Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on June 26, 2004, 12:58:48 PM
-
Was better done then Bowling. Still propoganda (in that there is no ballance put forward. All assertions are presented as fact)but the only parts that were silly was chasing the senators arround the street asking them to send thier sons to Iraq.
Conservitiles will hate it. Dems will love it. The only question is how will it impact undecideds.
The R rating is stupid. Score one for the neocons.
-
If its all lies then why isnt he sued?
-
Because that would lead to further, possibly damaging investigations on what facts are?
-
I just have the feeling that sueing people is very common in america, and i thought that this kind of movie would be sued very quickly by the republicans because it is made to put bush in a bad light. With elections around the corner and all i did not think this move would get far if it was all undocumented lies.
-
Because its perfectly legal for an individual to lie as long as it doesn't become libel/slander.
Man.....if they banned lying most politicians--Democrat OR Republican--would instantly be out of a job :)
J_A_B
-
Its not allowed to do that here. You better have your facts straight here if you wanna make a film like that and attack a person like i suspect is done in this film. If the person attacked agrees and it is marketed as a comedy it would be ok.
-
Has anyone come across something that asserts that anything in the film is a lie?
Worst I've seen is that it's one-sided. Which.... strikes me as sort of obvious. The US gov has been making its own assertions, and Moore is doing the same. I don't know why anyone would expect anything different.
-
You aren't allowed to lie? How do your politicans cope??!!
Not having seen the film Nash, I would imagine his "lies" are in the form of severely edited interviews. While not necessarily good-faith, it's a common practice on pretty much any nightly news show for starters.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
You aren't allowed to lie? How do your politicans cope??!!
J_A_B
hehethey lie here too, but making the kinds of movies that Moore does without beeing able to back it up with evidence/facts is not and he would be sued and the movie would prolly be stopped.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I just have the feeling that sueing people is very common in america, and i thought that this kind of movie would be sued very quickly by the republicans because it is made to put bush in a bad light. With elections around the corner and all i did not think this move would get far if it was all undocumented lies.
if you sue someone you have to prove their claims aren't true. Bush would have to actually respond to some of these claims, wich I don't imagine he'd want to do.
I'll wait until the weekend rush is over to see it myself. from what I hear so far, it doesn't so much 'put Bush in a bad light' as put some light onto this administration.
-
In other words what Moore shows in this film is true but perhaps from a very subjective angle?
Point is... it has to be true right?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
In other words what Moore shows in this film is true but perhaps from a very subjective angle?
Point is... it has to be true right?
no it doesnt have to be true. Moore makes his points in all of his films by passing them off as facts whent they may in fact be pure speculation or even sercomstantial (sp) He presents one veiw and that is his own wich is fine because he's a movie maker. Usually IMHO documentaries should present a balenced view of a subject but that's that.
-
it doesn't necessarily have to be true.
he can present slanted information, that leads you to believe something that is false, but never come right out and say it.
he can come right out and say a damaging lie. but if you can't prove it's a lie, he's OK. (since the burden of proof is on the accuser, if you are accusing him of lying, you have to prove it's a lie, he doesn't have to prove it's true)
he can also ask questions and only keep the parts of your answers that prove his point, while editing out things he doesn't.
for example- Q: is it true that you never donate money to the salvation army guys at Christmas time?
A: Yes. however I do donate 50% of my income to various charities.
it's perfectly legal to play the interview with everything from 'however' forward edited off. so with a little creative editing you can make a very generous guy look like a selfish penny pinching miser.
thats the real problem with Moore. in order to do a more sensational or hyped film, he will blow right past reasonable limits, so you have to take what he says with a grain of salt.
you watch a movie of his and take note of his claims, but they aren't proof and you don't quote him, you check them out for yourself first.
it's not like there is any lack of real, honest proof of questionable activities in this administration. if he'd stick to that he could present a much more honest and significant point. he probably would sell as many tickets though, and thats the real bottom line.
he's hard to take seriously because you just can't trust anything he says without checking it out first. most of it checks out, but but if he can't find enough evidence to prove what he wants to prove, he's not above creating some with editing.
if you are gullible enough to believe everything he says and go quoting it without verifying first, be prepared to look stupid.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no it doesnt have to be true. Moore makes his points in all of his films by passing them off as facts whent they may in fact be pure speculation or even sercomstantial (sp) He presents one veiw and that is his own wich is fine because he's a movie maker. Usually IMHO documentaries should present a balenced view of a subject but that's that.
That is why im suprised he isnt sued given that his movies may or may not mislead others. If its presented clearly as his personal views it would not be a problem but outright lies?
-
He can lie through his teeth and it won't be actionable, so long as he doesn't portray it as truth, but satire.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
He can lie through his teeth and it won't be actionable, so long as he doesn't portray it as truth, but satire.
That would pass here too, but it would have to be clearly stated at the beginning of the movie or at the end.
With titles such as "the awful truth" its not very clear that its satire.
-
He doesn't have to protray it as satire.
He isn't going to be sued for the same reason the "bush is hitler" crowd isn't sued.
J_A_B
-
Would the same apply if you made a movie about a random person and accused him of all kinds of things using the same tactics as Moore, or does it just apply to public persons?.
-
same would apply for anyone.
for example if we went to school together, I could claim that I saw you use drugs back then.
since the burden of proof is on the accuser and, while my statement is a type of accusation it's not an accusation (as far as an accusation in court).
in order for the case to be brought to court, you'd have to claim I was spreading damaging lies about you. you'd have to prove that I said it, that it wasn't true, and that it in some way damaged you.
I don't really have to prove anything, just defend against your claims.
so while you might have no trouble proving it was said (witnesses), and that it was damaging(effected your reputation), how would you go about proving it was a lie?
you could bring up witnesses that would say that they never saw you use drugs. but unless you where never alone, and where able to produce witnesses who could account for you not using for every minute of that time, there would still be holes where I could have seen what I say.
it's virtually imposable to prove you didn't do something, unless the accuser is willing to put exact details (like time and place) into their lie, and they won't. most people who trade in this sort of hype know the game well enough to either leave these details out or strategically insert terms like "in my opinion", "allegedly", or "claims have been made that..."
-
The National Enquirer gets away with it by having two sources, and then quoting the sources, saying "Sources reiterate that Bush did have contact with alien advisors from Rigel 3 during the Chinese capture of a RC-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft"
-
also neilson,
sueing moore for slander or liable...or whatever....would just give him more credibility. Weather anyone here wants to admit it there is a double standard here in American especially when it comes to minoritys and librals (same thing most of the time) Its just the way it is I guess.
-
No offence intended even if it may be seen as such, but I see the United States of America as a nation with afew double standards (oh boy, im gonna get flamed for this) so its not always easy to comment on anything because some of you (americans) give differnet answers to the same question every now and then. :)
-
Has anyone come across something that asserts that anything in the film is a lie?
Yes!! See the link below
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
No offence intended even if it may be seen as such, but I see the United States of America as a nation with afew double standards (oh boy, im gonna get flamed for this) so its not always easy to comment on anything because some of you (americans) give differnet answers to the same question every now and then. :)
Nilsen I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me but yes its true. In the US if you are white and more specifically a republican you have to watch what you say. If you are a minority and less a libral you can get away with saying anything you want.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nilsen I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me but yes its true. In the US if you are white and more specifically a republican you have to watch what you say. If you are a minority and less a libral you can get away with saying anything you want.
Maybe its a language thing, but are you saying that if you are a republican you have to be careful about what you say but if you are a minority liberal yu can say what you want?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes!! See the link below
:lollook at the source: Christopher Hitchens :lol
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes!! See the link below
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
I'm guessing you didn't read that article too closely. No direct evidence of a lie in the movie at all. Keep trying though.
-
That's what I thought too, MT. I looked and looked and couldn't find anything there. I didn't say anything cuz I thought it was just me.
In a funny way, it parallel's Moore's own tactics. Moore doesn't lie, and Hitchens doesn't point to any lies, but both use every round about way to convince you of their point of view.
As long as ya have the ability to discern what's going on for yourself, it's all good.
-
Originally posted by Nash [/i]
Moore doesn't lie,
lol
-
Of course you know we're talking about the movie... So unlike Hitchens, can YOU point to anywhere in the movie that Moore lied?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Originally posted by Steve
Yes!! See the link below
:lollook at the source: Christopher Hitchens :lol
He's a leftist intellectual. He hated Reagan. He's on your team. So again, LOOK AT THE SOURCE!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm guessing you didn't read that article too closely. No direct evidence of a lie in the movie at all. Keep trying though.
That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) 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. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
While not exactly a "lie", it is "suggested" in the movie therefore it means Moore doesn't have to state anything, only "suggest" it. If he doesn't have the balls to state it he may as well take a nice big swig of STFU.
But no, he doesn't lie.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
He's a leftist intellectual. He hated Reagan. He's on your team. So again, LOOK AT THE SOURCE!
:rolleyes:
Steve is not a lefty.
-
While not exactly a "lie"...
Maybe I should have asked "Has anyone found anything that aren't exactly lies"?
-
Moore is a fat assed malcontent hypocrite and a liar.
-
Originally posted by Nash
While not exactly a "lie"...
Maybe I should have asked "Has anyone found anything that aren't exactly lies"?
you confuse me, I need beer.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Steve is not a lefty.
From William F. Buckley:
Left-leaning columnist Christopher Hitchens is given to wayward excesses, but he devotes sharp attention to the Moore crowd pleaser in Slate magazine, in an article titled "Unfairenheit 9/11." It makes pretty good reading, and it's unfair to go to the last chapter, but life is short, and therefore I disclose it. "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery."
''Ronald Reagan was as dumb as a stump,'' wrote leftist intellectual Christopher Hitchens, gleefully flinging abuse at the former president along with others who hated him.
I'd say he's very left Nuke, but that's just me.
-
But Steve is not a lefty, no way in hell.
-
I saw Hitchens in a debate sponsored by some University about the merits of going into Iraq (long before it happened)... and he struck me as a remarkably bright guy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I saw Hitchens in a debate sponsored by some University about the merits of going into Iraq (long before it happened)... and he struck me as a remarkably bright guy.
you are a very bright guy Nash. Moore is a bright guy, but uses his talent to spin lies and distort truth.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I saw Hitchens in a debate sponsored by some University about the merits of going into Iraq (long before it happened)... and he struck me as a remarkably bright guy.
He wants to debate Moore again apparently. I'd pay to see it on PPV.
-
I'd like to see it too. Moore would in all likelihood get owned by this guy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'd like to see it too. Moore would in all likelihood get owned by this guy.
Agreed.
-
To prove defamation a plaintiff must prove:
1) That a defamatory remark (defamatory meaning one that harms ones reputation as determined by a reasonable person) was;
2) published (heard by another);
3) of and concerning the plaintiff; and
4) that the plaintiff was damaged, unless;
5) it was slander per se (defamatory remarks regarding: 1) crimes of moral turpitude; 2) the chastity of a woman; 3) a loathsome disease (leaporsy or VD); or 4) of the plaintiff's occupation or profession) or libel (reduced to permanent form (e.g. newspaper, film, sound recording).
Furthermore the Supreme court has ruled that the Constitution requires a showing of malice when the defamatory remark is aimed at a public official or one in the public eye. To be malicious, under a Constitutional analysis, according to NY Times v. Sullivan, the defamatory remark must:
1) be false; and
2) the defandant knew that the remark was flase or was reckless as to the truth.
Although Moore is annoying, his films probably would not amount to defamation of the president under a Constitutional analysis. Note that libel is not a sperate tort in the US. Isnt the common law system fun?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes!! See the link below
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Chris Hitchens has also written a scathing article on Mother Theresa. I dont think his assertions are a good example.
But here is the link where Moore responds to the assertions that he lies in the film.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php
-
Oh... his assertions are a horrible example. I mean, his article is the paper version of a Moore film. That's fine, but not when you use the same tactics in an article that is supposed to point out how bad these tactics appearently are.
He's just an incredibly effective advocate for his positions. Barely any of which I agree with.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh... his assertions are a horrible example. I mean, his article is the paper version of a Moore film. That's fine, but not when you use the same tactics in an article that is supposed to point out how bad these tactics appearently are.
He's just an incredibly effective advocate for his positions. Barely any of which I agree with.
What do you disagree with in the Hitchens article?
-
Well, I said I disagree with his positions... which go back quite a ways before this particular article.
I won't say I disagree with anything F9/11-related in the article, because I haven't seen the show.
But, stylistically.... Hitchins starts the article by saying Moore's film is dishonest. Then proceeds to put on a journalistic dog and pony show repleat with a point by point dissection which winds up creating an air of dishonesty but never actually delivers its case in any factual way.
And isn't that what this article was attacking in the first place?
The only difference between this article and a Moore film is the budget.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well, I said I disagree with his positions... which go back quite a ways before this particular article.
I won't say I disagree with anything F9/11-related in the article, because I haven't seen the show.
But, stylistically.... Hitchins starts the article by saying Moore's film is dishonest. Then proceeds to put on a journalistic dog and pony show repleat with a point by point dissection which winds up creating an air of dishonesty but never actually delivers its case in any factual way.
And isn't that what this article was attacking in the first place?
The only difference between this article and a Moore film is the budget.
Exactly my feelings on the article only stated much-more-way-a-lot-betterer.
(I like this Hard Lemonade!)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The National Enquirer gets away with it by having two sources, and then quoting the sources, saying "Sources reiterate that Bush did have contact with alien advisors from Rigel 3 during the Chinese capture of a RC-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft"
the National Enquirer gets put down quite a bit. But you gotta admit, their illustrations of UFO's are pretty much on the money. :p
-
Originally posted by Nash
But, stylistically.... Hitchins starts the article by saying Moore's film is dishonest. Then proceeds to put on a journalistic dog and pony show repleat with a point by point dissection which winds up creating an air of dishonesty but never actually delivers its case in any factual way.
You can say the same exact thing about Moore's film as well.
-
which I did. a couple of times.
-
Didn't follow you 100% on your posts but I see it now...sorta.
-
I'm guessing you didn't read that article too closely. No direct evidence of a lie in the movie at all. Keep trying though.
you guessed wrong, piss off.
-
Woohoo the BBS reply version of the article version of the film.
Unless you care to back that up, Steve.
-
Back what up? Do you want to call me and read the article together to prove I read it? you tire me... if you can't see where Moore misrepresented things you are beyond normal help and I am not interested in expending a significant amount of energy in order to save you from your ignorance.
-
As if you really care Nash..
For example there was a very detailed site examining the lies and other dishonesty in Bowling for Columbine and nobody amongst the Morre supporters cared even when it was all pointed out...
You either like the guy, his politics and his work or you dont, it seems to simply come down to that...
-
it's simple, dude....
"no evidence of a lie", said MT.
"guess again" say you.
So, just show one example.
Or are you just sayin' watermelon to say it?
-
lol Grun... in your stupifyingly small two dimensional world your post might make some sense. I don't inhabit that world, and am only somewhat aware of its people's customs. I'd need a translator to reply to your post. Nothing is as "simple" as you'd like to frame it.
-
Listen, I'll give you a playbook since you are having trouble following along. Let me go over it step by step.. then I'm done with you.
MT guessed I didn't read the article. I told him to guess again.
Get it? If you don't it's too damned bad because I said I wasn't going to save you from your ignorance and I meant it.
-
no no NOOOOO STEVE!!!
I didn't mean it like that.... REALLY!!!
Please man, cut me a break here....
SAVE ME FROM MY IGNORANCE!!!! PLEASE!
mmmmpphht.
-
Originally posted by Nash
lol Grun... in your stupifyingly small two dimensional world your post might make some sense. I don't inhabit that world, and am only somewhat aware of its people's customs. I'd need a translator to reply to your post. Nothing is as "simple" as you'd like to frame it.
So how much do you care if Moore lies in his movies?
-
Grun.... SHOW ME ONE FREAKIN' LIE.
Did you skip this entire thread?
Moore's film however DOES employ the selective use of FACTS to express a SPECIFIC point of view.
So freakin' what? EVERYONE does that.
-
I was going to see it, but it had sold out.
-
Moore's film however DOES employ the selective use of FACTS to express a SPECIFIC point of view
Much like in Bowling... he posits the movies as documentaries when canting everything w/ a very specific and foolish agenda(near socialist).
You must be very blissful indeed.
I pray you do not live in in the U.S.
Barring that, I hope someone doesn't hold your hand and direct you to the polling booth.
-
Another myth.
Give me an example of a single "documentary" that doesn't have a point of view.
Happy hunting.
-
I think Nash's point is that the guy is writing his article in the exact same style that he is criticizing Moore for.
I find the whole idea of people being against the film, because it is biased, just hilarious. everything is biased, everyone has an agenda. anything that is worth hearing, any idea that is beyond small talk, will have impact on peoples lives, some it will help and some it will hurt, and everyone is biased toward the side that allows them to gain, or at the very least helps the majority of others at an expense to them, that they can comfortably absorb.
if you show me a man who you think is unbiased, I'll show you a fool, and I won't have to look any farther than you.
when anyone tells you anything that matters, you should ask yourself a couple questions-
1. does this guy have any access to info that would lend credibility to his statement?
2. what's his stake in my belief. will he profit or loose from me believing one way or the other?
3. what is his agenda, is he selling something, pushing a cause, or trying to meet a quota? how would convincing me to believe one way or the other effect that?
4. does what he says fit at all with any other info I have on the subject, that I have already confirmed as fact?
5. is there any of this I can confirm, and if so does it check out(which lends credibility to the unverifiable parts, but doesn't prove them)?
it reminds me of a thing with hair. I have long hair, many girls I meet wish they could have long hair, and ask how I get it to grow this long. simple answer- "wash it, brush it, Don't cut it."
every one of them responds with "it grows faster if you trim it regularly"
to which I respond "Bull****, you're hair is dead, it grows from the follicle, it has no nerves, the follicle has no idea if you've cut the dead end off the hair or not, so how would it know to make hair faster?"
and the reply always is "no, it's true. my hairdresser told me. she works with hair all day, she would know"
what they never seem to put together until you spell it out (and even then it's an uphill fight to let some logic shine through) is that the hair dresser only makes money by cutting hair. they make no money off of people who grow their hair long (haven't had a haircut in 20+ years. so I don't much contribute to their business). if they can convince people that you're hair will grow faster if you trim the ends, then they can get the people who want long hair to come in 4-6 times a year to get a half inch of hair trimmed(for $15+tip a pop). so far they're doing a great job.
the point being you can't really trust anyone, least of all public figures with a political agenda (and from what I can tell they ALL have a political agenda). the idea that any one newsman, politician or filmmaker is any worse than another because he slants the information he gives, and presents his opinions as truth is just ridiculous. they all do it. it's what they do for a living.
I don't fully trust many people that I haven't known since I was a kid (and I've still got my eye on a few of those I have). it sucks to have to be so skeptical but you don't get to choose the world you live in.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Grun.... SHOW ME ONE FREAKIN' LIE.
And then what? Would you care?
-
Sure - I would. Honestly.
-
c'mon...give 'em a big hug!
(http://www.meninasinsanas.blogger.com.br/michael%20moore.jpg)
:aok
-
:aok capt. apathy
Old '70's song playing in my head...
"Long growin, mind blowing, as long as it's my Hair..."
:aok
Thanks for the memories....
*chit that's Bob Hope now....*
:rofl
Dammmm givin my age away...
-
Nash, you are debating with a brick wall. The NeoCons will never publicly admit that F9/11 is based on facts. They may be slanted to Moore's POV (which is his prerogative as Director). But you could say the same about any right-wing publication such as Intellectual Conservative, The Drudge Report, or O'Reilley.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Nash, you are debating with a brick wall. The NeoCons will never publicly admit that F9/11 is based on facts. They may be slanted to Moore's POV (which is his prerogative as Director). But you could say the same about any right-wing publication such as Intellectual Conservative, The Drudge Report, or O'Reilley.
Nash here is your chance to prove me wrong...
-
I'm not sure what you mean.
-
Okay maybe you think I should have some problem with rpm's post.
"The NeoCons will never publicly admit that F9/11 is based on facts."
So far they haven't. All I've heard by some is that it is it is chock full of lies. Yet nobody has managed to point out a single lie. Show me a lie.
"They may be slanted to Moore's POV (which is his prerogative as Director)."
Of course, and I've said as much. No documentary is ever neutral. They all have a POV. Show me one that doesn't.
But you could say the same about any right-wing publication such as Intellectual Conservative, The Drudge Report, or O'Reilley.
Absolutely. You think O'Reilley is going to provide you with both sides of an argument? I would imagine the experience of being a guest or calling in not that much different that having experienced a mugging.
So what's the problem with this?
-
Nash, here's a challenge. Prove to me that all that Moore claims in his "documentary" is based on actual facts. You can not do that anymore than I can disprove them mainly for the reason that his view points in the film are "suggestions" and "allegations". Therefore, given this I challenge you to come up with any type of facts (sources will not be challenged UNLESS it's an obvious slanted source i.e. CNN, Fox News, MoveOn.org, etc..) that support Moore's opinions in his "documentary".
I have posted before that he is NOT lying in this film, only using what I said here and in my previous post; suggestions and allegations.
I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and will do so if you can find the facts. Otherwise this post is an annoying moebius loop of 6 year olds crying "Did to!" "Did not!" ad nauseum.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Otherwise this post is an annoying moebius loop of 6 year olds crying "Did to!" "Did not!" ad nauseum.
I think you pretty much summed up the O'Club in general Diablo.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I think you pretty much summed up the O'Club in general Diablo.
Well, honestly, I expect that from others, but not from Nash.
-
You want me to take 90+ minutes of talking... mostly by people Moore just happens to be filming, and demonstrate that all of it is true? Yer asking for an army of typists. What if some senator mentions he's got a dog named spot? Do I have to prove that's true as well?
No. Much simpler to take all that talking and for one instance say "aha! lie!" and tell us about it.
That should be easy. But why do ya even ask?
You say "I have posted before that he is NOT lying in this film".
I haven't seen it so I dunno about that. But you seem comfortable with it so why aren't you asking me to prove that the world is round?
-
It's called putting the shoe on the other foot. No one has come up to answer your challenge. So I am challenging you. Prove that there are indisputable facts founding Moore's claim and I shall say no more...
PS - If you really want a look at Moore's duplicity check out this months Playboy interview. At one moment he talks about how inaccurate polls are and then right after he quotes a poll supporting his view. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Jeeez... this reminds me of the run-up to the war and all the "prove the un-provable" debates.
If only more people asked the questions you are asking now. Oh well.
But I think my position is the same. Got proof of WMD? Show me. Nobody did.
Oh now Moore is lying? Show me. Nobody can.
-
Well now, we get to the nitty gritty then. Let me jack the post then if your gonna be a lazy tard.
Smartest thing MM ever said;
On gay marriage: "Here's what I want to know about gay marriage: Has anybody told the gays and lesbians what marriage is? We married people are all sitting here asking, 'Why are they so damn eager to do this?'"
Dumbest:
On his attraction to Hillary Clinton: "I've always been attracted to her....Hillary is not uptight at all. She's got a great sense of humor. She's got the best laugh. She's feisty. I like women who are strong and smart."
There...fair and balanced. Piss on all of ya that think I am diluted by my right wing convictions.
-
Hehe. :)
But seriously... think about what you asked.
I would need to get a transcript of the film. Then basically have to take each sentence and prove it's a true statement.
I don't think I'm a lazy tard for not undertaking this.
-
I actually agree with both of those.:eek:
OK Diablo here is proof positive that Moore isn't lying. He said Bush was President when the 9/11 attacks occurred.
True or False? True.
Now ya happy?:D
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'd like to see it too. Moore would in all likelihood get owned by this guy.
Unless Moore was filming it. He'd leave a lot on the editing floor to shape his 'points' and then claim victory ;)
The power of the media.
-
Good start rpm now do the same thing with every single thing said in the whole entire movie. :)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Unless Moore was filming it. He'd leave a lot on the editing floor to shape his 'points' and then claim victory ;)
The power of the media.
Yeah.
And unless Hitchins was writing about it. Then he'd wear out his delete key and also claim victory. The power of the media.
-
Ok ok, but let me say this. I am not challenging the general facts as they stand, yes we know who was President on 9/11/01 (hehe RPM). But on the controverisial aspects of the film. As I said before I am not claiming Moore is lying (for the people who only read the latest posts on a thread) merely asking for proof of his assertions.
Ok, now, back to your regularly scheduled dung flinging contest.
[edit] Aaron Neville's "Ave Maria" is a great way to relax after a long day on the O'Club board.
-
Okay do this for me Diablo.
Describe what you think the end product of what you're asking for would look like.
How many sources would be reasonable enough to prove that every sentence was fact?
Multiply that by the number of sentences.
How many pages do you think your request would fill?
I'm only asking y'all to take ONE sentence and call BS on it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah.
And unless Hitchins was writing about it. Then he'd wear out his delete key and also claim victory. The power of the media.
Absolutely. It isn't a 'left' or a 'right' thing. It usually boils down to one having preconceived notions and choosing the 'facts' (while leaving out some 'facts') to fit the notion. Rare is it that a truly unbiased documentary exist.
-
It's not rare, Nuke.
It's more than rare. Unbiased documentaries don't exist.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay do this for me Diablo.
Describe what you think the end product of what you're asking for would look like.
How many sources would be reasonable enough to prove that every sentence was fact?
Multiply that by the number of sentences.
How many pages do you think your request would fill?
I'm only asking y'all to take ONE sentence and call BS on it.
We are going back to square one on this Nash. If I can't find evidence that contradicts Moore then the burden of proof is on those that support his claims. That's all I am saying. I am not expecting a doctoral dissertation on the subject just some kind of evidence that supports Moore's view.
-
I don't think there is anybody on these boards that thinks F9/11 isn't slanted to Moore's POV, and done so quite overtly. It's a moot point. Nobody is forcing anyone to see the film.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Unbiased documentaries don't exist.
That's not true. I saw a very engaging documentary on the sexual habits of Brazilian Fruit Flys on the other night. Really good stuff and no bias at all.
:D
-
C'mon.
His distributors now call it an "op-ed piece".
That's a fancy word for opinion.
You know, you turn to the columnists in the Sunday paper and read the op-ed piece.
75% of them don't know what they are talking about.
10% manage to get some facts right and then draw conclusions from outside the galaxy.
15% may actually write something worth reading that causes you to pause and reflect.
It's an OP-ED piece. It's Moore's agenda, just like you see in the papers from those guys.
-
"If I can't find evidence that contradicts Moore then the burden of proof is on those that support his claims."
No. It just means that you can't find evidence that contradicts Moore.
Got a prollem with that? Dig harder.
Because the lack of ability to find fault with his work doesn't automatically cast an entire blanket of fault on his work from which he must dig himself out under from.
That's like all of a sudden asking your wife to prove she's been faithful. The fact that you have nothing to support that doesn't mean you can dump the responsibility of proving it on her.
-
Toad nailed it. What's the big deal?
-
Diablo, you're asking Nash to disprove a negative. tsk tsk. And shame on you for such an intellectually corrupt manner of arguing. The burden of proof is on you to prove lies, not on Nash to prove "truth."
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Fine. Cuz yer a lazy tard I'll dig further.
Your analogy is suspect but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt anyway.
-
The documentary Republicans should be worried about is Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election (http://imdb.com/title/tt0346091/) . That one will make you think.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's not rare, Nuke.
It's more than rare. Unbiased documentaries don't exist.
I hate using absolutes. It would be interesting to find documentaries where the finished film was in direct contrast of the starting points/ideas.
Regards,
Nuke aka SaburoS :D
-
Look, this is what Nash asked:
Has anyone come across something that asserts that anything in the film is a lie?
Asserts-
2 a : to demonstrate the existence of
I can no more demonstrate the existance of the lie no more than he can prove the facts. That, Dead Man, is the essence of a debate. I took Nash's challenge and agreed, I couldn't find anything. All I did was challenge him to the same thing and he thinks it's an impossible task. And tsk tsk to you for not even adding anything to the debate even remotely intellectual.
-
I *would* have asked:
"Did anyone see anything in the film that was a lie?"..... but I know that none of the people here getting worked up over this thing would have actually seen it for themselves.
So I asked "Has anyone come across anything that asserts...." because I know DAMN well that there are google experts galore in these parts. It's an area of expertise type thing that I was catering to. You should appreciate my consideration in that regard. :)
-
Ok, found one. And it was in Hitchin's article all along. Moore claims that the bin Laden family was cleared for flights out of the US by Bush right after 9/11. Wrong. Richard Clarke claims that he and he alone approved that act.
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Rest of the article here (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx)
Oh wait, Moore didn't have time to edit the film after Clarke's admission. Wrong. He had 4 weeks to do it. Some major films take less than that for primary photography.
Ok, back to digging...
-
what?
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Ok, found one. And it was in Hitchin's article all along. Moore claims that the bin Laden family was cleared for flights out of the US by Bush right after 9/11. Wrong. Richard Clarke claims that he and he alone approved that act.
Rest of the article here (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx)
Oh wait, Moore didn't have time to edit the film after Clarke's admission. Wrong. He had 4 weeks to do it. Some major films take less than that for primary photography.
Ok, back to digging...
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I hate using absolutes. It would be interesting to find documentaries where the finished film was in direct contrast of the starting points/ideas.
Regards,
Nuke aka SaburoS :D
changing your bias doesn't mean you don't have one.
I suppose you could make something without bias. but nobody would watch it, because it would have to be a subject that nobody gives a crap about.
if a topic is worth investigating, people have opinions about it, and if you have an opinion it effects how you present the work, you tend to ignore or discount evidence that 'doesn't fit' with the way you see the world, while giving undue weight to things that justify your beliefs. it's just the way we work, you couldn't avoid it if you tried.
take this BBS as an example. most Dems (myself included) have no problem seeing these accusations of Bush as true. speaking for myself I didn't much trust him to begin with, and a lot of the statements and reasons (or lack of) for the Iraq war, combined with his VP's involvement in a company that is profiting from it, and receiving preferential treatment, only goes to reaffirm what we already suspected.
while the republicans think he's a good guy (I guess), and see any allegations of scandal or immoral activity as so below the man that they find it ridiculous and not worthy of considering, let alone actually investigating.
I thinks the Reps are more than a bit naive, where this administrations conduct is concerned, but thats my bias, to my way of thinking if they where capable of clear logical thinking we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because they'd be seeing things my way.
-
No documentary is ever neutral.
From Miriam-Webster
Documentary
of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE
Objective:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations .
handsomehunk
-
Well... At that point Clarke was the red-headed step child in there. Nobody would meet with the guy, let alone I think, allow him to make a unilateral decision to allahsudden let 100+ Saudis leave the US.
"Mr. President... we have on radar numerous planes which appear to be heading towards the Atlantic."
Bush: "huh?"
"Nevermind Mr. President, we recieved word that Clarke said it's cool."
Bush: "oh okay."
Btw... I would HOPE that at least some of the actions of the Bush administration were done with Bush's knowledge. At the very least, Clarke was a member of the Bush administration. If Bush was unaware of a couple of dozen of AC containing arabs beating a hasty retreat through a nation-wide no fly zone, I would want to know why his staff kept that info from him.
-
Put up or shut up Steve.... and stow yer dictionary.
Doesn't suprise me you had to look it up (all the rage on this BBS allahsudden... which I applaud... but the next big leap is to actually use the new words you learn in a meaningful way)
-
This isn't even worth the time anymore.
See ya in another thread.
-
Yeah... You finally found something you think was a lie. So you blurted it out.
Bet heck if you actually have to say why.
Alla effort....
Yet, you demand 100X from the rest of us.
Fine.... later.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX And tsk tsk to you for not even adding anything to the debate even remotely intellectual.
Nonsense. It's much easier to prove a negative than to disprove a negative. Welcome to the wonderful world of positivism and null hypotheses. My contribution to this debate is to call you on such a silly debating tactic.
Null hypothesis: Michael Moore tells the truth at all times.
Alternative Hypothesis: Michael Moore does not tell the truth at all times.
Proceed from there. Go forth, m'boy, and make a fool of Nash!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
If its all lies then why isnt he sued?
Nilsen, I'm not a Bush fan and haven't seen the movie (but I have viewed several of the teasers). It's safe to say Bush's remarks were usually taken out of context. Given Bush's propensity for making flip, funny responses to stupid questions, he gave Moore many opportunities to quote him out of context.
There's nothing illegal at all about doing this. It's a little game all political activists play ... ;(
curly
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Go forth, m'boy, and make a fool of Nash!
-- Todd/Leviathn
hmmm know who my money is on when it comes to making a fool of someone.....
-
At the beggining of the movie Farenheit 911 it is stated that all recounts would have shown Gore to be the winner in Florida.
Thats a clear lie. In fact full recounts done after the elections show Bush winning the state.
Does anyone care?
-
So Steve, a documentary made by 2 different people on different sides of a subject (i.e. a Palestinian documentary on the West Bank and an Islaeli documentary on the West Bank) only 1 is true? You know better. It is one person's perspective of a subject.
While it may not perfectly fit your textbook definition of a documentary it is well within boundries of what could be called one. I'm sure it fits what any film award would define as a documentary. I understand Lion's Gate isn't promoting it as one however, prefering to call it an OpEd piece. But Toad mentioned that several posts ago...please try to keep up.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
At the beggining of the movie Farenheit 911 it is stated that all recounts would have shown Gore to be the winner in Florida.
Thats a clear lie. In fact full recounts done after the elections show Bush winning the state.
Does anyone care?
Care to post a link? To my understanding a full recount was never done per Florida law.
Once again I bring up Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election (http://imdb.com/title/tt0346091/) . If you have not seen this movie, you need to.
-
Here is one..
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/
"The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.
Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore. "
-
Great link! Thanks!
The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.
The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted.
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/dougman/Funnies/owned_vador.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's not rare, Nuke.
It's more than rare. Unbiased documentaries don't exist.
I changed my icon :p
-
Sure RPM I read that too.
But Moore's film said that all recounts showed Gore to be a winner.
Thats simply a lie...
But I am happy that you think you found a way to get around that lie.
-
Yes, all recounts that include those votes show Gore to be the winner. Stay Down Rocky!
-
Now you are changing the statement in question to fit this nice data I gave you...
Well done!
So like I said earlier...
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You either like the guy, his politics and his work or you dont, it seems to simply come down to that...
Thanks for illustrating my point RPM...
Have a good night.
-
(http://www.bushwatch.com/nytchart.jpg)
Here is the graphs from the Times btw. They have to count illegal overvotes for Gore to win, overvotes are the ballots they are refering too.
In any event much to the Times dismay no doubt, that had the recount not been stopped with the USSC decision Bush would have won that count. Cant claim all.
-
Sorry if your own link turned against you Grun. :D
Those "illegal" votes are what came into question. If you see the movie "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election" it goes into great detail about these votes and the political wrangling by the Republicans surrounding them. It's very interesting.
-
Grunhertz making an idiot of himself again?
-
Ok, so let me get this straight. You change the direction of the thread citing To my understanding a full recount was never done per Florida law. Overvotes are not legal in any state. Even when they vote Al Gore, and then also vote in the write in columb for Al Gore. But then cling to 'well more people meant to vote for Gore' even when they dont comply to Flordia law. So which is it? Your are or are not concerned with things being done legally?
-
Murdr just look the exchange between me and RPM above, he is just shifting his agruments and goals to suit whatever problems come up with his thinkging or his prejudices. I show him data that proves moore was lying in the movie and then he shifts the question to something else entirely...
There is no point discussing it with him.
He needs to belive one thing and thats the way its going to me for him.
It's pointless nad very very predictable.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Murdr just look the exchange between me and RPM above, he is just shifting his agruments and goals to suit whatever problems come up with his thinkging or his prejudices. I show him data that proves moore was lying in the movie and then he shifts the question to something else entirely...
There is no point discussing it with him.
He needs to belive one thing and thats the way its going to me for him.
It's pointless nad very very predictable.
Grun, I'm not twisting anything. I may concede that not EVERY recount after the election showed Gore the winner. Not every recount included all votes. That Florida election was as screwed up and manipulated as it gets. I'm not sure Moore used the word EVERY either. He may well have.
The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.
The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted.
I will stand behind disproving your link. They say if all the votes were counted Gore would have won. Can we agree on that point?
:rolleyes:
-
I will agree that obviously the florida election was a debacle and that either candidate would coume out with lower legitemacy after it. It was a poor showing for the world's greatest democrcay and i hope we never go throught that sort of thiong again.
As far as counting "all" votes?
Well if by "all" you mean, as the article does, counting these special types of ballots only in Plam Beach and Broward counties (both of which are overwhelmingly democtraic) then yes Gore could have won. But what about the rest of the state and the more republican counties?
-
As far as counting "all" votes?
Well if by "all" you mean, as the article does, counting these special types of ballots only in Plam Beach and Broward counties (both of which are overwhelmingly democtraic) then yes Gore could have won. But what about the rest of the state and the more republican counties?
I'm speaking of the votes that would have passed as legit in the other counties but were thrown out.
Every vote should be treated the same in every county, but it wasn't. Who knows who really received the most votes? I don't.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
I'm speaking of the votes that would have passed as legit in the other counties but were thrown out.
Every vote should be treated the same in every county, but it wasn't. Who knows who really received the most votes? I don't.
We dont know how votes were counted in the other counties, who is to say that some republican areas dd not undercount hundreds of Bush votes. Obviously we can go on like this forever, even arguing in good faith. It's a convoluted situation that showed some serious weaknesses in our election systems.
So basically nobody knows. Thats why we had all sorts of talking about voters "intent" and some other concepts nad thats why you and i are arguing about this now.
I think we both know that either side would say the other guy stole the election if their guy lost...
I just hope its fixed this year and that we dont go through that BS again...
-
Moore did say "every" recount.
Moore didnt say "bush said the planes could fly"
He said the administration.
If I remember correctly.
Wonder if Moore will be able to get it on TV before the election?
The way the movie starts with just a blank screen and the sounds of 9/11. Then all people looking up and crying..and then the paper chits floating everywhere is really something.
-
Its certainly easy to make it confusing.
The blacks that where illegaly struck off the voters lists because they had the same last name as an ex felon though..thats not confusing at all. And the Bush brothers are setting up to do it again. The republicans are trying to get the same technology going in other states for November.
This year there will be electronic voting devices..they dont leave any inconvientent paper behind to get recounted. Your state attourney general can just
"Delete * from votes where voter race = 'the enemy'" and there they go!
So there will be more controversy. But less proof.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its certainly easy to make it confusing.
The blacks that where illegaly struck off the voters lists because they had the same last name as an ex felon though..thats not confusing at all. And the Bush brothers are setting up to do it again. The republicans are trying to get the same technology going in other states for November.
This year there will be electronic voting devices..they dont leave any inconvientent paper behind to get recounted. Your state attourney general can just
"Delete * from votes where voter race = 'the enemy'" and there they go!
So there will be more controversy. But less proof.
So all elections are run by evil republicans in every state? Great! With Arnie as the governator Bush should have no trouble in California! Yikes, New York has a republican governor too! Notch another big red state right there!!! Woohoo!!!
What happens to your theory if Kerry wins the election according to us law?
-
You have exagerated what I said. I guess your comfortable with that. Other states will implement the same technology to cull voters lists electronically. States will implement electroninc voting terminals that just register your vote in a database.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
You have exagerated what I said. I guess your comfortable with that. Other states will implement the same technology to cull voters lists electronically. States will implement electroninc voting terminals that just register your vote in a database.
Of course I have exxagerated it, though not by much since your post is pretty out there and full of paranoia and it desrved some exaggerataion.
But no offense intended.
I guess the question I must ask is, where is the democratic party and democratic election officials in all of this? They are just gonna let this happend, on a bigger scale too?
And of course what happens to this theory of yours if Kerry becomes the next president?
-
I hope they are learning from it and finding ways to illegaly cut neo con voters off the voters list. Apperently its ok to do that.
I never guerrenteed that it would work for bush. Only that it would be tried again. He won by 470 votes last time and illegaly had over 20 000 votes discounted or not able to be cast.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I hope they are learning from it and finding ways to illegaly cut neo con voters off the voters list. Apperently its ok to do that.
I never guerrenteed that it would work for bush. Only that it would be tried again. He won by 470 votes last time and illegaly had over 20 000 votes discounted or not able to be cast.
Wow what a scary picture you paint Pongo, well, more reason for me not to vote!
-
I caught a news story a couple days ago. (it was from Illinois or Ohio, IIRC)
this guy works for the company that supplies these computer voting machines, was also a major supporter of Bush (to the point where he had face to face meetings).
so the state was going to bring in his machines for the election in November and the guy promises Bush that "he can deliver" the state to him in November.
I wish I had paid more attention to it at the time. in the end the guys employer required him to resign from the Bush campaign due to the conflict of interest. I'm not sure what that would accomplish other than helping with the appearance of conflict, if he had intended to artificially effect the election, this would do nothing to interfere with those plans.
I'd think the guy shouldn't be allowed to have anything to do with the machines.
-
It wasn't just 'some guy', it was the CEO of Diebold, the company that makes the voting machines.
That uncomfortable situation was rather dramatically underlined when Walden "Wally" O'Dell, chairman and CEO of Diebold Election Systems and a Bush campaign "Pioneer" (meaning he raised at least $100,000), wrote in a 2003 fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
If I can't find evidence that contradicts Moore then the burden of proof is on those that support his claims.
Diablo, if you (or others) can't find evidence that contradicts Moore then there is no proof needed to support Moore's claim. There are no other circumstances that it could/should be otherwise.
-
Now that sure sounds sinister how this guy is:
"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."
Of course this could only mean that he will rig the machines he sells to favor Bush - thus risking his whole company anf his freedom.
In no way could it be possible that O'Dell, an Ohio resident would be excercizing his right as a citizen to campaign for political candidates he supports.
Nah, how far fetched, not to mention mundane. The whole stealing the election thing is way more secksie, yeahhh...
-
My son said he realized who the audience for this movie was at the beginning when the whole theatre errupted in laughter at the sight of politicians putting on makeup for television appearances. :confused:
-
I gotta admit the whole Diebold deal makes me nervous. With these electronic ballots there is no paper back-up.
Thank God we all are familiar with computers and programs. We all know that computers never crash and there is absolutely no need to have any form of backup.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
My son said he realized who the audience for this movie was at the beginning when the whole theatre errupted in laughter at the sight of politicians putting on makeup for television appearances. :confused:
Did anyone suck on his comb before using it?
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Nonsense. It's much easier to prove a negative than to disprove a negative. Welcome to the wonderful world of positivism and null hypotheses. My contribution to this debate is to call you on such a silly debating tactic.
Null hypothesis: Michael Moore tells the truth at all times.
Alternative Hypothesis: Michael Moore does not tell the truth at all times.
Proceed from there. Go forth, m'boy, and make a fool of Nash!
-- Todd/Leviathn
Statsman strikes again. :D
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Did anyone suck on his comb before using it?
Huh?
While he did find the film to be funny on some occasions he felt that overall it was pretty stupid and unfunny. I'll watch it (at least as much as I can stomach) when it comes to HBO. The part where I'll likely throw a few choice epithets Moore's way and turn it off is when he attempts to make the US soldiers look like a bunch of thugs and murderers.
-
But Toad mentioned that several posts ago...please try to keep up.
Screw you. I was responding to Nash, not reading what others were offering. Have a nice day.
-
all the rage on this BBS allahsudden... which I applaud... but the next big leap is to actually use the new words you learn in a meaningful way)
Actually it relates to my realization that no matter what facts are presented to you liberals, you will not agree/ understand. You have your Bush hating mindset and liberal views which are based on how you "feel" about things and I could never change your mind with things like common sense and logic. I have a hunch you may understand an insult when you see one so it is all anyone is really left with when discussing things with handsomehunkes(politically speaking) like you, RPM, Pongo, and your ilk.
-
One more Moore lie in F911...
That it was somehow unusual for the secret service to guard the saudi embassy...
http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/ud.shtml
PROTECTION
Uniformed Division
After several name revisions, the force officially adopted its current name, the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division in 1977. While protection of the White House Complex remains its primary mission, the Uniformed Division's responsibilities have expanded greatly over the years.
They now protect the following:
the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices;
the President and members of the immediate family;
the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia;
the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and
foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute.
This is a pretty significant lie, considering the weight Moore places on suposed speacial treament to the Saudis...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its certainly easy to make it confusing.
The blacks that where illegaly struck off the voters lists because they had the same last name as an ex felon though..thats not confusing at all. And the Bush brothers are setting up to do it again. The republicans are trying to get the same technology going in other states for November.
This year there will be electronic voting devices..they dont leave any inconvientent paper behind to get recounted. Your state attourney general can just
"Delete * from votes where voter race = 'the enemy'" and there they go!
So there will be more controversy. But less proof.
yet again you generalise where you make an ASSumption and yet again, u make an prettythang out of yourself...
Gosh it must piss you off pongo that you have NO say in what goes on in this country, yet WE have SO MUCH say in what goes on in yours... :rofl
-
Grun, maybe you caught Moore in a lie.
I wouldn't know, because you don't actually say what it is Moore said about this. You may have nailed it in the response, but you're missing the actual "lie" part.
-
btw.... way to sneak this in:
"One more Moore lie in F911..."
One more?
There have been others? There's been even one?
Which would those be?
-
Nash:
"That it was somehow unusual for the secret service to guard the saudi embassy..."
Have you even seen F911?
In the movie he goes to the Saudi Embassy in DC. He films some stuff and soon he is approached by a pair of uniformed Secret Service officers who are guarding the embassy. The movie makes the point that it is somehow unusual for the secret service to protect foreign emabasies - his point being that the saudi embassy got extra special treatment.
As I pointed out with the secret service website this is not the case.
Pretty simple lie and very easy to check out..
-
(http://rattler.cameron.edu/tmp/comics.jpeg)
-
I was going to vote for Senator Kerry this election but I have changed my mind. I am going to vote for Ralph Nader.
I believe all good democrats should join me and cast a vote for change, real change.
Vote for Ralph Nader this November.
====
Im Yeager and I approve this message.
-
give me 1 hour of moore being interviewed and I could make a documentary that had him admiting that he was a lying pedophile who that had worked on a drug that would kill canadian babies.
and... I wouldn't be sued over it.
lazs
-
Geez, what a bunch of old ladies crapping their pants about a movie. Get over it will ya.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Geez, what a bunch of old ladies crapping their pants about a movie. Get over it will ya.
Hahaha, thank you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
give me 1 hour of moore being interviewed and I could make a documentary that had him admiting that he was a lying pedophile who that had worked on a drug that would kill canadian babies.
and... I wouldn't be sued over it.
lazs
That would be interesting to see.
How do you want me to send the vid to ya? FTP or Yahoo or something else?
-
I ain't payin to watch his trash.
-
Haven't seen the movie but from what I've heard and know about Moore he doesn't actually lie because he never actually says anything. He takes things wildly out of context to lead the gullible to the conclusions he would have them reach. Anyone with even the least sense of honesty should find such deceit repugnant.
-
Bohdi.
Is that your way of saying you dont like me to be interested in your politics?
-
Are there lies in Moore's movies?
To answer this, we should consider whether a photoshopped image is a "lie", because Moore's films are just like photoshop:
Start with a piece of reality, then change, delete, juxtapose, remove from original context, emphasize, de-emphasize, shade, recolor, resize and there you have it.
I consider a documentary that employs these processes in film making to intentionally give a certain impression, including those that are not consistent with the reality, for the purpose of influencing a presidential election, is PROPAGANDA.
Is it lies? Is a misrepresentation a lie? If it intentionally leads people to make inaccurate conclusions, I think it is.
Of course, for our liberal friends, it may depend on what the definition of "is" is.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Is it lies? Is a misrepresentation a lie? If it intentionally leads people to make inaccurate conclusions, I think it is.
Of course, for our liberal friends, it may depend on what the definition of "is" is.
Exactly, what is is??
Lets see, intentionally leads people to make inaccurate conclusions..
Humm.. Would that be like Dick Cheeny saying " the connection between SH and Al Queda is pretty well proven".....
How about SH having WMDs ready to use in less than 10mins time..
How about SH is a threat to America's security right now...
How about attacking Iraqi is part of the war on terror..
How about ... Why continue??? Clearly these statements leading to inaccurate conclusions by the american peoples are not lies... They IS what they IS...........
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Would the same apply if you made a movie about a random person and accused him of all kinds of things using the same tactics as Moore, or does it just apply to public persons?.
Only public persons.
New York Times vs. Sullivan
Summary:
The Supreme Court reversed the libel judgment, saying that the First Amendment protected "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed "reckless disregard" for the truth.
Good luck trying to meet that standard.
-
MZ,
The proof of whether of not Moore lied or doctored the interviews with public officials lies on the cutting room floor. He has in his possession the only "record" of what was said in those interviews. In fact, I doubt that an unedited copy still exists. He also knows that civil suits and court challenges can take years.
I predict that it will be almost impossible for Moore to obtain comments from or interviews with ANY politician after this. If I were one, I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The proof of whether of not Moore lied or doctored the interviews with public officials lies on the cutting room floor. He has in his possession the only "record" of what was said in those interviews. In fact, I doubt that an unedited copy still exists. He also knows that civil suits and court challenges can take years.
Whatever you think about his film, I'm just saying that the law gives him a wide latitude when talking about public figures like the President. He will not lose any US court decisions on this over libel or slandor, guaranteed.
It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe. I know the book 'House of Bush - House of Saud' or whatever its called is not being sold in Britain because of legal threats from Saudis.
-
nash.. email me and we can arrange it but.. you won't find an hour of moore interviews because he is rightfully paranoid about speaking. He has made a fortune out of one of the oldest comedy bits in film media... the phony interview... he purposely distorts what is being said, often even simply flat out lying about when and under what circumstances.. he crops anything that won't further his agenda.. he is afraid that others will do the same to him.
he is a sick, sad little dishonest man.. in short... a liberal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
he is a sick, sad little dishonest man.. in short... a liberal.
lazs
Let me get this straight, Lazs! All liberals are diseased, unhappy and dishonest folks, is that correct?
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
All liberals are diseased, unhappy and dishonest folks
curly
Just practicin' my Moore impersonation. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Let me get this straight, Lazs! All liberals are diseased, unhappy and dishonest folks, is that correct?
curly
no of course not ...
just the majority of them
-
Originally posted by Eagler
no of course not ...
just the majority of them
Well, that's good to know!
How do we recognize conservatives? Are they happy, healthy and forthright folks?
curly
-
curly... I believe you have the generalizations that will work down pretty well.
there are of course exceptions but too few to be statistically significant or to get excited about.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly... I believe you have the generalizations that will work down pretty well.
there are of course exceptions but too few to be statistically significant or to get excited about.
lazs
Thanks, Lazs (and Eagler too!) Very useful information if I ever need to identify a Neaderthal. Most scientists are of the opinion the species is extinct! I'll take my camera to the CON and I'll bet I bag my limit of "happy, healthy and forthright" folks.
Keep your eyes open for my article in "Nature."
curly
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nash .. email me and we can arrange it but.. you won't find an hour of moore interviews because he is rightfully paranoid about speaking. He has made a fortune out of one of the oldest comedy bits in film media... the phony interview... he purposely distorts what is being said, often even simply flat out lying about when and under what circumstances.. he crops anything that won't further his agenda.. he is afraid that others will do the same to him.
he is a sick, sad little dishonest man.. in short... a liberal.
lazs [/B]
Don't know what you mean, Lazs! ;)
Ravs
-
Here's a well know person's opinion on Moore's "mis-documentary," a democratic, as I recall.
Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation
By Ed Koch
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, June 28, 2004
It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger. I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan “My country right or wrong.” But I do believe, when seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.
Disagreeing with America’s foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.
Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States’ foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views. On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.
David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line. Brooks writes:
“Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: ‘You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.’ In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: ‘It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton…We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,’ he told a crowd in Berlin. ‘You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.’ In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, ‘Should such an ignorant people lead the world?’
In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: ‘The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.’ But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: ‘The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.’ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.”
Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s “Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:
“One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary “Roger & Me.” During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of “I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.” I was aghast and responded, “I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.” I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience. Moore later called President Bush a “dummy,” denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War. Again, I couldn’t contain myself and said, “That’s what you radicals on the left always do. You don’t debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence.”
In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire. We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy. How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies. A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.
I am a movie critic, so I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.
Newsday reported some of Moore’s misstatements as follows: “At the start of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, ‘under every scenario Gore won the election.’
“What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election…Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House ‘approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis’ who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.
“But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: ‘Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks’” It is clear to me from the tenor of the film’s off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II. Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction? Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica? Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery? Weren’t we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?
Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes.
The movie’s diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
Moore simply hates his country; it is reflected in his every word and deed.
-
Or perhaps Ed Koch thinks so.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Thanks, Lazs (and Eagler too!) Very useful information if I ever need to identify a Neaderthal. Most scientists are of the opinion the species is extinct! I'll take my camera to the CON and I'll bet I bag my limit of "happy, healthy and forthright" folks.
Keep your eyes open for my article in "Nature."
curly
Neanderthal? I'm thinking you probably don't intend that as the compliment it may be in this age of enlightended sensitivity. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Well, that's good to know!
How do we recognize conservatives? Are they happy, healthy and forthright folks?
curly
I use the sloping foreheads and dragging knuckles meself...
-
Originally posted by ravells
Or perhaps Ed Koch thinks so.
Ravs
More accurately - Ed Koch thinks so and therefore it must be true because I agree with him!!!
Boys around here struggle to tell the difference between facts and opinions.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Boys around here struggle to tell the difference between facts and opinions.
Don't throw out Koch's piece just because it is an opinion. The mayor sights verifiable facts within it.
-
rav gets it...
moore is a lying little rich kid who never worked a day in his life. he hates himself but he hates all of us even more. he has said so many anti American things over the years and told so many lies that this movie will be his ruin... All the publicity will make people who seen his movie want to know "who is this moore guy?"
when they find out it will be a big plus for Bush and pretty much the end of moore being taken even halfway seriously.. all the gushing liberals on this board are gonna be sooooo embarassed by this time next year i think pretty much like the guys who gushed over "the arming of America" book and all the awards it got.
lazs
-
I think you may be a little overly optimistic lazs.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
-- Henry Mencken
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you may be a little overly optimistic lazs.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
-- Henry Mencken
Sadly I think you are correct.
-
there is a reason moore-on fought the "R" rating
he wanted to "confuse" teenagers 13 - 18 not just 18 & 19 year olds and adults whose brains have not developed past that physical age ....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Don't throw out Koch's piece just because it is an opinion. The mayor sights verifiable facts within it.
Oh I don't - but to me it's just an opinion "facts" would be anothe rmatter of opinion.
-
I don't think so... I would point to bellisels "arming of America" as an example..
the lefties hate any kind of success that isn't theirs personally and while they will play along for a bit if the "cause" is right... in the end... they just can't stand anyone getting more attention than them... they will turn on him... Allready some are "outing" him as a liar.
When his reputation matches the reality of him.... it's all over. It will be oliver stone all over again... good filmaker but frothing at the mouth and unable to keep from lying to get his point across..
in everyday examples... we have all argued with a liberal.... they say something and you say "that doesn't sound right" or "so what? I don't care about that." what happens? they tell an even bigger whopper to "prove" their point.... citing a far left corner of the internet or a friend of thiers or some nutjob as "proof"... if you still aren't convinced they go into stage three whoppers... no base at all.. moore is about stage two and a half in everything he does.... about stage three in person...
he will self destruct with the eager help of his "friends" on the left.
lazs
-
From dictionary.com:
Lie
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
....
So if i give you wrong impressions, ie. say that i am selling my house and show you a photo of unknown mansion, i'm lying even tho you wont find me saying that this picture represents what i am selling.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
there is a reason moore-on fought the "R" rating
he wanted to "confuse" teenagers 13 - 18 not just 18 & 19 year olds and adults whose brains have not developed past that physical age ....
in canada...the film is rated A-14...if you go to M Moore's web page you will see pics of theatres across the US at least one of which has on the marquee "we do not honor the "R" rating"....!!:aok
-
"It also shows how the Democrats damaged their campaign by going for selective recounts rather than a properly democratic complete hand recount."
And the LOSING of the election had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH dipchit Gore, LOSING HIS HOME STATE?!! I love it when Dem's whine about Florida. They shut up when the former is told to them. Gore lost it himself, the idiot pissed off hunters in his own state and did VERY lax campaigning as well.
Btw, Moore has a right to produce this film, it is a right after all. If you don't like it, don't fuggin watch it, novel idea eh? I will not see it, but I think it's a wake up call of sorts. The hornets are a buzzin'.
Karaya