Michael Moore

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And you can't deny that he uses Rush Limbaugh's and Fox News' names to sell books.

 

Yes I can.

 

His book would've sold 2 million copies even if he hadn't mentioned Fox News or Rush Limbaugh for the simple reason that people find him fucking hilarious.

 

The fact that he makes fun of people that we liberals hate is just icing on the cake.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

He wouldn't have sold half the books he did with the Rush book if Rush's name wasn't on the title. He was still a fairly small name at the time.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Sure, but your assertation that "Liars and..." wouldn't have sold many books without the FAUXNEWSLOL2004~! reference is asinine. The book has been hyped for the last year and a half in many liberal circles, and with the popularity of "Rush Limbaugh...", he'd easily have sold just as many books.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'll admit the Faux News deal is more of a strech b/c he's an established writer now.

 

But the Rush book IMO was cashing in on a more popular person's name.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sure, but your assertation that "Liars and..." wouldn't have sold many books without the FAUXNEWSLOL2004~! reference is asinine. The book has been hyped for the last year and a half in many liberal circles, and with the popularity of "Rush Limbaugh...", he'd easily have sold just as many books.

I could've sworn that Fox's lawsuit caused a big upswing in pre-orders for the book.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Fox's lawsuit occured months before the book was even being hyped. So yeah, it probably did.

 

They still probably would've sold the same amount of books regardless.

[Guest JMA]

I think it's well documented that Franken is very good at making other people look stupid. He did it to Rush, Hannity, Goldberg, O'Reilly, and even Fox News itself. He suckers them in -- and knocks them out. And I could care less what Michael Moore does.

[BX 0]

I found Franken funny.

 

But that was a long time ago.

 

And you can't deny that he uses Rush Limbaugh's and Fox News' names to sell books.

 

And the fact that he feels the need to go around and pick fights with various Fox News employees just shows how pathetic he's become.

 

When you are writing a book that dissects the political right in this country, it's hard to avoid discussing the visible face of said political right, like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc.

[MrRant 0]

Ann Coulter I wouldn't consider to be a face of the right personally.

 

I'd still hit that crazy bitch shit though.

[Guest wrestlingbs]

While I hate Bush and how he handled his term, I have to admit I hate ultra-liberal guys like Moore. While he has some good points he bogs them down with schoolyard insults and pointless anti-conservatism. His #7 question is not only irrelevant and hypothetical but just a reason for Moore to take more pop shots at Bush.

 

While Moore probably thinks he's this "great crusader for the innocent"he comes off as arrogant nerd who likes to criticise politics.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I found Franken funny.

 

But that was a long time ago.

 

And you can't deny that he uses Rush Limbaugh's and Fox News' names to sell books.

 

And the fact that he feels the need to go around and pick fights with various Fox News employees just shows how pathetic he's become.

 

When you are writing a book that dissects the political right in this country, it's hard to avoid discussing the visible face of said political right, like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter etc.

Very true. But there's a difference between discussing them and making them the title of your book and slapping a picture of them on the cover of the book.

[Guest MD2020]

As turnabout is fair play, here are seven questions for Michael Moore, via a link on Instapundit.com

 

Seven Questions for Michael Moore… Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack.  If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.

 

 

 

Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact.  I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.

 

 

 

1.  Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?

 

 

 

You know the savaging I'm talking about.  Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here.  And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.

 

 

Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds.  People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion.  Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule.  Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in.  How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?

 

 

 

Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.

 

 

 

2.  Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?

 

 

 

This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity.  While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected.  And you do it a lot.

 

 

 

Frequently these myths don't even make sense.  For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush.  (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)

 

 

 

Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack.  I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead.  You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation.  If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.

 

 

 

3.  How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?

 

 

 

This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities.  Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies.  Or something.

 

 

 

No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive ganster ethos and turf wars.  Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.

 

 

 

4.  What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?

 

 

 

You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility.  In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies.  Hey, nice try.

 

 

 

5.  Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?

 

 

 

A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.

 

 

 

If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception.  Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers:  bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers.  Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.

 

 

 

6.  How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?

 

 

 

You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns.  At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with?  Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.

 

 

 

Why do I ask?  Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical.  Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck.  Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor.  I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.

 

 

 

This is more than just idle spit-balling.  Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild.  They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments.  What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.

 

 

 

7.  Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?

 

 

 

Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices.  Comments?

[Guest MikeSC]

As turnabout is fair play, here are seven questions for Michael Moore, via a link on Instapundit.com

 

Seven Questions for Michael Moore… Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack.  If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.

 

 

 

Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact.  I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.

 

 

 

1.  Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?

 

 

 

You know the savaging I'm talking about.  Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here.  And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.

 

 

Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds.  People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion.  Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule.  Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in.  How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?

 

 

 

Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.

 

 

 

2.  Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?

 

 

 

This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity.  While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected.  And you do it a lot.

 

 

 

Frequently these myths don't even make sense.  For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush.  (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)

 

 

 

Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack.  I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead.  You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation.  If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.

 

 

 

3.  How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?

 

 

 

This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities.  Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies.  Or something.

 

 

 

No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive ganster ethos and turf wars.  Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.

 

 

 

4.  What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?

 

 

 

You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility.  In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies.  Hey, nice try.

 

 

 

5.  Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?

 

 

 

A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.

 

 

 

If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception.  Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers:  bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers.  Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.

 

 

 

6.  How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?

 

 

 

You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns.  At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with?  Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.

 

 

 

Why do I ask?  Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical.  Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck.  Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor.  I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.

 

 

 

This is more than just idle spit-balling.  Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild.  They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments.  What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.

 

 

 

7.  Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?

 

 

 

Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices.  Comments?

O - U - C - H!

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Guys, guys, you missed the other response to the questions as well:

 

http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/004395.php

 

MOORE OF THE SAME

 

Michael Moore presumes to speak on behalf of the September 11 dead, and the whole of America:

 

I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you.

 

 

That’s a relief. Although some Americans might still seek revenge against Moore for writing that hilarious satire of his on September 12. Following are Moore’s seven questions, extracted from his new book, Cashing In On Idiot Lefty Paranoia, now available wherever fools and their money can’t wait to be parted:

 

1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?

 

 

Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush?

 

 

 

 

I remember reading something about Bush sending a whole army to kill bin Laden. I guess the relationship isn’t going so well.

 

2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family?

 

 

Mr Bush, the Bin Ladens are not the only Saudis with whom you and your family have a close personal relationship. The entire royal family seems to be indebted to you - or is it the other way round?

 

 

A major chunk of the American economy is built on Saudi money. They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud. George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?

 

 

 

 

A better question: is it good for Michael Moore? Three years ago Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal invested $50 million in the Disney company, which is financing Moore’s next film. The Prince invested a similar amount in Amazon, which distributes Moore’s films and books, and has $1.05 billion in America Online -- with whom Moore has an account. Why, Moore is practically swimming in evil Saudi cash!

 

3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia?

 

 

The headlines blared it the first day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been North Korean, rather than Saudi, and they had killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might have read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"? Of course it would. Or if it had been 15 Iranians or 15 Libyans or 15 Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN [or LIBYA or CUBA] ATTACKS AMERICA!" Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?

 

 

 

 

Because Saudi Arabia didn’t attack the United States. Fifteen Saudis did, under the command of bin Laden. What’s so hard to understand about this?

 

4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?

 

 

Mikey gets one right! Well, partially right. Snopes explains.

 

5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists?

 

 

You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practise their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it.

 

 

 

 

He’s unhappy when rights are denied and he’s unhappy when rights are upheld. Make up your mind, Keiko.

 

6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban travelled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends?

 

 

According to the BBC, the Taliban came to Texas while you were governor to meet with Unocal, the huge oil and energy giant, to discuss Unocal's desire to build a natural-gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

 

 

Mr Bush, what was this all about?

 

 

 

 

Ask Unocal.

 

7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'?

 

 

Your face went into a distant glaze, not quite a blank look, but one that seemed partially paralysed. No emotion was shown. And then ... you just sat there. You sat there for another seven minutes or so doing nothing.

 

 

George, what were you thinking? What did that look on your face mean?

 

 

Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used.

 

 

Or were you just scared shitless?

 

 

 

 

Can you imagine people paying money to read this? These words actually subtract value from the paper they’re printed on. But just as Moore is seemingly all typed out, he suddenly has the most brilliant, perfect idea of his entire life:

 

I've always thought it was interesting that the mass murder of September 11 was allegedly committed by a multi-millionaire. We always say it was committed by a "terrorist" or by an "Islamic fundamentalist" or an "Arab", but we never define Osama by his rightful title: multi-millionaire. Why have we never read a headline saying, "3,000 Killed by multi-millionaire"? It would be a correct headline, would it not?

 

 

It would be, which is why some of us were writing it two years ago. But continue, please (and we’ll leave aside that only a few lines earlier you were doubting that a dialysis case in a cave could have planned September 11):

 

Osama bin Laden has assets totalling at least $30m; he is a multi-millionaire. So why isn't that the way we see this person, as a rich fuck who kills people? Why didn't that become the reason for profiling potential terrorists? Instead of rounding up suspicious Arabs, why don't we say, "Oh my God, a multi-millionaire killed 3,000 people! Round up the multi-millionaires! Throw them all in jail! No charges! No trials! Deport the millionaires!!"

 

 

Michael Moore is a millionaire. Round him up and deport him. He demands it.

 

 

(Via contributor Zsa Zsa, a clever white man.)

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But it is funny.

And so is making fun of his weight/looks.

MICHAEL MOOREFAT LOL2003!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, Mikey is so big he deserves TWO YEARS.

 

OMG MIKEYMOOREFAT LOL 2003-04!!!...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ann Coulter I wouldn't consider to be a face of the right personally.

I wouldn't either.

 

Tits, yes. Face, no...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Eh, those responses were both pretty average. MikeSC's was definitely a lot better than either.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I found Franken funny.

 

But that was a long time ago.

 

And you can't deny that he uses Rush Limbaugh's and Fox News' names to sell books.

 

And the fact that he feels the need to go around and pick fights with various Fox News employees just shows how pathetic he's become.

The FOX NEWS situation was funny because it was obvious that Franken was using the phrase "Fair And Balanced" as a spoofing of the network. It wasn't some serious attack on the network or some such. Both parties acted like children over it.