at the beginning.
As long as it is I can't read it all so I will put in my opinion.
I am not a big fan of Bush and I didn't vote for him, either time. Saying that, I also want to say that I think that in light that our country was attacked (wether or not he had warning) that Bush kept the country together. And I think that ANY president would have done the same ( I am NOT talking about the war, that is a different disscussion completely)
I did not watch all of the documentary M.M made because I could tell from the begining that it was leaned and I already have a set opinion. From the first scene of Bush w/ the class of children I knew the movie wasn't for me.
I think that M.M is riding a cash cow now w/ a sequel. He made his point he needs to get over it.
Originally posted by PVS
again, ill ask when does he bash people exclusively for being rich? i see him bash on elitism, classism, and greed, but i never read/heard him declare that people that are rich all suck. i guess either i missed a passage or you're putting words in his mouth, so please...that dialogue....surely since you're well read in his literature and he's just so obviously against wealthy people just for being wealthy you can easily present it.
i could easily present it if i owned his books...but seeing as i've only read them (dont want to buy them...helping perpetuate a wealthy man's wealth...BAD) i obviously dont have the dialogue to hand
but then that would also be plagerism wouldn't it...
as for putting words in people mouth...
people that are rich all suck.
i can only guess this is what you think that i claimed michael moore said
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, I wouldn't even dispute that.....which is also why I don't like that other idiot clown looking of Morgan Spurlock. "Fast food is BAD for your health, don't eat too much"....
Really Spurlock? You can't be *beep* serious!
Perhaps people need the obvious force-fed to them. *Waits four minutes*
Originally posted by Tangible God
I gotta admit though, that movie turned me off of McDonald's for a while.
Yep.
The clincher was '...for a while'.
If Moore is a pawn of the Democratic party, let's look at the damage he does in comparison with a Republican counter-part:
Moore manipulates the truth, and a few conservative Americans get pissed off. Bush manipulates the truth, and a few thousand Americans die.
Do you see the difference?
He's a film-maker, so he's entitled to his opinion. His movies support his opinion, but Bush's actions are not supported by facts. Again, there's another difference.
It is an interesting question when it comes to truth and untruths in a matter like this. Anybody that does a great deal of studies in humanities (Lit, Political history and aspects of political science, history, philosophy etc) will say interpretation is important. Looking at facts, correlating and presenting a theory that can stand up to scrutiny. Now everybody interprets different.
Moore has clearly had an agenda in his films - he is not a purely fact presenting documentary maker - he wants to present and influence. As such he has looked at is sources and put them together in a way that aligns with his views - what he believes and what he wants others to believe. Is this lying? I wouldn't say so. Is it the truth then? I wouldn't say that either. He is to involved, to clear in his purpose to take his works at face value - they need a pinch of salt. I think he would be much better if he took a more measured, scholarly approach - and he would most probably be able to say the same thing.
After all, alot of his material on Bush is drawn from unanswered questions (to which he gives us his opinion) - holes that give him a degree of reasonable doubt in his arguments against the Republican administration, holes that he isn't alone in noticing or studying. There is a fair plethora of books lately at my university bookshop - by doctors and professors and so forth on the subject that are of quality and standard that they can be used by students all the way from the bottem upto and beyond pHD level. They deal with the sames themes and subjects as Moore, but in a different, but the outcome isn't always so different (except in tone.) What he does and the way he does it is a valid avenue I believe. He couldn't get away with downright lies, and he has taken the facts as he sees them and presented them in an easily consumable way. I would still prefer a far more serious approach, but there is room and a use for the "raging pamphleteers" of the industry.
I liked Spurlocks film, it showed how stupid consumers are and really how we treat ourselves..............................
Moore's audience if they don't fact research after the documentary's will come out as brainwashed as Bush fanatics.
Oh and Moore is or at least was in 92 registered as a Democrat in NY.
I think Michael Moore has good intentions (well at least in his mind he does) but I think he goes about accomplishing his goals all the wrong ways. Whether his information is right or wrong, and his phony certificates are accurate or not, he really infuriates CEO's. He does it in the most annoying way possible.
I'm a democrat, but even I get mad watching his documentaries. If someone like Moore came into my place of business like that and started saying things just to make people mad, I would not maintain my composure; camera or no camera.
That man is such a f*cking hemorrhoid.
Botankus> Two flaws in your post: First you assign "Moore Love Inc" to a group of people who merely does not yell liar (a little along the same lines as "If you're against the war in Irq, you love Saddam Hussein).
Secondly people who, like me, do not see Mr. Moore as altogether wrong do not need to come up with any counter-arguments, if Moore's opponents can't come up with any in the first place.
PVS> Living in Europe I do not see Fox-TV, but have seen a documentary on this station. Who are these people you mention?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think Michael Moore has good intentions (well at least in his mind he does) but I think he goes about accomplishing his goals all the wrong ways. Whether his information is right or wrong, and his phony certificates are accurate or not, he really infuriates CEO's. He does it in the most annoying way possible.I'm a democrat, but even I get mad watching his documentaries. If someone like Moore came into my place of business like that and started saying things just to make people mad, I would not maintain my composure; camera or no camera.
That man is such a f*cking hemorrhoid.
I can definately agree with you there. If he really is a person who wants a better country, then I admire his passion. However, I constantly question his motives, because he seems to love the limelight. There is one thing about him though: he loves confrontation.
Micheal Moore in attitude, from what I've observed, is just an obnoxious jerk. He presses things over and over, and does things just to piss people off. He's like a learned village idiot, if that comparison makes any sense. He enjoys picking fights when he knows he's already won. However, I want someone to just punch him in the head or something, because one of these days it will happen.
Originally posted by K.Diddy
I dont know what this is all about or who this guy is,but I have a feeling this guys a liar........
He is an author and documentary maker famous for such works as "Dude, Where's my country" "Stupid White Men" "Bowling for Columbine" "Fahrenheit 9/11""Roger and Me" and so on.
He is controversial in that he takes a popularised, inflammatory approach in his works which are clearly meant to influence. As I said above I wouldn't say he is a liar, but you probably wouldn't want to use him as the main sources on a political essay (unless it was relevant to him.) He has been described as a "raging pamphleteer" - something he is proud of as he then had it put on the back of one of his books. That is his style. He tries to awaken a persons social conscience in confronting, loud, flashy ways.
Not for everyone, but it is a valid style. And I would say if it got people to think "well, I'm not sure if I can trust what he says, maybe I'll check it out for myself" then he is doing a good job. His style doesn't sit perfectly well with me, but if it motivates people, and people at all, to look a bit deeper and draw their own conclusions, then he is doing something worthy.
Originally posted by The Omega
Botankus> Two flaws in your post: First you assign "Moore Love Inc" to a group of people who merely does not yell liar (a little along the same lines as "If you're against the war in Irq, you love Saddam Hussein).
Secondly people who, like me, do not see Mr. Moore as altogether wrong do not need to come up with any counter-arguments, if Moore's opponents can't come up with any in the first place.
Looks like Tubbo has a lawsuit in his hands:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/02/entertainment/main1676768.shtml
although i dont defend MM's brand of manipulative splicing of video clips, i really dont think there is any case at all.
"Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military. "
to suggest or imply through connecting scenes is not slander. its scummy, but legally legit i believe
I'm not a lawyer or have profound knowledges of civil cases. But if someone were to put me on camera and then say I'm a Spiderman fan simply because I like comic books...I wouldn't call that implying...is just plain distortions about me.
They migth settle before going to court. So far nothing is certain.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm not a lawyer or have profound knowledges of civil cases. But if someone were to put me on camera and then say I'm a Spiderman fan simply because I like comic books...I wouldn't call that implying...is just plain distortions about me.They migth settle before going to court. So far nothing is certain.
but the point is that moore never said anything about the guy's stance on the war. he manipulated video clips to imply it.
so, if someone took a clip of you saying "i love it" and then showed a spiderman poster, the implication is there, however nobody actually said that you love spiderman.
if he should be penalised for that then the same should go for every media outlet including fauxnews and especially every politician who ever ran mud slinging ad campaigns for elections.