DescentBB

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

Mr. Moore is a prophet.

What a cock-bite.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them,"

Translation: He wasn't satisfied with the first attempt at brainwashing so he is going to try to take a stab at it again.

Ahh yes this is good. More stuff for Woody to talk about

Yeah, I was a little worried afte rthe last election that Woodchip would simply have nothing to complain about.

Seriously Woody, you should be down on your knees thanking moore.

*sigh* when a significant majority of the people vote for Clinton, they're all geniouses, whereas if some people change their minds and vote for Bush, they're now classified as dopeheads.

When we start discouraging private individuals from making political statements we are heading down the wrong road.

Stryker wrote:*sigh* when a significant majority of the people vote for Clinton, they're all geniouses, whereas if some people change their minds and vote for Bush, they're now classified as dopeheads.

So you DO get it.

Everyone does. The point is that he's a partisan hack who presents his work as "just the facts" and people believe that. "Just which facts?"

kuf, it's one thing to spout INFORMED political opinions but when you try to pass off SPIN as factual information presented as a documentary, which it is NOT, you should be shot IMO.

Moore is a straight out and out liar and contrary to what he thinks is no better then those who he claims is taking advantage of the American people. To me he is the lowest form of scum, someone who takes advantage of tragedies to turn a profit.

Trust me, before it's said and done someone is going to bust a cap in his fat bloated ass and you won't see me shedding a single tear. One less maggot to worry about.

Tyranny wrote:kuf, it's one thing to spout INFORMED political opinions but when you try to pass off SPIN as factual information presented as a documentary, which it is NOT, you should be shot IMO..

Then you would have to shoot almost all news presenters.

Moore is a propogandist who likes to portray himself as a documentarian.

Aside from being an asswipe, he doesn't live what he spews...

I won't bother with boring details, go look for yourself. He much like Kerry, and many others it seems.... talks one game and lives another.

Disagree with me, or who ever - but have the balls to be honest. Don't tell me one thing and do another.

it's a hobby of mine to come to the dbb while drunk and piss off people with my comments. because i really don't read the 19 paragraph diatribes people write. some of you convince yourself you are so correct. i just type something that i think is amusing and press "submit"... history may prove you or me wrong. it's not like we have any power.


i have never seen that michael moore film. i have no idea what he implies in it.

but some of you guys are like wishing for his death... based on "media" you deem correct. it's not like you know the truth, you are trusting your sources. everyone can and does lie...

the campaign ads were an abomination this round of elections... downright insulting to your intelligence, who are the liars? what if moore gets whacked and you find out he was dead on reality?

this country is divided because of the never ending ego of mankind... and you blame it on filmmakers? i personally think he has made some alright films.... but he is an annoying famous person.

what's new?

TheCops wrote:i really don't read the 19 paragraph diatribes people write.

Yeah, well, it's mutual. Since the odds of you making any sense whatsoever are only about 1:3, for the average post, I skim a lot.

Pandora wrote:Then you would have to shoot almost all news presenters.

I can live with that

Cops, thats great. I usually skip over your posts anyways because they add nothing to the conversation. This is a BB afterall, we are supposed to talk about stuff, and debate, thats the nature of E&C and you managed to crap on it every chance you get because you don't see the reason why we talk about some of this stuff.

In that regard I agree. Most E&C discussions, especially those over the last year, have been deplorably boring IMO. Why? Same old shiat that we have no control over. This is here to talk about that stuff though. It just gets bothersome reading the same thing over and over again at times.

Also if you took the time to join the real world while you were sober you might have enough sense to put the peices together and see what a farce Moore is. I'm not saying he is the only one who does this type of thing mind you. He's just one of the more annoying variety because he does it in your face and expects to get away with it.

and before someone like Birds (Sorry Birds, just an example) can get a quick snipe in about Bush and Co.. Keep in mind I support what Bush is doing and I agree with his methods. Personally I think he has been much more reserved and humanitarian about it then I would have been. The middle east would be a scrap heap by now if I had my way.

After we've evacuated flabby and family of course

Drakona wrote:Yeah, well, it's mutual.

hehe.
see? the "healing process" is already happening.

ROFL

I think Michael Moore does a good job of balancing Bill ORielly.
If only they would cancel each other out and disolve or somthing the world would be a lot quieter.

But at least Michael is funny. Bill is just a loud mouthed, pi..... Well I don't like him okay.

Hey sickone.. ready to go a few round with me? because you kinda sound like one of the right wingers when you say 'moore lies'.

Tyranny wrote:I can live with that

heh, i wanted to add this line to my post, but then decided to leave it out.

Ferno wrote:Hey sickone.. ready to go a few round with me? because you kinda sound like one of the right wingers when you say 'moore lies'.

Perhaps Ferny, you should get the Farenhype DVD so you can see the full context of what Moore cut and paste to do his film. Kinda like your buddy Rican presenting slanted "facts" selectively posted to bolster his view.

Tyranny wrote:Same old shiat that we have no control over.

Which is why we talk about it. Makes us feel as though we do have some control. Hows that for a soft and gentle biatch slap. Lets see...how many am I ahead now?

Tyranny wrote:Cops, thats great. I usually skip over your posts anyways because they add nothing to the conversation. This is a BB afterall, we are supposed to talk about stuff, and debate, thats the nature of E&C and you managed to crap on it every chance you get because you don't see the reason why we talk about some of this stuff.

In that regard I agree. Most E&C discussions, especially those over the last year, have been deplorably boring IMO. Why? Same old shiat that we have no control over. This is here to talk about that stuff though. It just gets bothersome reading the same thing over and over again at times.

Still the habitual skimmer I see Like my counter biatch slapping? You're obviously feeling the effects of those slaps because your counting, like your reading, is a little off too

My buddy rican? are you insane? i hated that dude.

kufyit wrote:When we start discouraging private individuals from making political statements we are heading down the wrong road.

I have no problems with discouraging private individuals from making political statements (at least of a certain type -- don't jump to conclusions; I explain it in the very next paragraph. Consider that fair warning to the skimmers -- if you quote this line without the explanation in the next paragraph, you will look stupid, and I will ridicule you.) I discourage political statements by individuals here in E&C all the time.

You may have heard this from me before: "back up your arguments." If you don't do so, I'll generally discourage you from making political statements. And if Michael Moore doesn't do so, I'll generally discourage him from making political statements.

IMO, that's the right road to be headed down -- encouraging people to make *informed* political statements, and discouraging them from making unsubstantiated, uninformed, or outright deceptive political statements.

If you're not informed, you shouldn't be making political statements, you should be asking political questions and doing research. And if you're being deceptive, you shouldn't be making political statements, you should be giving apologies. In Michael Moore's case, I'm sure there's some of both going on -- he should be asking questions, doing research, and giving apologies -- not putting forth his opinion in yet another movie because "the American people are uninformed."

As Americans, we all have the freedom to make political statements. But I reserve the right to make fun of people who make ignorant, uninformed, deceptive, or just plain goofy political statements. I reserve the right to discourage people from making statements if they can't back them up in open discourse.

Open, honest political discourse is necessary for a functional democracy. I encourage people to engage in open and honest political discourse -- but part of "honesty" means "not making unsubstantiated statements". If you can't back it up, it should be a question or a request for more information.

P.S. you still owe me two bucks.

C'mon Lothar you have to add Bill ORielly's name to your post not just Michael Moore or you are being misleading. It kind of indicates you only find fault with Moore's research.
An OReilly moment: He tells his audience that Canada's poor medal count at the last olympics is due to our "Nanny" social system taking the incentive away. Finland has an even more socialist system and kicks butt every winter olympics. But Bill can never remember facts that he doesn't like.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

Warning: Rant to follow. If children are present please send them away .

So mighty M.Moore thinks we're uniformed. This after his propaganda film was cozened up by the liberal media manipulators into something worthy of high awards and dispensed to the public like condoms at the new wave liberal high schools. This after M.Moore went to how many colleges to persuade the average beer drinking student who's great motivation is to get laid, to go out and vote for Kerry. Can't say that the information didn't get out to the "uniformed" now did it? Yet the same melders of the media that presented Moore as someone euridite and all knowing, portrayed ads by the Swift boat vets as tawdry misology.
So the Big Fat Buffoon will now don his sheep skin and further try to enlighten the boobs that didn't vote correctly when in fact he is simply trying to pull the wool over the simpletons eyes whom paid either to see his Goebbels-esqe farce or attended his highly paid college lectures that his new film is somehow educational material fit for human consumption with a USDA Choice stamp. The real uninformed are the dupes who pay Moore without understanding that all he is providing is a way to line his bank account in much the same way as the officials at Enron did. Kudos to Moore for successfully becoming rich at the expense of the pathetically inept party faithful who would rather believe that the man behind the curtain is Oz rather than what the election results actually exposes.
Sleep tight languishing liberalites, dream on about election fraud and homophobia being fixed come next election cycle, just remember your leaders of the media matrix are no Fellowship of the Ring.
No amount of dreaming is going to change the fact that the american landscape pendulum is swinging back away from the socialist agenda fomented by 60's era hippies sitting around Haight Ashbury coffee houses. Nielson ratings will eradicate the Dan Rathers and Peter Jennings from the font of pseudo-news and replace them with sources presenting less bias and more balanced information. The question will be in three or more years will there be a promo vehicle to aide Moore in gaining another hundred pounds of pork.

So Woodchip tell us what you really think of Michael Moore.

Lothar wrote:If you're not informed, you shouldn't be making political statements, you should be asking political questions and doing research. And if you're being deceptive, you shouldn't be making political statements, you should be giving apologies. In Michael Moore's case, I'm sure there's some of both going on -- he should be asking questions, doing research, and giving apologies -- not putting forth his opinion in yet another movie because "the American people are uninformed."

Sorry, but this oozes in hypocrisy. Weren't you convinced you didn't need to see Moore's latest film because you already knew what was in it? You participated in the discussion about F-9/11 with a very outspoken opinion without even having seen the movie.
Furthermore, if you had seen it, you would realise that Moore did research and all he does in his movie is basically point out facts and raise questions. He doesn't give answers, he doesn't accuse. He just points where it's extremely fishy. I've said it in the previous discussion and I will say it again... It's what makes the film brilliant. It's not accusatory, it's supposed to incite self-reflection with the dumb masses. Moore is certainly not voicing an opinion in his movie, because that would compromise the objectivity of his work. His film might be nuanced and selective, sometimes satirical even; but it is objective. It is not 90 minutes of someone's personal opinion thrown into the world.

Sounds to me like you could do with a bite of humble-pie.

I was about to ask the same question that Tricord did.

F9/11 objective? Heh!

Personal attacks on Michael Moore are uncalled for. In fact, they tend to validate his point of view among his supporters. When does one resort to ad hominem attacks? Usually when they are too lazy or too irrational to refute with a clear rebuttal.

Michael Moore's work is a good example of why Birdseye's "Facts don't lie" line is sophistry. Facts can and do lie when only one side of an issue is portrayed.

I do not fear Michael Moore's work, so long as we are free to examine it, challenge it, answer it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

- Sirian

Ford Prefect wrote:C'mon Lothar you have to add Bill ORielly's name to your post not just Michael Moore or you are being misleading. It kind of indicates you only find fault with Moore's research.

I've never seen anything by ORielly in my life. Nobody quotes ORielly to me, or tells me "you have to go see the latest ORielly movie / show / transcript." If I spoke out against ORielly, then, it would be an uninformed opinion -- I honestly couldn't tell you anything about ORielly except that certain people on this board always use "ORielly and Rush" as a comeback to any criticism of Michael Moore.

It's not that I only find fault with Michael Moore and that I let ORielly off the hook -- it's that I'm only familiar with Michael Moore. Furthermore, within the context of this thread, I only have reason to bring up Michael Moore, because he's who the thread is about. If the thread was about Rush (who I do know a little about) and someone used kufyit's "we shouldn't discourage political expression" line, I'd have given a similar response -- "if he's giving uninformed political expression, he should be discouraged."

See... I was taking my own advice. I'm not familiar with / informed about ORielly, so I'm not going to say anything about him.

Tricord wrote:Weren't you convinced you didn't need to see Moore's latest film because you already knew what was in it?

No. People continuously misinterpreted or misrepresented what I said in that thread, including you, and you're still doing it -- but pay attention to what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said.

In particular, notice what I said about why I didn't need to see it:

1) No interaction -- I can't ask him questions about what he meant, where he got his information, how exactly he came to his conclusions, etc. (Maybe I can to a very limited degree, by posting something to his website, but I can't really have a conversation with him.)
2) Poor attitude -- I've read some things off of his website (before I decided I didn't like him, just FYI -- I did listen to him a little. So don't give me this "you judge them before you've heard them" crap.) He never seemed like he had any respect for anyone on the "other side", or like he was at all interested in treating people from the "other side" as human. (There are others, from both sides, who have this same problem -- and I don't listen to any of them.)
3) Bling Bling -- I don't want to spend 7 bucks to listen to him. If what he has is worth saying, he can say it for free like the rest of us.
4) Questionable Integrity -- when I've looked up details on things he's said... let's just say, I felt like he should be called Michael MooreCombat.

Or, to quote myself from a couple posts later:

I'm saving 7 bucks, and in a week, I can just listen to what everyone's saying about it for free.

And that's what I did.

Tricord wrote:You participated in the discussion about F-9/11 with a very outspoken opinion without even having seen the movie.

It's not until page 3 of the above thread that I say anything about the actual content of the movie. And, at that point, I'm only responding to the arguments people who saw the movie actually put forth (saving myself 7 bucks, but still getting to hear all the "best" points made in the movie.) That is, I wasn't discussing F911 itself -- I was discussing the issues people said were brought up in the movie.

you would realise that Moore did research

Every indication given by you and all the others who saw the movie was that he did sloppy research...

all he does in his movie is basically point out facts and raise questions

I refer you to my post about leading and accusatory questions.

-------------------------

Your criticism here is, essentially, that you think I'm ragging on Michael Moore without being informed, because I didn't see F911. But I *am* informed about Michael Moore in general, because I've read his website and I've listened to some things he's said. And I *am* aware of the arguments brought up in F911, because some people (notably Goob) gave summaries of the movie and all of the arguments therein (the most common sentiment was "it's nothing new"), and people generally repeated what they found to be the best arguments in the movie. So I know what Michael Moore himself says, I know what the people who saw the movie took out of it, and I have a general awareness of the issues brought up in the movie. I also know that almost every question I asked in that thread went unanswered -- especially questions relating to the poor in the military now as compared to the poor in the military in WWII.

My criticism is, essentially, that based on what Michael Moore has shown me (as described above), and based on what his supporters say, and based on what people fact-checking him say, I don't think he's putting forth an informed political statement. I don't mind the fact that he makes the statement -- he has every right to do so, but the rest of us have every right to fact-check him. It's just the same as people posting to E&C -- you have every right to do so, but the rest of us have every right to fact-check you. If you find that discouraging, too bad.

So, let me say that one more time: if it discourages you when you get fact-checked, I have no qualms with discouraging you. If it discourages you when I point out that your questions are leading or one-sided, I have no qualms with discouraging you. And if you stand by a discredited opinion and it discourages you that I rag on you for it, again, I have no qualms with discouraging you. So with respect to kufyit's original point, there's nothing wrong with discouraging private individuals from making uninformed political statements they can't back up.

Sirian wrote:Personal attacks on Michael Moore are uncalled for. In fact, they tend to validate his point of view among his supporters. When does one resort to ad hominem attacks? Usually when they are too lazy or too irrational to refute with a clear rebuttal.

So has any reputable commentator called F9/11 a well reasoned documentary? Does Moore's exclaiming "there is no terrorism" at colleges while collecting a 30 or 40,000 dollar fee smack of anything other than money grubbing buffoonery. How Moore presents himself to the world at large dictates what opinions we have of the slug. Ad hominem attacks presented here are akin to Oliphant editorial cartoons in the newspapers. Are they uncalled for? To say the attacks on Moore is uncalled for is to say attacks on Kerrys war record is uncalled for when Kerry makes that record a lynch pin of his predidential bid.
When challenged by Sean Hannity (I know, I know) to debate his postions at the very colleges where he was speaking, Mr. Moore refused. Fact is I can't remember anywhere that Sluggo allowed anyone from the opposition side to question let alone debate him. On the other hand the Swift Boat vets came on any number of forums and argued their case. So if Bull Frog Moore doesn't want ad hominem attacks then he should be prepared defend his position. The world is not a nice place.

"We don't need to see this movie to know it's full of innacuracies"

Ferno wrote:"We don't need to see this movie to know it's full of innacuracies"

but it is billed as a documantary and there for portrayed as fact. for MM to call 53% of the american ppl uninformed and the british newspaper saying "how can 53 million ppl be so stupid" is the height of arrogance. to be so pompas and pious
that you think your smarter than me because you disagree with me. heh, MM's movie is propaganda pure and simple, this movie was not about informing ppl it was about a political agenda and something that Joseph Goerbels would have been proud of. oops my bad according to MM its Bush thats Hitler, I got my parties mixed up

Does Moore's exclaiming "there is no terrorism" at colleges while collecting a 30 or 40,000 dollar fee smack of anything other than money grubbing buffoonery.

Not sure I follow that logic there Woodchip.

...Sluggo..
...Bull Frog Moore...
...Moore in gaining another hundred pounds of pork.

I didn't know that Mr. Moore's weight was relevant to his politicts.

The point is this Cuda: you can't judge something by reading what it's about. that's exactly like judging a book by it's cover. If people truly won't see F9/11 because of what they've read about it, I guess I will have to do the same thing with Farenhype 9/11. Read about it, conclude the movie's full of lies, and not watch it.

Ever hear the Arabian Proverb: "Examine what is said, not who speaks"? I think it applies very well here.

woodchip wrote:To say the attacks on Moore is uncalled for is to say attacks on Kerrys war record is uncalled for when Kerry makes that record a lynch pin of his predidential bid.

Kerry's record was an issue. This included his record as a soldier, his record as an antiwar activist, his record as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, and his record in the US Senate.

Surely you grasp the difference between attacking the record and attacking the man personally.

woodchip wrote:So if Bull Frog Moore doesn't want ad hominem attacks then he should be prepared defend his position.

Ridiculous. Who are you to say whether or not he has adequately defended his position? That's for him to judge. You're welcome to provide evidence that he has not done so, and that's fine. I may even agree with you. But to say that he's fair game for personal attacks is absurd. YOU ONLY ADD TO HIS POWER by doing that. Surely you ought to understand that, as well.

He puts his arguments and points of view out there in the way that he chooses. Refute them. Personal attacks on his appearance, weight, character, and the kinds of absurdities floating through this thread, only coarsen the atmosphere and disrupt discussion. Instead of debate, we get flame wars. I'm sorry, but that's not productive, nor is it wise.


- Sirian

Sirian wrote:

woodchip wrote:To say the attacks on Moore is uncalled for is to say attacks on Kerrys war record is uncalled for when Kerry makes that record a lynch pin of his presidential bid.

Kerry's record was an issue. This included his record as a soldier, his record as an antiwar activist, his record as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, and his record in the US Senate.

Surely you grasp the difference between attacking the record and attacking the man personally

Ridiculous. Who are you to say whether or not he has adequately defended his position? That's for him to judge. You're welcome to provide evidence that he has not done so, and that's fine. I may even agree with you. But to say that he's fair game for personal attacks is absurd. YOU ONLY ADD TO HIS POWER by doing that. Surely you ought to understand that, as well..

Oh quite clearly do I differentiate between a mans record and attacking the man personally. Problem here is Moore the man, his rhetoric and the cut and paste movie he made all blend into one. I look at Moore and his work during the presidential election as a lump sum package. A metaphor for what the far left liberals will do to regain power. Since Moore and Soros had no qualms about attacking Bush on a personal level, I have no compunction about doing the same in return. Moore is a culmination of all that is wrong with the extreme lefts influence on the democratic party and as long as he wants to present himself as a hypocritical buffoon then he will suffer the discriptive cartoons I paint of him.

As to my commentaries adding to his power, I doubt few here want to embrace The Great and Powerful Oz anymore than they already do.

Sirian wrote:

woodchip wrote:So if Bull Frog Moore doesn't want ad hominem attacks then he should be prepared defend his position.

He puts his arguments and points of view out there in the way that he chooses. Refute them. Personal attacks on his appearance, weight, character, and the kinds of absurdities floating through this thread, only coarsen the atmosphere and disrupt discussion. Instead of debate, we get flame wars. I'm sorry, but that's not productive, nor is it wise.
- Sirian

Refute his position? Shall I start with his most egregious expoundment that there is no terrorism?
Has Moore allowed anyone to question him on that? If so kindly point me in the right direction so I may read The Great Mans answer.
So far I have not flamed anyone on this board in this thread. I am as always a model of decorum and decency.