Michael Moore: War Profiteer

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri May 07, 2004 8:35 am

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... ory=518901

Some of you know I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore but for those that don't know I'll make that clear right here. I live in Columbine and his Bowling For Columbine was complete and utter propaganda that bore no resemblance to the area I live in. Anyway, Moore's next *schlockumentary* is called Fahrenheit 911 and is reported to be an equally poorly researched anti-Bush and anti-liberation film, timed to sway voters in the months prior to the November election. Disney has refused to distribute the film due to its predictably controversial subject matter based on Disney's longstanding desire not to sully it's family-oriented brand and appear to be endorsing a political stand. To make a long story short, Moore has been claiming CENSORSHIP! to anyone who will listen and saying Disney's decision not to distribute his film was due to pressure from Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, governor or Florida. Now, it seems, the BS is coming to light. Namely, that Moore has manufactured this *controversy* to attract attention to his film and he knew perfectly well for more than a year that Disney had no intention of distributing his trash. That said, Moore will have no trouble finding a distributor so the film will be released despite his *sky is falling* cries of CENSORSHIP.

Anyway, I hope more people now see this fool for the phoney hypocritical parasite that he is and not waste their money on his *films*.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 07, 2004 9:38 am

hahaha. i'll still watch and enjoy his film though.

get this... the anti-moore media campaign here tried to pass him off as a GUN NUT. seriously, lol. i wish i cutout and saved the attached caracature of him looking like yosamite sam.

i've still to see any of this anti-moore campaign be sucessful though. all i've heard from you guys is that some of his facts are poorly researched, which i can accept, but not write him off for.

i like him, he's mixin' it up.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri May 07, 2004 9:44 am

Of course you will. It feeds your anti-Americanism. Wouldn't want to upset that with nasty things like facts, would we?

But since you don't vote it doesn't really concern me if he manages to pull the wool over your eyes.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 07, 2004 10:25 am

australia is eerily similar to america in many issues moore tackles. we do have our own journalist activists. but i'm a multicultural consumer.

i can probabaly suggest that moore is doing the job ("journalist activist") better than you would.
i'm cranky and tired. so think about that ..uh... next time you're buying an icecream. zzzz -_-

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri May 07, 2004 10:45 am

Moore reminds me of that douche tabloid journalist from the movie Red Dragon. Too bad there isn't some readily available sadomasochistic serial killer around to bite off his tongue then set him ablaze

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri May 07, 2004 10:59 am

I liked bowling for columbine. this film will probably be just as enjoyable.

/me waits for bash to label me as anti-american.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri May 07, 2004 12:49 pm

i follow you everywhere bash....

I dont really know much about this guy..what is the new movie about? Bush's 911 failures??

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri May 07, 2004 1:04 pm

What failures would that be, Zuruck?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri May 07, 2004 1:38 pm

That he wasn't in the WTC when it went down

nah, his "alledged" failures...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 07, 2004 1:56 pm

roid wrote:all i've heard from you guys is that some of his facts are poorly researched,...

As long as "poorly researched" translates from australian to 'completely fabricated untruths and bald faced lies then presented as a factual documentary' in american english then, yea, we're on the same page.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 pm

Whether Moore's films are factual or not I found some of the general messages true--the media in america sells fear.

I think his films are more political comedy than anything else. Can't wait to see the next one. I wish Limbaugh would make a film too

Everyone in the media is a war profiteer. Tisk tisk bash, you should know that, in fact I know you do, but why pick moore as the war profiteer? There's plenty of people to choose from.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri May 07, 2004 2:54 pm

Why should the Feds and Cheneyburton be the only ones to make a buck off of the war? More power to him. This is still a capitalist state right?

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri May 07, 2004 2:55 pm

Cheneyburton. HA! Best "on target" one liner Ive seen in a while

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 07, 2004 3:08 pm

The only beef I have with him is I always believed a documentary is supposed to be a factual, non-fiction, non-partisan representation of events.
For Moore to hide his political propaganda among the factual content and call it a documentary is as dishonest as it comes.

If Limbaugh made a film with his usual spin and mixed in the truth, as he does daily on radio and then called it a documentary he would be tarred and feathered by the media. Since Moore represents the left he gets a totally different treatment.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri May 07, 2004 3:41 pm

live in Columbine and his Bowling For Columbine was complete and utter propaganda that bore no resemblance to the area I live in.

I am almost certain you told us that you only watched half of it. Don't know if that thread is still around....

Off topic: I love how Bill Oâ??Reilly keeps getting after Canada for not allowing Fox news, ("The Canadians are afraid of different ideas,") but supports Disney's decision to blackball this film. Fair and unbalanced.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri May 07, 2004 4:13 pm

Goob, if I watched half a documentary about something I knew intimately well, and found it was completely inaccurate and political, I'd feel pretty confident saying the whole thing was inaccurate and political. Half of it is easily enough to establish a pattern. I seriously doubt that anyone would watch the second half and think "oh wow, I was totally wrong about the first half! It's balanced and accurate after all!" Are you suggesting you think this would happen?

Anyway... There's a difference between a company saying "we won't distribute controversial political films of any sort because we don't want to offend our consumers" and a country saying "we won't allow a controversial TV channel because we don't like it's message."

The difference is something like this: back in the day, the DBB had a "no politics" policy. I'd fully support the DBB's decision, back then, to close a thread about Michael Moore -- because the way the DBB achieved political balance was through not allowing political discussion. Nowadays, we allow political discussion, so I'd have a problem with someone arbitrarily closing a thread about Michael Moore -- because the way we achieve balance now is through allowing all sides to speak. Disney has achieved balance like the original DBB -- it simply doesn't *do* politics. I don't know anything about Canada and Fox, but from how you describe it, it sounds like Canada might be achieving unbalance by only allowing politics it likes. Whether or not you agree or think it's right, you have to admit, there is a difference between banning all politics (a la Disney) and selectively banning politics (a la Canada).

Of course, implicit in my post is the assumption that Michael Moore's film is political, rather than simply a documentary. But then, I don't think any of us would take seriously the argument that it's not political...

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri May 07, 2004 5:06 pm

The disney news is not a big deal. His film is a money maker and will be picked up and in theatres.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri May 07, 2004 6:23 pm

Disney holding back a film to remain apolitical?

Or a really clever marketing scheme?

You decide.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri May 07, 2004 7:38 pm

Vader wrote:Cheneyburton. HA! Best "on target" one liner Ive seen in a while

Wish I could take credit for it but it isn't mine. I blatently stole it from someone in this very forum. I don't remember who.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat May 08, 2004 12:33 am

Birdseye wrote:Whether Moore's films are factual or not I found some of the general messages true--the media in america sells fear.

I think his films are more political comedy than anything else. Can't wait to see the next one. I wish Limbaugh would make a film too

Everyone in the media is a war profiteer. Tisk tisk bash, you should know that, in fact I know you do, but why pick moore as the war profiteer? There's plenty of people to choose from.

yeah "political comedy", i like how that sounds.
i agree with you on prettymuch all points.
i found the message of "the american media sells fear" to be quite profound, as i also see it in our local australian media.
Moore seems to strive for irony in his messages, the way he freely uses traditional political media techniques, he sarcasticaly/satirically often tries to pretend he personally identifys with the people he is attacking, and he is making lots of money just like the capitalists he attacks, it's all part of the satirical irony

i don't agree with everything he says. but i DEFINTELY agree with the general vibe of his messages, that "something needs to be done".
i was actually surprised that bowling for columbine was considered a "documentary". i thought it was political comedy commentary. part satire, part documentary.
maybe it was considered a documentary because he was using real interviews, not staged ones. to me that gave it a real sense of reality, you really did see the raw emotion and expressions in it. that's one of the things i love about it, when he drops something in the lap of someone and you get to watch their instant, rather revealing, reaction

. it's.... corporate reality tv! hahaha.

maybe not.

all the irony and obvious hypocracy means he is very open to redicule, but when you think of the bigger picture of what he's trying to accomplish, it's probabaly exactly what he wants

. he wants people to REALISE the hypocracy, he wants people to think.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat May 08, 2004 1:21 am

Simple birds: he has a hard-on for moore

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon May 10, 2004 8:08 am

Letter to the NYT today:

* * *

Disney and Michael Moore
By MICHAEL D. EISNER

To the Editor:

You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.

Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore's film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.

The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.

MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon May 10, 2004 11:04 am

oops, i just caught this:

Lothar wrote:it sounds like Canada might be achieving unbalance by only allowing politics it likes

Well you're half-right. we don't have free speech up here. Take this for example. a show called the Tom Leykis show (on 100.7) was running on MOJO radio here in Vancouver. After awhile it was canned because a feminist group didn't like the programming and made a big stink about it, causing it to be removed from the air. Claimed to be indecent and hateful, the CRTC bowed to their wishes and pulled the plug on it.

Bash, The reason is simple. it's an election year and it most likely puts bush in a bad light. Also, I don't think Mr. Eisner wrote that letter. he has money and power tp hire speech writers.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu May 13, 2004 7:56 pm

A brief message from your moderator:
please remain on topic, and do not flame. Flames will lead to deleted posts and/or public floggings. Thank you.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri May 14, 2004 12:18 am

Check out this letter from Michael Moore's website. I've quoted the funniest part:

[quote]can we stop the Orwellian language and start using the proper names for things? Those are not â??contractorsâ?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri May 14, 2004 12:26 am

oh come on! That's the biggest steaming pile of BS I've ever read. We overthrow just one of many evil dictators in the world and terrorists from other countries come storming into Iraq not to liberate it from the US, but because the US came to them and somehow they're revolutionaries?

I'm SO sorry it has become so much harder for them to leave their own country so they can blow up civilians in other countries.

Yet they still find ways to do it and somehow they're heroes?

I retract my earlier statement. Michael Moore doesn't 'remind' me of that douche tabloid journalist from the movie Red Dragon. He IS that douche tabloid journalist from the movie Red Dragon.

PantyRaider · Post by **PantyRaider** » Sat May 15, 2004 11:37 pm

Locking the Thread and then deleting my post and then unlocking it, is bull★■◆●.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat May 15, 2004 11:42 pm

Thats what happens when you don't have anything constructive to say. I'd imagine you'll be seeing a lot more of that now that Lothar is a mod

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun May 16, 2004 12:24 am

Yep, and if you flame again, your post will get deleted again. If you can't contribute something worthwhile to discussion, don't post. Like Tyr said: get used to it. Use PM's to complain if you must.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:45 pm

It would seem Mr Moore has hit it big time in Cannes. Got the longest applauds in the history of the festival. Too bad some muslum scumbucket didn't decide to make a point about the evils of graven images and cap one off inside the awards building.
Somehow that would wind up Bush's fault also.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:59 pm

What else would you expect at a Froggy festival?

France: the nation too pathetic to admit how pathetic it really is

.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon May 17, 2004 10:12 pm

Strangely enough, according to one review, the scene where the planes crash into the WTC fades to black before the impacts. For continuity, I suppose, the sound continues. Hmm. A movie called 9/11 and it intentionally blacks out the event that started all this rolling? CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP! Wouldn't want to remind people and resurrect their righteous rage at 3,000 innocents murdered before showing them an anti-Bush, anti-war screed, now would we?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue May 18, 2004 12:26 am

the right can slag the left all they want with no reprucussions, but when the left throws a shot they're discredited. nice.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue May 18, 2004 7:41 am

Ferno, there is no right wing equivilent to the painfully leftist mindset that dominates Hollywood. The influence Hollywood has on our culture, the youth in particular, is not slight.

Name the conservative heroes on tv and movies. Short list huh?
Count all the anti-conservative jokes and anti-conservative social commentary in the scripts and screenplays from tv and movies.
Compare that to the pro-conservative content...if you can find it.

Now consider the cumulative effect that one sided onslaught has on the opinions of the average person in america.
Consider the years this has been going on.

The effect is obvious if you challenge the anti-conservative to explain 'why' they think what they do. Usually they can't articulate a single reason, they just know 'conservatives suck'.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:33 am

sorry will, i don't buy the sob story

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue May 18, 2004 11:55 am

Halliburton: War profiteer.

I would think that would be a better topic than some guy. Moore is but a part of the overall capitalizing of 9/11. Every fool that bought a 'Never forget' sticker for their car, or a WTC outline sticker, or one of those stupid, cheesy, plastic flags that lay in tatters in the gutter allowed it.

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Tue May 18, 2004 6:58 pm

Will Robinson wrote:For Moore to hide his political propaganda

He hides it? Not very well at least.

At least it's entertaining the way it is, but it's still kind of sad because he may have valid points and they just get lost in the exaggeration.

Will et al:
If it appears that the media is leaning to the left, maybe it's because you're on the right yourself? It's, you know, kind of, relative.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue May 18, 2004 7:18 pm

Birdseye wrote:sorry will, i don't buy the sob story

That, Birdy, is because you have been sucked in by all the leftist movie mongers

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed May 19, 2004 12:20 am

BS Will.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri May 21, 2004 4:27 pm

Heh, check out the movie trailers on this site:

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com ... ailer.html

If you ever saw "Roger and Me" and Moore's quest to get an interview with GM Chairman, Roger Smith, you'll find it amusing (well, unless you worship Jabba the Nut or something). Seems Mike now plays the part of Roger.

And just for giggles: http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/100057.html