Michael Moore's view of women/relationships

[Mutie]

I just flicked thru Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men, and he has a chapter on relationships and how men can make things better for women.

He seems to have a very stereotyped view of gender IMO and see all relationships as a loud, overbearing man with a timid, gentle cowed woman.

For example he says all the way thru the chapter, "Men, listen to what your wife is saying, just because she's not as loud as you doesn't mean she doesnt have something worthy to say, she might have some very new ideas, you might find your mind opened if you just stop shouting over her, shut up and let her talk".

Well pretty much every woman I have ever dated has been louder and more outspoked than me, (or at least as much), I don't see this stereotype in my life.

He also says at one point, "you need to learn to eat dantily like women do if you dont want a heart attack, you've never seen your wife attacking food ravenously like its her last meal have you?" Which I thought was stupid as all my girlfriends and female friends have loved food and not been dainty eaters.

He seems to see all women as dainty, sensible, quiet and men as loud, stupid, and greedy.

TBH when I read it back 03, it made me feel bad as I felt that I wasnt manly enough for having loud girlfriends and not being greedier and more aggressive than them. I know angry conservatives all say "oh white men are the persecuted group nowdays" which is stupid, but I didn't think that chapter was helpful. IE a man can be a prick without being those things (For example, a shy quiet CEO of a company who wont hire women, or a passive agressive boyfriend). I know I can be.

I know men have too much over women in this world, IE more likely to abuse, have better wages and more positions of power. But I didn't think a book chapter making ordinary men feel stereotyped helps that. I would be interested if anyone else has read it and what they thought.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

While I agree with a lot of what I hear Michael Moore say, he's an idiot. He gives liberals a bad name, and often just helps conservatives by giving them an easy whipping post. Plus, his writing sounds awful.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Is there any chance that Moore is employing a little irony?

[MarkBastable]

Is there any chance that Moore is employing a little irony?

No. He doesn't have the imagination for irony, except of the most brutal sort. ("Oh yeah - that's true.")

Also, like a lot of unimaginative egoists, he works on the principle that his nature is comprehensively representative of all human nature, so he can generalise about anything and everything by extrapolating from himself.

[tonywalt]

I love sensible dainty women, but not too quiet.

[Darcy88]

Moore is all right I guess. He is a millionaire but puts on the attire of a mechanic or trucker and that seems to me fake. At the end of his last movie he went to Wall Street and stretched crime scene tape all up and down it. He called upon others to join him in opposing the oligarchic Wall Street-centric rule in the states. The occupy movement came not long after. I found that kind of cool.

[Mutie]

I dont think its so much irony as much as him thinking thats the most common type of gender issue in the USA so thats the one that needed to be dealt with. As a bitter non agressive guy however it was the last thing i needed.

[Darcy88]

Whether its an act or not, Moore does look and talk like a regular Joe and has by virtue of that an easier path to the hearts and minds of the working class, more so than other left-wing activists/talking heads, such as Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, ect.

Those quotes don't seem that off the mark to me. A lot of men do talk over their spouses and do eat like dogs.

[BienvenuJDC]

I wouldn't waste my time with someone like Moore. He's an idiot.

[Mutie]

Yeah but I'l admit. Im some of my relationships I've been the quiet dainty unhungry one. It made me feel bad about my masculinity (lol).

[Alexander III]

Whether its an act or not, Moore does look and talk like a regular Joe and has by virtue of that an easier path to the hearts and minds of the working class, more so than other left-wing activists/talking heads, such as Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, ect.

Those quotes don't seem that off the mark to me. A lot of men do talk over their spouses and do eat like dogs.

That does not reflect very well upon the working classes, and also upon their ability to vote within a democracy. Rather than the man who appears the best for the job, they prefer the one who is like them. Ofcourse this is true of all people, not just the working class. But yes, Michael Moore is a populist whom I have little respect for, on account that from his work he cares more about appealing to working class steryotypes of the big bad rich men, than the truth which involves them as well.

I am not a huge fan of chomsky eaither, But I respect him, we have diverse opinions but I respect him for he has his opinions, not mere felxible affectations to win the respect of the common people like michael moore.

/Rant Over.

P.s in my experiance the women are the dominat ones in the majority of relationships, the men for the most part tend to be opressed not the opressors. He was probably basing his assumption of women on prostitutes. I am guessing that is his main source on matters of women. I mean look at him, hear him speak - that is clearly a men relies upon prostitution to fufil sexual desire.

[Mutie]

i heard he has a wife who busts his balls. i expect hes quite submissive and jealous of dominant men.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yeah but I'l admit. Im some of my relationships I've been the quiet dainty unhungry one. It made me feel bad about my masculinity (lol).

I have an average sized stomach. In my last marriage, my wife always ate larger portions than me. (and it was obvious too) I'm more of a "constant eater" than one who eats large portions at a time.

[Pierre Menard]

Moore is an average writer with little intellectual depth.

I'm surprised people still take him seriously.

[JuniperWoolf]

I hate him solely for his cheap, uninformative filming techniques. For example, he'll ask in a voice over: "and what do the republicans have to say about this?" Then he'll cut to a scene of a random republican struggling to come up with an answer to a question that you don't get to hear. For all you know, a reporter asked him if he remembered the name of his childhood dog. Also, I saw one of his films (I think it was the one on healthcare) in which he paid for a surgery for the wife of one of his biggest critics anonymously, then revealed his actions on the documentary and said "you're welcome." How immature.

[Mutie]

i know there was one part in the columbine film where Moore said "and what did heston say to the murdered families" (who asked him to cancel his gun rally) and it cut to heston saying "over my dead body" but that quote was from some old rally and he wasnt saying it to the family.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, it was "from my cold, dead hands!!!" Nevermind how tasteless it is that Heston was about eighty years old, an alcoholic and suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the time, apparently he was still a worthy target for Moore's hackneyed film editing jibes. Man Micheal Moore sucks.

[Darcy88]

In an age when the biggest media sources and products are all either apolitical or highly corporate, having one man who can make a left-wing film and sell a lot of tickets is a nice thing. He can be cheap, he can shamelessly ply his tactics to the viewer's heart-strings, but he doesn't outright lie very often like an Anne Coulter or a Glen Beck.

You haters of Michael Moore, are you ideologically against the man, or do you just not believe there is a place for political content in the mainstream?


Haha, it was "from my cold, dead hands!!!" Nevermind how tasteless it is that Heston was about eighty years old, an alcoholic and suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the time, apparently he was still a worthy target for Moore's hackneyed film editing jibes. Man Micheal Moore sucks.

Yeah. Heston was still holding a pro-gun rally in an area where a little girl had recently died due to gun violence. I'm pro-gun, but the tasteless one in that equation was Heston.

[JuniperWoolf]

You haters of Michael Moore, are you ideologically against the man, or do you just not believe there is a place for political content in the mainstream?

No, I never care if people are opposed to me ideologically as long as they aren't dicks. I just don't like him as a person, I think his methods are really underhanded. He asked Matt Stone and Trey Parker to make a cartoon short about gun control for Bowling for Columbine, and when they refused him he got someone else to make one in a very similar animation style and he showed it right after he showed an interview with Matt. Everyone obviously thought that it was them who made it, but they didn't and in fact the message it conveyed was opposed to their views. He's essentially a liar.


Yeah. Heston was still holding a pro-gun rally in an area where a little girl had recently died due to gun violence. I'm pro-gun, but the tasteless one in that equation was Heston.

That's not really my point. I don't like Charlton Heston either, but talk about your cheap whipping posts.

[cacian]

I hate him solely for his cheap, uninformative filming techniques. For example, he'll ask in a voice over: "and what do the republicans have to say about this?" Then he'll cut to a scene of a random republican struggling to come up with an answer to a question that you don't get to hear. For all you know, a reporter asked him if he remembered the name of his childhood dog. Also, I saw one of his films (I think it was the one on healthcare) in which he paid for a surgery for the wife of one of his biggest critics anonymously, then revealed his actions on the documentary and said "you're welcome." How immature.

what has politics got to do with it is a good starting point.

[OrphanPip]

To be fair to Moore, his films are meant to be entertaining as well as deliberately provocative politically. In general, Moore doesn't misrepresent the issues he takes on, he actually scores pretty well over at politifact when they looked at his most recent film.

Also, Moore I think is believable as a social activist, not because he puts on the appearance of an every man, but largely because he has a long career as a social activist when he was just an every man. This is a guy who got his start founding a newspaper, and making documentaries about the negative effects of globalization when nobody was paying attention to it. Bowling for Columbine made him rich, which is a feet in itself as few documentaries ever make any money.

And the style of the cartoon from Bowling for Columbine doesn't even look like South Park, apart from being cheap because it was done on low budget. And Moore didn't ask Stone and Parker to make a cartoon for his film, after the fact they felt the cartoon looked too much like South Park, even though nothing about their involvement with the cartoon is mentioned in the film, nor is it in any way implied that they were involved with it. It's a stupid complaint.

In relation, I don't buy Parker and Stone's "equal opportunity offenders" bull****, it's a disingenuous handwaving effort to avoid criticism.

[Pierre Menard]

In an age when the biggest media sources and products are all either apolitical or highly corporate, having one man who can make a left-wing film and sell a lot of tickets is a nice thing. He can be cheap, he can shamelessly ply his tactics to the viewer's heart-strings, but he doesn't outright lie very often like an Anne Coulter or a Glen Beck.

You haters of Michael Moore, are you ideologically against the man, or do you just not believe there is a place for political content in the mainstream?




I dislike him for the same reason I dislike the Bill O'Reilly's of the world. Now you can argue that he's not as bad, and that's okay, that's no my bone of contention here, but I believe he comes under the same or similar umbrella.

Someone who doesn't care about actual discussion, someone who doesn't care about mature, thought-out and reasonable discussion about issues but rather, prefers to manipulate issues and bend things to push his views. Someone who heavily uses cheap tactics.

On a personal level, I find little intellectual depth to anything he has to say.
It's not just a personal ideological thing; I know many on the left and right whom I disagree with, but who I respect highly and listen to their opinion, because they're not manipulative opportunists.

[PoeticPassions]

I think Michael Moore, unfortunately, does a disservice to the left or liberals. If he really wanted to enact change and have his message heard, then he would perhaps try to appeal to more people and more to the center... instead he goes on present very skewed pictures and narratives that generally only serve his own interests, making even the left dislike him.... I will admit I have liked some of his films (like Roger and Me), but I just think he is too extreme and fundamentalist that he does not allow for any dialogue to take place... in this sense he is just as bad as most of the conservatives he bashes. It would be much more effective to take a bit of a more even-sided approach...
But hey, I do think that it is nice having a counter to some of those crazies on the right out there...

[BienvenuJDC]

To be fair to Moore, his films are meant to be entertaining as well as deliberately provocative politically. In general, Moore doesn't misrepresent the issues he takes on, he actually scores pretty well over at politifact when they looked at his most recent film.

Only from the perspective of a bleeding heart liberal...

[YesNo]

I think Michael Moore, unfortunately, does a disservice to the left or liberals. If he really wanted to enact change and have his message heard, then he would perhaps try to appeal to more people and more to the center... instead he goes on present very skewed pictures and narratives that generally only serve his own interests, making even the left dislike him.... I will admit I have liked some of his films (like Roger and Me), but I just think he is too extreme and fundamentalist that he does not allow for any dialogue to take place... in this sense he is just as bad as most of the conservatives he bashes. It would be much more effective to take a bit of a more even-sided approach...
But hey, I do think that it is nice having a counter to some of those crazies on the right out there...
I agree. I probably voted for the same people Moore did, but he has made me wonder if I shouldn't change my mind--at least until I look at the alternatives.

Regarding "Stupid White Men", which I haven't seen or read does Moore consider himself one of them?

[OrphanPip]

Only from the perspective of a bleeding heart liberal...

Well, let's look at the issues covered in Moore's films.

1. Roger and Me. Globalization and the decline of the American auto-makers in the 1980s. Not particularly a bleeding heart liberal issue, but an expose of something most people now accept since the auto industry has continued to rapidly decline in Michigan.

2. Bowling for Columbine. High US gun crime possibly being a result of a cultural fetishism for firearms. A more controversial, but not an outlandish idea, as something should explain why the US has such an elevated gun crime rate relative to other developed nations. Although, the main point of the film is to make the argument that there is a gun crime issue in the US that is not being addressed in the public political discourse.

3. Fahrenheit 911. Accusations of personal profit and investment of the Bush administration in pushing forward the Iraq war, and possible negligence in allowing 9/11. Certainly, the most controversial, but the accusations aren't entirely unfair.

4. Sicko. The US healthcare system is dysfunctional and low performing compared to other developed countries.

5. Capitalism a Love Story. Like I mentioned, Politifact found that his claims about wealth disparity in the US hold up for the most part.

Do any of the positions in those films qualify as far left? No, not really. Comparing him to extremist like Glen Beck isn't quite fair when you look at the claims Moore actually makes. His political positions are pretty mainstream mixed-economy moderate left.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Only from the perspective of a bleeding heart liberal...

Yeah, damn this stupid bleeding heart liberals, always caring about other people and stuff.

And, Pip, to a conservative, anything at all to the left of their belief is usually deemed "bleeding heart liberal."

[Scheherazade]

~
R e m i n d e r

Please keep in mind that discussion of current politics is not allowed.

Posts containing such comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[Darcy88]

I agree with all OrphanPip has said. I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity. Compare Michael Moore to Anne Coulter or Glenn Beck in terms of integrity and truth and you see that he isn't all that bad. Michael Moore is one of the only legitimately left-wing presences in the American mainstream. Msnbc is a hack democratic party cheerleading entity and doesn't really count.

I won't get into it any further since its too political.

[PMLondonderry]

He also says at one point, "you need to learn to eat dantily like women do if you dont want a heart attack, you've never seen your wife attacking food ravenously like its her last meal have you?" Which I thought was stupid as all my girlfriends and female friends have loved food and not been dainty eaters.


Michael Moore has never seen me eat. I am a tiny little woman but I can sure pack it away. I'm extremely lucky to have the metabolism of a super hero because my inner woman is like 800 pounds.

[BienvenuJDC]

My comment was just to object that "Moore doesn't misrepresent the issues that he takes on"... He is a propagandizer, plain and simple. His writings and movies are to push an ideology. I'd even agree that those on the opposite end of the spectrum do the same. Just don't insult my intelligence to say that he doesn't "misrepresent".

My comments are not meant to be political, but to critique his media work for his intent. I refrain from spending too much time with commentators and when I do entertain them with my ear, I take what they say with much skepticism.

[MarkBastable]

. I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity.

Nah. I share his political views, more or less, but I dislike him nevertheless - because he's such an unpleasant, self-righteous, smug arse. No machine needs to propagandise to make me think that. All that's necessary is to see him interviewed - the unpleasant, self-righteous, smug arse.

It's quite difficult, actually, to decide whether his unpleasant self-righteousness is more obnoxious than his smug arsedom, or whether, on the other hand, his arsely smugdom is even less appealing than the self-righteous unpleasantness.

[Darcy88]

Nah. I share his political views, more or less, but I dislike him nevertheless - because he's such an unpleasant, self-righteous, smug arse. No machine needs to propagandise to make me think that. All that's necessary is to see him interviewed - the unpleasant, self-righteous, smug arse.

It's quite difficult, actually, to decide whether his unpleasant self-righteousness is more obnoxious than his smug arsedom, or whether, on the other hand, his arsely smugdom is even less appealing than the self-righteous unpleasantness.

How indefensible to feel self-righteous when commenting on the depredations of loathsome oligarchs. How dare he. Would all the left-wing activists and figures focus during their sparse air-time on remaining impotently cordial, not on telling the truth with passionate vim.

[Alexander III]

How indefensible to feel self-righteous when commenting on the depredations of loathsome oligarchs. How dare he. Would all the left-wing activists and figures focus during their sparse air-time on remaining impotently cordial, not on telling the truth with passionate vim.

That would be fine, but he is very passionate about not telling the truth which does not suit his agenda, going so far as to obscure it and try to make the opposite seem true.

I dont get how you can admire a man such as that. Manipulations of the masses for ones agenda, is not a very defensible position. Even though I am quite sure his heart is in to it. And he thinks what he is doing is right and just.

[OrphanPip]

My comment was just to object that "Moore doesn't misrepresent the issues that he takes on"... He is a propagandizer, plain and simple. His writings and movies are to push an ideology. I'd even agree that those on the opposite end of the spectrum do the same. Just don't insult my intelligence to say that he doesn't "misrepresent".

My comments are not meant to be political, but to critique his media work for his intent. I refrain from spending too much time with commentators and when I do entertain them with my ear, I take what they say with much skepticism.

Except that I provided the reference to politifact, an independent body that factchecks political claims, and they found most of his statements to be accurate. When he is inaccurate it is usually due to him making unsubstantiated claims that lack conclusive evidence rather than him lying or misrepresenting them.

I'm curious about all these claims that Moore makes stuff up, or lies. Let's have some concrete examples. The OP is clearly misguided, the book is playing off stereotypes to make a joke, it's a rhetorical device, he's not actually saying that men and women are that way. This fact seems so painfully obvious that it hurts me to have to point it out.

As to the Heston thing, let's examine what Moore is actually doing. He's using a famous quote from Heston that is the major slogan of the NRA to introduce Heston. Is that misleading because it didn't happen at the Denver rally that then follows after the introduction? A more rational response to that scene is that Moore is deliberately inverting the slogans of the organization he's criticizing so as to criticize them. The scene is so famous that the fact that it is separated by a clear edit and part of Heston's introduction that only someone being deliberately obtuse would think this was meant to be misleading.

Or in Moore's own response:

"Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things! Or.... The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up. As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it? I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources: The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology."

There are plenty of accusations levelled at Moore around the internet accusing him of deliberately making stuff up, except none of the accusations stick or hold up under closer investigation.

[MarkBastable]

How indefensible to feel self-righteous when commenting on the depredations of loathsome oligarchs. How dare he. Would all the left-wing activists and figures focus during their sparse air-time on remaining impotently cordial, not on telling the truth with passionate vim.


I don't think you should do sarcasm. You're too sincere a person to pull it off.

But even if you consider the self-righteousness justified, how do you feel about the unpleasantness, the smuggery and the arsedom?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nah. I share his political views, more or less, but I dislike him nevertheless - because he's such an unpleasant, self-righteous, smug arse. No machine needs to propagandise to make me think that. All that's necessary is to see him interviewed - the unpleasant, self-righteous, smug arse.

It's quite difficult, actually, to decide whether his unpleasant self-righteousness is more obnoxious than his smug arsedom, or whether, on the other hand, his arsely smugdom is even less appealing than the self-righteous unpleasantness.
This is pretty much my mindset, the I may not dislike Moore so vehemently. I agree with almost everything he says, it's the way he says it that is usually off-putting. Hell, even his voice is grating.


I'm curious about all these claims that Moore makes stuff up, or lies. Let's have some concrete examples.
I second this request.

[Mutie]

Another thing. Michael Moore is literally the "lord" of my neighborhood in the UK. In one of his 90s TV Nation episodes he looked up which was the cheapest lordship for sale in England and it was right here. Not just my town but my actual area. The joke was that he was expecting green rolling hills and a manor and its an industrial "factories and crowding" area. He even went to the pub to talk about the area with his new "subjects" (with some genuinely emotional stories of unemployment etc). I only found out a couple of years ago. I dunno if the lordship has expired by now or what.

[YesNo]

Another thing. Michael Moore is literally the "lord" of my neighborhood in the UK. In one of his 90s TV Nation episodes he looked up which was the cheapest lordship for sale in England and it was right here. Not just my town but my actual area. The joke was that he was expecting green rolling hills and a manor and its an industrial "factories and crowding" area. He even went to the pub to talk about the area with his new "subjects" (with some genuinely emotional stories of unemployment etc). I only found out a couple of years ago. I dunno if the lordship has expired by now or what.
How much does a lordship cost? I thought you had to be born into some royal family to get something like that.

Maybe he was planning to write a book about stupid white lords.

[billl]

I think that, once the focus turns to the more annoying aspects of Michael Moore and his movies, etc., it's easy to get carried away and be a little unfair. At least it is for me--I remember once seeing something he did, and sort of habitually scoffing at his relentlessly schlubby everyman appearance and the particular grandstanding ironic gesture or whatever it was that he was doing. But then I stopped and thought it over, and the more I thought about it, the less I was able to find a good reason to be scoffing at it, it was effective and relevant satire--his rather tired presence notwithstanding. Sorry I can't remember what it was (and I don't mean to imply that he's always in the right, this was just one particular case), but that's where my opinion of him eventually settled: I should be careful to not go overboard in my dismissal of him, on account of his style obscuring his substance, or the attention-grabbing aspect of his role as a public rhetorician.

Still, he is quite often way too full of himself. It's like he's taken his stance for the everyman, and then (near paradoxically) let a resulting sense of self-importance work to his great discredit. For me, here's the best, and most succinct example, of what I'm talking about. He takes a perfectly valid standpoint, and pours his energy into presenting a case that deserves to be made (no matter how much one might agree or disagree with it), giving voice to some of those who have suffered--and then markets the thing like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Will_they_trust.jpg

Look at the size of that folded burial flag in relation to Moore's head, and how he's cradling it in his hands. Whose idea was that?

[Pierre Menard]

I agree with all OrphanPip has said. I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity.



You aren't seriously doing the 'noble left-wing intellectual beaten down by larger forces' line are you? My god...

Especially considering a number of posters have given well-thought out views on why they dislike him.

[Darcy88]

You aren't seriously doing the 'noble left-wing intellectual beaten down by larger forces' line are you? My god...

Especially considering a number of posters have given well-thought out views on why they dislike him.

Yes, and then OrphanPip proceeded to obliterate any of the seemingly substantive charges laid against the man. None have so far responded.

And yeah, noble left-wing intellectuals often do get beat down by larger forces. What planet are you living on my friend? Look at Chris Hedges. The man won a Pulitzer prize and less than a year later was given an ultimatum by his employer the New York Times to either shut his mouth about the Iraq war or get canned. Look at Dan Rather and I.F Stone.

[JuniperWoolf]

This is pretty much my mindset, the I may not dislike Moore so vehemently. I agree with almost everything he says, it's the way he says it that is usually off-putting. Hell, even his voice is grating.

His voice is the worst, especially when he's trying to sound sympathetic. His political stance means nothing to me, I just don't like him.


And the style of the cartoon from Bowling for Columbine doesn't even look like South Park, apart from being cheap because it was done on low budget. And Moore didn't ask Stone and Parker to make a cartoon for his film, after the fact they felt the cartoon looked too much like South Park, even though nothing about their involvement with the cartoon is mentioned in the film, nor is it in any way implied that they were involved with it. It's a stupid complaint.

He put it directly following an interview with Matt Stone. I thought they did it, a lot of people did. That's what Moore does, he doesn't overtly lie but he does those stupid tricks in the editing process. Also, I think they do look similar and not just in quality, especially the color tones used and the whole giant heads thing:

http://static2.dmcdn.net/static/video/017/891/36198710:jpeg_preview_medium.jpg?20111008145750

Check out that lime green and those massive eyes. It resembles South Park more than any other cartoon I can think of off the top of my head, and due to where it's situated in the film it's vague resemblance is enough. He obviously can't say they did it in the credits, but he doesn't have to for a million or so people to make that assumption.


In relation, I don't buy Parker and Stone's "equal opportunity offenders" bull****, it's a disingenuous handwaving effort to avoid criticism.

I don't like republicans or democrats either, they're on opposite sides but they're still both ridiculous. It's not too outlandish a concept to make fun of both. Parker and Stone call themselves "equal oppertunity offenders," but they don't attack at random, the views espoused throughout their various projects are consistant and seem to genuinely represent their beliefs. It's true that they don't openly offer their support very often, but I don't think it's that they're afraid of criticism (given their history), it seems more likely that they just don't want to be anyone's poster boys as that would limit them professionally.

[Darcy88]

I would have put the cartoon at that spot too. The climax of the movie I think was when Moore and the kids injured at Columbine got K-mart to cease its sale of bullets for automatic weapons (I think, am pretty sure but not certain). I'm all for gun rights, but ammunition for automatic weapons is most likely going to be used by either criminals or crazy ****s, and so I applaud Moore for doing what he did. Why Parker and Stone would refuse to lend a hand in the movie I don't know. I doubt composing a one minute cartoon would have taken much effort, and there was a truthful and satirical quality to the cartoon reminiscent of the very best of South Park. Whether the man is smug or self-righteous, his films contain a righteous message, his "cause" is one that is worthy and often ignored, and so I forgive him the self-righteousness and smugness. Or would people prefer there be no left-leaning voice in the American mainstream besides the Msnbc Obama butt-kissers who act like zombiacal members of the democratic party cult.

I think we're used to people we see on television being either beautiful or possessed of noteworthy credentials. We'll listen to someone with a pretty face or nice hair or with a Harvard Phd, but when some fat poorly dressed dude who isn't a professor or scholar comes on lecturing us we do not accept it.

[Mutie]

I really enjoyed that letters from the iraq soldiers book, It was a great chance to hear from them and their experience, really good read. It had a less annoying cover here in the UK with a more neutral photo IIRC.

[Mutie]

Look humorous or no, I enjoyed Stupid White Men, I thought it had vital things to say about racism, poverty and globalism. And even if he has simplified things or misinterpreted anyone in the book, our society is in a mess right now and anyone who wakes "regular folk" up to that is important.

However, I found that particular "end of men" chapter, to be unhelpful and divisive. I thought it had the same tone as all those men-mocking commercials where women roll their eyes at how useless they guys are. I think that kind of humor only creates more conflict between the genders.

I think a better approach is one which see that the gender imbalance in society is a result of both men and women being unhappy at their traditional "place", (such as men being told by the media they need to be violent and dominant) and both genders working together to raise each other's confidence and making the world better for each other.

[MarkBastable]

his films contain a righteous message, his "cause" is one that is worthy and often ignored,

...I tend to agree...


and so I forgive him the self-righteousness and smugness...

...Just can't do it myself.




Or would people prefer there be no left-leaning voice in the American mainstream

It is rather odd that America produces so few for a country so large - especially as there are so many on the right.

In fact, now that I think about it, I could probably name - off the top of my head - four or five right-wing commentators in the US media, but not a single left-wing one.

Why is that?



... some fat poorly dressed dude who isn't a professor or scholar comes on lecturing us we do not accept it....

For me, at least, that has nothing to do with it. Britain specialises in producing fat, poorly-dressed, working-class satirists. We even let them on TV.

[Pierre Menard]

And yeah, noble left-wing intellectuals often do get beat down by larger forces. What planet are you living on my friend? Look at Chris Hedges. The man won a Pulitzer prize and less than a year later was given an ultimatum by his employer the New York Times to either shut his mouth about the Iraq war or get canned. Look at Dan Rather and I.F Stone.

Look, putting aside just how downtrodden you think left-wing intellectuals are for a second, it's arrogant on your part to assume that anyone who dislikes Moore on this thread dislikes him because of propaganda. Could it be that a number of people on here have actually watched his films and heard him speak and have made up their own minds about the man?



I think we're used to people we see on television being either beautiful or possessed of noteworthy credentials. We'll listen to someone with a pretty face or nice hair or with a Harvard Phd, but when some fat poorly dressed dude who isn't a professor or scholar comes on lecturing us we do not accept it.

Or maybe it's because the 'fat poorly dressed man' is someone with no desire to properly discuss issues, but prefers cheap tactics and manipulation, and (speaking personally) maybe some find little intellectual depth to the man. I've heard more insightful things from the 'left' on internet blogs.

[Darcy88]

Look, putting aside just how downtrodden you think left-wing intellectuals are for a second, it's arrogant on your part to assume that anyone who dislikes Moore on this thread dislikes him because of propaganda. Could it be that a number of people on here have actually watched his films and heard him speak and have made up their own minds about the man?
.

Because a lot of posters claimed that Moore's stuff is not factual. Another poster came on here essentially proving that it is factual. Where would people get this belief that his stuff is not factual if not from propaganda?


...I tend to agree...



...Just can't do it myself.





It is rather odd that America produces so few for a country so large - especially as there are so many on the right.

In fact, now that I think about it, I could probably name - off the top of my head - four or five right-wing commentators in the US media, but not a single left-wing one.

Why is that?


I'll try not to too badly transgress the no-politics rule and lay it out for you. Media concentration has led to a mere four corporations owning and controlling most of American mainstream media. Corporations are right-wing. Its in their interests to skew news and information towards their side, or to some blandly warped grey area of neutrality. Fox News pundit-puppets make up obscene lies on an hourly basis, but when Dan Rather puts out a false news story, perhaps by mere accident, he fades and soon finds himself without a job.

Right-wing radio pulls in millions and millions of dollars in syndication. Left-wing radio is running on fumes, the hosts actually making appeals for listeners to sponsor air-time. Which is odd since the left-right divide in America is roughly commensurate.

There are a lot of people who like the democratic party, and that is why they have been given Msnbc. Right-wingers consider the channel radical, but to a true radical like me its staffed by a soulless pack of Obama apologists who irritate me to no lesser degree than do the right-wing hacks spouting lies and deceit over on the inglorious channel of Fox News.

I still don't see the justification behind many's dislike for Michael Moore. The worst thing he did was betray Ralph Nader. OrphanPip said that his films have been objectively fact-checked and deemed factually correct.

[YesNo]

Because a lot of posters claimed that Moore's stuff is not factual. Another poster came on here essentially proving that it is factual. Where would people get this belief that his stuff is not factual if not from propaganda?


I assume what people say is factual to the best of their knowledge, but no one states all the facts and two different people can start with the same facts and arrive at opposing positions. What this means is that proving that a person's facts are technically correct, is not adequate to accept that person's argument.

Even when one agrees with the basic conclusion of the argument one might be annoyed with the way it was presented.

Here is the scene from Bowling for Columbine where Moore interviewed Charlton Heston displaying a card proving he was a lifetime NRA member and even praising Canada that it had more guns than the US but fewer murders using guns. All of this lead up to Moore asking that Heston apologize for appearing at an NRA rally in Flint after a child was killed by another child with a gun. I may be wrong, but I suspect Moore was misrepresenting himself, that is stating "facts" about himself, to Heston that were not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50

It seems that Moore's argument is that it is OK for Heston to exercise his US right to bear arms, which he explicitly acknowledged, but it was not OK for Heston to exercise his right to freedom of speech. Now, that is something that I would disagree with. I assume that Moore's facts about the murder rate in Canada and the US are correct, but those facts are irrelevant to what he was apparently showing.

I recall thinking that Heston behaved himself better than Moore in that scene.

Moore doesn't need propaganda from his enemies to discredit him. He does a good job discrediting himself on his own.

[Darcy88]

I assume what people say is factual to the best of their knowledge, but no one states all the facts and two different people can start with the same facts and arrive at opposing positions. What this means is that proving that a person's facts are technically correct, is not adequate to accept that person's argument.

Even when one agrees with the basic conclusion of the argument one might be annoyed with the way it was presented.

Here is the scene from Bowling for Columbine where Moore interviewed Charlton Heston displaying a card proving he was a lifetime NRA member and even praising Canada that it had more guns than the US but fewer murders using guns. All of this lead up to Moore asking that Heston apologize for appearing at an NRA rally in Flint after a child was killed by another child with a gun. I may be wrong, but I suspect Moore was misrepresenting himself, that is stating "facts" about himself, to Heston that were not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50

It seems that Moore's argument is that it is OK for Heston to exercise his US right to bear arms, which he explicitly acknowledged, but it was not OK for Heston to exercise his right to freedom of speech. Now, that is something that I would disagree with. I assume that Moore's facts about the murder rate in Canada and the US are correct, but those facts are irrelevant to what he was apparently showing.

I recall thinking that Heston behaved himself better than Moore in that scene.

Moore doesn't need propaganda from his enemies to discredit him. He does a good job discrediting himself on his own.

Heston holds pro-gun rallies in communities reeling from recent gun-related tragedies, Moore makes a clip about that, and between the two men it seems many view Moore as the villain. That's unbelievable to me. Moore's work is intended not only to inform but also to entertain. Some people it appears would deny him practically all creative license.

[BienvenuJDC]

Heston holds pro-gun rallies in communities reeling from recent gun-related tragedies, Moore makes a clip about that, and between the two men it seems many view Moore as the villain. That's unbelievable to me. Moore's work is intended not only to inform but also to entertain. Some people it appears would deny him practically all creative license.

Again...propaganda...

People who carry guns legally do not promote crime, but it is proven that those who are legally carry firearms in fact DO promote safety and reduce crime.

MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.

[Darcy88]

Again...propaganda...

People who carry guns legally do not promote crime, but it is proven that those who are legally carry firearms in fact DO promote safety and reduce crime.

MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.

Why did CBS axe Dan Rather then Bien? Why did the New York Times push out Pulitzer Prize winning outspoken leftist journalist Chris Hedges? And are you kidding me? CNN leftist? That is a hyper-absurd delusion and I laugh at it, hard. That is an indication of how far you are on the right. A network which gives Ari Fleischer a job is left-leaning only in a world where night is bright and day dark, where the sea is above and the sky below, where two plus two equals five and all roads go the same one way. Forget how radical I myself am, every person I know with but a modicum of liberalism in them considers American media right-leaning. You may call the ocean orange and Joseph Kony a good Christian, but that won't make them so.

But yeah, I suppose the fact that 12 right-wing talk radio stations have broadcasts that slither across the border to here while only one left-wing talk station comes in clearly, I suppose that is clear proof that "most of the media in the US is liberal." And pigs outnumber gulls in the skies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In fact, now that I think about it, I could probably name - off the top of my head - four or five right-wing commentators in the US media, but not a single left-wing one.


Right now the biggest three seem to be Bill Maher (whom I also can't stand), Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart, Colbert and Stewart especially. Both are in the news more and more, and in a poll not too long ago Stewart was rated the must trust-worthy personality on TV (I think). The funny thing is, both of these guys are reasonable--they criticize both the democrats and republicans and all of the media outlets, but that gets the labeled as far left, apparently.

Look, putting aside just how downtrodden you think left-wing intellectuals are for a second, it's arrogant on your part to assume that anyone who dislikes Moore on this thread dislikes him because of propaganda.
I don't think Darcy ever said that.

Again...propaganda...
Again...prove it...(and that can go for Pierre, too).



MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.

More like that's an indication if how far you are to the right, Bien. MSNBC is definitely liberal, but CBS, ABC, and CNN? They aren't liberal or conservative, just inept. Hell, I've even heard people claim 60 Minutes is a liberal propaganda machine, which is just insane. And Public Radio is a bit liberal, but not extremely so. They just happen to have a lot of intellectual programming which happens to be liberal . . . coincidence? And aside from Public Radio and a few token programs, almost the whole of broadcast raido is right-leaning, local and national.

[JuniperWoolf]

Right now the biggest three seem to be Bill Maher (whom I also can't stand), Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart, Colbert and Stewart especially.

Yeah, this thread's been forgetting about those two. I respect them way more than Moore, they're not manipulative or repulsive.

[Darcy88]

Yeah, this thread's been forgetting about those two. I respect them way more than Moore, they're not manipulative or repulsive.

I love those two in small doses. Its hilarious to me that one can probably get a clearer representation of the day's political events by watching a couple comedians on a network that airs South Park and the Simpsons than they can by tuning into the evening news or one of the all day politically-oriented news channels.

[JuniperWoolf]

I love those two in small doses. Its hilarious to me that one can probably get a clearer representation of the day's political events by watching a couple comedians on a network that airs South Park and the Simpsons than they can by tuning into the evening news or one of the all day politically-oriented news channels.

:yesnod: They make great points too. After that crazy guy shot that liberal politician in the states (and a little girl, and a few other people) Stewart said something along the lines of "look, he wasn't a Republican, he was just a crazy person. Relax everyone, this isn't the spark that sets off the class war powder keg. That being said, wouldn't it be nice if the delusional ravings of a mad man weren't eerily similar to the way we actually talk to each other?"

What a great joke that the best place we can go for moderate views is The Comedy Network.

[Pierre Menard]

I don't think Darcy ever said that.



Darcy: "I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity."

[Darcy88]

Darcy: "I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity."

And what is incorrect about that? Its been proven in this thread that what I said there was true. Many claimed that Moore lies and is dishonest. A member pointed out that he in fact doesn't, as confirmed by an objective political fact-checking organization. Is this too nuanced? It seems simple to me.

[Darcy88]

I said "in large part" Pierre. And many of the complaints had to do with Moore's facts and honesty. So there you go. Next!

[Varenne Rodin]

ABC is left wing? Seriously?

[Darcy88]

ABC is left wing? Seriously?

And CNN too. Anderson Cooper is a regular Karl Marx, Wolf Blitzer the Lenin of our time.

[Varenne Rodin]

And CNN too. Anderson Cooper is a regular Karl Marx, Wolf Blitzer the Lenin of our time.

Haha. It's embarassing that many of my fellow Americans don't know left from right. Sesame Street has failed them.

[Darcy88]

Haha. It's embarassing that many of my fellow Americans don't know left from right. Sesame Street has failed them.

Must make for a traffic accident prone people.

[Pierre Menard]

And what is incorrect about that? Its been proven in this thread that what I said there was true. Many claimed that Moore lies and is dishonest. A member pointed out that he in fact doesn't, as confirmed by an objective political fact-checking organization. Is this too nuanced? It seems simple to me.


Dishonest entails a lot of things, manipulation and cheap tactics can come under such a label.
The claims of 'lies' is your only point, and yes, the people who claimed outright lies haven't responded in detail, but Orphanpip's reference to politifact ( an organisation which is not without criticism) mentioned he scored well on his latest movie...here's the link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/01/michael-moore-movie-factcheck/

Nothing on any of his other movies, nothing on his books, nothing on his speeches and public appearances. No, simply one page on his latest film (probably the film that's received the least heat) that examines about 9 facts. Hell, the site itself says Moore used selective statistics to distort the Reagan era.
Are there other links on this 'objective' fact-checking site about all his other work that I've missed? There may be and I'm certainly happy to read them.

I'll have to let the people who claimed 'outright lies' defend themselves, but you've hardly proven much.

However, what we can see, is that there are definitely some concerns over Moore's 'honesty' in the larger, non-technical sense of the word.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I love those two in small doses. Its hilarious to me that one can probably get a clearer representation of the day's political events by watching a couple comedians on a network that airs South Park and the Simpsons than they can by tuning into the evening news or one of the all day politically-oriented news channels.

I watch them ever time they're on. I've learned more about the media and our political system from their two shows, Daily Show in particular, than from anything else. They're hilarious shows, but they also kind of make me sick from time to time.

Also, as far as I know, Comedy Central doesn't shows The Simpsons, fyi.

[JuniperWoolf]

Also, as far as I know, Comedy Central doesn't shows The Simpsons, fyi.

The Canadian version does ("The Comedy Network").

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Simpsons on Comedy NETWORK?? You kooky Canadians.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, we get Todd and the Book of Pure Evil too (which I think you'd actually really like, it's about metal heads that live in a town which was created by Satanists). No Trailer Park Boys, though.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That does sound like something I'd like.

[Darcy88]

Dishonest entails a lot of things, manipulation and cheap tactics can come under such a label.
The claims of 'lies' is your only point, and yes, the people who claimed outright lies haven't responded in detail, but Orphanpip's reference to politifact ( an organisation which is not without criticism) mentioned he scored well on his latest movie...here's the link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/oct/01/michael-moore-movie-factcheck/

Nothing on any of his other movies, nothing on his books, nothing on his speeches and public appearances. No, simply one page on his latest film (probably the film that's received the least heat) that examines about 9 facts. Hell, the site itself says Moore used selective statistics to distort the Reagan era.
Are there other links on this 'objective' fact-checking site about all his other work that I've missed? There may be and I'm certainly happy to read them.

I'll have to let the people who claimed 'outright lies' defend themselves, but you've hardly proven much.

However, what we can see, is that there are definitely some concerns over Moore's 'honesty' in the larger, non-technical sense of the word.

If you compare Moore to his ideological counterparts - Beck, Oreilley, Coulter, Limbaugh - in the true Ponochiocal sense of honesty, his nose is perhaps a bit bigger than normal, a veritable schnoz, but those others have noses that stretch to infinity, noses illimitable across deserts and oceans and way off into the outer reaches of space.

If you want to get down to the heart of the matter, as a political figure in the American mainstream, compared to almost all others, the man is a saint, a noble man of truth and integrity, decked out in his plaid shirts and blue jeans as one holier than any white virgin robed Pope. Jesus and Buddha and Confucius themselves would all supplicate at Moore's spotless balmy feet and seek his sagacious council on moral matters, if Moore was considered against the back-drop before which he speaks and writes and directs. Context matters.

[BienvenuJDC]

If you want to get down to the heart of the matter, as a political figure in the American mainstream, compared to almost all others, the man is a saint, a noble man of truth and integrity, decked out in his plaid shirts and blue jeans as one holier than any white virgin robed Pope. Jesus and Buddha and Confucius themselves would all supplicate at Moore's spotless feet and seek his sagacious council on moral matters, if Moore was considered against the back-drop before which he speaks and writes and directs. Context matters.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

[Darcy88]

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

Damnit Bien! You quoted me before I had applied the last few essential strokes to that masterpiece! All is ruined! Ah, the horror, the inhumanity. I curse thee!

Oh and yeah, agree to disagree. Sounds good.

But how could you disagree? What I wrote seems reasonable to me. Self-evident in fact.

*Sarcasm off

[BienvenuJDC]

Damnit Bien! You quoted me before I had applied the last few essential strokes to that masterpiece! All is ruined! Ah, the horror, the inhumanity. I curse thee!

Oh and yeah, agree to disagree. Sounds good.

But how could you disagree? What I wrote seems reasonable to me. Self-evident in fact.

*Sarcasm off

I won't admit to it, but I probably did it on purpose...

[Darcy88]

Haha, we get Todd and the Book of Pure Evil too (which I think you'd actually really like, it's about metal heads that live in a town which was created by Satanists). No Trailer Park Boys, though.

Ahh, Trailer Park Boys. Funny thing is growing up my two best friends were so similar to Ricky and Julian. Travis was as stupid as Ricky and many who first saw him said "omg you look like Ricky off Trailer Park Boys." And then the other guy always wore a black t-shirt, had hair just like Julian, and I kid you not had invariably in his hand at home or in a bar a rum and coke. And he was like this before a mutual friend turned him on to the show. Plus living in a trailer, having a dope-growing father, and being overall pretty white-trash myself, the show really resonated with me. I haven't watched it in a while. I wonder if they're still making new episodes.

[Pierre Menard]

If you compare Moore to his ideological counterparts - Beck, Oreilley, Coulter, Limbaugh - in the true Ponochiocal sense of honesty, his nose is perhaps a bit bigger than normal, a veritable schnoz, but those others have noses that stretch to infinity, noses illimitable across deserts and oceans and way off into the outer reaches of space.

...Okay. I don't remember anyone saying these guys weren't like that. Not sure of the relevance to my point.



If you want to get down to the heart of the matter, as a political figure in the American mainstream, compared to almost all others, the man is a saint, a noble man of truth and integrity, decked out in his plaid shirts and blue jeans as one holier than any white virgin robed Pope. Jesus and Buddha and Confucius themselves would all supplicate at Moore's spotless balmy feet and seek his sagacious council on moral matters, if Moore was considered against the back-drop before which he speaks and writes and directs. Context matters.

Yeah, again, little relevance to the point I was making in my above post (which was a response to your assertion that people dislike him because of some massive propaganda machine). And I don't really remember anyone sticking up for the rest of mainstream media, so again, I'm not sure of the relevance overall in regards to my post.

If we consider the backdrop in which he writes and directs, then in my view, he comes out as a intellectually shallow manipulator who I wouldn't recommend anyone going to for balanced, reasonable discussion. Which was my original reason for disliking Moore. Now that I've come full-circle, I don't know if I have much else to say.

[Darcy88]

...Okay. I don't remember anyone saying these guys weren't like that. Not sure of the relevance to my point.



Yeah, again, little relevance to the point I was making in my above post (which was a response to your assertion that people dislike him because of some massive propaganda machine). And I don't really remember anyone sticking up for the rest of mainstream media, so again, I'm not sure of the relevance overall in regards to my post.

If we consider the backdrop in which he writes and directs, then in my view, he comes out as a intellectually shallow manipulator who I wouldn't recommend anyone going to for balanced, reasonable discussion. Which was my original reason for disliking Moore. Now that I've come full-circle, I don't know if I have much else to say.

That's your opinion. I don't see anything objective about it. I guess you must side with gun nuts, health care insurance companies and Wall Street bankers, otherwise I don't see the point to your gripe.

Damn those charities for manipulating viewers with images of starving children. Damn the environmentalists for showing footage of devastated forests and slaughtered dolphins and manipulating us. Damn the broadway actor for conveying the sadness and tragedy of the scene as it was written and manipulating the audience. Heck, forget creativity and directorial intent, let's just have a robotic voice read straight facts and figures without the gratuitously manipulative inclusion in the film of poor people who can't afford health-care, children who were wounded in a school shooting, and people who were fore-closed on by banks.

In a media environment which overwhelmingly opposes Moore's positions, its downright ridiculous for people to be dumping on him for making films that he himself has said are meant not only to inform but to entertain. He is a film-maker, not a statistic-obsessed bureaucrat or laboratory-confined research scientist. I really doubt you yourself would jump on a right-winger who utterly lies and distorts facts so long as those lies and distortions accord with your own beliefs. Just a guess, a hunch.

His facts are for the most part accurate. So why the hate? Oh, there's no way the constant hail-like barrage of ideologically based attacks coming from the right could have anything to do with that - no way. It must just be due to ambiguous qualities he has as a "manipulator" and an "intellectually shallow" man. You think someone less intellectually shallow would be as popular as Moore? If Noam Chomsky made a film would it gross as much as Fahrenheit did? And does Moore ever pretend to be an intellectual? No he doesn't. He acts as he is - a common man possessed of a keen social conscience and a knack for making films. He's not perfect and I'm sure he would personally apologize to you were he to be made known of your immense annoyance at his imperfection. You must be perfect. If you made political films in support of the issues you yourself are passionately wrapped up in I'm sure they would be cold dead catalogues of non-emotive facts, like credits running the whole extent of the movie. Right on.

[Pierre Menard]

Yes, it is my opinion...as I was asked why I dislike Moore...


Okay, so, you've come to the assumption that I'm a right-winger, a gun-nut and and a patsy for the insurance companies. Nice assumptions all, but all completely wrong. You doubt I'd jump on a right-winger who distorts as long as he follows my views...and you make that 'hunch' based on....my 99 posts here? What? Well I can happily tell you you're wrong. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest would get my vehement disapproval and have in the past.

Sorry, when on earth did I make a comment on Moore's talent as a filmmaker? Another baseless assumption. Moore is extremely talented at making films, you'll get no disagreement here.

If those charities and environmetalists were more interested in manipulation than in really having thorough reasonable discussions about issues, then I'd level the same criticism there way. If they distorted issues and relied on cheap stunts, then their 'social conscience' doesn't give them a free pass from criticism, in my view.

Okay, so you're first couple of lines of the last paragraph are now implying that I have been influenced by the 'barrage' of attacks from right-wingers, considering I was the one talking about 'intellectual shallowness'...again, it's a baseless assumption. I take little notice of mainstream media, least of all right-wing media. Do I disagree with a number of Moore's positions? Absolutely, especially economically. Do I agree disagree with a number of right-wing positions? Absolutely. Especially socially.

The rest of your last paragraph descended into petulance and irrelevance. It's clear that after a while you are unable to continue a discussion without resorting to petulance and baseless assumptions. Unless you can ease up on the petulance, baseless assumptions and irrelevance, I think I'll leave it there. :smile5:

[Darcy88]

We on the left should worry about self-righteousness and manipulation and "fairness," "objectivity." The issues themselves and the human lives they affect, the very substance of the discussion, must be relegated to a role of secondary importance behind that of presentation, of style. Thus we shall accomplish our ends. Thus shall social justice be realized. A pox on Moore for assuming a degree of creative license in telling stories of suffering and oppression. I don't care if the man has made millions or if he has on occasion stretched the truth. His purpose for being on this planet is to advance an agenda that has its roots in truth and in compassion, however crudely he sometimes does it, however short he falls of some airy ideal some of us demand he live up to.

[MarkBastable]

MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.


You could as justifiably say that if you think those are on the left, it's an indication of how far to the right you are.

But actually it's an indication of the lack of breadth of political debate in the US, compared to the rest of the world. I can think of no other democracy in which any of those organisations would be considered left-wing.

Really, Bien, in the US you needn't worry about the left - in the media or in politics. It's not possible for the left to wield any power in America, because there's no one there to do it. In any other country, Obama would be thrown out of the national leftwing party for being a conservative reactionary.

[Darcy88]

Yes, it is my opinion...as I was asked why I dislike Moore...


Okay, so, you've come to the assumption that I'm a right-winger, a gun-nut and and a patsy for the insurance companies. Nice assumptions all, but all completely wrong. You doubt I'd jump on a right-winger who distorts as long as he follows my views...and you make that 'hunch' based on....my 99 posts here? What? Well I can happily tell you you're wrong. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest would get my vehement disapproval and have in the past.

Sorry, when on earth did I make a comment on Moore's talent as a filmmaker? Another baseless assumption. Moore is extremely talented at making films, you'll get no disagreement here.

If those charities and environmetalists were more interested in manipulation than in really having thorough reasonable discussions about issues, then I'd level the same criticism there way. If they distorted issues and relied on cheap stunts, then their 'social conscience' doesn't give them a free pass from criticism, in my view.

Okay, so you're first couple of lines of the last paragraph are now implying that I have been influenced by the 'barrage' of attacks from right-wingers, considering I was the one talking about 'intellectual shallowness'...again, it's a baseless assumption. I take little notice of mainstream media, least of all right-wing media. Do I disagree with a number of Moore's positions? Absolutely, especially economically. Do I agree disagree with a number of right-wing positions? Absolutely. Especially socially.

The rest of your last paragraph descended into petulance and irrelevance. It's clear that after a while you are unable to continue a discussion without resorting to petulance and baseless assumptions. Unless you can ease up on the petulance, baseless assumptions and irrelevance, I think I'll leave it there. :smile5:

Well you attack Moore without pretending to do so with even any gloss of specification or objective criteria. He is a "manipulator" and is "intellectually shallow." I don't see how these things are at all relevant. He doesn't present himself as an intellectual and he wears his political passions on his sleeves. The fact that his facts are factual has apparently no bearing on how you regard him. What more is there to say? Indeed. Let's leave it there then.

Wait are you the libertarian? I think of libertarians as ones not unlike those who still sacrifice to Zeus or who avoid trans-continental travel for fear they will fall off the earth's end. If that's another baseless assumption I apologize.

And the last paragraph in my last post was on the contrary by far the most relevant. Anyway.

Can't dispute the charge of petulance. I am a rather petulant individual.

[Pierre Menard]

Look, I'm happy to leave the other stuff where it lay. I feel we've both exhausted our views on the matter.


We on the left should worry about self-righteousness and manipulation and "fairness," "objectivity." The issues themselves and the human lives they affect, the very substance of the discussion, must be relegated to a role of secondary importance behind that of presentation, of style. Thus we shall accomplish our ends. Thus shall social justice be realized. A pox on Moore for assuming a degree of creative license in telling stories of suffering and oppression. I don't care if the man has made millions or if he has on occasion stretched the truth. His purpose for being on this planet is to advance an agenda that has its roots in truth and in compassion, however crudely he sometimes does it, however short he falls of some airy ideal some of us demand he live up to.

I'll quickly try to address this...though it's hard to without breaking the 'no politics' rule.
A few quick points then:
- "we on the left". There are a number of left-wingers who dislike Moore for the same reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. You might give him a free pass because you're also of the 'left', but let's not speak for all of the 'left'.
- An agenda that it's roots in your conception of 'truth'. Probably why you give him a free pass.
- It's nice to be compassionate blah blah etc, but ones intentions don't necessarily result in the best outcomes. I'm sure many young socialists have great compassion and intentions...doesn't mean the outcomes of their beliefs result well. Just an example.

Lastly, and this is best I can articulate it: I care little for ones compassion and intentions, if I believe their means ultimately don't result in enlightened or thoughtful dialogue on issues. I believe Moore's methods are ultimately unhelpful. You disagree, that's fine. Leave it there?






Wait are you the libertarian? I think of libertarians as ones not unlike those who still sacrifice to Zeus or who avoid trans-continental travel for fear they will fall off the earth's end. If that's another baseless assumption I apologize.


At the very most, if I had to label myself, I'd say the closest label that'd apply is 'moderate libertarian'. I certainly believe in a general capitalistic economic system, free trade, low tariffs and so on, and I also certainly believe in a large degree of social freedom...but I'm no full-blown Ron Paul-esque Libertarian.

I'm highly critical of all parties, most ideologies, and tend to take a detached view of politics. If you ever see me make fun of the left more on this forum...then it's purely because I find it more fun, I assure you. :P

All good?

[Darcy88]

I'll quickly try to address this...though it's hard to without breaking the 'no politics' rule.
A few quick points then:
- "we on the left". There are a number of left-wingers who dislike Moore for the same reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. You might give him a free pass because you're also of the 'left', but let's not speak for all of the 'left'.
- An agenda that it's roots in your conception of 'truth'. Probably why you give him a free pass.
- It's nice to be compassionate blah blah etc, but ones intentions don't necessarily result in the best outcomes. I'm sure many young socialists have great compassion and intentions...doesn't mean the outcomes of their beliefs result well. Just an example.



I don't even like Moore all that much. When I want good liberal content there are over a dozen other names I go to before I even consider his. But that post was directed at other liberals who have attacked Moore. For them to do so when his movie Sicko was the only mainstream American media product to really look at the issue of privatized vs socialized medicine in I don't know how many years, or how his movie Capitalism: A Love Story tells honest important stories and in a way anticipates by a year or two the Occupy Movement, and I could go on and on and on, it makes no sense for me when others on the left attack him for very weak reasons like because he's "self-righteous" or a "manipulator."

[Pierre Menard]

I don't even like Moore all that much. When I want good liberal content there are over a dozen other names I go to before I even consider his. But that post was directed at other liberals who have attacked Moore. For them to do so when his movie Sicko was the only mainstream American media product to really look at the issue of privatized vs socialized medicine in I don't know how many years, or how his movie Capitalism: A Love Story tells honest important stories and in a way anticipates by a year or two the Occupy Movement, and I could go on and on and on, it makes no sense for me when others on the left attack him for very weak reasons like because he's "self-righteous" or a "manipulator."

Well I certainly can't speak for those of the left around here. It'll be interesting to see more of their response, if they do respond in more detail.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Like I said, I'm just not a huge fan of the guy's manner. Like I said, I agree with most of what he says, but don't usually like how he says it. Like I said, I can't even stand the sound of his voice when he's doing voice-over narration.

I don't think being in the left obligates me to like anyone.

[MarkBastable]

Like I said, I'm just not a huge fan of the guy's manner. Like I said, I agree with most of what he says, but don't usually like how he says it. Like I said, I can't even stand the sound of his voice when he's doing voice-over narration.

I don't think being in the left obligates me to like anyone.

Just to expand on that slightly - though I agree with all of it - it's not his clothes, it's not his views, it's not his beard, it's not his background, it's not his body shape, it's not his politics. It's his personality.

And as his personality is intrinsic to his films, I don't like the films as pieces of work, even when I agree with the premise that drives them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Just to expand on that slightly - though I agree with all of it - it's not his clothes, it's not his views, it's not his beard, it's not his background, it's not his body shape, it's not his politics. It's his personality.

Same for me, though I think his Everyman shtick has run it's course. I think my opinion really would improve if he'd just lose the stupid baseball caps.

[Darcy88]

Same for me, though I think his Everyman shtick has run it's course. I think my opinion really would improve if he'd just lose the stupid baseball caps.

I understand that. But for me the substance takes precedence over the style. He could wear a pink polka-dot bikini and a purple cowboy hat and I wouldn't care so long as his message was true and important.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I understand that. But for me the substance takes precedence over the style. He could wear a pink polka-dot bikini and a purple cowboy hat and I wouldn't care so long as his message was true and important.

Really? I'd find that a bit distracting. :lol:

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't care if the man has made millions or if he has on occasion stretched the truth.

There's your problem right there. We should always care if the person telling us something stretches the truth, that should play a vital role in our judgement. The ends never justify dishonesty, because you can't see the end. On the other hand, the opposite side has it's fair share of cheap tricks and emotional string-pulling as well (although they seem to focus on fear and anger more than the feel-good emotions) so maybe it balances out. Also, anyone who would watch Moore's films is likely already pretty left-leaning in the first place.


I could go on and on and on, it makes no sense for me when others on the left attack him for very weak reasons like because he's "self-righteous" or a "manipulator."

Manipulation isn't a weak reason for disliking someone. Dishonesty is an important quality, especially if we're talking about politics. But actually Micheal Moore isn't that important, it's not like he has much of an effect. He makes money, but his irritating personality has kind of run it's course for most people and he's not well liked in general, even on the left.

Regarding the assertion that emotional manipulation is to be contrasted and preferred to "laboratory-confined research scientists" (by which I assume you mean "objective analysis"): would I prefer it if a film succeeded that both sides agreed was objective (or rather, as would much more likely be the case, that both sides insisted overly represented the opposite side)? Yes, very much so. It won't happen though, because sensationalism is what sells and most people just want to hear what they already believe being validated. That's fine actually, no harm done. No progress done either, no thoughtful dialogue prompted. The only changes made are slight, a few liberals are feeling better about their views, a few conservatives are pissed off (nothing new there) and Micheal Moore makes money.

[Alexander III]

Just to expand on that slightly - though I agree with all of it - it's not his clothes, it's not his views, it's not his beard, it's not his background, it's not his body shape, it's not his politics. It's his personality.

And as his personality is intrinsic to his films, I don't like the films as pieces of work, even when I agree with the premise that drives them.

This, This, This.

For all that I have seen and learnt about Moore I have gotten the impression oh him as a spitefull little man. Now I generaly like all types of people, but I hate little men, those men who in youth were bullyed and opressed because they were awkward and when they become adults you can tell they have so much rage and vengance and small mindedness within them, that if these little men ever gained power they would be scary. I hate little men.

I agree with what he says, but as a person not only do I not like him, I find him scary.

Just because you and someone agree on certain points does not mean you have to like them. I agree with Mussolini on several points, I also don't like him. I agree with Obama on certain points, but I don't like him (patriot act).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Now I generaly like all types of people, but I hate little men, those men who in youth were bullyed and opressed because they were awkward and when they become adults you can tell they have so much rage and vengance and small mindedness within them, that if these little men ever gained power they would be scary. I hate little men.


:rolleyes:

[MarkBastable]

:rolleyes:

...I always find it a bit worrying when he agrees with me.

[BienvenuJDC]

[I]
Really, Bien, in the US you needn't worry about the left - in the media or in politics. It's not possible for the left to wield any power in America, because there's no one there to do it. In any other country, Obama would be thrown out of the national leftwing party for being a conservative reactionary.

I actually don't care what the rest of the world is doing, or how liberal the rest of the world is. And if you want Obama in England as a conservative, please take him.

[MarkBastable]

I actually don't care what the rest of the world is doing...

This is no surprise to anyone outside the US. The impression we get is that a lot of you take that attitude.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is no surprise to anyone outside the US. The impression we get is that a lot of you take that attitude.

The impression that we get is that you take the same attitude, but you act as if you don't. You can live your lives the way you want, just don't expect us to do the same. There are those who think it's "cool" to be like Europe. um...ok? So, why should it matter to me here in America what you are doing in London? If it's a point of finding something interesting that is great. But if I should be more liberal BECAUSE you guys are far more liberal, that is dumb logic.

[Darcy88]

There's your problem right there. We should always care if the person telling us something stretches the truth, that should play a vital role in our judgement. The ends never justify dishonesty, because you can't see the end. On the other hand, the opposite side has it's fair share of cheap tricks and emotional string-pulling as well (although they seem to focus on fear and anger more than the feel-good emotions) so maybe it balances out. Also, anyone who would watch Moore's films is likely already pretty left-leaning in the first place.



Manipulation isn't a weak reason for disliking someone. Dishonesty is an important quality, especially if we're talking about politics. But actually Micheal Moore isn't that important, it's not like he has much of an effect. He makes money, but his irritating personality has kind of run it's course for most people and he's not well liked in general, even on the left.

Regarding the assertion that emotional manipulation is to be contrasted and preferred to "laboratory-confined research scientists" (by which I assume you mean "objective analysis"): would I prefer it if a film succeeded that both sides agreed was objective (or rather, as would much more likely be the case, that both sides insisted overly represented the opposite side)? Yes, very much so. It won't happen though, because sensationalism is what sells and most people just want to hear what they already believe being validated. That's fine actually, no harm done. No progress done either, no thoughtful dialogue prompted. The only changes made are slight, a few liberals are feeling better about their views, a few conservatives are pissed off (nothing new there) and Micheal Moore makes money.

This would all be good and dandy if you could demonstrate that Moore is consistently dishonest. Maybe he is, even though most of the analyses of his facts I've seen from objective sources give him a thumbs up. Otherwise this is all libellous. I think people who dislike his personality are just being nit-picking Foo-foos. Every passionately fire-blooded liberal I know gets up on their soap box and castigates the oligarchs with a furious tone of annoyed self-righteousness ala Moore, and considering what those oligarchs do and have done they damn well should.

Manipulation does not equal dishonesty. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the charities would be dishonest for showing us the starving children, the environmentalists for showing us the sad-faced polar bears. If Moore used no cheap emotional tactics his movies wouldn't reach a wide enough audience and they'd have zero net effect. Jun if you or I or Pierre made movies about things we are passionate and obsessed about, things that pertain to our core values and deal with other people's suffering, well those movies we made would in all probability be just as "manipulative" as Moore's. And if they weren't then we wouldn't have tried hard enough.

Everyone probably thinks "oh you just like him because he's on the left." I don't like him, his content is not very thought-provoking and there are enough thought-provoking left-wing individuals out there to make me never need someone like Moore. But I heartily approve of his work and his message and I still contend that any liberal who doesn't is in grave error.

Plus, more than rednecks I dislike the Ras Trents of the world who are faaaaaaaar left too and are everywhere here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcK0MYgnHjo

[MarkBastable]

The impression that we get is that you take the same attitude, but you act as if you don't. You can live your lives the way you want, just don't expect us to do the same. There are those who think it's "cool" to be like Europe. um...ok? So, why should it matter to me here in America what you are doing in London? If it's a point of finding something interesting that is great. But if I should be more liberal BECAUSE you guys are far more liberal, that is dumb logic.

I think we moved on from the political spectrum argument when you said, "I actually don't care what the rest of the world is doing..." In the post to which that was the response, I was merely pointing out that there's not actually much breadth to political debate in the US. That's just the case, when you consider the breadth of political debate in other democracies. I wasn't saying you should 'be more liberal'. I can't even see how you managed to think that I was saying that, given what I typed. I was just pointing out the fact that you don't actually have a political left in the US. So, you mistook the logic, and it wasn't dumb.

However, I entirely believe you don't care. Believe me, America is more insulated, more self-regarding and more self-justifying than any country in Europe. It's not a question of "Well, we're no less interested in you than you are in us." You are. And you may think that's a good thing, and I might think it's a bad thing. But, believe me, it's a thing.

We - the Brits - were in much the same position a hundred years ago. We'd been the boss of almost everywhere for a long time - economically and, unlike you, colonially. And, like you, we'd been so powerful and so rich we really didn't have to care much what anyone else did or thought. But it was the end of Empire, and we were in for a shock. It took us about eighty years to adjust.

You're going to have to do the same. And that will mean looking outwards rather than inwards. Soon, you'll have to care. I don't expect you to agree with that. I don't even really expect you to agree that the US is coming to the end of its global dominance.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We have to care now. And like I've said before, I hope we aren't the world power soon. Let someone else be the world power and police the world.

It's a bad thing. There's no way or logical mindset that justifies the thinking of, "I don't care about the rest of the world, we should worry about ourselves." In this age, we can't worry about ourselves without taking into account the world stage, because it's impossible to be insulated, unless we become a nation like North Korea.

This is no surprise to anyone outside the US. The impression we get is that a lot of you take that attitude.
A lot, yes, but not all. Unless it's about war; than most of the "I don't care" folks are all for world-involvement, and still just as uninformed.

So, why should it matter to me here in America what you are doing in London?
So, I guess you think we shouldn't be in any of the wars we're in? I assume you think we should just leave th middle east alone? I mean, you don't care about the rest of the world, right? Why should you?

[JuniperWoolf]

There's a difference between emotionally manipulating people for money which you then use to help people, and emotionally manipulating people to a political end for money which you then use to buy a mansion. I'm not against someone making money, but I can't respect a person who makes their money in that way. Politics, like all things, are healthiest when they're balanced. Moore is the antithesis of balance, but he himself is balanced out by Fox news so I'm not too concerned about him.


Jun if you or I or Pierre made movies about things we are passionate and obsessed about, things that pertain to our core values and deal with other people's suffering, well those movies we made would in all probability be just as "manipulative" as Moore's. And if they weren't then we wouldn't have tried hard enough.

Nope. If I were to make a film describing my position in an effort to sway people to my way of thinking, the first thing I would do is present the absolute best arguments the opposition has to offer. If I can do that and then, when I present my position, dismantle and counter each point one by one and come out on top, then that makes my positon much, much stronger. That's another reason why Moore is so useless and no one takes him seriously, his films are like watching someone walk down a gentle slope. It's easy to spoonfeed people biased information and play sad music at them, it's a bit harder (and way more impressive and effective) to aptly defend your position in the face of logical opposition.

Yeeeeaaaah, I tried responding to everything, but it would take a while and I don't care enough about Moore to discuss him at any great length. I've said what I had to say, he's an ineffectual, uninformative sensationalist creep and I don't like him.

[BienvenuJDC]

There's a bit of a difference between emotionally manipulating people for money which you then use to help people, and emotionally manipulating people to a political end for money which you then use to buy a mansion. Politics, like all things, are healthiest when they're balanced. Moore is the antithesis of balance, but he himself is balanced out by Fox news so I'm not too concerned about him.

Yeeeeaaaah, I tried responding in length, but I don't care enough about Moore to discuss him at any great length. I've said what I had to say, he's an ineffectual, uninformative sensationalist creep and I don't like him. /bowout

Well said....and I agree totally about the "balance" thing. Both ideologies have merit, and they need each other to keep themselves in check.

[Darcy88]

Moore is the antithesis of balance, but he himself is balanced out by Fox news so I'm not too concerned about him.
.

There is no place for cool objectivity when tens of thousands are dying from lack of health insurance and many more are being kicked out of their homes. And Fox News and Michael Moore are simply in no meaningful way comparable. Its like a year ago when the President went on a trip to India you had every host and guest on Fox News saying the trip was costing the American tax-payer 200 million dollars a day. In fact it was only 200 thousand. Even after the administration released a statement correcting them they persisted in their calumny. Michael Moore does not so brazenly lie. He uses tactics to elicit sympathy on the part of the viewers. Its like a tragic playwright inflicting woe upon his characters to make the audience weep. Except Moore is doing it not only for personal glory but also to turn a spotlight on the poor and downtrodden. As someone who is politically passionate I applaud Moore, even if I consider his work crude. Anyone in this thread who has an opinion on Moore but who hasn't seen Capitalism:A Love Story should go download or rent the video sometime. Then tell me how that film renders him in any way similar to Glen Beck or Bill O'reilly. That movie I actually did enjoy and learn a little from, unlike his others.

[BienvenuJDC]

There is no place for cool objectivity when tens of thousands are dying from lack of health insurance and many more are being kicked out of their homes.

Is this REALLY true?

You talk about FOX...what are you doing but exaggerating?

Is the lack of health care really an issue to that extent? We don't have such epidemics here in America.

And I'm not talking about in Africa. It's the churches who are providing those services (although quite limited).

[Darcy88]

Is this REALLY true?

You talk about FOX...what are you doing but exaggerating?

Is the lack of health care really an issue to that extent? We don't have such epidemics here in America.

And I'm not talking about in Africa. It's the churches who are providing those services (although quite limited).

You have a big country man, very big. They say its 50 000 people who die a year from that particular cause, a figure I've heard bandied about by sources of all sorts, and one that is very much believable if you take into account your aging population. I'm an idiot who didn't file last year's taxes and so I'm having to pay 100 dollars a month until I rectify my mistake. This is enough of a burden I can't imagine what someone does down there who lacks employer health insurace or medicare. I really didn't want to start a debate on health care. I've been trying best as I can to keep my posts focused on Moore.

[BienvenuJDC]

You have a big country man, very big. They say its 50 000 people who die a year from that particular cause, a figure I've heard bandied about by sources of all sorts, and one that is very much believable if you take into account your aging population. I'm an idiot who didn't file last year's taxes and so I'm having to pay 100 dollars a month until I rectify my mistake. This is enough of a burden I can't imagine what someone does down there who lacks employer health insurace or medicare. I really didn't want to start a debate on health care. I've been trying best as I can to keep my posts focused on Moore.

I never believe any claim that I hear from "them". "They" say lots of things, but no one really knows who "they" are. I currently don't have health insurance, but that isn't something that I think that the government should be required to provide. If Health Care is something that should be provided for free, then so should food and housing. Housing is a much higher expense than health care. I'd rather see health care reform, than health care to be provided.

If there are some real statistics that support your claim that 10,000 - 50,000 people die because they don't have health care, then I'd like to see it. How many people are homeless? WHY are they homeless?

[Darcy88]

I never believe any claim that I hear from "them". "They" say lots of things, but no one really knows who "they" are. I currently don't have health insurance, but that isn't something that I think that the government should be required to provide. If Health Care is something that should be provided for free, then so should food and housing. Housing is a much higher expense than health care. I'd rather see health care reform, than health care to be provided.

If there are some real statistics that support your claim that 10,000 - 50,000 people die because they don't have health care, then I'd like to see it. How many people are homeless? WHY are they homeless?

I'm not going to get into a political debate here. I'd just advise you to look into the matter yourself and not take anyone else's word for it.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm not going to get into a political debate here. I'd just advise you to look into the matter yourself and not take anyone else's word for it.

I will do so.

[Varenne Rodin]

Man, this turned into my-side-itis all over the place. I agree with Darcy's points.

Some people are addicted to their parties, regardless of what individuals are doing or have done. I don't like being lumped in with Americans who have no regard for broader global views. I'm a conscientious American. I have compassion and I strive for understanding. Cheers, UK dolls.

As for Moore's views of women and love, I don't care. I'm never going to date Michael Moore. As with any book, take what you like from it and discard what you don't. If that turns out to be the whole book, so be it. I don't really think Moore's ideas about women are effecting anything. Neither do I see anything wrong with raising awareness of corruption. People can dislike the source. Most reporters who get into the nastiest material (for whatever purposes) are not squeaky clean.

[JuniperWoolf]

There is no place for cool objectivity when tens of thousands are dying from lack of health insurance and many more are being kicked out of their homes.

Yes there is. There's room for every kind of world view, as long as one of them doesn't try to dominate.


I'm never going to date Michael Moore.

Haha, I guess that's true.