Is Michael Moore "anit-American"

How his "documentaries" affect our Nation's standing in the world

Published on October 18, 2004 By Dysmas In Politics

Mr. Moore is among the growing number of Americans who trash our nation, our Military, and our Domestic and National Polices.
"Bowling for Colombine" was an interesting film and raised many serious questions that should be addresed but nevertheless it portrayed the majority of Americans as gun toteing, inherantly violent, and aboslutly ignorant and/or unwilling to change the status quo of our nation. This is greatly emphaised by my Japanese pen-pal writing to me asking if Mr. Moore's statement that "virtually every houshold in the United States owns a firearm." And his assertion that the vast majority of firearm owners take little or no action to safeguard thier weapons from children.

I can handle his opinions, I take them with a grain of salt, ( actually many, many grains) but his most recent film. "Farenhit 9/11" was completly over the top for me, especially as a soldier. To add insult to injury, upon his visits to foreign countries he continued to bash our country. Saying such things to the French of all people, that "we should have listend to them." and his comments go on and on and I feel no need to quote him further unless it is needed.

Under his illusion that he only wants to air out our nations flaws he is unquestionably among the most arrogent "anit-americans" that I have ever had the displeasure of hearing, seeing, or reading.

I am intrested to see how agrees with me and more importantly who does not, and why.

Comments (Page 2)

Dysmas

on Oct 21, 2004

mabye they should create an award soley on the actions of one to save or protect another, in conjuction with the other awards

T B

on Oct 21, 2004

Well then Bahu Virupasksha it will be interesting to see what the counter film to Moor's " Celsius 4/11"

Go get Fahrenhype 9/11. I rented it the day it came out (in the local Blockbuster). There was an entire section for Moore's propaganda piece and only one copy of Fahrenhype. In it, there is an interview with the soldier that lost his arms (depicted in Fahrenheit 9/11) he is more than a little unhappy that Moore used his image in his film without his consent.

Chemicalkinetics

on Oct 21, 2004

To be honest, Moore is anti-American. That is not only because he is against Bush and the Iraq War. Afterall, he also against the Afghansistan War. He simnply against everything American stands for. He is against free market society, he is against free specch (except his speech), he plays racial card all the times. The guy is just ANTI-?

Dysmas

on Oct 21, 2004

I damn well believe he is upset that a person like Moore used his immage in a film like that.
and yeah, Morre is not only anit-american he seems like he is anti-pretty-much-anything.

JillUser

on Oct 21, 2004

Michael Moore has no soul. He is a disgusting blob of garbage that was merely fortunate enough to be birthed in the US. He stands for nothing but his own greed and arrogance. He will knowingly splice bits together to serve his own purpose and pass it off as fact. He's scum of the lowest caliber and most definitely anti-American.

JillUser

on Oct 21, 2004

he seems like he is anti-pretty-much-anything

He's defintitely anti-basic hygiene but he must be pro-glutony.

Dysmas

on Oct 21, 2004

lol true and true. He is absolutly fortunate to be born in America, and its that same blessing and advantage that he uses against us, and by proxy, himself. I imagine he would have a different view if he was born in 3rd or 2nd world country. Iraq is a good example. I can't even count how many people came and told us of Saddams brutality, and even my unit's translator had sever scars on his entire body, head to toe, litteraly, due to torture at the hands of Saddams regime. I bet muhammed, the translator, has a problem with Moore's american bashing.

Mobcoa

on Oct 22, 2004

The facts in F9/11 are somewhat spliced together and the movie does present a clear one sided view of GW. To say someone is UNAmerican for excersing their constitutional right of free speech is itself UNAmerican.

This country was founded on dissent and freedom of opression. While F9/11 might be one sided it does at least try and level out the rethoric that the Bush camp spews. Loyality clauses to go hear your President Speak. Arresting people that want to protest or putting them in speical areas where they have no access to the President and the media so he is always seen in a positive light.

If F9/11 did not do anyting else it at least showed the world that we have a current bafoon in the whitehouse. Everytime the president speaks he cracks me up. He is hands down the worst communicating president that we have had since media could record their words. And for the most part when Michael Moore says America is mindless he is right. We act like sheep to slaughter just go along with the daily dose of garbage (what the media feeds) like food in our troth fattening us up. All the while the real issues are killing us.

I mean we have kids dying for religion and oil and we are concered with Gay marriage and Janet Jackons boob. Gimme a break.

The christain right has invaded the white house and i just wish someone would make a movie exposing how much religion has been brought into American poltics. Makes me want to vomit., and before you call me a pagan I am a christian I just belive in seperation of church and state.

Flame away.

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Reply #23 By: Mobcoa - 10/22/2004 12:52:58 AM
The facts in F9/11 are somewhat spliced together and the movie does present a clear one sided view of GW. To say someone is UNAmerican for excersing their constitutional right of free speech is itself UNAmerican.

This country was founded on dissent and freedom of opression. While F9/11 might be one sided it does at least try and level out the rethoric that the Bush camp spews. Loyality clauses to go hear your President Speak. Arresting people that want to protest or putting them in speical areas where they have no access to the President and the media so he is always seen in a positive light.

If F9/11 did not do anyting else it at least showed the world that we have a current bafoon in the whitehouse. Everytime the president speaks he cracks me up. He is hands down the worst communicating president that we have had since media could record their words. And for the most part when Michael Moore says America is mindless he is right. We act like sheep to slaughter just go along with the daily dose of garbage (what the media feeds) like food in our troth fattening us up. All the while the real issues are killing us.

I mean we have kids dying for religion and oil and we are concered with Gay marriage and Janet Jackons boob. Gimme a break.

The christain right has invaded the white house and i just wish someone would make a movie exposing how much religion has been brought into American poltics. Makes me want to vomit., and before you call me a pagan I am a christian I just belive in seperation of church and state

100 % wrong! F 9/11 showed everyone with a brain that michael moore likes to lie and twist facts! in F9/11 it was 59 falsehoods!

citahellion

on Oct 22, 2004

To say someone is UNAmerican for excersing their constitutional right of free speech is itself UNAmerican.

I've got to disagree with you on that; it depends very much on what the original speaker is saying. If he's running around saying "I hate America, the president is a worthless jerk, I hope the country goes into a 100-year depression, gets scarlet fever, and dies," then I have absolutely no problem saying that he's acting unamerican.

To say that someone is unamerican for exercising their free speech right to call someone else unamerican is itself unamerican.

Texas Wahine

on Oct 22, 2004

To say that someone is unamerican for exercising their free speech right to call someone else unamerican is itself unamerican.

My brain just shorted out trying to think about that one . . .

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 22, 2004

"upon his visits to foreign countries he continued to bash our country."

Neither Michael Moore nor any other American necessarily leaves their right to free speech at the door when the leave the U.S. He's entitled to voice his opinion regardless of whether we agreee with it or not. Voicing his opinion doesn't mean he's anti-american. Secondly, I don't think the main point of his movie was to "bash" the troops. In fact, one of the major themes of the film was that our troops were unnecessarily sent into harms way.

Messy Buu, "I never realized that calling Americans stupid is a sign of love"

Yes. If someone feels that someone else is doing something self-destructive and the only way to get their attention is to bluntly say they are "being stupid," then it could be a sign of love. For example, telling an alcoholic they are stupid for continuing to drink. Whether or not it was the most tactful, the most diplomatic, or the most constructive way of showing they are doing it out of love is another matter. However, I don't think it is fair or accurate to characterize that the person or their remarks as being "anti-American" anymore than it would be fair or accurate to say that the person calling the alcoholic "stupid" hates or is against the person with the drinking problem. It is more accurate to say that the person uttering those words is against or "anti" the behavior of the country or the person in question.

Don Bemont

on Oct 22, 2004

Is Michael Moore anti-American?

Well, he is opposed to the current direction taken by the government of our country. By implication that means he is critical of the many millions of voters who support the direction taken by our government. When you disagree with other voters, you can assume that they know what they are doing but are evil, or you can assume that they know what they are doing but are misguided, or you can assume that they don't know what they are doing. Moore tends to take option #3 -- he feels that millions of American voters simply do not know much about recent American history.

Does this make him anti-American? Before answering that question, I think it is fair to ask the same of other critics of the recent governments of our country. When Bill Clinton was president, his every move was criticized from the right. His domestic policy was seen as sly, his policy in China was stupid, and his Balkan and Afghamistani adventures were seen as un-American and politically motivated. Was Rush Limbaugh being anti-American? Was Fox News being anti-American? Was the Republican Congress being anti-American? Were the social conservatives being anti-American?

I am not meaning to be clever or split hairs here. Few things aggravate me more than the claim by conservatives that when they disagree with liberals, they are being patriotic, When liberals disagree with conservatives, they are anti-American.

Arrogance, in my dictionary, is define as "disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance." It seems to me that about the only thing more fitting of that word than Michael Moore's abrasive manners, is the conservative view that their perspective defines patriotic and American, and that anyone who disagrees is, by definition, opposed to our country. Could ANY view be more arrogant than that?

Now, back to Moore. Both Columbine and Farenheit are mixtures, but a key ingredient in both is information that the average American does not know about recent American history. The vast majority of our voters know next to nothing about our country's past involvement with Iraq and Iran, or our other foriegn military actions since Vietnam. They know only a little bit about our past support of Muslim extremists.

They also know very little about the role of large business interests in our nation's foreign policy, and have not been challenged to think for themselves what "in the best interests of America" really means, in terms of which Americans. They also know little about the history of later colonialism, and how such undertakings were generally drains on the nations involved, but bonanzas for private interests which had the ear of governments in Europe -- a relevant matter considering that neocons appear to be trying to recreate the late 19th century, with the US as the dominant international power.

Most Americans have also thought relatively little about the nature of the news that reaches (or doesn't reach) us. It is very odd that the most credible source of information about what happened in the intelligence community after 9/11, Richard Clarke, was buried as part of just a lot of partisan noise back and forth. In my mind, his statement is the credible one: our administration, faced with the very difficult job of adequately responding to the 9/11 attack, decided instead to focus our nation on Iraq, and insisted that the intelligence community provide enough suspicion of a link to provide the cover to pull it off. History will extremely likely say the following: The United States suffered a horrible terrorist attack, and the Bush administration managed to defuse internal anger over the matter by attacking a country that had little or nothing to do with that attack. Although they removed a despicable leader in the process, the attack was actually the opposite of what it appeared to be -- it avoided the need to effectively respond to Al Qaeda, and instead stengthened the political position of Muslim extremists in the Middle East. Further, viewers of American TV news, especially Fox, lacked the information to see through the Bush administration's actions.

When Moore pokes holes in this, he does so with a mixture of humor and obnoxiousness. However, I fail to see how he is being anit-American. He is doing much what the religious right has long done -- attacked the government and, by extension the media and the majority of the public, portraying the government as cynical, the media as distorted, and the public as misguided.

But how are we supposed to vote in a democratic government if we don't hear these points of views? And it is telling that the attacks on Moore and the religious right are both mainly of the ad hominem variety -- they are "nuts" or "extremists" but the arguments against them are weak.

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Reply #28 By: Don Bemont - 10/22/2004 9:44:11 AM
Now, back to Moore. Both Columbine and Farenheit are mixtures, but a key ingredient in both is information that the average American does not know about recent American history. The vast majority of our voters know next to nothing about our country's past involvement with Iraq and Iran, or our other foriegn military actions since Vietnam. They know only a little bit about our past support of Muslim extremists.

I do not have a problem with Moore expressing his views except on 2 points
1) He lies and twists the truth to suit his own purpose. IE: 59 falsehoods in F9/11 alone and more in Bowling for Columbine.
2) I DO NOT like being called stupid and all the other assorted epitaths that he has heaped on the american people!

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!