Michael Moore for Pope

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I'm getting tired of everyone always bringing up the Michael Moore book whenever a discussion of Bush's election comes up. It seems to me, that if Michael Moore is so smart, and incapable of being wrong, we ought to make him Pope. That way, we would be able to reduce the number of people who have been deemed 'infaliable' to one.

For forks sake, does anyone really think that his book is the final decision as to the actual outcome of the election.

And yes, before I get any moronic comments. I've read the book, and I actually liked the chapter on education.

Dr. Arbitrary

[TheShrike]

I think Dr. Arbitrary should be the Pope.

[Commander-K25]

He would make a good minister of propaganda. Herr Dr. Michael "Goebbels" Moore.

[mrpopenfresh]

Why not? If someone like George W. Bush became president of the United States, heck, even I could be pope!

[Kenney333]

Funny, both moore and the pope disagree with the war, not like the pope condeming it did much though

[luckoftheirish]

what good is a pope anyways? all he does is look peaceful and slowly die

[CourtJester675]

At 6/5/03 09:31 PM, luckoftheirish wrote: what good is a pope anyways? all he does is look peaceful and slowly die

Dont tell that to the catholic church

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/5/03 07:18 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I'm getting tired of everyone always bringing up the Michael Moore book whenever a discussion of Bush's election comes up. It seems to me, that if Michael Moore is so smart, and incapable of being wrong, we ought to make him Pope. That way, we would be able to reduce the number of people who have been deemed 'infaliable' to one.

I agree with that decision. But then I semi-worship Michael Moore anyway. Also, he's not as wrinkly.

For forks sake, does anyone really think that his book is the final decision as to the actual outcome of the election.

Well... yes. It is well documented, well written and has loads of trustable sources for it.

[Slizor]

He would make a good minister of propaganda. Herr Dr. Michael "Goebbels" Moore.

It's nice to see that you discount any information that disagrees with you as propaganda.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/5/03 07:30 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: He would make a good minister of propaganda. Herr Dr. Michael "Goebbels" Moore.

Typical response...

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

The only reason I'm complaining is that some people quote Moore more than fundamentalists quote the Bible. I'd bet that no-one here has checked even one of Michael Moores references (myself included). The whole Jayson Blair thing kind of demonstrates that the media isn't always totally trustworthy.

I'll admit that the Bush campaign benefeited from cheating and dishonesty, but only if you anti Bush people will admit that people cheated to Gore's benefeit as well (with or without Gore's permission).

Dr. Arbitrary

At 6/6/03 03:17 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: The only reason I'm complaining is that some people quote Moore more than fundamentalists quote the Bible. I'd bet that no-one here has checked even one of Michael Moores references (myself included). The whole Jayson Blair thing kind of demonstrates that the media isn't always totally trustworthy.

I've checked out pretty much all of his sources that he uses on his websites but as far as the whole election thing goes his main source was the BBC.

[Malachy]

At 6/5/03 07:31 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: Why not? If someone like George W. Bush became president of the United States, heck, even I could be pope!

thats not to far off, being catholic i know some pretty dumb stuff, and one of em is that any active male christian can technically become pope, thats how it works, the bishups all get together and choose, though nobody knows how the hell they figure it out

[bumcheekcity]

Democratic vote, I think.

[Malachy]

At 6/6/03 05:23 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: Democratic vote, I think

possibly, i donno, its been the same for more than 1000 years, i bet it is too, but with so much openness for who can be pope, they have to have some way of narrowing downt he feild

[poxpower]

We don't need a Pope. He can replace Ronald McDonald for all I care hehehe.
Mr. Moore is a very unhappy bored little fellow. hihi, he just couldn't resist the opportunity to try a score a few bucks.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/6/03 08:10 AM, Slizor wrote: It's nice to see that you discount any information that disagrees with you as propaganda.

Not because he disagrees, but because he slants his works to present only a select side of an issue, (his side). They're not documentaries, they're editorials on film. He asks leading questions to the "right" (read: left) sort of people. Even the New York Times says he uses "slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery." And that's from a left-wing paper! His style is lazy, his reasoning that he presents and his methods are slipshod and clearly slanted. His movie doesn't even really answer the question of violence in America, it's just another "Let's Hate America" piece.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

The funniest thing about Micheal Moore is how he pretends to be just a regular Joe but actually has a few billion dollars. He probably hires a secretary to stain up a shirt from wallmart with mustard so he can take an interview on the daily show without looking rich. For someone who seems to hate the republican party so much he sure does seem to hoard pretty well. (Money and fat deposits)

[mrpopenfresh]

At 6/7/03 08:14 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: The funniest thing about Micheal Moore is how he pretends to be just a regular Joe but actually has a few billion dollars. He probably hires a secretary to stain up a shirt from wallmart with mustard so he can take an interview on the daily show without looking rich. For someone who seems to hate the republican party so much he sure does seem to hoard pretty well. (Money and fat deposits)

Its not that hes pretending that he's poor, its just that he dosen't care. Besides, Bill Gates isn't fooling anyone with that horrible haircut.

At 6/7/03 08:14 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: The funniest thing about Micheal Moore is how he pretends to be just a regular Joe but actually has a few billion dollars. He probably hires a secretary to stain up a shirt from wallmart with mustard so he can take an interview on the daily show without looking rich. For someone who seems to hate the republican party so much he sure does seem to hoard pretty well. (Money and fat deposits)

You pulled that billion dollar figure straight from your ass didn't you?

Besides, Ad hominem attacks only show your lack of arguments. Criticize ideas, not people.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/7/03 10:29 PM, nailbomb wrote: Criticize ideas, not people.

When the topic is a person, what else can one criticize but the person's ideas and actions?

At 6/5/03 07:30 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: He would make a good minister of propaganda. Herr Dr. Michael "Goebbels" Moore.

What ideas and/or actions of Moore are you criticizing here?

[Commander-K25]

At 6/7/03 10:47 PM, nailbomb wrote: What ideas and/or actions of Moore are you criticizing here?

You can do better than latch onto one statement like some leech. Read what I wrote on his way of making films!

At 6/7/03 10:56 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/7/03 10:47 PM, nailbomb wrote: What ideas and/or actions of Moore are you criticizing here?

You can do better than latch onto one statement like some leech. Read what I wrote on his way of making films!

The one statement which is unjustified name-calling?

[Commander-K25]

At 6/7/03 11:06 PM, nailbomb wrote: The one statement which is unjustified name-calling?

I admit that might have been wrong, but I did explain my position when asked later.

At 6/6/03 06:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Not because he disagrees, but because he slants his works to present only a select side of an issue, (his side). They're not documentaries, they're editorials on film. He asks leading questions to the "right" (read: left) sort of people.

I'd love to see some examples directly taken from one of his documentary of books.

Even the New York Times says he uses "slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery." And that's from a left-wing paper!

Please provide us skeptics with a link to that quote.

His style is lazy, his reasoning that he presents and his methods are slipshod and clearly slanted.

"His style is lazy"? that sounds a lot more like an opinion than a reason.

His movie doesn't even really answer the question of violence in America, it's just another "Let's Hate America" piece.

NOT ONCE were the words "hate America" or anything else similar heard in his documentaries or books.

Did you even see "Bowling for Columbine"? The question of violence was answered in a straightforward manner; the media focuses only on new and exciting events [good news or even no news is boring and bad for ratings ] thus creating a paranoid nation which goes out and buys guns to defend its household but ends up creating situations like columbine high schools. By the way, violence in America wasn't the only issue adressed in his documentary.

At 6/7/03 11:17 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/7/03 11:06 PM, nailbomb wrote: The one statement which is unjustified name-calling?

I admit that might have been wrong, but I did explain my position when asked later.

You certainly did, and I admire you for admitting that you were wrong.

[Done1done1done]

At 6/6/03 06:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Even the New York Times says he uses "slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery." And that's from a left-wing paper!

First and foremost, The New York Times is as much of a hawkish paper as everything else was during the war, because it had to be to sell... people want what Fox News tells them to want.

"His style is lazy, his reasoning that he presents and his methods are slipshod and clearly slanted. His movie doesn't even really answer the question of violence in America, it's just another "Let's Hate America" piece."

Bowling For Columbine brings up a lot of interesting points. True, a few (most notably the Dick Clark stuff) was a little over the top, but it does expose a definite fear in America of the unknown (ie: BLACK PEOPLE rather than rich white people) Corporate crime is not punished as much as other crime, though it directly hurts a larger group of people. Instead, they get off practically scot-free, and the prisons get overcrowded with people who simply had an ounce of marijuana in their pocket.

I could talk about the drug war propaganda, but that's another story for another post.

[Vicious-WTFN]

Micheal Moore is a pathological liar and when be sent to hell first before even stepping in a church.

By the way he called christians "jesus freaks" during a interview after the oscars.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/7/03 10:29 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/7/03 08:14 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: The funniest thing about Micheal Moore is how he pretends to be just a regular Joe but actually has a few billion dollars. He probably hires a secretary to stain up a shirt from wallmart with mustard so he can take an interview on the daily show without looking rich. For someone who seems to hate the republican party so much he sure does seem to hoard pretty well. (Money and fat deposits)

You pulled that billion dollar figure straight from your ass didn't you?

Besides, Ad hominem attacks only show your lack of arguments. Criticize ideas, not people.

Obviously Micheal Moore doesn't have a billion dollars. The point was that he pretends not to be rich and calls himself the champion of the poor when he has a ferrari and a multimillion dollar home.

What the hell are you talking about attacks? When did I attack him? Saying it's funny that he does things diffrently then he preaches is an attack? Nice job with the freshman year debate Ad hominem card, but I didn't even critize him, I just find it funny. Maybe next time you should get a grasp on basic comprehension rather than jumping for latin.