Well most Senators are doddering old fogies, so any sons they have would be middle age.

 

This is NOT Vietnam, unless you're suggesting a draft, LC. The military and its benefit packages are completely voluntary and if you sign up, well you might have to go to war.

 

But, by all means, keep plugging away with non sequiters (THAT'S NOT A STATISTIC!) and random links. Really helps your argument. Perhaps Michael Moore has a spot open on his "fact-checking" team.

Well most Senators are doddering old fogies, so any sons they have would be middle age.

 

This is NOT Vietnam, unless you're suggesting a draft, LC. The military and its benefit packages are completely voluntary and if you sign up, well you might have to go to war.

 

But, by all means, keep plugging away with non sequiters (THAT'S NOT A STATISTIC!) and random links. Really helps your argument.

The random link you refer to is nothing but The New York Times... Unless you think Slate.com is more believable than the Times? :blink:

 

Anyway that is not the point... Some people were arguing that Michael "lied" about the senator who has kids in Iraq and this is not true, for he never interviewed that senator. Michael interviewed someone else who does have relatives in Afghanistan, which is in the film.

 

Do you want to tell me what other "lie" is there in Michaels movie? Well I'd expect at least for you to see it before offering your judgement.

 

Michael is certainly not objective and he doesn't hide the fact that he wants this movie to help kick Bush out. But everything which is in the movie are facts that support his opinion. Whether you agree is another thing.

Given Jayson Blair, I wouldn't necessarily denigrate Slate compared to the New York Times. As for specific lies, well no, I haven't seen the film yet. I won't be able to stomach it. However, I can pull summaries of it offline. More than anything, I think Moore is guilty of being logically deficient. He takes a bunch of scenarios (Bin Laden's family left the US! Ooooooooh! Bush waited 5 minutes after hearing about the Towers! Oooooooh!), cobbles them together, and forms some kind of theory where Bush is evil incarnate, somehow both lazy and cunning.

 

The guy could make a attack film on Mr. Rogers if he wanted to.

Actually no it isn't an statistic. It was said in a news interview. Only one member of congress has a child in Iraq.

1:500 is indeed a statistic. If you put it that way... Then I guess it is.

Given Jayson Blair, I wouldn't necessarily denigrate Slate compared to the New York Times. As for specific lies, well no, I haven't seen the film yet. I won't be able to stomach it. However, I can pull summaries of it offline. More than anything, I think Moore is guilty of being logically deficient. He takes a bunch of scenarios (Bin Laden's family left the US! Ooooooooh! Bush waited 5 minutes after hearing about the Towers! Oooooooh!), cobbles them together, and forms some kind of theory where Bush is evil incarnate, somehow both lazy and cunning.

 

The guy could make a attack film on Mr. Rogers if he wanted to.

That's fine with me if you don't like the way he puts together the facts to support his views... But calling him a liar is an entirely different animal.

Given Jayson Blair, I wouldn't necessarily denigrate Slate compared to the New York Times. As for specific lies, well no, I haven't seen the film yet. I won't be able to stomach it. However, I can pull summaries of it offline. More than anything, I think Moore is guilty of being logically deficient. He takes a bunch of scenarios (Bin Laden's family left the US! Ooooooooh! Bush waited 5 minutes after hearing about the Towers! Oooooooh!), cobbles them together, and forms some kind of theory where Bush is evil incarnate, somehow both lazy and cunning.

 

The guy could make a attack film on Mr. Rogers if he wanted to.

That's fine with me if you don't like the way he puts together the facts to support his views... But calling him a liar is an entirely different animal. I can call him a liar because of what he did to Fred Barnes, and others I cannot recall off the top of my head.

 

Here's a tidbit:

 

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

 

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

 

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I

got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.

 

So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously?

 

More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival.

But everything which is in the movie are facts that support his opinion.

It just hit the theatres about 3 hours ago. How can you be writing these posts and seeing the movie at the same time so you could make such a statement? I have read the d-bunking of you assertions in Michael's website... I think he knows what is in his movie.

 

I said before and I say it again. I will come back later to debate the veracity of the film's claims with whomever sees the movie and still thinks it was a lie.

 

Thank you and have a wonderful weekend guys!

 

I'll debate it on Monday, because I will see it tonight. :thumbup

Given Jayson Blair, I wouldn't necessarily denigrate Slate compared to the New York Times. As for specific lies, well no, I haven't seen the film yet. I won't be able to stomach it. However, I can pull summaries of it offline. More than anything, I think Moore is guilty of being logically deficient. He takes a bunch of scenarios (Bin Laden's family left the US! Ooooooooh! Bush waited 5 minutes after hearing about the Towers! Oooooooh!), cobbles them together, and forms some kind of theory where Bush is evil incarnate, somehow both lazy and cunning.

 

The guy could make a attack film on Mr. Rogers if he wanted to.

That's fine with me if you don't like the way he puts together the facts to support his views... But calling him a liar is an entirely different animal. You don't have to all out say something which is incorrect to be a liar

Well tell me about the "Significant" deceptions in the trailer, besides Bush's mocking face.

The talk on the steps with the congressman - Moore edits out the guys response. The fellow's response would have made Moore's heckling look foolish. There were several news stories on this.

 

Wake up - Moore is a crude propagandist. teah, and how about the whole corporate conspiracy thing. or implying hat the whole congress did not read the patriot act. or the fact Bush is irresponsible for playing golf, something that eisenhower did endlessly. He did not imply it... From the trailer (if that is all you saw) there were two congressmen that said it... Not Michael. no, HE IMPLIED IT. why the hell are you defending a blatant propagandist?

 

Furthermore, he went up to a secret service guy and asked, "do you only defend saudi officials?" and the guy said yes. this way, moore has you beleive that we only defend the saudis. in fact, every embassy has 6 secret service men, but mores convenient response is, "well i didn't say it, the secret service guy did."

 

He's obviously implying mistruths endlessly. give me a break.

Moore is shameless prick.

 

Just because you agree with the message that Bush is bad does not mean he's right! I just saw this and disgusted. He blatantly cast our soilders as bad guys in this movie who happened to support the war and Bush and the only time he showed soilders who behaved in the right way, they happened to be against Bush.

 

I agree with the message and everyone here knows I'm a liberal but Michael Moore is nothing more than a jackass. A complete jackass.

So I was reading through the paper last week and came across an article on Moore...seeing as how I had just watched Bowling for Columbine a few days ago (it was on a free movie channel), I read the article...and came across a website: http://www.mooreexposed.com.

 

Awesome site. I'm guessing it's much like spinsanity (it's linked in the website above, but I haven't checked it out yet).

that site is probably liike moorewatch.com and bowlingfortruth.com

 

spinsanity.com (or is it org?) does all sorts of people, for example it bashed hannity's books.

Michael Moore has balls! That is all I have to say.

Michael Moore has balls! That is all I have to say.

So did Joseph Goebbels.

Michael Moore has balls! That is all I have to say.

So did Joseph Goebbels. Don't know who that is.

The right wing is obviously nervous about the film which is understandable because it has ALOT TRUTH TO IT!

 

Why would they be wasting their time with all this negative propaganda toward the movie?THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED! :shifty

The right wing is obviously nervous about the film which is understandable because it has ALOT TRUTH TO IT!

 

Why would they be wasting their time with all this negative propaganda toward the movie?THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED! :shifty

Minus,

 

Did you see it?

The right wing is obviously nervous about the film which is understandable because it has ALOT TRUTH TO IT!

 

Why would they be wasting their time with all this negative propaganda toward the movie?THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED! :shifty

Minus,

 

Did you see it? No.

 

I just read a couple of reviews on the film.I plan on watching it this weekend after I catch Spyder Man 2 of course.

The right wing is obviously nervous about the film which is understandable because it has ALOT TRUTH TO IT!

 

Why would they be wasting their time with all this negative propaganda toward the movie?THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED! :shifty

Minus,

 

Did you see it? No.

 

I just read a couple of reviews on the film.I plan on watching it this weekend after I catch Spyder Man 2 of course. Well, If you hate Bush, you probably will hate him more after this. If you like him, you'll probably walk out after the first two minutes.

 

Everybody can say all they want that Michael is a liar, but none of the footage or facts explained in the movie have been rebutted. So as far as I can see it, all is true. Up until I saw this movie I thought that many of it was conspiracy theories, but after seeing and hearing everything, all my suspicions are pretty well confirmed.

 

I challenge any Bushie... Whoever, to tell me what in the movie was a lie or not factual.

Michael Moore has balls! That is all I have to say.

So did Joseph Goebbels. Don't know who that is. Nazi propaganda minister. he killed himself with his wife and children in hitler's bunker.

 

And moore doesn't have "balls." If he had balls, he would have confronted the mob when he was airing the TV Nation TV show and his annoyance of garbage men got him into a run in.

 

I'm sure Cheney has balls, why don't you praise him for that?

The right wing is obviously nervous about the film which is understandable because it has ALOT TRUTH TO IT!

 

Why would they be wasting their time with all this negative propaganda toward the movie?THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED! :shifty

Minus,

 

Did you see it? No.

 

I just read a couple of reviews on the film.I plan on watching it this weekend after I catch Spyder Man 2 of course. Well, If you hate Bush, you probably will hate him more after this. If you like him, you'll probably walk out after the first two minutes.

 

Everybody can say all they want that Michael is a liar, but none of the footage or facts explained in the movie have been rebutted. So as far as I can see it, all is true. Up until I saw this movie I thought that many of it was conspiracy theories, but after seeing and hearing everything, all my suspicions are pretty well confirmed.

 

I challenge any Bushie... Whoever, to tell me what in the movie was a lie or not factual. Sigh.

 

Do me a favor Lcyberlina.....

 

Imagine back to a time when you argued against an absurd point made by a conservative - some follower of Limbaugh or something.

 

Remember the incredulous feeling you got at the absurdity of his/her arguement, which was matched only in the stubborn ignorance in which they maintained their arguement, regardless of the overwhelming evidence you provided that was contrary to their opinion?

 

That's what you are doing right now.

 

There are some pretty staunch Democrats on the boards here, as well as some pretty liberal thinkers.... I haven't seen any of them (or anyone at all in the media, left or right for that matter) even come close to your blanket statement that Moore's film is all truth and nothing but.

 

Now, you can hide behind your flimsy little defense that one shouldn't criticize until one sees the movie, or you can ask all you want for someone to post the 727 million articles which call into question Moore's motives/methodology, but in the end it isn't going to matter b/c you have taken an extreme, polarized position on this issue. One so far off to an extreme that you wouldn't be able to find acorrobarative opinion in print in a million years.

The right wing is obviously nervous about the film which is understandable because it has ALOT TRUTH TO IT!

 

Why would they be wasting their time with all this negative propaganda toward the movie?THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO BE EXPOSED! :shifty

Minus,

 

Did you see it? No.

 

I just read a couple of reviews on the film.I plan on watching it this weekend after I catch Spyder Man 2 of course. Well, If you hate Bush, you probably will hate him more after this. If you like him, you'll probably walk out after the first two minutes.

 

Everybody can say all they want that Michael is a liar, but none of the footage or facts explained in the movie have been rebutted. So as far as I can see it, all is true. Up until I saw this movie I thought that many of it was conspiracy theories, but after seeing and hearing everything, all my suspicions are pretty well confirmed.

 

I challenge any Bushie... Whoever, to tell me what in the movie was a lie or not factual. Sigh.

 

Do me a favor Lcyberlina.....

 

Imagine back to a time when you argued against an absurd point made by a conservative - some follower of Limbaugh or something.

 

Remember the incredulous feeling you got at the absurdity of his/her arguement, which was matched only in the stubborn ignorance in which they maintained their arguement, regardless of the overwhelming evidence you provided that was contrary to their opinion?

 

That's what you are doing right now.

 

There are some pretty staunch Democrats on the boards here, as well as some pretty liberal thinkers.... I haven't seen any of them (or anyone at all in the media, left or right for that matter) even come close to your blanket statement that Moore's film is all truth and nothing but.

 

Now, you can hide behind your flimsy little defense that one shouldn't criticize until one sees the movie, or you can ask all you want for someone to post the 727 million articles which call into question Moore's motives/methodology, but in the end it isn't going to matter b/c you have taken an extreme, polarized position on this issue. One so far off to an extreme that you wouldn't be able to find acorrobarative opinion in print in a million years. Dude,

 

All I'm asking is for some factual evidence that all of which Michael has put in his movie is a lie. I understand that you disagree with him and the way he sees the world, but one can not call someone a liar when there is no evidence that his assertions are a lie. He expresses his point of view and opinion in a manner in which you disagree, but that doesn't make him a liar Fish.

 

Once again, I ask of you only one thing. Show me the evidence of his lies, then you can call me on my stupidity if I continue to support him after you show me facts that counter attack his claims in the movie.

If you don't know what a lie is, I'll give you a perfect example:

 

"Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction" lie, no weapons were found.

 

"Saddam has pretty well confirmed ties with Al-Qaeda" Lie, no evidence of ties.

 

Those are lies. Now show me where in the movie does Michael Moore presents assertions without supporting evidence, meaning a lie.

I havent seen Farenheit 9/11, so I can't point out the lies.

 

I can't point out lies in Bowling for Columbine though (a movie I HAVE seen).

 

If Moore is using propaganda methods (i.e. not showing whole interviews, editing things, not telling the whole story, making stories sound different than they are, using sensationalism, etc.) in previous movies, I can assume he's doing the same in this movie. Eventually I'll see the movie (when I can watch it for free, b/c frankly I don't have the desire to the theater and watch ANY documentary)....

 

Would you like me to give example of lies? Because Moore is full of em in Bowling.

I havent seen Farenheit 9/11, so I can't point out the lies.

 

I can't point out lies in Bowling for Columbine though (a movie I HAVE seen).

 

If Moore is using propaganda methods (i.e. not showing whole interviews, editing things, not telling the whole story, making stories sound different than they are, using sensationalism, etc.) in previous movies, I can assume he's doing the same in this movie. Eventually I'll see the movie (when I can watch it for free, b/c frankly I don't have the desire to the theater and watch ANY documentary)....

 

Would you like me to give example of lies? Because Moore is full of em in Bowling.

Start a thread of the "lies" of Bowling for Columbine.