I am left to ponder the reason I ever decided to post my opinions in here .....but on the bright side, SOB certainly helped in my descision making.

Enjoy

I would argue that people attack MM because they think he is full of shit, and it pisses them off when other people believe him. People defend MM because they think he is telling the truth. I have seen almost 2.2 of his films (always fall asleep, R&M,BFC,F911) and not only do I find them boring, but I think they would make even Riefenstahl smile.

I don't need to insult MM to marginalize his "threatening" criticisms. He doesn't shake the foundations of my beliefs. He is a propagandist. I insult him because I think he is a jackass while I pity those too blind to see through his bullshit.

To say that MM elevates political discourse is laughable. Look at this thread. You think this is constructive debate?

If you read the quotes I sited it would make sense... somehow "Moore" mutated into "Bush" and his supposed lies.

. . . as are 99% of politicians. So why attack a harmless filmmaker when you could be attacking the politicians themselves, and actually accomplishing something positive?

Moore's subject is (apparently) Bush. You can't counter a claim about Bush by making a similar claim about Clinton, who has been out of office for 5 years now.

Are you including your own post in this assessment?

Since you apparently can not hit the back button to check the quotes I cited to understand, I'll repost them for you so it can finally make sense to you.

MY subject was the myth of the "Bush lie", and how it holds less validity than most of MM's movies.

And my point was you can't refute the claim that Bush lied by claiming that Clinton lied. Where's the logic?

How about because this thread is titled "MM exposed" and not "99% of Politicians Exposed." I agree that MM is harmless (as proven by the fact of Bush being reelected.)
Yes, my post included, does not elevate political discourse. But "MM exposed" is not about political discourse, it is about specious propaganda.

There's nothing about the title of this thread that requires you to attack MM. Nor is there any reason that you need to even respond to this thread. Instead of spending time in this thread attacking MM (e.g. calling him a "jackass"), you could be out attacking real politicians who are causing real harm right now.

Some folks say the film is specious, others with inside knowledge point out claims that they consider valid. In fact there have been several very on-point and informative posts in this thread.

There's no reason why a useful debate can't grow out of a discussion of that film or interview.

I thought is was an appropriate venue to share my opinion about MM. If you don't like reading my opinions, please add me to your ignore list.

I enjoy reading your opinions. I thought you might like to discuss what I perceive to be internal contradictions within your posts.

If you don't want to discuss those contradictions, then by all means don't.

Look I'm sick of replying to you since you once AGAIN did not read my post. Read it, and then post a reply about it. It wasn't about Clinton lying or Bush lying, it was faulty intelligence that EVERYONE thought was right, including Clinton, Bush, Liberman, and everyone else I listed.

If you're going to spew crap about my post at least give me the benefit of reading it first.

You did post this, correct?

OK, maybe here is the source of the (my) confusion:

I assumed this "one man" here referred to Moore, not Clinton. In other words, he makes a movie that pisses a bunch of people off, makes a fool of himself in a variety of ways, and makes the Bush administration look bad.

If you (Seaver) read this as referring to Clinton (whom it may have been) then your post makes sense. My apologies.

Glad to help.

I look forward to fewer one-sided warnings, and not being denounced for using the word "comrades."

This is an interesting dialog.

Here is a point I would like to make. MM calls his films Documentaries. I googled around to see what would be a good definition of a Documentary Film. Some sites want to give a simple answer and say that a documentary film is a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event. Another definition I found says that a documentary film is a
motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment.

Personally I think the britannica definition is more realistic. Everything in life is colored by our personal beliefs, displayed in what we do, what we say, and how we act. It is hard to imagine that someone putting to gather a film would be able to remove themselves from their decisions on what to include, or not include in a movie, hence it’s my belief that all would contain some type of interpretation.

I have seen all 3 of MM’s movies, and although I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, he does raise some interesting points. Even his forward on the “Bowling for Columbine” DVD he states that his purpose is to raise issues, and spark debate, something which I think he does well…