I've never really paid attention, and while I'm in favor of an overhaul of the healthcare system, isn't a morbidly obese loud mouth like him doing more harm to the cause that he is promoting than good?
2007-07-28 18:25:40 · 25 answers · asked by dreamsofinsomnia 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Apolitical, as in anti-business, anti-growth, pro-socialism. Look, I tend to vote on the liberal side, but I've watched Bowling for Columbine, which was a hatchet job, Roger and Me, with my husband who grew up in and around the auto industry, and now Sicko. Is it heresy to say that this guy creates more problems for US (liberal Democrats) than opens minds? If 99% of the people who go to see his movie already agree with his policy advice, are his movies anything more than liberal masturbation? And if he is so flamboyant in his arguments that he can be mischaracterized in the wider press doesn't it actually damage our causes?
2007-07-29 05:22:30 · update #1
People listen to Mikey because he confirms what they think. Nobody outside the liberal church is watching his stuff any more because he's so hysterically anti-business, and edits his interviews in such an underhanded way.
And yes, he is doing more harm than good because people can distort what he says and shoot the messenger.
2007-07-29 05:25:58 · answer #1 · answered by waytoosteve 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually watch his films and you will realize he isn't quite the "liberal wackjob" most cons who have never watched his movies yet would talk about them like they see them everyday would make you think. These people are coming from a position of ignorance. Yeah he rails on Bush pretty hard in Farenheit but I think he deserves it. He hits Hillary pretty hard in Sicko for instance. One of the earlier posters gave a pretty good synopsis of Columbine as well.
2007-07-29 02:04:29 · answer #2 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, fat people are evil. I see your point.
Maybe you should watch one of his movies, with the exception of Farenheit 911, they are mostly apolitical.
Does Moore himself bring too much baggage because of the politics he's associated with? Well, its the folks that disagree with him that brand him in such a way. People are so lazy they like to label people quickly so that they don't have to be bothered to listen to what they say.
2007-07-29 04:14:49 · answer #3 · answered by inTHEgaddadavida 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow. You amaze me with your ability to stick to the issue and form intelligent arguments.
I think your logic is contagious though-all I can think is that someone as ignorant as yourself is probably hurting your anti-Moore cause by attacking him for that rather than his information and ideas (which based on his past movies shouldnt be difficult--havent seen Sicko yet though, I hope its as good as everyone says!)
2007-07-29 04:49:21 · answer #4 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you had seen any interviews with him when the movie came out, you would have heard him say that he realized it was hypocritical of him to not take care of himself while making a movie about the health care system, so he started walking each day and eating more fruits and vegetables, and he's lost 30 pounds. He said in fact the best defense against having to rely on insurance companies is to take better care of yourself, and he's right.
If people could only forget about a messenger they don't like and really listen to the message, they might find some good information.
2007-07-29 01:35:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
The negative press he's gotten, because of his moments of extremism, has certainly gotten in the way of his message--especially since he's alienated so many people that they condemn his movies without ever watching them.
However, when I watch his documentaries, I'm surprised to find that at least 60% of what he's saying is incredibly well documented and makes sense. For example, in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, exploring gun control, the end conclusion wasn't that guns are bad and should be outlawed. It was that a society of fear increases gun crimes and our over-reliance on weaponry, as can be seen in contrast with Canada (where people also have the right to own guns and the crime rate is significantly lower). It makes you think.
As for his being "morbidly obese" -- so are a lot of Americans. Not a single study has shown that being overweight interferes with one's intelligence.
2007-07-29 01:30:21 · answer #6 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 8⤊ 4⤋
Well, that depends on your point of view. Were you aware of any of the situations he brought up?
No, I don't believe he is doing more harm. But I can see by your words that you more than likely are set in you disdain of him. Loud mouth would have been sufficient.
2007-07-29 01:33:14 · answer #7 · answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
well he's entertaining. i had to laugh when he went into the dingy third world cuban hospital room with those mentally and physically wrecked shills and they all came out miracously cured in just a day or two.
2007-07-29 01:36:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why does anyone listen to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of those other crazies out there?
They do more harm to their cause with false reporting, bigotry, racism and the other crap that they spew.
This is not doing us good either.
2007-07-29 01:35:28 · answer #9 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
What does his weight have to do with the nation's healthcare system?
That's like me comparing your question to how large your head is and how neatly it fits in your butt.
2007-07-29 02:03:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋