Is you being serious Boobztwo or is this a foray into satire? Moore starts with about 10% reality and ends up with 90% Twilight Zone.

Amazing review Anthony ... I take it you didn't like the movie when you watched it, oh well such is life. I was unable to determine what it was that you found so inappropriate and farfetched, but I guess that wasn't your intention at all, oh my. Let me know if you actually want to discuss the movie though.

Typical response. Rather than asking what Anthony thought was 90% twilight zone, which would have started an interesting (although outdated) debate, you instead start with your usual "oh my" antics. How could you possibly determine what he found inappropriate and far fetched when he never gave details as to why he said what he said and even worse you didn't even bother asking him either. Then you end it with your typical "let me know when you want to really debate" response as if you ever are serious about debating.

None the less I will give you my opinion on this. I saw parts of the movie, I found it rather boring to be honest. Although he may have had some good "questions" it was his approach and delivery which made this movie suck and also hard to take serious. His intentions were noble but very hypocritical as well. When I see him do the opposite of "do as I say not as I do", then maybe I can take him serious. In the mean time, he is simply another hypocrite who ignores his own reflexion.

Charles, you forgot to tell me I was supposed to ask that question ... how am I to know what pleases you if you don't? Humm let’s see … he could have told me I suppose, but that concept is apparently outside your scope of understanding. I will try to be more clairvoyant in the future, hehehe.

I see you do not like Moore either, is ok, we will both live. I do not particularly like the person … so I was asking for a movie review or at least some meaningful conversation. How many people do you actually know that live by the creed “do the opposite of do as I say, not as I do"? Is this silly or what … oh yea, thanks for the review. How much of your stuff are you willing to give away to prove something to an idiot ... just what I thought, me too!

 

You remind me of Mummbles.... an old forum "friend" of mine.

 

I actually never watched the film, but have found problems with Moore's "facts" and methods of screenplay to incite a predisposed opinion out of the audience.

 

 

 

EDIT:  Have you seen "Waiting on Superman"  That movie is an interesting take on the current public school problems, and I prefer that screenplay over Moore's.

Recommend reading up on Edward Bernays and his book Propaganda. He is considered to be the father of modern day flock herding, aka democratic propaganda. Wiki link (for a start): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays.

 

It's not so much that Moore is a lying sack of shit spewing falsehoods, he's just a really good spin doctor.  He pulls stuff out of his ass, like the Bin Laden family being allowed to leave the country after 9/11.  What he leaves out is that they were only allowed to leave after a good corn-holing by the FBI, and that they left after the flight restriction was lifted.  Oh, right, he said they weren't questioned...

 

Okay, I got me there, he's both?

 

Moore is like Gore, he has a predetermined viewpoint based on some idiot he thought was smart explaining the way something happened(without having a clue themselves) and twists, ignores, and fabricates his way into making it reality.  With Gore, it's that the industrial era is a plague on this earth, and be damned the realities of a few hundred thousand years of ice ages for an actual history.  With Moore. it's that capitalism is evil and utopian socialism actually exists.  It's how he can go to Cuba, see the party hospital in the capital, and say look how great things are here!  Sure, the rooms have holes and they can't even get aspirin in half the country, but this hospital where Castro goes is fucking awesome!

Michael Moore has near zero credibility.  He is a liberal version of Glenn Beck with "documentaries" instead of a chalkboard.  Even a broken clock has the right time twice a day.  To cite another post here, "Figures don't lie but liars always use figures.".

It's interesting that as I did a Google search for the link I am going to give here that all the results at the top of the search --for pages--dated back to 2007 and 2009...and all of them(with the exception of the "extreme deniers conspiracy posts") were from sources advocating drastic and immediate action to reduce human carbon emissions--which all of those articles listed cited as "the" reason for climate change and "the" need for immediate and drastic action...regardless of the short term damage to global and national economies and to particular people groups. Those almost unanimous search results line right up with the politically correct views of those hawking this effort to stop man from destroying the planet.

I don't doubt climate change is happening--nor do I doubt that human activity has had a great role in the speed and degree of it occurring.  What this statement doesn't address (and neither do the statements of the  "stop all man-made CO2 emissions" activists')--is whether or not there is anything significant we can do, how much of it can be affected by man and what amount of human resources need to be expended to do so.

So in this Google search, all the views were, "It's man's fault and we must now do everything humanly possible" views (sprinkled with a few  "It's a hoax" views).  What was missing was an actual scientific estimate and measure of exactly what can be done.  Suggested measures to control climate change have included restricting farming and livestock activities, controlling food production and distribution, population control, de-industrialization, conversions of entire economies--all to "go green".

Now imagine if I burst into your house and told you a horror story about  how bad things were going to happen but then went on to explain a "nightmare beyond imagination" was coming, showed little qualified and measurable degrees of what exactly "nightmare" meant and then went on to say, "To stop it, I need money from you right now!".  When I answered, "How much?" your response would be, "How much do you have?".

My next questions would be, "Wait...what do you need?  How will my money actually help?  What do you mean by "nightmare"?  I would not just "hand you my checkbook".

This is what many advocate--a global level of authority that can dictate to any nation exactly what economic commitments and sacrifices they will be required to make--regardless of the impact on their nation.  They also demand a central authority that can decide what power generation and industrial activities will be allowed to be started by emerging nations and third world economies as well as determining what existing industrial and power production can continue in developed nations.

That's a lot to ask for and only justify it with, "It's really bad and it's going to get worse and you have to give us everything and we'll try to figure it out as we go.".

So in all those search results only articles advocating "drastic and immediate actions" were displayed.  No real measure of exactly how much of the problem is genuinely man-made and absolutely no measure at all of what affect various man-made actions would have on changing things.  Just the urgent cry, "The sky is falling now!".

So here is the one report I have seen that even begins to try to really pinpoint what man might be able to do.  It doesn't advocate a particular action or inaction--it does what science should and simply presents findings.  Ironically, it's hard to find such things now even with Goggle since climate change activism has gone from being a mere viewpoint to passionately defended meme.:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110128095044.htm

http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/ArmourRoe_committed.pdf

I am all for human effort that has a good chance of improving things in a significant way.  I am not all for indiscriminate, unmeasured responses at "any cost".  It isn't uncaring about the environment or denying climate change to want this.  It's a rational way to assess what can be done.

The biased  hype is the problem now.  The willingness of many (including some scientists)  to oversell or even misrepresent facts and science because they are "so sure" they are right--based on  the "fact" that they are "so sure".

This is Missouri--show me.

Agree, Sinperium.

"Wall-of-Text" thanks you

I'll put this as bluntly as I can. In 1989 my country's government shot it's people in the street and blamed it on terrorists that no one saw, no one found and no one heard from again. In 1991, intellectuals were protesting against the temporary government trying to become a new dictatorship. They were branded as Nazi sympathizers by the government and clubbed to death by miners, in the streets under the cheering of the ignorant crowd. The president then thanked the miners for the massacre.

My point. Never trust your government, because it's made up mostly of people you didn't put there, whom you don't know, whom you can't control, who have their own interests, who don't answer to you and have no idea, or care, who you even are.  

If you want a list of factual errors in Fahrenheit 9/11, you need only google. I'll provide you with the first result here.

http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf 

That's the problems with those who are so sure they are right that any means is acceptable to get their way.  When someone says, "We must organize and force people.." That's a sign something is not balanced.

I don't give anyone real trust unless they earn it.  Talk is cheap.

People who angrily demand your trust are not your friends.

Michael Moore has parleyed his somewhat just issues with GM and the success of his first film into a political business where he can make money pointing fingers in ways he knows will be supported by the people who finance him.

Suddenly he's an expert on climate, the economy and politics--and gets paid handsomely for it too.

nice read of a wall o' text Sin

Michael Moore is full of shit.