Check out what Michael Moore has just posted on his FB page...

[Turborama]

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Climate change has disappeared from the US presidential debates -- just as the fossil fuel industry's money floods in to the election.

Click SHARE to help end the silence at the final debate, tonight!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=127014427449587&id=24674986856&__user=524725467

[MADem]

1. I could really give a shit about what Michael Moore has to say right now.

He is no help to MY candidate, so he can just waddle off to his enormous, multi-million dollar energy hog of a mansion, or take his fossil-fuel burning jet off to somewhere where he can rest his weary, one-percent head, and he can stay the fuck off my facebook page or anywhere else, so far as I'm concerned.

If RMoney wins, it's good for Moore--he can't tilt against the populist. It only works if there's a Republican in office. That's why he's inserting his half-baked opinions into this fight so late in the game.

Go home, Michael Moore. Tell it to someone who gives a shit....and that's not any Democrat within weeks of this election.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. There's one more debate to go.

If he can make this an issue to be discussed, that would be important.

You sound as if he can't possibly be genuinely concerned, and is just angling for his own profit.

[MADem]

11. I think the only context for oil in a "Foreign Policy" debate will be in the context of WAR.

Michael Moore isn't going to get his wish, and if you think the questions haven't been written by now, I have a bridge for sale.

Michael Moore can go insert his "concern" elsewhere. His goal is to sow hate and discontent and demotivate the liberal/progressive base from turning out for Obama. He can go stuff himself.

Ask yourself the question: Cui bono?

If Obama gets reelected, MM has to pay more taxes and has much less to crab about (if he wants to continue to champion progressive causes).

If RMoney gets elected, MM gets a huge tax break, has a windmill to tilt at, and will be able to bring in the sheaves for four to eight fat years.

I trust that blowhard about as far as I can throw him. He's in it for himself. He's a business, and he needs money to keep that lifestyle he's got going on intact.




http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=3576

[DirkGently]

53. Wow. MM is fat? Fucking brilliant criticism. Way to link

to some rightwing asshole's column pathetically trying to argue Moore can't support Occupy because his films have made money, too.

Moore's hypocrisy is a perfect fit for a confused Occupy movement that boasts support from Big Labor, millionaire musicians and spoiled Harvard kids. The film-maker rallied the crowd in front of Oakland City Hall in California by urging them to expand their protests to leafy suburbs like Oakland's middle-class Walnut Creek. "That's where all the money is, right?" he said.

His argument doesn't even make sense.

"De-motivating" Democrats is also a pretty silly charge. We're not allowed to talk about climate change because it's not sufficiently campaign-friendly?

Bullshit.

[MADem]

68. Get over yourself--I wasn't linking to the article, I was linking to the PICTURE.

But hey, it's courtesy to credit when you do that. Is that not his home? Just a conspiracy to make the poor rumpled multimillionaire look bad? Yeah, sure.

The issue isn't Waaaah...We're not allowed to talk about climate change because it's not sufficiently campaign-friendly?

The issue is Why does this asshole ONLY show up to gripe about Democrats during an election year? And the tougher the election, the more ready he is to stand on the sidelines and throw shitbombs. When he gets out of that pig of a house he's in, goes to a smaller footprint, and lives the bullshit he's talking on the OFF YEARS, he might have credibility. But he's got NO room to talk when he's using enough energy to run a frigging magnet high school to support his lifestyle. His lazy use of the debate audience to float an idea for his next slapped-together documentary is transparent in the extreme. He must have a need to feed his trust fund.

I don't buy "Do as I say, not as I do" faux heroes. He can go sit by his pal King Ralph.

[DirkGently]

128. Oh boy. And Al Gore ate a sea bass, so Global Warming is a hoax, right?

That is some laughably transparent ad hominem nonsense right there.

MM has more credibility in one (chubby) finger than 10 million partisan robots. You know why? Because he's "not always friendly to Obama." Because you'd have to be insane or utterly bereft of intelligence to agree with any political leader all the time.

He also happens to be right.

Your attack is no different from the rightwing psycho whose column you cited. Substance free, and based on a laughable attempt to construct "hypocrisy" over -- his house?

This is the same bullshit people threw at Occupy, like you somehow can't criticize Wallstreet billionaires if you utilize technology and live indoors.

All this, because you're apparently terrified that a valid criticism that doesn't happen to reflect well on either candidate is insufficiently loyal to Democrats? That ... what? Michael Moore is going to ruin everything but speaking an inconvenient truth?

It must be, because it's clear you have no substantive response to the valid point he actually made.

[MADem]

130. Try to follow along. Michael Moore stole this "issue" from Al Gore.

You remember Al, don't you?

He's the guy that Moore DID NOT SUPPORT in 2000.

I did support Al Gore. And I supported his climate issues--I just don't want to hear them regurgitated in too little/too late fashion by an opportunist who very recently trashed John Kerry, another guy I supported for the Presidency.

I fear the one with "no substantive response" is the one who repeatedly, either through reading comprehension difficulties or pure pique, fails to take the point that I made.

If MM wanted to make a difference, he would have brought this issue up sooner. But he didn't. He's just shit-stirring, as he often does. That's contagious, I believe.

[politicasista]

226. +100 n/t

[savannah43]

246. He's been involved in this election from the start.

Just because you didn't know that (or you refuse to accept it) doesn't mean it isn't true. Why all the hatred for Michael Moore? He's one of the few people that has the nerve and the juice to speak out for our side.

[MADem]

260. Yeah, sure he has--he's been all over twitter and facebook, gathering names!

Quick, go "like" him and "friend" him and make him your tweet pal--that way, when his next moneymaking project comes out, you'll be the very first to know!

He didn't speak out for Al Gore--or is Al not on "our side?" And I'll take Al's POV on environmental issues before I'll "share" MM's fb graphic and hand him my name and the names of all my friends and family--I was born at night, but not last night.

[politicasista]

261. +1

Will trust Gore over Moore any day of the week.

[raouldukelives]

373. Exactly.

Al Gore sits on Apples board. One of the most environmentally friendly corporations in the world with sterling environmental & human rights records at its overseas factories.

[MADem]

381. No, they suck.

But MM has some sketchy stock, too, so I guess that bit's a wash.

If Al was collecting his presidential pension, maybe he wouldn't need board director stipends. We'll never know.

[spaulettea]

166. Bravo!!!

I couldn't agree more. Some people just get their knickers in a twist because they don't like the message if it makes their guy look bad. But it's the damn truth. People need to wake up and consider the seriousness of climate change and how neither major candidate is adequately addressing it, but rather are in the pockets of big oil and gas. Of course, I will take Obama over Romney any day, but this is still a serious issue, just like many other issues that are guided by special interest groups.

[sabrina 1]

145. Looks like you don't know much about MM and have fallen for the multi million dollar

right wing propaganda campaign against him. You're using all their talking points. Why would you give them that satisfaction? Did you know eg, that out of his first few million dollars, he gave one third of it to charity?

When we get to the point of slamming people like MM, it makes me wonder.

[MADem]

154. Oh please. Talking points my ass.

He didn't support Al Gore in 2000.

He shit on John Kerry just the other week.

When we get to the point of supporting people like MM who trash actual, hardworking Democrats on a regular basis, it makes ME wonder.

[ronnie624]

159. Did he really "shit" on John Kerry,

or did he offer a critical opinion of him?

Which hardworking Democrats has he trashed on a regular basis?

This is the sort of post that makes it difficult to take your opinion seriously.

[MADem]

179. First you say I don't make any sense, then you want me to do your homework for you.

Google is your friend, too.

[nichomachus]

60. Al Gore

Is fat and has a million dollar home. And your point is?

[MADem]

72. You made my point.

Al has been sidelined. In case you didn't notice. He has his Current TV niche, but he's not a player on the larger scene anymore beyond that tiny little effort that reaches a very limited audience. He's been pointed out as the guy who won the Presidency and had it taken from him, and then he went a little crazy and it was all downhill from there. He's had to pay money to shut people up. He doesn't have his Tipper anymore. He does have a shitload of baggage.

He could walk through a mall unnoticed--I'll bet most college students wouldn't recognize his face if presented with a picture of him.

But most importantly, and to his great credit despite his personal imbroglios, you don't see Al Gore trying to fuck over Barack Obama by pretending that both political parties are "equivalent" on climate issues--and that IS what MM is doing. Al Gore is using his niche TV station to HELP the Democrats; MM is trying to reach out to an audience focused on the debate to fling shit willy-nilly, like he always does. Coming soon to a theater near you...MM's latest scold! Step right up and give him your money to have him tell you what you already know!!

[Hemp_is_good]

83. You;re completely RIGHT!

Neither Al Gore OR Michael Moore has EVER done ANYTHING for liberal causes.
nope, they have NEVER EVER tried to BRING LIGHT to the CLUSTER FUCK we are all suffering.

what rich assholes!

who cares what Al Gore or Michael Moore has to say!

after all what would have happened if we has listened when they first spoke?

[MADem]

85. Well, I didn't say that either. Not even close.

Reading what people write is apparently a lost art.

[Hemp_is_good]

99. then what did you post because all i see is tripe

when you lower yourself to base insults I stop reading, as do many.

[MADem]

104. You have reading comprehension issues, then.

I am not insulting you, I am stating a fact based solely on your crude responses.

Do read the TOS, and when you say goodbye, you might try meaning it.

Here's a link to make it REAL easy on you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Jakes Progress]

169. Great job of harming the president

and his chances of being reelected. I know you like puffing up and shouting how great a believer you are and doing such a good little soldier's job of attacking anything other than blind loyalty. I know that makes you feel good about yourself - so self satisfied and so much the perfect little follower.

But your nasty attitude towards people whose vote you should be courting may make you feel good while you turn off dozens of those who are actually finding a hard time holding their nose and voting for Obama. Sure he's better than mitts, but many have problems with his Washington and Corporate centered politics. Your job - should you choose to help him get reelected - is not to piss off and irritate voters the president needs. You choose. Your sense of self-righteousness or the president's reelection.

[Zalatix]

181. He isn't affecting my vote for Obama. He's only harming himself, in my opinion.

[Jakes Progress]

185. That is your vote. There are other voters.

In the last presidential election, I spend many hours in living rooms with people who leaned toward Obama, but couldn't stand the zealot nature of his ardent admirers. Their crazed behavior and rabid nastiness toward anyone who questioned Obama's perfection turned them off and made negative associations that we had to talk for hours to change. We had to be careful about what we let the self-appointed apostles in the campaign do. We had the sealing envelopes and delivering signs. We had to keep them away from the public. They were more concerned about how they felt than getting the Obama elected.

[Zalatix]

190. I see your point. I did some of what you did

and that's where I got "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" drilled into me.

[MADem]

184. Your characterizations are untrue and rather pathetic.

Talk about nasty attitudes--your post is full of 'em. It's also full of some grand hyperbole.

And if you actually think a comment of mine, on this advocates' discussion board, is going to "turn off dozens" and 'harm' the President, then you're imbuing me with an authority even I don't claim to possess. I drive people by the dozens to the polls, to vote for Warren and Obama and local "D" candidates. I don't cheerlead for a jerk who didn't support Al Gore for the Presidency, and who has shown very little enthusiasm for climate change issues to this point in time.

This is a discussion board--the purpose here is the exchange of views in a context that assumes support for Democratic candidates--not for those who find some kind of fake "equivalence" between the candidates. It's a board for Democrats and those who SUPPORT Democrats for election, and the rules get tighter during election season. All this is in the TOS--it's an easy read. Here's a link--take note of the paragraph that says "Vote for Democrats." It's instructive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Jakes Progress]

186. Smug and clueless.

We had to deal with those like you in the last election. The solution was to keep them at the Democratic headquarters licking envelopes and stapling yard signs. We were careful to keep them from the public.

We can only hope that you confine yourself to DU. Please.

[MADem]

194. "Those like you?" Really. How childish of you!

What a false characterization. I GOTV, precinct walk, and drive people by the dozens to the polls every election--even the off year ones.

You probably know a lot about envelope licking and yard sign stapling for a reason.

Just saying.

I really want to memorialize your comments, they're very instructive:

Jakes Progress
186. Smug and clueless.

We had to deal with those like you in the last election. The solution was to keep them at the Democratic headquarters licking envelopes and stapling yard signs. We were careful to keep them from the public.

We can only hope that you confine yourself to DU. Please.

[Jakes Progress]

195. You were that Democratic headquarters' cross to bear.

It comes with charismatic candidates. People who flock to the campaign just to feel good about themselves. You don't care how many votes you cost Obama, just so you can feel good.

Please stick to the envelopes. We'll even turn up the heat and bring you coffee. But please stay away from the voting public.

[MADem]

198. I think you're talking about yourself, there, dear.

I don't do envelopes or even "HQ" stuff, which you seem rather fixated upon (trying to paint yourself as one of the "insider" cool kids, are you? Well, get your butt down to HQ, there, sport, and start dialing for dollars since everyone, just everyone, wants to talk to you!! Hop to it, now!).

Perhaps the cheap adhesive on those envelopes you can't get away from has gotten to you? You keep mentioning them, I keep telling you that's not my role and never has been, yet it doesn't sink in. Gee--and you're touting yourself as the great communicator, here?

The last time I got a piece of "hand stuffed" election material that wasn't from a local candidate was during the Reagan years. They do use automated mailing systems, now, you know....and email--lots and lots of email! Oh, those technological Dems!

I think you need to look carefully at your comments here. They're very revealing. In case you're unclear, that's not a good thing for you.

[Jakes Progress]

247. Oh we know you weren't one of the "headquarters" guys.

Your cheap talk and chest thumping kind of "campaigning" is well known by the party. You seem to know nothing about how campaigns work. And like so many of the novices, you are fixated on the nationals - totally oblivious to the importance of down ticket campaigns. We all have met you in one guise or another. Keep on blathering here on DU. Or go get some donuts for the people who are actually doing something to get Obama back in office. The more I can keep you keyboard warrioring here, the less damage you can do out there.

Please, please. Keep away from the voting public. Or at least tell me you are in a state that doesn't matter. This is going to be a close race, and your self-important ranting could be damaging.

[MADem]

251. "We" know what you're all about, too. Keep talking. It's revealing.

And pretty hilarious, too.

[Zalatix]

192. A tale of two posts

Post #36 questioned Michael Moore's motivations while also acknowledging that his message was right.
Your posts, on the other hand, relentlessly attacked Michael Moore without ever even touching on the message.

Please stop for a moment and read post #36.

[MADem]

196. Well, you don't read very carefully, now, do you?

Post 36 (and I bothered to find it, even though you didn't bother to provide a link--a polite thing to do in a thread this long) says that MM is no eco warrior. I agree with that. The poster said that he agreed with the "sentiment" and I certainly agree with the sentiment as well--I simply think the messenger is touting the message for his own reasons, and they may not include the health and prosperity of the Demcratic Party's agenda.

Here's that link you couldn't bother to provide.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021603402#post36

I would also agree that he's a guy who talks a great talk, but he doesn't do so well walking the walk. And he's no friend to our party's real live "eco warrior"--you remember him, the guy MM couldn't bother to support in 2000.

[RetroLounge]

395. "untrue and rather pathetic"

Well, finally something you know about.



RL

[MADem]

404. Why are you being so uncivil? What do you hope to gain?

You've been here at DU for a long time. I don't remember interacting with you before, and I don't understand why you are playing a goading/baiting game with me.

Would you care to share your motivations for the way you are behaving?

Is it necessary for you to act this way? Does the fact that I am not a fan of your hero upset you SO VERY much that you'll repeatedly snark at me, childishly, in an effort to...what? Try to get a rise out of me, or something?

I've got to say--I'm surprised at some of the conduct on this thread. Yours is pretty unimpressive. I realize you've been here at DU a long time, but you're acting like a teenager.

Not a very nice or mature teenager, either.

One of the hallmarks of a real progressive is a tolerance for differing points of view. I don't mind if you have a different perspective than I do; but then, I have learned down the years that people are individuals and have their own reasons for the POVs they hold. You might do very well to take that lesson to heart.

[RetroLounge]

408. Moore is not my hero, you are...

RL

[LuvLoogie]

183. For you MADem

[treestar]

108. I'm with you on this

My only disagreement - he can find something to crab about, even with Obama in office. But it will be harder to make money off of it. He did well in the Bush years, and needs another Republicans to shoot at. Except next time there is a R President, if that ever happens, I will not be fooled that he is really on "our" side.

[MADem]

113. It isn't lost on me, either, that he lifted AL GORE's issue, here.

He was championing King Ralph and screwing Al Gore 12 years ago. You'd think if he cared so much about environmental issues, he would have backed the guy who wrote Earth in the Balance.

If we had eight years of peace, prosperity and environmental activism in our history, instead of eight years of war, death, terror and graft, we'd not be having any of these conversations--but MM helped King Ralph, and by so doing, he screwed us out of President Gore.

He's pushing sixty--he won't be able to play the "young upstart scold" much longer. Just as well.

[redqueen]

189. You make some very good points here.

I never considered Moore's shifting priorities.

It is interesting that now, over a decade after he trashed Gore, he cares so much about the environment.

[MADem]

200. Thank you. I have no objection to the message.

My beef is with the messenger.

Of course, to read what some of my "fans" are saying about me, here, you'd think I was advocating barbecuing baby seals and snow leopards using the heat generated by a few out-of-control oil well fires, or something.

If Al Gore wants to talk about this issue today, tomorrow, or next week, I'm listening. MM, not so much.

[October]

206. That's because you are rude and condescending. /nt

[MADem]

219. I think you confuse your mirror with me, to put it politely. nt

[October]

385. Point proven.

I haven't condescended. Just trying to read a thread, and you're insulting every other author/post.

[MADem]

389. You "read" a thread by ascribing motives/characterizations to me?

And then you get annoyed when I NOTICE?

How rich.

[hiphopnation]

230. Another here who hears your salient and valid critiques of MM

Something has always bothered me about him and I think you've summed it up nicely in this thread.

[MADem]

231. Your comments are appreciated.

He's got a lot of "Don't say anything bad about My Hero" fans here who don't want to hear any "inconvenient" remarks about their lad!

[hiphopnation]

237. the thread has somewhat devolved into nonsense and namecalling, too

imagine that at DU!
I think MM's point is well-taken too, that there has been zero discussion of climate change in any of these farcical debates, but to any self-respecting Dem that is going to be obvious. Unfortunate as it is, however, that just cannot be our main focus right now. sad, really.

[MADem]

241. It's always the way when that guy's name comes up.

He can do no wrong--even when he does do wrong. Pity he didn't get on the environmental bandwagon 12 years ago--President Gore could have used the help, and the air would probably be much cleaner had he so done.

Oh well--DU is what DU is. I'll stay busy delivering bodies to the polls on election day, and take heart in the fact that Obama did so well this last outing.

[Zalatix]

119. Shoot the messenger, avoid the message altogether. Great strategy. NOT.

The oil industry thanks you, profusely.

[MADem]

126. Put your little gun away. Your misrepresentation is deliberate, obvious, and tiresome.

I can't help you learn to read better. I really don't care what you think, either, particularly since you like to toss cheap shots that are devoid of context and are inaccurate in the extreme.

Obviously, you're the one speaking for the oil industry, since you're handing out their thanks. Tell them to go fuck themselves, from me and Al Gore, while you're at it!

[ronnie624]

142. You apparently have no choice but to retreat to personal insults and invective,

because your arguments consist of logical fallacies:

- Michael Moore should shut up about global climate change because he's rich.

- He secretly wants Romney to win because he would benefit financially.

- His criticisms indicate a desire to sow hate and discontent among Democrats.

- He "stole" the global climate change issue from Al Gore.

What a bunch of NONSENSE. I have never seen a post by you on ANY topic that made any sense, whatsoever.

[MADem]

146. Look who's talking! Nobody does it better than you!

Who did not support Al Gore in 2000? (You remember him--the guy with the environmental bona fides, who did the research and the hard work?)

Who recently trashed John Kerry?

Who brings up an issue and attempts to get his acolytes all spun up days before the election?

Who's the Demotivator in Chief worth hundreds of millions? Who was the President when he made the bulk of his cash?

What a bunch of NONSENSE. I've never seen a post by you on ANY topic that made any sense, whatsoever.

Gee, if it's so distressing to you, and you're entirely unable to understand what I've written, just stop reading--that'll solve your little conundrum.

[ronnie624]

149. Your words make sense.

They're just never consistent with the facts. That's how they don't make sense.

Ignore them? And deprive myself of amusement? No way. I enjoy reading the opinions of others, even when they are little more than blather. It's one of the strong attractions to DU.

[MADem]

157. They are entirely consistent with the facts.

If you get your amusement by failing to understand sentences in basic English, delighted that you can't comprehend a basic idea and instead refer to it as "blather," you go ahead and knock yourself out. Be proud of your limitations.

[ronnie624]

162. Just *saying* your words are consistent with the facts doesn't mean that they are.

You would be better off, if you produced a calm, coherent argument, free of invective, and then posted links to information along with excerpts demonstrating support for your claims.

[MADem]

172. I'm entirely calm--you're the one playing tag team wrestling with your little friend.

You might cease imbuing the remarks of others with your personal feelings of high drama.

[Zalatix]

178. Oh so now it's a conspiracy against you!

The only high drama here is you attacking Michael Moore and accusing him of "stealing" from Al Gore, instead of addressing the message itself.

Can you for once get on topic about the fact that environmental issues weren't mentioned at all during the debates? For once?

[MADem]

187. Why are you hyper-replying to me?

Once is enough, you know--you can edit your opus if you want to add additional pearls of wisdom...

Since you can't bother to read for comprehension, I can't be bothered to respond to your false premise.

[Zalatix]

191. Hyper-replying? What does THAT mean?

Come on now, I get piled on, too. Today's your turn. Chill out.

[MADem]

203. You chase me all over this thread, and you try to incite a pile-on in very uncivil fashion.

That's on you. It's not like it's not noticeable and obvious. Why jump in a half dozen subthreads to repeat the same snark, over and over? You're not going to change my mind. I'm sure I won't change yours, either.

The difference is--I get that and I have no desire to turn your head. I am simply expressing an opinion that I hold. You think snarking helps your position when all it does is diminish it, and by extension, you.

The message of environmental catastrophe on the horizon is fine--the messenger's motivations--particularly given his rather vociferous non-support of our party's premier environmentalist in 2000--are suspect in the extreme. Why is he jumping on Al Gore's bandwagon...12 years too late? It's a moneymaker of a topic, that's for sure.

That's MY message, and I think it's a valid one. If you don't, well fine. Agree to disagree, like adults do.

[October]

210. You're all over this thread. Talk about hyper-posting.

We get it, you hate MM.

Seems you can't move on because you are enjoying being condescending and rude to anyone who disagrees with you.

You are accusing everyone else of doing exactly what you're doing: monopolizing the thread with the same argument/opinion, whilst dripping with insults/snarks.

[MADem]

213. I am the one who posted the argument in opposition to the OP.

I'm "all over this thread" because you, and others, continually reply in subthreads with inciting commentary and/or references to my personal character. There'd be far fewer replies here if you weren't engaging in that childish activity known as "piling on" and instead sought to have an actual discussion.

That's not going to happen, though. You're invested in trying to play gotcha and snarking--I'm simply stating my case and you just don't like it, and you never will. Because you don't like it, you make inaccurate assertions about my comments and my person, but I'm not being condescending OR rude OR snarking--I'm just not AGREEING WITH YOU.

Oh well--that's life. You can't always get what you want.

[October]

387. Wrong.

You posted an opposition to a graphic that was posted, but you can't just leave it at that. You have to insult everyone down the line.

Sorry, you can't turn this one around.

[MADem]

388. I haven't insulted anyone.

I have been called a slew of names, here, though.

[Zalatix]

167. The problem with you is that your erroneous "reasoning" is in plain English

and thus there is no mistaking your inability to put forth a coherent argument.

You're still shooting the messenger (Michael Moore) to avoid his message (the lack of coverage of environmental issues). You have done nothing here but distract attention away from that issue.

You're insulting other people's intelligence and yet you have shown absolutely none of your own.

[MADem]

390. Yeah, yeah, sure -- whatever you say, now...!

[Zalatix]

151. LOL you can DISH IT OUT but you can't take it?

just stop reading--that'll solve your little conundrum.

Same advice applies to you. If you don't care what I think, then stop reading.

Me, I'm entertained by you, so I'll keep on reading.

[MADem]

160. I don't care what you think--but say, thanks for that great advice.

I don't find you entertaining, though. I find you rather dull and not too sharp, to be plain.

I don't "dish out" anything--I impart my opinion. People who can't respond without getting shitty or childish are the ones with a problem, and I'd say you've got yourself a doozie.

[Zalatix]

164. You care what I think. You keep responding.

To be plain, I find you rather immature, and incapable of understanding the meaning of what you write. Case in point - you deny dishing out personal attacks, while whining at others who retaliate to you in kind. As one other poster said, nothing you post has basis in fact. I am also finding that to be very accurate.

[MADem]

216. I only respond when you write yet another falsehood about my perspective or person.

Stop mischaracterizing me, and you'll know peace.

I haven't called you names. And unless you think that MM's vociferous opposition to the candidacy of Al Gore was "fiction" I'd say I am doing better in the "facts" department than you seem to be managing. You apparently think that MM's posting of a gripe moments before the last debate started was actually a meaningful act and not an act of self-aggrandizement. I challenge you to tell me if you honestly believe that Bob Schieffer was wired into Michael Moore's "facebook" account moments before he took the stage--if you do, well, that would explain your comments. It would also explain your POV.

[Zalatix]

298. I already know peace. Michael Moore was not wrong. Not one thing he said was wrong.

You have no case. He didn't steal anything from Al Gore, as you claimed. His points are valid.

You have TONS of people trying to explain this to you.

[MADem]

303. Who save you said he was "wrong?" Stop making thing up -- it is so easy to see that's what you are

doing and it's rather lame, too.

There is no "case" here. I hold an opinion and you don't like it, so you're getting petty and rude with me. That's your issue, and it's plainly a biggie. Learn to read and comprehend what people actually say, it might make your life a bit easier. Or don't.

[Zalatix]

308. If he's not wrong then you have absolutely no case.

[MADem]

312. Are you leaving home? Is that your suit case by the door?

Read the thread. All of it. Try. Go slowly and read everything. Resist the urge to post angrily with incomplete information based on a half-read sentence.

There is no "case" -- no lawyers here. There are opinions. Mine differs from yours, so you're running from subthread to subthread berating me about that, over and over again, like your anger will somehow magically change my viewpoint. It won't. It's a bit off-putting, your behavior, frankly. You are acquitting yourself poorly and making little sense.

[Zalatix]

327. You don't even understand what the word 'case' means, do you?

I'm not posting angrily. But you are cornered, and posting desperately.

Your opinions are based on a tragedy of errors. I'm not trying to change your viewpoint. I am standing my ground on the fact that Michael Moore was right, and he did not steal anything from Al Gore. I am going to stand my ground permanently on that, because Michael Moore was absolutely, perfectly, flawlessly correct.

[MADem]

329. I know it's not a synonym for OPINION--but you're acting like it is.

I'm not the one repeating the same nonsense over and over. I've stated my viewpoints, you don't like them, so you're getting petty, shirty and personal with me.

By your words I know you.

[Zalatix]

331. Your opinions are based on gross factual errors. That is being charitable.

[MADem]

333. Keep your charity--you plainly need it. And no, my opinions are grounded in facts. nt

[Zalatix]

336. You accused Michael Moore of stealing from Al Gore. This is factually untrue.

Therefore your opinions are not grounded in facts.

[Zalatix]

148. That's because MaDem has been nailed right to the wall. A temper tantrum was to be expected.

[ronnie624]

152. Every single time.

Expect it.

[MADem]

168. Your fixation on me and false characterizations about me are very curious.

You might want to examine your motivations for running all around this thread sniping at me. I'm not the one exhibiting little "temper tantrums" hither and yon.

By your words we shall know you.

[Zalatix]

170. Fixation? We're just disputing your points. Apparently you feel beset upon?

[MADem]

223. I think you need a larger spoon. nt

[kenfrequed]

163. It is a shame

Because usually the poster isn't quite this bad. Really. I disagree a lot, but for some reason Michael Moore enrages them.

Oddly I don't recall them being so hot and angry about Lieberman's betrayal of a thousand razors but maybe I wasn't paying attention.

[MADem]

171. FWIW, I think Lieberman is a craven asshole, too.

And if a difference of opinion about a guy who doesn't support Democrats for election is "bad"--on a Democratic discussion board, no less--then maybe we are through the looking glass, here.

[politicasista]

400. He is not the one that badmouthed Dems on Twitter after the 1st debate

Senator Kerry proved his mean tail wrong, so he and his followers gleefully hide behind their Twitter accounts, and not one person apologized for their rants towards Kerry and Obama.

He should be also apologizing to Gore, the man he screwed over.

[Supersedeas]

411. Bingo--well said

[Zalatix]

147. What misrepresentations? I am totally correct in saying you are shooting the messenger.

You did it, and that's it.

If you don't like me saying it, then stop doing it.

And if you don't care what I think, then put me on ignore, because you did shoot the messenger and you did avoid the message, and I'm going to keep pointing it out.

[MADem]

236. He's not dead.

I am challenging the messenger and I am questioning the messenger's motives--that's fair game, based on the messenger's shitty track record when it comes to being supportive of Democrats over the past two or more decades.

You wrongly call it "shooting" and then you get shirty and petulant, as you've just done.

I don't ignore people. You go on ahead and cheerlead for your guy--you plainly NEED to, and that's all well and good if it makes you happy. But stop calling a valid critique of a very wealthy one percenter who screwed the Democratic Party's environmental president a "shooting."

You, yet again, mischaracterize. Allow me to point THAT out. You're very relentless, if not very good, at it.

[Zalatix]

275. You are shooting the messenger and NOT even remotely addressing the message.

Attacking Michael Moore for bringing up environmental issues, making up lies about him, and then not addressing the fact that environmental issues weren't brought up at all during the debates, is a classic example of shooting the messenger. Classic.

Please take a look at post #36 for an example of how to RATIONALLY approach the issue.

And... relentless? Look at how many posts you have here. Pot, meet kettle.

[MADem]

287. No, I am not.

I am challenging his motives.

Stop using weapons imagery in a fruitless attempt to create drama. I'm not having it. I am not "making up lies about him" either, so put that nonsense to bed, too.

If you read this thread, you'd realize I'm very supportive of environmental activists--the real ones, not the Day Trippers--and I think it's a shame that the issue wasn't addressed at debate--though I understand why it wasn't. Your little hero could have made a difference on that score, but he didn't.

But in order to actually understand and appreciate my POV, you'd have to actually read. the. words. on. the. page--and that, you seem unwilling to do, based on your "hyperbolic and vitriolic" responses to me.

Keep telling falsehoods about me and I'll keep challenging you. Pot, meet kettle indeed. You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to make up shit about me and try to pass it off as "fact." That's what the Other Team does.

[Zalatix]

299. Yes, you are. Full stop.

You are attacking Michael Moore for bringing up environmental issues, you are making up lies about him, and you are avoiding addressing the fact that environmental issues weren't brought up at all during the debates. You are shooting the messenger.

I'm going to keep telling the truth. Forever.

[MADem]

300. No. And you're not "telling the truth."

You're simply being petulant because I don't see things your way. That's never going to happen, so do stomp your foot all day long if you think it matters.

[Zalatix]

306. None of these points are untrue:

1) You attacked Michael Moore for bringing up environmental issues. You called him a hypocrite. You made fun of his weight. Post #1
2) You made up lies about him, by accusing him of stealing from Al Gore. Post #130
3) You are still not addressing the fact that environmental issues weren't brought up at all during the debates.

I've backed up my claims with cited proof.

You will not respond to this with cited proof of where I am wrong.

You are shooting the messenger.

From this point on I will simply repeat this because none of this is in error.

[MADem]

318. Yes, they are untrue. And your claims are absurd in the extreme.

I did not "attack" him, I expressed an opinion about his motivations, I never "called him a hypocrite," and I didn't say a single word about his weight. Unless you think only fat people can waddle--but if you do, then that's on YOU, not me. Don't blame me for what goes on in YOUR head.

I did not make up lies about him, and--news flash--Al Gore has been on this issue since well before MM decided to support a gadfly instead of the best environmentalist politician in the Democratic Party 12 years ago. Al Gore has a Nobel Prize. MM has a FB "share." So that's fail 2 for you.

I've talked about the environmental issue/debate piece in a number of posts in this thread. However, you are not reading what I write, plainly, so I'm not surprised that you missed those, too.

You haven't gotten a single point right. Pat yourself on the back--you're batting a thousand on getting it wrong.

[Zalatix]

325. I cited your personal attacks. My claims are proven. You don't have counter examples.

1) You attacked Michael Moore for bringing up environmental issues. You called him a hypocrite. You made fun of his weight. Post #1
2) You made up lies about him, by accusing him of stealing from Al Gore. Post #130
3) You are still not addressing the fact that environmental issues weren't brought up at all during the debates.

All cited. All true. Have a nice day!

[MADem]

328. Sorry--you are wrong. No sale. And you have a nice day too. nt

[Zalatix]

330. I am right and you are wrong. My cites are all true and logical. And you have no counter facts.

[MADem]

340. Yeah, sure, sure, whatever you say.

[Jakes Progress]

173. Clueless.

You have no idea how to gather votes. One could wonder whether you want to get votes for Obama or not. Do you actually think your attitude of belligerence and your ignoring facts (you did shoot the messenger, you know) will actually help? Explain what logic would have you belittling the opinions of leaners will help your candidate.

[MADem]

239. I'm not finding your attempts at insult very interesting.

They are a bit labored and obtuse, as well.

I have no trouble "gathering votes," there, professor, I haven't for years, so don't you worry your head one whit about me. Your concern is quite touching though.

If you want explanations, ask yourself why you're behaving in such a boorish manner on the internet--your answer might give you a clue (speaking of "clueless," as you did) as to your motivations in your everyday life.

[Jakes Progress]

272. But it is a form of attention that you can't resist.

Anything to be about you. You don't seem to care if you turn off voters for Obama. You don't seem to care if your actions and words are harmful to his election. You only want to draw attention to yourself.

If you want explanations, ask yourself why you are behaving in such a boorish manner on DU. Such a sense of self-importance might do well for you in some occupations, but you damage any cause you support by turning off those you should be courting. But courting other people's votes is so beneath you, so not your thing.

Bloviate away. Just keep away from voters, please.

[Zalatix]

297. Wait, you started it with the insults. With several people, no less.

[MADem]

304. There you go again--making stuff up.

You're a dab hand with the insults and the free-flowing fiction, here.

[Zalatix]

307. Here you go again - denying the facts. I hereby cite the proof that you instigate insults.

Post #104, you accused "Hemp is Good" of having poor reading comprehension. A personal attack, and no one had attacked you before.
Post #126, attacking me with multiple personal attacks. You had not been attacked.

Care to show proof where this is wrong? Of course not. You're wrong, and that's that.

[MADem]

338. Get a grip. Really. That's not a personal attack, either--it's a genuine concern with regard to

your well being.

[Zalatix]

339. It's a personal attack. And concern for others' well being? Physician, heal thyself.

You have numerous people telling you that you're being rude and combative. We're right. You're wrong.

[MADem]

341. Yeah, yeah, sure -- whatever you say, now...!

[BlueMan Votes]

45. one more debate to go...?

i thought that this was the last one before the election.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I posted that before the 3rd debate started.

Obviously, it didn't make it into the agenda after all.

[hlthe2b]

51. No.. this was the LAST debate before the election--3 Presidential & one VP--done

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Yes, and if you look at the timestamp, I posted it BEFORE

the third debate started.

[radiclib]

9. In fact, MM spent a good chunk of Obama's first term cheerleading for him

He has at least tried to encourage the President to fight the good fight, and hasn't a lot to show for it. The fact is, he's absolutely correct to point this out. If you think climate change is an issue we can afford to ignore, I'm afraid you're delusional. It won't matter a whit who wins this election if the fossil fuels that have already been accessed are allowed to be consumed.
Your comment on his girth is nothing but a cheap shot, and you have no idea what kind of house he lives in or how he gets around.
And no one with any name recognition has been more supportive of Occupy. One percent my ass.

[lunasun]

10. +1

[marions ghost]

13. +++++

[MADem]

16. He lives in a million dollar lake house with a true value close to double that.

So, sorry, I DO know what kind of house he lives in.

I even posted a pic of it upthread.

And the guy is a fatcat--that's not a cheap shot, it's the truth. And he makes money when the GOP runs things.

Oil isn't the issue today--it's Michael Moore shooting off his mouth, as usual, in a demotivating way at a critical juncture. He's got that down to a fine art.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. You talk about Michael Moore

In exactly the same way that Republicans do: he's fat (a shallow criricism), and he has money (which he EARNED by making movies that people want to see), which is, according to right-wingers, a bad thing for lefties.

[MADem]

73. No, I don't. Read all my comments, my critique is much more nuanced.

Bottom line, though--I rather doubt the Republicans are complaining because MM is being a shithead to the Democratic Party.

Of course, people who worship at the altar of that guy will not want to hear any criticism of his saintliness. It makes them look foolish if they acknowledge that his life is enriched by GOP rule.

[MADem]

92. Why are YOU even here?? Welcome to DU.

If you continue to act so aggressively and rudely towards everyone, you won't last long. Read the Terms of Service before you continue to post--you've been personally insulting to me twice, but I haven't alerted on you--you'll either get the spirit or hang yourself with your own rope.

I support Democrats for election. Michael Moore -- in case you're unclear -- has a sketchy record on that score.

[MADem]

105. You have some reading to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Cleita]

136. Exactly, +10 n/t

[savannah43]

252. Please allow me to add that he made movies exposing the establishment--the 1%

who now own and control everything. Aren't they our enemies, too?

[99Forever]

58. Lets see...

... who's message resonates more with millions of people?

Some anonymous, namecalling, cheapshot artist on an internet board? Or "fatcat" that came from poverty and made a name (and also a fortune) for himself by having the BALLS to make movies that speak truth to power?


One of them stands way tall over the other.

[Puglover]

59. Well said!

And just look who is "+1"ing this. That pretty much says it all.

[MADem]

74. Let's see? Gee, let's see!

Why are you comparing ME to MM?

I don't live in a pig of a house on a lake. I don't have a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars. I am not a hypocrite.

Oh, and I support the DEMOCRAT in the Presidential race!

Yep--you're right--I'm nothing like MM, and I'm glad of that!

MM doesn't "speak truth to power"--he IS POWER. He's one of those One Percenters--and his wealth is increased when a REPUBLICAN occupies the White House. Ask yourself "Cui bono?" Or don't--buy the CDs, go to the movies, and slobber over a guy who talks great, but doesn't walk so good.

[Hemp_is_good]

89. Have you even looked at his career?

are you even paying attention?
y'know what? talking to you is pointless and I will now stop.
have a day

[MADem]

93. Yes, I have, and you might do the same. nt

[MiddleFingerMom]

91. !!! Sorry, but....

.
.
.
"Oil isn't the issue today--it's (insert name here) shooting off his/her mouth, as usual, in a demotivating way
at a critical juncture. (He's/She's) got that down to a fine art."
.
.
.
If there's one thing I love, love, love... it's irony.
.
.
.

[MADem]

111. I am highly motivated to re-elect Barack Obama. nt

[99Forever]

135. Comparing?

Don't flatter yourself.

[MADem]

143. You might try reading the subthread.

I wasn't the one who made the initial comparison.

And I'm so pleased I'm nothing like MM--see, unlike your hero, I supported Al Gore's election bid, "Earth in the Balance" and all.

[limpyhobbler]

86. Posting pictures of his house? Trying to get the guy killed or something?

Real classy.

It's sad to see the liberals throwing Michael Moore under the bus. I suppose it's just part of the ongoing purge of progressives from the Democratic party.

He's been a strong supporter of Obama, including on TV appearances. And Micahel Moore's endorsement does have an impact among some people including uneducated dummies like me. I look at him as a leader. Maybe the same way you look at Obama.

But that strong vocal support is not enough for some, as evidenced by comments in this thread. You seem to demand nothing less than 100% worship of your politicians, without even a hint of criticism. If anyone dares say anything that questions why climate change is not in the debates, the response is to tear the person apart with vicious personal attacks. It's a huge turn off.

If you think it's OK that climate change was never mentioned in these debates, we must have very little in common politically, and it's a sad aspect of the American political system that we should have to find ourselves in the same political grouping.

[MADem]

103. You can't POSSIBLY be that obtuse.

There's this thing called Google Maps, you know--one can pretty much get a pic of ANYONE's house. There's nothing nefarious or illegal about showing the bloated excess of a one percenter in a photograph. It's not a question of "class" it's a question of simple technology. Stand on the oppposite shore and snap the picture.

I didn't see you crying when pictures of Mitt RMoney's houses were published here and in every paper around the world, so get over that crap argument right now. It doesn't fly.

Michael Moore is the guy who helped to fuck over Al Gore. He's a friend of Ralph, another bullshitter who likes to play the self-important scold. If he hadn't screwed over Al, Mister Inconvenient Truth, Mister Earth in the Balance, we'd have had eight years of REPAIRING THE ENVIRONMENT under our belts courtesy of President Gore instead of eight years of W-War and Terra. You remember that W-War and Terra, doncha? Moore made a FORTUNE making a movie all about that.

How soon these kids forget!!

I think it's kind of ironic that MM is stealing the very pet cause of the guy he helped screw over!

If you do not bother to read what I write, I can't bother to keep speaking with you. I did not say it was "OK" that climate change was never mentioned in the debates, so don't put that thought on me.

I question the timing of this pronouncement. Surely Michael Moore is not so stupid as to think he can tweet or "facebook" minutes before a debate and Bob Schieffer will rearrange the questions he's been working on for weeks to accommodate him? Of course he's not that stupid--he's floating a trial movie balloon, and if lots of people "repost" his stupid little graphic he'll know that's a topic that will sell--he wants to out-Gore Gore and do his own, copycat version of "Inconvenient Truth." His will include rambling narrative and a few gotcha interviews, of course--gotta stick with the formula.

It's all about the money. Hundreds of millions of dollars, your "hero" has.

[limpyhobbler]

106. So then you agree climate change should have been addressed in the debates?

[MADem]

114. Absolutely. I think it is an important issue.

Bringing it up hours before the third debate isn't going to make that happen, though--but that did make "the Faithful" believe that Saint Michael "cares" about it--when he might have spent a few pennies from his hundreds-of-millions to post an issue ad in, say, the NYT ...six MONTHS ago, to raise awareness and re-start discussion, if he was sincere. He could have made the talk show rounds, too, talking it up.

Those debate questions are worked up well in advance--griping, on the cheap, on facebook right before the debate starts isn't going to make Schieffer go "Ooooh, noooooo! Michael Moore put up a cheap graphic; I need to rework my questions, here!!!"

The topic would have been a good fit for the town hall debate.


Funny how MM helped himself to the very issue that was a signature cause for one of the Presidential candidates in 2000...the one that MM did NOT support.

[limpyhobbler]

116. So you actually agree with the idea, but just think it should get in the closet until later.

But to me it seems your real point is to discredit Michael Moore.

[MADem]

121. No. You aren't doing very well telling me what I think.

I think they call it "too clever by half."

My "point" isn't to "discredit" MM--he already did that to himself in 2000. I wonder if he'll take back his recent trashing of John Kerry after last night's debate? I wonder how long he thinks he can ride Al Gore's horse--or if he can, at all?

[limpyhobbler]

139. Your point: 1) Don't bring up climate change right now. 2) Michael Moore is a lard ass.

I understood it as:

1. "Don't bring up climate change at an inconvenient time."

2. Michael Moore is a wealthy lard ass and his opinion is worthless.

If that's wrong, then please say what your real point is.

[MADem]

150. No, and No.

Let's hear from people with a history on the topic--not Late-to-the-Party spoilers/hangers-ons like MM. He is not a "valid" source. He's a spoiler, a whiner, a scold. Let Al Gore take up that banner--he has the street cred. He could do it today, tomorrow, next week, it wouldn't matter--his words have gravitas. Also, unlike Moore, Al is a Democrat who supports Democrats for election. I question Moore's sincerity as well as his timing--which I regard as deliberate, and when he comes out with a new documentary on the topic (not that he could top Gore's work), I'll rest my case.

Michael Moore is wealthy, and he's loaded to the gills with a ton of money and real estate investments worth hundreds of millions (and plenty of 'em are a Republican's dream)... and I did point that out, but I did not call him a "lardass." Others here have accused me of variations of that throughout this thread, but I didn't make hay over the fact that he is fat. He does live a bloated lifestyle, though--and that's a fact. I do find his opinions AT THIS POINT IN TIME very questionable. I do believe his goal is self-aggrandizement, and that he is not motivated towards reelecting the President. The way he trashed John Kerry just the other week tells me he's not at all supportive of Obama's team, so he can shove it--he's not believable, or credible, and in the big scheme of things, he does not really matter.

[limpyhobbler]

218. Climate change should have been in the debates, and in the campaigns.

That's the point of the thread.

Michael Moore brought it up.

Obviously that pisses you off.

If "he does not really matter" why expend so much effort trying to purge him out of the Democratic Party?

[MADem]

222. The point of the thread was not that--it was to highlight MM's "moments before the last debate"

facebook graphic.

I ascribe motive to it. Time will tell.

Nothing as inconsequential as MM's tweets or FB pronouncements could possibly "piss me off." Again, you need to not project your emotions on others--it's just not an accurate representation of my views.

Finally--and this IS important, so do take note: No one is trying to "purge him out of the Democratic Party." That comment of yours is helpful though, because it lets me know where you're coming from and what your level of understanding is.

Perhaps this is news to you, so I will break it to you gently--he's NOT a Democrat. If he had been a Democrat, we'd be waxing nostalgic for the peaceful and prosperous Gore years. You remember Al Gore, don't you? The environmentalist candidate that MM did NOT support...?

[limpyhobbler]

249. LOL Wrong again.

The point of the thread was not that--it was to highlight MM's "moments before the last debate" facebook graphic.

I just checked the original post again. The point of it is to object to the exclusion of the climate change issue from the debates. It says verbatim: "Climate change has disappeared from the US presidential debates -- just as the fossil fuel industry's money floods in to the election. Click SHARE to help end the silence at the final debate, tonight! "

Nothing as inconsequential as MM's tweets or FB pronouncements could possibly "piss me off." Again, you need to not project your emotions on others--it's just not an accurate representation of my views.

You are clearly making alot of posts about this issue. If it is so inconsequential to you, why are you so emotionally involved in this effort to the point of making all these posts? You obviously care a lot about "the whole issue of Michael Moore's environment tweets".

Finally--and this IS important, so do take note: No one is trying to "purge him out of the Democratic Party." That comment of yours is helpful though, because it lets me know where you're coming from and what your level of understanding is.

The result of shitting on the left is in effect to purge them out of the party over the course of years. That comment of yours if helpful though because it shows your level of understand regarding basic politics. If a constituency is excluded from politics, that's a purge. Excluding climate change from the debate and then launching personal attacks against Michael Moore = shitting on the left.

Perhaps this is news to you, so I will break it to you gently--he's NOT a Democrat.

So what neither am I. You don't have to be a registered Democrat to be in the Democratic political orbit. He's been a strong supporter of President Obama's re-election. But that's not good enough for you. He suggested that climate change should have been in the debates. And the emotional reaction by one person has been to whine all day because he dared to say something that was not on the pre-approved party script, even though climate change is probably more important than any of the other issues really.

[MADem]

257. "LOL Wrong again" right back atcha.

You need to read more carefully. The post is a cut and paste of MM's facebook graphic, with a lame ass last-minute exhortation at the bottom to "persuade" the unthinking masses to believe that "sharing" MM's little tout would make a damn bit of difference, MOMENTS before the debate started. Pssst--in case you're unclear, all the clicking in the world would have ZERO effect on the questions the moderator asked.

Perhaps you missed the line in the OP that said: Click SHARE to help end the silence at the final debate, tonight!

Did you do your little bit and eagerly click "share?" Did you encourage your buddies to do likewise?

Was that silence ended last night? No? Oh, dear. What happened? Why didn't it work?

The race is tightening. I would not be at all surprised if Mister One Percenter looks for advantage. He certainly didn't help the cause of environmental activism with that halfassed little graphic, but he certainly managed to insert himself into the orbit of facebookers who both lean left and watch the debates--pity the ones who clicked, many of them, are so low-info that they probably think Bob Schieffer was checking MM's FB page moments before he took the stage with the President and the Pretender. WHY, oh why did Bob ignore our mighty roar?

And now, since so many have eagerly "shared" MM's lame little graphic, he's got their names. He's in their orbit, and they are in his. They aren't necessarily MM "supporters"--but they lean left and care about the environment--so they very well could be his "customers." What are movie tickets going for these days? And those DVD sales, those are moneymakers too. He knows now just where to go to make that sale, to tout the latest "product!" It'll save him a bundle in future advertising costs!

And hey, there's always money to be made "speaking truth to power" and "tilting at windmills" and "getting up in 'the man's' face"--which are practices MM excels at, and, lucky him, he knows how to target his advertising for his next big opus--he's got the NAMES.


Also--a few hundred million is never enough, ask Mittsy!

Guys like MM, who shit on people like Al Gore, aren't my idea of BFF's for the Democratic Party. Since you're not a member of the party, you can have any opinion you like, but given your lack of commitment, I'll give your views the weight (or lack of same) I think they merit. You're free to do likewise with mine, of course, and I'm sure you will.

Finally, since you plainly don't "get" my POV, I will once again state that I think a conversation on climate change would have been very helpful in the course of this campaign. I just don't want to hear a load of "too little/too late" datamining from the likes of the guy who fucked over the Democratic Party's standard bearer on environmental issues in the 2000 election. It's quite craven from my perspective, because I'm not drinking MM's Koolaid and see him for what he is--a guy who has some admirably liberal views on one hand, and the fingers of his other hand very firmly on his own bottom line.

BTW, I learned a lot of what I know about "basic politics" from Tip O'Neill. I worked on the Hill for a few years, too. I think I "get" a bit more than you realize, but thanks for trying to help an old fart out, because I know you meant all that sincerely...!

[limpyhobbler]

267. Climate change is not going to "get in the closet" during election season.

The post is a cut and paste of MM's facebook graphic, with a lame ass last-minute exhortation at the bottom to "persuade" the unthinking masses to believe that "sharing" MM's little tout would make a damn bit of difference, MOMENTS before the debate started. Pssst--in case you're unclear, all the clicking in the world would have ZERO effect on the questions the moderator asked.

He's allowed to share stuff on facebook. He sometimes tweets and shares items of interest to a certain community of people. I was doing the same stuff yesterday. "We" have been complaining for weeks about climate change being left out of the debates (We = people who do that stuff). It was at least 5 hours before the debate. But we had all been doing it for weeks. But "they" still ignored us (they = the deciders).

Perhaps you missed the line in the OP that said: Click SHARE to help end the silence at the final debate, tonight!

No Ma'am I've seen it.

Did you do your little bit and eagerly click "share?" Did you encourage your buddies to do likewise?

Yes I clicked it.

Was that silence ended last night? No? Oh, dear. What happened? Why didn't it work?

The deciders ignored our pleas to discuss climate change because we have no power.

... He certainly didn't help the cause of environmental activism with that halfassed little graphic, but he certainly managed to insert himself into the orbit of facebookers who both lean left and watch the debates...

Inserting himself? You mean he is doing some self-serving publicity stunt. That would not bother me anyway. I hope MM makes a climate movie that exposes the scandal of excluding this issue from the Presidential election campaign. It is a scandal of epic proportions.

--pity the ones who clicked, many of them, are so low-info that they probably think Bob Schieffer was checking MM's FB page moments before he took the stage with the President and the Pretender. WHY, oh why did Bob ignore our mighty roar?

I doubt anybody thinks that. Funny imagery. Every faction has its low info voters From my interactions with environmentalists, they are more informed than most.

And now, since so many have eagerly "shared" MM's lame little graphic, he's got their names. He's in their orbit, and they are in his. They aren't necessarily MM "supporters"--but they lean left and care about the environment--so they very well could be his "customers." What are movie tickets going for these days? And those DVD sales, those are moneymakers too. He knows now just where to go to make that sale, to tout the latest "product!" It'll save him a bundle in future advertising costs!

Good. More power to him. I hope he gets the biggest email list ever and uses it to promote his movies. Oh and like that's not the same type of practices that political parties engage in.

And hey, there's always money to be made "speaking truth to power" and "tilting at windmills" and "getting up in 'the man's' face"--which are practices MM excels at, and, lucky him, he knows how to target his advertising for his next big opus--he's got the NAMES.

Good I hope he gets all the money and power and buys a couple Senators.

Guys like MM, who shit on people like Al Gore, aren't my idea of BFF's for the Democratic Party.

Who wants to be it's BFF anyway? It doesn't even talk about climate change in the debates. Anyway despite having not supported the year 2000 version of Al Gore and the Gore-Lieberman ticket, he did support the New and Improved version of Al Gore. Remember Gore grew a beard and then got all progressive? Then he made An Inconvenient Truth and gave that awesome speech about Abu Graib. That really was not the same policy platform we saw running in 2000.

You're free to do likewise with mine, of course, and I'm sure you will.

ok whatevs. I'm not even sure what I'm registered as really. It's not like a major commitment to "be a Democrat" in the US. There's no oath.

Finally, since you plainly don't "get" my POV, I will once again state that I think a conversation on climate change would have been very helpful in the course of this campaign. I just don't want to hear a load of "too little/too late" datamining from the likes of the guy who fucked over the Democratic Party's standard bearer on environmental issues in the 2000 election. It's quite craven from my perspective, because I'm not drinking MM's Koolaid and see him for what he is--a guy who has some admirably liberal views on one hand, and the fingers of his other hand very firmly on his own bottom line.

Al Gore really wasn't a big environmental standard bearer in 2000. He didn't run on it as a central issue. MM was on the wrong side of that election but so were alot of good people. He has since said that would support Al Gore should he run again (http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=2738) or something close to that.

My points:
It's time to stop diddling on climate change.
Climate change is not going to "get in the closet" during election season. (i know you didn't suggest that)
Michael Moore is a great follow on twitter.

[MADem]

277. It never came out of the closet, or its Barcolounger, or where ever it is hanging, no thanks to MM.

One doesn't bring up a new topic days before an election unless you're looking to pull a shitty "October surprise" not that this was MM's purpose. That said, MM met his goal--he wanted names of left-leaners who are interested in this election. He got what he was after. He's got the names of everyone who "shared" his little graphic.

If he was at all serious about this issue, he could have jump started this discussion MONTHS ago--during primary season. He could have motivated his minions and riled 'em up, and brought the issue to the fore...but he didn't. He could have done what you were unable to do with your discussions amongst a closed-group of like-minded facebook friends. Call your congressman! Email your Senator!!! He could have directed his publicist to get him on every talk show and he could have touted the issue and motivated boatloads of people to call/write/gripe. That's all he would have had to say and hundreds--no, thousands-- of loyal acolytes would have jumped to do his bidding, to say nothing of thousands who don't care for the guy, don't know him, or whatever, but who care about the environment and what's in store for future generations. "Rachel" and "Al" and even "Joe and Mika" would have been forced to discuss the topic if he had started raising Cain over it. He could have made it take off with the very simple power of his celebrity.

He could have elevated the issue. He didn't. He was silent. Until it was way too late.

The "deciders" had nothing to do with the mention of this issue; no one "silenced" MM's plea, he just didn't make it in a timely manner and there was no impetus to focus on this deserving topic as others competed for the attention of the candidates--you just don't post shit on Facebook right before a debate and seriously expect the moderator to see it--but MM knew that; that's not what he wanted at all. He wanted your NAME, and the names of your friends and everyone else and their friends who clicked on that link. He got 'em, too.

The fact that you hope he buys a couple of Senators is rather troubling. Not a terribly small "d" democratic POV. I'd like to see less graft, less corruption, less wheeling, dealing, moneymaking, insider-trading, and lobbyist-influencing bullshit on the Hill--not more. I saw enough of that shit to turn anyone's stomach way back when, and I don't like it any better from a distance.

Al Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" well before 1992, when it was published. He pushed for Kyoto through 97 but got the "hand" from the Senate. So, yes, he WAS a big environmental standard bearer way back in the day, and I was on the Hill during that time, so I remember a lot of his emphasis first-hand.

Here, a brief memory refresher for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/12/climatechange1

He already had a long and unwavering track record on the environment when he stood for the Presidency (and won, and was denied his due). He didn't run from that at all in his campaign, the environmental piece was quite central to his campaign--this material was lifted straight from his Gore for President website: http://www.4president.us/issues/gore2000/gorelieberman2000environment.htm

Al Gore, notwithstanding his beard and girth and angst and personal issues, is the very same guy at the core of his being that he was in 2000. He was denied his due, and MM helped muddy those waters with his championing of King Ralph. But "later" he claimed to support AG? Yeah, when people turned from him en masse after that Supreme Court shithouse and called him the asshole that he was--he adjusted his POV to assist his own bottom line. I question MM's sincerity, and I just don't find him helpful at all--with friends like MM, who needs enemies? He's a scold who makes money crabbing about problems without offering any real solutions. A professional fault finder with no fixes, that's him. It's something that's easy to do from the sidelines. He does a very good job of it, and gets very rich from it, but I won't look to him for "environmental truths." There are people who have spent a lifetime working in that field who have much more to say, and can contribute more meaningfully to an understanding of the issues, than he might. They not only "get" the problems, they have real solutions to propose.

The man is a living, breathing "missed opportunity" on so many issues. I just don't get the sense he's on anyone's "side" but his own, and I think anyone who believes he is might well be disappointed in him sooner or later. I've had that view for some time, now--and it is all down to his own behavior. This little meaningless stunt just reminded me of how he rolls.

[limpyhobbler]

281. What is the reason climate change was not discussed during the Presidential election?

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

One doesn't bring up a new topic days before an election unless you're looking to pull a shitty "October surprise" not that this was MM's purpose. That said, MM met his goal--he wanted names of left-leaners who are interested in this election. He got what he was after. He's got the names of everyone who "shared" his little graphic.

He shared a graphic on facebook. Whoop de doo. He's a cool guy, a friend of working people. If people liked it on facebook their names might be listed as "liking" it. So what? That's what facebook is. It's no different than when you share something from a political campaign, or a TV news personality, or a company, or any celebrity such as an author or whatever.

If he was at all serious about this issue, he could have jump started this discussion MONTHS ago--during primary season.

He was talking about it months ago.

He could have motivated his minions and riled 'em up, and brought the issue to the fore...but he didn't. He could have done what you were unable to do with your discussions amongst a closed-group of like-minded facebook friends.

He did. He has been talking about it for a long time. At least a year that I know of. He is a member of the climate club cool kids. I vouch for him.

Call your congressman! Email your Senator!!! He could have directed his publicist to get him on every talk show and he could have touted the issue and motivated boatloads of people to call/write/gripe.

You realize he is just one guy. He is not responsible for single-handedly leading a climate movement. How about let's turn some of that questioning toward our political "leaders" instead of dumping all the responsibility for climate action on a celebrity filmmaker?

That's all he would have had to say and hundreds--no, thousands-- of loyal acolytes would have jumped to do his bidding, to say nothing of thousands who don't care for the guy, don't know him, or whatever, but who care about the environment and what's in store for future generations.

Why couldn't our "leaders" do that. For Micahel Moore has done his part and more. He was writing and speaking about many issues including climate the whole time. It is wrong to suggest he was not.

"Rachel" and "Al" and even "Joe and Mika" would have been forced to discuss the topic if he had started raising Cain over it. He could have made it take off with the very simple power of his celebrity.

Are you joking? Those people are on TV every day. Why didn't they raise the issue themselves? Or maybe they did a little. But they certainly shouldn't need Michael Moore to tell them what to do.

He could have elevated the issue. He didn't. He was silent. Until it was way too late.

Is this a joke? You're standing reality on it's head. Climate was mostly absent from the Presidential campaign and you're laying the responsibility for that at the feet of Michael Moore, an activist filmmaker who is not even in politics or government?

The "deciders" had nothing to do with the mention of this issue; no one "silenced" MM's plea, he just didn't make it in a timely manner

Sorry that is like a joke to me. This campaign has been going on for a long time. It's not MM's responsibility to make a request at all. The deciders should have thought of this on their own (deciders=people who decide). They fact that they don't care about it is scandalous.

and there was no impetus to focus on this deserving topic as others competed for the attention of the candidates

That's not Michael Moore's fault nor his responsibility. The decision about what to include was the choice and responsibility of the deciders.

--you just don't post shit on Facebook right before a debate and seriously expect the moderator to see it

You are focusing on the one tweet. But there was a slew of articles in the media in the week leading up to the final debate. After the Candy Crowley debate there were complaints about this negligence and she gave a response on TV. The deciders knew there was a public cry to have it in the debate. But they didn't want it in. It had been asked in debates in every previous presidential election since 1988.

--but MM knew that; that's not what he wanted at all. He wanted your NAME, and the names of your friends and everyone else and their friends who clicked on that link. He got 'em, too.

All he did was post something on facebook. Same as the political campaign does, same as news stars do, same as companies do. There is nothing more than that.

The fact that you hope he buys a couple of Senators is rather troubling. Not a terribly small "d" democratic POV. I'd like to see less graft, less corruption, less wheeling, dealing, moneymaking, insider-trading, and lobbyist-influencing bullshit on the Hill--not more. I saw enough of that shit to turn anyone's stomach way back when, and I don't like it any better from a distance.

I agree with you on this principle. But until we get money out of politics, I do hope some progressive millionaires put some more money into politics.

Al Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" well before 1992, when it was published. He pushed for Kyoto through 97 but got the "hand" from the Senate. So, yes, he WAS a big environmental standard bearer way back in the day, and I was on the Hill during that time, so I remember a lot of his emphasis first-hand.

ok skipping ahead... I can't defend supporting Nader in 2000. But I also don't hold a grudge against people who did that. In my world those tend generally to be good allies on environmental, labor and trade issues.

I question MM's sincerity, and I just don't find him helpful at all--with friends like MM, who needs enemies? He's a scold who makes money crabbing about problems without offering any real solutions. A professional fault finder with no fixes, that's him. It's something that's easy to do from the sidelines. He does a very good job of it, and gets very rich from it, but I won't look to him for "environmental truths." There are people who have spent a lifetime working in that field who have much more to say, and can contribute more meaningfully to an understanding of the issues, than he might. They not only "get" the problems, they have real solutions to propose.

I think you expect too much of him. In my view he's just an overweight movie maker with a political agenda.

The man is a living, breathing "missed opportunity" on so many issues.

He's not responsible for taking those opportunities. He's a overweight dude with a twitter account. Actually I guess he has lost some weight.

I just don't get the sense he's on anyone's "side" but his own,

Try maybe reading one of his books.

and I think anyone who believes he is might well be disappointed in him sooner or later.

meh. whatever

I've had that view for some time, now--and it is all down to his own behavior. This little meaningless stunt just reminded me of how he rolls.

I'm glad he did do that because we cool people have been talking about it alot but it seems like when he mentions something it gets more attention.

[MADem]

288. He didn't just "share a graphic on facebook."

He made a statement on FB that "sharing" the graphic would somehow, magically, cause Bob Schieffer to ask a question about climate change. Stupid, well-meaning, left-leaning, "I wanna HELP" low-information voters clicked and BELIEVED. He counted on that. Now he has the 21st Century equivalent of a massive mailing list. That's not a "cool guy." That's a savvy but rather craven businessman. He probably got the idea from his agent (who, ironically for the Rahm Emmanuel haters in the "MM Appreciation Society" is Rahm's dear brother Ari). And he wasn't talking about this issue "months ago" unless he was whispering in your ear alone. Do the google. Zip. Nada. Niente. He has the ability to get the word out, and he didn't do it--until right before the final debate started. Pardon me if I question his motives.

He hasn't been rallying his minions. If he had so done, he would have stimulated conversation. That hasn't happened. Just saying "Oh yes he did" doesn't make it so. He hasn't gone on any of the talk shows, he hasn't encouraged personal action, he hasn't done squat to advance this issue during the primaries or the candidate debates before his little FB post.

FWIW, I have read a few of his books, and seen several of his movies. After a while, the pattern becomes evident. He likes to rile, he doesn't like to solve problems. It's a failing.

You may call him just an overweight movie maker with a political agenda or a fat dude with a twitter account, but he has more "clout" than that--look at how many of his invested and angered acolytes are coming at me hammer and tongs, fangs bared, for daring to speak ill of their favorite saint? He has the capacity to do good, but he never seems to take it. He's always doing too little, too late. If he were treating people like that on a personal level, he'd be called a user.

The Presidency is a big deal, and the person who gets the nod will change all of our lives, for good or for ill, depending on who prevails. This guy, playing his little games on FB, is unserious at best, and as I said, I question his motives. We'll see if he coughs up another documentary--I think he will, and fairly soon...first, though, he has to make the Academy change the Documentary Rules back to the old way of doing things (there are too many entries, the standards for qualification have eased and been modified), an issue that has been taking up an inordinate amount of his time, lately, if recent reports are accurate.

[limpyhobbler]

290. ...

I edited my post to change 'fat dude' to 'overweight dude'.

Here's to MM's email list. May it always be used as a tool for peace never shared with anybody.

That's it for me. See ya round.

[MADem]

291. You too--nice chat! I enjoyed it. nt

[sabrina 1]

238. Michael Moore is NOT late to the issue. He's been talking about Climate Change for

YEARS. It really is so discouraging to see these old, discredited talking points about MM bought and paid, which we KNOW for a fact, by the 1% to try to shut him up, here on DU. Not to mention attacking him for his weight, one of the most disgusting things the Right always uses against MM. Aren't we better than this?

Never mind, I am happy to see the number of recs this OP got which answers my question. We ARE better still. Michael Moore is a leftwing hero and no matter what YOU may think of him, it won't change that, thankfully.

[MADem]

250. I haven't seen him do it. You'd think someone who can appear all over my TV

and internet and newspapers to tout a movie could spare a bit of his "publicity effort" to press the point. No one has come up with any decent links about his long-term "environmental activism" and I'd love to see 'em.

And don't use the "Aren't we better than this" argument about the guy who fucked us out of President Al Gore. Now there's an environmental activist. He got the Nobel Prize a few years back, too. I have no trouble finding links to HIS efforts on behalf of environmental issues--funny how that works.

Everyone but me is talking about MM's weight here, I notice--so get off that high horse (can I say horse, or will you equate that with his being large?). Please. He'd be a One Percenter fatcat if he weighed ninety pounds soaking wet.

Don't be surprised if the number of recs has some basis in the "Perverse Thread Trainwreck Enjoyment" that DU engenders on occasion.

Unlike Michael Moore, I'm a Democrat--I guess I'm in the minority in a few corners of "Democratic" Underground, this being one. Unlike some, though, I am proud to be associated with the party. I think they do more good than not, and they can be moved to do better, still--but not by last-minute scolds bloviating on their facebook accounts moments before a debate and trying to rile up a cadre of low info leftists, many of whom apparently don't even realize that the guy is NOT a Dem...

[sabrina 1]

259. So now you know what a majority of Democrats are thinking because they do and

always have supported Michael Moore, going back years?

You called MM fat, did you not? I think once you started off with the personal attacks we are so familiar with, you lost all credibility on the issue of someone who has been speaking out on every important issue facing the American people for nearly three decades. And he was doing it BEFORE he became wealthy.

Eg, several years ago he was exposing the anti-Environmentalist organizations that were behind the sudden push to discredit people like Gore eg.

2010: Michael Moore on the Environment:

How Corporate America is Pushing Us All Off a Cliff

With this success under their belts, APCO created "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition." TASSC, funded partly by Exxon, had a leading role in a planned campaign by the fossil fuel industry to create doubt about global warming. The problem for Big Oil speaking out against global warming, according to the campaign's own leaked documents, was that the public could see the "vested interest" that oil companies had in opposing environmental laws. APCO's job was to help conceal those oil company interests.

And boy, have they ever succeeded. Polls now show that, as the world gets hotter, Americans are getting less and less worried about it.

How big is this particular cliff? According to the World Health Organization, climate change contributes -- right now -- to the deaths of 150,000 people every year. By 2030 it may be double that. And after that...well, the sky is literally the limit! I don't think it's crazy to say APCO may rack up even bigger numbers here than they have with tobacco.

And when he heard about the demise of GM, in 2009, he once again addressed the issue of the environment in his thoughts on what to do after the Gov. took it over and before the President made his decision:

2009: Michael Moore on the impact of the automobile on the Environment:

Goodbye GM


We are now in a different kind of war — a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call “cars” may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.

I could keep going back but don't have the time frankly. I will say that as someone who has followed Moore since he began his campaign against the lies told by the Bush Administration, I have heard him often speaking about the Environment and in fact was hoping he would do another documentary and focus on some of the exposures of those behind trying to silence Environmentalists he has already revealed.

[MADem]

262. You need to stop putting words in my mouth.

You also need to not aver that I speak for all Democrats. I speak for myself.

You had to go back two and three years to find two lousy cites? Nothing from a month ago, two months ago, six months ago, or back when the primaries were in full steam? Nothing? Nada? Nothing referencing debates, the Presidential contest? It's only a few minutes before the third and final debate that he finally decides that he'll lend his mighty voice to this "pressing" issue that he couldn't bother to mention before this moment?

Gee.

Did you click on the Facebook link? Did you put your name on MM's little list and become one of his orbit? If so, you made it that much easier for him to target you with his latest opus in future, whatever it might be.

You're not the only one who has followed MM's career. I will say again, he wasn't very "environmentally concerned" when he failed to back the best hope for a real environmental agenda for this nation that the Democratic Party ever produced. I often wonder what looking back on the Gore presidency would be like. I'll bet we'd all be breathing easier--no pun intended.

The rich get richer. Mike is pretty rich. He's a one percenter. He'll get richer, too.

[sabrina 1]

264. What???

I thought you said MM had only just started to have an interest in Climate Change and had never spoken about it before THIS election?? I responded to that and provided two examples from several years ago.

I think two examples are more than enough generally speaking. Do you expect me to post every single word MM has ever said about the issue? How ridiculous, really. I proved you wrong. He did NOT just develop an interest in this issue last week or the this week. THAT is what you claimed.

No one is putting words in your mouth. I read what you say and respond to that. The fact is that MM has always been supported by Democrats and still is. Your position is not typical of Progressive Democrats on MM and that is a fact. I have argued for years with Right Wingers in defense of MM who they wanted eliminated after Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko and then Capitalism A Love Story and frankly you are using their talking points against him whether you know it or not.

It just brings back years of bad memories of trying to defend someone who had the guts to not just speak out against Bush, but to put his career on the line to do so, unlike our shameful 'News Media'. He did it because they would not. In return he and his family received death threats and he had to hire protection. But I don't recall too many others having the courage to speak out against Bush and his policies.

Your attacks on Moore in this thread are hyperbolic, vitriolic, untrue for the most part except that yes, he does have a weight problem which he is struggling to address and is providing a very good example to other people suffering with the same issue. It's a shame that you chose to go there frankly.

[MADem]

270. No, that's not what I said, but nice try.

You made a comment about me speaking for all Democrats. I never claimed to do that.

MM has not "always been supported by Democrats." He was no hero during the 2000 election, which turned out VERY nicely for him at the end of the day, didn't it? And his F911 gig was a great windmill tilter that didn't help John Kerry (clearly not one of MM's favorites, judging by his harsh commentary about the guy on his little twitter account) win the WH, either.

My comments--not "attacks"--comments-- are not hyperbolic, vitriolic or untrue. Calling my comments "attacks" are all that, though--which is rather amusingly ironic. Everything I have said is fact based. MM is a very wealthy man because people like you look at him uncritically and would never challenge him even when he deserves a little challenging.

That's a very curious thing, I think. I also think it's interesting that everyone save me is whining about the guy's weight. It's further interesting that anytime anyone gets on the ropes about MM's motives, they bring it up and act like I give a shit how fat the guy is. One more time--I don't.

Be sure to click on that link and add YOUR name to his cadre of devotees. You'll be the first to hear about his latest Windmill Tilting film, book or TV special if you do! And if you don't think that was the primary purpose of that meaningless graphic, I could sell you a bridge, easily.

[politicasista]

398. +10

ProSense also has a very good link below on CC.

[MADem]

401. Prosense misses Al too! nt

[politicasista]

402. Yes she does!

[newfie11]

78. +++++++++

[treestar]

110. What?

He was not a cheerleader.

[SidDithers]

12. +1...nt

Sid

[Logical]

22. LOL, bury your head! Brilliant!!!

[Zalatix]

24. +1,000! I totally agree

[MADem]

32. Just because I think Michael Moore is a craven opportunist doesn't mean I don't think that

the future of the planet in relation to the reckless and continued use of fossil fuels is a genuine problem.

My point--and my only point--is this: Michael Moore is a posturing blowhard and his attempt to use the debate this evening to pontificate in his usual negative fashion didn't fly with me. He wants a GOP winner in the White House, it helps his bottom line.

So, "LOL" right back at ya.

[MrMickeysMom]

35. I wouldn't loose sleep over Michael Moore, MADem...

I'm sure he's got plenty of other persons who appreciate his work, which for the most part is not about his posturing and definitely about his brilliance in presenting documentaries.

[MADem]

39. He won't have any "brilliant" topics unless he's got a "W" or a "RMoney" to crab about.

In the meantime, he's safe and warm in his massive mansion with his many, many, many millions. He can posture all he wants in that lakefront estate.

I won't lose any sleep over him--he's a marginal character in the big scheme. A tool. However, I know what side his bread is buttered on--and it's not the Dem side. He makes money when the GOP are in charge, and he has to live off his savings, investments and residuals when the Dems are running things.

That's just the truth.

[sabrina 1]

243. Is everyone who makes money from their own talents, politicians eg, artists,

movie makers, are they ALL 'craven opportunitsts'? Should they all refuse to be compensated for their work?

What would you call politicians who end up millionaires AFTER they become politicians?

[MADem]

265. No--but the ones who trash an environmental leader in the Democratic Party

in favor of a third party gadfly to my mind, are, and who then come back, twelve years later at the tail end of a critical election, to "educate" us on what we "need" to talk about are, too. Where was he six months ago? In a coma? Playing Barnabus Collins in his lake manor? Don't jump in the game thirty seconds before the buzzer sounds and demand a championship ring for a load of last-minute, useless "coaching"--that's jive.

I hope you clicked on Mike's facebook link--it'll make it easier for him to send you the latest news about his newest book, DVD or movie he's selling! He probably got a ton of names out of that (not so) pointless exercise (from HIS POV, anyway). He's got his target audience all "sharing" his little last-minute graphic, and following him on Twitter in the hopes of landing a thousand dollar prize for their favorite charity. What a cheap and clever way to build a buyer's list while playing on the sincerity of well-meaning people, many of whom actually thought their little click would cause Bob Schieffer to say "Wait a minute--Michael Moore wants ME to ask a QUESTION about the ENVIRONMENT!!!" Like old Bob was scanning MM's FB page in the moments before the debate!

So yeah, he is most certainly craven, but no one can call the guy stupid. He knows how to build a massive client list with one lousy graphic, he knows how to make many, many millions, and with your earnest help and the help of everyone who clicked on that link and "followed" him on Twitter, he'll make many millions more.

If you want to start a discussion about politicians who end up millionaires AFTER they become politicians I'd be pleased to participate in that thread. I find money in politics terribly troubling, and it's a "fox watching the henhouse" problem, really. But MM isn't a politician, now, is he, so why should you compare him to those people? He's a businessman, a filmmaker, a book-writer, owner of a ton of prime real estate in Manhattan, a fellow who sells a specific type of "product" to a "certain" audience, and who has become very, very wealthy indeed by so doing.

He talks a very particular talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. If that doesn't trouble you, you can stand with him if you'd like. I'll hang out over here by old Al "Earth in the Balance," "An Inconvenient Truth," "Nobel Prize" Gore, the guy who talked about the environmental challenges we face before, during and after every election for the last two decades or more, and who didn't try to create his own little pointless "buzzwave" to gather "friends" and "followers" minutes before the last debate began.

[sabrina 1]

271. I like the way he talks. He talks about the issues I care about as a Democrat.

I like too the way he pisses off the people I despise, Republicans. You can tell as much about a person by their enemies as by the friends. And Michael Moore has always been able to boast about his enemies.

What he does, he does honestly. If you don't like what he does, then he is not affecting your life, all you have to do is not participate. I willingly support him and his method of reaching as many people as possible with Progressive ideals. As everyone knows, we haven't been very successful of selling Progressive ideals to the public. So when someone finds a way, that's fine with me.

[MADem]

280. Al Gore and Hunter Lovins do a much better job. And they don't just articulate problems.

They propose solutions.

The unfortunate truth is that a lot of Republicans covertly adore MM. They believe that he draws issues so cartoonishly that he creates a sense that even moderate Dems who support anything he's carping about are somehow "wild-eyed radicals." His best feature, to their mind, is that he'll move an independent to the right--precisely the thing we don't want. He's not just their favorite whipping boy, he's their favorite tool. So he's not always "finding a way." It might look like that, but he tends to help the GOP more than he helps the Dems. When that happens, it DOES affect my life. Given a choice, I prefer to see Democrats in the WH, and in the majority in the legislature.

I can't speak to the man's "honesty." I don't keep his books or know a thing about his private life. I do know that he does have more than a few "Do as I say, not as I do" disconnects in his public associations that are rather glaring, and I notice them and look askance.

[savannah43]

253. You claim your points are "nuanced?"

Really?

[Cherchez la Femme]

258. LOL

[MADem]

266. Your contribution to this discussion is nominal, at best.

You have a nice day, now--you apparently have a need for one.

Really.

[Zalatix]

309. That word 'nuanced'... does not mean what he/she think it means.

[LovingA2andMI]

42. ^^^^^ Perfection^^^^^

And Michael Moore is not worth the bottom of my shoes (this is from a Michigander that wonderst WTH was Michael Moore cities on OUR STATE was battling Public Act #4.....The Emergency Manager LAW). He is a opportunist at best and at worst, a fake.

[dreamnightwind]

44. That's one of the worst things I've ever read on DU

Welcome to ignore.

Michael Moore is correct, and this is the most critical issue facing humankind, yet there is no discussion of it, even though the two parties and their constituents have differing views on climate change. Should be a huge part of this campaign, and if not for the fossil fuel money, it would be.

[MADem]

77. That's one of the BEST things I've ever read on DU!

Anyone who plays the huffy "Welcome to IGNORE" game over a difference of opinion on a DISCUSSION board is truly a delicate flower with whom I shouldn't interact. I'm surprised you're able to go about your day without becoming offended by the weather!

I won't miss you, since I don't even know you....don''t forget to follow through, now! Hit that button! Feel virtuous!

[Jakes Progress]

174. Another Obama vote attacked.

You are on a roll.

[MADem]

224. I suspect you are. nt

[Jakes Progress]

248. I can see you are having trouble following your own blather.

Did you post this reply in the wrong place? How does it apply to my post?

Go ahead. Take time to find a snarky (if feeble) explanation for your error. The more time you spend here with me, the less damage you can do.

[MADem]

268. I think you're the one having trouble, there, Too Clever By Half.

You claimed I was on a roll. I replied that I suspected you were. Having trouble "applying" that fairly straightforward comment, are you? Tut, tut! Sounds like someone is INDEED having trouble following their own blather--but it's not me.

What's feeble is your need to be rude because I don't see things your way. Keep going--your reputation precedes you, and you're only adding to it with your snark.

[Jakes Progress]

273. I see where you missed what was going on.

I'll let you hunt it down.

So, I am more than clever you say. Thank you. You should see how bright I can be when I have to discuss things with a person who really can write and argue. In this thread, it is just simply pointing out what you are unable to see.

Tell me again how belittling a prospective voter is such a good way to get them to vote the way you want. I like it when you avoid addressing the things that even you can see are dumb.

[MADem]

283. I didn't miss a thing. You did. And your comments continue to reveal your nature. nt

[Jakes Progress]

284. I'm tired and your flailing isn't at all interesting.

Besides my pm's tell me I'm being cruel for trying to explain something I see to a blind person.

Notice the number of recs the thread you hate got. Guess where you stand.

Bye now.

[MADem]

286. I really don't care about your personal life.

I don't "hate" this thread. But then, you don't "get" that, either. Not surprising.

[LanternWaste]

54. I can certainly understand why many trivialize the person without addressing the message itself

I can certainly understand why many trivialize the person without addressing the message itself; far too often we allow party politics to take a greater precedent over other pressing issues if the two do not align.

[MADem]

67. You missed the entire point.

It's not a question of "trivializing" any person, it's calling a self-aggrandizing opportunist out for what he is.

Why isn't he on the barricades 365 on this, if he cares so much? Where was he last year? The year before? Any "off" election year? Why doesn't he live in a less Bigfoot carbon footprint of a house, instead of in an energy hog stretching down the shore of a massive lake? Why does he need to pose a question as though there's NO daylight between the parties on this matter? Anyone with a brain knows that, even with Big Energy influence, there's only one party that can be moved on this issue, and it's not the GOP. But what MM knows is this--if there's an audience out there for something that has nothing to do with him, he'll make it about him by whatever means possible.

Don't be fooled; he's test-marketing his next documentary topic and he's using the motivated "debate audience" as his test subjects. If his little pic on FB gets any social media play, he'll sketch out a quick documentary, play a gotcha game with a few oil execs, throw it on film with some dire stock/purchased news footage (and there's plenty--oil fields burning in Iraq; Exxon Valdiz--all those cute little birds and so forth covered with goo; the Deep Water Horizon well mess in the Gulf, etc.). slap it up on theater screens, advertise it heavily with a few good "Oh, You Kid" clips of him wandering around in a rumpled sloppy jacket, dirty jeans and a cap (like a poor everyman rather than the multimillionaire that he is) asking people questions, toss in a few interviews with well-meaning people who won't get a dime for their appearance in his opus, overlay the whole thing with stock music and a dire, monotone, narration by "He, himself and him" (one less actor to pay), and rake in a few more million--or tens, even HUNDREDS, of millions, if there's enough "gotcha" in the project, just like his formula has brought him in the past.

Enjoy! Lap it up, pay eight bucks, chew that popcorn, leave the theater feeling virtuous as one of Moore's "clever ones" who "gets it." Play the "I saw it first" game when discussing the film with one's friends. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I don't need a guy who waits to cadge off the audience of others to tell me that there are problems with the environment, least of all that One Trick Pony who benefits personally and pecuniarily when the GOP has the White House. I am old enough to remember clean air and un-fucked with food that didn't taste like bland shit. I GET that there's a problem. I also get that we won't 'get' any help from RMoney on this topic whatsoever. So MM can just step aside. There's an election to win and he's not helping.

[mountain grammy]

71. "old enough to remember clean air" makes me wonder how old you are..

because, since the industrial revolution and the explosion in the burning of fossil fuels, clean air hasn't come easily. In fact, the air was so UNCLEAN in 1970, that a REPUBLICAN president signed the EPA into law. I was a teenager in the dirty air 60's. I was born in 1947, but cars were burning gas and homes and industries were burning coal, so I'm sure the air wasn't so clean then. Back to my original question; how old are you to be "old enough to remember clean air?"
My daughter was born in Denver in 1988. The city was under new mandates from the EPA to clean up the disgusting brown cloud.. and guess what? We did! It's not perfect but it's a whole lot cleaner. Now, at some point, my 24 year old daughter could say "I'm old enough to remember clean air," but only if we go down the Rmoney road, and we've all read "The Road."
Michael Moore, love him or hate him, he's right on this!

[MADem]

81. I grew up abroad, by the sea, with much less industrialization and few cars.

I am retired now, and I have lived in/visited polluted areas as well. I know the difference between clean air and foul.

Michael Moore isn't telling ANYONE anything they don't already know. HE is not "right"--he's a copycat who is simply cadging off of people like AL GORE--who isn't trying to pretend that Democrats are the same as Republicans and who is trying to GOTV, not suppress turnout--and stealing Al's material .... probably to make another one of his quick profit movies for the virtuous to watch and feel like they've "done something."

Go ahead and worship the guy if you'd like--I'll work to get the party more likely to do something about this matter elected instead of playing a false equivalency game like Ralphie is doing.

[LanternWaste]

80. I've no doubt you believe your opnions to be both accurate and verifiable

"You missed the entire point.,,"
No more and no less than you missed the entire point of the OP...

You're certainly set in your opinions, and, bless your little heart, I've no doubt you believe them to be both accurate and verifiable. However,, I yet see no response of yours relevant directed towards Moore's original statement. and the premise of the OP-- simply a biased opinion of someone you presume to posses all necessary and relevant information-- which I suppose allows you a belief that you are indeed, 'helping to win an election...'

[MADem]

88. Yeah, bless your little heart, too.

I didn't miss the point of the OP at all--I saw it coming at a hundred paces. It's all about the money. That's why the timing of this particular, copied-from-Al-Gore, whine is so key.

I'll await the next great opus from the rumpled filmmaker. All Hail.

[Plucketeer]

131. Pointing out MM's largess

tainted ANY worthy commentary that may have been offered. THAT'S the plain and simple truth of it.

[MADem]

134. You need to look up the word "largess"--because it does not mean what you think it means.

MM isn't particularly generous, AFAIK.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/largess

[sabrina 1]

156. And there you show how little you know about MM. He is EXTREMELY generous.

The fact that he doesn't talk about his generosity like some people do, makes him even more admirable. Starting out, when he made his first $3 million for Roger and Me, I assume you know what that documentary was about, he donated $1 million to charity and since then he and his wife have continued to use their money to benefit others less fortunate. At least if you are going to attack someone, do with facts. Unbelievable.

[MADem]

158. But he DOES talk about his "generosity." He makes a point of mentioning it.

His record is not very good. Do the google yourself.

Gee, he'll give a thousand dollars to a charity named by every ten-thousandth "tweeter." What a sport!

You do realize the guy is sitting on hundreds of millions? He's a long way from his pissant "small money" wealth of Roger and Me. He's a one percenter in a big way. And not a terribly generous one, either.

[sabrina 1]

165. Wrong, he addressed the issue of charity after he was attacked by the money poured into

smearing him by Health Insurance Industry, doing exactly what you are doing here. They wer trying to prevent his movie Sicko from having an impact on changing our HC system, calling him a wealthy bastard who is only in it to make money. Fortunately Whistle Blower Wendell Potter confirmed the money spent on the smear campaign against him and apologized for his part in it.

But the Right continued to use those multi-million dollar smear campaign talking points against him, and in all the time I have been aware of him, he finally address their claims that he did nothing with his money for others. And even in that response, he did not go into a lot of detail.

If you want to criticize him, then don't use those incorrect talking points. We've all seen them before, after he produced Fahrenheit 9/11 where his life was threatened eg, after Sicko, after Capitalism A Love Story. We are familiar with them and no one who uses them gets any credibility from the Left.

MM has done more to wake people up regarding what has been going on in this country, using his talents to do so, than anyone else I can think of.

Let me ask, did you attack him this way after he made Fahrenheit 9/11 and exposed the lies of the Bush administration at a time when the entire media had gone silent?

And do you object to other people making money who have used their talents to inform the public about major issues, such as Al Gore, and even Obama who also now has money? Do you think people should refuse money they've earned while doing good for the people, or just Michael Moore? And if so, why?

And what does his weight have to do with any of this btw?

[MADem]

193. MM is not an environmentalist--he voted against one in 2000.

He's a capitalist of the first order, an obscenely wealthy man, and that's fine and dandy. He's not terribly philanthropic, and that is fact, too. He's free to make money, keep as much of it as the tax man will let him, and preach to his loving acolytes, and I am likewise free to make comments that suggest I don't buy his BS. If you don't like my views, don't subscribe to them.

He did plenty to divide the country, and his 911 film probably didn't help "the cause" as much as you might think. He didn't really cover a lot of new ground, he just drew the lines more sharply....and tell me, refresh my memory... who won the election after that film came out? Was it...John Kerry? Why no, it wasn't.

MM doesn't "wake people up" anymore, he hasn't so done for some time--he preaches to the already-converted.

You'll notice everyone but me is whining about his weight if you bother to read this thread from stem to stern--so he's fat, big deal. I find his bloated lifestyle and entitled attitude more of an issue, frankly. But hey, it's a great canard, and a good "go to" point to distract from my central thesis, a thesis which is mine alone and I don't require you or anyone else to take onboard.

What I find amusing is the unrelenting desire by many here to silence my differing view, rather than simply saying "I differ" and moving on--instead, I'm getting personal insults, snark, childish and petty comments--it's rather revealing.

Gee, I don't support a guy who has trashed Democrats in the past and who DID NOT SUPPORT our party's premier environmentalist for election--but now I'm supposed to buy his stupid little cheap ass facebook graphic and bow and scrape to the rumpled "master?"

I don't think I'll do that, thanks anyway. I'm not buying what that guy is selling.

[sabrina 1]

240. Were always this angry with MM? Did you expound on how fat he is and how

mean and rich he is when he made Fahrenheit 9/11 attacking the lies of the Bush administration?

I'm asking because I've noticed that a few people on the 'left' have developed a sudden antipathy to well known and highly respected film makers and authors and bloggers that I have zero recollection of seeing from them during the Bush years.

This has caused many to question just what their principles are or were. A vast majority of Progressives have NOT changed their minds, but the small group that launches into vitriolic attacks over the past couple of years on just about everyone who was outspoken against Bush's policies and still is, has been remarkable.

My principles and opposition to all of Bush's policies haven't changed one bit and as a result I still support all those who had the guts to oppose them when Bush was still there and still oppose them. So, again, can you point us to your objections to MM during the Bush years?

[Plucketeer]

220. Our friend

is many strata above us, intellectually speaking. There's much more meaningful dialogue in/on other threads. I suggest we don't waste any more of his valuable time. Let's just let them "waddle off" to whatever noble pursuit it was before this thread distracted them.

[MADem]

227. I don't think you are much of a friend to me. nt

[savannah43]

254. You need to look up the word "nuanced."

But I repeat myself.

[MADem]

269. I think you do. nt

[JonLP24]

188. How do you know

what he said or didn't say a year ago or 6 months ago? Sources? (Though if you read the graphic, it is only relevant during an election cycle--the money spent)

I don't pay attention closely to everything he does but he strikes me as someone who always says what he believes even in non-election years which I recall him doing.

[MADem]

211. I don't live in a cave. I have TV, radio, and internet, too!

Google is your friend, too--go on, give it a go. He hasn't been "out there" on this, Al Gore's, topic. I've looked. A conversation with the leader of Malawi in the context of a documentary (not his) a few years back. Not much else. If he was, don't you think we'd have seen him on our televisions? Or at least here, on DU, given his enthused acolytes.

You'd think a man with hundreds of millions of dollars could spend a few cents to get the word out, if he really wanted to "make a difference" and persuade the candidates to discuss this topic? Ya think? Surely he could afford to go on a few talk shows, and you know full well they'd have him if his publicist put the word out; maybe take out an ad in some of the larger papers, call some attention to the subject? He could probably even deduct the cost of the ad as a business expense. That, of course, takes real effort--not the "effort" involved in slapping a graphic up on facebook.

But hey, now he can claim that he "brought it up" (on facebook--wheee! Moments before the debate started--wheee!) and no one listened to poor, pitiful Cassandra. It'll play well in the movie if you don't look too hard.

Ask yourself this--why NOW? Why not twelve years ago, when the guy who ended up winning the Nobel Freaking Prize in 2007 and who had, at that point in time, already articulated a very strong environmental platform and who had already written a highly regarded book on the environmental dangers looming, was running?

We'll see if MM tries to sell us a film. Perhaps something like An Inconvenient Truth, only without the depth, research and science, but with plenty of "gotcha" as he chases lobbyists and legislators hither and yon. .

[A Simple Game]

61. Damn right MADem! Why would anyone want to talk about

the biggest problem facing the human race during an election?

You are so right!!! It makes no sense at all. Unless you put humanity before party.

[MADem]

64. Nice way to not see ANY nuance in what I wrote!

I don't have a problem with discussion of the issue; I have a problem with the motives of the blowhard sounding the alarm.

Of course, if you read my remarks, you'd understand that. We know which way your knee jerks, though, by your response!

Ask yourself this question, since you're so concerned--which party will do a better job on this issue? No waffling--you've got two choices.

[Jakes Progress]

175. Nuance? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Your posts have been about as nuanced as a hand grenade in a bowl of oat meal.

[NYC_SKP]

176. As much as I am entrenched in environmental activism, it's my career practically...

I agree with you.

I love Michael Moore but what he does is so fucking easy it makes me sick.

Nice poster, but to expect the debates as they are pre-arranged as they are to address climate change is crazy.

In fact, most climate and energy drama is presented by people without a clue about the topic.

Get out there and learn something, then do something about it all.

Not you, Moore!

[MADem]

177. Thank you.

It's the messenger, not the message, that I take issue with.

Perhaps someone from the Current TV team could expound on this topic--they certainly have a subject-matter expert close at hand.

[NYC_SKP]

180. You, too, can photoshop shocking messages and post them on FaceBook!

Anybody can be a Michael Moore.

Not everybody can be a Dale Dougherty or a Hunter Lovins, to name just two people who I think are changing the world.

[MADem]

205. Hunter Lovins! She's brilliant, isn't she?

I gotta say, too, rather shallowly--I know she acquired half of it by marriage, but that's one cool name she's got!

But what she's got, most importantly, is a track record of work and research and common-sense ideas that are grounded in the real world. I wish they'd make a course on her approach a curriculum requirement in every college in the country.

[NYC_SKP]

235. I'm lucky...

I can count her among my friends at a professional level. I wish I could post casually pictures taken at cocktail lounges without fear of retribution.

She likes a particular scotch!

[MADem]

285. Wow--I've only read her stuff. Hell, I don't touch scotch but I'd buy her a barrel for an

opportunity to hang on the edges of a conversation and hear her views!

Lucky, lucky you, indeed. I'm working hard at suppressing some serious envy, here!

[A Simple Game]

282. Why yes I am concerned, thanks for noticing. I think leaving the

world better for my children and grandchildren is very important.

You need to know which party will do a better job of cleaning up the environment? I'm sure the Democrats will. But whoever does it will do a better job if their feet are held to the fire. Of course you can see that, can't you?

Most people realize that Climate Change is a problem that needs attention. How better to advertise who will do a better job of reducing the affect of Climate Change than to have the candidates discuss it during their campaigning and debates.

Only someone who doesn't believe the Democrats would win that debate would be against discussing it.

[MADem]

293. No feet were held to any fire, though--that's the problem.

A wonderful FB "mailing list" was generated as a consequence of that little piece of FB theater.

I'm not going to repeat the points I've made throughout this thread. There was no hope of the topic being discussed as a consequence of clicking on MM's link. It was never "about" that, but it did serve to capture the names of left-leaning environmentalists with an interest in presidential politics.

MM is arguing with the Academy (the Oscar people) about the criteria for documentaries, which has changed considerably in recent years. The field has broadened enormously so there are hundreds of entries now, not just a dozen or so, tops, and he doesn't like that one bit.

We'll see what the topic of his next opus is. Anyone who clicked on his link will be the first to know, I'm sure.

[pakilolo]

90. That which can not be said

Once again "The Thing That Can Not Be Spoken About" was left out of the debate. Climate Change. This has everything to do with our National Security, Economy, Foreign Policy. Our Climate is heating up and we don't want to talk about the devastating consequences. What are the costs of a rising ocean, a dying ocean, drought, mega forest fires, floods, mega storms, dust bowls, millions of refuges, limited water supplies? My heart is very heavy.

Its obvious that Obama would be so much better than a Republican denier on Climate Change. I live in Washington and Obama is about 15% ahead. The last polls on Gay Marriage initiative is For 54% Against 38%.
The Legalize Pot initiative For 54% Against 37%. We are doing our part for the home team. Go Giants in the World Series.

[MADem]

112. I think it should be discussed, actually.

I just don't appreciate the guy who fucked over Mister Earth in the Balance in 2000 lifting HIS issue and using it to pretend there's no difference between the parties. That's a lotta nerve, if you ask me. There's a HUGE difference between the parties, and his minimizing is noted and obvious.

If he really wanted this discussed during the Presidential campaign, you think he might have thought about it sooner, eh? Like, say, a YEAR ago? Even six months ago? Maybe he could have used some of his hundreds of millions to bring the issue forward, maybe ginned up a quick ad, either print or TV, instead of doing up a cheap graphic on Facebook? And doing it just moments before the THIRD and FINAL debate, to grab that audience without having to drum up one of his own?

Cui bono?

Welcome to DU.

[ronnie624]

127. He was discussing global climate change throughout 2011 and 2012.

Your messages are all gibberish.

[MADem]

138. Well, I'm sure you'll provide us with links to all of his "discussing" over the years.

Won't you?

I'm sure he's made a comment or two, but he hasn't said anything that Al Gore didn't say better and more forcefully over half a decade ago, and even previous to that, in Earth in the Balance.

You remember Al Gore....the candidate Moore did NOT support?

When you start calling a cogent difference of opinion "gibberish," you've lost the bubble. I urge you to eschew that tactic in future; it's what the kids call a "tell."

[ronnie624]

144. A search of Google shows exactly what he said about the issue.

And because Al Gore talks about global climate change, Michael Moore shouldn't?

More logical fallacy, of which your posts are always riddled.

[MADem]

215. Yes--and what DID he say? Do tell!

[October]

207. Aren't YOU the one telling everyone else that "Google is your friend"?

/nt

[MADem]

214. I'm not the one desperately trying to "prove" that MM's interest in this issue isn't recent.

You are. Make the claim, provide the proof.

[October]

386. Not me, MADem.

[sabrina 1]

242. Actually he has been discussing Environmental issues since way before 2011.

I can see you are not at all familiar with Michael Moore and his stand on the issues.

So I guess I'll just leave you to this embarrassing stand you have decided to take against someone who has done more to educate the American people on important issues, especially the young, than all of our disgraceful media AND many of our elected officials put together. You're wasting your time trashing MM on the left. The Right of course has always hated him because he delivers facts, inconvenient facts to them.

[MADem]

294. I'm VERY familiar with the guy.

I have been ever since he fucked over my candidate in 2000. My environmental candidate. The Democrat who was running that year.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If you want to worship at his altar, more power to you. Just know that when you click on his link, you're helping nothing but his bottom line. Your "click" didn't make Bob Schieffer change his line of questioning, no matter what MM tried to suggest in his exhortation.

Ironically, the only one who has mentioned this issue on TV--and gun violence as well--is Dave Letterman--he did it just now, on CBS, talking to Rachel Maddow.

Why can Letterman stand up and use HIS clout, but MM sits around data-mining on FB?

[ronnie624]

96. Ad hominem attacks and invective, as usual, lurching from one non sequitur to another. n/t

[MADem]

117. Yeah, sure, whatever. Did you get that subject line from

your Internet 101 book? It's got all the good words--"ad hominem" and "invective" and "non sequitur"--oh my!

[ronnie624]

120. Can you post a link to it? n/t

[Occulus]

109. PLONK

And my DU just got better!

[Zalatix]

118. Anyone else but me notice how MADem COMPLETELY AVOIDED Michael Moore's message

in his/her mad rush to shoot the messenger?

[MADem]

124. I didn't completely avoid it at all--and it isn't his message--he stole it--from Al Gore.

Remember Al Gore? The guy that MM did NOT support in 2000? Hmmmmm?

Anyone else but me notice--and remember--that?

[Zalatix]

153. Wait, Al Gore is the only person who can point out these things?

[MADem]

229. You should put the little laughing man away.

You've again shown me that you can't read a sentence and comprehend what was said. You make inferences about what people mean based on your perspective, which is, apparently, limited.

If I said "He's no Hunter Lovins" would you come back with a similar retort using a new name? Would you continue to allow the points made with regard to standing, veracity and ability to continue to sail over your head? Or are you under the impression that MM has some sort of expertise regarding the issue--he's done research, written papers, books, essays on the topic, perhaps won a Nobel Prize for his efforts, and as such, he deserves to be a spokesman for the cause?

[Cherchez la Femme]

263. Yes. Leave Al Gore's issue ALONE!

I MEAN IT!!1!1!111!!!

Plus, Michael Moore's FAT! We don't care what FAT people have to think or say; they're meaningless, aren't they?
I mean, when they don't coincide with what we think or our aren't in 100 percent agreement with our Leaders! Otherwise we''ll give them a temporary pass

...although they're still fat.

[Zalatix]

276. That pretty much sums it up.

[MADem]

292. Way to not read a single word of the discussion. Pat yourself on the back.

You missed every single point and you're proud of it, too!

[ronnie624]

313. There is nothing unreasonable in anything Michael Moore says.

He just advocates for the deep, fundamental reform to our system that we are in dire need of; the sort of reform that frightens conservatives and moderates, who desperately cling to the immediate security of the status quo.

But our civilization is currently under threat from a number of areas, and we don't have time to dawdle. The looming disaster that awaits, as a result of the damage we are doing to our biosphere, is without doubt, the most pressing. Without a serious attempt to mitigate what is surely coming, it could very well bring about the near term extinction of our species. We need the popular icons of our culture discussing this issue, as loudly and as often as possible. Not for you and me, but for those who rely on pop media to be 'informed'. I would never begrudge any celebrity talking about it. It is an earnest and weighty matter that needs to be on public consciousness at all times. Whether or not you hate Michael Moore for political reasons, is not all that important. We need him and others talking about global climate change.

It is to our grave detriment that we can't get our political leaders to give this issue much more serious consideration.

[MADem]

316. I agree with most of your commentary.

I just don't think MM is the champion for the cause that's needed. He's not a uniting force--he's divisive and his personality overtakes the issues he decides to champion, often as not--to the detriment of the cause at hand. He's guaranteed to turn off half the country before he opens his mouth. That's just an inconvenient truth, to make a small pun.

I'd rather see a Hunter Lovins or someone of her stature come forward and lead the charge--someone who can unite even those reluctant trust fund former climate deniers who are now figuring out that this global warming thing is fucking up their ski vacations because the snow isn't falling and tearing down their beach homes with vicious hurricanes. She's done the research, she has the life-long experience, she's an expert--acknowledged around the world--in the field.

MM is just not "the guy." It's always more about him than it is about the issue at hand.

[Cherchez la Femme]

371. Your 'nuanced' discussion? LOL

C'Mon, admit it: you're having us on...
all this simply CAN'T be real.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

321. In hindlsight Al Gore did it all wrong.

He should have found another way to present his case. He set off a backlash that is still growing.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

[MADem]

337. The right targeted Al Gore because he was a continuation of Clinton.

It wouldn't have mattered HOW he presented his case. The fact that he was Al Gore was enough to set off the right. They had their wars to start and expand, they had their MIC to enrich, and they were determined to fuck over Al by any means necessary. When Al moved forward with his Inconvenient Truth efforts that earned him the Nobel, they continued to fuck with him because they didn't want their bottom line impacted. They were and still are stupid. They couldn't grasp the concept of changing things up for the better, creating new paradigms, and crafting sustainable, clean systems--they just wanted to do the least work possible, invest as little as possible, and squeeze out max returns.

It's a lot like "Romney Business Model," that kind of attitude. Invest next to nothing, suck the life blood out, and move on to the next target. Basstids!

“Al Gore was the perfect proponent and leader of the global warming alarmists because he’s a very politically divisive and controversial,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment, told FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry. “He was a wonderful target for our side.”

Personalizing the attacks on Gore were part of an approach that was embraced and amplified by friendly media, and part of a broad strategy to undermine public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/how-al-gore-galvanized-the-climate-change-movement-on-both-sides/

[SleeplessinSoCal]

353. I was referencing "An Inconvenient Truth"

"Climate of Doubt" shows how the effort by Gore to get the message out, turned into a much stronger movement led by Ayn Rand followers who will stoop to anything to build a coalition and control energy production.

It is a movement highly funded and organized. It's also the reason the Tea Party signed on (to limit the size of government) while clutching their copies of The Fountain Head" and "Atlas Shrugged.

[MADem]

358. Yes, I took your point--I was agreeing with it.

It's all a piece, and they're not stopping. They'll have to be stopped, I fear. I hope we can find an effective way to do that.

[WilliamPitt]

125. You breathe, right

[merrily]

201. FWIW, when a segment of Democrats were itching for a primary challenge to Obama, MM said

the Democratic nominee HAD to be Obama. I remember seeing him on MSNNC saying that.

That does not directly contradict anything you said, which is why I prefaced it with "FWIW."

But I do think it's relevant to your post..

[limpyhobbler]

221. You see that really doesn't matter because there is a certain part of The Party

that demands 100% obedience and sticking to the party-line script.

They want to discredit Michael Moore. He has money, influence, and notoriety. He has his own fans and following. He operates based on principles instead of corporate contributions. So they see him has a threat and have to discredit him.

It doesn't matter how loyal he has been, or that he has in fact been a good soldier for Obama and The Party. He is a threat so they will do anything to discredit him, even if it means dragging up some garbage from right wing websites to try to pin on him.

[roody]

228. If you did not care, you would

not have clicked, read, and commented.

[infidel dog]

233. No, you COULDN'T really give a shit about...yadda yadda...

Goddamnit people, If you COULD really give a shit about Mr. Moore, it means you do. If you couldn't give a shit, you don't. Get it right.

[MADem]

357. Well....I suppose I could, if I took a huge strain...

[RetroLounge]

365. And most of DU apparently feels the same about you

RL

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Pitch perfect. Just perfect.

[quinnox]

4. As usual, Moore nails it n/t

[cyclezealot]

7. My site for watching Moore during the debate is his Tweet's page.

He's right on the mark and speaks with a populist voice. The OP is passively for Obama , he knows Mitt is a Neo Con.. Think Moore isn't aware of how horrible is Mitt. Look at What Moore just posted...
.
.The Romney Presidency: A (Plausible) Look Back

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Turborama]

14. "The OP is passively for Obama"? Are you talking about me? n/t

[cyclezealot]

17. Ma Dem.. #2.

was the one who said he didn't get a dam what Moore had to say..
Look at Moore's Tweets, hardly friendly towards Mitt.
https://twitter.com/MMFlint

[MADem]

26. Not always friendly towards Obama, either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251120784

The guy is an attention-seeking gadfly. He is not a Democrat, and he would throw Obama under the bus if it secured his fortune.

[MessiahRp]

37. Oh so he's not a sycophant like someone else...

MM has done a great deal of good for our side and our causes but hey, he's not lockstep with Obama so fuck him, right? Seriously, your sentiment is disgusting.

[MADem]

38. Disgusting? Really? Grow up.

What's "disgusting" is when people don't understand what the purpose is, here, particularly during election season, and persist in championing demotivating blowhards who could give a shit about anything but their bottom line, while pretending to be progressive and green (from the confines of their energy hog of an estate). That's MM in a nutshell. He does well when the GOP does well--their success is his success.

And I'm not making up the "purpose" of this site, either.

It's in the TOS, too--you might try reading it and at least pretending that it matters--because it does to most of us.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Turborama]

43. That's what Faux do all the time with Al Gore

Go on about how he must only be in it for the money as he has such a large house.

Therefore, you agree with Faux.

[MADem]

79. Al Gore--in case you didn't notice--is supportive of Democrats for election.

He's not trying to insert a particular "movie-topic-worthy" issue into a debate and PRETEND that there's no daylight between the GOP and the Dems on the issue. He's trying to get Dems elected. Turn on his TV network--you'll see.

You shouldn't compare a loyal and supportive Democrat like Al Gore, who put his money into a TV station that helps Democrats, to MM, who acquires his money by insisting that EVERYONE but him is an asshole and that all politicians are the same.

And, FWIW, Faux isn't terribly supportive of Democrats for election either--maybe you didn't notice that, either?

Nice try--shitty analogy, though.

[Turborama]

115. LOL I wasn't comparing AG to MM, I was showing how similar your spin is to Faux'

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

You use the word nuance a lot but don't seem to really know what it means.

There's nothing in the OP that implies he's trying to "pretend that there's no daylight" between the two parties on the issue. The picture is from somewhere else and he decided to share it. The epic "nuance" miss you made was that this is directed at the fossil fuel industry owning the media's agenda, not the parties.


Another thing. As your anti Moore spin and Faux' anti Gore spin ("big house" = hypocrite who's only in it for the money) are exactly the same, and - as you say - they are anti-Democrat, you'd better take a step back before you embarrass yourself any more than you already have.

[MADem]

129. I'm afraid you are the one with the challenge in definition.

The message--which is one lifted from a guy named Gore (a guy MM did NOT support for election)--is valid. When it is delivered by a craven multimillionaire opportunist, one who quite recently called John Kerry everything save the scum of the earth, way too late to make any kind of real impact, way too late to be discussed in ANY debate or on the campaign trail (when opportunities to slap together his shitty little graphic and drum up a bit of support for his "urgent" cause surely existed before yesterday) the motivation is suspect. In the EXTREME. It's not "Fauxian" to point that out. It's simply a use of one's very basic powers of observation.

I could call your "They are DEMOCRAT" comment rather Fauxian as well, if I wanted to play a shit-flinging game, but I don't play that way. Your continued insinuations suggest to me that you enjoy that sort of thing.

You stop worrying about me, I can take care of myself, and worry more about embarrassing YOUR own self. Worry often, in fact. If anyone's to do any "stepping back" (internet tough guy, oooh, scared!) it probably should be you before you shame yourself further with your tough guy "step back" chitchat.

[Turborama]

278. MM did not "slap together" the graphic, it was a share from 350.org's FB page

If you bothered to go to his FB page you'd see that. You'd also see his very strong support for keeping President Obama in the White House.


Regarding your reading comprehension fail, are you a Democrat or a Democratic?

Finally, thank you for all the work you put into keeping the OP kicked and gathering so much attention.

[MADem]

310. How good of you to correct the misapprehension that you created with your OP.

Better late than never, but gee, you've achieved a measure of internet fame with your great big thread! Joy in the morning!

When you use the words Faux and Democrat in a sentence, my mind goes to that "Rat" commercial from years past. The shorthand doesn't fly and makes your intent rather questionable -- the phrase "anti-Democratic Party" would work better.

[Turborama]

314. You're welcome

It was your misapprehension. You should take ownership of it.

[MADem]

342. It wasn't my OP. It's all yours. nt

[Turborama]

355. It seems like it's you're thread now, though

Based on your misinterpretation of the OP.

BTW if you can be finally bothered to go to Michael Moore's FB page, you'll see how strongly he's behind keeping President Obama in the White House and how wrong you've been throughout the wholesale hijacking of this thread.

[MADem]

359. Well, that WAS your OP--so that's on you.

You really shouldn't assume that everyone is "on" facebook and twitter, you know.

I deleted the buttons that link to them the second I set up my account at DU3.

I'm not a fan of datamining.

Your posts need to stand on their own without forcing others to sign up at these FB/Twitter sites and submit to social media tracking. Your post did stand on its own, except for the misrepresentation that it was MM's original work, when he swiped it, apparently, from another source.

How nice that he's supporting President Obama, for now. He wasn't being very nice to John Kerry after the first debate, though, was he? And Kerry was Obama's debate coach. So I wonder how "strongly" he's behind the BHO team, really...

I didn't "hijack" your thread. I expressed an opinion that was unpopular with an earnest cadre of MM acolytes. Blame them for their Lord of the Flies enthusiasm when it comes to disagreeing with my POV, why don't you?

I thought you were enjoying the recs and kicks--that's what you said a while ago. Guess there's no pleasing some folks!

[Turborama]

361. I provided a link which takes you to his FB page, it's not my fault that you didn't click on it

If you had you'd clearly see it states it's a share from 350.org's FB page, so there's no plagiarism in what he did.

It's got nothing to do with DU's buttons, either.

If I was purposefully misrepresenting it I wouldn't have provided a link - if you go to the link you'll see I actually posted it 'as is' from his FB page. It's simply your misinterpretation of it that caused you to embarrass yourself so badly - despite my friendly warning you took such vociferous umbrage at, so stop with the strawman argument and just admit you were wrong for once.

[MADem]

362. I didn't say it had anything to do with the buttons.

I provided that amplifying information to make it quite clear to you that I have a history of opposition to social media data mining (e.g. I would not "share" a DU page on FB--I don't find that to be a savory idea at all), particularly in the context of for-profit enterprises. There are lots of DUers who do not have these sorts of accounts and who are opposed to participating in that whole facebook imbroglio.

I didn't say you were "purposefully misrepresenting" either. Your post did put the graphic out as being "from" Moore--it's right there in YOUR OP subject line "Check out what Michael Moore has just posted on his FB page..." is what you wrote. Not "Check out what MM shared from another site on his FB page." You said he posted it, and I believed you. That could have been an honest mistake or a simple oversight. It's a common error, I'm sure. But you did represent the graphic as Moore's, and you did it quite unambiguously in your subject line.

I am not at all "embarrassed" so you can just stow that assertion. I have a different view from some, not all, here. The ones who should be embarrassed are the ones who used personal insults along the lines of ignorant, insane, on drugs, etc. I think it's a fine thing that they've flown their flags, though--by their words I shall know them, and so shall others.

Transparency is a very good thing.

[Turborama]

363. Michael Moore did post it on his FB page

Just because I said he "posted" it doesn't immediately mean he "created" it. People "post" things they didn't create all the time all over the internet. Thanks for explaining how *you* misinterpreted it.

I also posted a link to where anyone can see that it's a "share" - in the OP it suggests clicking on the link to share as well, and if one did it would become instantly apparent who created it.


Also, despite how much you hate Facebook, you don't have to have an account to read things on it. So that's just a lame excuse for not clicking on the link.

[MADem]

364. I am no expert, but I understood what you describe to be a "share" not a "post."

A post is where a "share" might originate.

You have to sign in/sign up with Facebook to play in their yard--it's like this place in that regard, you can't post here at DU without being a member, either.

Your subject line was not clear. I'm sorry that you refuse to take that point and are getting mad at me for telling you that I took the post, based on your subject line that you composed, to mean that MM had ORIGINATED that graphic.

Had it been clear that the graphic was a "share" and not a post originating from MM, you likely wouldn't have the Most Exciting Thread of the Day.

[Turborama]

366. You can view FB without being a member, just like DU

So your excuse for not clicking on the link and seeing what I meant (mean) is just as lame as it ever was.

Apparently the subject line was not clear to you, someone who has admitted they have no idea how FB works. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I wrote to mean that Michael Moore had created that graphic.

I'm not at all mad, quite the contrary. I'm calmly explaining to you what happened as clearly as I can.

I think you should accept the credit for how visible this thread became. If you weren't so upset with Michael Moore in the 1st place and kicked off the replies with your invective tirade which resulted in the ensuing responses, the OP might very well have sunk without trace. Thanks again.

[MADem]

382. I said I was no expert.

Look, your subject line said what it said, and I took it to mean what most people would think it means. Now you're berating me for not being one of the "cool kids" who is hooked into the whole facebook scene.

Sorry you can't take my point--that your subject line did say that MM posted that-- and insist that I "need" to use facebook and "must" click on your links, even if I don't want to generate traffic on the page OR support the cause you are espousing.

This is a discussion board--the object is to discuss issues. If you want to give me "credit" for the visibility of the thread, fine--it matters not to me. I especially don't mind given that it matters so much to you--how nice that I can make someone happy with so little effort. If the "credit" comes with a nice check, make it out to the Obama campaign.

I find your use of "invective tirade" rather curious. I am quite calm, not angry at anyone, there's no "invective" on my part and solely because I enthusiastically defend my POV, doesn't mean I am on a tirade. Perhaps you prefer a meek and supplicating approach by anyone who doesn't agree with you? That's not my style.

That said, I won't return the favor and call you names or make snarky or shitty remarks about your demeanor or your character. It's not polite or helpful, I've found. I remain astounded at how very PERSONAL a few of the MM acolytes are. Some of the shit flung at me would be right at home in Freeperville--and all because I am not a fan of a guy who is not a Democrat, and who didn't support a Democrat for election in probably the most important election of many people's lifetime.

Whatever! You're VERY welcome, indeed.

[Turborama]

391. I didn't insist you "need" to use FB & "must" click on the link. However, your failure to click =

[MADem]

396. Sorry, I think you're the captain of the ship. It was, after all, YOUR subject line.

If the only way I could learn that it was a "share" and not an original post was to click on the link, then, in effect, you were forcing your readers to support your favorite film maker and the entire FB franchise with a click.

The subject line wasn't cut-and-pasted from FB, it wasn't a headline from a citation--it was your creation.

You wrote it, you made that choice of words.

So, thanks for the welcome aboard, Captain--what time do we get underway?

[Turborama]

405. You own this Failboat and are its navigator

You think that providing a link for people to go to the source "forces" people to "support" Michael Moore and "the entire FB franchise"?

By that 'logic', every time you click on the link to the OP you are "supporting" it.

Let's look back at what's happened. *You* made a mistake and without going to the source to check thought that, after honing his skills at PS CS5, Michael Moore created the graphic in the OP. And now you're blaming the mistake *you* made on me because I said "posted" and not "shared" in the subject line?

Just when I was starting to think your fail couldn't get more epic.

Anyway, where did you get Michael Moore is my favorite film maker? I like a lot of different film makers, but don't really have a "favorite".

Fun times on-board MADem's Failboat, failing under the flag of Wrongistan.

[MADem]

406. You lit the boilers and steered it towards shore. You set the course. It's yours, Captain.

The navigator can only act based on the directives of the Captain, and you gave the orders with your opening subject line.

Every click of a facebook link provides support to that cretin Zuckerman who owns facebook. His revenue is based on ads--I don't care to support his efforts, I am not a fan of his data-mining tactics.

I didn't make any mistake. I don't think you "made a mistake" either, but I do think you were UNCLEAR in your subject line. You can't pretend that it says anything other than what it says--and what it says is not representative of the facts regarding the graphic. You wrote that subject line, Captain.

[Turborama]

407. Trouble is, you've been relying on a sextant and slide rule, while I expected you to use gps

Hence the grounding.

Nevertheless, I admire your stoicism.

FORWARD!

[MADem]

412. Sorry Cap'n! When I went to school, there was no GPS!

There was pencil, a map printed on paper, a compass, a sextant, and a copy of the Navigation Tables!

I'll be the first to admit, it was NOT my best subject, not by a long shot. Now I'm having flashbacks....!

[MessiahRp]

46. If you're going to be a tool about it...

You should also know it's not as if MM was attempting to SINK Obama's campaign either. And hate to tell you this but there are a LOT of liberals on this board that support MM even if he's not always 100% sucking up to Obama. I am voting for Obama but that doesn't mean he's always fucking right. You'd do well to open your eyes just a little bit to this concept as well since I doubt you gave Bushbots a pass for your very behavior.

[MADem]

140. Really? How do I "know" that MM isn't "attempting to SINK Obama's campaign?"

Just the other day, MM was dragging John Kerry over the coals...so forgive me if I think the guy who is now so "concerned" about the environment but who couldn't bother to support our fucking elected ENVIRONMENTAL president, Al Gore, who was denied his due, is less than sincere.

You'd do well to open YOUR eyes and look at this clown's history and his hundreds of millions in stocks, Manhattan real estate, and other investments. He's doing VERY WELL for himself, courtesy of acolytes like you, and he does WAY better when the GOP is in charge.

Follow the money.

[MessiahRp]

197. Yes MM would prefer to SINK Obama and put Romney into office.

You seem to forget that in 2004 he and Maher begged Nader not to run so we wouldn't get another Bush term.

Your follow the money comments are ignorant as hell too. Moore has done a ton to help other people out.

Your attacks on other liberals are petty and pathetic.

[MADem]

204. It would make him quite rich.

Why did your hero take twelve years to see Al Gore's point?

I don't "attack ... other liberals." I call out a phony when I see one.

[sabrina 1]

245. He did NOT take 12 years to speak out about the environment. Where are you getting

this nonsense from?

[MADem]

305. No--you found one short comment from 2009 and another in 2011!

Another hundred years of that kind of babble and maybe he'll get a Nobel Prize, too!

[MessiahRp]

255. He doesn't need more money. He's not a multinational corporation, he's a human.

And he cares about the good of the country. Even if his point of view doesn't always line up with Democrats (who often times, including Obama, take corporatist positions that are NOT for the good of the country) that doesn't mean he wants to sink all Democrats. Your narrow minded, myopic, black and white view of politics is not suited for a more in depth conversation it would seem.

And No, Moore isn't right on everything. Let me make that point clear. NOBODY IS. The difference is that you can't handle criticism of your idols. If you were to say, Moore was wrong to support Nader, you'd have a point. If you said Moore was wrong not to support Al Gore earlier, you'd have a point. Of course your commentary goes to personal attacks on his wealth and supposedly tearing down his liberal credentials while you prop up Al Gore who actually is making money hand over fist and doing so with a huge house that also is a bit hypocritical to his message. That pretty much seals the deal on the credibility of your argument.

Moore as a whole is beneficial to our cause. Sicko was helpful in moving people in our direction during the Health Care debate when Obama himself and Congressional Dems did an absolutely terrible job of selling Obamacare. Capitalism: A Love Story, was beneficial in terms of beginning a debate over the negligence of Wall St. It was the precursor to Occupy and ultimately got the media to finally discuss Wall Street Greed after over a decade of ignoring it.

You can discount his efforts all day long but because you make personal attacks on his wealth (as if he's never donated sizable sums to great causes to help people) it shows how weak your argument is.

[MADem]

315. I can't handle criticism of "my" idols? The irony is thick, here!

I question MM's motives, and a small subset of acolytes goes BALLISTIC on me. I'm not allowed to have an opinion about MM that differs from the "All Hail The Man From Flint" perspective that pervades. Talk about your "narrow minded, myopic, black and white view of politics!" All Hail Moore--or ELSE!

Take a good look at what I've said about the guy. I don't think MM is terribly relevant to this election, and I'd prefer that he keep it that way. He fucked Al Gore in 2000, his F911 had the opposite effect on independent voters than was hoped in 2004, which screwed John Kerry as much as the Swiftboating did, and he wasn't terribly helpful in 08, though he did do a lot of shit-stirring during the primary. He also wrote a "humorous(?)" election guide that year, and made some money off of that. He's a scold and a windmill tilter, and he's successful at that. That's why he's stinking rich.

Because I note that the man is stinking rich, that's not a "personal attack." And my noting his wealth doesn't "show how weak (my) argument is." It's just a fact that the guy is rich. Deal with that. That personal attack" phrase is over-used, and you're contributing to that with your misapplication of the term here. Surely you are not claiming he's not wealthier than anyone most people know? That he doesn't have enormous investments and a huge foundation where a massive portion of his funds are sequestered? That he isn't a real estate mogul of substantial proportions?

I think there's a crew up in Canada who will take VERY STRONG issue with you trying to give the credit for the genesis of Occupy to Moore. He was an early OWS cheerleader, but he didn't light that fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Origins

I think MM's motivations have at least as much to do with his personal aggrandizement and the securing of his personal fortune as "helping the country." You have a different view. You won't change my mind, I won't change yours, I'm sure. The difference is, I'm just expressing my opinion--I'm not calling you names or questioning your character or your bona fides.

[sabrina 1]

323. It's actually a pretty big subset.. I'd say you yourself are among only a very few

on the left who share the views of a large proportion of the right when it comes to MM. Not to mention how many Independents he has brought over to our side and even some Republicans. I appreciate real Liberals wherever I find them because there are so few with money who are willing to even admit publicly what they are.

Al Gore is wealthy also. He focused on Climate Change but MM focuses on so many different issues and has awakened so many Americans, even some who had originally bought into the Faux Michael Moore smears.

We know he's effective because of the millions of dollars Big Corporations have spent spreading the kind of smears (some of which you just added to this thread, sadly), in an effort to silence him.

I don't have to be a 'fan' of anyone to reject right wing attacks on good Liberals. Just as I defended Clinton and every other Democrat who was attacked by the Right, I will defend MM and every other Liberal, as I have for years, against right wing smears.

[MADem]

326. Well, the pundits differ. They said the F911 opus did more harm to Kerry than good--and I believe

that to be accurate. Fear won over hope that year.

I have not added any "smears" to this thread, right wing or otherwise. The facts I've posted about MM's wealth and support for his pal King Ralph are not fictions--they're fact. They're inconvenient to people who want to pretend the guy is always on "our" side. Fact is, though, he's NOT always on "our" side. It's not just "righties" who take issue with this guy, so that is a mischaracterization as well--plenty of people who are strong supporters of social justice issues, environmental topics, unions and equality for all, myself included, take great issue with him because he fucked us out of our environmental president and instead delivered unto us eight years of hell with W. And that's when he got REALLY rich.

Al Gore never tried to screw over a Dem running for office. He put his shoulder to the wheel and chipped in. He never made money after doing such a thing, either.

MM is, like it or not, divisive. He doesn't understand party loyalty because he's not a Democrat. I do understand party loyalty because I know that a shitty Democrat is always better than than a Republican, particularly when one has to consider that whips and leaders in the legislatures will bring people into line or they'll suffer the consequences.

I've never met a Republican who was swayed by MM's arguments--not a one. And if the 2004 analysts aren't lying, he hurt our cause with independents. Who are these mythical people who were converted from the Dark Side? They sure as hell didn't vote for President Kerry, did they?

It would be nice if that anecdote were true, but I suspect it isn't. MM's specialty is preaching to the converted, riling up the true believers, throwing red meat to his loyal lions. He does it well. However, I'm tired of his schtick. I don't need homey little narrations and "gotcha" interviews where he huffs and puffs down the street waving a microphone at some Bigwig who is huffing and puffing, trying to escape his questions. That kind of theater is amusing for people who already are onboard, but it doesn't advance the ball on the field or make a sale to those who are unconvinced. When he was doing stuff like going after the Westboro Baptist cretins, I cheered him on. When he fucked over Al Gore, he LOST me--and he'll never get me back. He changed American history, all right--but not for the better, not by a long shot. I can't even imagine how many kids wouldn't have died in Dumbya's dumbass war if Gore had been given his due. That's something I won't forget, either. MM played a big part in putting that moron W in office. He owns that. It's baggage I certainly wouldn't want to carry.

[MessiahRp]

347. F911 hurt Kerry as much as swiftboating? You are on DRUGS.

Seriously back away from this. You look more and more looney with each post.

[MADem]

352. There you go again--more invective. Don't try to ascribe your bad habits to me.

That's not a winner, either, Tough Guy.

The one looking "looney" is the one flinging mindless insults at me over a difference of opinion about a guy who isn't even a Democrat on the frigging internet.

Yeah, you--take a good look in the mirror, there, buddy, you're a real charmer!

[leftyohiolib]

50. you tell MessiahRp to grow up yet MessiahRp is not the one having a temper tantrum

[MADem]

82. You're not making sense. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

56. You call Michael Moore "fat"

and YOU'RE telling another DUer to "grow up?" That's rich. Blind partisanship is an ugly thing.

[MADem]

122. He's not?

He's bloated--in every sense of the word. He's living in a house as big as an orphanage.

When I tell an untruth, let me know. Otherwise, forgive me for pointing out the obvious.

[sabrina 1]

161. Well, if he's fat, I guess that does it. Don't anyone listen to a word a fat person has

to say! We used to have principles on the Left. One of them was not to judge people by how they look. Seems many of our principles have been thrown out the window over the past few years.

We have a lot more work to do than I used to think on our side of the aisle apparently.

Moore has been talking about Climate Change for years, btw. Just FYI.

[MADem]

302. I don't call him fat, though--you do. Everyone else is doing it here, too.

I think he's a fatcat, bloated with wealth, but as I have said time and time again, I could give a shit about his weight. But boy oh boy, that's your "fallback poutrage" and you're gonna milk it for all it's worth! Strike up the band! Tell another one, why don't you?

Moore has not been talking about climate change for years--he's a newcomer to the issue and he hasn't contributed anything of substance to the debate.

Now, Al Gore, the guy he couldn't bother to support for the Presidency twelve years ago, he's had a few things to say on the topic....but pay no attention to him. He's not "worth" your time--he's only a Democrat.

But hey, never mind that--MM is, well, you know, "cool." And he really CARES about you. Personally. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Shining Jack]

374. "I don't call him fat, though--you do. Everyone else is doing it here, too."

Really?

MADem (79,040 posts)
122. He's not? (fat)

He's bloated--in every sense of the word.

[MADem]

377. I was referring to his lifestyle, wealth and hubris.

Do you see the word f-a-t in there, anywhere? No, you don't. Nice try though, Skippy.

[Shining Jack]

415. Hum, sure, right, whatever.

[MessiahRp]

256. Fat? Wow. I'd expect that attack... from a second grader.

Talk about a pathetic argument.

[MADem]

343. If it's so pathetic, stop making it.

And try reading what I wrote. Or don't. I really don't care what you think.

[RetroLounge]

409. " I really don't care what you think."

RL

[MADem]

410. This is your fifth "mocking" post. Why do you continue to behave this way?

What are you getting out of this uncivil conduct?

I've never really seen much of you before this thread, but I'll remember you in future--you're really giving me--and everyone who reads your repeated posts-- insight into your character.

[RetroLounge]

416. and here's another one...

Mock mock mock mock



RL

[pocoloco]

97. Party over principles?

Just really fucking great!

[MADem]

123. This isn't "Let's have a nice little intellectual discussion" Underground.

It's DEMOCRATIC Underground. Check the TOS--you're due for a re-read of it, I think.

If you seriously think the OTHER party would better reflect the "principles" at stake, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Just really fucking great!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

418. Check your brains at the door, people.

There's no room for "intellectual discussion" at the new and improved, dumbed-down "DEMOCRATIC Underground."

Derp.

[MADem]

419. Derp? Really? Aren't you a charmer.

An expert on that, too, no doubt.

[crunch60]

41. MM. calls it like he sees it. He is not in love with either candidate.

He speaks about important issues like climate change. I don't care how big his house is, because I believe he is on our side.

[MADem]

155. Al Gore speaks about important issues like climate change.

And he does it better than Moore ever has, or ever could.

MM couldn't be bothered to support that good Democrat in his election quest. Instead, he went with another bigmouthed self-aggrandizer...and made a fortune in the years that followed.

[MessiahRp]

348. Yeah Moore's issues: Health Care Reform, Corporate Greed... these are not "important".

Al Gore is everything you describe Moore to be when it comes to wealth and you give him a free pass. Moore didn't tank Kerry, political connections in the Ohio SOS did.

You hate the man but have no legitimacy to your reasoning, hence why you have to lower the discourse to such insults as "fat".

It's fine that you have such an ignorant opinion, but you're pretty much attempting to blast a good dozen or more people in this thread while forgetting that if you did a poll right now, Moore would have 80-90% support here. Making YOU the outlier.

[MADem]

349. Al Gore supported Al Gore for the Presidency.

MM didn't. And thanks to him, we got Dumbya.

And I didn't call him fat--everyone else did. Reading is fundamental. Do try it.

When you use terms like "ignorant opinion" you don't endear yourself to anyone and you don't make your point. You come off like a sad little Internet Tough Guy with no juice. A keyboarding bully who flings shitty little insults like Names really CAN hurt one. Ooooh! Ouch!

It's not hard to be civil. You can disagree without being a jerk. Try it sometime, you might find you like it.

I don't mind being the outlier. Better than being a sheep to the slaughter, certainly.

[cyclezealot]

47. Should u read the credits of MM's film's : he's pretty much

a truth teller.. If in a pinch, sorry to say, likely I agree more with MM than Obama.. MM helps to keep Democrats true to our core beliefs.
In a pinch , MM sounds pretty much behind Obama , that is all we need. Moore is more likely able to mobilize Democrats disappointed in Obama than Obama 4 Obama..... So, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[MADem]

344. We'll have to agree to differ on that score, I'm afraid.

I find MM divisive and drama-laden. Obama will reach across the aisle, and even when rebuffed, he retains his dignity and because of that, his support increases over time.

I hope MM just doesn't cause any "All About Me" scenes in the next two weeks. He's a divider, not a uniter. He has a unique capacity to drive away independents, and we need them to win.

[cyclezealot]

367. Some of us don't want any more uniters..

Those who seek out feel good moments instead of face reality are just putting their head into a dark hole. One sense we had after seeing MM's films. We did not learn anything we did not already know.. Remember the differences between Moore and Dr Sanja Gupta on CNN.. Eventually, Gupta had to admit Moore was right in his film Sicko.. And it was Gupta who got it wrong and had to apologize to Moore. I ask did you even bother to read Moore's list of sources, of which he usually provides..I sort of doubt it.. Unlike most Americans we never leave before a film's credits roll..
Just because you do not like his style does not mean Moore is wrong on the facts..
As the saying goes ,
'If you are not outraged , you are not informed." We agree.

Michael Moore: =clap:

.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/fahrenheit-911

[Kindly Refrain]

55. Oh but wait

You posted that Micheal Moore really wants a Republican in office so he can make money, now you are saying he takes pot shots at Obama to make money. You aren't making any sense.

[MADem]

345. He's a professional scold.

It does make sense once you realize that MM is not a Democrat. He's not a Republican. He has no loyalty to either group. He makes money by railing about issues of interest to his group of core supporters (most of whom are left to way left) and selling them his "product" be that books, DVDs, or documentary films in a movie theater.

It's not a mystery or rocket science, here; it's basic marketing. He knows his audience, and he caters to them with content designed to "outrage/delight" them. He keeps them interested in him and his products through regular social media outreach, twitter and facebook, most particularly, and his little blog.

[sabrina 1]

413. He's an American citizen who saw the lies being told by the Bush administration

and the complicity of the MSM and DID something about it. He produced a documentary outlining those deadly lies which yes, some of us were aware of, but 70% of the population had believed and based on which they gave their support to policies that are still harming this country.

His movie, Fahreheit 9/11 began the education of those who had been fooled by the lies. Movie theaters were threatened with violence to try to prevent the movie from being circulated. We went to see it fearful of those threats. Leaving the theater we met a guy who was wearing his Navy uniform. He was crying. My friend asked him 'what did you think of the movie'? He responded that he had never been so upset in his life as he had no idea of the lies he had been told. He still was skeptical and stated that he would now do his own research and if what he saw in the movie turned out to be true, all he could say was that he had joined the military on false information and that was the reason why he was crying.

MM led the way in standing up to Bush's lies about the War in Iraq. His family was threatened, he was threatened, he had to hire protection for himself and his family in order to begin the process that should have been done by the MSM.

Millions of dollars were spent on trying to personally smear him. But some of us just didn't fall for those lies either.

After he made his last movie, Capitalism A Love Story, he admitted to wondering if the personal repercussions of his fight to tell the truth to the American people was worth it and stated that unless the people began to stand up for themselves now that a lot of the truth was out there, it would be his last movie. I guess he got tired of the kind of attacks visible in this thread and the danger to his family who no doubt did not appreciate being investigated and attacked simply because of his work.

You have trashed him in this thread based on nothing but your own opinion, most of which is untrue and coincidentally matches the smears that were bought and paid for by major corporations working hand in hand with Bush.

I asked you before if you had been this virulent against MM during the Bush years when he was a lone voice a lot of the time, with access to a microphone, exposing the Republican lies. I don't recall your answer.

[MADem]

414. You are entitled to your opinion about the guy. As am I. I am an American citizen, too.

I have as much right to make my views known as anyone who enjoys the rights and benefits of citizenship.

I haven't "trashed" him--I have expressed my opinion of him. I have backed up my opinion with facts. Now, if you can prove to me that he's given away all his money and lives in a tent, and didn't actively back King Ralph (who was taking money hand over fist from the GOP to be their Useful Tool) we've got something to talk about. Otherwise, we're just going to have to agree to differ.

I discussed my evolution with regard to my view of MM elsewhere in this thread. I'm not going to repeat what I said, but I do hold him partially responsible for his role in denying us the best hope for an environmental president, for playing a part in bringing us "W," and the attendant war and death that followed. The more people died, the more annoyed I became.

I don't demand that YOU feel the same way that I do, though--I can accept that people have differences of opinion, and I won't start questioning your sanity or parentage or commitment to progressive causes solely because you don't see things my way.

It'll probably be awhile before we are able to field a candidate as committed, knowledgeable, and respected, as AG was, and is. If we'll ever see another such candidate in my lifetime...

Time will tell if MM's last movie will actually be his last movie. He's fighting in a big way with the Academy right now (he is one of the Academy Governors) about the changed standards for eligibility of documentary films (more films are eligible now than were previously allowed, and he doesn't like that and wants the Academy to change the rules back to the old ways/old days--he will present his objections next week at a meeting of the Academy Board). His objections are not universally supported, so we'll have to see what comes out of that meeting.

[WCLinolVir]

57. Romney equals war.

So true, all of this. I see death and destruction for America if this man and his machine steal an election. I do not believe he could be voted in. And the question is, if they attempt to steal an election, our election, what are we going to do about it? Time to think about it. I am not willing to sit back like I did with Bush.

[mountain grammy]

209. I'm donating, volunteering and voting, and, now, thanks to this, not sleeping!

[limpyhobbler]

295. great post. That video was probably the best commercial so far this year.

I guess MM won't be getting any thanks from the party establishment.

They're probably afraid of him because he is pretty popular but they can't control him.

It think that's what is behind all the whining about him in this thread.

[Enrique]

5. also untold millions that go to the networks

i.e. the bosses of the moderators.

Every time I watch a video on MSNBC's website, which I do a lot, I see an Exxon ad. Actually lately it's a Bing ad, but you get my point.

[Turborama]

6. Van Jones just brought it up on CNN

Saying he hopes they discuss climate change.

If he's still in contact with PBO, maybe it will be on the agenda...

[porphyrian]

8. . n/t

[MoonshadowLou]

15. Gotta Luv Me Some Michael Moore!!!!!! n/t

[OldDem2012]

18. One thing at a time, Mike...let's win the election first. nt.

[glinda]

19. Almost thought Obama was going to say it when Schaffer asked "What

the greatest threat to our Country was". Almost.......but didn't happen.

[Turborama]

23. Good catch!

And, of course, that would have been the correct answer.

Scary that there's been no mention whatsoever in the whole campaign, as far as I know.

[limpyhobbler]

376. That would have been a great opportunity to say it.

[uponit7771]

20. I thought Obama at least mentioned it in the second debate

[JI7]

21. interesting response compared to the way he attacked Obama after the First Debate

[MADem]

27. I think he likes to be on the side delivering the beat-down.

Sometimes, the hardest thing is to NOT hang with the "cool kids" on the playground, but stand with your candidate and back them to the hilt. Be steadfast. Be loyal. Be true to your principles.

Not say snarky shit like "This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach." Real profound, there, Mikey.

Once you hit, what, fiftysomething, nearly sixty, that kind of waffling stance is pretty hollow and shallow.

You'd think the guy would "get" that.

You're right. He wasn't at all kind after that first debate--he was downright shitty: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251120784

[JI7]

29. yup, why not appeal for lack of substance after that debate

yet in this debate where Obama has clearly kicked ass and Romney did horribly in every way he seems to want to change the subject and criticize the process.

he also didn't say much after the 2nd debate.

it was his horrible comments after that first debate which stuck out to me when i see stuff like this now.

the guy has an agenda for sure.

[MADem]

30. He gets rich whining about Republicans.

It only "works," though, when they are in power.

Otherwise, it's just historical carping.

[Turborama]

31. The OP was posted before the debate, not after

If you're inferring it was in response to this debate.

[MADem]

33. We've moved on to talking about his post-debate "tweets."

He's a waffler. Has a real need to be with the "winning team" of the day, it would seem, based on his comments. I guess all that snark about Kerry is now forgiven?

[politicasista]

234. He ain't gone do it. Requires courage.

Kerry has ten times more integrity in his heart than Moore will ever have.

Same with Gore. Gore has more backbone than Moore ever will have.

And Obama has a strong spine of steel. Who's "wimpy" now?

[dsc]

25. actually it was 360 minutes

he forgot the VP debate.

[femrap]

28. He's right.

If I see one more 'friend of coal' bumper sticker, I'm going to puke.

Thankfully, there is a limited amount of it.

[Strat0]

34. "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." --FDR

Excellent Point MM.

[merrily]

199. Not exactly on topic, but I don't think FDR waited for anyone to make him do anything.

[Strat0]

392. As I understand it

FDR knew the resistance to his new deal programs from congress would be severe, so he needed popular support and more importantly public pressure to enact the programs. His fiery speeches and fireside chats inspired (pro new deal) protests and helped create the climate for his progressive policies to be installed.

Michael Moore, imho, is trying to inflame public outrage at the abandonment of the extremely important issue of climate change, and without that, no politician will go near it.

[RiverStone]

36. Rec the sentiment, not sure that Michael is very Eco-minded tho

thanks for posting

Yea, global warming was 100% absent in the debates. Very disappointing, but glad Obama won 2 of 3 debates.

[Go Vols]

40. +1

[eridani]

49. My husband made a good point at the debate watch tonight

He sez climate change is a complex issue, and if either candidate had brought it up voters who are still "undecided" just don't have the brain power to dissect all the subtleties.

[sulphurdunn]

52. Is what Moore says true?

Every election cycle I hear the sirens sing that any and all environmental issues are to complex for "undecided" voters to grasp, but that the Democrats will take it on when they get in office. While they do much more than the Republicans it's never enough and they chant the same "drill baby drill" caveat used by Republicans. It's not only possible to be a Democrat and not kiss your party's ass, it's necessary to push it left. It's natural inclination is to drift right. That's where the big money is.

[Shireling]

62. Thank You Michael Moore

As far as the above bashing of MM, THERE ARE MANY WEALTHY DEMOCRATS, and they put their money to good use.

Thank God for Michael Moore's documentaries. He has helped to awaken many people to the suffering of the uninsured and the nightmare that capitalism has become.

Michael Moore is a democrat, BUT MUCH FURTHER TO THE LEFT than the democrats of today.

Todays democrats are stuck because campaigns are very expensive, and the candidate cannot survive without LOTS OF MONEY which comes from Big Oil, among others. So democrats have moved far far to the right to be able to receive their monetary support.

Michale Moore has stayed to left and is not afraid to speak the truth.

Global Warming is probably the biggest crisis facing us. IF WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ARCTIC ICE to reflect away 70% of the summer heat from the sun, WE ARE COOKED. But what politicians talk about this? They are leading us to our deaths because of the way money has corrupted our political system.

Michael Moore speaks to this truth.

Thank you Michale Moore for taking a stand for planet earth.

And thank you Al Gore. I believe he is wealthy too!

(Yes, I want Obama to win. He is trying to move us in the "Green" direction.)

[politicasista]

397. He's a "Democrat" lol!

A "Democrat" publicly trashing another Democrat.


Still waiting on Moore the Democrat and his "Democratic" followers' apology to President Obama and Senator Kerry...Crickets.

[stevenleser]

63. Lots of issues weren't discussed because Romney refused to get specific on anything

We can go down a whole list. These were not debates, but it had nothing to do with moneyed interests or President Obama. We have a Republican nominee who either doesnt know anything, or knows just enough to know his positions would be unpopular and thus didnt talk specifics at all.

[limpyhobbler]

69. Michael is right.

[limpyhobbler]

70. Omitting climate from the debates was extremely irresponsible,

unethical, grossly negligent and supremely immoral. nt

[MADem]

346. CSM had an interesting article on the "why" of that decision.

A bit depressing...but interesting.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1023/Obama-Romney-ignore-climate-change-but-so-do-voters-video

[Blue_Tires]

75. kick for truth

[Democat]

76. We know Obama's postition and we know Romney's, that's good enough for voting

Michael Moore may be right, but the choice in this election is very clear on this issue.

[rbrnmw]

95. Thanks For Your Efforts to Reelect President Obama

[Festivito]

101. Michael's right, big oil is theirs, IOW, more reason to vote for OBAMA.

To get up off our shrinking comfort zones and go vote.

[kirby]

107. What is there to debate?

It is like religion, you will get nowhere arguing with someone who will not admit facts.

The Republicans in power now do not even admit there is a climate change issue. The few who will admit it, feel it is not 'man-made'.

It would be wasted breath to argue about it.

[heaven05]

132. well

all I have to say is enjoy this planet while it's alive.

[harun]

133. Amen brother. And the Corpote Media as accompliss

[woo me with science]

370. Corporate tentacles run deep.

It is difficult to find any political arena now in which the corporate line is not relentlessly repeated and traditional Democrats attacked.

This is what you see when parties are being actively co-opted by interests with a virtually unlimited supply of time and money.

[Cleita]

137. Global climate change is real and

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Michael Moore is 100% right. Anyone who wants to trash the truth he has spoken by calling him fat, entitled, etc. etc. is doing the propaganda work of the energy industry, who don't want us to discuss this at all.

Thank you for posting this Turborama.

[limpyhobbler]

212. +1000. exactly. nt

[Gregorian]

141. And once we talk about this, there's another bigger topic behind it that we have to get to.

The way I see it is by the time we even begin to make a dent in renewable energy and CO2 emissions, the bigger topic will still be looming even bigger, and still not part of the discussion.

Good for M Moore.

[Coyotl]

182. Whooot! REC # 200.

So that is where the Big Oil subsidies go, buying more Big Oil subsidies.

[mattclearing]

202. Not even true.

Obama stressed renewable energy at every opportunity, and advocated cutting their tax breaks.

[politicasista]

232. +1

Moore needs to STFU and stop undermining Obama and tweeting snarky stuff about Democrats.

[SomethingFishy]

208. I just read this article before coming here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/us-worlds-top-oil-producer_n_2006640.html

NEW YORK -- U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer.

Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

The boom has surprised even the experts.

"Five years ago, if I or anyone had predicted today's production growth, people would have thought we were crazy," says Jim Burkhard, head of oil markets research at IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm.

Now I'm sure that certain Democrats think this is really good news. I see it as a double edged sword. Yeah it's helping the economy, but at what cost.

[Cleita]

217. $4.50 a gallon for gas locally is not helping me nor anyone in this area.

It is making global corporations filthy rich at our expense. ENOUGH!

[sabrina 1]

244. Then why is the cost of oil soaring? Here in Southern Ca it is nearly $5.00 a gal. So

who is benefiting from the lifting of the ban on offshore drilling eg? We the people sure aren't.

[politicasista]

225. ...

Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

[Jakes Progress]

274. Thank goodness MM doesn't listen to the idiots,

jealous and short sighted, who love to attack him for pointing out truths.

I wonder if any of those here could find fault with the OP rather than attacking MM's weight. Too bad he's not crippled too, so that they would have something else to ridicule. Let's see them say that either romney or Obama has tossed back big oil money and told big energy that they will have to change. Let's see them say that the issue of climate has been well addressed by either candidate.

Nope. Just attack the guy who points out what is obvious.

[DirkGently]

279. KNR for Moore's excellent, un-refuted point.

[Comrade Grumpy]

289. Wow. Somebody has gone insane on this thread, and it ain't Michael Moore.

[MADem]

296. Showing your class, I see. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

334. You're still at it?

I really hope you're investing as much time and effort into the GOTV work you claim to be so busy doing as you have into this extended attack on Michael Moore.

If that's the case, Warren should win by 10 points.

[MADem]

360. Warren is in a tight contest. It's starting to get very dirty on the Brown side.

But back to your snarkish point, this isn't an "extended attack." I simply have a difference of opinion.

You'd think you'd have enough confidence in your own opinions to not be so doggone shirty when someone takes a differing viewpoint. That is, after all, how most adults manage their affairs. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but you decided not to take that road

. You probably know I don't take kindly to being called shitty little names, and I'll make that known. You don't have to pile on, you know--but you did. So clearly you must like playing the Internet Tough Guy too, on some level.

I'm trapped at a bedside of someone who is quite ill--this is passing the time as good as anything else.

Any other questions about my motives, purpose, how I spend my time?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

301. Frontline: Climate of Doubt pointed out that Obama...

and politicians in general, have been avoiding much-needed, serious climate change discussion for waaaay too long.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

GASP, TWO WEEKS FROM THE ELECTION! RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

The attacks on Michael Moore in this thread parallel the trashing of Al Gore by Americans for Prosperity asshole Tim Phillips. He lives in a big mansion! He flies in private jets! He's made a gazillion dollars! Thanks to the DUers who continue to see through the bullshit, despite the lame efforts of others.

[MADem]

311. Climate of Doubt also gave a platform to the people who say that climate change isn't real.

It spends most of the time describing how the anti-climate change crew did their dirty work. It also gives a lot of airtime to the climate deniers.

It's more about how THEY prosecuted their lies and managed to shut down discussion than any sort of "Inconvenient Truth" expose.

Though 98 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, and mostly human-caused, groups like the Heartland Institute and the Americans for Prosperity have not only called these claims into doubt, but continually framed politicians and scientists who believe in climate change as alarmists or conspirators. They say the science "isn't settled," and that the consensus on global warming is not a scientific consensus, but a political one.

By challenging the consensus, these groups have made climate change seem like one of many theories. Politicians like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrinch, who just a few years ago reached across the aisle to join Democrats in saying that climate change was a serious issue that needed attention, have now taken to saying that the science on climate change is inconclusive.

http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/new-pbs-documentary-climate-of-doubt-looks-at-organizations-that-fuel-doubt-in-climate-change-11853.html


You do know PBS is seeded with Bushies, now. It'll take a decade to clear 'em all out, at least.

That program doesn't do what one might hope it will do. Anyone listening with a rightwing ear will hear what they want to hear.

Two weeks from the election, that piece might mollify some members of the GOP, not cause a ruckus. Oh well.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

319. That was the most depressing Frontline EVER! Ayn Rand, CATO, David Koch . . . .

and MORE. We can see from this program why Climate Change hasn't come up. That Mockington jerk from Britain who said "green" was the new "red", as in Communist. Environmentalists = Socialists to them.

Frontline's "Climate of Doubt" shows how Romney can win and run with a very destructive energy policy because many driven lobbyists, tea party (strange bedfellows) and plain science skeptics vilifying anyone concerned about climate change.

There has to be a counter to this movement. I didn't know about it at all. It's well organized funded and responsible for driving moderate science believers from the GOP and happy to be as selfish as possible - even if planet fries.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

[MADem]

332. It came on in my market this evening--I had to change the channel. I had the same reaction you did.

The way the thing was crafted, it gave the very things that depressed us cause for the wingnuts to cheer. That's the Bushco influence on PBS.

It's appalling that people who are no longer "climate deniers" are taking the "I'll be dead before the shit gets really bad" attitude, but that is what seems to be happening. It's all about the money with these guys.

I think there is a counter to this movement--or there will be, if we can re-elect Obama and get a large enough majority in both houses to get some shit done. And we need an articulate spokesman/spokeswoman to punch forward with this issue -- someone who will bring along the right, not put their hackles up, piss them off, and mock them--that's not going to solve anything. There are a cadre of wingers, called "Crunchy Cons" who are conservative in every respect save environmental issues--they're an asset to the cause that needs to be tapped and dragged into the environmental tent. It will be a challenge to traditional Dems to not vomit if/when they start talking about other issues in the course of casual conversation, but if they stick to the climate issues they might get some work done. I can dream, I suppose...

[SleeplessinSoCal]

350. There may be a linchpin that would collapse the whole movement. Or Van Jones

[WorseBeforeBetter]

417. Good. Americans need to know who these fuckers are,

what ideology they embrace, and who funds them (e.g., Koch brothers). Those with rightwing ears will always hear what they want to hear, but it still needs to be said.

I'm considering the long view, not just two weeks from the election, and did not expect this program to "cause a ruckus." I expected it to open some eyes as to why politicians -- of all political stripes -- are afraid to take on the issue of climate change.

[MADem]

420. I think, long view, this is the next big thing to talk about.

Hopefully it will bubble to the top sooner rather than later.

[ProSense]

317. Climate change is one of the issues that pisses me off

And when I think about it this is what I remember:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=303371&mesg_id=303371

This is how close Congress came to passing a bill. The NYT

<...>

While most environmental groups formally supported the House bill, the road to passage proved unsettling for the movement. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen opposed the bill; members of some other groups privately berated their leaders for going along with it. And some, like Ms. Miller, have shifted to open protest.

<...>

In a statement, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and an architect of the bill, defended the legislation. “We worked hard to craft legislation that would achieve our environmental goals while addressing the regional concerns of members of Congress,” he said. Politicians are not the only targets of dejected environmentalists.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/politics/11protest.html

It passed the House, and then after killing Kerry-Boxer and Kerry-Lieberman, Congress ended up with nothing. They let major climate change legislation, that represented millions of jobs slip through the cracks of a dysfunctional Senate.

Could you imagine where we'd be now if that bill had passed, even if some were claiming it was not good enough?

September 2012:

John Kerry on why we need fossil fuels (for now) and climate action (for real!)
http://grist.org/politics/john-kerry-on-why-we-need-fossil-fuels-for-now-and-climate-action-for-real/

June:

Kerry: On Eve of Rio+20, An Honest Assessment of Climate Change Challenge
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=99bb3f7a-cf20-4c1d-ae59-b9baedda1cb1

Video:

Kerry Talks Global Climate Change on Senate Floor
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/press/multimedia/

[SleeplessinSoCal]

320. Watch this and you'll find out why nothing will be done . . .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

[lexx21]

322. As a relatively new member here...

I just have to say "HOLY SHIT! Does this go on all the time here?"

I personally don't care WHO brings up the issue of global warming. It is happening and it is important. If Larry Flynt brought it up and got people going about it... WHO CARES? As long as it is brought to the forefront of public attention that is what is important.

Does MM make money off of his movies? Yes.
Does MM have a big house? Yes.
Does MM have a lot of money? Yes

So what? The fact is that he has a public face and people listen to him. Can you forgive him for not backing Gore? Probably not from reading your posts, but at the moment is that what is really important? It is sad to say, but in this day and time unless you are wealthy and have notoriety your voice will most likely will be lost in the crowd when you are dealing with a nation of people.

Before a link is posted toward me about the terms of service, yes I have read them. No, I am not a troll. Yes I can read, and quite well in fact. Yes I voted straight ticket Democrat. Yes I argue like hell with Republicans to try to get them to see facts and not sound bites.

Did that cover most of it?

[sabrina 1]

324. Your post is fine. I agree with it completely. Posts slamming Liberals like MM

are the ones I question and yes, we are seeing more and more of them on DU as the years go by sadly. But that is all the more reason for Liberals to stay and drag their party back to the Left.

MM has educated more people on important issues that Liberals fight for than all of our MSM and most of our elected officials put together.

Welcome to DU.

[MADem]

356. Did you mean to direct that towards me?

Your post is directed towards the OP, but you're plainly referencing my posts.

I don't have any problem with a difference of opinion. I don't like being called names. I have my views and others are welcome to theirs--I can even discuss them civilly if anyone would like, as I have with people who don't behave boorishly, in this very thread.

I find MM divisive--I can't forgive him for not backing Gore. A lot of people died in Iraq and the Stan who would be home with their families had Gore taken the job he earned. If you like the guy, more power to you. I don't see him as anyone who can convince people who are otherwise unconvinced to adopt his course of action. His talent is in riling up the already - converted.

Welcome to DU, and no, it's rarely like this. This is quite unusual, actually. It sometimes gets a bit quirky around elections, but generally it's pretty collegial.

[whatchamacallit]

368. A few questions

What kind of house does the president live in?

After the lecture tours, book deals, fellowships... what kind of house will the president live in?

If the president ever gains a bit too much weight, what will you say about it?

If in the future, Obama vocally takes issue with a democratic nominee's positions, will you show him the same deference you've shown Michael Moore?

My apologies if any of these questions were asked upstream.

[MADem]

379. Surely you know the answer to this question you pose, unless you're Rip Van Winkle.

And the carbon footprint of Obama's city manse in Chicago is probably equivalent to the garage of the Moore behemoth. That thing is as obscene as the John Edwards white elephant.

Stop talking about people's weight--I didn't initiate a single, solitary word about the guy being fat, though others accused me of that. They do it repeatedly, to try to beat me down and distract from the simple fact that they do not like my opinion. They don't have to like my opinion, but playing fast and loose with accuracy is not cool at all, and something I would expect from the Other Team. It is revealing, though--I'm learning a lot about people from this thread. It's instructive.

A supermodel can be 'bloated'--so don't even go there; the terms are not equivalent.

MM is NOT a Democrat. It's not a question of "taking issue with a Democrat"--I hold him responsible for the W years and the deaths of thousands of young servicemen as a consequence. And then, he got rich off of W hatred. If we were looking back on the Gore presidency, MM would be a minor documentarian who hadn't yet sold his soul for riches.

If Obama does something stupid like, say, John Edwards did, I'd kick him to the curb in a heartbeat. But hypotheticals aren't the issue here--so your attempt to "gotcha" me with that question doesn't fly either. We know what MM did. I hope when he gets together with his buddy King Ralph he doesn't chuckle overmuch about all the money the GOP poured into Ralph's campaign. Too many people are dead that might have lived had he not played the clever, cap wearing upstart that riled up the low-info kids and the adults who want to be kids to waste their vote on a foul old bullshitter who is rich as Roosevelt and adapts a "poor man" facade to con his acolytes.

You don't like my opinion--fine. I could be an asshole and ask my angry, Moore-loving scolds questions like "Is your morality really that malleable?" or "Are you that easily swayed by style over substance?" but I don't see the point, because that shit never changes minds. People who are vested in MM's schtick will stay that way, because to become un-vested means that they were WRONG. I am old enough to be able to do that "WRONG" thing and realize it doesn't kill ya. It is possible to say "I was wrong" and the world will not end. See, I bought MM's bullshit too. I didn't like the Ralph Nader crap, but I watched the 911 film and chuckled. However, the more I looked at what he did in 2000, the more the body count piled up in Iraq and the Stan, the more I started thinking about how Al Gore would have approached environmental issues, like coal/fracking, etc., the more I realized that he's lacking a fundamental element of grace/moral integrity/common sense (pick one or all three) and I just don't give a shit about him. He's always mouthing off at the wrong time, he pretends it's all about issues, but it always seems to precede a book or a movie or some other profit-making enterprise. Step right up, eight bucks a seat! Getcher popcorn here!

If people cannot see that this guy cost us potentially the best opportunity to elect a president who had the will and the clout to really do something about environmental catastrophes on the horizon, that have the potential to really, really fuck up the generations that will follow us, I can't make the blind see. I should say "Gee, fuck it--I'll be dead by then; fill up my gas guzzler with triple-leaded gas!" but I don't play that way. I drive an old subcompact car, I recycle, I turn down the heat, I do all the shit that is supposed to help the environment and delay the day of reckoning for generations I will never live to know. It's a MORAL issue with me. If I did otherwise, I'd feel like I had a hand in murdering future generations. I also think President Gore wouldn't have engaged in a stupid war of choice, either. Many lives would have been spared. But hey, MM is "cool" and he "speaks truth to power" (even though he IS power--he's that One Percent those OWS kids warned you about). I don't find him particularly cool or truthful--I think he started out well-meaning and was seduced by the money and fame, he traded his integrity for a lake house and NYC real estate and other assets totalling many, many millions, and he's not on a moral high ground anymore with me anymore--but, unlike my angry, MM worshipping detractors, I would not call people "insane" or "on drugs" or a host of other rather petty and shitty insults for holding a view of him that differs from mine.

If I didn't answer any questions you might still have about my POV on this matter in this essay, let me know.

[lexx21]

383. At the risk of being ripped to shreds here....

I used to be a conservative. When 911 happened I was cheering an invasion as being what I thought was the "right thing" because like a huge part of America I had my head up my ass looking for sunshine and believing in the jingoisms that the W machine was pushing out.

I didn't watch Fahrenheit 911 because at that point I saw MM as a rabble rouser. Only after pulling my head out of said ass did I start taking a look at what the Republicans were actually saying and what they stood for.

That was enough for me. Period. I evaluated the way I was as a person and saw that I in no way fit the mold of a "conservative". I believe in random acts of kindness, helping people as much as possible, and in general being a good and kind person. I seriously doubt that Supernova here would have me around were I any different, and I honestly couldn't blame her. So, I changed my political affiliation to match my mindset and started backing the Democratic party.

I did watch Sicko and was reaffirmed in my belief of a single payer health care system. I have argued at length with conservatives, including my own mother, about why this is important and it all falls on deaf ears. They are still intent on believing the crap that comes from the conservative "leadership", or what passes for it.

The bottom line in all of this is that when people are talked at, as opposed to being talked to, they shut you down. When they are otherwise presented in a multimedia format what is actually going on in the world it has a better chance of making an impact.

Maybe MM can do this. Maybe not. Who knows. If it changes one persons outlook, no matter how much cash he makes or what kind of house he lives in, I would say that it is worth it.

As I stated in an earlier post, it doesn't matter WHO gets the messages out, as long as they are heard. Get the people to listen, and notice that I didn't say "make them listen", and you can change hearts and minds.

MADem, I seriously respect what you are doing for the party. Driving voters to polling places is a great thing. A very close friend of mine, who happens to be a black muslim, is doing the same thing in St Louis.

[MADem]

384. If you get ripped, it won't be me doing it.

I am not troubled one bit if people "get something" from MM. If he resonates with you, great. I don't want to censor the guy, or shut him up, or shut him down, or anything of that nature.

He just doesn't do it for me, for the reasons I've already articulated (and won't bore you with again!). I also see him as a lightning rod--YMMV on that score, and that's fine, too. I don't demand that people see things my way, we're all different with differing viewpoints--I am a bit surprised at some of the comments I've gotten on this thread, though. Very revealing, some of 'em!

I get plenty out of my little GOTV/poll driving effort--it's kind of an event for me and a few others who participate, even in the off-years. I've met a lot of nice people, I feel good doing it, and I've established connections in my community (I did a lot of moving around for most of my life, and roots/associations are a new thing, relatively speaking--even though I'm in an "ancestral locale" of one branch of my family). I'm going around reminding and re-reminding some of my "regulars" (I take a few folks to the grocer/doctor on occasion) and warning them that they might have to endure tight quarters so that I can try to maximize my loads, and I am also going over the ballot measures ahead of time with them so they don't dither in the booth and know by measure title what they're voting on without having to fart around reading the small print--that is always a real time-saver. I'm hoping to break my "personal best" this time--if everyone cooperates, it might happen. I've got a small side bet going on with a fellow schlepper; we'll see who wins!

[RetroLounge]

378. "I find MM divisive"

Says the one sowing division on DU...



RL

[MADem]

380. Only you could possibly think that expressing an OPINION on a DISCUSSION board is somehow

"divisive"--is that it?

If I wanted to join a chorus I'd apply to sing in a choir.

What a delicate flower you must be! There. Must. Be. No. Difference. Of. Opinion!!!

indeed....

[RetroLounge]

394. Yes, only me!

RL

[woo me with science]

369. Yes. It's the new DU

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:09 PM - Edit history (2)

that permits a small, corporate contingent to relentlessly attack traditional Democrats and try to smear as disloyal any criticisms of right-wing/Third Way/corporate/neocon policies coming from Democratic politicians...not just on climate change, but on drones, the proxy wars, indefinite detention, the growing corporate police/surveillance state, austerity for the people, attacks on Social Security, settlements for banks, increasing privatization of education, free trade agreements, pipelines, etc., etc., etc. Third Way policy positions are highly predictable when you see this type of behavior.

You will see this tactic, relentlessly and predictably, on any thread that draws attention to the party's move rightward and increasing support for corporate interests over traditional Democratic policies and principles. The posting is always repetitive, relentless, and insulting. And it has a purpose.


How to co-opt a party into Third Way corporate loyalty:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1489598

[JI7]

335. Green Jobs were mentioned in the First Debate

but Moore decided to Attack Obama and attacked Kerry who has one of the best records on the environment .

it's easy to complain about things . but there are people who actually try to get things done , even if it is difficult. people like Gore. my first time voting in a Presidential election was 2000 and i will always be proud to have voted for Gore in part because he is so great on the issue of the environment.

[backscatter712]

372. To be fair, Obama did mention global warming in the first debate, IIRC.

And he's been campaigning pretty consistently for clean energy.

[limpyhobbler]

375. President supports an "all of the above" energy strategy.

http://www.barackobama.com/energy

[politicasista]

403. Yep he has

Some were too busy ranting and raving behind a keyboard to pay attention.

[woo me with science]

393. K&R

[Kurovski]

399. K&R. (nt)