Rapid R - 04 March 2006 01:21 AM

Golly, you are correct. I have seen the light. Bush is Hitler and Michael Moore is sincere. Thank you.

Bush is Hitler?  Really?  Oh!  You mean, Bush is followed by the same kind of people who followed Hitler.  You are right though, there are a lot of direct comparisons between Bush and Hitler.  I mean, did you ever here Bush’s speeches?  They’re structured almost identically the same way as Hitler’s were.

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/05-04-41.html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

So, eh, no Bush isn’t like Hitler at all is he?  He doesn’t have 1% of the brains that Hitler possessed.

You are correct. Any old idiot can graduate from Harvard.

Rapid R - 04 March 2006 02:05 AM

You are correct. Any old idiot can graduate from Harvard.

You don’t actually believe Bush got into and out of Harvard of his own accord do you?  Just like all those times he seen combat first hand...or tried to make those ‘gullible’ Americans believe he did.

That would be Kerry, you really are confused. Time for your meds.
WHy don’t we meet in person, so you can explain to me how stupid I am and you can bring 8x10’s of the little girl whose picture you keep posting?

dschabba - 04 March 2006 09:11 AM

Michael Douglas - 04 March 2006 01:42 AM

You are right though, there are a lot of direct comparisons between Bush and Hitler.  I mean, did you ever here Bush’s speeches?  They’re structured almost identically the same way as Hitler’s were.

you’re right. they both used words. g-g-g-golly.

you seem to be fluent in german, so tell us about hitlers so-called stammtischreden - why and how he sat around with the working proles in beer halls, sucking up to them, pretending to be one of them.  i reviewed countless hours of nazi propaganda films in history class and guess what, michael moore utiliizes nazi methods in editing his fims.

“i’m from flint. this is our car factory. roger smith moved our jobs to mexico”

I’ve seen Triumph of the Will and Day of Freedom by Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s propaganda filmmaker.  Moore’s filmmaking techniques do not compare, I’m sorry.  They’re not similar in any way.  Name one way in which they’re similar or in which Hitler’s personal speaking techniques are similar to Michael Moores?

I can’t believe we’re having this conversation.

And by the way, prove that Michael Moore edits his films.  He’s certainly never credited with editing duties.  So if he doesn’t do it alone (which he doesn’t anyway), then shouldn’t you be blaming the other film editors he works with for all these “editing tricks”?

Michael Douglas - 04 March 2006 02:17 PM

And by the way, prove that Michael Moore edits his films.  He’s certainly never credited with editing duties.  So if he doesn’t do it alone (which he doesn’t anyway), then shouldn’t you be blaming the other film editors he works with for all these “editing tricks”?

Yeah guys!! Editors edit movies, not directors D-U-H!! Directors shoot the movie… no wait, they don’t do that either, cameramen actually film it..  the director is the one who yells “CUT” and “ACTION”.... but anyway, after the movie is made, the director just turns his tape over to the editor and says “Have fun!!”, then the editor makes any changes to the film that he or she deems necessary.

No director can be held responsible for the finished, edited product, because it’s the editor who edits! This is even more true when talking about documentary filmmaking....

This guy knows what he’s talking about, I mean, he’s Michael Douglas!!

dead-duck - 04 March 2006 02:42 PM

Michael Douglas - 04 March 2006 02:17 PM

And by the way, prove that Michael Moore edits his films.  He’s certainly never credited with editing duties.  So if he doesn’t do it alone (which he doesn’t anyway), then shouldn’t you be blaming the other film editors he works with for all these “editing tricks”?

Yeah guys!! Editors edit movies, not directors D-U-H!! Directors shoot the movie… no wait, they don’t do that either, cameramen actually film it..  the director is the one who yells “CUT” and “ACTION”.... but anyway, after the movie is made, the director just turns his tape over to the editor and says “Have fun!!”, then the editor makes any changes to the film that he or she deems necessary.

No director can be held responsible for the finished, edited product, because it’s the editor who edits! This is even more true when talking about documentary filmmaking....

This guy knows what he’s talking about, I mean, he’s Michael Douglas!!

Yeah isn’t it annoying when someone picks out a small, rediculous point like that and uses it against you?  Or perhaps it isn’t so rediculous.  Since Moore was directing the film and is responsible for the overall shaping of the film, what about the 3 editors that also worked on the film?  Are they not worthy of your hate-mongering?  Are you saying you really know what you’re talking about when it comes to film editing?

Michael Douglas - 05 March 2006 05:12 PM

Yeah isn’t it annoying when someone picks out a small, rediculous point like that and uses it against you?

Yes.

Or perhaps it isn’t so rediculous.

No, it’s pretty damn ridiculous.

Since Moore was directing the film and is responsible for the overall shaping of the film, what about the 3 editors that also worked on the film?  Are they not worthy of your hate-mongering?

Well, I don’t hate any of them, but if you tell me who those editors were I’ll be more wary of anything they produce...just like I am with Moore.

Are you saying you really know what you’re talking about when it comes to film editing?

Are you saying Moore had absolutely nothing to do with the editing?

[Edit]Nevermind, I don’t care who edited what films or why anymore.[/Edit]

Michael Douglas - 03 March 2006 11:17 PM

I do not see any evidence of this. In fact, I’ve clearly SEEN contradictory evidence that disproves this charge. As I said, Moore also briefly met Roger Smith at the end of Roger & Me? What does this have to do with anything. Nitpicking again are we? Did you hear Michael Moore uses zoom lenses too (well, his cameraman does but we’ll blame Moore anyway). These zoom lenses make it look like the camera is closer to the subject, hence manipulating the audience into thinking they are also closer to the subject being interviewed.

So you don’t consider the statements by the people he was working with that they twice were able to meet and question Smith as evidence? Where is your evidence please. Something other than a possibly self-serving statement by Moore that it never happened would be best, of course.

Moore also uses White on Black title cards. Some people think this is a bit racist since the white is on top of the black. This proves he is a racist. Although, some people think he hates white people even though he’s white. And others (well, the same people) also say they think he hates black people too because he has a mouse-sized penis. No wonder he hates Mickey Mouse!

Where have I ever called Moore a racist, where have I ever claimed he hates white people? How about, if you truly wish to debate, you keep which person of your opposition says or said what straight. I haven’t accused you of making any of dansen’s or ILA’s statements. I’d expect an admission of error and apology from an honest poster, we’ll see what happens.

SO. Can you show me evidence that Moore met with Roger Smith and interviewed him while making Roger & Me (besides the clip at the end of the movie when he gets to confront him). Actual physical evidence, like a picture or video? No you cannot. End of story. The fact that you’re saying he had the opportunity to twice but passed it up in order to make it look like the interview wasn’t granted is unfounded and sounds like a made up story. Might not be made up...but then again...there’s no evidence. Why wouldn’t Moore just shoot the interview and then use his expert “trick editing” you talk about and just cut the interview out. He could have done that with Charlton Heston to make him look even more disrespectful that he already was shown to be.

I already showed you the evidence, all you’ve done is ignore it. I’m not using the clip at the end as proof, but statements by two of his co-workers on the film. My claim is not unfounded. Perhaps you can provide some evidence to refute mine, since I can always be wrong and don’t mind admitting it.

My response to your “editing” non sequitor is similar to my response to your “racist” statement. While I may have expressed opinions on Moore’s editing, they certainly have no relevance to a discussion of his actually questioning a person. Shall we try to stay on topic in just this one thread?

I’m dancing all over you here.

Yup, you’re dancing alright, all around the facts in every thread you’ve posted in.