Mr. Moore shot a political pamphlet for which he received an award, he then used the amount of time he had (like every recipient, he had a finite amount of seconds to thank his deity of choice, mother of choice, and the members of the academy) to make a speech in the same vein as his work of nonfiction (let's be loose with that word today).
Not much of tact and taste, but then again, this is Hollywood.
I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't quite work that simply.
Oh well. Do tell.
From where I'm sitting ... Rush is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at democrats and the left. Moore is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at republicans and the right. I almost can't tell the difference. Oh wait one's on the radio and the other makes fictional documentaries.
From where I'm sitting ... Rush is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at democrats and the left. Moore is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at republicans and the right. I almost can't tell the difference. Oh wait one's on the radio and the other makes fictional documentaries.
"What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing. But then the majority in the balcony -- who were in support of my remarks -- started booing the booers."
No one else following the Oscars or at the theater sees it this way, but that's Moore for you! Yes--they were booing the booers. That's very plausible.
"On the way back home to Flint, Mich.,"
He still tries to sell this--Moore has a substantial townhouse in Manhattan where he is a resident. I am sure he keeps a house in Flint as well, with his spare change--it helps give him that populist touch.
"They said they were telling me this in the hope that I would tell others. Because they, and the millions like them, have no voice...Who will speak for them if I don't?"
Somehow, Mike, we'll manage by forming our own opinions and thinking for ourselves...it's amazing that if you go far enough to the right or left, the condecension becomes unbearable.
Michael Moore is a joke, and I hope he's exposed even further for the charlatan manipulator he really is. Having a bias is one thing, but directly misrepresenting people and organizations to like that another thing entirely. That was not a documentary, and should not be labeled as such. Given what the end was described as, I'm not really even sure what the point of that was besides a platform for Mr. Moore to sensationalize himself into the spotlight.
And whomever thinks the Oscars can and should be used as a (predominately liberal) political forum need to re-examine what the hell they are giving awards for there.... "acting" and "film-making"... not "I'm a star therefore my opinion matters". I couldn't give two shits about what these stars think. They all are so self-important, living in their utra rich fantasy world. Pleeaaase. Stars are the LAST people anyone should be turning to for political opinion. Pfft.
This reporter immediately lost his credibility, to me, when he called "Bowling for Columbine" an anti-gun documentary. Anyone who has seen it knows that is not the point.
"What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing. But then the majority in the balcony -- who were in support of my remarks -- started booing the booers."
No one else following the Oscars or at the theater sees it this way, but that's Moore for you! Yes--they were booing the booers. That's very plausible.
Imagine the lengths he had to go to in his mind to come to that stupid conclusion? The obvious response when someone is booing something you agree with is to cheer, hoping to mask the boos , not boo the booer. What a clueless, obstinate ass.
This reporter immediately lost his credibility, to me, when he called "Bowling for Columbine" an anti-gun documentary. Anyone who has seen it knows that is not the point.
True.
He does take some cheap shots and twists things in his movie, but when you get right down to it, it's not about being ant-gun. It's about why the hell people in the US seem to like shooting each other with them so much.
He does take some cheap shots and twists things in his movie, but when you get right down to it, it's not about being ant-gun. It's about why the hell people in the US seem to like shooting each other with them so much.
I don't know anyone who has a handgun, let alone likes to shoot others. I know they're out there, but it has to be a fraction of a percentage point of the population.
i would guess that you do, but they don't say anything. there's a stigma attached with owning a handgun in the US, at least there is now.
it's also the kind of thing that doesn't come up often in normal conversation. add to that the fact that most people don't want it to be public knowledge that they have a handgun in the house for safety reasons, and you can see why you don't of anyone who own a handgun.
i own a handgun, and other than my wife, parents and closest friend, no one else knows that i have it, and i'd like to keep it that way.
See, there is this thing called reading and comprehending as well as something called context. Reread the previous few posts, establish the context of the comment, and then attempt to comprehend. This make take a few tries for you but don't get discouraged. YOU CAN DO IT!!!
Comments
Mr. Moore shot a political pamphlet for which he received an award, he then used the amount of time he had (like every recipient, he had a finite amount of seconds to thank his deity of choice, mother of choice, and the members of the academy) to make a speech in the same vein as his work of nonfiction (let's be loose with that word today).
Not much of tact and taste, but then again, this is Hollywood.
Ahem. Well, I would certainly take issue with it being nonfiction.
But yes, I don't care what he did on stage at the Oscars.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't quite work that simply.
Oh well. Do tell.
From where I'm sitting ... Rush is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at democrats and the left. Moore is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at republicans and the right. I almost can't tell the difference. Oh wait one's on the radio and the other makes fictional documentaries.
Originally posted by Scott
Oh well. Do tell.
From where I'm sitting ... Rush is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at democrats and the left. Moore is a fat partisan that doesn't bother to get the facts right and takes cheap shots at republicans and the right. I almost can't tell the difference. Oh wait one's on the radio and the other makes fictional documentaries.
And they both have no neck.
"What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing. But then the majority in the balcony -- who were in support of my remarks -- started booing the booers."
No one else following the Oscars or at the theater sees it this way, but that's Moore for you! Yes--they were booing the booers. That's very plausible.
"On the way back home to Flint, Mich.,"
He still tries to sell this--Moore has a substantial townhouse in Manhattan where he is a resident. I am sure he keeps a house in Flint as well, with his spare change--it helps give him that populist touch.
"They said they were telling me this in the hope that I would tell others. Because they, and the millions like them, have no voice...Who will speak for them if I don't?"
Somehow, Mike, we'll manage by forming our own opinions and thinking for ourselves...it's amazing that if you go far enough to the right or left, the condecension becomes unbearable.
And whomever thinks the Oscars can and should be used as a (predominately liberal) political forum need to re-examine what the hell they are giving awards for there.... "acting" and "film-making"... not "I'm a star therefore my opinion matters". I couldn't give two shits about what these stars think. They all are so self-important, living in their utra rich fantasy world. Pleeaaase. Stars are the LAST people anyone should be turning to for political opinion. Pfft.
Originally posted by mrmister
Love that column. Best bits:
"What was so confusing to me, as I continued my remarks, was that I could hear this noise but looking out on the main floor, I didn't see a single person booing. But then the majority in the balcony -- who were in support of my remarks -- started booing the booers."
No one else following the Oscars or at the theater sees it this way, but that's Moore for you! Yes--they were booing the booers. That's very plausible.
Imagine the lengths he had to go to in his mind to come to that stupid conclusion? The obvious response when someone is booing something you agree with is to cheer, hoping to mask the boos , not boo the booer. What a clueless, obstinate ass.
I used to like Moore.
Originally posted by progmac
This reporter immediately lost his credibility, to me, when he called "Bowling for Columbine" an anti-gun documentary. Anyone who has seen it knows that is not the point.
True.
He does take some cheap shots and twists things in his movie, but when you get right down to it, it's not about being ant-gun. It's about why the hell people in the US seem to like shooting each other with them so much.
Originally posted by Flounder
True.
He does take some cheap shots and twists things in his movie, but when you get right down to it, it's not about being ant-gun. It's about why the hell people in the US seem to like shooting each other with them so much.
I don't know anyone who has a handgun
i would guess that you do, but they don't say anything. there's a stigma attached with owning a handgun in the US, at least there is now.
it's also the kind of thing that doesn't come up often in normal conversation. add to that the fact that most people don't want it to be public knowledge that they have a handgun in the house for safety reasons, and you can see why you don't of anyone who own a handgun.
i own a handgun, and other than my wife, parents and closest friend, no one else knows that i have it, and i'd like to keep it that way.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i own a handgun, and other than my wife, parents and closest friend, no one else knows that i have it, and i'd like to keep it that way.
Great. Tell it to everyone on the Internet. Someone might happen to know your screen name and location and put two and two together. Smooth.
anyone smart enough to go to all that trouble would also be smart enough to find an easier way to get a handgun. not too worried about it.
Originally posted by alcimedes
anyone smart enough to go to all that trouble would also be smart enough to find an easier way to get a handgun. not too worried about it.
It's not so much the kill as it is the thrill of the hunt. Sure, you could legally obtain a handgun, but, honestly, what would be more fun?
WTF?
Originally posted by mrmister
WTF?
See, there is this thing called reading and comprehending as well as something called context. Reread the previous few posts, establish the context of the comment, and then attempt to comprehend. This make take a few tries for you but don't get discouraged. YOU CAN DO IT!!!
I guess I thought you must have been getting at something more substantive and less hyperbolic. I was wrong. My bad.