Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I know this is offtopic, but I feel compelled to defend Michael Moore. Sure, he does sometimes exaggerate things to an eye-rolling, obnoxious extent and can take things out of context in a similar way, but I've yet to hear any of the basic facts against Bush in Fahrenehit 9/11, for instance, convincingly refuted as false.

We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic.

"Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida."

"How did Bush win Florida? 'Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman.' Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the 'vote count woman.' Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes."

"Castigating the allegedly lazy President, Moore says, 'Or perhaps he just should have read the security briefing that was given to him on August 6, 2001 that said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes.'

Moore supplies no evidence for his assertion that President Bush did not read the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief. Moore’s assertion appears to be a complete fabrication."

"You mock the 'coalition of the willing' by only showing the tiny countries that have voiced support. But you leave out England, Spain, Italy and Poland. Why?

Moore: 'This film exists as a counterbalance to what you see on cable news about the coalition. I’m trying to counter the Orwellian nature of the Big Lie, as if when you hear that term, the ‘coalition,’ that the whole world is behind us.'"

"Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that Ashcroft once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died three weeks earlier. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Moore says, delivering one of the film’s biggest laugh lines.

It’s a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won."

"Moore wraps up the 'vacation' segment: 'It was a summer to remember. And when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place.' The movie then shows Bush in Florida. Actually, he went back to Washington, where he gave a speech on August 31."

At the end of F911 Michael Moore quotes Condoleeza Rice as saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” As usual, just like he did with the Charlton Heston speech in BFC, Mike plays fast and loose with the truth through the world of editing.

Pretty damning stuff, isn’t it? But that was the truncated, Michael Moore version. Now for the full, unexpurgated quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Well that’s a different quote, Mike. So why the editing?

Nobody really cares. You use a patronising "shocked" emoticon and act as if the opinion of a handful of people should be taken as fact and act bemused that it isn't. Don't be a moron, please.

Everyone exagerrates to make a point, when you're playing on that level. Moore was up against conservatives who know almost nothing but slander and negative spin(as the reaction to him proves). Most people just look for reasons to debunk F9/11 rather than coming to that conclusion while watching it.

Bowling For Columbine was mostly based on Moore going around interviewing people and getting into situations that would have been hard or impossible to set up. There's not really a lot of lying involved.

Gods, just shut up. If you honestly think I'm going to engage in reasonable debate with you, you really have had the wool pulled over your eyes.

It's always nice to see people like you being true to form. Unable to respond to intelligent discussion, preferring to make personal attacks and get all huffy...

Brings a tear to my eye.

Well, you did tell him to shut up without providing any sort of comment on his sources (which are reputable by the by). If Spinsanity's still up I might dig up some of the articles they have on Michael Moore. Spinsanity is a neutral think tank that seeks to uncover ALL cases of spin and lies, from all sides.

Anyway, you can't really tell him he's "just trolling" in this case. No, this is more like a flame war.

I'll go get the fire hose.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that a lot of Michael Moore's motivation comes from pushing people's buttons and being an entertainer, or that he sometimes exaggerates or takes things out of context (which I pointed out before). Plus, he is most definitely biased to a strong degree, and I don't really think the way he presented everything in F9-11 was as ideal as it could have been.

Looking back at the other thread, I probably didn't mean to say "I've yet to hear any of the basic facts against Bush in Fahrenehit 9/11 convincingly refuted as false." I don't know what I was thinking when I said that, and there was probably something else I meant to say along the lines of how there's at least some strong semblance of truth in quite a few of his main points despite the exaggerations, but I'm not sure. I'm actually aware of a few of those fallacies you mentioned, but admittedly, I'm not as well-read on them as I should be. So I don't blame you for thinking of my last post as stupid. And BTW, I've never watched Bowling For Columbine, so I'm unable to offer any comments on that one.

I guess my respect for what Moore did with the movie comes more from the fact that, good or bad, it at least got a lot more people actually discussing and even caring about the total crap going on in the political climate related to these issues brought up in the movie than it would have otherwise, from both sides. I also still think, while some of his tactics work less well than others, he's one heck of a motivational speaker. Oh, and yes, I admit I am on the liberal side, but not strongly so by any means - it's all about the candidate with me. And also bear in mind I'm actually close friends with a couple very liberal people who absolutely loathe Michael Moore just as much as, if not more than, your average Bush supporter, so I'm not quite as biased as it might seem.

And Rosalie - I side with you on so many things in the R&P forums, but even I agree you really need to calm down and respond to people a bit more rationally, with less personal attacks, than you are.

Read the first post again. He made a couple ofpatronising/insulting remarks.


"In response, our very own ultra-liberal defender of all that is true and clean posted: "

"Ms. Rose, you are aggressively ignorant about many things. "

Which is why I refuse to engage with him.

There are things that I agree with Moore on, and I have found a lot of his statements in F 9/11 to be true, but I think that he went on and on about it too much. I think that F 9/11 could have said the same thing by being only half the length it was.

Most people quickly forget that Moore has been around and active years before Bowling for Columbine. He has been politically active and making movies about a variety of subjects since the early 90s.

He was a "half known" for a very long time and only became bigtime with Bowling for Columbine and FH-9/11. So I think it's pretty unlikely that he's just an entertainer looking to make money. It just happens that he met success due to the liberal/conservative conflict and isn't quite sure what to do with it all now.

If you're going to express your sympathy for Mr. Moore, at least address the negative sides of him.

I find it humorous that the last 6 posts have failed to even faintly acknowledge the fact that Moore out and out lies in his films (or at least the last two).

If you're going to express your sympathy for Mr. Moore, at least address the negative sides of him.

Well, if you're going to be against him, atleast admit some of his positive traits.

That's because people don't have to admit your opinion as fact. Sorry.

I agree that a positive outcome of Michael Moore is that his movies do increase public discussion on things most people could care less about.

Dag, you really ARE aggressively ignorant. You don't have to believe me (or any of the sources I cited), but Trev-MUN also stated Moore "outright lies many times in his documentaries". That was not stated as his "opinion". Are you going to call him a liar, then? You can't have it both ways.

I'm not blind, but maybe you are.

And all Pallor said was that Moore "went on and on about [9-11] too much". Oh, and that Moore should "focus on the other ugly aspects of the right wing and just politicians in general". So Moore is too narrow in his scope and a bit obsessed with 9-11. Harsh criticisms, indeed.

Hey, why not try ot convince us toward your opinion by producing some evidence toward your argument instead of just bashing Rose? She makes some valid points.

Were you arguing against yourself? Please, try and put some kind of backbone in your argument instead of just reviewing what people have said so far.

Dag, you really ARE aggressively ignorant. You don't have to believe me (or any of the sources I cited), but Trev-MUN also stated Moore "outright lies many times in his documentaries". That was not stated as his "opinion". Are you going to call him a liar, then? You can't have it both ways.

I agree that a positive outcome of Michael Moore is that his movies do increase public discussion on things most people could care less about.

And all Pallor said was that Moore "went on and on about [9-11] too much".

So Moore is too narrow in his scope and a bit obsessed with 9-11. Harsh criticisms, indeed.

Um, what are you talking about? You told me to say something positive about Moore. I showed you that I'd said something nice about him earlier in this very thread.

Maybe the problem here is that you didn't bother to see what else was here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't just dumb

Hey, Kiss, have you even tried reading this entire thread? I suggest reading the first post I made. It might be surprising to you.

I don't get why people presume far right and far left are just as bad. Really, Stalin(and possibly Lenin) and Mousolini weren't really left wingers at all, but Hitler & Co.(among others) were most definitely far right wing.

I'm not "disowning" the bad apples, but their ideals don't fit in with anything that can be considered "left", apart from some vague shreds of socialism.

Extreme right wing leads to nazi-ism. Extreme left wing leads to hippies sitting in trees singing songs protesting about just about everything.

I know which I prefer.