edwinr Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 ---------------- On 7/17/2004 9:16:32 AM Audible Nectar wrote: Michael Moore is scratching an itch that needs to be scratched.... Great post Audible Nector. But I think Moore is acting like a prosecuter, or is it a hanging judge, in a court of law. He represents only his client (whomever or whatever that may be) using tainted and highly dubious facts to support his case. At the same time he neglects what others may consider to be highly relevant material - simple things like truth, objectivity, rational thinking, etc, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 "But I think Moore is acting like a prosecuter, or is it a hanging judge, in a court of law." Yes, that is true. Moore would say so himself....and makes no intent to hide his motive. "He represents only his client (whomever or whatever that may be)" His client is the sleeping American electorate......and at the same time, the defendant, too. "using tainted and highly dubious facts to support his case...... At the same time he neglects what others may consider to be highly relevant material - simple things like truth, objectivity, rational thinking, etc, etc." Please be more specific. I will make you aware, though, that many who are paid big $$$$ to poke holes in this work are not doing very well. The poor attempts to explain why this is bogus only gives more reason to believe Mr. Moore's thesis. There's a reason that those in power are having apoplexy........because Moore is in an area that the current powers do not want him to go. It would also be of service if those who slam/have differing opinions on this work had actually seen it (a very common problem). So I must ask - have you seen this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 MOORELIES.COM should also be on your list if you really want MOORE info.This movie is the ultimate"if you can't dazzle em' with brilliance,baffle em' with BS. I did not read Hitlers writings or watch his propaganda movies to decide if he had a point,did you?I still know BS when I see/hear it.Anyone can type a book,speech,movie etc...that has nothing to do with the truth or reality,just AGENDA.Back in the 60's/70's I had lots of anti-everything government friends,smoke a bigg joint and complain about everthing.They now have grown up and aprreciate tax cuts,government staying out of their biz and a whole list of things they previously "thought"were noble ideas. As a matter of fact most of them are everything they used to complain and whine about,capitalist.Since before I was born "some"people blamed America,while I been alive"MOORE"people blame America,when I'm gone and rotten"some" will still blame America first. MOORELIES.COM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 6:21:35 AM Fish wrote: MOORELIES.COM should also be on your list if you really want MOORE info. ---------------- Well, I hesitate to comment because of the backlash, but here goes... I visited the website for 45 minutes (try it sometimes folks - that is quite a reasonable length of time to review). I reiterate about looking at the facts. This site does little (actual wording I wanted to use was 'nothing', but I backed off) to debunk Moore. It is simply trying to paint him as a bad person and takes tangents as actually debunking - for instance, insinuating that because Moore supported Nader in Michigan in 2000 that his current comment that Nader's campaign is damaging to the attempts to unseat Bush proves he lies. FYI folks - both statements can be accurate and factual. And yes - Mr. Moore was a supporter of Mr. Nader. I use this as an example only. The most factual comments from the site attacked Moore's singleminded focus and attempt to insinuate that probabilities are fact - a reasonable point but not a debunking of information presented as fact. I ALWAYS recommend staying away from the 'me too' locations. The facts are out there. A sincere effort to find the least prejudicial locations of information will provide excellent results. I again invite you all to give it a shot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I was fairly sure that Rush Limbaugh would have something on his website (I've never visited it, but it seems to provide much documentation for claims made by the host) regarding Michael Moore and/or his movies/statements. I have attached a link to the Rush Limbaugh website where you will be able to click on 10 or so links to articles debunking much of what Moore has claimed in his latest propaganda film. My problem with Moore is the way in which he uses the camera to skew reality. An example of this would be the parachute portion of the movie: Moore asks a young lady to put a high-rise parachute on. When she struggles Moore gets lots of laughs in the film and uses it to prove a point. The problem with what Moore did is that you could do the same thing with my buoyancy control vest for SCUBA diving. Ask an 18 year old kid to try it on with the added pressure of a camera, microphone and famous film-maker present, and they will struggle too. Yes, she did struggle while attempting to put it on. What Moore does not tell you is that this woman had absolutely no experience with the parachute. He could have done the same thing with a person off the street. This example gives the audience one impression while reality is another. I can't get that link to post. I'll try in the subsequent post... David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071304/content/stack_b.guest.html#0004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 10:29:19 AM dkp wrote: My problem with Moore is the way in which he uses the camera to skew reality. An example of this would be the parachute portion of the movie: Moore asks a young lady to put a high-rise parachute on. When she struggles Moore gets lots of laughs in the film and uses it to prove a point. David ---------------- Hello David - the sequence in the movie was not Moore asking the lady to put on the parachute - It was a tape of a news segment where an employee of the manufacturer was touting the product. I believe he was using another employee of the company as a model. The laughs came because of the ineptness of the company to market their own device. Actually a funny bit. Relevant - nah, I don't think so. Again, not my style and I don't like the insinuation tie of the segment. Otherwise it did bring a chuckle. So - this really happened and was not set up by Moore, so it cannot be reliably debunked. One can vehemently disagree with the insinuation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 On a lighter note, here is something we all can laugh at. http://www.plur.net/thisland.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middlecreekguy Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I can not pull up that link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 middlecreek, it's there.....it might take a bit to load, as it is 3.6 megs. Quite a laugh, BTW......and very true, as well. Art does imitate life..... Thanks for the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 "Please be more specific. I will make you aware, though, that many who are paid big $$$$ to poke holes in this work are not doing very well. The poor attempts to explain why this is bogus only gives more reason to believe Mr. Moore's thesis. There's a reason that those in power are having apoplexy........because Moore is in an area that the current powers do not want him to go." Audible Nectar, may I refer you back to the definition of documentary? Webster: doc·u·men·ta·ry - Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj. - Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. To call F 9/11 a documentary is VERY disturbing! Moore lies! Documentary doesn't! Moore has an agenda! Documentary doesn't! Moore is partisan! Documentary doesn't! Moore sees the world through a 500mm telescope lens! Documentary doesn't! Moore "twists" the facts! Documentary doesn't! Moore gets paid big $$$ from this "ACTION" film! Documentary doesn't! Hollywood pays Moore big $$$ to make this film! Documentary doesn't! You support Moore because you're a democrats and you hate the Republicans' guts! Documentary supports neither party because it doesn't hate anyone! Moore presents lies! Documentary presents facts UNEDITED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 10:55:49 AM hwatkins wrote: ---------------- On 7/19/2004 10:29:19 AM dkp wrote: My problem with Moore is the way in which he uses the camera to skew reality. An example of this would be the parachute portion of the movie: Moore asks a young lady to put a high-rise parachute on. When she struggles Moore gets lots of laughs in the film and uses it to prove a point. David ---------------- Hello David - the sequence in the movie was not Moore asking the lady to put on the parachute - It was a tape of a news segment where an employee of the manufacturer was touting the product. I believe he was using another employee of the company as a model. The laughs came because of the ineptness of the company to market their own device. Actually a funny bit. Relevant - nah, I don't think so. Again, not my style and I don't like the insinuation tie of the segment. Otherwise it did bring a chuckle. So - this really happened and was not set up by Moore, so it cannot be reliably debunked. One can vehemently disagree with the insinuation.... ---------------- hwatkins, Thanks for the information-I did not see the movie but rather read an interview the maker of the parachute gave to a reporter. My details may be off a tad, but he basically accused Moore (or one of his crew?) of totally misrepresenting what actually took place. Again, I did not see this specific incident but have read, heard and seen enough of Moore to know that this is the way he operates. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juba310 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 You should really see the film before you criticize it... That bit was supposed to show the extent to which people would go to take advantage of the fear brought on by 911. It was funny because it showed that if the people selling the product can't even make it work... how are other supposed to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickB Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 You have to get a chuckle out of people who have not even seen the film swearing that it's 100% lies just because they don't like Moore or his message. I havn't seen it yet either but with that kind of reasoning and seeing how I usually enjoy Moores movies I guess I could say that it's 100% fact. But then I would not be any more credible than they are. See the movie and then come tell us what you don't agree with. I would be interested in hearing it. As far as the is it a documentary argument, I saw an interview Moore did soon after the film opened and he said it wasn't supposed to be a documentary, he said it's an op-ed piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 "As far as the is it a documentary argument, I saw an interview Moore did soon after the film opened and he said it wasn't supposed to be a documentary, he said it's an op-ed piece." Really? These movie search engines shown otherwise! Yahoo! Movie Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary 1 hr. 56 min. Michael Moore's latest documentary traces why the U.S. has become a target for hatred and terrorism. It will also depict alleged dealings between two generations of the Bush and bin Laden clans that led to George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden becoming mortal enemies. Netscape Movie Fahrenheit 9/11 Starring: Michael Moore Directed by: Michael Moore Release Date: 06/23/2004 Run time: 116 min. Genre: Documentary Synopsis: Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker and liberal firebrand Michael Moore ('Bowling for Columbine') strikes again with this criticism of the Bush administration's Middle East policies before and after September 11, 2001. Moore focuses especially on the effect new laws have had on civil liberties and on the deep connections between the First Family and the Saudi royal family. MSN Entertainment Fahrenheit 9/11 R, Culture & Society, 2hrs 1min Opened on June 25, 2004 Michael Moore, George W. Bush Directed by Michael Moore, whose aura of controversy only grew after his Oscar acceptance speech at the 2003 Academy Awards, Fahrenheit 9/11, like Moore's Bowling For Columbine and Roger & Me, promises to expose the corporate wrongdoings and big-money scandals perpetrated by America's financial elite. This movie, however, looks beyond the inner echelons of General Motors and Lockheed Martin in hopes of outing the evildoers in the White House, particularly in regards to the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. In addition to criticizing the administration's handling of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Moore digs deep into the surprising relationship with the Bin Laden family held by both Bush administrations, and questions whether or not potential Saudi involvement with the attacks has been ignored. As Fahrenheit 9/11's Cannes Film Festival debut approached, marking only the second time in 48 years that a documentary has been included among the festival's main competition, Miramax's parent company Disney announced it would not be distributing the film due to its partisan nature, and, according to Moore, out of trepidation that the Florida-based Goliath's multi-million-dollar tax breaks might be negatively affected by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, whose review within Fahrenheit 9/11 is less than favorable. It is clearly shown that Moore intent to release the "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a documentary! MOORE LIES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Amy Posted July 19, 2004 Moderators Share Posted July 19, 2004 I have personally had a problem with Michael Moore since he cornered and attacked a then 78-year-old actor at the onset of dimentia who is clearly little more than an activist figurehead. His tactics seems cruel, twisted, misplaced, and manipulative. But that's just MHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Moore is parasitical in nature. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 6:05:10 PM Amy Unger wrote: I have personally had a problem with Michael Moore since he cornered and attacked a then 78-year-old actor at the onset of dimentia who is clearly little more than an activist figurehead. His tactics seems cruel, twisted, misplaced, and manipulative. But that's just MHO. ---------------- Exactly, Amy. And Moore' comments both written and in the media have created such a negative feeling in me that in all honesty I could not sit and watch his movie without feeling somehow - debased. So before anyone else asks, no I haven't seen the movie and I don't want to. But I respect the views of others and their right to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkp Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 ---------------- On 7/19/2004 3:24:06 PM Juba310 wrote: You should really see the film before you criticize it... That bit was supposed to show the extent to which people would go to take advantage of the fear brought on by 911. It was funny because it showed that if the people selling the product can't even make it work... how are other supposed to? ---------------- I don't think one needs to see the movie in order to criticize the methodology Moore has repeatedly used in his film-making process. He used the same tactics in his film, "Roger and Me." There are a number of ways to get information about the content of a movie-watching it is certainly one. For me, I don't plan on donating any money to the Michael Moore fund anytime soon. On an aside, I get a bit of a chuckle out of Michael Moore's criticism of General Motors leaving the Flint community, or abandoning it, as he may put it. He has criticized GM for not being loyal to its many employees in the Flint area. Yet, to my knowledge (and I am from the area) Moore has done nothing to help the community he put in his film and really got his start with. It seems to me that Moore is displaying the very attributes of the company he has made a career out of trashing. Moore is more about the spotlight than he is about the issue. This has been the case since he was a student in high school. He certainly doesn't glean much respect from many in the liberal establishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juba310 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Don't need to see a movie to disagree with it and critcize it? Whatever you say... "Moore is more about the spotlight than he is about the issue. This has been the case since he was a student in high school." What makes you say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.