Originally Posted by EchoSex

I HATE Micheal Moore soooo much - I laughed my ass off through the whole thing.

BTW, if you want a good read, pick up "Micheal Moore is a stupid fat white man."

Originally Posted by TheEPIC

I think my Political Science teacher has allowed us to read that book as a book review. And BTW I hate Michael Moore too.

Originally Posted by PieXags

Good stuff. Screw Michael Moore.

Originally Posted by TheEPIC

I nominate Mr. AllWhitePeopleShouldBeKilled

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

Regardless of Michael Moore's politics there's no denying he's a shameless opportunist. He just likes to capitalize off the paranoia of well-intentioned but ill-informed liberals.

It's ironic that, if you're explicitly against Michael Moore, some people are quick to assume you're just being a Bush apologist. The fact is that many well-informed liberals are offended by his films, too. The people who really believe that his films are factual documentaries are obviously using his films as their only source of information - Even a cursory review of his references, his dates and his numbers demonstrate that he shamelessly fabricates his material and edits facts in order to make a popular film.

In that respect, it might be argued that he has something in common with filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl ("Triumph of the Will" - promoting Naziism) and D.W.Griffiths ("Birth of a Nation" - fictionalized account of the future where the KKK "rescues" the US from the plague of freed slaves). But there's one difference - Riefenstahl and Griffiths were promoting their own personal beliefs. Michael Moore is just making money - he could care less about politics.

Fact: his first film Roger and Me was about how GM turned Moore's own poor hometown of Flint, Michigan into a ghost town. The film was promoted to draw people's attention to this dying town which was supposedly dear to him. Not one cent of Moore's millions went back to his hometown community. Moore lives in a multi-million dollar place in the upper east side of Manhattan. Notable film critic, Pauline Kael (notoriously politically liberal film critic) took issue with Moore's twisting of fact and was offended with his arrogant ridicule of working class people.

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

Regardless of Michael Moore's politics there's no denying he's a shameless opportunist. He just likes to capitalize off the paranoia of well-intentioned but ill-informed liberals.

It's ironic that, if you're explicitly against Michael Moore, some people are quick to assume you're just being a Bush apologist. The fact is that many well-informed liberals are offended by his films, too. The people who really believe that his films are factual documentaries are obviously using his films as their only source of information - Even a cursory review of his references, his dates and his numbers demonstrate that he shamelessly fabricates his material and edits facts in order to make a popular film.

In that respect, it might be argued that he has something in common with filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl ("Triumph of the Will" - promoting Naziism) and D.W.Griffiths ("Birth of a Nation" - fictionalized account of the future where the KKK "rescues" the US from the plague of freed slaves). But there's one difference - Riefenstahl and Griffiths were promoting their own personal beliefs. Michael Moore is just making money - he could care less about politics.

Fact: his first film Roger and Me was about how GM turned Moore's own poor hometown of Flint, Michigan into a ghost town. The film was promoted to draw people's attention to this dying town which was supposedly dear to him. Not one cent of Moore's millions went back to his hometown community. Notable film critic, Pauline Kael (notoriously politically liberal film critic) took issue with Moore's twisting of fact and was offended with his arrogant ridicule of working class people.