Michael Moore says bad things about 9/11 passengers

[Crossover_Maniac]

About as low as taking shots at dead people for cheap laughs, eh?

No, not really Moore is a Political guy with values he Passionatly belives in, insulting a guy over his weight is the actions of a mindless moron.

What if I told you I was indicating he got fat off the tragedies of Columbine and 9/11, would you consider the insult political and legitimate?

[Skelron]

About as low as taking shots at dead people for cheap laughs, eh?

No, not really Moore is a Political guy with values he Passionatly belives in, insulting a guy over his weight is the actions of a mindless moron.

What if I told you I was indicating he got fat off the tragedies of Columbine and 9/11, would you consider the insult political and legitimate?

I'd find it too be a confusing statement, if you mean he made money of those events, September the 11th Cost him, for almost a year his book was not published, and basically censoured, because of his opinions expressed in the book which was written before September the 11th. So no I'd say you where lying.... But hay what do I know right.

You know this is all a bunch of crap, for years Jokes have done the rounds about disasters that have cost more human lifes than September the 11th, I don't find many of them funny personally, but it's nothing new, and at lkeast in this case he was making a political point...

[Crossover_Maniac]

No, not really Moore is a Political guy with values he Passionatly belives in, insulting a guy over his weight is the actions of a mindless moron.

What if I told you I was indicating he got fat off the tragedies of Columbine and 9/11, would you consider the insult political and legitimate?

I'd find it too be a confusing statement, if you mean he made money of those events, September the 11th Cost him, for almost a year his book was not published, and basically censoured, because of his opinions expressed in the book which was written before September the 11th. So no I'd say you where lying.... But hay what do I know right.

Oh, I'm sorry, I honostly thought he made money off the book. Let me rephrase my statement: What if I told you I was indicating he tried making money off the tragedies of Columbine and 9/11 and failed, would you consider the insult political and legitimate?

[consequences]

It's not the memory of the dead that is at stake, its the pride of the living.

[Skelron]

Oh, I'm sorry, I honostly thought he made money off the book. Let me rephrase my statement: What if I told you I was indicating he tried making money off the tragedies of Columbine and 9/11 and failed, would you consider the insult political and legitimate?

Difficult it is to answer this, I'd say political yes, (But then Politics is life, we are engaging in Politics now, any occasion where two or more people meet is political, and the big debate is whether before Friday appeared was Crusoe still in a Political enviroment...)

but legitimate, well no, unless you could prove it. (If you can't prove it it's slander...) (Using september the 11th in his 'Gigs' for want of a better word is not enough, he is a political commentator and to not mention September the 11th would be absurd I think you'd agree? it is also not enough to say he is using the event to make money from it, a bigger sign of making money would be the original publisher's of his book, who where aiming to make themselves the unofficial September the 11th Publisher's in the eyes of America, because that would earn them money...)

Yes he did make money from his book through, of course he did, but the only 'Bonus' he might have got from September the 11th towards it, was the way the Publisher's tried to bury it, which then back fired and made one of those... 'why the hell do these people not want to us read this book, and AT LAST we can read the book.' movements among the political left wing.

[One True Spoon]

Bowling for Columbine has more of a lament about the insanity of American gun culture than a film ridiculing the incident.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I loved the book Stupid White Men...and those comments if he was sticking true to form were probably an attempt to point out rather stupid racist sterotypes.
As for shouting at the £5 an hour bar staff....as one who was so poorly paid....that I dont like....but the rest....

He's a fucking moron. Stupid White Men had numerous factual errors. Moore is a screaming psychopath and an attention whore. I wish to kill him and sell his weight in body fat reconverted into soap.

Such as point out one Factual error, not an opinion you disagree with but a real bona fida Factual error, and you evidence to back it up.... Theres my challenge.

I wouldn't lie.

This page gives a good summary of some of them. I'll try and look over my copy and see if there's any they missed.

spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of [the over $190 million President Bush raised during the presidential campaign] came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals. The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds.

This pattern -- the very sources Moore cites proving him wrong -- continues throughout the book.

[ArmorPierce]

Also whats amusing to me is none of you have disagreed with the idea that Black guys would have handled it differently. You've all said it would have made no difference, but you've all accepted his intial point...

Saying that a black guy just because he's black would have handled it differently is in itself racist.

Thereby proving what I think was his whole point, the acceptance that somehow Blacks are more violent, more likely to start a fight etc. He makes his points in extreme ways but sometimes thats the only way to be heard in the world if your disagring with the accepted line...

What are you saying--that it was a test to see how people would respond to him saying that a black person would act differently?

[Skelron]

[quote="Skelron

Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of [the over $190 million President Bush raised during the presidential campaign] came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals. The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds.

This pattern -- the very sources Moore cites proving him wrong -- continues throughout the book.

Just as a personal matter oif interest whats the difference between money donated to the Rebuplican Party (Which if you think isn't going to spent on the Presidential election, in support of their Candiadate and money given directly to Bush. Often things like this are a Political Parties attempt to sidestep the rules. So unless the majourity of this money was spent on something else, could it not rather be that Moore decides to ignore the Shit Politicians of all sides like to chuck around. (And as a Guy that studies Politics, I can assure you theres a HELL of lot of that clever ways to spin the issues...) The rest of the information I will check tommorow, tonight is, while not late late, is late enough That I will be logging off soon to play Warcraft 3, before going to bed.

[Skelron]

Also whats amusing to me is none of you have disagreed with the idea that Black guys would have handled it differently. You've all said it would have made no difference, but you've all accepted his intial point...

Saying that a black guy just because he's black would have handled it differently is in itself racist.

Thereby proving what I think was his whole point, the acceptance that somehow Blacks are more violent, more likely to start a fight etc. He makes his points in extreme ways but sometimes thats the only way to be heard in the world if your disagring with the accepted line...

What are you saying--that it was a test to see how people would respond to him saying that a black person would act differently?

It wouldn't be the first time he's done that, in his first movie he shows a Rabit being killed, and then five minutes later a Black man in a Superman Cap waving a Toy Gun being shot dead by the police. He's recieved HUNDREDS of thousands of letters of complaint or had people say WHY did you put that scene in, over one of those two scenes and not ONE about the other one. Guess which is which... if you chose Not one for the Black man bit you'd be correct, this is he said a damning indictment of viewers of all political persuausions, that a Rabit being killed is considered that much worse than a Black man.... (He's not racist, hell his book points out that he has no reason to be, the only people that ever Screw him over are White...if anything a White person should make him afraid. He plays games when he's in a new city how many times will I meet a Black person in a position of power, once in LA his entire trip there he met not one...

[Lord Pounder]

Look the fact of the matter is this moore "person" is a racist sef-opionated piece of shite and i hope he suffers a hiedous death for what he said about 9/11. Once again the aooplogiest come to his defence coz he is racist against white ppl, If a anglo comedian where to make racist slurs about african americans the comedian would leave the stage accompanied my EMT's. But once again we see reverse racism is alive and well in America.

[Knife]

Skelron wrote:

Just as a personal matter oif interest whats the difference between money donated to the Rebuplican Party (Which if you think isn't going to spent on the Presidential election, in support of their Candiadate and money given directly to Bush. Often things like this are a Political Parties attempt to sidestep the rules. So unless the majourity of this money was spent on something else, could it not rather be that Moore decides to ignore the Shit Politicians of all sides like to chuck around. (And as a Guy that studies Politics, I can assure you theres a HELL of lot of that clever ways to spin the issues...)

It makes alot of difference. Bush is not in direct control of the GOP, he has influence but is not in charge. All parties use the loop hole to further their cause but unless the actual canidate spends the money, he can't or shouldn't be held acountable to someone elses political hacking. The same can be said about PAC's (political action commitee's). They usual produce political adds that are inflamatory to say the least. These are designed to slander the opponent of their canidate but unless the canidate him/herself is a part of the PAC, they have no control over the shit the group does.

And while I am sure some of the money went to the presidential election, I bet a majority went to the congressional elections.