[Zimphire]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../29/do2902.xml

And this one is a gem.

Mr Moore is guilty of what I believe psychologists call "projection".

BWAHAHHAHAHAHA. I see a pattern here with the Bush bashers.

Then there is the

I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: there's a lot of money in it. What's harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so na�ve it'll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they'd have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.

Hmm. Maybe they don't need to. Stick him in a headdress and he looks like King Fahd's brother. All I'm saying is connect the dots.

That above is what I have been saying ALL ALONG.

People who act "intellectual" don't realize how foolish they look treating this guy and his movie like the truth.

That is why these intellectuals have been dubbed "Mooreons"

[ebuddy]

Excellent point Zimph. Moore is a big fat idiot.

[Zimphire]

Yeah, I heard Demi Moore made an ass out of herself at the showing I heard.

[Zimphire]

DP

[george68]

He's a stupid piece of ****. I wish he was responsible for 'supersize me' so his arteries would clog sooner.

- Rob

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by george68:
He's a stupid piece of ****. I wish he was responsible for 'supersize me' so his arteries would clog sooner.

- Rob

Come on, he doesn't eat too much!

He is just a plain jane blue color guy!

Heh, I notice not many mooreons are commenting in THIS thread about him.

The truth must sting.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah, I heard Demi Moore made an ass out of herself at the showing I heard.

This isn't surprising. Most celebrities are complete idiots with their political views. What makes it worse is that they know anything they say will be heard by millions. What makes that worse is the smart guy/girl who says something intelligent with no one wanting to listen.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh, I notice not many mooreons are commenting in THIS thread about him.

The truth must sting.

Between this, and Hunter Thompson possibly becoming Kerry's VP, I think they're worried.

[Zimphire]

Hey, I liked Fear and Loathing. If not to see two guys make a total jackass out of themselves.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey, I liked Fear and Loathing.

Here here!

[bleuvixen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Heh, I notice not many mooreons are commenting in THIS thread about him.

Is Mooreons something you made up because you have nothign better to do with your time then make fun of people?
You disputed nothing, so we knew most this before, so Moore is out to make money (no shiat? *gasp*) your article is an opinion on the film and Moores career, make no arguments besides the obvious or backs anything up.

Also, I don't think anyone wants to interupt your circle jerk in here, have fun!

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
Also, I don't think anyone wants to interupt your circle jerk in here, have fun!

You're right. We should wait for the rest of the liberals to show up before that starts.

[PacHead]

I saw on the news yesterday, somebody saying that Wesley Clark did not distance himself from MM's ridiculous comments, and this caused him in part to lose. The same thing might happen to kerry, and as a matter of fact, I was watching Hannity & Colmes last night and Oillie North made a bold prediction. He's already called the Race, and announced Bush the winner.

The left is indeed getting desperate, when they turn to the likes of MM, who is a radical slob, and he will end up hurting them.

[bleuvixen]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Oillie North made a bold prediction. He's already called the Race, and announced Bush the winner.

Ollie North... bwahahahaha...hahaha..

Anyway: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
Is Mooreons something you made up because you have nothign better to do with your time then make fun of people?

#1 I didn't make up the word. Not sure who did. But it has been now deemed the official name for those who believe and follow Moore.
#2 Do you make sigs belittling people that that because you have nothing better to do with your time?

You disputed nothing, so we knew most this before, so Moore is out to make money (no shiat? *gasp*) your article is an opinion on the film and Moores career, make no arguments besides the obvious or backs anything up.

Did you read the article?

Also, I don't think anyone wants to interupt your circle jerk in here, have fun!

Naw, people are hiding.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
Ollie North... bwahahahaha...hahaha..

Anyway: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Pres...cking_Poll.htm

Yeah, I know who the dude is. We'll see if he's right come November. I'll say this again: The left are terrible sorelosers, and I will be prepared for the amount of venom they will spew if they happen to lose.

[bleuvixen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
#1 I didn't make up the word. Not sure who did. But it has been now deemed the official name for those who believe and follow Moore.
#2 Do you make sigs belittling people that that because you have nothing better to do with your time?
Did you read the article?
Naw, people are hiding. [/B]

1) ok good enough
2) yep
I did read the article but saw nothing new.

Perhaps the are hiding, but I only see 4 people browsing this loung as of now...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
Perhaps the are hiding, but I only see 4 people browsing this loung as of now...

It was posted yesterday.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
Perhaps the are hiding, but I only see 4 people browsing this loung as of now...

"See" being the operative word. This new fangled internet thing has this "anonymity" function that is really kickin rad.

[bleuvixen]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
"See" being the operative word. This new fangled internet thing has this "anonymity" function that is really kickin rad.

I usually "see" most of the ones who comment here regularly. But conspiracy therories can be fun.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by bleuvixen:
I usually "see" most of the ones who comment here regularly. But conspiracy therories can be fun.

Conspiracy theories? Can you see me? No.

[Spliffdaddy]

can't see me, either.

heck, most everyone is 'anonymous' around here.

[Zimphire]

[ebuddy]

Actually, it's quite possible that Hillary will be their VP nomination. After they nominate Kerry of course.

This would get hairy. Hillary has been somewhat favorable in the public eye. She held her family together, she's kinda cute in a way, she's bold, and she speaks well in public. I predict she will be the running mate. They weren't going to use her for fear that Kerry was a guaranteed loss. With so much polling data suggesting Bush and Kerry are neck and neck, they may find this the opportune time to present their token woman. I say, let's dump Cheney and bring in Condi. I'd love to see a cat fight debate between the two of them. Condi would make her look just foolish. Hell, Condi for PRESIDENT!!!

We have Dick Cheney who is a little like Lon Chany at times. As long as things go well in Iraq and Osama and WMD magically appear by late August, we're good to go. Both of which I predicted this winter.

[Sven G]

Zimph, what exactly irritates you so much about Michael Moore?

I really don't see what the deal is. He's not really a revolutionary, so he shouldn't even be a "dangerous" (sic!) threat to all you conservatives of any flavour: what can he do, practically, besides writing books and making movies? Not all that much, probably, as we are not in the '60s anymore - sadly (oh, the horror!).

Maybe the more obvious fact is that you "conservatives" don't have anything new to say - and even less to realize in practice...?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
she's kinda cute in a way

What the hell!



I suppose in a wookie or jabberwokie sort of way!

[deomacius]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Zimph, what exactly irritates you so much about Michael Moore?

I hate to interject but I wanted to give my opinion on this. The frustrating part about Michael Moore is probably not so much the fact that he bends facts to his agenda. It's more to do with the fact that supporters are quick to propogate the information out to the masses as fact or label it a documentary. I was under the impression that a true documentary was more neutral. A vehicle for delivering the facts of an event or individual and letting the viewer decide for themselves where they stand on the afore mentioned. Moore's films are not documentaries if they omit and twist facts to guide a viewer into having a certain opinion on a subject or individual. Of course if you throw in all the mudslinging advertising and media opinion it looks more and more like people are swayed by propaganda than facts they've dug up themselves. Doesn't really give me much faith in the Democratic process if the election can be won by the person who wins over the most viewers with advertisements, ads, lawn signs and documentaries. That's what it's looking like these days.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Hillary has been somewhat favorable in the public eye. she's kinda cute in a way,

Your kidding right? Have you been on a drinking binge?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Zimph, what exactly irritates you so much about Michael Moore?

I think you are misinterpreting my intentions. MM doesn't irritate me.

It's his blind sheep followers that does.

MM is just trying to make a buck by spreading FUD. That is on him. It's the idiots that follow his word like it was the truth that makes me chuckle. Not irritate. But humor.

In the same way the "The US didn't land on the moon" conspiracy theorists that make me laugh.

These people are just like the Mooreons.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deomacius:
I hate to interject but I wanted to give my opinion on this. The frustrating part about Michael Moore is probably not so much the fact that he bends facts to his agenda. It's more to do with the fact that supporters are quick to propogate the information out to the masses as fact or label it a documentary. I was under the impression that a true documentary was more neutral. A vehicle for delivering the facts of an event or individual and letting the viewer decide for themselves where they stand on the afore mentioned. Moore's films are not documentaries if they omit and twist facts to guide a viewer into having a certain opinion on a subject or individual. Of course if you throw in all the mudslinging advertising and media opinion it looks more and more like people are swayed by propaganda than facts they've dug up themselves. Doesn't really give me much faith in the Democratic process if the election can be won by the person who wins over the most viewers with advertisements, ads, lawn signs and documentaries. That's what it's looking like these days.

[scaught]

IMO in general, anyone who accepts one persons or one things view as truth, is an idiot. imagine reading a report where the "works cited" page only had ONE thing?

anyone who quotes or references this movie as a basis for anything would fall in that category.

i havent seen it yet, im going on saturday i think.... is it possible that it presents anything in a thorough enough fashion that someone could consider it irrefutable? are there any Facts?

[adamk]

Originally posted by scaught:
IMO in general, anyone who accepts one persons or one things view as truth, is an idiot. imagine reading a report where the "works cited" page only had ONE thing?

anyone who quotes or references this movie as a basis for anything would fall in that category.

i just wanted to second this thought. one thing that i like about moore, and it is a double-edged sword, is that he does bring a lot of facts and ideas to the public view. what people decide to do with the facts and opinions is up to the individual. my history teacher was fond of saying "a little bit of education can be a dangerous thing".

in order to get a well-formed opinion, one needs to read (ahem, george bush), watch and listen to numerous sources, including those with whom you disagree, and investigate what truth there is to what they say. it is easy to dismiss someone because you don't like them. it is my opinion, that there is no objectivity in journalism (just saw control room) and in order to approach anything near to objectivity, you need to consider lots of opinions.

Originally posted by scaught:
i havent seen it yet, im going on saturday i think.... is it possible that it presents anything in a thorough enough fashion that someone could consider it irrefutable? are there any Facts?

there are facts sprinkled throughout the movie. again, what you choose to do with those facts is up to the viewer. facts are immutable (mostly) but where the gray areas occur is with connecting the dots. and as such, the movie is not irrefutable. it does provide lots of dots, though.

for instance, that oil and business pervade bush's history is indisputable. and there are plenty of mentions of that in the movie, but how you decide to interpret that is up to you. i can say, yeah, it's about making profits and bush appoints bizness buddies into positions of power to gain more money. or bush met these people in the normal course of everyday life, and being a great judge of character, considered them to be, objectively and of all the people he's met, the best overall candidates for certain positions. bush has a financial interest in oil and as a result, many of the people he has met, are in that field.

the movie was good. moore is more toned down in this movie, and there are fewer "stunts", and most of those fall flat.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by scaught:
IMO in general, anyone who accepts one persons or one things view as truth, is an idiot. imagine reading a report where the "works cited" page only had ONE thing?

anyone who quotes or references this movie as a basis for anything would fall in that category.

[MindFad]

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MindFad:

Fixed.

[TheMosco]

Someone else mentioned this the other day. Everyone is attacking moore but they are not addressing any of the issues.

There was a newseek article that tried to prove stuff false, but the article itself was mostly false, haha. The author even admitted it on the radio that he made a bunch of mistakes.

And then all those mistakes have been spread around the internet like they were truth yet no one has been able to really refute alot of this stuff.

would write more but its dinner time.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Fixed.

No, you're a doody head.

[demograph68]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I hope you guys aren't anti-Al Franken either. I saw the F 9/11 movie awhile ago. I can understand why some of you hate it. I really tried to stay neutral to what Moore had to express. Is their anything we care share thats positive about the film? Even if Moore does stretch the truth, like perhaps in linking Bush to the Bin Laden family, does that mean there was nothing to gain? I really want to be modest on this one, no kidding.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by scaught:
IMO in general, anyone who accepts one persons or one things view as truth, is an idiot. imagine reading a report where the "works cited" page only had ONE thing?

anyone who quotes or references this movie as a basis for anything would fall in that category.

Same for anyone who bases a vote on the movie, too.

[alphasubzero949]

Nothing like one large anti-Moore circlejerk fest in here by neo-Nazi conservatives. I guess anyone that isn't for Bush is a liberal socialist? Please.

I'll let you boys enjoy yourselves in here. Carry on.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Nothing like one large anti-Moore circlejerk fest in here by neo-Nazi conservatives.

Why not? This lounge is filled with Anti-Bush circlejerks by neo-Nazi liberals.

I guess anyone that isn't for Bush is a liberal socialist? Please.

Of course not.

[scaught]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Nothing like one large anti-Moore circlejerk fest in here by neo-Nazi conservatives. I guess anyone that isn't for Bush is a liberal socialist? Please.

I'll let you boys enjoy yourselves in here. Carry on.

hey wait. i didnt necessarily give a pro or anti moore statement. do i get to be a neo nazi conservative too?

if he doesnt flat out mention the H guy, does it still fall under "godwins law"?

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
I'll let you boys enjoy yourselves in here. Carry on.

Whoa, thank you for the honor.

You make it sound like you've posted several dozen times in this thread defending a belief to the death, when you just waltz in here to give a snide remark and a "rolleyes" emoticon and leave? Piss off.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Whoa, thank you for the honor.

You make it sound like you've posted several dozen times in this thread defending a belief to the death, when you just waltz in here to give a snide remark and a "rolleyes" emoticon and leave? Piss off.

How about reading my other replies in the other two dozen Moore threads in here you moron.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
How about reading my other replies in the other two dozen Moore threads in here you moron.

Well, if you're going to post something half-wit like you did, then you shouldn't post at all, despite how many good replies you posted earlier in other threads.

[ebuddy]

First of all, Hillary's a hottie. Plain and simple. She's a powerful woman and if she and I were both single, I'd be curious. I mean, what the heck?! We could argue politics over coffee and omellettes the next morning.

None of Moore's tactics are surprising to me. They run suspiciously parallel to MoveON and others that are merely reacting like little school girls who had their lolipops taken away. They are about to submit to another 4 years of economic and global success under Republican leadership and primarily conservative doctrine. Their tired old ideals like raising minimum wage again? Hell, why don't we just make minimum wage $75,000.00/ year and call it good already?! Moore and many others need to leave their gated communities, quit spilling Ben and Jerry's on their lazy-boy recliners and find out what makes this country tick. This disgust with homeland is a result of European appeasement and will be shown for how desparate and transparent it has become. Once exposed for the wealthy, elitist, racist, socialist, self-mutilating swines they are, they will quickly lose their voice. I only hope we wake up before they are successful in destroying America from the inside out.

Bush/Condi 2004!

[deomacius]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
First of all, Hillary's a hottie.

Wha...?

[Zimphire]

I'd hit it.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
First of all, Hillary's a hottie.

LOL

Good one.

She's even too ugly for the former President himself! I mean, this is coming from Bill Clinton, a guy who would screw anything that walks. If you think Hillary's hot, then by the transitive property, you should think that Monica is extremely hot. Am I right?

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by deomacius:
I hate to interject but I wanted to give my opinion on this. The frustrating part about Michael Moore is probably not so much the fact that he bends facts to his agenda. It's more to do with the fact that supporters are quick to propogate the information out to the masses as fact or label it a documentary. I was under the impression that a true documentary was more neutral. A vehicle for delivering the facts of an event or individual and letting the viewer decide for themselves where they stand on the afore mentioned. Moore's films are not documentaries if they omit and twist facts to guide a viewer into having a certain opinion on a subject or individual. Of course if you throw in all the mudslinging advertising and media opinion it looks more and more like people are swayed by propaganda than facts they've dug up themselves. Doesn't really give me much faith in the Democratic process if the election can be won by the person who wins over the most viewers with advertisements, ads, lawn signs and documentaries. That's what it's looking like these days.

well thats kind of on the same level of what we thought about the news media....but on the rare occasion the media actually does an investigative report instead of accepting a spoonfeeding by the powers-that-be, they are labeled as the "liberal media". Personally I think it is rather ironic that MM is getting more attention among the public than a whole phalanx of White-House-Press-Release parrots on fox news, cnn, and twenty other channels/ newspapers/ radio shows. As much as you want to talk about worshipping one man as a political prophet, you cannot deny the fact that the right wing folks have their own share of these types of armchair pundits....they are called dittoheads. for example see this transcript of an interview with Mary Matalin. I also see it as amusing that Mooreaphobics [almost] always seem to attack his weight, unkempt appearance, or other physical traits. Sure, I as a liberal would agree with you that he is putting a spin on his viewpoint, thats the nature of politics.... and human nature (for those of you that are parents [or bartenders for that matter] , you hopefully have already observed this). As far as this being called a documentary I will say that Bowling for columbine and the other Moore films I have seen were most certainly NOT documentaries but from what I understand without actually seeing this film yet (like most of the people doing the criticizing) , the reviewers are calling this the most impartial film he has ever done, and very pro military (rank and file-wise) to boot. But go see the movie...or download the free video if you don't want to contribute to the profits, and then talk about it....and I'll do the same (when the theatre actually has an open seat). Sorry to say it, but you guys sound like a bunch of whiners about the left's viewpoint getting a little positive press.

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
First of all, Hillary's a hottie. Plain and simple. She's a powerful woman and if she and I were both single, I'd be curious. I mean, what the heck?! We could argue politics over coffee and omellettes the next morning.

None of Moore's tactics are surprising to me. They run suspiciously parallel to MoveON and others that are merely reacting like little school girls who had their lolipops taken away. They are about to submit to another 4 years of economic and global success under Republican leadership and primarily conservative doctrine. Their tired old ideals like raising minimum wage again? Hell, why don't we just make minimum wage $75,000.00/ year and call it good already?! Moore and many others need to leave their gated communities, quit spilling Ben and Jerry's on their lazy-boy recliners and find out what makes this country tick. This disgust with homeland is a result of European appeasement and will be shown for how desparate and transparent it has become. Once exposed for the wealthy, elitist, racist, socialist, self-mutilating swines they are, they will quickly lose their voice. I only hope we wake up before they are successful in destroying America from the inside out.

Bush/Condi 2004!

ummm... lets see... the economic success-=what are you 16?..even Alan Greenspan has said- nevermind, if you don't already know...(go back to your Burger King job, after all the Bush administration has created 100,000 thousand of them)
Global success..alltime high terrorism (don't quote the article Colin Powell already admitted was fixed), and most of our allies are, if not disgusted with us, then wary about us, and losing their trade status if they dissagree....or their food names (freedom bacon anyone [think Canadian for the slow among you]) oh yeah, how dont forget your contradiction about our global success vs. our "disgust with homeland is a result of European appeasement"
As far as minimum wage ebuddy, how about 5.25/hr x 40 hrs a week x 52 weeks a year (minimum wagers cannot afford a vacation, and at one point the republicans tried to do away with overtime pay...a lifeline for many working americans) is $10,920 a year...most of our precious macs cost more than 20% of that (peripherals included). Thats a long way from $75,000
Moore worked to make his fortune as opposed to most of the people you admire in politics....and BTW I have never heard of a conservative calling a liberal racist, elitist OR wealthy...your starting to sound like a WTO protester (ie- extreme liberal).
And in your last line you are alluding that liberals are a threat to America, thats a dangerous line of thinking ebuddy, as witnessed by this thread and in many other places all over the country, we are more divided than we have been since the vietnam war, and it's pretty much an even split, democracy thrives on the differing views of people, and politics is the art of compromise, to the betterment of the people....it used to be the American Way....but I guess that was before we got the Uniter-not-divider as our leader