wingnuts are plentiful on either ends of the spectrum. Michael Savage meet Michael Moore!
recently he proposed that we should have a draft... and only draft the sons (and daughters, persumably) of the wealthiest 5%.... heck, I think that Michael Moore should be drafted... going through boot camp might do 2 things that would be good for him.... first he would drop some weight - and the second, he would learn discipline... something which I think he has little.
Moore is the poster child for the divisive polarization that has occured in this country - and now tears it apart. His failure to complete college, and his early firing from jobs indicates that somehow he thinks that he is "above criticism" - while sadly he is not. sadly he is a characture of himself. and that is too bad, for while he may have serious points that should be taken seriously, he is not, because of his inability to represent facts.. and his bending of truth... when if he presented truth - it would be far more powerful.
Michael Moore is a piece of shit. The fat bastard should go on a normal diet, freeing up plenty of food for dozens of starving people. I suspect over eating has caused his tiny brain to swell, causing him some of the problems he presently displays.
Universal Health Care. The last thing I want to do is pay, through my taxes, for his eventual diabetes and heart bypass.
You really need to sober up harry. Your boring act of the irrational, incoherent, drunken sot is wearing very thin here. Sober up before you piss away all of your monthly Socialistic Insecurity Checks at Willie's.
His followers are. Michael Moore is getting rich spewing this venom. Who's the moron, the guy getting rich or the idiots making him rich?
I doubt that Moore believes any of his own bullshit, he just laughs all the way to the bank.
the USA.
-- Modified on 10/23/2008 9:16:33 AM
That guy drives me up the wall. He could not pay me enough to spend time with him.
Moore is not too far from what has become the main stay of the Dems, no matter how much you dislike him.
That is exactly why he was given an Oscar and that is exactly why he is honored in Hollywood and the universities.
They never denounce anything about him.
In either 2000 or 2004, he had a seat of extreme honor at the Democratic convention in Carter's box.
Moore was the same then when he was a biggie at the convention that he is now.
His views on Cuba and Chavez are not that different than many Hollywood Dem elite. Just last week some star took his second trip to visit Chavez. Castro is frequently praised in Hollywood by people like Di Caprio and Denzel Washington.
What is even more telling is that when these well-placed Dems cavort with Chavez and Castro, NO ONE IN THE DEM PARTY calls them to task.
When was the last time any major Dem official denounce Sharpton, Jackson, or others.
David Duke was expelled from the GOP.
When was the last time you heard Obama say that the views about Cuba's health care that were expressed in "Sicko" were not accurate. Hint - never. He won't say boo about Moore
You all may tell me that you think Moore is puke city. But tell me where he differs from the views expressed in other places
wingnuts are plentiful on either ends of the spectrum. Michael Savage meet Michael Moore!
Michael Savage is the fringe of the conservatives, but he is rarely given great honor.
He is not someone who is welcome at the convention, much less given a place of honor in the box of the former president.
Indeed, being in the president's box is about as high as you can get.
Yes, there are nut jobs on both sides, but the GOP nut jobs are the fringes. The things Moore says are repeated by many Dems, who are never castigated as fringe.
Michael Moore is not Dem Fringe. I repeat, he is given a place of honor and adulation.
Michael Moore's 'Slacker Uprising' Ann Arbor World Premiere
Slackers crawled out of the woodwork in Ann Arbor, Michigan for the world premiere of Michael Moore's 'Slacker Uprising' at the historic Michigan Theater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdG6fDSsGYE
This is just one more honor for Michael Moore.
When mainstream conservatives try to speak at universities they are often shouted down.
Did anyone display any lack of respect for Moore.
Nope. You all may hate Moore, but he is not left wing fringe.
and I mean major hygiene problems. It was as though he went camping for two weeks soap, tooth paste and tooth brush. His teeth looked like he hadn't brushed them in a month!!!! His hair was greasy dirty. He had real strong horrible BO. His fingernails were filthy dirty. And this was at some sort of event. They only thing clean was the tux and that was probably ruined after one hour.
The guy stunk and looked unclean---other celebs were really shocked. I heard that they actually did a hygiene intervention on him at some point afterward. I'M NOT KIDDING. THEY DID A HYGIENE INTERVENTION ON MICHAEL MOORE. It stuck unfortunately because I haven't heard anything similar in over a decade.
They may have been repulsed by his hygiene and appearance, but not by his ideas.
They did a hygiene intervention because they liked his ideas and wanted to make him more palatable.
If they didn't like his ideas, they would not have helped.
More proof he is mainstream liberal.
. . . he tries to present facts AND somehow make them funny. It's like he's trying to do reality-satire. Someone with great talent and intelligence could do something like that. Unfortunately, he doesn't have either. And he's careless about checking facts.
After "Roger and Me" he should gone into stand-up comedy, and sharpened himself up there, but he didn't have the guts.
all the way to the bank. I wouldn't be surprised if he really knows a lot of his facts are bogus, 9-man. It's really freaky because I have a couple of friends that are just like him.
One buddy is a *&%)_#&^----(I can't be to specific or I'll get busted). Shit, I better not go there at all.
Point is my two buddies were wannabe weathermen underground radicals. Neither one has changed their political views hardly at all in 35 years. The only thing that changed was that they stopped smoking weed and getting drunk all the time. And one of them--who's a union steward--knows socialism is bogus but he is an adamant supporter. He gets free trips and spending money for the conventions every 2 years. And he's a player in the union.
He has no regard for truth and all of his "facts" are distortions that are true in the detail, but false in the implication he is creating.
To use his Cuba/medical example, there may be a hospital or two in Cuba that is better than King/Drew was in Los Angeles, but overall medical care is much worse. I am sure the one Castro goes to is great.
However, by showing the best of Cuban and the worst of U.S., he creates a false impression that Cuban is generally better. The individual facts he cites may be true, but the implication, which is what the movie is about, is false.
Another example of this is his use of military families in Farhenheit. It is pretty well agreed that the military is more conservative, and therefore more supportive of Bush, especially when he made the movie.
However, he finds a few military families that are anti-Bush and gives them time. It is 100% true that the ones he used hold the views expressed. But he never explains what percent they represent, nor does he put on the other side.
Thus, he cleverly puts on "the truth" - that military family X is anti war - but creates an impression that is a lie - that the military doesn't support the war.
It also creates a deniability. If asked (or if his supporters are asked) isn't it a fact that the military is generally supportive of Bush, he can say that he never said they weren't, which is true. He didn't say that. Even though that was the entire point of the segment.
Thus, he can be dishonest about what he said.
He has no regard for truth and all of his "facts" are distortions that are true in the detail, but false in the implication he is creating.
To use his Cuba/medical example, there may be a hospital or two in Cuba that is better than King/Drew was in Los Angeles, but overall medical care is much worse. I am sure the one Castro goes to is great.
However, by showing the best of Cuban and the worst of U.S., he creates a false impression that Cuban is generally better. The individual facts he cites may be true, but the implication, which is what the movie is about, is false.
Another example of this is his use of military families in Farhenheit. It is pretty well agreed that the military is more conservative, and therefore more supportive of Bush, especially when he made the movie.
However, he finds a few military families that are anti-Bush and gives them time. It is 100% true that the ones he used hold the views expressed. But he never explains what percent they represent, nor does he put on the other side.
Thus, he cleverly puts on "the truth" - that military family X is anti war - but creates an impression that is a lie - that the military doesn't support the war.
It also creates a deniability. If asked (or if his supporters are asked) isn't it a fact that the military is generally supportive of Bush, he can say that he never said they weren't, which is true. He didn't say that. Even though that was the entire point of the segment.
Thus, he can be dishonest about what he said.
The same could be said of many of his "facts."