Congratulations to Michael Moore for having the courage to say what he did -- both in his documentary and while accepting his award.

He got a standing ovation, and he deserved it.

"His statements set off a round of boos in the audience, which was met with some cheering, then more boos. The theater became so loud, Moore could not be heard finishing his speech."

http://movies.yahoo.com/oscars/news/vao/20030323/104849149700.html

Congratulations to the people in the audience for not being the usual mindless automitons that Hollywood stars usually are.

There were far more people in the audience applauding than booing.

yah, just another gutless way to for so called entertainers to voice their opinions, which btw, no one cares about anyway.

there's a reason why we call them entertainers, because we give a rats azz about their political views

i never laughed so hard then when everyone started booing him off the stage.

I'm not sure I'd qualify documentary filmmaking as entertainment.

People do give a damn about Micheal Moore's Views. Personally I dont agree with the way he sometimes goes about things. I would say there was as much booing as applauding and people will say there was either of more depending on what they were wanting to hear.

Originally posted by cperciva
Congratulations to Michael Moore for having the courage to say what he did -- both in his documentary and while accepting his award.

He got a standing ovation, and he deserved it.

I guess we saw two different versions. I saw an extreme lefty using his 15 minutes of fame to get booed. Like I said, I saw it on TV, and I sure heard more booing.

Oh yeah, on his website:

"The Michael Moore Forum will be down for technical reasons until further notice. We apologize for any inconvenience." ;)

heh

php 4.1.2

prolly won't last the night. :)

Originally posted by cperciva
I'm not sure I'd qualify documentary filmmaking as entertainment.

So if you do not find some sort of entertainment in documentaries, then why do you watch them? Why is there an Acadamy Award for it?

Err... the idea behind documentaries is to inform. If they're enteretaining as well, that's good, but people should be watching documentaries out of a desire to learn.

en·ter·tain
To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting.

I don't consider most documentaries amusing or diverting, more informational. And the funny part is, for those of you that disagreed with his opinion, I have no doubt that you would have posted a likeness to the initial post in this thread. That's the sad part of these types of issues, sentences like "I saw an extreme lefty using his 15 minutes of fame to get booed." don't exactly make me think that your opinion was a centrist one.

Originally posted by comphosting
en·ter·tain
To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting.

I don't consider most documentaries amusing or diverting, more informational.

That would be your opinion and a rather uneducated one at that. Once you get a little older, you'll probably take more of an appreciation. :)

Originally posted by lightnin
That would be your opinion and a rather uneducated one at that.

Let's not get started with ad hominem arguments here, ok?

he started as an actor...he has been in more then 1 movie, so yes, his an entertainer

Originally posted by comphosting
en·ter·tain
To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting.


Let me add the rest since you seemed to miss them:

en·ter·tain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-tn)
v. en·ter·tained, en·ter·tain·ing, en·ter·tains
v. tr.
1)To hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting. See Synonyms at amuse.
2) To extend hospitality toward: entertain friends at dinner.
3) To consider; contemplate: entertain an idea.
4) To hold in mind; harbor: entertained few illusions.
5)To give admittance to; receive.

So if you are watching a documetary, you are not entertained in some fashion? So you don't classify something informational as entertaining? If it didn't serve some sort of amusement or didn't "consider; contemplate: an idea", would people really watch it? Most would get bored. If I show a documentary on paint drying, and set the camera there for 6 hours, you would watch? Please.



don't exactly make me think that your opinion was a centrist one.

Did you figure this all out yourself?

And I would be willing to bet I am more centered then you. Just as I hate people on the far right, I too dislike leftist. But hey. Thats just me. I find extremist - morons and usually the most uneducated in the crowd.

Originally posted by cperciva
Let's not get started with ad hominem arguments here, ok?

Yeah, riiiiiiight....we should concentrate on keeping the discussion firmly on webhos---- no, I mean how much people hate Bush. Riiiiiiight...get right on that. :D

"I hate $FOO" is quite different from "If you think $BAR, you're obviously uneducated".

Originally posted by cperciva
"I hate $FOO" is quite different from "If you think $BAR, you're obviously uneducated".

Wow, good thing that didn't happen here :eek:

with you hating it and all...

The person in question said he doesn't consider documentaries entertainment. That's an asinine statement.

So if I said "I don't consider guns weapons" and someone told me that was idiotic, you'd hate that too, I suppose.

If I show a documentary on paint drying, and set the camera there for 6 hours, you would watch? Please.

You said that because you never saw an Argentian TV show (or Big Brother, althrough I'm not sure if you have that show there), that could be boring as watch a paint drying :D

Originally posted by lightnin
That would be your opinion and a rather uneducated one at that. Once you get a little older, you'll probably take more of an appreciation. :)

Don't talk down to me as I'm sure my capability and education is matched or excedes yours. Making a petty argument about my age and how that is my opinion, which I might add was a dictionary defination. I really don't know what's more pathetic, the fact that you responded with an absolutely useless post regarding my post about a dictionary definition, or that you had to berate me in the context of your post. Please feel free to awe me with your super-intellegence in your next post when you use a great 5 letter word such as "idiot" to describe me, as I'm sure that will really make your point to the world.

So if you are watching a documetary, you are not entertained in some fashion? So you don't classify something informational as entertaining? If it didn't server some sort of amusement or didn't "consider; contemplate: an idea", would people really watch it? Most would get bored. If I show a documentary on paint drying, and set the camera there for 6 hours, you would watch? Please.

I was refering to the definition that would describe the entertainment industry as a whole. I will say that "To extend hospitality toward" probably doesn't apply, but to avoid a 5 page argument on what should be considered entertainment I'll simply say that, yes in most cases a document can be considered entertaining.

And I would be willing to bet I am more centered then you. Just as I hate people on the far right, I too dislike leftist. But hey. Thats just me. I find extremist - morons and usually the most uneducated in the crowd.

He said he didn't agree with Bush, that makes him an extremist? Using that logic there are millions of registered Democrats and Republicans in the United States that, by your definition, are extremists. What exactly would categorize him as "an extremist" in the 45 seconds you heard him talk? Just wondering what your foundation for that categorization is, so I can at least get an idea of where you are coming from.

In Victoria, BC, there's a TV program broadcast around Christmas which consists solely of a fireplace & fire... for hours at a time.

IIRC, it was originally created due to a strike making their normal programming impossible, but when the strike ended, people complained that they wanted the fire back.

Originally posted by cperciva
"I hate $FOO" is quite different from "If you think $BAR, you're obviously uneducated".

Oh, is this one of those "what if Cat really spelled Dog" things? :)

As with everything, opinions run wild here. My belief from personal experince has shown extremeist on either sides to be rather uneducated OR so blinded with their beliefs they do not see gray, which in today's world is a requirement.

<edit>

To prove opinions run wild -
He got a standing ovation, and he deserved it.

You think he deserved it. I think he deserved the boos. ;)

Originally posted by lightnin
The person in question said he doesn't consider documentaries entertainment. That's an asinine statement.


No my point was, in the entertainment industry, documentaries are usually considered informative and not entertaining in the aspect of television and movies. I'd be more then happy to continue this further via PM, or perhaps, even give you the latin foundation for the word "entertain", but I'm not going to argue anymore about something as trivial as this.

Originally posted by comphosting

I was refering to the definition that would describe the entertainment industry as a whole. I will say that "To extend hospitality toward" probably doesn't apply, but to avoid a 5 page argument on what should be considered entertainment I'll simply say that, yes in most cases a document can be considered entertaining.


That was merely my point. And my point of why it is a catagory in the Acadamy Awards. They honor the entertainment industry.

Originally posted by comphosting

He said he didn't agree with Bush, that makes him an extremist? Using that logic there are millions of registered Democrats and Republicans in the United States that, by your definition, are extremists. What exactly would categorize him as "an extremist" in the 45 seconds you heard him talk? Just wondering what your foundation for that categorization is, so I can at least get an idea of where you are coming from.

You said you are educated, and you do not like it when someone else talked down to you, then my frined don't do it to others. It is apparent you know nothing of him past his letter to Bush or his Acadamy Award speech. Do a little more research on Mr. Moore. Including his comments on 9/11 passengers.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
That was merely my point. And my point of why it is a catagory in the Acadamy Awards. They honor the entertainment industry.

Not going to bother, if it makes you feel better, you're right.

You said you are educated, and you do not like it when someone else talked down to you, then my frined don't do it to others.
I made an asumption, a human thing to do, based on what you posted.

It is apparent you know nothing of him past his letter to Bush or his Acadamy Award speech. Do a little more research on Mr. Moore. Including his comments on 9/11 passengers.
Ahh, now we both made an asumption ;). Yes I'm fully aware of his incredibly disgusting comment regard 9/11 passengers as "scaredy cats". It is very disturbing to say the least, and I personally thought it was the worst comment on 9/11 that I'd heard. However, as stated above, I was making the asumption that you considered him an extremist totally based on his speech at the Acadamy Awards.

Originally posted by cperciva
In Victoria, BC, there's a TV program broadcast around Christmas which consists solely of a fireplace & fire... for hours at a time.
I'm in Ontario and I used to watch that too.

I would leave it on for hours - very soooooothing... :sleeping:

Bring back the fire!

Vito

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
As with everything, opinions run wild here.


My favorite quote, which is so very true "Opinions are like ********, everybody has one". A bit crued, but it is a great one-liner to really explain the truth of almost every argument anyone could conceive.

Originally posted by comphosting
Not going to bother, if it makes you feel better, you're right.


I made an asumption, a human thing to do, based on what you posted.


Ahh, now we both made an asumption ;). Yes I'm fully aware of his incredibly disgusting comment regard 9/11 passengers as "scaredy cats". It is very disturbing to say the least, and I personally thought it was the worst comment on 9/11 that I'd heard. However, as stated above, I was making the asumption that you considered him an extremist totally based on his speech at the Acadamy Awards.

I know a little about him. I believe in a few of his beliefs - health care issues in the US for example - but I also do not consider him mainstream America like he says he is. I find him an extremeist in his views. His speach at the Acadamy Awards supports this in my opinion. I also find him hypocrytical. He attacks corporate America (which is fine), but he goes on tours to promote his books and films. These books, films, etc.. are all brought to the masses by the same corporate America he dislikes. Also, where does all the money go that he gets from the #1 best selling books, etc... ?? :confused:

Don't get me started on Michael Moore. He is known for telling little white lies for sales. Take Bowling for Columbine for example:

Michael Moore's Oscar-contender documentary, Bowling for Columbine, pokes fun at corporate creeps and hypocrites in his crusade to figure out who is to blame for the gun-related violence in America. But we've found Moore's facts a little slippery.

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.
ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.
ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

Here is another on his book:

It was the Observer's "Movie of the Week." The Independent's reviewer described it as "a bracing and timely exercise in dredging for the truth." The Cannes film festival gave it a Special Jury Prize, with the audience giving the film a 13 minute standing ovation. And the media hype continues. In fact, there has never been a more appropriate moment for the film-maker Michael Moore and his rants against America than now. "Bowling for Columbine," the "documentary" that is now being shown across Britain and the world, is a movie almost designed to slake the anti-American thirst, whetted by the war on terror. And from an American too! Not since Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer have we seen such a successful export of anti-Americanism, a phenomenon carefully cultivated by some on America's campuses and liberal urban enclaves. And like most American products, it sells very well.

The only problem with this scenario is that Michael Moore is a serial dissembler. His book, "Stupid White Men," was laced with inaccuracies and falsehoods. His movie is just as bad. It's worth looking at just a few of these falsehoods to see exactly what his agenda is.

The book first. Take two compelling notions advanced in "Stupid White Men." The journalist Ben Fritz went through the book with a fine tooth comb. In the book, Moore claims that five sixths of the U.S. defense budget went toward one plane. He also claims that two-thirds of president Bush's campaign finances came from 700 people. These claims are so ludicrous it says something about Moore's credibility that he even believed them himself. Both are easily refuted by a quick look at the publicly available Pentagon budget and the records of the Federal Elections Commission, which compiles all campaign contributions. (In fact, Bush's campaign was more dependent on small contributions than Gore's.) But if you are going to argue that Bush was selected by plutocrats and that the Pentagon wastes all its money, you've got to come up with some facts to support your case. So Moore just makes them up.

In "Bowling For Columbine," the entire premise of the title is false. In convoluted fashion, Moore tries to argue in the film that American gun culture is somehow related to American foreign policy. Even his most fawning critics concede he doesn't exactly make a logical connection between the two; and any historian of the Wild West would be a little mystified by the idea that American gun-culture sprang from post-war American global power. But never mind. The story Moore wants to tell is that the schoolkids who shot up Columbine high-school were so quintessentially American that they went bowling that morning; and that Columbine is also the location for a Lockheed Martin factory for "weapons of mass destruction." Hence "Bowling for Columbine." Neither of these assertions, alas, is true.

Dan Lyons of Forbes magazine has shown that, in fact, the two boys did not go bowling that morning. Early police reports to that effect turned out to be false. Moreover the Lockheed Martin factory near Columbine does not make "weapons of mass destruction," as argued in the movie. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites. Moore shows a clip of giant rockets. Nice try, Michael.

Perhaps the most gripping scene in the movie is one where Moore simply turns up at a bank, North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Michigan, opens a bank account and gets a gun for his trouble. As he walks away, Moore chortles to the camera: "Here's my first question: do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" It would be if true. But in fact the bank in question only gives you a gun if you open long-term CDs, and then you have to go to a gun store to get the gun after a background check. The scene, according to Lyons, was staged.

A more obvious piece of mendacity comes when Moore shows a clip of the infamous Willie Horton ad. The political ad, deployed by Republicans in the campaign of 1988, featured grim footage of a prison turnstile where inmates came and went at will. It was designed to criticize Michael Dukakis's lenient furlough program for criminals. One such prisoner, an African-American called Willie Horton, raped a woman while on parole. But the Bush ad never mentioned Horton or specifically played the race card. (An independent ad, not sanctioned by Bush did.) So what does Moore do? He super-imposes on the Bush ad his own words - "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." - as if they were in the original. The point is to claim that Bush ran a racist appeal. Again: simply false.

Or take another headline claim in "Bowling for Columbine." Moore regurgitates the idea that the U.S. government gave the Taliban regime $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001. This obviously seems to show American hypocrisy and double-standards in foreign policy. But again, this is untrue. Those funds went to charitable organizations completely independent of the Taliban regime to feed starving Afghans. Moreover, this nuance has been known for a long time. Yet Moore repeats it.

There's a place for satire; and there's plenty in America to satirize. There are a few occasions when Moore manages to do just that. But the rest is hateful junk. It isn't even in the service of some kind of coherent alternative. Moore decries America's gun culture, and yet concedes that gun control won't work. He equates Tony Blair and George Bush with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and yet never asks whether either bin Laden or Saddam would let him do the work he now does in democratic societies. He even manages in his roadshow to blame passengers on the airplanes that were downed on September 11 for their fate. The right words for this are depravity and mendacity. And for reasons that are obvious, that doesn't make me laugh.

Forgive my ignorance, but who's Andrew Sullivan?

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I know a little about him. I believe in a few of his beliefs - health care issues in the US for example - but I also do not consider him mainstream America like he says he is. I find him an extremeist in his views. His speach at the Acadamy Awards supports this in my opinion. I also find him hypocrytical. He attacks corporate America (which is fine), but he goes on tours to promote his books and films. These books, films, etc.. are all brought to the masses by the same corporate America he dislikes. Also, where does all the money go that he gets from the #1 best selling books, etc... ?? :confused:

That's the way of life. Every politician, or political activist lives a hypocrytical life. They support the welfare of the poor, yet everyone of them are rich, and most presidents were nearing or already are millionaires. They want cheaper medications for senior citizens, but the majority of them own stock in BioTech companies.
In a Bush example, he condemned Enron executives for doing what THEY did, but in the mean time he did the same exact thing (insider trading) with $800,000 in stock he owned in an oil company.
I don't know about his donation history, but I do know that he supports a 70% income tax rate in America :p... that scares me. But then you have the other side of the line, the rich rightest, who would love a 15% flat tax... putting the total burden on the poor. Who knows....

Originally posted by AlaskanWolf
there's a reason why we call them entertainers, because we give a rats azz about their political views


you do, otherwise you wouldn't boycot the ones who you don't agree with.

For me Bush is an entertainer , i always lmao when i watch him it's all so fake.
Last week when the satellite connection to europe was open before the speech, you could see them placing all the photos behind him, hanging the flag, he would give some winks to people walking around, he would practise his serious/sad look (the monkey look),...

After it they bashed a lot of european channels for broadcasting it :rolleyes:

Originally posted by AlaskanWolf
he started as an actor...he has been in more then 1 movie, so yes, his an entertainer

What is Ronald Reagan :D?

Informative: http://www.moorewatch.com/

A transcript of Michael Moore's brain could be published as "Idiocy for Dummies"

Originally posted by AlaskanWolf
he started as an actor...he has been in more then 1 movie, so yes, his an entertainer He didn't start as an actor. In fact, most people wouldn't consider him an actor, since almost every appearance he's made in films has been either as a narrator in a documentary or playing himself.

As I recall , he was steelworker in Michigan, was laid off from that job and started writing for a local "alternative" newspaper. From there he was hired by Mother Jones magazine, and eventually was made editor. At 18, according to his bio at the Internet Movie Database, he was elected to the local Board of Education -- so he arguably "started" as a politician.

His first connection to film was as writer, director, and producer of "Roger and Me" in 1989. His first acting role in a non-documentary film was a small part in "Canadian Bacon," which he also wrote, produced, and directed.

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Moore,+Michael+(II)

Anyone know anywhere online you can actually see and hear the speech he made during the ceremony? I have seen transcripts of it, but I wasn't watching the Oscars last night and didn't see it and haven't found anything but transcipts and comments about it so far online.

I was talking to a friend on ICQ who was watching it as it happened and he told me that Moore just got booed off the stage.

What actually happened seems to be in the eye of the beholder or something though, different reports about it seem to have different slants as far as to whether he was booed off or was cheered with a bit of boos mixed in. I'd like to see actual footage of it...

boos and cheering mixed, boos were a bit louder , but that's normal since they are low and spread easier (sort of like downtuning in music)

"Famed US documentary maker Michael Moore used his win of an Oscar to launch a violent attack on US President George W. Bush and war in Iraq amid loud boos from the audience."


"We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!," he said to loud boos from an audience of 3,500 including most of Hollywood's top stars."

guess this jerk was speak for everyone?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030324/en_afp/oscar_war_iraq_moore_1

Originally posted by comphosting
That's the way of life. Every politician, or political activist lives a hypocrytical life. They support the welfare of the poor, yet everyone of them are rich, and most presidents were nearing or already are millionaires. They want cheaper medications for senior citizens, but the majority of them own stock in BioTech companies.
In a Bush example, he condemned Enron executives for doing what THEY did, but in the mean time he did the same exact thing (insider trading) with $800,000 in stock he owned in an oil company.
I don't know about his donation history, but I do know that he supports a 70% income tax rate in America :p... that scares me. But then you have the other side of the line, the rich rightest, who would love a 15% flat tax... putting the total burden on the poor. Who knows....

Yes, but in my opinion there is a difference. Politicians trough out history have been like this. We all know this. But individuals for example who preach against eating meat or the slaughter of cows for example, in turn carry nice leather purses or shoes for example. Those are the ones that kill me. The ones who love the death penalty, but want to stop abortions. He falls into this realm in my opinion.

Originally posted by NivekDeus
Don't get me started on Michael Moore. He is known for telling little white lies for sales. Take Bowling for Columbine for example:

<SNIP>

He even manages in his roadshow to blame passengers on the airplanes that were downed on September 11 for their fate. The right words for this are depravity and mendacity. And for reasons that are obvious, that doesn't make me laugh.

Excellent post.

Originally posted by Hiccups
Anyone know anywhere online you can actually see and hear the speech he made during the ceremony?
This is not showing the actual speech, but it's the post-ceremony he had with the press. Click the 300K version for the longer version.

http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html

Vito

Originally posted by NivekDeus

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.


Be careful when you cut n' paste without checking what you are cutting and pasting, according the Bowling for Columbine website (http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/about/faq.php) (emphasis added):


The title is taken from the little-known fact that the two killers, Dylan and Eric, were supposed to be in bowling class at Columbine High School on the morning of the murders. At least five witnesses, including their teacher, told the police that they saw one or both boys that morning at the bowling alley for their first hour class. Some school and law enforcement officials later maintained that the two boys skipped that class that morning yet no other witness has come forward to say they saw Eric and Dylan anywhere else that morning.


The point he is making is not that they went to bowling class, but that they were taking a bowling class and blaming video games, violent music and all the other usual suspects for this tragedy makes about as much sense as blaming bowling. The truth is, it is irrelevant whether or not the kids were in bowling class that morning.

Originally posted by Jedito
Forgive my ignorance, but who's Andrew Sullivan?

http://www.andrewsullivan.com allegedly, the most well-known blogger, though not according to Google.

Originally posted by vito
This is not showing the actual speech, but it's the post-ceremony he had with the press. Click the 300K version for the longer version.

http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html

Vito

Thanks. I did see that last night when I was searching.

Wish I could find the actual speech though...

the most well-known blogger
Now you got me :) what blogger means? Sorry, but as you may noticed, english is not my native language.

Originally posted by NivekDeus

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.
ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.


Again, this is addressed on the website:


Well, first of all, the Lockheed PR people would disagree with your use of the term, "missile." They now call their Titan and Atlas missiles on which nuclear warheads were once (and still are but in less numbers) attached, "rockets." That’s because the Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them).


The Titans, at least, are built in Colorado (I was unable to find any specific information about where the Atlas missiles are built, but I only spent 5 minutes looking :)):

http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/titan-I.html

I have always heard Titans and Atlases referred to as missiles, but people who know more about military weapons than I can comment on this.

Originally posted by Jedito
Now you got me :) what blogger means? Sorry, but as you may noticed, english is not my native language.

blogger = web logger, someone who keeps an online journal.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord

These books, films, etc.. are all brought to the masses by the same corporate America he dislikes. Also, where does all the money go that he gets from the #1 best selling books, etc... ?? :confused:

Have you ever seen Roger and Me (not a flame, an honest question)? It is not corporate America he is against. It is irresponsible corporate governance -- err..I should say what he considers irresponsible corporate governance. Which of course, is the trick: His definition of responsbile corporate governance may not agree with yours :), and certainly does not agree with the definitions of many CEOs/BODs.

Allan, I'm sorry but can you link these facts to anyplace other then a Michael Moore site.

Also if you look back at the history of the Titan then you know it replaced the Atlas. Yes, at one time it was used as a weapon but that was a while ago...I don't think those kids were alive then...well maybe but really young.

The Atlas, which was being designed and built by the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (Convair), was an intercontinental ballistic missile with liquid fuel engines and a stage-and-a-half configuration. Within a year, the Division had also become responsible for developing an alternate, or backup missile called the Titan. A more advanced, two-stage missile to be built by the Martin Company, the Titan was a hedge against failure or delay in the Atlas program.
http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/HO/Smchov8.htm


Lockheed Martin ’s family of three Atlas V launchers are derivatives of current company
vehicles including the Atlas booster ’s liquid oxygen-kerosene propulsion,and the Titan ’s rigid
construction design.A RD-180 engine will power the Atlas V.Pratt &Whitney will build the
engines in the U.S.for Defense Department payloads,while Russian-built engines will carry
commercial payloads.The choice of the RD-180 engine allowed for tradeoffs making the Atlas
V “faster and less expensive to manufacture because of its simpler design.” The heavy booster
will be capable of launching payloads up to 29,000 pounds to geosynchronous transfer orbit.
Atlas V vehicles will be built at Lockheed Martin ’s upgraded Littleton,Colorado,facility and
flown to launch sites.
https://research.au.af.mil/papers/student/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf

Originally posted by NivekDeus
Allan, I'm sorry but can you link these facts to anyplace other then a Michael Moore site.


But, the first point you were making was that the kids skipped the class that day, which is completely irrelevant. No one argues that the kids took a bowling class, and the point Moore is making is that it is just as ludicrous to to say that bowling caused the kids to shoot up the school as it is to say that video games did it.

Unless you can find someone who says the kids were never enrolled in a bowling class, then what Moore says is correct.

As for the second point, Moore doesn't argue with what you posted. He says the Lockheed PR people call them rockets, not missiles. It doesn't change the fact that these were once outfitted with nuclear war heads.




Also if you look back at the history of the Titan then you know it replaced the Atlas. Yes, at one time it was used as a weapon but that was a while ago...I don't think those kids were alive then...well maybe but really young.


Interesting, most people still consider Titan a missile, at least according to Google:

"Titan Missile" - 4,160
"Titan Rocket" - 1,940

Although, once again the point is kind of irrelevant, Moore is asserting it is just as silly to say that the Lockheed Martin plant nearby caused the tragedy at Columbine as it is to say Bowling did, or video games, or whatever else :).

Originally posted by allan
Have you ever seen Roger and Me (not a flame, an honest question)? It is not corporate America he is against. It is irresponsible corporate governance -- err..I should say what he considers irresponsible corporate governance. Which of course, is the trick: His definition of responsbile corporate governance may not agree with yours :), and certainly does not agree with the definitions of many CEOs/BODs.

No. What little I knew about him came from his 911 remarks. That enflamed me. So I did research on it. His Acadamy Awards speech didn't surprise me.

Also, this isn't necessarily what I was talking about (that book). I was referring to his public bashing of corporate America. Even MM said that the irony of him bashing corporate America but him is using it to make money, wasn't lost upon him.

Originally posted by Jedito
http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/HO/Smchov8.htm


https://research.au.af.mil/papers/student/ay2000/acsc/00-047.pdf

You don't know how to use Google to search for "blogger", but you can use it to find some missle data? :)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
You don't know how to use Google to search for "blogger", but you can use it to find some missle data? :)
To be honest, I used Babylon, world.altavista.com and dictionary.com searching for what "blogger" means, but none of them have a translation, that's why I asked.

:rolleyes:


Adrien Brody, winner of the best actor award for The Pianist, received a standing ovation when he said: "Whether you believe in God or Allah, may He watch over you and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution."

obviously this man has much more class than Michael Moore ever will have.

Originally posted by allan
But, the first point you were making was that the kids skipped the class that day, which is completely irrelevant. No one argues that the kids took a bowling class, and the point Moore is making is that it is just as ludicrous to to say that bowling caused the kids to shoot up the school as it is to say that video games did it.

Unless you can find someone who says the kids were never enrolled in a bowling class, then what Moore says is correct.

As for the second point, Moore doesn't argue with what you posted. He says the Lockheed PR people call them rockets, not missiles. It doesn't change the fact that these were once outfitted with nuclear war heads.

Interesting, most people still consider Titan a missile, at least according to Google:

"Titan Missile" - 4,160
"Titan Rocket" - 1,940

Although, once again the point is kind of irrelevant, Moore is asserting it is just as silly to say that the Lockheed Martin plant nearby caused the tragedy at Columbine as it is to say Bowling did, or video games, or whatever else :).

If you read his books and watched his movies then you know that that is exactly what Michael Moore is trying to say. That video games, missles near-by, single mom working and not on REAL walfare, and easy guns cause the kids to shot people. In the movie Moore stated that the kids was at school that same day. They skipped that day. The missles Moore said was being built near by was not missles anymore. It was being used as rockets and has been for many years though there are still Titan missles for long ago. The kid's mom was in a walfare to work program and at this time the kid was not with her. The bank has a special gun deal but you have to buy a 5 year CD and get a background check to get one at the local gun shop. In the movie Moore got one right then and there at the bank, which is a lie. Thats the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by AlaskanWolf
he started as an actor...he has been in more then 1 movie, so yes, his an entertainer
So, we should completely disregard anything ex-president Ronald Reagan said? Fine by me.
Originally posted by MaxDuty
"We are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. Shame on you!," he said to loud boos from an audience of 3,500 including most of Hollywood's top stars."

guess this jerk was speak for everyone?
That's desperate. I don't have the transcript, but on Sunday night he said ". I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction." The "we" in that quote were the others nominated for Best Documentary. Go Fish.
http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html

Michael Moore: Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fiction of duct tape or fiction of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Originally posted by MaxDuty
Adrien Brody, winner of the best actor award for The Pianist, received a standing ovation when he said: "Whether you believe in God or Allah, may He watch over you and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution."
I like Michael Moore, but I liked Brody’s “speech” much better. I liked Susan S’s peace sign. She flashed it and then went on with presenting.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
No. What little I knew about him came from his 911 remarks. That enflamed me. . .
What were the remarks about 911?? :eek2:

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
What were the remarks about 911?? :eek2:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30367

Here's an article that references the incident. I have been searching for the exact quote since I read about it here, and have not been able to find it. I also can't find any reference to it, other than ones that site Yasmin Alibhai-Brown as the source. If he really ran the same show for 2 months, I can't believe no one else complained...

The quote:

If the passengers had included black men, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody

And here is an account of the performance from someone who was there and did not come away with the same impression:

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_d-squareddigest_archive.html

And more details on the story:

http://www.soundbitten.com/archives/week_2003_01_05.html#000134

Originally posted by allan
And here is an account of the performance from someone who was there and did not come away with the same impression:

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2003_01_05_d-squareddigest_archive.html

And more details on the story:

http://www.soundbitten.com/archives/week_2003_01_05.html#000134

I am sure we could Google all day. The simple fact is "how much did you know before you started Googling?". No offense Alan, but it doesn't seem like much.

[I didn't know much either. I remember an article saying something like Michael Moore angers 9/11 passenger family's" a while back. I was like, "what the hell can a stupid, heavy weight boxer do to upset 9/11 families. Then I read it..... ]

As with anything, there are supporters and haters. In my opinion he speaks at times he should shut up. I bet his ideas would be better received if he understood timing. After his Acadamy Award speach, I have not seen too many supporters in the media or in his industry.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
I am sure we could Google all day. The simple fact is "how much did you know before you started Googling?". No offense Alan, but it doesn't seem like much.


Right, that's why I wrote:


Here's an article that references the incident. I have been searching for the exact quote since I read about it here, and have not been able to find it.



I hadn't heard anything about it until I saw it referenced here, so I researched it, and saw multiple sources quoting the same article, and these two sources debating what the original article said. I just presented both sides -- which is especially important since the original source may have misrepresented what was said.

Originally posted by cperciva
Congratulations to Michael Moore for having the courage to say what he did -- both in his documentary and while accepting his award.

He got a standing ovation, and he deserved it.

I could not agree more, he simply said what many people dont' have the guts to.

Originally posted by CRego3D
I could not agree more, he simply said what many people dont' have the guts to.
I bet he thinks he's some kind of special prophet. :D

Michael Moore :smash:

:uzi: Micheal Moore:smash:

I wonder of any of you would like to extend your comments about what are you thinking instead of put only those smiles there.

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
I bet he thinks he's some kind of special prophet. :D

No I just think that he like many others was venting his frustration, that is all

Originally posted by CRego3D
No I just think that he like many others was venting his frustration, that is all

To bad he has to lie to prove it.:eek:

I thought it was very tacky to say that on television after he won that award.