Is Michael Moore a blowhard?

[JesseJames]

Well, is he?
The guy is without a doubt a propagandist. He bends the truth for demagogue purposes.
I think he serves some purpose; get people riled up and demand some answers.
I don't like George Bush either but I think he's a good man who is most definitely not a visionary leader. Some of the claims Moore makes against Bush and his administration seem utterly ridiculous.

[Silencio]

Well, is he?
He's basically the Rush Limbaugh of the left, for better or worse.

I don't think Bush is an evil man, but he surrounds himself with evil men and allows them to dictate his policies.

[LeeTom]

Bush was the rush leader for his fraternity.

'nuff said.

Lee Tom

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think Bush is an evil man, but he surrounds himself with evil men and allows them to dictate his policies.

Now there's a distinction without a difference!

[GeeYouEye]

Well, is he?
The guy is without a doubt a propagandist. He bends the truth for demagogue purposes.
I think he serves some purpose; get people riled up and demand some answers.
I don't like George Bush either but I think he's a good man who is most definitely not a visionary leader. Some of the claims Moore makes against Bush and his administration seem utterly ridiculous.
Yes.

[Perci Mac]

Well, is he?
The guy is without a doubt a propagandist. He bends the truth for demagogue purposes.
I think he serves some purpose; get people riled up and demand some answers.
I don't like George Bush either but I think he's a good man who is most definitely not a visionary leader. Some of the claims Moore makes against Bush and his administration seem utterly ridiculous.

Many of his claims are utterly ridiculous, and the effect of his "documentary" has been limited. Americans know propaganda when they see it. Last I heard, a documentary was an unbiased, nonfiction exploration of a certain topic, not a completely biased exploration of half-truths and downright fiction. Little kids flying kites in Iraq, Saddam must have been a GREAT guy. :rolleyes:

[meta-ghost]

Some of the claims Moore makes against Bush and his administration seem utterly ridiculous.

to quote jon stewart - the facts themselves are biased and against the administration...

seriously - what are the claims you have a problem with in F/911?

[meta-ghost]

Little kids flying kites in Iraq, Saddam must have been a GREAT guy.

let's see, a nation that was lied to and taken to war (and subsequently made infinitely more insecure as a result) versus a clip of a kid flying a kite in iraq. i'll take the kite...

[Thanatoast]

Last I heard, a documentary was an unbiased, nonfiction exploration of a certain topic, not a completely biased exploration of half-truths and downright fiction. Half-truths and downright fiction? Which parts were so? If Moore has been lying about Bush, wouldn't he have been sued for libel/slander? Make your case.

[Perci Mac]

let's see, a nation that was lied to and taken to war (and subsequently made infinitely more insecure as a result) versus a clip of a kid flying a kite in iraq. i'll take the kite...

So are you saying it's better to be in a poor situation with only the possiblity of the situation becoming more voliatile, rather than risking increased turmoil in hopes of an eventual democracy and peace? Because if thats what you're saying, the United States would have been better off never to risk the revolutionary war. Now, I can't argue against the facts that the reasons Bush went to war were reasons based on false intelligence, but I would also encourage Democrats to look ahead to how exactly John Kerry would deal with the situation. Would he pull out right away, call it a victory and abandon our democratic allies, or would he deal with the situation. Something to think about.

[Durandal7]

Half-truths and downright fiction? Which parts were so? If Moore has been lying about Bush, wouldn't he have been sued for libel/slander? Make your case.

As I recall some of the more colorful accusations during the 90's about President Clinton included:
*Clinton is addicted to crack cocaine
*Clinton is in collusion with the UN to take over the US
*Clinton murdered dozens of people while Governor of Arkansas
*Clinton is the anti-christ
...and there were many others. Do you recall any of them being sued for libel/slander? A highly public official such as the President will always be subject to numerous accusations, it doesn't make sense to sue everyone nutjob that comes along. Furthermore, if the President started suing all his critics wouldn't that basically be the President of the United States stifling free speech?

The point is that a public official is subject to much different standards when it comes to slander and libel than a private citizen would be, especially if that public offical is prominent.

[Perci Mac]

Half-truths and downright fiction? Which parts were so? If Moore has been lying about Bush, wouldn't he have been sued for libel/slander? Make your case.

I can give you nine.


Fahrenheit Lie #1

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)
Fahrenheit Lie #2

In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”
Fahrenheit Lie #3

Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #4

The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, www.va.gov, 10/24/03)
Fahrenheit Lie #5

Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).

Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That Aren’t There,” Weekly Standard, July 5-July 12 Issue)
Fahrenheit Lie #6

Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”

The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S. (Tanya C. Hsu, Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy, “The United States Must Not Neglect Saudi Arabian Investment,” www.irmep.org, Accessed 07/11/04)

The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.
Fahrenheit Lie #7

“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
Fahrenheit Lie #8

Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”

But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.

To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
Fahrenheit Lie #9

Moore does more than simply downplay the threat posed to the U.S. by the former Hussein regime in Iraq. He goes so far as to assert that Saddam “never threatened to attack the United States.”

If by “attack the United States” one interprets this claim to mean that Saddam never threatened to send troops to the United States, then Mr. Moore has a point. ü But Saddam Hussein clearly sought to attack the United States within his own sphere of influence, even though he didn’t have the resources to attack U.S. soil from his side of the world:

On November 15, 1997, “the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein’s son Uday), ordered: ‘American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.’” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

In addition, “Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country,” (Source: New York Times, 12/1/03).

Saddam Hussein also provided safe haven to terrorists who killed Americans, like Abu Nidal; funded suicide bombers in Israel who certainly killed Americans; and ran the Iraqi police, which plotted to assassinate former President George Bush.



Enjoy.

[IJ Reilly]

All of the above was cut and pasted from one of the so-called "debunking" sites. What a bore.

[Perci Mac]

All of the above was cut and pasted from one of the so-called "debunking" sites. What a bore.

Perhaps. But it's true, and it's something to think about. You might actually have to open your mind to do that though. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps. But it's true, and it's something to think about. You might actually have to open your mind to do that though. :rolleyes:

You're new around here so I'll give you a pass this time.

The point being, all of these issues have been debated here at great length. Cut and paste arguments are a no-go here.

[meta-ghost]

So are you saying it's better to be in a poor situation with only the possiblity of the situation becoming more voliatile, rather than risking increased turmoil in hopes of an eventual democracy and peace?

you were discussing "propaganda" in the usa
Americans know propaganda when they see it. Last I heard, a documentary was an unbiased, nonfiction exploration of a certain topic, not a completely biased exploration of half-truths and downright fiction.
and my point was that i'd take the more than ambiguous image of a kid flying a kite to the outright lies of the administration:


Now, I can't argue against the facts that the reasons Bush went to war were reasons based on false intelligence,
maybe (probably not) you can say bush didn't know in october, but he was certainly lying in march.

even if (the highly unlikely) notion that it was a mistake, why in the world would we want to vote for someone who can't be trusted to perform due diligence?

[Dale Sorel]

I think he serves some purpose; get people riled up and demand some answers.

Oh yea, don't forget he also makes a ton of cash while doing it :(

[takao]

Many of his claims are utterly ridiculous, and the effect of his "documentary" has been limited. Americans know propaganda when they see it. Last I heard, a documentary was an unbiased, nonfiction exploration of a certain topic, not a completely biased exploration of half-truths and downright fiction. Little kids flying kites in Iraq, Saddam must have been a GREAT guy. :rolleyes:

you know some claims made by 'some officials' of the current US government were ridiculous as well
so we have two sides making ridiculous claims
*one is a little bit to heavy film maker who makes amusing (at least to me) movies who criticise the current government with 'ridiculous claims' to perhaps make more money
*and the other one is the government of a country who spends more money on their army/navy than perhaps the rest of the world combined,who makes the ridiculous statements to justify a 'self-defense-war' thousands and thousands of miles away

feel free to choose ...


BTW:
i don't know about some of you but i was _disgusted_ about the 'war coverage' on CNN (according to many people here the channel is 'left' which surprised me..i always thought it was very conservative)...
i'm still surprised how militaristic the american news are...even on the 'left'...perhaps the US wants to be the prussians of the 21th century ;)

[meta-ghost]

Perhaps. But it's true, and it's something to think about. You might actually have to open your mind to do that though. :rolleyes:

have you actually seen it. cause i'd like to respond to all of the silly things you've cut a pasted but first want to know if we will be able to have a discussion about it. seen it?

[Perci Mac]

maybe (probably not) you can say bush didn't know in october, but he was certainly lying in march.

even if (the highly unlikely) notion that it was a mistake, why in the world would we want to vote for someone who can't be trusted to perform due diligence?

If going on the CIA's strong assertation that Iraq possessed WMD's and was a threat to the United States is lying, then yes, George W Bush lied. But think back, back right before the war was started. The congress was given the same intelligence as the president. The case for going to war was strong, and most everybody agreed, including Kerry, Edwards, and other intelligence agencies from other countries, that Saddam was a threat. It's easy to turn your back on something you initially supported and advocated when you're not the one taking the fall. I was under the impression that congress had to in some way vote to go to war. Did that happen for this war? If not, I'll be the first to say, why not? But if so, that proves the case to go to war in Iraq was very good, and initially supported by the majority of both parties. The recent anti-war talk certainly has merit, but the blaming of the individual of George W Bush is purely political.

[Perci Mac]

You're new around here so I'll give you a pass this time.

The point being, all of these issues have been debated here at great length. Cut and paste arguments are a no-go here.

Well, I've actually been registered for a year and half, I know the rules. Is the reason that you discourage citing other websites for factual information is that you don't want to read the facts? Should we all just make stuff up to avoid going into the nasty outside world of the internet? That's quite amusing to me and it raises the question of how many Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about?

[zimv20]

Well, I've actually been registered for a year and half, I know the rules.
apparently, you don't. there're new ones for the political area. have you read them?

[zimv20]

The congress was given the same intelligence as the president.
some of the intelligence presented to congress came from the WH, which used sources other than the CIA. many of these sources have been discredited. imo, it's disingenuous to forgive the WH for discredited intelligence, when it was responsible for its gathering and analysis in the first place.

I was under the impression that congress had to in some way vote to go to war. Did that happen for this war?
no, there was no official declaration of war.


the blaming of the individual of George W Bush is purely political.
so where exactly does the buck stop, if it's not w/ the commander in chief?

[Bobcat37]

Cut and paste arguments are a no-go here.

Well... I AM new here, but I've debated politics countless of other times on another board, so I know how it works. Like Perci, I'm not following your logic, if "cut and paste" arguments are not allowed, then you should not be allowed to quote anything from Moore's "documentary" and use it in an argument against Bush, because that would be "cutting and pasting" from a movie, right? What's the difference? Heck, I could probably argue that ANYTHING you say political-related has been said by someone else in the past, and thus you are probably just copying them.

Seems like your just finding an easy escape to avoid reading or listening to anything Perci cited. If a reliable person (which I realize could be subject to debate) has already done the research for you, why not just quote them (as long as you give them credit of course)? I dont think most of us have the time in our life to research Moore's claims ourselves for a little debate on a Mac website.

Personally I would trust anything the Independence Institute has said over what Moore says. Maybe you wouldn't, but that doesn't give you an excuse to just dismiss his points.

[pseudobrit]

That's quite amusing to me and it raises the question of how many Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about?

How poignant. I was thinking the same thing as I read your copy/paste dissertation.

You may want to mind your tongue.

[Perci Mac]

Well... I AM new here, but I've debated politics countless of other times on another board, so I know how it works. Like Perci, I'm not following your logic, if "cut and paste" arguments are not allowed, then you should not be allowed to quote anything from Moore's "documentary" and use it in an argument against Bush, because that would be "cutting and pasting" from a movie, right? What's the difference?

Seems like your just finding an easy escape to avoid reading or listening to anything Perci cited. If a reliable person (which I realize could be subject to debate) has already done the research for you, why not just quote them? I dont think most of us have the time in our life to research Moore's claims himself for a little debate on a Mac website.

Personally I would trust anything the Independence Institute has said over what Moore says. Maybe you wouldn't, but that doesn't give you an excuse to just dismiss his points.

Well thanks, I appreciate your logic ;) By the way, what part of Colorado are you from, I was born and raised there.

zimv20
apparently, you don't. there're new ones for the political area. have you read them?


Well I guess not. My apologies. :)

[Perci Mac]

How poignant. I was thinking the same thing as I read your copy/paste dissertation.
You may want to mind your tongue.

Well, before we get into this to seriously, let's introduce ourselves. I'm Perci Mac, a conservative. No, I'm not in a support group. No, I don't really know why I'm spending my time arguing on Macrumors. No, I'm not going to watch my tongue, because I'm well within forum parameters. Anything else? No, not really. Seriously, I can take care of myself, but thanks for the concern.

[pseudobrit]

Well... I AM new here, but I've debated politics countless of other times on another board, so I know how it works. Like Perci, I'm not following your logic, if "cut and paste" arguments are not allowed, then you should not be allowed to quote anything from Moore's "documentary" and use it in an argument against Bush, because that would be "cutting and pasting" from a movie, right?

Show me where someone has cut-and-pasted from Moore's movie.

What's the difference? Heck, I could probably argue that ANYTHING you say political-related has been said by someone else in the past, and thus you are probably just copying them.

There's a big fat line between inspiration/imitation and duplication. Guess which side copy/paste is on.

Seems like your just finding an easy escape to avoid reading or listening to anything Perci cited. If a reliable person (which I realize could be subject to debate) has already done the research for you, why not just quote them (as long as you give them credit of course)? I dont think most of us have the time in our life to research Moore's claims ourselves for a little debate on a Mac website.

Such things have been hashed out repeatedly on this board. Well before you came along and while Moore's movie was still a rumour, the members of this board debated ad naseum the facts that Moore presented in movie form.

Personally I would trust anything the Independence Institute has said over what Moore says. Maybe you wouldn't, but that doesn't give you an excuse to just dismiss his points.

I personally trust major news sources. Which tend to back Moore's case.

More to come...

[zimv20]

if "cut and paste" arguments are not allowed, then you should not be allowed to quote anything from Moore's "documentary"
there has been a misinterpretation.

what we love here are reasoned arguments backed by fact, or at least a source from a reliable and/or respected source.

less popular, and leaning towards "not in accordance w/ the rules," is unreasoned opinion presented as fact.

by "cut and paste," it's frowned upon to cut/paste text from elsewhere w/o citation. it's especially bad if the original source doesn't hold up well to the reliable/respected part, and/or we mistake the text as originally written by the MR poster.

there was a problem starting a few months ago w/ a new poster, who would, with citation, cut/paste huge swaths of argument from some questionable websites. it was all the rest of us could do but keep up.

preferred is to cut/paste a smaller, relevent section and provide a link to the original source, followed by some kind of comment or analysis.

does that clear things up?

[pseudobrit]

No, I'm not going to watch my tongue, because I'm well within forum parameters.

When you make the case that not many "Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about," you're not making any friends.

It's certainly bad form, if not an outright violation.

[Thanatoast]

I can give you nine.

[...]

Enjoy.
#1 This statement, boiled down, says "even though there is no link between Saddam and 9/11, there is a link between Saddam and 9/11." Sounds pretty misleading to me...

#2 The US has recently started releasing prisoners from Guantanamo that have been found to have no connection to terrorism at all (as determined by the lack of charges filed against them), yet members of bin Laden's own family get out with a quick, "Are you a terrorist?" That's at least shoddy, and at worst, criminal.

#3 They never found anything to back that up? Did they ever find anything to disprove it?

#4 This is actually a truth. The administration did in fact close veterans' hospitals. It is mis-labeled.

#5 This one contradicts itself.Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998). Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline.

#6 So Bush is only in hock to the the Saudis to the tune of $420 billion. I guess that means he was fully prepared to blow them off.

#7 This one says that the Bushes and bin Laden were investment partners and does not say that Carlyle will not profit from the war. Another mis-labeled "lie".

#8 Score one for Colin Powell.

#9 Saddam Hussein threatened the US. Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US. Why didn't Bush go after the *real* threat, Osama.

[Bobcat37]

When you make the case that not many "Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about," you're not making any friends.

It's certainly bad form, if not an outright violation.

Is misquoting someone a violation? He said it "Raises the question of how many Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about?"

Now, you twisted that into him saying that "not many "Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about,""

According to the rules of the English language, those 2 sentences have quite the different meanings. Originally he had a very good point... when he was scolded for quoting and citing too many sources, he simply wondered how people could possibly be getting accurate information if this was not allowed. You turned that into him stating that not many people around here read factual info know what they are talking about. Not trying to start a fight here, but I hope you see the difference.

Also, thanks for the info pseudobrit. 1) I never said anyone had cut and paste from Moore's movies, show me where I did. 2) I know there is a difference between inspiration and copying. 3) I'm not really interested in debating Moore's movie on this site either, as I also did it long ago at another forum.

Anyway, I think zimv20 completely cleared up the whole copy/paste thing. I completely understand what you mean zim, thanks :)

PS- Perci, I'm from the Golden/Lakewood part of Colorado. I assume you know where that is?

[pseudobrit]

I can give you nine.


Fahrenheit Lie #1

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”
The scene deceptively shows the Administration directly blaming Saddam and his regime for the attacks on 9/11 by taking her comments out of context. Now read the entire statement made by Ms. Rice to the reporter:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.” (CBS News, November 28, 2003 Interview)

What is the difference? Her whole statement doesn't nullify the first sentence.

Fahrenheit Lie #2

In the film, Moore leads viewers to believe that members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to exit the country after the attacks without questioning by authorities. o The September 11th commission, on the other hand, reported that 22 of the 26 people on the flight that took most of the bin Laden family out of the country were interviewed and found to be innocent of suspicion. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

The commission reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

This provides no refutation of Moore's implication.

Fahrenheit Lie #3

Moore claims that James Bath, a friend of President Bush from his time with the Texas Air National Guard, might have funneled bin Laden money to an unsuccessful Bush oil-drilling firm called Arbusto Energy.

Bill Allison, managing editor for the Center for Public Integrity (an independent watchdog group in Washington, D.C.), on the other hand, said, “We looked into bin Laden money going to Arbusto, and we never found anything to back that up,” (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

So they haven't found proof that Bath was or wasn't involved, and because Moore makes an implication that he may have been he's a liar?

Fahrenheit Lie #4

The movie claims that the Bush administration “supported closing veterans hospitals.” o “The Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)

But Moore’s film fails to mention that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also proposed building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers (News Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, www.va.gov, 10/24/03)

So? They're still cutting funding.

I've already put more effort into your post than you did, so I'm done now.

[Bobcat37]

What is the difference? Her whole statement doesn't nullify the first sentence.

You can't seriously mean that, can you? O_o

Have you ever heard of taking something out of context?

Moore tried to paint Rice as saying that Iraq was directly connected with the 9/11 attacks. While in fact Rice was simply stating that the only indirect connection Iraq had to the attacks on 9/11 was the ideology of hatred toward the West that is spread throughout the Middle East in countries such as Iraq.

If you can't see a difference there, then debating the point is hopeless.

It would be like if you said "Apples and oranges are the same... in the fact that they are both fruit."

And then I turned around and quoted you as saying "Apples and oranges are the same."

You would sound stupid no? But then again, the whole statement wouldn't nullify the first sentence I guess. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Is misquoting someone a violation? He said it "Raises the question of how many Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about?"

Now, you twisted that into him saying that "not many "Macrumors users actually read factual information and know what their talking about,""

According to the rules of the English language, those 2 sentences have quite the different meanings.

His implication was that we are all ignorant of the facts. I quoted him directly, and I quoted his entire statement originally. I have been more than fair.

Originally he had a very good point... when he was scolded for quoting and citing too many sources, he simply wondered how people could possibly be getting accurate information if this was not allowed. You turned that into him stating that not many people around here read factual info know what they are talking about. Not trying to start a fight here, but I hope you see the difference.

He was scolded for coming with a pre-packaged argument. He didn't write any of it. Then he turned on us for being closed-minded since we didn't want to listen to his "facts"

Also, thanks for the info pseudobrit. 1) I never said anyone had cut and paste from Moore's movies, show me where I did.

You said, "you should not be allowed to quote anything from Moore's 'documentary' and use it in an argument against Bush." I never said you accused us of doing such, I just wondered where you came up with this point, seeing as how no one here has used Moore's film to copy/paste an argument. I guess your point was simply irrelevant.

[Bobcat37]

If it makes you feel good my point was irrelevant. My feelings are so hurt now :(

[pseudobrit]

You can't seriously mean that, can you? O_o

Have you ever heard of taking something out of context?

Moore tried to paint Rice as saying that Iraq was directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

This statement, taken apart, still reads: Iraq--->9/11.

The only difference between the first sentence and the whole statement is the qualifier (the nonsense about ideologies) that absolves her from being responsible for making an outright lie.

It's not Moore's fault that it's a poorly constructed lie.

Let's use your analogy to drive my point home:

Apples are Oranges (This is ************)

Apples are Oranges, in the sense that they are both fruits, have peels and grown on trees. (This is qualified ************, but ************ nonetheless)

[Durandal7]

This is a little off-topic (OK, completely off-topic) so please forgive me.

I've been noticing that a lot of the active political posters are from Colorado. So far in this thread alone Perci Mac, Thantatoast, Bobcat37 and myself are all in Colorado. Maybe it's because Colorado is considered a "swing state" this year. Just thought that was interesting.

[Ugg]

Have you ever heard of taking something out of context?

Moore tried to paint Rice as saying that Iraq was directly connected with the 9/11 attacks. While in fact Rice was simply stating that the only indirect connection Iraq had to the attacks on 9/11 was the ideology of hatred toward the West that is spread throughout the Middle East in countries such as Iraq.


Tying Iraq, a secular country, to Saudi Arabia, the origin of the majority of the hatred in the ME, is like tying the pope to the communists in Italy because of their proximity. Rice lied, anyone who refuses to see that is simply putting blinders on.

Like any author or director, Moore has edited footage. Unlike many others, Moore assumes his audience is intelligent and can make their own decisions about what they see and read. By distilling Rice's comments he makes it clear what her intention was.

I don't like Moore, but he has done more to get this country talking about the lies of gw & co. than anyone else has. When the NY Times comes out and says it didn't apply a rigrorous enough standard to gw's claims, you know that propaganda was what gw sought and achieved. If Moore has gone too far to the left, my only thought is that it wasn't far enough and nobody else is following his lead, at this country's peril, I might add.

[Bobcat37]

Like any author or director, Moore has edited footage. Unlike many others, Moore assumes his audience is intelligent and can make their own decisions about what they see and read. By distilling Rice's comments he makes it clear what her intention was.

Psh, whatever. Moore has used the same tactic countless of times. Editing footage? Distilling her comments? Hardly. Remember Bowling for Columbine anyone? He invented a speech by Charlton Heston by piecing together several unrelated speeches, how pathetic is that? Moore will continue to invent speeches and quotes that never happened as long as it suites his agenda. It is pretty amusing that you think Moore knows what Rice's intention was better than Rice... because if you read the FULL quote by Rice, it's pretty obvious to me what she was saying, qualifier or not. (By the way, I hope you guys apply this same "ignore the qualifier" standard to everything in life, and not just when it fits your beliefs)

You see, I am intelligent enough to make my own decisions about what I see, and I've decided that Moore and his "truth" is all crap. The unfortunate part is the people who go and see Moore's fiction and then come out believing it as gospel. To each his own I guess...

[Waluigi]

Bush was the rush leader for his fraternity.

'nuff said.

Lee Tom

I don't like Bush by any means (in fact, I am livid at his policies). But that is a cheap shot. First of all, fraternities are fantastic organizations on average, with a few really bad chapters that unfairly mess up the image of the whole fraternal system. Second, rush leader for a fraternity is basically the guy who sells the fraternity to potential pledges. It takes a lot of skill to plan rush events, and teach each brother how to get to know perspective pledges to decide whom is best to take in as the future of your chapter. It takes management and sales skills, and is a very important position. If a fraternity has a bad rush leader, it will not get new members, and without new members, it can not survive! You can disagree with President Bush on politics, but it is wrong to think he is bad because he was the rush leader of his fraternity.

--Waluigi

[IJ Reilly]

Remember Bowling for Columbine anyone? He invented a speech by Charlton Heston by piecing together several unrelated speeches, how pathetic is that?

Odd, I debunked precisely that charge at length just a couple of days ago in another thread. I'll say again what I said then: It might actually help to see the movie, instead getting all of your information about it from a web site.

This is what I mean by cut-and-paste arguments. Even when they aren't lifted verbatim word for word, they're at best an uncritical paraphrase of somebody else's ideas. I don't care what side of the debate you're on, that sort of thing gets no respect around here.

[LethalWolfe]

Odd, I debunked precisely that charge at length just a couple of days ago in another thread.


Curious. Link?


Lethal

[takao]

Americans know propaganda when they see it.

forgotten to coment on that on my first post:
i can assure you : the big majority of americans don't recognize _real_ propaganda when they see it..propaganda doesn't come in your home like an elephant playing drums...more like termites eating it up behind the walls...


let's face it ..every coalition/government/political party who supported the war in iraq had massive losses in polls/elections and lost big chunks of their supporters....except...yeah...george w. bush and the republican party.... the amount of support they get is absolutly amazing and (for me) frightening.... so my assumption is that the propaganda from _them_ works definatly very good

[Lyle]

Well, I've actually been registered for a year and half, I know the rules.apparently, you don't. there're new ones for the political area. have you read them?I thought it might be helpful to post a link to the current Political Forum Guidelines (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79515). I know there was some discussion of banning "cut and paste" posting, but if there is a rule about it, it doesn't yet appear in the official guidelines.

[Lyle]

Psh, whatever. Moore has used the same tactic countless of times. Editing footage? Distilling her comments? Hardly. Remember Bowling for Columbine anyone? He invented a speech by Charlton Heston by piecing together several unrelated speeches, how pathetic is that?Did you see Bill O'Reilly's interview with Michael Moore Tuesday night? I thought it was richly ironic that one of Moore's ground rules for the interview was that it be shown in its entirety and not edited. I guess he didn't want any of his comments to be "distilled". ;)

[jayb2000]

Yes, Michael Moore has a political agenda. Yes his movie is slanted towards that purpose. However, people are getting bogged down in one quote from Condoleeza Rice. Within months of September 11, Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc were drumming up support for a war in Iraq. As recently as this month, after the 9/11 commission said there was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Cheney was insisting there was, with no proof to that effect.

The point Moore makes, is that before we invaded Iraq, we were told that there WMDs and ties to bin laden. Neither of those is true, and before Wolfowitz/Cheney/et al were asking for information that supported those arguments, none was found.

Years ago, there was a study of saccharine that showed it caused cancer in lab rats. However, the study was flawed. The rats were force fed the equivalent of 2lbs of saccharine per day for a person. This was such an outrageous amount, the lead researcher then did a similar study that showed broccoli would cause cancer, by force feeding rats the equivalent of 2lbs of broccoli per person per day. They all got stomach cancer just like with saccharine.

If the administration had not listened to Chalabi and setup their own intelligence group in the pentagon under Wolfowitz, then they could have focused on terrorism, and not any thread of evidence that purportedly showed problems with Iraq. We had weapons inspectors in Iraq who were finding nothing, but because the administration only wanted information that said Saddam was linked to terrorists or had WMDs, that is all they got and all they showed us.

Is MM a blowhard?
n : a very boastful and talkative person [syn: bragger, braggart, boaster, line-shooter, vaunter]

He is talkative, but not sure about boastful.

[meta-ghost]

All of the above was cut and pasted from one of the so-called "debunking" sites. What a bore.

Perhaps. But it's true, and it's something to think about. You might actually have to open your mind to do that though. :rolleyes:

i love the orwellian logic that says an open mind is something that refuses to explore (or in this case, actually see the film). this country is in deep doo doo..

[Sun Baked]

Jul 28, 1:30 PM EDT

Bin Laden Brother Disputes Moore Film

PARIS (AP) -- A half-brother of Osama bin Laden says he enjoyed most of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," except for what he called "inaccuracies" about his family.

"It's a moving film," Yeslam Binladin, a Geneva-based tycoon and one of the al-Qaida leader's 54 siblings, said in an interview with the French magazine VSD.

"I even laughed at times," said Binladin, adding, "but a lot less when he states errors or inaccuracies about my family, knowing perfectly well that he's deceiving the public."

In the film, Moore says President Bush tried to cover up his family's longtime business and personal ties to the family of Osama bin Laden and other prominent Saudis because many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

One of his main points is that the U.S. administration helped 142 Saudis - including two dozen members of bin Laden's family - fly out of the United States two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, even though commercial air space was closed.

"That's false and can be verified by anyone," said the Saudi-born Binladin, who intentionally spells his name differently from Osama, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks. "They benefited from no exceptional authorization to leave American territory."

A recent 9/11 panel report states that the chartered flights took place starting Sept. 14, once airspace had reopened.

Binladin, who has lived in Geneva for many years and has Swiss citizenship, told the magazine that his U.S.-based family members flew into Geneva on Sept. 20 before taking off again for Saudi Arabia.

The movie also states that several family members attended a 2001 wedding of one of Osama bin Laden's sons in Afghanistan - a claim Binladin says is exaggerated...

[meta-ghost]

One of his main points is that the U.S. administration helped 142 Saudis - including two dozen members of bin Laden's family - fly out of the United States two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, even though commercial air space was closed.


so you haven't even seen the film and your wasting everyone's time here with this thoughless garbage. fyi, the film doesn't say they left when commercial air space was closed...

[Bobcat37]

Man, I thought I signed up at a Mac website, not Moore's fan club ;)

Anyone hear about the spat he had with a female CNN reporter yesterday I think? I'm gonna guess you guys are all gonna side with Moore and think CNN better apologize to him, instead of the opposite...

Oh well, let the Moore love fest continue :rolleyes:

PS- Lyle, unfortunately I missed the interview, but that is pretty darn funny he didn't want his comments "distilled" like he so loves to do to everyone else. Why am I not surprised...

[meta-ghost]

Man, I thought I signed up at a Mac website, not Moore's fan club ;)


Oh well, let the Moore love fest continue :rolleyes:


not so much a moore love fest as people fed up with almost 4 years of lies, media manipulation and incompetence.

again, the ap story saying the following is a lie...

"One of his main points is that the U.S. administration helped 142 Saudis - including two dozen members of bin Laden's family - fly out of the United States two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, even though commercial air space was closed."

sunbaked, bobcat, how about going to see it and reporting back?

[pseudobrit]

Man, I thought I signed up at a Mac website, not Moore's fan club...

I'm gonna guess you guys are all gonna...

Oh well, let the Moore love fest continue :rolleyes:


Did you come here for reasoned debate or to stereotype?

Our ears are open to the former. The latter tends to cause a chain reaction that sees the instigator banned.

[Sun Baked]

so you haven't even seen the film and your wasting everyone's time here with this thoughless garbage. fyi, the film doesn't say they left when commercial air space was closed...I wouldn't exactly call it thoughtless garbage since the Binladin Family really gives a nice out of context quote that'll make Moore fanboys quite happy."It's a moving film," Yeslam Binladin, a Geneva-based tycoon and one of the al-Qaida leader's 54 siblings, said in an interview with the French magazine VSD.

"I even laughed at times," said Binladin.I'm glad you enjoyed the film as much as Osama bin Laden's half-brother, and are willing to defend it so much. ;)

That really makes me want to run out and see it when it get's the seal of approval from the Binladin Family, NOT! :p

[Bobcat37]

Being threatened with a ban the second day I'm here? Ouch, chalk one up for free speech.

pseudobrit, can't we just hold hands and make up? Kumbaya my pal :)

I'm done debating Moore for now since, no, I haven't seen his new brilliant documentary. I'll put that on my to do list, along with slitting my wrists and taking rat poison.

It does make me curious though, since you guys are such advocates of seeing an extremely far-left biased movie, when was the last time you all read one of those "extremely far-right biased books" (like one by Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity, OMG not them!). It's only fair there is a trade-off... you can't really blame me for not eagerly running out the door and spending my hard-earned money on left-wing propoganda if you guys haven't spent some of your money on some right-winger stuff. For the record, if any of you have done this, you have my respect. But along those same lines, if you haven't recently (and I wouldn't be too surprised), don't waste your time preaching to deaf ears about how I must see this movie. Reading about it, which is free, has been enough for my tastes.

[takao]

It does make me curious though, since you guys are such advocates of seeing an extremely far-left biased movie,...

'an extremly far-left biased movie'

must... resist... to... grin....

sorry i haven't seen the movie (because i'm not going to spend that much money about american policy...and it wasn't released either)..but this movie was made in the US ,which de facto eliminates the possibility of being 'extremly far left'... at least i didn't saw something extremly left when watching bowling for columbine (on dvd) ...bush can actually be very thankfull for the very supportive media and press ,which is far from being left ...

i would rate moore a small amount left from the center but....'extremly far-left " ?....sorry it just sounds so surreal...

[blackfox]

You know there are such things as "critical analysis" , "informed judgement" and "contextual discernment" to consider...

I liked F911, I found it entertaining and thought-provoking. Did I think it was 100% accurate? NO. Did I think it was unbiased? Of course not. Did I think it was propaganda? Well, by my definition, only partially, as it wore it's intentions on it's sleeve.

I mean I find it kinda funny that people are battling about back-and-forth about the ultimate truth and proper context of his subject matter in his movies...which conveniently ignores any concept of the filmaker acknowledging the fact that viewers of his film, like with most information, will employ many of the above quoted mental exercises to arrive at their opinions. To those who went and saw F911, swallowing it hook, line and sinker w/o thought, I somewhat pity them, as Moores movie was not imo meant to be definitive, only to raise some issues and questions, sometimes in a purposefully exaggerated way. It is the viewer/receivers responsibility to discern the ultimate truth and validity of the situation through multiple sources and sound intellectual judgement.

In this forum, we recently had a (now banned) member who would regurgitate the Hannity/Limbaugh/Drudge line w/o any of the appropriate analysis of it's validity. It was this type of behavior many found so offensive, not the fact that he was of the Political Alignment to the Right. There are some Conservatives on this board who obviously have put a lot of time and thought into their positions, and although I often disagree with them, I respect them and their opinions and try to answer in a way appropriate to that respect and they always reciprocate.

To bash F911 without obviously thoughtful analysis, demeans your opinion and the level of discourse in these forums, as does to blindly defend it with Liberal platitudes or self-righteousness.

To lump many of us who support the movie in as liberals, again demeans your argument by it's obvious simplicity and implied lack of substantive analysis. Although there are a great many Left-leaning members in this forum, we do run the gamut of opinions across the spectrum, and many of us make a concerted effort to research our opinions and converse respectfully. Please make a similar effort. Those of us who have been here a while generally do.

Please understand, what is not tolerated around here is rhetorical, baseless arguments, especially those that are obviously poorly-reasoned ones masquerading as a political position. If you are a conservative w/in this forum, you are slightly outnumbered, but if your arguments and conduct respect intellectual-honesty, this forum and it's members, we (or at least I), welcome you with open arms and look forward to a spirited debate.

Remember, this is supposed to be a learning experience, which implies, among other things, that we will all often be wrong...the obvious goal being that we will grow to be more capable of discerning the facts and reconciling opposing opinions over time, and be less likely to make avoidable mistakes.

I aplogize for the long, somewhat sermonizing post...It is not directed at anyone specifically...After reading most of this thread, however, I was somewhat dissapointed in the level of discourse and the amount of people who seemed to miss the point entirely...

Fwiw...

[3rdpath]

michael's news conference on cspan today was absolutely brilliant.

and bob, perhaps you should get a feel for this site, the expected decorum and the rules...all views are appreciated, it's just how you present them that matters. and it's best not to trot out the old free speech rhetoric...

[Bobcat37]

I mean I find it kinda funny that people are battling about back-and-forth about the ultimate truth and proper context of his subject matter in his movies...which conveniently ignores any concept of the filmaker acknowledging the fact that viewers of his film, like with most information, will employ many of the above quoted mental exercises to arrive at their opinions. To those who went and saw F911, swallowing it hook, line and sinker w/o thought, I somewhat pity them, as Moores movie was not imo meant to be definitive, only to raise some issues and questions, sometimes in a purposefully exaggerated way. It is the viewer/receivers responsibility to discern the ultimate truth and validity of the situation through multiple sources and sound intellectual judgement.

Well that's my biggest problem with the movie. I'm for free speech, and Moore can say whatever he wants. But I don't think he necessarily wears his intention on his sleeve, as I know several people who have come out of 9/11 believing it was 100% true and thus all of the sudden converted into Bush-haters. I, like you, pity those people, and hate to see them so easily swayed by Moore.

Please understand, what is not tolerated around here is rhetorical, baseless arguments, especially those that are obviously poorly-reasoned ones masquerading as a political position. If you are a conservative w/in this forum, you are slightly outnumbered, but if your arguments and conduct respect intellectual-honesty, this forum and it's members, we (or at least I), welcome you with open arms and look forward to a spirited debate.

Slightly outnumbered? No kidding... glad to see at least one person will welcome me. I'll continue to do my best to be "intellectually-honest"

Remember, this is supposed to be a learning experience, which implies, among other things, that we will all often be wrong...the obvious goal being that we will grow to be more capable of discerning the facts and reconciling opposing opinions over time, and be less likely to make avoidable mistakes.

That also involves being able to admit when you are wrong, which humans in general have trouble doing (and that includes me, just so no-one gets all huffy-puffy and jumps on me)

I just hope you guys don't ban conservatives here because of their views. I guess I'll see how long I last :o

[takao]

Slightly outnumbered? No kidding... glad to see at least one person will welcome me. I'll continue to do my best to be "intellectually-honest"

believe me it could be worse...i for example always was in support for the action taken in afghanistan ... i had (and still have) no problem wearing t-shirts which i got as a present from some people my mother knows in america: one who has "US Army" and stars and stripes on it , one "US Navy" and one "operation noble eagle" shirt
it was nearly impossible for me to avoid a political discussion on the train with strangers (and i heard many not so nice comments)

i really like the US .. with exception of the guns, the food, the obsession with gasoline and the politics... ;)


I just hope you guys don't ban conservatives here because of their views. I guess I'll see how long I last :o

well as long as you don't throw phrases around like "politician A is not a patriot" ,"A hates american" ,"A is cooperating with our enemies"," A is giving in to our enemies","the end justifies the means" or worse, you won't have a problem with me ...i'm very picky about those phrases because translated into my native languge those sentences are still very well associated with a regime we (hopefully)all know enough about...

[3rdpath]

here's a link for michael moore's speech at the " take back america" rally today...

the truth shall set you free (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04072804_moore.rm)


bet you won't see any of this on the networks...man, he skewers the media.

[pseudobrit]

Slightly outnumbered? No kidding... glad to see at least one person will welcome me. I'll continue to do my best to be "intellectually-honest"

To be honest, so far I'm not impressed with your effort. You may do well to take a look back through the archived debates we've had with Backtothemac, who usually manages to speak his mind without resorting to the tactics you've been using. In fact, his arguments have caused me to change my opinion on more than one occasion.

I just hope you guys don't ban conservatives here because of their views. I guess I'll see how long I last :o

What usually happens is that they jump in, show bad form immediately and are called on for it so much that they end up driven to lash out by the regulars. No one is banned for being conservative. No one is banned for having bad etiquette.

But the heat you'll get on the forum for having bad manners will drive you to eventually get yourself banned.
So try to follow the general recommendations we give you and you'll be fine, just ask BTTM.

don't stereotype
don't look down your nose at anyone
come with facts or don't bother

Those are a simple start. Follow 'em and you'll be fine.

[zimv20]

if i had a nickel every time someone came in here spewing stereotypical rightwing crap, then cried censorship when someone asked them to back up w/ facts and sources, i'd have $7.35.

[Bobcat37]

don't stereotype
don't look down your nose at anyone
come with facts or don't bother

Those are a simple start. Follow 'em and you'll be fine.

I can find several examples where those have already been comitted against me (in fact I think your attitude comes off as a bit snobbish, pseudo). But nonetheless, I'll do my best to follow them. Meanwhile, I just ask you all try to practice what you preach against the few conservatives lurking around here...

Edit: Zim, you spewed a stereotype at me yesterday, congrats on doing what you are complaining about. And I'd be more than glad to show you were you did it :)

[zimv20]

Edit: Zim, you spewed a stereotype at me yesterday, congrats on doing what you are complaining about. And I'd be more than glad to show you were you did it :)
i'll be happy to have a look

[Bobcat37]

i'll be happy to have a look

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81722&page=1&pp=25

Posts # 14, 15, and 16...

Sorry, but I could have sworn you were stating that all Republicans do not "believe this country is for everyone."

Sounds like a great stereotype to me.

[blackfox]

I can find several examples where those have already been comitted against me (in fact I think your attitude comes off as a bit snobbish, pseudo). But nonetheless, I'll do my best to follow them. Meanwhile, I just ask you all try to practice what you preach against the few conservatives lurking around here...

Edit: Zim, you spewed a stereotype at me yesterday, congrats on doing what you are complaining about. And I'd be more than glad to show you were you did it :)

Bobcat, I try very hard to be nice and forgiving within these forums, but I implore you to not devolve into tit-for-tat...if you perceive that you have been treated unfairly, suck it up and make your contributions of such a high and substantive calibre as to garner the respect of the members...

In addition to what PB wrote, I would add the simplest of all rules of conduct: "treat people how you would want to be treated" meaning also to post in such a manner as you would like to see others post...

I remain cautiously optimistic...

[pseudobrit]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81722&page=1&pp=25

Posts # 14, 15, and 16...

Sorry, but I could have sworn you were stating that all Republicans do not "believe this country is for everyone."

Sounds like a great stereotype to me.

If you're so dependent on labeling yourself with a "democrat" or "republican" sticker and think yourself one with either party, then I could see how one could be offended by such a statement.

FWIW, others in the past have tried to claim that an attack on Bush was a personal insult to them and a violation of the forum rules. I feel sorry for an individual who is not able to withstand criticism directed at politicians they like.

So, another thing or two to ponder here:

an attack on "your" party, ideas, or favored politician is NOT an attack on you

your views will be attacked from many angles, especially if you are right-leaning; be prepared

if you cannot support your views with facts and bombproof logic, no one will change their minds

don't take it personally

try to empathise with the opposing side of an argument; it means you know why you believe as you do, because you understand why others believe as they do

[zimv20]

I could have sworn you were stating that all Republicans do not "believe this country is for everyone."


[barak obama]'s a democrat because he believes this country is for everyone. that should say a lot of what he thinks of republicans.
i interpreted obama's statement to mean that.

do i believe all republicans feel that way? no, but some on this board have expressed that sentiment. frohickey and sly come to mind.

btw, i made that statement in response to your statement:
Hey really had me baffled as to why he is a Democrat and why in the world he supports Kerry, since he said some rather sensible things. (Like we don't want to government to solve all of our problems??? That doesn't sound like a good Democrat to me).

there's some stereotyping for ya.

[Bobcat37]

*thumbs up toward pseudobrit*

Did you just give me good advice... I'm scared >_> <_<

And zim, I'm guilty as charged on that one stereotype... but (I know it's easy to say this after the fact, but I'm being 100% honest) I was more or less joking with that one, guess I should have added a winking smiley.

blackfox - I hope you aren't worried about me or something, I swear I won't cause trouble, lol... you just keep being optimistic!

[Sun Baked]

And zim, I'm guilty as charged on that one stereotype... but (I know it's easy to say this after the fact, but I'm being 100% honest) I was more or less joking with that one, guess I should have added a winking smiley.If you forget the smiley admit it quick... or edit the post.

Otherwise the people in the political forum will spend weeks crusading and trying get you to change your mind to fit their view of the world. http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11368&stc=1 :p

Or worse yet you may hurt their feelings, and come to the attention of the mods. :eek:

[patrick0brien]

-All

If I may, I believe that the reason why Michael Moore filmed F9/11 was that he believed in something, and he wanted to foster debate - such as this right here.

I may not agree with some of his tactics, but the strategy I do agree with. We as a population, City, County, State, Country, Continent, World, cannot allow ourselves the natural human tendancy to become lazy and complacent.

Mr. Moore certainly kicked us in the can - and at the right time too.

[zimv20]

[chomp]
when did you leave chicago?

[patrick0brien]

when did you leave chicago?

-zimv20

May 5th.

What's the "[CHOMP]" ?

[zimv20]

-zimv20
May 5th.
whatcha doin' out there?


What's the "[CHOMP]" ?
if i cut a small part of text from a post, it's a [snip]. a large part is a [chomp].

[patrick0brien]

whatcha doin' out there?


if i cut a small part of text from a post, it's a [snip]. a large part is a [chomp].

-zimv20

Kuan understand (from M*A*S*H)

I moved out here because Hitachi GST made me an offer this consultant was happy to hang his wings up for.

[zimv20]

I moved out here because Hitachi GST made me an offer this consultant was happy to hang his wings up for.
congrats. i'll fedex you some snow in january :-)

[skunk]

You look so HANDSOME without the glasses! :D

[vniow]

You look so HANDSOME without the glasses! :D

Doesn't he?

[JesseJames]

Boy, I was afraid of this. This back and forth gets old doesn't it?

As for me, if I ever met the guy I'd shake his hand. But I won't be inviting him anywhere.

[patrick0brien]

congrats. i'll fedex you some snow in january :-)

-zimv20

Hee hee. I figured 24 years was time enough.

-vniow

(blows a kiss)

[Leo Hubbard]

Saudi royal family lambasts Michael Moore for twisting the truth in his 9/11 film (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/01/wsaud01.xml)
and
Moore Sued for Copyright Infringment (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590756)

[boweryprotest]

Saudi royal family lambasts Michael Moore for twisting the truth in his 9/11 film (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/01/wsaud01.xml)

Notice that the Saudis don't address the fact that MOST of the hijackers are Saudis, nor any of the other statements of fact from Moore's movie, such as their ultra-cozy long-term relationship with the extended Bush family....


Moore Sued for Copyright Infringment (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000590756)

Since when does a letter from a lawyer constitute a fact? Here you go: http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/election2000.html fact or fiction?

Focus on the main issue - abuses of the electoral process in Florida (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=30&row=2)

[Leo Hubbard]

read this on Boortz

Strange silence from the Bush haters lately. Their hero Michael Moore has been caught in yet another lie. You've heard about this one, haven't you? Some reader sent a letter to the editor of The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington, IL. That letter was printed with a small headline above it highlighting the letter-writers opinion that "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." Well, Michael Moore wanted to use this "headline" in his movie. So, he took the "Gore wins recount" header off that one letter in the letters-to-the-editor section and pastes it onto the front page of the newspaper as a banner headline. The "Gore wins recount" line magically goes from a letter-writer's opinion to the newspapers front page headline. In other words --- Moore lied. He created a deliberate, intentional lie and presented it to his viewers as the truth. Perhaps he felt that altering the content of an oddly-named newspaper in a smaller town would go unnoticed. It didn't. This isn't new stuff for Moore. He did it with "Bowling for Columbine" also. But none of this matters to the left. Moore doesn't like George Bush. Moore bashes America, both at home and abroad. By default that makes Moore a hero. Truth doesn't matter when you're fighting for the socialist, big-government, pro-appeasement cause.

hmmmm

[mouchoir]

Many of his claims are utterly ridiculous, and the effect of his "documentary" has been limited. Americans know propaganda when they see it. Last I heard, a documentary was an unbiased, nonfiction exploration of a certain topic, not a completely biased exploration of half-truths and downright fiction. Little kids flying kites in Iraq, Saddam must have been a GREAT guy. :rolleyes:

Do Americans know propoganda when they see it?

Because Bush seems to have a lot of you in a constant state of fear.

Due to propoganda.

[mouchoir]

read this on Boortz

hmmmm


You still don't understand that to non-americans, it does not appear that Moore bashes or hates America at all. This is something the left has realised but the right seems intentionally blind to.

He just wants to change things for the better.

And yes, falsifying evidence is a bad thing, but he is just a film-maker. Surely it is worse when this same thing is done by the POTUS and his administration, especially when it leads to a war?

[mouchoir]

read this on Boortz

hmmmm

ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

This is a disclaimer from boortz.com's own homepage.

Read it, understand it, and stop gathering all your opinions from websites like this.

[Leo Hubbard]

This is a disclaimer from boortz.com's own homepage.

Read it, understand it, and stop gathering all your opinions from websites like this.
So are you saying that news story is a lie? If it is a lie wouldn't it be better to prove it is a lie than to waste time with a disclaimer that should be on the bottom of almost every news source?
ok how about the source itself that moor got his information from calling Moore a liar?
http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has a message for Michael Moore, creator of the movie hit, "Fahrenheit 9/11":
If he wants to "edit" The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and "falsely represented" pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first.

[mouchoir]

So are you saying that news story is a lie? If it is a lie wouldn't it be better to prove it is a lie than to waste time with a disclaimer that should be on the bottom of almost every news source?
ok how about the source itself that moor got his information from calling Moore a liar?
http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

My point is you are using an unreliable right-wing source to get information to use against an unreliable left-winger – Moore.

[Leo Hubbard]

My point is you are using an unreliable right-wing source to get information to use against an unreliable left-winger – Moore.
The Pantagraph paper, which I have never read before, which is probably is a local paper is automatically an unreliable source, then why did Moore use them as a source? Sorry that would mean I would have to assume every source is unreliable, not like I'm some super duper individual with hours upon hours of time on my hand like you able to research into detail every nuance of every issue. I guess the alternative is to limit myself to only those left wing news sources that you think are unbiased. I'm not psychic, I don't have photographic memmory, and I don't play that game.

[Lyle]

My point is you are using an unreliable right-wing source to get information to use against an unreliable left-winger – Moore.Mouchoir, this story (about Moore's "distilling" of the Pantagraph headline) has been reported by a number of reliable news outlets; see for example stories at CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/04/world/main634012.shtml), the Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-panta02.html), the Cincinnati Enquirer (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/02/tem_people02washington.html). Why, even Ireland Online (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=112962824&p=yyz96353x) is reporting it. ;) I don't think this is something that one can just dismiss as some invention of Neal Boortz and the other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

And yes, falsifying evidence is a bad thing, but he is just a film-maker.The official web site (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/) for Fahrenheit 9/11 uses these words to describe the movie: "With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us." It doesn't sound like Moore (or whoever wrote this copy) believes that he falsified evidence in the movie.

[takao]

Mouchoir, this story (about Moore's "distilling" of the Pantagraph headline) has been reported by a number of reliable news outlets; see for example stories at CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/04/world/main634012.shtml), the Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-panta02.html), the Cincinnati Enquirer (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/02/tem_people02washington.html). Why, even Ireland Online (http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=112962824&p=yyz96353x) is reporting it. ;) I don't think this is something that one can just dismiss as some invention of Neal Boortz and the other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy.


i found it here as well
http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1746506
and the film review
http://derstandard.at/?id=1749406
wasn't enthusiastic as well and doesn't spare with critic
(both in german)
here the press don't like bush but the don't really like moore or kerry either
and especially they don't like the election system

[mouchoir]

The Pantagraph paper, which I have never read before, which is probably is a local paper is automatically an unreliable source, then why did Moore use them as a source? Sorry that would mean I would have to assume every source is unreliable, not like I'm some super duper individual with hours upon hours of time on my hand like you able to research into detail every nuance of every issue. I guess the alternative is to limit myself to only those left wing news sources that you think are unbiased. I'm not psychic, I don't have photographic memmory, and I don't play that game.

I was referring to boortz.com as a source for all your ideas.

And once again, in my post I mentioned that moore can be unreliable.

If you want to get a personal insight into my life, I have developed a method in which I can become omnipotent, but only for an hour at a time. So unfortunately I don't have hours and hours either.

Which is why you don't see posts or threads started by me using articles I sourced on gun-hatingpinkiegaylover.com, of which I have a lifetime subscription.

I was not just referring to that particular case of moore's, but that i've seen you quote boortz.com several times, and that he is no better in any way than the people you have issues with.

Just swinging from the right instead of the left.