I Love Michael Moore

Serial Midget · Mar 24, 2003

Michael Moore is a dissident?

Whahahahhahahahahhahahahaha!!!! OH! :dead:

Ye-ouch I have to pee now...

Dog Welder · Mar 24, 2003

I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore...he's a satirist (sp?) that doesn't offer any solutions to the problems that he bitches about. Its easy to be a hippie and demonstrate but its not easy to figure out a solution or actually do something about it.

stevew · Mar 24, 2003

What was so amazing about it?

steve

Mtbkngrl · Mar 24, 2003

He's a big fat idiot who should be dropped into the middle of Iraq, or sent to live over there for awhile. His view might change after spending some quality time in a country run by psychopathic sadistic dictators. Plus he'd lose some freakin weight.:angry: As a matter of fact, maybe YOU should go spend some time over there as well......

Mtbkngrl · Mar 24, 2003

Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic about the situation....I'd like to think it's not all about $ and about liberating the people of Iraq.

Scofflaw23-I'm not trying to sound "smart,"(if I was I wouldn't have called him a big fat idiot) I'm just stating my opinion. If it makes you feel good to put me down for that then so be it. It's too bad you get so defensive when someone's view's differ from your own.

I have watched some of his films, but I guarantee I won't watch another.:nuts:

fluff · Mar 24, 2003

One of the problems with the attitude of 'if you're against the war then you're pro-Saddam' (which is childishly simplistic and patently untrue) is that there is tendency to also believe that therefore anyone who is anti-Saddam within Iraq would therefore be welcoming a US/UK invasion force. This is not necessarily true and whilst some will some won't and there may indeed be more opposition to the invasion than the US/UK administrations are leading us to believe.

It's not a simple as that, although I wish it were, fewer people would die.

LordOpie · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by scofflaw23
the only reason for a military intervention versus a diplomatic approach (which the us gov't was opposed to from the beginning

beginning when?

Oh, you're suggesting Bush failed, right?

hmm, What about the 10 yrs prior to Bush? What about the 17 sanctions, what about all the other countries and the UN who couldn't find a diplomatic solution?

PS: I really dislike Bush, so I hate you

right now for making me "defend" our administration.

Tenchiro · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by Mtbkngrl
Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic about the situation....I'd like to think it's not all about $ and about liberating the people of Iraq.

I don't think George Bush has an altruistic bone in his body, otherwise there would be many a despot on his hitlist.

Westy · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by Tenchiro
I don't think George Bush has an altruistic bone in his body, otherwise there would be many a despot on his hitlist.

I don't think Bush could say altruistic let alone understand what it means.

llkoolkeg · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
One of the problems with the attitude of 'if you're against the war then you're pro-Saddam' (which is childishly simplistic and patently untrue) is that there is tendency to also believe that therefore anyone who is anti-Saddam within Iraq would therefore be welcoming a US/UK invasion force. This is not necessarily true and whilst some will some won't and there may indeed be more opposition to the invasion than the US/UK administrations are leading us to believe.

It's not a simple as that, although I wish it were, fewer people would die.

The argument you refer to is no more childish and illogical than wannabe hippies painting people who support the deposing of Saddam as government-lemming pro-war yahoos. Most of the well-read people I know consider the current invasion as the sad but inevitable result of Saddam's 12-year bawdy non-compliance. Had the elder Bush done the job right the first time, the younger one would not now be catching heat for mopping up the mess. Don't you find it the least bit interesting how Iraqi forces(which supposedly disarmed after Gulf War I) are turning up various missiles and other banned weapons to combat the invasion with which they have repeatedly claimed not to have? Europeans' wishful thinking allowed Hitler to rebuild the German war machine soon after WWI just as their turning a blind eye to Saddam has allowed him to rise up once again to sting us. I do find some common ground with Saddam, though. We both believe, as did the famed Zulu warrior-king Shaka, that the only way to keep defeated enemies from rising again to smite you is to step on their throat when you have them on the ground.

fluff · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
The argument you refer to is no more childish and illogical than wannabe hippies painting people who support the deposing of Saddam as government-lemming pro-war yahoos. Most of the well-read people I know consider the current invasion as the sad but inevitable result of Saddam's 12-year bawdy non-compliance. Had the elder Bush done the job right the first time, the younger one would not now be catching heat for mopping up the mess. Don't you find it the least bit interesting how Iraqi forces(which supposedly disarmed after Gulf War I) are turning up various missiles and other banned weapons to combat the invasion with which they have repeatedly claimed not to have? Europeans' wishful thinking allowed Hitler to rebuild the German war machine soon after WWI just as their turning a blind eye to Saddam has allowed him to rise up once again to sting us. I do find some common ground with Saddam, though. We both believe, as did the famed Zulu warrior-king Shaka, that the only way to keep defeated enemies from rising again to smite you is to step on their throat when you have them on the ground.

One facile argument does not justify another. I would say that anyone who supports military action to support Saddam is pro-war, how could that not be true? They may be reluctantly so but they are still pro-war by definition. Not necessarily yahoo's though..

Plenty of other nations defy UN sanctions (e.g. Isreal) yet are not invaded. And the vast majority of well-read people I know do not share the same view that those you know do, they are much more sceptical of US motives. This does seem reflected in the overall opinion polls of the UK and US. I was rather saddened to see a report recently that 40% of US citizens polled (not always representative as with many statistics) thought that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the 9/11 attack but that's a boon for an administration who need support for an invasion.

I haven't seen too many reports of Iraqi's using banned weapons as yet, does our media report different things to yours? There seem to be markedly fewer Scuds in the skies this time around.

Removal of Saddam's regime would be a good thing (IMO), the means of it I'm still unconvinced of (only hindsight will show for sure and none of us yet have that) and the diplomatic & political machinations that lead us to this point I deplore as there has been far too much double-dealing, hypocrisy and outright lies involved. I would have far more respect for the US government had it been more honest or if it were to be more consistent with applying the moral reasons for removing a tyrannical dictatorship (i.e. there are many others that are just as nasty as Saddam who seem acceptable to the US).

The Hitler/Germany references are getting tiresome as the two are not actually that similar.

Tenchiro · Mar 24, 2003

Did you ever watch TV Nation? Man that was a funny show, especially when they brought out Crackers the "Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken".

llkoolkeg · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
One facile argument does not justify another. I would say that anyone who supports military action to support Saddam is pro-war, how could that not be true? They may be reluctantly so but they are still pro-war by definition. Not necessarily yahoo's though..

Plenty of other nations defy UN sanctions (e.g. Isreal) yet are not invaded. And the vast majority of well-read people I know do not share the same view that those you know do, they are much more sceptical of US motives. This does seem reflected in the overall opinion polls of the UK and US. I was rather saddened to see a report recently that 40% of US citizens polled (not always representative as with many statistics) thought that Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the 9/11 attack but that's a boon for an administration who need support for an invasion.

I haven't seen too many reports of Iraqi's using banned weapons as yet, does our media report different things to yours? There seem to be markedly fewer Scuds in the skies this time around.

Removal of Saddam's regime would be a good thing (IMO), the means of it I'm still unconvinced of (only hindsight will show for sure and none of us yet have that) and the diplomatic & political machinations that lead us to this point I deplore as there has been far too much double-dealing, hypocrisy and outright lies involved. I would have far more respect for the US government had it been more honest or if it were to be more consistent with applying the moral reasons for removing a tyrannical dictatorship (i.e. there are many others that are just as nasty as Saddam who seem acceptable to the US).

The Hitler/Germany references are getting tiresome as the two are not actually that similar.

Summing up the complicated positions taken as "pro-war" and "pro-peace" does as great a disservice to the current debate as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" do to the abortion question. As if a person who supports our troop deployment and opposes abortion is a war-monger against freedom of choice. :rolleyes:

Funny how two opposite sides both call their position pro-___. Semantics matter, my British friend.

Personally, I could care less about UN Sanctions. The UN is a toothless tiger long on talk and short on deed. Nobody's motives are pure in this. IMO, we invade Iraq because Saddam poses a significant threat to us and to regional stability. Israel does not. Opinion polls are only accurate at assessing the polltaker's agenda and political bias, as the questions frame the answers.

Were you under the impression that Scuds were permitted? And yes- your press is even more unconscionable than ours. Did you catch the first Tommy Franks interview?

Removal of Saddam's regime WILL be a good thing. We have enough loose cannons in the nuclear club as it is and we certainly don't need the MF-ing French selling off applications for membership. I'm happy the Israelis have done such a good job at thwarting Iraqi nuclear ambitions, even though it has been accomplished with distasteful methods such as bombing and assasination. It's a tough world, ya know. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are too stupid and naive to be trusted with the truth- THAT is the truth.

The Hitler/Germany reference was merely to illustrate that the European SOP for dealing with dictators that don't play nice is to pull the covers over your collective heads, squeeze your eyes shut and wish them away. That was the response Saddam expected when he first invaded Kuwait, and the one he would have certainly received had we not seized the reins that Europe lacks the resolve to hold.

fluff · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by llkoolkeg

Were you under the impression that Scuds were permitted?

Removal of Saddam's regime WILL be a good thing.

The Hitler/Germany reference was merely to illustrate that the European SOP for dealing with dictators that don't play nice is to pull the covers over your collective heads, squeeze your eyes shut and wish them away. That was the response Saddam expected when he first invaded Kuwait, and the one he would have certainly received had we not seized the reins that Europe lacks the resolve to hold.

The lack of scuds indicates at least a degree of success for the weapons inspections, that's the point. As far as I have heard no prohibited weapons have yet been used.

Didn't argue that point, just weighing the cost of the method is tricky.

We will never know what-if scenarios or the ideal point in history to intervene militarily as opposed to pursuing diplomacy and it may just be that at times in a alternative history (and present and future) that wars may have been undertaken needlessly.

LoboDelFuego · Mar 24, 2003

A clarification from my history teacher, who is also an ordnance expert i the Army Reserves: The term SCUD has been applied t baially an medium range weapons that Iraq has. Some SCUDs (h says iti a variant of the SCUD B) have a range of 400 km while others are less than 100. So, some of the missiles may have been allowed because they were under the maximum UN range.

freightGOD · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by Mtbkngrl
He's a big fat idiot who should be dropped into the middle of Iraq, or sent to live over there for awhile. His view might change after spending some quality time in a country run by psychopathic sadistic dictators. Plus he'd lose some freakin weight.:angry: As a matter of fact, maybe YOU should go spend some time over there as well......

yeah, what she said :mad:

Mecannoman · Mar 24, 2003

Originally posted by scofflaw23
well, i got pretty bored of the oscar's early on, but there was of course one saving grace.
it was amazing to see michael moore call out the (not my, not our) phony president, especially in this time where he's making such a grave mistake on the reccomendation of a few wealthy men.

long live dissidence.

ben.

It's too bad I wasted my night watching those damn awards, but I thought Adrien Brody's speech was more poignant. In a show which was broadcast to over 150 countries, M. Moore sounded juvenile. I still enjoy his films, but last night wasn't the proper forum for his adolescent rant.

patconnole · Mar 25, 2003

I love michael moore, but he's no prophet or hero.... or whatever the word is. "The awful truth" is the greatest.

Didn't see the award show, but I heard what he said. Glad he said it, but as for inspiring people to figure out why he said what he said (or believes what he believes), it was pretty inneffective. Like a Jehovah's Witness trying to convert you through verbal attacks...... He needs some better PR.

I've heard people say, "He doesn't offer any solutions....just complains." True, sometimes, but a lot of what he complains about doesn't need a complicated solution, just "Stop doing that. Do good."

fourgivn1 · Mar 25, 2003

Speaking of 'phony' how about going and checking the facts that Michael Moore 'reports' on in his book 'Stupid White Men'? A lot of them are way off. (If you want examples I'll be glad to oblige.) I can understand people not liking Dubya, but if you're not going to like Dubya, at least get facts straight.

(Not you, Michael Moore.)

tobias · Mar 25, 2003

Originally posted by Mtbkngrl
His view might change after spending some quality time in a country run by psychopathic sadistic dictators.

I thought he allready did that :devil:

ohio · Mar 25, 2003

Originally posted by fourgivn1
(If you want examples I'll be glad to oblige.)

Please. I'm particularly curious about his account of the election, most of which didn't make it into other media sources.

Spud · Mar 25, 2003

I love some of the guys stuff, but hes pretty sloppy/lazy/wrong on some of the facts. Salon had a piece that ripped into him pretty good. You have to view a commercial to get the full content, but here is a link.

Again, I like what he has to say, but he needs to get the facts straight if hes going to make it stick.

Spinsanity

fourgivn1 · Mar 25, 2003

Originally posted by ohio
Please. I'm particularly curious about his account of the election, most of which didn't make it into other media sources.

I'm not sure as far as his account of the election goes....I didn't mean to say that EVERYTHING he says is wrong. Some of what he says is right. But he does need to work on his facts.

Here's one example. There's lots more.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233

Triphop · Mar 25, 2003

Check out this link, a long read but discusses how Moore's so-called "documentary" Bowling for Columbine was more propoganda than anything else.

www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Personally, and especially after his 'performance' at the Academy Awards...he is a jackass.

Stellite · Mar 26, 2003

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Speaking of 'phony' how about going and checking the facts that Michael Moore 'reports' on in his book 'Stupid White Men'? A lot of them are way off. (If you want examples I'll be glad to oblige.) I can understand people not liking Dubya, but if you're not going to like Dubya, at least get facts straight.

(Not you, Michael Moore.)

No his facts were right on in that book, Moore is a stupid white man.

LordOpie · Mar 26, 2003

Ya know, I'm seriously starting to get pissed off here. Some of you are way out of line! I am a stupid white man and I do NOT like being associated with that jackass. Stop it!

Stellite · Mar 26, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
Ya know, I'm seriously starting to get pissed off here. Some of you are way out of line! I am a stupid white man and I do NOT like being associated with that jackass. Stop it!

I'm sorry opie. you can have the attached girl and 71 more if you fly a plane into saddams palace

LordOpie · Mar 26, 2003

Thanks, but I already emailed Niki per Serial Midget's suggestion. She said once you go Midget, you don't go back. :eek:

:angry:

I Love Michael Moore

Monkey

Al Bundy

Turbo Monkey

resident influencer

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

MOTHER HEN

Attention K Mart Shoppers

the teste

Ranger LL

Monkey Turbo

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Ranger LL

Monkey Turbo

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

The Fresno Kid

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Attachments

MOTHER HEN