Michael Moore is a big stupid white man.





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Michael Moore is a big stupid white man.
By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit

Just wanted to say that.

Farenheit 9/11 is the most disjointed unresearched slanderous "documentary" ever.

I love how he connects unrelated facts and always attempts to "help" minorities in every movie.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit

+1

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit

It's a movie.

By Idiias (Idiias) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:44 am: Edit

-2

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Davidrune, feel better now? If he had completely ignored minorities in the making of his movie, would you have criticized him then? You could have said, "Michael Moore is a big, dumb man" and stated that you did not appreciate his attempts to "help" minorities. However, you chose to use the word white in the title. It makes it sound as if you have a problem with his ethnicity. Just asking.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:40 pm: Edit

ummmmmmm actually, the thread's title is a play off of a very good book called "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" which is ANOTHER play off of Michael Moore's own book "Stupid White Men"

By Feuler (Feuler) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit

I believe that was a reference to Michael Moore's book, "Stupid White Men."

I haven't seen 9/11 yet, but I did see Columbine, and if 9/11 is anything like it, I'm sure it's unfocused BS. However, I'm still very glad he made it and it's getting all this publicity, because it might get more people to the polls to kick out Bush. The means justify the ends.

EDIT: I was typing this as the above messages were posted, so I didn't know that had been cleared up already.

By Appliedmath (Appliedmath) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

I remember from Columbine that Moore took the victim's of the shooting and marched into K-Mart with the cause of banning their specific bullets. This man has nothing better to do in my mind.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Democrats have Michael Moore fending for them.
Republicans have SBVT.

They negate each other and we are even

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Give credit where it is due. Moore is extremely creative. He produces greatly entertaining movies. He is very adept at creating personal wealth. He is so convincing that he can get people to call works of fiction documentaries. I have to say he's pretty smart!

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit

the real star of fahrenheit 9/11 is lila limpscomb, the mother of the soldier who died in iraq. she went from fully supporting the policies of the bush administration, to questioning them, to finally rejecting them. can any of you who criticize the film say that her sentiments, feelings, opinions, and conclusions are without merit or unreasonable?

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit

They are the human reactions of a mother, nothing more, nothing less.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Michael Moore's "documentary" and the Swift Boat Veterans for crap cancel each other out.

Both are highly biased, and generally baseless arguments. Swift Boat are just telling out right lies, and Moore connects irrelevants facts in order to arrive at false conclusion, while presenting half-truth, etc.

Intelligent people watch both, then decide that both are useless.

By Alongfortheride (Alongfortheride) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Thanks Vancat and Fender for straightening me out on this. Sorry Davidrune!

By Pcrunner17 (Pcrunner17) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit

Not to start a huge debate, but what makes you say that the Swift Boat veterans are telling outright lies..? Is there any truth to what they're saying?

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Pc, it's just common sense.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 08:41 pm: Edit

"Intelligent people watch both[refering to more and the swift boat vets], then decide that both are useless."

so true but remember we live in a nation where 50% of the people dont know who the vice president is.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 03:23 am: Edit

That can't be true, can it? 50%? Well, I can almost guarantee that virtually all of that 50% is comprised of people in the lowest educational and economic strata of our society. And these same people are expected to vote intelligently? Scary---truly scary...

By Csbballstardad (Csbballstardad) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 08:19 am: Edit

Whoa there ValPal. While we are "guaranteeing" things , I can guarantee that you are : 1)intentionally overstating your position for effect 2)Pat Buchanan , David Duke, or the reincarnation of Papa Doc Duvalier or, I'm hoping not , but 3) someone I would prefer not exercize their right to vote before reading back through their high school civics text (and this time pay attention to the text AFTER 1964 ).

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit

Intentionally overstating her position that 50% of people not knowing who the VP is "scary---truly scary? What else would you call it?

By Calliandra (Calliandra) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 11:36 am: Edit

A large percentage of that is probably kids and younger people who aren't interested in politics yet.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 11:39 am: Edit

somewhere, i heard that a decent portion of Americans could not identify America on an unmarked map. Anybody know of that?

Also, must people don't care and don't really give a •••• about politics

By Csbballstardad (Csbballstardad) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 11:40 am: Edit

It was the guarantee and the q that followed that I found scary. The fact that our nation has an ever increasing economic and educational divide between haves and have-nots is certainly frightening as we continue to ignore the problem . I find the posters seeming belief that economically disadvantaged people and less educated people are somehow less qualified to vote than educationally and economically advantaged people as undemocratic . You don't find that scary? I have an idea. Let's make everybody take a test and pay a fee before they vote! Now who gets to write the questions? If I do I'll start with questions from the civics book after 1964.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit

I wholeheartedly agree with Davidrune...Moore isn't doing us (minorities) any favors. Remember his foolish statements to the effect that if black people had been on the hijacked plane they would have beaten up the terrorists? Thanks a lot, Moore, for applying another stereotype in the name of being our "champion". I simply despise that guy.

By Simba (Simba) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Remember his foolish statements to the effect that if black people had been on the hijacked plane they would have beaten up the terrorists?

I don't ever re-call him making that statement - are you swift-boating Moore?

By Bakk (Bakk) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Great! We now know that "swift-boating" really means "quoting facts"!


Quote:


I read an article this morning about Mr. Moore which would have been the top story on all news stations had the target of the vicious attack been a non-White or a Jew. I thought "Oh, he's gone too far this time." But since the Whitebashing in this country gets worse by the month, not one U.S. newspaper decided it was politically incorrect enough to mention. You be the judge as to whether or not this would have been on your news had the target of the attack been a non-White. Note the author of the piece is a black man with a Muslim name. Read his words quoted in the original article at The Independent

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
06 January 2003


I took my son to see Michael Moore live at the Roundhouse, in north London, before Christmas. The US radical and author of the best-selling book Stupid White Men was (mostly) clever, funny, angry, sharp, iconoclastic and sceptical about the lies and humbug processed by the US government and big business. Sure there were some flunked bits – you expect that, the troughs are part of the adventure, an evening with a well-worn rebel.

What we did not expect was to feel so enraged at one point that we almost walked out. It was when Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody.


By Valpal (Valpal) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

Oh come on, don't put words in my mouth, nor assume I believe things I DO NOT believe! You don't find it scarey that in this media saturated society, 50% percent of people (though, I admit I initially assumed that statistic was, 50% of the "voting populace".) can't name the Vice President of the United States?

If true, that fact begs ALL SORTS of questions. Like, how does one become so politically disenfranchised (or disinterested ) that he/she can't be bothered to learn this elementary factoid?

"I have an idea. Let's make everybody take a test and pay a fee before they vote! Now who gets to write the questions? If I do I'll start with questions from the civics book after 1964. "

You just made a quantum leap in assuming that I'd advocate abridging ANY American citizen's right to vote. As an African American woman who remembers "pole taxes" and other such attemps to deny black people access to the ballot box, I would fight ANY attempt to reinstate voting rights restrictions. You, Csbballstardad, have made the assumption that I would deny some Americans the right to vote. But THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID AND THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT I ADVOCATE!! I hope I've made that clear.

My point is that people who are so politically uninformed can't possibly make an informed decision in the voting booth. In this regard, I would have to say that, yes, they are LESS QUALIFIED to make an INFORMED DECISION. But they are JUST AS QUALIFIED TO VOTE as their more politically knowledgable peers, simply by virtue of the fact that they are American citizens of voting age, guaranteed that right by law.

The less politically informed a person is, the more easily he/she can be manipulated by party operatives on either side of the fence. In this way, they are not so much excercising the right to vote, as they are functioning as pawns of the political power brokers. That's what I find both alarming and sad.

But the more I think about it, the more I find the very statistic this discussion is centered around to be suspect. It's not specific enough. What does "50% of people" mean? Does it include children under 12? Alzheimers patients? I just find it hard to believe that as many as half of qualified voters (and I've already defined, qualified) can't name the V.P.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Thanks for the direct quote, Bakk. No one is "swiftboating" Moore. His own statements do the dirty work.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Not only is that statement ignorant and offensive to black people, it is also callous and disrespectful towards the families of people that lost their lives that day. You can't get much lower.

Additionally, (while we're on the subject of Moore) anyone find it ironic that after 9/11, Moore made several statements to the effect that it was not worth retaliatory measures in Afghanistan and we shouldn't invade...then (in a complete 180 in F9/11) he criticizes Bush for not focusing on Afghanistan enough to finish the job (as if it was the "worthwhile" war, because he knows for damned sure that he couldn't get away with saying what he said then, today)? This demonstrates that his documentaries rely on mass manipulation of the viewing public. Yes, Moore does believe, as he says, that most Americans are downright stupid. If this isn't evident in the way he insults our intelligence with his films, nothing else is.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Nothing matters to that guy except $$$$$ and bacon.

By Geodude666 (Geodude666) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Compare the number of big, stupid, white men to the number of big, stupid, black men, davidrune. Yeah that's what I thought.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Uhhh...did you read this post in its entirety? I don't wish to believe that you made that utterly foolish, ignorant, and assanine comment after being properly informed.

By Jekyllnhyde10 (Jekyllnhyde10) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

If one has ever read Catcher in the Rye they remember the quote stating the immature man dies nobly for what he believes in while the wise man lives humbly for it. Moore should take that to heart. I'm sick and tired of his rash antics. Gimme a break!!

P.S. Paid for by John Stossil

Signed a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative-haven't decided yet

GO COLUMBIA U

By Feuler (Feuler) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit

I disagree that money is what is driving Moore. While I am sure he likes making all sorts of money off his movie, I've heard that he has also publically encouraged people to illegally download it, because he thinks people should see it in whatever way they can (the film producer may have put a stop to his saying that though). Say what you will about his intelligence or honesty, but I am sure the man believes that he is doing the right thing for the country.

Thought I don't understand how anyone in the public eye can have such low self-respect that they would allow themself to be so fat and badly groomed all the time. I mean, all politics aside, I have trouble respecting a man who doesn't respect me enough to f***cking shave before he makes me look at him on TV.

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Geodude666, this post is based upon a book written by Michael Moore and another book written in response to that book.

The book has the same title as this post but I added "fat" because I frankly believe that Michael Moore is a bit pudgy. May that's just me.

But, I'm glad that you revealed your irrational racial bias.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:47 pm: Edit

I DO believe Moore thinks he is on a noble mission, of sorts, but what I don't get is why he puts forth his message in such a disingenuous way. He likes to pull heart-strings and push emotional buttons to get people to believe that he is just one of them, a concerned, patriotic American that is surprised by the path our country is taking and is simply looking for answers. What he attempts to conceal at all costs from the average American is the reality that he is far more radical than even they would ever imagine. He knows this knowledge would immediately turn them off from anything else he has to say.

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit

P.S. Geodude666, I hope you get inhabited by anal dwelling monkeys who like to burrow.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:04 am: Edit

Michael Moore is a kool-aid drinker for the radical left.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 02:24 am: Edit

michael more + red happy face shirt= Kool aid man ... possibly

sory if anyone gets angry but this is immeaditally what i thought of when valpal said he is a kool-aid drinker.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Socialnick, are you old enough to remember the "Jonestown Massacrer"? That's the basis of my analogy.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:50 pm: Edit

sorry never heard of it

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Did you hear about Michael Moore's decision to sacrifice the academy awards for the good of America? I'm losing more and more respect for this man as time wears on.


Why I Will Not Seek a Best Documentary Oscar (I'm giving it up in the hopes more voters can see "Fahrenheit 9/11")


9/6/04
Dear Friends,

I had dinner recently with a well-known pollster who had often worked for Republicans. He told me that when he went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" he got so distraught he twice had to go out in the lobby and pace during the movie.

"The Bush White House left open a huge void when it came to explaining the war to the American people," he told me. "And your film has filled that void -- and now there is no way to defeat it. It is the atomic bomb of this campaign."

He told me how he had conducted an informal poll with "Fahrenheit 9/11" audiences in three different cities and the results were all the same. "Essentially, 80% of the people going IN to see your movie are already likely Kerry voters and the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized.

"But, here's the bad news for Bush: Though 80% going IN to your movie are Kerry voters, 100% of those COMING OUT of your movie are Kerry voters. You can't come out of this movie and say, 'I am absolutely and enthusiastically voting for George W. Bush.'"

His findings are similar to those in other polls conducted around the country. In Pennsylvania, a Keystone poll showed that 4% of Kerry's support has come from people who decided to vote for him AFTER seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- and in an election that will be very close, 4% is a landslide. A Harris poll found that 44% of Republicans who see the film give it a “positive” rating. Another poll, to be released this week, shows a 21-point shift in Bush's approval rating, after just one viewing of the movie, among audiences of undecideds who were shown "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Ohio.

My pollster friend told me that he believes if Kerry wins, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be one of the top three reasons for his election. Kerry's only problem, he said, is how many people will actually be able to see it before election day. The less that see it, the better for Bush.

But 20 million people have already seen it -- and the Gallup poll said that 56% of the American public has seen or plans to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" either in the theater or on home video. The DVD and home video of our film, thanks to our distributors listening to our pleas to release it before November, will be in the stores on October 5. This is very good news.

But can it also be shown on TV? I brought this possibility up in this week's Rolling Stone interview. Our contract with our DVD distributor says no, it cannot. I have asked them to show it just once, perhaps the night before the election. So far, no deal. But I haven't given up trying.

The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast -- and the chances are they probably won't -- I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election.

Therefore, I have decided not to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration for the Best Documentary Oscar. If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day, then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.

The deadline to submit the film for the documentary Oscar was last Wednesday. I told my crew who worked on the film, let's let someone else have that Oscar. We have already helped to ignite the biggest year ever for nonfiction films. Last week, 1 out of every 5 films playing in movie theaters across America was a documentary! That is simply unheard of. There have been so many great nonfiction films this year, why not step aside and share what we have with someone else? Remove the 800-pound gorilla from that Oscar category and let the five films who get nominated have all the attention they deserve (instead of the focus being on a film that has already had more than its share of attention).

I've read a lot about "Fahrenheit" being a "sure bet" for the documentary Oscar this year. I don't believe anything is truly a "sure bet." And, in the end, I think sometimes it's good for your soul to give up something everyone says is so easily yours (ask Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps why he gave up his spot in the last race to someone else equally deserving, and you'll know what I am talking about).

I have informed our distributors of my decision. They support me (in fact, they then offered to submit our film for all the other categories it is eligible for, including Best Picture -- so, hey, who knows, maybe I'll get to complete that Oscar speech from 2003! Sorry, just kidding).

Don't get your hopes up for seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" on TV before the election. In fact, I would count on NOT seeing it there (you know me, I'm always going after something I probably shouldn't). Get to the theaters soon, if you haven't already, or get it from the video store in October and hold house parties. Share it with everyone you know, especially your nonvoting friends. I have included 100 minutes of extras on the DVD -- powerful footage obtained after we made the movie, and some things that are going to drive Karl Rove into a permanent tailspin -- more on this later!

Thanks for all of your support. And go see "Super Size Me," "Control Room," "The Corporation," "Orwell Rolls Over in His Grave," "Bush's Brain," Robert Greenwald's films and the upcoming "Yes Men." You won't be sorry!

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com

P.S. If you want to read my dispatches for USA Today from inside the Republican Convention, go to www.michaelmoore.com.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 08:51 pm: Edit

how can a man ask republican senators why they havnt enlisted their son in the war, yet parents can't enlist their children can they.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Socialnick, if you'll do a google search of, "Jonestown Massacrer", I'm sure you'd be much intrigued.

By Sepi11 (Sepi11) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

For the record, it's false for anyone to say that Moore is being biased. He is making a DOCUMENTARY, he doesn't have to show both sides.
Also, Moore has put up a claim of MILLIONS of dollars to anyone who can find false information in any of his movies. If he lied, why would you offer money to anyone who could prove him wrong?

The anti-kerry ad campaigns are rediculous and FALSE. That's why they can't "cancel out" Moore's truthful documentary. People need to get their facts straight...

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Err... Moore has also surrounded himself with lawyers who will sue anybody who dares to criticize his movie for slander.

So... it's double edged sword.

And... sure everything is true, it's just the way in which their presented.

I'm sure that their was one remote section in Iraq were kids played on swings before Bush declared war, but it definetly was spread throughout the whole country.

I'm sure that Bush hesitated for some minutes before he reacted. But, we don't even know if that was under the advice of the secret service. Even so, what was he to do?

I'm sure that most of the recruits come from "ghetto" areas. But that's just common sense. Poor people are more likely to enlist than rich people are. That has always been the way, since rich people used to pay poor people to take their draft spots. That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

I'm sure that many of the things he's presented is the truth. But he has only presented one aspect of the truth. One might even say "half-truths" that distort the picture.

By Mom101 (Mom101) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Hello?????

By Davidrune (Davidrune) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:31 pm: Edit

And... sure everything is true, it's just the way in which their presented.

I'm sure that their was one remote section in Iraq were kids played on swings before Bush declared war, but it definetly was spread throughout the whole country.

I'm sure that Bush hesitated for some minutes before he reacted. But, we don't even know if that was under the advice of the secret service. Even so, what was he to do?

I'm sure that most of the recruits come from "ghetto" areas. But that's just common sense. Poor people are more likely to enlist than rich people are. That has always been the way, since rich people used to pay poor people to take their draft spots. That has absolutely nothing to do with Bush.

I'm sure that many of the things he's presented is the truth. But he has only presented one aspect of the truth. One might even say "half-truths" that distort the picture.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 03:47 am: Edit

That's right...it's all about presentation. How Moore manages to make it look like Bush is rallying the party faithful when he is at a charity event...how he makes it seem like Bush is talking about America's war on terror when he is really talking about a Palestinian attack in Israel...so on and so forth...

It is the deception when looking at context that is the most damaging. Because Moore amalgamates these contextually misplaced situations into a vast, coherent scheme that manages to dupe so much of the viewing public.

By Sepi11 (Sepi11) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Keep in mind Moore is making a DOCUMENTARY. He needs to portray factual information. He has no responsibility to show the other side of things. He's making a documentary filled with facts that show his opinions. That's more than any other person would do. He deserves a lot of credit for doing what he did.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Read this:

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

This is simply the concise version. A more detailed one is available for mass consumption if you care to search a bit.

Tell me again what he deserves credit for? Deceiving people into believing his presentation is wholly factual and completely accurate? Don't feel badly about it, he has duped a lot of individuals. Note this was compiled by an Independent.

By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Good work Candi

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Thanks, I try.:)

A mistake on my part: The author, Dave Kopel, is actually a life-long Democrat.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page