Quote:
Originally Posted by Manx
So in your mind, Bush and Moore have equivalence in this respect. In essence, you defend Bush when he is attacked for his distortions because you agree with his overall message. And you attack Moore for his distortions because you disagree with his overall message.
Is that correct?
Additionally, I'd point out that very few people are claiming that Moore is not spinning or distorting information. Quite a few people have claimed that Bush is not spinning or distorting information.
|
Not quite, but I see where you get that from.
I would agree that both sides are using spin in order to pursuade the public to their particular points of view.
But beyond that, the comparison breaks down.
To use specific cases to illustrate, Moore
knowingly edited Heston's speech so that the overall message was not original, as he knowingly lied about a particular plant making missles (to make a point about the American military machine), whereas if Bush lied about WMD's, then so did the Clintons and other major liberal political figures. But then, I don't believe Bush intentially lied either.
No, there is volumes of documentation that says that there was a massive intelligence failure coupled with Saddam Hussein's own propaganda (with which he hoped to deter a war with the US).
As to my attacking Moore because his message disagrees with my own opinions, yes, of course I don't agree with him, but he himself dictates the vehimency of my attack because of the lies and distortions he uses.
If he wanted to discuss gun violence and ways to reduce it, then by all means. But he
doesn't. Instead he turns to personal character assassination and an attack on all NRA members, with special attention of those who dared to attend a convention that had been years in planning, as if somehow they should be ashamed of owning guns because of two sick young men in Littleton.