Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/24/03 07:51 PM, SchiesterSpear wrote: Michael Moore is a moron, he tries to ride his worn out bullshit and over extend his 15 minutes of fame by hopping on the bandwagon and talking shit about Bush.

15 minutes of fame? Maybe you've never heard of Michael Moore, but he had a national TV show years ago (TV Nation), then a national cable show (The Awful Truth), several feature films, and an Oscar winning documentary this year... so, although it doesn't really matter, he's been famous for a while.

Also, to close, nobody gives a shit about the dixie chicks or the pope.

Okay. Nobody gives a shit about the Pope. I can think of a few hundred million Catholics (although I'm not one of them) who, if I understand Catholicism correctly, think he's the mostly holy, most important person living on this earth. So... you might want to think these comments through before you post them.

At 3/24/03 08:01 PM, OpIvy420 wrote:

Okay. Nobody gives a shit about the Pope. I can think of a few hundred million Catholics (although I'm not one of them) who, if I understand Catholicism correctly, think he's the mostly holy, most important person living on this earth. So... you might want to think these comments through before you post them.

No, he was right... The pope can blow his opinion out his ass. This is the same guy who says that abortion and birth control is also evil. Obviously, American society as a whole does not follow his moral guidelines, so why should we follow his foreign policy as well?

I am not going to defend Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, since I totally disagree with the concept. I was just pointing out that the Pope does have an impact on the way a lot of people think. I never said that this was good or bad, and I totally disagree with almost everything the Pope has ever said or done. I just agree on this one issue.

I really can't condemn what Mr. Moore did. He totally destroyed the atmosphere of the evening by using the time the Academy gave him to thank the people who got him up there to spread his propaganda. It's so shameful. Michael Moore was very selfish and he should have respected everyone there that evening and watching at home and just simply chose a more appropriate time to voice his opinions.

Kazou Kiriyama

Shame on you, Mr. Moore, for turning a night of honors and awards into your personal political platform.

Shame on you, Mr. Moore, not for expressing your right to free speech, but for failing to realize that this was neither the appropriate time nor place for such grandstanding....

His comments were inappropriate and out of line, however, he didn't deserve the oscar anyway, for being a hypocrite.

Moore makes a living by hiding behind the first ammendment, freedom of speech and whatnot, meanwhile, he makes a film THRASHING the second ammendment. First he uses and exploits the constitution, then the degrades it. I'm not saying I agree with the right to bear arms, but "Bowling For Columbine" as his comments last night, were both disgraces to himself and the nation.

At 3/24/03 10:57 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: I am not going to defend Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, since I totally disagree with the concept. I was just pointing out that the Pope does have an impact on the way a lot of people think. I never said that this was good or bad, and I totally disagree with almost everything the Pope has ever said or done. I just agree on this one issue.

The pope doesn't really have all that significant of an impact. I was raised catholic, and in a neighborhood where nearly everyone was. I went to church nearly every weekend up until I turned 18 and moved out. Catholic people may in some way still look up to the pope, but they certainly do not look to him for political advice. In reality I know very few catholics who are against birth control... and I know very few catholics who are also democrats. All the republican catholics I know are pro- bush and pro- war, and all the democratic catholics I know are pro-choice. People in America, regardless of religion tend to make their own political views, not take them from a senile old man in Rome.
You will only see catholics appeal to the authority of the pope when he agrees with them, as you will see with Republican Catholics speaking on how the pope says you should be pro- life, and as you will see with Democrat Catholics speaking on how the pope says you should be anti- war (just like with Michael Moore).

I've never seen a catholic american change their political beliefs so that they do not conflict with the pope.

I'd say that was pretty courageous of him. Incidentally, has anyone seen his other movies? they are at least as good as bowling for columbine, but have not gotten as much press. If you havent, check them out.

It wasn't courageous, it was stupid, the academy awards are not a political soap box, and his award should have been revoked.

Political soap box or not. That movie was great, it would have been a crime to revoke his award

At 3/24/03 11:44 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Moore makes a living by hiding behind the first ammendment, freedom of speech and whatnot, meanwhile, he makes a film THRASHING the second ammendment.

If you actually saw the movie, he obviously isn't against the 2nd amendment. He even makes the point that other countries, Canada for example, have more guns per person but less gun deaths per person. He isn't against owning guns. The movie is all about the different factors that contribute to gun violence like the Columbine shootings, and lets the audience make up their own minds about how to control that kind of thing. The point of the movie is to show factors that contribute to American gun violence that most people wouldn't normally consider (things other than music, violent video games, and gun ownership). I thought that in that sense, the movie was quite well made, and deserving of the Oscar. However, I'll agree, his yelling at the audience and the rest of the world was pretty embarassing.

At 3/25/03 12:35 AM, thenark wrote: Political soap box or not. That movie was great, it would have been a crime to revoke his award

What was great about it? Oh yeah! I liked the part where he edited the film to lie so that he could further his own personal agenda at the cost of the truth! What was your favorite part?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2...estid=2372&_requestid=6287

So allow me to get this straight, you see nothing wrong with murder? Or school shootings?

You see nothing wrong with hating your country?

At 3/25/03 12:39 AM, thenark wrote: So allow me to get this straight, you see nothing wrong with murder? Or school shootings?

Well, if that is the conclusion you reached with my given premises, than I suggest you demand a refund to whoever sold you that brain of yours, it's defective.

I have a problem with lying to advance your own political agenda.

Let me get this straight, you see nothing wrong with lying to the masses by doctoring the film of your DOCUMENTARY to get your own political points across?

And by the way, Moore is against the second amendment. He has been quoted in articles talking about how people who own guns to protect their house are really bigots.

At 3/25/03 12:36 AM, OpIvy420 wrote: However, I'll agree, his yelling at the audience and the rest of the world was pretty embarassing.

Shit, that's what makes the Academy Awards worth watching at all. Nobody cares about the awards, it's all about watching hot actresses, seeing the host make fun of celebrities, and listening to people rant. Moore was being a bit of an attention whore, but you gotta admit that it was the most exciting part of the show.

BTW: when you see the clip, everybody hear the guy yelling: BOO! BOO! BOO! over and over again. Goddamnit, if you wanna boo somebody you gotta do it right. You don't shriek BOO! repeatedly, it's a long low sound like this: BOOooooooooo! Thank you for your time.

That's true, but it still made the gun control supporters look like loudmouth assholes.

If one of your friends is annoying, keep booing him whenever he speaks, it's hilarious.

Thenark seems like the guy who would say something like this
"To be brave is not to go to war and fight for your country, for bravery is when you stand out and go against the croud. It takes tru bravery to refuse to go to war."
and this...
"Patriotism: A word made up by those who are unable to think for thier own. SYN; patriot: one who blindly follows thier government."

I've been waiting so long to use those wuotes because they pissed me off soooo much.

Right, in other words, a moron.

At 3/25/03 01:01 AM, DenkSmoker wrote: BTW: when you see the clip, everybody hear the guy yelling: BOO! BOO! BOO! over and over again. Goddamnit, if you wanna boo somebody you gotta do it right. You don't shriek BOO! repeatedly, it's a long low sound like this: BOOooooooooo! Thank you for your time.

Anyone know where I could find said clip?

At 3/25/03 12:41 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You see nothing wrong with hating your country?

Wow, you truly belong with the Westboro Church people.

I realize nothing I say or do will make you realize how you sound, but I must point out: Having an opinion against this war is not synonymous with hating America.

Now...to people who can have an adult discussion: I don't necessarily think that Mr. Moore used his time on stage wisely. But I've also seen our civil liberties slowly get sapped away, so I'm all for practicing them anywhere you can.

Also, whoever said Moore was speaking out against the second amendment...the movie is more about the culture of fear in America than anything.

I watched Bowling for Columbine and thought it was an excellent, thought provoking commentary on gun violence in the U.S., when I realised much of it was heavily edited and circumstantial, I was a bit dissapointed, but still, he brings up alot of good points in that movie, the comparison with Canada's gun toting population for example. Also I thought the speech a little outrageous, but funny as hell with all the booing and shit! It was all a bit boring up to that point! And he's right!

Shame on Bush for making us hate more countries than we can shake a stick at now.

Shame on Michael Moore for ruining what was supposed to be a show to escape our minds from this war for a little bit (some other winners deserve some shame, but they weren't as vocal so they just get this minor blurb).

Finally, shame on the mainstream public and the media for thinking that fame actually makes a person an expert on current events. I seriously doubt we'll ever see the Dixie Chicks make a special appearance on Crossfire.

I felt that Moore's comments were horribly rude, not because of what he actually said, though.

That was supposed to be an acceptance speech for his MOVIE, not for him to voice even more of his opinions.

Not addressing the film and not thanking those who helped him to get the film made showed little class on his part. He voices his opinions enough, and it wouldn't have killed him to acknowlegde those who had helped him win the Oscar.

At 3/24/03 11:41 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Shame on you, Mr. Moore, for turning a night of honors and awards into your personal political platform.

Shame on you, Mr. Moore, not for expressing your right to free speech, but for failing to realize that this was neither the appropriate time nor place for such grandstanding....

I agree, the awards are a place to thank the academy, my mom, and so on. Not to show everyone your a bleeding anti-war liberal. He pretty well ruined the night. and on top of that, the actors who were up there were actually told NOT to put their own political plugs in. So he violated that rule. He was just being an ass.

i mean what the heck is he talking about? making of his very opportunity to be famous. jus take the prize and go home. the way he does is like rebeling the gov't.
i mean he's an entertainer. why in the blue hell, he crosses the line into the politics. let's the disapproving speech about the gov't be the job of a opposition party politician to do. this is his duty.

MOORE can only talk something like that in front of national tv unless he, himself is a part-time politician. hence, he have the responsiblity to do so.

what is his ultimate motive??? to be famous or get the fun screwing the gov't. rebelling against the anti-corrupted or pure authorities.

to further add on,

in fact, his speech should be something that is encouraging to other fellow directors to be like him.

if he hates the gov't, he should make a movie about it, instead of jus merely giving a disapproving speech.

not to forget, if he is going to make a movie of something like that, he should remember to respect the audiences to let them make a decision in thinking whether the gov't is doing right or not even though he may want to make a firm standpoint in his "movie".

in the brits awards here, almost every single band/artist up for an award made either a sniping comment towards bush, a rude comment, a sarcastic comment or a quip about the war. Michael Moore got what he wanted. everyone is talking about his speech. i wouldn't even have cared about the oscars if he didn't do that. i cant stand awards ceremonies.

and while we're there, in the 'Land of the Free' he was drowned out by the orchestra. tut tut tut.