Michael Moore: Asshat or patriot?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Asshat -- but it'd have to be an XXXL to cover his fat head...

[Guest Renegade]

Jesus, how many fat jokes are there in this thread? He's overweight, I get it.

 

Moore had just enough right to say what he wanted, and the crowd had just enough right to boo him.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Jesus, how many fat jokes are there in this thread? He's overweight, I get it."

 

It wasn't a joke -- just a fact.

 

A joke would be something like "MM is so fat his waistline is almost as big as his ego."

 

BTW: Out of 91 current replies only 6 have "fat" jokes in them.

 

1 by me, 1 by Vyce, 1 by McLeary, 2 by MikeSC and 2 by Bob.

 

What's the big deal? (My fav. was the 4-digit cholesterol jab. Be careful when you jab Mikey though -- you may not get your arm back if you punch him in the tummy.)

 

Make that 7 out of 92...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Jesus, how many fat jokes are there in this thread? He's overweight, I get it.

 

Moore had just enough right to say what he wanted, and the crowd had just enough right to boo him.

They aren't fat "jokes".

 

They're fat facts.

 

You want jokes? Watch "Bowling For Columbine"

-=Mike --- ripping Moore since 1993

[Guest Boromir's Smirking Revenge]

I'm biased, because I like Moore, but the audience & producers were disgraceful in their behavior of cutting him off. If you're going to give him an award and 2 minutes to talk, then just shut your mouth and let him say his piece.

You get between 25 and 45 seconds to give your acceptance speech and I believe he was over that limit by the time he started utttering about the Pope and the Dixie Chicks

He went about 10 seconds late. Adrien Brody went 2 minutes late before the band tried to cut him off, then he got another minute.

 

They cut Moore off because they didn't like what he was saying, pure and simple. It really isn't their business to decide what a proper acceptance speech is.

 

Plus, who would wanna cut off one of the only interesting parts of a 3+ hour show?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm biased, because I like Moore, but the audience & producers were disgraceful in their behavior of cutting him off. If you're going to give him an award and 2 minutes to talk, then just shut your mouth and let him say his piece.

You get between 25 and 45 seconds to give your acceptance speech and I believe he was over that limit by the time he started utttering about the Pope and the Dixie Chicks

He went about 10 seconds late. Adrien Brody went 2 minutes late before the band tried to cut him off, then he got another minute.

 

They cut Moore off because they didn't like what he was saying, pure and simple. It really isn't their business to decide what a proper acceptance speech is.

 

Plus, who would wanna cut off one of the only interesting parts of a 3+ hour show?

Watching a guy set himself on fire would be interesting.

 

Doesn't mean it's something that should be televised.

 

Moore being cut off saved him the embarassment of having the boos being that much more noticeable to the TV audience.

 

Let's not forget --- he wasn't addressing a terribly CONSERVATIVE audience.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Maybe a guy being lit on fire would be interesting for *you*, but the rest of us with a brain would find it more than a little disturbing...

[Guest NoCalMike]

Michael Moore said the people who initially were booing, started getting booed by the audience, thus creating more boos. He said that on Bill Mahr's HBO so take it for what it is worth. I didn't see the Oscars because 3 hours of boredom is not something I wish to spend my time on.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

With that audience it wouldn't shock me.

 

Moore also said a majority of American agreed with him. Even he can't believe that.

[Guest Powerplay]

Michael Moore said the people who initially were booing, started getting booed by the audience, thus creating more boos. He said that on Bill Mahr's HBO so take it for what it is worth. I didn't see the Oscars because 3 hours of boredom is not something I wish to spend my time on.

Wouldn't they just try to cheer louder to drowned him out? Sounds like a poor attempt at him saving face after his little speech backfired...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I don't know, it seems to me that most Americans do seem to be Anti-War, or at least that's the impression I get. You won't be able to tell from the propaganda you receive on TV however.

[Guest Boromir's Smirking Revenge]

Wouldn't they just try to cheer louder to drowned him out?

W3rd. Who boos booers? You cheer to drown them out. That's what happened with Eminem at the MTV awards last year.

[Guest DrTom]

They cut Moore off because they didn't like what he was saying, pure and simple. It really isn't their business to decide what a proper acceptance speech is.

Actually, it is. Or at least, it can be. The Oscars are a ceremony governed by a private organization, and that organization can tell people they can't talk about certain things. I think the Grammys did this with anti-war speeches. If someone bucks the trend, they can cut the mike and be done with it. Since it's a private organization and a private ceremony, there are no First Amendment grounds that apply.

[Guest cartman]

I don't know, it seems to me that most Americans do seem to be Anti-War, or at least that's the impression I get. You won't be able to tell from the propaganda you receive on TV however.

EXACTLY!

[Guest Powerplay]

I don't know, it seems to me that most Americans do seem to be Anti-War, or at least that's the impression I get. You won't be able to tell from the propaganda you receive on TV however.

EXACTLY!

... And this proves what?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Quiet, you.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I don't know, it seems to me that most Americans do seem to be Anti-War, or at least that's the impression I get. You won't be able to tell from the propaganda you receive on TV however.

EXACTLY!

70-75% support the War with Iraq. Most people are not anti-war.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Stats are always manipulated though. Majority of americans originally( I am not sure about TODAY) were for the war IF the UN supported it, but that support dropped to under 45% if the US went in unilaterally. So in the present situation that would mean right now the majority of americans are against the war, but like I said before, I am not sure if it is different TODAY.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Actually, it's not really even close to 75%.

 

It's 55%-60% in most polls, and that's hardly a mandate.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

CNN, ABC, FoxNews all have around 70% backing this war.

 

Mike. Once the war started a majority of Americans decided to forget about the UN, and stand behind the country.

[Guest NoCalMike]

The best way to gauge the support/rebellion of the war will be in 2004. If it is another "by the skin o' the teeth" victory for either candidate, than the country would appear to be evenly split, however, if either candidate wins by a landslide then the opposite will hold true. Like I said before, polls and statistics can be decieving.

[Guest Dangerous A]

The best way to gauge the support/rebellion of the war will be in 2004. If it is another "by the skin o' the teeth" victory for either candidate, than the country would appear to be evenly split, however, if either candidate wins by a landslide then the opposite will hold true. Like I said before, polls and statistics can be decieving.

I don't think that is the case. There is a factor of a lot more people who didn't, wouldn't, or couldn't vote who are peaceniks or young folks who aren't of voting age yet who tend to vote against conservatives that might finally throw their hat into the race and sway favor away from Bush and the Republicans.

 

 

 

Now quit screwing around on the board and get to fucking work, jackoff!

[Guest NoCalMike]

I don't think that is the case. There is a factor of a lot more people who didn't, wouldn't, or couldn't vote who are peaceniks or young folks who aren't of voting age yet who tend to vote against conservatives that might finally throw their hat into the race and sway favor away from Bush and the Republicans.

 

 

 

Now quit screwing around on the board and get to fucking work, jackoff!

Ok true, but the same can be said about young people in SUPPORT of the war. Fact is by 2004, a lot more people will be elidgible to vote than right now, however, less and less people go to the polls every following election, which is sad. Everyone once in awhile an issue and/or crisis arises that may spark voting numbers. I believe in 2004 there will be a rise in voting for both big political parties. The mudslinging shall be under way pretty soon since we are ALMOST halfway through 2003 already.

 

The problem is, too many people on both sides will just not go and vote for whatever reason, mostly due to being lazy. If I can get to the polls, hell, ANYONE can.

 

One thing for sure, EVERYONE taking part in a pro-peace rally or a pro-war rally, better be fucking voting because if not, than the TRUE POWER OF THEIR VOICE is wasted.(barring they are of age of course).

[Guest cartman]

How can anyone ever put faith or belief in "Polls"? There is no way that EVERYONE in this country can have a say in each poll we see on TV and in Newspapers. Save the fucking statistics for the MLB. If you wanna have some kind of polls include it in the mandatory Census.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Maybe a guy being lit on fire would be interesting for *you*, but the rest of us with a brain would find it more than a little disturbing...

"Rest of us with a brain"?

 

What's with this "us" crap?

 

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Michael Moore said the people who initially were booing, started getting booed by the audience, thus creating more boos. He said that on Bill Mahr's HBO so take it for what it is worth. I didn't see the Oscars because 3 hours of boredom is not something I wish to spend my time on.

Heck, why didn't he use Letterman's old line:

 

"They aren't booing. They're just saying 'Dave'"

 

It'd be about as plausible.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I don't know, it seems to me that most Americans do seem to be Anti-War, or at least that's the impression I get. You won't be able to tell from the propaganda you receive on TV however.

It's best to stay quiet and make people think you're an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

Your free advice for the day.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Stats are always manipulated though. Majority of americans originally( I am not sure about TODAY) were for the war IF the UN supported it, but that support dropped to under 45% if the US went in unilaterally. So in the present situation that would mean right now the majority of americans are against the war, but like I said before, I am not sure if it is different TODAY.

It's VERY different today.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

The best way to gauge the support/rebellion of the war will be in 2004. If it is another "by the skin o' the teeth" victory for either candidate, than the country would appear to be evenly split, however, if either candidate wins by a landslide then the opposite will hold true. Like I said before, polls and statistics can be decieving.

And by 2004, different issues will be up.

 

This war is WIDELY supported by the public.

-=Mike --- shocked that embedding reporters might actually be a GREAT idea.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

...because Mike said so!

 

Instead of stating absolutes without facts, please back up your claims of WIDE SUPPORT and everything.

 

I don't see Americans (or even Iraqis, who are the ones being fucking FREED) dancing in the streets holding up signs that say "WE <3 U BUSH!!!1!111!! GO BOMB IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!" or anything. Widely supported? Perhaps TOLERATED by most and agreed on in principle, but widely supported is a gross overstatement.