More Moore

[Marlowe]

I haven't seen Farhenheit 9/11. I probably won't see it.

I've seen parts of two of his other movies, "Bowling For Columbine" and "The Big One" on cable. "The Big One," what I saw of it, was rather amusing. He catches a bunch of corporations and their bigwigs in lies and other unadmirable behaviors as they send their labor overseas and out of the country and reap big profits from the cost savings. I don't recall him saying anything bad about Clinton for signing NAFTA, though.

What I saw of "Bowling For Columbine" looked like pretty much standard-issue anti-2nd-Amendment claptrap to me, so I didn't watch for long.

His style seems to be to try to sucker someone into an interview on false pretenses (see the Charlton Heston interview in "Bowling For Columbine") and then changes the tone of the interview on them, asking loaded questions, and such, provoking them to eject him from their property or some other such negative behavior. He ususally takes that opportunity to make propagandistic proclamations or pose unanswerable rhetorical questions.

I saw him on "The Daily Show" the other night. He was pompously pontificating in his sanctimonious way, with statements like "the majority of the people didn't vote for him," (George W. Bush) and "opinion polls show that most people want gun control" (but he doesn't give specifics). He also contradicted himself, implying that the Bush family is in the pockets of the Ibn Sa'ud (Saudi) family, but then accusing Bush of invading Iraq for its oil. How does a large supply of Iraqi oil benefit the Sa'ud family? It would drive down the price they could get for Saudi Arabian oil.

This (liberal) writer for Slate put it more eloquently in this article:

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

Personally, I haven't much use for the Michael Moores, Rush Limbaughs and their ilk. At best they have a "my mind is made up, don't distract me with the facts" attitude, or worse, they're cynical propaganda-mongers.

 

[SHARPETOYS]

Thank You Mr. Marlowe.
You have a way with words that i will never have and thats why i like you.

 

[MK]

The difference is Moore will most likely cause people to be murdered.

I have spoken to Vietnam war vets who served in-country who claim specific soldiers who were killed as a result of Jane Fonda's anti-war, anti-American effort. They have a very deep hatred of her. In their minds it was as if she pulled the trigger to kill their fellow P.O.Ws.

I think Moore's propaganda could have far greater impact aiding the enemy than Fonda's. I am sure at the very least they screen Fahrenheit to help recruit more terrorists.

I don't think Rush's radio show will get people killed.

 

[Paladin]

I took my wife and elderly parents to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night and we all found it to be one of the most moving and effective flims we've ever seen. Everyone who cares about our country should at least see this movie. Even if you don't like Moore or consider yourself middle or right of center, I urge you to just take a look before you pass judgement on it.

I've seen all of Moore's movies. I understand his technique--but he is very sparse with the sniper attacks in this one, as he did with Charlton Heston. I'm a active shooter and collector of hanguns, and avid supporter of second amendment rights. I believe the gun-control issue is a phony issue for the Democrats, just as the flag-burning and gay marriage issues are phony for the Republicans. I didn't agree with his ambush of Heston in Bowling for Columbine. But I understood and agreed with his commentary on the media-induced fear environment (with strong assist from the Taliban Wing of the Republican Party) in our country now.

Regardless, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a movie that's very different from his previous work. There was a standing ovation of five minutes at the end of the showing. True, the audience probably went in with pre-conceived opinions. But most agreed that it was even better than we had expected. I challenge anyone here who would like to form an opinion on something they have actually seen, to at least take the time to see the film. Without reservation--and, yes I understand Moore has his personal indiosycracies--this is one of the most impactful movies I've ever seen.

I'll close by saying that Rush Limbaugh turns my stomach. I disagree with him and everything he stands for. But I listen to him at least once a week, all the way through a program. I read both conservative and liberal publications. It's important to get both sides of issues. I'd encourage you to do the same, even if Michael Moore isn't your cup of tea. Your vote and our country's future is too important not to be as fully educated as possible. Read my quote below.

 

[Paladin]

MK--I have to strongly disagree with you that this movie will "get people murdered". And Jane Fonda did nothing of the sort either. I've known Viet Nam vets, Gulf War vets and my niece is currently serving outside Baghdad. I speak with her regularly.

It's discouraging dissent, and calling dissentors "un-American" and trying to silence them that would do more harm to our country than anything else. Michael Moore provides no comfort to any enemy out there. He's doing something that's uniquely American--excercising his right to dissent. Without that, what do we defend? The right to become citizens of Stepford?

What causes young Americans to be murdered are what has caused it for centuries--old white men who send young people in harm's way without the right reason. The perpetrator of 9/11 is still at large and Iraq has been turned into an active terrorist breeding ground. An incompetent draft-dodger is in the White House and the Taliban Wing of the Republican Party rules all three branches of federal government. And Halliburton's having another great year...

 

[MK]

You sound like you have not only seen Moore's movies, but reading his books as well.

What I stated about vets hating Fonda and believe she killed their buddies is thier stance. Your disagreement is not with me. It is the vets claim not mine. You need to speak with them.

As for me giving Moore money by paying to see his movie.....it will be a cold in Hell before I contribute to his pocket book, box office numbers or his cause.

It is painful to see people throwing money at him, which only encourages him to create more propaganda. I would rather see people read a newspaper or watch some international news. At least the information wouldn't be closer to the truth.

If you want to believe his rhetoric.......it is a free country.

 

[MK]

Before anyone decides to give Moore money by seeing his "documentry"......you might want to take a look at these sites:

http://bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.moorewatch.com/

http://mooreexposed.com/

 

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by MK
...Before anyone decides to give Moore money by seeing his "documentary..."

This is my problem with Moore, also. His movies are classified as "documentaries," but they are just so much propaganda. Much the same as when some listener calls Rush Limbaugh on his radio show and disagrees with him. He hangs up on them with a "This show isn't about what YOU think, it's about what I think!"

Remember: Critical thinking!

P.S. There's a town in Michigan (Moore's home state) named "Hell." And doubtless you've heard what Michigan winters are like, so maybe pick some other metaphor about endless time.

 

[Paladin]

Moore has said in televised interviews many times, including recently about this movie, that his films are satires. And that it's HIS opinion that he's filming about, not anyone elses. He has said that specifically, and I've seen a number of the interviews.

Try to look past your problem with the messenger and just consider hearing out the message. Then once you've heard the message, make up your mind about the validity of each point, if not all, of the message. Don't prejudge something you haven't seen yet. View the message, then decide.

There are many of you, I'm sure, who regularly read the Washington Times since it's a conservative-based newspaper. I'm sure many of you also, as some of my friends do, think Reverand Sung Myung Moon is a nutcase. (Hear about his "crowning" the other day in DC? Claims to have taught Stalin and Hitler?) You look past the nut running the "paper" (I'd call it a rag, but that's my own opinion) and give the articles crediblity. Do the same with "Fahrenheit 9/11". Even if you still disagree after viewing it, at least you'll be speaking from a better-educated vantage point. And who knows? It might wind up opening a few eyes out there.

 

[MK]

I think in your scenario Moore is not the guy who publishes the rag. He fits the Stalin role better. Well....that is probably going too far, but you get my meaning.

I don't need to listen to Stalin. As far as being better-educated goes.....you are not going to find that with Moore. He is not educated. He is just a guy with an opinion. I don't have to go the movie theatre for that. Go to any bar and you will find an uneducated guy with an opinion.

Like I said before, if you like the guy's opinion, so be it. The good thing is that we can discuss these topics and hopefully we can all hold the truth and the facts higher that our political leanings.

 

[Paladin]

Equating Moore with Stalin? Yes, I'd agree with you that you've gone a bit far with that. And he's not just some man on the street. He has access to people, places and things that, when put together on film make a story. And the story is worth seeing and hearing. It's not a matter of "liking his opinion", either. It's a matter of listening to what is being said and drawing a conclusion. It's not a piece of celluloid with Moore standing there and talking. There are others to draw from in his movie.

Well, anyone who has teenagers knows how challenging it is to get them to look at things from different points of view and take the time to be open to options. To be educated, even by points of view that they don't immediately agree with--or, in the case of their parents, they vehemently don't agree with. It's also about knowing when you've said your piece and it's time to move on.

And so I have.

 

[Marlowe]

Hey! Don't go yet!

Originally posted by MK
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.moorewatch.com/

http://mooreexposed.com/

Paladin, from your comments, I doubt you've read the article I mentioned above (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/). If you had taken the time to do so, I doubt you'd be so quick to point out how "effective" his latest movie was. I strongly urge you to visit the Slate article before you urge everyone to listen to Moore's point of view.

Also, before dropping the subject, I IMPLORE you to visit at least the first site on the list above. It shows what Moore does and how he does it. It illustrates his dishonesty with cold, hard facts. Facts that can be checked. Sources that can be verified. It shows how he manipulates the perceptions of his audiences by using editing, selective use of facts, taking things out of context, etc. You have expressed admiration for his films. Take a look at how they were made.

I haven't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" yet. I'm not sure whether I will yet or not. I have seen plenty of how Moore operates to realize that he's not after facts. He's a con artist that only shows you the facts he wants you to see. He takes quotes and edits them to change their meaning, uses them out of context. He uses "statistics" that are loaded, that are not comparable, that seem in some cases to have been simply made up out of whole cloth.

I realize that dissent is a healthy part of a democracy or a republic. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" is one of our most-cherished quotes from the early history of our country. But be careful. Moore states his opinions by presenting supporting evidence that is distorted fact, fabrication, partial truth and misdirection. He also contradicts himself and argues both sides of a disagreement in order to always appear to win.

Again, I urge you to visit at least the bowlingfortruth.com site before being so quick to defend Michael Moore.

 

[Paladin]

Marlowe--I will read the information you have provided and appreciate your doing so. Then I will have seen the movie and read his detractor's comments. But likewise, if I am to be educated about both sides--why not you as well? You're asking ME to be educated about his critics' claims. Isn't it just as appropriatte for me to ask that you view his movie? Isn't your request for me to read the anti-Moore informatoin the same as my urging you to see his movie? Now I can--and will--read/view both sides of the coin. Can you ?

 

[MK]

I think we need to define the coin.

In my mind in this thread the coin is 9-11, Iraq and the administration. Moore is just a source of information about the coin. We are dicussing the reliability, accuracy and honesty of the source.

I am not interested in understanding Moore himself.

 

[Paladin]

I'm not asking anyone to understand Moore. He's the messenger. I'm suggesting that you view the message and judge after viewing it. Not pre-judge before viewing the information. Previous posts have judged whether they would bother viewing the message based upon it's messenger. But if, as you say MK, you are not interested in understanding Moore, how can you then discuss "the reliablity, accuracy and honesty of the source"?

Bottom line here, folks, is that you're commenting and passing judgement on a film that you haven't viewed. You're doing a review on something based on pre-conceived notions with viewing the material.

After having attended the movie, I can without a doubt say that it reveals some very troubling information about those ruling all three branches of our federal government. The Taliban Wing of the the Republican Party.

 

[MK]

Moore is like the National Inquirer. They might say something true once in a while, but I find it better to dismiss them altogether and use reliable sources.

OK. I have said all I can on this one.

 

[Marlowe]

Originally posted by Paladin
Bottom line here, folks, is that you're commenting and passing judgement on a film that you haven't viewed. You're doing a review on something based on pre-conceived notions with viewing the material.

If a man sells you a used car that he represents as running perfectly well, but you find it's a lemon, how many more of his cars are you going to buy? You already KNOW he's a liar.

Originally posted by Paladin
After having attended the movie, I can without a doubt say that it reveals some very troubling information about those ruling all three branches of our federal government. The Taliban Wing of the the Republican Party.

After seeing how Moore operates, I don't think I'd trust him to tell me the correct time of day...

And what's this "Taliban Wing" of the GOP you keep referring to? Is that some kind of smear? Because name-calling isn't exactly conducive to intellectual, reasoned argument, is it?

Read those articles yet?

 

[MK]

Originally posted by Marlowe
After seeing how Moore operates, I don't think I'd trust him to tell me the correct time of day...

LOL LOL

Well said.

And what's this "Taliban Wing" of the GOP you keep referring to?

I didn't get that either. It must be some term.


All in all, I hope that this discussion has been a benefit to the board. An exchange of ideas is good......and the fact we can debate the issues here without getting personal is a testament to the maturity and character of the people of this board. I know other places that would have blown up from topics like this.

Paladin, you are good man. You are seeking truth. Those you seek shall find. Keep pluging away. I hope you have not been discouraged or put off in any way by this thread. Some of my closest friends are liberals. We debate the issues all the time. I don't think less of them for their views and vice versa. If anything...... it helps define our beliefs.

That is the way of a TRUE gentlemen's club.

 

[Marlowe]

I should mention that I NEVER use "smilies." So if you ever come upon a post of mine that seems way too acid, try reading it as sarcasm or facetious overstatement. I don't want to offend anyone, but I usually think things through before writing them.

 

[Paladin]

Boys--No problem, I have a very thick skin and have taken no offense to anything. I'm actually an avid shooter/collector of handguns and have many friends in the firearms community. You can only guess what kinds of discussion we have. We respect each other (I'm sort of the black sheep of the crowd, of course). I give as good as I get and don't back down from any man. But at the end of the day, we appreciate each other and our spirited exchanges and remain friends.

And as you say, that's the sign of a TRUE gentleman's club

PS--I don't want to leave this thread without explanation for the term "Taliban Wing of the Republican Party".....The Taliban in Afghanistan were a fanatical, fundamentalist religious group of extremists ruling as an absolutist minority without tolerance for dissent or diversity. The current incarnation of the Republican Party is dominated by a fanatical, fundamentalist evangelical group of extremists without tolerance for dissent or diversity. Bush came to power with a minority of the popular vote as a result of a disputed election. This is not your father's Republican Party. It has become exclusively ideological rather than policy-based, just as their Afghan counterparts. That is the reason why so many of their followers tolerate their inability to manage the mechanisms of government successfully, their rule without being inclusive of those outside the party and their absolutism without consideration of alternative options. As long as the followers' ideology is espoused, there is tolerance for failure of policy and the sacrifice of fiscal responsiblity.

Both major parties in the American political scene have historically been parties of policy. That's why there have always been liberal, moderate and conservative wings of both parties and efforts have always been to make government work, no matter who held power in what branch. The other party was always "the opposition" (not "the enemy", as it is now) and the debate was about policy--and the compromise between them was always so that the greater good of the citizenry was served. The"Taliban Wing" of the GOP has led an extremist and absolutist ideological conversion of the party. As I said, this is not your father's Republican Party. There would be no place today for Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefellar or even Robert Taft. They have been replaced by the likes of Tom DeLay, Sam Brownback, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum.

Sorry for the length of the explanation, but there you have it.