Michael Moore Mellowing out a little? Let's hope so.


PDA






Hugo
November 30, 2004, 01:41 AM
Just saw a cleaned up Michael Moore on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He certainly looks different with a shave and a haircut and in a suit. He still really needs to lose weight though, sheesh this guy is a heart attack or stroke waiting to happen! Surprisingly he seemed to be much more mellow about his Anti-bush anti-USA politics. Hopefully he soon will stop being so anti gun and just plain whacky and go back the the mellow way he was back on his show TV Nation. I miss that wiser, mellower, and just more sane Michael Moore.

I bet the main reason he cleaned himself up though was the movie Team America: World Police. If you haven't seen it since it, basically it really, really made him look like a fat slob who doesn't appreciate those fighting terrorism. I bet he saw it and decided to improve his image a bit.

If you enjoyed reading about "Michael Moore Mellowing out a little? Let's hope so." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1776
November 30, 2004, 02:15 AM
Lets hope that he does not mellow out. If he is trying to do so, he is only trying to cover his butt.
In my eyes he is a traitor. And he deserves a traitors punishment.

SteelyDan
November 30, 2004, 02:27 AM
I caught the show, too, and he was surprisingly subdued. He also practically admitted that he's more comfortable on the other side of the camera, where he can ambush people, edit the product, and not have to answer questions.

fallingblock
November 30, 2004, 04:39 AM
In Michael's mind. :scrutiny:

Yes, he would be more comfortable behind the camera, for the reasons SteelyDan noted.

I wouldn't anticipate any long-term behavioral changes from
Michael Moore. ;)

c_yeager
November 30, 2004, 04:43 AM
The insane mutterings of Moore and his ilk may well have swung the election in our favor. I know several people who simply got scared out of voting Democrat by people such as Moore. I hope he keeps it up.

Dave Bean
November 30, 2004, 05:38 AM
Yea, ok...whatever. As far as I'm concerned, he can just go $&((^%#@!)& himself.

Dave Bean

CarlS
November 30, 2004, 08:24 AM
Michael Moore is a low life, bottom feeding, scum eating traitor - and those are his good qualities.

DRZinn
November 30, 2004, 01:21 PM
I hope he gets more and more extreme (though there's not much room left on the left side of the scale),until everyone gets just how insane his ideas really are.

LeonCarr
November 30, 2004, 01:59 PM
Did Michael Moore say that if Bush was reelected to a second term, that he would move to Canada? Why was he on Jay Leno when he said he was going to be in Canada ? :)

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

spacemanspiff
November 30, 2004, 02:22 PM
the DU peeps are divided. half of them want to hang MM for not doing enough (but they cant find a rope strong enough), the other half are saying "hold on! its not over yet!" just like they kept saying "hold on! new mexico isnt counted yet! whats that? we lost NM? okay, OHIO's not counted yet! huh? it is? alright, FLORIDA!! we'll get florida! what? lost that one too? ahwwwwwww hell!"

anyone else notice that the audience members booing MM were either shut up or kicked out of the studio?

one45auto
November 30, 2004, 02:22 PM
He still really needs to lose weight though, sheesh this guy is a heart attack or stroke waiting to happen!

Aren't you going to tell us what the downside to that would be? :neener:

ProactiveReactionary
December 1, 2004, 07:06 AM
i cannot and will not forgive moore for two things.

one is cleverly editing speeches made my charlton heston and made him look like a raving lunatic making open threats against people which he never did.

and supposedly showed how easy it was to buy a firearm at k-mart while not telling anyone he had the paper work done in advance, all he showed was him handing over the money and walking out with a firearm.

everything else just attempts to make certain people look bad, i feel the two examples are outright insults and affronts to something the man knows nothing about. all he knows is "white man fire sticks bad!" and goes on an anti gun jag across this country because a couple idiot kids whose parents obviously didnt give their kids enough attention went on a shooting rampage in their school and makes a movie about it. although i give the fat guy credit for one thing, he surely knows how to pull at people emotions and get them to buy his books and go see his movies. in this respect the man is a genius, he's managed to take people without a brain or a non functioning one, and then feeds them full of half truths and outright lies and says its all the truth and then his brainwashed followers go out and spew the same lines he tells them.

tyme
December 1, 2004, 07:10 AM
He got the firearm when he opened a CD account at a bank, IIRC. The kmart/walmart/whatever (I can't keep them straight, but I don't think k-mart sells gun stuff, do they?) situation was over the 9mm ammo used by the psycho losers who perpetrated the Columbine school murders.

ProactiveReactionary
December 1, 2004, 07:19 AM
kmart use to sell LOTS of rifles and ammo. that is until rosie odonnel who was their spokesman caught wind of how "easy" it was to buy stuff there and crack down on their asses and basically bullied them into giving up anything and everything to do with firearms and ammunition. but she insists (ironically) that her bodyguard be armed. and i'm not kidding. YOU shouldnt have a firearm, but her bodyguard should to protect her. lol hypocrisy knows no bounds.

XLMiguel
December 1, 2004, 09:36 AM
Mikee hisdamself admitted, "If you can't beat 'em, look like 'em . . . "

But seriously, Moore got his Ego and Id butt kicked good - he has been forced to realize he isn't anywhere near as 'relevant' as he thinks he is (if he's relevant at all :evil: ), and he took a huge amount of guff over his appearance/personna. Having over half the western world calling you a pompous, arrogant, schmelly-fat-slob and worse has got to hurt (pride goes before a fall :rolleyes: ).

Don't count him out, he still drinks his own bath water, and he said it's a whole new game in four years, which means he'll be back at it in the next six months, as soon as he perceives enough new Bush 'screw-ups' to mount a new agenda SOS/DD :barf:

CZ 75 BD
December 1, 2004, 09:50 AM
is still a pig.

ReadyontheRight
December 1, 2004, 12:30 PM
This guy will do anything he thinks will get him media attention and $$$.

Standing Wolf
December 1, 2004, 12:39 PM
A liar is a liar is a liar, no matter how it's attired.

RKCheung
December 1, 2004, 12:45 PM
I hope everyone realizes that it is awards season and Moore's movie is up for Best Picture nomination.

Don't be fooled by a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Swamprabbit
December 1, 2004, 12:58 PM
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... You get the idea?

These types are ALL about "image" and will change to whatever "image" best suits them at the time. Right now, the "shaggy/hippy liberal" image isn't playing too well so he bought a razor. Just look at him and have a good laugh.

2nd Amendment
December 1, 2004, 01:28 PM
Ever see food products with a blurb about their "new packaging"? There ya go...

45R
December 1, 2004, 01:31 PM
Maybe his therapist finally put him back on his meds.

DRZinn
December 1, 2004, 02:01 PM
For a little better rhythm:

"A liar is a liar, no matter how attired." :p

Justin
December 1, 2004, 03:59 PM
Hopefully he soon will stop being so anti gun and just plain whacky and go back the the mellow way he was back on his show TV Nation.

:scrutiny:

You're kidding, right?

halvey
December 1, 2004, 04:19 PM
I bet the main reason he cleaned himself up though was the movie Team America: World Police. Nope, he's just trying to sell us something else.

Akurat
December 1, 2004, 04:26 PM
Just trying to save face after the fact. He realizes that alot of people are blaming him and his kind for the downfall of the socialist party in this country.

Lets hope he keeps up his communist ways and wins us another election.

Jake
December 1, 2004, 06:29 PM
It's Oscar time boys and girls. Moore's Latenight dress up act was just as much of a butt-kissing photo-op as Kerry's hunting trips were. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nathaniel Firethorn
December 1, 2004, 06:32 PM
Lets hope that he does not mellow out. If he is trying to do so, he is only trying to cover his butt.That'd take something the size of a circus tent. :neener:

- pdmoderator

Andrew Rothman
December 1, 2004, 06:56 PM
For an even better rhythm:

"A liar is a liar, no matter the attire."

bbaerst
December 1, 2004, 10:21 PM
Michael Moore has certainly warped the truth and carefully manipulated events in order to make his points ever more sensational for his viewers, but I'm really appalled at the earlier statement of how he's a traitor and deserves a traitor's death.

Last I checked, no matter how disagreeable or foolish your goals may seem, you still have the full protected rights to express your opinion. Trying to change the country to fit your vision doesn't make you a traitor, and especially us 2nd Amendment proponents should stand for the right of free expression and press. Cut down his arguments, expose his inaccuracies, and challenge his ideas, but you can't call him a traitor or a criminal. It is a good thing that we no longer have laws such as the Alien & Sedition Acts (well, ok, the PATRIOT Act), but still...recognize that.

Whenever I get into an argument about Bowling for Columbine, I find that it's good to point out that at the end of Moore's film, the conclusion was not that gun ownership is a problem (he brings up Canada etc. to illustrate that) but that it's a culture of violence, fear, etc etc. So I could see Moore backing off from the anti-gun stance a little, and that would be great.

wingman
December 1, 2004, 10:48 PM
M Moore is somewhat like Jesse Jackson, in that he found a way to make
money from the far left glass bubble folks. :barf:

AZRickD
December 1, 2004, 11:40 PM
http://www.mrc.org/stillshots/2004/moore120104.jpg

http://www.mrc.org/stillshots/2004/moore120104.jpg

DRZinn
December 1, 2004, 11:43 PM
It's a ringer!

Sergeant Bob
December 2, 2004, 01:21 AM
Mikey Moore has a right to say what he wants, as did Joseph Goebbels.

PMDW
December 2, 2004, 01:35 AM
Dear God... Shaved, he looks like my uncle.

Greg Bell
December 2, 2004, 01:39 AM
He looks like "Peter" from family guy!

CarlS
December 2, 2004, 07:15 AM
but you can't call him a traitor or a criminal.
I disagree. Moore has given aid and comfort to the enemy, potentially increasing their will to resist. Such actions increase the danger to American soldiers and causes increased American deaths. Such actions and speech are traitorous. The same can be said for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and company.

There is a way to protest the war, yet support a successful conclusion of it (since we have American lives committed), and take the position that we should not envolve ourselves in a similar war again. Moore, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, and company have not taken this approach. In my opinion, they are traitors and do not give a d*** about the lives of our military. They have openly given aid and comfort to the insurgents.

Hkmp5sd
December 2, 2004, 12:13 PM
I would like to see MM so mellow his pulse and blood pressure are equal to each other and to ZERO.

Joe Demko
December 2, 2004, 02:09 PM
Moore has given aid and comfort to the enemy
Which is enemy is that?

I don't care for Moore at all, but I care even less for the attitude that everybody who isn't singing with the choir is a traitor.

Andrew Rothman
December 2, 2004, 04:06 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=19068&stc=1

That was exactly my first thought, Greg.

CarlS
December 2, 2004, 05:34 PM
Which is enemy is that?
The enemy is composed of those who are trying to kill my son and the other folks serving our country in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. When you are being shot at, it isn't hard to figure out who the enemy is. :banghead:

Joe Demko
December 2, 2004, 10:50 PM
How did Michael Moore aid the people shooting at your son? If criticizing the Bush administration is your answer, then half the people in this country are traitors.

fallingblock
December 3, 2004, 07:14 AM
The End of the Left’s History
The world has moved on.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp

The hysterical reaction of the Western Left to the reelection of President George W. Bush is not just a primal scream from politicians and intellectuals deprived of political power. The violent language, numerous acts of violence, and demonization of Bush and his electorate — the same as that directed against Tony Blair in Britain, Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy — portend a more fundamental event: the death rattle of the traditional Left, both as a dominant political force and as an intellectual vision.


For the most part, the Left only wins elections nowadays when their candidates run on their opponents’ platform (Clinton and Blair) or when panic overwhelms the political process (Zapatero and Schroeder). Under normal circumstances, leftists running as leftists rarely win, proving that their ideology — the ideology that dominated political and intellectual debate for most of the last century — is spent. When their ideas were in vogue, leftist advocates took electoral defeat in stride, as they were confident that their vision was far more popular — because far more accurate — than their opponents’ view of the world. History and logic were on their side. But no more. Incoherent rage and unbridled personal attacks on the winners are sure signs of a failed vision.

Ironically, the Left’s view of history provides us with part of the explanation for its death. Marx and Hegel both understood that the world constantly changes, and ideas change along with it. The world they knew — and successfully transformed — was a class-bound society dominated by royalty and aristocracy. They hurled themselves into class struggle, believing it to be the engine of human history, and they fought for liberty for all. Successive generations of leftists preached and organized democratic revolution at home and abroad, from the overthrow of tyrants to the abolition of class privileges and the redistribution of both political power and material wealth.

In true dialectical fashion, they were doomed by their own success. As once-impoverished workers became wealthier, the concept of the proletariat became outdated, along with the very idea of class struggle. Then the manifest failure and odious tyranny of the 20th-century leftist revolutions carried out in the name of the working class — notably in Russia, China, and Cuba — undermined the appeal of the old revolutionary doctrines, no matter how desperately the Left argued that Communist tyrannies were an aberration, or a distortion of their vision.

Thus the ideology of the Left became anachronistic, even in western Europe, its birthplace and the source of its historical model. But the biggest change was the emergence of the United States as the most powerful, productive, and creative country in the world. It was always very hard for the Left to understand America, whose history, ideology, and sociology never fit the Left’s schemas. Even those who argued that there were class divisions in America had to admit that the "American proletariat" had no class consciousness. The political corollary was that there was never a Marxist mass movement in the United States. Every European country had big socialist parties and some had substantial Communist parties; the United States had neither. Indeed, most American trade unions were anti-Communist. As Seymour Martin Lipset and others have demonstrated, the central ideals of European socialism — which inspired many American leftist intellectuals — were contained in and moderated by the American Dream. America had very little of the class hatred that dominated Europe for so long; American workers wanted to get rich, and believed they could. Leftist Europeans — and the bulk of the American intellectual elite — believed that only state control by a radical party could set their societies on the road to equality.

The success of America was thus a devastating blow to the Left. It wasn’t supposed to happen. And American success was particularly galling because it came at the expense of Europe itself, and of the embodiment of the Left’s most utopian dream: the Soviet Union. Even those Leftists who had been outspokenly critical of Stalin’s "excesses" could not forgive America for bringing down the Soviet Empire, and becoming the world’s hyperpower. As Marx and Hegel would have understood, the first signs of hysterical anti-Americanism on the Left accompanied the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The resurgence of American economic power and the defeat of the Soviets exposed the failure of the Left to keep pace with the transformation of the world. The New York intellectual who proclaimed her astonishment at Reagan’s election by saying, "I don’t know a single person who voted for him," well described the dialectical process by which an entire set of ideas was passing into history.

The slow death of the Left was not limited to its failure to comprehend how profoundly the world had changed, but included elements that had been there all along, outside the purview of leftist thought. Marx was famously unable to comprehend the importance of religion, which he dismissively characterized as the "opiate of the masses," and the Left had long fought against organized religion. But America had remained a religious society, which both baffled and enraged the leftists. On the eve of the 2004 elections, some 40 percent of the electorate consisted of born-again Christians, and the world at large was in the grips of a massive religious revival, yet the increasingly isolated politicians and intellectuals of the Left had little contact and even less understanding of people of faith.

Unable to either understand or transform the world, the Left predictably lost its bearings. It was entirely predictable that they would seek to explain their repeated defeats by claiming fraud, or dissing their own candidates, or blaming the stupidity of the electorate. Their cries of pain and rage echo those of past elites who looked forward and saw the abyss. There is no more dramatic proof of the death of the Left than the passage of its central vision — global democratic revolution — into the hands of those who call themselves conservatives.
History has certainly not ended, but it has added a new layer to its rich compost heap.

— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

Nah. I suspect Mikey intends to be a part of that compost heap regardless!

CarlS
December 3, 2004, 03:43 PM
How did Michael Moore aid the people shooting at your son? If criticizing the Bush administration is your answer, then half the people in this country are traitors.
If that is what you got out reading my original post, it is a waste of my time discussing this with you. And if you can't figure out how Michael Moore and his ilk encourage (aid) the insurgents and cause additional loss of life, I darn sure cannot explain it to you. Since you seem not to understand who the enemy is - when he is shooting at you - there is little point in continuing.

Joe Demko
December 3, 2004, 05:16 PM
You know Carl, I salute your son for volunteering and I understand your concern for him, but I don't care to talk to you any more. Having a son there gives you no special insight. Lots of people, to include me, have friends and family serving in the Mideast. You've done nothing but make an assertion that you apparently can't support and so must fall back on "if you don't understand, I can't explain it." My best to your son and you have a good day.

CarlS
December 3, 2004, 05:39 PM
Joe,

Just so you know, I've been there, too. I have that Tee shirt. In my original post, I plainly stated there are ways to criticize the President without giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I stand by that. If criticizing the President and publicly criticizing the war is more important to someone than the lives of those in uniform in harms way, I think that is pretty selfish and self-centered.

You are the one who asked who the enemy was; and I answered that from a soldier's point of view. One doesn't have time for philosophical debate in a fiirefight or in an ambush. The enemy are those doing their best to kill you. If you cannot or will not see how the actions of Michael Moore and some of those on the left encourage the "enemy", I could never explain it to you in a few short paragraphs. Maybe you have to have walked in those boots to understand. But I know plenty of folks who have never been in the military who have no trouble grasping that concept.

grampster
December 3, 2004, 05:48 PM
Rant On:
Sigh....I wasn't gonna chime in on this one but a buzzword got thrown out and It's starting to bug me when I keep hearing comments or words similar that say....."Just because I disagree with the administration.... or I'm opposed to the war.... or I'm entitled to my opinion.... because what kind of a country would we have if I don't have my freedom of speech......." All very valid comments except those that say that generally never ever have any solution to the disagreement that they have with our duly elected government. Nor are they, generally, ever able to carry on a lucid, factual conversation about the root causes of what gives them their dispepsia over decisions made or directions taken by those placed into authority in free elections in our country. Free speech is a sacred trust and endowed by the Creator. Free speech should have a positive purpose, not just oppositional speech for no purpose other than to be opposed. Mostly we hear venom, hollow accusation, propaganda, misdirection, or outright falsehood peppered with a good dose of not having a clue. I saw a column by a syndicated writer last week that sort of summed it up for me when he wrote that when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, if we had the same climate of whiny, left-wing politicaly correct, head in the sand, selfish, indulgent, clueless, effete snobs, (and in michael moore's case, fat, ugly and smelly too) the headline in the NY Times would howl about WHAT HAS AMERICA DONE TO THE JAPANESE TO CAUSE THEM TO HATE US SO MUCH. Day two's story would be about what can we do to get them to like us again.

Before somebody decides to flame me about "Bush lied, kids died, its about oil, no wmd's and Haliburton, I'm not interested in that crap either, so don't waste your typewriter ribbon.

America specifically and western culture in general was engaged by terrorist thugs using an apostate offshoot of a world religion to leverage an excuse to throw the world back into the dark ages of tribal feudalism starting about 30 years ago. Michael Moore represents a charicature (sp?) of woefully naive people lost in the folly of the culture lead by that California philosopher, Rodney King, who wondered..."why can't we all just get along?" Sighhhh......A line needed to be drawn in the sand. Somebody's culture is going to prevail in this; murderous tribal feudalism or Western civilization. The sooner the know-nothings grasp a portion of this notion, the faster the danger will pass. 50 years ago, with the behaviour of the apostate religious fanatics and tribal feudalists being as it is, America would have picked its target and leveled it entirely. There would be no regard to mosques, women, children, animals or anything, Iraq would have been leveled. Unfortunately, it has fallen to this generation at this time to draw that line. I am proud to say that our youth, our best and brightest, have stepped to the counter and said "count me in". I am humbled by their bravery, fidelity, and selfless dedication to freedom everywhere. The only disagreement that I have is that I am on the side of "if its worth going to war over, then have no mercy until mercy is begged for". The perfect example of that philosphy is Germany and Japan.

Furthermore to those of you who say "But I support our troops", your statement is false and hollow if you do not finish the statement by saying that you also support their mission. I know too many kids who are in the sand, I hear from them and their loved ones. They are proud to serve and are dedicated TO THE MISSION. The least those of you who disagree should do is if you insist on being the voice of opposition, then you should try being the voice of the loyal opposition and grasp the understanding that evil walks the earh and evil is not us. If you disagree with the methodology, give us an alternative solution that is other than sticking your head in the sand and pleading for forgiveness for loving freedom. I for one, do question the loyalty and patriotism of those of you who shrilly oppose the steps that appear to be necessary to rid the world of those that murder and oppress in the name of some god that does not exist except as a lie to go frighten their minions into slaughtering people. I've had too much coffee.....so...
Rant Off.

dustind
December 3, 2004, 05:50 PM
Whenever I get into an argument about Bowling for Columbine, I find that it's good to point out that at the end of Moore's film, the conclusion was not that gun ownership is a problem (he brings up Canada etc. to illustrate that) but that it's a culture of violence, fear, etc etc. You do realize that was a lie too, don't you? Americans are not more likely to shoot each other, nor are we more violent.

How can you be a gun owner and not think that BFC made all gun owners look bad? Unless you actually think his picture of gun owners is accurate.

Not only was almost every fact, both statements and numbers, a lie, but so where his premisses.

c_yeager
December 4, 2004, 06:31 AM
Furthermore to those of you who say "But I support our troops", your statement is false and hollow if you do not finish the statement by saying that you also support their mission.

I strongly dissagree with this. While i AGREE with our deployments in both Afganistan and Iraq, past administrations have sent our troops into places where I felt that they had no business being (think Bosnia and Somolia). OUr government is CERTAINLY in no way infallible they certainly have and certainly will in the future put our troops at risk for no good reason. Just because I felt that our troops had no business in Bosnia or Somolia doesnt mean that I didnt want them to at least succeed with their mission and come home safely afterwards. Disagreing with an administration has nothing to do with supporting our troops. Especially when it is the administration that is needlessly spending their lives on ill-conceived goals.

CarlS
December 4, 2004, 07:15 AM
Just because I felt that our troops had no business in Bosnia or Somolia doesnt mean that I didnt want them to at least succeed with their mission and come home safely afterwards.

I think your reply and the post to which you replied are saying the same thing. I also did not agree with sending our troops to Bosnia, Somolia, and Kosovo. BUt once they were committed, I certainly did not want them to fail. That is what is different about the extreme left - Michael Moore, Striesand, et al. They would like to see us fail - even though failure means increased casualties. I have heard liberals say that if we had to bring bodies back by the thousands, it would get rid of Bush. They were wishing it would happen. The leftists have put themselves in the position that good news for America - the war on terror, the economy - is bad news for them and conversely, bad news for America is good news for them.

Warbow
December 4, 2004, 03:46 PM
Joe Demko wrote:

How did Michael Moore aid the people shooting at your son? If criticizing the Bush administration is your answer, then half the people in this country are traitors.

Maybe because he writes crap like this?

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

iapetus
December 5, 2004, 08:36 AM
Hopefully he soon will stop being so anti gun and just plain whacky and go back the the mellow way he was back on his show TV Nation

I remember once seeing an episode of MMTVN where he was trying to give guns to Canadians, on the grounds that "they don't have enough". :what:

CarlS
December 5, 2004, 10:06 AM
How did Michael Moore aid the people shooting at your son? If criticizing the Bush administration is your answer, then half the people in this country are traitors.
Maybe because he writes crap like this? “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”
Exactly. I suspect he was very well aware of this. I just didn’t reply to such an inane question.

desmack
December 5, 2004, 06:41 PM
Once a traitor always a traitor

DB

If you enjoyed reading about "Michael Moore Mellowing out a little? Let's hope so." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!