Michael Moore’s Audacious Lies
by Dan GiffordIf the evil men do lives after them, the legacy of dishonesty, demagoguery and hypocrisy that Michael Moore has been enabled to legitimize in film and the body politic will endure for a long time after he quits making documentaries as he says he may. That hopefully means his disingenuous indictment of capitalism now making him millions in theaters will be the last time he’ll project his puerile class warfare demons onto a movie screen and insult our intelligence by calling it a documentary.
Don’t get me wrong. Moore came up with a clever shtick that can be amusing, but he doesn’t make real documentaries. He makes sophomoric agitprop that violates the Oscar’s rule against fiction in that form which other documentary makers must apparently follow — a double standard point I’ve made to the Academy awarders twice. Only the first of those letters is listed below because of space limitations, but a key point made in that second note is that there should be a separate category for Moore’s type of fabricated political schlock if such stuff is going to be receiving awards . Sans that, “anything goes with documentary film … there are no standards … it’s all a game,” as University of Texas film professor and indie producer John Pierson put it.
The Academy’s silence was and remains deafening. Disquieting as that is, the worst silence is that of the news media that has known about Moore’s lies and kept mum. Such has been the case ever since this baseball capped faux populist schlub allegedly chased General Motors Chairman Roger Smith around for an interview to no avail in “Roger & Me.”
The entire premise of that Warner Brothers distributed film was that Smith would not meet with Moore to explain why the cruel GM capitalists annihilated Michael’s Flint, Michigan home town with plant closings and loyal employee firings. But according to the makers of two separate real documentary films who researched Moore’s methods and fidelity to his socialist political message, it’s all baloney.
Roger Smith never did an interview with Moore?
Kevin Leffler, a Flint CPA who grew up with Moore and made “Shooting Michael Moore” confirmed to me that a member of the “Roger & Me” crew told him he was present when Moore did interviews with Smith. Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine, makers of “Manufacturing Dissent,” corroborated that in their film research. “Anyone who says that is a fucking liar,” responded Moore.
Michael doth protest too much.
How about those fired General Motors workers Moore shows?
According to Leffler, two of the film’s main characters, Flint locals Rhonda Britton and James Bond, are presented as fired GM employees when, in fact, neither worked for GM. They told Leffler that Moore coached them on what to say, how to say it with the most drama, edited their comments out of context and even promised money to the illiterate Britton if she’d sign a paper Moore gave her. The paper was a trick forfeiting any right to money from the film.
How about Fred Ross, the Flint hard heart presented as evicting fired
GM employees from their homes?
Ross told Leffler those he was evicting were not GM employees either.
The bottom line is that there are no limits to the outright lies Moore has embraced in all his his films to create false realities that can be exploited for leftist political causes, including the fabrication of quotes. That’s what he did to the late Charlton Heston by editing two speeches he made a year apart in order to make him say something on screen he never said in person. He hid the cut with a cut-away shot. Notice that Heston is wearing different suits, but the viewer doesn’t catch the deception in real time and Moore wants to keep it that way.
Kevin Leffler’s well-researched film has so upset Moore that he is trying to block it from being shown. Leffler told me Moore intimidated Carmike Cinema, the fourth largest movie house chain, into pulling it from its Traverse City, Michigan theater, a bully he may try elsewhere. One reason among many Moore probably does not want “Shooting Michael Moore” seen is that Leffler snuck into Fidel’s Cuban hospitals with a hidden camera to show what socialized Castro care is really like and it ain’t pretty.
That’s a sharp contrast to the Cuban hospital Moore showed in “Sicko” which was exclusively for rich foreigners and top communist party officials in Fidel’s regime. But Moore never mentioned that and neither have government health care advocates here who have shamelessly used that Cuban hospital as an example of the utopian system Americans are being denied.
Leffler says he does have a distribution deals in Europe and America and that “Shooting Michael Moore” is likely to be on its way to a screen near you.
***
April 21, 2003
Bruce Davis
Executive Director
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
8949 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
RE: “BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE” INVESTIGATION REQUEST
Dear Mr. Davis:
This is a letter I had hoped not to write. However, the disturbing amount of credible evidence published in reputable venues such as “The Wall Street Journal” and “Forbes” that “Bowling for Columbine” violates the Academy rules which define a documentary feature can no longer be ignored.
Therefore, as a prior Academy Award nominee who is concerned about the integrity of the Oscar, I hereby respectfully request a fair and complete formal Academy investigation as to the eligibility of this year’s winner.
Should that investigation determine that “Bowling for Columbine” contains, as claimed, fabricated scenes and video of real people that has been edited to manufacture a fictional reality intended to mislead viewers, then the director and producer of this film should be stripped of their award. That Oscar should then be awarded to the runner up.
Failure to conduct such an investigation and act according to its findings will diminish the stature of the Oscar, establish an exploitable precedent for future rule violators and be grossly unfair to the other nominees who did follow the rules. That unfairness will be particularly bitter to those whose film would have been nominated in place of “Bowling for Columbine.”
Even the accusation of such rule violations taints the Academy Award with implications of politics and favoritism that are most damaging. So, I again respectfully ask that you not delay your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Gifford
Producer, “Waco: The Rules of Engagement”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
98 Comments
It's easy to dismiss his latest film, but much more challenging to debunk it. Specific criticisms, please?
To andrea2929:
Seems to me that Moore's latest film is an attempt at lamenting capitalism. When nearly all the examples in the film point to problems when government policies venture into the market place as in the bailouts, and/or business begs and receives favors from government. That is a problem, to be sure, but that is not capitalism. Perhaps it's that other "-ism" and maybe he should re-word the title.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fernando Colon, Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: Michael Moore’s Audacious Lies http://bit.ly/nOlRT [...]
Moore was spot-on with regard to GM's inept management. Roger Smith was a freaking idiot whose decisions helped facilitate the demise of GM. There is a PLACE for Michael Moore in our society and his provocative movies. He no more stretches the truth than George W. and Dicky Cheney…. Enough said.
I vote with my money, I stopped seeing his films after my son rented Columbine to annoy me. Not that the dismal sales mean anything. Just like Hezbollah, he wins because he is.
any means to an end…
And the truth, sadly is a casualty of such ideological fanatacism. Anyone conversant in communist activities knows that concepts of honour and trust are outdated, even, yes- 'racist'- notions to be used only when it serves their own narrow self interest. Treaties are worthless documents, handshakes are for fools, and the Truth- well, what IS the 'truth' anyway? Is it based on an outmoded oppressive system? No, there are all of these 'shades of grey'.
And THAT's where Luciferian/United Nations doctrine coincides nicely. For all reality is subjective, you know- what you see, think you know- well, it's all wrong. In other words-
The Great Deceiver. Funny how what we were told as youths is proving itself true in front of our eyes…
I would love to see a true investigative reporter, John Stossel (now wih FOX), do a piece on Moore – "How a socialist made his fortune milking capitalism" or "Attacking the teat that feeds you".
Just a short note to say that I didn't read a word of this post. Nothing against the author, and I'll be happy to read future works, but I do not waste a moment of my time remaining on earth worrying about that wind bag, in the least.
And life is good!
Leaving aside from the child-like nature of your assertions, what kind of a moron doesn't understand the difference between politicians and a documentary filmmaker?
There is no such thing as an honest politician. It is baked into our civic consciousness that everyone knows this.
What Michael Moore does isn't within the universally understood parameters of documentary making. That is the lie here, stupid. He can call his propaganda films whatever he likes but as long as the left – Hollywood especially – serve to promulgate the fiction that Moore is engaged in anything other than propaganda then he and they deserve all the scorn and ridicule that comes their way.
can't agree there. He is a propagandist, a dedicated leftist propaganda autuer. Politicians don't always tell the truth- leadership is a daunting task and democracies have competing internal dynamics. Bush/Cheney lied, sure- but they pale in comparison to this lot which literally NEVER tells the truth.
Moore is a left wing bomb thrower. If you want to pay to see him fine- go ahead. But calling him out for his blatant disinformation is fine as well…
Andrea, it's more than a little facetious and hypocritical for a man who has harvested as much money and calories as Moore has off of capitalism to then for more money make a film about how bad capitalism is. As it wasn't produced as a dark comedy given the delicious hypocrisy at its core, how good could it be?
Is that the answer you were looking for?
Sounds like Gifford is just jealous of the Oscar and Fame Mr. Moore has received, while probably very few people have heard of him. Mr. Moore is a great filmmaker who exposes the lies and deceit in this country; maybe Gifford ought to quite whining and start making films people will actually care about.
Fine, but that's an assumption. I'm looking for actual, valid critiques of this specific film.
No. See above.
Dan Gifford, Wacko. The letter says it all.
I think his point was that the co-opting of corporate c.e.o.'s into this and previous administrations is leading us towards a plutocracy, which is as insidious a threat to democracy as that other -ism you were referencing.
[...] original post here: Michael Moore’s Audacious Lies This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-in-the-new...
Michael Moore replies to Sour Grapes….
Valid critiques? How about 500 years of history starting with the Dutch trading companies. Or maybe lets take a look at the last century. Now, who won the cold war in the contest of capitalism vs, communism? Now, which countries have been the most successfull in raising the standard of living for their citizens and have the been the most successful in every aspect of society from science to technological innovation? His film is a weak and ridiculous and absurd evaluation that does not deserve a response.
Really hate to burst your bubble here…
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/cap...
By the way, there was a time when the burden of argument and proof was with the person who was making the critical evaluation or making a proposal to do somewthing other than convention. His films contain so many distortions, half truths, and lies that it makes it difficult to count them. His films are pure propaganda and contain no scholarly or journalistic professionalism.
Each day that this unkempt lunatic still has a career is a victory for him.
It's best not to take Michael Moore too seriously. He's an entertainer first and an educator… Well I don't want to say second, but it's definitely not one of his top priorities. He mainly wants to hook an audience and pedal whatever issue of the day he can put forward.
At least we get some exercise shooting down the trolls that inevitably come out to defend him.
True, that is one redeeming quality.
Agreed.
After viewing "Bowling for Columbine", I stopped watching Moore's movies. Since he is obviously a mentally derranged psychotic. He berates the capitalist system but uses it to enrich himself. He laughs at lax gun laws then uses them to buy guns. He berates investment and then hides his own investments by claiming that they belong to "the studio", but he gets paid by "the studio". When challenged on all of this he deflects and changes the subject.
Michael Moore is following in the footsteps of nazi propagandists and islamic smear merchants that fabricated the Elders of Zion.
Liberals and islamic extremists are quite similar in their deception and outright lies they peddle, and both groups like to use scapegoats, just as the nazis did with the Jews. Islamists scapegoat Jews and liberals scapegoat Conservatives. Like the islamists, liberals are vehemently against free speech, against and form of dissent and they both [liberals, islamists want to rule with an iron fist. And when islamists don't get their way they refer to terrorism, just as liberals do, just ask obama's domestic terrorist friend and author of his books, bill ayers.
A "great filmmaker". Thanks for the laugh! He's a regular Orson Wells, he is. Well, he has the same general shape at least.
Mihael Moore is a great film maker for political sheep – people who do not recognise propaganda. He is what the Left accuses Rush of being, a fat, hating liar.
Co-opting meaning existing c.e.o.' s working for the government? You are right, I was unaware of current c.e.o.'s that also work for the federal government. That can be only be bad and I'm glad it gets pointed out. But I was originally thinking of ex-business people working for the federal government. When they now hold positions of power in government, and they use that power to benefit their previous businesses, that is a signal of the corruption of the power of government. The people in government are the only one's who can actually deliver the bailout dollars. A current C.E.O. does not have the power to physically extract money from the treasury, they can beg for one all they want and I don't care. And I don't care if the C.E.O is begging his old buddy from back on Wall Street, who now works for Treasury or not. The beggar (capitalist) doesn't have the power-of-force or power-of-law to do anything. It is only the power of the individuals in government that can send out the favors, be they bailouts dollars, or favorable policy, or favorable legislation. I understand that you will see it differently, but to me, it is an abuse of the institution of government when the people in government pick the sides, no matter what walk of life they come from. His movie is more of an attack on corruption, mostly cronyism and perhaps even criminal behavior, but not on "capitalism".
Andrea has a point. It's easy to assume that because Moore's other movies are full of lies, his latest one is too. But you'll really drive your point home if you can follow it up with examples, as Mr. Gifford did in his article on Roger & Me. Just regurgitating what others say about Moore without any facts is the same crap libs pull on Beck and Rush.
Moore is on the list with Obama
There it is again, I see Mikey Moore and I get this image of pork rinds in my head.
Ah, don't worry about that, sweet cheeks.
Moore should give all his money to the folks in Michigan.
He is a walking advertisement for why I will not pay for someone else's health care. Lose some weight, fat ass.
He is a storyteller whom splices together his vision, alot like Al Gore, a hypothesis is treated like a fact and "evidence" formulated to prove it, and a bunch of scum smelling money for nothing giving testimonials of how evil people are who ask it to be debated discussed, or evaluated.
As a rule, whenever a socialist lib rattles off a list of "FACTS", they are either:
1. Lies.
2. Damn Lies.
3. Democrat talking points.
Personally, I chose to express my solidarity with Moore's film about Capitalism by refusing to see it.
I mean, really… people are actually paying to go into a theater (maybe after having paid for parking), maybe buy popcorn, soda, or other snacks. How can they live with themselves, supporting capitlaist endeavors like that?
That being said, I cannot offer any specific criticisms, but note that anyone who supports the film opposes the film.
Personally, I chose to express my solidarity with Moore's film about Capitalism by refusing to see it.
I mean, really… people are actually paying to go into a theater (maybe after having paid for parking), maybe buy popcorn, soda, or other snacks. How can they live with themselves, supporting capitalist endeavors like that?
That being said, I cannot offer any specific criticisms, but note that anyone who supports the film opposes the film.
Well, Moore's approach to journalism does bear some resemblance to that of Charles Foster Kane.
it's just a riff on The Big Lie; a commie/nazi construct that won't go away… and the trouble with outmoded concepts is they don't work anymore. 24/7 news cycle and open internet access kills the Lie early. Which is why they are so verklempt about Rush, Beck, anybody who throws a preemptive wrench into their little staged 'event'…
Which countries? Well, Norway, Sweden, and Canada hold the top spots…. countries with substantially "socialized" systems, by the way. The U.S. is 6th. And he's not advocating communism at all… far from it. He's advocating Democracy this time, and showing how the modern American form of capitalism is destroying it.
Again, you are just making a sweeping indictment on the man and his filmography… not an actual criticism on any of THIS film's specifics. Have you even seen it?
Fine. What about this film? Anything yet?
Ha! Interesting point! Well-played……
I'd have more respect for him if he'd expose the "lies and deceipt" with the actual truth, rather than with more lies and deceipt.
And worse, we let it happen! That's where I differ from most of my other leftie friends. The abhorrent bailout happened with the approval of a Democratic house and senate, and their Democratic constituents basically just sat by and let it all go down. And they wonder why I vote third party. Frankly, I think any congressperson who voted for it should get voted OUT next time, which would make for a very refreshing congress, considering that would wipe out both sides pretty significantly.
The interesting thing here is that, for the first time, he finally started getting on the Democrat's case. It wasn't just a hack job vis-a-vis "all republicans are bad, all democrats are good." He took Rubin and Clinton to TASK, not to mention the Democratic congress that approved the bailouts. I understand that his past movies have been uber-partisan, but in this one, specific film, he finally started opening up his eyes a little and began to realize that the problem isn't red or blue.. it's non-partisan green.
I'm a lefty, pro-single-payer healthcare supporter, but on that particular point, I totally agree with you.
An obesity tax on Michael Moore alone could get the US out of a recession.
For Andrea:
How about running crime scene tape around a building. No crime was committed. Stupid people did stupid things but it wasn't criminal. The implication was that there should be prosecutions for stupidity and greed. But, stupidity and greed aren't criminal acts. They may be immoral and reprehensible, but there are many things in this world that are immoral and reprehensible that aren't criminal.
Number two, trying to make a citizens arrest. Again, no crime.
That's just two instances that come readily to mind.
Specific enough?
Did any of his "facts" include how he purposely distorted a poll about health care for his latest movie in order to get his desired result?…or how he talked about how many people love the Cuban health care system when hundreds of Cubans are willing to die on boats in order to get to America to get away from Cuban Communism? No, I didn't think so.
THAT…… is a fair point. However, I think he was counting on his viewers understanding hyperbole, which those acts clearly were. Nonetheless, from a purely technical standpoint, you are correct.
That's an illusion. Those countries only recently arrived there. That is due mostly to a reducing indigenous populations. In the case of Canada, a reducing population of people from European decent.
Moore's ridiculous premise that capitalism (an economic ideology) is destroying democracy (a political or governmental ideology) is absolutely insane. You can't replace your stove with a dishwasher and expect better results. It's just dumb and only dumb people fall for that nonsense.
People really need to learn to look at things objectively.
I'm not sure why anyone here felt obligated to offer up critiques of Moore's latest work. It's not too likely that many conservative visitors to this site have even seen it.
I proudly admit I didn't see it, don't need to see it, will live just as well without seeing it, and sure as hell won't be baited into discussing the merits of it.
The sorry b*st*rd Moore should learn about true privation, up close and personal. I hope that, one day soon, he's driving along when a flash flood washes him from his car. Then, I want a flash freeze to encase him in ice up to his neck, followed by a ferocious (yet relatively small) tornado, which spins his fat head off his corpulent corpse. But, other than that, I do wish him good fortune.
I wouldn't pi** on him if he was lying in the street, ablaze.
Andrea, I wouldn't trust anything from moore. The fact that he may have a sliver of truth here or there matters none, his overall body of work and deceitful practices leave him with absolutely zero credibility.
Andrea, you seem like a well intentioned liberal but you are horribly naive. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just observe what good intentions have wrought on black families in America. Look at what good intentions have brought to inner city public schools. God forbid the same good intentions are brought to our healthcare.
Read about documented cases of the failure that is European socialized healthcare. Then tell me if you'd still prefer their system. There's a reason why world leaders come to America for treatment when their lives are at stake. Your epiphany will come; you don't strike me as the type of person that could be a lifelong ignorant liberal………
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healt...
what you say is true.
But don't mistake his faux populism for anything other than what it is- phony. He absolutely could not make this film without revisiting GATT and NAFTA and other Rubin/Clinton
Goldman Sachs progeny. Ultimately he is a classic Marxist- the state should control all means of production and dialogue- with perhaps some very small highly regulated local business as long as it is 'diverse'…
Don't be fooled.
But you repeat yourself….
"A reducing indigenous population" raises the standard of living? I guess we did the same here a few hundred years ago, eh? That's a different discussion for a different thread.
His premise is not so much that capitalism is destroying democracy. It's that the *kind* of capitalism that has become commonplace in this country is creating a plutocracy, and plutocracy absolutely destroys democracy.
Well, I could say the same for Rush Limbaugh. In this case, credibility or no, I think Moore has hit some pretty strong, non-partisan points (for a change).
I love these sad attempts to defend Moore by asking for specifics, when obviously most of us have long since given up on films made by a liar. I wouldn't go to the theater to support Moore and his movies just to placate someone on the internet who I disagreed with….it's an absurd proposition. It's easy to cite numerous lies in his previous films, and I'm sure this one will be no different once the fact checkers get around to doing so.
I also love the lame attempt to hold Canada up as an example for us to live up to (especially from a Liberal). The last time I checked, Canada produces a vast amount of it's income from procuring oil from sand….a particularly environmentally unfriendly way to go about it. We have billions of gallons of oil we could go after, and keeping that money at home would greatly improve our job situation and the strength of our dollar (which, once again, improves the standard of living for our citizens). It's the Liberals who prevent this, then they point to our struggles and say it's proof our system is faulty.
The beauty of being a Liberal is you never have to think past the slogan. Good luck with that.
Wow.. I'd love to see what you're like with a couple shots of whiskey down the hatch.
You're talking about Al Gore's documentary. It was a British court that found 9 substantial falsehoods (and numerous questionable claims). When shown to school children it must be accompanied by the documents assembled by the court that prove it's inaccuracies.
I may be naive about some things, but definitely not this issue. I have lived abroad, and experienced the British NHS personally and can't speak highly enough about my experiences with them. I have also engaged in endless dialogue about this issue with my friends who live in countries with "socialized medicine." I have read many, many articles from American sources criticizing single-payer, and have come to the conclusion that these writings don't trump what I have personally experienced, or the experiences my friends and actual citizens of these countries have experienced. The media can, for various reasons, be biased.
The stats: 45 million Americans with no insurance. Another 20 million who are under-insured. 800,000 Americans go bankrupt each year because they can't pay their health bills. 45,000 Americans DIE every year because of their lack of insurance. Private health care companies average 25 percent of their budgets in administrative costs…. five times more than government-run systems across the world. 16% of our GDP is spent on healthcare costs. These other countries, where ALL citizens are covered, spend about 10%. Would you actually argue that our for-profit, privatized healthcare system, is WORKING?!?
Considering his other "documentaries" were full of lies and deceit why would this one be any different? The man is a propagandist, but as liberals quietly say, "at least he's our propagandist."
Actually, thanks to NAFTA and GATT (Thanks Clinton), a strong dollar doesn't help us.. a weak one does. Our trade deficit is running at record levels, and a weaker dollar is pretty much the only solution to salvaging our manufacturing base…. the jobs that used to be the core of our economy before they got sold to the cheapest international bidder.
Nice one about generalizing "Liberals" though. With that reasoning, I get to say that the beauty about being a conservative is that you never have to think past worrying about yourself……. which, for the record, I don't believe. Generalizations reveal ignorance and prejudice, and I'm a firm believer that a reasonable discourse is possible even with those whom you personally disagree with…. about everything.
[...] Michael Moore’s films offer us a new moniker for film making … TRASHUMENTARY Posted at October 20, 2009 Michael Moore’s Audacious Lies [...]
You give his audience too much credit. For his audience that isn't hyperbole, it's pornographic fantasy and I'm sure they were sliding off their chairs just imaging being able to arrest all those people and put them in jail, or better yet have a guillotine handy. After all the Left in this country are the descendants of the Reign of Terror.
It's not an assumption, it's fact. There were more than 40 documented falsehoods in his Fahrenheit 9/11 dreck. Bowling for Columbine was riddled with deception. One example: moore made it seem like a bank was giving out free rifles for opening an account. This was utter nonsense but it didn't stop him from peddling this lie. In the same crapumentary he said that nearly 50,000 kids die each year to guns in the home. What he failed to mention was his sample group of "kids" consisted of gang bangers up to the age of 18, he also included gang on gang homicides in his statistic. The reality is one kid per state on average, which makes 50, die per year by getting a hold of a gun in the house and accidentally killing themselves or another child with it.
And don't forget, Canada's supreme court [maybe it was Britain's] ruled moore's documentary is so full of shyt that it cannot be shown to children without a disclaimer stating the "documentary" is basically fiction.
Ugh. Pelosi. My least favorite Democrat. What was her book entitled anyway, "How to buckle and cave my way into useless centrism?" Sorry. Bit of an anger issue with her.
Anyway, back to your point. Canada pretty much survives on forestry, fishing, farming, and mining….. three of which will doom them at some point. So yes, they need to be innovative to diversify their economy so as to deal with their current reliance on non (or not very) renewable resources. We'll see what happens.
We do plenty of those things too, but our energy needs are much higher than theirs, to the point that we pretty much have to import, or else (god forbid), change our habits. Ultimately, we have the resources, and presumably, the innovative skills, to domesticate a much larger percentage of our energy resources, but we'll see, eh? It's gonna be an interesting ride.
Well, I'll give you that a corpulent Moore advocating for health care reform is a doozy. But Limbaugh, a corpulent, multi-time divorced drug addict/criminal posing as a ethical idealogue is every bit as much of a doozy. I personally gave up on Moore in 2004 when he turn-coated on Nader, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of injecting his films with some interesting points. Limbaugh has yet, in my opinion, to offer anything useful to the human race except methane.
Not a fan?!? I couldn't guess.
Vote third party.
Funny thing……when is he gonna make a movie about how corrupt and shittily managed GE is? Hasn't their stock plunged every year that their current CEO-Immelt- been behind the wheel? Still doing business with Iran and also running the National Barrak Channel as well. I probably shouldn't hold my breath
Being an ideologue certainly doesn't prevent someone from having problems in their lives. I'd say the big difference between the two is that Rush's big shtick has always been about Capitalism and the desire for smaller Government. He hasn't done anything to contradict those views to my knowledge, while Moore constantly lives a hypocrisy while telling people to live one way, while he lives another (kind of like a poor man's Al Gore).
I'm not Rush's biggest fan, in fact I loathe some of his cheap shots against people who disagree with him (including his constant assertion that Moderates just can't make up their mind). He is, however, mostly a caricature invented to sell a radio show. He does care about his beliefs, but is an entertainer first. Moore pretends to be a crusader, while doing nothing but lining his pockets.
Both men ply their trade by using exaggerations and stereotypes. As I said, they are a fairly apt comparison, other than the fact that Rush has built the largest listener base in radio, while Moore's movies have been steadily declining in popularity. He survives mostly by saying provocative things, then running the other way (well, more like wobbling) as fast as possible before anyone notices his nose is growing.
What your post misses (I'm guessing intentionally) is the epic level of contribution to the problem by the unions. The stories are legendary (especially from my dad, who was an ironworker), but the bottom line is, the union jacked up member's salaries and benefits until the levels were unsustainable unless the car boom with big, gas guzzling vehicles never ended. When gas prices soared (and the credit market dried up), sales died, making it impossible for GM to meet it's obligations.
Ford is actually doing pretty well considering, and the foreign car makers are better than that. They have more reasonable compensation packages, and can afford to sell a quality product at a realistic price and still make a profit. Detroit died because people took for granted that nothing would change (except they'd make more money every year until they retired….including management). Now that the government is getting more involved in car production (and if cap & trade passes, which will make prices skyrocket), expect thousands more to lose their jobs in the coming years as the market adjusts to the new "green" economy (you know, the one that so far cost other countries 2 jobs lost for every 1 gained).
But the bright side is that we'll stave off Global Warming (well, when it finally starts getting warm again in a decade or two). Also, Al Gore will be the first Green billionaire. So people can feel good about themselves while they're starving.
LOL — I didn't mean to be so harsh.
I guess I'm just not a fan (sigh).
And, regrettably, I don't drink, smoke or do dope, Norfolk (although, umm, back in the day…).
Well, umm, not wishing to intrude…
But, you know how the Dims really are anti-human? And how Holdren and the global cooling / global warming guy Ehrlich and others are "worried" the population will grow too large for Gaia to maintain?
Well, umm, if they'll just keep their grubby Portnoy hands off our sorry healthcare system, pretty soon lots of us will die off and allow those pointy-headed population-fretters to relax for a minute. On the other hand, they need our tax dollars to buy their next round (of votes). Oh, my, what a quandary. What's a worried, wee-weed up, noble humanitarian Dim to do?
Please post warnings further up on these pages letting us know a Michael Moore picture is about to appear. I'm drinking my morning coffee and just threw up.
Nice try with the weak dollar argument, but it doesn't hold up. We bleed in hundreds of different ways including imports, debt, and real estate (much of which is purchased by foreign countries on bargain hunting expeditions). For every good thing a weak dollar might do, there are a dozen of bad things that happen.
I generalize because I was a Liberal. I've had these conversations countless times with my friends (who are less and less of a Liberal mindset these days, since my "tolerant" friends refused to talk with people who didn't echo their thoughts) and know the arguments like the back of my hand. As a Center-Right Independent, I'm routinely called a neo-con, fascist, or racist by Liberals any time I disagree with them, so you'll have to forgive me if I return the favor from time to time. I agree that civility is possible, and like discussing things with people I disagree with.
As to your original point, you're still ducking the point that the only way to answer your charge is for us to give money to a person we detest. When Nancy Pelosi wrote her book, I wasn't about to read it to decide it would probably be an exercise in inanity….I had her entire body of work to use to draw an assumption on. Michael has proven over and over that he's willing to lie and cheat (in a documentary aspect) in order to look good. How would I know what statements are lies by watching the end product? It's only through investigative journalism that we found out about his dishonesty over Cuba's health care system, his using actors to pretend to be GM employees, or any of the other things he's been caught doing. I'm perfectly happy to assume this is also a pile of crap (like all of his other films), and am willing to be proven wrong if he finally decided to be honest.
I'm also curious to hear your defense of Canada's dependence on oil sands, and if they are so great, why we shouldn't follow their example and mine our own resources (really, now you have me curious and I'd like to hear what you think).
You could if you provide specific examples as I did.
Now this is a salient point. Moore is every bit the partisan ideologue that Limbaugh is, so both should be viewed similarly. But can you imagine Rush winning an Academy Award for a documentary? The problem with your argument is that if we grant your premise, we have to conclude that the same Liberals who praise Moore hate Limbaugh simply because of political differences. That makes them bigots as well as hypocrites.
Please for God's sakes, no more pix of MM.
Click on the link I posted. Read the documented failures of European socialized healthcare.
Yes a reducing population will temporarily raise the standard of living because more people paying into the system, while fewer are taking out, will seem as though the standard of living has increased. It will not last.
The socialist movement, which Obama denies exists, can't possibly support a nation with illegal immigration such as the U.S. has for any long-term period. The only way to keep those people afloat is with capitalism.
The ridiculous idea that the "evil" version of capitalism is "commonplace" is equally untrue. While there is greed, and Goldman Sachs is the epitome of it, these are not representative of the nations business ideology. There are simply too many people in business today to make that claim. Yet, that's exactly what Moore does. That is his modus operandi. He will take the worst example and, by proxy, claim it's the embodiment of American economic ideology. He's done it in every work of fiction he's created thus far. He shows no sign of employing a real counter argument. He's as one-sided as Al Gore. He's a liar.
Did anyone catch Moore on Hannity? When Hannity asked him to give up 90% of his money (made from capitalism) to give to charity the sweat coming from his large jowls was visible. And the hypocrisy was blindingly clear. He is a fraud.
Well. it's all kind of a moot point, since both of them will probably be dead from heart attacks within the next 5 years, eh?
I sorry, are talking about the Rush Limbaugh that lost nearly 100 lbs. this past year? Moore is eating himself into an early grave. No doubt, he will blame his failing health on America's busted health care system.
You would do better to post something from a legitimate, peer-reviewed site… not the maniacally partisan viewpoints of one man. It's very easy to string together a variegated group of articles to bolster a point of view…. far more difficult to do some real research (like… experiencing that system first hand or actually talking to real people who live within that system.
Now that I looked at your link, how about you look at mine. This is, in my opinion, one of the better descriptions of an American-style, single-payer system that I'm personally in favor of.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
On this, I can heartily agree.
On Moore, how many times does a lying liar have to lie to me before I don't want to hear what he has to say anymore? This article was about his previous work being awarded when it broke the rules of the category for which it was nominated. His previuos breaking of the academy's rule make it imperitive on the acedemy to investigate his current offfering before accepting its' nomination.
Limbaugh's weight loss method is another one of those crash diet, (usually) unsustainable ones that can actually lead to more health problems than it solves. We'll see how he's doing in a year.
As far as Moore is concerned? Agreed.
sourcing mmoore is like believing obama liar
why dont you source moveon or dkooks or huffpoop or pmsnbc or media makers or ………… obama liar
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
[...] American Michael Moore is delivering messages. He is broadcasting sunshine to cavernous mulch. He is a prime-time [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.