I refuse to pay to watch a Michael Moore film. Here is why, in the form of a question:
If Capitalism is such a pervasive EVIL, then why is he compounding that evil by charging people to go see his movie. And yes, I know that technically he is not charging you, the theatre is, but you take my meaning . . .
Moore is the Glenn Beck of the Left, a pseudo-populist propaganda machine who would have been right at home working for Goebbels.
Sorry, but I really despise Moore's complete lack of ethics in his alleged "documentaries".
Beck spews ridiculous nonsense about the "left" (and Obama, etc.) with little if any substantive evidence to back up his claims.
Moore makes "documentaries" which omit facts that are inconvenient to his stated hypothesis in order to "prove" what he believes to be the truth.
Neither of them is interested in any discussion of the flaws in their arguments, or the utter wing-nuttery of their respective positions. So how are they dissimilar?
I'm pretty anti-Moore myself, and haven't yet seen the movie, but from what I've seen (including a q+a with Moore) it seems it's more anti-corporatism than capitalism. There isn't much of a free market left in banking, which is where he seems to aim much of his vitriol.
I admittedly hang left of centre. To me Glenn Beck is a caricature of ridiculousness. When I see his act I find it funny.
Those who lean to the right get so worked up about Moore's work it shows that he is actually relevant.
Moore would be relevant if his documentaries stuck to the facts. They don't, which makes him as big a joke as Beck. Neither one of them does their "side" any favours with their schtick.
Mike, you are pretty much bang on with your assessment, at least as far as I can tell. Which is just another example of Moore's relativism when it comes to being honest with the rubes.
Oh, and for the record, I hang left as well. We're talking tailoring, right?
They are both noisemakers that distract from people trying to have a rational discussion. Much like bratty toddlers, they should sent to bed with no supper. Especially, Moore. He could stand to lose a few kilos . . .
They are both noisemakers that distract from people trying to have a rational discussion. Much like bratty toddlers, they should sent to bed with no supper. Especially, Moore. He could stand to lose a few kilos . . .
I refuse to pay to watch a Michael Moore film. Here is why, in the form of a question:
If Capitalism is such a pervasive EVIL, then why is he compounding that evil by charging people to go see his movie. And yes, I know that technically he is not charging you, the theatre is, but you take my meaning . . .
Moore is the Glenn Beck of the Left, a pseudo-populist propaganda machine who would have been right at home working for Goebbels.
Sorry, but I really despise Moore's complete lack of ethics in his alleged "documentaries".
Haven't read anything else in this thread, but for the record Michael Moore donates most of his profits to charity. I agree where you are going with this, but if you actually look into it you will see he does do a lot of good with the money he makes.
Been interested in seeing it. As biased as Micheal Moore is, he's a good film maker. Just need to take everything with a grain of salt. If anything good can come from a Michael Moore film, is that it may inspire someone to go out and do their own research on matters and come to their own conclusion.
Been interested in seeing it. As biased as Micheal Moore is, he's a good film maker. Just need to take everything with a grain of salt. If anything good can come from a Michael Moore film, is that it may inspire someone to go out and do their own research on matters and come to their own conclusion.
Ya, I kind of feel the same way. People often state that Moore's films get a lot of treatment in the editing room to push his agenda but I have yet to hear anything to back it up. I find that he does peel back the layers about a lot of subjects and get people discussing them armed with a little more info. He may be going in with an agenda but so are almost all documentary film makers. It's all in how they present it.
Glenn Beck, on the other hand, I just another idiot right wing talking head with nothing of value to share (like most of them). He tries to cloud the subject with his exuberant lying and rhetoric. I have yet to see him (or Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc..) put forward something with a calm and level headed demeanor. Moore ordinarily does try and and engage with a sincere desire for a rational discourse.
Edge - Moore
Ya, I kind of feel the same way. People often state that Moore's films get a lot of treatment in the editing room to push his agenda but I have yet to hear anything to back it up.
SERIOUSLY?? Are you kidding?
One example: Bowling for Columbine.
A bank is offering a free rifle for opening a new account. The fine print requires that people go to an off-site location to pick up their rifle, for safety/security reasons. Moore wheedles, cajoles, insists that he be given his rifle in the bank, precisely to film the scene as it is shown in the movie. There are numerous examples in all of Moore's movies of this sort of chicanery. If you really want to find some, try this new thing on the net called google. You'll be amazed
Moore's biggest deceit is to call his films documentaries. Documentaries are supposed to deal with facts. ALL the facts, rather than those most convenient to Moore's agenda.
Comments
If Capitalism is such a pervasive EVIL, then why is he compounding that evil by charging people to go see his movie. And yes, I know that technically he is not charging you, the theatre is, but you take my meaning . . .
Moore is the Glenn Beck of the Left, a pseudo-populist propaganda machine who would have been right at home working for Goebbels.
Sorry, but I really despise Moore's complete lack of ethics in his alleged "documentaries".
I lol'd
PLEASE!
Glenn Beck is a bad actor.
Disagree with Michael Moore's movies if you wish but that comparison is flawed.
Beck spews ridiculous nonsense about the "left" (and Obama, etc.) with little if any substantive evidence to back up his claims.
Moore makes "documentaries" which omit facts that are inconvenient to his stated hypothesis in order to "prove" what he believes to be the truth.
Neither of them is interested in any discussion of the flaws in their arguments, or the utter wing-nuttery of their respective positions. So how are they dissimilar?
Glen Beck looks better naked:
M. Moore:
Beck is less fun at a party:
vs. M. Moore, man about town..
I admittedly hang left of centre. To me Glenn Beck is a caricature of ridiculousness. When I see his act I find it funny.
Those who lean to the right get so worked up about Moore's work it shows that he is actually relevant.
First!
Moore would be relevant if his documentaries stuck to the facts. They don't, which makes him as big a joke as Beck. Neither one of them does their "side" any favours with their schtick.
Mike, you are pretty much bang on with your assessment, at least as far as I can tell. Which is just another example of Moore's relativism when it comes to being honest with the rubes.
Oh, and for the record, I hang left as well. We're talking tailoring, right?
As I said before you can disagree, even hate Moore's work but this statement just seems ridiculous to me.
There is no joke as big as Beck.
Um, did this, and found it surprisingly lame.
They are both noisemakers that distract from people trying to have a rational discussion. Much like bratty toddlers, they should sent to bed with no supper. Especially, Moore. He could stand to lose a few kilos . . .
2nd row, third column, "testicle hanging out" made me puke in my mouth..
I may never put one in my mouth again..so thanks for ruining my social life!
Obv you has better google images than me.
But, NEVER say never.
A+ stuff
Pics of self or gtfo!
Not biting Milo.
Nvm, BYOPorn
Haven't read anything else in this thread, but for the record Michael Moore donates most of his profits to charity. I agree where you are going with this, but if you actually look into it you will see he does do a lot of good with the money he makes.
You know, if you photo-chopped the Drtyore into this, it would make a decent avatar . . .
It would be easier just to "undo" putting Beck's head on the DrTyore pic.
Ya, I kind of feel the same way. People often state that Moore's films get a lot of treatment in the editing room to push his agenda but I have yet to hear anything to back it up. I find that he does peel back the layers about a lot of subjects and get people discussing them armed with a little more info. He may be going in with an agenda but so are almost all documentary film makers. It's all in how they present it.
Glenn Beck, on the other hand, I just another idiot right wing talking head with nothing of value to share (like most of them). He tries to cloud the subject with his exuberant lying and rhetoric. I have yet to see him (or Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc..) put forward something with a calm and level headed demeanor. Moore ordinarily does try and and engage with a sincere desire for a rational discourse.
Edge - Moore
SERIOUSLY?? Are you kidding?
One example: Bowling for Columbine.
A bank is offering a free rifle for opening a new account. The fine print requires that people go to an off-site location to pick up their rifle, for safety/security reasons. Moore wheedles, cajoles, insists that he be given his rifle in the bank, precisely to film the scene as it is shown in the movie. There are numerous examples in all of Moore's movies of this sort of chicanery. If you really want to find some, try this new thing on the net called google. You'll be amazed
Moore's biggest deceit is to call his films documentaries. Documentaries are supposed to deal with facts. ALL the facts, rather than those most convenient to Moore's agenda.