The ugly truth

[Thomas Veil]

Shortly before the election, in an effort to get a potential Bush voter to change his mind, I offered to let him borrow my copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11".

A week after he accepted it, I asked if he'd had a chance to view it, and what he thought. "Nah, I didn't watch it," he told me. "It's just too depressing. I don't like depressing movies."

I cringe whenever I hear that. Also when somebody tells me they don't watch or read the news for the same reasons.

We live in reality, folks. Reality can be depressing. You can't "deal" with it by avoiding it.

Me, I'd rather know the truth. You want to make reality less depressing, vote for somebody that'll make it better.

Anyway, that's my rant. You know any people like this?

[emw]

Sure, I think we all do. I also know people who do watch the news or read the newspapers and get their opinions strictly from those sources, which really is no better.

As for Fahrenheit 9/11 - as much as I dislike Bush, I'm not sure that we can really portray that movie as "the truth" about his tenure. Though I've never seen the movie (it's too depressing ;)), I know those who have from both sides. I believe that Michael Moore puts his own, somewhat twisted, reality into that film, and I'd much rather direct people to more real-world, factual accounts of issues than a movie.

[kuyu]

I still don't understand what's going on here....

It seems like people who claim that limbaugh/hannity/etc. are lying propagandists also claim that Moore is an insightful filmmaker. I wonder when people will see that they are all the same thing.

You can't just call someone a liar or fraud when you praise their political counterpart for saying the same thing, only reversed.

This absolutely boggles my mind. :confused:

Propaganda is propaganda, any way you slice it.

[MacDawg]

I still don't understand what's going on here....

It seems like people who claim that limbaugh/hannity/etc. are lying propagandists also claim that Moore is an insightful filmmaker. I wonder when people will see that they are all the same thing.

You can't just call someone a liar or fraud when you praise their political counterpart for saying the same thing, only reversed.

This absolutely boggles my mind. :confused:

Propaganda is propaganda, any way you slice it.

Here, here!

[skunk]

Or, to put it another way: "Hear, hear!" :rolleyes:

[Lyle]

Or, to put it another way: "Hear, hear!" :rolleyes:Where? Where?

[IJ Reilly]

Where? Where?

There! There!

Anyone who is going to argue that the Left is "just as bad" needs to identify the Left's equivalent to G. Gordon Liddy (or several others we could name).

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=98617

And no, the answer is not "Michael Moore."

[zimv20]

it is usually valid to claim "side A is as bad as side B".

it is a complete fallacy to cite that and then claim, "therefore this person from side A is as bad as this person from side B".

to paraphrase robert mcnamara, "proportionality should be a guideline"

[Chip NoVaMac]

I still don't understand what's going on here....

It seems like people who claim that limbaugh/hannity/etc. are lying propagandists also claim that Moore is an insightful filmmaker. I wonder when people will see that they are all the same thing.

You can't just call someone a liar or fraud when you praise their political counterpart for saying the same thing, only reversed.

This absolutely boggles my mind. :confused:

Propaganda is propaganda, any way you slice it.

Well if limbaugh/hannity/etc. put as much time and money in to their "reporting" that Moore has, I might have better faith in their words. Far easier to say things on the radio or TV, with little to support you than to do a film with clips and "talking heads".

[IJ Reilly]

it is usually valid to claim "side A is as bad as side B".

it is a complete fallacy to cite that and then claim, "therefore this person from side A is as bad as this person from side B".

to paraphrase robert mcnamara, "proportionality should be a guideline"

I can see you were a star pupil in Logic and Semantics.

Well, for as long as I've been asking it, I don't think I'm going to get an answer to my question, so here's a hint: It would help if the person was a convicted felon with a nationally-syndicated radio show who in his youth was a great admirer of Joe Stalin. (He doesn't even have to have suggested murdering federal agents or exterminating millions of innocent people, though that would certainly be more convincing.) So I can't imagine why it's so difficult to name such a person.