← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle

Michael Moore: Master of Propaganda

Thread ID: 19403 | Posts: 43 | Started: 2005-08-03

Wayback Archive

Gabrielle [OP]

2005-08-03 12:17 | User Profile

Michael Moore: Master of Propaganda By Barbara Stock (07/08/04)

When “Fahrenheit 9/11” opened recently, most intelligent people knew this movie was nothing more than the world as seen from the warped perspective of Michael Moore. This “documentary” would be no more factual than his last movie, “Bowling for Columbine.” Perhaps it would be best to present the true definition of “documentary” to allow the average person to distinguish it from “propaganda.”

According to the Webster’s Dictionary: “Documentary: designation of a motion picture, television program, etc. that dramatically shows or analyzes news events, a social condition, etc. with no fictionalization or editorial comment.”

The opposite of documentary is the more accurate description of Michael Moore’s attempt at cinematic greatness. Propaganda is defined as the: “systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas or doctrines to further one’s own cause or to damage an opposing one; often used disparagingly to connote deception or distortion.” “Fahrenheit 9/11,” by definition, and Michael Moore’s own admission, is propaganda.

Propaganda by itself is not dangerous. Television commercials are a form of propaganda. What makes propaganda dangerous is when reasonably intelligent people believe it without question. This seems to be the case with Michael Moore’s film epic. Reasonable and thoughtful people are viewing and accepting this montage called “Fahrenheit 9/11”--which is nothing more than distortions of the truth, vague and unsubstantiated innuendo, and personal opinion--as fact.

Who is Michael Moore? While Moore portrays himself as a poor white boy from the corporation-devastated streets of Flint, Michigan, he is not. He was born in Davison, Michigan, a fairly affluent suburb of Flint. He attended private, parochial schools until age 14 when he switched to the Davison Public High School. He was an over-achiever, obtaining an Eagle Scout merit badge for exposing the environmentally destructive factories in Flint. He ran for a seat on the Flint School Board at age 18 and won, becoming one the youngest men elected to public office in America. So far, so good.

Moore enrolled at the University of Michigan but dropped out to become a political activist. Michael got a job as a journalist a small newspaper called the Flint Voice and from there took a job as an editor at the highly liberal magazine in San Francisco, Mother Jones. Moore lasted less than a year. In an interesting twist, he was reportedly fired for arguing that an article pertaining to the Sandanista rebels in Nicaragua was inflammatory and inaccurate. There was a time when Moore cared about accuracy.

Moore briefly worked for Ralph Nader, but left that group under similar circumstances as all his previous jobs. It seems that Michael had problems in working with others. Moore set out to make his first movie, “Roger and Me,” and the rest is history.

It is not hard to recognize Moore as an equal-opportunity hater. All one has to do is listen to him speak. At a recent showing of his Bush-bashing film to the ACLU, he stunned the audience by damning the entire American political system. While his loathing of Bush was obvious and completely accepted by that crowd, he called the Democrats "a miserable, pathetic party that can't win an election even when they win an election." As John Kerry’s daughter sat dumbstruck in the crowd, Moore told a story of a screening for students where he asked all those planning to vote for Nader to raise their hands, and half the young voters put their hands up. Moore then declared that Nader "doesn't give a [expletive] about anybody but himself."

Moore doesn’t limit his disgust to just a few high profile Americans; he levels his contempt at all Americans. Moore told Katie Couric that Americans should aspire to be “more like Canadians.” Moore went on to say, “Our ethic in America is, ‘Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Every man for himself.’” Moore feels that Americans should stop being self-sufficient even though that trait has been part of the American culture since declaring independence and is perhaps the main reason for its success. He feels that this attitude leads to violence. Americans should be more dependent on government. That description fits perfectly, since Moore confessed to Bill O’Reilly that he is an avowed socialist.

Moore saves his best shots against his fellow Americans for when he is in Europe, where he is adored for his vocal loathing of his countrymen. In Germany, he mused that since America is full of such ignorant people, how could it be that such fools were able to rise to power? Moore laughed that Americans always have a “big a-- grin on our face all the time, because our brains aren't loaded down." He said that the American system is so flawed that Germany should never consider trying to copy it but stay on their correct socialist path.

Moore told a Cambridge reporter that all America is known for around the world is “bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In England, he told a reporter that Americans were possibly “the dumbest people on the face of the planet.” He shows his respect for our men and women in uniform by describing those killing our military people as “Iraqi Minutemen and freedom fighters.” He has also had his movie enthusiastically endorsed by Hezbollah and “Fahrenheit 9/11” will be shown in Syria and Lebanon. Both of these terrorist-ridden countries are sending jihadists into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

One of his gravest insults occurred not long after 9/11. Moore scoffed at the passengers on the doomed planes and called them cowards for not fighting back. He stated that had there been black people on those planes, they would have overpowered the hijackers. Moore never mentions the fact that there were Black Americans on those planes. He also overlooked the fact that the passengers on Flight 93 did fight back and sacrificed their lives to save others.

Michael Moore is also one the “American deserved it” crowd. Just days after 9/11 he stated, “We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.” Moore proclaimed in October, 2003, that “There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It's the biggest lie we have been told.” He states that Americans should not allow Bush to use 9/11 to make America a police state where no one is allowed to speak freely. As Moore rakes in millions of bucks from his flight into fantasy, his freedom of speech does not seem to be hindered in any way.

Michael Moore enjoys all the advantages of living and working in America but claims to be a socialist disgusted by the very capitalistic society that allowed him to become successful. Moore dresses like a refugee but lives in a 1.9 million dollar Manhattan apartment and owns an estate in Michigan.

Before “Fahrenheit 9/11”--a title he stole from a furious Ray Bradbury--opened in American theaters, Moore was proclaiming that it would be his instrument to remove George Bush from office. The propagandist claimed he would show all the evils of the present administration in such a way that even hard-core conservatives would vote against Bush. Michael Moore--socialist, millionaire, America-hater, and master of propaganda--wants to decide who should be America’s leader.

[url]http://www.americandaily.com/article/3748[/url]

"The right wing is not where America is at,” Moore said. “Most Americans, in their heart, are liberal and progressive. It’s just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate.”

“They’re not patriots,” Moore said. “They’re hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism. Hate-triotism is where they stand, and patriotism is where real Americans stand.”

Moore, who predicted victory for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — “It’s all over but the voting,” he said — warned that the Republican Party will do almost anything to keep its hold on power. “They’re not going to go without a fight,” he said, “and believe me, they are better fighters than we are.”

“I mean, they are up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they’re going to screw today,” Moore continued. “The hate, they eat for breakfast. They are going to fight and they are going to smear, and they are going to lie, and they are going to hate."

Moore also attacked the media for not asking the “right questions” before the war in Iraq, and he tantalized the audience by recounting a story in which he said a major — but unnamed — television personality told him that Vice President Dick Cheney had interfered with news coverage of the war. Moore said he was on a morning talk show recently, and, “After we went to commercial, the person who was interviewing me said, ‘You know, you’re right. When the war started, it was very difficult here to book the people we wanted to book and ask the questions we wanted to ask. In fact, I got a memo about my tone of voice. Apparently, the brass had received a call from Dick Cheney’s office, they said they didn’t like my tone of voice. I got a memo on it.’”

Moore said he told the person, “You’ve got to tell that story.” But the person answered, “I can’t.” Moore continued: “I said, ‘They can’t fire you. You’re one of the most well-known people in America. You’ve got to tell this story, and if you don’t tell it, I’m going to wait maybe another week.’”

The audience laughed at Moore’s threat to expose the newsperson. Moore promised to tell the whole story on his website and name the person involved. “That person is on notice now,” Moore said, “and I’m doing it in a friendly way."

xmetalhead

2005-08-03 12:19 | User Profile

.....and the neocon vipers never indulge in propaganda. No, never.

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:21 | User Profile

Bowling for Fictitious 'Documentaries' Michael Moore is a Liar

The Michael Moore production "Bowling for Columbine" just won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

• James Berardinelli (movie-reviews.colossus.net)

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which (despite its real value) receives but a tiny fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." The award of the documentary Oscar to a $4 million entertainment piece is unjust to the legitimate competitors, disheartening to makers of real documentaries, and sets a precedent which may encourage inspire others to take similar liberties with their future projects.

Bowling makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore invites the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered.

These occur with such frequency and seriousness as to rule out unintentional error. Any polite description would be inadequate, so let me be blunt. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing, or it may be moving. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary must be non-fictional, and even re-enactments (much less doctoring of a speech) must stress fact and not fiction. To the Academy voters, some silly rules were not a bar to giving the award. The documentary category, the one refuge for works which educated and informed, is now no more than another sub-category of entertainment.

Serious charges require serious evidence. The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or that its conclusions are incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking.

THE LIES:

LIE: The Lockheed-Martin facility depicted in the film is presented as a manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. (TRUTH: the facility produces rockets for launching satellites)

LIE: The NRA is callous to gun slayings. (TRUTH: the evidence distorted to reach this infactual end is expansive. The sequence in Bowling in which Charlton Heston gives a defiant pro-gun speech in Denver is edited to unbelievable distortion. The fiery "cold dead hands" statement was not even made in Denver, but a YEAR after the Denver (annual NRA members' meeting) in Charlotte, North Carolina. Compare Bowling's version of the Heston speech in Denver to REALITY

LIE: The impression is given in Bowling that the NRA and the KKK were (are?) parallel groups - or more likely, that when the Klan was outlawed, the NRA filled its shoes. (TRUTH: Charlton Heston is NOT a racist, as alleged in Bowling. Heston involved himself in the civil rights movement in the early 60's while the issue was still too hot for Hollywooders concerned about their careers. He also helped Martin Luther King break the Hollywood color barrier that existed at that time. After its founding in New York by two Union Officers, the NRA itself has a long and comprehensive history of aligning itself in diametrical opposition to racism and the KKK.)

LIE: Moore sympathizes with the "little boy" at Buell Elementary in Michigan who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school to kill a girl. Moore says "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl". (TRUTH: The "little boy" was the class bully and was already suspended for stabbing another child with a pencil. Since that incident, the "little boy" also stabbed another kid with a knife. Also- the "uncle's house" was a neighborhood crack house. The uncle and the "little boy's" father were, at the time, serving time for theft and cocaine possession. His aunt earned her living from drug dealing. The gun was stolen by one of the uncle's customers and purchased by him in exchange for drugs.

LIE: Bowling makes note of $245 million that the U.S. gave to the Taliban government of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 and then proceeds to illustrate the alleged "result" by showing planes hitting the twin towers. (TRUTH: The $245 million in aid was given through the U.N. and non-governmental organizations to relieve the famine that existed in Afghanistan at that time.

LIE: Bowling showcases a dramatic comparison of gun homicide stats from various countries. (TRUTH: The numbers don't add up - click here)

LIE: In Bowling, Moore enters a WalMart in Ontario, Canada to purchase, with ease and without being identified, several boxes of ammunition. (TRUTH: Canadian officials have indicated that the purchase, as depicted in the movie, is either fake or illegal)

LIE: Moore shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, and sadly announces that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972." Interestingly enough, Moore's camera only lets you see the plaque from a distance sufficient enough to render the plaque impossible to read. (TRUTH: The inscription on the plaque is: "Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26 year history in the command. Aircraft 55,003, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52's credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam conflict. Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of "Diamond Lil" shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972.")

[url]http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm[/url]

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead].....and the neocon vipers never indulge in propaganda. No, never.[/QUOTE]

That’s right stupido, cut your nose off to spite your face.

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:27 | User Profile

Fahrenheit 9/11- Moore Lies One small Illinois newspaper was surprised to see itself featured briefly in Fahrenheit 9/1.

Pantagraph columnist Bill Flick picks up the story.

In a flash-second early on, the movie shows various newspaper headlines on coverage of the presidential election of 2000, and one of them is from the alleged Dec. 19, 2001 [Ed - He might mean Dec. 19, 2000] edition of the Bloomington, IL Pantagraph.

But somehow there was no such news story in that day's paper. How could a news headline that never appeared in the Dec. 19 paper appear in a copy of the Dec. 19 paper shown in the movie?

The Pantagraph headline shown in the movie -- "LATEST FLORIDA RECOUNT SHOWS GORE WON ELECTION" -- actually appeared in our Dec. 5 edition. Illogically, if not inexplicably, a page apparently was "pasted together" to look like an actual Pantagraph page for the movie shot.

And here also is why we could never find the news story. It never was one.

Instead it was the headline atop a letter to the editor, significantly blown up to make it look like a news story.

Pure and simple the shot is an outright deception.

Via MooreWatch, who caught the fat bastard red handed (follow their links).

[url]http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003112.php[/url]

xmetalhead

2005-08-03 12:33 | User Profile

QUOTE=GabrielleThat’s right stupido, cut your nose off to spite your face.[/QUOTE]

At least Michael Moore doesn't try to hide his bias, unlike the fools like you who worship George Bush's "conservatism" while he continues to wreck America under the table.

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:36 | User Profile

Michael Moore is a Grossly Obese Liar Surpise, Surprise:

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

In other words, he was creating a false sense of victimhood.

But who predicted that this was more like the truth?:

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001. Won't be the only thing manufactured. In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

OK, leftybloggers - yet another symptom of a conservative media?

Posted by Mitch at May 7, 2004 04:14 AM

Comments Man, the Left is firing on all cylinders these days. Checked the polls? No wonder they are pissed. For the first time they are being blatant about what they are, and it doesn't sell. Can't wait to see the defection rolls after the election.

Posted by: the markman at May 7, 2004 08:23 AM Mitch, You are forgetting one of your prime tenets:

One cannot argue with a liberal about anything because facts and the truth are not required (allowed only if/until they no longer/ support the view point).

Posted by: fingers at May 7, 2004 09:48 AM

[url]http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/003037.html[/url]

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]At least Michael Moore doesn't try to hide his bias, unlike the fools like you who worship George Bush's "conservatism" while he continues to wreck America under the table.[/QUOTE]

Whatever you say, mentalhead. :wallbash:

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:41 | User Profile

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." More recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are "committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories."

Despite repeatedly dismissing his critics, Moore has recently acknowledged some of his errors. For instance, in the DVD release of "Bowling for Columbine," he changed the caption he inserted over a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad, making the text more accurate (although the viewer still is unlikely to realize that the text wasn't in the original ad in the first place). One his web site, Moore explicitly admitted making this correction in the film.

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations." (page 34)

Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore implies that the plant made nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he visited. Actually, while the plant was involved in nuclear missile production years before, it now makes rockets that are used as space-launch vehicles for military and civilian satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the world, built rockets that carried into space the special new satellites that guided the missiles fired into Baghdad" during the recent war in Iraq. (page 74)

At least Moore is finally telling the truth about the US aid and Lockheed. Most other subjects come in for much more dubious treatment in the book. For example, Moore misstates the details of how members of the Bin Laden family left the US after Sept. 11, claiming that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" (page 20) Yet a few pages earlier, Moore himself quotes a November, 2001 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer which notes that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after Sept. 11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (page 4) As this and other reports have made clear, the Bin Ladens did not leave the US until after the resumption of commercial flights. And a Boston Globe article of September 20, 2001 quotes a Saudi government official stating that the Bin Ladens chartered their own plane - hardly a "free" trip as Moore suggests.

Moore's penchant for conspiracy theories often leads him to stretch the facts or make laughable claims. Bashing the proposed Terrorist Information Awareness project, he writes that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?"(page 110, his italics) In Moore's fervor to indict the TIA system, he forgets about the credit cards used by the 9-11 hijackers, which were used to help retrace their steps.

Moore also repeats a well-debunked myth about Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. According to Moore, "Clark has said that he received phone calls on Sept. 11 and in the weeks after from people at 'think tanks' and from people within the White House telling him to use his position as a pundit for CNN to 'connect' Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein." (page 53) Moore cites a June 15, 2003 interview with Clark on NBC's "Meet the Press." Despite somewhat ambiguous phrasing in that interview, however, Clark, has subsequently been consistent in his claim that it was a member of a think tank who contacted him, not the White House, a fact buttressed by a recent report that identified the man who made the call. And Moore pluralizes the single call Clark refers to in the "Meet the Press" interview to "calls" - a claim Clark has never made.

In addition, Moore attacks the Patriot Act with an array of examples that have nothing to do with it. He introduces the list by writing that "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." (page 111) Moore lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists, however, happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of them involve the FBI (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

Bush's policies towards Iraq come in for particular criticism - and, in several cases, gross distortions. Moore writes that "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." (page 69) In reality, that "trade" was done under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to purchase humanitarian supplies. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.) One can only imagine what Moore would have said if the U.S. refused to purchase Iraqi oil and allowed its citizens to starve.

At another point, Moore attacks Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." According to Moore, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit.'" (page 82) Moore makes it appear as though the speech Powell gave at the UN included the evidence he had called "bullshit." In fact, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites does note Powell's exclamation, but it details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes "And plenty was cut [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

In a recent interview with Bookreporter.com, Moore was asked if he made a special effort to fact-check his new book. "All my work goes through a thorough fact-checking process," he said. "I hire three teams of people to go through the book and then two separate lawyers vet it. There is a reason that I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true." Apparently, Moore needs to hire himself some new fact-checkers. Regardless of the supposed rigors of its vetting process, Dude, Where's My Country? cements Moore's reputation as one of our nation's sloppiest commentators.

[Note to readers: Be sure and check out the companion piece to this article, listing all the errors we found in Dude, Where's My Country?.]

[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1002434/posts[/url]

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 12:47 | User Profile

[img]http://www.moorewatch.com/images/mike-lard.jpg[/img]

"In April 2001, Bellesiles capped his season of honors by winning Columbia University's highly coveted Bancroft Prize for American history. But while the rest of the history world cheered, graduate student Clayton Cramer and other "gun nuts" busied themselves checking facts. "I could flip his book open at random and find a significant error," says Cramer. As Cramer notes wryly, "It took me 12 hours of hunting before I found a citation that was completely correct." The truth, as Cramer knew, was exactly the opposite of Bellesiles' thesis: Guns were widespread in the early America, highly valued and not state-controlled.

A decade earlier, Bellesiles would likely have gotten away with his inventions. But determined individuals like Cramer, empowered by the Internet, exposed his deceits to the point where historians could no longer ignore them. When finally pressed for his notes by Emory University, Bellesiles claimed they had been lost in a campus flood. Emory wasn't buying. In October 2002, the university accepted his resignation. In December 2002, Columbia University withdrew the Bancroft Award. In January 2003, Knopf cancelled Bellesiles' contract.

If Bellesiles' career was moribund, his essential message was alive, well and about to saturate the culture. Filmmaker Michael Moore was spreading Bellesiles' larger anti-gun, anti-American message to a much wider audience, and he was doing so, if possible, even more dishonestly. The vehicle was Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine." It had received a special prize and a standing ovation at Cannes and was on its way to mega sales and Oscar glory.

An animated section of "Bowling" nicely distills the multicultural take on American gun ownership into a toxic little brew. Fleeing Europe out of fear, America's early settlers meet the cartoon's cute Indians. Alas, they "get scared all over again" and "killed them all." Next, the settlers "started killing the British so they could be free." Along the way, they enslave Africans, which makes America "the richest country in the world." Slave uprisings drive Americans to a new level of fear, and Samuel Colt invents the revolver "just in the nick of time."

**After the Civil War, the NRA is founded in the same year the Ku Klux Klan is declared illegal. "Just a coincidence?" asks Moore. The viewer is led to believe exactly the opposite. By advocating "responsible gun ownership," the NRA somehow facilitates the lynching of blacks in the south for the next century. **

Moore counts on the ignorance of his audience to enable him to rewrite history as he pleases. Yes, the National Rifle Association was formed in 1871 the same year that President Ulysses S. Grant signed the federal Ku Klux Klan Act into law. Left unsaid, however, is that the NRA was created by an act of the New York state Legislature at the request of a pair of former Union officers. After the Klan-busting Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him president. From the beginning, the NRA contested the gun-control laws that denied guns to blacks as they do to this day.

In a classic Moore touch, the film shows a 1988 George Bush ad that attacked Michael Dukakis for allowing convicted murderers weekend leave. The "Bowling" version of the ad features the photo of Willie Horton and the caption, "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." A sloppy propagandist, Moore inserted the caption into the ad unaware that Horton did not kill upon his infamous weekend leave. He merely raped and assaulted. Nor did the George Bush ad show or name Willie Horton.

As to Flint, Heston passed through there as he did many other cities in battleground states a full eight months after the killing of the little girl. This was not a pro-gun rally, but a get-out-the-vote drive a month before the 2000 presidential election. Moore himself was there hustling votes for Ralph Nader. Al Gore was there at the same time.

Although most serious reviewers chastise Moore for what A.O. Scott of the New York Times calls his "slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery," few, if any, challenge the dishonest foundation on which the logic is built. This is the multicultural logic that informs his animated "brief history" of America. Conditioned to believe that history themselves, critics fail to see the corrosive nature of his dissembling and dismiss it as mere mischief from a "cheerful rabble-rouser."

Indeed, few movies have been as widely honored as "Bowling." Not only did it win an Oscar for best "documentary" it also received top honors at a score or more of film festivals from Chicago to Sao Paolo. Its success prompted Moore to make "Fahrenheit 9-11," an even more subversive and deceitful look at America, released in the middle of a war.

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability," writes Christopher Hitchens of "Fahrenheit 9-11." His, however, was a voice in the wilderness. In full collaborative spirit, the cultural establishment cheered "Fahrenheit" even more enthusiastically than it did "Bowling." In an election year, it seemed so very useful. "

[url]http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44942[/url]

Ponce

2005-08-03 16:33 | User Profile

Interesting that "Mr Moore" cares so much about justice and truth yet he never says anything against the Jews or so called Neocons. :angry:

Anyone ever seen anything on this or am I right?

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 17:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ponce]Interesting that "Mr Moore" cares so much about justice and truth yet he never says anything against the Jews or so called Neocons. :angry:

Anyone ever seen anything on this or am I right?[/QUOTE]

You are correct, my little Cuban friend. :tongue: :oh:

Angler

2005-08-03 19:20 | User Profile

Michael Moore is a liberal doofus, but he was absolutely right to bash Bush for lying to get the US into war. His mistake in that regard is pinning all the blame on Bush without naming Israel, which was of course the real motivation for the Iraq war.

In England, he told a reporter that Americans were possibly “the dumbest people on the face of the planet.” On the whole, Americans are pretty stupid and gullible. We've been technologically successful, but that success is owed primarily to the smartest 1% or so of the population in conjuction with a system that rewards innovators.

He shows his respect for our men and women in uniform by describing those killing our military people as “Iraqi Minutemen and freedom fighters.” They aren't "our" military people. They're mercenaries who were sent as the aggressors into a war for Israel's benefit. In light of what they're doing now, they might as well be serving in the Israeli military.

All this "respect for men and women in uniform" is despicable, hackneyed, look-how-patriotic-I-am ass-kissing on the part of the author. The Iraqis have every right to resist the occupation of their country.

He has also had his movie enthusiastically endorsed by Hezbollah and “Fahrenheit 9/11” will be shown in Syria and Lebanon. Both of these terrorist-ridden countries are sending jihadists into Iraq to kill American soldiers. American soliders invaded Iraq first. They were the wrongful aggressors. They cannot complain about people trying to kill them when they're on someone else's soil.

Michael Moore isn't my favorite person, but he is not responsible for the death of one single person in Iraq. The guilty parties are Bush and his Judeocon puppeteers, as well as all Americans who gave them a free pass to engage in this war by supporting it.

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 23:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]Michael Moore is a liberal doofus, but he was absolutely right to bash Bush for lying to get the US into war. His mistake in that regard is pinning all the blame on Bush without naming Israel, which was of course the real motivation for the Iraq war.[/QUOTE]

Mistake? Don't be so naive...

Michael Moore isn't my favorite person, but he is not responsible for the death of one single person in Iraq. The guilty parties are Bush and his Judeocon puppeteers, as well as all Americans who gave them a free pass to engage in this war by supporting it.[/QUOTE]

Moore is a secret Jew that deliberately misleads our race on every important issue. This swine has attacked white males, gun ownership, and our race.

So get over your love affair with Bush!

Gabrielle

2005-08-03 23:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]Michael Moore is a liberal doofus, but he was absolutely right to bash Bush for lying to get the US into war. His mistake in that regard is pinning all the blame on Bush without naming Israel, which was of course the real motivation for the Iraq war.[/QUOTE]

Mistake? Don't be so naive...

[QUOTE] Michael Moore isn't my favorite person, but he is not responsible for the death of one single person in Iraq. The guilty parties are Bush and his Judeocon puppeteers, as well as all Americans who gave them a free pass to engage in this war by supporting it.[/QUOTE]

Moore is a secret Jew that deliberately misleads our race on every important issue. This swine has attacked white males, gun ownership, and our race.

So get over your love affair with Bush!

Sertorius

2005-08-03 23:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE]So get over your love affair with Bush![/QUOTE] Opps!

Angler

2005-08-04 00:36 | User Profile

QUOTE=GabrielleSo get over your love affair with Bush![/QUOTE]My love affair with Bush?!

What are you talking about? :lol:

Gabrielle

2005-08-04 01:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]My love affair with Bush?!

What are you talking about? :lol:[/QUOTE]

:wink:

Angler, I was wondering why you have such a creepy avatar?

Angler

2005-08-04 02:47 | User Profile

Angler, I was wondering why you have such a creepy avatar?[/QUOTE]Because I like to give people the creeps, of course.

Gabrielle

2005-08-04 12:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]Because I like to give people the creeps, of course.[/QUOTE]

And why would you want to do that?

Angeleyes

2005-08-06 00:00 | User Profile

Sorry, Angler, your hyperbole goes too far. They are indeed our military, if you consider yourself American. You pay for them, and they are all the sons and daughters of your neighbors, your fellow citizens. (OK, and a few green carders along the way.)

That they are being ill used by the current leadership is another matter.

[QUOTE=Angler]They aren't "our" military people. They're mercenaries who were sent as the aggressors into a war for Israel's benefit. In light of what they're doing now, they might as well be serving in the Israeli military[/QUOTE]

starr

2005-08-06 05:25 | User Profile

QUOTEMistake? Don't be so naive...[/QUOTE]So you think he deliberately left out any mention of Jews or Israel out of the documentary? Isn't it a possibility that he is just ignorant on this like most people are? And suppose he wasn't and the Jew "angle" was in Fahrenheit 9/11, how would the Jewsmedia have handled the "anti-semite", and his film?

[QUOTE]Moore is a secret Jew that deliberately misleads our race on every important issue. This swine has attacked white males, gun ownership, and our race. [/QUOTE]He is a typical self-hating white liberal, that doesn't neccessarily make him a jew. He is an idiot, nonetheless.

[QUOTE] He has also had his movie enthusiastically endorsed by Hezbollah and “Fahrenheit 9/11” will be shown in Syria and Lebanon. Both of these terrorist-ridden countries are sending jihadists into Iraq to kill American soldiers. [/QUOTE]It makes some sense that this anti-war documentary would be endorced by organizations like these. But what is the suggestion here, that this film was somehow used as propaganda to recruit terrorists? Would that even be neccessary? I would think the U.S government and their middle eastern "policies" are the best terrorist propaganda tool anyone could hope for.

Faust

2005-08-06 05:36 | User Profile

Gabrielle,

Yes he is scum. I do not think I would call that Grossly Obese Doofus Michael Moore a “Master of Propaganda.” He far too stupid to be called a Master of anything. Maybe he was good a putting parts on Buicks, but I would not even bet on that.

Angler

2005-08-06 06:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Sorry, Angler, your hyperbole goes too far. They are indeed our military, if you consider yourself American. You pay for them, and they are all the sons and daughters of your neighbors, your fellow citizens. (OK, and a few green carders along the way.)

That they are being ill used by the current leadership is another matter.[/QUOTE]Just because people live within the same geographic boundaries as I do doesn't mean I have any kinship or fellowship with them. I don't give a hoot about my neighbors, fellow citizens, or their spawn UNLESS they share the principles I believe in, such as those pertaining to human rights and genuine freedom. Only people who believe in those things are true Americans -- and there are precious few of them left. Everyone else is just living in this country and contributing to its demise.

The current US military can be roughly divided into two groups: (1) those who are actually defending the US from potential invasion (by air and sea patrol, etc.), and (2) the Likudnik invasion force. Those who in the latter group are nothing but a mercenary force in the service of the tyrants who run the US. They don't answer to me, protect me or my freedom, or do anything else for me; thus, they're not "my" military, and I don't owe them squat.

Angler

2005-08-06 06:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=starr]It makes some sense that this anti-war documentary would be endorced by organizations like these. But what is the suggestion here, that this film was somehow used as propaganda to recruit terrorists? Would that even be neccessary? I would think the U.S government and their middle eastern "policies" are the best terrorist propaganda tool anyone could hope for.[/QUOTE]Precisely.

Sertorius

2005-08-06 10:49 | User Profile

Angler,

I have to agree with A.E. on this. One doesn't blame a firearm if someone else misuses it. There are a sizable number of folks in the Armed Forces that don't like taking their orders form Bush and company or being over there anymore than you and I do. Instead of viewing them as mercenaries, I think you might consider them a potential breeding ground for the sort of views expressed here, particularly when it comes to Israel. Nobody likes being taken advantage of.

Gabrielle

2005-08-06 11:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=starr][QUOTE]So you think he deliberately left out any mention of Jews or Israel out of the documentary? Isn't it a possibility that he is just ignorant on this like most people are? And suppose he wasn't and the Jew "angle" was in Fahrenheit 9/11, how would the Jewsmedia have handled the "anti-semite", and his film?

He is a typical self-hating white liberal, that doesn't neccessarily make him a jew. He is an idiot, nonetheless.

It makes some sense that this anti-war documentary would be endorced by organizations like these. But what is the suggestion here, that this film was somehow used as propaganda to recruit terrorists? Would that even be neccessary? I would think the U.S government and their middle eastern "policies" are the best terrorist propaganda tool anyone could hope for.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Starr! I am weally a poor misunderstood and wery, wery rich 'white’ guy. I didn’t mean to make awot of money with my leftist so-called documentaries- which my kosher buddies pushed a weally lot for me. Hell, without them no one would have even known about my leftist stupidity.

[img]http://www.skyone.co.uk/programmes/mingers/images/ming_gallery3.jpg[/img]

Hugs and kisses, Mike.

[img] http://www.twoturntables.com/images/usmc-fmm.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.echonews.com/813/images/book_micheal_moore.jpg[/img]

Knekkeben

2005-08-06 13:38 | User Profile

He is a typical self-hating white liberal, that doesn't neccessarily make him a jew. He is an idiot, nonetheless. Isn't Michael Moore's agent Ari Emmanuel, brother to Zionist Rahm Emmanuel?

[url="http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-06-23/movie2.html"]http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-06-23/movie2.html[/url]

"At the Cannes press conference, Moore was asked to trace the path from Icon. 'I don't hang out with Mel Gibson. I only know what I was told by my agent, Ari Emmanuel. Icon was the Bowling for Columbine distributor in Australia and New Zealand.'"

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emmanuel"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emmanuel[/url]

"He also volunteered at an Israeli Defense Forces supply base during the Gulf War, which prompted anti-semites and conspiracy theorists to accuse him of being a Mossad spy in the White House."

He's probably not Jewish himself, but since his agent is most likely a Zionist dirt-bag himself and the American industry of film is Jewish, it would be surprising if "Israeli" (Jewish) involvement in the conception of the Iraqi invasion WERE revealed in his film.

In any case, "Gabrielle" is really just a silly troll.

Gabrielle

2005-08-06 16:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Knekkeben]Isn't Michael Moore's agent Ari Emmanuel, brother to Zionist Rahm Emmanuel?

[url="http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-06-23/movie2.html"]http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-06-23/movie2.html[/url]

"At the Cannes press conference, Moore was asked to trace the path from Icon. 'I don't hang out with Mel Gibson. I only know what I was told by my agent, Ari Emmanuel. Icon was the Bowling for Columbine distributor in Australia and New Zealand.'"

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emmanuel"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emmanuel[/url]

"He also volunteered at an Israeli Defense Forces supply base during the Gulf War, which prompted anti-semites and conspiracy theorists to accuse him of being a Mossad spy in the White House."

He's probably not Jewish himself, but since his agent is most likely a Zionist dirt-bag himself and the American industry of film is Jewish, it would be surprising if "Israeli" (Jewish) involvement in the conception of the Iraqi invasion WERE revealed in his film.

In any case, "Gabrielle" is really just a silly troll.[/QUOTE]

Ha Ha! Your sweetheart Kerry lost! Gabrielle the troll.

Angler

2005-08-06 19:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Sertorius]Angler,

I have to agree with A.E. on this. One doesn't blame a firearm if someone else misuses it. There are a sizable number of folks in the Armed Forces that don't like taking their orders form Bush and company or being over there anymore than you and I do. Instead of viewing them as mercenaries, I think you might consider them a potential breeding ground for the sort of views expressed here, particularly when it comes to Israel. Nobody likes being taken advantage of.[/QUOTE]If they're open-minded enough to be converted by the mounds of evidence that they're being used, then that's great. But alas, I don't have much hope for that. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I suspect that most of the soldiers in Iraq like doing Bush's dirty work, just like these two:

[img]http://www.twoturntables.com/images/usmc-fmm.jpg[/img]

Sertorius

2005-08-06 20:57 | User Profile

Angler,

There is an old saying that an army reflects the society it is drawn from. I realize this is somewhat dated by, for example, the failure of our "elites" to put themselves or their sons in harm's way. Nonetheless, I still think this is valid. Those two Marines are simply reflecting that in all societies there are a certain number of ill informed people or even nasty people. We don't know which is true in this particular case. When I was younger I think I probably would have done the same thing. Now that I am older I know better and hopefully those two will as well when they get older and realize how badly they have been screwed.

Bardamu

2005-08-06 21:19 | User Profile

QUOTE=Gabrielle Moore is a secret Jew that deliberately misleads our race on every important issue. This swine has attacked white males, gun ownership, and our race.

So get over your love affair with Bush![/QUOTE]

At the very least, Moore's definitely a [I]jewist[/I] . And what's this about getting over Bush? Ha, you are finally coming around. You know, the Republicans are the warp and woof of the NWO. They couldn't care less about our nation. They are repugnant in the extreme. Even more so than the Demonrats! Did you read that our battleships are now going to be made in China? This is absolutely insane.

Knekkeben

2005-08-06 21:53 | User Profile

QUOTE=GabrielleHa Ha! Your sweetheart Kerry lost! Gabrielle the troll.[/QUOTE] Very curious. When you first responded, you simply asked why I believe that you're a troll. Then, you edited your response and quite predictably accused me of supporting John Kerry. I don't support John Kerry. I don't support the Democratic Party. And I don't support the Republican Party. Both political parties are, without doubt, utter poison.

Second, I believe that you're a troll for many reasons. I recollect that you, not long ago, expressed that George W. Bush's causing harm to the country is absolutely innocent and that he believes that he's doing good. Then, in this very thread, you scolded someone for a "love affair" with him. Absurd. This is the behavior of a troll.

Sertorius

2005-08-06 22:00 | User Profile

K,

I have to defend Gabrielle here.

She isn't a troll. She made a mistake with the Bush comment, I believe, based on her previous writings. What we have here is a typical Bushbot- all emotion, just like "liberals", and little, if any, logic and reason. These folks abound at "Free" Republic.

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-08-06 22:47 | User Profile

The factual errors in Moore's films are legion, but I think a lot of his impact is achieved not through the "facts" the he presents (which go in one ear and out the other most of the time) but the deceitful way he manipulates the audience's emotions with visual imagery and tricky editing. Besides the obvious one of playing "evil" music whenever he shows Bush or Cheney, a good example of this is the technique he has of cutting from a really emotionally intense scene to a "reaction shot" of a third party (usually one of his political opponents) behaving in a way that would be completely socially/emotionally inappropriate in the context of the previous scene.

For example, in Fahrenheit 9/11 he cuts from a scene showing the grieving mother of a soldier who died in Iraq to some stock footage of Bush laughing at some joke in the Whitehouse. Even though on a rational level there's no reason to think that Bush was laughing at fallen US soldiers (the footage was probably of something completely unrelated), the emotional effect of the juxtaposition is very strong. It's hard not to come away thinking "U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq, and that smirking idiot Bush thinks it's all a big joke".

As much as I dislike Bush, this is still dishonest propaganda, and even though I might approve in a pragmatic "as-long-as-it-makes-the-sheeple-hate-the-neocons-it's-OK-by-me" kind of way, I'm not falling for it myself.

Gabrielle

2005-08-06 23:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Knekkeben]Very curious. When you first responded, you simply asked why I believe that you're a troll. Then, you edited your response and quite predictably accused me of supporting John Kerry. I don't support John Kerry. I don't support the Democratic Party. And I don't support the Republican Party. Both political parties are, without doubt, utter poison.

Second, I believe that you're a troll for many reasons. I recollect that you, not long ago, expressed that George W. Bush's causing harm to the country is absolutely innocent and that he believes that he's doing good. Then, in this very thread, you scolded someone for a "love affair" with him. Absurd. This is the behavior of a troll.[/QUOTE]

Benny Boy, I read your little posts concerning Kerry and Bush and you even said you wanted kosher Kerry to win over Bush.

Kerry Lover! :wub:

Gabrielle

2005-08-06 23:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Sertorius]K,

I have to defend Gabrielle here.

She isn't a troll. She made a mistake with the Bush comment, I believe, based on her previous writings. What we have here is a typical Bushbot- all emotion, just like "liberals", and little, if any, logic and reason. These folks abound at "Free" Republic.[/QUOTE]

I was just kidding around about his love affair with Bush. Boy, can't you guys take a joke? :boxing:

Gabrielle

2005-08-06 23:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]The factual errors in Moore's films are legion, but I think a lot of his impact is achieved not through the "facts" the he presents (which go in one ear and out the other most of the time) but the deceitful way he manipulates the audience's emotions with visual imagery and tricky editing. Besides the obvious one of playing "evil" music whenever he shows Bush or Cheney, a good example of this is the technique he has of cutting from a really emotionally intense scene to a "reaction shot" of a third party (usually one of his political opponents) behaving in a way that would be completely socially/emotionally inappropriate in the context of the previous scene.

For example, in Fahrenheit 9/11 he cuts from a scene showing the grieving mother of a soldier who died in Iraq to some stock footage of Bush laughing at some joke in the Whitehouse. Even though on a rational level there's no reason to think that Bush was laughing at fallen US soldiers (the footage was probably of something completely unrelated), the emotional effect of the juxtaposition is very strong. It's hard not to come away thinking "U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq, and that smirking idiot Bush thinks it's all a big joke".

As much as I dislike Bush, this is still dishonest propaganda, and even though I might approve in a pragmatic "as-long-as-it-makes-the-sheeple-hate-the-neocons-it's-OK-by-me" kind of way, I'm not falling for it myself.[/QUOTE]

Rowdy, if you think "Fahrenheit 9/11" was full of lies and deception; you should see "Bowling for Columbine"!!!

Sertorius

2005-08-07 00:02 | User Profile

Now, Gabrielle, I know better than that. You meant "love affair with Moore", not Bush. You simply made a mistake. I'll forgive you if you quit putting obscene images on this thread.

Faust

2005-08-07 00:07 | User Profile

Gabrielle,

Did you see my thread on 'Bowling for Columbine'?

'Bowling for Columbine' (Michael Moore) [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3436[/url]

From the thread: [QUOTE] I saw this sick three-minute animated short on TV. One might call it's style Frankfurt School meets South Park!

[I]"The best part of this movie is a hilarious three-minute animated short that offers Moore's abridged version of American history beginning with the arrival of the Pilgrims. It attributes every major historical event to racism. I never would have guessed that such an insulting oversimplification could be so funny. The only thing lacking was the voice of Homer Simpson as narrator."[/I]

I am glad Charlton Heston told the truth!

[I]"There was audible outrage in the theater when Moore tricked Charlton Heston into speculating on a reason why gun violence is so much greater in America than it is in Canada. As any criminologist knows, American gun violence is highly concentrated in young black and Latino men. Violence among the white population is roughly similar between the two countries." [/I][/QUOTE]

Gabrielle

2005-08-07 00:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Faust]Gabrielle,

Did you see my thread on 'Bowling for Columbine'?

'Bowling for Columbine' (Michael Moore) [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3436[/url]

From the thread:[/QUOTE]

Thanks! Great post! :thumbsup:

Gabrielle

2005-08-07 00:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Sertorius]Now, Gabrielle, I know better than that. You meant "love affair with Moore", not Bush. You simply made a mistake. I'll forgive you if you quit putting obscene images on this thread.[/QUOTE]

LOL! I can't make a promise like that. :tongue:

Angeleyes

2005-08-07 18:58 | User Profile

Angler, you may have no idea the level contempt Michael Moore is held in by most serving member of the military. Were he a muckraker who stuck to facts and wasn't a blatant America hating propagandist, you'd not see pictures like this.

You might recall the emotion Hitler expressed about the "Stab in the Back" by the Jews while he was a soldier in the trenches in WW I. Consider the hate for Jane Fonda during Viet Nam. She did not just object to the war, she made it personal, and she openly cavorted with the enemy.

Current serving soldiers see Michael Moore in a similar light: traitor. Whatever value his critique of Pres Bush has is disrupted by his packaging, and his inability to stick to the facts to make his case.

If he's so damned smart, why doesn't he let the facts speak for themselves? Think about that? Gee, who runs Hollywood? Where does he want to make money again.

He's a propagandist, no more and no less, and is reviled as such.

[QUOTE=Angler]

[img]http://www.twoturntables.com/images/usmc-fmm.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]