kinda an easy target isn't it?

bookmark

/first thing from Michael Moore I've looked forward to seeing in a long, long time

I do like their bus though. That was cute.

I saw parts of the clip without sound. He's looking younger and thinner. Is that from TV Nation or The Awful Trut

nekom: kinda an easy target isn't it?

Yes, but he's such a lightning rod of criticism that I wouldn't him touching a difficult target. Michael Moore seems more interested in exploiting problems than solving them.

szmike

Awful Truth.

anal brazil men: Michael Moore seems more interested in exploiting problems than solving them.

exactly, how would he be able to make a living if he were to solve the problems that he uses in his 3 ring circus.

can i root for both of them to lose?

and be swallowed up in a crack in the earth?

OH GOD, WHO DO YOU ROOT FOR?

Is there any way they both can lose? Truth be told, if I had to pick one to cheer for it would be Moore. Making moves full of lies and half truths is nothing compared to interrupting funeral by tell everyone the dead person is going to Hell. I don't care if it's true or not, there is a time and place for everything.

Why is it that any time I see the phrase "takes on," the target seems to be some low-hanging fruit that is almost universally hated or ignored?

asshole v asshole


what a great country we live in

Far left nutjob takes on far right nutjob. With any luck, they'll cancel each other out. Even better would be if it was in a gigantic fireball that annhilated supporters on both sides. ...But I think they're both kinda asinine and I'm a bit cranky this morning, so I guess I'm going a bit overboard.

/Mmmm, fundie fireball
//DIAF?

Vetinari: Is there any way they both can lose?

Both of them make irresponsible use of free speech and make the rest of us look bad--but Phelps has been doing it longer.

Holy crap. The comments on that page are insane.

One thing I've never understood about Fred Phelps. He protests these funerals because these soldiers are dying for a country that tolerates homosexuality, right? So why is Fred Phelps still living here if the US is such an affront to his ideals? He should movie Saudi Arabia where homosexuals are buried in the ground up to their neck and stoned to death. Or to Kazahkstan where gays are forced to wear blue hats.

mediaho


Holy crap. The comments on that page are insane.

It's YouTube. That's par for the course.

mediaho: The comments on that page are insane.

yikes, you ain't kidding. I wonder how many are serious and how many are just trollin'

szmike: So why is Fred Phelps still living here if the US is such an affront to his ideals?

Because his primary source of income is lawsuits against anyone who doesn't let him spew his spleen out.

I thought links requiring registration were not allowed to be posted.

real shaman: I thought links requiring registration were not allowed to be posted.

If you read the page, you'll note that it was flagged for requiring proof of majority by YouTube's users.

As in, some wanker decided to mark it "adult content" and ruin the fun for those of us without youtube accounts.

It's odd how Moore's shtick hasn't changed since Roger & Me but after F911, he went from "defender of the little guy" to "Communist America-hatin' terrorist sympathizer" in some peoples' eyes.

mediaho: It's odd how Moore's shtick hasn't changed since Roger & Me but after F911, he went from "defender of the little guy" to "Communist America-hatin' terrorist sympathizer" in some peoples' eyes.

Because he attacked the people in power directly. *shrug* And what's happened to everyone who's done that?

Now, personally, all I ever saw of his stuff was 'Bowling for Columbine'--and I thought he was a schmuck then, and continue to think he's a schmuck now. The only difference between him and a Fark troll is that he generally stays within sight of the target, and makes a few fewer ad-hominems.

Phelps, on the other hand, is the live-action equivalent of the typical 14-year-old fundie Baptist internet troll. He must have that disease that makes you look old or something.

mediaho


It's odd how Moore's shtick hasn't changed since Roger & Me but after F911, he went from "defender of the little guy" to "Communist America-hatin' terrorist sympathizer" in some peoples' eyes.

I was hating Michael Moore before hating Michael Moore became trendy. OK, maybe "hate" is too strong a word, but I think the guy is a total weasel.

Read this article he wrote before the election of 2000.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2000-10-31

You'll have to keep reminding yourself that this is the man that would go on to make Fahrenheit 9/11.

So that was like from 1999?

Nice to see Phelps has grown and come a long way since then.

Why is Moore's Sodomite hat green?

I think you need to look at what each of them stands for.

Moore is fighting for good causes. I don't approve of some of the methods he's used, especially because when you're standing on the side of good, your messages and goals will stand on their own merit. Moore has opened himself up to justifiable attack because of the way he has chosen to go about furthing his causes. But ultimately, he is trying to accomplish noble things (note that I'm not saying the ends justify the means; any deception Moore has used is not justified in my opinion, and has only harmed him and what he stands for).

Now, Fred Phelps on the other hand, is a festering cesspool of evil. His agenda is hatred. He is malevolent.

Does anyone here really think the two of them are even close when it comes to defining a decent human being? Moore has lost some of my respect as a result of his tactics, but he is a saint compared to Phelps.

Alexis: Moore is fighting for good causes.

Causes that he perceives as 'good', yes. Not everybody will agree that the causes that he is campaigning for are good ones, universally.

And Phelps--giving him the benefit of the doubt for one moment, and assuming that (unlikely, I know) his outrage is sincere--also perceives his cause as 'good'.

It's all in your perspective.

Frankly, I thought it was pretty stupid. Moore mashes the nose of Phelps for hating gay people by bringing out the most over the top gay people he could conjure (real or otherwise).

Pretty dumbass move to give fuel to the tardfire.

/

Causes that he perceives as 'good', yes. Not everybody will agree that the causes that he is campaigning for are good ones, universally.

I've seen most of Moore's stuff. I can't think of anything offhand from him that I wouldn't consider a good cause. Yes, I know, it's subjective.


And Phelps--giving him the benefit of the doubt for one moment, and assuming that (unlikely, I know) his outrage is sincere--also perceives his cause as 'good'.

Oh, I'm sure he believes his cause as good. I'm not sure, however, how to respond to this without Godwinning the thread. *smile*

Alexis: I've seen most of Moore's stuff. I can't think of anything offhand from him that I wouldn't consider a good cause. Yes, I know, it's subjective.

Offhand, you'll get a lot of disagreement off of gun control. It's a fairly controversial issue, and his position is not exactly a moderate one, from what I remember.

Oh, I'm sure he believes his cause as good. I'm not sure, however, how to respond to this without Godwinning the thread. *smile*

By bringing up the likelihood that no, he's not being honest at all about his motivations, and that in that case, he's being deliberately antagonistic for a profit--much like Ann Coulter.

.........heeey. A thought occurs. Phelps and Coulter could very well be gay lovers, couldn't they?

+1 for muninsfire gay lover comment!

nekom:

kinda an easy target isn't it?

It's not a challenge. Hell, Moore wouldn't have anything to edit to mislead the viewer with Phelps.

muninsfire

I tend to believe that Phelps is just a flat out sociopath and his followers are just losers desperate for some purpose in life, no matter how vile. Kinda like the women who would write love letters to Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy.

Michael Moore is, at worst, a propagandist who fights against the establishment.

Phelps = kicks people when they're down
Moore = tries to expose the corrupt and powerful

My big problem with Moore is his "ain't I a stinker?" approach. If he really wanted to seriously confront the NRA and its policies, why didn't he interview NRA President Wayne La Pierre or NRA attorney David Hardy? Because it's much more fun to pick on Charlton Heston, a septagenarian movie star with Alzheimer's. And when that 7-year-old kid shot and killed a classmate, did Moore challenge the mother for letting him live at a crack house? No, Dick Clark is a more entertaining target. Because it was Clark's restaurant she was working for, so somehow he bears more responsibilty for putting the gun in that 7-year-old kid's hand than the mother's negligence.

Moore's primary intentions are good, but he's woefully misguided in his targets, or when he has a good target (like Bush), he's goes for the cheap shots. And he takes far too much pride in riling up his detractors. I don't think he realized until after the election of 2004 that his "I'm going to get rid your president, Republicans, and there's nothing you can do about it" goading that lead up the election did far more for motivating Republicans to the voting booth, than for Democrats who were already bound and determined to vote against Bush.

But like I said, Moore's intentions are good whereas Phelps wishes to bring more misery to the grieving.

szmike
I was in concurrance with muninsfire for the "it's all a matter of perspective". I have just changed my mind after reading your interpretation of the comparison.
Ta.

szmike: But like I said, Moore's intentions are good whereas Phelps wishes to bring more misery to the grieving.

I don't know. I don't think that people's actions should be judged as much by their intentions as on the effect that they have on others.

Both Moore and Phelps go out of their way to cause trouble--and to me, that makes them both unworthy of respect.

stebain: szmike
I was in concurrance with muninsfire for the "it's all a matter of perspective". I have just changed my mind after reading your interpretation of the comparison.
Ta.

......you sank my battleship! ;-þ

muninsfire


stebain: szmike
I was in concurrance with muninsfire for the "it's all a matter of perspective". I have just changed my mind after reading your interpretation of the comparison.
Ta.

......you sank my battleship! ;-þ

Your destroyer's next, bee-yotch!!!

before Neon Deon joined the Redskins, this was like voting for injuries during Redskins VS Cowboys games. hate them both so you want them BOTH to lose.

To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, "it's a pity they can't both lose."

Michael Moore. I like the guy. He's all about "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Some of that footage he dug up for Fahrenheit 9/11 was just...amazing.

============================

"What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base. "

"I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."

"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: Fool me once...shame on...Shame on you...If fooled, you can't get fooled again."


And the scene in the school when Bush was just told "America is under attack." And that terribly sad scene in the Senate when the 2000 election was being certified...The list just goes on and on.

=============================

Of course Moore has serious flaws in every one of his documentaries, there's no denying that. But when it comes to research skills, accuracy in reporting and compassion for fellow human beings Moore is light years ahead of the right wing pundants that are on Fox every single day.

And he's pretty funny.

Moore, like most people on the left, are almost always held to FAR higher standards than those on the right.

It's unfair, of course. But in the end, that's probably a good thing.

Michael Moore is the biggest douchebag any political spectrum could produce.

Yes, even bigger than the person you're going to suggest.

Its like WWII, there Nazism and Stalinism beat themselves senseless, while the free world comes up the middle for the win.

Which one is a bigger dbag, though? It's a close call.

2007-01-26 09:42:27 AMszmike ... to Kazahkstan where gays are forced to wear blue hats.

Oh crap. I'M wearing a blue hat.

szmike: Kazahkstan where gays are forced to wear blue hats.

With spangles?

albo: can i root for both of them to lose?

and be swallowed up in a crack in the earth?

I will root with you.

Know what would be cool? If Rosie ate both Moore and Phelps and exploded. That would be totally cool!

I thought Moore was very sensitive in that one movie where he comforted a topless Angelina Jolie.

muninsfire: Causes that he perceives as 'good', yes. Not everybody will agree that the causes that he is campaigning for are good ones, universally.

And Phelps--giving him the benefit of the doubt for one moment, and assuming that (unlikely, I know) his outrage is sincere--also perceives his cause as 'good'.


Stupid. This kind of "fair and balanced" claptrap is what's killing the country. Make a list of Moore's causes and a list of Phelps' causes, and then tell me there's any equivalence, except to a lunatic. Maybe "not everyone" agrees with Moore's causes, but almost everyone disagrees with Phelps.