Michael Moore at Oscars Awards = ?

I was eating dinner and watching the Oscars. Anyone else see this? Anyways...

He along with someone else won the Oscar for Bowling for Columbine in the Documentary Category.
He was given a standing ovation for doing a documentary on Columbine High School.

Anyways, during his thank you speech time; he bashes on the President and the war. Not only does he bash on the president, but he bashes on a system that has been in place for over 200 years that the Framers of the Constitution essentially put in place.

In my opinion, it wasn't the time nor the place to criticize the president, election process, and the war. He was booed, at which I agree with those that booed. It just isn't the time nor the place.

If you want to criticize, fine by me; you are entitled to your opinion; however, as I have repeatedly said, I believe that it was not the right time nor place.

I don't agree with him essentially saying bashing on the election process that has been in place for over 200 years.

This is probably paraphrased but he said (at least something along the lines of):

Quote:

---

We live in fictitious times with fictitious elections with a fictitious president that brought us to war for fictitious reasons.

---

fictitious was definitely used in this context. that part is a direct word quote.

Also, he was on stage with all the nominees for this award; which I don't think they appreciated for being represented this way.

He ficticously sucks.

What an idiot. There are better places and ways to give an opinion, you know?

> doing a documentary on Columbine High School.

That's not what it was about...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Govtcheez
> doing a documentary on Columbine High School.

That's not what it was about...

---

really. Oh, I thought it was. I heard that it was about the HS incident, and included video not seen before.

Well, anyways, that's beside the point.

okay, I just did a quick research. It wasn't about the tragedy, but it did have mentions and did have tapes of the HS incident.

I've heard mixed reviews about what was in the actual documetary though.

Just letting you know.

Anyways, why it such a big deal? Everyone knew Moore was going to spout off every chance he got. If someone had come on saying "kill everyone in iraq", they would have gotten standing ovations.

I just don't see it as the right time nor place.
If you want to voice your opinion, you could just on a show like O'Reilly or something.

Dumb & Dumber:p What a good comedy.

&the world goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by alpha
I just don't see it as the right time nor place.
If you want to voice your opinion, you could just on a show like O'Reilly or something.

---

Why? Nobody (smart) watches Fox News.

I don't understand "the right time or the right place." It's just The
Oscars. They really aren't that important; they don't really
deserve a lot of respect.

Anywho, here's everything he said:

Quote:

---

"We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that
elect a fictitious president," Moore said. "We live in a time where
we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons,
whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts.

Applause gave way to some boos, as the orchestra began
playing to cue the filmmaker to leave the stage.

"We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush.
Shame on you," Moore shouted.

---

Wow I wish I would have seen that. Bowling for Columbine definitely deserved an award, even though alot of the different events depicted in it were one-sided because in alot of cases the whole situation was not presented, just the side he wanted to show. I imagine he knew he was going to get booed cause Michael Moore no matter how much you hate or disagree with him is not an idiot.

EDIT- just read the above post, good point and yea thats not really so bad, typical Michael Moore heh. The USA is built on the whole concept of having freedom, and that includes freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by alpha
If you want to voice your opinion, you could just on a show like O'Reilly or something.

---

You want Michael Moore on O'Reilly? Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against censors? :p

...it was pretty entertaining no doubt...

I didn't see the broadcast yesterday ... but heard it on the radio today morning. But I feel that it is very funny :D I would have loved to see the producers' faces who already were under tremendous pressure for the ceremony because of the war :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Govtcheez
You want Michael Moore on O'Reilly? Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against censors? :p

---

haha...

i agree that the oscars aren't that big of a deal and aren't exactly highly respected.
anyways, it's not that big of a deal, but i just wanted to see people's opinions.

Just adding my 2 cents on this one...

Bowling for Columbine, as said before in this thread, was not about the tragedy... it was mentioned in the movie and they spent some time on it, but it was more about gun control than anything else. I thought it was good.

While I respect Michael Moore and his thoughts, I can't believe he did what he did, as you all said. I didn't see it, but if he did say that, he lost some of my respect. That's ludicrous.

I'm seriously sick of people protesting this thing now. We're in it. We can't just back out of it now. And what in the hell do you think this is doing to the troops? We're over here shouting about how this is a bad war and we're just in it for petroleum. Guess what... that makes the troops feel like about 2 cents... how about supporting them in their cause!? (whether you think it's bad or not)

...he made a fool out of himself...

Wow... I just heard the comments on the radio... I don't know if the rest of you all heard the comments he made after he was taken off stage, but he said that most of america is against this war... I don't know what polls he's looking at, but the ones I saw... at least 70% of the people polled agree with Bush and his actions. I think Moore is off on this one.

i saw it last night and at first i was pretty happy cuz i loved the movie and definately wanted him to win the oscar. but then when he got on stage and started bashing the president my jaw dropped.

i agree w/ober, i think it's kinda late to be protesting now, there isnt a lot we can do to pull our troops out of the war. i dont think protesters pay attention much anyway, no matter what the president says there is always some conspiracy theory about oil or something else

....well, either way, congrats to michael on the award, it was well deserved but as far as the comments i think he was outta line, it's an awards show not larry king, no one mentioned the war it would have been nice to see an awards show that was free of politics but.....nope!

Here's the text of the speech, if you're interested.

Almost evereyone of you say that it was nor the time nor the place to say that.
On the contrary it was the right place and time, because i heard it as well on the radio this morning.
And i live in Belgium (Europe), so i think it was the right place, right time and especially the right message.

your opinion.

As for the war, we are in it. No matter if you agree or disagree, we should show support for the troops. I'm not fully supporting war in general; however, if we are in it, then I support the troops. Saddam Hussein has killed millions of people. It's tough seeing that many people die. And if someone doesn't do something about it, it could be similar to the Holocaust. The killing of innocent people, and then the aftereffects with the blaming of, which brings to mind the old cliche of 'good people doing nothing'.

Saddam is certainly a very bad man who's killed lots of people, but millions?? That's a pretty big stretch.

I think what he did was great for extravaganza purposes. I mean, seeing someone get booed at such a prestigious awards ceremony makes the show a little more interesting, no? Generally speaking, when one watches an entertainer they want to be entertained.

Don't tell me all of you wanted a vanilla display of everyone just walking up to receive their awards followed by their monotonous speeches riddled with fictitiously saccharine moments.

The other award receivers who are opposed to the war with Iraq were much more reserved in expressing their thoughts, but Michael Moore had something that he wanted to say badly to the world, so why reprimand him for doing so?

It wasn't the time nor the place? I disagree, that was just an awards show, people.

Anyway, I still can't get over laughing at this: " And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

Well, I was entertained. It's too bad some of you were offended.

>>so why reprimand him for doing so?
its not that im offended i just dont know why then and there, if you know mike moore you know how outspoken he is w/his views... he was just on 60 min. a week ago and filled his segment w/anit war crap ::SLAP:: no one watches award shows to be entertaining, thats why they are award shows, they suck! you only stagger through them to see if your actor/actress movie or whatever won an award!

>>no one watches award shows to be entertaining, thats why they are award shows, they suck! you only stagger through them to see if your actor/actress movie or whatever won an award!

So I guess we all got a little something extra. Let's be grateful. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dP munky
>>so why reprimand him for doing so?
its not that im offended i just dont know why then and there,

---

i agree with this statement. I'm not necessarily offended, just why.

actually, I believe the count was somewhere over 1 million people. something like 1.25 million. I heard this number from a teacher of mine, at which it does seem likely.

C'mon, it's just his personality. There are over 6 billion people in this world, so you'll eventually get to see that "one person."

Gee, I wonder what another personality like Howard Stern wouldn've said/done if he was in Michael Moore's shoes (which he would never be). :p

i dont know...howard's got his own problems though. if you guys go to michael moore's site, you'll see all of his views, i wont call them liberal because who am i to judge but here's the site none the less

you guessed it www.michaelmoore.com

first to let u know that i hate the oscars after last night.....

second of all, i have great respect for the guy, for what he does and shows. If he didn't win the award over some ducks flying, i would've slapped the ppl in charge of deciding who gets the award. yes, it was probably not a good idea to bring politics on a show like that, but i don;t have too much trouble with it because, as i stated b4, i hate the oscars.....i don;t need a flipping oscar to tell me lotr is a good movie....although those idiots tend to disagree..i mean a frigging musical..WHATTHE HELL IS THAT!!!.(i'll get back to my ORIGINAL thoughts now) but it was also wrong for the audience to boo him and at his opinion...because most, if not all, of the people clearly did not recognize his talent and what he was trying to say at that moment and thought he was just another idiot blaffing. and for people who says people who protest should stop because it has already began, you'r wrong. It's called standing up for what you believe in

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ober5861
Just adding my 2 cents on this one...

Bowling for Columbine, as said before in this thread, was not about the tragedy... it was mentioned in the movie and they spent some time on it, but it was more about gun control than anything else. I thought it was good.

While I respect Michael Moore and his thoughts, I can't believe he did what he did, as you all said. I didn't see it, but if he did say that, he lost some of my respect. That's ludicrous.

I'm seriously sick of people protesting this thing now. We're in it. We can't just back out of it now. And what in the hell do you think this is doing to the troops? We're over here shouting about how this is a bad war and we're just in it for petroleum. Guess what... that makes the troops feel like about 2 cents... how about supporting them in their cause!? (whether you think it's bad or not)

---

The war isn't the troops' "cause." Protesting the war isn't the same
as protesting the troops. The troops are one of the main reasons
for the protests; nobody wants them to die. Nobody should
protest the troops -- and nobody does. They protest the people
that send them over for a reason they don't think is necessary.
There's nothing bad about that at all.

And the polls don't matter. This country is full of flip-flopping twits
that change their opinions on the fly. The day before war started,
nobody wanted it; the day after it started, everybody wanted it.
Nobody stands by their convictions. They're too afraid of being
called "un american". All cowards.

I've never watched the Oscars... I read that Gangs of New York
didn't win anything. That's crap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Commander
and for people who says people who protest should stop because it has already began, you'r wrong. It's called standing up for what you believe in

---

I'm not necessarily saying that people should stop protesting. I am saying that more support for the troops should be there.

Also, some protestors need to have a reality check, such as the protestors that protest the war against oil, i.e. the "No blood for oil" people. This war isn't about oil, it's about weapons and a corrupt leader that is killing his own people.

>>This war isn't about oil, it's about weapons and a corrupt leader that is killing his own people.

i agree.. we've already said that the oil revenue will be used to rebuild the country FOR the Iraqi people....but like i said earlier, for some people there is always some conspiracy theory.

i dont think people get it, were trying to help the iraqi's overthrow their corrupt tyrant of a leader, (hate to say this but...) the FRENCH, yes, you heard me THE FRENCH helped us do the same thing during the revolutionary war, they didnt do it all for us but they did help us and were doing the same for iraq...how come no one else makes this connection?

>>but like i said earlier, for some people there is always some conspiracy theory.

Yes. Everything we hear inthe media is correct, they would never lead us astray for thier own purposes.

Like the 'Babies thrown from the Incubators by Iraqis' we heard in 1990.

"In October, 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, appeared in Washington before the House of Representatives' Human Rights Caucus. She testified that Iraqi soldiers who had invaded Kuwait on August 2nd tore hundreds of babies from hospital incubators and killed them."

"Bush snr, Republicans and pro-war Democrats used Nayirah's tale to hammer their fellow politicians into line behind Bush's war in the Persian Gulf."

Pity it was all proven a lie (Kuwait did not HAVE hundreds of incubators).

PR firm Hill & Knowlton was paid US$12 million to drum up support for Desert Storm. They used the daughter of the Kuwait embassidor to US (who was not even in Kuwait at the time).

What will prove to be teh BIG lie after this one?

Only time (and the media) will tell.

yeah, youre right, its not like any of the bad things saddam and the republican guard have done REALLY happend of course, we shouldnt believe the media, youre right, lets just all sit in caves...if you believe everything you read, watch, listen to then YOURE the idiot not lester holt, YOU my friend, of course you want to believe everything but ya know, when i turn to univision and they show me one thing and cnn shows me something else i kinda have to put my own jigsaw puzzle together

Quote:

---

This war isn't about oil

---

Oh, the oil...

Does anybody really think Bush is truly interested in securing Iraq's
economic future -- for Iraq's own benefit? I doubt it. Bush doesn't
seem like the caring type. The title "Operation Iraqi Freedom" just
seems like propaganda to me. Think about it... Why wasn't it until
after the bombing started that they named their campaign? Why
was the liberation of the Iraqi People never a big issue during
Bush's attempts to rally support for a war against Iraq? All we
heard about was "Weapons of Mass Destruction." I mean, if
weapons were a real issue, you'd think that he'd be more concerned
with North Korea (they're the ones developing Nukes, right?) than
Iraq.

I'm not saying oil is a reason for this war, but I also don't believe
that Bush is a deeply compassionate person that truly cares for
the Iraqi People. I don't think it's crazy to believe that oil may
at least be a small part of Bush's agenda. If the Iraqi People are
liberated -- that may just be a fortunate side-effect of Bush's real
plan. Then again, I may be wrong. I just have a hard time believing
anything from anybody.

ABC aired Good Will Hunting last Saturday... There's a quote that
sums up why people may believe that oil may be a part of this
war...

Quote:

---

Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in
the first place was so that we could install a government that
would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies
used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices.
A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy
at two-fifty a gallon. They're taking their sweet time bringing the oil back...

---

And yes, it's just a movie. So what? Still makes you wonder.

As far as this war goes, I'm skeptical about information that
comes directly from the Iraqi Government, the US Government, or
Fox News Channel...

i also dont think people realize how much the OUR government controls the flow of oil in this country, if anybody here lives in a port city you might have seen this durng the 1970's or during other oil price hikes/dry ups.... they make the tankers sit out about a mile off shore for days on end? if the boat is here why not let it come in, its kinda obvious the government ...i mean, police state, is controlling EVERYTHING

>Does anybody really think Bush is truly interested in securing Iraq's economic future?<

Yes. Of course he does. And so does the U.S. military, the
petroleum companies, the U.S. Senate, Congress, and the
American citizen, both pro and most anti-war.

Why?

Simple. World stability. In a world where the U.S. is already the unquestioned dominant force, the best environment to ensure
a continuation of that dominance is world stability--NOT war.
A stabilized Iraq ensures U.S. pre-eminence. A stabilized
middle east maintains our predominance. With peace comes
economic recovery. That's why you saw the Dow Jones averages
leap forward during the first stages of the war--when everything
pointed to a quick and easy victory by the Coalition. But with
Monday came the rude awakening of what is going to happen if
this war drags out a la Vietnam. The bad news of Sundays events
drove the Dow to a loss of over 300 points, the biggest one-day
drop in the market in six years.

That's the message this war, as all wars do, is sending us--win
and you're in; lose, or even suffer small setbacks and you will
pay a dear economic price. Everyone seems quick to point out
that war is good for an economy, and this is true enough--but
only if you win the war.

So if the coalition wins this war, the U.S. will spend billions trying
to build a government amenable to the different factions at work
in Iraq, which we all should know are many. Rebuilding this
country after hostilities end will be just as daunting a task, probably more so, than simply winning a military victory.
However, to lose this war...how much do you think that would
cost the U.S., and preipherally down the line---Great Britain,
Australia, and whatever other nations actively comprised the
Allies, or Coalition, if you will?