Dude, Wheres My Country?

[Deffeh]

Anyone else purchased this yet?
Ive bought it for my grandpa's christmas, however, as its costing £17.50 (!), im naturally reading it first.
Quite startling so far, and im only on page ten or something, heh. I dont ever remember the bush-bin laden connection being mentioned here (unless someone can url me?),

Hes still spinning, and exaggerating though.

[Dante Hicks]

I think there was a comic linked to on these forums which mentioned the CIA-Al Qaeda connection ages ago. I doubt it would have been mentioned much since it's fairly common knowledge, surely?

edit : I haven't bought it, don't intend to. If someone I know buys it, I'll probably give it a read. I borrowed "Stupid White Men" from T&F and it was fairly enjoyable, if you read it as what it is.

[Intrepid00]

http://mooreexposed.com/

I don't believe lieing fat pigs.

[Dante Hicks]

I find the criticisms of Michael Moore fairly amusing. I mean, these are generally the same retards which faithfully recite government propaganda who suddenly are into standards of scholarship?

Moore is a comedian, ffs. Criticsing his literature is plain stupid. Either side which takes him too seriously is missing the point by a fairly wide margin.

[Dace]

Paying £17.50 for a book means you are buying into Americas bullshit capitalistic ways which is kinda ironic considering who Moore is (/what he stands for ... or something).

[Deffeh]

yeah, i know. And if you put the words "fat idiot" into the PA GD search engine you'll find what i think of him as well.

But that isnt to say he isnt smart.

And hes certainly smarter than anyone in the American right, which is a _comedy goldmine_.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Dace

Paying £17.50 for a book means you are buying into Americas bullshit capitalistic

Most of that money goes to the UK retailer, distributors, etc. I'm not sure who the British publishers are though. Plus, that's an idiotic point. Moore never really criticises the profit motive per se anyway. He's more of a left-wing Democrat than any kind of socialist or communist, whatever.

You can get the book cheaper than that though. The LSE bookshop sells it for £13 I think.

[Deffeh]

probably, but i dont have a lot of time. plus it was the last hardback copy they had, and im only fortunate enough to go to university because my grandpa funded me so i didnt really think that Now would be the right time to be tight with money

[Embroglio]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

yeah, i know. And if you put the words "fat idiot" into the PA GD search engine you'll find what i think of him as well

I tried but all I got was a few dozen posts about Karm. :(

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

yeah, i know. And if you put the words "fat idiot" into the PA GD search engine you'll find what i think of him as well.

But that isnt to say he isnt smart.

And hes certainly smarter than anyone in the American right, which is a _comedy goldmine_.

Smart is when you don't splice and edit conversation so you can make a joke cause your not creative enough.

[CoD]

I've seen it for just £8.75 somewhere like HMV or Virgin in N.Ireland

[Ste]

it's £7 in Fopp.
Most other decent recently released books are between £3 and £10 there.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

http://mooreexposed.com/

I don't believe lieing fat pigs.

Yeh cos FOXNEWS is a reliable source...

[Marilyn Manson]

Someone bought me Lies, and The Lying Liars Who Tell them - A Fair and Balanced Look at
The Right.

I think it's probably better than Michael Moore's stuff, but I haven't read any of it, so that's only a prejudiced assumption.

[Vermillion]

Poor Michael Moore.

I think the man has some exceptionally important things to say, and some very important facts to reveal to the general public. I think 80%, or more, of Bowling for Columbine was fantastic, showing realities people far too often choose to ignore or are ignorant of. I have read a chunk of his new book, and once again the man makes some very valuable and interesting arguments, well supported by facts.

However...

His biggest problem is that he goes to far, and it his own biggest fan. he takes a factual left-wing exposé which should open the eyes of all of those who have followed recent events in the US, and then follows it up with a silly propagansistic anecdote which reduces the impact, and even credibility of his book.

If he stuck to documentaries, he would be an incredibly powerful force for the left wing, revealing hidden facts and concealed realities about the Right wing government of the US. But he IS prone to exaggeration and making leaps of logic, and that has two main impacts:

1- It diminishes the effect of his better arguments, the ones he makes logically and supports with facts:
2- It makes it easy for the Right wing to globally dismiss everything he says, but pointing out one or two real problems with his argumentation, and conveniently ignoring all the rest.

He is a bit too in love with himself and his view of the world, mind you I can think of a LOT of Right wing pundits who suffer from the same disease...

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Quite startling so far, and im only on page ten or something, heh. I dont ever remember the bush-bin laden connection being mentioned here (unless someone can url me?),

Hes still spinning, and exaggerating though.

I really don't know why he has to do any spinning or exaggerating at all; simple fact is that Bush had private meetings with Al Queda agents in the weeks before 9/11, and the official reason for those meetings was to discuss weakening background checks on Arabs going on domestic flights.

Why exactly would you want to exaggerate anything when those are the documented facts?

I'm not a Moore fan. But the biggest conservative attacks on his accuracy have generally turned out with Moore being right. He was mocked and ignored for years for "spreading urban legends" about the US government flying the bin Laden's around the country after 9/11, and then last summer the white house quietly released that they had flown the bin Laden family around the country after 9/11. Snopes made all kinds of apologies, but I doubt you'll ever hear any apoogy from the right (in fact, some just ignore the fact that he turned out to be right).

To "lies and liars", Franken does much better research than almost any of the bestselling authors on the right. Which is sad.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Ste

Yeh cos FOXNEWS is a reliable source...

I never said fox was relieable, in fact I think in general the Media is full of shit that twists stories and addes music and atmosphere to a story to hype up ratings completely loosing the fact of the story.

[Marilyn Manson]

Franken does a good job.

I particularly liked the Ann Coulter: Nutcase. chapter.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by acropolis

He was mocked and ignored for years for "spreading urban legends" about the US government flying the bin Laden's around the country after 9/11, and then last summer the white house quietly released that they had flown the bin Laden family around the country after 9/11. Snopes made all kinds of apologies, but I doubt you'll ever hear any apoogy from the right.

I thought that the fact that bin Ladens were being flown about the US was not dismissed because it was untrue, but because it was entirely irrelevent as they're not connected to Al Qaeda.

[ChubbyChecker]

I have seen a couple of Moore's documentaries and while I appreciate what he tries to do he does talk a hell of a lot of shit.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I thought that the fact that bin Ladens were being flown about the US was not dismissed because it was untrue, but because it was entirely irrelevent as they're not connected to Al Qaeda.

that would be valid, but no one ever argued that. They said it was obviously untrue, and he should be ashamed for spreading rumors.

http://www.udolpho.com/weblog/Defaul...-Michael-Moore

[Kurashima]

Moore simply quotes out of context or includes only partial wording. Its exactly what your average politician does every day, except Moore makes even more money out of it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by acropolis

that would be valid, but no one ever argued that. They said it was obviously untrue, and he should be ashamed for spreading rumors.

http://www.udolpho.com/weblog/Defaul...-Michael-Moore

I only saw the ones who dismissed it as irrelevent, such as The Times and The Guardian. Perhaps you should read more widely than websites run by people who think 'Look, fat pig!' is a good argument.

[Intrepid00]

I think the thing that pisses people off about Moore is he outright lies about not a attention whore and champion of the little guy when he is absoultly full of shit. At least the common politician doesn't go to out standing reaches.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I only saw the ones who dismissed it as irrelevent, such as The Times and The Guardian. Perhaps you should read more widely than websites run by people who think 'Look, fat pig!' is a good argument.

Link to the Times or the Guardian? And did they call it 'irrelevant' before or after the white house admitted it was true?

Another fun pattern on the right: whatever the left points out is 'untrue' (and usually degrades the discourse by saying such vicious things about the president), until the white house admits it, at which point it becomes 'irrelevant'. E.g., the Plame thing, the WMD thing, etc.

I don't read that website. But I do read a bunch of other right leaners, almost all of whom linked to that. And anyway, almost all attacks on Moore have included the word "fat" at some point (including Deffeh and Intrepid's posts earlier this thread).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Link to the Times or the Guardian? And did they call it 'irrelevant' before or after the white house admitted it was true?

Another fun pattern on the right: whatever the left points out is 'untrue' (and usually degrades the discourse by saying such vicious things about the president), until the white house admits it, at which point it becomes 'irrelevant'. E.g., the Plame thing, the WMD thing, etc.

I don't read that website. But I do read a bunch of other right leaners, almost all of whom linked to that. And anyway, almost all attacks on Moore have included the word "fat" at some point (including Deffeh and Intrepid's posts earlier this thread).

I would reply to your post, but the way that you call The Guardian right wing is to humourous for words.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Most of that money goes to the UK retailer, distributors, etc. I'm not sure who the British publishers are though. Plus, that's an idiotic point. Moore never really criticises the profit motive per se anyway. He's more of a left-wing Democrat than any kind of socialist or communist, whatever. .

I wasn't really being that serious.

However if i have to defend my "argument" i'll say:

"The policies of the right are fuelled by the desire to make money no matter the social implications (to a large extent). If Moore's main want was to get all these nasty things about the right wing known then he wouldn't take his cut so that the book would be cheaper so that more people could read it so more people could know about how nasty the right really is which would increase the chance that some people (the voting public perhaps) could do something about it. However by taking 'what is rightfully his' he is just as bad as the right (or at least not a goody goody which is what someone who wants to save the USA and the World at large should be)."

[Kurashima]

Moore started out as "The little guy" earning **** all and trying to get a book out.

The book was successful. It made him money.

Now hes expected to give away everything he earns, otherwise he wont be friends with the working man anymore.

Am i alone in thinking anyone using that argument is a ****ing retard?

"I worked hard to make money, but i have to give it away because it means im not working class anymore"

So he selectively quotes to get his point across. And Moore-Bashing is becoming a national pastime , as human nature loves to see a successful person brought crashing back to earth. So what if he complained like a bitch backstage about something. So what if he didnt give out copies of his books early so that the media thats having so much fun acting superior to him because hes not a college alumni or some other shit. can rip it to shreds.

He makes his point , he makes his money. He gets paid , the people who criticise him get paid a lot less , or a lot more. He makes points about one group, and they fight back. He smears them , they smear him. Who gives a shit , its entertainment.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I would reply to your post, but the way that you call The Guardian right wing is to humourous for words.

I didn't call the guardian right wing. I don't know much about it tbh.

My argument was that the right wings called Moore's claim 'untrue', not 'irrelevant'.

If the guardian isn't right wing, they don't do much as a counter example to my argument, do they?

[MrL_JaKiri]

And I can't quote it, because I don't read the online editions, just the physical papers.

[edit]

And if you didn't know about it, why did you reply to my post with that irrelevency?

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Who gives a shit , its entertainment.

That's the problem.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Moore started out as "The little guy" earning **** all and trying to get a book out.

The book was successful. It made him money.

Now hes expected to give away everything he earns, otherwise he wont be friends with the working man anymore.

Am i alone in thinking anyone using that argument is a ****ing retard?

"I worked hard to make money, but i have to give it away because it means im not working class anymore"

So he selectively quotes to get his point across. And Moore-Bashing is becoming a national pastime , as human nature loves to see a successful person brought crashing back to earth. So what if he complained like a bitch backstage about something. So what if he didnt give out copies of his books early so that the media thats having so much fun acting superior to him because hes not a college alumni or some other shit. can rip it to shreds.

He makes his point , he makes his money. He gets paid , the people who criticise him get paid a lot less , or a lot more. He makes points about one group, and they fight back. He smears them , they smear him. Who gives a shit , its entertainment.

I am willing to bet some of the people he targets when he is throwing his shit around like a baboon where once little guys as well. I wonder if Moore has said anything bad about Bill Gates, and my friend Gates was poor as well.

My beef with Moore, he acts like his shit doesn't stink.

[Dace]

BTW Kura i don't really give a **** about him or his arguments (or the counter-arguments) however it seems that his stance is that "the people who do bad things do so for money and as such the pursuit of the big bucks is a bad thing".

If his argument can be boiled down to "people who make lots of money are bad" then to maintain a credible appearance he can't be seen to make lots of money.

IMO he should do a "Tommy Sheridan" and take average income (or whatever it is Tommy does) and then donate the rest of the money to some specific charity.

Moreover he needs to be seen doing this.

TBH tho this is all bs/pointless if he doesn't believe 100% in what he talks about (ie is a crusader for "The Greater Good").

[Intrepid00]

Moore's arguments follow the often reproduced stucture that can be located Here

[Nodrog]

michael moore is worthless

[Dace]

Nod lies.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dace

Nod lies.

Nod knows,

Nod knows we have to break free.

[Dace]

Nod knows Jack.

Mister Jack Shit.

The way i hear it they are really close friends.

[Vermillion]

Clearly there is a consensus here that he tends towards the overly dramatic and exaggerated, and there are people like Intrepid who keeps repeating that he does nothing but outright lie without actually evidencing it, in the hope that if he says it often enough it will be believed.

That aside, Moore DOES ask some very valid questions, and point out some very interesting realities. he is not the only one to do so, and I wish he would tone down his hyperbole, but that does not negate the value of some of what he has to say.

His newest book has chapters that range fromthe insightful to the idiotic, but his "10 questions I would like to ask george Bush" makes some very valid points.

I am not stepping up to defend the guy wholesale, I will happily admit he has a lot of problems in terms of writing style and exageration. But I also find it amusing how some people point to an exaggeration or two, and then use that as a pretext to dismiss entire lines of argumentation, only because they do not like what he has to say.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Dace

If his argument can be boiled down to "people who make lots of money are bad"

It can't, because he doesn't argue that at all.

In fact, no-one argues that. You might get extremists (like moi) to come out with sanctamonious drivel like that, but no-one else does. I haven't read all of Michael Moore's stuff, but I certainly can't recall a statement to that effect. (Or even a statement in people much further to the left of him like Chomsky, or whoever). Remember kids, Engels owned factories.

Of course, in an ideal world people on the left would all do the "Tommy Sheridan" thing of taking the average male income for their area/constitutency. Until then, I won't really care about Michael Moore even if he does live in a solid gold house, driving a rocket car and swims in a champagne swimming pool.

[Deffeh]

You know what, i like Michael Moore a lot more now after reading some of the anti-moore websites. They are more full of shit than he could ever be,

Take your shitty country and choke on it

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I like him. Especially after I saw the documentary when he confronted Virgin's guy (Bronson?) and also Nike or Adidas or something concerning shoe making and children.

I remember something about Britian and the US having a similar relationship, till the workers forced changes like child labor laws.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I like him. Especially after I saw the documentary when he confronted Virgin's guy (Bronson?) and also Nike or Adidas or something concerning shoe making and children.

I think Michael Moore's best moment came before he was super-famous when he did "The Awful Truth".

He went to Phil Nike's (possibly) office and asked him to donate money to a school in Moore's neighbourhood, offering him to race. "Hey, I'm a fat guy, you should easily win".

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think Michael Moore's best moment came before he was super-famous when he did "The Awful Truth".

He went to Phil Nike's (possibly) office and asked him to donate money to a school in Moore's neighbourhood, offering him to race. "Hey, I'm a fat guy, you should easily win".

I think you mean Phil Knight. Nike is a goddess.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I think you mean Phil Knight. Nike is a goddess.

Erm, yes.

http://www.dogeatdogfilms.com/mikenike.html

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I like him. Especially after I saw the documentary when he confronted Virgin's guy (Bronson?) and also Nike or Adidas or something concerning shoe making and children.

Branson. He's King in a Robert Rankin book, you know.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Dace

If his argument can be boiled down to "people who make lots of money are bad" then to maintain a credible appearance he can't be seen to make lots of money.

Thats not his argument Dace. His argument , boiled down , seems to be.

"People who make money through unethical , immoral , or downright illegal means because theyre so rich they think theyre untouchable, are bad and should be exposed"

To my mind, ive yet to see Michael Moore exposed for forcing his publishers to make his book in a sweatshop in Malaysia, or him investing half his fortune in Haliburton and waiting for the war to let him reap the rewards.

He sends his kids to private school? So ****ing what. My parents did, and look how i turned out. He complains when things go wrong? Hello , welcome to the world. Ive yet to see Michael Moore put 3,000 people out of work to send their jobs to sweatshop call centres in India.

Heres a nice little fact. Bangalore call centres have a staff turnover of almost 50% per month, and the "Limitless amount of college graduates" is in fact now so small that the building of new call centres is being scaled down in the same way it was over here during the call centre boom. In fact, odds are that to keep the whole thing going, the companies will have to export UK staff, paying them a premium on top of their UK wage, to work alongside and supervise the Indian staff. And you KNOW how thats going to go down.

"Hi , im Bob. Ill be doing the same job as you and getting paid 10 times as much. And i can fly home 3 times a year at the companies expense"

"Hi , im Asma. And i had compulsory military training in India. Excuse me while i fetch my rifle"

The first Psycho in an office with an automatic weapon is just around the corner people. I can feel it in my fillings.

[I'm Not Grimble]

Michael Moore is fat lol

HELLO PAGE TWO