http://us.imdb.com/PeopleNews/#4

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=366725

What a piece of work this jerk is. And how vocal the support he has received here in the past. In the first article, Mr Man of the People Moore screams at everyone working in the theater where he was performing because he wasn't making as much money as he felt he should. He referrs to the bar staff as "common" and "useless". How very un-Flint Michigan.

In the latter story he actually makes the assertion that the passengers on the hijacked planes on 11 Sep 01 were frightened because they were white. He claims that if there were a significant number of blacks on board they would have overpowered the hijackers. What does he mean? Is he saying that black men are more prone to violence then white men? Or is his argument that black men are larger and stronger than white men (perhaps by selective breeding?) Smells like a little PC problem to me. He he.

Michael Moore is about indymedia's favorite son as much as you are indymedia's favorite son.

snore

The first report read "conmen" not "common", as stated above.

"simple simon" is an appropriate name for the simpleton who

posted this ridiculous accusation

shut the fuck up, hiawatha.

Erg. I did say common when it clearly says conmen. I apologize for any confusion.

Why doesn't anyone here get on their soapbox and castigate this pinhead properly for his insinuations regarding race? Could it be that your beloved Leftist friend is to be given a pass because he holds views in agreement with your own? It is this sort of logic that paints Trent Lott as a racist while ignoring the KKK member and racial-epithet spewing Robert Byrd. This is the same logic that leads you to denounce Clarence Thomas on unsubstantiated accusations while turning a deaf ear to credible accusations of RAPE by Bill Clinton. A pox on you.

And Mr. Moore is beloved around here. When his latest film was released, much noise was made in support of it here.

I found that the last few posts were incendiary enough not to respond to. However, I am curious why Anita Hill's claims were any less valid than those of Paula jones or Monica Lewinsky? I personally found them all to be credible.

As for gaffes by Michael Moore (sounded pretty stupid to me), we could stack them up against those of our esteemed President, but who's counting?

And, yes, Byrd is no saint either. The South (even the NEW South) is still replete with anachronisms from the days of segregation. But do note their ages, as a changing of the guard is likely to come.

I didn't mean to infer that Sen. Byrd was from the "South" (although, having been through Maryland down to the Keys, the distinction can get quite muddled), only that despite tremendous changes in the last 45 years, there is still so far to go, and that SOME of the elected officials from the SE (better?) are indicative of the festering and lingering aspects of rascism.

No one should be too surprised (outraged and repulsed, yes), but no one should've been surprised that a Southern Democrat like Clinton would have some ghosts in his past like shady land deals and womanizing, or that Bush would have skeletons in his closet like cocaine, err, substance abuse problems, AWOL from National Guard assignments, voodoo economics business practices and policies, etc.

"insinuations regarding race"??

you mean making fun of whitey? you're so stupid your post doesn't even make sense and now you want people to feel sorry for whitey?

whitey is crazy.....