Letters from the War Zone to Michael Moore [Archive] - The Orange Mane

W*GS

10-06-2004, 08:46 PM

But I did amply illustrate how in one instance from F9/11 that Moore was being deceptive in his use of a video clip.

Not true.

You didn't show that Moore's use of the clip was deceptive.

It most certainly was - as I understand, the clip was used after a segment about how the war in Iraq was actually to enrich business. Then Bush is shown making his comment in front of a formally-dressed audience, without any reference to what the event was, nor how guests are expected to act.

The clip in question was presented in such a manner as to leave the viewer to draw his own conclusions.

Without the actual context, how can the conclusions be correct? Would you consider Ted Danson a racist because of a picture of him in whiteface, without knowing it was for the Hasty Pudding (IIRC) event, in which humor in extremely poor taste is expected, even required? IMNSHO, one cannot draw a good conclusion without facts, and facts (or quotes, for that matter) cannot be taken context-free, and what Moore specializes in is context-free quotes and clips that lead you to conclude something he's already decided for you. Moore isn't interested in factual objectivity, he's into agitprop. Nothing more.

And, as I pointed out earlier, just because bush was (allegedly) joking around in a statement about his base doesn't mean the statement wasn't true.

Just as Gore might have been true when (allegedly) joking that he invented the dinner himself, even though the first one took place before he was born? That just makes him a baldfaced liar - and if he lies about that sort of thing, what bigger lies has he told, and continues to tell?

The facts are that Moore presented the clip of Bush not in its proper context, but in a context which "allows" the viewer to draw a faulty conclusion. The facts have never bothered Moore - and in this case, it's blatantly obvious that this is true.

baja

10-06-2004, 08:51 PM

I have always thought Moore could have done a much greater service had he stuck to the facts with his documentary. He had some great footage that was lost in his disingenuous and contrived style.

W*GS

10-06-2004, 08:58 PM

I have always thought Moore could have done a much greater service had he stuck to the facts with his documentary. He had some great footage that was lost in his disingenuous and contrived style.

I've seen ample evidence about both BFC and F9/11 to conclude that Moore is basically dishonest. To call either film a "documentary" is completely wrong and shameful.

I've read that Moore has claimed he'll be as tough on Kerry (if he becomes President) as he's been on Bush, but I very much doubt that.

baja

10-06-2004, 09:06 PM

I've seen ample evidence about both BFC and F9/11 to conclude that Moore is basically dishonest. To call either film a "documentary" is completely wrong and shameful.

I've read that Moore has claimed he'll be as tough on Kerry (if he becomes President) as he's been on Bush, but I very much doubt that.

Like it or not Wags that's how it is referred to, as a documentary.

W*GS

10-06-2004, 09:25 PM

Like it or not Wags that's how it is referred to, as a documentary.

The word "documentary" cannot be used to decribe both F9/11 and Ken Burns' "The Civil War".

Moore is the American Riefenstahl.

baja

10-06-2004, 09:32 PM

The word "documentary" cannot be used to decribe both F9/11 and Ken Burns' "The Civil War".

Moore is the American Riefenstahl.

While I agree with you documentary is not a fair categorization of More's F 9/11 comparing him to Riefenstahl is equally over the top.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-07-2004, 12:46 AM

I've seen ample evidence about both BFC and F9/11 to conclude that Moore is basically dishonest. To call either film a "documentary" is completely wrong and shameful.

You've been confronted with facts and sources which support Moore's claims in F 9/11 and you choose to ignore them in the interest of maintaining your foregone conclusions. Like most Moore haters, you probably haven't even seen the film.

After much spin and subterfuge, you still haven't denied that bush's comment about his base (as depicted in the film clip) is essentially true. And you didn't deny bush's complicity with those who are engaged in war profiteering.

W*GS

10-07-2004, 07:54 AM

While I agree with you documentary is not a fair categorization of More's F 9/11 comparing him to Riefenstahl is equally over the top.

She presented her work as being a documentary; so does Moore. She ignored inconvenient facts; so does Moore. She presented out-of-context material as fact; so does Moore.

Moore is no more a documentarian that Riefenstahl was. He creates nothing more than mediocre agitprop.

W*GS

10-07-2004, 08:05 AM

You've been confronted with facts and sources which support Moore's claims in F 9/11 and you choose to ignore them in the interest of maintaining your foregone conclusions.

I've presented one instance of Moore's misdirection and dishonesty; if anyone here has "foregone conclusions", it's you, LABF. You're attempting in all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to maintain those conclusions, too.

Like most Moore haters, you probably haven't even seen the film.

True, I have not seen either BFC or F9/11, nor do I ever intend to do so. BTW, have you read the 9/11 Commission report? I've been truthful about F9/11; level with me and confess that you haven't read the report.

After much spin and subterfuge,

What spin? Giving the context of his remarks? Moore is the one spinning that comment into something it's not.

you still haven't denied that bush's comment about his base (as depicted in the film clip) is essentially true.

You don't get it, bub - the flim clip is used to attempt to show something that isn't there - it's not a moment of Bush being exceptionally truthful; it's Bush telling a joke at a fundraising dinner in which the guests of honor are supposed to engage in self-deprecating humor. If you're going to claim that Bush was being essentially truthful (and thus revealing his base motives) with that remark, then others can equally claim that Gore's remarks reveal him to be a bald-faced liar.

And you didn't deny bush's complicity with those who are engaged in war profiteering.

I'm not interested in defending Bush in toto, I'm just pointing out how Moore's use of Bush's remark without context does a disservice to Bush in that specific instance, as well as to the concept of "documentary" generally. If Moore had some material that described the context and atmosphere in which that comment was made, it would (obviously) not make the point that Moore attempted to make. So Moore is forced to use it without context, so uncritical thinkers like yourself are reinforced in their beliefs about Bush.

Why is it that you are so skeptical of anything that comes out of the Bush administration, but so gullible when it comes to Moore? I've shown how Moore has twisted one little thing into something it's not; if Moore is basically dishonest in that instance, aren't we then obligated to investigate (and decide for ourselves) his other claims and then make a judgement about Moore's work overall? Why should Moore be allowed to avoid the same analysis that he presents of Bush?

W*GS

10-07-2004, 09:06 AM

Some relevant portions from the CBS News (you know, LABF's favorite) reporting of the event (as linked in the "56 Deceits" website):

Each candidate had a heavy schedule in New York, the highlight being Thursday night, when they both joined New York City's political elite at the Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner, a fundraiser for Catholic charities hosted by the Archbishop. Also on hand were New York's candidates in the Senate race: Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio.

The Al Smith dinner, hosted by Archbishop Edward Egan, is a traditional forum for presidential candidates, although in past years, the abortion issue has kept some candidates away.

The event is named for the former New York governor who was the first Roman Catholic ever to be nominated for president.

The presidential candidates came well-armed with jokes, often poking fun at themselves.

Bush gazed around the diamond-studded $800-a-plate crowd and commented on the wealth on display.

"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

Gore chose to allude to his debate style and the silliness of some political catch phrases, including one of his favorites: putting Social Security "in a lockbox."

"I'll put Medicaid in a walk-in closet," joked the vice president. "I will always keep lettuce in the crisper."

He brought down the house with another remark, about his strategy of using "real people" to illustrate policy points. Gore talked about a "woman who's here tonight, whose husband is about to lose his job. She's struggling to get out of public housing and get a job of her own. Hillary Clinton, I want to fight for you!"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-07-2004, 03:21 PM

I've presented one instance of Moore's misdirection and dishonesty; if anyone here has "foregone conclusions", it's you, LABF. You're attempting in all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to maintain those conclusions, too.

Wrong. You claimed that the observation re: bush's base was wrong because of the context from which a piece of film was taken. I showed how this claim was erroneous.

True, I have not seen either BFC or F9/11, nor do I ever intend to do so.

I rest my case.

You are no different from those bush supporters who post negative critiques of a film they have not even seen.

The scary part is that you don't seem to see the prejudice and intellectual dishonesty inherent in such behavior.

W*GS

10-07-2004, 03:35 PM

Wrong. You claimed that the observation re: bush's base was wrong because of the context from which a piece of film was taken. I showed how this claim was erroneous.

Not at all. How one interprets Bush's joke depends entirely on the context in which it was given, and since Moore removed that context, and replaced it with some context of his choosing, making the joke look to be far worse than it actually was, Moore is thus guilty of being disingenuous, at the very least. I don't doubt that someone could take one of your posts here, remove the context, and use it to "prove" some fallacy about you.

The scary part is that you don't seem to see the prejudice and intellectual dishonesty inherent in such behavior.

I'm relying on others to report accurately the content of the film, true, but
the proof that Moore was being dishonest in using that clip was correct in describing how Moore misused it.

In any case, if I'm being dishonest by having not seen F9/11 yet, will you admit to not having read the 9/11 Commission report despite having claimed it was a "sham"?

It's ironic that you get all huffy about my alleged intellectual dishonesty, but truly revel in Moore's. Why is that?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-07-2004, 03:44 PM

I'm relying on others to report accurately the content of the film, true, but the proof that Moore was being dishonest in using that clip was correct in describing how Moore misused it.

So all your knowledge of the film is second-hand, i.e., based on the cherry-picked perceptions and conclusions of others who have more than likely not seen the film themselves. You don't see the prejudice and intellectual dishonesty in this?

Re: that clip:

Are you claiming Moore was incorrect in his assertion/implication that the "haves and have mores" in fact belonged to bush's base?

W*GS

10-07-2004, 03:53 PM

So all your knowledge of the film is second-hand, i.e., based on the cherry-picked perceptions and conclusions of others who have more than likely not seen the film themselves.

It's the same tactic that you use all the time with your sources. You even insert apparent quotes that are completely false. What's your proof that my sources for criticism have themselves not seen the film? The proof I've given of Moore's deceit on the Bush joke was correct in its descrption of Moore's use of the joke - or are you saying that my proof was itself based on a misuse of the relevant portion of F9/11?

You don't see the prejudice and intellectual dishonesty in this?

You're in no position to lecture anyone on integrity and honesty, LABF, and I don't think anyone here or who saw your act on the old DPO would disagree with me on that.

Are you claiming Moore was incorrect in his assertion/implication that the "haves and have mores" in fact belonged to bush's base?

I'm claiming that Moore deliberately used a self-deprecating joke (in its proper context) as some sort of confession or unexpected bit of honesty from Bush. As I've shown, that's not the case. And, as I pointed out earlier, it's the Democrats who rely on large campaign donors far more than the GOP does.

Blueflame

10-07-2004, 05:56 PM

Speaking from the perspective of one who has seen F9/11, the way that clip was presented left little doubt that Bush was joking when he made the remark. However, his actions as president... including his precious tax cuts and advocacy of the total elimination of estate taxes, among other measures which, if enacted, would primarily benefit the extremely-wealthy... tend to suggest that there might have been a tiny seed of truth in the jest. Most of the film's viewers did not appear to take the clip literally... however, the irony of the remark was not lost upon them.... or such was my perception.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-07-2004, 06:08 PM

What's your proof that my sources for criticism have themselves not seen the film?

I said "I'd wager" those sources had not seen the film, or words to that effect.
Unlike yourself, at least I was honest enough to insert such words into my statement.

The proof I've given of Moore's deceit on the Bush joke was correct in its descrption of Moore's use of the joke - or are you saying that my proof was itself based on a misuse of the relevant portion of F9/11?

I'm saying that the truth or falsehood of the actual assertion, i.e. that the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base, is independent of the context (or lack thereof) in which the clip was presented.

You're in no position to lecture anyone on integrity and honesty, LABF, and I don't think anyone here or who saw your act on the old DPO would disagree with me on that.

This from a guy who claims Moore's film is dishonest but admits he hasn't actually seen the film?

What a thigh-slapper. And your DPO bandwagon appeal is only further evidence that you are on the ropes again.

I'm claiming that Moore deliberately used a self-deprecating joke (in its proper context) as some sort of confession or unexpected bit of honesty from Bush. As I've shown, that's not the case..

Surely you're not so unintelligent as to think that a 'self-deprecating joke' can't also be a confession? (You obviously didn't hear Smirk speak at the RNC.) Your zeal to defend bush appears to have blinded you to his attempts at self-inoculation.

W*GS

10-08-2004, 08:38 AM

I'm saying that the truth or falsehood of the actual assertion, i.e. that the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base, is independent of the context (or lack thereof) in which the clip was presented.

So why are the Democrats the recipients of more campaign donations from big-money donors than the GOP is? Go to opensecrets.org yourself and look.

This from a guy who claims Moore's film is dishonest but admits he hasn't actually seen the film?

Suppose I see the film. By what means do I judge its honesty or dishonesty? By reading analyses of the film - which is exactly what I have done, and presented proof of Moore's cherry-picking of clips and quotes to support his propagandistic takes.

What a thigh-slapper. And your DPO bandwagon appeal is only further evidence that you are on the ropes again.

If I'm "on the ropes" for recalling the DPO, then you are as well, since you've done so yourself. In any case, those who have read a decent amount of your stuff, here or on the DPO, know that you are intellectually dishonest. Remember when you ascribed a statement to me, with quotes, that I never actually made? Disingenuousness at its lowest, LABF.

Blueflame

10-08-2004, 11:39 AM

Suppose I see the film. By what means do I judge its honesty or dishonesty? By reading analyses of the film - which is exactly what I have done, and presented proof of Moore's cherry-picking of clips and quotes to support his propagandistic takes.

The most common means for judging a movie one has viewed is to meditate on the information presented and form one's own opinion as to the honesty or dishonesty... with a wary eye toward possible bias...rather than to rely on the possibly-biased viewpoints of others who may or may not have viewed the film. Surely it isn't your habit to allow others to do your thinking for you, is it, W*GS?

W*GS

10-08-2004, 11:58 AM

The most common means for judging a movie one has viewed is to meditate on the information presented and form one's own opinion as to the honesty or dishonesty

Ahh, but that assumes the information presented is being presented accurately. Moore does not use clips in that way - in fact, he uses them as inaccurately as possible, with the intent of leading the viewer to come to Moore's conclusion, not his or her own. Moore always uses material from those he opposes in ways to reflect as poorly as possible on the person being shown. Do you think the emotional effect of Bush's remark would have been as strong had Moore prefaced it with additional material regarding the context in which it was made? Moore is like the Egyptian newpaper's (see the "War for Islam's Heart" thread) reporting on the Nepalis attacking a mosque. Moore would show that, without telling viewers that the Nepalis were reacting to the execution of 12 fellow Nepalis by Iraqi terrorists. Moore would intend you to have a poor opinion of Nepalis, which is what his use of part of the story would create.

... with a wary eye toward possible bias...

Moore calls his work "documentary", when in fact it is nothing of the sort. I always wonder why some folks don't have the same "wary eye" towards Moore as they do towards his targets.

rather than to rely on the possibly-biased viewpoints of others who may or may not have viewed the film. Surely it isn't your habit to allow others to do your thinking for you, is it, W*GS?

I'll take my chances, rather than wasting my precious time on Moore's bilge. When even those on the Left take Moore to the woodshed and give him a righteous whipping, something is foul under that baseball cap of his.

Blueflame

10-08-2004, 12:18 PM

Ahh, but that assumes the information presented is being presented accurately. Moore does not use clips in that way - in fact, he uses them as inaccurately as possible, with the intent of leading the viewer to come to Moore's conclusion, not his or her own. Moore always uses material from those he opposes in ways to reflect as poorly as possible on the person being shown. Do you think the emotional effect of Bush's remark would have been as strong had Moore prefaced it with additional material regarding the context in which it was made? Moore is like the Egyptian newpaper's (see the "War for Islam's Heart" thread) reporting on the Nepalis attacking a mosque. Moore would show that, without telling viewers that the Nepalis were reacting to the execution of 12 fellow Nepalis by Iraqi terrorists. Moore would intend you to have a poor opinion of Nepalis, which is what his use of part of the story would create.

No, it doesn't assume anything... you'd be opting to make up your own mind whether the information is accurate rather than depending on... and echoing... someone else's opinion (which may or may not be an informed opinion).

Moore calls his work "documentary", when in fact it is nothing of the sort. I always wonder why some folks don't have the same "wary eye" towards Moore as they do towards his targets.

It's much easier to spot bias when one knows to be looking for it. And just why should Michael Moore be expected to expend his resources to present information from another person's perspective other than his own? His films are documentaries of events as viewed from his perspective... and they're marketed as just that.

I'll take my chances, rather than wasting my precious time on Moore's bilge. When even those on the Left take Moore to the woodshed and give him a righteous whipping, something is foul under that baseball cap of his.

OK, but by making that choice, you have to expect that your opinion (of a film you choose not to see) won't carry equal weight (in debate) with the opinions of those who did see it... and you risk looking foolish by expressing passionately-held views on a topic on which you have made a conscious decision to remain uninformed.

W*GS

10-08-2004, 12:45 PM

No, it doesn't assume anything... you'd be opting to make up your own mind whether the information is accurate rather than depending on... and echoing... someone else's opinion (which may or may not be an informed opinion).

How can anyone make an informed judgement about any subject depicted in a Moore film, based on the half-truths and deceptions he presents? It's rather like being shown a picture of a dead man at the foot of another man, who's holding a knife, and being asked to condemn the knife-holder to prison. There's so little context, and so much information is left unstated, that forming a judgement is impossible. Since Moore presents so little context and so little additional information (as is his intention and his style) making a judgement about his allegations is impossible. If one is being intellectually honest, that is. Many people take Moore at his word, apparently, and that, to me, is pathetic and dangerous.

It's much easier to spot bias when one knows to be looking for it.

Moore's films don't present enough information to be able to detect bias. One must go to other sources for that (deliberately) missing information to see how Moore twisted things.

And just why should Michael Moore be expected to expend his resources to present information from another person's perspective other than his own? His films are documentaries of events as viewed from his perspective... and they're marketed as just that.

Calling his "perspective" of things a "documentary" is another instance of his disingenuousness. He ought to be straight up and market his films as "Michael Moore's editorial comment on...", instead of giving them the sheen of factual content as "documentary" implies.

OK, but by making that choice, you have to expect that your opinion (of a film you choose not to see) won't carry equal weight (in debate) with the opinions of those who did see it... and you risk looking foolish by expressing passionately-held views on a topic on which you have made a conscious decision to remain uninformed.

Let's see - not seeing a Moore film gives me the benefit of my precious time not wasted and my money not going into his lucre-bulging pockets; not seeing his films may make anonymous others on an Internet discussion board think somewhat less of me. Gee, what a tough choice - reality vs. cyberspace.

I'd like to know how you could form an opinion on the Iraq war from Moore's view of it, knowing that he intentionally and deliberately manipulates images, clips and text. One could form an opinion on Judaism from watching neo-Nazi filth, too.

Blueflame

10-08-2004, 01:55 PM

How can anyone make an informed judgement about any subject depicted in a Moore film, based on the half-truths and deceptions he presents? It's rather like being shown a picture of a dead man at the foot of another man, who's holding a knife, and being asked to condemn the knife-holder to prison. There's so little context, and so much information is left unstated, that forming a judgement is impossible. Since Moore presents so little context and so little additional information (as is his intention and his style) making a judgement about his allegations is impossible. If one is being intellectually honest, that is. Many people take Moore at his word, apparently, and that, to me, is pathetic and dangerous.

If you haven't seen the film, how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously in your assertions regarding the content of said film? Again, the best way to accurately assess any medium is to experience it yourself and then make up your own mind. Unless, of course, you're afraid the experience of viewing it might challenge your preconceived notions...

Moore's films don't present enough information to be able to detect bias. One must go to other sources for that (deliberately) missing information to see how Moore twisted things.

Again, one who hasn't seen the film can hardly be considered an ultimate authority on what information it does or does not present.

Calling his "perspective" of things a "documentary" is another instance of his disingenuousness. He ought to be straight up and market his films as "Michael Moore's editorial comment on...", instead of giving them the sheen of factual content as "documentary" implies.

F911 is most assuredly a documentary... it documents events of the last four years from the perspective of the filmmaker. It's not as if Michael Moore advertises his films as "fair and balanced". Ha!

Let's see - not seeing a Moore film gives me the benefit of my precious time not wasted and my money not going into his lucre-bulging pockets; not seeing his films may make anonymous others on an Internet discussion board think somewhat less of me. Gee, what a tough choice - reality vs. cyberspace.

Educating yourself on any topic can arguably be considered time well spent. As to the money, give me a break... now that F911 has been released on DVD, it's probably available for checkout at your local public library.

As to the anonymous others on the 'net... it probably doesn't make a difference in the world to them that you choose not to see F911 or any other movie. It's when you then expound vociferously on the contents of the movie you admittedly haven't seen that you appear buffoonish.

I'd like to know how you could form an opinion on the Iraq war from Moore's view of it, knowing that he intentionally and deliberately manipulates images, clips and text. One could form an opinion on Judaism from watching neo-Nazi filth, too.

One can form flawed opinions on the Iraq war from watching Fix News and CNN-servative, too. Using a single information source in forming any opinion is unwise, imho... ideally, one needs to find myriad sources of information, assimilate all available facets to the story, and then use the reasoning process to reach a conclusion.

Bronco_Beerslug

10-08-2004, 02:23 PM

W*GS

10-08-2004, 02:46 PM

You admit you haven't seen the film but you continue to comment on it. Hasn't it dawned on you yet why you opinions on the film hold no value? Doing so only cheapens all your opinions.

I'm relying on analyses of the film, true. Show me where they are in error and misrepresent Moore's misrepresentations.

Are you going to ask LABF about the 9/11 Commission Report?

Bronco_Beerslug

10-08-2004, 02:59 PM

I'm relying on analyses of the film, true. Show me where they are in error and misrepresent Moore's misrepresentations.

Are you going to ask LABF about the 9/11 Commission Report?
I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on it. I haven't read all of the 9-11 report (519 pages) yet.

W*GS

10-08-2004, 03:01 PM

If you haven't seen the film, how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously in your assertions regarding the content of said film?

Show me the errors in the analyses I've presented.

Again, the best way to accurately assess any medium is to experience it yourself and then make up your own mind. Unless, of course, you're afraid the experience of viewing it might challenge your preconceived notions...

I'm in no way ignorant of how Michael Moore operates - I saw an episode of his short-lived TV series (remember that one) where he did a hatchet job on the NRA - probably the genesis of his "Bowling for Columbine" load-o-crap. I've seen enough Michael Moore to know that relying on him for any kind of reasonable view of almost anything he chooses to present is most inadvisable. He's got an agenda, a strongly anti-American one, and he will manipulate anything he can get his hands on to support that agenda.

F911 is most assuredly a documentary... it documents events of the last four years from the perspective of the filmmaker. It's not as if Michael Moore advertises his films as "fair and balanced". Ha!

Moore's "perspective" is that of an America- (and American-) hating hypocrite, fraud, liar and all-around despicable human being, who derides this country and its people with almost every breath he takes. He's a hate-monger, who is a parasite on us, who takes complete and total advantage of his rights to defecate upon the nation and the people who protect them for him. He's insidious and deceitful, and while I completely support and protect his right to state that I should have none, I will counter and criticize each and every statement he makes that is false, fraudulent, and manipulative of the truth.

Educating yourself on any topic can arguably be considered time well spent.

There is a case to be made for knowing one's enemies (and I assure you, Michael Moore is just that) better than they know themselves.

As to the money, give me a break... now that F911 has been released on DVD, it's probably available for checkout at your local public library.

If I had time to waste, I can think of better ways to do it than watching Moore's utter filth.

As to the anonymous others on the 'net... it probably doesn't make a difference in the world to them that you choose not to see F911 or any other movie. It's when you then expound vociferously on the contents of the movie you admittedly haven't seen that you appear buffoonish.

I can take it. Besides, someone, perhaps you, has to show me where the analyses I've presented are wrong. That has yet to happen.

One can form flawed opinions on the Iraq war from watching Fix News and CNN-servative, too. Using a single information source in forming any opinion is unwise, imho... ideally, one needs to find myriad sources of information, assimilate all available facets to the story, and then use the reasoning process to reach a conclusion.

True, and Moore is the last place to start.

But it doesn't surprise me that you found F9/11 so worthwhile. Apply the same critical thinking skills you posess (assuming you have them; you bought F9/11 hook, line and sinker, apparently) to Moore and his work. Don't be fooled by his propaganda - and that's exactly what it is, not any kind of "documentary" by any stretch of the term.

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:04 PM

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:14 PM

Here is one ....From a Soldier in Iraq , posted this on a blog .............

Sunday, July 04, 2004

Only The Dead Have Seen The End Of War

I spoke with an Army Captain the other day who was telling me that the Global Security civilian Contractors who work here in Iraq with us are referred to as: "Black Death" by the locals downtown. He was telling me a story about one time they killed like 46 people one time or something. A lot of those guys that do the civilain contracted security work are ex special forces, cops, whatever. You know, action hero job perfessions. They all wear a bullet proof vest over there civilian cloths, a baseball hat, beards, and carry some sort of automatic weapon. I personally think these guys are insane doing the stuff that they do. These guys are always getting ****ed up out here as well. Check out globalsecurity.com for more info on them.

I will never forget the time when we were leaving the main gate of our FOB [Forward Operating Base], and I was manning the machine gun out of the back airguard hatch to our vehicle, when a red SUV started honking its horn as it tried to race past us thru the gategate, there was bullet holes all over it, the windshield, the sides. Everywhere. I remember thinking to myself: Holy ****, how can anybody survive an attack like that? I'll never forget the look on that drivers face when he was yelling "GET THE **** OUTTA THE WAY!" as they drove past us. I cant explain it. When they got passed us I saw that the back window was completely blown to bits and there was an individual laying down, completely covered in his own blood. He looked alive, but barely. After they passed us, we drove off to go where we had to go, and I kept on thinking, holy ****, I wondered what the **** happened to them.

Less than 5 minutes after that we were driving down a busy street in mosul when I saw a white SUV parked all crooked up on the middle divide. When we got closer I observed a lifeless body sitting in the drivers seat, with the seatbelt still on him. It was a global security guy. The vehicle, to me, did not look as shot up as the red SUV, but it was still covered in bullet holes, windows blown out, and there was fresh red blood splattered all over the white paint of the vehicle. ****. We stopped the vehicle and dismounted to pull local 360 security around the SUV and to stop traffic. I looked around and realized that we were almost in the same location where we got attacked by a RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] several weeks ago.

Our combat medic slapped on his latex gloves and started to begin the process of putting him in a body bag and separating his ****. The guy looked late 20's, maybe early 30's to me. Clean cut, athletic build. There was still fresh blood dripping from his face. Directly across the street was a major gas station, lots of cars lined up to get gas. My team leader ran around frantically with a interprator, to see if anybody saw anything or knows anything about what just happened. Of course, nobody ****ing talked. Typical. Helicopters were now hovering overhead. Air support.

What is interesting about all this was when our medic was putting his body in a body bag, and separating this guys personal belongings, he discovered that he had on him, a letter of resignation, and he also had on him a one way airplane ticket back to London, where he was from.

W*GS

10-08-2004, 03:15 PM

It is obvious all of us on this thread , dont know what it is like in Iraq , so instead of trying to speak for the Troops , let them speak for themselfs .....
http://optruth.com/main.cfm
Real soldiers , Real Concerns ................

I always wonder if the folks who set up and run these sorts of things are the same kinds of people who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam and calling the "babykillers" and the like.

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:18 PM

I always wonder if the folks who set up and run these sorts of things are the same kinds of people who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam and calling the "babykillers" and the like.
LOL , you didnt even click on it , and if you did , you are pretty damn stupid ...... Sorry for being so blunt , but that site is ran by soldiers for soldiers .............

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:21 PM

About Us
The Alliance for Security was established to educate and engage the American public in a dialogue about our security. After years of speaking out on the consequences of war and in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, we recognized that Americans must exercise their civic duty and get involved in security issues now more than at any time in our history.

The Alliance is based on that faith -- and on the belief that the foundation of patriotism lies in our ability to ask tough questions and undertake difficult sacrifices. Our goal is to provoke a thoughtful and penetrating exchange that addresses our country’s most critical issues: the war on terrorism, the search for security, the defense of individual liberties, and the consequences of war.

The Alliance will empower America. We have joined with this nation’s military, intelligence, humanitarian and veterans communities to build this effort. We will rely on our ability to access and implement the views and aspirations of the American public. We will do so by building an active -- and interactive -- community of citizens, who are committed to a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate on our nation’s goals. Through our website, our blog, and our college tour -- which will be launched this fall -- the Alliance for Security will spark a national debate on issues critical to the survival of our democratic institutions.

At times the questions we will ask, and the answers that we seek, will be disquieting. Yet, we hold that controversy in the service of patriotism will strengthen our national resolve. It is time to ask the tough questions, it is time to hear the disquieting answers: are we at war with Islam, will there be a draft, is our government really making us more secure, how do we address the root causes of terrorism -- will fewer liberties yield more security?

The Alliance for Security is a program of Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, an international humanitarian organization that has been addressing the causes, conduct and consequences of war through programs of advocacy and service for victims of conflict around the world for over twenty years.
http://www.allianceforsecurity.org/about

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:29 PM

http://optruth.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=staff&lnav=4
Here is the guy that made the site

Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director and Founder
Paul is the Executive Director and Founder of Operation Truth. Paul is currently a 1st Lieutenant in the New York Army National Guard, and returned from a tour of duty in Iraq lasting from April 2003 to February 2004. During that time, Paul served as an Infantry Platoon Leader in the 3rd Infantry Division conducting combat operations in the Adamiyah section of Baghdad. His Rifle Platoon conducted over 1,000 dismounted and mounted combat patrols and was the first reserve component unit in the Army to be awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge since the Korean War.

Prior to going to Iraq, Paul worked as an Investment Banking Analyst on Wall Street. Paul received a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Amherst College.

Does that sound like a guy that Spit on Vets and called them Baby Killers ?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-08-2004, 03:34 PM

You admit you haven't seen the film but you continue to comment on it. Hasn't it dawned on you yet why you opinions on the film hold no value? Doing so only cheapens all your opinions.

Bingo.

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:36 PM

Here Wags More of your people that run that site that Spits on Vets and call them Baby Killers . http://optruth.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=directors&lnav=4
Paul Bucha
Bucha is a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient and a former President of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Bucha earned the Medal of Honor near Phuoc Vinh, Binh Duong Province, Republic of Vietnam, for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty."

Yeah he sounds like scum huh W*gs ..........

Spider

10-08-2004, 03:38 PM

typical these guys are genuine war Heros and w*gs insults them cause some of them dont agree with Bush ...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-08-2004, 03:40 PM

Surely it isn't your habit to allow others to do your thinking for you, is it, W*GS?

Where Moore is concerned, it's obvious that W*GS lets the right-wing noise machine inform all of his thoughts and opinions.

How conveeeeenient. {/church lady voice}

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-08-2004, 03:42 PM

typical these guys are genuine war Heros and w*gs insults them cause some of them dont agree with Bush ...

Yep.

GOPers like W*GS will put party before country everytime.

Blueflame

10-08-2004, 03:44 PM

Show me the errors in the analyses I've presented.

Well, first off, I wouldn't call what you've presented "analyses"; in my estimation, it would fall more into the category of "regurgitated right-wing opinion"... which, btw, has mostly appeared to be offered by those who choose not to see the film.

I'm in no way ignorant of how Michael Moore operates - I saw an episode of his short-lived TV series (remember that one) where he did a hatchet job on the NRA - probably the genesis of his "Bowling for Columbine" load-o-crap. I've seen enough Michael Moore to know that relying on him for any kind of reasonable view of almost anything he chooses to present is most inadvisable. He's got an agenda, a strongly anti-American one, and he will manipulate anything he can get his hands on to support that agenda.

Moore's "perspective" is that of an America- (and American-) hating hypocrite, fraud, liar and all-around despicable human being, who derides this country and its people with almost every breath he takes. He's a hate-monger, who is a parasite on us, who takes complete and total advantage of his rights to defecate upon the nation and the people who protect them for him. He's insidious and deceitful, and while I completely support and protect his right to state that I should have none, I will counter and criticize each and every statement he makes that is false, fraudulent, and manipulative of the truth.

If what you're trying to say is that you have a prejudice against Michael Moore and the means he uses to try to effect political change... and that you disagree with his politics, I can respect that. No one's politics are going to enjoy universal appeal to American citizens. However, I disagree that he is a "hatemonger" or "hates America". If he did, in fact, hate America, he wouldn't be making the effort to change things in a manner that he considers for the better. The fact that you don't agree with his viewpoint in no way automatically makes him wrong.

If he's ever stated that you shouldn't have the right to the freedom to express yourself, I'd be interested in seeing a link to the quote...

Even proven liars like Dick Cheney sometimes do inadvertently tell the truth... one cannot unilaterally assume every word that comes out of his mouth to be a lie ("false, fraudulent, and manipulative of the truth"), despite the evidence that many of his statements are, shall we say, truth-challenged.

There is a case to be made for knowing one's enemies (and I assure you, Michael Moore is just that) better than they know themselves.

If I had time to waste, I can think of better ways to do it than watching Moore's utter filth.

I can take it. Besides, someone, perhaps you, has to show me where the analyses I've presented are wrong. That has yet to happen.

True, and Moore is the last place to start.

OK, so I get it that you're prejudiced against Michael Moore and do not choose to see the film despite the fact that now you could do so without putting an extra penny in his pocket. But echoing others' reviews (opinions; not facts) about his movie does not render your opinion "informed" or valid.

But it doesn't surprise me that you found F9/11 so worthwhile. Apply the same critical thinking skills you posess (assuming you have them; you bought F9/11 hook, line and sinker, apparently) to Moore and his work. Don't be fooled by his propaganda - and that's exactly what it is, not any kind of "documentary" by any stretch of the term.

Assumption of anything inherently carries risk of inaccuracy, W*GS... :)

In actuality, I found F911 interesting... in the context of what our SCLM has not covered (relevant, newsworthy footage that was aired for the first time in the movie) as much as for Moore's perspectives. I took the movie as a counterpoint, or mirror image to American corporate media, if you will.... and as such, it was enlightening, entertaining, and food for thought. Yeah, the bias was easily discernible... but then that's also true of Fix News.

W*GS

10-09-2004, 01:38 PM

Well, first off, I wouldn't call what you've presented "analyses"; in my estimation, it would fall more into the category of "regurgitated right-wing opinion"...

In the instance of Bush's remarks, was there anything in the material I presented that was inaccurate or unfactual, and simply a matter of opinion?
If so, show me.

which, btw, has mostly appeared to be offered by those who choose not to see the film.

Restoring the context surrounding Moore's misleading use of a specific video clip requires knowing the clip and Moore's (deceitful) context; those two requirements alone mean that the person(s) revealing Moore's deception have seen the film.

If what you're trying to say is that you have a prejudice against Michael Moore and the means he uses to try to effect political change... and that you disagree with his politics, I can respect that.

I disagree with almost his entire ideology, and it's not prejudicial. I have not seen F9/11, true, but I have read his screed and see some of his other work to form a well-informed opinion of him and his political views. I find them beneath contempt.

However, I disagree that he is a "hatemonger" or "hates America".

Do a Google on Michael Moore and read his comments regarding America and Americans. It's quite clear that not only does he view nation and people as wrong, he views the underlying principles of the nation as incorrect. He ought to come clean and just revoke his American citizenship and move to France, where he'll be lauded as a hero.

If he did, in fact, hate America, he wouldn't be making the effort to change things in a manner that he considers for the better.

His ideology would require changing the nation into something that would no longer be America.

If he's ever stated that you shouldn't have the right to the freedom to express yourself, I'd be interested in seeing a link to the quote...

His basic ideology, if he's consistent, requires eliminating the right of free speech he uses so much. Since he uses that right, he's just another hypocrite, just like he hates capitalism but exploits it for his personal (significant) enrichment.

Even proven liars like Dick Cheney sometimes do inadvertently tell the truth... one cannot unilaterally assume every word that comes out of his mouth to be a lie ("false, fraudulent, and manipulative of the truth"), despite the evidence that many of his statements are, shall we say, truth-challenged.

"Truth-challenged"? Here's how Moore would manipulate (in his usual modus operandi what you just wrote:

<tt>"[...]Dick Cheney [...] tell[s] the truth... [...]assume every word that comes out of his [Moore's] mouth to be a lie."</tt>

That's exactly, and nothing more, than what Moore does. Calling it "truth-challenged" is far too gentle; it's a deception and a lie.

OK, so I get it that you're prejudiced against Michael Moore

Not prejudiced - I am quite familiar with him, his work, and his ideology.

and do not choose to see the film despite the fact that now you could do so without putting an extra penny in his pocket.

My time is valuable as well; I choose not to waste it on Moore's bilge.

But echoing others' reviews (opinions; not facts) about his movie does not render your opinion "informed" or valid.

Those reviews are fact; they reveal Moore's lies, and that he lies copiously. Taking your argument to an extreme, unless you personally experience something, are you not relying on others being accurate in their relating their experience for you to have a view on said experience? Are you as skeptical of Moore as you are of those who provide facts that prove his deceitful tactics?

In actuality, I found F911 interesting... in the context of what our SCLM has not covered (relevant, newsworthy footage that was aired for the first time in the movie) as much as for Moore's perspectives. I took the movie as a counterpoint, or mirror image to American corporate media, if you will.... and as such, it was enlightening, entertaining, and food for thought. Yeah, the bias was easily discernible... but then that's also true of Fix News.

About the only thing I can think of that anyone could learn from F9/11 is how to be a mediocre propagandist and how to manipulate visuals. Note that his tactic doesn't work so well in print, since reading requires thought and allows reflection, whereas visuals often create a visceral reaction that doesn't get into the more-rational parts of thought, and by then, the next visual is on the screen and you don't have time to reflect and digest what you just saw. In short, Moore has done for film and video what Goebbels did with radio and print. Repeat a big lie often enough, and people will think it truth.

Blueflame

10-10-2004, 07:23 PM

In the instance of Bush's remarks, was there anything in the material I presented that was inaccurate or unfactual, and simply a matter of opinion?
If so, show me.
Restoring the context surrounding Moore's misleading use of a specific video clip requires knowing the clip and Moore's (deceitful) context; those two requirements alone mean that the person(s) revealing Moore's deception have seen the film.

The "specific video clip" (Bush's "haves and have-mores" quote) was very clearly presented as "comic relief" in F911... not, as you suggest, as fact that should be taken literally.

I disagree with almost his entire ideology, and it's not prejudicial. I have not seen F9/11, true, but I have read his screed and see some of his other work to form a well-informed opinion of him and his political views. I find them beneath contempt.
Do a Google on Michael Moore and read his comments regarding America and Americans. It's quite clear that not only does he view nation and people as wrong, he views the underlying principles of the nation as incorrect. He ought to come clean and just revoke his American citizenship and move to France, where he'll be lauded as a hero.
His ideology would require changing the nation into something that would no longer be America.
His basic ideology, if he's consistent, requires eliminating the right of free speech he uses so much. Since he uses that right, he's just another hypocrite, just like he hates capitalism but exploits it for his personal (significant) enrichment.
"Truth-challenged"? Here's how Moore would manipulate (in his usual modus operandi what you just wrote:
<tt>"[...]Dick Cheney [...] tell[s] the truth... [...]assume every word that comes out of his [Moore's] mouth to be a lie."</tt>
That's exactly, and nothing more, than what Moore does. Calling it "truth-challenged" is far too gentle; it's a deception and a lie.
Not prejudiced - I am quite familiar with him, his work, and his ideology.

You've presented a lot of rhetoric here, but very little supporting evidence. Telling me to google Michael Moore is not the same thing as presenting a link to an article where he is quoted as saying he hates America and Americans... or where he expressly advocates annulling the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment. I do not believe he embraces either position and would require those specific links in order to be convinced of the accuracy of your statements.

My time is valuable as well; I choose not to waste it on Moore's bilge.

Again, I have no issue with this... it's your prerogative. However... continuing to expound on the content of a movie you haven't seen... and have no intention of seeing... for such a lame reason as "my time's too valuable to waste"... does not enhance your credibility.

Those reviews are fact; they reveal Moore's lies, and that he lies copiously. Taking your argument to an extreme, unless you personally experience something, are you not relying on others being accurate in their relating their experience for you to have a view on said experience? Are you as skeptical of Moore as you are of those who provide facts that prove his deceitful tactics?

All movie reviews are the opinion(s) of the reviewer(s)... not fact.

About the only thing I can think of that anyone could learn from F9/11 is how to be a mediocre propagandist and how to manipulate visuals. Note that his tactic doesn't work so well in print, since reading requires thought and allows reflection, whereas visuals often create a visceral reaction that doesn't get into the more-rational parts of thought, and by then, the next visual is on the screen and you don't have time to reflect and digest what you just saw. In short, Moore has done for film and video what Goebbels did with radio and print. Repeat a big lie often enough, and people will think it truth.

I found F911 to be enlightening regarding the current state of American corporate media. To me, the movie was more about that than anything else.

W*GS

10-10-2004, 10:13 PM

The "specific video clip" (Bush's "haves and have-mores" quote) was very clearly presented as "comic relief" in F911... not, as you suggest, as fact that should be taken literally.

That's your personal interpretation. LABF takes it as Bush being truthful. Who's correct? Besides, why would Moore stick it in there if not to try to "reveal" something about Bush?

You've presented a lot of rhetoric here, but very little supporting evidence. Telling me to google Michael Moore is not the same thing as presenting a link to an article where he is quoted as saying he hates America and Americans...

"I like America, to some extent" isn't exactly a warm-n-fuzzy comment.

[QUOTE]or where he expressly advocates annulling the Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment. I do not believe he embraces either position and would require those specific links in order to be convinced of the accuracy of your statements.

Moore isn't stupid; he's not going to say "I'd get rid of free speech for everyone who disagrees with me", but it's clear from what he does write and say that he'd be extremely happy if those Americans who think he's a scum-sucking butthead (like me) would just shut up.

Again, I have no issue with this... it's your prerogative. However... continuing to expound on the content of a movie you haven't seen... and have no intention of seeing... for such a lame reason as "my time's too valuable to waste"... does not enhance your credibility.

My time is indeed too valuable to waste on Moore's filth. I've seen enough of his work and read enough of his bile that wasting even more time on F9/11 wouldn't change my mind. I haven't read "The Turner Diaries" either; I know full well the mindset that creates that garbage; the same applies to F9/11.

All movie reviews are the opinion(s) of the reviewer(s)... not fact.

I shouldn't have used the word "review", I should have used the word "analysis".

Analysis of F9/11 shows, and shows amply and well, how Moore has distorted, manipulated, and outright lied in it.

I found F911 to be enlightening regarding the current state of American corporate media. To me, the movie was more about that than anything else.

Oh, you mean how "liberal media bias" is a myth? If so, how does one explain Rathergate?

watermock

10-10-2004, 10:34 PM

The similarities between "Canadian Bacon" and his Docudrama 9/11 are freaky. Go rent the movie.

Blueflame

10-11-2004, 02:09 AM

That's your personal interpretation. LABF takes it as Bush being truthful. Who's correct? Besides, why would Moore stick it in there if not to try to "reveal" something about Bush?

I already answered (from my perspective) the question of why the clip was included in the movie... comic relief.

As to why some people (perhaps, as you claim, LABF) might take the remark as Bush being truthful, more than just a few of his actions as president have been criticized as benefitting the ultra-wealthy more than the average Joe sixpack. Perhaps it comes down to the old adage of "if the shoe fits"...

"I like America, to some extent" isn't exactly a warm-n-fuzzy comment.

Despite the lack of a reference url, I'll take your word for it that this is an accurate Michael Moore quote. It's difficult to ascertain the intent of the remark without more context, however.

Moore isn't stupid; he's not going to say "I'd get rid of free speech for everyone who disagrees with me", but it's clear from what he does write and say that he'd be extremely happy if those Americans who think he's a scum-sucking butthead (like me) would just shut up.

So this is not fact; but rather nothing more than your personal opinion of what he thinks.

My time is indeed too valuable to waste on Moore's filth. I've seen enough of his work and read enough of his bile that wasting even more time on F9/11 wouldn't change my mind. I haven't read "The Turner Diaries" either; I know full well the mindset that creates that garbage; the same applies to F9/11.

I haven't read "The Turner Diaries" either... so if it's all the same to you, I won't offer a review of what it does or does not say.

I shouldn't have used the word "review", I should have used the word "analysis".

Analysis of F9/11 shows, and shows amply and well, how Moore has distorted, manipulated, and outright lied in it.

Whose analysis? I've read articles that were critical of the film, but most of the complaints of "deceits" were over nitpicky, trivial minutiae such as the distinction between "the Bush administration" authorizing the Saudi nationals to fly out of America on Sept. 13... and Richard Clarke (in his official capacity as terrorism czar for the Bush administration) giving that authorization.

Oh, you mean how "liberal media bias" is a myth? If so, how does one explain Rathergate?

I found it interesting that film clips such as the Booker Elementary school footage were not covered by the SCLM. Nor did the huge Inauguration Day 2001 protests receive any media coverage. Did you know that the presidential limousine was egged that day? That fact is not generally known by the American public.

Interestingly enough, Michael Moore recently stated that the "Killian memos" were offered to him before they were offered to CBS... and that he declined the offer. Why did CBS air them? My best guess is money and ratings.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 05:54 AM

But I did amply illustrate how in one instance from F9/11 that Moore was being deceptive in his use of a video clip.

Not true.

You didn't show that Moore's use of the clip was deceptive.

The clip in question was presented in such a manner as to leave the viewer to draw his own conclusions.

And, as I pointed out earlier, just because bush was (allegedly) joking around in a statement about his base doesn't mean the statement wasn't true.

W*GS owned you on that one, LABF. If I were you, I'd let it fade into a distant memory instead of trying to revive it.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:05 AM

Wrong. You claimed that the observation re: bush's base was wrong because of the context from which a piece of film was taken. I showed how this claim was erroneous.

He made no such claim. His claim, as I understand it, is that Michael Moore's presentations cannot be trusted because of the deceptive techniques he uses.

The scary part is that you don't seem to see the prejudice and intellectual dishonesty inherent in such behavior.

Irony.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:14 AM

The most common means for judging a movie one has viewed is to meditate on the information presented and form one's own opinion as to the honesty or dishonesty... with a wary eye toward possible bias...rather than to rely on the possibly-biased viewpoints of others who may or may not have viewed the film. Surely it isn't your habit to allow others to do your thinking for you, is it, W*GS?

What are your thoughts on the Iraq war, Blue? How about the Enron scandal? What's your opinion on the Kyoto treaty?

I assume you have no opinion on any of these things since you (presumably):

haven't been to Iraq to witness and investigate the war personally,
haven't personally studied the laws and balance sheets involved in the Enron matter, and
haven't read the global warming treaty.

Surely it isn't your habit to allow others to do your thinking for you, is it, Blue?

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:21 AM

It's when you then expound vociferously on the contents of the movie you admittedly haven't seen that you appear buffoonish.

I thought you were above namecalling, Blueflame. Apparently not.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:23 AM

You admit you haven't seen the film but you continue to comment on it.
Hasn't it dawned on you yet why you opinions on the film hold no value?
Doing so only cheapens all your opinions.

Sophistry.

I guess you don't have an opinion on the Iraq war, Enron, or Kyoto either.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:31 AM

typical these guys are genuine war Heros and w*gs insults them cause some of them dont agree with Bush ...

Are you anti-Bush guys ever honest? W*GS didn't insult them, he "wondered" about them.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:36 AM

Well, first off, I wouldn't call what you've presented "analyses"; in my estimation, it would fall more into the category of "regurgitated right-wing opinion"... which, btw, has mostly appeared to be offered by those who choose not to see the film.

Translation: No I can't show you the errors in your analysis.

OK, so I get it that you're prejudiced against Michael Moore and do not choose to see the film despite the fact that now you could do so without putting an extra penny in his pocket. But echoing others' reviews (opinions; not facts) about his movie does not render your opinion "informed" or valid.

How can you watch it without putting a penny in his pocket? Are you suggesting that he steal a copy from someone who hated the movie so much that they are sure to not buy a replacement? I suppose he could download a pirate copy off the internet if he was really interested.

patteeu

10-11-2004, 06:42 AM

Despite the lack of a reference url, I'll take your word for it that this is an accurate Michael Moore quote. It's difficult to ascertain the intent of the remark without more context, however.

More irony.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-11-2004, 03:14 PM

W*GS owned you on that one, LABF. If I were you, I'd let it fade into a distant memory instead of trying to revive it.

There you go declaring another imaginary victory again.

Neither W*GS nor yourself have been able to deny the basic argument that a statement isn't necessarily false just because it's uttered in a joking manner.

You have also evaded the basic question: Do the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base or do they not?

He made no such claim. His claim, as I understand it, is that Michael Moore's presentations cannot be trusted because of the deceptive techniques he uses.

And in the next breath he admitted that he'd never seen Fahrenheit 9/11 (or any other Moore documentary.) Hence, he's getting his information about Moore's "techniques" second hand (, i.e., from right-wing propaganda sites.)

Sophistry.

I guess you don't have an opinion on the Iraq war, Enron, or Kyoto either.

It is you who pedals sophistry here.

Having an opinion about an event, e.g. Iraq, isn't the same thing as discrediting a film you've never seen. If you offer an opinion about a film you've never actually seen, then you should expect your opinion not to be taken seriously.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-11-2004, 03:20 PM

Quote of the Day

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting
better and better. But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

-- Cpl. Jonathan Snyder

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20794-2004Oct9.html

http://www.bartcop.com/dream-wmd.JPG

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here. First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here...every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."

--Cpl. Carlos Perez, U.S. Marine stuck in Bush's Iraq quagmire

http://www.bartcop.com/cheney-never-met.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20794-2004Oct9.html

W*GS

10-11-2004, 03:34 PM

Neither W*GS nor yourself have been able to deny the basic argument that a statement isn't necessarily false just because it's uttered in a joking manner.

Do you think Moore included Bush's remark (without its context) so we think Bush is a stand-up comedian, or because Moore wanted us to see Bush in an apparently unguarded moment "confessing" to the real truth?

Been to opensecrets.org, yet?

And in the next breath he admitted that he'd never seen Fahrenheit 9/11 (or any other Moore documentary.) Hence, he's getting his information about Moore's "techniques" second hand (, i.e., from right-wing propaganda sites.)

It's hardly the Right who have disputed Moore's tactics; there are those on the left (like Hitchens, who ripped Moore a new one) who find Moore's tactics (to quote Blueflame) "truth-challenged".

BTW, when you gonna admit error and defeat on the "steady climb" claim about oil and/or gas prices? 'Fess up.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-11-2004, 03:54 PM

Do you think Moore included Bush's remark (without its context) so we think Bush is a stand-up comedian, or because Moore wanted us to see Bush in an apparently unguarded moment "confessing" to the real truth?

You're still dodging the issue of the veracity of Moore's message, i.e., that the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base.

BTW, when you gonna admit error and defeat on the "steady climb" claim about oil and/or gas prices? 'Fess up.

So you deny that the price increased steadily after Smirk & Sneer were appointed?

W*GS

10-11-2004, 04:04 PM

You're still dodging the issue of the veracity of Moore's message, i.e., that the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base.

If that's the case, then why do Dems get more money percentage-wise from big donors than the GOP does?

So you deny that the price increased steadily after Smirk & Sneer were appointed?

Yes, as any graph of either crude oil prices or retail gasoline prices shows.
The price has not "increased steadily" since Jan 2000. What's your evidence otherwise?

W*GS

10-11-2004, 04:07 PM

Yes, as any graph of either crude oil prices or retail gasoline prices shows. The price has not "increased steadily" since Jan 2000.

To wit:

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/c1997.gif

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-11-2004, 04:11 PM

If that's the case, then why do Dems get more money percentage-wise from big donors than the GOP does?

In the 2000 campaigns, your boy Smirk received anywhere from two to three times as much campaign $$$ from "big donors" as Gore.

The price has not "increased steadily" since Jan 2000. What's your evidence otherwise?

The graph I posted. Was there a dip at some point during the Smirk *presidency? Yes, but it was followed by a steady increase that has yet to decline.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-11-2004, 04:16 PM

The graph W*GS just posted should be regarded with suspicion.

Why?

Notice the price indicated at the point when Smirk was filling the SPR at a record pace.

If you remember correctly, the price of oil had reached a record high at that same point. I posted severals articles in which experts were questioning Smirk's motives for stockpiling oil when the price was at a record high.

Blueflame

10-11-2004, 09:56 PM

I thought you were above namecalling, Blueflame. Apparently not.

Namecalling... last I checked... involves nouns, Patteeu. "Buffoonish" is an adjective. An observation was made that W*GS' persistence in reviewing a movie he hasn't seen causes him to appear "buffoonish". Unless you consider appearance to be fact, then your argument does not hold water.

As a matter of fact, I do not consider W*GS a buffoon.
However, I find his "analyses" of F911 about as valid as a book review written from Cliff's Notes.

How can you watch it without putting a penny in his pocket? Are you suggesting that he steal a copy from someone who hated the movie so much that they are sure to not buy a replacement? I suppose he could download a pirate copy off the internet if he was really interested.

As I already observed, now that F911 has been released on DVD, it's available for checkout at many public libraries. Alternatively, I'm certain a copy would be made available (loaned) upon request from the local Democratic party HQ... or perhaps W*GS has friends who bought the DVD. I'd be glad to loan my copy to any of my friends/acquaintances who want to see it. :)

Blueflame

10-11-2004, 10:03 PM

What are your thoughts on the Iraq war, Blue? How about the Enron scandal? What's your opinion on the Kyoto treaty?

I assume you have no opinion on any of these things since you (presumably):

haven't been to Iraq to witness and investigate the war personally,
haven't personally studied the laws and balance sheets involved in the Enron matter, and
haven't read the global warming treaty.

Surely it isn't your habit to allow others to do your thinking for you, is it, Blue?

These issues (Iraq war, Enron, Kyoto treaty) are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Patteeu. I reject your "bait" and decline the invitation to take this thread offtopic onto a tangent.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-11-2004, 10:15 PM

He made no such claim. His claim, as I understand it, is that Michael Moore's presentations cannot be trusted because of the deceptive techniques he uses.

But W*GS hasn't made the case that Moore used "deceptive techniques" in this instance.

In order for this to be the case, the premise (the "haves and the have mores" belong to bush's base) would have to be false.

It isn't.

Furthermore, W*GS has no credibility insofar as he, by his own admission, has never seen Fahrenheit 9/11 or any other Moore documentary.

On the contrary, where Moore and F 9/11 are concerned, W*GS has uncritically accepted the opinions expressed by right-wing propaganda sites.

Blueflame

10-11-2004, 10:34 PM

But W*GS hasn't made the case that Moore used "deceptive techniques" in this instance.

In order for this to be the case, the premise (the "haves and the have mores" belong to bush's base) would have to be false.

It isn't.

Furthermore, W*GS has no credibility insofar as he, by his own admission, has never seen Fahrenheit 9/11 or any other Moore documentary.

On the contrary, where Moore and F 9/11 are concerned, W*GS has uncritically accepted the opinions expressed by right-wing propaganda sites.

Beyond that, W*GS has presented those regurgitated rightwing opinions here on the Mane as fact (or "analyses").

Has he posted a single link to support his anti-Moore rhetoric? I don't think he has.

patteeu

10-12-2004, 06:32 AM

Namecalling... last I checked... involves nouns, Patteeu. "Buffoonish" is an adjective. An observation was made that W*GS' persistence in reviewing a movie he hasn't seen causes him to appear "buffoonish". Unless you consider appearance to be fact, then your argument does not hold water.

Check again.

"You are stupid"

Would you call that phrase "namecalling?" Of course you would. If you wouldn't, then you are in an infinitesimal minority. You might notice that in that phrase, the word "stupid" is an adjective. Your post was clear namecalling and your after-the-fact attempt to excuse yourself with the "appearance" wiggle is lame. It wouldn't be a big deal in any event (this IS an internet BB afterall), but for your previous statements about being above such things.

As a matter of fact, I do not consider W*GS a buffoon.

Of course, I'm in no position to accept an apology on W*GS behalf, but I think you're doing the right thing here. Good for you.

As I already observed, now that F911 has been released on DVD, it's available for checkout at many public libraries. Alternatively, I'm certain a copy would be made available (loaned) upon request from the local Democratic party HQ... or perhaps W*GS has friends who bought the DVD. I'd be glad to loan my copy to any of my friends/acquaintances who want to see it. :)

I hadn't thought of the library or the democratic party hq. Good points.

patteeu

10-12-2004, 06:35 AM

These issues (Iraq war, Enron, Kyoto treaty) are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Patteeu. I reject your "bait" and decline the invitation to take this thread offtopic onto a tangent.

I'm not asking you to discuss any of these offtopic issues, I'm just asking if you have an opinion on them. Based on your earlier comments I was under the impression that if second-hand information is all you can get about a topic then you really shouldn't have an opinion on it. Or does that principle only apply when it works to your advantage in an argument?

watermock

10-12-2004, 06:45 AM

These issues (Iraq war, Enron, Kyoto treaty) are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, Patteeu. I reject your "bait" and decline the invitation to take this thread offtopic onto a tangent.

How amusing. You don't even solidify what your talking about Blue. When you dismiss three things out of hand, you better bring something more to the table than a rejection and runner.

W*GS

10-12-2004, 08:54 AM

If that's the case, then why do Dems get more money percentage-wise from big donors than the GOP does?

In the 2000 campaigns, your boy Smirk received anywhere from two to three times as much campaign $$$ from "big donors" as Gore.

Not what I said. I was comparing Dems and the GOP.

The price has not "increased steadily" since Jan 2000. What's your evidence otherwise?

The graph I posted. Was there a dip at some point during the Smirk *presidency? Yes, but it was followed by a steady increase that has yet to decline.

Ahh, so you finally come around to the truth. In other words, your statement "So you deny that the price increased steadily after Smirk & Sneer were appointed?" is indeed false.

Thanks for finally having the guts to 'fess up. If you would read some of the widely-available analyses of why crude oil prices have increased, you would understand that the war in Iraq is in fact part of the reason for rise, but that there are several other factors (Venezuela, Nigeria, China's apparently unquenchable thirst for the stuff) in play, over which Bush has absolutely no control.

Thus, not all of the price rise since early 2003 is Bush's fault. Do you concede that, LABF?

W*GS

10-12-2004, 09:02 AM

But W*GS hasn't made the case that Moore used "deceptive techniques" in this instance.

Did Moore mention, before Bush's remark in question, that he was at a fundraising dinner, and that self-deprecating humor is expected of the guests of honor? That Gore was in attendance also? That Gore also made remarks that were intended to be humorous and poked fun at himself? If Moore had included all that context, would Bush's remark have the same impact?

Furthermore, W*GS has no credibility insofar as he, by his own admission, has never seen Fahrenheit 9/11 or any other Moore documentary.

Moore doesn't make documentaries - he makes propaganda pieces. You haven't read the 9/11 Commission report, have you?

On the contrary, where Moore and F 9/11 are concerned, W*GS has uncritically accepted the opinions expressed by right-wing propaganda sites.

They aren't opinions - they are the facts that provide the context for Moore's cherry-picked video clips. Like I said, even Blueflame says Moore's work is "truth-challenged". How is restoring the context of Moore's choice of video clips "propaganda"? Is it because it shows that indeed, Moore (to be kind) is "truth-challenged"?

W*GS

10-12-2004, 09:09 AM

The graph W*GS just posted should be regarded with suspicion.

It's essentially the same graph as what you posted, LABF. Is your data also to be viewed with suspicion?

Notice the price indicated at the point when Smirk was filling the SPR at a record pace.

Yes - in late 2001, oil was trading at near its low point between late 2000 and early 2003.

If you remember correctly, the price of oil had reached a record high at that same point.

Wrong. Why go by "if you remember correctly", when the graph shows that at the start of purchases for the SPR, crude oil prices were more-or-less at a trough?

Blueflame

10-12-2004, 12:28 PM

Check again.

"You are stupid"

Would you call that phrase "namecalling?" Of course you would. If you wouldn't, then you are in an infinitesimal minority. You might notice that in that phrase, the word "stupid" is an adjective. Your post was clear namecalling and your after-the-fact attempt to excuse yourself with the "appearance" wiggle is lame. It wouldn't be a big deal in any event (this IS an internet BB afterall), but for your previous statements about being above such things.

There's a massive difference between saying "you are stupid" and saying engaging in a defined activity makes you appear stupid. For example, if you choose to put on a black shirt and play with a plastic sword, it could make you appear to be a Raider fan.... however, it would not necessarily make you cook meth or root for the darkside on Sundays. :P

Of course, I'm in no position to accept an apology on W*GS behalf, but I think you're doing the right thing here. Good for you.

Clarification is always a good thing... it can help to prevent misunderstandings. :)

I hadn't thought of the library or the democratic party hq. Good points.

Since F911's release on DVD, it is possible to watch the film without putting any money in Michael Moore's pocket... so that argument for not seeing it is no longer valid. However, if W*GS simply chooses not to see it, even for free, that's certainly his prerogative.

Blueflame

10-12-2004, 12:48 PM

I'm not asking you to discuss any of these offtopic issues, I'm just asking if you have an opinion on them. Based on your earlier comments I was under the impression that if second-hand information is all you can get about a topic then you really shouldn't have an opinion on it. Or does that principle only apply when it works to your advantage in an argument?

As a matter of fact, I do have opinions on some of those offtopic issues... however, it appears that my position here might be a tad ambiguous.

There is a distinction between forming an opinion on current world events based on news articles (which one should reasonably be able to assume present facts) and forming an opinion of a book or movie based on commentator reviews (which one would reasonably assume present the personal opinion of the writer, who presumably has read said book or viewed said movie.) It's opinion vs. fact.

How amusing. You don't even solidify what your talking about Blue. When you dismiss three things out of hand, you better bring something more to the table than a rejection and runner.

What I was "dismissing" was what I perceived to be an "apples and oranges" comparison that would possibly deflect the thread topic, Mock.

Like I said, even Blueflame says Moore's work is "truth-challenged". How is restoring the context of Moore's choice of video clips "propaganda"? Is it because it shows that indeed, Moore (to be kind) is "truth-challenged"?

Um... perhaps you misread my post? I said Dick Cheney is "truth-challenged". Looks like that post might have needed more clarification, too. Ha!

Regarding Michael Moore and F911, the content of the movie is, of course, presented in a biased manner... with "biased" defined as "from the personal perspective of the filmmaker". I saw it as the flip side of the coin that is Fix News.

W*GS

10-12-2004, 01:02 PM

Um... perhaps you misread my post? I said Dick Cheney is "truth-challenged". Looks like that post might have needed more clarification, too. Ha!

My apologies. It would be refreshing to see someone on the Left not bow down to Moore, and see him for what he is - an agitprop wanna-be.

Regarding Michael Moore and F911, the content of the movie is, of course, presented in a biased manner... with "biased" defined as "from the personal perspective of the filmmaker". I saw it as the flip side of the coin that is Fix News.

How does "from the personal perspective of the filmmaker" square with "documentary"?

Blueflame

10-12-2004, 01:14 PM

My apologies. It would be refreshing to see someone on the Left not bow down to Moore, and see him for what he is - an agitprop wanna-be.

How does "from the personal perspective of the filmmaker" square with "documentary"?

I don't bow down to Michael Moore, W*GS... however, I also don't view him as the evil propagandist some perceive him to be. From my viewpoint, he's just an American who is doing what he can to effect a political change that he feels would be for the better. Whether one agrees with his politics or not (I agree with some of his views; disagree with others), one has to respect that he's trying.

As Broncos fans, we could create a videotape chronicling a season of football... including, due to our homerism, only the team's good plays and omitting the bad ones. It would still be a "documentary" of that "given" football season... however it wouldn't be "fair and balanced"; it would be biased (from the perspective of the filmmaker).

W*GS

10-12-2004, 02:08 PM

I don't bow down to Michael Moore, W*GS... however, I also don't view him as the evil propagandist some perceive him to be.

Since he can't tell the story straight, he is a propagandist. For example, since he can't include the context of Bush's "have and have-mores" remark and get the same impact, he has to take the context out, and leave the clip as something that looks like Bush is just being honest.

From my viewpoint, he's just an American who is doing what he can to effect a political change that he feels would be for the better. Whether one agrees with his politics or not (I agree with some of his views; disagree with others), one has to respect that he's trying.

Why should I respect someone for being intentionally deceitful and fraudulent? Would you "respect" someone who's trying to reduce the wealth disparity between rich and poor by stealing from the rich?

W*GS

10-12-2004, 02:41 PM

Read the following

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20041012/ts_nm/iraq_graves_dc

and tell me that Michael Moore included these facts in F9/11.

Blueflame

10-12-2004, 03:15 PM

Read the following

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20041012/ts_nm/iraq_graves_dc

and tell me that Michael Moore included these facts in F9/11.

Those facts were not included in F911... but then the primary focus of the movie wasn't Iraq... or Saddam Hussein. If Michael Moore ever decides to make a movie about either topic, I'd expect the mass graves to be included in that movie.

There was only so much content that could be included in a 120-minute film... if everything that some critics considered relevant had, in fact, been included, the running time might have been extended to an unwieldy 3 hours or even more.

As for respect, it's my perception that the filmmaker does have the courage of his convictions... despite the opposition and heavy criticism he knew the film was likely to draw from some quarters, he still went through with the project. He's not wishy-washy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-12-2004, 09:13 PM

Did Moore mention, before Bush's remark in question, that he was at a fundraising dinner, and that self-deprecating humor is expected of the guests of honor?

Just because Smirk disguised his remark w/ "self-deprecating humor" doesn't mean the remark wasn't true.

I know you're fighting to get Little Caligula off the hook at all costs, but surely you're not so obtuse as to not see this?

...since he can't include the context of Bush's "have and have-mores" remark and get the same impact, he has to take the context out, and leave the clip as something that looks like Bush is just being honest.

The context means nothing in this instance. Only the veracity of the message matters.

You refuse to answer this simple question:

Do the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base or do they not?

Would you "respect" someone who's trying to reduce the wealth disparity between rich and poor by stealing from the rich?

Why should we respect someone (like you) who defends GOP crooks who are trying to increase the "wealth disparity between rich and poor" by robbing the poor, the working class, and the middle class to give to the rich?

That's the real question.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-12-2004, 09:25 PM

It's essentially the same graph as what you posted, LABF. Is your data also to be viewed with suspicion?

No, it isn't "essentially the same graph." Maybe you need to compare them again.

Why go by "if you remember correctly", when the graph shows that at the start of purchases for the SPR, crude oil prices were more-or-less at a trough?

So you deny that Smirk was filling the SPR to record levels when oil prices were at record highs? I recall posting a story about the FAA pleading with bush to stop doing this because it was killing the airline business.

In any event, in your zeal to defend the dauphin, you're once again diverting from the original question, i.e., whether or not higher oil and gas prices enrich Smirk & Sneer's oil/energy cronies.

Don't think I haven't noticed.

watermock

10-12-2004, 09:27 PM

Why should we respect someone (like you) who defends GOP crooks who are trying to increase the "wealth disparity between rich and poor" by robbing the poor, the working class, and the middle class to give to the rich?

Well, first you make a total assertion. That takes all respect against you. He never made the comment about trying to increase wealth disparity, you just assterted it like a ****ing idiot.

Second, you went onto your GOP criminal rant without any foundation, like your had ever established it in the first place. You just assume it's cred and you can play with it as fact. The Fact is there are no Republican investigations whatsoever. Your a ****ing nutcase.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-12-2004, 09:45 PM

Not what I said. I was comparing Dems and the GOP.

My comparison (re: campaign donations) was more relevant to the matter at hand, viz., the question of bush's relationship with the "haves and have mores."

Ahh, so you finally come around to the truth. In other words, your statement "So you deny that the price increased steadily after Smirk & Sneer were appointed?" is indeed false.

Still suffering from "premature celebration," I see. That there have been short-lived dips in prices doesn't negate the overall, cumalitave rise over the four years of the Smirk & Sneer misadministration.

If you would read some of the widely-available analyses of why crude oil prices have increased, you would understand that the war in Iraq is in fact part of the reason for rise, but that there are several other factors (Venezuela, Nigeria, China's apparently unquenchable thirst for the stuff) in play, over which Bush has absolutely no control.

I'm more than familiar with these issues.

However, your assessment that "Bush [had] absolutely no control" is further evidence of your refusal to hold the Alkie-in-Chief accountable for (among other things) the Iraq debacle and its influence on Iraq's production and world markets.

Thus, not all of the price rise since early 2003 is Bush's fault. Do you concede that, LABF?

Was this ever in dispute?

Perhaps your compulsion to keep AWOL Boy's skirts clean is causing you to see statements that aren't there.

BTW, the original question was "are bush/cheney's oil/energy cronies enriched by higher oil prices?"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-12-2004, 10:36 PM

Gas Prices Help Bush's Friends

Exxon-Mobile is now bigger than WalMart

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_18

patteeu

10-13-2004, 05:54 AM

There's a massive difference between saying "you are stupid" and saying engaging in a defined activity makes you appear stupid. For example, if you choose to put on a black shirt and play with a plastic sword, it could make you appear to be a Raider fan.... however, it would not necessarily make you cook meth or root for the darkside on Sundays. :P

LOL @ the Raider jab. IMO, the world "appear" softens the namecalling, but it's still namecalling.

patteeu

10-13-2004, 06:01 AM

Do the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base or do they not?

You mean like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Madonna, Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert Rubin, and TerAza Heinz?

I thought they were all in Kerry's camp.

broncogary

10-13-2004, 06:07 AM

You mean like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Madonna, Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert Rubin, and TerAza Heinz?

I thought they were all in Kerry's camp.

No, he meant Bruce Springsteen, Alec Baldwin, and Jane Fonda.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 06:15 AM

You mean like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Madonna, Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Susie Tompkins Buell, Robert Rubin, and TerAza Heinz?

No, I meant Halliburton, Enron, WorldCom, G.E., the Carlyle Group, and every other transnational corporation by whom Dubya is brought and paid for.

If you honestly believe there has ever been an administration even remotely as beholden to corporate lobbies and special interests as Team Smirk & Sneer then you just aren't willing to face facts.

W*GS

10-13-2004, 08:44 AM

Those facts were not included in F911... but then the primary focus of the movie wasn't Iraq... or Saddam Hussein. If Michael Moore ever decides to make a movie about either topic, I'd expect the mass graves to be included in that movie.

Yeah, right. Moore wants to deride Bush's decision to remove Saddam from power, and let's just skip over the known facts of Saddam's tyranny and instead show Iraq as some sort of idyll before those nasty American bombs started falling. Moore doesn't show the truth about Saddam - why is that?

There was only so much content that could be included in a 120-minute film... if everything that some critics considered relevant had, in fact, been included, the running time might have been extended to an unwieldy 3 hours or even more.

Even you would find 3 hours of Moore's propaganda too much to take? Gee, do you think that perhaps the entire issue cannot be concentrated into 122 minutes, and thus Moore cherry-picked the facts and so on just to make his anti-Bush point?

As for respect, it's my perception that the filmmaker does have the courage of his convictions... despite the opposition and heavy criticism he knew the film was likely to draw from some quarters, he still went through with the project. He's not wishy-washy.

Having respect for someone merely for having strong convictions, or for working a lot, isn't very worthwhile without knowing the nature of those convictions or the goal of the work. Moore may believe what he believes to the very core of his being, but I question the nature of those beliefs, and by and large, I find them reprehensible.

W*GS

10-13-2004, 08:48 AM

Just because Smirk disguised his remark w/ "self-deprecating humor" doesn't mean the remark wasn't true.

Yep, you bought Moore's cheap propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Do the "haves and have mores" belong to bush's base or do they not?

Others have given great laundry lists of the definitely have-mores who actively oppose Bush. Ergo, they do not.

Why should we respect someone (like you) who defends GOP crooks who are trying to increase the "wealth disparity between rich and poor" by robbing the poor, the working class, and the middle class to give to the rich?

I don't respect liars, ergo, I don't respect you, LABF.

BTW, what's been the history of the Pareto index, in the US and in other rich countries, over the last 20 or so years, LABF?

W*GS

10-13-2004, 09:15 AM

No, it isn't "essentially the same graph." Maybe you need to compare them again.

For the 2000-end 2003 period, yes, the shape of the curve is about the same.

So you deny that Smirk was filling the SPR to record levels when oil prices were at record highs?

According to the 1997-2003 graph, Bush ordered the SPR filled (in the latter part of 2001) when oil prices were about at their lowest during 2001. Look again at the chart, LABF.

Either you're acting dense, or you are dense.

Blueflame

10-13-2004, 11:55 AM

LOL @ the Raider jab. IMO, the world "appear" softens the namecalling, but it's still namecalling.

Wouldn't that depend heavily on the intent of the poster? In this case, the intent was merely to observe that offering a review of a movie one hasn't seen is not, in my opinion, a wise choice... it's a choice that could... and usually does... spark a derisive response from those who have seen the film.

We can parse and nitpick this all day, but I was not calling W*GS a buffoon; however, I do think he risks appearing clownish (buffoonish) if he continues to opt to offer reviews of a movie he has no intention of seeing... and one cannot reasonably expect any response to such comments but outright dismissal.

Blueflame

10-13-2004, 12:26 PM

Yeah, right. Moore wants to deride Bush's decision to remove Saddam from power, and let's just skip over the known facts of Saddam's tyranny and instead show Iraq as some sort of idyll before those nasty American bombs started falling. Moore doesn't show the truth about Saddam - why is that?

Don't you think we should have finished the job of capturing bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders (Zarqawi) before taking off on a tangent to depose Saddam? No one's denying that Saddam was a tyrant, but retrospect (no WMD) shows that removing him from power perhaps should not have been the priority the Bush administration made it out to be.

The film did not portray Iraq as "idyllic", btw...

Even you would find 3 hours of Moore's propaganda too much to take? Gee, do you think that perhaps the entire issue cannot be concentrated into 122 minutes, and thus Moore cherry-picked the facts and so on just to make his anti-Bush point?

Three hours is too long a running time for any movie, imo. Even with the Return of the King, the lengthy running time made drinking sodas at the theater a risky proposition... as one risked missing part of the movie due to a necessary bathroom break.

As to cherry-picking, this happens with news outlets all the time. From the choice of which stories even get media coverage (all Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy, Kobe Bryant, etc., all the time...) to which camera angles in video footage are used, corporate bias determines the content that is presented in our daily news feeds. Do you object to "cherry picking" by Fix News or CNN-servative? If it's OK for them to do this every single day, (in Fix's case, while still claiming to be "fair and balanced") why is it objectionable for Michael Moore to use the same tactics in his movies? Furthermore, Fix uses "our" public airwaves to disseminate their propaganda...

Having respect for someone merely for having strong convictions, or for working a lot, isn't very worthwhile without knowing the nature of those convictions or the goal of the work. Moore may believe what he believes to the very core of his being, but I question the nature of those beliefs, and by and large, I find them reprehensible.

If you don't respect him because you disagree with his politics, that's fair enough. I do respect him for making the effort to effect change... and for trying to counteract apathy, which, to me, is one of the biggest threats to our democratic process.

We can agree to disagree on this, though. :)

W*GS

10-13-2004, 03:11 PM

Don't you think we should have finished the job of capturing bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders (Zarqawi) before taking off on a tangent to depose Saddam?

I agree - to a point. I don't think the US' war on Iraq is unjustified, as some claim, but I do think it could have waited until OBL was killed and al-Qaeda destroyed. No, I don't want those effers captured - I want them dead.

The film did not portray Iraq as "idyllic", btw...

Oh, so there were scenes of Saddam's tyranny upon his people and his neighbors? Not that I've read.

As to cherry-picking, this happens with news outlets all the time.

Fox does it, CNN does it, NBC does it, ABC does it, CBS does it, and they're wrong, but when Moore does it... It's OK?

[...]corporate bias determines the content that is presented in our daily news feeds.

The media doesn't have a strong pro-corporate bias - it has a liberal bias, a statist bias, and, for TV, what-best-serves-the-multimillionaire-anchor's-ego bias. I don't agree with those who say the media doesn't have a liberal bias - those who make that claim are generally on the extreme left, or who think Al Franken is a centrist.

If you don't respect him because you disagree with his politics, that's fair enough. I do respect him for making the effort to effect change... and for trying to counteract apathy, which, to me, is one of the biggest threats to our democratic process.

Why did he feel he needed to resort to half-truths, manipulations, lies and deception, then? Couldn't Moore have told the story straight, without all the sophistry and disingenuousness, and thus deflated his critics? Why does he use such vulgar and lame tactics?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 03:52 PM

Yep, you bought Moore's cheap propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

It would be more honest to say that, without any first-hand knowledge of Moore's work, you have bought the right-wing noise machine's Moore propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Others have given great laundry lists of the definitely have-mores who actively oppose Bush. Ergo, they do not.

George Soros isn't what I'd call a "great laundry list." And you keep skirting the fact that the biggest corporate interests donated 2-3 times as much $$$ to Smirk's campaign as Gore's.

I don't respect liars, ergo, I don't respect you, LABF.

Oh, the irony.

According to the 1997-2003 graph, Bush ordered the SPR filled (in the latter part of 2001) when oil prices were about at their lowest during 2001. Look again at the chart, LABF.

Either you're acting dense, or you are dense.

Either your graph data isn't up to date or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts to cover for the boy king.

Smirk was filling the SPR to record levels when oil prices were at an all-time high earlier this year. The ATA issued a protest because this was hurting the airline business (while enriching Smirk and Dick's oil cronies.)

TheDave

10-13-2004, 03:59 PM

Others have given great laundry lists of the definitely have-mores who actively oppose Bush. Ergo, they do not.

I don't respect liars, ergo, I don't respect you, LABF.

BTW, what's been the history of the Pareto index, in the US and in other rich countries, over the last 20 or so years, LABF?

Whisttllleeeee....

We have a a Gramatical abuse penalty on W*GS...

Attemping to sound intelligent and dramatic on an internet forum by over using the word Ergo...

The result of this penalty, is an insight into a lack of intelligence by the perpetrator and an overall loss of respect by more intelligent forum members...

4th Down....

Spider

10-13-2004, 04:00 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 04:02 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 04:05 PM

According to the 1997-2003 graph, Bush ordered the SPR filled (in the latter part of 2001) when oil prices were about at their lowest during 2001. Look again at the chart, LABF.

Either you're acting dense, or you are dense.

Posted 5/20/04

The airlines are begging him to quit buying up our oil and driving the prices up.

US airlines have warned that the continuing sky-high price of fuel has "all but wiped out any chance of a profitable year for the industry".

The comments of their trade body, the Air Transport Association (ATA), came after Continental Airlines became the latest carrier to raise ticket prices.

To try to ease the high price of oil, the ATA called on President George W Bush to stop stockpiling the fuel.

But Mr Bush said he would continue to fill the US's emergency reserve.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3730219.stm

Thanks for playing.

baja

10-13-2004, 05:14 PM

Blueflame

10-13-2004, 07:31 PM

I agree - to a point. I don't think the US' war on Iraq is unjustified, as some claim, but I do think it could have waited until OBL was killed and al-Qaeda destroyed. No, I don't want those effers captured - I want them dead.

"Captured" is the first step... then lawfully prosecuted, then executed. Without the first step, the rest can't happen, though... and imo, the ball was dropped in the failure to finish Al Qaeda before taking on Saddam.

Oh, so there were scenes of Saddam's tyranny upon his people and his neighbors? Not that I've read.

The film showed some scenes of everyday Iraqis going about everyday activities (weddings, kids playing, etc.) Why would the movie necessarily need scenes of Saddam's tyranny? I don't quite understand what that would accomplish... and sincerely doubt that Saddam would have granted Michael Moore's film crew access to Abu Ghraib in the first place.

Fox does it, CNN does it, NBC does it, ABC does it, CBS does it, and they're wrong, but when Moore does it... It's OK?

Turnabout, eh? Yes, our media does it... and lies about doing it, hoodwinking the American public with claims of being "fair and balanced"... using our public airwaves to deliver the propaganda to an unsuspecting audience that actually does expect unbiased accounts of current events when they turn their televisions to a "news" channel.

To see Moore's material, one knows from the outset that the content won't be "fair and balanced", but instead will present the filmmaker's viewpoint. It's not mislabeled, nor is it delivered via public airwaves; one chooses to go to the theater and see it. Or not.

The media doesn't have a strong pro-corporate bias - it has a liberal bias, a statist bias, and, for TV, what-best-serves-the-multimillionaire-anchor's-ego bias. I don't agree with those who say the media doesn't have a liberal bias - those who make that claim are generally on the extreme left, or who think Al Franken is a centrist.

Sorry, but I disagree. The news media follows the almighty dollar in its decisions of which stories to cover and which to let slide into obscurity. I've seen no evidence to support the theory of a liberal bias for literally years. The internal Fox memos featured in Outfoxed strongly support a conservative tilt, in fact.

Why did he feel he needed to resort to half-truths, manipulations, lies and deception, then? Couldn't Moore have told the story straight, without all the sophistry and disingenuousness, and thus deflated his critics? Why does he use such vulgar and lame tactics?

Who are we to tell Michael Moore... or any other successful filmmakers... how to make a commercially-viable movie? And why is he expected to adhere to a higher standard of journalistic integrity than the American corporate media is?

W*GS

10-13-2004, 09:41 PM

It would be more honest to say that, without any first-hand knowledge of Moore's work, you have bought the right-wing noise machine's Moore propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

I do indeed have firsthand knowledge of Moore's tripe - just not of F9/11. I am painfully familiar with that puke's style. Why is a lying, manipulative, fraudulent huckster and all-around bag-o-crap your hero, LABF? Because he's morally elevated relative to you?

George Soros isn't what I'd call a "great laundry list."

He's one. There is no shortage of people who are far far wealthier than you or I who support Kerry - think Hollywood, for starters.

And you keep skirting the fact that the biggest corporate interests donated 2-3 times as much $$$ to Smirk's campaign as Gore's.

Probably nicely balancing the 10x as much money the unions, government employees and the trial lawyers gave Gore over Bush. Go to opensecrets.org and list the 20 biggest groups giving money to the Dems and the GOP and reveal the tilt. Copy the table here so we can know you've actually done some research.

Oh, the irony.

I don't make up quotes. You do. And are unrepentant about it.

Either your graph data isn't up to date or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts to cover for the boy king.

Neither. According to the chart, Bush ordered the SPR to be increased late in 2001, at a relative price low. What effect did that have on oil prices that really didn't see an increase for over a year? Doesn't sound like much.

W*GS

10-13-2004, 09:49 PM

Whisttllleeeee....

We have a a Gramatical abuse penalty on W*GS...

Attemping to sound intelligent and dramatic on an internet forum by over using the word Ergo...

The result of this penalty, is an insight into a lack of intelligence by the perpetrator and an overall loss of respect by more intelligent forum members...

4th Down....

Rather ironic on your part, sir, considering there are at least two spelling errors, two grammatical errors, and overall, a very poor use of the English language in your attempt at witticism. Besides, you had to go look up "ergo" in a dictionary, didn't you? I cannot write at the 4th-grade level at which you read, and for that, I do apologize most profusely.

W*GS

10-13-2004, 10:17 PM

"Captured" is the first step... then lawfully prosecuted, then executed.

The routines of law enforcement don't apply. This is war, and in war, you kill the enemy. I've read more than enough about OBL and his cadre of terrorists to understand that they cannot be bargained with, negotiated with, or dealt with in the same way as common criminals. They will attempt to kill each and every one of us to accomplish their goal of a single worldwide Islamic society, and all unbelievers will be exterminated. OBL doesn't need to be arrested, he needs to be killed, and all of his followers too. This is not a time for legalistic niceties.

The film showed some scenes of everyday Iraqis going about everyday activities (weddings, kids playing, etc.)

I know that.

Why would the movie necessarily need scenes of Saddam's tyranny? I don't quite understand what that would accomplish...

Historical accuracy and the truth?

Would you accept a film about WWII as truthful if it only showed everyday Germans, the firebombing of Dresden, but with no mention of the camps?

and sincerely doubt that Saddam would have granted Michael Moore's film crew access to Abu Ghraib in the first place.

How about some video of the women and children he used chemical weapons against? I've seen that one. Or the video of Saddam chuckling and smiling as his perceived enemies are led out of a meeting room to be summarily executed? Or video of the burning Kuwaiti oil wells and the oil spilling into the Gulf, done on his orders? Or video from the Iran-Iraq war? Was Moore too afraid to tell the truth about Saddam's Iraq, because it wouldn't make the US and Bush look as bad as he so desparately wanted?

There's a scene during his "let's ask congresscritters how many kids they have in Iraq" blitz in which some congresscritter is shown turning away, on his cellphone, as if he's dodging Moore. In fact, that man has no kids, so no, he wasn't dodging Moore at all.

Turnabout, eh? Yes, our media does it... and lies about doing it, hoodwinking the American public with claims of being "fair and balanced"... using our public airwaves to deliver the propaganda to an unsuspecting audience that actually does expect unbiased accounts of current events when they turn their televisions to a "news" channel.

I don't doubt that the mass media is nowhere near as objective as they like to claim. But their bias doesn't run to toadying the corporate line.

To see Moore's material, one knows from the outset that the content won't be "fair and balanced", but instead will present the filmmaker's viewpoint. It's not mislabeled

It's called a documentary. That's mislabelling.

Sorry, but I disagree. The news media follows the almighty dollar in its decisions of which stories to cover and which to let slide into obscurity. I've seen no evidence to support the theory of a liberal bias for literally years.

Then you haven't been paying attention, or, you're so far to the Left that the media seems bias rightward. I lean libertarian more than conservative, far more than liberal, and the liberal bias is blatant.

Who are we to tell Michael Moore... or any other successful filmmakers... how to make a commercially-viable movie?

I thought you said he was in it for the political impact - now you're saying he was in it for the money?

And why is he expected to adhere to a higher standard of journalistic integrity than the American corporate media is?

Because he wants to be more credible? If his integrity is no better than that of the mass media, why should we pay him any mind at all? Aren't you admitting, then, that Moore's presentation is no less deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, and untruthful than what you decry in the mass media? Do you believe in objectivity, or that if the other guy lies to bolster his beliefs, it's OK for you to do so as well to support your beliefs? All we really have, then, is nothing more than two liars.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 10:46 PM

W*GS

10-13-2004, 10:59 PM

Behold the W*GS meltdown, folks.

You're not a good judge of much of anything. Obviously.

Finally and irrevocably backed into a corner regarding his lack of credibility on Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, he's losing it.

Why I bother with the likes of you... I must have some masochistic traits.

Face it, W*GS: Your constant defense of the bush crime family makes you nothing more than a cheerleader for the ultimate merger of corporate interests with government at the expense of the people.

This is so typical - lacking in both style and substance.

LABF, you looked at opensecrets.org yet? Or read the 9/11 Commission report? Or provided us with a time series of Gini coefficients for the last 20 years or so?

Intellectual rigour is not one of your strengths. Neither is honesty.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 11:17 PM

Intellectual rigour is not one of your strengths. Neither is honesty.

This from a guy who hasn't actually seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and unconditionally accepts opinions about the film he finds on right-wing propaganda sites?

Too funny.

LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 11:20 PM

Intellectual rigour is not one of your strengths. Neither is honesty.

This from a guy who was proven wrong when he stated that bush only added to the SPR in 2001 and who refuses to sack up and admit when he's proven wrong?

Too funny.

LOL

W*GS

10-13-2004, 11:26 PM

This from a guy who hasn't actually seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and unconditionally accepts opinions about the film he finds on right-wing propaganda sites?

Not opinion, but analysis of the context and deceptions Moore used.

Would you prefer I use leftists to discredit Moore? No shortage of those.

W*GS

10-13-2004, 11:34 PM

This from a guy who was proven wrong when he stated that bush only added to the SPR in 2001

I don't believe I used the term "only". Bush ordered the SPR increased in late 2001 during a trough in oil prices, whereas you had claimed that oil prices were at a record high. They increased after he had issued that order, true, but they were not at a record high to start, nor is it clear how much effect the increase in the SPR has had on oil prices. Do you know how much oil has gone into the SPR in relation to (say) the US daily consumption, or worldwide consumption?

Have you read the Economist article I posted in the "$54 oil" (or whatever it is) thread? There's a comment about F9/11 in it, that you might find illuminating.

and who refuses to sack up and admit when he's proven wrong?

Since I don't recall making the claim you said I did, there's nothing to be proven wrong. On the other hand, you (unintentionally?) disproved your own claim about a "steady climb" in oil prices since Jan 2001; did you ever admit error in that instance? I don't recall seeing a confession of such. Would you like to make one now?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-13-2004, 11:54 PM

Since I don't recall making the claim you said I did, there's nothing to be proven wrong.

Not so.

You claimed I was incorrect when I said Bush was filling the SPR to record levels at a time (May of this year) when the price of oil was at an all-time high.

I provided proof that my assertion was correct.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-14-2004, 12:00 AM

Not opinion, but analysis of the context and deceptions Moore used.

"Deception" would imply that Moore has led viewers to believe something false, spurious, etc.

So far, you have failed to prove that this is the case.

I, on the other hand, have pointed you to sources (including the 9/11 Commission Report) which corroborate claims made by Moore in the film.

W*GS

10-14-2004, 12:09 AM

You claimed I was incorrect when I said Bush was filling the SPR to record levels at a time (May of this year) when the price of oil was at an all-time high. I provided proof that my assertion was correct.

I did a little research on the SPR and found that Clinton authorized a draw-down in 2000, with the caveat that it be restored in late 2001. Bush followed through on that order. In any case, the SPR began to be refilled late in 2001, when oil prices were at a relative low. IIRC, you didn't give a date for your "record high" statement, and you implied that the SPR wasn't restored until oil prices were relatively high. I'd have to look at the posts to verify my beliefs, but in any case, it's not clear what effect the refilling of the SPR has had on oil prices. I'll have to research it some more.

watermock

10-14-2004, 12:09 AM

I have allready thrown up.

I am not trying to again.

You claimed I was incorrect when I said Bush was filling the SPR to record levels at a time (May of this year) when the price of oil was at an all-time high.

This goodball needs to be shot.

Oid didn't hit highest levels in May. Your an idiot.

Blueflame

10-14-2004, 01:24 AM

The routines of law enforcement don't apply. This is war, and in war, you kill the enemy. I've read more than enough about OBL and his cadre of terrorists to understand that they cannot be bargained with, negotiated with, or dealt with in the same way as common criminals. They will attempt to kill each and every one of us to accomplish their goal of a single worldwide Islamic society, and all unbelievers will be exterminated. OBL doesn't need to be arrested, he needs to be killed, and all of his followers too. This is not a time for legalistic niceties.

I disagree... I think OBL needs to be arrested and tried... humbled for all the world to see, with a public trial, conviction, and execution.

I know that. Historical accuracy and the truth?
Would you accept a film about WWII as truthful if it only showed everyday Germans, the firebombing of Dresden, but with no mention of the camps?

How about some video of the women and children he used chemical weapons against? I've seen that one. Or the video of Saddam chuckling and smiling as his perceived enemies are led out of a meeting room to be summarily executed? Or video of the burning Kuwaiti oil wells and the oil spilling into the Gulf, done on his orders? Or video from the Iran-Iraq war? Was Moore too afraid to tell the truth about Saddam's Iraq, because it wouldn't make the US and Bush look as bad as he so desparately wanted?

The primary focus of the movie was not Iraq... or Saddam Hussein.

There's a scene during his "let's ask congresscritters how many kids they have in Iraq" blitz in which some congresscritter is shown turning away, on his cellphone, as if he's dodging Moore. In fact, that man has no kids, so no, he wasn't dodging Moore at all.

It didn't say he was dodging Moore either. However, he seemed in no hurry to be interviewed. And it is a fact that few Congressional sons or daughters are enlisted in the armed forces or deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

I don't doubt that the mass media is nowhere near as objective as they like to claim. But their bias doesn't run to toadying the corporate line.

I disagree. The media does toady the corporate line, imo.

It's called a documentary. That's mislabelling.

What other movie category would a film that relies heavily on news footage fit into? And it's not mislabeling... it would take a great degree of naivete to not know what to expect from a Michael Moore movie. It's not like F911 was his first effort at moviemaking.

Then you haven't been paying attention, or, you're so far to the Left that the media seems bias rightward. I lean libertarian more than conservative, far more than liberal, and the liberal bias is blatant.

I disagree. Rightwing bias is obvious in both Fix News and CNN-servative.

I thought you said he was in it for the political impact - now you're saying he was in it for the money?

He was in it for political impact. And he made money as well.

Because he wants to be more credible? If his integrity is no better than that of the mass media, why should we pay him any mind at all? Aren't you admitting, then, that Moore's presentation is no less deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, and untruthful than what you decry in the mass media? Do you believe in objectivity, or that if the other guy lies to bolster his beliefs, it's OK for you to do so as well to support your beliefs? All we really have, then, is nothing more than two liars.

If the mass media is not more credible than Michael Moore, why should we pay them any mind at all? Aren't you admitting, then, that the media's presentation is no less deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, and untruthful than what you decry in Michael Moore's work?

The difference? People should be able to trust that what the corporate news media is reporting on our public airwaves is truth and not slanted propaganda. This is no longer the case.

I'm more concerned about the credibility of news media than of a single independent filmmaker because objectivity is much more crucial in a medium that is broadcast 24 hours a day; 7 days a week for the public's consumption. In my humble opinion...

W*GS

10-14-2004, 08:17 AM

I disagree... I think OBL needs to be arrested and tried... humbled for all the world to see, with a public trial, conviction, and execution.

OBL deserves nothing more than his ratty corpse being shown on al-Jazeera. Mullah Omar, al-Zarqawi, and their minions as well.

The primary focus of the movie was not Iraq... or Saddam Hussein.

Why did Moore choose to depict Iraq as something other than it was, then?

It didn't say he was dodging Moore either. However, he seemed in no hurry to be interviewed. And it is a fact that few Congressional sons or daughters are enlisted in the armed forces or deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

True, but depending on how one looks at it, one can argue that there are more offspring of Congresscritters serving in Iraq per Congresscritter than there are US-wide, on a per-household basis.

What other movie category would a film that relies heavily on news footage fit into? And it's not mislabeling... it would take a great degree of naivete to not know what to expect from a Michael Moore movie. It's not like F911 was his first effort at moviemaking.

Did you go in with the idea that you were going to be lied to, manipulated, deceived and mislead?

People should be able to trust that what the corporate news media is reporting on our public airwaves is truth and not slanted propaganda.

Indeed - too bad their propaganda is slanted to the left.

I'm more concerned about the credibility of news media than of a single independent filmmaker because objectivity is much more crucial in a medium that is broadcast 24 hours a day; 7 days a week for the public's consumption. In my humble opinion...

Anyone who relies strictly on the mass media for their information is going to be woefully ignorant; bias aside. The journalistic profession is barely that - I know from personal experience of reading newspaper articles of events to which I was a witness that it's extremely unlikely they'll get it right. And don't even mention how the mass media reports on science issues - I also know from personal experience that they almost always get it wrong.

It's a pity that Moore didn't hold himself to a higher standard, isn't it?

Blueflame

10-14-2004, 11:36 AM

OBL deserves nothing more than his ratty corpse being shown on al-Jazeera. Mullah Omar, al-Zarqawi, and their minions as well.

You're right... they (meaning terrorists) don't necessarily deserve fairness or humane treatment. But we need to treat them fairly and humanely in accordance with the standards of the Geneva convention anyway. Otherwise, we stoop to their level, don't we?

Why did Moore choose to depict Iraq as something other than it was, then?

You don't think the average Iraqi child went outdoors to play with his friends? Or that the ordinary everyday Iraqi families occasionally celebrated marriages?

True, but depending on how one looks at it, one can argue that there are more offspring of Congresscritters serving in Iraq per Congresscritter than there are US-wide, on a per-household basis.

I believe if one looks at demographics, more soldiers are likely to come from lower-income backgrounds, if only for the prospect of the ability to pay for higher education (GI bill) and the opportunity to escape from the cycle of poverty. One could make your argument, but I believe a closer look at the numbers would prove it to be inaccurate.

Did you go in with the idea that you were going to be lied to, manipulated, deceived and mislead?

I expected it to be a portrayal of recent events from the perspective of Michael Moore. And that's precisely what I found it to be. Interesting, in light of the many (imo newsworthy) film clips that had not been broadcast by the corporate news media. I still don't feel lied to, manipulated, deceived, or misled, even after viewing the film more than once.

Indeed - too bad their propaganda is slanted to the left.

rofl rofl rofl rofl Drink the KoolAid much, W*GS?

Anyone who relies strictly on the mass media for their information is going to be woefully ignorant; bias aside. The journalistic profession is barely that - I know from personal experience of reading newspaper articles of events to which I was a witness that it's extremely unlikely they'll get it right. And don't even mention how the mass media reports on science issues - I also know from personal experience that they almost always get it wrong.

And this is a sad commentary on the current state of American "journalism"...

Unfortunately, there are Americans who do rely solely on Fix News for their information... and it's my firm belief that Fix deliberately skews that information heavily to the rightwing.

It's a pity that Moore didn't hold himself to a higher standard, isn't it?

How do you know what standards Moore held himself to in the making of a movie you haven't seen? :P

W*GS

10-14-2004, 11:49 AM

You're right... they (meaning terrorists) don't necessarily deserve fairness or humane treatment. But we need to treat them fairly and humanely in accordance with the standards of the Geneva convention anyway. Otherwise, we stoop to their level, don't we?

The Geneva convention doesn't say that scum like OBL cannot be killed. OBL deserves the longest, most painfully excruciating death possible.

You don't think the average Iraqi child went outdoors to play with his friends? Or that the ordinary everyday Iraqi families occasionally celebrated marriages?

Of course they did those things - and they also suffered tremendously under Saddam. Why didn't Moore show Saddam's brutality as well, to give a context to the true lives of the Iraqi people?

I believe if one looks at demographics, more soldiers are likely to come from lower-income backgrounds, if only for the prospect of the ability to pay for higher education (GI bill) and the opportunity to escape from the cycle of poverty. One could make your argument, but I believe a closer look at the numbers would prove it to be inaccurate.

Since there is no draft, and the military is 100% volunteer, then those who are in it are in it by choice, which is exactly as it should be. If the military is so awful that no-one joins, then it will be changed. If poor young men and women see the military as ticket out, and the military provides that, then what's the problem? Or are you saying that poor people need to be protected by us richer wiser folks so they don't make what we perceive to be errors in judgment?

I expected it to be a portrayal of recent events from the perspective of Michael Moore. And that's precisely what I found it to be. Interesting, in light of the many (imo newsworthy) film clips that had not been broadcast by the corporate news media. I still don't feel lied to, manipulated, deceived, or misled, even after viewing the film more than once.

Why are you so skeptical of the mass media, but take Moore at his word? Because his biases are your own? That means that you cannot see biases that do exist when they're close to your own.

I prefer objectivity and healthy skepticism about all things - rather than feeling verified by someone who apparently agrees with me.

Unfortunately, there are Americans who do rely solely on Fix News for their information... and it's my firm belief that Fix deliberately skews that information heavily to the rightwing.

If so, it's a minor counterweight to the decades of, and continuing today, liberal bias spilling from CBS, NBC, and ABC.

How do you know what standards Moore held himself to in the making of a movie you haven't seen? :P

That there are no shortage of critics on the Left and Right who have amply illustrated that truth wasn't high on Moore's priorities when making F9/11.

Blueflame

10-14-2004, 12:17 PM

The Geneva convention doesn't say that scum like OBL cannot be killed. OBL deserves the longest, most painfully excruciating death possible.

Well, we still have to catch him first and possibly missed the opportunity to do so by diverting troops and resources to Iraq instead of finishing the job we went to Afghanistan to accomplish.

Of course they did those things - and they also suffered tremendously under Saddam. Why didn't Moore show Saddam's brutality as well, to give a context to the true lives of the Iraqi people?

The fact that some Iraqi citizens suffered horribly under Saddam does not invalidate the depictions of other ordinary everyday Iraqi citizens going about everyday activities. What was shown on the movie was not a lie just because other facts were not included as well.

Since there is no draft, and the military is 100% volunteer, then those who are in it are in it by choice, which is exactly as it should be. If the military is so awful that no-one joins, then it will be changed. If poor young men and women see the military as ticket out, and the military provides that, then what's the problem? Or are you saying that poor people need to be protected by us richer wiser folks so they don't make what we perceive to be errors in judgment?

The observation about the current makeup of the military being from lower-income households was presented to debunk this ludicrous claim:

"True, but depending on how one looks at it, one can argue that there are more offspring of Congresscritters serving in Iraq per Congresscritter than there are US-wide, on a per-household basis."

Watching the F911 footage of military recruiters working the mall in the lower-income section of Flint, Michigan... even promising one young man that military service could help open doors for a future musical career for him... was enlightening.

Why are you so skeptical of the mass media, but take Moore at his word? Because his biases are your own? That means that you cannot see biases that do exist when they're close to your own.

I prefer objectivity and healthy skepticism about all things - rather than feeling verified by someone who apparently agrees with me.

Oh, I don't know... maybe it's repeatedly catching media sources engaging in lies and spin that makes me skeptical. And I'm not blind to Moore's bias, either.

If so, it's a minor counterweight to the decades of, and continuing today, liberal bias spilling from CBS, NBC, and ABC.

I'll concede that there may have been some liberal bias in the media years ago.

That there are no shortage of critics on the Left and Right who have amply illustrated that truth wasn't high on Moore's priorities when making F9/11.

The film was thoroughly vetted, W*GS. As I've stated before, most of the "deceit" criticisms I've seen were over trivial stuff... nitpicking over things like "it was Richard Clarke (and not the Bush administration) who authorized the Saudis' flight out of America on 9/13/01". Sure it was Richard Clarke... in his official capacity as "terrorism czar" for the Bush administration... who made that authorization. Perhaps the film could have clarified that minor point a tad better, but it hardly makes it a "lie".

W*GS

10-14-2004, 01:13 PM

Well, we still have to catch him first and possibly missed the opportunity to do so by diverting troops and resources to Iraq instead of finishing the job we went to Afghanistan to accomplish.

We don't have to catch OBL; we just have to kill him.

The fact that some Iraqi citizens suffered horribly under Saddam does not invalidate the depictions of other ordinary everyday Iraqi citizens going about everyday activities. What was shown on the movie was not a lie just because other facts were not included as well.

Would a film about the USSR under Stalin be remiss if it didn't include mention of the labor camps and engineered famines and summary executions, even though plenty of Soviets got married and their kids played otherwise. The tyrannies of Stalin and of Saddam were so monstrous that almost any depiction of the lives of the people who suffered under their brutality would be propaganda if it didn't mention that tyranny.

The observation about the current makeup of the military being from lower-income households was presented to debunk this ludicrous claim:

"True, but depending on how one looks at it, one can argue that there are more offspring of Congresscritters serving in Iraq per Congresscritter than there are US-wide, on a per-household basis."

"Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.

We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.

In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.

Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates."

Watching the F911 footage of military recruiters working the mall in the lower-income section of Flint, Michigan... even promising one young man that military service could help open doors for a future musical career for him... was enlightening.

I don't doubt that some recruiters get to the hairy edge in promising things to potential recruitees. It doesn't bother me, since these young men and women can certainly decide on their own. Do you feel they're particularly vulnerable and thus need to be protected, or, should the US insititute some form of mandatory public service to spread the burden?

I'll concede that there may have been some liberal bias in the media years ago.

Rathergate didn't occur "years ago".

The film was thoroughly vetted, W*GS.

By whom?

Have you read the details of what's at http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ?

Blueflame

10-14-2004, 02:36 PM

We don't have to catch OBL; we just have to kill him.

Don't we have to find him first? Reports said we had him cornered before the job of catching/killing him was outsourced so our troops/resources could be reassigned to Iraq.

Would a film about the USSR under Stalin be remiss if it didn't include mention of the labor camps and engineered famines and summary executions, even though plenty of Soviets got married and their kids played otherwise. The tyrannies of Stalin and of Saddam were so monstrous that almost any depiction of the lives of the people who suffered under their brutality would be propaganda if it didn't mention that tyranny.

By that yardstick, any documentary of American life could be considered nothing but propaganda unless it shows abuse that happens every day in our prison system. Does a documentary about people enjoying a day at Disneyland have to also include footage of the Rodney King beating to be viewed as a bona fide documentary?

"Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.

We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.

In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.

Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates."

I don't doubt that some recruiters get to the hairy edge in promising things to potential recruitees. It doesn't bother me, since these young men and women can certainly decide on their own. Do you feel they're particularly vulnerable and thus need to be protected, or, should the US insititute some form of mandatory public service to spread the burden?

OK, so it is possible to skew the numbers to get to a desired result. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Michael Moore's contention that the soldiers who actually fight (on the front lines) in most wars... and are most likely to enlist in the armed forces... come from the less-affluent demographic group... and that the usual beneficiaries of the "spoils of war" come primarily from the more-affluent demographic group.

The recruiters shown in F911 were very aggressive in their recruitment tactics and appeared to be willing to promise the moon in order to get that signature on the dotted line.

Rathergate didn't occur "years ago".

And the "Rathergate" fiasco has not completely played out yet. We still do not know where those documents originated from or how they came to be offered not only to Dan Rather and ABC, but also to Michael Moore.

By whom?

Have you read the details of what's at http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ?

Do you really think Michael Moore did not anticipate, before its release, that there would be criticism of F911? Or that its content would be hotly challenged?

The linked webpage is, itself, heavily biased... and loses credibility within the first few paragraphs with its parroting of the now-debunked claim of a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. One can find a response to the "deceits" claim on Michael Moore's webpage. But I'm sure you won't want to "waste your time" reading it, so I won't bother posting the link. :P

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-14-2004, 03:24 PM

I did a little research on the SPR and found that Clinton authorized a draw-down in 2000, with the caveat that it be restored in late 2001. Bush followed through on that order. In any case, the SPR began to be refilled late in 2001, when oil prices were at a relative low. IIRC, you didn't give a date for your "record high" statement, and you implied that the SPR wasn't restored until oil prices were relatively high. I'd have to look at the posts to verify my beliefs, but in any case, it's not clear what effect the refilling of the SPR has had on oil prices. I'll have to research it some more.

Sounds like you didn't notice the article/link I posted.

In May of this year, the ATA complained because bush was filling the SPR to record levels when the price of oil was at an (then) all-time high.

W*GS

10-14-2004, 04:04 PM

In May of this year, the ATA complained because bush was filling the SPR to record levels when the price of oil was at an (then) all-time high.

What is the effect on oil prices of filling the SPR, then? What's the capacity of the SPR, LABF?

W*GS

10-14-2004, 04:11 PM

Don't we have to find him first? Reports said we had him cornered before the job of catching/killing him was outsourced so our troops/resources could be reassigned to Iraq.

Whether or not those reports are true is a matter of conjecture.

By that yardstick, any documentary of American life could be considered nothing but propaganda unless it shows abuse that happens every day in our prison system. Does a documentary about people enjoying a day at Disneyland have to also include footage of the Rodney King beating to be viewed as a bona fide documentary?

There's big differences between prison abuse, Rodney King, and Saddam's tyranny. Can you think of some? Hint: Which is/are official government policy, for which no-one is charged with a crime and no-one is held accountable, and which is/are illegal and subject to prosecution under the laws of the state?

OK, so it is possible to skew the numbers to get to a desired result. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Michael Moore's contention that the soldiers who actually fight (on the front lines) in most wars... and are most likely to enlist in the armed forces... come from the less-affluent demographic group... and that the usual beneficiaries of the "spoils of war" come primarily from the more-affluent demographic group.

How do we fix that, if you think it needs to fixed?

And the "Rathergate" fiasco has not completely played out yet. We still do not know where those documents originated from or how they came to be offered not only to Dan Rather and ABC, but also to Michael Moore.

But doesn't the very existence of Rathergate prove that at least one mass media outlet will stoop to false means to "get" a conservative president? Why do you suppose they would do so?

The linked webpage is, itself, heavily biased... and loses credibility within the first few paragraphs with its parroting of the now-debunked claim of a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. One can find a response to the "deceits" claim on Michael Moore's webpage. But I'm sure you won't want to "waste your time" reading it, so I won't bother posting the link. :P

My linked website has Moore's responses to their critiques included; note that he doesn't bother to answer every single charge.

It would be interesting to see someone use Moore's tactics against him. How well do you think he'd come off if given a taste of his own medicine?
Pretty damned poorly - but then again, if he wasn't such a buffoon that he eagerly resorts to lies, fraud, and deception, there wouldn't be much to nail him with.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-14-2004, 04:47 PM

What is the effect on oil prices of filling the SPR, then? What's the capacity of the SPR, LABF?

Nice dodge.

Now, back to the original issue:

You claimed I was wrong when I pointed out that Smirk was filling the SPR to record levels earlier this year when the price of oil was at an all-time high.

I provided sources to substantiate my claim.

Blueflame

10-14-2004, 06:42 PM

Whether or not those reports are true is a matter of conjecture.

What's not "a matter of conjecture" is that we did not finish the job and the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks remains unpunished more than three years later.

There's big differences between prison abuse, Rodney King, and Saddam's tyranny. Can you think of some? Hint: Which is/are official government policy, for which no-one is charged with a crime and no-one is held accountable, and which is/are illegal and subject to prosecution under the laws of the state?

Guantanamo, then, W*GS?

How do we fix that, if you think it needs to fixed?

More good-paying jobs for lower-income young people might be a good start. While military enlistment does provide a way out of poverty, more options for the underprivileged would seem beneficial to all in the long run.

But doesn't the very existence of Rathergate prove that at least one mass media outlet will stoop to false means to "get" a conservative president? Why do you suppose they would do so?

I have my own theories on the memos, but will opt to keep them to myself for the time being. The whole story has not yet played out and we are not in possession of all the facts.

My linked website has Moore's responses to their critiques included; note that he doesn't bother to answer every single charge.

So if he doesn't respond to every single charge, that makes all of the charges valid and truthful?

It would be interesting to see someone use Moore's tactics against him. How well do you think he'd come off if given a taste of his own medicine?
Pretty damned poorly - but then again, if he wasn't such a buffoon that he eagerly resorts to lies, fraud, and deception, there wouldn't be much to nail him with.

You don't think the rightwing has criticized Moore enough yet? Ha!

azbronco

10-14-2004, 07:59 PM

No.

W*GS

10-14-2004, 10:30 PM

You claimed I was wrong when I pointed out that Smirk was filling the SPR to record levels earlier this year when the price of oil was at an all-time high.

(Speaking of dodging, you've got three direct questions in your queue)

I didn't say you were wrong - I said that the SPR started being refilled in late 2001, when oil prices were not at an all-time high, in accordance with the agreement the Clinton administration had made when it drew down some of the SPR. That the refilling continued as oil prices climbed does not mean that said refilling caused oil prices to climb - I suspect it had some effect, but I'd like to see some proof from you of what that effect was. Do you have any?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-15-2004, 12:33 AM

(Speaking of dodging, you've got three direct questions in your queue)

I think not.

Not when those three questions were attempts at deflection on your part.

I didn't say you were wrong

Oh, but you did.

Let's recap:

So you deny that Smirk was filling the SPR to record levels when oil prices were at record highs?

According to the 1997-2003 graph, Bush ordered the SPR filled (in the latter part of 2001) when oil prices were about at their lowest during 2001. Look again at the chart, LABF.

Either you're acting dense, or you are dense.

Your smarmy "dense" quip was in reference to my statement about bush filling the SPR this May.

So, one more time, do you still deny that bush was filling the SPR to record levels when the price of oil was at an all-time high in May of this year?

W*GS

10-15-2004, 07:58 AM

I think not. Not when those three questions were attempts at deflection on your part.

Rather like going from "oil prices" to "we all remember what we paid at the pump"?

The three are:
1) Have you read the 9/11 Commission report;
2) Have you gone to opensecrets.org and found out how the Dems get more money from big donors than the GOP;
3) Have you found Gini coefficients for various nations over the last 20 years or so.

Those three have direct bearings on arguments you've made; instead of dodging, why don't you do some research (and I've already pointed you in the right direction) and see if you can prove or disprove your own arguments.

So, one more time, do you still deny that bush was filling the SPR to record levels when the price of oil was at an all-time high in May of this year?

One more time: The SPR began to be refilled when oil prices were not at an "all-time" high, in late 2001. Your implication above is that the SPR didn't begin to be refilled until oil prices were at an "all-time" high, which isn't true. Not only that, but going by inflation-corrected dollars, oil prices even now are not at an "all-time" high. I'll ask again (this will be number four in your queue, assuming it gets to the "W*GS asks three times or more and LABF dodges the query"): What is the effect on oil prices from refilling the SPR?

LABF, you may think you're a reasonable facsimile of the Artful Dodger, but you move slower than molasses in January. Your attempts at deflection and misdirection are painfully obvious and blatant.

W*GS

10-15-2004, 11:03 AM

What's not "a matter of conjecture" is that we did not finish the job and the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks remains unpunished more than three years later.

I'll grant you that - however, OBL does appear to be contained, but that's not good enough.

Guantanamo, then, W*GS?

Good point. I think the Bush administration is playing fast-and-loose with both US and international law on the legal status of the detainees there, and that some of the arguments put forward to keep them in some sort of legal limbo I find unpersuasive and not fitting with the way we Americans are supposed to act. That said, these individuals are (by a vast majority) not US citizens so are not entitled to the rights US citizens have, but on the other hand, they are not regular soldiers in an army, and it's not clear that the Geneva conventions apply to them either. It's a vexing issue, to be sure. However, their treatment is nothing like that meted out to Saddam's prisoners, and so the comparison isn't a good one.

More good-paying jobs for lower-income young people might be a good start. While military enlistment does provide a way out of poverty, more options for the underprivileged would seem beneficial to all in the long run.

I concur - but I don't think more government programs are the answer.

So if he doesn't respond to every single charge, that makes all of the charges valid and truthful?

Moore does dodge the tougher questions...

You don't think the rightwing has criticized Moore enough yet? Ha!

I don't think the Left has criticized him enough. I really don't think the anti-Bush folks are well-served by Moore, because of his tactics. About the only folks who think he's made good points are those who are in agreement with him 99% anyway; everyone else dismisses him as a frothing-at-the-mouth far-left propaganda artist. BTW, I found some more Moore quotes:

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper.

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

Speaking to a crowd in Munich, Moore said. "That's why we're smiling all the time. You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Back in England, he told a crowd in Cambridge. "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe."

Not even the outrages of 9/11 could dampen Moore's anti-Americanism. He said this four days after the terror attacks that killed 3,000 Americans:

"We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

And about the war now underway in Iraq, in which Americans are being killed in lockstep with Moore's anti-American speech, he says:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.''

watermock

10-15-2004, 12:12 PM

Deadly silence.

Blueflame

10-15-2004, 12:33 PM

I'll grant you that - however, OBL does appear to be contained, but that's not good enough.

Al Qaeda is not "contained" and the fact that OBL remains unpunished sends the wrong message to other, perhaps equally-dangerous (but healthier) terrorists. We agree that efforts thus far are "not good enough".

Good point. I think the Bush administration is playing fast-and-loose with both US and international law on the legal status of the detainees there, and that some of the arguments put forward to keep them in some sort of legal limbo I find unpersuasive and not fitting with the way we Americans are supposed to act. That said, these individuals are (by a vast majority) not US citizens so are not entitled to the rights US citizens have, but on the other hand, they are not regular soldiers in an army, and it's not clear that the Geneva conventions apply to them either. It's a vexing issue, to be sure. However, their treatment is nothing like that meted out to Saddam's prisoners, and so the comparison isn't a good one.

Some reports coming out of Guantanamo do, in fact, say that prisoner treatment was appalling in that facility, W*GS. Some articles I've seen suggest Abu Ghraib was a picnic compared to Gitmo.

I concur - but I don't think more government programs are the answer.

No one mentioned more government programs... but I do think more good jobs... jobs that pay a "living wage" are needed in this country.

Moore does dodge the tougher questions...

Perhaps.

I don't think the Left has criticized him enough. I really don't think the anti-Bush folks are well-served by Moore, because of his tactics. About the only folks who think he's made good points are those who are in agreement with him 99% anyway; everyone else dismisses him as a frothing-at-the-mouth far-left propaganda artist. BTW, I found some more Moore quotes:

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper.

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

Speaking to a crowd in Munich, Moore said. "That's why we're smiling all the time. You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Back in England, he told a crowd in Cambridge. "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe."

Not even the outrages of 9/11 could dampen Moore's anti-Americanism. He said this four days after the terror attacks that killed 3,000 Americans:

"We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

And about the war now underway in Iraq, in which Americans are being killed in lockstep with Moore's anti-American speech, he says:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.''

Like any other American, Michael Moore is entitled to form and express his own opinions. At the risk of repeating myself, I agree with some of his opinions and disagree with others.

Deadly silence.

rofl, Mock... because just over an hour went by between W*GS' post and my reply does not indicate that a response is not forthcoming. Ha!

patteeu

10-20-2004, 07:26 AM

Heh heh heh.

Behold the W*GS meltdown, folks.

Finally and irrevocably backed into a corner regarding his lack of credibility on Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, he's losing it.

Face it, W*GS:

Your constant defense of the bush crime family makes you nothing more than a cheerleader for the ultimate merger of corporate interests with government at the expense of the people.

We see this thread completely differently. From my perspective, W*GS looks like a martial artist kicking the crap out of a whole crowd of you Moore groupies single-handedly.

patteeu

10-20-2004, 07:38 AM

What was shown on the movie was not a lie just because other facts were not included as well.

Would your quote have a different meaning if I left out a single word?

What was shown on the movie was a lie just because other facts were not included as well.

That's the Moore technique that W*GS is correctly pointing out.

Spider

10-20-2004, 07:49 AM

We see this thread completely differently. From my perspective, W*GS looks like a martial artist kicking the crap out of a whole crowd of you Moore groupies single-handedly.
:kiddingme you realize W*GS has attacked F9-11 and my Link and not even know what they are about ?

Spider

10-20-2004, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by W*GS
I always wonder if the folks who set up and run these sorts of things are the same kinds of people who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam and calling the "babykillers" and the like.

Are you anti-Bush guys ever honest? W*GS didn't insult them, he "wondered" about them.
Are you Bush is god people always so dence ?
Reread

W*GS

10-20-2004, 08:22 AM

Al Qaeda is not "contained" and the fact that OBL remains unpunished

He's not dead, true, but al-Qaeda's ability to engage in "spectaculars" in the US has been, so far, greatly damaged.

sends the wrong message to other, perhaps equally-dangerous (but healthier) terrorists.

Well, the 8 or so years prior to 9/11 also sent the wrong message to OBL, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups - that they could attack us with more-or-less impunity. I don't think OBL et.al. believe that any more.

Some reports coming out of Guantanamo do, in fact, say that prisoner treatment was appalling in that facility, W*GS. Some articles I've seen suggest Abu Ghraib was a picnic compared to Gitmo.

I am quite uncomfortable with how Guantanamo is being used, like I said earlier - but to compare Gitmo to Saddam's Abu Ghraib is way over the line.

No one mentioned more government programs... but I do think more good jobs... jobs that pay a "living wage" are needed in this country.

What's a "living wage", and, if a certain job's wage is below that magic number, are taxpayers going to be told to make up the difference? Basically, you have a choice - there are going to be jobs that pay lousy, but people are employed, or, you make the cost to employers of hiring people so expensive that unemployment becomes stubbornly high. That's what has happened in Europe.

Like any other American, Michael Moore is entitled to form and express his own opinions.

Of course he is. And he ought to know that by making his opinions so public, he's going to catch a lot of heat and argument from those of us whose views differ. Personally, I think calling my fellow Americans "stupid" isn't a very smart thing to do - in fact, it's "stupid".

patteeu

10-20-2004, 08:43 AM

:kiddingme you realize W*GS has attacked F9-11 and my Link and not even know what they are about ?

It's been a while so I don't really remember your link, but I do know that W*GS tore up Michael Moore, his movie, and all the moore fanboys (and girls) in this thread.

I haven't seen any evidence that W*GS doesn't know what F911 is about.

Spider

10-20-2004, 08:52 AM

It's been a while so I don't really remember your link, but I do know that W*GS tore up Michael Moore, his movie, and all the moore fanboys (and girls) in this thread.

I haven't seen any evidence that W*GS doesn't know what F911 is about.
My Link was made by Real war heros , I know that doesnt mean much , being a war hero and all , what upset me was , how quick he dismissed it with a backhanded insult , without opening it up .... a Simple Spider dont realy want to open the link would have worked ........ As for Michale Moore , I havent seen any of his Movies , I tried to watch the Priated version on the net , but it didnt do anything for me I made it for about 15 minutes ..... My point is I am not commenting on it , cause I havent seen it , I am not surfing through and echoing talking points ........ I think if W*GS has an honest opinion , he should see the film ...... at least see the damn thing , then pass Judgement , that isnt too much to ask ......

Spider

10-20-2004, 08:56 AM

Let me put it like this patteeu .......
No Rebulican site or talking point will say Moore is right on this or that ......
No Democrat site or talking points will say Moore Lied on this or that .....
too Me in oder to have an opinion , you have to experience it ........
Thats why I said instead of thinking you talk for the troops click this link and let them speak for themselfs ...... The troops have earned that right to have thier voices heard , whether you agree with what they say or not ......... I guess I am just old school

W*GS

10-20-2004, 09:05 AM

My Link was made by Real war heros , I know that doesnt mean much , being a war hero and all , what upset me was , how quick he dismissed it with a backhanded insult

My apologies. I made a comment that was unwarranted.

I think if W*GS has an honest opinion , he should see the film ...... at least see the damn thing , then pass Judgement , that isnt too much to ask ......

I absolutely refuse to waste my time watching Moore's crap. I am not the least bit interested in his dog-and-pony show, and anyone who paints all Americans as "stupid" is contemptible. The more people see through Moore, and realize what a complete and total ass he is, the better.

Spider

10-20-2004, 09:11 AM

My apologies. I made a comment that was unwarranted.

all is forgiven I wont bring it up again ...... ;D

I absolutely refuse to waste my time watching Moore's crap. I am not the least bit interested in his dog-and-pony show, and anyone who paints all Americans as "stupid" is contemptible. The more people see through Moore, and realize what a complete and total ass he is, the better.
Thats fine I dont blame you , I am a democrat and I dont watch his stuff . so I realy dont expect anyone too ... Now if you are commenting on Michael Moore himself , then I apologize , but I think to be critical of his film , then i think you should have first hand experience ..

patteeu

10-20-2004, 09:22 AM

My Link was made by Real war heros , I know that doesnt mean much , being a war hero and all , what upset me was , how quick he dismissed it with a backhanded insult , without opening it up .... a Simple Spider dont realy want to open the link would have worked ........ As for Michale Moore , I havent seen any of his Movies , I tried to watch the Priated version on the net , but it didnt do anything for me I made it for about 15 minutes ..... My point is I am not commenting on it , cause I havent seen it , I am not surfing through and echoing talking points ........ I think if W*GS has an honest opinion , he should see the film ...... at least see the damn thing , then pass Judgement , that isnt too much to ask ......

I did go back and figure out what link you were talking about. My post had to do with the long debate about F911 in which W*GS has been engaged.

I think Moore's film has been analyzed and reviewed enough that people like W*GS, who obviously do a reasonable amount of research, can get an accurate handle on what it's about and what the debateable issues are.

We get a lot more knowledge through 2nd hand accounts than we do through primary sources. Those who insist that W*GS can only have meaningful comment on F911 if he's seen it are ignoring the fact that most of the things they "know" in this life came from secondary sources.

I haven't seen Reuben Droughns run the ball once this year, but somehow I still "know" that he's posting, IMO, probowl numbers. I don't need to view gay porn to form the opinion that it isn't my cup of tea.

Spider

10-20-2004, 09:29 AM

I did go back and figure out what link you were talking about. My post had to do with the long debate about F911 in which W*GS has been engaged.

I think Moore's film has been analyzed and reviewed enough that people like W*GS, who obviously do a reasonable amount of research, can get an accurate handle on what it's about and what the debateable issues are.

We get a lot more knowledge through 2nd hand accounts than we do through primary sources. Those who insist that W*GS can only have meaningful comment on F911 if he's seen it are ignoring the fact that most of the things they "know" in this life came from secondary sources.

I haven't seen <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187528" target="_blank">Reuben Droughns</a> run the ball once this year, but somehow I still "know" that he's posting, IMO, probowl numbers. I don't need to view gay porn to form the opinion that it isn't my cup of tea.
ok Fair enough , but let me put this to you , Rueben Droughns is tearing it up Because Foster and Lepsis have adjusted to thier new positions , or is Rueben Droughns that good , thats somthing you have to see with your own eyes before passing jusgment on ....... As for Gay Porn , it isnt my cup of tea either , thats why I dont talk about it , I havent seen any ......

patteeu

10-20-2004, 11:21 AM

ok Fair enough , but let me put this to you , Rueben Droughns is tearing it up Because Foster and Lepsis have adjusted to thier new positions , or is Rueben Droughns that good , thats somthing you have to see with your own eyes before passing jusgment on...

Not necessarily. I could also go over to the main forum and read the Droughns threads to form my opinion. As long as there are enough posters (that have earned a good reputation for accurate analysis) posting on the subject, I should be able to form a reasonable opinion. In fact, I may actually end up with more insight from reading orangemane commentary than I would get from seeing it with my own eyes. I don't claim to be a football expert, just a fan.

Spider

10-20-2004, 11:45 AM

Not necessarily. I could also go over to the main forum and read the Droughns threads to form my opinion.
your still not getting it , it still wont be your Opinion , it will be an Opinion based off of other Peoples ...........Still does not replace you seeing it for yourself ......

As long as there are enough posters (that have earned a good reputation for accurate analysis) posting on the subject, I should be able to form a reasonable opinion. In fact, I may actually end up with more insight from reading orangemane commentary than I would get from seeing it with my own eyes. I don't claim to be a football expert, just a fan.
Good Grief , Lets take Griese for example , this board was damn near ripped in two ...... Some saw things as not Griese fault , Others saw Griese as the cause , But everyone was basing thier opinion off of seeing Griese play .....
Key , them seeing Griese play ....... I guess what I am saying . an Opnion of somthing you dont have first hand experience , is a hollow opinion .... I dont know maybe you can see Rueben Run , but need to read opinion of others to draw a conclusion , either way my argument missed you by a mile ........

patteeu

10-20-2004, 11:53 AM

your still not getting it , it still wont be your Opinion , it will be an Opinion based off of other Peoples ...........Still does not replace you seeing it for yourself ......

Good Grief , Lets take Griese for example , this board was damn near ripped in two ...... Some saw things as not Griese fault , Others saw Griese as the cause , But everyone was basing thier opinion off of seeing Griese play .....
Key , them seeing Griese play ....... I guess what I am saying . an Opnion of somthing you dont have first hand experience , is a hollow opinion .... I dont know maybe you can see Rueben Run , but need to read opinion of others to draw a conclusion , either way my argument missed you by a mile ........

You are confusing a memory with an opinion.

Do you have an opinion on the war in Iraq? Sure you do. You are kidding yourself if you don't think that most of your opinions are formed the same way W*GS formed his F911 opinion. Indirectly, through media filters of one form or another.

Spider

10-20-2004, 12:00 PM

You are confusing a memory with an opinion.

Do you have an opinion on the war in Iraq? Sure you do. You are kidding yourself if you don't think that most of your opinions are formed the same way W*GS formed his F911 opinion. Indirectly, through media filters of one form or another.
No I am not ....... But I do see the tactic you are using , if you cant dazzle them with Brillence , Baffle them with Bullshiat .......
My argument is simple ....... laymens terms ..... If you havent experienced it , your opinion doesnt carry the wieght of those that have ..... it is that damn simple

patteeu

10-20-2004, 12:15 PM

No I am not ....... But I do see the tactic you are using , if you cant dazzle them with Brillence , Baffle them with Bullshiat .......
My argument is simple ....... laymens terms ..... If you havent experienced it , your opinion doesnt carry the wieght of those that have ..... it is that damn simple

You can use whatever standard you want when you form your opinions. I'll stick with something that makes a little more sense, even if it isn't quite as simple as you'd like it to be.

Spider

10-20-2004, 12:18 PM

You can use whatever standard you want when you form your opinions. I'll stick with something that makes a little more sense, even if it isn't quite as simple as you'd like it to be.
LOL ......... So according to you , you could see some on TV talking about the war in Iraq , and your Opinion of the war would carry as much wieght as someone who was there ........... Well if thats your bag , thats fine , me personlay I dont give people much wieght who havent expiernced somthing as much as to someone who has ....... We wil let other people decide who is right

azbronco

10-20-2004, 12:27 PM

No I am not ....... But I do see the tactic you are using , if you cant dazzle them with Brillence , Baffle them with Bullshiat .......
My argument is simple ....... laymens terms ..... If you havent experienced it , your opinion doesnt carry the wieght of those that have ..... it is that damn simple

So the fact that a recent survey of military persons and their families has indicated that 69% of them are going to vote for Bush, means that you will defer to their judgement since I presume you haven't been to Iraq? That is great news. Can you convince Roe, LAB, etc. to do the same?

patteeu

10-20-2004, 12:27 PM

LOL ......... So according to you , you could see some on TV talking about the war in Iraq , and your Opinion of the war would carry as much wieght as someone who was there ........... Well if thats your bag , thats fine , me personlay I dont give people much wieght who havent expiernced somthing as much as to someone who has ....... We wil let other people decide who is right

You are trying to change your argument. :wiggle:

W*GS was being told that he couldn't have an opinion of F911 without first watching it by several people in this thread. They weren't saying that his opinion would be less insightful if he didn't watch it, they were saying he couldn't have any insight at all.

Here is what you said:

too Me in oder to have an opinion , you have to experience it

I've shown you that that is not the case. I'm not going to follow you into the argument that you want to have now. I agree with you that if all else is equal, first hand experience is better than second hand information. That doesn't mean that LABF's first hand opinion is better than W*GS second hand opinion. In fact, I'm convinced the opposite is more likely.

Spider

10-20-2004, 12:34 PM

You are trying to change your argument. :wiggle:

W*GS was being told that he couldn't have an opinion of F911 without first watching it by several people in this thread. They weren't saying that his opinion would be less insightful if he didn't watch it, they were saying he couldn't have any insight at all.

Here is what you said:

I've shown you that that is not the case. I'm not going to follow you into the argument that you want to have now. I agree with you that if all else is equal, first hand experience is better than second hand information. That doesn't mean that LABF's first hand opinion is better than W*GS second hand opinion. In fact, I'm convinced the opposite is more likely.
LOL . if you say so , I threw in the war to make a connection to what I was saying , and it worked , you now understand that W*GS opinion isnt realy W*GS , it is W*GS being a Parrot . Mimicking what he has read ....... But I have found somthing more interesting ... Iran is endorsing Bush Ha!

Blueflame

10-20-2004, 02:08 PM

Would your quote have a different meaning if I left out a single word?

That's the Moore technique that W*GS is correctly pointing out.

The fact is that some people have such previously-formed negative opinions of Michael Moore that they dismiss any of his work out-of-hand and refuse to actually view the material. Yet, this does not deter an attitude that they're experts on the subject matter.

W*GS' "analyses" of F911 are much like a book report written from Cliff's notes. While that might fool some of the people some of the time, there is still content in that film of which he is uninformed. Reading a review is not the same as reading the book or watching the film, just as looking up Reuben Droughns' stats does not show him dragging three defenders to get that extra yardage that resulted in the first down.

Would you accept (as valid) a music review from someone who didn't listen to any of the tracks on the CD? ???

Spider

10-20-2004, 02:22 PM

So the fact that a recent survey of military persons and their families has indicated that 69% of them are going to vote for Bush, means that you will defer to their judgement since I presume you haven't been to Iraq? That is great news. Can you convince Roe, LAB, etc. to do the same?
I didnt see this post ......... Let me see 69% are voting for Bush , so 31% are not right ?
But see here is your problem , I am not voting against Bush for the Iraqi war , I am voting on Economics , Healthcare , Education , Basicaly domestic issues , Now I dont know where those 69% are standing on those issues and niether do you ....... I just find it strange that Bush has had a Republican controled Congress , Bill Frist owns a chain of Hospitials , and Health care is in the state that it is .......... oh on the war with Iraq I still believe it is wrong ....... Deal with it

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-20-2004, 02:27 PM

The fact is that some people have such previously-formed negative opinions of Michael Moore that they dismiss any of his work out-of-hand and refuse to actually view the material. Yet, this does not deter an attitude that they're experts on the subject matter.

W*GS' "analyses" of F911 are much like a book report written from Cliff's notes. While that might fool some of the people some of the time, there is still content in that film of which he is uninformed. Reading a review is not the same as reading the book or watching the film, just as looking up <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187528" target="_blank">Reuben Droughns</a>' stats does not show him dragging three defenders to get that extra yardage that resulted in the first down.

Would you accept (as valid) a music review from someone who didn't listen to any of the tracks on the CD? ???

Bingo. :thumbsup:

Flame with the WWF smackdown.

BTW, I wouldn't put too much stock in that "69%" figure. Another recent poll indicated that more than 50% believed Iraq was a mistake.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-20-2004, 02:38 PM

What's really laughable about W*GS' parroting of right-wing disinfo about Fahrenheit 9/11 is the fact that Moore's most important claims had already been corroborated by other people doing the hard research, e.g., Greg Palast, et al, before the film was even made. For example, the facts about the bush/BCCI/James Bath connection had already been in the public domain for some time. It's also telling that W*GS focuses on something as comparatively lightweight as the significance of a clip in which bush addresses a crowd of supporters while he ignores graver issues like the BCCI connection. But that's typical of W*GS' treatment of the bush crime family.

W*GS

10-20-2004, 02:44 PM

The fact is that some people have such previously-formed negative opinions of Michael Moore that they dismiss any of his work out-of-hand and refuse to actually view the material. Yet, this does not deter an attitude that they're experts on the subject matter.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Those of you who have been taken in by Moore's manipulations only have yourselves to blame - his tactics are simple agitprop. Twist the facts, tell part of the story, manipulate imagery, remove context... For folks who are so quick to pounce on right-wing agitprop when they see it, they sure are a lot less sceptical when it comes to Moore. Why is that? Hypocrisy?

W*GS' "analyses" of F911 are much like a book report written from Cliff's notes.

Not at all. The website I've been using goes into exhaustive detail on Moore's deceptions and manipulations.

While that might fool some of the people some of the time, there is still content in that film of which he is uninformed.

Do tell.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-20-2004, 03:02 PM

Those of you who have been taken in by Moore's manipulations only have yourselves to blame - his tactics are simple agitprop. Twist the facts, tell part of the story, manipulate imagery, remove context

Says a guy who, without actually seeing Moore's work, has been 'taken in' by the foregoing second-hand, right-wing disinfo about Moore's "tactics."

Too funny.

You'd think W*GS would have enough sense to be embarrassed about trying to interpret what he hasn't seen to those who have.

patteeu

10-20-2004, 03:03 PM

The fact is that some people have such previously-formed negative opinions of Michael Moore that they dismiss any of his work out-of-hand and refuse to actually view the material. Yet, this does not deter an attitude that they're experts on the subject matter.

W*GS' "analyses" of F911 are much like a book report written from Cliff's notes. While that might fool some of the people some of the time, there is still content in that film of which he is uninformed. Reading a review is not the same as reading the book or watching the film, just as looking up <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187528" target="_blank">Reuben Droughns</a>' stats does not show him dragging three defenders to get that extra yardage that resulted in the first down.

Would you accept (as valid) a music review from someone who didn't listen to any of the tracks on the CD? ???

W*GS made a very specific criticism. He didn't attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the film. If someone who had never heard a Kid Rock CD said that they thought his frequent use of profanity made his music unsuitable for kids, the fact that he hadn't listened to the music wouldn't make him wrong. He might not be in a good position to review the CD in a comprehensive manner without listening to it, but he would be more than capable of making rationale observations about specific features based on second hand information.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-20-2004, 03:09 PM

If someone who had never heard a Kid Rock CD said that they thought his frequent use of profanity made his music unsuitable for kids, the fact that he hadn't listened to the music wouldn't make him wrong.

But it would mean that he had not actually verified that said profanity existed.

W*GS

10-20-2004, 03:12 PM

Says a guy who, without actually seeing Moore's work, has been 'taken in' by the foregoing second-hand, right-wing disinfo about Moore's "tactics."

It's not disinformation - it's information about how Moore has twisted the facts.

Have you been to that website?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-20-2004, 05:19 PM

It's not disinformation - it's information about how Moore has twisted the facts.

But the allegations are untrue. Moore hasn't "twisted the facts."

Therefore, it is, by definition, disinformation.

Nice job of running interference for Little Lord Chimpleroy and his band of robber barons.

Where was Moore wrong about the bush/BCCI connection, W*GS? What facts about this did he "twist?"

And why do you give Bush and his Unocal buddies a pass for doing business with the Taliban when the latter were harboring Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Why are you covering bush's flank?

Inquiring minds want to know.

W*GS

10-20-2004, 09:49 PM

But the allegations are untrue. Moore hasn't "twisted the facts."

Baloney. Even those on the Left know Moore's tendency to knot the truth.

Nice job of running interference for Little Lord Chimpleroy and his band of robber barons.

Sigh.

Tell me, in round numbers, how much the Saudis gave Clinton for his library?

Why are you covering bush's flank?

Why are you attempting to defend Moore's fraud?

BTW, why is Soros (you know, sugar daddy to the hardcore anti-Bushies) a big investor in Carlyle?

Blueflame

10-20-2004, 10:02 PM

Not at all. The website I've been using goes into exhaustive detail on Moore's deceptions and manipulations.

As I've already pointed out, that website you linked is, itself, clearly biased... and continues to echo already-debunked rightwing misinformation, a specific example of which was also pointed out earlier in the conversation. How does it gain such stellar credibility in your eyes while still clinging to some of the now-disproven myths that were used to justify the war?

Do tell.

IIRC, earlier in the discussion, you acknowledged being unaware of the massive inauguration day protests and the fact that the presidential limousine was egged. That footage was included in F911.

W*GS made a very specific criticism. He didn't attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the film. If someone who had never heard a Kid Rock CD said that they thought his frequent use of profanity made his music unsuitable for kids, the fact that he hadn't listened to the music wouldn't make him wrong. He might not be in a good position to review the CD in a comprehensive manner without listening to it, but he would be more than capable of making rationale observations about specific features based on second hand information.

That "specific criticism" was addressed earlier in this thread. Some of his other remarks have given me the impression that his issues with this film are not confined to that single sound bite, however.

While a person who had never heard Kid Rock's music could reasonably determine from a review that Kid Rock CDs were not appropriate listening material for his children, it's unlikely that his opinion of the latest Kid Rock release would be viewed as valid if it were expounded repeatedly on the "CDs in your player" thread on the Underground board.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-21-2004, 02:38 AM

...clearly biased... and continues to echo already-debunked rightwing misinformation...

An apt description of 99.9% of W*GS' input.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ev.png

But look on the bright side:

Only 12 more days until the robber barons, corporate raiders, and war profiteers W*GS defends are out on their collective ass and W*GS slithers back under the rock from whence he came. ;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

10-21-2004, 02:57 AM

Baloney. Even those on the Left know Moore's tendency to knot the truth.

Sounds like you believe this lie will become truth if you repeat it often enough--facts be damned. Your "arguments" are becoming less and less distinguishable from the rest of the noise made by the Republican Wurlitzer.

Tell me, in round numbers, how much the Saudis gave Clinton for his library?

Link?

Last I checked, Clinton didn't own or run a business that was bankrolled by a Saudi bank principal who was simultaneously funding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. But I'm not surprised that you fail to make the distinction, and, as usual, give Smirk a pass and deflect to Clinton. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Why are you attempting to defend Moore's fraud?

Why do you keep referring to F 9/11 as "fraud" when you've been repeatedly proven wrong on that account? Your criticisms of Moore are nothing but already-discredited right-wing disinformation you are regurgitating. Moore's most important claims in F 9/11, on the other hand, are supported by facts and have been corroborated.

You are merely working the same old, right-wing "repeat a lie often enough and it will become truth" tactic.

BTW, why is Soros (you know, sugar daddy to the hardcore anti-Bushies) a big investor in Carlyle?

Why is it that you can't provide links to confirm this?

Is George Soros the president? Does he hold any political office, for that matter?

Funny that you're more worried about Soros than the activities of the bush crime family.

W*GS

10-21-2004, 08:30 AM

Sounds like you believe this lie will become truth if you repeat it often enough--facts be damned. Your "arguments" are becoming less and less distinguishable from the rest of the noise made by the Republican Wurlitzer.

I just wonder why your scepticism is unbounded in regards to right-wing propaganda, but you're so gullible when it comes to Moore's propaganda.

Link?

Google yourself.

Last I checked, Clinton didn't own or run a business that was bankrolled by a Saudi bank principal who was simultaneously funding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. But I'm not surprised that you fail to make the distinction, and, as usual, give Smirk a pass and deflect to Clinton.

If Bush doing the Saudi's bidding is bad, then why do you give Clinton a pass for the same thing? For how many years has the US traded its military protection of Saudi Arabia for Saudi oil? Did it begin on Bush's inauguration?

Moore's most important claims in F 9/11, on the other hand, are supported by facts and have been corroborated.

What "most important claims"? Give me a list.

Why is it that you can't provide links to confirm this?

I did, in the Sinclair thread.

Funny that you're more worried about Soros than the activities of the bush crime family.

Sad that you're not concerned that a multibillionaire is manipulating our political system.