May 24, 2004

Michael Moore Is A Lying Sack Of Shit

Exhibit 42 - At Cannes last week, he said this:

Tarantino [chairman of the Palme D'Or jury] said: "I made a statement early on that I didn't want politics to be involved. "All that mattered was the reels of film. I told Michael Moore last night we all agreed that Fahrenheit 9/11 was the best feature in competition." Moore's response, according to Tarantino, was "that means more to me than anything. If I wanted to make political statements, I would have run for office. I want to make movies".

At last year's Oscars, he said this:

We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition [sic] of duct tape or fictition [sic] of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.
If that's not a political statement, what is?

Posted by Chris at May 24, 2004 12:24 PM

Category: Media Stupidity
Comments

check out the anti bush rock opera at [deleted, see last comment]. also, michael moore is the greatest american documentary maker ever, his books are referenced so you can check the facts yourself

Posted by: greg stomberg at June 11, 2004 09:15 AM

I'd just like to note here that your comment in no way invalidates my conclusion (that based on what Moore said at the '03 Oscars vs. what he said at '04 Cannes, he is indeed a liar).

I'll pass on the anti-Bush rock opera (?!?), thanks just the same.

As to Moore being the greatest American documentariast ever? Well, no. To do a good documentary, you actually have to get your facts straight. F9/11 is a unsupported hack job of the lowest order, and it's getting fisked all over the place (f'rinstance, http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ ).

I stand by my conclusion.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at June 28, 2004 01:19 PM

Michael Moore usually does start out with a grain of truth and subsequently distorts it wildly.

Take, for examaple, Bowling for Columbine. Mr. Moore claims that Charlton Heston brought a hugh NRA "pro-gun" rally to Denver 11 days after the tragedy and mocked those who tried to stop him.

The truth is that in a coincidence that can only tragic irony, the NRA Annual Meeting had been scheduled to be held in Denver for YEARS prior to the shooting. In response to the horror of that day, the NRA voluntarily cancelled all events except the members’ voting. The voting annual event is required by both the by-laws of the NRA and New York State Law (the NRA is a non-profit organization formed under NYS Laws). As I understand it, rescheduling or moving the voting would have required 10 days notice to all of the NRA’s members (something 3 or 4 million at the time) prior to the event. Simply not possible.

Moore goes on to selectively edit the keynote address in order to manipulate Mr.Heston’s speech into something it was not. The speech provided in “Bowling” is so out of context as to be fictional. For the true text of the speech, go to: http://www.nracentral.com/annual_meeting_denver_heston_opening.php

One can go on and on with Michael Moore’s distortion of the truth, but there’s only so much room here. I suggest fans of Moore actually check the “facts” used to create his movies and books, and read “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man”. When you’re done, let me know if you still like the guy.

Posted by: Louis Brundle at July 3, 2004 07:04 PM

m moore is the greatest american documentary maker ever, sure, no one is perfect and theres bound to be a mistake or two but all in all his work is accurate and truthfull, i saw no glaring big mistakes, he never said hestons columbine visit was planned after the shooting, i checked, he just reported that they went there after the shooting, thats no lie, thats not distorting the truth, plus how could moore possibly put ever word of every speech in his movie? it was a 2 hour movie not a ten hour mini series

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 19, 2004 11:29 AM

how come no one can give me one example of m moore lying or distorting the truth when i can give you dozens of examples of dumboya bush lying and distorting the truth, come on, give me one example to work with, bet you can't find one can you? it easy to call someone a liar but harder to prove it.

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 20, 2004 09:35 AM

Did you even read the post at the top of this page? Michael Moore said he didn't want to make a political statement. 'Farfromtruth 9/11' is two hours of "Bush is a cheating lying scumbag," a political statement if ever there was one. Ergo, Moore lied.

As far as lies in the movie, let's start with this one, which took me about two minutes to run down.

F9/11 quotes part-time CNN/ABC legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin as saying that if the Supremes had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."

Tobin's quote, his unfounded opinion at the time, was proven factually incorrect. The only scenarios under which Gore could possibly have won Florida involved counting methods contrary to Florida law at the time. ( http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb200111132.html#2 ) quotes a Washintgon Post story:

"If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.

But if the recount had been held under new vote-counting rules that Florida and other states now are adopting -- rules aimed at recording the intentions of as many voters as possible -- Democratic candidate Al Gore probably would have won, although by an even thinner margin, the study found."

So the only way Gore could have won would have been by retroactively changing the law.

The other interesting thing from that article is proof that at least in Florida, Gore voters are stupider than Bush voters:

"The study provides evidence that more Florida voters attempted to vote for Gore than for Bush -- but so many Gore voters marked their ballots improperly that Bush received more valid votes...."

By using the earlier Toobin quote and ignoring that his assertion was later proven incorrect, Moore lied.

That's just one. How many more do you want?

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at July 20, 2004 11:18 AM

bush is a lying cheating scumbag, thats no lie and its not a political staement, its the truth, come on, can't anyone show me one instance where m moore lied? someones opinion is not a lie, its their opinion, so far, not one person has showed me any evidence of m moore deliberately lying or distorting the truth, i really want someone to show me one instance where m moore lied and not one person has been able to show me, try again...

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 21, 2004 09:00 AM

j toobin was right, after 4 independent vote counts gore won 3 out of 4 recounts, besides that, thats a quote from j toobin NOT from michael moore, so even if jt made a mistake mm can only go by his resources so thats not a m moore lie either, come on, try again, not one single person has been able to show me a lie from m moore

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 21, 2004 09:04 AM

hey, i just read bush is convicted theif and a convicted drunk, is this some of the m moore lies you're talking about or is this true?

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 21, 2004 09:13 AM

Your first comment in no way refutes my contention. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that President Bush is indeed a lying cheating scumbag, and every word in Farfromtruth 9/11 is true (it isn't, of course, as I've already proven). Moore is trying to generate a given political behavior: vote Bush out in November. To say that is not a political statement is just plain ignorant.

Second: '4 independent vote counts gore won 3 out of 4 recounts.' Cite, please (hint: try a real news source; I won't accept 'm moore sed it in fahrenhit 91/1 so bush is a scumbag' as a legitimate citation). I've already shown that Gore would not have won ANY recount that mattered - the ones legal under Florida law that he asked for. Let me refresh your memory (from the link I used in the previous comment):

"The Florida re-count released late Sunday night by the consortium of CNN and several newspapers determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either legally possible re-count scenario which could have occurred: The Florida Supreme Court ordered re-count of undervotes statewide or Gore’s request for a re-count in certain counties."

Third: Michael Moore used Toobin's words to tell a lie, because he knew Toobin was later proven incorrect and he used the earlier quote anyway. If you don't believe that doing that constitutes a lie on Michael Moore's part, then there's no point in arguing any further since you are immune to logic (and ethics, for that matter).

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at July 21, 2004 05:07 PM

hey, i just read bush is a convicted theif and a convicted drunk who's married to a dog who killed her ex boyfriend, is this more of m moore's lies or is this truth? shouldn't we do everything we can to get a lying drunken theif and a murderer out of the white house, as to your comment why didn't they count the votes in the first place? why did bush stop the count if he knew he was going to win? everyone knows more people voted against bush than voted for him, nationwide al gore won the election by over a million votes.bush is and always will be known as the illegitamate president.

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 23, 2004 10:31 AM

Your responses grow more desparate and less connected with reality.

"shouldn't we do everything we can to get a lying drunken theif and a murderer out of the white house"

So we agree that Farfromtruth 9/11 is a political statement intended to cost President Bush the election. OK, at least I'm making progress. That's one Michael Moore lie proven.

"why didn't they count the votes in the first place? why did bush stop the count if he knew he was going to win? "

Makes absolutely no difference. Somebody else counted the votes, and, under both legal recount schemes, President Bush still would have won. That's two Michael Moore lies.

As Jim Rome is fond of saying, 'Score. Board.'

"nationwide al gore won the election by over a million votes."

Which makes about as much difference as a ceiling fan in a tornado. If you don't know how the Electoral College works, find your Civics teacher (or Government, or whatever they're calling it nowadays in the schools where they still bother teaching this kind of thing), smack him/her upside the head, and demand your money back. Under the Electoral College, it's theoretically possible for the winner to have millions and millions of votes fewer, nationwide, than the loser (win by one vote in the ten or so largest states that yield the required number of Electoral College votes; lose by huge margins in every other state).

Now take a deep breath and repeat after me: "The nationwide popular vote does not decide the Presidential election."

Maybe it should, in the future - maybe the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. But that's a matter for a Constitutional amendment and has absolutely no bearing on the 2000 election.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at July 23, 2004 11:06 AM

...and, as far as I recall, Bush did not "stop the count." The Supreme Court issued its ruling, people buzzed and hummed for a while, and then Gore conceded. Read that part again...Gore *conceded*.

If there are any doubts to that, here's a link to the story: http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/gore.ends.campaign

Oh, and by the way, conceded means "gave up." :)

Posted by: chess h at July 23, 2004 11:42 AM

There have been at least two occurrences in American presidential elections of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election.

http://www.multied.com/elections/Disputedelections.html

Speaking of scoreboard, it's a horrible idea to try to divine the intent of a voter after (s)he has voted. It adds weasel room to something that was perfectly objective to begin with. Was changing the voting machines (which was what people the country over were clammering for circa December 2000) too good for Florida?

Posted by: Paul at July 23, 2004 12:08 PM

what about bush? was he convicted of theft? is he a convicted theif? was he convicted of drunk driving? is he a convicted drunk? you didn't answer my question and i really want to know if its true or if its more of m moore's lies and distortions. let me know, i mean, i wouldn't vote for a lying drunken theif would you? the majority of people still voted for gore, bush should have stepped down and let the people decide the president, that would have been the right thing to do,

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 26, 2004 10:21 AM

i never agreed f-911 is a political statement, you're a proven liar for saying we agreed on that point, i don't want anything to do with liars like you, where did i say i agree with you on that point? i didn't, you republicans lie and lie and hope no one catches you at it but i did, i didn't agree with you did i, read my answer again you liar. you're worse than m moore, he makes an honest mistake and pweople call him a liar while you've got my answer right in fron of you and lie about me agreeing with you, wow, what a hypocrit...

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 26, 2004 10:25 AM

chris of d l is a liar, he says 'so we agree f-911 is a political statement...' i never agreed with that, read my statement and it will prove he's a liar, he shoots off his big mouth about how m moore is a liar and then he lies to prove a point, hey, how does it feel to be called a liar? you know michael moore has family and friends and then you have big mouths shooting off their big mouths lying about him being a liar, why not stop the namecalling, i wrote this just as an example of how far these right wing nutcases go to say m moore is a liar.

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 27, 2004 09:51 AM

"how does it feel to be called a liar?"

Well, it depends on the credibility of the person making the charge. In this case, I find it rather humorous that someone so factually- and argumentatively-challenged as yourself is calling me a liar.

"i don't want anything to do with liars like you,"

I wouldn't be so certain of that; you sure seem to be enjoying yourself - otherwise you wouldn't have bothered continuing to post comments. You're free to not post comments at any time. In fact, some of my other readers have asked me why _I_ bother dealing with, as one said, 'that one-note pinhead.' Truth be told, _I'm_ having fun. It's not like it's much of a challenge, but it keeps me sharp for when somebody with an opposing viewpoint and an actual fact or two worth arguing shows up.

Maybe you don't realize that you conceded the point when I said:

"Moore [with Farfromtruth 9/11] is trying to generate a given political behavior: vote Bush out in November. To say that is not a political statement is just plain ignorant."

and you replied

" shouldn't we do everything we can to get a lying drunken theif and a murderer out of the white house . . .."

because what else could that mean other than 'Moore's intent is to get President Bush out of office and that Farfromtruth 9/11 is a political statement towards that end?'

But I'm willing to cut you some slack on that one, even though you called me a liar and everything, because I'm coming to realize that many Moore fans have rather a lot of difficulty identifying exactly what a lie is. After all, you said

"you're worse than m moore, he makes an honest mistake and pweople call him a liar . . .."

even though I patiently explained exactly how using the Toobin quote in Unfairandhate 9/11 was a lie. Which reminds me - I'm still waiting for a fact to back up your claim that '4 independent vote counts gore won 3 out of 4 recounts.' Not that it makes any difference - I've already shown that President Bush would have won the only two recounts that mattered.

"let me know, i mean, i wouldn't vote for a lying drunken theif would you?"

Didn't you get the memo? Character hasn't mattered since 1992. I mean, we elected Clinton twice...

I haven't answered your other questions about President Bush because, frankly, this post isn't about him. It's about how Michael Moore Is A Lying Sack Of Shit (hence the title). Whether President Bush is a liar, or a convicted thief (t-h-i-e-f, by the way), or a convicted drunk driver, is immaterial to my point since nothing in my original post or any of my comments depends on President Bush not being any of those things.

Although I am curious to hear why you think he's a convicted thief.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at July 27, 2004 10:59 AM

bush was arrested for theft and he pled guily, he is a convicted theif and a convicted drunk, why didn't you know that? he stole a christmas wreath in college and was arrested for it, he pled guilty and was sentenced, he is a convicted theif. please don't tell me all college students are theives, thats the excuse i hear most often. i'm just yanking your chain, man, see how rediculous you sound calling m moore a liar and then you don't even know the facts? i have a life but i'll get that 3 out of 4 recounts went for al gore info when i can, i work, i don't just sit here all day calling people names, i have a life.

Posted by: greg stomberg at July 28, 2004 10:03 AM

Y'know, I just reread my original post, and I remember now that my original assertion (Michael Moore is a lying sack of shit) doesn't even depend on FartingHate9/11 at all! It's merely an comparison of Moore's statements at the '03 Oscars and at '04 Cannes.

So, to clarify, regardless of the nature or contents of Farfromtruth 9/11, Michael Moore is indeed a lying sack of shit.

I apologize for any confusion.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 4, 2004 11:33 AM

Now, on to Greg's latest:

Yeah, I thought you'd be referring to the wreath incident. First of all, the New York Times says that he wasn't even charged with theft, just disorderly conduct; furthermore, the charge was dropped:

They took off for a festive shopping street, where Mr. Bush spotted the wreath in a hotel -- and stole it.
. . .
The police arrested Mr. Bush and charged him with disorderly conduct. Eventually the charges were dropped . . ..

Obviously, there's no point in questioning the DUI conviction, but that was common knowledge before the 2000 election, so it makes no logical sense to not re-elect him based on that.

So we're back to the 2000 election. I showed the Washington Post admitting that Bush won under every plausible recount scenario. You insist on saying that algore won 3 out of 4 recounts, yet you continually refuse to support that assertion (two weeks and counting since I first asked for it, one week since you said you'd get it; you must be working really hard to be too busy to spend five minutes on Google).

So this is your last chance. If your next comment does not contain at least one citation supporting your 'algore won the recounts' contention (so at least we have something substantive to argue about), it will be your last comment here.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 4, 2004 11:50 AM

not one person has yet to give me one example of moore lying so here's one of bush lying. bush said 'she's a west texas girl just like me." well, i don't think bush is a west texas girl, i don't think he's a girl at all! so either 1. bush is a liar because he's not a girl. or 2. bush is a girl, which i can't disprove at this time. or 3. bush is a moron. so which is it? he's a liar, he's a girl or he's stupid?

Posted by: greg stomberg at August 6, 2004 10:11 AM

Aaaaaaaand into the Bozo Bin you go.

I was going to delete your last comment, since it's just more of the same refusal to recognize reality, but then I decided to leave it up as a memorial to your aggressive stupidity.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 6, 2004 10:30 AM

Thanks for posting the link to that article, Chris. Now that I've read it, I've pinpointed what it is about Bush that I absolutely like, and that I don't think I've seen in a political before. And this is it:

"I would agree that he's not contemplative or reflective," said Michael M. Wood, a friend at both Yale and, earlier, Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass. "He's not a guy who would go off by himself thinking of something. He's more likely to be hiding in a tree to jump down on somebody."

I have to like someone who enjoys a good mindless prank once in a while. :)

Posted by: chess h at August 6, 2004 11:01 AM

I see now what the stombergbot is doing. It's comment-spamming any Michael Moore blog entry it can find in order to pimp its 'rock opera' (Google on 'stomberg' and 'moore' to see for yourself). Well, it can either buy ad space from me or get its own blog; I'm not going to contribute to its Google score anymore.

As you can see, it passed the Turing Test for quite a while, as it carried on something resembling an argument with me, but as my responses got smarter, its responses got dumber. I sure hope its creator fixes that in v2.0.

Posted by: Chris of Dangerous Logic at August 24, 2004 07:35 AM

michael moore is nothing but a dumb fat person who just wants to tear america apart. i would love to see him be president for one day. His so called documentary was terrible, nothing about it uplifted america, he should be ashamed of himself.

Posted by: Josh at September 9, 2004 02:08 PM

Hi, I'm a troll, too. I don't have the sack to leave real contact information, so the site owner had to do a little editing. Basically, I just spewed out a few DNC talking points, all of which are easily refuted by any of a number of websites, but my favorite is moorelies.com.

Posted by: good on ya moore at October 8, 2004 01:26 AM