Kilmer17 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 You idiots (and you are) who follow this aholes mantra, please start referring to this site to learn the truths and his hypocrisy. If people think Baldwin and Streisand need to leave, this guy should be driving the boat. http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Moore does shoddy research and jumps to conclusions, but that site didn't amount to much -- just a bunch of anti-Moore wanking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 He probably wishes he was born in the early 20th century so he could go study under Lenin and Marx. Dude definately needs to beam back to the Mother Ship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 It points out his lies and hypocrisy. Otherwise I agree with you. Not much of real substance otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 I know I am more left of center than most of you guys, but Michael Moore sucks. I cannot stand the guy. My wife and I watched a show with him on it and I wanted to punch him. :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Code....we'll convert you yet!!!! you have these fits of common sense that give rise to higher expectations!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 Code....we'll convert you yet!!!! you have these fits of common sense that give rise to higher expectations!!!! :laugh: To be perfectly honest, I actually am to the right on alot of issues like gun control and welfare, but slightly to the left on others. You have to give me credit, I'm at least my own person.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Code, I love ya dude, if only because you're living proof that I can engage (occasionally) in civil conversation with someone who I totally disagree with. There are several keys to this minor miracle: 1) Code can actually spell. Consistently. 2) Code does not pine for the days when the US had to ask France for help. 3) Did I mention Code can spell? 4) Code states his argument intelligently, and sticks to it. He does not shift his position every time he is confronted with a valid counterargument. 5) Code does not post in all-caps. Not ever. But if he did, the words would be spelled c-o-r-r-e-c-t-l-y! Go Code! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Code.....that you are..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog Code, I love ya dude, if only because you're living proof that I can engage (occasionally) in civil conversation with someone who I totally disagree with. There are several keys to this minor miracle: 1) Code can actually spell. Consistently. 2) Code does not pine for the days when the US had to ask France for help. 3) Did I mention Code can spell? 4) Code states his argument intelligently, and sticks to it. He does not shift his position every time he is confronted with a valid counterargument. 5) Code does not post in all-caps. Not ever. But if he did, the words would be spelled c-o-r-r-e-c-t-l-y! Go Code! THUNKS FO DA PRUPS... PS: Tarhog, one thing I gotta give you credit for is you always are respectful... thanks:notworthy I may not be the most knowledgeable guy on certain things, but it's cool when you can talk with out coming to blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSF Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Say what you want about Moore, but you cant deny the gun related deaths in the US as oppose to other prominant nations. Personally, I agree with his gun issue but attacking Heston was cheap I thought. Guess really, its up the individual as far as that issue goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 from the moorewatch.com site: "So far 60 Minutes has repeated most of Moore's lies without questioning any of them, such as the gun from the bank, an incident which was totally staged by Moore." this link is from North Country Financial Group http://www.ncfinancial.com/riflesarticle.htm "Marketing weapon Michigan bank offers rifles, shotguns in lieu of interest 01/26/2001 Bloomberg News Open a bank account, get a gun. That's the deal at North Country Financial Corp. in Traverse City, Mich., which gives away rifles and shotguns in lieu of the interest that normally accompanies accounts. Put as little as $869 in a 20-year certificate of deposit, and the bank will hand over a Weatherby Inc. Mark V Synthetic rifle that lists for $779. Deposit more and you have a choice of six Weatherby shotguns or a limited-edition rifle with walnut stock and oak-leaf engravings. The bank has 28 branches, mostly in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and the guns-for-CDs program is a potent weapon in the fight for Americans' savings at a time of shrinking bank deposits. Banks across the country are offering everything from $50 gift certificates and books to casserole dishes and clocks – even toasters – to lure back customers and stem a seven-year decline in deposits as Americans shifted money into stocks and mutual funds. North Country's arrangement with Weatherby, which is based in Atascadero, Calif., is the brainchild of Ronald G. Ford, the bank's chairman and chief executive. "It's a high-end product that fits the lifestyle here," Mr. Ford said. Mr. Ford, 53, who owns seven Weatherby rifles and shotguns, hunts black bear and white-tailed deer in Michigan – and elk and mule deer in Colorado, pheasant in the Dakotas and moose in Canada. North Country, which started offering the Weatherbys more than 10 years ago, displays the guns on its branches' walls. In the Upper Peninsula, where some schools close for the start of hunting season in November, guns on the walls don't necessarily raise eyebrows. Nor in the suburbs of Detroit, apparently. "I'm not thrilled that they're giving out rifles, but I wouldn't join picket lines against it," said Marj Jackson Levin, president of Michigan Citizens for Handgun Control in Birmingham, a Detroit suburb. The program has brought in millions of dollars of deposits from customers in every U.S. state, said Rose Garvin, a North Country Bank & Trust manager and federal firearms license holder. North Country advertises its CDs in hunting and gun-enthusiast magazines, attracting both hunters and collectors. Its costliest giveaway, available with a $14,911 deposit in a three-year CD, is Weatherby's Athena Grade V Classic Field 12-gauge shotgun. It carries a suggested retail price of $2,919. The same $14,911 deposit in an average three-year account paying 5.48 percent interest yields $2,588 at the end of the term. And not to worry, the plan has never backfired. None of the guns has ever been used against the bank in a robbery." this was copied from Moore's website: Q. Is that bank that hands out guns for real? A. Yes. North Country Bank (with branches throughout Northern Michigan) offers you a wide choice of guns when you open up a certificate of deposit account. In effect, they are giving you all of the interest the account will earn in advance in the form of a gun. The bank is also an authorized federal arms dealer so they can do the quick background check right there at the bank. I put $1,000 in a long-term account, they did the background check, and, within an hour, walked out with my new Weatherby—just as you see it in the film. (I did have a choice of getting a pair of golf clubs or a grandfather clock, but they didn’t have either of those hanging on the wall like they did those three rifles). I learned about the bank’s gun offer from an ad in the local paper that showed a gun across the top with the heading, “ More Bang for Your Buck” from North Country Bank. I still have the account and the gun to this day (though I plan to legally “auction” off the gun for charity, and creatively have it destroyed—more on that later!)" and i think it is pretty sad that they actually think that he, or anyone, would be glad to hear that some 7 year-old girl shot herself. the canadian death reference... i don't think he says candians don't kill each other. he says that they kill each other less often than americans. after spending some time looking for numbers it seems that murder is commited in us at 5.1 per 100,000 while in canada it is 1.8. i would recommend all to watch his "bowling for columbine" movie. it is pretty thought provoking, be it questioning the american gun-culture, or further inciting your hatred for moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Originally posted by DSF Say what you want about Moore, but you cant deny the gun related deaths in the US as oppose to other prominant nations. Personally, I agree with his gun issue but attacking Heston was cheap I thought. Guess really, its up the individual as far as that issue goes. I can't say that I know details about his gun stance, but I know he is for gun control. I'm against it, I own 3 handguns, a shot gun and a rifle, neither my wife or myself have ever killed anyone. I think kids should be taught about guns so that they respect them. My nephew is 5, he has toy guns, we make him treat them like they are real. (we won't let him point them at someone) He's only allowed to shoot imaginary people...:laugh: I just think that if you have gun control, the criminals are still going to find a way to get the weapons. Then, only the honest people will be without..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Speaking of '60 Minutes', did anyone see it last night? On the radio today, heard that Hackworth was on discussing how he feels US troops are facing disaster because of an issue with our chem suits? I didn't see it, and it wasn't clear to me whether he was suggesting there was a problem with the suits, or that not all combat units have a sufficient number. Anyone have more info on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Tarhog, That peice on the chem suits was downright scary..... Talked about how GAO reports that troops are not properly trained for chem warfare, suits and masks don't function properly, and that our chem weapons detectors malfunction. Pentagon denied everything saying that all these problems had been remedied in the past few weeks, but the lady that was saying this sure looked stressed out. Made me worry about our troops over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSF Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I can't say that I know details about his gun stance, but I know he is for gun control. I'm against it, I own 3 handguns, a shot gun and a rifle, neither my wife or myself have ever killed anyone. I think kids should be taught about guns so that they respect them. My nephew is 5, he has toy guns, we make him treat them like they are real. (we won't let him point them at someone) He's only allowed to shoot imaginary people...:laugh: I just think that if you have gun control, the criminals are still going to find a way to get the weapons. Then, only the honest people will be without..... I respect that and implore more people to teach their kids, I just find it alarming how many more gun related deaths are in the US in comparision to any other nation. I love our civil rights such as freedom of speech that Moore himself is using. So i'm against the idea of abolishing our ability to own guns. But to me its clear that something more rigorous must be done to lower the number of gun related deaths short of taking away our civil liberties. Furthermore, it bothers me that people attempt to keep Moore quiet. To each his own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Moore talks out of his a$s a lot, jumps to reaching conclusions based on very selectively gathered facts from suspect context, and his shoddy research is a discredit to the dilligent and sage voices in his camp. To me, he's the Rush Limbaugh of the left. He lives for attention and believes his ends justify his suspect means. He connects well with average people, and he is convincing through a disarming nature. And, like Limbaugh, he is taken seriously by the other side because he is truly perceived to be effective and therefore threatening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by DSF I respect that and implore more people to teach their kids, I just find it alarming how many more gun related deaths are in the US in comparision to any other nation. I love our civil rights such as freedom of speech that Moore himself is using. So i'm against the idea of abolishing our ability to own guns. But to me its clear that something more rigorous must be done to lower the number of gun related deaths short of taking away our civil liberties. Furthermore, it bothers me that people attempt to keep Moore quiet. To each his own I guess. I don't like him, but I'm not about keeping him quiet. To each his own is my motto... You are right about the fact that we have way too much violent crime and deaths by guns. I'm not smart enough to have an answer. They only thing I believe in is tougher punishment, more death penalties. But that's just me. With more gun training, I believe that more people would respect guns, but obviously, that is not going to change the majority of the problem. I understand the argument against guns. Those people would say that if they were harder to get or not easily available, the crimes of passion would be reduced. Maybe, maybe not. I just don't want my rights infringed upon because others are irresponsible. I know that if I get pissed and shoot someone, there are consequences. The consequences just need to be more severe. People should be deathly afraid of going to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 "To me, he's the Rush Limbaugh of the left." What a great analogy. The problem with his stance on gun control is that it doesnt address solutions, only problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "To me, he's the Rush Limbaugh of the left." What a great analogy. The problem with his stance on gun control is that it doesnt address solutions, only problems. Actually, that is a pretty good analogy. Imagine the two of them on a talk show together.:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "To me, he's the Rush Limbaugh of the left." What a great analogy. The problem with his stance on gun control is that it doesnt address solutions, only problems. Yes it is a good analogy, and the two on a talk-show would be so much better than Tucker (lose the bow-tie!!!) and Carville! About his not addressing solutions: I think the greatest thing about him is that he presents these issues to people and gets them thinking about solutions instead of trying to pass off his own (maybe because he doesn't have any). He is one man opening up the minds of ordinary people to debate this issue. Regardless of whether you agree with his presentation of the info, the fact that people will explore both sides of the issue is self-education and therefore a benefit. It beats being ignorant and not having an opinion. Just like in "Roger & Me" and "The Big One": profits over people? right or wrong? americans losing jobs while companies reap huge profits-- then move plants to Mexico where there is cheap labor? good or bad? while there doesn't seem to be a great argument in favor of laying of hard-working americans, in the spirit of capitalism it is common sense-- as long as the product doesn't suffer. hopefully viewers were outraged that companies cared more about their stockholders than their employees... oh yeah, buy american made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Let me start off by saying that at one time I quite admired Michael Moore. I thought his Roger & Me was one of the best documentaries produced during the 1980s, right up there with Errol Morris’s The Thin Blue Line, which remains one of the best pieces of American filmmaking over the past 25 years, period. Moreover, I used to find Moore’s tireless muckraking style quite endearing. He was always out there “fighting for the little guy” and “trying to uncover corruption.” But I started to seriously doubt him when he did that dumb@ss music video for those chic “radicals” from the now-defunct rock band Rage Against the Machine. I don’t recall the name of the music video in question off-hand, but it featured Moore doing a faux vérité bit on Wall Street, running up and down the famous stretch of asphalt, sticking his mic and camera in the faces of The Suits, trying to root out some as-yet-undiscovered scandal, as dollar bills float itinerantly and wastefully through the air around him. I mean, c’mon, Mike. Rage Against the Machine? These are the same clowns who b*tched and moaned in practically every song of theirs about how awful capitalism was, all while working for a paragon of modern international capitalism, Sony Music. Moreover, for all their hatred of The Dirty Dollar, I never saw any member of Rage Against the Machine take a vow of fight-the-system poverty and offer up their “ill-gotten” proceeds from their recording contract to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Posers. Them fools was straight up posers all the way. Mike, if you’re gonna associate with capitalist-hating radicals, at least do your credibility a favor and hang out with legitimate capitalist-hating radicals, like those Marxist guerrillas down in Columbia or something. But Rage Against the f*cking Machine, Mike? Get real. In addition to this, I began to realize that Moore, like Rage Against the Machine itself, was basically singing the same tune in most of his material. Look at virtually all his post-Roger & Me output. It’s pretty much all variations on the same theme: Mike finds some big corporation and/or CEO that he becomes angry with and wags his angry, accusatory finger at, thus allowing him to grab the mic and crowd the frame, going off on a good long rant about how awful “these greedy people” are. And also like Rage Against the Machine, this tack becomes tiresome rather quickly because it’s done in a loud, self-righteous, and (most damning of all) self-aggrandizing way. This latter point was driven home for me by a film school instructor of mine who’d worked with Moore, a one Allen Rucker. According to Rucker, an old veteran of the grass-roots guerilla documentary scene of the ‘60s and ‘70s, Moore was a talented enough guy and Moore knew it -- which was part of the problem. As Rucker explained, he and Moore were working on a new TV project of Moore’s (this was after Moore’s short-lived TV Nation program on NBC), a project that was ultimately never broadcast. In the never-aired pilot episode, Moore had a studio audience on-hand and a panel of experts whom he’d assembled to try to convince the audience that O.J. Simpson was innocent of the crime of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Moore had rock-solid faith in O.J.’s innocence, believing that O.J. was railroaded by the LAPD and the LA District Attorney’s Office, and he wanted everyone to know about it. As you can imagine, given the fact that most Americans did not share Moore’s opinion on this matter, the shooting of the pilot did not go smoothly. According to Rucker, many in the studio audience became so incensed with Moore -- not only because of his view that O.J. was innocent, but also because of the monolithic, strong-armed way in which he presented those views, gleefully highlighting instances of “reasonable doubt” in the trial and hastily dismissing most of the prosecutors’ evidence as “tainted” and “worthless” -- that many stood up and walked out right in the middle of taping. “What Michael didn’t understand,” Rucker explained, “was that, yeah, on a hypothetical or intellectual level, you could make a case for O.J. not being guilty. But on an emotional level, which was where most people were approaching the topic from -- given that this show was shot just a couple of years after the verdict in the O.J. murder trial -- you simply couldn’t do that. You couldn’t argue that O.J. wasn’t guilty -- and do it in the curt, in-your-face manner that Michael did, not really acknowledging the other point of view -- and not have people hate your guts for it. I tried to explain that to him later, but I don’t think he got what I was saying. In his mind, he was right and that’s all there was to it.” Rucker made another excellent point about Moore: “Michael is still so pissed about what happened in Flint, Michigan all those years ago, with all the auto companies laying people off and then closing the factories down. I understand that he’s pissed, but he acts like this is the first time in history that people have been laid off, that jobs have dried up in one particular area. To him, what happened in Flint was the economic equivalent of what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust. Well, you know what, Michael? I have family from Pittsburgh who were there when the local economy totally went in the toilet, and they can tell you all about it. But did they sit around and complain about it? Nope. They packed up and went someplace else to find work. People do that every day, Michael. And not just in this country. They do it all over the world. While Michael can make some good points and has some interesting stuff to say, there are times that I think he needs to be told, ‘Just get over it already.’” Now, keep in mind that this is Allen Rucker saying this. The same guy who was one of the founding members of TVTV (Top Value Television), one of the great guerilla documentary groups of the ‘60s and ‘70s. The same guy who, while with TVTV, made Four More Years, an under-the-radar, videographic view of the 1972 Republican National Convention and a scathing indictment of the Nixon administration. In short, Rucker is nobody’s conservative; he’s an ultra-liberal. And even he’s saying that Michael Moore can be a tad whiny and boneheaded. Moore’s latest documentary offering, Bowling for Columbine is a case in point. In it, Moore essentially blames Charleton Heston and the National Rifle Association for the Columbine tragedy. Correct me if I’m wrong Mike, but I don’t recall any news reports of Heston and the folks from the NRA paying a trip to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, putting firearms into their teenage hands, and exhorting them to go and kill as many of their classmates and teachers as they could. We can sit here and try to psychoanalyze Harris and Klebold all day long, trying to figure out what made them tick and what made them do what they did at Columbine. But I think that, in the final analysis, Chris Rock probably nailed it when he said of the murderous duo: “Everybody’s trying to figure these two kids out. Figure ‘em out?! Whatever happened to stone-crazy? Them two was just straight up crazy. Case closed.” Whether one agrees with the foregoing assessment by Rock of Harris and Klebold or not, this much is clear: It was Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who chose to take firearms and home-made bombs into Columbine High School on April 20, 1999 and kill as many people as they could. There was no conspiracy involving the NRA. Chuck Heston didn’t put them up to it. For reasons that only their warped minds could comprehend, Harris and Klebold chose that bloody course of action all by themselves. The thing is that, within reason, I’m actually for gun control. (My gun-loving pal 101proof will hate me for having said that, no doubt. ) I don’t have a problem with gun sales being a strictly regulated form of commerce. I don’t have a problem with ironclad, no-bullsh*t rules and regulations for gun owners. And this is certainly what the far-left Michael Moore wants. But what he doesn’t realize is that by bashing the NRA, painting them as a bunch of selfish, unsophisticated gun nuts, and by badgering the NRA’s old and increasingly infirm president, needling him with questions concerning the whacko mindset behind the despicable actions of Harris and Klebold, questions better suited for an FBI behavioralist, he’s (pardon the pun) shooting himself and his cause in the foot. As my grandmother used to advise, “One attracts more flies with honey than vinegar.” While Moore’s gumption (if not his simplistic, quasi-socialist worldview) is commendable, he’d probably get more people to truly listen to him and take him seriously if he’d just lay off the ambush-style tactics and holier-than-thou routine for a spell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 GlenX, Great post. I am a musician and I love the music of Rage Against the Machine, but I have the same view that you do regarding their political views. In regards to OJ.... If I were a juror, I would have found him not guilty based on the fact that the evidence was tainted... but in regards to if he did it or not... don't know and don't care. Thanks for the background on MM, I have only seen recent things on him and I hated it so I never looked into him anymore...... based on your posts, I'm glad I didn't, it would have just pissed me off.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 21, 2003 Author Share Posted February 21, 2003 My father (an attorney) still swears to this day that OJ knew who did it, but didnt do it himself. His suspect-Marcus Allen. And I am totally serious. Not to go off on a huge tangent, BUT, the facts support it. All of the evidence can be tracked to Allen. He had Bruno Magli (sp?) shoes. HIs glove size was smalled than OJ and he was seen with Simpson the morning of the murder. Just food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 My father (an attorney) still swears to this day that OJ knew who did it, but didnt do it himself. His suspect-Marcus Allen. And I am totally serious. Not to go off on a huge tangent, BUT, the facts support it. All of the evidence can be tracked to Allen. He had Bruno Magli (sp?) shoes. HIs glove size was smalled than OJ and he was seen with Simpson the morning of the murder. Just food for thought. I had heard that too.. I also heard that the BBC did a documentary on the murders and proved the blood evidence at the crime scene and in the bronco was planted. Their claim was that there is a certain chemical that the police use to preserve the blood once it is take from a subject. This chemical was present in all of the blood at the crime scene and in the bronco telling them that someone took O.J.'s blood from the sample he gave and planted it. I'm no expert, so I don't know what to believe, but I do know there was reasonable doubt. If O.J. did it, he did a good job..(no offense intended). The problem I have with our legal system is the Civil trial. In criminal court, OJ was found not guilty, it makes no sense for him to be tried in civil court.... That's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.