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?
These things that you say, Elijah, do you have any proof, other than right-wing hate sites.
And I have seen these - disgusting!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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: )
.
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 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.
I think that's ridiculous. Do you really not understand the difference between socialism and fascism?
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.
What is your overall opinion of Michael Moore, his work, and why?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?