Sunday, May 27, 2007

Two Thousand and Nine Words on Michael Moore

Michael Moore brought down by young Republican in Alabama.


Anonymous said...

i dont believe i can find anything clever to say about this. i think this posts soul purpose was to be slightly obtuse and to get some laughs while still supporting the truth. so, in that case... bwahahahaha!


education-addict said...

cool. i have an account now. just trying it out. sorry. dont mine me.

Anonymous said...

pictures really do say a thousand words

MindMechanic said...

Michael Moore typifies the extreme lefts love of the wacky and their willingness to overlook the hypocrisy as long as they will continue to spew the hatred they want them to hear. Not unlike the lefts defense of Gore when it is announced the lies in his movie, his blatant global hypocrisy regarding private air travel, and his home energy use, the left ignores all of Moores lies. Why? because he is ranting against conservatives, therefore, he is a hero, defend-able, and infallible.

That his 'documentary's' are cut and paste lies is immaterial. That he proudly proclaims himself a multimillionaire that makes millions off millionaires by telling them what they want to hear, that he decries people that send their kids to private schools and then sends his kids to private schools, that he criticizes anyone that owns stock and also criticizes companies like Enron and that it is immoral to make money off those that protit off of war, then is revealed not only to hold an expansive stock portfolio but one that is heavily loaded with Enron stock,Haliburton (gasp) and other members of the 'US war machine"...all is forgivable. No...not forgivable...just ignored. Because the chubby pied piper plays the tune they love so well they simply pretend none of it matters.

'Sicko' was scheduled to be released 2 years ago. It wasnt. Why? Because a book (Do As I Say Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy) was written that exposed the blatant hypocrisy of many of the left's leaders and also revealed that, while Michael Moore was about to make a movie that would make millions trashing the US healthcare system he was at the same time heavily invested in big pharm and HMO's. So...he did what he always has done, ignored the accusations, waited untilo the dust settled, and knew no one on the left would care.

As one reviewer said, leave it to a bloated, 400 plus pound man to lecture the country on excess.

Anonymous said...

Well, should we sharpen a stick at both ends?

Silver Lining said...

Anyone else wish Lysis would post anything just so that we don't have to look at Michael Moore anymore when we check this blog?

MindMechanic said...

Carrying Over Carter's Ineptitude

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 04, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Leadership: In 1976, Americans thought they were sending an outsider to the White House. Today, the same policies so thoroughly discredited by Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency define the Democratic Party.

Profile In Incompetence: Tenth In A Series
More on this series

It's tempting to think of the Carter Administration's seemingly endless series of catastrophes as an aberration brought on by a yokel peanut farmer. In fact, the former Georgia governor's thinking as president strongly resembles that of Democrats today:

• Just as Carter lamented America's "inordinate fear of communism," Democrats today accuse the president of imagining Islamic terrorists are under the bed. (By the way, some of those "imaginary" terrorists were just caught plotting to kill thousands by blowing up New York's JFK Airport.)

• While Carter believed "human rights" was the real global struggle, not the Cold War, Democrats today reject the global war on terror. It's a "bumper-sticker political slogan," says Sen. John Edwards. We should abandon Iraq, where al-Qaida is now strongest, says Sen. Barack Obama, and "focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan" — in other words, the war on terror is just a wild goose chase for the sickly (or dead) Osama bin Laden.

• As Carter refused to fight the Cold War, today's Democrats refuse to support President Bush's innovative and effective fight against terrorists — in spite of his perfect record in protecting the homeland. What Edwards calls "spying on Americans" and "torture" are the key programs that have helped foil more than a dozen terrorist plots around the world: the National Security Agency surveillance program tracking Americans' phone calls and e-mails to suspected terrorists abroad, and the CIA's foreign prisons program, allowing tough interrogation of enemy detainees.

View larger image

• Carter decimated our defenses, reducing military spending to pre-Pearl Harbor levels, and told the world that America could no longer use our armed forces abroad in defense of our interests. Today, Democratic presidential candidates are slow to specify the weapons systems they intend to scrap as "outmoded relics of the Cold War," as Obama put it last Sunday, but like both Carter and Bill Clinton, they're sure to take money from the Pentagon for spending on big domestic programs.

• Strongly reminiscent of Carter, Sen. Hillary Clinton promised to be "a president who is committed to diplomacy . . ." Carter's replacement of might with talk wreaked havoc around the world. Soon after he kissed Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev on both cheeks in Vienna, Russia invaded Afghanistan (and Osama bin Laden at age 23 would go there to organize the anti-Soviet forerunner of al-Qaida). Carter removed our nukes from South Korea to better ties with communist North Korea; today, North Korea has tested a bomb and will soon have missiles to carry them to our shores. We abandoned the Shah of Iran for "human rights" offenses; today, oil-rich Tehran is a terrorist state and soon-to-be nuclear power.

• If a future Democratic president were to apply Carteresque diplomacy to the Middle East, trying to "talk" Iran out of building nukes before they could use such weapons or give them to fellow Islamofascists in al-Qaida or other terrorist groups, the U.S., Israel or some other country might pay for it by being attacked with a nuke.

• With a huge hike in payroll taxes, Carter claimed to "fix" Social Security and keep the system solvent until 2030; it, of course, didn't work. The system goes into the red about a decade from now. Similarly, Hillary, Edwards and Obama all plan to "fix" health care, while mostly keeping mum about new taxes. Hillary even promises "$120 billion in savings" with her latest version of socialized medicine. Don't believe it: In 1970, Medicare cost less than $8 billion; now it exceeds $250 billion per year — a cost explosion none of the politicians or "experts" who fathered the program believed possible.

As Hillary noted in Sunday's debate: "The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused."

No one should be. The next Democratic president may not be as naive and incompetent as Jimmy Carter. But he or she will endanger our lives by appeasing our enemies, ravage our economy by raising our taxes, and threaten the government's solvency with misguided new government programs.

We got away with presidential ineptitude in the 1970s. In an age of terror, we may not be so lucky.

MindMechanic said...

All the straight nuts on Carter.

Anonymous said...

When the founder of the Web’s most popular anti-Michael Moore Web site ran into financial trouble because of medical bills, a very unlikely guardian angel came to the rescue.

Jim Kenefick, 36, is the founder of, one of the Web's most visited anti-Michael Moore sites. So imagine Kenefick's surprise when he received a friendly voice mail last month—from Moore himself, calling from the Cannes Film Festival premiere of his agitprop documentary “Sicko.” The lefty filmmaker had two things to tell his cybercritic. First, he wanted Kenefick to know that he and his Web site appear prominently (albeit anonymously) in “Sicko,” his soon-to-be-released attack on the American health-care industry. In the film, Moore shows several of Kenefick’s blog posts where he pleads for money to keep alive because his wife's medical bills (Kenefick says she has a neurological disorder) have almost bankrupted him. He is saved at the last minute when a mysterious donor sends a $12,000 check, enough to keep the site going and pay insurance premiums for a year—which brought Moore to his second point. Before the world found out from his film, the filmmaker wanted his nemesis to know: he was Kenefick’s guardian angel. Kenefick spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Tony Dokoupil about his unwitting stardom and new opinion of Michael Moore.

ave you seen the film?
Jim Kenefick: I’ve only seen some promotional stills and the clips, but I plan to see it.

How were you approached about the $12,000 gift?
On May 1, 2006, I received an anonymous e-mail from a “Nora Lavelle”—who is absolutely a Google ghost ... I can’t verify her existence anywhere online, so who knows if she’s real—and the e-mail said: “I know an Angel who wants to pay for at least some of your wife’s care so that the site doesn’t go down.” I was skeptical, of course. But I also thought you never know. I joked with her that I’ve always wanted a guardian angel.

Then what happened?
The person wrote back to clarify how much my [health-insurance] premiums were. A month or so later a checklike document for $12,000 arrives from one of those anonymous third-party check companies. My first thought was that this was some kind of scam—the kind where you cash the check and then suddenly the person calls asking for like $8,000 back. But the check cleared, and I felt this immense wave of relief.

Where is Michael Moore in your mind at that moment?
Nowhere. At first, I thought it was a well-heeled friend of mine, but not Michael Moore. Then some things started clicking. I happened to notice the bank that guaranteed the funds had like five locations around Moore’s Dog Eat Dog headquarters, several more locations around his New York apartment and then still more around his hometown in Michigan. All this was obvious from Google Maps, which I clicked on innocently after searching the bank name online. I still wasn’t jumping to any conclusions.

When did you know it was Moore?
On May 10th or so of this year, I get this e-mail from someone with a famous name—I won’t say who, just in case they really were who they claimed—saying: “What if, just what if, Michael Moore sent you a check for your family’s medical bills????? you should immediately prepare a quick unpredictable response.” And I have to say that I did. I felt played. I felt like, Oh f---. I can’t believe he would do this. I regret the tone and content of my response, but I felt betrayed, if that’s even the right word. A few weeks later Moore himself called me from Cannes saying that the film was about to premiere and he wanted me to know that he was my “guardian angel.” The sound file is right there on my Web site.

Has Moore’s gift changed your opinion of him?
Look, I don’t oppose Moore as a human being, or even on all of his positions, and I don’t know where I stand on health-care reform. Nor do I presume to be so intelligent as to know how to solve this monumental issue. My issue with Moore is an issue with how he goes about doing things. He gives people quick peeks, juxtaposing images that stir people up but don’t give them enough information to make judgments for themselves. He’s harming the big picture with his chicanery—with his ridiculous, malicious, dishonest and deceitful way of doing things. I haven’t seen “Sicko,” but it sounds like more of the same. I’m not saying that anyone in his film is faking or exaggerating their medical problems, but how can anyone know that? Medical records are sealed by law. Moore’s got people who can say or do anything and no one can check the facts. The American doctors and health-insurance companies he attacks have no voice either because they’re restricted by law from discussing medical cases. It’s the perfect Michael Moore situation.

But has the gift changed your life?
Oh, yes. Let me clear about this. I’m grateful to Michael Moore. I’ve said this about nine times on my Web site: "Thank you Michael Moore." Your gift took a huge burden off my shoulders. But I still don’t like your style.

Why do you think he decided to help you?
It’s in his interest for the site to stay running. Moore’s publicity depends on us and others like us. I think he understands that.

If you had known it was Michael Moore giving you the money, would you have accepted it?
I think so. It's obviously not a problem for him that Moorewatch exists, which is kind of commendable if you think about it. He seemed genuinely interested in keeping us online. I can handle the heat generated by being used in the movie as some kind of "gotcha" moment, and in the end, that $12,000 made our lives a little easier. In the end it reduced the stress on my wife, and taking away even one of her worries—in this case it made it possible for us to pay off everything faster than we'd planned—is worth a lot. Besides, Mike's not the devil or anything. It's not like Joe Stalin made me an offer! He's a guy who sees value in us being out there, analyzing his work and asking questions.