Badmovies.org Forum

Ah, the Academy Awards. Full of glamour and glitz. Sadly, I have nothing but BAD things to say about the Academy. And I just so happened to not tune into the Awards ceremony last night.

But, today the news of the Awards has broken out. So far, not too many celebrities made anti-war/anti-Bush comments. That is, until Michael Moore-winner of documentary Academy Award-spoke out and gave his say, with the results of being booed off stage with the Academy Award grasped in his hands. However, I was not too shocked when I heard about it today in the morning. And as much as I do feel freedom of speech is important, these celebrities were told that these comments were not acceptable for the show. And thus, some sat in the sidelines with their mouths shut, while some others had "something to say".

As for Moore's announcing comments, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are having a field day with it, complete with their typical crap that spews out of their mouths. Again, I feel these celebrities need to get a grip, get in the real world and keep their Democrat statements to a minimum, but then that suggestion is also applied to both Limbaugh and Hannity's Republican bull as well.

I would have really liked to have seen Moore in action, but I chose to watch Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING over the Academy on that night.

It was funny, the second he won, I said to my friend "this guy is the most annoying prick in Hollywood" (only a tad bit more annoying than Russell Crowe) and he went and proved me right by being a total jerk. It comforts me that Hollywood is still a good enough place to boo him off stage (Bowling for Columbine was a terrible movie anyways)

Two  other incidents were Adrian Brody (best actor in the Pianist) went up and kissed Halle Berry and then decided to be the only actor to go against the time limit, telling the orchestra to 'shut up.' He did make a great speech.

Today Nicole Kidman said that she 'regretted being there' while people were dying in Iraq. All right Kidman, I will join the front lines once you do. I would love to win an oscar and doubt that I would regret the triumph of humanity, I think it is great that Iraq cant bring down America.

Evan3 wrote:
>
> It was funny, the second he won, I said to my friend "this
> guy is the most annoying prick in Hollywood" (only a tad bit
> more annoying than Russell Crowe) and he went and proved me
> right by being a total jerk. It comforts me that Hollywood is
> still a good enough place to boo him off stage (Bowling for
> Columbine was a terrible movie anyways)

Hell, I'm suprised that one of the heads of the Academy didn't walk up to Moore and pull the Oscar out of his hands. If that happened, I would have been on the floor in hysterics.

Sadly, Hollywood is still not a good enough place. Despite the fact that he was booed off stage, most of the celebrities who were on Moore's side (i.e., criticisims of Bush and the war) pretty much proved that they were big wusses by not supporting his statements (and it was for the Almighy Dollar I assure you). Proves how hypocritical they are.

If I'd been backstage at the awards I would have given this jerk a peace of my mind. I know we are allowed to have our own viewpoints but that doesn't mean you have to act like a complete jack-ass. Moore, I hated you enough already, you're just adding fuel to the fire.

I've kinda half-assed followed Michael Moore since Roger & Me, I was pretty interested by alot of what he had to say, and I even watched his tv show a couple of times. I tried to read his book "Stupid White Men" and got through a couple of chapters, he lost me when he started with the "Whitey is the Devil" schtick, I don't have anything against self-evaluation or atoning and redressing wrongs, but I haven't commited any wrongs (of that nature) and I'm bored with being told to be ashamed of myself every time I read a friggin' book. I also thought it was pretty much a sham and an attempt to try to gain some type of shock credibility. Whatever, I never bothered to finish the book.That said, he did make some
(I thought) pretty valid points about the last election in the book.

I didn't see the Oscars, but I caught a clip on the news and from what I saw, all he said was that Bush was a "fictitious" president, which is obviously not the case, the guys living in the big house, he keeps interupting my prime time viewing, he's obviously really the president. Moore also said something along the lines that Bush wasn't elected by the people, that the majority of the people didn't vote for him. What can I say about that? It's true. I didn't vote him, neither did the majority of the voting public. Doesn't break my heart, I didn't vote for the other guy either.

.

Anyone got a quote of that final line? I know it's out there. "When you have both..."

Aw, cut the Right-wing sissies a little slack. If it weren't for Moore, they'd have to do their 859th piece on "Why Everything Bad Is Clinton's Penis' Fault."  

"Faaaaaather! Help me, please! Faaaaather!! Aggggggh!!"
--Luke Skywalker and Dubya have one thing in common

"Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
--It was funny...before it became our secret national policy (Ann Coulter)

The biggest laugh of the night came from host Steve Martin shortly after Moore's tirade.

"Michael Moore has just been helped into the trunk of his limo by the teamsters."

Adrien Brody's speach, while still critical of war, was respectful.  He showed true class in comparison to Moore's egomaniacal rant.  Yes, people should be able to say whatever they want, but they should also conduct themselves as adults if they wish anyone to listen.

Bush was se-lected, not e-lected.

Moore's got balls, I'll give him that. More than FOX News or CNN.

I was dismayed, mostly because Moore came across so self-centered during his rant.  Granted narcissism is the theme of the day, but I thought Brody's speech was more sincere.

Wow, they booed him?  I'm surprised.  I overheard the speech as it was happening, but was in a restaurant and couldn't really hear what was going on or see the screen, I only heard what Moore said, and it made me angry.  Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised by that, though I think the booing was probably more for a breach of decorum than for Moore's sentiments.

As for Moore, I've always thought he was a big phony who has never worked a day in his life, though he claims to know what is best for working folk, working folk like me.  I refuse to pay any money to see or read anything he does--I'll rent his movies but that's about it.  I may not even do that anymore.  

One good thing Moore did was help RIVETHEAD to be published..it's by Ben Hamper [the guy who talks about The Beach Boys in ROGER AND ME] who is basically everything Moore pretends to be.   Moore comes off looking pretty goofy in it too.

Moore and the rest of those Hollywood idiots are hypocrites.

Moore got money and an Oscar for exploiting the name COLUMBINE, which represents one of the most shocking tragedies in this country's history.

Many other Hollywood do-gooders have (or will) be paid HANDSOMELY for writing, directing or starring in movies about wars (real or imaginary). If they are truly anti-war, they should boycott the making of movies that either glorify war or depict its horrors.

Remember, these are all people who thrive on being on stage, on camera, or otherwise the centers of attention. They will say ANYTHING to draw more attention to themselves.

I simply say, SHADDAP!

*
*
*
*

Burgo you hit the nail right on the head!

Well I for one am glad that Michael Moore said what he said. He told the truth (pretty unusual for him).
Now that I've said that, please, please don't hold it against me!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3270

Michael Moore wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass. Would that that would happen.

Yeah, he's a big mean liar poopoo doodyhead. Let us never forget that paragon of truthfulness, Rush Limbaugh. Rush is not at all obnoxious, self-serving, phony, or arrogant, either. Heavens, no.

(Feel free to substitute Michael "Savage" Weiner, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, George Will, Bob Dornan, or Ann Coulter for Rush. It's a free country! ...for now.)

Michael Moore, under the First Amendment had every right to say what he said whether you agreed with it or not.

That said, a jackass is a jackass is a jackass and Michael Moore's proven himself time and again to be the biggest jackass to ever step behind a camera.

Squishy, my man....your right...Rush Limbaugh is NOT a big mean liar poopoo doodyhead.
Michael Moore is.
That said, do you realise that that simple emotional outburst is reminisant of the exchange between Peewee Herman and his nemisis in "Peewee's big adventure"? Come on ,man, be clever! I expect better of you....even thought i believe your political side is suffering a rectal crainal inversion, you can do better then channel Paul Rubens!
After all, a radical liberal who likes Kaiju, Good Anime and Frank Cho can't ba all bad. Work on it.
Oh, and Alan Coombs is a crabby commie fibbing pottybrain....there, i said it, and i'm glad! Bwahahahaha!

Um, Squishy, if someone is a jerk, they are a jerk on there own merits.  A person can be a jerk regardless of their political persuasion.   It's possible to point out, discuss, and disagree abuot whether someone is a jerk solely within that person. Pointing out that someone else is a jerk has nothing to do with whether the person in question is actually a jerk themselves.  I don't know whether you are actually defending Moore or just knee-jerk name-calling of 'the other side' when you think the opportunity presents itself, but neither is particularly effective

It is unfortunate that when people discuss politics it turns into a diatribe and not a dialogue. Limbaugh and Moore are the same thing on each side of the political spectrum... Loud idiots who undermine any legitimate point they might have. By being a frothing at the mouth liberal/conservative they do their respective positions a disservice.

Personally I think you have to be completely naive to think that Bush got into the office legitimately and conversely you'd have to be equally naive to think this war was his idea.

I matters very little at this point if the war was a good idea/necessary or not I just hope we don't give up the freedoms that we supposedly fight for.

The inevitable backlash, of course.  Frankly I found it interesting that a man reviled by some (on both sides of the political fence) for his jumbling of facts to fit his point (which goes back all the way to the fictious timelime of events in the mock-documentary Roger & Me) would brag so openly about loving 'non-fiction'.

I'm sure alternative points of view will be heard, but this is interesting

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

as far as Squishy's listing of right wing slanted commentators, I see it as a reminder that both pots and kettles are black.  Too often I find facts presented by commentators in a light far from objective.

Still, if I were single I'd happily take Ann Coulter around the world... :-)

(http://www.anncoulter.org/images/webimages/annblack.jpg)
She might be a facist whacko, but she's a hot facist whacko, crack the whip mistress!  I'll lick your boots anytime!

Uh, excuse me...sorry about that...

I for one have a lot of respect for Moore. No book he's written or film he's made has been without it's faults though.  

'Stupid White Men' and 'Bowling For Columbine' both suffer from some shock-value over substance and from some slanting of facts. The most glaringly obvious of which is the point at which in BFC he compares the annual gun-death figures in America with countries a hundredth America's size, without taking that into account.  Fact is America's gun-death rates are hugely above most others, even with taking population into account, but clearly Moore thought that it wasn't shocking enough to give the true figures.

But the fact remains that even with it's faults any intelligent person reading/watching his stuff will find a huge amount to gain from it.  Filter out the crap and there's still plenty of good stuff there.  Some of you just see the crap and stop looking.

He is also with many personal faults, he clearly does love the fame and attention.  But then he acheives that by combing humour with strong political statements, a tactic that clearly works.  People who maybe don't have the patience or great interest to read someone like Chomsky, are able to pick up and entertaining book by Moore and be exposed to things they may not have considered before.

I see how ignorant people could read Moore, take every word as gospel, and come out with a narrow-minded view of things, but that's the price of ignorance.  You have to evaluate everything he says yourself, and form your own views on it.

And as for the topic in question, the Oscars speech, I would have been greatly dissapointed with him if he had been given a podium like that and failed to use it to voice his opinion on such a monumental subject.  You shouldn't just ignore these things as if they don't exist.  But then  he could have made better use of it.

Here's the full speech:

"Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to - they're here in solidarity with me because we like non-fiction.  We like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times. 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 of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr Bush. Shame on you, Mr Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much."

He made some fair points, not sure whether it was really relevant to hark back to the fixed election, it's true, but I thought he could have said something more about the war. specifically.

Pete

Loved the little 'smart people this, dumb people that' jabs in your argument there.  "Well if you were smart you'd get his point!!!, but since you are obviously not...  

I still feel that anyone who takes the truth and distorts it, for whatever reason, is creating fiction, not communicating truth.  Michael Moore creates fictional entertainment, nothing more.  Period.  My term for what Moore is doing is Infotainment, presenting entertainment as information.

Nonetheless, Bowling for Columbine is still on my queue at netflix and, while I might not purchase a copy of 'Stupid White Men' (flat out can't afford it), I'll borrow a copy from the library and give it a looksee.  Giving it as much serious thought as anything written by Coulter, Hannity, or O'Reilly, who also skew facts to fit their arguments.

Well, Chadzilla understood my comment. (Didn't expect Flangepart to, frankly.)

Condescending, Detailed Explanation For The Sarcasm-Impared: A lot of folks hate Moore NOT for being a jerk--that's the "cover"--but for being a successful liberal commentator, which causes much weeping and gnashing of teeth on their part...and were an equally-obnoxious conservative media maven (see list above) to use the podium to deliver an equally-obnoxious diatribe, these hypocrites would proceed to stain the front of their underwear in adoration rather than the back of it in mock outrage.

(In this case, free to substitute Al Franken or Bill Clinton for Michael Moore.)

I found the line! "...And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much."

Bonjour!

Two or three things:

What Moore said was completely right on in every detail.  However, he said it in the most oafish, clumsy, offputting way possible.  That's what bugs a lot of people who might agree with him.

Ann Coulter does not distort the truth; she lies outright.  Check the archives of dailyhowler.com for the details.  

And this is not just in her professional life.  A few years, she worked at the same office I still work at (she was here a year or so).  She was a lying opportunist then; nothing has changed.  She almost got someone here fired trying to cover her own bony ass for a mistake SHE made.

Oh, and to top it off, she's hideous looking in person.  Think of a concentration camp victim with a horse face.

Bernie wrote:
>
> Oh, and to top it off, she's hideous looking in person.
> Think of a concentration camp victim with a horse face.

My Ilsa fantasy, you're killing it you nasty person you!  :-O

(In this case, free to substitute Al Franken or Bill Clinton for Michael Moore.)

Or Rush Limbaugh or Micheal Savage (and switch liberal and conservative :)

Can't have it both ways.  "We hate your guy because he's a dishonest idiot.  You hate our guy because he's successful and you don't want to admit he's right"

Squishy wrote:
>
> Condescending, Detailed Explanation For The Sarcasm-Impared:
> A lot of folks hate Moore NOT for being a jerk--that's the
> "cover"--but for being a successful liberal commentator,
> which causes much weeping and gnashing of teeth on their
> part...and were an equally-obnoxious conservative media maven
> (see list above) to use the podium to deliver an
> equally-obnoxious diatribe, these hypocrites would proceed to
> stain the front of their underwear in adoration rather than
> the back of it in mock outrage.
>
>

Let me just cut and paste this comment you made over on VH1 Heroes and Bad Guys thread, I think it balances wonderfully well with the above...

Heavy in the same way Bill O'Reilly wailed like a baby about his sponsors being threatened with boycotts--crying censorship--the same week he proudly announced that a similar campaign (spearheaded by himself) got rapper Ludicris kicked off a "Pepsi" TV-ad campaign. Or the way "Dr." Laura's fans were enraged to find her own boycott tactics used against her...suddenly turnabout wasn't fair play after all.

[Mr. Rogers]Can you say Hypocrite?  I thought you could.[/Mr. Rogers]

It's like professional sports, when your team does it, then it's fair play.  When the opposing team pulls it, then it's clearly cheating and should be condemned.

Sorry, Chad.  Please don't let my grubby little reality ruin your beautiful fantasy... ;-)

See, this is why i realy don't like getting involved with this political crap.
I'm with the freep. Squishy loves to condisend to those who don't "Get it"...which means agree with him.
I wish he would "Get it"...but i know he won't.So, there it is.
I've had it with these posts. No one wins, we all just get ragged on by those who think we are one of "Them". And the river flows on, regardless of what we think....
Bernie. Moore was not right in every detail. He has lied in the past, and will do so in the future. When he did BFC, he did not tell the audience that he had to fill out a form a month ahead of time to get the rifle he recieved from the bank. He lied by keeping that important bit of data out.
No one is perfect. All are flawed. So, we allow our "Pets" to get away with things that we hold "Them" accountable for.
What gets my big assed goat, is attitude. The Attitude Moore has. As you said Bernie, his actions at the Academy Awards put off many who might have agreed with him. Same with Limbaugh and co.
So, we have to all decide which field of view is closest to reality...allowing for our own imperfections...and make our best guess.
Oh, and Squishy...no, had some comservitive made as big an ass as Moore did, i would not stain my underwear (Sixe 44) in adoration of the outpouring of crap.
An ass is an ass.
One last thing....The pope and the Dixie chicks, like the French and Germans, are people. And like You and me, can be wrong. People screw up.
When you click into "Whineing, spoiled bitter child" speak, you turn me off. Like Moore did.
And as for this thread...i am out of here!
You are now free to move about the cabin, and continue your prefered diatribes....

I'd just like to say that my comments weren't intended as an insult to anyone here. While we may disagree on things, it makes a great change to have debates with people who can make intelligent points.

I was just making the point that there are ignorant people on both sides, and that while I really value Moore's books/film, I am able to see the truth among the misrepresentations, and view him with a safe level of skepticism.

And I just had a look at Ann Coulter's site. Eugh. It didn't take long at all to find out what a sickeningly racist and nationalistic b***h she is.

I'm completely confused as to who these US political commentators/celebrities are. Al Franken? Alan Coombs? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Michael "Savage" Weiner? Bill O'Reilly? George Will? Bob Dornan?

One guy who I think represents everything Moore should be, is a man named  Mark Thomas  (http://www.mtcp.co.uk/).  He, like Moore, uses humour to make political points, but he's a lot funnier, and actually tries to make a change and offer ways to improve rather than just asking questions and pointing out the wrongs, as Moore usually does.  He's not the attention-seeker Moore is, and hasn't made any fortune off the back of his political exploits.  Well worth checking out.

Pete

Was Al Franken an original on SNL?

Pete B6K wrote:
>
> I'm completely confused as to who these US political
> commentators/celebrities are. Al Franken? Alan Coombs? Rush
> Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Michael "Savage" Weiner? Bill
> O'Reilly? George Will? Bob Dornan?
>

Al Franken is a comedian/commentator.  An alumni of SNL, he his most well know for his book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and his SNL skit 12 Step Stuart character, which was featured in Stuart Saves His Family.

Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity co-host a supposed debate program called, uh, Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel.  Hannity and Colmes are both radio personalities as well.  Sean Hannity currently has a book out called Let Freedom Ring: Winning of the War of Liberty over Liberalism.  Anybody who disagrees with him is a liberal.  Personally I prefer Alan, he is a far nicer interviewer than Hannity, who interrupts and cuts off with disgusting regularity.  The show is mostly a shouting match.  www.seanhannity.com

Bill O' Reilly is a conservative leaning independent who, like H&C, hosts a Fox News Channel show, The O' Reilly Factor.  I am ashamed to say that, when I agree with him, O' Reilly speaks what I think almost to the letter.  But when I disagree with him, sheesh.  He's an attention monkey, completely in love with himself, but seems to have sense of humor about it.  www.billoreilly.com

Rush Limbaugh was the Right Wing Commentator that really jumped started the arena.  Proudly proclaiming to be right in excess of 90% of the time, he shocked many listeners when he announced that he was deaf.  It didn't shock many on the left though, he has been incapable of hearing them for years.  Nonetheless, surgery as restored his hearing and the man remains a somewhat entertaining windbag.  www.rushlimbaugh.com

Michael Savage hosts a radio program called The Savage Nation where he espouses his world view.  His vitrol is rather amazing.  I think his website is still www.thepaulreveresociety.com, or something like that.  He wrote a book as well.  Basically liberals have ruined America and God fearing American's need to rip it out of their slimy hands.

Those are the ones I know, at least.

>  
> And I just had a look at Ann Coulter's site. Eugh. It didn't
> take long at all to find out what a sickeningly racist and
> nationalistic b***h she is.
>

Oh yeah, that's my beloved Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS alright!
(http://www.anncoulter.org/images/webimages/annblack.jpg)
 pantpant

Colmes...D'oh! Sorry, should have doublchecked,Chadzilla. My bad!
oh...just came back from Jabootu. The M. Moore debate is still civil (Yea!), and found an intresting site.
 http://www.hardylaw.net/truth_about_bowling.html

Lists the lies and errors in Moore's Award winner.Check it out...if you dare;)

I posted the link a tad bit earlier, glad you're back Flange.  Speaking of Jabootu, I so want to see Ken Begg drop by for this debate.  Man, that would be a show!

Sigh . . .Well, we're all a bunch of happy drunks here, aren't we?  By that I mean we always DO seem to end up talking religion/politics/philosophy.  Sometimes this is really really great, but mostly I agree with the guy -- I'm not going to go back & check who, 'cause it's too Universal -- who said that these lines frequently degenerate here & end up with thin-skinned people getting too easily personally offended.  And, yes, I do consider myself guilty of both giving poo and being overly offended at receiving poo.  Let's be civil.
Having said that, I think there's a great article on Noam Chomsky in the most recent New Yorker magazine, from the point of view of a critical fan/student who has spent a lot of time with the man.  Even those of us -- me -- who find him questionable must salute this as a humanizing assessment of the man's work.
These days I want to find common ground, even with/especially with those I disagree with.
Michael Moore is first and foremost an entertainer.  He has some very good jokes, but when he or his fans start to hold him up as a sort of iconographic voice in the wilderness for Truth, I go on to something more interesting -- like lint.
On the other side, William F. Buckley Jr. managed to make great friends with folk from the far-far Left, even being asked to eulogise at their funerals by their families.  He was -- with a few grand exceptions (Gore Vidal) -- always able to give a civil forum to those he opposed.  We should learn to emulate him.
peter johnson

Just would like to chime in and give my opinion on Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rilley, and Savage, or as I would like to dub them "The Four Jackasses".

Chadzilla wrote:
>
> Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity co-host a supposed debate
> program called, uh, Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News
> Channel.  Hannity and Colmes are both radio personalities as
> well.  Sean Hannity currently has a book out called Let
> Freedom Ring: Winning of the War of Liberty over
> Liberalism.  Anybody who disagrees with him is a
> liberal.  Personally I prefer Alan, he is a far nicer
> interviewer than Hannity, who interrupts and cuts off with
> disgusting regularity.  The show is mostly a shouting match.
> www.seanhannity.com

Yeah Chadzilla, to me Sean Hannity is really nothing but a typical Republican bully (i.e., You don't agree with him, then he calls you either a Communist, anti-American, etc. without putting any thought into his statements. Not that I really care for the Democrats either; I personally think both parties are nothing but a circus act.) and his book LET FREEDOM RING: WINNING OF THE WAR OF LIBERTY OVER LIBERALISM is typical of his attitude while his "facts" are quite questionable (at this moment, his book is in my garbage can where it should be). As for Alan Colmes, he's alright and certainly better than listing to dumbass Hannity b***h and moan just because somebody disagrees with him. Hannity is just a 4 year old in an older man's body, plain and simple.

> Rush Limbaugh was the Right Wing Commentator that really
> jumped started the arena.  Proudly proclaiming to be right in
> excess of 90% of the time, he shocked many listeners when he
> announced that he was deaf.  It didn't shock many on the left
> though, he has been incapable of hearing them for years.
> Nonetheless, surgery as restored his hearing and the man
> remains a somewhat entertaining windbag.  www.rushlimbaugh.com

Gotta agree, Limbaugh is still an entertaining windbag. Limbaugh is pretty much like Hannity, both in belief and attitude; you don't agree with him and you challenge his views, Limbaugh just shoves you back and hurls the insults (and despite the fact that he does get some dumb callers, he also has his share of intelligent ones that he still tears to part and never gives them much of a chance to explain their point). Still, he is fun to hear when he makes an ass out of himself. And, like with Hannity, his "facts" are still questionable to a degree, yet I like Limbaugh's persistance.

> Bill O' Reilly is a conservative leaning independent who,
> like H&C, hosts a Fox News Channel show, The O' Reilly
> Factor.  I am ashamed to say that, when I agree with him,
> O' Reilly speaks what I think almost to the letter.  But when
> I disagree with him, sheesh.  He's an attention monkey,
> completely in love with himself, but seems to have sense of
> humor about it.  www.billoreilly.com

Bill O'Reilly is one guy that I just can't listen too. Sure I can listen to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh because it's funny to hear their silly "statements" that make me laugh more than I had watching DEAD ALIVE. But I do agree; O'Rilley seems to be completely in love with himself and desires for attention. But then, I can also see Hannity being that way as well.

> Michael Savage hosts a radio program called The Savage
> Nation where he espouses his world view.  His vitrol is
> rather amazing.  I think his website is still
> www.thepaulreveresociety.com, or something like that.  He
> wrote a book as well.  Basically liberals have ruined America
> and God fearing American's need to rip it out of their slimy
> hands.

Again, Michael Savage is one I can't listen too as he's more annoying than O'Rilley! Oh, and lets not forget the idiodical George Will and his bag full of "usless information" that he supplies to his readers.

All this said, can we now despense with the political themes of this subject. I think hearing about an opinion on Michael Moore's comments are more safer than choking each other to death via a "political" means. Let's just stick with the main subject.

And hey, the opinions of a man like Hunter S. Thompson are, at least to me, more appealing and interesting than "The Four Jackasses". But that's just me, so I might be in the minority when I say that.

Interesting: I don't quite get how pointing out O'Reilly's hypocrisy makes me a hypocrite myself...

Frankly, I was just hucking Flangepart's smartass, semi-literate reply:

"That said, do you realise that that simple emotional outburst is reminisant of the exchange between Peewee Herman and his nemisis in "Peewee's big adventure"? Come on ,man, be clever! I expect better of you....even thought i believe your political side is suffering a rectal crainal inversion, you can do better then channel Paul Rubens!"

...back in his face. There are a few people here who try to insult people in a coy fashion (the "oooh you're just an a**hole but don't worry I'll still let you be my friend" routine) , then act "hurt" when they get a more direct response; Flangepart has since suggested that he will avoid any similar confrontations in the future, and that's all right by me. He can use the time to work on his English skills. :D

Meanwhile, all the right-wing commentators I've listed--and subsequent posts by others have displayed sufficient research--are demostrated to be liars and phonies, while the majority of the arguments I've heard against Moore consist of this:

"He's obnoxious. And rude. Oh, and he's all wrong, according to ________ (right-wing commentator listed above). Left-wingers are such fools."

But most of the time, it's "Hes' loude an stoopid. He sux. You liberals sux."

So here we are at the hypocrisy paradox. Hypocrites proving hypocrisy by using hypocrisy. I see it all the time in politics, and it's always funny. Even when I'm involved!

Ah, my own proofreading lacks. It should read:

"Meanwhile, all the right-wing commentators I've listed...are EASILY DEMONSTRATED  to be liars and phonies AND SOMETIMES WORSE."

On Limbaugh's deafness, I think the Onion said it best:

"Limbaugh's love affair with own voice comes to sad end."

Oh, and I agree that Hunter S. Thompson beats all those listed above. My favorite line from his commentary track on the new Fear & Loathing DVD (recorded a few months ago):

Interviewer: So, Hunter, do you have any parting words for today's youth of America?

Hunter: (pause) You poor bastards. You poor little bastards.

Special for Chadzilla:

Regarding your Ann Coulter...fetish...(does the Mrs. know?), here's (http://www.anticoulter.com/) a place to seek help. Look for "Her Fans Speak Out" in the left-hand column to hear from other lost souls similarly afflicted...

And the conservative site National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml) also sings her praises. (Best read to the tune of Bernard Hermann's "Psycho" theme.)

"Well, at least we don't have to worry about sex scandals in the White House anymore."
--Squishy, watching the bombs fall and the debt rise

Squishy, when it comes to semi-literate,smartass replys, i could never compare to you. I would not dream of trying. You da bomb.
Oh, and for a man who's too cowardly to read a response to one of his magic missles, because i'm imperfect in my spelling...my, my my....how your God complex hath grown.
Guess i shoud realy hate you, and express it like you do to me.
But...why waste my time? I have a life, such as it is. And it no longer has the bitter anger in it, that your life has. Your a spolied child, who wants attention at any cost. Your this boards answer to Michael Moore.
What a waste of talent.......

There are some real idiots on this board.

Thanks for the link, much appreciated...my favorite laugh out loud quote is what poor old Alan Colmes had to say as an introduction...

ALAN COLMES, HOST: Tonight on HANNITY & COLMES, more apologies from Trent Lott. Will he every be able to put it all behind him? We'll ask Al Sharpton, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan.[/b]

Alan, I hope the checks are large.  Real large.

"IT'S A MADHOUSE!  A MAAAAAAAAAADHOUSE!"

Squishy wrote:
>
> Special for Chadzilla:
>
> Regarding your Ann Coulter...fetish...(does the Mrs. know?),
> here's (http://www.anticoulter.com/) a place to seek
> help. Look for "Her Fans Speak Out" in the left-hand column
> to hear from other lost souls similarly afflicted...
>
>

She doesn't want to hear about it, especially after I pleaded with her to tape a photograph of Ann over her face.  snerk, heh-heh

And bravo to the National Review for dropping Coulter.  I think this quote sums it up quite nicely,

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

Okay, so you didn't exactly disagree with her statement, just the way she worded them?  And yes, Coulter's writing is rather shrill

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Comparing my Ilsa to BILL CLINTON?  Bonus bash points, woo-hoo!

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

FIVE bucks a column???  Sorry, I won't buy THAT for a dollar!

Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?

Yeah, why did you run it if it was so poorly written?

Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.

Your bad all right.  Sheesh.  And that one phone line jazz?  Sorry, you got egg on you face, call it egg and be done with it.

Nice great dig at neo-con Horowitz's Front Page Magazine at the end there as well.

And yes my Ilsa, DNA is nothing but a liberal fabrication meant to unleash murderers and rapists to better manage the population of the meak through fear.  Just like AIDS was created to kill a select number minorities and sexual deviants, this despite there being no proven genetic markers for such that the pesky virus could find, d'oh!

The Burgomaster wrote:
>
> Moore and the rest of those Hollywood idiots are hypocrites.
>
> Moore got money and an Oscar for exploiting the name
> COLUMBINE, which represents one of the most shocking
> tragedies in this country's history.
>
> Many other Hollywood do-gooders have (or will) be paid
> HANDSOMELY for writing, directing or starring in movies about
> wars (real or imaginary). If they are truly anti-war, they
> should boycott the making of movies that either glorify war
> or depict its horrors.
>
> Remember, these are all people who thrive on being on stage,
> on camera, or otherwise the centers of attention. They will
> say ANYTHING to draw more attention to themselves.
>
> I simply say, SHADDAP!
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
Finally someone who makes sense.

The fact that I watched Feardotcom last just proves it.

Billy Jack movies...ALL of them...multiple times. I'm an idiot or a masochist(both?)

Pete B6K wrote:
> I'm completely confused as to who these US political
> commentators/celebrities are. Al Franken? Alan Coombs? Rush
> Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Michael "Savage" Weiner? Bill
> O'Reilly? George Will? Bob Dornan?

Al Franken is a comic actor/monologuist  who has performed on Saturday Night Live and in a few movies, his comedy tends toward the "Left",
Alan Coombs...not a clue, Limbaugh, Hannity,O'Reilly,George Will, are television commentators who tend to be more to the "Right". As for the others, again, no idea.
Al Franken is genuinely funny, and often insightful, O'Reilly kind of reminds me of my drunk uncle Pat, sometimes he makes sense, sometimes he's totally incomprehensible

Squishy wrote:
>
> Well, Chadzilla understood my comment. (Didn't expect
> Flangepart to, frankly.)
>
> Condescending, Detailed Explanation For The Sarcasm-Impared

How about a Condescending, Detailed Explanation For The Pedantically Impaired?

Deej wrote:
>
> O'Reilly
> kind of reminds me of my drunk uncle Pat, sometimes he makes
> sense, sometimes he's totally incomprehensible
>
>

Now that is the truth!

"I'll have you know I'm so crazy, I voted for Eisenhower --"
"I'll have YOU know I'm so crazy, I voted for Eisenhower TWICE!!"
                                                                           -- McMurphy/Cuckoo's Nest
* * * * * *
Lest anyone forget, I APPEARED IN and HELPED PROMOTE ROBOC.H.I.C., which garnered the single most negative review of any other film Andrew has reviewed on this board, so I don't take MY idiocy lightly!!  So there . . .

* * * * * *
Re.  Spinning the truth:  To cite just one example from Michael Moore, that even his fans cop to, he didn't really get that gun at the bank that he carries around in "Bowling for Columbine", though the film sure makes it look like he did, and he darn sure wants us to think that he did.  It isn't as cinematic to just be handed a coupon that he needs to take across town to a gunshop to get the gun, but that's the truth of what happened.  But even in a "documentary", it's sometimes more entertaining to fudge the truth a little.
peter johnson

Oh, Flangepart, I do read your replies...as long as at least three words out of every five are spelled correctly.

There was that ONE time I gave up because you kept getting the whole "you're/your" thing wrong and almost EVERYTHING was misspelled. That wasn't cowardice, Flange; the post simply wasn't worth the extreme effort of trying to translate. (Ask any teacher.)

When I asked you to proofread your own posts, you claimed I was being unfair and have been defensive about it ever since--ending the occasional message with "did I spell everything right, Squishy??" (Not even close, by the way. *wink*)  

Heh heh...Dano used to call me bitter, too. "Bitter little man." Heh heh heh. Remember him? He was the guy who said it was okay to call people "n*****" but became enraged when I used the word "redneck" (to refer to my own family). Afterwards, if I recall correctly, he regularly referred to me as a racist hypocrite. I don't think he ever accused me of having a God complex, though--that's fresh. (Translation: "You think you're so damn smart, just because you can spell on a third-grade level!!!")

Boob: "That man is a pompous ass!"
Jerk: "Well, this other guy's a pompous ass, too!"
Boob: "That other guy is my hero! You son of a b****!"
Jerk: "Hypocrite!"
Boob: "Bitter little creep!"
Jerk: "Teh sithej of uertick!"
Boob: "You pig-fuh...wha...what?"
Jerk: "Shut up! Just shut up!"
John Ashcroft: "Under the articles of 'Patriot Act III,' you are under arrest for engaging in the free exchange of opinion. Take them away, sergeant!"
Boob: "At least my pompous ass wasn't a fascist."

Whatever, your lordship. May your corn beef not pickel correctly, oh ye of the endless ego.
Well, thats enough of all that. How do you feel about all this, Mr. Borntreger?

Okay folks, I think that this has completely disintegrated into little more than name-calling.  Please just let the argument go.

Hey Squish, when say "idiot" I am largely reffering to you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Mr. Borntreger in the military. You people may want to rethink about insulting him on his own board.

Yes, but at least it's creative namecalling.

("When we no longer feel free to call each other names, the French will already have won!")

Where's the craetivity? All I've heard is "Republicans are mean." Whine whine, cry cry. Hannity's book has a lot more validity than the words of most of the people on this board.


Nathan Shumate wrote:
>
> Yes, but at least it's creative namecalling.
>
> ("When we no longer feel free to call each other names, the
> French will already have won!")

Creepozoid wrote:
>
> Where's the craetivity? All I've heard is "Republicans are
> mean." Whine whine, cry cry. Hannity's book has a lot more
> validity than the words of most of the people on this board.

I have to disagree with Sean Hannity's book. It reads like his radio program; he whines and b***hes to get his point out there, but all he does is eliminate the important elements so his arguments can have "support". As for validity, I don't think that whining like a 4 year old just because some disagree with him is much validity. And for somebody who criticises the "Hollywood left" (I know I do), Hannity himself is a celebrity who is doing just what the "Hollywood left" is doing, with the exception of Hannity being more on the other side. As for Republicans and Democrats, I could care less for both sides and I can't wait for their next circus act.

As I said before, Hunter S. Thompson is a better read as his opinions are more interesting than that of Hannity; at least Thompson injects a nice flare of humor in his works, Hannity injects a sense of hatred and stupidity. Just my opinion, so as I also said before I might be in the minority when I say that.

Hannity reminds me too much of Jay Leno.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy listening to many of these programs, and agree with a lot of what is said, but Hannity is one of my least favorites.  Same with Limbaugh...he's basically a mouthpiece for the White House, so he's all about the partisan stuff.  I like Savage better because he is willing to criticize Bush about some things.

jmc wrote:
>
> Hannity reminds me too much of Jay Leno.  Don't get me wrong,
> I enjoy listening to many of these programs, and agree with a
> lot of what is said, but Hannity is one of my least
> favorites.  Same with Limbaugh...he's basically a mouthpiece
> for the White House, so he's all about the partisan stuff.  I
> like Savage better because he is willing to criticize Bush
> about some things.

Well, I could like Hannity more if he just wasn't too big of an ass (the same can be said for Limbaugh as well), had more of a likeable personality, and understood that people who disagree with him are not liberal Democrats, anti-Americans, or Communists. People, like Hannity and Limbaugh, who believe that's why some disagree with them show that they are most definately 4 year olds in adult bodies; you just can't reason with them. So, Hannity and Limbaugh can have their cake and continue to whine.

This post is unfortunately egocentric. I know it's not all about me, I just want to set the record straight...

Flangepart accused me of, among a list of things, cowardice--as if I tremble in sobbing fear of the awesome judgment of someone who cannot (or will not) spell. Sorry, guv'nor--not even if you were Danforth Q. with all his bodyguards and nannies. (Creepozoid's entitled to his opinion; his opinions speak for themselves. Thanks for clearing up your original statement, though, Creepoz, while trying to get your cheap shot in. Again: could not care less. Really, I tried to, but it just didn't work, so I gave up and watched "Halloween" again, which will be fondly hailed long after we're both humus.)

I made a sarcastic comment, and a fellow long-time poster--whose face and eyes have evidently been burning red with fury for months now over a piddling slight--took it to be serious, and subsequently a chance to gleefully express his "disappointment" in me a call me a s***head in EVER the most cutesy-poo fashion. I made another sarcastic comment explaning the original sarcasm--and calling his bluff--and the cheeks and eyes got even redder, and the rhetoric even nastier...and I set off the usual political fartstorm at the same time.

Oh, I'm not apologizing. If you're a Dittohead who "just listens for the entertainment value" or if you fantasize about Ann Coulter sticking her fist in your keister ;) after all the horrible things she's advocated, then I hope that when you die, you spend eternity listening to the "Checkers" speech, as read by Dubya, with Limbaugh sitting next to you making out with Coulter. Or, if reincarnation's the gig, you come back again and again as Dick Cheney. No, that's nasty. Okay...you come back again and again as Spiro Agnew. (I'd apologize to Andrew, but I've done it so often he should just save one as a file for regular reference.)

I'm perfectly comfortable with sparring and insults, but...honestly, some people are getting MASSIVELY p**sed off over differences of opinion with people whom the only thing they have in common with is..this board. (Look, I've done it in the past. In fact, I and one of the very first people I got into a long-term hissing contest with here are finding common ground lately. Go figure.) Okay, a few of you know each other, some of us have been posting for ages, and we have this whole little community thing going. But most of us are really just strangers to each other. Do you honestly give a rat's ass? Oh, God, I hope not. If you do, turn off your computer immediately, run outside, and get a life, Tim-Tim. Trade your insults and let it go.

It's cool if we can influence each other's opinions in some way, be it simple facts or p**sant sarcasm (hi!), and if Hitler shows up in somebody's head we can collectively show him the error of his ways, but don't go way (prances about with wrist limp) all pithed oth.

And Flange, if you want to deny me the joy I so obviously derive from taunting you, it's easy: IMPROVE YOUR SPELLING. (I mean, if you can.) It'll help you in life, and make you look smarter to whatever party you want to fornicate with. Hell, even that pathetic boob Bruce Tinsley would recommend it. (Improving your mind, not fornicating with him. Well, maybe. I don't know what he's into. Ducks?)

Hey, I'm all about free speech. You can badmouth the president as much as you want.

But stop with all the b***hing about how he stole the election from Gore. Yes there's compelling evidence to suggest he did. But you forget. JFK STOLE THE '60 ELECTION TOO. Yet no one seems to remember.  Perhaps if more dead people had voted in Florida, Gore would have won decisively.

But fortunately, Kennedy turned out to be one of our best presidents for the short time he was in office and on this earth. He was truly too great for this world.

And Bush, like it or not IS our president. He IS our commander in chief and he deserves our support. The least you can do is stop bringing up Palm Beach. Kennedy stole his election too, so shut up. We, the people are beyond tired of hearing the complaining. There's exercising free speech and then there's being a big baby about the guy in office winning dubiously. That will not be an issue after 2004.  With the democratic party in the state it is now, you've virtually assured a landslide victory for President Bush with whoever you deem worthy of sending to the electoral slaughter, and this time we won't NEED a frickin' recount. I'm not a fan of the guy either. Personally if I had my druthers, John McCain would've gotten the nomination and the victory in November 2000. You don't see ME complaining about it, do you?  I think Bush's economic policies suck, but I also think that if you're going to attack him, attack him for legitimate reasons. If you don't like him, then vote for Tom "Eggo" Daschle or Al Sharpton or John "I'm Irish--no, Jewish--no, Irish--no, Jewish!" Kerry, or Richard "Bush made me stub my toe" Gephardt.

And good luck convincing yourself that either has a chance in Hell of winning.

Now, my opinion of the right wing commentators.

Anne Coulter = c**t. But all things considered if she wore a gag, I'd hit that killer KKK body all night long. Last thing I need is to hear her running her mouth during sex. Check that. Last thing I need is to hear her running her mouth period, when those cute lips could be doing something more constructive.

Sean Hannity = Don't listen to him.

Bill O'Reilly = Big blowhard, but one who happens to have some good points sometimes. You can drop him in a giant paper shredder for all I care though.

Rush Limbaugh = Another blowhard, but also one who happens to make sense and be right sometimes, and I'm not talking about his political leanings. Most of you just hate him too much to really try and see his points when he isn't ranting.

All these guys are ripping on Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks' and such's right to disrespect the president when for eight years that was pretty much ALL THEY THEMSELVES DID. Just like Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks had a right to say what they did, whether you agree with them or not, so did O'Reilley, Hannity and Limbaugh to disrespect Clinton.

A Jackass is a Jackass, no matter which party line it tows. You know the old saying. "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought an idiot than open it and prove it"

Just like war seems only a good thing when there's a Democrat in office, so does free speech when there's a Republican administration. If you ask me, both sides are enormous fricking hypocrites.

So Liberals: Enough with the Bush-hate already. You don't like the guy, WE GET IT. You're saying absolutely nothing that you haven't blabbered about endlessly before. Stop letting your personal hate for the man get in the way or worse drive your opinions and blind you from seeing the truth. GET A GRIP. Don't like Bush? Then back a candidate that ISN'T an inmate running the asylum of  DNC Headquarters and run a campaign the likes with which we have never seen before. You did it before, over a decade ago and you defeated a Republican who was thought to be guaranteed a second term. Do it again if you hate that guy's son so much.

And Conservatives: Can the name-calling. For god's sake, I'm damn near ashamed to associate myself with your side of the fence. You CLAIM you're all about free speech and readily flap the First Amendment in people's faces when they challenge your opinions but say they're communists, socialists and un-american if they challenge yours and practice their own First Amendment rights. HELEN KELLER COULD SEE THE HYPOCRISY. If someone's wrong, then prove them wrong. Otherwise stop with the playground bullying already.

This is Democrats vs Republicans. Always has been, always will be. There are zealots, wackos and idiots on both sides. The left just has considerably more of them.

I swear, I'm THIS CLOSE to going Libertarian.

Nice post, seriously. I would disagree with the end, though: the Left has more wackos, the Right has more zealots, and both sides have too many idiots. I'm praying the Dems cook up a better candidate. Stop laughing. It could happen.

Ew! With all the genuinely gorgeous women in the world, why do so many people lust after this anorexic skank with obvious and violent mental problems? "Fatal Attraction" and "Basic Instinct" suddenly seem more plausible to me now...different strokes, I guess, but damn.

Squishy wrote:
>
> Nice post, seriously. I would disagree with the end, though:
> the Left has more wackos, the Right has more zealots, and
> both sides have too many idiots. I'm praying the Dems cook up
> a better candidate. Stop laughing. It could happen.

As I said, it happened in 1992. It can happen again. Nobody thought an Arkansas governor that was basically Jimmy Carter with a frat boy attitude named William Clinton had a chance of beating the proven Commander in Chief Gulf War winner George Herbert Walker Bush, LET ALONE the seasoned politicians the Democrats fronted early in the election. Personally I think the Democrats need another Robert F. Kennedy.

If they did that, I'd change my stance on human cloning on the spot. As it stands, the Democrats are a dying party unless a serious miracle happens tute suite (sp?).

> Ew! With all the genuinely gorgeous women in the world, why
> do so many people lust after this anorexic skank with obvious
> and violent mental problems? "Fatal Attraction" and "Basic
> Instinct" suddenly seem more plausible to me now...different
> strokes, I guess, but damn.

I'm going to steal a bit from That 70's Show. Picture Anne Coulter in a skimpy Victoria's Secret Teddy with garters and stockings touching herself. Now, picture the same thing, only with Anne's voice TOTALLY muted and the b***h shut the hell up.

Now, for a Nazi isn't she pretty shaggable?

If you ask me, if I had my pick of Republican chicks to have, I'd pick Emma Caulfield in a New York minute.

Mmmmm. Anya.