• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you have a positive or negative view of MICHAEL MOORE and WHY...

Do you have a positive or negative view of Michael Moore?

  • Positive

    Votes: 15 33.3%
  • Negative

    Votes: 30 66.7%

  • Total voters
    45
Through the many interviews I've seen of him, he has made it clear to me that he is pro-Socialism in America. But at the same time his documentaries can make people aware of failing policies in this country. I wish he did it in a less bias and less misleading way though. I have to say negative.
 
With what you say here, you are no better than what you accuse Moore of. Propaganda.

So, you think free speech and societal criticism is the same thing as killing Jews and Cambodians?

Hyperbolic, much?

Sorry that I proved Mike Godwin correct. But my assertion still remains credible. Moore has no problem with socialism and therefore has no problem with totalitarian regimes. In my mind, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Pol Pot were all evil. I've had debates with people who thought one should be considered "more evil" than the other, but I find tha debate pointless. This debate has a point, and it deals with the concept of socialism. Socialism is no longer considered a "dirty" political word. It is now acceptable, even preferable, that American politicians take on the mantel of European socialism.

And is it propaganda to point out the truth about Moore and Chomsky? Does anyone forget that Chomsky denied the killing fields were taking place, despite the massive evidence to the contrary? Moore is to Cuba what Chomsky is to Cambodia.
 
These things that you say, Elijah, do you have any proof, other than right-wing hate sites.
And I have seen these - disgusting!

I don't consider myself "right-wing" and I do not browse right-wing sites.

I don't even recognize a right wing of sorts.

My proof is in the documentary. Moore shows us, himself, what's it like to be sick in Cuba, and implying how superior their system is to ours (completely neglecting the reality of the situation).
 
I have a mixed to slightly positive opinion of Moore. I like that he confronts problems most people would rather ignore. Roger and Me is a good example of this. But I think his conclusions are based on a lot of faulty assumptions and bad analysis, for example his thesis that "capitalism is evil."

I will give him one thing. He and the right wing share many of the same misconceptions about what capitalism is. Given those misconceptions, capitalism would be evil, and it would be pretty despicable to defend it. If only for that reason, he's a better man than Limbaugh.
 
And again, you're lying. He is a socialist just as most citizens of Norway are Socialist. Unless you think Scandinavian nations are dictatorships and their people are horribly oppressed. If you do, then I suppose your views are consistent.

Otherwise, you're doing as much lying and propagandizing as you accuse Moore of doing.

If anything, Moore is guilty of overstating his case through non-typical examples.

You're doing the exact same thing by comparing the defense of work to dictators who slaughtered millions.

Your comparison is inaccurate; it shows that you are completely hyperbolic; prone to exaggeration; and base your views not on facts, but on the things you've read and heard in right-wing media (which is just as bad as anything Moore has done - but worse, because they have daily audiences who actually believe them as opposed to approximately bi-annual bursts of popularity).

Oh, and neutral should have been a choice in your poll; but that's further evidence of your black and white thinking.

I believe citizens of Norway consider themselves "Democratic Socialists" or "Socialist Democrats." Either way, I believe their foundation is based on Marxist-Leninist belief systems. Btw, I did not specifically reference dictatorships. I mentioned totalitarianism, which is slightly different.
 
Sorry that I proved Mike Godwin correct. But my assertion still remains credible. Moore has no problem with socialism and therefore has no problem with totalitarian regimes. In my mind, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Pol Pot were all evil. I've had debates with people who thought one should be considered "more evil" than the other, but I find tha debate pointless. This debate has a point, and it deals with the concept of socialism. Socialism is no longer considered a "dirty" political word. It is now acceptable, even preferable, that American politicians take on the mantel of European socialism.

And is it propaganda to point out the truth about Moore and Chomsky? Does anyone forget that Chomsky denied the killing fields were taking place, despite the massive evidence to the contrary? Moore is to Cuba what Chomsky is to Cambodia.

Chomsky never denied what happened in Cambodia. As for Moore, what has he denied about Cuba?
 
I have a mixed to slightly positive opinion of Moore. I like that he confronts problems most people would rather ignore. Roger and Me is a good example of this. But I think his conclusions are based on a lot of faulty assumptions and bad analysis, for example his thesis that "capitalism is evil."

I will give him one thing. He and the right wing share many of the same misconceptions about what capitalism is. Given those misconceptions, capitalism would be evil, and it would be pretty despicable to defend it. If only for that reason, he's a better man than Limbaugh.

I would have to agree.
 
I believe citizens of Norway consider themselves "Democratic Socialists" or "Socialist Democrats." Either way, I believe their foundation is based on Marxist-Leninist belief systems. Btw, I did not specifically reference dictatorships. I mentioned totalitarianism, which is slightly different.

Prove to me where Moore supports totalitarianism. You assert it without actual evidence and instead with a leap of logic that doesn't pass muster. That technique is very similar to right-wing goofball websites. Thus the accusation that you are quoting them.

You base your assertion without providing a fact behind it. He supports socialism, therefore he supports totalitarianism. Wrong. You could have just as easily said: he supports socialism, therefore he supports democratic socialism, such as in France, Norway, or other nations whose systems he has expressed a liking for.

You didn't do that. You created a logical fallacy, failed to provide a fact to back your assertion or belief, and are therefore even more guilty of Moore of propaganda.

To dislike him is one thing (and utterly fair) - to say he supports Hitler and Pol Pot is utterly useless hyperbole.
 
Fat.
Greedy.
Dishonest.
Socialist (redundant, see first three terms)

Nothing more needs saying.
 
I wouldn't piss on that tinfoil-hat wearing liar if he was on fire. Throw gasoline, maybe...
 
Some people put their opinions in the newspaper; Moore is an entrepreneur who puts his in film and people pay to watch. To say it's total propaganda is inaccurate, but much of it in just his opinion. He is a brilliant film maker who needs to go on a diet.

I think he looks cute chubby:) I love the man.
 
he's a sensationalist dickhead that needs to be drowned in a pool of hungry crocodiles :)
 
I enjoy watching some of his stuff for entertainment value but for th most part he's uninformed.
So for all intents and purposes I voted negative.
 
he's a sensationalist dickhead that needs to be drowned in a pool of hungry crocodiles :)

(so how did you vote in the poll? just curious....:2razz: )


.
 
He contributes little to nothing in originality with regard to politics, behaves like a five year old on a temper tantrum with a beard, and has contributed to the stain of the documentary genre.
 
Michael Moore is worse than Glenn Beck. I hold a negative view of Moore.
 
He's either dishonest or a ****in' dumbass, and he's a hard lefty besides.
 
I like Moore's films, they're extremely well done. The propaganda point is kind of overblown... but mostly, comparing all propaganda to Nazi propaganda is dumb. The United States also produced propaganda... Dr. Seuss drew American propaganda in the early 1940s. You never hear somebody say: Michael Moore's films are propaganda. You know who else produced great propaganda? DR. SEUSS! Moore's best films examine an issue in an interesting manner and offer a heaping dose of pathos that sometimes simplifies aspects of the issue to the point where they are misrepresented. But in films like Roger and Me, it's done so for the purpose of being entertaining and not to be dishonest.

Well, I don't appreciate Limbaugh anymore than I appreciate Moore. I think both are somewhat conspiracy theorists. I have a larger problem with Moore because his entertainment leads to people making drastic mistakes at the voting booths. Limbaugh advances a chauvinistic form of radical capitalism while Moore advances the sacrifice of individual rights over collective control. As I said earlier: totalitarianism.

I think that's ridiculous. Do you really not understand the difference between socialism and fascism?
 
Last edited:
I like Moore's films, they're extremely well done. The propaganda point is kind of overblown... but mostly, comparing all propaganda to Nazi propaganda is dumb. The United States also produced propaganda... Dr. Seuss drew American propaganda in the early 1940s. You never hear somebody say: Michael Moore's films are propaganda. You know who else produced great propaganda? DR. SEUSS! Moore's best films examine an issue in an interesting manner and offer a heaping dose of pathos that sometimes simplifies aspects of the issue to the point where they are misrepresented. But in films like Roger and Me, it's done so for the purpose of being entertaining and not to be dishonest.

Don't you know? It's not propaganda if it supports his point of view.

I think that's ridiculous. Do you really not understand the difference between socialism and fascism?

Probably not, but that never stopped anybody else.
 
He fictionalizes and fabricates while manipulating information and calls it a "documentary". That and he's a hypocrite and has been one for quite a while. Frankly, I can't think of anyone with some semblance of consciousness or great, to have a positive view of the blob.

040518_moore_target.jpg
 
He fictionalizes and fabricates while manipulating information and calls it a "documentary". That and he's a hypocrite and has been one for quite a while. Frankly, I can't think of anyone with some semblance of consciousness or great, to have a positive view of the blob.

040518_moore_target.jpg

It's dumb to criticize someone for manipulating information - especially on this board where EVERYONE of us manipulate information for our political purposes.

The idiotic thing is that people here are threatening violence over free speech and comparing him to brutal dictators who have killed millions of people.

If douchebaggery over politics is the same as murder, then every tear Glenn Beck sheds kills at least 20,000,000 people.

And I've seen more threats of violence from people on this board than I've ever heard from Michael Moore. Thus, I wonder who is closer to a brutal dictator. Someone who exaggerates in his documentaries or someone who would threaten to kill someone because of their political beliefs?

You decide especially the next time you post images about shooting people or want to drown someone in a pool of crocodiles.

___

And by the way, I hadn't voted until now. And I went positive (I would have chosen neutral) because I hold him in much higher esteem now compared the people on this board who threaten to kill those they disagree with.
 
Last edited:
I don't really stand on one side of the fence or the other with Michael Moore. On one hand his documentaries can be somewhat entertaining. However, if one takes his movies as gospel they are seriously kidding themselves. They are heavily agenda driven and edited to be exactly that way. Plus, in every single one of his movies he does some big spectacle near the end in order to give one final push to his agenda...if you didn't already get what his agenda was in the first 3/4 of the movie. I think that these moments are completely absurd and only prove him to be an attention whore of the highest degree. I guess I could say that I agree with some of his message, but don't really like some of the methods that he uses to get that message across..and often it feels incredibly preachy. I think that Conservatives hate his guts in a similar fashion to how Liberals hate Glenn Beck. They are people who swear up and down that they are doing what is best for society, and I'm sure they even believe it through and through. However, they are really propaganda machines and very little more.
 
He's a moron and I have zero interest in him. This is the same view I have of Glenn Beck, for the record.
 
Back
Top Bottom