• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Michael Moore - liberator or slanderer

Is Michael Moore a Hero or a Hypocrite?

  • Noble Hero

    Votes: 31 30.4%
  • Malicious Traitor

    Votes: 16 15.7%
  • Greedy Self-Serving Hypocrite

    Votes: 55 53.9%

  • Total voters
    102
guns_God_glory said:
Michael is a self serving pig. The uglieness about his films are that he is the editor. He edits out everything he disagrees with leaving you only his side of the story. HMMMM, what is this called? Oh, i know. PROPAGANDA


I agree he is self serving but anyone he supports loses so ....

Go Mikey!
Thanks for all the help for the Republican party.
 
I believe that it was Ben Laden's speech 4 days before the election that triggered the winner, remember how tight it was, it all came down to those people thinking: " Well, I hate Bush, but Ben Laden supports Kerry, and Laden commanded the bombing of the World Trade Centres in 2001, hmm, so if Laden supports Kerry and Laden contributed to 9/11 then Kerry must be one of those people who supports the events of 9/11, so hmmm, I could always vote for Nader, wait...he's not on the ballot, okay, I'll vote Bush. "

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen!
 
Soviet_Guy said:
I believe that it was Ben Laden's speech 4 days before the election that triggered the winner, remember how tight it was, it all came down to those people thinking: " Well, I hate Bush, but Ben Laden supports Kerry, and Laden commanded the bombing of the World Trade Centres in 2001, hmm, so if Laden supports Kerry and Laden contributed to 9/11 then Kerry must be one of those people who supports the events of 9/11, so hmmm, I could always vote for Nader, wait...he's not on the ballot, okay, I'll vote Bush. "

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen!

The reason Kerry lost was because of firsts falsely accusing Bush Jr. of deserting the U.S. military. This was made into such a big deal and then when the documents were found to be false it really discredited Kerry. Another reason was that he kept saying he would get us out of here in 6 months. That is so ridiculous it is not even funny. Then Mike decides to do the film. Then when all the lies and half truths came out the undecided voters were so fed up with being lied to by the left they voted right.
 
guns_God_glory said:
Michael is a self serving pig. The uglieness about his films are that he is the editor. He edits out everything he disagrees with leaving you only his side of the story. HMMMM, what is this called? Oh, i know. PROPAGANDA

I don't understand why Michael Moore is called a self-serving pig. Yes, he has manipulated and edited his movies to fit a certain agenda. But, wasn't that the point? Calling him a self-serving pig is like saying he had an alterior motive of getting George W. out of office, when in fact...that WAS the motive. He wasn't trying to hide that. He wanted Bush Jr. out of the white house. It's not like he was trying to get himself elected president. I think it's obvious that Moore is doing what he feels is the right thing to do, unfortunately he is misguided on how he goes about doing that.
 
" The reason Kerry lost was because of firsts falsely accusing Bush Jr. of deserting the U.S. military. This was made into such a big deal and then when the documents were found to be false it really discredited Kerry. Another reason was that he kept saying he would get us out of here in 6 months. That is so ridiculous it is not even funny. Then Mike decides to do the film. Then when all the lies and half truths came out the undecided voters were so fed up with being lied to by the left they voted right."

And what about Bush's lies? Has anyone found WMD in Iraq? Did someone realize that in fact there wasn't any? And what about the Sadam/Al Qaeda link? All these were also lies...
So why a liar instead of another one?
 
I'm deliberately making a blanket statement that I believe to be true in every sense of the word. People that think Michael Moores films are self-serving, are lying to themselves and are afraid of the truth.
 
Last edited:
Michael Moore, All American

I saw Fahrenheit, and I don't know what all the hubbub is about.

Farce is funny due to the closeness of the subject matter to the perception of reality, but draws more on stereotypes than actual facts - facts are rarely funny.
 
Noble Hero

Anyone who makes people think about politics and history is a Noble Hero in my book

even El Rush Bo !
 
Anyone who makes people think about politics and history is a Noble Hero in my book

even El Rush Bo !


Maybe. However, politics is the business of persuasion; farce and fact may be intertwined under the guise of artistic freedom to express the artist's perception, and to influence the observer to experience that perception.

Josef Gobbel, the minister of propoganda in Nazi Germany, persuaded a well-educated society into committing atrocities by concealing a lie within several truths. Most people do not understand fallacies or how to detect them (especially in the blue states!) but Michael Moore built the foundation of Fahrenheit on many truths, then sprinkled it with questionable . . . questions. Leading questions. "Was George Bush aware of . . . on 9/11? Hmm, I wonder. . . "

It is a classic propoganda piece as well done as the Soviet movies showing images of race riots intertwined with children playing with hoola-hoops. There is a well done piece showing a man's face, then a flower, then a child, then a casket, then his face again, and although the man's face never changed expression, people were amazed at his sad and moving performance.

It's the context in which the artist reveals his perception that can mislead the observer into a false frame of thought.
 
There is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat. Yes, there have been horrific acts, of terrorism and yes there will be horrific acts again. But that does not mean that there’s some massive terrorist threat.” - Said by Michael Moore at The Power Center in Michigan during the book release for “Dude, Where’s My Country?

"I wonder how people in London feel about that statement this morning?
 
"I know how to get rid of suicide bombers. Let's just give some bombs to the Palistines and let them and the Isrealies go at it"-Micheal Moore

I wish comeplete idiot was an option.
 
Farce is funny due to the closeness of the subject matter to the perception of reality, but draws more on stereotypes than actual facts - facts are rarely funny.
How is film footage of interviews of GI's in Iraq a farce. You hear it from there own words. Where's the farce. Watching Bush do nothing as planes were slamming into the Trade Centers is not a farce. That's what he was doing at that moment. Oh, my mistake, he was doing something, reading a book to 1st graders.
 
Last edited:
but I can't respect a propagandist.
I can accept you don't like Moore if that's the way you feel. But be careful using labels as the only evidence for authenticity. Because by your definition, I can make the same case for Bush hyping up the Sadaam threat to justify war. That's propaganda too.
 
Last edited:
What did he lie about?
 
Last edited:
What did he omit?
 
Last edited:
How about anything about what Saddam Hussein did as a leader. He presented Hussein as if he was a good guy
Look, pointing to this is the worst arguement you could possibly use. Because, 20 years ago, he was still the same Sadaam Hussein. Only then, we considered him an ally. We armed him. And if you want to point to him gassing the Kurds, two things: 1. Where do you think he got the chemicals to make the gas. Not too many country's have access to that kind of stuff. 2. There is some evidence that he might not have done it at all. That the gassings were done by the Iranians during there war near the border.
 
Last edited:
There's more, I just haven't seen the movie in about 7 or 8 months cause watching it makes my blood boil.
Do you know what makes my blood boil? Is watching Bush do nothing AFTER he was told we were under attack. Someone had to come in and tell him that he had to go! This Leader didn't do anything until someone told him too.
 
Last edited:
Don't feel sorry for me. I just don't see the movie that way. For me, I didn't see any propaganda. But, I certainly do not have a problem if you did.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
Do you know what makes my blood boil? Is watching Bush do nothing AFTER he was told we were under attack. Someone had to come in and tell him that he had to go! This Leader didn't do anything until someone told him too.


The Leader was also in a school, reading books to children. I can understand him hesitating. Think about it. He suddenly gets up, rushes out of the building... you think the kids wouldn't have been spooked? My kids came home from school scared to death on 9/11 because the schools ran drills putting them under their desks, covering their heads, and they had no clue WHY. Cut the man some slack. He may not be altogether brilliant... but THAT was what he needed to do at that particular moment.

I'm sure he was told to go... AFTER school administration was alerted to the attacks, and AFTER school administration had set together their own plans for children so Bush could leave as orderly as possible.
 
but THAT was what he needed to do at that particular moment.
..."Huh, Mr. President, the country is under attack"...."I heard you the first time....where was I...oh yes....now Benny went over to the bear...

I could cut him some slack if you think all these attacks against Clinton are getting a little ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Billo Really

I could cut him some slack if you think all these attacks against Clinton are getting a little ridiculous.

slobber...whimper...slobber...whimper...slobber...whimper...WHAAAAAAAA!

So let me get this straight....you attack GWB as a revenge factor for those who attack Clinton...Brilliant!
 
Moore is duplicitous bastard and if your are so blinded by your animoisty and vitriol for the president then I feel sorry for you. I don't like the republican platform in this country(that goes for democrats as well) but he is the leader, and I respect that.

I wonder how many people actually watched Fahrenhiet 9/11 and FahrenHYPE 9/11. I did this so I could remain objective. Both are propaganda, and I feel the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have researched at length over the internet to find what Moore was being truthful or lying about. There's a handful of independent studies out there that tell you exactly that. It's been proven that he used 57 flatout falsehoods, deciets and lies.

Take for instance Moore's claim that UNOCAL, under this adminstration, had plans to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan (once again trying to prove WAR = OIL), when he conveniently omits this essential deatil--the plan was underway during Clinton's administration. I don't appreciate being lied to in a so called "documentary." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a documentary to inform the viewer of facts and give an objective non-biased assessment of the subject matter at hand? Moore's film is full of fallacies, and worse yet, he's condescending enough to expect the viewer to rely on speculation and conjecture rather than prove his point with actual substantial facts.
 
SixStringHero said:
I wonder how many people actually watched Fahrenhiet 9/11 and FahrenHYPE 9/11. I did this so I could remain objective. Both are propaganda, and I feel the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I watched them both and was equally upset after each. More so after FahrenHYPE 9/11 - Celsius 41.11 is even better.

But, I have to agree that they are all propaganda.
 
Celsius 41.11 was better.
 
SixStringHero wrote...

I don't appreciate being lied to in a so called "documentary." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a documentary to inform the viewer of facts and give an objective non-biased assessment of the subject matter at hand?

That point has been bothering me since "Columbine"...

The point of a documentary is to follow a path and see what the destination will be...

Moore's perception is to already know what the destination is and to build the road in order to get to that pre-conceived destination...

It's like he's saying, "This square peg doesn't fit into this round hole...where's my hammer?"
 
Back
Top Bottom