Planetarion Forums

Dookie Velvet · 24 Mar 2003, 16:26

I heard they had to lure him offstage with a Big Mac.

Snurx · 24 Mar 2003, 16:38

Apothos · 24 Mar 2003, 16:41

Michael Moore rocks.
(Not the stage, fs.)

queball · 24 Mar 2003, 16:48

First http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

Nodrog · 24 Mar 2003, 16:54

http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

[edit - beaten]

Snurx · 24 Mar 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
First http://www.lileks.com/writings/screed/moore.html

And people say that Moore is a ranter.

MT · 24 Mar 2003, 17:34

Would a union of nod and quey be non disjoint? or are you the complement of the union of nod and quey?

Nusselt · 24 Mar 2003, 17:46

at the very least i admire him for having the gonads to stand up and use that platform to express his views, i assume that at least some of the people who booed him won an oscar, if they felt passionate enough to boo him they should aslo have used the chance to express their views when they got their oscar, ie supporting the war. Personally i think it was brilliant, i love this century really i do. The 20th century ended with a wimper, but by allah the 21st has started with a bang.

roadrunner_0 · 24 Mar 2003, 18:59

tbh i prefer mark thomas, i think he is better at doing the same kind of thing than michael moore is :/

Dante Hicks · 24 Mar 2003, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by roadrunner_0
tbh i prefer mark thomas, i think he is better at doing the same kind of thing than michael moore is :/

Mark Thomas is from South London so he obviously rocks incely. Thomas is more explicitly lefty (in a European sense) and isn't afraid to show it. And he has no illusions in the Labour Party.

But Michael Moore is better for random dialogues with people. He comes across as a less self-conscious "everyman". And yes I know that he's probably a millionarie who lives in a mansion, etc, etc.

Sandsnake · 24 Mar 2003, 19:09

His entire speech is bull****. He needs to get over the fact that Gore legally lost, he also needs to remember the fact that Gore tried to win by calling for selective (and illegal) revotes, illegal recounts with biased standards, and forcing illegal votes to count. Moore just spews **** repeatedly and ignores anything he doesn't want to see.

MrL_JaKiri · 24 Mar 2003, 19:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
His entire speech is bull****. He needs to get over the fact that Gore legally lost, he also needs to remember the fact that Gore tried to win by calling for selective (and illegal) revotes, illegal recounts with biased standards, and forcing illegal votes to count. Moore just spews **** repeatedly and ignores anything he doesn't want to see.

There were more illegal votes counted for Bush than for Gore, if memory serves, and don't forget the banning of legitimate voters from voting.

Dante Hicks · 24 Mar 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
His entire speech is bull****. He needs to get over the fact that Gore legally lost, he also needs to remember the fact that Gore tried to win by calling for selective (and illegal) revotes

He addresses these arguments in his book Stupid White Men. I don't care who won the elections (they're both evil, etc) but Moore doesn't dispute the "legality" (in the strictest sense) of the victory - he just thinks it was wrong.

He also thinks it depended on a few choice people being in a few choice positions. I think his analysis verges on conspiracy theory tbh, but it's not like he hasn't given arguments like yours some thought.

roadrunner_0 · 24 Mar 2003, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Mark Thomas is from South London so he obviously rocks incely. Thomas is more explicitly lefty (in a European sense) and isn't afraid to show it. And he has no illusions in the Labour Party.

But Michael Moore is better for random dialogues with people. He comes across as a less self-conscious "everyman". And yes I know that he's probably a millionarie who lives in a mansion, etc, etc.

yeah, but the other reason that mark thomas is good, is that he actually came here (well, darlington) to do one of his shows (i couldnt go) whereas michael moore probably wont ever come to north east england

acropolis · 24 Mar 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
His entire speech is bull****. He needs to get over the fact that Gore legally lost, he also needs to remember the fact that Gore tried to win by calling for selective (and illegal) revotes, illegal recounts with biased standards, and forcing illegal votes to count.

Not true.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Moore just spews **** repeatedly and ignores anything he doesn't want to see.

True.

However, the irony created by putting the second part in conjunction with the first is a powerful catalyst in the production of "laughter"

ps: you are slipping. i'm guessing you've been reading a little too much propaganda lately, and i'd recommend at minimum a little cnn mixed in with your fox news and limbaugh.

Sandsnake · 24 Mar 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
There were more illegal votes counted for Bush than for Gore, if memory serves, and don't forget the banning of legitimate voters from voting.

Ah yes, the felons, and individuals who couldn't prove who they were. Also throw out the 2million votes in California that were largely beleived to be republican that were tossed out, the fact that Florida alone didn't count a single absentee vote, or the fact that the only reason Bush even took it to court was because Gore repeatedly calling for recounts of areas that vote democrat (where he could get more votes counted), and the fact that Gore was attempting to push it out so long that the entire state's vote would have been tossed out.

Effectively, Gore tried to "steal" the election by having an entire state's vote removed, giving the voters here NO SAY in who was president. The elections were not stolen, and that's where He and I fundamentally differ.

MrL_JaKiri · 24 Mar 2003, 19:27

I see you've changed your argument; last time I mentioned it, you said something along the lines of 'well, all the other states do it.'

Sandsnake · 24 Mar 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
Not true.

Hello, allow me to introduce myself. I'm from Florida. He called for the recounts of FIVE counties, all of which vote democrat. This is illegal. He also kept the recount process tied up until it HAD to be blocked by the US Supreme Court or it WOULD have gone over the deadline and had the entire state's vote tossed.

Sandsnake · 24 Mar 2003, 19:29

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I see you've changed your argument; last time I mentioned it, you said something along the lines of 'well, all the other states do it.'

who?

acropolis · 24 Mar 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Ah yes, the felons, and individuals who couldn't prove who they were. Also throw out the 2million votes in California that were largely beleived to be republican that were tossed out, the fact that Florida alone didn't count a single absentee vote, or the fact that the only reason Bush even took it to court was because Gore repeatedly calling for recounts of areas that vote democrat (where he could get more votes counted), and the fact that Gore was attempting to push it out so long that the entire state's vote would have been tossed out.

Effectively, Gore tried to "steal" the election by having an entire state's vote removed, giving the voters here NO SAY in who was president. The elections were not stolen, and that's where He and I fundamentally differ.

gore sued for a recount in a few counties, which is what florida law tells you you must do if you want a recount.

bush, noting that the deadline was a few weeks away, put a court order to prevent recount on the theory that if he could stall to the december deadline, he would then have the law on his side.

in terms of illegality, both sides made argument involving ignoring the law. bush argued that the votes shouldn't be counted by hand as required by florida law because that would be "divining the intent"

gore argued that the december deadline in florida law should be ignored because it was a more important issue than, say, state secretary.

point: saying that one party tried to 'steal' the election is wrong and stupid. both parties did whatever they could to try to win, and both argued that existing laws should be ignored when they didn't favor themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Hello, allow me to introduce myself. I'm from Florida. He called for the recounts of FIVE counties, all of which vote democrat. This is illegal. He also kept the recount process tied up until it HAD to be blocked by the US Supreme Court or it WOULD have gone over the deadline and had the entire state's vote tossed.

requesting recounts in individual counties is the antithesis of illegal, being what is required by law. bush could have sued for recounts too.

gore was also in no way interested in tying up the recount process, his objective was to get a recount. when bush said "it is impossible to divine the intent of the voter" he was not trying to make the recount process go forward.

MrL_JaKiri · 24 Mar 2003, 19:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
who?

You did.

Sandsnake · 24 Mar 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
point: saying that one party tried to 'steal' the election is wrong and stupid. both parties did whatever they could to try to win, and both argued that existing laws should be ignored when they didn't favor themselves.

I'll agree with that...it was always felt that whatever the results, whoever won had actually lost. I just tend to want to smack Moore around a bit with his "look at my angry coolness!" approach to everything. He bases his entire stance on the fact that Gore was a saint and not the scum that tried to get our entire state's vote thrown out so that he could "win" the election. (FIVE recounts. FIVE!)

Sandsnake · 24 Mar 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You did.

where?

Deffeh · 25 Mar 2003, 00:49

just watched it

**** how i laughed when they tried to play the music over him ranting

I think though, funny as it was, he was an idiot for rushing in, and that his opinion doesnt count for ****. Not sure how fond i am of celebrity comments on Current affairs.

Dookie Velvet · 25 Mar 2003, 00:54

Michael Moore was pretty much booed off the stage for his trite babbling. He's such a slob. I didn't think it was possible for a man to make a tuxedo look bad, but Michael succeeded. Steve Martin did manage to insert a rusty dagger into the folds of fat in Moore's back, however, a quip that entirely deflated the would-be journalist's shrill pronouncement.

If Moore were truly interested in documenting history, shouldn't he be in Iraq right now? Tut tut. Don't be ridiculous. There is at least one good reason that Moore is aware of which keeps him from entering the sandy fray. It is about the size of a peanut. Each soldier carries hundreds of them, in clips and banderelos.

Nusselt · 25 Mar 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Dookie Velvet
Michael Moore was pretty much booed off the stage for his trite babbling. He's such a slob. I didn't think it was possible for a man to make a tuxedo look bad, but Michael succeeded. Steve Martin did manage to insert a rusty dagger into the folds of fat in Moore's back, however, a quip that entirely deflated the would-be journalist's shrill pronouncement.

If Moore were truly interested in documenting history, shouldn't he be in Iraq right now? Tut tut. Don't be ridiculous. There is at least one good reason that Moore is aware of which keeps him from entering the sandy fray. It is about the size of a peanut. Each soldier carries hundreds of them, in clips and banderelos.

you're dace arent you, how the hell didi miss this before?!???!

Perle · 25 Mar 2003, 15:01

Michael Moore is nothing but a weak bleeding heart.
He is the kind of person that weakens America.

Emperorn · 25 Mar 2003, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Perle
Michael Moore is nothing but a weak bleeding heart.
He is the kind of person that weakens America.

Why did you have to bumb this thread with your insightful comment when there was a perfectly good, almost identical Michael Moore thread at the top already?

Perle · 25 Mar 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Emperorn
Why did you have to bumb this thread with your insightful comment when there was a perfectly good, almost identical Michael Moore thread at the top already?

hey, didnt see that other one.
And I always grasp an opportunity to bash that sissy .