BF2S Forums Who here actually takes Micheal Moore seriously?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

madmurre wrote:

As said Bowling for Columbine is a great documentary, And why should´nt you respect the guy at least he got some balls to speak up bs or not. besides he made more money than most of us can dream about i like him

And the  stupidest comment of the day award goes to...

Cheers

Michael Moore should be regarded as a left wing equivalent to the likes of FOX news, if you watched his documentary and a FOX equivalent you could find the truth lurking somewhere in between.

deadmonkiefart wrote:

Bill O' Reilly is just obsessed with portraying the image of the reasonable, moderate referee.  He doesn't stand up enough for what he believes in because he thinks that the answer to everything is compromise.  He usually makes sure too balance things out so that he doesn't look like he is picking sides.

WHAT!? Are you talking about the same Bill O' Reilly I'm thinking of? Reasonable and moderate are not words I'd use to describe that cock knocker. O' Reilly is a show boater who thinks his own opinions qualify as news, he would never find employment on BBC news, RTÉ news, Euronews or any respectable news network. As for not picking sides, why does he keep giving France and French things such a hard time (one example of sitting very much on one side of a fence)? That's hardly maintaining a neutral position on an issue. And cutting a mic on someone when they bring up facts that present too strong an argument to your point of view is not typical of someone who likes to maintain balance in a debate.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

No bias on the BBC . . .

Nowhere near as much as on certain other news stations anyway.

americans don´t like criticism? huh?

usmarine2005 wrote:

Moore is a fucking idiot, and those of you who buy his shit need help.  In his new movie, he says something like Cuba has the lowest amount of still born babies or something like that right?  Yet he fails to mention they have one of the highest abortion rates and a fairly low fertility rate. 

Now I am not that good at math, but even I can solve that equation.

He's as bad as FOX news but in the opposite direction.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

He's as bad as FOX news but in the opposite direction.

..or BBC is the same direction.

I'm afraid the BBC is nowhere near as biased (in any direction) as FOX news. I studied semiotics as part of a degree in visual communication and have read theses on the subject of FOX news' techniques and semiotics, contrasted with the techniques and semiotics of other news services. FOX is in a league of its own when it comes to putting its own agenda first.

Pinto wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Documentary or no documentary he presents facts does he not ?

No he does not

m3thod wrote:

I am only harbouring a guess as i would expect a spate of lawsuits if he went about slandering people and spouting false assertions...

I on the other hand am not guessing. No, he does not get sued ( and here lies the Fact of the matter ) He can not be sued, Because it is an OP ED not a factual documentary.

Had he made the claim “it’s a documentary “ been he would have had his ass handed to him because you cannot make up stories about people just to slander them.

This is what cost Alexander Hamilton his life in Jersey City.

m3thod wrote:

Is this a case of the truth hurts?

Its a case of you not having the facts and now you do.

+1 for perfectly correcting another simple minded fool.

People if you do any research behind Fahrenheit 9-11 and Bowling for Columbine, Moore carefully edits and takes a lot of "facts" out of context where they become false.  Regardless of his points, he does MORE damage due to lack of credibility.

Ya, i'm simple minded because i didn't know the background to MM work.

/writs

If there's one scene that I think best exemplifies how this guy makes his "documentaries", it's the part in fahrenheit 911 where he's talking about what you can and can't bring on an airplane and he shows this one clip where he's talkin to one of the ladies at the security station. It shows her saying that it's ok for him to bring a lighter and three packs of something (it was either matches or lighter fluid, I can't remember), but by the way she said it you could tell she was joking (she laughs when she says three is too many) and then he has the gall to present this obvious joke as a fact.

I mean how small of a conscience can you have to take a good-natured, and quite frankly funny, joke and warp it into a statement that could and probably did get that woman fired from her job. Granted I suppose she should have chosen her words more carefully takin into consideration the fact that she was talkin to micheal moore, but honestly who here would think that someone who comes up and tells you he's makin a DOCUMENTARY would use a joke as part of it?

Leatherneck2869 wrote:

If there's one scene that I think best exemplifies how this guy makes his "documentaries", it's the part in fahrenheit 911 where he's talking about what you can and can't bring on an airplane and he shows this one clip where he's talkin to one of the ladies at the security station. It shows her saying that it's ok for him to bring a lighter and three packs of something (it was either matches or lighter fluid, I can't remember), but by the way she said it you could tell she was joking (she laughs when she says three is too many) and then he has the gall to present this obvious joke as a fact.

I mean how small of a conscience can you have to take a good-natured, and quite frankly funny, joke and warp it into a statement that could and probably did get that woman fired from her job. Granted I suppose she should have chosen her words more carefully takin into consideration the fact that she was talkin to micheal moore, but honestly who here would think that someone who comes up and tells you he's makin a DOCUMENTARY would use a joke as part of it?

I thought it'd be common knowledge, by now, that "Michael Moore documentary" and "joke" are synonymous.

Last edited by geNius (2007-06-20 21:19:13)

Pug wrote:

But what I've read about Sicko is that it lacks a political bent.  It pretty much says the system sucks, and it's the fault of both parties.

I personally don't care how apolitical this movie is or isn't; I don't need to shell out $10 and sit in the dark for 2 hours to know that America has health care issues. I think that's obvious to everybody.

I thought Moore's career would have ended after his Oscar acceptance speech but he's back with a vengence, like athlete's foot. People are falling for this guy's horseshit again for the 3rd time in almost as many years. Please just stop paying attention to him and above all, don't give him any more of your money! If everybody just ignored him, he'll just fade away... I wish we could do the same thing with Al Gore.