On Moore being the new darling of the LeftFollow

I am pretty surprised that Slate published something like that. I am also surprised that Hitchens made some points, and then did not refute them.

But then again, Slate is owned/sponsored by Microsoft. Microsoft was a major sponsor of a meeting called ReBuilding Iraq in December 2003 about a "wide range of economic opportunities in Iraq." Meaning, a conference for businesses about how much money they can make in Iraq through governmental contracts.

Do you really think that Microsoft would publish a glowing review of a movie which points this out? If they did, it would be on par with any Fox news show giving this movie an objective review of its content.

Moore deffinately does have a political agenda, but as was said before, his films are very entertaining. If you wanna get some hardcore facts frfuting some of his claims, and their other sides, theres a website (i think it's called moorewatch.com?) which covers some of it.



Both sides need to open up their minds and seek the truth on things. And seeking the truth isn't just looking at the news from one side or the other, its from looking at hardcore facts.

And, now, for the other side of the story:

http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feature=1150

Very good article for thought provocation*

*WARNING! Righties will need to actually be willing to open their minds to the possibility that political columnists <gasp!> have a political agenda, rather than being interested in exposing the "truth".

Have you seen F9/11, Totem or are you just blindly following the guy who has the opinion you like most, much like I'm sure you assume the Left is doing?

"Well, it didn't take long. The partisan hacks were out for blood on Bowling For Columbine..."

Ooooookay. Now that we have cleared up the issue of whether or not that particular writer is objective in his reasoning.

What can we surmise from just that statement alone? Any response short of applause for Moore's work reduces those who have dissenting opinions as being partisan hacks. It apparently also gives a blank check to Moore regardless of what he says since this particular writer is prepared to defend him no matter what he publishes just on the basis of it coming from Moore.

If this is what passes for a reasoned rebutal, Jophiel, you're slipping-- something I can't say that I've seen from you in all the time I've been here. How much better then for you to just come out and say it: You are prepared to believe anything, defend anything in an effort to remove this particular president from office.

Totem

What's new? I made the statement I wouldn't see it without it being double billed by a Joseph Goebbel's film a week ago. However-- and I can understand your objections --the Slate piece at least puts on the thin veneer of being humorous, while Mr. Hollywoodbitchslap just gets all red in the face and blusters.

If nothing else it is a matter of comfort when dealing with the subject matter. It comes off like the difference between some slick **** ad for gay and lesbian rights featuring hot women making out and an angry, uncomfortable shoe wearing lesbian screaming in your face for you to be tolerant while you try to wipe the spittle that is punctuating her sentences off your nose. Both sides have an agenda, but one carries it off so much better.

Chris Parry has one thing going for him at least though. he claims to be Dutch...

Totem

What did I just say, Jo? Didn't I mention I went and saw the film? If this what passes for a "documentary" film, then I'd hate to see what Moore would produce if he were intent on making a straight-out political attack film.

The funny thing is, I believe I'm far more open to the idea of Bush having handled the situation poorly (among other issues) than I suspect you and others are in terms of being willing to accept the good things he has done. Just as your wholesale acceptance of this "documentary" is more telling of the blinders you wear than my reticence to unthinkingly accept Moore's position and* object to some of the content.

Totem

*edited for clarity

Edited, Mon Jun 28 10:53:20 2004 by Totem

You did. I missed your double post and scrolled past it the other times not knowing it was there.

Actually, I haven't commented on the film at all except to ask if you've seen it. You linked an article, I linked an article refuting your article and you brushed it off on the same basis on which the original was written: Because person A calls Person B a hack so it can't be objective.

I plan on seeing it this evening unless work kicks my ***. I'll let you know after I've viewed it.

Comparing him to Leni Riefenstahl gives him too much credit. Her movies were much better done, as propaganda films go. Moore is too present in his documentaries, if that makes sense.

Yes, it does. He is in love with his own image and intellect which makes him come across on film as being too clever by half. It has been a hallmark of his since his television show, TV Nation.

Totem

Yeah, well, Smash, being that you're the Michael Moore of this board, what you write is biased, politically charged, and factually unsound goes without saying.*

;)

Totem

*And good morning to you, sir!

I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic

Give me a break...

There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that.

This is just nit picking.

The only viable thing I've seen so far is the Plane in the air on 9/11.

That seems to be the only solid thing people are picking on.

Moore is merely pointing stuff out, biased as it is.
He is not suggesting any solution that I see... that's not his goal. His goal is to **** people off in any way he can to jolt some awarness into people of how much about things that they don't think about.

Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York?

These are moral questions.... not political. IMHO
They are trying to discredit him because his moral views apparently.

Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything

How much rhetoric can you pack in one article?

I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack.

Oh the Monster... Probably so he can participate in the slew of Word Games being thrown at him.
MOST of the bashing of his film that I have seen is bashing on Semantics.

How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another?
Indeed

and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

Once again.. I didn't notice any call for surrender.. or wahtever in this film.. I didn't see any solution presented at all... Just a Tale Told.

At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer.

IF HE BELIEVE'S WAHT HE IS SAYING... Why Would he TRY to be??? WHy WOuld he give ANY Lee-way?

is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing
War IS War. Is he accusing the Administration?? Yes, is he accusing Bush? Yes. Is he accusing the United States of America as a Whole NO.. most definatly not.. this article is thick with fluff.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia.
blah blah blah.. keep slinging...

LUNCH!!!!!!!

Wow, pickle is getting more and more angry with every passing day.