Page 1 of 3
#1
Does anyone else think this guy is a douche?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/24/lkl.michael.moore/index.html

I just read this article and I was like "damn this guy sucks". I dont like how he said its his "moral duty" to make sure everyone does well and is rich.

He's overall extremely annoying to me.

I used the searchbar before posting and didnt find any threads on this so if there is one i am sorry
#2
For fuck's sake. He is a film-maker, not a journalist. I wish people would remember this.

Also, NO! ADVOCATION OF REASONABLE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! NO! ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST ATHEIST SCUM etc etc.
Last edited by webbtje at Sep 24, 2009,
#3
Michael Moore: Who's got the money? And whoever has the money has the power. And right now, in America, tonight, Larry, the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.

King: You're in that 1 percent, though?


As cliche as it is... Owned.
Quote by Zinnie
god placed the fossils in earth to confuse the humans into thinking that earth is older than it actually is, therefore, making men try and think outside the box....

just kidding, there is no god



www.youtube.com/user/andrew12398
#5
Didn't you see? It's actually Fred Savage in a costume.

Real answer:

He is annoying though. I don't understand why he's out to trash everyone instead of doing something proactive and trying to push his cause forward instead of the others backward.

Michael Moore, here's what i have for YOU!
>>>
#7
Quote by The Pineapple


I used the searchbar before posting and didnt find any threads on this so if there is one i am sorry



'cause it's well known and established that he is a douche, so a thread with everyone just agreeing on that fact would be boring.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#8
Quote by The Pineapple



But seriously. He's a douche.
I can honestly say I have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


I don't always post on UG, but when I do, I post in the Pit. Stay thirsty my friends.
#9
Didn't South Park have an episode on Michael Moore? You know you're either awesome or just a dick if South Park pokes fun at you.
#10
Quote by dudius
Didn't South Park have an episode on Michael Moore?

I think it was the one about smoking.
Quote by Zinnie
god placed the fossils in earth to confuse the humans into thinking that earth is older than it actually is, therefore, making men try and think outside the box....

just kidding, there is no god



www.youtube.com/user/andrew12398
#11
^
It wasn't.

Quote by The Pineapple

Oh look, photoshopping a picture to make a person look bad. Mature.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#12
Quote by andrew12398
I think it was the one about smoking.


Nah, Rob Reiner was the fatass in that episode (just saw that one a week ago )
#13
Just because he's a rather unlikable person, doesn't mistake the fact that his films continue to point out significant problems with our government, economics, and society. Is it unfortunate that he is a hypocrite in doing so? Absolutely! But hypocrite or not, he's absolutely right.

Are you not at all disturbed by the distribution of wealth?

What about the distribution of resources? USA is roughly 5% of the world's population and yet we consume 40% of the world's resources.

This isn't and shouldn't become a communist/socialist vs. democracy debate. This is a humanitarian debate.

Call him a douche if you want, but what he's doing at least is awakening people to significant social injustices in the world. If people see his work and are inspired to respond and to work for change, isn't that a good thing?
#14
Quote by fade177
Just because he's a rather unlikable person, doesn't mistake the fact that his films continue to point out significant problems with our government, economics, and society. Is it unfortunate that he is a hypocrite in doing so? Absolutely! But hypocrite or not, he's absolutely right.

Are you not at all disturbed by the distribution of wealth?

What about the distribution of resources? USA is roughly 5% of the world's population and yet we consume 40% of the world's resources.

This isn't and shouldn't become a communist/socialist vs. democracy debate. This is a humanitarian debate.

Call him a douche if you want, but what he's doing at least is awakening people to significant social injustices in the world. If people see his work and are inspired to respond and to work for change, isn't that a good thing?


Oh ****, Obama is in the pit yall!!!


Honestly though, the top 1% worked hard, were smart, and did their business well. Why should they have an extra burden placed on them so that people who refuse to get an education or a good job can continue to benefit from their laziness by getting paid off by the government? I shouldn't have to pay for your bills just because your a lzy son og a bitch, who dropped out of highschool. I do agree that some steps need to be taken to ensure everyone has as close to the same opportunities as everyone else, but rifling through my pocket isn't the way to do it.
Quote by Teh Traineez0rz
yeah was weird cause she liked us both but she loved him and for some reason she let me know beforehand.

i just wanted her poon and she wanted me to have her poon.

so i had myself some poon.
Last edited by Shirate at Sep 24, 2009,
#15
Michael Moore was obnoxious as a baby. The years really haven't changed that.

Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#16
Quote by Ur all $h1t
^
It wasn't.


Oh look, photoshopping a picture to maes a pesdeon sdfe wefsd. Sdjkd.

______________________________________________________________________
Last edited by Gyroscope : Tomorrow at 01:00 PM.
#17
ehh I like his documentaries ... The one on our ****ty healthcare system was pretty good. So was the one on weapon violence.
#18
Quote by fade177
Just because he's a rather unlikable person, doesn't mistake the fact that his films continue to point out significant problems with our government, economics, and society. Is it unfortunate that he is a hypocrite in doing so? Absolutely! But hypocrite or not, he's absolutely right.


He's known for editing his movies so that it looks exactly how he wants to portray them. As it's been said before, he's a filmmaker, not a journalist and should be treated as such. Any film he makes should be treated as fiction. He's never portrayed half the truth through film.
#19
Micheal Moore would do much better if he didn't come off as a complete jackass in his films. He makes himself look like a total retard, and so his points get overlooked.

For example, I can't remember which film it was, but I remember he took a bunch of people who couldn't get healthcare in a boat out to Guantanamo bay, and started yelling at the guards in the towers wanting to get in so they could get medical care.

Really now?

He has good points, healthcare is a definite issue in the US, but harassing guards at Guantanamo bay is easily one of the most immature, childish, and downright stupid ways you could present that.
#20


I dont art american, i has no opinions.
"Black gives way to more black."




I have UG Black Style and I can barely read my signature.

Also, I like black.


~DawnwalkerALL HAIL COMRADE DAWNWALKER
#21
Quote by Shirate
Oh ****, Obama is in the pit yall!!!

Honestly though, the top 1% worked hard, were smart, and did their business well. Why should they have an extra burden placed on them so that people who refuse to get an education or a good job can continue to benefit from their laziness by getting paid off by the government? I shouldn't have to pay for your bills just because your a lzy son og a bitch, who dropped out of highschool. I do agree that some steps need to be taken to ensure everyone has as close to the same opportunities as everyone else, but rifling through my pocket isn't the way to do it.



Presumably the kids of the people who got rich in the first place just deserve to be rich then? I guess it's OK for Paris Hilton to never do a day's honest work in her life yet have an unlimited supply of money. A sizeable portion of the top 1% did nothing to acquire their wealth.
#22
Quote by dudius
He's known for editing his movies so that it looks exactly how he wants to portray them. As it's been said before, he's a filmmaker, not a journalist and should be treated as such. Any film he makes should be treated as fiction. He's never portrayed half the truth through film.


Doesn't that further support my point? Most filmmaker's are trying to get across a message, regardless of fiction or non-fiction. Wasn't District 9 an excellent allegory for apartheid and other social injustices that have gone on in Africa for the last century? And honestly, does any journalist report the truth unbiased? No, in fact, simply reading something reads bias into the work because we all come from differing backgrounds bringing radically different points of view to the matter.

I reiterate, regardless of the truthful merit of his work, if it brings around action instead of passivity, is it not a good thing? In fact, even if the action is to cause a bunch of people to be mad at him, at least the publicity or the conversation stemming from that poor reaction could lead someone to finally take a look into the issue at hand. Can any of us say we are doing something as significant as Michael Moore with our lives? I don't think I could say that yet...
#23
Regardless of your opinions on Michael "Where's my donut?" Moore, you all owe it to this great nation to watch Canadian Bacon.
Quote by captaincrunk
You are a slave who is looking for a master, and I hope he beats you.

Quote by rmr024
Toaster ovens are fucking amazing, I don't really see where you were going with that...
#24
Quote by webbtje
Presumably the kids of the people who got rich in the first place just deserve to be rich then? I guess it's OK for Paris Hilton to never do a day's honest work in her life yet have an unlimited supply of money. A sizeable portion of the top 1% did nothing to acquire their wealth.

Connversley, there are people working 2 jobs struggling to feed their kids.
Quote by dudius
Didn't South Park have an episode on Michael Moore? You know you're either awesome or just a dick if South Park pokes fun at you.

That was Rob Reiner, but the South Park guys did poke fun at him in Team America.
The UG Awards exist only to instill me with existential doubt.


For me, the 60's ended that day in 1978...

Willies. Fuck the lick and fuck you too.
Last edited by TheBurningFish at Sep 24, 2009,
#25
Quote by webbtje
Presumably the kids of the people who got rich in the first place just deserve to be rich then? I guess it's OK for Paris Hilton to never do a day's honest work in her life yet have an unlimited supply of money. A sizeable portion of the top 1% did nothing to acquire their wealth.

And don't forget that most of the people with ****ty or no education never had the opportunity to get one.

The current system keeps the rich rich, and the poor poor. They're both self-perpetuating cycles.

Quote by fade177
Doesn't that further support my point? Most filmmaker's are trying to get across a message, regardless of fiction or non-fiction. Wasn't District 9 an excellent allegory for apartheid and other social injustices that have gone on in Africa for the last century? And honestly, does any journalist report the truth unbiased? No, in fact, simply reading something reads bias into the work because we all come from differing backgrounds bringing radically different points of view to the matter.

I reiterate, regardless of the truthful merit of his work, if it brings around action instead of passivity, is it not a good thing? In fact, even if the action is to cause a bunch of people to be mad at him, at least the publicity or the conversation stemming from that poor reaction could lead someone to finally take a look into the issue at hand. Can any of us say we are doing something as significant as Michael Moore with our lives? I don't think I could say that yet...

+1
Regardless of how distastefully he does it, he still puts important issues into the public mind. Sometimes you need a bit a stupid shock value to get people thinking about things.
#26
Quote by fade177
Doesn't that further support my point? Most filmmaker's are trying to get across a message, regardless of fiction or non-fiction. Wasn't District 9 an excellent allegory for apartheid and other social injustices that have gone on in Africa for the last century? And honestly, does any journalist report the truth unbiased? No, in fact, simply reading something reads bias into the work because we all come from differing backgrounds bringing radically different points of view to the matter.

I reiterate, regardless of the truthful merit of his work, if it brings around action instead of passivity, is it not a good thing? In fact, even if the action is to cause a bunch of people to be mad at him, at least the publicity or the conversation stemming from that poor reaction could lead someone to finally take a look into the issue at hand. Can any of us say we are doing something as significant as Michael Moore with our lives? I don't think I could say that yet...


I find the truth so much more interesting than fiction. I honestly think some of the things he's talked about are worse beneath the surface, but he gets so caught up in silly things that I can't take him seriously. He reminds me of a kid crapping his pants saying "Change meh!". Sure, change is good, but he tries too hard to be the next Christ.
#27
Quote by Shirate
Oh ****, Obama is in the pit yall!!!


Honestly though, the top 1% worked hard, were smart, and did their business well. Why should they have an extra burden placed on them so that people who refuse to get an education or a good job can continue to benefit from their laziness by getting paid off by the government? I shouldn't have to pay for your bills just because your a lzy son og a bitch, who dropped out of highschool. I do agree that some steps need to be taken to ensure everyone has as close to the same opportunities as everyone else, but rifling through my pocket isn't the way to do it.



I think it's rather ignorant and incorrect to assume that all of those in the top 1% are smart/ and or worked hard. There is to some degree, fortune and luck, and opportunity on their side.

I think it's also rather ignorant and incorrect to assume that all people in the other 99% are lazy, or dumb, or attempting to be burdens on the government. For instance, I am an intelligent hard working person, who chooses to do a job because of the difference i make, not because of the size of my paycheck. Am i thus a lazy incompetent son of a bitch because I don't make enough money to be in the top 1%? I don't think so, and i don't think that applies to most people.

The big lie of ignorance is the idea that all men are created equal. This may be true in a moral regard, but as for opportunity and the ability to rise economically and socially, this simply isn't true. Through out the history of mankind, it is the exception, not the rule that the offspring become greater than their parents. Most people remain in the same economic social class their entire lives. Obviously a child has no choice of where or when they are born, so why should we harbor anger and resentment to those who simply have never had a chance to succeed.

Are there lazy and ignorant people? Yes! But I think there are far fewer people trying to rip off the government than you are assuming.
#28
Quote by webbtje
Presumably the kids of the people who got rich in the first place just deserve to be rich then? I guess it's OK for Paris Hilton to never do a day's honest work in her life yet have an unlimited supply of money. A sizeable portion of the top 1% did nothing to acquire their wealth.
Dude, yer soooooo wrong!

Paris earned money. She worked. She washed dishes and everything!

Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#29
Quote by fade177
I think it's rather ignorant and incorrect to assume that all of those in the top 1% are smart/ and or worked hard. There is to some degree, fortune and luck, and opportunity on their side.

I think it's also rather ignorant and incorrect to assume that all people in the other 99% are lazy, or dumb, or attempting to be burdens on the government. For instance, I am an intelligent hard working person, who chooses to do a job because of the difference i make, not because of the size of my paycheck. Am i thus a lazy incompetent son of a bitch because I don't make enough money to be in the top 1%? I don't think so, and i don't think that applies to most people.

The big lie of ignorance is the idea that all men are created equal. This may be true in a moral regard, but as for opportunity and the ability to rise economically and socially, this simply isn't true. Through out the history of mankind, it is the exception, not the rule that the offspring become greater than their parents. Most people remain in the same economic social class their entire lives. Obviously a child has no choice of where or when they are born, so why should we harbor anger and resentment to those who simply have never had a chance to succeed.

Are there lazy and ignorant people? Yes! But I think there are far fewer people trying to rip off the government than you are assuming.


That was rather long winded, and I don't think you caught what he meant. What he's saying is people get wealthy, why should they be forced to share it? It's not charity when you are forced to share your money. You're right, some people get lucky and get great opportunities thrust upon them. But I find it silly to say that all of the rich people of America should have money taken from them to give to others.

You also can't forget that Congress has considered taxing as far down as the lower middle class for the whole "redistribution of wealth" scheme.
Last edited by dudius at Sep 24, 2009,
#30
what I don't like about Moore is how one-sided his message is. there are tons of grey areas that he doesn't adress, he always makes films with a very "I'm right, and you're wrong" mentality.
Also, people here in Europe love him because he became popular at the same time hating America did when Dubya Bush was in charge

Michael Moore, IMO, shows alot of traits of being a very lazy, uneducated person himself. his films aren't well-researched, he's a big fat guy who dropped out of college while still living with his parents. When the fat and lazy can become so filthy rich and popular, and you're one of them, you shouldn't be pointing your finger at others that are the same as you.

EDIT: and I'm all for having a minimum guaranteed social welfare, like 750$ a month per person, and then an extra whatever per kid, but taking that money just from the rich, or saying that you can only earn so much before you have to pay humongous taxes takes away all incentive of success.
Last edited by CoreysMonster at Sep 24, 2009,
#31
Moore is a talented filmmaker. He finds the craziest people to disagree with him so that he can craft strawman on top of strawman. His films are persuasive, and I appreciated "Bowling for Columbine" even though I'm pro-gun. Nevertheless, being a good filmmaker doesn't mean your views are right. Hitler was a great speaker and a very persuasive one at that.
#32
Quote by dudius
That was rather long winded, and I don't think you caught what he meant. What he's saying is people get wealthy, why should they be forced to share it? It's not charity when you are forced to share your money. You're right, some people get lucky and get great opportunities thrust upon them. But I find it silly to say that all of the rich people of America should have money taken from them to give to others.

If you want an actual meritocracy then that's the only way you are going to have it.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#33
I find him obnoxious, pretentious, and two-faced. So yeah, I'd call him a douche, and feel the world would actually be better off without him and his so-called documentaries
#34
Quote by webbtje
Presumably the kids of the people who got rich in the first place just deserve to be rich then? I guess it's OK for Paris Hilton to never do a day's honest work in her life yet have an unlimited supply of money. A sizeable portion of the top 1% did nothing to acquire their wealth.


Do you suggest prohibiting parents from leaving money to their children? That seems unjust, especially for those parents that worked hard to ensure their kids will inherit something.

Don't talk about "deserving" and what not. Life isn't fair. Get over it. And it's not the government's job to level the playing field unless it's a matter of civil rights. Demonizing the rich is a coping mechanism for the less fortunate to justify their own failure at achieving wealth. Don't forget that the rich pay 95% of income taxes in America.
#35
Quote by SeanJovi
Do you suggest prohibiting parents from leaving money to their children? That seems unjust, especially for those parents that worked hard to ensure their kids will inherit something.

Don't talk about "deserving" and what not. Life isn't fair. Get over it. And it's not the government's job to level the playing field unless it's a matter of civil rights. Demonizing the rich is a coping mechanism for the less fortunate to justify their own failure at achieving wealth. Don't forget that the rich pay 95% of income taxes in America.

So your opportunities should be based on the depth of your parents' pockets rather than solely on your actual merit?
Real meritocratic there
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#36
People think he's a douche, not because what he says, just the way he's goes about it and his overall personality, which is pretty obvious to everyone who doesn't worship him.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#37
Although I can't stand Michael Moore and disagree with his opinions about things, I might see this movie just for the hell of it.
Feel free to add me on STEAM: thesystemhasfailed
XBL tag: cbiggs18
#38
Quote by theguitarist
People think he's a douche, not because what he says, just the way he's goes about it and his overall personality, which is pretty obvious to everyone who doesn't worship him.

unforunately, the people who worship him are the most annoying people you'll meet because they think they can make vaild opinions about things they saw Michael Moore comment on.
#39
Quote by Ur all $h1t
So your opportunities should be based on the depth of your parents' pockets rather than solely on your actual merit?
Real meritocratic there

Well, there is actually a quite large inheritance tax (might be called estate tax in some areas, but in PA it's estate tax). Something like $500,000 plus 45% of anything over 1.5 million. Not to mention the person that inherited the money now has to manage said inheritance. I will agree that those with wealth have more opportunities, but perhaps this was the driving force behind the parents amassing said wealth. If you take away the incentive, maybe they never would have achieved their wealth in the first place. I know both my parents came from very poor families, and a large part of my dad's work ethic came from trying to give my brothers and I a better life than he had (we are by no means rich, but I would say upper-middle class). Would you take away incentive?
#40
Quote by pak1351
Well, there is actually a quite large inheritance tax (might be called estate tax in some areas, but in PA it's estate tax). Something like $500,000 plus 45% of anything over 1.5 million. Not to mention the person that inherited the money now has to manage said inheritance. I will agree that those with wealth have more opportunities, but perhaps this was the driving force behind the parents amassing said wealth. If you take away the incentive, maybe they never would have achieved their wealth in the first place. I know both my parents came from very poor families, and a large part of my dad's work ethic came from trying to give my brothers and I a better life than he had (we are by no means rich, but I would say upper-middle class). Would you take away incentive?

I don't feel that whatever incentive effect it has is worth depriving those more able of opportunities and depriving society as a whole of the benefits of a meritocratic system.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
Page 1 of 3