Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate
It appears that I was interjecting my own opinion of the appropriateness here. Phrases like 'I don't know' and 'it seems' may be causing you some trouble here because they are not black and white. It's tough to understand because what I said was neither good nor evil. What I said wasn't a crusade against Bush which may shock you (not your fingers and testicles but rather your sensibility). What I said was, if I may rephrase, "I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."
Now if you want to play the situational awareness game I'm more than up for it because in this thread alone you have proven at least once you don't follow the political picture as well as your prolific posting count would suggest.
Will you take those catch phrases into consideration with people you don't agree with?
You are so smart and I am so dumb. I must be silly to think that this is the difference between the two administrations visa vi the LB:
"That scandal and Bush's criticism of it is one of the reasons the White House identifies guests."
It is a small and simple sentence, that is obviously why it appealed to me.
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
First, "killer" is kinda lame, I would like to be known as SLAYER or CONQUERER or DECIMATOR or something cool like that, OK?
The other difference is the number of "Hotel Lincoln" tenants there were. 938 in President Clinton's FIRST term. Not to mention the amount of money that was donated by the "friends" of BC. What chance would you had if you only donated $1000 during that admin? Say it with me, "Slim and none"
President Bush and his wife have had 270 in total according to the article.
NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG FOLKS.
Hey you momos quit getting sidetracked with your partisan bickering... back to Moore...
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Does anyone know of any articles critical of Moore's accuracy, but which have less of an obvious axe to grind... (snip)... For those who have found errors, or even lies, in Moore's work, to what extent would you say those things are deliberate vs. careless, substantive and damaging to the structure of his case vs. incidental, etc.?
This site seems to outline quite a few of the Bowling for Columbine fallacies and set-ups. His little intro at least seems to frame the author as somewhat unbiased (not a gun-owner). Regardless of the authors political bent, read the criticisms and make your own judgement. Just read "Michael at the Bank"... that was interesting.
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
Some documents I ran across just a couple of minutes ago.
This site seems to outline quite a few of the Bowling for Columbine fallacies and set-ups. His little intro at least seems to frame the author as somewhat unbiased (not a gun-owner). Regardless of the authors political bent, read the criticisms and make your own judgement. Just read "Michael at the Bank"... that was interesting.
The very first thing I went to, first in the list, "Bowling for Columbine: Flaws in the name and meaning behind the movies title" sounds really familiar... like that I remember this particular attack on Moore having been debunked recently here in AO land.
At any rate, this hardly seems to be a dispassionate web site. Doesn't make it wrong, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for either.
At any rate, this hardly seems to be a dispassionate web site. Doesn't make it wrong, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for either.
He throws some partisan quips in there, but from the few I've read, seems to make a fairly good cases in pointing out inaccuracies; deception, staging scenerios, unfairly comparing gun homicide numbers etc. Not sure what your looking for. Somehow I don't think you're going to find a "liberalswhohatemoore.com" out there.
Good advice for evaluating any sources of information, especially very partisan sources, even (and perhaps especially sometimes) if they are sources you'd tend to agree with.
Does anyone know of any articles critical of Moore's accuracy, but which have less of an obvious axe to grind, and less of an obviously stupid slant than, oh, say, stuff found at URL like http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/?
For those who have found errors, or even lies, in Moore's work, to what extent would you say those things are deliberate vs. careless, substantive and damaging to the structure of his case vs. incidental, etc.?
And for those of you getting all worked up over moore, where are you when incidents that actually matter come up?
One example out of hundreds (probably thousands):
Quote:
Powell said, ?The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.? [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
Well, there you have it. This insightful comment has wrapped up the whole thread, so we might as well just lock the thread and go home.
Well, unless someone has anything of substance to add.
OOHH! OOOOOHH! I do...I think he is so far off the left-wing chart its not even funny. This guy has the brass to be make exceptional contributions to our society and instead he turns out overly-liberal prophaganda. His films do nothing more than point the finger at symptoms and they solve nothing. At least he succeeds in infuriating me because other than that he is a complete waste as are his films. Always placing blame and never offering solutions is the easy way to deal with the issues he continuously addresses.
Actually, he's been quite successful in duping the world into believing that he stands for something. Deep down, he must be brilliant. Josef Goebbels was brilliant, too, and just as dangerous as this guy is. OK, almost as dangerous.
No, that's very, very much on topic. It demonstrates how extreme your political bias really is.
So you're saying that me disliking Moore for parading around fiction as non-fiction work is my extreme political bias? No sorry, I just think the guy is a self-absorbed sensationalist.
Nice bait though... I almost took me away from the Moore discussion.
Somehow I don't think you're going to find a "liberalswhohatemoore.com" out there.
Quote:
Or check out this site (has a bunch of liberal viewpoint links at bottom):
How do you reconcile these two posts?
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
This guy has the brass to be make exceptional contributions to our society and instead he turns out overly-liberal prophaganda.
The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
Quote:
His films do nothing more than point the finger at symptoms and they solve nothing ... Always placing blame and never offering solutions is the easy way to deal with the issues he continuously addresses.
But why should we expect him to be a policymaker? The goal of his films and books is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on (and to make money doing it), not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
Michael Moore is interested in promoting himself, making movies and making money, which is all well and good. That is all he is , however! He is not to be taken seriously!
The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
But why should we expect him to be a policymaker? The goal of his films and books is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on (and to make money doing it), not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
In that case he's doing a grand Job....but I still think he's a Douche
So you're saying that me disliking Moore for parading around fiction as non-fiction work is my extreme political bias?
Absolutely. You are claiming that you indeed do care about the value of honesty in political discourse, yet you ignore and/or defend dishonesty in our actual government, the place where it actually matters and leads to war, death and global political and economic change.
Predictable whining. At least Moore isn't spewing his "lies" on radio or television EVERY day like Rush Limbaugh and O'Liely to name but 2. Ahh, the irony is pretty thick here. Brilliant!
Edit: just got through 1/3 of the trailer and Moore seems to have some sort of document with Bush's name on it re: the flights out of the US.
I bet you Limbaugh fans are causing the bandwidth problems.
The document with Bush's name on it is some sort of military document ordering the suspension of GWB from flying status effective immediately! Not quite as damning as the trailer makes it seem.
Comments
Originally posted by faust9
Oh Naples, wrong yet again... Here, let me recapitulate
It appears that I was interjecting my own opinion of the appropriateness here. Phrases like 'I don't know' and 'it seems' may be causing you some trouble here because they are not black and white. It's tough to understand because what I said was neither good nor evil. What I said wasn't a crusade against Bush which may shock you (not your fingers and testicles but rather your sensibility). What I said was, if I may rephrase, "I feel this was a slightly off color remark and though funny may not have been the best move for a politician--especially one running for president."
Now if you want to play the situational awareness game I'm more than up for it because in this thread alone you have proven at least once you don't follow the political picture as well as your prolific posting count would suggest.
Will you take those catch phrases into consideration with people you don't agree with?
Selective context recognition.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are so smart and I am so dumb. I must be silly to think that this is the difference between the two administrations visa vi the LB:
"That scandal and Bush's criticism of it is one of the reasons the White House identifies guests."
It is a small and simple sentence, that is obviously why it appealed to me.
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
Originally posted by faust9
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
First, "killer" is kinda lame, I would like to be known as SLAYER or CONQUERER or DECIMATOR or something cool like that, OK?
The other difference is the number of "Hotel Lincoln" tenants there were. 938 in President Clinton's FIRST term. Not to mention the amount of money that was donated by the "friends" of BC. What chance would you had if you only donated $1000 during that admin? Say it with me, "Slim and none"
President Bush and his wife have had 270 in total according to the article.
NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG FOLKS.
Originally posted by shetline
Does anyone know of any articles critical of Moore's accuracy, but which have less of an obvious axe to grind... (snip)... For those who have found errors, or even lies, in Moore's work, to what extent would you say those things are deliberate vs. careless, substantive and damaging to the structure of his case vs. incidental, etc.?
This site seems to outline quite a few of the Bowling for Columbine fallacies and set-ups. His little intro at least seems to frame the author as somewhat unbiased (not a gun-owner). Regardless of the authors political bent, read the criticisms and make your own judgement. Just read "Michael at the Bank"... that was interesting.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
Originally posted by faust9
Ahhh, the use of language. So killer what was Spielberg called when Clinton allowed him to stay the night? (hint: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...oney/list.html ). Bush = Clinton in this regard. The difference is, Bush is a Hypocrite because he condemned what he now does...
Some documents I ran across just a couple of minutes ago.
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/dncmemo.gif
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintonmemo.gif
maybe old news but interesting anyway.
Fell free to kill the messenger, as usual.
Originally posted by dviant
This site seems to outline quite a few of the Bowling for Columbine fallacies and set-ups. His little intro at least seems to frame the author as somewhat unbiased (not a gun-owner). Regardless of the authors political bent, read the criticisms and make your own judgement. Just read "Michael at the Bank"... that was interesting.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
The very first thing I went to, first in the list, "Bowling for Columbine: Flaws in the name and meaning behind the movies title" sounds really familiar... like that I remember this particular attack on Moore having been debunked recently here in AO land.
At any rate, this hardly seems to be a dispassionate web site. Doesn't make it wrong, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for either.
Originally posted by shetline
At any rate, this hardly seems to be a dispassionate web site. Doesn't make it wrong, but it wasn't exactly what I was looking for either.
He throws some partisan quips in there, but from the few I've read, seems to make a fairly good cases in pointing out inaccuracies; deception, staging scenerios, unfairly comparing gun homicide numbers etc. Not sure what your looking for. Somehow I don't think you're going to find a "liberalswhohatemoore.com" out there.
Originally posted by shetline
Good advice for evaluating any sources of information, especially very partisan sources, even (and perhaps especially sometimes) if they are sources you'd tend to agree with.
Does anyone know of any articles critical of Moore's accuracy, but which have less of an obvious axe to grind, and less of an obviously stupid slant than, oh, say, stuff found at URL like http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/?
For those who have found errors, or even lies, in Moore's work, to what extent would you say those things are deliberate vs. careless, substantive and damaging to the structure of his case vs. incidental, etc.?
Some results from google:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.tsra.com/Bowling2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
http://www.celebrityhypocrites.com/mmoore.html
http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=687
http://www.splicedonline.com/02features/mimoore.html
I don't know if they all cover it exactly but there.
You know, for once you finally could have something legitimate to say, Naples, but you end up posting to sites with "Featured Patriot: Ann Coulter."
Oh well. Clinton Body Count it is.
For the record, here's a Moore critic rebuttal:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607
And for those of you getting all worked up over moore, where are you when incidents that actually matter come up?
One example out of hundreds (probably thousands):
Powell said, ?The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.? [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#MichaelMoore
Or check out this site (has a some liberal viewpoint links at bottom):
http://www.houseofdiabolique.com/arc...ore010504.html
Originally posted by giant
And for those of you getting all worked up over moore, where are you when incidents that actually matter come up?
Um... it IS a thread about Moore ya know. God forbid we stay on topic.
Originally posted by dviant
Um... it IS a thread about Moore ya know. God forbid we stay on topic.
No, that's very, very much on topic. It demonstrates how extreme your political bias really is.
Originally posted by shetline
Well, there you have it. This insightful comment has wrapped up the whole thread, so we might as well just lock the thread and go home.
Well, unless someone has anything of substance to add.
OOHH! OOOOOHH! I do...I think he is so far off the left-wing chart its not even funny. This guy has the brass to be make exceptional contributions to our society and instead he turns out overly-liberal prophaganda. His films do nothing more than point the finger at symptoms and they solve nothing. At least he succeeds in infuriating me because other than that he is a complete waste as are his films. Always placing blame and never offering solutions is the easy way to deal with the issues he continuously addresses.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Michael Moore is an idiotic hack and a fraud.
Actually, he's been quite successful in duping the world into believing that he stands for something. Deep down, he must be brilliant. Josef Goebbels was brilliant, too, and just as dangerous as this guy is. OK, almost as dangerous.
Originally posted by giant
No, that's very, very much on topic. It demonstrates how extreme your political bias really is.
So you're saying that me disliking Moore for parading around fiction as non-fiction work is my extreme political bias? No sorry, I just think the guy is a self-absorbed sensationalist.
Nice bait though... I almost took me away from the Moore discussion.
Originally posted by dviant
Somehow I don't think you're going to find a "liberalswhohatemoore.com" out there.
Or check out this site (has a bunch of liberal viewpoint links at bottom):
How do you reconcile these two posts?
Originally posted by Playmaker
This guy has the brass to be make exceptional contributions to our society and instead he turns out overly-liberal prophaganda.
The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
His films do nothing more than point the finger at symptoms and they solve nothing ... Always placing blame and never offering solutions is the easy way to deal with the issues he continuously addresses.
But why should we expect him to be a policymaker? The goal of his films and books is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on (and to make money doing it), not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
Originally posted by giant
How do you reconcile these two posts?
The whole "could make great contributions but doesn't" argument could be applied to many people.
Of course, whenever people in entertainment actually do make good contributions to public discourse, conservatives repeatedly attack them and say their opinions are worthless.
But why should we expect him to be a policymaker? The goal of his films and books is to draw attention to the issues he focuses on (and to make money doing it), not to author some grand, all-encompassing solution for world peace and equality.
In that case he's doing a grand Job....but I still think he's a Douche
Originally posted by dviant
So you're saying that me disliking Moore for parading around fiction as non-fiction work is my extreme political bias?
Absolutely. You are claiming that you indeed do care about the value of honesty in political discourse, yet you ignore and/or defend dishonesty in our actual government, the place where it actually matters and leads to war, death and global political and economic change.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Predictable whining. At least Moore isn't spewing his "lies" on radio or television EVERY day like Rush Limbaugh and O'Liely to name but 2. Ahh, the irony is pretty thick here. Brilliant!
Edit: just got through 1/3 of the trailer and Moore seems to have some sort of document with Bush's name on it re: the flights out of the US.
I bet you Limbaugh fans are causing the bandwidth problems.
The document with Bush's name on it is some sort of military document ordering the suspension of GWB from flying status effective immediately! Not quite as damning as the trailer makes it seem.
Edit: Added Pic.