Bowling for Columbine

[michaeledward]

Yes ... Charlton Heston's speech that day in Denver, Mr. Heston did not include the 5 words 'from my cold, dead hands'. Here is Michael Moore's answer to this charge:


"As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?"


I guess this argument has spiralled into a gutter quickly... trying to see who can out quote the other. See what you started Master 'o' Blades ....

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by michaeledward
. . .
Michael Moore is a hero of mine ... and I do not think he is a liar; regardless of what some others post here.

Mike

Mike,

I respect the fact that you have a different opinion.

I know for a fact that he lied in Roger and Me, and also painted a very poor picture of the city of Flint where I have lived most of my life. Now it is no great city, it is full of crime, only there were not people lined up to eat rabbits because some large company pulled some of its' work out of the city.

So, since I lived his portrayal of the city I grew up, I suspect everything he does and says.

Now, does he have the right and priviledge to make such movies? Yes. Do, I have teh right and priviledge to sit here and call him a liar and a great BS artist? Yes I do.

Now he does raise some good questions, it is all about how he presents his material for sensationalism.

Do, I think there is violoence in the USA? I grew up in Flint Mi, yes there is Violence. Did you know that most universities have separate statistics for crimes and assaults, and are not published with the city facts. So some cities that people think are sooo safe are not really. Do, I think that large companies owe me and my children a job just because they offered my father a job 30+ years ago? No I do not. Yet, I do believe that a large companies hould look out for its employees and the ecology.

Yet these are just my opinions.
:asian:

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
As Time Magazine said, Micheal Moore and Anne Coulter are both experts at saying what a "Son of a Bit**" the other guy is. Lying would be to easy to call them on. So Please list these lies that Micheal Moore has spouted or don't call him liar. I didn't see the flick but he only suggests that the KKK and the NRA are related because One ended the same time another began. Its not a lie, it happened.

Big deal. The mission of each are completely different. To assert that they have anything in common is idiotic.

 

[michaeledward]

Big deal. The mission of each are completely different. To assert that they have anything in common is idiotic.

Write it down ... MisterMike and I agree on something ... Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are completely different.

:rofl: :argue: :rofl: :argue: :rofl: :argue: :rofl: :argue: :rofl:

Please insert your own joke here about how michael moore and ann coulter are different

 

[Touch Of Death]

So the lies are the fact that he compared the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. That isn't lying thats comparing the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. Lying would be "when asked to comment on the tragedy Mr. Heston said..." So what else ya got? And I'm sure Flint is a flourishing town full of promise just like Allen Town PA, but he remembers a better time and made a movie about it; so what? I'm waiting for that movie that shows that Flint is the future. Wait Micheal Moore made that movie already. Too bad its our future.:shrug:
Sean

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Touch'O'Death
So the lies are the fact that he compared the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. That isn't lying thats comparing the rhetoric with a tragedy or two. Lying would be "when asked to comment on the tragedy Mr. Heston said..." So what else ya got? And I'm sure Flint is a flourishing town full of promise just like Allen Town PA, but he remembers a better time and made a movie about it; so what? I'm waiting for that movie that shows that Flint is the future. Wait Micheal Moore made that movie already. Too bad its our future.:shrug:
Sean

Hey Sean,

I never said that Flint was the busting and growing city. What I did not liek is the fact that he said the whole city as living on the streets and everyone was raising rabbits for food. I could go to any city in the world and find the crazies and make a movie to make the city look bad.

Yet, I did not expect the large companies to support me just because they supported my parent. I worked and went to school and suffered and did not part as much as others, and got a degree and did what I could to get a better job and living situation. There are cases of people in Flint and other cities where GM has plants, that the workers leave work and have ther friends punch them out. This causes extra costs in work load and in health care costs. That the consumer pays at the sticker. They would sleep, or answer that is not my job and days are wasted. They would show up sooo high or drunk they could not stand, yet they are to operate heavy machinery. GM left plants in Flint and the surrounding burgs, that were not as old as the others. There were plants that had been around since 1903. They had problems with the enviroment and maintaining the buildings. It was cheaper to shut them down and clean them over time as required by law.

There were lots of issues, that were not presented, or mentioned. An absence of something can be construed as a lie.

Just my opinion
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I am starting to see why the people who really hate him, really hate him. It seems that the perception of those who oppose him is that to make his points he either A). Sensationalizes or B). Outright lies, or does a little of both.

Here is what I have to say about that:

Outright Lies: I do not believe that he outright lies. If he does, I haven't seen it yet, that's for sure. I've double checked his statistics and info that suprised me on occasion, and I have not found anything false yet. I have read the links that say that his information is flawed, or that he lies; what I usually find is that these sites either illogically misdirect the issues making it look like he is being untruthful (such as focusing on Lockheed Martins other work in systems technology for comercial markets, while completely ignoring the fact that their biggest contracts are with U.S. Government agencies for weapons/defense developement), or these sites outright lie themselves. The thing with these sites here is that the people who have made them have clear agenda's to "defame" Micheal Moore. One has to ask, why go through all the trouble if what he is saying isn't at least striking a cord? Regardless, I have not seen verifyable proof that Moore has outright lied; not yet anyways, and certianly not on some of the websites opposing him.

If any of you here can think of specific places where he has outright lied, then please post the specific circumstance (not some link to a site) and I'd be happy to look it over and change my mind if I am wrong.


Sensationalism: Does Michael Moore sensationalize? Of Course! Michael more is trying to do 3 things 1. Question/Critique the many problems in our country, 2. Make a political/social statement, 3. ENTERTAIN HIS AUDIENCE.

It's the entertaining part that his critics seem to forget about. He is not a "fair and balanced" journalist, nor does he try to be. He is an entertainer. Many of the things that he does are to get a reaction from his audience, and are not "fair and balanced." If you are looking or expecting a fair and balanced journalistic view from Micheal Moore, then your looking in the wrong place. If you are looking to get your mind thinking about questions that our society needs to think about, while being entertained and educated at the same time, then Michael Moore is a good source for you.

Did he give a fair and balanced view of Flint, for example. Not really. The Rabbit lady and some of the unemplyed people on the streets giving commentary does not give a fair and balanced view of the city; so if you live there like Rich, or near enough to there like me, and your looking for a balanced representation, you might be upset by the Flint depiction in "Roger and Me." If you are instead looking for someone to say some things that NEED to be said about the state of certian cities like Flint, Detroit, Pontiac, Battle Creek (I could list a few other Michigan Cities, and hundreds of others from other states), then you would have thought it was good. If you were looking for a fair and balanced representation of the problems that Plants have had with Union workers Indolent behavior coupled with the Good that Unions have done, then Michael Moore is not a good resource. You would love what he says, however, if you were happy to see some interesting questions raised such as "How can we allow our American Companies to leave American Workers and Cities in economic upheavel by closing down plants (like in the GM/Flint example) only to open new plants in other countries where the pay requirements are much less?"

Would Charlton Heston have been making his NRA mantra "from my cold dead hands" to a group of weeping kids and parents in Columbine? I would like to think that he isn't that cold hearted. Did the movie pan from weeping kids and parents to a blurb of Heston's mantra, yes. Did ANYONE believe that Heston was "speaking directly to the parents and kids of columbine who suffered losses." NO! Did the sensationalized way of putting this in the film stir up emotion and shock, thus making the point he was trying to make, YES. And thats the point....

So does Michael Moore sensationalize? He is an entertainer, just like any political celeb., so he does things to get a reaction and to entertain. He does sensationalize to make his points. However, I don't think that this is dishonest. He isn't presenting things that aren't factual to mislead his audience; he is presenting a different side and way of looking at things to get a reaction from his audience to make his points.

So, I think what I am seeing with his critics is that they misunderstand why he sensationalizes. This is often added with the fact that they don't want to face some of the issues he is bringing to the table. This is why people hate him.

I think that if his critics can either better understand why he sensationalizes, or if they can look past the sensationalism if they don't undertand/like it, they will find some very good points and questions that need to be addressed.

 

[michaeledward]

Paul ..

That is a very thoughtful post. I appreciate the time you spent craftying it.

In some worlds, they could call what Michael Moore does 'SPIN'. I take solace in the fact that on the other side of the coin, there is 'Rush Limbaugh' (except, of course, we all know that Rush really lies alot, which is not spin).

Some could argue that Michael Moore portrays himself as a 'Documentary Movie Maker', which perhaps should bring him to a more 'Fair and Balanced' point of view, but I do not see anything inherently dishonest in a filmmaker having a 'Point-of-view'.

Thanks again. - Mike

 

[Ender]

it's pretty simple...when he "sensationalizes" or "entertains" or "provides commentary" under the guise of a documentary, then it's lying.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
it's pretty simple...when he "sensationalizes" or "entertains" or "provides commentary" under the guise of a documentary, then it's lying.

I don't think there is a "guise" though, is what I am saying. He presents things from a biased perspective; but so does every media source whether they admit it or not. He at least admits that he is biased and expressing his opinions; I can't say the same for journalists who pretend to present things in an unbiased manner when they clearly aren't.

As to the description of "documentary," I can understand your point. Most documentaries are more objective...or at least they should be.

However, I don't view a Moore "Documentary" the same as I would view a National Geographic Docuementary on Gorrillas. It's called Documentary for lack of a better term I think. I guess when I watch a Moore film, I know what to expect. I don't expect a Documentary from a journalist attempting to present an unbiased view. I don't feel that Michael Moore has tryed to "fool" anyone into thinking that his "documentaries" are something that they aren't.

I almost would wish we had a different term other then "documentary," like "Social Commentary" or something like that. I don't know...but until a new movie genre is created...I guess we're stuck with the terms we have.

PAUL

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Ender
it's pretty simple...when he "sensationalizes" or "entertains" or "provides commentary" under the guise of a documentary, then it's lying.

What is it then when Fox News reports anything?

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by michaeledward
What is it then when Fox News reports anything?

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by PAUL
I am starting to see why the people who really hate him, really hate him. It seems that the perception of those who oppose him is that to make his points he either A). Sensationalizes or B). Outright lies, or does a little of both.

Here is what I have to say about that:

Outright Lies: I do not believe that he outright lies. If he does, I haven't seen it yet, that's for sure. I've double checked his statistics and info that suprised me on occasion, and I have not found anything false yet. I have read the links that say that his information is flawed, or that he lies; what I usually find is that these sites either illogically misdirect the issues making it look like he is being untruthful (such as focusing on Lockheed Martins other work in systems technology for comercial markets, while completely ignoring the fact that their biggest contracts are with U.S. Government agencies for weapons/defense developement), or these sites outright lie themselves. The thing with these sites here is that the people who have made them have clear agenda's to "defame" Micheal Moore. One has to ask, why go through all the trouble if what he is saying isn't at least striking a cord? Regardless, I have not seen verifyable proof that Moore has outright lied; not yet anyways, and certianly not on some of the websites opposing him.

If any of you here can think of specific places where he has outright lied, then please post the specific circumstance (not some link to a site) and I'd be happy to look it over and change my mind if I am wrong.


Sensationalism: Does Michael Moore sensationalize? Of Course! Michael more is trying to do 3 things 1. Question/Critique the many problems in our country, 2. Make a political/social statement, 3. ENTERTAIN HIS AUDIENCE.

It's the entertaining part that his critics seem to forget about. He is not a "fair and balanced" journalist, nor does he try to be. He is an entertainer. Many of the things that he does are to get a reaction from his audience, and are not "fair and balanced." If you are looking or expecting a fair and balanced journalistic view from Micheal Moore, then your looking in the wrong place. If you are looking to get your mind thinking about questions that our society needs to think about, while being entertained and educated at the same time, then Michael Moore is a good source for you.

Did he give a fair and balanced view of Flint, for example. Not really. The Rabbit lady and some of the unemplyed people on the streets giving commentary does not give a fair and balanced view of the city; so if you live there like Rich, or near enough to there like me, and your looking for a balanced representation, you might be upset by the Flint depiction in "Roger and Me." If you are instead looking for someone to say some things that NEED to be said about the state of certian cities like Flint, Detroit, Pontiac, Battle Creek (I could list a few other Michigan Cities, and hundreds of others from other states), then you would have thought it was good. If you were looking for a fair and balanced representation of the problems that Plants have had with Union workers Indolent behavior coupled with the Good that Unions have done, then Michael Moore is not a good resource. You would love what he says, however, if you were happy to see some interesting questions raised such as "How can we allow our American Companies to leave American Workers and Cities in economic upheavel by closing down plants (like in the GM/Flint example) only to open new plants in other countries where the pay requirements are much less?"

Would Charlton Heston have been making his NRA mantra "from my cold dead hands" to a group of weeping kids and parents in Columbine? I would like to think that he isn't that cold hearted. Did the movie pan from weeping kids and parents to a blurb of Heston's mantra, yes. Did ANYONE believe that Heston was "speaking directly to the parents and kids of columbine who suffered losses." NO! Did the sensationalized way of putting this in the film stir up emotion and shock, thus making the point he was trying to make, YES. And thats the point....

So does Michael Moore sensationalize? He is an entertainer, just like any political celeb., so he does things to get a reaction and to entertain. He does sensationalize to make his points. However, I don't think that this is dishonest. He isn't presenting things that aren't factual to mislead his audience; he is presenting a different side and way of looking at things to get a reaction from his audience to make his points.

So, I think what I am seeing with his critics is that they misunderstand why he sensationalizes. This is often added with the fact that they don't want to face some of the issues he is bringing to the table. This is why people hate him.

I think that if his critics can either better understand why he sensationalizes, or if they can look past the sensationalism if they don't undertand/like it, they will find some very good points and questions that need to be addressed.

Paul,

Ok he does not lie.

Let me ask you the question then, should a company become to be thought of as social welfare? Should you turn 18 and expect to get a job and not have to work? And if you can not get a job there get a job at McDonalds at $8.50 to $9.00 an hour to start. Should you get the idea to work somewhere else and then expect to make more than 1.5 times to 2 times others make nation wide? All because you have some large corporation in your backyard that you epxect them to give a job and not work at all. The cost of all of this is transfered to the consumer and the rest of the country wonders why it costs so dang much to buy a car or a washer and dryer or a furnace or ...., .

Let me ask you another question Paul. If you make a statment enough times does it become the truth, especially if there is no one around to tell you are wrong? Or that it is not the whole truth.

New Flash!

WE DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON!

(* in mission Apollo 13 *)

News Flash!

The US Government new about ....

(* Hide the real catch here *)

Yes, I do not like the man. I tried to ask him questions once in person, He shoved me aside and do not try that with me. In person in Flint when he was trying to raise more problems again and gain more publicity for himself. I stopeed y and asked him some questions. He would not answer them. You can you tell me why everyone must answer his questions, and he does not have to answer mine.

Sorry for the RANT, yet, I do take this BOZO called Micheal Moore to be an BLEEP. Why, you see I would support many of the causes and issues he would raise, yet I beleive they could be raised in a much better way through education. Yet, he epxects to make changes, and all he is doing is throwing gasoline onto the fire.

No he does not lie. He just infers. I was wrong.

My Opinion, my experience
:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

If you premised your question with the lies he infers (ha ha), I can see why he pushed you aside.
Sean

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by michaeledward
What is it then when Fox News reports anything?

fair and balanced...can't you read?*LOL

honestly tho...liberals hate Fox because they made the networks change the way they have to report the news...now they have to present both sides of the argument instead of just theirs..and it kills them..*L before Fox, they just went up and spewed their leftist drivel and when Fox came out they took all their ratings...and they had to change...gotta love America!!

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by PAUL
I don't think there is a "guise" though, is what I am saying. He presents things from a biased perspective; but so does every media source whether they admit it or not. He at least admits that he is biased and expressing his opinions; I can't say the same for journalists who pretend to present things in an unbiased manner when they clearly aren't.

As to the description of "documentary," I can understand your point. Most documentaries are more objective...or at least they should be.

However, I don't view a Moore "Documentary" the same as I would view a National Geographic Docuementary on Gorrillas. It's called Documentary for lack of a better term I think. I guess when I watch a Moore film, I know what to expect. I don't expect a Documentary from a journalist attempting to present an unbiased view. I don't feel that Michael Moore has tryed to "fool" anyone into thinking that his "documentaries" are something that they aren't.

I almost would wish we had a different term other then "documentary," like "Social Commentary" or something like that. I don't know...but until a new movie genre is created...I guess we're stuck with the terms we have.

PAUL

Then why didn't he decline the Oscar he won for best documentary??..if he was truly principled he would have said "my work is commentary and I have to decline this award based on the category that it was in".....but nooooo....he took it and ran...showing he has no principles or character...And that he is a lair.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Ender
fair and balanced...can't you read?*LOL

honestly tho...liberals hate Fox because they made the networks change the way they have to report the news...now they have to present both sides of the argument instead of just theirs..and it kills them..*L before Fox, they just went up and spewed their leftist drivel and when Fox came out they took all their ratings...and they had to change...gotta love America!!

The fallacy in this statement is that fox news reports news. If only they did. Bill O'Reilly is not a journalist, he is an entertainment reporter (at least that is what he was doing before he came to fox).

And speaking of 'both sides of the arguement', haven't you ever heard O'Reilly cut anyone off because they are 'Outside the No-Spin Zone' ... so, you can prevent any side you want, as long as it is O'Reilly's.

Please ...

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Paul,

Ok he does not lie.

Let me ask you the question then, should a company become to be thought of as social welfare? Should you turn 18 and expect to get a job and not have to work? And if you can not get a job there get a job at McDonalds at $8.50 to $9.00 an hour to start. Should you get the idea to work somewhere else and then expect to make more than 1.5 times to 2 times others make nation wide? All because you have some large corporation in your backyard that you epxect them to give a job and not work at all. The cost of all of this is transfered to the consumer and the rest of the country wonders why it costs so dang much to buy a car or a washer and dryer or a furnace or ...., .

No...I don't think companies should be thought of as social welfare. I think that people should have to work for their money. I work hard...you work hard....so no, I don't think that people who don't work hard should get the same $$ as me.

I do think, however, that the issue of "living wage" should be addressed. The cost of living, inflation, and company profits have all gone up much more rapidly since the 1960's then wages. This is why it takes 2 working parents to make ends meet now-a-days then one, leaving childred to be raised by daycares. I think that minimum wage should go up every year according to inflation. Sure, maybe at $6 dollars an hour that's only about 18 cents at 3%, but that does mean that in 5 years the minimum wage would raise by almost a dollar. It does mean that the minimum will at least keep up with inflation.

There are other solutions as well, of which aren't exactly from Moore, and which I could go on and on about.

Getting back on topic, I don't think I have seen him suggest that Corporations should be a welfare service, or that people should get paid w/o having to work. What I have seen him do is raise the issue of unfair wages for employees; an issue that I think needs to be raised.

Regardless, even if he believed that Corporations should be a welfare service, this would be only a "belief," or opinion, and therefore not a misrepresentation of fact. I would in fact have to disagree with him if that was his belief, but I wouldn't call him a liar for it.

Let me ask you another question Paul. If you make a statment enough times does it become the truth, especially if there is no one around to tell you are wrong? Or that it is not the whole truth.

Course not...yet unfortunatily many people lack critical thinking skills. I know both you and I don't lack these skills. I can watch a Moore movie or read a book and I know the slant he is coming from. I can also watch Fox News or listen to Rush and know the slant they are coming from (not that I listen to Rush regularly, but I have heard his program before). I can read or watch multiple news sources and seperate the facts from the opinions, and I can formulate my own opinion. I know that you are able to do the same.

Not everyone is able to think as critically, which is unfortunate. Many people who have bought into the "liberal" agenda can only listen to people like Michael Moore and others, and they only see things from one slanted perspective. The same is true with many who have bought into the "conservative" agenda.

There are, however, many other sources out there that offer the opposite slant that Moore offers. There are also many Critics of Moore...although I wish more of these critics would argue from a political science/philisophical perspective instead of just trying to defame the man. Point is, his opinions are far from unchallanged. I don't think he should be responsable if some of his audience lacks the ability to "think critically" any more then Rush, or any other political celebraty. People should be critically thinking on their own. I don't think he should change his slant because some people don't think critically either. There is plenty of information from different perspectives out there for people to think critically about the view that Michael Moore presents.

New Flash!

WE DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON!

(* in mission Apollo 13 *)

News Flash!

The US Government new about ....

(* Hide the real catch here *)

Yes, I do not like the man. I tried to ask him questions once in person, He shoved me aside and do not try that with me. In person in Flint when he was trying to raise more problems again and gain more publicity for himself. I stopeed y and asked him some questions. He would not answer them. You can you tell me why everyone must answer his questions, and he does not have to answer mine.

Sorry for the RANT, yet, I do take this BOZO called Micheal Moore to be an BLEEP. Why, you see I would support many of the causes and issues he would raise, yet I beleive they could be raised in a much better way through education. Yet, he epxects to make changes, and all he is doing is throwing gasoline onto the fire.

No he does not lie. He just infers. I was wrong.

My Opinion, my experience
:asian:

Now we are getting to the real root of the problem here. You met the guy in person, and he was a dickhead to you. That really is too bad. I will say that I met him a year almost 2 years ago, at a book signing in Detroit. I will say that I was mildly impressed with how generous he was with his time. He didn't seem to have a problem answering questions for people (although I will admit that he wasn't asked challanging questions when I was in front of him). Hell, he even let the crazy lady in front of me give him a hug.

However, I know you Rich, and I know that you wouldn't embellish or say something untrue to push an agenda. If what you said came from someone else, I would have a hard time believing it bacause of my good experience. However, if you say he was a dickhead to you in person, then I do believe you.

I don't know what the guy is like in "real life" outside my one encounter, which was a positive one. The guy could be a dickhead in real life for all I know. I know if my experience with him was as you described, I'd probably have the same view on him as you. So, I definatily don't blame you for not liking the guy. It sounds like he lost a potential advocate for him...and I am sure that has happend before.

People aren't perfect, and I only have my experiences and his works to judge him by. I don't know him in person, but I like his works simply for the questions that they raise.

However, I don't blame someone for not liking him if their expeirience with him was a bad one.

Sincerely,

PAUL
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Ender
Then why didn't he decline the Oscar he won for best documentary??..if he was truly principled he would have said "my work is commentary and I have to decline this award based on the category that it was in".....but nooooo....he took it and ran...showing he has no principles or character...And that he is a lair.

Please....spare me the B.S.....

If Rush, Coultier, O'Rielly, or a conservative counterpart whom you support made a movie with the same kind of of sensationalism and was up for an Oscar for best documentary, you'd have nothing to say about it.

Plus, as I said before, "Documentary" is the only way to classify the film as Oscars are concerned. They haven't made a seperate movie Genre for "Social Commentary," so he isn't showing no principles by accepting the award. The Oscars put him in the "Documentary" Genre...if you don't like it, talk to them

 

[Rich Parsons]

Fair Wage and Cost of Living.


Is $20 to $30 an hour enough for a sinlge person to make and live off of?

The Standard of living has doubled and doubled again since 1960, almost double a third time.

In 1960, you had a house 750 sq. ft. to 1100 sq. ft. Today people want 4000 sq. ft. People had one car and the male(* Usually *) used it for work transportation and he lived about 10 to 15 miles from work at most.

The average home in 1960 did not have TV's. They above average home had a black and white TV. People today need a TV and VCR and DVD palyer per room plus PC's in multiple rooms as well as basements with second kitchens and third and fourth cars jsut for pleasure. The Cost of living has gone up, I agree. the standard of living has also gone up.

The cost of the parts put into vehicles has incresed over the last ten years, yet the average midsized vehicle has actually decreased about $1200 per vehicle. I am not saying the company should not share the wealth. I also think a fair wage should be paid.

Greed is a motivator. And yes I believe the Unions were and are required to balance the safety and health and fair wages. Only the pendulum can swing both ways. And in this case, it has.

If you beat your dog until he bites you do not punish the dog.

In in my mind a Documentary is meant to educate not to entertain. Entertainment maybe one of Mr. Moore's objectives, yet I do not see it as funny.

Like I said, many of the issues I would be willing to talk discuss and help out on. Yet, when this guy presents himself, the way he has, I cannot support him nor anything he does.

I will find otherways to help out.

So, My main problem is a personal issue. Fine, what about all the rest of the people who do not like them? Has he also pissed them off on a personal level ?