Hate Mail
I’m taking a break from my holiday in Australia to respond to this particular piece of idiocy.
From: Bob Roberts
To: lee-at-moorewatch
Subj: Moorewatch.com’s Impartiality Above Reproach!The following is something you said in response to Mr. Moore’s angry epistle re: Bush and the Katrina Aftermath. You’re praising yourself for finding fault with the President.
“"This is how intelligent, intellectually honest people function. You, on the other hand, are nothing more than a shit-stirrer, and no matter what Bush does you will pick the opposite of what he did and claim that was the right thing to do.””
This is high-larious hypocrisy spewing from the mouth of one whose cyber-existence is self-justified by chasing and biting the tail of another, who is a more famous and more respected ranter of sorts. I’m no Moore-defender or follower; but you define your place by your mission to be opposed to all that Moore does.
“Look everybody! I prove my own sensibility by Actually criticizing someone I respect!” Only a Republican could think that doing so is a miracle of self-effacement and even-handedness. “Look, I’m breaking with the faith for a moment to be reasonable!! Yeah me!!” Now back to our regularly scheduled programming of relentlessly bashing all things left.
You’re a funny, little, inconsequential man. I’m just humble enough to bow down to your level and let you know it for five minutes.
A Republican who is Less of a douchebag than yourself…
Okay, for people like Bob who are too stupid to understand and comprehend fundamental English, allow me to retort. If you’ll go back and re-read my fisking of Mikey’s message (see here) you can see that he essentially portrays anyone other than him as being some kind of mindless, vapid Bush drone who agrees with everything the president does. According to Mikey, anyone who voted for Bush is a Hannity/O’Reilly/Limbaugh fan, who blames everything on Clinton and hates all Democrats. This characterization, like everything Mikey writes, is horseshit. The three contributors here at MOOREWATCH all voted for Bush because he was the most desirable of the two candidates available to us at the time. (I discussed this very thing at the end of my fisking.) Mikey most likely voted for Kerry (he said he was going to) not because he agreed with everything Kerry did, but because he thought Kerry was a better choice than Bush.
Unlike Mikey, however, the three of us, both here at MOOREWATCH and on our own personal blogs, have been remarkably critical of Bush when he deserved it, praised him when it was warranted, and generally tried to keep as intellectually honest a position as possible. Hell, we’ve even agreed with Mikey from time to time, right here on this very blog. Conversely, Mikey has not (to my knowledge) every uttered a single thing in praise of anything Bush has ever said or done. When we caught Saddam, he denigrated it. He has spoken ill of the first fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, as I said in my post, no matter what Bush says or does, Mikey will find an angle to decide that the opposite is true.
Look, we hardly ever agree with Mikey, and I don’t have any doubt that he agrees with virtually nothing that Bush has done. That being said, when it comes to intellectual honesty, we’re way ahead of Mikey. We write because of what we believe, no matter whether it’s for or against Bush. Mikey writes what he does because there are millions and millions of simps the world over who are willing to pay good, capitalist money for anything that knocks Bush. We provide opinion, Mikey provides a product. Who has the corrupting influence of money and who doesn’t?
We don’t define our mission as being against Moore. We keep an eye on him, and provide a repository for information to debunk his lies and distortions. If Mikey came out tomorrow and wrote a message extolling the power of the free market to enrich people’s lives we would not only agree with him, we would commend him for it. If Bush came out tomorrow and said that the government should provide everyone with free medical care, Mikey would somehow twist it into being some kind of conspiracy theory to enrich Halliburton and Israel.
Michael Moore is a one-note song, and you, despite your claims to the contrary, are most definitely a bigger douchebag than me.
Comments
My only question is how are douchebags measured, by length, weight, or volume? Or is there some other method by which one can measure the quality of a douchebag?
Of course, it’s a moot point, because we could sit here and argue all day about whether or not douchebags serve a vital and important role in western civilization.
Sure, make fun of it, but wait until the day you wake up feeling not-so-fresh. Then we’ll see.
You know there is no real need to explain yourselves to people like “Bob”. He’s obviously a person who famred for any fault he could give fuel to, no matter how miniscule or even nonexistant. Anyone who spends even 2 minutes reading this site and understanding its focus and well thought out thoughts can see that the whole moorewatch team is more than this guy sees. He probably even knows this to be true. Don’t even bother yourselves responding to such a waste of time, especially when you are on vacation.
CHEAP DRUGS!!!!! now that’s got your attention, I was wondering why these Moorewatchers post hate mail which isn’t actually that hate filled, Where’s the kind of “Bugger the right wing turds to hell and damnation” hate mail? Standards have slipped around here.
CHEAP DRUGS!!!!!
Link please.
^^um, did anyone else laugh at that as hard as i did? can we say “king douche” or what.
How was Australia, Lee?
You know who lost out and shouldn’t have? Hugh Laurie and Terry O’Quinn. That’s who! True injustices!
Oh yes- that recent hate-mail was pointless.
Hi wingnut douchebags blah blah blah
The Troll Room
You are in a small room with passages off in all directions.
Bloodstains and deep scratches (perhaps made by an axe) mar the walls.
A nasty-looking troll, brandishing a bloody axe, blocks all passages out of the room.
Your sword has begun to glow very brightly.
>kill troll with sword
A furious exchange, and the troll is knocked out!
>kill troll with sword
The unconscious troll cannot defend himself: he dies.
Almost as soon as the troll breathes his last, a cloud of
sinister black smoke envelops him, and when the fog lifts,
the carcass has disappeared.
Your sword is no longer glowing.
CHEAP DRUGS!!!!! now that’s got your attention, I was wondering why these Moorewatchers post hate mail which isn’t actually that hate filled, Where’s the kind of “Bugger the right wing turds to hell and damnation” hate mail? Standards have slipped around here.
Dumb. Obviously, this guy doesn’t think, “You’re a funny, little, inconsequential man. I’m just humble enough to bow down to your level and let you know it for five minutes,” quallifies as being hateful. Yet, he probably considers, “Moore will always do the opposite of what Bush does,” to be fire-and-brimestone hate speach.
Now on to “Americans are Cowards”
Hi wingnut douchebags. Especially you Lee. How goes the holiday, I notice you chose not to spend your hard earned currency in the “world’s newest democracy,” what were you a bit scared of the baghdad nightlife? Don’t tell me you don’t think its safe to visit, after all, aren’t there a hundred thousand US troops keeping the place nice and safe at the moment. Maybe that’s not enough troops to deal with the small number of insurgents. I suppose you could say that one home schooled Iraqi insurgent is equal to 5-10 professional US soldiers. What a pathetic military force it is.
Okay, first, I’ll bet that this guy isn’t a wingnut as I’m tempted to say he is. Why? His name, hatefully enough, is “Americans are Cowards,” and presumably, he feels that way about both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, probably everyone except Michael Moore (whom presumably, he likes, based on his dissing everyone here).
He talks about the hypocracy of not going to Iraq and feels he’s breaking new ground by telling us it’s not safe. I’m so sure America was the place to be during the Revolution. I don’t know what country this bukkake champion is from, but if it used to be under a dictatorship or ruled by another country, why doesn’t he do his research and see how calm and peaceful it was then? Naw, he’s probably too afraid to do such a thing.
I suppose you could say that one home schooled Iraqi insurgent is equal to 5-10 professional US soldiers.
Here, Mr Saddam-sympathizer is basically gloating over how powerful the Iraqi insurgency is, basically because a single carbomb can take out so many people. Don’t you just love it when these Moore-ons try to paint themselves as compassionate, yet say the most heartless things? Would this guy ever say this bullshit to a soldier’s face? Yeah. I’m really sure he’s brave enough to.
What a pathetic subman.
I don’t think that troll’s post has anything to do with Iraq, though it does look that way on the surface. I think that he sees Iraq as a parallel to his own situation. He has cast himself in the role of the “insurgent” and Moorewatch in the role of American Occupying Power. I think that he feels heroic by opposing the message board’s prevailing viewpoint. Naturally, when you spend a large amount of time in the cool glow of a computer screen, opportunities for heroism shrink significantly, so you take what you can get.
His “campaign” against Moorewatch is justified by terrorism in Iraq. This poor guy is desperate for some kind of meaningful human interaction. That’s why he taunts JimK at the end of his message. I don’t think this person cares one whit about suffering people. He cares about proving that he’s smarter than the people at Moorewatch.
I dunno, who’s more of a coward? The person that AAC tries to paint the average poster here as, or the self-important turd that throws up his disjointed, uninformed text-based IED into the discussion and then runs away, never to respond. I’ll coin a phrase for you… You are a “verbal errorist”.
You don’t have the balls to go toe-to-toe with anyone on this site.
I do however, bet that you watch the mayhem that you instigate and masturbate furiously.
I suppose you could say that one home schooled Iraqi insurgent is equal to 5-10 professional US soldiers.
I do have to take exception to this. You must have missed the part where it’s been shown that your one “home-schooled insurgent” is neither from Iraq, very well educated, nor an insurgent.
Nor are they terribly effective against the coalition forces deployed in Iraq.
More accurately, it appears that your self-denied Foreign-backed and funded terrorists go at about a 1:30 ratio to innocent Iraqi civilians and government officials.
Must make you proud to see your boys successfully slaughtering regular, old-fashioned people. I hope that one day, you too can live under the boot-heel of a society that thinks of you as “political fodder”. The exquisite irony of your face being ground into a filthy dirt floor as an “insurgent” steps on the back of your head so he can cut your throat, while capturing your last gasping plea of the “injustice of it all” is an all-to-easy to imagine horror.
Hell, I’d pay to see that on Pay-Per-View.
I smell a double agent. Smells like shit too. americans are sill cowards, seems to word his posts much like our fomer friend dan-for-truth. The coward crap the chicken hawk the nananananananan childish stuff. Oh well I’m glad to see noone is taking him too seriously. It’s kinda humourous to see him strive for attention.
Anyway the Sheehan bitch is finally fading away. The counter protest to her and then Katrina blowing out her media candle was great. I heard her talk and read her BS it is just unfathomable why the attractio. She is a real nitwit. I’ll bet her husband is really, really, glad to get away from this idiot.
"Mikey most likely voted for Kerry (he said he was going to) not because he agreed with everything Kerry did, but because he thought Kerry was a better choice than Bush.”
I doubt Mikey voted for Kerry. He had a petition on his website (that he has since taken down) not to vote for anyone that voted for the Iraq war. This included (as he points out) Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc.. He took the pages down right after the election. I still have the URL’s, e-mail me if you want them and you can ask Mikey why he took them down.
It’s sort of like F9/11, he almost makes you think he voted for Gore, but if you read his “Mike’s Messages” prior to the 200 election, he paints a very different picture.
I did find this link during the election, but according to Mikey, everyone that hates him, must be a Bush follower.
http://www.duamm.blogspot.com/
I’m not sure if this is on-topic, but I think Michael may not have even voted. We don’t really even know that he didn’t vote for Bush, but I wouldn’t be too shocked if he just left it empty or wrote in something (I’m not even sure if footage of him going in to vote even exists).
For Michael, it was win-win. The only way he could lose would be in a Nader victory, which would show Michael as beeing dumb enough to jump ship at the wrong time. A Kerry victory would mean that he could take credit for rallying the young generation ane “exposing” Bush in his film. The textbooks would be spouting that garbage for years. A Bush victory meant more material for him. It has, although, I think he’s starting to fade away, too.
To make this post on-topic, though, I think this letter may have been a gag. I mean, the name Bob Roberts sounds a little made-up, and the silly subject line “Michael Moore’s impartiality is beyond reproach” is not only ridiculous to even most of his supporters (most of) but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what he wrote!
The name Bob Roberts is probably a reference to a
Tim Robbins movie about a corrupt rightwing political campaign.
Wow, I looked it up on the imdb. From the information therin, it seems like a Hollywood liberal’s wet-dream. The RIGHT wing campaign is corrupt. A SOLE muckraking journalist is wise to it. Why, it looks kind-of like Primary Colors, except without an thinly veiled denigrating one of the finest men ever to take the Oath of Office.
Ooops, I went from serious to sarcastic without even indicaing it. Well, whatever.
Alright I know this is off topic but heres what I heard on Al ooops I mean Air America in regards to the katrina victims. “ I think its criminal neglegence I really believe they had a plan to kill those poor people in New Orleans, I mean they kill people all the time they Killed the Iraqis and when they shot back guess what they were surprised.”
From an Air America Broadcast:
“ I think its criminal neglegence I really believe they had a plan to kill those poor people in New Orleans, I mean they kill people all the time they Killed the Iraqis and when they shot back guess what they were surprised.”
Sweet jumping Jesus on a pogo-stick..! Who are these idiots, and what fucking insitution did they escape from???
Sigh! Why is everything that supports bush or the war is the high-larious hypocrisy of spewing propaganda or, if you are giving you opinion and it is even slightly republican even if your not, you are imposing your ideology and impeaching upon the liberal’s/protester’s personal freedom and automatically a bias self-centered idiot?
Just wondering?
Sigh! Why is everything that supports bush or the war is the high-larious hypocrisy of spewing propaganda or, if you are giving you opinion and it is even slightly republican even if your not, you are imposing your ideology and impeaching upon the liberal’s/protester’s personal freedom and automatically a bias self-centered idiot?
Just wondering?
Because wombats are omniscient and twinkies live forever.
In otherwords, they’re fucking nuts, and don’t rely on logic or reason of any kind.
The far left’s version of reality is entirely disassociated with that of the rest of the world.
In their twisted view, if it ain’t socialist, it’s evil. Period.
(Oh, but good and evil are just meaningless, misogynist, sexist constructs, of course… but still, we’re all evil.)
Hehehe
“Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t...”
To someone post about Moore not voting. I googled to see if there was any pictures of him voting. There where none.
RSS (Subscribe)
Just for the record, I remember when the Möorewatch Crüe (sorry) slammed David Horowitz for calling Mike something like the leftist version of David Duke. Anyone who can find an analogous story about Michael Moore and George W Bush, bring it on.
Anyway, on to this turkey’s letter:
I hate it when people pick on other peoples’ names… so I won’t even though it’s calling to me.
Subj: Moorewatch.com’s Impartiality Above Reproach!
This kind-of tips me off to the possibility of this letter being a gag. I can’t swear to it, but using big words in a laughably stupid statement can signal parody. Also, notice how nowhere in the hate-fest does he provide any evidence or even exposition regarding Moore’s supposed impartiality.
First-of all, Michael Moore may be more famous, but he is hardly more respected. The right almost universally considers him an irredeemable scumbag or a dramatic crybaby, and on the left, I think only guinnes (word I picked up meaning someone who thinks they’re brilliant when they’re, well, not) college students and sometimes their professors. Oh, and Democratic soccar moms and Kerry campaign workers (not Kerry himself, though, if you think about it). Fine, and Jimmy Carter. The rest of the left either see him as a charlitan who makes them look bad, or as a puppet of theirs (as he sees them of his). And the site defines itself as “watching Moore’s every move,” not opposing everything he does.
In the above paragraph, he starts to make the “you do what the guy you’re criticizing does,” but somehow, he finds himself changing gears all-of-a-sudden…
I think he’s saying that when you criticize Bush or someone on the right that it’s only to show that you’re even handed. Funny thing is he’s right in that I’ve seen that trick pulled before, but often by Democrats. I could overload this post with examples, but I think common sense dictates that BOTH Republicans AND Democrats do that. Only a douchbag would have trouble seeing that.
Okay, but keep in mind how this second half-or-so of the paragraph shows him not just mocking the concept of picking a random my-winger to look fair, but also looking all high-and-mighty about it. Keep it in mind when you read the next paragraph.
As you can see, this author is CLEARLY someone who might lend himself to analysis on any site dealing with malignent self-love.
I’m actually not sure if this is his sign-off or if it was simply the beginning of an uposted paragraph, but if the former is true, then it looks like we’ve got ourselves a Republican attacking other Republicans to look like an impartial “less of a douchebag”. It could alsoo be that he’s about to talk about a Republican who is “less of a douchebag than you” and if so, well, look at him! He’s so impartial!!!
Closing thought: this author is primed for a win-win situation. If you attack Moore, you’re “attacking all things left,” or “blaming liberals for the ills of the world,” or some other catch-phrase the left uses to stigmatize people who criticize them. Needless to say, if you praise Bush or some right-wing pundit, you’re a brainwashed mind-slave. But if you criticize Bush or any other right-winger, you’re doing it to fake impartiality. I wouldn’t be surprised if he also put-forth that anytime you agree with Moore, it’s for the same reason.
I have to admit, I’ve done that as well, but this guy’s histrionics make it so much more pathetic than when I do it.