NEWS: Michael Moore, One Hell Of A Fat Asshole

So how does Michael Moore's cock taste?

You need to do some fact-checking, my friend. I'm sorry, I hate the Bush Administration as much as any social libertarian, but I refuse to be silent if someone is spreading lies or otherwise distorting the truth, because the truth always comes out. When the truth is exposed, it tends to alienate more people from your way of thinking than the lies helped convert. Plus, you lose whatever moral authority you had when you start lying or distorting.

Michael Moore doesn't "try to find out" anything. He tries to convince you to agree with his point of view by obfuscating the facts or by explicitly lying about them. In Bowling for Columbine, when he was talking about gun deaths per country, he conveniently left out Switzerland, which has more gun owners per capita than the United States (everyone there has a fully automatic assault rifle and at least two magazines of ammunition), but far less crime overall, and even less gun crimes. Michael Moore feeds us just as much lies, if not more, than the current administration.

Oh, and who the fuck cares in K-Mart sells bullets? You can get them just as easily at a gun shop.

People outside of America like him. So fucking what? That doesn't make him right. In Bowling for Columbine, he took the NRA to task for holding meetings in Denver and Flint after Columbine and some other shooting. Meetings that were REQUIRED BY LAW and which would have been logistically impossible to relocate. And that's just one of the more obvious examples of his distortions...

Michael Moore's $100,000 "challenge" sounds like This guy's $250,000 challenge to prove evolution. The terms are such that it is impossible to claim the prize.

BTW, your world travels mean nothing.

Michael Moore may piss some people off and give righties ammo to bash the left but he opens people up to topics they may never pursue.

Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 are worth watching because the subject matter is worth discussing.

When it comes to his attacks on Bush and the Bush family he brings up family connections that other mainstream sources will not. By doing so he brings topics to mind that some people will never consider. This is the good that Michael Moore achieves.

Not everyone will read books like American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips or Oil, Power and Empire by Larry Everest. Most people don't have the time. If they don't pick up The Nation or read some Chomsky or Zinn they watch documentaries and get some info that may inspire them to look deeper into subjects that guys like Moore bring to the national and world stage.

I think shedding light on Cuba is a good thing. Most people hear Cuba and immediately scoff. The truth is that Cuba does have some goods things to highlight like the advances in medicine that Moore wants to expose. Although exploiting people is fucked and never a good thing but I'll choose to look at the big picture with that.

Perhaps you missed the section where he discussed Canadian gun ownership (heavy) and their relative lack of gun crime? Why bring up Switzerland when there's a country culturally much more similar to ours much closer to us and which offers a similar perspective? I don't know, maybe you didn't see the same movie I did, because I didn't get some sort of one-sided anti-gun rant out of it. As far as I could tell, the conclusion drawn was that we live in a culture of fear, and that has a lot more to do with things like Columbine than our rate of gun ownership.

He also mentioned in the film that he is an almost lifelong member of the NRA.

I've lived in Canada. Do you know how hard it is to own a handgun or assault rifle in Canada? Canada has much stricter gun control than we do.

I get the "culture of fear" argument, but I fail to see how that is any different from any other Western country. I saw the same stories covered on the news, the same products being advertised in the same way, et cetera, et cetera, while I was living in Canada.

I got the impression that it was equal parts anti-gun rant (why else would he care that K-Mart sells bullets or that a bank gives away a shotgun or hunting rifle when you open a checking account with them) and equal parts "cultural expose" (as if the "culture of fear" was unique to the United States).

Then he should have been quick to inform us that the NRA was REQUIRED BY LAW to hold the meetings that he took umbrage with, and that it would have been impossible to relocate the meetings on such short notice.

I don't care that he's been a member of the NRA for almost his whole life. The way he distorts the truth about the NRA tells me that his loyalties are more than somewhat suspect.

What's funny here is you don't even have the correct old actor. Kirk Douglas isn't an NRA member (that I can see, anyways).

Per CelebPolitics.com:

NewsMeat seems to have him pretty well locked down as fairly liberal. The only times he gives to Republicans are when they're from his home state. In national elections, he funds Democrats every single time.

The senile old gun nut who parted the Red Sea and swapped spit with a monkey is Charlton Heston.

I see. Is that how it is in the NRA? If you do not share the same agenda as every other member you are not really a member?

His loyalties? It's a club for people who own guns. Since when did that require swearing a blood oath to the political agenda of leaders? He is a long time gun owner, user, and enthusiast and has no interest in banning firearms, so if he is distorting the truth it is hardly to that end.

Technically, I am a Teamster. Since I do not share in most of their political agenda, I do not identify as a Teamster.

Besides, this isn't an issue of him not agreeing with their agenda. It's an issue of him deliberately misleading his viewers for the purpose of casting the NRA in a negative light. Since he is a member, I'd call that a betrayal.

The NRA has been an advocacy group for a very long time. They've been involved in politics since I was old enough to pay attention to the news. To suggest that they are merely a club for people who own guns is ridiculous. That's like saying that PETA is a club for people who like animals.

I used to be a member of Amnesty International, back when I was in high school. I left the organization years ago because I believe that the death penalty, in and of itself, does not violate human rights. I do believe, however, that, so long as there is a chance that one innocent person may be executed, it should be mothballed. Because I differed ideologically from Amnesty International, I decided to no longer be a member. I will not join the NRA, despite my eventual ownership of an assault rifle (I'm saving money for an AK-47), because I think that they are a bit too anti-gun control.

I never said that Moore wants to ban firearms. I do believe that he wants our gun control laws to mirror Canada's, where it is next to impossible to legally own a handgun or assault rifle.

Actually, you are right, it is exactly like that. What you are wrong about is the apparent implication that the only members of PETA are those that advocate a radical political agenda. The NRA has lots of members and many of them are members in spite of the politics, rather than because of them. Many strongly disagree with the politics. To suggest that not supporting the agenda of the week implies disloyalty (to a gun club for fuck's sakes), or someone not being a real member is absurd to the nth degree.

Congratulations on being capable of determining what organizations you feel you should be a part of. Please extend the same courtesy to others.

The only members of PETA are those who advocate a radical political agenda. PETA, like the NRA, makes their political agenda well known. No animal lover would ever join PETA because it's a "club" for animal lovers, The only people who join PETA are the ones who agree with the organization's radical agenda. Anyone else would leave the organization upon learning their political agenda.

The NRA is the same way. There are plenty of gun clubs to join that don't have political agendas. So why join the NRA if you disagree with their agenda? Why continue being a member of any organization if they support causes that you do not support?

Oh, and FYI: I was saying that the way Moore made the NRA out to be the bad guy for holding their annual meetings in Denver and Flint is disloyal, because he is being completely dishonest about what happened. The NRA canceled tonnes of events they had scheduled and ONLY had their required annual meetings those years.

I was illustrating a principle. Would I join the Libertarian Party if I felt that their political agenda was too extremist? You have the right to join whatever organizations you would like to. Meanwhile, I have the right to draw whatever conclusions I may about you based on what groups you choose to support financially through membership dues and donations.

I think any semblance of an actual exchange has ended, if in fact it ever began. If you refuse to accept the fact, and it is an absolute fact, that there are lots and lots of people in the NRA in spite of the political agenda of the organization, then there is little to say. Especially since I am sitting directly across from one of them, and I feel pretty confident that they could give a much more articulate explanation for why they are a part of the NRA than you could for why they should not be... or why they are not a real member according to your idea of what an NRA member should be.

The principle you illustrated is that you can make spurious connections. The NRA is similar to a political party... to you. You need to take a look outside you some time. There are other people with their own motivations and every thing. They decide where they should be all on their own. It's amazing!

Whatever semblance of an actual exchange ended when you refused to read this part of what I said:

Which was in reference to him getting sand in his vagina over their meetings in Denver and Flint after Columbine and the Kayla Rolland shooting (respectively), which he called "rallies". He also used some Avid magic to fuck with the timeline of events. The "rally" in Flint was not a rally, but an annual meeting that was required by law, and whose date and place had been fixed years in advance.

Lying about an organization you are a member of in order to cast that organization in a negative light is disloyalty, my friend. I'm sorry that you're too busy fellating Michael Moore to understand this basic concept. I'm also sorry that performing said fellatio keeps you too occupied to actually read what was posted.

I tire of having to constantly re-state the same thing. If you persist in trying to argue this (my accusations of disloyalty, which have nothing to do with whether or not Moore agrees with the NRA's political agenda), I will start copying and pasting. It saves time and accomplishes as much.

My very late .02. Bowling good, 9/11 bad. I've hoped maybe he might redeem himself one day, although it's not looking that way.

I read it. It had nothing to do with anything I have said in this thread and seems to be a response to a conversation I had and have nothing to do with. I only pointed out that he is in the NRA, is a gun enthusiast and has no interest in banning them. Please go back in the thread and realize that you responded to me, not the other way around.

The rest of your post is a rather pathetic ad hominem. Telling me that I am sucking Michael Moore's dick is pathetic. Your ability to speak to people is pathetic. Bye.

You were taking issue with my accusations of disloyalty. I defended those accusations by pointing out that he lied about the NRA in Bowling for Columbine. You refused to even read my defence of my accusations, instead focusing on what amounts to an irrelevant point. I don't care what conclusions you've drawn from his membership in the NRA. I've drawn much different conclusions based on how he has lied about them.

I was resorting to ad hominem because you weren't really reading what I was posting anyway, so why the fuck not? If you were reading what I was posting, you would have seen quite clearly that I was referring to his lies about the NRA in Bowling for Columbine when I accused him of disloyalty.

As for being a member of a group whose political agenda you oppose, why? More was 23 when the NRA shifted to the right and became primarily an anti-gun control lobbying group. Assuming he joined the organization when he was 18, and so was a member when this happened, why stay with an organization whose only concern was to oppose legislation that would limit access to guns by law-abiding citizens for thirty years? I'm sorry, but I can't be a member of a group whose political agenda I oppose for longer than a month before I start to get disgusted with my own hypocrisy.

One Filmaker is not responsible for the lack of healthcare that people who killed themselves in the 9-11 rescue have. You might not like Michael Moore, but it is ignorant to blame the messanger here. Why does he have the opertunity to make such a critique of the American HMO-PHarma-Rackett? Because That system stinks.
Are you also angry with the news because they reported the terrible conditions at Walter Reed?

If you want to live in a country where people don't have the right to speak try America's good friend Saudi Arabia.

Thank you for being an intelligent , evolving human instead of a blind idiot like over half of America...So many morons don't see how we are getting fucked everyday ... At least Michael Moore has the balls to say SOMETHING...I can't speak for the rest of America but YOU get it...Thanks
edit..thanks for reading books , another lost art in america