Blogcritics: Comments on Michael Moore-on

Comment by Antfreeze

Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:42:58 EDT

A most lucid comment. I believe this James H fellow may be the new voice of Republicanism.

Comment by JAMES H

Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:23:27 EDT

I HAVE A FEW THINGS TO SAY ABOUT MICHLE MORE HE IS A LIAR HE IS FULL OF THEM. MICHEAL MOORE, JUST CAME TO UVSC HERE IN UTAH AND I LISTENED TO HOW HE SPEAKS HE SPEAKS WITH THE SAME FORM AS ADOLF HITLER USED. ONE HE TALKED WITH AND RASED VOICE AND THEN HE TRIDE TO TELL USE THAT IN UTAH WE HAVE O BILL OF RIGHTS, AND IT IS BECAUSE OF THE REPABLICANS, . HITLER WAS THE SAME WAY HE TALK WITH A RAISED VOICE, HERE IS A SMALL SPEECH OF HITLER, WHICH WAS HAS TH AT HAS THE SAME FORM AS MICHEAL HAD USED HERE AT UVSC. On November 9, 1921--just five days after the Battle of the Hall (Saalschlacht) where fewer than fifty SA Men had beaten back more than 400 communists and Jews who had tried to disrupt Hitler's speech in the Festival Hall of the Hofbrauhaus--Adolf Hitler addressed a gathering of SA Men. The following is what he told them: For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain German or we come under the thumb of the Jews. This latter must not occur; even if we are small, we are a force. A well-organized group can conquer a strong enemy. If you stick close together and keep bringing in new people, we will be victorious over the Jews. I HAVE SEE FARHNHEIT 911 IT IS FULL OF exaggerate AND SOMETHINGS IN HIS FILM IF YOU PAY REAL ATESTION IT REBOUNDS HIS POINTS HE OW THTRYS TO MAKE. PLUSE HE DOES NOT SHOW THE FULL STORY. MY FATHER IS RIGHT NOW IN THAT HOT SUN OF IRAQ AND HE AS TALKED WITH THE POEPLE OF IRAQ AND ALOT ARE GREATFULL FOR THERE NEW FREEDOMS AND GETTING RIDE OF SADDAM WHICH WAS ADICTATAR LIKE HITLER. PLUSE MY DAD HAS SHOWEN HAS PICTURES OF BOMBS JUST STOKE PILLS OF BOMBS. THERE WERE EVAN $5,000,000 FREANCH BOMBS. EVAN BOMBS SADDOM HAD THE NOT THE ABILTY TO US BUT HE HAD THEM FOR SOME REASON. ONE MORE THING JONH KERRYS PLAN TO HAVE THE AMERICA PEOPLE PAY FOR ABORSTION IS LIKE PUTTING UP SIGNS AT THE DOCTORS OFFICE FREE ABORTION COME ON IN. I THINK IF YOU THINK HAVE A BORTION I THINK SHOULD STUDY HOW THE DO IT FIRST AND SEE HOW UNHUMAIN IT IS. WHO EVER YOU VOTE FOR DONT VOTE FOR KERRY. I RATHER ANYONE VOTE FOR BUSH , BUT IF NOT AT LEAST DONT VOTE FOR KERRY. DAMPFAUS@HOTMAIL.COM

Comment by Ftc

Sun, 8 Aug 2004 16:09:13 EDT

You say if anybody agrees with Bush they are brainwashed. Well let me tell you something about being brainwashed. If you believe the Liberal left wing bias media like ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC and most newspapers out there and you believe that Bush is bad. You are the one that is brainwashed. If you were against the war in Iraq, then you supported Saddam and all has lying, killing and oppression. We had the right to go to war in Iraq because: He violated the UN resolutions that were established at the end of the 91 gulf war for 12 years, that alone we had the right to go to war and because we went to war to take care of unfinished business, technically the US has still never preemptively attacked another country, that war was never finished. He kicked out the weapons inspectors before they were able to finish their job; we had the right to go to war for that. He never proved that he did away with ALL his WMD; we had the right to go to war for that. And NO I don't believe we should have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt on WMD, unless you're a psychopath. We did find WMD in Iraq this year, no not in significant amounts but enough Saran gas in mortar shells to kill a quarter of a million people so fare. And the fact is that he had WMD and we haven't found it all yet and maybe never will. But that doesn't' mean he didn't ever have it. If somebody asks me if I have any money and I say no I don't have any money. I then open my wallet and everybody can see one-dollar bill in my wallet. Was I lying? We haven't found significant amounts of WMD as of yet, but we did find WMD in Iraq. If Bush is wrong, I can tell you for sure that I don't want to be on the right side. When it comes to a Liberal they are so quick to attach their own country and give the wrong doers a free ride, that's why Liberals are Pessimists, Negative-Nates. When it comes to conservatives we are Optimistic towards are own country, we have a positive attitude. We believe in the saying that you don't through away the whole bushel of apples because of a few bad ones, you just pick out the bad ones. You leave it up to a liberal and they want to through out the whole bunch. I don't understand why so many liberals want to conduct American Government only under the approval of the rest of the world when the rest of the world just wants to control us. The proper attitude of America towards the rest of the world is that we want to get along with you, debate disagreements with you civilly. But don't you dare ever try to tell what we can and cannot do, when it comes to taking care of Americans. If a country is a threat to us we should tell them that if they don't stop the threat now we will do something about it and they should have the right to treat us the same way. I think are country is so politically divided right now that maybe we need another civil war, Liberals vs. Conservatives. I can guaranty you one thing, if Kerry is elected president, I personally will denounce him as my president, and I will not recognize him as America's president. Asking me to live under the Democratic Party rule is no different to me than asking me to live under the rule of Hitler, Saddam, or Communism, I see no difference, I don't want to ever live under the rule of any of these terrible ideologies, I would rather take up arms and go to war against any of these oppressive, psychotic ideologies.

Comment by mb

Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:10:33 EDT

George Bush is a horrible man, the only thing that matters to him is his money and oil he's a liar and a cheater and has killed many innocent people because of his selfishness. If anyone out there thinks he is a good and honest person they must be brain washed by him exactly what his plan was was. You fell for it.

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:47:42 EDT

James Stacey: what did you think of Rage Against the Machine? Did you like their music?

Comment by James Stacey

Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:10:39 EDT

You know the biggest thing about celebrities spouting off there political opinion in public is that the vast majority of the people they are preaching to in public didn’t ask for there opinion in the first place and do not want to here it in the second place, they need to stick to there day job. Nobody rattled their cage on the political issue, so they need to keep there mouths shut unless they are elected by the people to represent us. They were not elected to represent the American people so they have no right to be voicing there opinion in public through the media when the rest of us American citizens will probably never get the chance to do the same. It’s like the Dixie Chicks running their mouths about politics. Since when did they get elected to represent American opinion in the media? No body asked them, yet they shove there opinion down are thoughts against are will. How would they like it if I forced people to listen to me trying to sing their songs (and I can’t sing at all) on TV, live broadcast nation wide? I know no body wants to here me try to sing or try to act so I wonder whey they try to politic when nobody wants to see that. I don’t think its fare at all. They are abusing their celebrity. I think there should be a large fine against people voicing their political opinion in public or in the media if they were not asked for their opinion like on a live show were it’s like an outburst or like at the Academy Awards or at a music concert. If convicted of that crime they should get a hefty fine and have to listen to an opposite political party member preach to them against their will for a few hours as punishment. Give them a taste of there own medicine and see how they like it. Or they could just keep their big mouths shut unless asked and that would be the easy solution. Celebrities talking politics at there concert is like Preachers selling porno movies in church. Nobody in their right mind wants to see either of these things.

Comment by David

Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:59:32 EDT

Moore's fat ass will be on Dateline NBC tonight depending what coast your on. I personally would put him in the "UN-LOYAL category along besides the likes of David Koresh etc. When interviewed by Matt Lauer this morning he claimed to be "strongly anti-democratic not voting for Clinton in 1996 or Al Gore in 2000". He's not loyal to anything but his fucking wallet and a 2lb Fudruckers Cheese Burger.

Comment by James Stacey

Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:55:45 EDT

To take everything he says as fact would be extreme, but no more extreme as dismissing everything he says... I can justify dismissing everything he says because he has proven to be a bias radical lunatic with an agenda. He spins things to his advantage and has no honesty what so ever and can’t be trusted. When someone lies 90% of the time, I’m not going to bother my self with trying to filter out the 10% of truth he might be putting out. I save my self the frustration and time and just ignore the liar. Remember what happened to the boy who cried wolf.

Comment by James Stacey

Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:48:12 EDT

I can’t believe you don’t know the definition of Openly patriotic and Un-loyal as a matter of fact I know you know exactly what they mean, but I’ll play your little game. I’ll hold your hand for you and walk you through this. Maybe you might want to think about investing in a dictionary some time. Openly Patriotic �" Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one’s country (Openly with out shame or embarrassment, a natural will instilled in your self), i.e. to be a typical conservative. Un-loyal �" To deliberately by ones own choice not be steadfast in allegiance to one’s homeland, government, or sovereign. To have no faithfulness in a person, ideal, or custom, i.e. to be a typical liberal.

Comment by simon b

Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:05:27 EDT

== You have to be a closed-minded left wing radical to go along with anything that Michael Moore says or stands for. == with "anything" - you're saying that absolutely everything Moore says is rubbish? To take everything he says as fact would be extreme, but no more extreme as dismissing everything he says...

Comment by Mark Saleski

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:10:51 EDT

wanna define "openly patriotic"? ...or "un-loyal", while yer at it?

Comment by James Stacey

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:53:30 EDT

You have to be a closed-minded left wing radical to go along with anything that Michael Moore says or stands for. I will clue everyone in on something, the left wing and right wing are like a scale, the farther left someone’s rhetoric is when dealing with a right wing person the farther right you push that person and vice versa. The only way to get along is to be open minded about any given issue and try to come to some common ground this is how we can get along and balance the important issues. To be stubborn and closed-minded just shoves the other person way to the far side of their scale every time and nobody gets any ware. I will give you the fundamental reasons way I tend to be on the right. This applies to most but not all Left wing Liberals, just the fundamental majority. They tend to be weak on self-defense, at all costs. They find it easer to appease those that bring confrontation rather than doing the right thing in a given situation, history proves this. They tend to be anti-religion, which in turn supports immorality. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the long-term effects of either immorality or civilized religion on a society. As a majority, Liberals tend to in most cases, to automatically jump to the defense of persons accused of crimes with usually no interest in the victims rights and especially if the accused is a minority. Can you figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? It’s not difficult. You will not find a right wing person that is not somewhat patriotic and loyal to their country. On the other hand I think you will find that if a person is openly unpatriotic or un-loyal to their country they are 99.9% of the time a left wing Liberal. This may not apply to all Liberals, but it does apply to the vast majority of Liberals. Liberals have a tendency to be pessimistic when it comes to our Military, Law enforcement where as a typical right wing person is optimistic. The big message in this is that in a perfect Liberal world, there would be no laws, no law enforcement, no military and everybody knows where this country would be without are military and police. In a perfect Liberal world there would be utter kayos. I will give you some absolute proof of the Liberal hypocrisy with a little history lesson. I believe that most Liberals would agree that the U.S. involvement in the liberation of Europe during WWII was a noble cause. Yet there is no difference in the liberation of Europe in WWII and the liberation of Iraq. Liberals will say that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and that Iraq didn’t attack us so we had no business going to war with Iraq. The exact same thing can be said about Germany in WWII. They never attacked us. It was none of our business to get involved in that war. Well I totally understand why we got involved in both wars. It was the morally right thing to do in both cases. And here is the big picture on Iraq that when trying to get this point through to a Liberal you might as well be talking to a brick wall, they just wont hear this. We also went to war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. We are trying to plant the seeds of democracy in the Middle East, one country at a time. If we can spread democracy and civilized freedom through out the Middle East, this is the most effective weapon in the war on terrorism. Liberals just don’t get this and they wont. It almost makes me think they want terrorism to continue. Liberals are being a roadblock in the war on terrorism in my opinion.

Comment by Rev Nick

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:11:27 EST

Amen Mr. Petermann, go tell it on the mountains. I am personally sick and tired of left wing crap. FYI, I am neither left wing nor right wing, I'm from the little known and seldom heard from 'wing' known as common sense. Also, I actually didn't vote for Bush, but support him as he does the best he can to protect America.

Comment by Jeff Petermann

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:55:22 EST

My article has served its purpose. I wrote this to inspire conversation. I disagree with the majority of you, as you also disagree with me. I am glad to have written an article that inspires thought. I pray that is how all who read my words view this. Oh, and I did not quote Mr. Moore, but I did allude to his "fictitious" comments. One does not have to quote smart men to be smart.

Comment by sanford

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:25:35 EST

If I see this piece of misinformation one more time I am going to scream! "All of the stars who accepted awards at the ceremony were asked to keep their comments to the movie industry." The host and presenters were requested by the AMPAS to confine their remarks to the industry. Very specifically, an AMPAS spokesman stated that in their acceptance speeches those who won awards were welcome to speak freely. On any topic. It was, he said, their time and they could use it as they saw fit.

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:38:18 EST

Michael Moore was born in Flint, Michigan (he even made a film about it called Roger & Me) and is an American. They gave Bowling an Oscar because it was a political film, an anti-war and anti-violence film, a film that attacked George Bush. And it was funny. The biggest problem with Moore's speech was it wasn't funny. But it is hard to be funny in 45 seconds. He did thank the academy and went beyond the usual perfunctory acknowlegement of the other nominees and brought them all up on stage which people would be calling a class act if anyone else had done it. And as I wrote, "imagine the reaction if someone made a pro-war speech at the Oscars and was booed." Many of the right wing talk show host (and bloggers) would be shouting with the same kind of indignation they are now about Moore's speech. Moore didn't support Gore. He voted and campaigned for Nader. He would have criticized Gore if he were in power and went to war. Conservatives always seem to ask where was the protest when Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia. Moore spoke out against that war too (as did many others). He wrote: < Now, it is time for all of us to stop Clinton and his disgusting, hypocritical fellow democrats who support him in this war. It is amazing to watch all these "liberal" congress members line up behind the President. In a way, I'm glad it's happening, if only to show the American people there is little difference between the Democrats and the usually war-loving Republicans... Each cruise missile that is launched could have built a dozen schools or hired another hundred teachers or provided health care to a thousand people. Those millions of dollars could have been spent saving lives and educating children. Every night, Clinton isn't just bombing Yugoslavia, he's bombing you.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:50:53 EST

Since you didn't actually quote anything Moore said, I can only conclude you are willfully stupid or a deceitful scoundrel. If you check out his back stage press conference at oscar.com, MM (hey, Eminem is from Michigan, Moore is from Michigan, coincidence?) the first question he was asked was why he said what he did. His answer in full: "I'm an American". There was nothing at all anti-American in his speech or views, to think otherwise is to take another step down the road of made in the USA fascism. A structure needs to flex or it will break. This was the reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union, the society refused to flex, to change, to admit failure, and it became catastrophic. Don't think the same thing can't happen in the USA. If the Age of Reason ideal of liberalism which founded your nation becomes an invective, then you are well on your way. PJ O'Rourke, a writer I admire like Michael Moore, had this to say: "If the world is mad at America for anything, it should be for the invention of the phone-in talk show. The idea of a news broadcast once was to find someone with information and broadcast it. The idea now is to find someone with ignorance and spread it around. (Being ignorant myself, I'm not mad personally.)" And, yes, I am one quotin' mofo, why do you ask?

Comment by Jeff Petermann

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:15:04 EST

Just so everyone is aware, this forum is for opinions. I gave mine and will continue to. I do appreciate the comments though. Please look for more-"stupid rightist Anti-American rhetoric" in the future-I think we all should post some to combat the ignorant leftest anti-American rhetoric.That is all.

Comment by Please!!

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:10:20 EST

Disagreeing with our President does in NO way, shape, or form make Michael Moore un-American. What is more un-American is blind acquiescence to a government figurehead. If you absolutely feel the need to be led around by a seeing-eye government, try moving. Lots of dictators would be happy to have you. But stop with the stupid rightist Anti-American rhetoric.

Comment by stef

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:37:06 EST

If you knew anything about Micheal Moore, you would have to expect he would say something at the Oscar's. He has an audiance of whatever million were watching, obviously he is gonna speak his mind. Micheal Moore is one of the best activist out there, and his comments about the WTO in Seattle a few years ago were right on the money. You wrote "He should really not quit his day job, and leave the comments on political agendas, which are obviously too far above his head for him to grasp, to the more intelligent.". I think they are over your head to grasp, so before you start trashing someone, you should become more educated in politics and see that Micheal Moore's comments are not too far above his head, and that he is the more intelligent.

Comment by Larry O'Brien

Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:23:41 EST

"He should really not quit his day job, and leave the comments on political agendas, which are obviously too far above his head for him to grasp, to the more intelligent." Ummm... that _is_ his day job. You're exactly correct when you compare Moore to Limbaugh. It was not surprising that Moore ranted, it was just surprising that it was unfunny and more concerned with the 2000 election than with the war on Iraq.