Support NeoGAF

[Vigilant Walrus]

Well . . . we really haven't had a ground invasion since 2003 when we invaded Iraq.


We do drone & bomb shit though. And the occasional in & out commando raid.

John Oliver on Drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

It's disturbing.

 

[speculawyer]

we should invade canada

they have had it too good, for too long.

Speak of the Devil . . . Michael Moore already made a movie about that.

 

[Frank Serpico]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty amazing, so much talk about it being all lies and bogus when it released, look how that turned out ...

Well . . . we really haven't had a ground invasion since 2003 when we invaded Iraq.


We do drone & bomb shit though. And the occasional in & out commando raid.

This post is quite telling of the current perception and climate of war. Yes we aren't sending troops like in 2003, we also don't use muskets like in the 1700's. Technology changes, war has been non stop throughout the Obama administration even though he's pulled out troops. We say the Iraq war is over yet we're booming the country everyday, for example

 

[TAJ]

we should invade canada

they have had it too good, for too long.

We already tried that and lost.
Plus, yeah... Moore did that one.

 

[speculawyer]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty amazing, so much talk about it being all lies and bogus when it released, look how that turned out ....

Yeah, it stands up pretty well.

 

[Currygan]

as a non American, I find his movies extraordinarily interesting and eye opening about some of the most controversial US matters. Public health, gun ownership, Bush...plus, they're well paced, funny, well edited, generally well done. looking forward to this one as well

 

[BocoDragon]

Speak of the Devil . . . Michael Moore already made a movie about that.

Yeah, and John Candy died.

Meaning that Canada is now completely vulnerable to attack from the U.S., and we are in the timeline that leads into Fallout 3

 

[A_Gorilla]

Moore's relevancy died the moment Obama took office.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

Don't agree with him on most of his viewpoints, but I do like his movies. He has a certain way of making them so you can understand his views even if you don't agree with him. Looking forward to it.

 

[Gigglepoo]

Moore's relevancy died the moment Obama took office.

Because the world is perfect now?

 

[Kickz]

This time you guys wouldn't last 24 hrs.

 

[benjipwns]

Speak of the Devil . . . Michael Moore already made a movie about that.

It's also his only good movie.

And accurate one.

 

[Jimothy]

Michael Moore is kind of a blowhard and he manipulates the hell out of some his documentary footage, but I credit his movies (especially Bowling for Columbine) for inciting enough rage inside me about the system to make me read more about history and politics. For that alone I think he deserves credit. Not to mention his docs are cut really nicely.

 

[Mrmartel]

But, the current administration hasn't invaded anybody. The only military action by the Obama administration has been ongoing campaigns left over from the Bush administration.

Moore probably should've made this movie 10 years ago.

Ah, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows where else. Plus ramping up rhetoric against Russia and I still think the possibility of boots on the ground against ISIS are likely, although Obama will probably push this decision to the next president.

Yes, most of it's been bombing by planes/drones, not boots on the ground. But I'm really not sure which is better or worse, because these drones attacks seem to be a indefinite feature of USA policy.

 

[ZackieChan]

But he struggled to fit in his show in contrast to the current regime. Yeah, there is Fox News here and there and the occasional GOP meat head but he was at his wonderful peak during the Bush years for a good reason. I'm not saying he didn't have a wonderful run through the Obama years, but he saw the writing on the wall and is bowing out gracefully.

After 7 years? Your premise makes no sense.

 

[benjipwns]

Ah, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows where else. Plus ramping up rhetoric against Russia and I still think the possibility of boots on the ground against ISIS are likely, although Obama will probably push this decision to the next president.

Yes, most of it's been bombing by planes/drones, not boots on the ground. But I'm really not sure which is better or worse, because these drones attacks seem to be a indefinite feature of USA policy.

It also fits, as you note, into Moore's theme even if it's not "Real War", it's part of the "endless war" (or "infinite war" as Moore uses) and power of the military-industrial-bureaucratic complex that Eisenhower identified.

The U.S. has been doing this kind of thing for decades, it's not an Obama or Bush thing, or Republican or Democrat thing, it's a U.S. government thing.

Even Clinton who is thought of as a Peace President deployed U.S. troops more times than the previous ten Presidents or something. But it was off to "not real wars" so it got pushed off the front page unless events like Somalia or Kosovo put it there. Or the constant bombing of Iraq.

 

[SegaShack]

I love how he thinks he was being followed while making this, despite the fact that he will be able to release this no problem. If it was as bad as he said the government wouldn't want it released anyways.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I don't like Michael Moore. It's all very biased and manipulative garbage, like most pop documentaries.

 

[CadetMahoney]

He's not wrong. Isn't the aim to use ISIS to undermine Syria and then kill Assad and take over Syria? The MSM will spin it as all justified of course.

How the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...ed-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

----

"Easing Into” War with Syria Using ISIS
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-easing-into-war-with-syria-using-isis-boogeyman/5432712

“The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend”: How the U.S. is Using ISIS as a Pretext for War Against Syria
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-en...is-as-a-pretext-for-war-against-syria/5398104

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Em, this isn't the what is your favorite conspiracy thread.

 

[BUNTING1243]

Michael Moore seems like a nice guy. I like a lot of his movies. I am excited about this.

 

[M1ch04c4n0]

I like his movies, they always have spot on opinions and points of view.

I would say I'm surprise invading Mexico hasn't happen, but since a full-blow invasion would slow down or stop drug trafficking and production, it's been delayed indefinitely.

 

[TemplaerDude]

I am always interested in anything he's doing whether I agree with him or not and a few of you should perhaps be a little less partisan about this.

 

[squall211]

Haven't seen a good Michael Moore comedy in a while. Looking forward to this.

 

[antonz]

Ah, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows where else. Plus ramping up rhetoric against Russia and I still think the possibility of boots on the ground against ISIS are likely, although Obama will probably push this decision to the next president.

Yes, most of it's been bombing by planes/drones, not boots on the ground. But I'm really not sure which is better or worse, because these drones attacks seem to be a indefinite feature of USA policy.

Ramping up rhetoric against Russia?

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I am always interested in anything he's doing whether I agree with him or not and a few of you should perhaps be a little less partisan about this.

Er...no. He's the Bill O'Reilly of liberals.

 

[Fathom]

But, the current administration hasn't invaded anybody. The only military action by the Obama administration has been ongoing campaigns left over from the Bush administration.

Moore probably should've made this movie 10 years ago.

Maybe you should wait for some actual concrete info about the movie, or at least a trailer until you judge whether he should have made it or not.

 

[Fathom]

Er...no. He's the Bill O'Reilly of liberals.

Have you actually seen any of his movies? What a clueless statement.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Have you actually seen any of his movies? What a clueless statement.

Yes. I have seen all of them. It doesn't make him a valid documentarian.
He an egomaniac.

Errol Morris, Alex Gibney are way better than his lame ass.

Christ, even a run of the mill Frontline documentary provides more balance and facts.
Or Harry Shearer's Le Show, will be more illuminating.

“People don’t want medicine, they want popcorn,” he told a crowd of industry guests. “Entertainment is the big dirty word of documentary. ‘Oh no! I’ve entertained someone. I’ve cheapened my movie!’”

what a douche. He should be providing facts in an evocative and interesting way, not the other way around.

 

[LizardKing]

What the hell is with the Michael Moore hate? He's a liberal like most of you. He's been relevant for 25 years. He makes interesting, charming, entertaining, convincing, activist documentaries (which promote the causes most of you promote.) He made 1 film largely about a politician/political party, the rest are mostly about political issues. Is it because he might be tangentially in some way showing indirect criticism of a liberal president? It's ok to criticize within the party.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

A ton of liberals including me, do dislike Moore and not for attacking a liberal president but for his manipulation and bias.

 

[LizardKing]

A ton of liberals including me, do dislike Moore and not for attacking a liberal president but for his manipulation and bias.

Because he's not objective? So what? He doesn't claim to be and it's obvious to everyone he's not. He presents an argument in a well researched, thought out and entertaining manner. Very much like Jon Stewart and everyone loves him.

 

[Fathom]

A ton of liberals including me, do dislike Moore and not for attacking a liberal president but for his manipulation and bias.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit, and Sicko to name 4 are not manipulative. They tell a point of view, but he shows the entire picture and intelligently informs the audience. And of course he has a bias, every documentary has a bias. If it were just presenting facts it would be a news story, not a documentary. Jesus christ.

 

[Relativ9]

What the hell is with the Michael Moore hate? He's a liberal like most of you. He's been relevant for 25 years. He makes interesting, charming, entertaining, convincing, activist documentaries (which promote the causes most of you promote.) He made 1 film largely about a politician/political party, the rest are mostly about political issues. Is it because he might be tangentially in some way showing indirect criticism of a liberal president? It's ok to criticize within the party.

Well speaking as a non-us liberal. While I agree with many of his positions, he often does his own causes a great disservice by arguing using needlessly inflammatory methods designed to provoke emotional responses rather then rational ones. Anyone who argues using emotional manipulation does so from a point of weakness. Worse they end up backing his opponents into corners ensuring that their only option is to double down on their stances, which might play good on a screen, but only sabotages any effort that could have been made to fix or improve things.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Yes, I expect a bit more in my documentaries. I don't just have my foreign and domestic policies shaped by a an hour or so films. I try to be nuanced.

While I am in his boat so to say, I don't agree with the methodology. He's not well researchered. He fits his experts to his message.


Having the acclaimed of superiors and supports is a fallacy.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

as a non American, I find his movies extraordinarily interesting and eye opening about some of the most controversial US matters. Public health, gun ownership, Bush...plus, they're well paced, funny, well edited, generally well done. looking forward to this one as well

Bowling for Columbine was 20 minutes too long.

 

[LizardKing]

Well speaking as a non-us liberal. While I agree with many of his positions, he often does his own causes a great disservice by arguing using needlessly inflammatory methods designed to provoke emotional responses rather then rational ones. Anyone who argues using emotional manipulation does so from a point of weakness. Worse they end up backing his opponents into corners ensuring that their only option is to double down on their stances, which might play good on a screen, but only sabotages any effort that could have been made to fix or improve things.

If you don't think why people believe what they believe is largely because of those very emotions he provokes then I dunno what to tell you. Kudos to him for provoking it to be seen on screen, and yes it helps that it's also entertaining to boot. People ARE emotional, they ARE irrational. He should show those things.

 

[Relativ9]

If you don't think why people believe what they believe is largely because of those very emotions he provokes then I dunno what to tell you. Kudos to him for provoking it to be seen on screen, and yes it helps that it's also entertaining to boot. People ARE emotional, they ARE irrational. He should show those things.

Right, but (at least in my opinion) when it comes to matters of politics emotions and irrationality are things to avoid, not embrace.

 

[Messofanego]

Much like the Daily Show with John Stewart in the post-Obama era, Micheal Moore is only really relevant during Republican presidencies (specifically Dubya's). Moore should take a similar hint and do what John Stewart did: bow out gracefully and try not to stay relevant.

Jon Stewart is not relevant? Yeah, right. And you wanted him to leave? Even though he did some great segments like about the Charleston shooting as he's leaving? Hah ok.

If Jon Stewart wasnt relevant these days then you wouldn't have the Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

 

[MrCunningham]

Time for America to invade itself.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Time for America to invade itself.

Back to back civil war champions

 

[Fathom]

Right, but (at least in my opinion) when it comes to matters of politics emotions and irrationality are things to avoid, not embrace.

Those are the exact emotions that politics evokes from people. Leaving that out would make for a very cold and boring documentary.

 

[Condom]

Right, but (at least in my opinion) when it comes to matters of politics emotions and irrationality are things to avoid, not embrace.

Yeah well that is impossible.

Emotion is fundamental to politics.

 

[Messofanego]

You have no clue what you're talking about. Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit, and Sicko to name 4 are not manipulative. They tell a point of view, but he shows the entire picture and intelligently informs the audience. And of course he has a bias, every documentary has a bias. If it were just presenting facts it would be a news story, not a documentary. Jesus christ.

Even news stories can be biased by choosing what facts they want to show heh.

I have yet to see an objective documentary with no emotional thrust to it.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

That's why documentaries are shit.

An hour or do isn't conductive to debate.

 

[Miracle]

John Oliver on Drones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

It's disturbing.

Ugh I remember this.

Disturbing indeed.

 

[benjipwns]

You have no clue what you're talking about. Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit, and Sicko to name 4 are not manipulative. They tell a point of view, but he shows the entire picture

To name one, except for when he's cutting together multiple speeches of Charlton Heston and claiming events that didn't happen did or completely changing the bank's gun promotion into something it totally wasn't in Bowling for Columbine.