Is Michael Moore A bad dude?

[Neowhiplash]

Alright, first of all I’m Canadian, So American economy and politics don’t affect me as much as your American Joe. I have always loved Michael Moore’s films; they’re very entertaining (even though there is a LOT of editing). Anyhow, I was surfing the web for news on F-9/11 and saw that many people really disliked him. So I want to hear your opinion on Michael Moore’s films.

[d4rkn1t3]

michael moore is a genius, i have been a long time fan of his books and would recomend them to anyone that is interested in politics. his first movie i saw was "bowling for columbine" a very funny and sad film and all the while interesting.

Michael Moore is diliked by many because he speaks the truth about things. many things republicans and conservatives dont want you to know about. he is a great man. so fuck what people think and pick up one of his books i recommend "stupid white men" although "dude where's my country?" is really good to. check out his site if you want to know about all his books tho, michaelmoore.com

[antiklaus]

At 8/15/04 11:17 AM, Neowhiplash wrote: Alright, first of all I’m Canadian.

We won't hold that against you, as long as you don't judge all Americans by the actions of our leaders like say Clinton or Bush.

Moore is a pretty good director, and his films reflect his own sense of patriotism.

It's funny how people will say, "if you are upset with the system, don't just bitch about it... do something"

Moore's movies are always about 'doing something' - and despite his latest film, his agenda is not just anti-right wing as many might believe.

It's pro-middle and lower class... and sometimes anti-rich.

One nees only watch "The Big One" which I have made available to many NG'ers to know that he's rode Clinton's ass about as hard as anyones.

That whole film was pretty much a tribute to Clinton's failed attempt to try and keep jobs from going out of America. Funny that all the right wingers who bash F911 have no comments about "The Big One"

He's a courageous guy. He'll walk into a major corporation, backed up by cameras and the truth, and try to convince them to bring a few more americans back to work.

It seldom works, but he tries. And he also is willing to put up his own cash to help people... despite what his critics might say, that's a pretty decent thing to do.

I know for a fact, that half the proceeds from one of his movies went to improve Flint Michigan. That's a lot more than you'll see from such works as "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Liar" or whatever slam piece that pops up against him.

He cares about the little guy. That alone should speak volumes. Isn't it time the little guy had a voice?

[mrpopenfresh]

People who hate him are haters. Hatewrs in the sense that hating is what they do in life.

[Hierophant]

Michael Moore is awesome. And Mandy Moore is awesome in bed, but thats another story...

I am american, and I say america is going to hell. And Bush is leading. I have a message for Bush:

BURN IN HELL YOU MOTHERF*CKER!!

[Elfer]

There's only one way to tell if a person is a bad dude or not.

If the President was kidnapped by ninjas, would Moore be able to rescue him?

[XcakerX]

While Michael Moore is rather amusing and entertaining his credibility in my book went out the window when he started using every dirty trick in the book used by mass media and then some, such as taking bits and pieces from people's unrelated sentances and stringing them together to make the person say something they didn't.

He also relies on half-truths, emotionalism, and manipulates facts to such an extent it gives his films a propiganda-ish feel.

Its not right when CNN and FOX do it, and its not right if some Michael Moore does. The reason people take his movies seriously is the same reason people take in "The Daily Show" as serious source of news; Our attention spans are so short, we can't watch anything thats not entertainment, facts be damned, if its entertaining we are believers.

Isn't this the point of Michael Moores movies??? We are being run by a fat bunch of grease bag media people who rely on manipluation of the people to stay in power?? Wait a second isn't this what Michael Moore is doing???

Now before Fareignhieght 9/11 I was hoping for Michael Moore to come out and say, "hey you fucking retards, gotcha, your all stupid fucks that belive emotionalist propiganda", which would put him far up there as the greatest prankster and poltical statirist ever to be born, but somehow I think he actually believes himself, which is the sad part.

[GooieGreen]

Moore is trying to do what he feels is the right thing for America, apposed to Cheney and O'Rielly who do everything that they do for themselves.

[Montgomery-Scott]

no he is a briliant filmmaker and has good politis. He is trying to send us a liberal message, but his coverage is truthful and balanced.

[Rabindarath]

At 8/15/04 02:50 PM, XcakerX wrote::

Isn't this the point of Michael Moores movies??? We are being run by a fat bunch of grease bag media people who rely on manipluation of the people to stay in power?? Wait a second isn't this what Michael Moore is doing???

Now before Fareignhieght 9/11 I was hoping for Michael Moore to come out and say, "hey you fucking retards, gotcha, your all stupid fucks that belive emotionalist propiganda", which would put him far up there as the greatest prankster and poltical statirist ever to be born, but somehow I think he actually believes himself, which is the sad part.

Yep, that's the sad part. I don't think he ever was a true satirist in the purist sense, but after Roger & Me, he just started getting into himself a whole lot.

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but considering how quickly it came out, relatively, to Bowling for Columbine, I got the vibe that he felt he had to defend the country against the forces of darkness that now occupied the White House. And his work took on a messianic tone.

I also get the impression that he's getting sloppier on the details & assertions he presents and sacrifices them for the sake of creativity. I didn't buy the thesis that because there's a major defence contractor in Littleton, that created an environment for the shootings at Columbine to take place, yet he offered up that video of the shootings as the start of his premise. It was powerful, and a good bit of filmmaking, but it was intellectually dishonest.

At this rate, he'll be down right frantic for his next film if Bush gets a 2nd term. Shame, he could've been a great satirist.

[bumcheekcity]

No. No more a bad dude than anyone that believes in anything. He's fighting for what he believes in, and that's commendable in anyone.

[DrKamakazy1]

Michael Moor isnt a bad dude, he's just an exploiter of current events

[The-General-Public]

Most of his films bring up good points, but if you believe every word he says you're just as dumb as the morons who treat everything bush, O'reilly, and Limbaugh say as Gospel. Plenty of things Moore says are half-truths and flat-out not true. At the very start of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore says that it was Fox News that was the first to claim that Bush won the 2000 election, and that is just false, the Major Networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) retracted their predictions that Gore would win before Fox announced that Bush had won Florida. There's a bunch of other inconsistancies I won't go into now. But overall I would trust Moore before Bush

[Proteas]

At 8/15/04 02:11 PM, Master_Unlucky wrote: I am american, and I say america is going to hell. And Bush is leading. I have a message for Bush:

BURN IN HELL YOU MOTHERF*CKER!!

Yep, I'm sure our current president actually clicked on this thread just to read your comment. I'm sure he just loves off-topic comments.
</sarcasm>

At 8/15/04 06:23 PM, DrKamakazy1 wrote: Michael Moor isnt a bad dude, he's just an exploiter of current events

Exploiting current events to further your own agenda isn't considered evil.... interesting concept.

I think Michael Moore's heart is in the right place, but he seems to be a bit misguided in his actions. The butchering and falsification of facts on "Bowling for Columbine," his mouthing off about Bush during the Oscars... I'm wondering what he'll do next.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

The right sure seem to hate him a lot don’t they?

I wonder why… are they threatened by him?

[LexanPhoenix]

At 8/15/04 06:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/15/04 06:23 PM, DrKamakazy1 wrote: Michael Moor isnt a bad dude, he's just an exploiter of current events

Exploiting current events to further your own agenda isn't considered evil.... interesting concept.

I wouldn't consider it evil. I WOULD however, consider lying about Weapons in Iraq to get us into a wasteful and stupid war about as close to evil as a person can get. Read my post here (bottom of page).

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=159298&page=1

I think Michael Moore's heart is in the right place, but he seems to be a bit misguided in his actions. The butchering and falsification of facts on "Bowling for Columbine," his mouthing off about Bush during the Oscars... I'm wondering what he'll do next.

Well, he feels strongly about his opinions, as many people do. The fact that a lot more people hear his opinions doesn't really change how he feels. The same is said for almost every famous person.

[Spookshow]

At 8/15/04 02:15 PM, Elfer wrote: There's only one way to tell if a person is a bad dude or not.

If the President was kidnapped by ninjas, would Moore be able to rescue him?

*Cue crappy 70's music*

(Deep voice) He's one bad ... (Female) Shut yo mouth!

(Chorus) MOORE!

I have to agree with BCC, anyone fighting for their cause is somewhat comermorable sp* but what that cause is determines the amount. I don't like spinsters and people who use HEAVY editing on any issue, but as long as he stays within certain bounds, I can semi-respect him. It's easy to hate someone who've never met before.

[antiklaus]

Yep, that's the sad part. I don't think he ever was a true satirist in the purist sense, but after Roger & Me, he just started getting into himself a whole lot.

Actually, he's about standing up for the little guy. He always has been. Give me examples of how he 'gets into himself' - I gave plenty of how he helps the little guy.

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but considering how quickly it came out, relatively, to Bowling for Columbine, I got the vibe that he felt he had to defend the country against the forces of darkness that now occupied the White House. And his work took on a messianic tone.

Amazing that your 'vibe' is able to discern all that without an objective viewpoint - ie you never saw it. FYI - If you want to see it, I WILL make it available to you. Moore has actually approved me to distribute it on a not for profit basis.

I guarantee that's a lot more than the Moore bash movies and films are gonna do.

I also get the impression that he's getting sloppier on the details & assertions he presents and sacrifices them for the sake of creativity.

Really? An impression? Try watching some of his works, and then compare the facts to the realities. Go to the anti-Moore sites and then to www.MichaelMoore.com - I bet what you find is that Moore's fact checking is a lot more thorough than you'd like to admit. In fact, he goes to the sites that try to discredit him, and posts links to media and congressional reports that back up his claims.

At this rate, he'll be down right frantic for his next film if Bush gets a 2nd term. Shame, he could've been a great satirist.

From what he says in his movies, i is fairly clear that satire was not his primary goal. He presents horrible facts and tries to give people a chuckle about how ludicrous the situations are so that they can take it all in without coming away too depressed to try and change anything.

He is about providing information and empowerment to the little guy. And sometimes that involves humor.

[xenocaster]

I have enjoyed MM work such as Colombine. I thought this new one was very ballsy. It took a lot of guts to stand up and speak his mind. This is what America needs. To get a nice slap in the face. We spend to much time sleeping while they are screwijng us over.

Moore is cool and I support his side completely. Bush Sucks!!!

[GooieGreen]

At 8/16/04 11:49 AM, xenocaster wrote: I have enjoyed MM work such as Colombine. I thought this new one was very ballsy.

yes, but it was all stuff I've beent talking about prior to the movies release.

It took a lot of guts to stand up and speak his mind. This is what America needs. To get a nice slap in the face. We spend to much time sleeping while they are screwijng us over.

Nice Engrish. Anyway, you are right, and Kerry needs to start acting like that more, or get more air time, which is hard when Bush tries to counter every media event of his, and since Fox and NBC are Bush's bitches, it's really hard to accomplish.

Moore is cool and I support his side completely. Bush Sucks!!!

Word

[Proteas]

At 8/16/04 02:06 AM, LexanPhoenix wrote:

At 8/15/04 06:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/15/04 06:23 PM, DrKamakazy1 wrote: Michael Moor isnt a bad dude, he's just an exploiter of current events

Exploiting current events to further your own agenda isn't considered evil.... interesting concept.

I wouldn't consider it evil. I WOULD however, consider lying about Weapons in Iraq to get us into a wasteful and stupid war about as close to evil as a person can get. Read my post here (bottom of page).

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=159298&page=1

This is a topic about Michael Moore, not G.W.... oh fuck it. I can't be bothered to argue with someone who seemingly the need to turn a topic into an anti-Bush festival.

I think Michael Moore's heart is in the right place, but he seems to be a bit misguided in his actions. The butchering and falsification of facts on "Bowling for Columbine," his mouthing off about Bush during the Oscars... I'm wondering what he'll do next.

Well, he feels strongly about his opinions, as many people do.

Just because he feels strongly about his convictions doesn't mean it was appropriate of him to get on stage and start shooting his mouth off at an awards show. The Golden Globe award was neither the time nor the place for something like that.

The fact that a lot more people hear his opinions doesn't really change how he feels. The same is said for almost every famous person.

So we could just ignore him entirerly and he will still rant and rave like a lunatic?

[RedSkunk]

I wasn't aware that you couldn't speak your mind when accepting an award. Care to provide me with some kind of guidelines that they make people follow, Proteas?

[mrpopenfresh]

At 8/16/04 04:10 PM, TheSkunk wrote: I wasn't aware that you couldn't speak your mind when accepting an award. Care to provide me with some kind of guidelines that they make people follow, Proteas?

Im gonna have to agree. So instead of thanking a million people whe don't know/care of, he speaks a bit about what he thinks is unfair. Its a better use of his exposure.

[antiklaus]

.com/bbs/topic.php?id=159298&page=1

This is a topic about Michael Moore, not G.W.... oh fuck it. I can't be bothered to argue with someone who seemingly the need to turn a topic into an anti-Bush festival.

I posted about Moore. Everyone else seems glad to drag the Bushman into it... as if they were dire enemies... the Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader of the public world.

Just because he feels strongly about his convictions doesn't mean it was appropriate of him to get on stage and start shooting his mouth off at an awards show. The Golden Globe award was neither the time nor the place for something like that.

Actually, Golden Globe is an award by the audiences of works, not by the industry, so I think that his audience was well aware of Moore's opinions when they chose him to get the award. All he did was give those people a voice. Despite the White Houses' direct and indirect attempts to censor them. Censorship is never good - without the freedom to criticize our leaders openly, we have no voice... because our leaders spend so much time with the voices of industry captains and foreign interests in their ears, how are these leaders supposed to represent us if we don't yell once in awhile?

The fact that a lot more people hear his opinions doesn't really change how he feels. The same is said for almost every famous person.

So we could just ignore him entirerly and he will still rant and rave like a lunatic?

I'd like you to post a single case where he ranted like a lunatic. I could post a dozen from Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney, Clinton, Bush, or pretty much any leader we have had recently in positions of power with little more than a google search. But Moore - despite the tactless way in which he often shares his opinions is far from maniacal.

[Proteas]

I don't have anything against him for saying what he did at the Golden Globes, I just don't think that it was the correct time or place for him to give a speech about President Bush.

In a live T.V. situation like that, the producers can cut to a commercial for any reason they see fit, including; the speaker exceeds their time limit, language, ect ect. Yes, he got to speak his mind, but how long was he up there speaking before you heard the music cue for a commercial break?

What he was saying would have been more appropriate for a televised interview on the subject.

[Matty233]

At 8/17/04 09:08 PM, Proteas wrote: I don't have anything against him for saying what he did at the Golden Globes,

It was the Oscars that Moore made his speech at.

I just don't think that it was the correct time or place for him to give a speech about President Bush.

There is no law that prohibited him from speaking his mind during his speech. You just have to look at Moore's personnality. He's the kind of guy that would make public statements like that, didn't you know? Personally, I think that what Moore said was really just a slap in the face for Bush, because there were a lot of americans at the time (and still are) who hate him but don't do anything about it before Moore came along. And let's face it, if Bush can get the Dixie Chicks, who is safe?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 8/15/04 12:54 PM, mrpoppinfresh wrote: People who hate him are haters. Hatewrs in the sense that hating is what they do in life.

As a member of the right wing, I have a different take. Moore is purposely misleading in all his movies. He uses certain facts in a certain way to deceive the viewers. His works have been widely debunked. He has no credibility left.

He's also a huge hypocrite, but I won't go into that.

I don't think he's evil though. I think it's evil to preach against taking advantage of a war, and then does it. But he's really just a socialist with an agenda. And he'll stop at nothing to get it.

[CI-Lain]

At 8/18/04 07:14 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

At 8/15/04 12:54 PM, mrpoppinfresh wrote: People who hate him are haters. Hatewrs in the sense that hating is what they do in life.

As a member of the right wing, I have a different take. Moore is purposely misleading in all his movies. He uses certain facts in a certain way to deceive the viewers. His works have been widely debunked. He has no credibility left.

He's also a huge hypocrite, but I won't go into that.

I don't think he's evil though. I think it's evil to preach against taking advantage of a war, and then does it. But he's really just a socialist with an agenda. And he'll stop at nothing to get it.

a socialist with an agenda? Thats a new phrase. This is a bad thing? to have socialistic beliefs? I hardly see why.

How many of his movies have you watched? HOw many of his books have you read?

How do you base your judgement? where are these "wide debunks" coming from? are they real?

Did M. Moore use emotion in an attempt to sway peoples opinion about BUsh, the War, and the republican platform? Yea. Big deal the same thing goes on in most all other political art forms. Did I like the fact M. Moore used so much emotion in F 9/11? NO because I have read his work and others and seen that a solid and logical case can be built. Alot of evidence he could have used was left out. This movie wasnt made for someone who knows his position and can logically back it up. It was made to win an election.

He did what he could to get someone elected. I dont see a problem with that. People do that almost everyday now.

[PruneTracy]

Whatever man, Moore's doing his own thing.
He takes facts and then words them in the way HE wants to get his point across.

Bush's hesitation in times of crisis: True

Bush ties with the Arab Royals: True

Bush's lies about WMD's and an oil driven Iraq war: True

Whether you guys like him or not, he's just showing the truth in ways that make it very clear to draw a conclusion from.

Sorry, but if you wanna refute those points you need to do some serious research.

[MoralLibertarian]

;Bush's hesitation in times of crisis: True

Michael Moore criticizes Bush for hesitating to deploy troops in Afganistan, and then criticizes him for deploying troops to build an oil pipeline, an idea which originated under Clinton's Administration and has since been cancelled.

He further contradicts himself by inferring the war with Iraq was a rush job.

Bush ties with the Arab Royals: True

Umm, that would be pretty much any president today, not to mention that every president in our past has had "ties to the saudis." Our whole economy and way of life is unfortunately hopelessly dependent on oil. This link never really bothered me.

Bush's lies about WMD's and an oil driven Iraq war: True

Lie? Many liberals like to refer to this war started from a lie, as if Bush knew that the intelligence from 3 different countries stating that there were WMDs was untrue. I believe that Bush was truly looking out for the safety of the American people.

Most people won't question Moore's facts, unless they are flat out lies, ie "Sadaam Hussein never directly or indirectly killed an American." but he makes a lot of misleading allusions and really ignores the whole facts when they don't fit his agenda. Nevermind that the pipeline idea originated under Clinton's administration, or never mind that Jimmy Carter spent his administration cutting the defense and intelligence spendings.