Letter to Bush from Micheal Moore

[deranger]

uh-huh.....he hates black people too. His daughter goes to private school and he eats babies. He's an alcoholic drug dealing pedophile who can only get it up if there are little girls around. He hates poor people and Latinos too. He's written extensively about his agenda and political aspirations. He's starting his own religion called "The Retarded Massess are my Slaves" He defrauds old people from their pensions and starts wars. He also hates Muslims.

[Jaimoe]

I can't look at Michael Moore as some kind of film-making saint. He is an entertainer and opportunist, and he is an excellent self-promoter ( on par with Oprah ), one that knows how to manipulate specific media forms.

I agree with alot of what Moore produces, but not everything.

[Guest Low Roller]

Normally I support everything anti-Bush, but I think that Moore is a terrible spokesperson for the movement due to his lack of professionalism, his smug "I told you so" attitude, and overall despicable presentation. He is no leader of men. He's just some fat slob with a bug up his ass.

Regardless of Republican, Democrat, white, black, straight, or gay, I will openly criticize anyone who does not lift a finger to help in some way the people of New Orleans.

[dogatthestation]

Thanks for paraphasing for me, because yeah that is exactly what I am saying.

Edited September 2, 2005 by Guest
for not being able to keep up

[deranger]

I haven't helped the people of New Orleans. I haven't even been to New Orleans. What the fu$k did they do for me when I was in the Ice Storm? Send generators?

His "I told you so attitude"? Man he sure had lots of that after Bush lost the election...whew, we couldn't that guy to shut up from saying I told you so!

[Guest Low Roller]

Deranger also has a bug up his ass apparently.

[color:purple]Es tu Moore?

[ge-off]

Regardless of Republican, Democrat, white, black, straight, or gay, I will openly criticize anyone who does not lift a finger to help in some way the people of New Orleans.

and i applaud you for that fact..

if this letter has done nothing more then to have people like us or other talking about this issue.

then he has accomplished his mission..

he USES his position as a film maker to get his voice and opinions out to the masses..

and if some people agree with his view.. so be it..

if some dont agree so be it aswell..

but bottom line is that he is a FILM MAKER not a politician..

the POLITICIAN are the ones to be held accountable not the film makers documenting the politicians..

which is the greater evil???

film maker with a voice or president with power..

personally the president gets my vote

[deranger]

No, its a genital wart. But I've always been amazed by the amount of invective that Moore can generate. I find most of the criticisms towards him funny. (thus my response to dogatthestation)

here's a question for the Moore detractors:

Who would make a better President of the United States, Moore or Bush?

or replace 'President' with "leader of large group of people"

and no I don't want Moore for leader of anything...and no I don't already have an answer at the ready, I'm just curious about how the two might compare....since Moore is such an obvious opportunist while Bush is far more credible in his intentions.

Edited September 2, 2005 by Guest

[Birdy]

i think anyone can sit on a couch and say that the inaction of GW to the situation on the gulf coast is despicable-- that's easy... when you're sitting on a couch. when it all changes is when you're the one who is faced with the decisions that are to be made, and you're suddenly the man of the hour and all yeses or nos are going to be ridiculed and torn up by all of the political whinos out there, who are nothing but political whinos. they will never amount to be the decision makers because they're too busy barking into megaphones twisting contexts out of control. Forget making a real difference. all they are in effect doing is stirring up debate in chatrooms such as this one. What good is this exact conversation doing for the people in New Orleans? NOTHING.

Michael Moore may be a film maker but he is a shitty one at that. He manipulates the truth to feed his message to a people who feel politically robbed by their current government. Instead of celebrating his crap films, celebrate the work of the real film makers out there, Scorcese, Tarantino, Kubrick, Spielberg. Michael Moore does nothing else but create a generation of political whinos such as himself. Again, debate may be good, but debate is nothing but debate. Judge a man by his actions and not his words.

so in the long run, when push comes to shove, if GW is as ineffective as mr. moore is making him out to be, it will all come around. it always comes around. karma baby. gets you in the end...

in the meantime natural disasters are going to happen, wars are going to be fought, people are going to starve to death... it's been happening since the days of Zeus, what makes you think George Bush has the power to stop it?

so i guess what it boils down to is being objective, not reeling off of media frenzy which is so damn easy to reel off of. thinking for yourself and forming your own opinion.

as for political agendas.. you don't have to be employed by the state to have one. i'm a small town girl from blenheim ontario living day to day.. i've got one... so do you. so does anyone who remotely cares about the future. you have to.

[reba]

he, ge-offf.... everybody is talking about new orleans. everybody. no one needed to have michael moore enlighten us on how shitty the whole thing is. but now he simply has us talking about new orleans AND him. he is included in THE big hot button issue. that is how he manages to turn an important issue into a chance to promote himself and insure that he continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars from his "documentaries" (obviously, i can't stomach that term when referring to the tabloid version of political opinion that he produces....but i don't know what else to call them)

[Guest Low Roller]

I was talking with one of my commissioning engineers that's based out of Florida. He was driving down the highway towards Orlando, and he said that he passed an 8 mile long convoy of armoured cars and all-personel carriers headed west. I questioned him about the response time for this disaster and his words were "the scale of this is so huge that it's probably best that they (the feds) stepped back and assessed the situation fully, prepared a plan, and then sent in the troops."

I hope he's right because as much as I want to see Bush go down in flames, I won't hope for more death and despair in New Orleans in order for that to come true.

[Birdy]

very true.. and rightly so they should step back and assess the situation... look at what happened when they jumped the gun and told everyone to rush into the superdome! YIKES!

[guigsy]

uggh...

ok, debate is only debate and nothing more? so, in other words, whats the point of talking about anything, we should all shut up and let things happen as they may, because words are only words and, well, words dont make things happen, people do.... waitasec... what if people never hear those words?

another thing, and im fully prepared to be flamed, and absolutely dont care... a couple people have made comments of him being an opportunist, 100 million dollars here, filmmaker bullshit there, blah blah blah... fine, you're entitled to your opinion, so please understand that this is not a personal attack, but this is my opnion... i say this: GREAT!!! if he makes a 100 million dollars off a film, that tells me that a fuckload of people saw that film. that tells me a fuckload of people saw something that needed to be seen. that tells me a fuckload of people are going to talk about it, and hopefully a portion of those people will do something about it. and no, it doesnt have to be on some large grandiose scale that changes everything instantly... patience.. time... etc etc.. if thats the case, if he can make a film and make a hundred million dollars from it and make that many people even consider the situation, then i say the left needs more like him. communication, friends.

also, as far as talking about the situation AND him goes... well, who's fault is that? you can choose to talk about the situation, or you can choose to talk about why michael moore is a fuckwad for talking about the situation. but he's talking about the situation.

[reba]

that sounds like a familiar situation you're describing. the situation of george bush taking the opportunity of a national disaster (9/11) to turn people into a hoard of revenge-seekers, justifying the invasion of iraq. george bush and michael moore could have been school mates judging from the similarity of their tactics. if someone was using these tactics with a right wing political agenda, would you applaud it? bill o’reilly comes to mind and i'd assume that not many who applaud michael moore's tactics, praise bill o'reilly's. there is little difference in their inflamitory styles.

Edited September 2, 2005 by Guest

[guigsy]

well, you've almost just about said what im sorta getting at... personally, i dont really care that much how the message gets out there, so long as it does. sure, there is a part of me that wishes we had as many prominent left wing nutjobs as we do right wing nutjobs... yes there is a part of me that has that fight fire with fire instinct. i see how their tactics have worked to getting their word out and swaying opinion, so why not? its simple math that the left needs more support or you're in for a long line of successful right winging... if louder works, i say get louder.

[dogatthestation]

So then you don't have any objections to GW actions it is simply that his agenda is not your agenda and therefore he is flat out wrong?

When we don't care how our agenda's get carried out but simply that they get carried out don't we just empower people like GW on both sides to rise up and seize power. Personally I don't see how that makes anything better.

[guigsy]

i actually wasnt talking about GW, but since you brought it up, just because his agenda is not my agenda, that does not make his agenda flat out wrong, no. but i dont agree with, well, just about anything he does and i recognize that that doesnt make me flat out right, either... yes, i am aware of that.

in talking about the carrying out of the agenda, this whole thing was sparked by "tone" and "sarcasm" - not murder for profit. there's a huge difference in how these 2 men carry out their agendas. im sorry, i dont have much of a problem with tone or sarcasm... obviously some of you do, and thats fine - we're different human beings.

[dogatthestation]

Come now the tone and sarcasm comment was made when this was a different debate. The fact is Michael Moore uses dishonest means to promote an agenda, he capitalizes on the opportunities that arise and uses peoples fears in order to push his agenda. Obviously it is not on the same scale as what George Bush is doing but then he doesn't have the same power behind him backing his play. And Micheal Moore has no problem profiting on the death of others. The way he exploited that grieving mother in f911 was brilliant.

[guigsy]

ok. if this is a different debate, than im not sure what we're talking about anymore.. i thought we were talking about michael moore's tactics. at any rate, you've made your points, i've made mine, and clearly we're not together on this one. im not really interested in going back and forth on it anymore.

[Lazlo]

Don't stop now. I was just about to crown one of you princess.

[bald guy in a blanket]

Hey,

This thread went apeshit.

Cool.

If Mr Moore were truly a self serving opourtunist as people seem to believe...why did he never attack Clinton (or really even Bush the 1st)?

He's been making movies and TV since the 80's. I bet he could have done a great movie called "The Intern"--picture this:

A bent leg in suit pants fills the top of the frame; a cigar dangles down; from underneath the knee we see a big haired, chubby intern in a blue dress; she looks up, doe-eyed and says "Why Mr. President, are you trying to seduce me?"

I bet he would have made a fortune. I wonder why he didn't?

Could it be that he has the conviction of his beliefs?

With the US going crazy with frivolous, let alone actual, lawsuits how does Mr. Moore manage to pay all the punitive settlements against him for libel and defamation?

Could it be that there's never been any?

If the mainstream media (NBC and CNN at least) routinely portray him as an extremist nut ( they did as recently as last week while talking to Cindy Sheehan), how has maintained a career as a documentary filmmaker for 25 years?

Could it be that no one thought he was crazy till he went after the President guarded by the most skilled opinion manipulator ever hatched from a demon's eggs, Karl Rove?

They went and moved the debate, guys.

It's fucking genius. Read back over the passion spewed about this hilariously demure man.

This wasn't a debate--venom was spilled. They made Moore into a process story--it's incredible (also, a bit evil).

Have the haters here seen "Roger & Me" or "The Big One"; watched an episode of TV nation or "The Awful Truth"?

Bowling for Columbine may have seemed exploitive because he told truth to a decomposing old man (who had the nerve to imply that people of colour were responsible for the gun violence issue)...but where else?

Nobody thought he was crazy until his last film.

I wonder what happened?

The debate about Moore is a diversion.

Now we should be asking why we've been diverted.

Jef

P.S.-If that mother was exploited why did she attend the film’s premiere with Mr. Moore? Where’s the tell-all book?

P.P.S.- Does anyone know what the last big public thing Mr. Moore did? I do.

He forfeited a chance to win another Academy Award (I hear that helps you make money) in an attempt to get his most recent film on TV (with no payment to him I might add) before last November…you’re all right…he is crazy.

[Jaimoe]

Hey Jef with one f,

I think to some extent, there hasn't been any defamation cases against Moore because there's always been some or enough truth in his arguements.

I'm not really sure why Moore never really attacked Bush I when he was in power. Maybe Moore had other social " obsessions " that he found more important to explore at that time.

[Birdy]

we we're talking about moore's tactics.. things kinda got warped.

i agree with you guigsly in that the topic which he presents is one that needs to be addressed by our governments. that much i can stomach; however, where my tides turn is how he exploits given situations, ie. columbine and the tragedy of such situations, then fully and intentionally manipulates the truth of these situations, and presents it to the public in such a medium that makes young kids think 'oh he's so cool, oh he's so right', ie. the blockbuster film industry. he's capitalizing off of a sheer manipulation of actual events, filming them as a challenge to government institutions, when in fact it's pure bullshit. that's what gets me... the man lies! the man is a capitalist pig who disguises himself as a liberal crusader, and almost noone can see that! Good for him for making 100 million bucks! All that guy does is point fingers at who knows who, telling the whole world how they took advantage of some poor schmuck to make their money, but lo and behold, look at the pot himself!Michael Moore took advantage of every single moving goer out there to make his few million! Hypocrite!

Kudos was given to Michaeal Moore because he creates awareness with what he does, his films, his writing etc. Why then, since the original post in this forum was a letter written by him attacking GW, are we not debating the right wing lunacy running rampant in the United States? Why are we sitting here debating the left wing lunacy that is Michael Moore?

[Birdy]

propaganda's everywhere... even on jambands.

the all seeing eye.. keep those machines rolling boys! a big THUMBS UP!

[bald guy in a blanket]

Hey,

That was my point too Birdy...

I think the answer is in this...

(Not that I want to continue this story but...)

Could someone make a list of his "lies"?

The things that he said or presented that are factually wrong.

No one called him a liar 'til he went after Bush.

What did he lie about?

We are having this discussion because we're meant to by forces that are more manipulative than most could even imagine.

Jef