the sad thing about everything is that everytime they mention moore ... they put "oscar-award winning director* ...
Is this sad because he's many other things other than a documentary-maker or because that documentary -regardless of its content- was extremely ugly and poorly edited and, well, a disgrace to the noble art of documentary-making ? Of course keep in mind that Oscars rarely reward good films...
Do you mean "absent domestic production" that the country needs to be self sufficient in all aspects of the economy? Not even the mighty United States is that.
No, a country does not "need to be self sufficient in all aspects of the economy". Unless, of course, they have no trade partners or nothing to trade. In that case then, yes, they would have to be self sufficient in all aspects of the economy.
Hehe...probably not. However, the Cuban population (like all populations) has access to much more than just agricultural products.
They do because of trade with other nations. Though trade with the US would be greatly beneficial to Cuba, specially agricultural products such as wheat, corn, poultry, and beef. because of their close proximity to the US. They would also benefit from the trade of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals.
Let's also not forget that an extremely large oil reserve has been located in the North Cuba Basin and you know how much we love oil.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Is this sad because he's many other things other than a documentary-maker or because that documentary -regardless of its content- was extremely ugly and poorly edited and, well, a disgrace to the noble art of documentary-making ? Of course keep in mind that Oscars rarely reward good films...
Sorry, didn't want to hijack the thread
both! ... but, you're right - oscars don't mean that much ...
now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion ...
They do because of trade with other nations. Though trade with the US would be greatly beneficial to Cuba, specially agricultural products such as wheat, corn, poultry, and beef. because of their close proximity to the US. They would also benefit from the trade of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals.
They do because of trade, but they also do because of their own resources. Cuba has natural resources beyond farmland.
Let's also not forget that an extremely large oil reserve has been located in the North Cuba Basin and you know how much we love oil.
Of course. Cubans love oil too. It would be nice to see them actually use it to develop plastic fibers so their hospital patients didn't have to buy gauze on the black market for their "free surgeries".
They do because of trade, but they also do because of their own resources. Cuba has natural resources beyond farmland.
Of course. Cubans love oil too. It would be nice to see them actually use it to develop plastic fibers so their hospital patients didn't have to buy gauze on the black market for their "free surgeries".
Cuba does have natural resources, besides agriculture, but not in an abudance as to support it's own population.
Of course Cubans love oil, like evrey other country on this planet, but Cuba also need investors to extract that oil. As of right now I think the Citco, the Venezuelan firm, is in the planning stages of developing that field. As much as I don't want Cuba to be run by American corporate interest again, I also don't want to see Hugo Chavez bleeding us dry either.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Cuba does have natural resources, besides agriculture, but not in an abudance as to support it's own population.
Completey? No. But in large part, yes. Those resources are largely wasted or untouched.
Of course Cubans love oil, like evrey other country on this planet, but Cuba also need investors to extract that oil. As of right now I think the Citco, the Venezuelan firm, is in the planning stages of developing that field. As much as I don't want Cuba to be run by American corporate interest again, I also don't want to see Hugo Chavez bleeding us dry either.
Hehe...Cuba's primary natural resource, the brains of their citizens, have been wasted and untouched as well then, if your only hope for oil production are Exxon or Hugo Chavez.
Completey? No. But in large part, yes. Those resources are largely wasted or untouched.
Hehe...Cuba's primary natural resource, the brains of their citizens, have been wasted and untouched as well then, if your only hope for oil production are Exxon or Hugo Chavez.
Not necessarily. Alot of the resource where in use during Cuba's Soveit ties error where exported to the USSR. Since their collapse thos eresources have been under used. The infastructure is out dated and would need updating. Again Cuba has not had many takers simply because the cost would be to great because of the capitol needed to modify the infastructure. As far as the oil the enginering know how may be there but the capitol is not. There is no existing infastructure there, it has to be built from scratch and Cuba does not have the capitol to do this, nor the experience. An outside source like Citco or Exxon is beneficial in both expertice and initial start up capitol.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Not necessarily. Alot of the resource where in use during Cuba'sThe enginering know how may be there but the capitol is not. There is no existing infastructure there, it has to be built from scratch and Cuba does not have the capitol to do this, nor the experience. An outside source like Citco or Exxon is beneficial in both expertice and initial start up capitol.
The capital is not there because Cuba has been at war with capital for 50 years now. And the experience is not there because Cuba has been at war with the mind for 50 years now. That leaves them with only 'outside sources'.
To suggest that a nation cannot build "infrastructure", "capital", or "experience" from scratch is to beg the question of how anyone built any of these things in the first place.
The capital is not there because Cuba has been at war with capital for 50 years now. And the experience is not there because Cuba has been at war with the mind for 50 years now. That leaves them with only 'outside sources'.
To suggest that a nation cannot build "infrastructure", "capital", or "experience" from scratch is to beg the question of how anyone built any of these things in the first place.
It was done when Cuba had good relations with the Us and their was a steady influx of capital and during the Soviet era when again there was a steady influx of capital. The ingenuity is there but the money to put actually put those great minds to work is not.
Well as far is oil is concerned Cuba never had an oil industry so there is no infastructure to speak of. It has to be built from scratch. I'm sure that there are plenty of educated people in Cuba who are more than capable of building the infastructure but they lack the expertice.
You are correct as far as capital is concerned. Unfortunetly they don't have it, regardless f why that it, they would need a lot of it to build the necessary facilities and pipeline to extract the oil. Cuba in it's current form can not come up with that on it's own, because of it war against capitalism for the past 50 years. Cuba need to bring itself into the 21 century but unfortunetly it will not as long as Fidel is in charge. This is where the US can play a significant part but it can't be done with an embargo in place. The people necessary to build a better Cuba are there the problem is that the government is static and is not leaving any room for progress.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
yeah, because he's going to be winning over even more fans.
he's not going to make any more than he normally does. you think just because this is in the news, people that can't stand him are suddenly going to say "holy shit, i gotta see this movie!" the people that are going to pay to see this movie are the same people that paid to see farenheit 9/11, and bowling for columbine, and any other movie he's made that i can't think of off the top of my head at the moment.
What about the middle ground sway factor so to speak? If it's a spectacular commotion, even the people that hate him have to see what it's about. DVD rentals count as well.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
The United States embargo against Cuba (described in Cuba as el bloqueo, Spanish for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba on February 7, 1962. It was codified into law in 1992 with the stated purpose of bringing democracy to the Cuban people, and in fact is entitled The Cuban Democracy Act. The fact the US didn't impose sanctions on the Batista dictatorship and many other dictatorships it supports, lead some scholars to believe that the reason for the embargo was revealed in a declassified 1964 State Department document which declares Fidel Castro to be an intolerable threat because he "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half," since the Monroe Doctrine declared that no challenge to U.S. dominance would be tolerated in the hemisphere.[3] In 1996 Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act which further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor regime in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government are met. In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year. As of 2007, the embargo which prohibits American businesses from trading or conducting business with Cuban interests is still in effect, making it one of the few times in history that United States citizens have been restricted from doing business abroad, and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.[citation needed]
The United Nations General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution condemning the embargo every year since 1991. The most recent condemnation took place on November 8, 2006, by a vote of 183-4, with the U.S., Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voting against.
Religious leaders oppose the embargo for a variety of reasons, including humanitarian and economic hardships the embargo imposes on Cubans. Pope John Paul II called for the end to the embargo during his 1979 pastoral visit to Mexico, and again during his 1998 visit to Cuba. Patriarch Bartholomew I called the embargo a "historic mistake" while visiting the island on January 25, 2004. United States religious leaders have also opposed the embargo. A joint letter in 1998 from the Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ to the U.S. Senate called for the easing of economic restrictions against Cuba. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Minister Louis Farrakhan have also publicly opposed the embargo. On May 15, 2002 former President Jimmy Carter spoke in Havana, calling for an end to the embargo, saying "Our two nations have been trapped in a destructive state of belligerence for 42 years, and it is time for us to change our relationship."
http://pd.cpim.org/2005/1113/11132005_sitaram.htm
The Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cuba, Perez Roque called the embargo 'an act of genocide'. Cuba has also denounced as "theft" the use of frozen Cuban assets to pay for lawsuits filed in the US against the Republic of Cuba'.
The embargo means the imposition of economic sanctions. These do not appear to stand the test of international law. Jurisdiction outside national boundaries has to be based on acts that have “substantial or grave effects within the territory” of the State exercising such jurisdiction. “Trafficking” in nationalised property cannot be said to have a substantial effect on the United States or its economy and, therefore, the extra-territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified by the doctrine of grave effects. Similarly, the embargo’s limitations on the export and import of goods contravenes multilateral trading regimes and cannot be grounded on the GATT exception clause of “essential security interests” since there is neither a state of war nor a military threat.
Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. The American Association for World Health concluded that, in the case of the impact on the Cuban health system, the embargo “caused a significant rise in suffering with patients going without essential drugs and doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment.”
The embargo also continued to have an impact on food aid deliveries, and was greater in the eastern provinces, which continued to suffer the worst food insecurity, particularly given the 2004 drought. The negative impact of the embargo in the educational sector is linked to trade restrictions that prevent the purchase of needed inputs at more competitive prices. The difficulties imposed by the embargo have been recognised by UNCTAD especially the deleterious impact on international trade, investment flow, loans, and interest payments, as well as scientific and technical co-operation.
Just wanted to give you a thumbs up for taking the time and trouble to find this and post it. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree it elevates the thread into one where people are discussing specifics.
Because the political views he holds are a threat to reasonable people everywhere. Hate and anger are no more sustainable principles than are stupidity and greed, the things he rails against.
I don't mean to imply that Michael Moore is any worse than others like him, or even those he decries.
I've never witnessed any hate and anger coming from Michael Moore. I've always gotten the impression that he's a pretty laid-back kind of fella who feels aggrieved at the injustices he sees around him, and because he's found himself in a postion to do something about them, he has done something about them.
I get the impression that people like you would have hated Walt Whitman, Thoreau, or Mark Twain also. To me, these people represent the best of what is good and honest, and fruitful in America.
I've never witnessed any hate and anger coming from Michael Moore.
Then you're not listening. His statements are vitriolic and completely anti. He's a zero who stands for nothing except floating abstracts.
I get the impression that people like you would have hated Walt Whitman, Thoreau, or Mark Twain also. To me, these people represent the best of what is good and honest, and fruitful in America.
Hehe...Whitman, Thoreau and Twain wrote about and were people who actually did things about their problems. Comparing Michael Moore to them is like comparing a film critic to Martin Scorsese.
Then you're not listening. His statements are vitriolic and completely anti. He's a zero who stands for nothing except floating abstracts.
Hehe...Whitman, Thoreau and Twain wrote about and were people who actually did things about their problems. Comparing Michael Moore to them is like comparing a film critic to Martin Scorsese.
So Michael Moore is a zero who does nothing about problems? Hmm, an Oscar winning zero who has just happened to have made many acclaimed documentaries. I wonder what you've done in comparison?
So Michael Moore is a zero who does nothing about problems? Hmm, an Oscar winning zero who has just happened to have made many acclaimed documentaries. I wonder what you've done in comparison?
Hehe...so would you say that Michael Moore's identified problem with this world is a lack of documentaries? What positive change or objective reality has arisen from Michael Moore's works, other than the works themselves?
What I've done in comparison? I live my values. I see little evidence that Michael Moore does that.
Hehe...so would you say that Michael Moore's identified problem with this world is a lack of documentaries? What positive change or objective reality has arisen from Michael Moore's works, other than the works themselves?
What I've done in comparison? I live my values. I see little evidence that Michael Moore does that.
Bowling for Columbine?
Its a really good flick....you may not support his stance..but it is good..and to deny that is sicking your head in the sand. I feel folks that get sooooo riled up about Moore are simply being shown reality...and can't deal deal with it....goes against past programing.
I've never witnessed any hate and anger coming from Michael Moore. I've always gotten the impression that he's a pretty laid-back kind of fella who feels aggrieved at the injustices he sees around him, and because he's found himself in a postion to do something about them, he has done something about them.
I get the impression that people like you would have hated Walt Whitman, Thoreau, or Mark Twain also. To me, these people represent the best of what is good and honest, and fruitful in America.
well said, byrnzie. i agree, i haven't seen too much in the way of hate and anger coming from him.
whether people want to admit it or not he has accomplished quite a bit for many causes since his humble beginnings as a journalist and editor.
What about the middle ground sway factor so to speak? If it's a spectacular commotion, even the people that hate him have to see what it's about. DVD rentals count as well.
of course there's always the fence sitters, but in all honesty it's not going to change things that much. without all this free PR, he'd get all his regular followers (and i don't mean that in a negative way) to see the movie. with all the free PR, personally, i see a very miniscule amount of people deciding to give it a shot. so small of a percentage, it really doesn't make hardly any difference.
i'll admit, i don't like michael moore. he's lost something over the years. i used to catch his show when i could (the name escapes me right now, was it the awful truth?), but over time he just seems more.......i don't know, egomaniacal (for lack of a better word) to me. i've given him a shot in the last couple years, a friend of mine let me borrow a couple of his books, but my opinion of him hasn't changed. i don't like to bad mouth the guy. i used to, but when i think back on it now, it just seems really childish to do that. he definitely does have an ego, as do all the other fringe fanatics (again, for lack of a better description) on both sides of the aisle. but as far as winning over new fans, i just don't think it's going to be a huge shift of people swinging over to watch one of his 2 hour movies.
"PC Load Letter?! What the fuck does that mean?"
~Michael Bolton
Its a really good flick....you may not support his stance..but it is good..and to deny that is sicking your head in the sand. I feel folks that get sooooo riled up about Moore are simply being shown reality...and can't deal deal with it....goes against past programing.
I've seen all of Moore's films. They are terrible documentaries from philosophical, evidentiary, and cinematic perspectives. They are amusing documentaries from entertainment and creative perspective.
If you want to see real documentary film making, check out the Up Series by Michael Apted. That's a premise that I don't agree with but at the same time a film I respect greatly.
What has he accomplished? Seriously. Are auto workers in Flint better off? Are guns banned? Did Bush not get reelected?
Are you serious?? So the games not worth playing unless you win? That explains a lot. So spreading awareness doesn't count for shit? I guess Ron Paul should shut the fuck up then.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
of course there's always the fence sitters, but in all honesty it's not going to change things that much. without all this free PR, he'd get all his regular followers (and i don't mean that in a negative way) to see the movie. with all the free PR, personally, i see a very miniscule amount of people deciding to give it a shot. so small of a percentage, it really doesn't make hardly any difference.
i'll admit, i don't like michael moore. he's lost something over the years. i used to catch his show when i could (the name escapes me right now, was it the awful truth?), but over time he just seems more.......i don't know, egomaniacal (for lack of a better word) to me. i've given him a shot in the last couple years, a friend of mine let me borrow a couple of his books, but my opinion of him hasn't changed. i don't like to bad mouth the guy. i used to, but when i think back on it now, it just seems really childish to do that. he definitely does have an ego, as do all the other fringe fanatics (again, for lack of a better description) on both sides of the aisle. but as far as winning over new fans, i just don't think it's going to be a huge shift of people swinging over to watch one of his 2 hour movies.
So you're saying advertising does not work...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Hehe...so would you say that Michael Moore's identified problem with this world is a lack of documentaries? What positive change or objective reality has arisen from Michael Moore's works, other than the works themselves?
What I've done in comparison? I live my values. I see little evidence that Michael Moore does that.
I'm not so arrogant as to presume that Michael Moore has any problem with this world. It is obvious that he has a problem with a number of issues about which he feels strongly. He's been making documentaries highlighting the cause of the little man against big business, and given a voice to people who wouldn't otherwise have had one.
He's brought a lot of issues to light that needed bringing to light. It's then up to people to either act or not act.
I suppose you'd rather his films had never been made?
I find it interesting that people living in a country whose media system is a complete corporate whitewash, can feel so slighted, and offended when just one person has the balls to stand up and rock the boat. Seriously farfromglorified, don't panic just yet mate. I'm pretty certain that your comfortable little life is safe from these radical elements for the time being.
it's a stupid and unfair embargo. Michael Moore has the upper hand on this one. no one can say Cuba or any other country is perfect. but i dont think any reasonable person can argue that its anything but a fucking shame that people suffering from the effects of work they did in the aftermath of 9/11 are not getting the health care they need.
it's a stupid and unfair embargo. Michael Moore has the upper hand on this one. no one can say Cuba or any other country is perfect. but i dont think any reasonable person can argue that its anything but a fucking shame that people suffering from the effects of work they did in the aftermath of 9/11 are not getting the health care they need.
Are you serious?? So the games not worth playing unless you win? That explains a lot. So spreading awareness doesn't count for shit? I guess Ron Paul should shut the fuck up then.
I'm not saying "the game is not worth playing". I'm simply saying that you can't claim accomplishment before you actually accomplish something. If I were running around this board claiming that Ron Paul had actually accomplished something substantive for the Libertarian movement, I hope someone would ask me the same questions.
Comments
Is this sad because he's many other things other than a documentary-maker or because that documentary -regardless of its content- was extremely ugly and poorly edited and, well, a disgrace to the noble art of documentary-making
Sorry, didn't want to hijack the thread
No, a country does not "need to be self sufficient in all aspects of the economy". Unless, of course, they have no trade partners or nothing to trade. In that case then, yes, they would have to be self sufficient in all aspects of the economy.
That is true, but I'm pretty sure the Cuban population can't live off of mangos, papaya, guayava, mamay, sugar, coffee, and tobacco alone.
Hehe...probably not. However, the Cuban population (like all populations) has access to much more than just agricultural products.
They do because of trade with other nations. Though trade with the US would be greatly beneficial to Cuba, specially agricultural products such as wheat, corn, poultry, and beef. because of their close proximity to the US. They would also benefit from the trade of medical supplies and pharmaceuticals.
Let's also not forget that an extremely large oil reserve has been located in the North Cuba Basin and you know how much we love oil.
both! ... but, you're right - oscars don't mean that much ...
now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion ...
They do because of trade, but they also do because of their own resources. Cuba has natural resources beyond farmland.
Of course. Cubans love oil too. It would be nice to see them actually use it to develop plastic fibers so their hospital patients didn't have to buy gauze on the black market for their "free surgeries".
Cuba does have natural resources, besides agriculture, but not in an abudance as to support it's own population.
Of course Cubans love oil, like evrey other country on this planet, but Cuba also need investors to extract that oil. As of right now I think the Citco, the Venezuelan firm, is in the planning stages of developing that field. As much as I don't want Cuba to be run by American corporate interest again, I also don't want to see Hugo Chavez bleeding us dry either.
Completey? No. But in large part, yes. Those resources are largely wasted or untouched.
Hehe...Cuba's primary natural resource, the brains of their citizens, have been wasted and untouched as well then, if your only hope for oil production are Exxon or Hugo Chavez.
Not necessarily. Alot of the resource where in use during Cuba's Soveit ties error where exported to the USSR. Since their collapse thos eresources have been under used. The infastructure is out dated and would need updating. Again Cuba has not had many takers simply because the cost would be to great because of the capitol needed to modify the infastructure. As far as the oil the enginering know how may be there but the capitol is not. There is no existing infastructure there, it has to be built from scratch and Cuba does not have the capitol to do this, nor the experience. An outside source like Citco or Exxon is beneficial in both expertice and initial start up capitol.
The capital is not there because Cuba has been at war with capital for 50 years now. And the experience is not there because Cuba has been at war with the mind for 50 years now. That leaves them with only 'outside sources'.
To suggest that a nation cannot build "infrastructure", "capital", or "experience" from scratch is to beg the question of how anyone built any of these things in the first place.
It was done when Cuba had good relations with the Us and their was a steady influx of capital and during the Soviet era when again there was a steady influx of capital. The ingenuity is there but the money to put actually put those great minds to work is not.
Well as far is oil is concerned Cuba never had an oil industry so there is no infastructure to speak of. It has to be built from scratch. I'm sure that there are plenty of educated people in Cuba who are more than capable of building the infastructure but they lack the expertice.
You are correct as far as capital is concerned. Unfortunetly they don't have it, regardless f why that it, they would need a lot of it to build the necessary facilities and pipeline to extract the oil. Cuba in it's current form can not come up with that on it's own, because of it war against capitalism for the past 50 years. Cuba need to bring itself into the 21 century but unfortunetly it will not as long as Fidel is in charge. This is where the US can play a significant part but it can't be done with an embargo in place. The people necessary to build a better Cuba are there the problem is that the government is static and is not leaving any room for progress.
What about the middle ground sway factor so to speak? If it's a spectacular commotion, even the people that hate him have to see what it's about. DVD rentals count as well.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Just wanted to give you a thumbs up for taking the time and trouble to find this and post it. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree it elevates the thread into one where people are discussing specifics.
I've never witnessed any hate and anger coming from Michael Moore. I've always gotten the impression that he's a pretty laid-back kind of fella who feels aggrieved at the injustices he sees around him, and because he's found himself in a postion to do something about them, he has done something about them.
I get the impression that people like you would have hated Walt Whitman, Thoreau, or Mark Twain also. To me, these people represent the best of what is good and honest, and fruitful in America.
Then you're not listening. His statements are vitriolic and completely anti. He's a zero who stands for nothing except floating abstracts.
Hehe...Whitman, Thoreau and Twain wrote about and were people who actually did things about their problems. Comparing Michael Moore to them is like comparing a film critic to Martin Scorsese.
So Michael Moore is a zero who does nothing about problems? Hmm, an Oscar winning zero who has just happened to have made many acclaimed documentaries. I wonder what you've done in comparison?
Hehe...so would you say that Michael Moore's identified problem with this world is a lack of documentaries? What positive change or objective reality has arisen from Michael Moore's works, other than the works themselves?
What I've done in comparison? I live my values. I see little evidence that Michael Moore does that.
Its a really good flick....you may not support his stance..but it is good..and to deny that is sicking your head in the sand. I feel folks that get sooooo riled up about Moore are simply being shown reality...and can't deal deal with it....goes against past programing.
well said, byrnzie. i agree, i haven't seen too much in the way of hate and anger coming from him.
whether people want to admit it or not he has accomplished quite a bit for many causes since his humble beginnings as a journalist and editor.
of course there's always the fence sitters, but in all honesty it's not going to change things that much. without all this free PR, he'd get all his regular followers (and i don't mean that in a negative way) to see the movie. with all the free PR, personally, i see a very miniscule amount of people deciding to give it a shot. so small of a percentage, it really doesn't make hardly any difference.
i'll admit, i don't like michael moore. he's lost something over the years. i used to catch his show when i could (the name escapes me right now, was it the awful truth?), but over time he just seems more.......i don't know, egomaniacal (for lack of a better word) to me. i've given him a shot in the last couple years, a friend of mine let me borrow a couple of his books, but my opinion of him hasn't changed. i don't like to bad mouth the guy. i used to, but when i think back on it now, it just seems really childish to do that. he definitely does have an ego, as do all the other fringe fanatics (again, for lack of a better description) on both sides of the aisle. but as far as winning over new fans, i just don't think it's going to be a huge shift of people swinging over to watch one of his 2 hour movies.
~Michael Bolton
I've seen all of Moore's films. They are terrible documentaries from philosophical, evidentiary, and cinematic perspectives. They are amusing documentaries from entertainment and creative perspective.
If you want to see real documentary film making, check out the Up Series by Michael Apted. That's a premise that I don't agree with but at the same time a film I respect greatly.
What has he accomplished? Seriously. Are auto workers in Flint better off? Are guns banned? Did Bush not get reelected?
Are you serious?? So the games not worth playing unless you win? That explains a lot. So spreading awareness doesn't count for shit? I guess Ron Paul should shut the fuck up then.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you're saying advertising does not work...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Philosophical - meaning unlike yours
Evidentiary - backup those claims
cinematic - all evidence points to otherwise.
your mind is clouded by hate, which I guess MM's is too. lol
I'm not so arrogant as to presume that Michael Moore has any problem with this world. It is obvious that he has a problem with a number of issues about which he feels strongly. He's been making documentaries highlighting the cause of the little man against big business, and given a voice to people who wouldn't otherwise have had one.
He's brought a lot of issues to light that needed bringing to light. It's then up to people to either act or not act.
I suppose you'd rather his films had never been made?
I find it interesting that people living in a country whose media system is a complete corporate whitewash, can feel so slighted, and offended when just one person has the balls to stand up and rock the boat. Seriously farfromglorified, don't panic just yet mate. I'm pretty certain that your comfortable little life is safe from these radical elements for the time being.
very good point, KO.
I'm not saying "the game is not worth playing". I'm simply saying that you can't claim accomplishment before you actually accomplish something. If I were running around this board claiming that Ron Paul had actually accomplished something substantive for the Libertarian movement, I hope someone would ask me the same questions.