MOOREWATCH
Moore News from the Road
Author: Lee
Michael Moore has posted a new Mike's Message. Let's take a look.
I'm back home after visiting 39 cities in 23 days on my book tour and I want to thank everyone who came by to see me. It was our biggest tour yet, with five to ten thousand people a night filling basketball arenas and county fair grounds across the country. In many cities there were thousands more of you who couldn't get in (4,000 people pounding on the door in Baltimore was quite a sight!). Next time we do the football stadiums!

Wow, 39 cities in 23 days? That sounds exhausting. Good thing you have the capitalist resources of one of the world's biggest corporations to keep you surrounded with luxury and make that trip all the more palatable.
The book went immediately to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. And it is still at #1 after three weeks! It is also #1 in the L.A. Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle and most other lists in the country.

It took one year for "Stupid White Men" to sell a million copies in the United States. It took "Dude, Where's My Country?" just three weeks. That should give you some indication of the level of concern/frustration/anger in the country right now over what the Bush administration is up to.

Yeah, the fact that you've got a huge media conglomerate financing a global media blitz has nothing to do with the sales of the book, does it? You can keep trying to portray your success as part of some grassroots populist movement, Mikey, and the suckers in the cheap seats might buy that crap, but we both know better, don't we?

All over America, this is what I saw on the tour: Tens of thousands of average Americans who don't like their commander-in-chief lying to them in order to start a war. Not a night went by where I didn't have parents or siblings of soldiers in Iraq coming up to me, many of them in tears, pleading with me to "do something" to help bring their loved ones home from this war without end. It was heart-wrenching, and I never knew quite what to say except to tell them that they were not alone and that all of us are doing our best to get rid of George W.

It's a shame you didn't have a camera with you, Mike. You could have put your arm around them like you did that teacher in Michigan, then whored them out by putting the footage in your next movie.
But that's a year away. How many more of our children will be sent to their deaths for another no-bid multi-billion dollar Halliburton contract in the next 12 months?

You need to keep up with your news, Mikey. Things aren't so rosy for Halliburton these days, which is due entirely to the lies and distortions of you and your leftist ilk.
What was amazing to me on this tour was that some of the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds were in hard-core Republican areas like Stockton, California and Wooster, Ohio. I get it when 13,000 show up and try to squeeze in as they did at Berkeley's Greek Theatre. But when five or six thousand show up in places like Pullman, Washington (on the Idaho border) or Ypsilanti, Michigan, I'm convinced that there has been a shift, a real shift, in public opinion, and the only question now is what are WE going to do?

I'll tell you what YOU are going to do, Mike. You're going to make grandiose predictions of a huge electoral defeat for Bush and the GOP. You'll be so sure of your success that you'll come up with a catchy slogan like "Payback Tuesday." Then, when the voting public firmly rejects your candidates, when Bush is reelected, and the GOP retains most, if not all, of its power in Congress, you'll run like the gutless coward you are. You'll remove the evidence from your website and, like Stalin, hide any proof that you ever made the claim. How do I know this, Mikey? Because you've done it before.
This week the Senate gave Bush the $87 billion he was looking for to continue the debacle in Iraq. But the Republicans knew that voting for this might come back to haunt them, so they asked the Democrats if they could just have a "voice vote" so no one's name would have to be recorded as having voted in favor of sending the nation into permanent debt (a debt that may not be paid off in our lifetime).

$87 billion is going to put us in permanent debt? That's a pretty huge claim, Mikey, one which you know damn well isn't true. Here's what the fiscal situation was like in the 80s, accorfing to the American Prospect.

Under Ronald Reagan, the federal budget deficit grew from 2.7 percent of the gross domestic product in fiscal 1980 to 5 percent of the GDP in 1986. (The deficit actually peaked in 1983, at 6 percent of the GDP, before some of the Reagan policies began to be reversed.)

Right now the deficit is somewhere around 5% of GDP. So, if our economy could recover from that level of deficit under Reagan, why in the name of God couldn't it recover again? Could it be that your success depends largely on FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt? And that you are counting on the fact that most people don't have any idea what GDP stands for, let alone what percentage of it the deficit represents?
The Democrats, afraid of appearing “unpatriotic," agreed to the deal. This was actually a compliment to all of YOU, as both parties know that the people are simmering and the only way they can get away with continuing this war is to do so in hiding (like the way they hide the body bags from public view as they return home).

The day we once again start showing the footage of the planes flying into the WTC is the day I agree to the broadcasting of body bags. The media determined that showing the WTC footage was tasteless and inflammatory, and this is exactly why you want to show body bags.
What they don't get is that we are not going to let them off the hook so easily, and we will force them to take a stand sooner or later. How many more deaths will it take?

You want to see deaths, Mikey? See how many people get killed if we pull out of Iraq. Take a look at Cambodia for some historical precedent. The left-wing anti-war activists got their way and the US pulled out of Vietnam, after which a third to a fifth of the population of Cambodia was summarily executed by the peace-loving leftist Khmer Rouge. But hey, I guess those people don't count, right Mikey? Better that they should live under the boot heel of oppression so that an American corporation might not make a dollar off a defense contract, right?
Not many, if what I saw this past month on the road across America is any indication. I have many stories to tell you about the people I encountered, the things I saw and heard, and the strange hope and optimism I now have that we can turn things around. I'm sorry I couldn't keep the diary I wanted to on my web site, but we were traveling to two cities on most days and I was lucky to find time for a few hours sleep. Fortunately, our webmaster has been able to put up lots of good stuff each day and I hope you have a chance to visit it from time to time.

You can hope all you want about turning things around, Mikey, but it's not looking good. Every election since 2000 the GOP has made gains, so if that trend continues you're pretty much screwed. No big deal, though, you'll just change history to fit the present.
I'm off to Europe tomorrow for the book's release in the UK, Ireland, Germany and Austria. If you live there, come on by to one of the events. In the middle of all this I've been shooting my next movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," and I'm happy to report that it's looking good and is on schedule for release late next summer.

Just in time for the election, when new campaign finance laws dictate that the GOP can't release any advertising to refute it. No wonder you support those rules.
Thanks for granting me the privilege of, once again, having the #1 book in the country. I am grateful for the support and I am buoyed by how large -- and how deep into mainstream America -- our little "community" has grown.

Millions of dollars of global corporate publicity tends to do that for little communities.
Don't despair -- we will stop this war, we will create a better life for those who struggle every day . . .

Except for the Iraqis, who will be slaughtered by the millions.
. . . and we will reclaim our White House. Not a bad to-do list for the next 12 months!

Time will tell just how much of it you'll actually get done.


Posted by: Lee on Nov 06, 03 | 10:57 pm (profile) | PermalinkOriginally posted at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast
COMMENTS
Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 07, 03 | 1:46 am
Good lord... I thought he couldn't GET any more conceited or delusional...
If blowhards spouting bullshit were able to make the kind of broad, sweeping changes this idiot seems to think are so assured, the Republicans would have held every single public office since Rush Limbaugh took to the airwaves.

Posted by: GoGoPowerrangers on Nov 07, 03 | 2:23 am
This was a long tirade… some of which I agree with and some that I do not. However, think one statement in particular needs to be commented.

Comparing Vietnam with Iraq is problematic for many reasons, but even more so is connecting the US withdrawal from Vietnam with the terror of the Khmer Rouge. Even the article you link to blames the US for destabilising Cambodia and thus allowing Pol Pot to rise to power.

In the end it was actually communist Vietnam who invaded Cambodia in 1979 and stopped the mindless killings. Were it not for Vietnamese intervention the final bodycount would probably have been much higher than 2 million. However, even after the truth about the ‘killing fields’ were known to the world the US administration, together with China, continued backing the Khmer Rouge for more than a decade, simply because they both opposed the Vietnamese brand of moderate communism. Would US troops have stopped the genocide in Cambodia if they had still been in Vietnam by 1979? I doubt it.

The plight of the Cambodian people under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge has often been used by those opposed to US intervention abroad as an example of how these interventions repeatedly fail.

Here is a link to a very good article analyzing the coming to power of the Khmer Rouge

By the way… here is the link to an excellent article on the similarities between the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban

Posted by: barry on Nov 07, 03 | 5:43 am
Lee wrote;

-"The day we once again start showing the footage of the planes flying into the WTC is the day I agree to the broadcasting of bodybags. The media determined that showing the WTC was tasteless and inflammatory, and this is exactly why you want to show bodybags"

Just for the record: (taken from Gary Younge's Guardian article 7.11)

The broadcast ban on returning corpses had been put into action during the time of the Panama invasion, when the national tv networks had "outrageously and unfairly" showed President Bush sr. joking around at a press conference at the same time bodies were being returned to Dover.
The White House subsequently put a ban on traditional ceremonies and media coverage...
For the next 12 years this ban went largely unnoticed. Until March 2003 when the Pentagon issued a directive ordering the ban to be upheld.
Bush refrains from public displays of empathy with the victims, considering Clinton's way too tasteless; using the weeping relatives for political gain.
However, Bush's reluctance to publicly identify with the dead (CIC,after all) is beginning to look like a desire to disassociate himself from the failure of the mission.
When news of the downed Chinook came through on Sunday he stayed in his ranch and let defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld meet the press.

full article here

Posted by: Walter on Nov 07, 03 | 5:56 am
Just a few thoughts:

1) It is impossible and useless to compare events such as the Khmer Rouge era to the current situation in Iraq. It is a different time, with different stakes, and different maniacs...Even though I do not think that pulling out of Iraq right now is a good idea, I doubt very much that it would cause killing fields there. The worst case scenario for the US would be the instauration of an extremist Shiite religious state that controls all the oil. Indeed, that is not much of a glorious outlook for the people of Iraq...

2) Even if a democratic and anti-war president were to be elected next year, I doubt if pulling out of Iraq would be a viable solution. As you say, Lee, time will tell...

3) Speaking of which, Lee, you are always anxiously waiting for updates on Michaelmoore.com, in order to "tear them apart" as you say. Could you please restore some credibility to this site by providing your feedback on
Michael Moore's defense to criticïsm of his film Bowling for Columbine? Please abstain from just linking to your own site in your "references", but only use credible media reports.

Thanks,

Walter

Posted by: hammerpony on Nov 07, 03 | 7:45 am
What was amazing to me on this tour was that some of the biggest and most enthusiastic crowds were in hard-core Republican areas like Stockton, California and Wooster, Ohio

Hard-core Republican areas? This guy really is out of touch. The College of Wooster is a liberal orgy. Students there think Mao was too moderate.

But when five or six thousand show up in places like Pullman, Washington (on the Idaho border) or Ypsilanti, Michigan, I'm convinced that there has been a shift, a real shift, in public opinion, and the only question now is what are WE going to do?

Pullman, WA is the home of Washington State University and Ypsilanti, MI is near the University of Michigan. Nothing like preaching to the choir.

Another thing: I wish His Rotundness would stop "being the voice" for people in the military. His adipose-infested ass doesn't speak for me or many of my peers.


Posted by: Lee on Nov 07, 03 | 10:27 am
Comparing Vietnam with Iraq is problematic for many reasons, but even more so is connecting the US withdrawal from Vietnam with the terror of the Khmer Rouge. Even the article you link to blames the US for destabilising Cambodia and thus allowing Pol Pot to rise to power.

I wasn't directly comparing the two because, you're right, they aren't a fair comparison. What is fair, however, is to compare the consequences of pulling our forces out. If we were to leave, as Mikey wants us to, the power vacuum would be filled by a brand new despot, if not a resurgent Saddam himself, and the mass executions would resume in full force. Iraq would be exactly like a new Cambodia, and that blood would directly be on our hands. You can make good arguments about the causes and consequences of Vietnam, but we can't do anything about the past. We can, however, learn from the past, and the lesson here should be that we have committed ourselves to a course of action and we need to see it through, no matter what the cost.

Posted by: hithere on Nov 07, 03 | 12:33 pm
leelee, your just a strange sad little man. please, get a purpose in life other than tearing down someone who's "worthless" by your own words.
this rant you wrote was just plain pathetic whining...

Posted by: Craig on Nov 07, 03 | 1:12 pm
Walter,
We have all seen that page on Moore's website. Big deal.
There is nothing new there. He doesn't even bother to address the specific critisisms. All that he does is impugn the motives and backgrounds of some of his critics.
Moore just tries to insult the critics who were interviewed on CNN and MSNBC, while neglecting to even mention any of their critisisms.
Being called a "wacko" by Moore, merely means that you are not one of his sheeplike ill-informed braindead followers who believe that Iraq invaded Kuwait with U.S. weapons, the CIA trained Osama Bin Ladin to hijack airplanes, the Columbine Killers were motivated by bombings in Kosovo, the people killed in the airliners on 9/11 were all scaredy-cat white people, the NRA and KKK are related organizations, Willie Horton is an innocent victim of white fear/racism, Dick Clark is responsible for murder, and Americans are all violence-prone racist kill-for-kicks butchers.

Hey, North country bank really does give out free guns to bank robbers and Lockheed Martin really does build nuclear weapons in Littleton, Colorado....Just take his word for it. If you don't, then you are a wacko.
Who are you going to believe; Michael Moore or your lying eyes?

Posted by: Craig on Nov 07, 03 | 1:20 pm
HitHere's can be considered exhibit A,
for the purpose of demonstrating a prime example of a braindead Ill-informed sheeplike follower of Michael Moore.

He's even come up with a new one:
See?
If you don't believe all the Busllshit that Michael Moore says and writes, then you are just a "strange sad little man".
Everything that Moore says is true...didn't you know that?
Why, he even told us so.
Persuasive, isn't it?
Agree with us or we will call you names.
Anyone who questions Moore's infinite wisdom is just a wacko.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 07, 03 | 1:25 pm
Nevermind that of the first 10 Presidents of the NRA, 8 of them were Union Army veterans of the Civil War; which included two former Commanding Generals of the Army of the Potomac (Ambrose Burnside, and Ulysis S. Grant)
The NRA and KKK were both formed in the same year so they're exactly the same...just take Moore's word for it. He's all-knowing and would never lie.
If you dispute anything that Moore says, then you are just a wacko Gun-Goon.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 07, 03 | 1:49 pm
Nope, don't let yourself be confused by those darned old facts.
Just believe in Moore.
If you don't...according to HitHere; "your (sic) just a strange sad little man."
Remember, you've been warned.

Posted by: QueenBead on Nov 07, 03 | 2:33 pm
I respect and understand the opinion of people who are and were against the war in Iraq, but it irritates me to no end when you get the subset that wants immediate withdrawl of the troops. Do they have any idea how horrible that would be? Not only would thousands of innocent Iraqis die (in addition to the many that already have), but it would create a severe and long lasting "anti-american" mentality in the region and allow for some new unknown (or quite possibly already known) power to come into control. I understand that we're not well liked over there, I'm not naieve in that respect, but what currently exists would be nothing compared to what would happen if we up and left. Immediate and sudden withdrawl is just not a sensible option.

~S

Posted by: Toastrider on Nov 07, 03 | 9:25 pm
Concurrence with QueenBead. I'd rather not spend the next -ten years- in Iraq, but hey -- we broke it, we should fix it. And an actual democracy there would be a nice break in the normal monotony of Islamic theocracies and inbred empires.

(And when I say 'we broke it', I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek. I know a lot of Iraq's problems stem more from Hussein's megalomania than from our military assault. But still, I'm all in favor of us putting the country back together again.)

--Toasty

Posted by: QueenBead on Nov 07, 03 | 11:21 pm
Hussein a megalomaniac? nevah!

*insert tounge in cheek*

;-)

~S

Posted by: communismsucks on Nov 08, 03 | 1:09 am
In the end it was actually communist Vietnam who invaded Cambodia in 1979 and stopped the mindless killings. Were it not for Vietnamese intervention the final bodycount would probably have been much higher than 2 million.

*The main reason the vietnamese invaded Cambodia was because pol pot was stupid enough to attack vietnam in the first place. The US did make some gaffes during the Cold War, but it was the best we could do at the time. I do get depressed thinking about that time and I am glad that at least it was eventually stopped; even if by the vietnamese.

*By the way, that article you linked with was very well written and insightful.


Posted by: Cavorticus on Nov 08, 03 | 7:32 am
For your consideration:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Posted by: vilhelm on Nov 08, 03 | 1:45 pm
Just a thought: instead of self referencing (backing up arguments here with ones on http://www.right-thinking.com/ which is another site which seems to be upkept by Lee) arguments may have more substance if they refer to true news sites.

Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 08, 03 | 2:54 pm
Those weren't intended to back up arguments. He was just pointing out that they were things he's blogged on before.

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 08, 03 | 10:19 pm
posted by Lee:
What is fair, however, is to compare the consequences of pulling our forces out. If we were to leave, as Mikey wants us to, the power vacuum would be filled by a brand new despot, if not a resurgent Saddam himself, and the mass executions would resume in full force

Did he ever say this or are you just generalizing? I was against the war, but now that we're there leaving would be foolish. Just wondering if moore ever said we should pack up and leave right away or if you're just making assumptions

Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 08, 03 | 11:44 pm
wondering if moore ever said we should pack up and leave right away or if you're just making assumptions

The quotes in blue in Lee's post were by Moore himself. Look at what he was saying. "To continue the debacle in Iraq", and saying that a voice vote was asked for because no one would want to be held responsible for our continued stay there. He also talks about "sending children to their deaths over the next twelve months" (funny, thought you had to be eighteen to join our VOLUNTEER military), so it kind of becomes obvious he wants us to be out -now-, even if he never says the exact words, "I want us to leave Iraq, right now."

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 09, 03 | 2:58 pm
saying it's not going well is not the same as saying may-as-well-leave. Moore is usually very direct, overtly so. If he supported leaving -right away-, he would directly say so.

Posted by: Fnork on Nov 09, 03 | 3:34 pm
Yeah, the fact that you've got a huge media conglomerate financing a global media blitz has nothing to do with the sales of the book, does it? You can keep trying to portray your success as part of some grassroots populist movement, Mikey, and the suckers in the cheap seats might buy that crap, but we both know better, don't we?
Lee, I would just like to ask you what you think makes people buy his books? A fan of Bush wouldn't buy it, right? It is more likely that a Bush-hater would. I believe that people who buy this book have certain opinions about Bush, since a lot of it is about him. Let's say that only Mike himself would hate Bush, noone else. Would his book sell as much?
My point is that yes, people can think for themselves. Most people who buy this book probably hate Bush. I wonder what you think.

Posted by: Fnork on Nov 09, 03 | 3:37 pm
Oh, another thing I was thinking about. Could someone just sum up some of the lies told in BFC? Just a little summary..

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 09, 03 | 4:26 pm
Fnork-

Hardy Law - Bowling for Truth

Posted by: BrockStar on Nov 09, 03 | 5:38 pm
If you wanna see the right at it's best (and by best I mean most hilarious) check out www.bowlingfortruth.com

My favorite:
"In his tireless effort to demonize gun-owners, Moore, shows us film of a blind man, Carey McWilliams, shooting at targets. We are told that despite his being blind, he passed his shooting test. This story is presented as if it is self-evidently insane and further proof of our violent "gun culture."

Once again, however, Moore does not tell the whole story. True, the state of North Dakota did issue a permit to McWilliams to carry a concealed weapon. But, he is not totally blind. He is able to distinguish day from night, light from dark."


HE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LIGHT AND DARK? HOLY SHIT SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN AN OOZIE!

Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 09, 03 | 9:14 pm
You, like your overweight leader, BrockStar, are just regurgitating your own rhetoric and presenting it as something new. You already made this idiotic and prejudicial argument.
And I already told you, it's spelled uzi, you dumb fuck.

Posted by: Lee on Nov 10, 03 | 12:45 am
Lee, I would just like to ask you what you think makes people buy his books? A fan of Bush wouldn't buy it, right? It is more likely that a Bush-hater would. I believe that people who buy this book have certain opinions about Bush, since a lot of it is about him. Let's say that only Mike himself would hate Bush, noone else. Would his book sell as much?
My point is that yes, people can think for themselves. Most people who buy this book probably hate Bush. I wonder what you think.


You're missing the point. Thre are a large number of people out there who identify with the political left, and they buy books. There are similar people on the political right. Moore likes to portray himself as just an everage guy, a nobody, who is inexplicably having this astounding success. The fact is that he is the very embodiment of capitalism: he produces a product that people are interested in paying money for, so he signs a contract with a global corporation to publish and promote his books.

Look, I'm a total nobody. Moore was once, too. He made Roger & Me and made a name for himself. As he started making his name he started dealing more and more with the very evil corporations that he vilifies. Fair enough, I don't have any problem with that at all. But for him to try and portray this as some sort of populist, word-of-mouth deal that's selling these books, that's just crazy. If you were selling a book of photos of dog turds shaped like celebrities, and you had the resources of Time/Warner Books at your disposal to set up and finance promotional tours and events, you'd probably sell a hell of a lot more than you would trying to sell the identical product out of the back of a pickup[ truck.

He ceased being the every-man superhero years ago. Now he's a guy who gets paid millions and millions of dollars to write books and have them published through a global corporate publishing entity. He is the polar opposite of the message he tries to portray. That's all I was pointing out.

Posted by: Lee on Nov 10, 03 | 12:46 am
Posted by: Cavorticus on Nov 08, 03 | 7:32 am
For your consideration:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/


I'll have a detailed response top this up here on the site this weelk.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 10, 03 | 6:57 am
What the fuck is an Oozie?
Is it something that Brock plays with in his room?

The blind guy is a perfect example of what we get when our legal system becomes obsessed with the words contained within the laws rather than the actual meanings of the laws. I'm sure that if the state had denied this blind man a concealed-carry permit, it would have resulted in a lawsuit under the ADA, for descriminating against the disabled. This, despite the fact that it contradicts common sense. I'm sure that some liberal judge and an ACLU attorney would have gladly awarded that blind guy millions of dollars for his "rights" being violated, once the licensing entity denied his permit.
This is a legalized insanity of the same order as prison inmates filing lawsuits because they recieved cold food, or a burglar sueing because he was injured while breaking-into a home.
Besides,
Why is Moore concentrating on this minutiae?
How many crimes are committed by blind-armed criminals, anyway?
If Moore's mockumentary is really supposd to examine the causitive factors behind violent crime, why is he wasting filmtime talking to someone who has not committed even ONE violent crime?
Did Moore happen to mention what percentage of crime is committed by disabled people who have concealed-carry permits?

Posted by: sl0re on Nov 10, 03 | 3:29 pm
> I'm off to Europe tomorrow for the book's release in the UK, Ireland, Germany
> and Austria.

Yup, Germany hu? Reminds me of this open letter he wrote...

From Michael Moore’s latest screed against Americans in Germany’s Die Zeit: (Via Jeff Jarvis.)

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/die_zeit_prsent.html#more

Should such an ignorant people lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? 82 percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.) ...

---
end quote

Of course, we don't need passports to move around North America. It can cost well over $4k to visit Europe with a family; so again, I wonder why we don't all have passports... The US only has one major language (unlike Europe where you must learn a few).... Yep... Mikey Mikey.... You corporate tool, clue elitist ($4k to vacation is a joke to you), lying spin master, lets add pandering ba*tard for this little letter to your German fans (I’d like to see you to read it to your American followers)...

Check out the whole letter via the link, the English translation is at the bottom...


Posted by: Craig on Nov 10, 03 | 4:10 pm
Slore,
Thank you for that link.
I have not seen that letter reported anywhere else.
It is very revealing of Moore's condescending hatred towards the American people.
Notice how Moore contradicts himself, without even skipping a beat.
First, he claims that he is in the middle of a new enlightened majority who oppose Bush; but in the same letter, Moore portrays America as a country filled with untraveled/unlettered/uneducated boobs. It is certain that none of Moore's braindead followers would even notice this obvious paradox.
I'm really getting sick of hearing these leftwing cranks, like Moore, go overseas and badmouth the U.S. and then take such umbrage when someone "questions their patriotism", once they return.
Oh, in the letter, Moore forgot to mention the inordinate number of Americans who are obese...I wonder why he ommitted that interesting bit of trivia?

Posted by: Craig on Nov 10, 03 | 4:14 pm
Plus, it wouldn't be the first time that a foreign-born populist demagogue told the Germans they were more fit to rule the world than the U.S. or Britain.

Posted by: sl0re on Nov 10, 03 | 4:21 pm
Posted by: Craig on Nov 10, 03 | 4:10 pm

> Oh, in the letter, Moore forgot to mention the inordinate number of Americans
> who are obese...

That is totally fair considering the number of Euro lefties that throw that charge at the US ALONG with the passport canard... We had one guy put both in the same letter on this board about 6 months ago.

Posted by: KCarson on Nov 11, 03 | 12:27 am
Yeah talk about exhausting. Although I suppose it's nothing in comparison to George W. Pussy's exhausting "work" reading speeches (the only thing close to work he ever does) every two days to make it look like he gives a shit. "Oh, he's such a hero! He can read off a fucking piece of paper!! What a great president!!! Let's give him a sceptor and a throne and proclaim him King of the Land and give him absolute power to rule us like the fascist that he is. ALL HAIL KING GEORGE II!"

You fucking morons. Your heroes must be Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent and Dennis Miller; that would explain a lot.

Posted by: KCarson on Nov 11, 03 | 12:30 am
The morons being the supporters of Bush (and of this site; it's funny how the two go together).

Posted by: Rann Aridorn on Nov 11, 03 | 3:19 am
Come, KCarson... now take us to task for insulting Moore's weight and not believing everything he says... make the Circle of Hypocrisy complete, and join your Moore-on brothers and sisters in the Ignorant Side... and together, you shall rule absolutely nothing, as absolutely no one.
Moore told you that I have "wackoattacked" your intellectual superior... but that is not the truth. KCarson... -I- am your intellectual superior.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 11, 03 | 7:50 am
KCarson,

Let me let you in on a little "secret." All of our recent president have had speech writers. So... what's your point?

Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 11, 03 | 8:16 am
I think the bigger issue here is what exactly his problem is with Ted Nugget?

Posted by: Craig on Nov 11, 03 | 8:36 am
Actually, my heroes are Leonardo Da Vinci, Charles Martel, and Alexander the Great.
But, don't let that stop you from hurling epithats and stereotypes, rather than expressing actual ideas.

So, I suppose your heroes are Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Saint Ralph (Nader)?

Posted by: Boromir on Nov 11, 03 | 9:11 am
Didn't you know? Ted Nugent hunts and gives a lot of game he's killed to soup kitchens to help feed the homeless. What a frigging jerk! And he has the gaul to promote firearm safety and to top it off, he's a responsible gun owner and loving father!

Ted Nugent must die!!!!

Oh, and KCarson...I am being sarcastic here. Your post has made clear to us all, your limited intellect and I felt that I needed to point this out to you. Might I suggest an extra tube of KY-jelly? Apply it liberally around your neck and then push like you were trying to give birth. Hopefully, you will be able to get your head out of your ass with this technique.

Posted by: KCarson on Nov 11, 03 | 10:01 am
Too bad you had to turn stupid on yourself Boromir. You were actually making sense before you stopped being sarcastic. For shame.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 11, 03 | 10:12 am
KC's heroes must be Al Sharpton, Jerry Springer, and Ira Einhorn.

Posted by: KCarson on Nov 11, 03 | 10:14 am
Wow, 39 cities in 23 days? That sounds exhausting. Good thing you have the capitalist resources of one of the world's biggest corporations to keep you surrounded with luxury and make that trip all the more palatable.

Yeah, just like our good ol' "President". "Oh, but that's not fair, the president should have whatever the fuck he wants, because he's a Republican, and so it is written. Instead, let us pick on philanthropists who exist for a purpose. Yes, that makes so much more sense."

That's nice of Ted Nugent to do that. But wouldn't it be more ecologically sound to say, oh I don't know, BUY FOOD FROM A SUPERMARKET with all his money and give it to the local homeless? Wouldn't that make more sense than hunting diverse species to extinction?

Posted by: Rushdawg2112 on Nov 11, 03 | 12:07 pm
That's nice of Ted Nugent to do that. But wouldn't it be more ecologically sound to say, oh I don't know, BUY FOOD FROM A SUPERMARKET with all his money and give it to the local homeless? Wouldn't that make more sense than hunting diverse species to extinction?

Shove all that right up your ass, KCarson. He eats what he hunts, it's only what man has been doing for the better part of.. oh.. say about 1,000,000 years!

Moreover, if I had the money he had, I wouldn't give it to the homeless either. They sure as hell didn't earn it, why should the spend it? Can you bleeding hearts at least agree to that statement, especially considering that welfare goes against what this country was founded on? Plus, it's bad enough that I have to waste a portion of my tax dollars on them so that they REMAIN unemployed and live off of welfare. Do you see the cycle that you lefties perpetuate?

And FINALLY, TED DOESN'T HUNT SPECIES INTO EXTINCTION, YOU HALF-WIT! Do You really think that the population of animals that he hunts are anywhere near extinction? I have his Spirit of the Wild tape, and I must say, there are no Pandas being hunted! Good god, boy, you make me sick. Besides, Hunting is far more humane than a slaughterhouse.

Posted by: KCarson on Nov 11, 03 | 1:47 pm
Oh it's HUMANE is it? His hunts of wolves are humane? His sport hunting is humane? His trophy hunting? NO!! Listen you cunt, Ted Nugent is the anti-christ who deserves to be hung, BY HIS NUTS, FROM THE HIGHEST TREE!! Then maybe ground up and processed into dog food. That should compensate for his years of racism and debauchery.

Posted by: jwilliamsii on Nov 11, 03 | 2:01 pm
KCarson,

Are you comparing Bush's use of Air Force 1 and Marine 1 on official national business to Moore's use of corporate money to do a book tour?

Moore vilifies capitalism and corporations and then uses their resources instead of traveling like the "every-day Joe" he tries to pass himself off as. Don't you find that the least bit hypocritical?

Wouldn't it make mo(o)re sense to travel coach and drive a more economical car? The cost difference could be donated to charity.

And what about his bodyguards? Do they care "evil" guns?

He is a hypocritical lout living off the sweat of the very people he purportedly is looking out for.

Posted by: Craig on Nov 11, 03 | 2:05 pm
Oh, but KC's dog food recipe IS "humane"?

Posted by: Boromir on Nov 11, 03 | 2:23 pm
I would ask, KCarson that you PROVE to me that Ted Nugent hunts wolves. But you can't. Because he doesn't.

And I guess you would ban all hunting, wouldn't you? Yeah, well since there is a vast overpopulation of deer (yup, not nearly extinct) that if up to you, would not be culled then I guess thousands upon thousands of deer starving to death is okay. And getting hit by cars exponentially more than they are today(and causing fatal accidents) Yeah, that's humane...

And you like the "C" word, don't you. You're a REAL man to have to use a word like that. What a hypocrite. Ted Nugent had a PAST. He no longer cheats. He is a monogamist and he has been for years. But why would you care when you use such a horrid word that women find utterly offensive?

Yeah, debauchery. Lemme guess. You voted for BILL CLINTON. Oh, THERE'S a guy that's faithful to his wife!

You slimy hypocrite. Get back to me when you can back up your words and not contradict yourself.


Posted by: NukeChild on Nov 11, 03 | 3:39 pm
After calling "The Nudge" the anti-christ, I strongly suspect that KC is trolling. Just ignore it and let him discredit himself.

Posted by: KCarson on Nov 11, 03 | 3:57 pm
Ok, using the "C" word was out of line and I apologize for that. I realize it is a hideously offensive word to women and I stepped out of bounds.

| 1 2 3 4 | NEXT page


Add your comments

Click to format text (requires Javascript): Bold | Italic | Link


Characters remaining: Notify you when someone replies to this post?