"Miserable failure" on google now points to Michea

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-02-06 12:28pm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... gle+Search
Bush is still below him, then Carter and Hillary Clinton.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-02-06 12:29pm

Isn't Google bombing fun?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-06 01:05pm

LOL! Moore deserves that title much more than Bush (not to say that Bush doesn't deserve it:) )...

BTW, someone should really bomb former Prime Minister Chretien's (aka Mssr. Cretin) name...

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-02-06 01:18pm

Peh, French military victories is still the best.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-06 01:34pm

Chardok wrote:Peh, French military victories is still the best.

Yes. Yes it is.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-02-06 05:33pm

Copycat google bombing, can't the anti Moore morons do sumthing original?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-06 07:33pm

Faram wrote:Copycat google bombing, can't the anti Moore morons do sumthing original?

Many of the morons who oppose Moore are no stupider than the majority of his fans...

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-02-06 07:53pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Faram wrote:Copycat google bombing, can't the anti Moore morons do sumthing original?
Many of the morons who oppose Moore are no stupider than the majority of his fans...

Yes, but I don't see Anne Coulter getting any Oscars, and at least Moore knows that Jefferson was our third president...

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-06 08:07pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Yes, but I don't see Anne Coulter getting any Oscars, and at least Moore knows that Jefferson was our third president...

That proves nothing. We both know that the oscars are rigged anyway (how else did Titanic win 11 of them?) I'm no fan of Coultier, but popularity and success are an absolutely meaninless judge of character. Moore is a far-left nutbar. Call him the left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh. Like Limbaugh, Moore is overweight, arrogant, abrasive, dishonest, takes his political view way too far, and he sticks his in his mouth frequently.
If Bush somehow had near 100% popularity today and won the Nobel prize or something, would you support him? didn't think so.

BTW, Michael Moore. These articles on Moore are the best I've seen. Unlike most anti-Moore articles, they are not far-right ranting...

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-02-06 11:42pm

Ma Deuce wrote: If Bush somehow had near 100% popularity today and won the Nobel prize or something, would you support him? didn't think so.

What a far reaching example. It'd be interesting to see what Nobel Prize Bush could actually qualify for.

"Call him the left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh. Like Limbaugh, Moore is overweight, arrogant, abrasive, dishonest, takes his political view way too far, and he sticks his in his mouth frequently."

It's too bad you weren't here for the other debates on moore. It was nice to see his detractors run around in circles.

I'll check those articles and see what they show.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-07 05:07am

About Bush and the Nobel prize, I was referring to this thread.

As for Moore, my main problem with him is not his views (he is perfectly entitled to them) but the fact that he maliciously twists the truth for his own purposes in every one of his books and documentaries, and then sells it to gullible people who believe that everything he has stated in his books/documentaries is absolutely true...

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-02-07 05:35am

Ma Deuce wrote: As for Moore, my main problem with him is not his views (he is perfectly entitled to them) but the fact that he maliciously twists the truth for his own purposes in every one of his books and documentaries, and then sells it to gullible people who believe that everything he has stated in his books/documentaries is absolutely true...

If you're referring to the bit about the Lockheed-Martin factory in Bowling For Columbine - then I can inform you that while that factory indeed manufactures satellites rather than weapons, Lockheed-Martin is still the USA's biggest manufacturer of warplanes.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-02-07 07:55am

Coultier, but popularity and success are an absolutely meaninless judge of character. Moore is a far-left nutbar. Call him the left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh. Like Limbaugh, Moore is overweight,

so compared to popularity overweight is not meaningless to judge the character?

arrogant,

how so?

abrasive,

so what?

dishonest,

perhaps a bit, but the core of his point is usually quite correct.

takes his political view way too far,

well, isn´t that exactly what politicians are there for?

and he sticks his in his mouth frequently.

so what?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-07 11:48am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote: As for Moore, my main problem with him is not his views (he is perfectly entitled to them) but the fact that he maliciously twists the truth for his own purposes in every one of his books and documentaries, and then sells it to gullible people who believe that everything he has stated in his books/documentaries is absolutely true...
If you're referring to the bit about the Lockheed-Martin factory in Bowling For Columbine - then I can inform you that while that factory indeed manufactures satellites rather than weapons, Lockheed-Martin is still the USA's biggest manufacturer of warplanes.

I don't give a shit if the guy made a few errors; he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Connecting gun violence to defense companies is the dumbest thesis ever.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-02-07 11:56am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote: As for Moore, my main problem with him is not his views (he is perfectly entitled to them) but the fact that he maliciously twists the truth for his own purposes in every one of his books and documentaries, and then sells it to gullible people who believe that everything he has stated in his books/documentaries is absolutely true...
If you're referring to the bit about the Lockheed-Martin factory in Bowling For Columbine - then I can inform you that while that factory indeed manufactures satellites rather than weapons, Lockheed-Martin is still the USA's biggest manufacturer of warplanes.

Of course probably most often quoted and biggest lie is Moore's claim of a secret Bin Laden Evacation Flight. Something that's never been proven and all evidence contradicts.

I'm just suprised that the claim has spread from kooks like Bill Marher to actual, semi-responsible figures like Howard Dean and other Democratic candidates.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-07 12:15pm

Am I the only person here who doesn't give two shits about Michael Moore, one way or the other?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-07 04:05pm

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote: As for Moore, my main problem with him is not his views (he is perfectly entitled to them) but the fact that he maliciously twists the truth for his own purposes in every one of his books and documentaries, and then sells it to gullible people who believe that everything he has stated in his books/documentaries is absolutely true...
If you're referring to the bit about the Lockheed-Martin factory in Bowling For Columbine - then I can inform you that while that factory indeed manufactures satellites rather than weapons, Lockheed-Martin is still the USA's biggest manufacturer of warplanes.

While that is a major point, it is just one of the earliest occuring numerous lies and manipulations in that wretched film.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-07 04:40pm

Coultier, but popularity and success are an absolutely meaninless judge of character. Moore is a far-left nutbar. Call him the left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh. Like Limbaugh, Moore is overweight,
so compared to popularity overweight is not meaningless to judge the character?

Just demonstrating Moore's similarity to Limbaugh

arrogant,
how so?

Oh, please. Just go to his website (which is IMO, mainly a narcisistic monument to himself) and have a good look around...

abrasive,
so what?

Again, just demonstrating similarity to Limbaugh.

dishonest,
perhaps a bit, but the core of his point is usually quite correct.

Moore is more than just a little dishonest (go read the articles on Spinsanity.org that I provided the URL to). Yes, some of Moore's basic arguments do have merit, but he should not lie in his work, as it serves only to discredit those arguments. Another left-wing authour, Al Franken (who, unlike Moore I have a generally positive opinion of) tries his best to keep his work error-free, and unlike Moore, he does not dream up outrageous, unproven, conspiracy theories (like the "Bin Laden evacuation").
Anyone who examines Moore and his work closely and objectivly will come to one of three conclusions:

A. He is dishonest
B. He is very sloppy and slipshod in his research and "vetting" process
C. Both of the above
(I lean toward C)

Moore's dishonesty IMHO, actully hurts the causes he champions...
Besides: Have Moore's documentaries and rants ever effected any real change anywhere?

takes his political view way too far,
well, isn´t that exactly what politicians are there for?

Exactly why I hate politics these days: There's no room for moderates...

and he sticks his in his mouth frequently.

so what?

Again, so does Limbaugh (for comparison purposes again). Besides, people rightfully ridicule Limbaugh (or Shrub) when he sticks his foot in his mouth (or has a "brain fart", or whatever you want to call it), so why is it "so what" in the case of Moore? If you say something dumb, you deserve to be ridiculed, no exceptions (myself included).

BTW, Horus mentioned detractors of Moore "running around in circles" during previous debates: Let me ask one question: Did they try to attack him soley on the basis of ideolegy?

I think I will leave this topic alone now, because I don't think there is much more I can say to make my case here, and besides, I have found from experience that Michael Moore debates tend to become drawn out, tiresome, and ultimately, pointless...

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-02-07 04:52pm

Iceberg wrote:Am I the only person here who doesn't give two shits about Michael Moore, one way or the other?

no, you're definitely not alone. i don't really give a shit either, but that's mainly due to apathy about politicians and the like.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-07 05:44pm

the core of his point is usually quite correct.

I've heard this defense of Moore on numerous occasions, now. To be honest, I don't buy it at all. It's basically saying that if your agenda is reasonable you can do whatever the hell you want and say whatever the hell you want in order to get it through. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a scourge of the free world. Does that mean that the intelligence community and the Bush administration could be given free reign to make inaccurate statements regarding Iraq's illicit weapons programs in an effort to remove him from office?

Moreover, I recently saw Moore talk in Berkeley and he said some interesting things. Among them, he claimed that a liberal candidate who stuck to liberal values would win and that the recent problems with the Democratic Party were all caused by their mixing of core liberal beliefs with moderate ones. He based this on the "fact" that more Americans are liberal than conservative, despite the fact that recent polls suggest an even split, and most give a SLIGHT edge (though well within the statistical margin of error) to the Republican Party. Moreover, with the collapse of the Howard Dean campaign, it's difficult to believe that someone who refuses to compromise liberal values is any better off in the election process than someone who blends in certain moderate policies.

I find it hard to believe that his core beliefs are good, particularly since Bowling for Colombine's thesis was so obviously a crock, even with the evidence he presented in the film.