Michael Moore: Asshat or patriot?

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Janes.com

 

isnt that tha Isreali website?

[Guest Anglesault]

It says alot that this guy could get booed for a liveral speech in Hollywood.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

It says alot that this guy could get booed for a liveral speech in Hollywood.

That's because what Michael Moore said wasn't the kind of liberalism Hollywood practices. Hollywood's limousine liberalism, and Moore's decidedly un-PC speech clash like oil and water.

 

Whether or not you like his opinions, I think you have to see this as much gutsier than the usual sentance or two on the red carpet by a star who thinks they're a politician. He wasn't mocking anything, he was stating that he felt our reasons for being in Iraq are counterfeit. He didn't say that the sacrifice of the men who are serving there was counterfeit.

[Guest Powerplay]

Janes.com

 

isnt that tha Isreali website?

...

...

...

...

 

No. No it isn't. Jane's is a British corporation that generally gives people the latest updates on international situations and military hardware.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Who cares if it is. Almost everyone even anti-war think Hussein has WMD. It's not some vast christian/judeo conspiracy against the Muslim world.

[Guest Vyce]

5. You sure do. But you people act as if he didn't have the right to say that. He certainy did. It was a lot better than the USUAL Oscar speech; that's for damn sure.

I do so love this line of reasoning.

 

I've seen it a lot lately, from the anti-war crowd. I saw this a lot from people bitching about how the Dixie Chicks are getting pulled from country music stations, and overall being blasted for their remarks in England a couple weeks back.

 

"They have a right to say what they want!"

 

This is very true, and again, no one is disputing that Moore had the RIGHT to say what he did....I would argue that it's more a matter of SHOULD he have said it, rather than did he have a RIGHT to say it......but still, we all know that his 1st amendment rights allowed him to say what he did.

 

HOWEVER.

 

Those who use this argument, always forget the caveat - you have the right to say whatever you want, but I - and everyone else in the free world - have the right to say whatever the hell I / we want ABOUT what you said.

 

Moore makes a speech, and I don't like it, I can come here and bitch about it. That's MY right.

 

He won the Oscar; you didn’t

 

He accepted the award; you didn’t

 

It was HIS 45 seconds to spend as he chose; not yours.

 

This is SUCH bullshit logic. This argument is ALWAYS retarded.

 

It's basically precluding anyone from voicing their opinion on something (odd, since that's what you claim to be against), since they haven't had that personal experience.

 

It's ridiculous. That's like me saying to you, you have NO RIGHT to bitch about the President, because you've never been in that office, you've never held that position, it was his decision to go to war, not yours, blah blah blah.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I'm thrilled he said what he did.

 

Don't get me wrong...I am not anti-war...in fact I am all for this war.

 

I'm thrilled he said it because I appreciate living in a country where he CAN say that. If this was the Iraqi awards he'd have been shot to death before leaving the stage.

 

And...that's actually why I am in favor of this war.

[Guest whatitistoburn]

Being part of the antiwar minority (and isn't the minority always the more vocal, see also: muslims), I enjoyed Moore's comments. I think that he made some good points, and of course, that is my opinion.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

Like I said I appreciate his ability to do it...

 

and I appreciate my ability to beleive that anti-war people are all idiots.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Being part of the antiwar minority (and isn't the minority always the more vocal, see also: muslims), I enjoyed Moore's comments. I think that he made some good points, and of course, that is my opinion.

What points?

 

He didn't say that the war is bad because...

 

He simply said Bush sucks.

 

That's not a point.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I thought that Michael Moore made some bad comments. There are other ways, as proven by Adrian Brody for example, that one can use to get your anti-war sentiment across. I think that Moore should not have used the oscars as a anit-war/Bush statement podium. At the same time, I am hoping that this doesn't kill his career enitrely, maybe just enough for him to possibly get the message. I think that there are other mediums, aka as the O'Reilly factor and Crossfire, where one can make any statement they believe in.

 

So Moore's oscar appearance earns him an Asshat (what ever that is?), But I will still go to see his films. I still think that Bowling for Columbine was one of the best films of the year. And I will go to see his future films. Just because someone makes a boneheaded decision/statement, doesn't mean I am going to get my panties in a bunch.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

He stated that he wasn't for the killing of innocent Iraqi citizens, that he wasn't for the killing of American soldiers, needlessly mind you, and that he wasn't for the potential killing of others around the world...

 

Apparently, most people that booed him are.

[Guest bob_barron]

No, he's had two semi-sucessful TV Shows, a number of popular books, and a number of good movies. He's made clunkers...but who hasn't?

 

That doesn't mean the quality of his work is anything to sneeze at

 

He expressed disgust for the President, and for the reasons for the war in Iraq. While he did it in an arrogant way, that's all he was doing, and it seemed to be out of some concern for the direction our country is taking.

 

He brought up the election in 2000 which has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. He did in a facetious manner with his comments regarding the Pope and Dixie Chicks

 

Now you're a film critic, Barron? I saw BfC and it struck me, as a rather ingenious look into our country's fascination with guns, WITHOUT being leftist, gun-control, propaganda.

 

Actually I am one- I was a film critic for three years at my high school paper. I haven't seen BFC but I've heard a lot of allegations that some of the scenes were staged.

 

You sure do. But you people act as if he didn't have the right to say that. He certainy did. It was a lot better than the USUAL Oscar speech; that's for damn sure.

 

He had a right to say it and I have a right to disagree with it. In terms of better then usual- Cuba Gooding's speech owns it,

 

I dispute the mockery. The war isn't mentioned directly, only our reasons for it. The President seems to be the major target. That's what a satirist does: He looks at what he sees as mistakes and pokes fun at them. This board's response is proof-positive that he did strike a nerve, and that perhaps there was a ring of truth to it. Oh and he wasn't doing it at "The Oscars" he was doing it at his speech. He could have sat up there and twiddled his thumbs for 45 seconds.

 

He was doing it at the Oscars- that's what the event was? It seemed like he was just trying to keep his image alive as Mr. Rebel Asshole. I think he only would've been allowed 25 seconds but him twiddling his thumbs would've been more entertaining then what he said.

 

Unless you mean French Kissing a married woman, then no I don't think Brody was all that couragous. He said a few words that he knew had no chance of being booed, and that would make him look "relevent". Moore spoke his mind, and didn't give a shit what others thought of what he had to say.

 

I thought what Brody said was very nice and refreshing to hear in these times. Saying what you feel like isn't being courageous- most of the time it's pretty dumb. Moore went up there, acted like an idiot and acted like he was speaking for every American

 

I'd rather see the awards show become a soapbox then what it is: An excuse for Hollywood to show off how great it is. If you didn't like the speech, you should have changed the channel.

 

That's what an awards show is though- an excuse for the industry giving the awards to show how great it is. I mean that's the definition of an awards show. If he went on a news programme and said this then I wouldn't of had that big of a problem.

[Guest teke184]

No, he stated that a fake president put into office from a fake election is fighting a fake war...

 

I'm not even going into Election 2000 because that was such a clusterf*ck on BOTH sides, not just the Republican side like most people want to say.

 

The war in Iraq, though, is being more and more justified as it goes on because we're uncovering chemical plants that probably were used to make WMD at various times as well as the fact that Iraq is pulling weapons out of their asses to fight us that they weren't supposed to have, such as the missiles they're shooting at Kuwait and some of the equipment they're getting from the Russians.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

ASSHAT DEFINITELY!!!!!

How dare someone in America display such dissent? Blackball him...

 

Blackball the Pope too. He must have Alzheimer's to speak out against President Bush. The Vatican would so keep their mouthes shut if a Catholic like Kennedy were in office?

 

Michael Moore?

The Pope?

U2? Susan Sarandon?

Desmond Tutu?

Norman Schwarzkopf?

Anyone that speaks out against the powers that be?

 

TWO WORDS! (and a tilde)

BAN PLZ~!

Nobody said to blackball Moore for his comments. However, we have every right to no longer watch the crap he spews out (and his stuff is crap --- "TV Nation" was as overrated and unwatchable a show as has been on the air in a LONG time).

 

Do you honestly think the Pope has an opinion, one way or the other, on this? I respect John Paul II a great deal --- but the man is in horrible condition and, by all accounts, all decisions are made by his advisors. Think Strom Thurmond and you have an idea of JP II's true prowess.

 

U2? Susan Sarandon? We're supposed to care what a pretty good band and a piss-poor actress think? The next good movie she's involved in will be her first. I can TOLERATE Robbins' bilge because he is actually talented. She lacks that in spades. Did ANY of those people graduate from college? I'm amazed at the power that the opinions of barely-high-school graduates has.

 

Tutu? Don't care. Even a little bit. Schwarzkopf? Haven't heard him condemn the war.

 

I love that THEY are allowed to protest the war --- but we apparently CAN'T blast them for being epic tools.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I didn't see what he said....... had he gone too far on TV then he shouldn't have dumbass...

 

Already Propaganda Network (Fox) has got their guests painting him as a Marxist so glad when people have different opinions and are stupid about them we automatically slap nametags and dismiss them as Communist Terrorist loving American Haters.

Umm, Moore IS anti-American.

 

Has been for a long time.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I've got a lot of time for Moore but that was one hell of a dumb move which he's probably regretting already. However misguided his actions were he doesn't deserve to get crucified for it, America needs stubborn old gits like him who have the balls to ask the difficult questions. God knows others of Moore's ilk in other countries don't endure the same kind of frenzied hostility he gets in America. Greed, corruption, exploitation and hypocrisy exist in America just like anywhere else so why shouldn't people like Moore bring it to people's attention?

Because Moore IS a hypocrite.

 

Michael Moore is the DEFINITION of limousine-liberal.

 

Ask his former employees --- or even simple employees at bookstores during his most recent book tour --- how good a guy that talentless genetic mistake is.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

This may be the most pathetic thread that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing on this board.

 

Then don't bother gracing us with your pathetic response.

 

Michael Moore, a man who has proven himself to be a witty, and somewhat insightful satirist

 

That's debatable. I thought The Big One was one of the stupidest films I've ever seen and made me think the guy was a stupid buffoon.

 

time out the Hollywood masturbation session known as the Oscars to voice his concerns over something REAL.

 

No he didn't- he didn't voice his concerns at all. He went up there and made a mockery over it. He went up there and mocked President Bush and mocked a very real situation in Iraq. Instead of giving an eloquent respectful speech like Adrian Brody did- He went up there and tried to be "cool and "hip" and keep his asshole rebel image alive. That wasn't concern- that was mockey.

 

He won the Oscar; you didn’t

 

For a film that could barely qualify as a documentary.

 

It was HIS 45 seconds to spend as he chose; not yours.

 

And of that 45 seconds I have a right to criticise every second of it.

 

What, just because people were watching him meant he couldn’t speak his mind?

 

The Oscars are not the time and the place. It's a place for honouring acheivements in motion picture- NOT making a mockery of war. There are many political rallies and news shows where Moore could've gone and spoken his mind.

 

applaud the courage of Michael Moore

 

I don't think you understand the word. It takes a lot of courage to do what Adrien Brody did. It doesn't take courage to go up there and act like an asshole.

 

despite what numbnuts may think about you.

 

Numbnuts? Well excuse mefor not appreicating a guy using an awards show as his personal soapbox to make inane and ridicilous comments that did not help the anti-war cause. He could've gone up there and prayed for peace, or done something simple and subtle like Susan Sarandon did. But no- he went up there and acted like a complete jerk.

1. Here we go...

 

2. No, he's had two semi-sucessful TV Shows, a number of popular books, and a number of good movies. He's made clunkers...but who hasn't?

 

3. He expressed disgust for the President, and for the reasons for the war in Iraq. While he did it in an arrogant way, that's all he was doing, and it seemed to be out of some concern for the direction our country is taking.

 

4. Now you're a film critic, Barron? I saw BfC and it struck me, as a rather ingenious look into our country's fascination with guns, WITHOUT being leftist, gun-control, propaganda.

 

5. You sure do. But you people act as if he didn't have the right to say that. He certainy did. It was a lot better than the USUAL Oscar speech; that's for damn sure.

 

6. I dispute the mockery. The war isn't mentioned directly, only our reasons for it. The President seems to be the major target. That's what a satirist does: He looks at what he sees as mistakes and pokes fun at them. This board's response is proof-positive that he did strike a nerve, and that perhaps there was a ring of truth to it. Oh and he wasn't doing it at "The Oscars" he was doing it at his speech. He could have sat up there and twiddled his thumbs for 45 seconds.

 

7. Unless you mean French Kissing a married woman, then no I don't think Brody was all that couragous. He said a few words that he knew had no chance of being booed, and that would make him look "relevent". Moore spoke his mind, and didn't give a shit what others thought of what he had to say.

 

8. I'd rather see the awards show become a soapbox then what it is: An excuse for Hollywood to show off how great it is. If you didn't like the speech, you should have changed the channel.

2) Semi-successful TV shows? As compared to what? Static?

 

And good movies? Which ones? Don't even attempt to claim that "Roger and Me" was good.

 

Or entertaining.

 

And his books are unadultered sh*t.

 

3) No, he did it SOLELY for one reason --- to draw attention to the one person that narcissistic prick loves --- himself. He has no concern about this country's "direction" --- he's simply an ass.

 

4) If you mssed the leftist propaganda, then you don't know what propaganda IS. I'd suggest you avoid "Triumph of the Will" because the subtlety of THAT propaganda might sneak past as well.

 

5) Nobody says he had no right to say it. We say he's an ass for saying it. World of difference.

 

6) Shouldn't a satirist, at least occasionally, actually be humorous? The board's response is "The guy's an ass --- thank God he's marginal".

 

7) Moore was grandstanding and trying to make himself the main story (which he was --- but largely because the Oscars is normally a crappy show) while Brody was not.

 

8) The Oscars IS SUPPOSED TO be a soapbox for Hollywood to "show off". Why in the world should anybody care what Hollywood actors --- a group unlikely to be inducted into MENSA in the foreseeable future --- is beyond me.

-=Mike -- and judging by the early ratings, a lot of people DID miss the verbal masturbation --- I mean speech

[Guest Nanks]

ASSHAT. Moore was grinning all throughout his little tirade. He thought he was the height of cool up there. You make those kinds of statements before or after an actual war, NOT when there are soldiers laying down their lives for your country, could you imagine, if you had a loved one in the armed forces, hearing an awarded celebrity telling you they were fighting in a ficticious war?? Disgusting.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

ASSHAT. Moore was grinning all throughout his little tirade. He thought he was the height of cool up there. You make those kinds of statements before or after an actual war, NOT when there are soldiers laying down their lives for your country, could you imagine, if you had a loved one in the armed forces, hearing an awarded celebrity telling you they were fighting in a ficticious war?? Disgusting.

Well, if ANYBODY knows about fiction, it's Moore -- the world's most reknown fictitious documentary maker.

-=Mike

[Guest bob_barron]

Shame on You, Mr. Moore! Shame on You!

The 'Bowling for Columbine' auteur had every qualification to make his antiwar speech at the Oscars. That didn't make it any less stupid

By JAMES PONIEWOZIK

It may not be the most popular thing to say today, but Michael Moore had not only every right but every legitimate qualification to make an antiwar speech — "Shame on you, Mr. Bush! Shame on you!" — at the 2003 Oscars. The standard reason to discount political speeches from Hollywood celebs, after all, is that we don't give a crap about their political thoughts: their job is to stand up, look pretty, collect their $25 million and give US and People something to write about.

 

One can hardly say that about Michael Moore. In fact, there is not much reason that anyone cares about Michael Moore except for his political opinions. From "Roger and Me" through his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine", his movie are less documentaries in the usual sense than artfully constructed and often hilariously funny editorials. Agree with him or not, he is, unlike Susan Sarandon, nothing if he is not a professional commentator; and thus it was not inherently stupid for him to make his speech.

 

No. His speech was stupid for entirely different reasons.

 

The first is that — and this is a characteristic flaw of Moore's movies — it was a shrill harangue that would make a person ashamed even for agreeing with it. By starting off his screed by attacking the legitimacy of George W. Bush's election, he committed the same mistake as too many leaders of the antiwar movement, such as the leaders of ANSWER: he couldn't resist the temptation to lump his antiwar stance in with the rest of his portfolio of grievances. As a result, he made a speech guaranteed to alienate even many people who are also against the war.

 

If Moore really wants to end the war — and not just boost the spirits of his Upper West Side neighbors — then mightn't he also want to win over people who oppose the war and yet don't believe that Bush is an illegimate president swept into office by skullduggery? Is he so insulated that he doesn't realize people like that exist? Or are people like that simply not simon-pure enough for him to want them in his antiwar movement?

 

That's the really annoying thing about Moore's speech. Moore often casts himself as a populist, and sometimes he's even convincing. He often makes a strong case against other progressives who out of touch with the hoi polloi — who can't lower themselves to listen to talk radio, can't identify a NASCAR driver or country singer, can't in any sense understand how the mass of America lives and thinks. This kind of liberal attitude, he has rightly argued, has kept the Left from building broad-based movements. But Moore's own clubby, we-all-know-Bush-is-a-liar attitude suggests that he's not interested in a broad-based antiwar movement.

 

I'm going to get a lot of e-mail from people who believe Bush stole the election in Florida, but before you press "send," at least consider this. A lot of smart people agree with you. But if someone disagrees with you, are they not worth allying with against the war? Would you rather have a war in Iraq than pass up a chance to bring up Florida again?

 

The remainder of the speech was no improvement. There was the general hectoring and finger-wagging — and I don't mean finger-wagging figuratively; the man literally thrust his finger at the camera. A man with Moore's sense of history has no excuse not to realize that makes him look like a crackpot dictator shouting a harangue from the balcony. And while his last line about Bush being in trouble because the Pope and the Dixie Chicks are against him was funny, it was funny because most people don't take the opinions of music groups seriously. Kind of like the opinions of Oscar winners.

 

There's been a lot of piling on against celebrities who speak out against the war. Frankly, I sympathize with the celebs. We spend our entire lives paying inordinate attention to the pronouncements of celebrities on everything from art to family to fashion. Suddenly we're offended because they also care about politics?

 

But there's a special reason to resent a political speech at the Oscars — and it's not just bias against Hollywood liberals. (Everyone considers Arnold Schwarzenegger a nitwit for holding forth politically too, and he's conservative.) Call it the Panhandler Syndrome. A speaker like Moore is like a beggar in a New York City subway car. Even people who give to charity and the homeless resent this kind of panhandling, because it takes advantage of a captive audience. It's not like you can just jump out onto the tracks if you don't want to be bothered.

 

Likewise, a proselytizing celeb like Moore is essentially hijacking our attention, saying that if you want to find out who won Best Director, you're damn well going to sit there and hear me out on world affairs. All the more reason for him to be, if not apolitical, reasonable and respectful of people who disagree with him, or agree with him only, say, 60%.

 

When I e-mailed an esteemed colleague my thoughts about Moore earlier today, he wrote back with a reasonable defense: Why should a progressive like Moore have to be all gentle and NPR-nuanced when there are so many Limbaughs and O'Reillys out there? The reason: More people in America identify as conservative than liberal, like it or not. So lefties who want to accomplish anything outside Santa Monica and Manhattan need moderate support even more than their righty analogues do.

 

That's assuming, of course, that Michael Moore actually wants to expand the antiwar movement. Maybe he simply wants to excite his amen corner — that is, people who might rush out and see, buy or rent his movies. That may be good enough for him. It will certainly be good enough for his career. It should not be good enough for anyone who wants to create an antiwar movement that could actually stop a war.

[Guest bob_barron]

If you try to email Michael Moore it gets sent back cause his mailbox is full. I guess everyone is letting him know what a fat fuck he is

[Guest Vyce]

He stated that he wasn't for the killing of innocent Iraqi citizens, that he wasn't for the killing of American soldiers, needlessly mind you, and that he wasn't for the potential killing of others around the world...

 

Apparently, most people that booed him are.

I won't even dignify that with a response.

 

Oh wait....I just did.

 

Goddamn me.

 

BTW, I'm glad the pope is against the war - if he was for it, he'd be no better than the Islamic extremists wackjobs waging jihad on us.

[Guest MrRant]

It would be odd for a priest to be calling for death.

[Guest areacode212]

Michael Moore is so abrasive & obnoxious that I've always thought he was an asshat, even during moments when I agreed with him. I was pretty glad to hear the crowd at the Oscars boo his ass out of the theater.

 

Shame on You, Mr. Moore! Shame on You!

The 'Bowling for Columbine' auteur had every qualification to make his antiwar speech at the Oscars. That didn't make it any less stupid

...(snipped)

Where is this article from, Bob? And he lives here on the UWS? Maybe I should find out where his apartment is and key his car or something.

[Guest bob_barron]

It was at Time's site. I got the link from an anti-Moore site

[Guest Vern Gagne]

It would be odd for a priest to be calling for death.

Didn't the Vatican say the War is immoral unless it has UN approval?

[Guest cartman]

#1 Who gives a crap what the Pope says, religion is nothing more than a semi-civilized form of cult.

 

#2 Moore is an Asshat, but so is Bush, and so is anyone that is sitting there watching this "War" and going "Yay this is what we should be doing, this is the right thing for the Iraqi people and American people alike".

 

Iraqi people don't give a FUCK about Americans, Americans are hated in that section of the world because of their rediculous religious beliefs. Anyone who thinks Iraqi people are greatful for America supposedly trying to liberate them is a grade A Asshat as well. If they hated living there so much they would have immigrated by now, but they havent. Don't give me this bullshit that they can't because Saddam won't let them either because there's always a way out if one desperately needs one.

 

America has NO buisness being over in that part of the world because besides Britain(whom owes us their existence from WW2) everyone hates Americans over there. That's right, they HATE you. They HATE all you Pro-War, Pro-Bush American Lemmings. Why? Because their God tells them to.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Guess those Iraqi's welcoming Coalition forces were planted by the US.

[Guest Powerplay]

#2 Moore is an Asshat, but so is Bush, and so is anyone that is sitting there watching this "War" and going "Yay this is what we should be doing, this is the right thing for the Iraqi people and American people alike".

 

Iraqi people don't give a FUCK about Americans, Americans are hated in that section of the world because of their rediculous religious beliefs. Anyone who thinks Iraqi people are greatful for America supposedly trying to liberate them is a grade A Asshat as well. If they hated living there so much they would have immigrated by now, but they havent. Don't give me this bullshit that they can't because Saddam won't let them either because there's always a way out if one desperately needs one.

 

America has NO buisness being over in that part of the world because besides Britain(whom owes us their existence from WW2) everyone hates Americans over there. That's right, they HATE you. They HATE all you Pro-War, Pro-Bush American Lemmings. Why? Because their God tells them to.

Wow, because Bush is trying to take a tyrannical dictator out of power, he's an asshat. Is that your argument? So the Iraqi people don't deserve freedom in any form because they aren't Americans?

 

Do I think they'll be grateful? Yes. Saddam wouldn't let all of those who wanted to leave leave, otherwise he'd only have a few regiments of Republican Guard left. You know, how many people do think have the money or the means to get out of that country? It's like saying "Well, if the East Germans didn't like communism, why didn't they just leave and go to West Germany?". It's risky, it's dangerous, and you have to leave your family behind, or bring them along and risk their lives as well.

 

We have every right to be there. The Iraqi government as proven itself a threat to world security by having chemical and biological weapons that could be given to terrorist groups that Iraq endorses and supports. Do they all hate us? Obviously not if they are shaking hands with our troops and cheering as we take down statues of Saddam. Because nothing expresses hate like a hug or a handshake...