PDA

View Full Version : Michael Moore's "documentaries"



alphaknave
Monday, March 21st, 2005, 12:05 PM
I'm sure you are familiar with Michael Moore's documentaries Bowling for Columbines, Fahrenheit 911, ect. Do you think his opinions are just his way at getting money, or do you think he is seriously trying to educate the public of the false media and the lies within America?

Many Americans criticize him for his opinions, which is no surprise, since his ideas have an almost Neo-Nazi approach (false news being Zion, ect.).

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ <--Example of cover-up?

herr georg
Thursday, June 30th, 2005, 12:36 PM
Micheal more is marxist, definatley, I don't see how his opinions are neo-nazi.

He's against gun ownership, and he is very deceptive by presenting us with information but then leaving out extensive amounts so he can manipulate these 'facts' to support his ideas. He used video footage of different speeches from charlton heston or whatever his name is and spliced it all up, cutting out vital parts of the speech. He gives us a figure, a statistic of annual firearm deaths but leaves out vital information - about how many of those shootings were done by the police and neccessary, about how many of those shootings were done with firearms obtained illegally and so on and so forth.
One of his books is entitled 'stupid white men'....and apprently he incites black people to put 'whites only' signs on the shops of people they are pissed off at.
And, in his documentary bowling for columbine I think it was, he tried to make it look as though rich people had black slaves.
You see, the left sees things in a very naive way;
to them, there is a line drawn up with 'left wing' and 'right wing' written on either side, with socialism and more government involvment and control leaning to the left and then capitalism to the right. 'Fascism' (which is an extremely flawed and misused term) is in the extreme right further down the direction of capitalism, communism is further down the direction of socialism on the extreme left, and to them the neo-conservatives and george bush deserve to be called 'nazism', despite the fact george bush is a neo-conservative / conservative republican pro-democratic ultra-capitialistic zionist, not an nationalist socialist. The left don't even know what nazi stands for, and they don't realise that the nazi's were socialists who supported the working class, or that fascism describes ONE particular movement which the term was invented for and which is anti-capitalist , pro-socialist.
This is the sort of reasoning that goes on in moore's head and his documentaries. He's full of shit. If george bush was ushering in a 'fourth reich', how do you think he's going about it, pouring millions of dollars into israel each year, sending americans to their deaths for the jews, as president of the united states, trying to spread democracy and capitalism around the world?
Sorry if I rambled on, but I just had to make a point, stupidity is unfortunatley painful to others and not to the perpetratours themselves ;)

Mj÷lnir
Thursday, June 30th, 2005, 09:24 PM
I think he is seriously trying to educate the public of the false media and the lies within America!

But wuhahah this Guy has never in any kind of any way at any time never never never Nationalsocialistic tendeces or any other things in that way.

M.,:D

JeremyScott
Tuesday, August 9th, 2005, 05:33 PM
Moore is a fat slob with nothing more on his time than making money. His wishes are that of himself. He is nothing but pure communistic socialist trash and I spit on the ground that he walks on.

JJ Diamond
Saturday, August 13th, 2005, 06:48 AM
Michael Moore and documentaries, more like Jack Ass and Propaganda, He never tells the full story he just gives us cut-up clips of news reals and tells us his views pure propaganda thats all it is.:thumbdown

Blutw÷lfin
Saturday, August 13th, 2005, 11:10 AM
He's a weird guy. He denounced the way US-media and politicians work, but does in fact exactly the same. It's simply propaganda fo "the other side", using the same arguments and techniques, but just the other way around.

He pulls shocking facts out of his pockets, tries to make people cry by seeing such bad things happen like a bunch of highschool teeangers running into a class room and shooting other kids - it's just like a Hollywood movie. He shows the people what they want to see, leaves out some facts, tries to blame the ones he personally doesn't like.

To the firearm-story of "Bowling for Columbine", there's one more thing to add - although some others already did. He compared the number of shooting victims of different countries. I can't remember the exact numbers, but in the USA was a huge number of kills, in e.g. Germany were less. Sounds shocking for all Americans on first sight, but probably they forget that there are a lot more people living in the United States. So of course the number of shooting victims is much higher than in countries with a smaller population. If he had made a correct comparison, he would have calculated the number of gun victims per head, not per country.

So, Michael Moore uses the stupidity of his own folk to confuse his viewers and to make things look more shocking and intolerable.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the side he is fighting against, I don't like the system of the USA, but I don't like Michael Moore, too.

Alizon Device
Saturday, August 13th, 2005, 04:28 PM
As far as Moore's political persuasions and propaganda methods go, I suppose he's entitled to his hackneyed views.

My problem with Moore is Moore himself. There's a Michael Moore in every schoolyard in the world, the one who thinks he's wittier, more intelligent than the rest.
Who couldn't stick up for himself to save his life, so he uses his unoriginal, 2nd-hand humour to hide behind the Tough Guys.
Scruffy, overweight, liberal, concerned-yet-rich, patronising, condescending, self-absorbed, rebellious-yet-homework-always-in-on-time, Michael Moore is a horrible, probably deep-down very unhappy, middle-aged man.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, August 14th, 2005, 06:28 PM
I have mixed feelings towards Moore and his films. On one hand, they do expose many problems that exist in American society today. The problem is, he does it in a manner that is misleading and twisting facts around, which is really a shame.

Siegfried
Tuesday, August 16th, 2005, 09:35 AM
"He sends his child to a private school -- no sense associating with the working class -- and has some trouble associating with them himself. The New York Post reported on a tantrum he threw in London: "Then, on his second-to-last night, [Michael Moore] raged against everyone connected with the Roundhouse and complained that he was being paid a measly $750 a night. 'He completely lost the plot,' a member of the stage crew told the London Evening Standard. 'He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the 5 pound-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all con men and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public.' At his last appearance, staffers refused to work or even open the theater's doors." NY Post, Jan. 8, 2003.

He supplements his meager income with speaking tours. No more $750 gigs; on his 2004 pre-election tour he charged Utah Valley State College $40,000, Xavier $25,000, and University of New Mexico $35,000. Not bad for an hour or two's work.
Ah, the joys of capitalism....

[...]

A look at Bowling for Columbine (my main analysis to date). In producing his Oscar-winner, Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn't as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither."

[source] (http://www.mooreexposed.com/)

alphaknave
Thursday, August 18th, 2005, 02:30 AM
Yea, thought so, though the "stupid white man" title of the book didn't make me too happy when I saw it...
Imagine a book called "Snoop Dogg, the Big Drugged-Up Stupid Black Man".

Joe000
Thursday, August 18th, 2005, 04:17 AM
Yup, Moore is your typical self-loathing white liberal.