PDA

View Full Version : I'm curious (michael moore)


RodWoodsonwasprettycool
10-01-2009, 12:26 PM
In regards to that biased propaganda that Michael Moore is putting out in his new movie. If he's so against capitalism and making money, how about donating every dollar to the people he always portray in his movie as being poor and misused by evil and greedy corporations?

I mean after all it only seems fair, he makes a lot of money off of people being suckered into watching such a bias crapfest of a movie, and he goes home and lives in a mansion and dines with the Hollywood elite. :chuckle:

The Patriot
10-01-2009, 12:36 PM
In regards to that biased propaganda that Michael Moore is putting out in his new movie. If he's so against capitalism and making money, how about donating every dollar to the people he always portray in his movie as being poor and misused by evil and greedy corporations?

I mean after all it only seems fair, he makes a lot of money off of people being suckered into watching such a bias crapfest of a movie, and he goes home and lives in a mansion and dines with the Hollywood elite. :chuckle:

Because, he "claims" to be a capitalist and says that what we have today is a corruption of capitalism. I like him. You just have to differentiate between the truth and his opinions.

KeiselPower99
10-01-2009, 10:39 PM
He is a hypocrite.

X-Terminator
10-01-2009, 11:22 PM
He is a hypocrite.

Most Hollywood-types are.

tony hipchest
10-01-2009, 11:54 PM
. If he's so against capitalism and making money, :blah: :

:huh:

He is a hypocrite.

Most Hollywood-types are.

and you guys are taking a brownfans word for this? :sofunny:

i guess if brownfans told you the lerner was commited to winning football you guys would buy that line of BS too?

either way.... pornography profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityf ilter > michael moore film fans > cleveland brownfans.

take that truth for what its worth.

X-Terminator
10-02-2009, 12:25 AM
:huh:





and you guys are taking a brownfans word for this? :sofunny:

i guess if brownfans told you the lerner was commited to winning football you guys would buy that line of BS too?

either way.... pornography profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityf ilter > michael moore film fans > cleveland brownfans.

take that truth for what its worth.

No. Most Hollywood types are hypocrites. The fact that a Browns fan pointed out doesn't make it less so. They speak from both sides of their mouths, shouting about how unfair everything is, how horrible big corporations are in one hand...while promoting their films, making millions of dollars and living in their multimillion dollar mansions in the other. That's why I really could care less what Michael Moore or any other celebrity thinks. Capitalism must not be all that bad if they're cashing in the way they are.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-02-2009, 05:34 AM
:huh:

and you guys are taking a brownfans word for this? :sofunny:



He is a hypocrite because he makes up "facts" to present his version of the truth.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?703050d2-20cb-4ff0-a501-7bc39549c8fa
http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/881/

His is a hypocrite because he proudly points to his upbringing in a working-class Michigan city.... a Union stronghold.... but does his film production in Canada to avoid paying union scale and threatened to fire half of his writing staff when they wanted to join a union.

He is a hypocrite because he claims to own no stock and only puts ‘what little I can’ in ‘something the old-timers call a savings account’ - yet in reality owns stock in defense contractors and Halliburton.

He is a hypocrite because he says he gives away 40 percent of his money, but his tax returns show his foundations give the minimum necessary to stay tax exempt.

He is a hypocrite because his movies are unreliable fiction based on the twisting of chronology and events. (claiming that the two thugs from Columbine were led to violence due to the proximity of a weapons factory... even though a "little" research would have shown that the factory makes rockets for satellites) and because he claimed a soldier lost his arms in combat, even though he actually lost them in a jet maintenance accident ...all this against the soldiers understanding of what Moore was going to do with the footage.

He is a hypocrite because he claims Americans couldn’t get the healthcare they needed in the US, but easily and effortlessly are doing so in Cuba. But when journalists went to the very same hospital in Cuba, and tried to get a legitimately ill Cuban into the hospital. they could not. (He also failed to show how filthy the hospital was)

He is a POS with a following of ill-informed...sheep.

HometownGal
10-02-2009, 05:51 AM
Michael Moore and Mark Madden were birthed from the same loins - that of a sow. :pig:

If Michael Moore told me the sky was blue, I'd actually have to look up and see it for myself before I believed what he said.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-02-2009, 06:55 AM
Michael Moore and Mark Madden were birthed from the same loins - that of a sow. :pig:

If Michael Moore told me the sky was blue, I'd actually have to look up and see it for myself before I believed what he said.

Moore and Gore follow the same game plan. Twist facts and hope that the audience takes what they say as gospel.

revefsreleets
10-02-2009, 07:54 AM
Nonetheless, his films (some of them, anyway) ARE provocative. There's no doubt that, as a person, MM is a POS, and as a documentation, he's FAR too biased to be taken seriously, but he is good for stirring the pot and raising some good debate, and there's no doubt he's a smart guy.

I've seen all his movies. That gives me the ability (unlike many conservatives, or those leaning conservative) to actually critique them. it's highly hypocritical to bash his films without viewing them...that goes for the left bashing religious films, etc, etc...

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-02-2009, 10:36 AM
Nonetheless, his films (some of them, anyway) ARE provocative. There's no doubt that, as a person, MM is a POS, and as a documentation, he's FAR too biased to be taken seriously, but he is good for stirring the pot and raising some good debate, and there's no doubt he's a smart guy.

I've seen all his movies. That gives me the ability (unlike many conservatives, or those leaning conservative) to actually critique them. it's highly hypocritical to bash his films without viewing them...that goes for the left bashing religious films, etc, etc...

Agreed...I watched the films...(thought I borrowed them so that I didnt put any money in that idiots pocket)...and can OFFICIALLY say he is a POS.

KeiselPower99
10-02-2009, 10:37 AM
Agreed...I watched the films...(thought I borrowed them so that I didnt put any money in that idiots pocket)...and can OFFICIALLY say he is a POS.

Agreed.

NJarhead
10-02-2009, 10:38 AM
Because, he "claims" to be a capitalist and says that what we have today is a corruption of capitalism. I like him. You just have to differentiate between the truth and his opinions.

Freak. :chuckle:

Because, he "claims" to be a capitalist and says that what we have today is a corruption of capitalism. I like him. You just have to differentiate between the truth and his opinions.

:doh: Ya Think???

KeiselPower99
10-02-2009, 10:44 AM
Michael Moore claims the capitalist system hasnt worked for him but he has made over 50 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!! Claims he had to scratch claw and beg for money to make his first movie. Aint that what all of us do to get going in life?

NJarhead
10-02-2009, 11:11 AM
Michael Moore claims the capitalist system hasnt worked for him but he has made over 50 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!! Claims he had to scratch claw and beg for money to make his first movie. Aint that what all of us do to get going in life?

Hmmm, usually those types are.......thinner.:chuckle:

The Patriot
10-02-2009, 12:15 PM
Michael Moore is one of the few liberals who has criticized the media for negatively portraying tea party protesters.

NJarhead
10-02-2009, 12:40 PM
Michael Moore is one of the few liberals who has criticized the media for negatively portraying tea party protesters.


Not even Satan is a douche 100% of the time. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
10-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Bottom line? Capitalism MADE this country, and it's shaped China (They DO have a capitalist economy whether they admit it or not) into a world power. It has it's problems, but nothing works better...

SteelersMongol
10-02-2009, 08:35 PM
He's a traitor.

The Patriot
10-02-2009, 08:41 PM
He's a traitor.

Lol! What?

SteelCityMom
10-02-2009, 10:49 PM
After what he pulled with Charlton Heston in Bowling For Columbine I refuse to watch anymore of his films.

I saw a news clip of a speech he gave the other night, I guess at the opening of the new movie, where he threatened democrats that they would not be re-elected if they didn't vote for public option health care. Now the sentiment of voting your representatives out of office I'm all for, however his grandstanding for causes that he twists and turns drive me nuts.

And as I'm sitting there watching him speak about health care it dawns on me, my car is smaller than Michael Moore.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-03-2009, 04:51 AM
Hmmm, usually those types are.......thinner.:chuckle:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

revefsreleets
10-03-2009, 08:34 PM
2 liberals argue over Fatboy...

http://movies.msn.com/movie-guide-fall/michael-moore-point-counterpoint/?GT1=28101&ptid=4ed54117-7c7f-4d4e-972d-2f0d1df19657&mpc=2

By Don Kaye and Frank Paiva
Special to MSN Movies

Michael Moore is doubtless one of the most polarizing pop-culture figures of the past 20 years. Moore's professed mission, which began in 1989 with his acclaimed documentary "Roger & Me," has been to expose what he considers the lies, hypocrisy and injustice foisted upon the American people by large corporations, conservatives, the mainstream media and the U.S. government. His Academy Award-winning 2002 examination of violence in American culture, "Bowling for Columbine," along with 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11" (the highest-grossing documentary of all time) and 2007's "Sicko" have drawn political fire from his opponents and praise from his supporters.

Yet not even everyone who agrees with Moore's views and beliefs likes the man or his movies. Some find him a blowhard and an egotist who makes himself the subject of his films; others have wondered whether his movies should be called documentaries at all. But his fans say that his bull-in-a-china-shop approach is necessary to get his points across, and that by appearing in his films he acts as a stand-in for the common man. With the Oct. 2 arrival of his film on last year's banking collapse, "Capitalism: A Love Story," the battle lines will no doubt be drawn once again. Here, regular MSN contributors Don Kaye and Frank Paiva get a head start.

Paiva: Last week I was on the subway when a woman from PETA entered the car and declared she was free from the shackles of animal abuse. Her pro-vegan speech continued, quite loudly, for the next several minutes as she passed up and down the car distributing pamphlets.

As a vegetarian, I agreed with many of her positions. But I didn't take any of her brochures. I love tofu, but it deserves a better ambassador than a 50-ish redheaded woman who has nothing better to do than get in people's faces on their way home from work.

And that's how I feel about Michael Moore.

While I'm not quite as far left-leaning as Moore, I do agree with the majority of his basic principles. I feel the need to state that, Don, before we go anywhere. I don't want to give any naysayers reading our talk an easy out by saying, "Oh, well that stupid guy just didn't agree with his politics."

Since Moore's work is so political (and polemical) it would be easy for us to debate the issues. What's more interesting to me is Moore's persona and his approach to the work. He's a bit like P.T. Barnum and Sacha Baron Cohen melted together. A relentless, self-promoting showman with an overt liberal agenda. That might make for entertainment, but I'm not sure it makes for proper documentary filmmaking.

Kaye: First of all, Frank, I'm glad you got the political angle out of the way right off the bat; it would be counterproductive if we were simply debating Moore from opposite ends of the political spectrum. That automatically divides people regardless of what they think of his methods.

But I will take issue with your opening argument: As a former New Yorker, I endured countless train rides on which someone came on board the train and made their case (often loudly) for whatever it was that they had on their mind or agenda, whether it was a favored political issue or, more often and perhaps more sadly, looking for food or money. Sometimes a group of gentlemen would board my car and begin playing music. With horns. At 9 o'clock in the morning.

The thing was, I did not have a choice of whether to listen to them or not. Well, that's not exactly true: You could put on earphones or move to another car, although earphones usually didn't drown them out, and more often than not the door to the next car was locked. So chances were that you were trapped until either they or you got off the train.

You're not trapped with Michael Moore. You don't have to see his movies, you can change the channel when he's appearing on a TV talk show, and you can avoid buying his books. He's not getting in your face unless you pay your money and take the ride. So if you've done that once or twice, and you don't like his approach, why even do it again? And if Moore was, say, a 22-year-old hottie instead of a hulking middle-aged slob or even a 50-ish redheaded woman, would that make it easier for you?

Paiva: The "you don't have to buy tickets to Michael Moore's movies" argument is irrelevant. We're discussing him for the purposes of this article. I will, however, admit that I'm not familiar with all of his work because I don't like it.

The "if someone else was doing the same thing you'd be fine with it" argument is equally absurd. If "Fahrenheit 9/11" starred the cast of "Gossip Girl," I would be just as annoyed. I don't invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my house just because they're nice looking, clean-cut young men in suits.

And I don't think the public is so quick to follow a handsome face either. "An Inconvenient Truth," which was essentially a PowerPoint presentation starring Al Gore, grossed $24.1 million. "The 11th Hour," a documentary featuring heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio that covered similar subject matter, grossed $700,000. "Darfur Now," which featured George Clooney, of all people, grossed just over $100,000.

As the saying goes, don't shoot the messenger. But when the messenger is constantly inserting himself into his topic, it's hard not to. What Moore does certainly isn't documentary filmmaking, even in a broad sense. At best it could be called infotainment.

Why is it that TMZ bullying Jennifer Aniston into giving an angry sound bite is considered low tabloid journalism? But when Michael Moore does it to a congressman it's an acceptable political investigation tactic.

revefsreleets
10-03-2009, 08:35 PM
Kaye: Frank, your point about the grosses of "An Inconvenient Truth" vs. those of "The 11th Hour" is well taken (not to mention that Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" remains the highest grossing documentary of all time). And apparently Moore's physical appearance has nothing to do with your dislike for him, which is so strong that you haven't even seen all his films.

But if, as you say, you more or less agree with Moore's views, why do you find him so annoying? Moore inserts himself into his films as the voice of the common man, asking questions that many in the mainstream media no longer dare ask for fear of getting themselves booted off the Beltway profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfiltertail party circuit. I don't see anything wrong with that and I don't see anything in his films that makes them less of a documentary. The definition of a documentary itself has been changing over the years: There's no rule book that says what it can or can't be outside of a fictional narrative. Film theorist Paul Rotha says in Jack C. Ellis' book "The Documentary Idea" that the form "justifies the use of every known technical artifice to gain its effect on the spectator," which describes a lot of what Moore does.

You call what Moore does "infotainment," and while I would agree that he borrows some of the style, he uses it to cover serious subjects that "infotainment" outlets never touch. In a world dumbed down by the likes of FOX News, "Access Hollywood" and TMZ, the chances of his movie, complete with his entertaining and, yes, sometimes irritating shenanigans, breaking through to the public consciousness are far better than a dry, filmed debate over the pros and cons of, say, a single-payer health care system.

Your last analogy is completely absurd. Jennifer Aniston is an actor who works in film and TV for a living and owes nothing at all to the public, except perhaps to do a decent job on camera for the people who pay to see her. Congress members are put in their jobs and paid by the American people. They are totally accountable to us, and should be confronted at every possible opportunity. As we see lately, our vaunted elected officials are losing touch with the people they serve, and seem to answer more to lobbyists than their constituents. When was the last time you were able to get in touch directly with your senator or representative? If corporate toadies like Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer won't demand accountability from them, or call them out on their hypocrisy, then by all means Michael Moore should, by any means necessary save home invasion. And I would encourage the same to anyone with a camera or a microphone.

Paiva: I don't think it's enough to just show politicians being hypocritical anymore. "The Daily Show" does that every night, and, though we laugh about it in that context, the truth is that we've gotten used to it.

The real solution is to do what you've just said: Contact your elected officials and make them accountable to you. But that's a conversation for another time. We're still talking about Michael Moore.

I think Moore's issue is one of balance. I certainly agree that documentaries should go beyond the traditional PBS conception, where footage is shown while an omniscient narrator tells us the facts. But there's also a danger in getting too personal.

Two great recent middle-ground examples are Werner Herzog weaving himself into "Grizzly Man" and Amir Bar-Lev inserting himself into "My Kid Could Paint That." The filmmaker as character adds something to these films. They experience the events of their movie alongside the audience, and they have the common sense to back off when they get in their own way.

Moore doesn't have this kind of self-control. He's all over the place.

For me his best two films are "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" because they deal with specifics: GM is shutting down factories, and it's surprisingly easy to get a gun in America.

All I can remember from "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko" is that only one person guards the coast of Oregon and that Cuba is paradise on earth. It's the filmmaking equivalent of throwing a bunch of stuff at the wall to see what sticks. It's the documentary version of "Transformers."

Kaye: For the record, I think it's important to show politicians being hypocritical every chance we get, and in every medium we have. They still get away with it far too often, as we've seen in the past few months. But back to Michael Moore and his movies.

Sadly, I remember quite a bit more from both "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko." What stands out to me from the first movie is a scene in which a woman, who is grieving over the death of her son in Iraq and protesting the Bush Administration's war of choice there, is berated by another woman on the Mall in Washington, D.C. The callousness of that second woman still shocks me to this day.

As for "Sicko," are you telling me, Frank, that you don't recall the agonizing, heartbreaking sequence in which a mother has to watch her baby die because her HMO issues orders for her to leave one hospital and go to another? Are you telling me that scene is not seared into your brain? Because I still see it, and I am reminded of it every day thanks to the current so-called "debate" over health care reform.

"Transformers" is garbage for the mind and soul. Those movies literally dumb you down as you watch them, and to compare them to what Moore does is ludicrous. Michael Moore may throw a lot at you, including himself, and I grant that at his lesser moments it's done in haphazard fashion, but he's betting that you're intelligent enough to wade through it yourself. If all you can remember from "Sicko" is that Cuba is "paradise on earth," then you weren't paying attention, my friend.

Is Werner Herzog a better filmmaker than Michael Moore, and a better documentarian? Almost assuredly, and I don't see any reason to argue that (I didn't see "My Kid Could Paint That"). But they're operating on two different levels: Herzog, while he may have a message in his films, is not a crusader; Moore is, and his approach requires a different level of involvement in his movies. Yes, he does get personal. Why shouldn't he? His family, his father's means of making a living, was directly affected by the events in "Roger & Me" and the upcoming "Capitalism: A Love Story." This entire nation was affected by the events in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Why can't it get personal even when making a film about events that change the very world we live in?

Paiva: But one or two memorable scenes don't make a good movie. They make an OK movie with one or two memorable scenes. You wouldn't say that an otherwise lame comedy is hilarious because of a few good jokes, or that a tame horror flick is scary because it has one great death scene.

Why should documentaries, particularly ones with Michael Moore's selective editing, be judged to a different standard just because they're based in truth? Documentaries need compelling, unified arguments no matter what narrative form they take. Moore's movies don't have this, even if their aim is admirable.

I concede that comparing Moore to Werner Herzog is probably fruitless. They have distinctive and divergent styles. But I think Moore's getting beaten at his own game by Kirby Dick. Did you see "Outrage"? It's easily the most important, not to mention fun, enlightening, and scary documentary of the year. It does everything I wish Moore could do.

As for movies being personal, of course it's a good thing. But what's personal about "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko" other than the fact that Michael Moore is an American? Being angry and being personal are different things, and I think the former is clouding the filmmaker's judgment.

Moore's smarmy trailer for "Capitalism: A Love Story" certainly isn't going to create any new converts. Nevertheless, the public is interested in what Moore has to say. I just wish he were a little more careful with that responsibility.

Kaye: I would say that "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "Sicko" have more than just one or two memorable scenes. I can't even remember every scene from some of my favorite all-time movies, so that argument goes nowhere. But I do remember the feelings those movies engendered in me, with those sequences as some of the strongest examples.

I don't think Moore's films are lame, and in fact I find them very compelling. You do too; they compel you to want to turn them off because you can't stand the man making them. I find them compelling because, in the end, I do find their arguments unified and provocative. The message of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that corporate, right-wing forces have exploited a national tragedy to achieve their own imperialistic power grab; the message of "Sicko" is that our health care system is seriously broken and nowhere near what it's cracked up to be.

I have not seen "Outrage," but I will track it down, and I hope some people reading this will, too. And there lies the other reason why I like Moore and his films: They get people talking and thinking, in mass numbers, in a way that "Outrage," as good as it may be, will never do. Most people will never see "Outrage" or "Why We Fight" or "The Cove," but tens of millions saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" and a lot of Americans know who Michael Moore is. Whatever you think of his presentation, he puts information out there that: a) the government doesn't want you to know about; b) the mainstream media doesn't want to cover; and, c) multinational corporations do their best to hide. His anger may cloud his filmmaking judgment at times, but someone needs to be angry for what has been done to our country, in a medium through which people can hear what he has to say. And with all the noise and babble clogging our culture, an angry, sarcastic, blunt voice is needed to cut through the crap.

You look at the trailer for "Capitalism" and you see something smarmy; I look at it and I see someone speaking for me who doesn't always get it right but at least keeps trying.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-04-2009, 10:13 AM
I watch the movies because I am a firm believer in "Know Thy Enemy", but NOONE can argue that that the majority of those "thought provoking questions" that Moore raises are based on outright LIES.

I was searching the other day for the claim he made in "Bowling for Columbine" about a plaque at the B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado springs...Moore plays "its a wonderful world" while showing the memorial and then narrates:

“The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972.”

He then plays a little more of "its a wonderful world" while showing footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers. Trying to make an emotional connection between the United States government and Al-Qaeda in that they both perpetrate murder of civilians by airplane. He knowingly insinuates that the plaque "praises" the bombing of Vietnamese civilians.

Herre is what the plaque actual says:

"B-52D Stratofortress. ‘Diamond Lil.’ Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of ‘Diamond Lil’ shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during ‘Linebacker II’ action on Christmas Eve, 1972.”

Moore was asked about the misleading portion of his film but simply responsed to the criticism by saying

“I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing.”

Moore doesnt touch on the fact that he was offering evidence to support the claim that the plaque was bragging about civilian deaths. Moore purposefully attempts to deceive the audience here.... Since he he cannot support his inference of the plaques meaning then you have to simply read the plague and see that there is NOTHING in it that supports a pride in civilian deaths.

He...like the coward he is....never shows the actual plaque so he can hope noone checks his facts...and the sheep will simply absorb his drivel.

Here is the actual story of the B-17 that is at Colorado Springs:

“The particular feat was accomplished by Airman First Class Albert E. Moore, who brought down a MiG-21 which was closing to attack ‘Diamond Lil.’ The reason its MiG kill was so celebrated was that a B-52 which got within range of a fighter almost always lost the fight. B-52s were built on the assumption that enemy fighters would be kept at bay by their own fighter escort, and so they had minimal defensive guns.

A B-52 had only one defensive gun position, in its tail, which could cover no direction save rearwards: early models had four .50s in it, later ones a 20 mm. It had, in short, a lot less defensive capability, yet was up against modern jet fighters with hundreds of knots speed advantage, air-to-air missiles that could kill from miles off, and heavier guns for close-in. If an enemy fighter closed on a B-52, odds of survival were low.

Diamond Lil was thus commemorated for its rare feat of downing the attacking enemy fighter, instead of being downed by it.


Moore ignores obvious facts such as the difference between fighting enemy pilots in soviet MIG's and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.

During a speech at the University of Denver on February 26, 2003 Moore continued the outright LIE...by saying that the B-52 participated in the massive Christmas Eve bombing campaign. “And they’ve got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese — innocent civilians.”

I seriously would like to meet this fat POS...It would be worth a night in the pokie to go nose to nose with this coward and defend the brave men and women of the Armed services that he so disrespects.

revefsreleets
10-04-2009, 04:49 PM
No doubt he twists the facts, or ignores them outright...but it gets things cooking.

Look at Gore's POS "An Inconvenient Truth". I did probably 100 hours of independent research after the movie so I could PERSONALLY know, and in knowing, then factually claim that he was a lying sack of shit and cherry picked the information that ONLY fit his predetermined errant conclusion.

Moore is the same...although i sometimes laugh at some of the interesting juxtapositions, I always know that a little fact checking will debunk a good deal of what he purports.

I think there's two kinds of folks who watch Moore movies: The hopeless sheeples who will believe whatever he tells him is "the truth", and people like me who use it as a springboard to explore for the truth. The former are pretty much lost anyway, because they mostly just want to be told what "the cause" is this year.

JackHammer
10-10-2009, 03:19 AM
Most Hollywood-types are.

Actually, most PEOPLE are.