Wonder if Roger Mortis has set in yet.
Michael Moore, Genius or Idiot?
-
He stands to make about 100 million on this movie. Genius.
-
no, he is not a genius, or an idiot.
-
he is a complete idiot.
-
Just think if lived somewhere like N. Korea or China…Off with his head!!! :lol:
-
just because you think he is wrong does not make him an idiot. similarly, just because someone else thinks he is right doesnt make him a genius. making a politcal propaganda movie is neither genius nor idiot. perhaps the first person to ever do it could have an argument for genius, but by now, its simply applying an old idea to a new situation. he hasnt done anything in his movies factually that was new or shocking, it was simply the same old “facts” and “statistics” that are thrown around by all the other sources. the only difference is he manages to make his mildly entertaining. i hate him, and i disagreed entirely with “Bowling for Columbine” but i found it entertaining. all he is, is a fat, asshole, political activist who has some skill with movie making, thats all. he is neither genius nor idiot.
-
I don’t care what you think of him or his movies. He made something like 30 million personally off this movie. Genius.
-
NO! making money does not make you a genius. jesus christ yanny, i just said the same thing “it doesnt matter what you think of his movies”
-
disagreeing with me makes you an idiot. :lol:
-
the opposite of wise would be foolish i think, but definetly not idiot.
-
Well, an idiot would be an ignorant, or brutish-type of person. He might not necessarily be foolish; in fact, he might be very clever or wily, thus making him ignorant, but not foolish.
-
Whipping out my Dungeons and Dragons Player’s Handbook, the definitive source on attribute definitions :lol: :wink: .
Intelligence: How well someone learns and reasons. I consider high intelligence to the definition of genius.
Wisdom: Common sense, perception, and intuition. Less academic, more “street”, such abilities are not a requirement for being a genius.An idiot has to have low intelligence, however, that person’s wisdom could be anything. A fool has to have low wisdom, but that person’s intelligence could be anything. Animals are idiots, but often possess a killer instinct and exeptional perception, so thier wisdom would be relatively high (they lack common sense and certain forms of intuiton, though, so not that high).
Michael Moore has a high wisdom. He understands intuitively how to create a product that will attract audiences, and has a knack for making even the most innocent events appear sinister. Often, though, his anaylsis of the information is pathetic, and his conclusions, even with the evidence he provides, are not believable. As such, i would not put his intellignec very higher. Only average.
Moore can succeed, but by that definition, George Bush would be a genius, becuase he is president of the most powerful nation in the world. Thats success in my book, but even i know that Bush is not particularly bright. His intelligence is only slightly above average.
-
Ahh so idiocy is merely ignorance. Good to know that! Anyway if that’s true wouldn’t that make Dubya an idiot, as he was ignorant when it came to whether Iraq had WMDs. So in that sense wouldn’t Moore’s criticism be correct even if its not always 100% right.
It always comes back to W. for you, doesn’t it? I’m not even going to bother to reply, it won’t get anywhere. Look to CY’s definition, it’s better than mine
-
its more than taking a shot when someone devotes an entire movie to why he hates and thinks you are an idiot.
-
i think the entire smear-campaign idea is excessive. i loathe this part of politics. personally, i think that neither side should be allowed negative campaigning, only positive, because you shouldnt have to make your opponent look bad to beat him. if you cant on your own, you dont deserve the position. however, i also think that if one side does engage in it, its acceptable for the other to do so.
keep in mind the following
1. the attack ads on kerry’s record come from people who served with him, not people who simply question his record. lying or telling the truth they may be, but they do have first-hand knowledge whether they share it or not
2. they are not affilated with GWB. the connection with the republican party is insofar as they were funded by one wealthy republican, not connected with the bush campaign.
3. moore’s movie (and the similar detractors using the same threads) came before the ads.
4. Bush’s war record has been attacked as well.i dont think either side should do it, but if kerry’s side will, i think bush can too. fair is fair
-
how is michael moore any more credible then Bush? why should bush be expected to outcry about swiftvets when kerry doesnt about moore?
negative campaigning is anything that has to do with the other candidate in my opinion. any criticisms should be saved for debates, when you are face to face. all campaign ads and anything else should simply be promoting one candidate, not attacking, discrediting, or defaming another. during election season (at least) any ads that attack one or another candidate should not be allowed, whether they are independents or tied to a particular campaign.
of course bush decries the movie specifically about him, it must be tremendously insulting to have a movie made attacking you. but he would naturally have far less personal feelings about something attacking kerry. i dont think either should be allowed in election season, but when it does happen, you cant expect one candidate to care too much about the other
-
Neither.
I said genius though, he certainly knows how to get a point across.
-
you guys are kinda geting off topic.
-
Oh well; we had mostly beat the old topic to death anyway :P.
-
But unlike SwiftVets Moore didn’t get any politically motivated funding to make his film
difference: the swiftvets made a commercial, which doesnt make money, only costs money. they needed funding. moore, making a movie, especially since he had made “successful” movies in the past, would obviously find it easier to find non-politically motivated funding, because it would turn a big profit for whoever funded him, they wouldnt care what the message was.
So one could argue that had there not been an election the SwiftVets would not have surfaced,
well DUH. what the heck is your point? if kerry werent running, who would care what his war record was, good or bad? no one! the only reason it makes any difference at all is because he is running for office.
but that Moore would’ve still made his film.
yes, for the same reason that swiftvets made their commercial. you really have no point in this train of thought.
. I would also add that not only did he smear McCain’s war record, but that his father did on Clinton in '92, and Dole in '88, and smeared Reagan in the '80 primaries. Negative campaigning has long been a trend with the Bush family.
are you kidding? negative campaigning is a trend with EVERY politician. not just the bushs. you are really showing your hatred of bush here.
-
@AgentSmith:
But unlike SwiftVets Moore didn’t get any politically motivated funding to make his film. So one could argue that had there not been an election the SwiftVets would not have surfaced, but that Moore would’ve still made his film.
Oh, no! However, Michael Moore hates W enough to spend his own money to make a movie(cheaply compared to today’s movie budgets) twisting facts, time and events to help defeat W. More importantly to make $$.
SOURCE :
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13583626_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE-AWKWARD-CONSCIENCE-OF-A-NATION-name_page.htmlEXCERPT : “If you think you know someone who loathes Bush, American imperialism, big business, right-wingers, oh, and Tony Blair’s poodle act, then multiply their hatred by a hundred and you get close to Moore’s level of contempt.”
But let’s look at who’s spending money where…
SOURCE :
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40115EXCERPT : "Broken down by amount, it means 24 high rollers gave $56,193,000 to left-leaning groups, while two donors gave $1,520,000 to Republican groups.
The Democratic Joint Victory Campaign 2004 has received the most donations this cycle, raking in $41,685,706. No. 2 is another anti-Bush group, the Media Fund, which collected $28,127,488.
The top conservative group in fund-raising is the Club for Growth, which took in $5,288,847. Many of the group’s donations came from individuals, some listed as “retired” and giving as little as $50."
@AgentSmith:
That’s exactly it Bush takes it as an insult, but he takes just about everything as an insult. Negative campaigning has long been a trend with the Bush family.
Negative campaigning is decried by young and old, voters and non-voters, but it works. There is no law against it and it has been used for the last 200 years.
QUERRY : Is it negative campaigning to point out an opponents attendance/voting/legislative/executive record.
I note that the W campaign has updated it’s former “Kerry’s 350 votes for higher taxes” to a more specific “Kerry’s 98 votes for higher taxes.” I still see flaws in that commercial, but it is closer to the truth of higher taxes.You want to document W’s whining over the last year plus the # of attacks, verbally and in advertising, he has endured with tens of millions of $$s spent against him?
Yet, in the last month, J "F"ing Kerry has two, count them, two ads costing $150,000 each(production and air-time) and he whines like a stuck pig, calls his lawyers, threatens radio stations, asks the book publisher(Regner) to stop distributing the book “Unfit for Command”, begs bookstores to take the book off the shelves, and sends a lackey to ask W to break the law by having W stop the ads and book, thusly violating the Freedom of Speech banning books
As for where were the Swiftvets for the last 30+ years do a search…
(Swiftvets 1971) and you’ll find the origins of the argument. Kerry was debated on “The Dick Cavett Show.”
SOURCE :
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeillThis argument has not had the $ to fight JFK as these vets had to live and provide for their families. However, When JFK appeared to be on the verge of winning the the Democratic the effort was ramped up. JFK was just one sleazy senator from a misguided state in many vets minds. But his potential presidency brought more light to the darkness in which he had lived_(20 years as a US Senator with his name on NO legislation in that time period.)_
Let’s drop this 30 year old argument and focus on the last 20 years. :D
Suggested Topics
