Michael Moore is a lying ratbag motherfelcher. Here's an mp3 of the Oscar segment where he was booed. The boos are clearly more than "five." And he tries to claim he got his friends to do the boos? To show "diversity of opinion"? Lying sack of donkey vomit.
(The mp3 was made by Bobby Allison Gallimore. There are also links to various videos, of Moore's after-Oscar speech, and the segment itself, and so on, available in the comments. I haven't visited the sites because I don't want to see his overfed mug or hear his pustulent lies right now.)
Posted by Andrea Harris at March 24, 2003 11:59 PMI felt a deep sense of forgiveness toward the Hollywood elite, hearing those boos. No wonder Moore wants to pretend they were plants.
There are those, like Heston, who've long claimed that there's a huge silent group of political nonconformists in Hollywood. I think we finally saw proof of that in the response to Moore. It felt good.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at March 25, 2003 at 02:04 AMWhat about the freedom of speech of the people whom you disagree with? Can't you come up with anything more sophisticated than to call them names?
I think Mr. Moore's words were not very well chosen so it must be easy to finish him of verbally in a more intelligent way.
Just my two cents...
Posted by: Irrelevant European at March 25, 2003 at 06:16 AMThat had to be "finish him OFF"; please don't shoot me for my bad english...
Posted by: idem at March 25, 2003 at 06:31 AMJohn Stewart made hella fun of Moore last night--I knew he would, and the jokes were as much at the expense of the attendees as of Moore.
Money quote:
"You only like Michael Moore in THEORY."
Yeah, pretty much sums them up.
Best reaction shot--Sean Astin lookiing absolutely amazed, with dropped jaw and everything. Don't know if it was at Moore's bloviating or at the reaction, but it was hilarious.
Posted by: Tracey at March 25, 2003 at 07:53 AMFalse humility is a fixture of the "postmodern" "liberated" artist. But they'er not so humble as to refuse their obscenely large checks. While children are starving!! Now he'll probably claim the whole Oscar performance was one big piece of art. Luckily there are still some real actors left. I might want to see a movie again some day.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at March 25, 2003 at 09:04 AMHey, Irrelevant European -- are you French? If you are, can you make fun of your leaders in print? Uh huh. I thought so.
Whether you like it or not, calling people names is a) not an abridgement of those persons' freedom of speech, and b) also a facet of freedom of speech. Thus endeth the lesson for the day.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 25, 2003 at 09:14 AMGrassroots blogger counter-holiday:
Buy a Gun for (to spite) Michael Moore Day, April 15
Pass it along to your favorite blogs and email friends. Definitely want/need Photoshop posters in the vein of Meryl Yourish's "Eat an animal for PETA day."
Just think that there may be thousands more guns in the hands of responsible Second Amendment-loving citizens BECAUSE of Michael Moore!!!!
Just imagine his nightmares that thousands more guns are purchased in reaction to him. My guess is that his actions may cause more guns to get into in the hands of more Americans than he intended his movie to take away!
Let me know if you add a link or an article.
Posted by: Aaron's Rantblog at March 25, 2003 at 09:26 AMI'm not French (France is a beautiful country but it's a pity that it's inhabited by French...) and I admit that you are perfectly free to say whatever you like about whomever you like (or dislike) and so am I. Thanks for the lesson though... I just think you might make more of an impression on or maybe even convince the people you now call names by subtly and meticoulessly breaking down their rhetoric instead. That might just leave them with nothing more to say, instead of giving them the opportunity to just shrug or call you names in return. But maybe you don't want to convince anyone...
Anyway, at least I see as many pro's as con's to the war. I think Bush is too bellicose and Chirac is too stubborn and the Germans are simply traumatised by all the wars of the previous century (so I understand their position very well, although I don't necessarily agree with them). I hope (call me a coward if you wish) you are right and that the war, now that it has started, is the best thing to do...
Hoh god I am am crazy with the jumping up and down and the beating my hands on my head because everybody soooo crazy and saying such crazy things these days and the words, they hurt me...
Posted by: Ian Wood at March 25, 2003 at 09:58 AMWell, Irrelevant, you're right: I am not interested in "convincing" anyone. Especially anyone whose sensibilities are so delicate that seeing someone called a bad name is worse than anything. In this I may actually agree with Michael Moore -- he seems to prefer name-calling too. But he also seems to think he is in the "convincing" business, while I am not fooling myself.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 25, 2003 at 10:16 AMThanks for giving me the key to how to read these pages. And let noone of the "peaceful" camp ever misunderstand your writings anymore and try to convince you in return. Or maybe you think that's good fun?
Posted by: Irrelevant European at March 25, 2003 at 10:39 AMYeah, there were more than 5 boos. You have to get a pretty good decibel level going to be able to hear the audience on the stage mics. About 1/3 to 1/2 of the place had to be booing to hear what you did.
Further, what Moore proved in "Bowling for Columbine" wasn't that guns were the problem. It's our media, which scares the hell out of us. Still, he chooses to pound on the disproven gun angle.
Posted by: Yahmdallah at March 25, 2003 at 10:56 AMI dunno, Irrelevant -- ask Tim Robbins. (See my newest post.) You might want to be glad I'm not into "convincing" people; it has been my observation that most staunch convincers eventually descend to using Mr. Robbins' method.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 25, 2003 at 11:21 AM