''....partisan hack Michael Moore as a king maker and a serious commentator on political issues.''

Can i ask what you have against Moore? I hear a lot of bashing against him, and often smearing from Republicans that havnt even seen his new movie yet. Granted, some of his views are too left wing even for me but a lot of the things he says are indeed the awful truth. As far as im concerned, you cant throw away someones perfectly valid opinions because they go against the current situation.

Most of the accusations made against him (Note that putz Bill O'Reilly) are blatant smearing attempts. Im just curious as to how you have reached your current opinons about him.

Yeah, Z. What exactly do you have against Michael Moore? *snicker*

GR, have you seen any of Moore's movies?

As for Granny D: Jeez, I thought Georgia Democrats were in a bad way because of the pallid packet of putative prospects they're putting up to try to keep Zell Miller's seat in the "D" column. They did manage to come up with multiple candidates, but in four years when Chambliss seeks re-election, they may be asking Granny D to move south.

Michael Moore, though thought provoking in some respects, is a dishonest, hypocritical and fraud ridden observationalist who is poor (at best) at commentaries.
His "Bowling for Columbine" movie (incorrectly labeled a documentary) is "dishonest and fraudulent" (David T. Hardy).
You can see some other problems with this Freshman College dropout at:

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

-Super

Oh, man, that's a long topic. It'll have to wait until I get home and have a few minutes free--I've burned all my at work lengthy blogging for the day.

Yep, I'll hit that subject when I get home, GR.

''GR, have you seen any of Moore's movies?''

Yes i have, ive also read several of his books. I agree he shouldnt call his movies documentaries.....Moore is really a satirist in my opinion. But as for his so called 'lies' i think THATS the hypocrisy. I dont think i can name a case where Moore has told a direct lie....the same cant be said for many other political satirists and journalists that call him one....coughO'Reilly.....

GR,
This is an excerpt from the above listed web site (Regarding Moore on what he did with "Bowling for Columbine"):

***In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn't as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither.***

I guess that's not a "direct lie" though, maybe its an indirect lie, or maybe just fraudulent.

-Super

Yes ive seen that website, and you know what? Its just as bad as some of the extreme left wing websites trying to dish unnecessary dirt on Bush. But yeah, feel free to believe it if you want to.

I think its interesting to note this guy is an NRA member, and makes the serious suggestion that Colin Powell should run :S
Im also dubious as to this guys credibility when he does nothing to point anything of Moore's undeniably good work. Seems like a major smearing to me.

I take all of it for what it's worth. But the problems that I stated with Moore are not just on that website. There are plenty more that are more unfounded that I didn't want to throw out there because I wasn't sure about it. The ones that I mentioned are true. So, I guess you don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but whatever.
You may want to read what the parents from Columbine have to say about MM.
Also, MM is a self-professed NRA member himself and brags about being raised in a small town and going hunting (he has also said he did it to become the NRA President and force them to support gun control).
But there's plenty out there on the problems with MM. Here is an article by the National Review Online (which is admittedly partisan as well):

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

Check it out.
-Super

GR,

"I dont think i can name a case where Moore has told a direct lie"

Now you can: here's Pauline Kael's review of Moore's first movie, Roger & Me. And as Britain's Sight & Sound magazine noted at the time, Moore wore a silly cardboard cartoon "PRESS" badge whenever he visited General Motors, thus ensuring that he'd never meet with Roger Smith--because if he did, there'd be no movie.

In Bowling, Moore tries to claim a Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility near Columbine produces "weapons of mass destruction". In actually, it builds rockets for launching satellites.

Also, you said that Moore is a satirist. Fine--then why did he accept the Oscar for best documentary for Bowling?

Ed

GR,
I'll give you an example of how Moore comes up with his "truths", using your own words:

"Moore is too left-wing and the things he says are awful and are blatant smearing attempts.
Moore really lies, THATS the hypocrisy."

Sure, I just cherry-picked the words of yours I wanted to use, and helpfully didn't even include any ellipses to indicate I removed information. As a result, I can use your words to give the exact opposite impression of what you really intended. Just like Michael Moore does for his "documentaries".

Okay, let me understand this. GR asks for examples of Moore's lies. He is given examples, which he dismisses.

From this I can only conclude that there is no way GR will accept any evidence that Moore is a liar.

Therefore, on this subject at least, GR can now be ignored.

McGehee theres no need to get pissy. If you want to just insult me and not bother making any points, then do feel free to email me.

''here's Pauline Kael's review of Moore's first movie, Roger & Me. And as Britain's Sight & Sound magazine noted at the time, Moore wore a silly cardboard cartoon "PRESS" badge whenever he visited General Motors, thus ensuring that he'd never meet with Roger Smith--because if he did, there'd be no movie.''

I dont see how that is lying. Did Sight & Sound actually make that last point or is that from another course?

''In Bowling, Moore tries to claim a Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility near Columbine produces "weapons of mass destruction". In actually, it builds rockets for launching satellites.''

Fair enough. Ive heard about that one before, i will look into it.

''Also, you said that Moore is a satirist. Fine--then why did he accept the Oscar for best documentary for Bowling?''

I said that i PERSONALLY think he should be labelled as a satirist. I disagreed with the Oscar decision on exactly those grounds.

GR,

Yes, Sight & Sound made that point. Think about it: you're the head of General Motors. You're informed that a former magazine editor is shooting a documentary film about job losses in Flint Michigan. Wouldn't you want to meet with the man, to give your side of the story?

But if Moore had actually written the man, requested a meeting and sat down with him, and Roger Smith calmly expressed how the business world works, that wouldn't be nearly as interesting a movie as watching Moore with a fake cartoon press badge getting stonewalled in GM's lobby, would it? Moore had to set the situation up so that he'd fail, or he'd have no movie.

I wouldn't have used the language that McGehee uses (then again, having started this thread off using words like "putz", I'm not sure if it's fair for you to be complaining about the tone of this thread), but I think he's got a point: you're clearly a fan of Moore, and as such, it would take an overwhelming amount of evidence, possibly far more than everything that's been presented here, for you to even consider to begin to change your mind about him.

But for others on the fence who are reading, follow the links--they're really quite interesting.

Ed

''you're clearly a fan of Moore, and as such, it would take an overwhelming amount of evidence, possibly far more than everything that's been presented here, for you to even consider to begin to change your mind about him.''

Thats not true either. I dont blindly follow Moore as you seem to think, but rather agree with many of his opinions on certain issues....most notably gun control. My whole point really was not to protect Moore's earlier work, but to speak out against childish Republican smearing against Farenheit 9/11 by people that havnt even see it yet.