losthellhound

Im sure that through all the smoke that the constant flame wars create over MM (through the Media, through message boards, through every medium where people disagree)..

Even if MM's process is somehow flawed, if his information is not 100% unbiased (like anyone's is).. He is doing what few have been able to do.. He makes people argue..

When people argue, they think and even if they don't agree, if alot of people are all thinking about the issues, then there is more chance of something being done.

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

prb

Michael Moore's books reach the top of the best seller lists where only the books by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly belong. Moore's opinions challenge the viewpoints of these other, conservative, authors. He must be a liar. He must be discredited. Let us not rest until he is silenced.

Don't cha think?

Darkblack

I like MM.
Dude, where is my country indeed.

Food Eater Lad

I assume now that you dont even read my posts as I answerd this clearly a page back.

Food Eater Lad

No not true. He IS a liar. There is a difference.

Food Eater Lad

A documentary must be true. That is in the rules of the oscars, and as such BFC doesnt fit in with the rules.

As far as your last sentence, I am sure the writers that were not paid for their work on " The Awful Truth" would severly disagree with you. They were denied their rights to earn money off their craft.

Food Eater Lad

NO I mean the real journalists and psychologists talking about mental illness, alienation, and Nazi fetishes, as I posted. Nice straw man though.


So I assume you think Coulter, Limbaugh and O reilly are wonderful since they bring up valid points?



PS if Moore's points are so valid, why does he need to lie, mislead and distort his evidence rather than just show the facts?

eple

....Must....keep....civil.....when.....faced....with....ultimate.... irgnorance....stupidity attacking sanity.....brain....shutting....down.....self-narration fading.....

Food Eater Lad

Eple,

that brain freeze is exactly what allows Moore fans to continue functioning.

filtherton

Maybe you should start making distinctions between the "real" journalists and psychologists you are refering to and the rest of the "real" psychologists and journalists whose opinions you care not for. You could say, "The real journalists or psychologist who believe this, not the real journalists or psychologists who believe this.
Your straw man is you pretending to care about "the issues" when it seems you really only care about the idea that michael moore has nothing at all important or relevant to say.


Well, if you think any of those folks have any more "journalistic integrity" than mm i think we may need to call a doctor for you.
I think valid points are wonderful, i don't care where they come from. If i hear coulter or limbaugh, or even hitler say something that makes sense to me, and seems relatively credible then i will consider it, ponder what it means in relation to what i believe. I don't stick my fingers in my ears and scream LALALALALALALALALALA just because someone shows a lack of integrity. Shit, if it was only about integrity where would you get your news? Do you think every thing in the NYT is completely and patently false just because lacks integrity as "part of the liberal media?"

Who in the public eye doesn't lie, mislead, and distort his/her evidence rather than just show the facts? That is politics as usual. It doesn't start with mm and it doesn't stop with him. Do you think the president has been completely honest and forthright in all that he has said to the american people? You think g.w.bush or bill clinton, for that matter, never lied, mislead, and distorted their motivations instead of just showing the facts. Are you trying to hold mm to a higher standard than the president of the united states of america?

Food Eater Lad

So let me understand what you are saying, you want me to say the real journalists and psycologists that talked about mental illness, alienation, and Nazi fetishes, like I did. Then you falsly claimed " like the ones that say rock and roll music" and get called on it? What is your point?

Second, you dont like Couter and co cause they have no crediblity. I assume they have no crediblity cause they lied. But Moore has crediblity EVEN THOUGH, and despite the fact that he lies. So again, what is your point? It must be nice to be a hypocrite.

eple

no FEL, that brain freeze was a dicert result of trying to argue with a fanatic (yeah, that's you) for too long. Your crusade agains Moore aren't really that interesting, and you will obviously not change your mind about this no matter what evidence or arguements we give you. Why do you even keep posting threads like these when you try to discard any type of debate? If you don't want discussion, why do you start threads? It is nothing but trolling.

Food Eater Lad

Evidence against me? The only thing Moore supporters have said was" Yes, He lies, but I like him anyway," While at the other side of their mouths they say" Coulter and Co, lie and they are hypocirites ( at best)."

Not one person has, Moore Fan or not, has said that he DID not lie. What I am seeing is that if you are liberal, you dont care if he lies, as long as he bases Bush.

eple

Well, I was going to point out that you don't really pay attention to what people are trying to say to you and navigate through predjudice, put you dust did that for me.

I have not attacked Coulter or any other right-wing writers in this thread, nor have I said that Moore is right, just that he HAS THE RIGHT to say what he says. Get it?

Food Eater Lad

Sure, and when did I ever say he doesnt have the right to lie? Please quote me so I can then see for myself that i advocted stripping this man of his right to spew lies?

eple

As seen here, you asked wether or not I defended his right to make money off his documentaries. I said yes, I defend his right to express himself, no matter how false or biased his views are. I don't really think MM is such an evil guy, but I won't go down that road arguing over every bit of material he has produced. I am simply saing that he is entiteled the same freedom of speech as everobody else. Maybe he is lying, maybe he is speaking the truth, no matter what, I won't be the one restricting his freedom of speech.

Food Eater Lad

Nice evasion on two direct questions. I asked if he was right to make a buck ON THE FAMILIES OF COLUMBINE, not wether he could make movies.

Second I asked you to repost where I said Moore has no right to speak.

Why the evasions? is your plateform made of thin wood?

eple

Well, as I said, unfortunately he has. Unless those families want to sue, he can't really be denied making movies.

And of course, you never said that FEL, you just asked questions that indicated that restricitions on free speech would have to be the solutoin. I was neglecting your question as it seemed pretty rethorical to me.

Food Eater Lad

Again avoiding direct questions. If you cant stand up for your principals and answer direct questions, then I guess you dont have much to offer in a debate. Sorry, I expected more. Staw man argument, Eple?

filtherton

Well, i never said that i don't like coulter, in fact if you could look through the venomous tint on your sunglasses of interpretation you would see that i said:
I was essentially trying to say that credibilty is in the eye of the beholder. Even though i know that coulter has an axe to grind, just like everybody else who has any kind of voice in the media, if she says something that seems credible, and also seems to make sense, i will think about it.


What i am refering to, falsely according to you, was that there were a lot of differing opinions on why the columbine shooters did what they did. You're trying to claim that mm isn't credible because he didn't address what all the "real journalists and psychologists" said was the motivation of the shooters. I was trying to point out that there hasn't really been a consensus as to what caused the shooters to snap. It depends on who you ask. The gun control groups think it was easy access to guns, tipper gore thinks it was marilyn manson, jocks think that it was because they were a bunch of faggots. It depends on who you ask, contrary to what you may think, not all psychologist and journalists agree with eachother on everything.

What i am saying is yes, he may lie, but he also brings up valid points and unlike you, i can't try to speak on behalf of all mm supporters or liberals. You might look a few posts above this one where i said a very similar statement about coulter. i.e. I don't trust her but i won't discount everything she says just because i don't trust her.

Maybe you should attempt to see people as more than just mouthpieces for the "liberal agenda" maybe you should try to look at people like you at least think that they can form their own ideas and perspectives. It is pretty fucking lazy to just write someone off as a liberal just because they don't agree with you. As far as i can tell not one person arguing for mm has tried to write off your opposition to him as a function of your conservative ideals.

Isn't making money of the suffering of others the american way? How would the medical and the funeral industries even exist if it was unethical to profit from suffering, much less your local evening news? How unpatriotic, and frankly liberal , of you to question how he makes his money?

Food Eater Lad

So you admit that liberal means unpatriotic? LOL

So are comparing Moore, who pretended to make a film that explains the Colombine shooters while charging the survivors and family to see it, to a Doctor? Wow this is the same kind of false assoication that Moore would use. No wonder you defend him.

And last I checked tipper gore was neither a journalist nor a psychologist, so again your comment was without real merit. I will stand by my statement that a movie that seeks to explain why the Columbine shootings occured should do more to than say " A factory that makes WMD caused it, even though they dont make WMD" Why anyone is defending this is beyond me.



and PS, I love all the talk that I want to take away Moore's rights to talk. I dont want that, I want a populace that is intellegent enough to know shit from shinola. And every time Moore open;s his mouth, a huge steaming pile of shit comes out. And the funnything is, again I will stand by this comment, even his biggest defenders call him a liar.


And the same peolpe blast Rush for lying. So I conclude that Liberals are ok with lies as long as said lies further their agenda.




PSS I am waitin for Eple to be a man and answer my questions.

eple

I did....

See?
Question one: Is Moore right in doing this?
Answer one: Yes, Moore cannot be denied making movies. as I have said before, he HAS, the right, wether or not he IS right, is another debate, and I hope it is ok if I don't have any strong opinions on that.
Question two: Did you say that he sould be denied his free speech?
answer two: No, you didn't say that straight out, but I believe you insinuated this. If I am wrong, do correct me.


Are you content?

Food Eater Lad

So you support Moore in making movies, and expoiting the people he is pretending to help. Ok clear.


And thanks, I never said he should be stripped of his rights, nor did I ever insinuate this.

So If I make a movie that uses your family had they been in a tradgedy, you would support me not paying your family and then charging them to see it? I assume you are dandy with this, as per your defence of that Troll Mre Moore.

eple

Er...well I would be pretty pissed, and I would probably complaint, maybe even sue you, but I never said that Moore was right, just that he had the right...as you would have had the right to do that against me and my family. You are arguing as if I we disagree, but I don't really see the conflict here, if you agree that Moore has te right to do this. Wether or not he IS right, is an issue I won't go into. If you hadn't been so determined on arguing, you could have avoided my previous 5 posts or so, which have pretty much stated the same opinion over and over again.

filtherton

Maybe you could explain the false association? I'll grant you that it might not be in the best taste. Is it more or less ethical to take advantage of death by charging people for burial? Is it more or less ethical to charge people incredibly inflated prices on necessary medications and medical care because when given the choice between death and destitution people will pay it? So mm is a capitalist, what's wrong with that? If some of them payed it, he got more money, it certainly hasn't hurt the movie's take at the box office, or in rentals. Maybe mm is actually more ethical because he isn't forcing the victim's relatives to choose between 1. paying incredibly inflated costs and/or incurring crippling debt or 2. dying and/or suffering damaged health. If they don't want to pay it, that's fine, thay just don't get to go to the special sneak preview. That is the american way. Maybe you should complain about that american value before you single mm out for being a good capitalist.


That part of my comment may lack merit in your eyes, but that is only one sentence. Maybe you could explain this idea of yours that all "real" psychologists and journalists agree on the causes of the columbine shooting.

I think the movie actually does much more than say that. But then again, you seem to not be able to get past the idea that one false paragraph renders everything else in the book unbelievable and irrelevant. It is bullshit and is the only thing you can cling to to try and pretend that mm has nothing valid to say about anything. Honestly, i think if mm released a statement tomorrow saying that the sky is in fact blue, you would call bullshit on him.

Being a liar and having nothing good to say are two completely different things. I haven't heard you claim that anyone else, coulter, limbaugh, bush, anyone in the media, is above lying too. You act as if he is the only one and the only one who should be discounted.

I conclude that you either lack the ability or are just too lazy to grasp the difference between the opinions of individual people and your percieved opinions of anybody you can loosely put under the umbrella of the word liberal.

I am waiting for you to be a "man" and deal with me on a point by point basis like i've been dealing with you. No more of this pointing out a technical flaw in one sentence out of one paragraph as a way of rebutting what i typed.

I just thought it might be easier for you to understand if i put it into rhetoric you are used to.

nightshade000

First off, I'm not right wing, but I do dislike Moore. The first time I saw Bowling for Columbine, I thought it was great. I thought it was good insight, even if Moore did jump around a lot. It seems like he got distracted about his ultimate statement in Bowling, switching focus from gun control to being anti-corpate. Asides from that, Bowling was a -very - misleading documentary. He leads you to jumping to the wrong conclusions. For instance, a lot of the NRA meetings that he leads you to belive happened right after the incidents, did NOT happen immediately after that incidents, which is why in the interview with Heston, Heston seemed confused about what Moore was asking about. It was edited in such a way as to completely draw the viewer in the wrong direction. Another example is about [Lockheed? I forget which aero space company he was talking about, I think it's Lockheed Martin] where he points you towards thinking that they are a missle maker. Which is incorrect. They are a rocket/aeronautics manufacture, not a missile company. The size the rockets he shows, and the way he phrases his statements would make the average person think they're building ICBM's.. There a lot of other examples you can find of inaccuracies and lack of integreity in Bowling for Columbine if you go around, fact check, and google search.

filtherton

That has all been covered in various other threads on the tfp. A search shall show you the way. What i and some other people are trying to say is that mm, while using some deception, does also make some good points about the culture of fear in the us and the amazingly high homicide by handgun rate.

Food Eater Lad

So does Rush limbaugh make good points with his deceptions? Coulter? or just Moore?

PS look at the Rush thread where I talk about him being an asshole. I didnt talk about Rush on this thread cause it was off topic. I also didnt talk about Snoop Doggy Dog either.

saltfish

Can anyone comment on the reliability/credability to Moore's statistics? Does he blatently skew to get his point across?

-SF

Food Eater Lad

Aparently point out his lies doesnt mean anything to his fans. If you do, they say, "well he is still valid due to the point he was trying to make."

If Coulter, Rush or any con was as sloppy as Moore their points would still be worthless, as per the Moore fans.


And keep in mind, no where did I ever defend Coulter or Rush. In fact in the RUsh thread i trash him too for innacuries, and NOT one person said his points were still valid. Weird huh?

Food Eater Lad

From of all the places, the San Francisco Cronicle


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...DG0R2LB101.DTL

EDITORIAL
Bowling for credibility

Thursday, October 30, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I was awakened to a pleasant surprise this morning. For some reason, my alarm radio wasn't tuned to the usual right-wing hate-spewing station I like to wake up to, but instead I was treated to the soothing, dulcinous squawking of Michael Moore.
After a rambling diatribe against Rush Limbaugh's pill-hopping hypocrisy, Mike attacked the evils of our capitalist system and how it exploits the working class (but he's not a socialist, or anything).
I found this enlightening because unlike Rush Limbaugh - Mike is no hypocrite. He doesn't profit from the blood, sweat, and tears of the working man. On the contrary - Mike divides all the profits from his books and movies equally amongst the people who produce them. Everyone from the folks who work the presses that print his wonderful books, down to the gal who brings him his quadrtuple shot latte' every six minutes - they all get a big fat check from Mike. The only profit Mike takes from his work is the satisfaction that some poor working slob, who deserves the money far more than he, won't be living in abject squalor because a rich corporate fat cat took all the loot for himself. Even more astonishing is that Mike relinquishes all creative control over his books and films to the people who actually do the work. The famous rabbit scene in Roger & Me? That was the idea of Todd, the college intern who follows Mike around and picks up his empty beer cans and candy bar wrappers. The part in Bowling for Columbine where Mike gets a free gun at the bank? That was actually suggested by Rico, the undocumented worker who details Mike's Lexus every Tuesday, then voted on by committee, and finally submitted to Mike for inclusion in the film. You see, Michael doesn't only PREACH the doctine of socialism, he also LIVES it. Of course, there aren't the usual 10 million dead peasants that usually precede socialist utopias, but have patience, Mike's working on it

Food Eater Lad

All the luxuries that Moore is enjoying right now, from the perspective of Time Warner, are part of Moore's compensation package. A compensation package is comprised of two parts a cash component, which is taxed, and a service component, which is not taxed. Both parties beneft, Time Warner pays Mike less and Moore bellies up to the trough. A quick example with made up numbers: if Moore paid for the private jet and good food, it would cost him 30,000 dollars, however, he has to make 40,000 first so he can have 30,000 after taxes. This is also why some employers pay for employee health care. The ultimate point being: it is cheaper to pay for the service, then to pay the employee in dollars that are then taxed to pay for the same service.

This brings up another question. If Moore does not want the trough, and is only opportunisticall spounging off of Time Warner, why, does he not insist that instead of wasting the money on him, the company should disperse it in the form of an additional dividend to their stock holders. After all, more than 50% of Americans own stock! Moore claims to be a man of the people, he should ask that the money be given to the shareholders.

If this is not acceptable, then, as a man of the people and member of the highest tax bracket, Time Warner should just give the money to him so that through taxation, the government can be funded, and little Jimmy can learn to read.

The point of this absurdity is that Moore has chosen to live this lifestyle. He says that he would never pay for it, implying that it has no value to him, but, he is still consuming it! He has chosen to suckle from the corporate tit and in doing so enjoys the same "excesses" of the men he railed against.

Food Eater Lad

There's one other point I'd like to address here. Mike spewed the following idiocy.

Moore said politicians can manipulate voters because we grow up in a system of "enforced ignorance" in the United States.

"Everything is about trying to keep us as stupid as possible," he said. "If you don't know what's going on, you won't rise up, will you?"

Moore cited a National Geographic poll of American 18- to 25-year-olds. Eighty-five percent couldn't find the country of Iraq on a map, 60 percent couldn't find Great Britain and 11 percent couldn't point out the United States.

"That's how the Bush administration has gotten away with what it's done -- fear and lies and an ignorant nation," Moore said.

Somehow, in Mike's delusional mind, George Bush is responsible for the ignorance of Americans who were at least 15 years old when he took office three years ago. Let us not forget that the entire education system in this country is dominated by the liberals Mike supports and the unions that Mike loves. Let us also not forget that the United States spends more money per student on education than any other nation on earth. So, if students in this country are graduating from high school and college wholly ignorant of the world around them, it has nothing to do with Bush and everything with Mikey and his leftist ilk.
A. The majority of 18 to 25 year olds are too stupid to be able to find prominent countries on a map.
B. Their stupidity is somehow Bush's fault, instead of being the fault of their parents, teachers, and principals. (Bush wasn't even elected to a national office until year 2000)
C. Very few 18-25 year olds vote. The vast majority of them are not even registered to vote. So, how is their ignorance responsible for Bush being elected, when most Bush voters are middle-aged career people who not only could find those countries on a map, but actually name the country's leaders, units of currency, form of governments, and capital cities?

Actually:
The majority of Moore's audience and followers are those same brainless 18-25 year olds who he derides as being stupid. It is Moore who is exploiting ignorance. His fawning little Moore-dilettantes never even bother to question his faulty reasoning, blatantly false statements, selective ommissions of relevent facts, theft of creative ideas, and his flawed cause-and-effect assumptions.
Without ignorance, Moore wouldn't even have an audience.