U.S. Presidential Term Limit: Not quite..... Vote Bill Clinton 2004! ;-)

[serpicolugnut]

fryke - there you go again, missing the point. I'm not taking issue with Michael Moore's message/content, I'm taking issue with his approach. As I said, he does his cause a great disservice in the way that he goes about championing it.

For example, in his film Bowling for Columbine, he goes out of his way to embarrass Charlton Heston - a man suffering from Alzheimers. Many who agree with Moore felt that was over the top.

Also, his speech at the Oscars drew boos even from many who agreed with him.

Funny you feel my pride has been hurt by MM, because, frankly, he's a joke. I'm not certain what "facts" toast feels MM has right. I certainly haven't seen any "facts" from MM, just opinions rammed down the oppositions throat.

Whether or not I agree/disagree with MM isn't the point, and it's quite funny that people are taking it that way. Michael Moore stalks corporate big wigs and other higher ups with his camera in hopes of catching them doing something embarrassing on tape. He then passes this off to a dim-witted audience as further reinforcement of his opinion. His only chance of making his point is when he controls the medium and the editing room.

Again - for those who haven't gotten the point - I'm not disagreeing with any of MM points, and could care less what he rails on about - it's the manner in which he stalks people and assaults them with edited pieces made to make them look bad and him look witty.

As someone smarter than me once said - "I can make the Pope look like Hitler with enough raw footage and a few hours in the editing room"....

And finally, my statement about wanting to turn the tables on MM and follow him around was made to illustrate the point that those who live in glass houses should throw stones...

Everybody got it? Good!

 

[toast]

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
He does his cause a great disservice in the way that he goes about championing it. (...)

He's in the show business industry. His method works in this domain. If Moore was teaching at Harvard, he would be acting differently.

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
For example, in his film Bowling for Columbine, he goes out of his way to embarrass Charlton Heston - a man suffering from Alzheimers. Many who agree with Moore felt that was over the top.

Alzheimer affects memory, not intellect. Heston was an easy target, but that's part of the game.

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Also, his speech at the Oscars drew boos even from many who agreed with him.

That's bizness ! His speech was quoted everywhere; his simplistic but short and easy to remember vociferations are known worldwide.

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
I'm not certain what "facts" toast feels MM has right. I certainly haven't seen any "facts" from MM, just opinions rammed down the oppositions throat.

He gives stats, in his books, in his film. I call this facts, only when they come with their source. And they do come with their source in Moore's argumentation.

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Michael Moore stalks corporate big wigs and other higher ups with his camera in hopes of catching them doing something embarrassing on tape.

... And that's a distractive way to make fun of Nike's CEO, for instance. After all, cinema is leisure. Moore is not being serious because he's aiming at amusing, even if his topic could be serious. Compare to Roberto Begnini.

My 2¢. I have asked someone who's got the book to give some examples of MM's facts and figures, plus their sources.

 

[adambyte]

I apologize, but I don't have a copy of the book with me here at school... I recently got done reading it, and gave it to my parents to read. But I do remember that he used things from "The New York Times" at least a dozen times...... damn my memory, though, can't think of other sources. Anybody else?

On a side note: I have not seen Bowling for Coumbine, yet, and it's been a long time since I've seen any of his shows.... (TV Nation, I think?) And I wouldn't be surprised if Moore's style of attack is more exagerated/extreme on film than it is in his book. TV is a "dumber" medium than print, and, as such, he might feel a need to attack differently. *shrugs*

 

[serpicolugnut]

... And that's a distractive way to make fun of Nike's CEO, for instance. After all, cinema is leisure. Moore is not being serious because he's aiming at amusing, even if his topic could be serious. Compare to Roberto Begnini.

Actually, Michael Moore sees himself as a documentary film maker, not an entertainer. His words (read his quote from the oscars), not mine. Documentary films, which might be entertainining, are meant more to educate and convey a point. But I'd love the next interviewer who sits down with MM to make the Begnini comparison, and see how MM takes it.

What everyone here is failing to realize without me just coming out saying it point blank - I agree (gasp!) with quite a lot that MM has to say in his various commentaries (apart from his anti-Iraq war and Bush views). The problem is, when I see him use his films to portray his side of a story as fact without any direct challenging, it turns me off. Say what you want about Rush Limbaugh, but he answers to his audience 5 times a week for 3 hours a day. Even liberal talk show hosts (Mike Molloy, Alan Colmbes, et al) have more cojones than MM, since they have to defend their views daily.

MMs movies are nothing more than drive by journalism/commentary. If you perceive it as entertianment, then I applaud you. But the author, and millions others see it as a documentary, and it's by this measure that it comes up dreadfully short, in my opinion.

 

[toast]

I see your point.
To give a nice form to mine, here's a quote from the Guardian presenting his book:

White frights

He's a joker not a philosopher, a film-maker not a statesman, but Michael Moore has diagnosed the source of the world's ills. It's Stupid White Men - from the Thief in Chief who stole the presidential election, to the company chairman who pollutes the planet, to the car salesman who sells you the dud car. Here, he sorts out the villains and the fall guys. "

 

[serpicolugnut]

He's a joker not a philosopher, a film-maker not a statesman, but Michael Moore has diagnosed the source of the world's ills. It's Stupid White Men - from the Thief in Chief who stole the presidential election, to the company chairman who pollutes the planet, to the car salesman who sells you the dud car. Here, he sorts out the villains and the fall guys

The two things that probably irk me most about MM are his selection of targets, and his politically correct approach.

For example...

In his movie, he dupes an unwitting Charlton Heston, whom he sees as a bad guy because he's head of the NRA.

How about shining the light on the hypocritical Rosie O'Donnel, who's rabidly anti NRA, yet has no problem being KMarts spokesperson, a place where just about anybody can purchase a rifle.

Or how about exposing some eco-terrorist organizations, like ELF? Or the lunacy of Peta? Or exposing Jesse Jacksons shady business dealings?

He doesn't tackle these issues because it isn't PC. Even his book title "Stupid White Men" (a title that reveals more of his self loathing psyche) is a cheap shot. He has no cojones to take on non-PC causes, probably because he's afraid to tee off his core audience.

Then again, he was pretty hard on Bill Clinton, but that could be because Clinton wasn't far enough to the left for his liking...

 

[habilis]

Originally posted by marz
Rush Limbaugh neither has facts nor logic to back him up, just loud mouthed rhetoric to incite his listeners that already agree with his specious logic.

I don't agree with every_single_word Limbaugh speaks but I listen to his show at least 3 times(9 hours) a week. And aside from his adoption of over-pragmatized views of science he's an undeniable political genious. The left is mortified by his oratory because it is so powerful and ruggedly truthful. So I think it's exactly contrary to your statement; the reason why he has 20,000,000 American listeners is because he really does speak the hard-to-swallow truth and underground realities of the world.

As far as rhetoric, well, calling something rhetoric is just a way for one party to cast negative aspursions on anothers statements of belief - I don't buy it.

 

[toast]

Anyone knows a way for us Europeans to watch this Mr Rush Limbaugh ? I hate to read about something I haven't tested myself.

 

[habilis]

toast: http://www.wtam.com/main.html click on the "listen Live" link. WTAM is my local AM radio station here in Cleveland. His show is from 12:08 PM to 3:00 PM American Eastern Standard time so translate that to your time.

Let me warn you however, Limbaugh is a staunch right winger.

 

[fryke]

Serpicolugnut: You ask why we think you don't agree/disagree with MM? You've entered him into the thread, and both from your icon and you previous posts in 'The Café' I have to assume that you're rather rightish. The tone you're using in the first post about MM in this thread sounds like your pride is hurt and that you want to pay 'this guy' back in the 'cheap way' he's using himself.

If I've totally got you wrong, please accept my apology.

 

[toast]

Originally posted by habilis
toast: http://www.wtam.com/main.html click on the "listen Live" link. WTAM is my local AM radio station here in Cleveland. His show is from 12:08 PM to 3:00 PM American Eastern Standard time so translate that to your time.

Let me warn you however, Limbaugh is a staunch right winger.

Thank you very much.
And thanks for warning me ! I know he is staunchingly right-wing. Now I'll be able to tell you how much he is, from a French point of view.

 

[wdw_]

You know what would be the perfect campagn song for Clinton if he were to run again; Eminem's "Without Me". Just read the chorus:

"Now this looks like a job for me
So everybody just follow me
'Cause we need a little controversy,
'Cause it feels so empty without me"

Almost the entire song fits.Give it a listen.