In case there was anyone left who didn't realize what a complete bullshitter, and absolute fraud Michael Moore is, here's a wonderful article that describes in detail his fraudulance (from the notoriously liberal website Slate):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Lore, your article made me late for work this morning, damn you. But damn Michael Moore even more. We also had his drivelling on TV over here for many years with his 90's Channel 4 show "Michael Moore's TV Nation", in which he spent most of his time bitching about America and Americans in general like a modern day William Joyce. He always struck me as being an entirely smug and self-satisfied individual, not to mention patronising and sanctimonious (not that there's anything wrong with being sanctimonious :P). And although I've seen neither of his films (though I read half of "Stupid White Men") he appears not to have changed. Other than to become even more inflated with his newfound popularity, that is.

For all his failings, at least Bush has taken action (for whatever reasons) against the evil former governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, which is more than Moore with all his no-war-under-any-circumstances whining would have done. People like him who decry all action against such regimes are as good as supporting them and all their brands of repression/murder/genocide. No doubt Moore didn't support the sanctions on Iraq either...

I think most of us conservative-type people are just sick of hearing college freshman whine about how Bowling for Columbine (and now this one) are like the Most Important Movies Ever. Because they're really pretty much utter tripe.

Bowling for Columbine was okay. If you can resist the urge to beat the shit out of Moore while watching it, and can separate the stupid poorly-thought-out messages from the good (though possibly still poorly-thought-out) messages, it has some merit. As antigun propaganda it ain't all that, though, definitely.

Also, 2 minute penalty on misuse of the word "whine."

Quote:Originally posted by RageCage


Next time, show me an objective review of Michael Moore’s movie. Not some jerk trying to lash out at people who want to make a difference.


You go see the movie when it comes out, then I'll repost his main points from the article, and you can tell me if Michael Moore didn't try to make this points. And if he did, then Hitchens is right on the money, because there's so many problems with those points.

I mean... geeze, you're asking for an objective review of a movie by a man who's made his career on being unobjective and pandering. I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I've seen Bowling for Columbine (which I thought was decent until I found out how many things Moore blatantly and outright lies about) and I've seen his TV Nation garbage.

From all I've heard and read about his upcoming movie, I haven't seen anything that makes me think he's changed his pattern of lying.

Anyway, I'm re-reading Hitchen's review. I think you're being oversensitive to his review. But... where's the name-calling? I don't see any in the first few paragraphs at least.

Seriously, read the whole article. He makes a lot of good, objective points (assuming he's not making up the content of the movie). It might sting a little to hear that somebody you support is full of shit, but you're better off realizing now than later.

Bringing in a few big guns to light flame to the topic, I want to put a few pieces of information on the table in support of our Commander and Chief, and lore.

A critique, is a person's opinion, when a persons opinion matters we value the opinion- if a person is unable to read supporting arguments for actions and thoughts- of if you're too `mature` to listen to some declarations (aka, I guess 'name calling') then you should get off of your high horse....and dont make me give a list why.

disclaimer: if you really believe with all your hear that rush limbaugh has no power- no say, or you just won't listen because he's on the `other side` then I pity you for you are unable to render an even argument.

During the explosion of abuse reports from Abu Grahb prison- americans reacted a bit overwhelmingly. Demands to pull out of the country, demands to do this and that with our soldiers. Tell me, oh reasonable left fielders... why do we see the need to demand pulling out of a country- leaving all of the shattered remains that we have created and are in the process of mending together into a new, free iraq because of some abuse that happened in a prison? Why don't we condemn the correctional penetentaries that perform executions in the United States? Why? Because we're killing people who have killed? This is just? But it is not just to manipulate prisoners of war for information for the well-being of... basically mankind?

Just to give you an idea of some of the people in Abu Grahb prison, I want to reflect on a radio broadcast with Rush Limbaugh- an American soldier who just got back to the states from iraq called in to enlighten listeners to what kind of people are in that prison. (unfortunately I am unable to find it in the Limbaugh Archives)-

He went on to say that he roughly spent a year in Iraq, running a checkpoint in baghdad, one day an iraqi man came to him begging for the soldier to go to his house because his wife had been stabbed-. Being suspicious of an ambush he ignored the iraqi and went on with his work, an hour went by and the iraqi was _still_ begging for him to go to his house. So the soldier and his squad went to the mans house and found two of the man's daughter's on the floor, both were under 14 (I can't recollect exact ages), and they were ravaged and dead. They then found the wife stabbed and ravaged. In another room the found the iraqi who did it on the floor, passed out.
This man, who raped those girls and killed them was one of the many people this soldier had sent to Abu Grahb prison. Now I am not saying all the iraqis at abu grahb were rapist murderers- but they were there for a reason.

As people who are thousands of miles away, we have not touched the tip of the iceberg of the shit that our soldiers have seen in that country. So who are we to start calling the shots when we dont know?

Why do we honor our vets and not support people who are giving their lives for the service of this country? For those of you who say "Well I wasn't the one to send them over". I'm sorry sir or ma'am, but once you stop thinking for yourself an think about the welfare of our people, you should perhaps think again.

Did you think along the same lines when you watched a jet aircraft full of Americans crash into the WTC? There is cause and effect, just like WW2 and the japanese? They killed a bit less than the WTC. We entered a two front war!

We're in iraq. We took down the government, we're reinstating another free iraqi government; The people of that nation are no longer under an oppressive dictator. In the end, when we wipe the sweat from our brows and watch a WHOLE country thrive and reach it's potential because we took a dictator out of command, I dont know about you but I'll certainly say 'the hardhips were worth it'. I think some people need to get their heads off of "A country" and start thinking "A world", and if you're a bit too shallow to understand the concept then you're not really in a position to be shouting politics.

Quote:Originally posted by mcgrue

Man, I hate politics.

History is too forgiving whoever writes it. Take Gavrilo Princip. The world was getting on pretty fine in the early 20th century until he took it upon himself to cause the most hideously violent period of mankind's history. His single action caused countless millions of undeserved deaths, and its consequences are doing the same right now. Bloody students, I hate them all!

Quote:Originally posted by loretian

Quote:Originally posted by RageCage


Next time, show me an objective review of Michael Moore’s movie. Not some jerk trying to lash out at people who want to make a difference.

Anyway, I'm re-reading Hitchen's review. I think you're being oversensitive to his review. But... where's the name-calling? I don't see any in the first few paragraphs at least.


One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. ... But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight. ... To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.


That is all taken from the first 3 paragraphs, see the negitive opinionated remarks? Thats called name-calling. Unfortunately I'm too uninformed as of Moore's past work to be able to comment a whole lot. What I do know is what Moore believes in and that is why I support him. But who knows, maybe his film is full of lies and maybe I'm wrong to support him... but I can definitely say that I dont support Bush.