DescentBB

are naive, impressionable, idiots.

See the following ... thoughts?

Ref: http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

[quote]
1. The Gore â??victoryâ?

3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

This is just wrong. As are the numerous "studies" that said that Gore would have won. Bush "won" by 500 votes, the margin of error was 8000. We don't know who won, we will never know who won, and margin of errors are not like the magical pixie faries of bubble yum forest. They are real.

Both sides are playing with numbers, the reality is we just don't know. End of story.

And your numbers came from? References?

study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won

So you are willing to accept this as a source for the proRep side? rofl!

bias++;

Sources later, no more free time now. It would be nice if you came up with some real sources too, that way we can prove my point together

Good point ... I have no sources other than the link I provided above. The 59 points taken as a group are, however, compelling enough for me to label Michael Moore as a lunatic.

C'mon Iceman, you're smarter than that...I'm sure we could find a "group" of people that could change every single item you have there and make it 59 things Bush has failed for this country.

You claim liberals are mindlessly following the sheep, you see to be doing a good job of it now too

Ice. I've seen those 59 points. Looks like fingerpointing to me.

50. Moore reports that Bush proposed closing some Veteranâ??s hospitals. But he also proposed opening other veteranâ??s hospitals.

This point cancels itself out.



Seriously, you must do your own research to get a real answer Ice. not read one page and label someone as a 'lunatic'. that's intellectually dishonest.

Zuruck wrote:C'mon Iceman, you're smarter than that...I'm sure we could find a "group" of people that could change every single item you have there and make it 59 things Bush has failed for this country.

Yeah ya could...it's called moveon.org

Give me a friggin break Z. I didn't just read that paper and get a boner ... I have seen more than enough evidence in the liberal and conservative news media to convince me that the bulk of this is true. For example ... I saw Michael Moore himself state that [EDIT]"There is no terrorist threat".[/EDIT] That one statement alone prooves well beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a fukn embicile. I could go through each of the 59 items one by one and research them but it would take more time than I care to invest. Take the points for what you wish ... I think he is an idiot.

[edit]
The full version of this paper presents research to substantiate most of the points ...

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysi ... it-911.htm

the only thing I need to know about Moore is that he is an asswipe. A whiney little ★■◆●, who has no idea what facts and truth are.

His ★■◆● reminds me of the antidrug movies of the 70's.... they shaded the truth so much you knew is was bs, and ignored it all.

Iceman wrote:I saw Michael Moore himself state that "There is no communist threat".

I also don't think there is a communist threat, Russia fell long ago.

*payback for crap'p'ed.

Moore also said: "There is no terrorist threat".

Do you believe that, Goob?

You will have to define terrorist threat: Do I think I could die in a terrorist attack? Yes. Do I think I will die in a terrorist attack? No.

I equate 9/11 similar to columbine. Are we in danger of having another Columbine? Yes. Are we in danger of having another 9/11? Yes. Am I in danger of being ripped to shreads by a thrown pineapple? Yes.

Should we preform actions to prevent another 9/11? Absolutely; just like Columbine.

But will it make one ounce of difference in my daily routeen if today is a "orange" threat level as opposed to a "red." None what so ever.

I think this is what Moore was trying to say:

"Those who make us believe absurdities, can make us commit atrocities." â??Voltare

Sickone wrote:the only thing I need to know about Moore is that he is an asswipe. A whiney little ****, who has no idea what facts and truth are.

His **** reminds me of the antidrug movies of the 70's.... they shaded the truth so much you knew is was bs, and ignored it all.

Did you see "Roger and Me", Moore's first film Sicky? Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 so I can't comment on it. I have seen the other two and I enjoyed them very much.

Moore isn't a whiny little ★■◆●, he's laid off auto-worker who's found a way to make money and have his say. He pisses the right off in the fine tradition of all left-wing shock jocks. If Bill OReilly could work in film, you better believe he'd be doing a right wing version of the same thing.

Ferno wrote:Ice. I've seen those 59 points. Looks like fingerpointing to me.

You find one point to criticize and so you dismiss them all? Wow.

Same with Goob. Only got a complaint about one point? What about the other 57?


The Condy Rice point in particular is d@mning of Michael Moore. Ripping quotes out of context to make them appear to say something quite different than what was actually said is a cheap shot of the lowest order. That Senator Kerry parroted this charge and the Democratic Party attempted to use it over and over and over again during the campaign is the truly alarming part, though. Moore is a propagandist, and we know what to expect from him. Leaders of a major party and candidates for our land's highest office need to hold themselves to a higher standard.


- Sirian

sheepdog wrote:If Bill OReilly could work in film, you better believe he'd be doing a right wing version of the same thing.

You clearly know nothing about Bill O'Reilly.

Why don't you pick up a copy of one of his books and read it? "Who's Looking Out For You?" would be a good one to start with. I learned some valuable things from that book, which have helped me to advance my career and have served me well in other areas. There is NOTHING about the book that in any way resembles Michael Moore's works.

Where are you getting your information about O'Reilly, anyway? Wherever it is, you might want to rethink your reliance on it. You've got an untrustworthy source there.


- Sirian

Sirian wrote:

sheepdog wrote:If Bill OReilly could work in film, you better believe he'd be doing a right wing version of the same thing.

You clearly know nothing about Bill O'Reilly.

I don't know enough about O'Reilly to comment on him. Rush Limbaugh on the other hand fits Sheepdogs comment. I have read his first book and clearly he is more interested in entertainment than truth. I don't think Sheepdog's point was to pick on O'Reilly. It was only to say that the right has it's own versions of Moore.

Life goes on. Have a beer, you will feel much better.

Dedman wrote:...I don't know enough about O'Reilly to comment on him. Rush Limbaugh on the other hand fits Sheepdogs comment. I have read his first book and clearly he is more interested in entertainment than truth....

Except Limbaugh often says upfront that he is an unabashed advocate for the conservative rightwing agenda and refers to himself as an entertainer in the radio business.
Moore trys to pretend he's a documentary film maker and is doing us a favor by exposing the truth.

Same with Goob. Only got a complaint about one point? What about the other 57?

um, ya this isn't hard.

7. In the golf course scene (about the middle of the movie), Bush had just heard about a terrorist attack on Israel. He called the press together to make a quick statement condemning
the terrorism against Israel. He was not speaking about attacks on the United States.

Moore never said he was, he just showed the footage w/o commentary. He was pointing out how Bush acts so concerned about this terrorist attack, then instantly switched to "lets watch this drive." It did seem fake of Bush to do so. That is all Moore was pointing out. If there was a point to be made they would have said, "Moore said it was about the attack on the united states, but really it was israel...."

#7 is just filler and you know it. Now I am no Moore advocate, but people who say he is "all lies" and try to discredit everything he says, are just as bad as he is.

On that note, instead of me going through 57 of your points, for you. How 'bout maybe you go through them and back your own ★■◆● up? Maybe that sound like a good idea? No?

I hate when people post huge lists and say "prove them all wrong." Yes, let me spend hours of research for your list that you copy/pasted from somewhere else.

Goob wrote:Moore never said he was, he just showed the footage w/o commentary.

And what does the footage show? The President was playing a round of golf. Ever heard the cliche "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"? The President took time to divert from his play to engage briefly with the press, then he wanted to get back to his game. Where's the problem with that?

Moore is very selective in pulling items out of context, be they verbal quotes, activities, ambushes. This is sophistry, nothing more. The implication is that if the President focuses on relaxing at any time, that he is somehow derelict in his duties. The absurdity of that is so blatant, one would have to work rather hard to buy into it. I dare say, only those already predisposed to distrust the President and who are seeking any kind of evidence available to support their views would draw any meaning from this.


Michael Moore supporters on this board challenged the detractors to provide specifics. Iceman has not only done exactly that, but he has provided you the links to where the author of this piece names his sources.

Now you claim the burden of proof is on me? LOL. For the sake of argument, let's go with that. I picked one point already: the Condy Rice quote. What's your answer to that?


- Sirian

And what does the footage show? The President was playing a round of golf. Ever heard the cliche "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"? The President took time to divert from his play to engage briefly with the press, then he wanted to get back to his game. Where's the problem with that?

ehehdhdahdhedeeh deeh. We are talking about if #7 on that list indeed shows that Moore lied about something in F.9/11, as the list implies he did. You are now changing the topic to â??if that footage does or does not paint Bush in a positive lightâ?

Will Robenson wrote:Moore trys to pretend he's a documentary film maker and is doing us a favor by exposing the truth.

This is just grass is greener. Rush/Moore is a very good comparison, I listen to both. When asked on the Daily show if F.9/11 was fair, M.Moore said "no, it is definitely biased." He admits to being a liberal, he admits to having a certain opinion that he portrays in his movie.

Gooberman wrote:

Iceman wrote:I saw Michael Moore himself state that "There is no communist threat".

I also don't think there is a communist threat, Russia fell long ago.

*payback for crap'p'ed.

LOL! You got me Goob

A typo on my part ... sorry it was "There is no terrorist threat"

Edited above post ...

So Goob ... you believe the bulk of what Michael Moore implied in his movie?

nope I think he raises some good questions though. He is biased, I also don't believe everything from O'reilly, and I certainly I don't believe everything from Rush.

I hate to cross post from the other Moore thread, but the summary Iceman posted doesn't do this list justice. Here is the full list of 59 deceits with supporting information and context. In some cases there are even links to responses from Moore's "war room".

Goob: The full list answers many of the points in the link to Moore's site that you posted.

Edit: I see that Iceman posted the link to the full list in a later post. I'll STFU now .

Sirian wrote:

sheepdog wrote:You clearly know nothing about Bill O'Reilly.


- Sirian

Sirian I imagine my actual knowledge of Oreilly is on a par with your actual knowledge of Michael Moore.

I have gritted my teeth and listened to 15 minutes of OReilly's show on any number of occasions. Seems like the last time I hit the off button the jerk was ranting about wetbacks.

Nice! There's a real American for you!

Goob,

No way that Moore should be negatively compared with Limbaugh or for that matter OReilly (my bad ).

For one thing Moore actually goes places and asks questions. He doesn't just sit on his butt in a studio harrassing callers, preaching to the converted and interviewing his right wing flunkies.

Goob wrote:I am just against those that write off everything he says as "all lies," and therefor choose not to even listen to his criticisms.

Just because he is a biased voice doesn't mean he is wrong on all accounts.

Agreed.

My first sighting of Michael Moore was his brief stint on NBC, where he did ambush stunts. He was sort of passing himself off as similar to 60 Minutes and their form of "gotcha" journalism, but it just was not quite the same. I found it interesting at first, and then thoughtful, but soom came to see it as mean and underhanded... disingenuous. That others are now giving him a taste of that medicine, following HIM around the country and mocking HIM and taking HIS words out of context, he doesn't seem to take it as well as he dishes it out.

I distrust him to the point of not bothering with him when he's on his own turf. I cannot trust him to be fair, so he's not worth my time to pursue. I will listen to what he has to say when he's in a position to be challenged, though, like his interviews with Russert and O'Reilly.

What Moore did to Condy Rice's quote crosses a line that I've not seen Rush cross. Rush certainly pushes a number of lines, but that kind of deception is not among them.

I used to listen to Rush. In fact, I listened to him a good bit from when he started in 1989 up until about 1994, when he was pretty much the ONLY nonliberal voice around. However, I moved on when I got tired of his personal attacks and extreme satire. I agreed with his views but not his methods. O'Reilly is much more my speed: leans right but plays fair and balanced.


- Sirian

sheepdog wrote:Sirian I imagine my actual knowledge of Oreilly is on a par with your actual knowledge of Michael Moore.

See my previous post, then imagine again.

- Sirian

sirian do you think O'Reilly is a more credible source than moore?

Sirian,

You've been preaching to the choir too long. Your standard of proof is embarassingly low! You watched Moore on TV so that means you know something about him?!

Bold Deciever, if you read this make a note. Sirian thinks tv watching is a basis for knowledge. Ipso Facto my evidence based on friendships and personal experiences is IN!

I think O'Reilly is a much more credible source than Moore. I don't think O'Reilly is "fair and balanced," but I do think he makes an attempt at showing the other side; Moore rarely does. I think you will have a very difficult time arguing against that Birdseye.

Sirian wrote:I distrust him to the point of not bothering with him when he's on his own turf. I cannot trust him to be fair, so he's not worth my time to pursue.

I tend to distrust them all. So I would rather listen to those on both sides that I know are biased, and then try to put the puzzle together myself.

What I can't stand is people telling me they are fair, when they clearly arn't. Fox's "fair, balanced and unafraid" slogan makes me want to vomit. But if someone tells me they are biased, I can then listen to them ramble on all day.

I'm still waiting for Iceman's point by point rebuttal of the info in (edit: Gooberman's) link.

Ford Prefect wrote:I'm still waiting for Iceman's point by point rebuttal of the info in Otherone's link.

From what I see Otherones link supports Icemans point of view. Am I missing something here? I did sort of skim this one.

sheepdog wrote:Bold Deciever, if you read this make a note. Sirian thinks tv watching is a basis for knowledge. Ipso Facto my evidence based on friendships and personal experiences is IN!

Not quite. I didn't read Sirian's post, but if what you say is true, it is perfectly reasonable for a someone like Sirian to gauge the credibility of a specific television personality or journalist based on that person's [Sirian's] own perception and observation.

You, on the other hand, attempted to extrapolate a far more general (and probably unqualified) observation, based on your personal experience with a homosexual couple. From this, you would set a general policy for America with respect to gay marriage. Where your own personal observations might be probative on the question whether your gay friends are suitable parents (subject to the reader's own evaluation of your credibility issues, and your qualification to make such observations), they are practically useless otherwise.

That's the difference between evidence that is merely anecdotal to a general proposition, and the direct perception and observation of someone regarding a specific person or event.

BD

(Edit:Gooberman's) link is to Moore's list of backup sources for the "facts" used in his movie.
I hardly think it supports Iceman's list.

Moore very much enjoys the attention of being a thorn under the saddle of the right and he would have loved to be the one to bring George Bush down. I don't watch his movies since I don't need someone else to tell me what to think. I read Stupid White Men and enjoyed it for the humour. The most telling chapter is the one on how much censorship a high school student can and cannot avoid. Moore is candid about his reasons for becoming a left wing shock jock in this chapter and it tells a lot about him as a person. Having to endure the personal taunts of the juvenile versions of Woodchip and his ilk while in high school has had a lot of effect on him. Rather he makes irritating movies than load up a rifle and get his revenge that way.

Birdseye wrote:sirian do you think O'Reilly is a more credible source than moore?

Apples and oranges.

Moore makes films where he controls the entire content. O'Reilly interviews a wide range of guests, asks questions, and lets the guests answer, so long as they do not filibuster, dodge questions, or make claims without any facts to back them up.

Moore's format is much more insulated. He does not expose his point of view to direct challenge. The guests on O'Reilly's show get as much air time as he does, and there is a wide variety of them.

On O'Reilly's show, you get his point of view, for sure, but you also get to hear opposing points of view and make up your mind after listening to debate. O'Reilly embraces debate. It's what he does. Moore frames the picture he wants you to see, including deliberate shaping of it by leaving out relevant facts and significant information.

O'Reilly is not a "source", except with his books and his nightly editorials, which only take up about two minutes apiece to start his show. O'Reilly takes emails from his audience and actually reads them. I know, because he posted one of mine on the air, said some kind things to me, and shipped me a free book. He airs emails that criticize him, often without any rebuttal. He scans the emails for interesting and thoughtful replies and airs ones that make good points, both for or against what he had to say.

Do I agree in lockstep with what he forwards? Of course not. I think he's off the mark with his crusade to have the National Guard put on the Mexican border. I disagree with him regularly, but you've got to love the No Spin Zone. That's a powerful venue. If a guest comes on and debates O'Reilly and actually wins on the arguments or reveals facts I did not know about, that has changed my mind about many things. In fact, one of them was Rosie O'Donnell and her advocacy of homosexual adoption.

I watched Moore's interview with O'Reilly during the convention. I watched it three more times on replay from O'Reilly's website. The thing that stuck out in my mind was Moore's attempt to trap O'Reilly with questions about whether he'd send in his own child to secure Fallujah. That's typical Moore, from all that I have seen of him. He plays gotcha games with emotion in lieu of examining all the facts of an issue. Entertaining? Perhaps to some. Informative and thoughtful? Not in my opinion.


- Sirian

By "otherone" do you mean me?

*Sirian snuck one in, in reply to FP.

Ack! I'm so confused.