will987654321
Active member
i agree it's not an effective argument. i just saw that that was an issue in this thread and it looked as if you were trying to argue in the same fashion. maybe i was wrong.
Michael Moore,Why the Hate?
- Thread starter SRskierSFS
- Start date
will987654321
Active member
maybe you're right, but i think that if he wasn't so over the top people wouldn't have paid attention. i dont think this is a good thing but it's true. i know i hadn't heard anyone really questioning the bush administration until that film came out. i was also young at the time and that sort of stuff wasn't very interesting to me so i dont know.
potatofarmer
Active member
THIS KID GOT CAUGHT BEATING OFF IN THE BOYS LOCKER ROOM TODAY!!
MitchPee
Active member
very intelligent response...here let me help you
Michael Moore is a liar. He has clipped together interviews and meetings with people that claim to have never met with him. He is not anti-American. He is not anti-Republican or Democrat. He is a smart man who is making money off of the beliefs of ignorant people. I saw his movie farenheit 9/11. It was a decently put together movie, but it wasn't all true. Therefore, all credibility and liking towards that movie is shot out the window.
Michael Moore is a liar. He has clipped together interviews and meetings with people that claim to have never met with him. He is not anti-American. He is not anti-Republican or Democrat. He is a smart man who is making money off of the beliefs of ignorant people. I saw his movie farenheit 9/11. It was a decently put together movie, but it wasn't all true. Therefore, all credibility and liking towards that movie is shot out the window.
ok, let's THINK about this. if michael moore was truly just perpetuating lies, he would have been sued out the door, and his stuff would not get played. the reactionary right just cant handle left leaning views getting media attention. dont be so foolish to think that if his stuff WAS false, they would taken means other than simple slander to reduce his credibility.
you need to look a little further than Fox News to get your facts. while he does have an extremely inflammatory way of presenting issues, he is not just blatently lying. i actually dont particularly like him or his documentaries, but look at how crazy some of you right wing people get when your challenged. calm down and think about what your saying
you need to look a little further than Fox News to get your facts. while he does have an extremely inflammatory way of presenting issues, he is not just blatently lying. i actually dont particularly like him or his documentaries, but look at how crazy some of you right wing people get when your challenged. calm down and think about what your saying
he is a fat slob and he is not showing the truth, I am fucking tired of people making fun of the president for being stupid and one liners about him. I dont agree with the president because he is way to soft on people and terrorists but he graduated from yale and if you can do that you are not stupid
grubix2
Active member
I guess you pretty much missed the point of Roger and Me. He didn't go to his house just for an interview, he went to be a dick. Thats the whole point. He was trying to make an ass out of him. Roger and Me is an amazing work. You have to remember what happened to his home town. Flint, MI was rated the worst place to live in America. All because GM decided to take thier business elsewhere.
Now, yes GM has all of the right in the world to move their plant when they want and where they want. But you must consider the moral aspects of what is being done. Flint was a town that was 100% dependent on that GM plant. When they closed the plant, 90% of the town was left unemployed. The economy crippled. The whole point of Roger and Me was to show how GM didn't give a fuck about the thousands of people that depended on that plant to survive. GM sucked in most of the population to work in the plant, then all of a sudden moved out and left all the people that came to work for them to hang out to dry.
I thought the way he went about making assholes out of Roger and the rest of those guys was absolutely hilarious. Mostly because they deserved 100% of it.
Bowling for Columbine was good in my opinion as well. It's rediculous how people in this country value guns. I enjoy hunting, and in fact own a rifle and a shotgun. But people really take this shit to the extreme. I can see no value in owning a handgun. Handguns are only begging for trouble. Why do we need the general public to own weapons that are easily concealed and can kill 10 people without being reloaded. The sad part is, the majority of the people I know that own handguns, are the ones that I think are the last ones that should be owning them. my favorite part in bowling for columbine was the guy that was so fucking paranoid that he sleeps with a .44 magnum under his pillow.
Now, yes GM has all of the right in the world to move their plant when they want and where they want. But you must consider the moral aspects of what is being done. Flint was a town that was 100% dependent on that GM plant. When they closed the plant, 90% of the town was left unemployed. The economy crippled. The whole point of Roger and Me was to show how GM didn't give a fuck about the thousands of people that depended on that plant to survive. GM sucked in most of the population to work in the plant, then all of a sudden moved out and left all the people that came to work for them to hang out to dry.
I thought the way he went about making assholes out of Roger and the rest of those guys was absolutely hilarious. Mostly because they deserved 100% of it.
Bowling for Columbine was good in my opinion as well. It's rediculous how people in this country value guns. I enjoy hunting, and in fact own a rifle and a shotgun. But people really take this shit to the extreme. I can see no value in owning a handgun. Handguns are only begging for trouble. Why do we need the general public to own weapons that are easily concealed and can kill 10 people without being reloaded. The sad part is, the majority of the people I know that own handguns, are the ones that I think are the last ones that should be owning them. my favorite part in bowling for columbine was the guy that was so fucking paranoid that he sleeps with a .44 magnum under his pillow.
chowe6
Member
well i dont like him for one reason, hes a hypocrit.....he says he hates this administration because they went to war over oil and theyre money hungry yet he owns stock in 2 different oil companies, and he thinks just because hes famous or atleast has the ability to put his opinion out there that he can and honestly if you hate this administration fine keep it to yourself we dont care about your opinion and if your gonna bad mouth it than keep to the facts dont resort to making shit up, farenheit 911 was bullshit and a waste of time
BandieBoy
Member
Michael Moore does not even deserve to be called an American. He needs to be exiled to France or somewhere else so he can join some fellow US-haters. He is a traitor to this country, plain and simple. I think some government official should change his name to some foreign name, since he hates America so much. Hahaha lmao
almostaskier
Active member
this may not be on topic, but i heard an interesting theory about why most euros like MM, at least in France:
he disagrees with Bush on pretty much everything, is extremely criticial, and doesn't hesistate to use low blows against the governments, just like the french.
Also, he fits their general stereotype for the american male: fat and ugly. Therefore, the french can't get enough of him! he's everything they want to see in an average amarican.
he disagrees with Bush on pretty much everything, is extremely criticial, and doesn't hesistate to use low blows against the governments, just like the french.
Also, he fits their general stereotype for the american male: fat and ugly. Therefore, the french can't get enough of him! he's everything they want to see in an average amarican.
freestyler540
Active member
One thing that he does well is raise problems that is extremely visible to foreign people but not to americans. I like the guy.
He raises some important issues in his documenteries. He doesn't have any arguments, but he explores the subject like a philosepher. His aspects are usually vague, but if you listen and write down his aspects, you can start seeing a patern. For example, the gun crisis doncumentary: he is exploring why gun crimes are so high.He started with the media. Then, he looks at the social aspects, and to end he compares other countries to the US to try to understand the "why".
I think that he is a poor reporter. His arguments usually contradict each other. For example, he shows that music and movies doesn't influence the people, but then he goes on that the news pumpes fear and hatred in people.Its contradictions like that that kills the arguments.
He make his documentaries so that you can reflect on the matter afterwards. He doesn't hate america, he wants to make it better for everyone. Remember that critism is the best way to change for the better. But, americans are like that, they take critism as an attack on their ego. He doesn't propose a solution for one reason, he can't do shit. All he can do is convince the government that is too procupied by the war in Iraq.
I heard someone talk about destructive arguements. A destructive arguement is something like:You are a fucker because you [insert end].This doesn't bring up any question and no ways to find a solution.Basicly an expression without a cause.
Next time you guys listen to his documentaries, don't be offended to everything he says, take it as contructive critism and ask yourself:Why did he make a documentary and how could we change to make this problem history.
Now don't be calling an asshole because I share Moore's views, I just want america to realise that they fucked up and its time to change for the best.By the way, I do share some of the intelligent counter arguments like Quinny's emotional argument agaisn't Moore.
He raises some important issues in his documenteries. He doesn't have any arguments, but he explores the subject like a philosepher. His aspects are usually vague, but if you listen and write down his aspects, you can start seeing a patern. For example, the gun crisis doncumentary: he is exploring why gun crimes are so high.He started with the media. Then, he looks at the social aspects, and to end he compares other countries to the US to try to understand the "why".
I think that he is a poor reporter. His arguments usually contradict each other. For example, he shows that music and movies doesn't influence the people, but then he goes on that the news pumpes fear and hatred in people.Its contradictions like that that kills the arguments.
He make his documentaries so that you can reflect on the matter afterwards. He doesn't hate america, he wants to make it better for everyone. Remember that critism is the best way to change for the better. But, americans are like that, they take critism as an attack on their ego. He doesn't propose a solution for one reason, he can't do shit. All he can do is convince the government that is too procupied by the war in Iraq.
I heard someone talk about destructive arguements. A destructive arguement is something like:You are a fucker because you [insert end].This doesn't bring up any question and no ways to find a solution.Basicly an expression without a cause.
Next time you guys listen to his documentaries, don't be offended to everything he says, take it as contructive critism and ask yourself:Why did he make a documentary and how could we change to make this problem history.
Now don't be calling an asshole because I share Moore's views, I just want america to realise that they fucked up and its time to change for the best.By the way, I do share some of the intelligent counter arguments like Quinny's emotional argument agaisn't Moore.
Quinny
Active member
Helpful Hint:
I didn't bring Bush into this, you did. I could care less what he has to do about anything. This thread is about Moore not Bush. This is the exact thing I mentioned in my first post. It's diluting the subject. Drop it.
Moore doesn't uncover anything...well, except for the people who don't follow news at all. He selects to repeat small bits of information that other people have given. Don't believe me? Go to a library, pick up one of his books, flip to back, and look at the cited works.
I didn't bring Bush into this, you did. I could care less what he has to do about anything. This thread is about Moore not Bush. This is the exact thing I mentioned in my first post. It's diluting the subject. Drop it.
Moore doesn't uncover anything...well, except for the people who don't follow news at all. He selects to repeat small bits of information that other people have given. Don't believe me? Go to a library, pick up one of his books, flip to back, and look at the cited works.
KRASHED
Active member
The thing is ive noticed lately that your afraid of hearing about controversy towards you beloved country. Thats great and I hate hearing crap about you hating Canada but I dont turn a blind eye to our problems like you do. Michael Moore may exaggerate many things but he is the one critic of America who at least shows some solid evidence as a basis. Listen and Learn
grubix2
Active member
#1 he's been writing and making films before you were born. #2 The issues he looks are far from worthless. He's looked at many more issues than just 911 and Columbine. #3 And last time i checked, challenging and critiquing aspects of society doesn't make "everything so much worse than it is."
If you sit back and just digest what people tell you, you're bound to get taken advantage of. You can't be afraid to address issues in society. If I'm not mistaken, America was founded by a group of people that believed in challenging what England said and did. They did not want to be lied to or taken advantage of. Don't take this as I'm only talking about politics, because Moore address a lot more than just what happens in washington. Even if he exagerates issues, the world still needs people like him, to keep people in check.
If you sit back and just digest what people tell you, you're bound to get taken advantage of. You can't be afraid to address issues in society. If I'm not mistaken, America was founded by a group of people that believed in challenging what England said and did. They did not want to be lied to or taken advantage of. Don't take this as I'm only talking about politics, because Moore address a lot more than just what happens in washington. Even if he exagerates issues, the world still needs people like him, to keep people in check.
And the sad part is, is that the sources are either one of a few things:
A) Random reports or accounts of random people. He will take whatever he sees to fit his argument and then use it. As long as someone else said it, then it's true.
B) A reputable source for being biased. No explanation needed on this.
C) From a legit source, but only bits and pieces are used. Interviews for example, the amount of shit that is taken out of context in his "documentaries" and "literature" is astonishing.
A) Random reports or accounts of random people. He will take whatever he sees to fit his argument and then use it. As long as someone else said it, then it's true.
B) A reputable source for being biased. No explanation needed on this.
C) From a legit source, but only bits and pieces are used. Interviews for example, the amount of shit that is taken out of context in his "documentaries" and "literature" is astonishing.
~Cork_1080~
Active member
he was depicted perfectly in team america
