NationStates Jolt Archive

Take the time to read this, it's long, but a good Slate article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I'm not sure who's worse, Moore or Fox News? Film at 11!

Take the time to read this, it's long, but a good Slate article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

The Red Arrow got deleted for doing this sort of thing. :x :cry:

Well, I'm not in the mood to read right now, but I will comment. Of course everything in Farenheit 9/11 won't be completely accurate, I don't support Bush or the war in Iraq and I expect this movie to be highly propagandistic, but what else can be expected? Anything you read or hear about anything going on in the world is going to be biased toward one side or the other. Ideally, you will take in enough information and use critical thinking skills to get a clear veiw of the situation and make a decision for yourself. I don't not watch CNN because it is biased; You shouldn't not watch Farenheit 9/11 because you think it will be biased.

This is an opinoin piece from Slate about an opinion piece.

So the consevatives of the world can spread their lies, rejecting logic in favor of inflamatory, faulty arguments, and one liberal finally tries the same tactics and gets shot down? Moderates and non-political people don't know what its like to fell like part of the last sane stronghold on Earth.

So the consevatives of the world can spread their lies, rejecting logic in favor of inflamatory, faulty arguments, and one liberal finally tries the same tactics and gets shot down? Moderates and non-political people don't know what its like to fell like part of the last sane stronghold on Earth.

That second sentence kind of fell apart. I didn't quite comprehend it.

I are teh politics n00b. :shock:

Someone give me a crash-course.

I assume Bush is Liberal. But what does liberal mean?

PUH-leaze.
Stop bashing all conservatives, there a little something out there known as the extremist, both parties have them.
Y'see, the conservatives extremists are talking loudest now, 'cause their guy isnt in office, the liberal conservatives arent doing much because everybody else is doing it for them.
Now, theres some truth and some lie in everything, including F9/11, this post and in our head.
Thats called human nature, and changing it is about as easy as getting a paycheck in advance.

I are teh politics n00b. :shock:

Someone give me a crash-course.

I assume Bush is Liberal. But what does liberal mean?

Jeez, you need work. This isn't a joke is it?

I are teh politics n00b. :shock:

Someone give me a crash-course.

I assume Bush is Liberal. But what does liberal mean?

Jeez, you need work. This isn't a joke is it?

No, it isn't :cry:

Jeez, you need work. This isn't a joke is it?

No, it isn't :cry:

Fine then. Liberals are always right. :lol: (no pun intended)

Bush is a conservative, what you could call the opposite of liberal.

How is it you got through 2000 posts without know that?

How is it you got through 2000 posts without know that?
he is a spammer

Take the time to read this, it's long, but a good Slate article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

The Red Arrow got deleted for doing this sort of thing. :x :cry:TRA got deleted for doing this sort of thing, exclusively. And TRA continues to do so.

How is it you got through 2000 posts without know that?
he is a spammer

AND PROUD! :P

How is it you got through 2000 posts without know that?
he is a spammer

Ohhhh...

I want a post title! Why can't that be honorary as opposed to random?

I don't know if Moore is a liar or not but I do know he made a real ass of himself at the Oscars.

A little hint for anyone expecting to accept awards in the future: thank those to whom you owe thanks to then sit down and shut up.

How is it you got through 2000 posts without know that?
he is a spammer

Ohhhh...

I want a post title! Why can't that be honorary as opposed to random?

you mean like philopolis' one?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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"

Ohhhh...

I want a post title! Why can't that be honorary as opposed to random?

you mean like philopolis' one?

I don't care. Yours is nice. "Smooth Operator"

Maybe something that promotes a liberal agenda... or something real flattering...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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"

This is Conservative hogwash.

This is one Conservatives opinion about a Film wich he hasnt even seen.
Nothing in this film will be a lie.
Its merely facts, wich will be meant to look a certain way.
This film is about what you DONT see from the Bush Administration, concerning the war.
Its about the OTHER side of the coin.
The one that the media HASNT been telling you.


Why do you think that The Bush Administration doesnt want you to see this film?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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"

This is Conservative hogwash.

This is one Conservatives opinion about a Film wich he hasnt even seen.
Nothing in this film will be a lie.
Its merely facts, wich will be meant to look a certain way.
This film is about what you DONT see from the Bush Administration, concerning the war.
Its about the OTHER side of the coin.
The one that the media HASNT been telling you.


Why do you think that The Bush Administration doesnt want you to see this film?Michael does not so much lie as he does present half-truths as facts. Moore is a propagandist and an entertainer but in no way a maler of documentaries.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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"

This is Conservative hogwash.

This is one Conservatives opinion about a Film wich he hasnt even seen.
Nothing in this film will be a lie.
Its merely facts, wich will be meant to look a certain way.
This film is about what you DONT see from the Bush Administration, concerning the war.
Its about the OTHER side of the coin.
The one that the media HASNT been telling you.


Why do you think that The Bush Administration doesnt want you to see this film?Michael does not so much lie as he does present half-truths as facts. Moore is a propagandist and an entertainer but in no way a maler of documentaries.

Ive read Moores books.
His last one "Dude, Wheres My Country" had 27 pages of sources that Moore used in his book.
He uses facts.
He merely tells them in a cartain way, to reflect his own opinions.
This does not make what he says any less true.

Regardless of the factuality of Michael Moore's arguments, one can't help but grow tired of his bombastic and extremely personal rhetoric. I'm sorry, he just needs to stop drowning his ideas in fancy phrases. He'll get a lot more respect if he states his opinions and facts, and doesn't bury them in crap. Lies, truth, who really cares? I'd just like him to shut up or go back to stating things and stop worrying about being controversial and standing out.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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"

This is Conservative hogwash.

This is one Conservatives opinion about a Film wich he hasnt even seen.
Nothing in this film will be a lie.
Its merely facts, wich will be meant to look a certain way.
This film is about what you DONT see from the Bush Administration, concerning the war.
Its about the OTHER side of the coin.
The one that the media HASNT been telling you.


Why do you think that The Bush Administration doesnt want you to see this film?Michael does not so much lie as he does present half-truths as facts. Moore is a propagandist and an entertainer but in no way a maler of documentaries.

Ive read Moores books.
His last one "Dude, Wheres My Country" had 27 pages of sources that Moore used in his book.
He uses facts.
He merely tells them in a cartain way, to reflect his own opinions.
This does not make what he says any less true.How much of those 27 pages appear in his book? How often does he use portions of those and present them as the whole truth?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. 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"

This is Conservative hogwash.

This is one Conservatives opinion about a Film wich he hasnt even seen.
Nothing in this film will be a lie.
Its merely facts, wich will be meant to look a certain way.
This film is about what you DONT see from the Bush Administration, concerning the war.
Its about the OTHER side of the coin.
The one that the media HASNT been telling you.


Why do you think that The Bush Administration doesnt want you to see this film?Michael does not so much lie as he does present half-truths as facts. Moore is a propagandist and an entertainer but in no way a maler of documentaries.

Ive read Moores books.
His last one "Dude, Wheres My Country" had 27 pages of sources that Moore used in his book.
He uses facts.
He merely tells them in a cartain way, to reflect his own opinions.
This does not make what he says any less true.How much of those 27 pages appear in his book? How often does he use portions of those and present them as the whole truth?

Why does he also refuse to publicly debate his "facts"? The person who wrote the article said anywhere, anytime...so what does Mr.Moore have to hide?

[quote="BackwoodsSquatches
This is Conservative hogwash.

This is one Conservatives opinion about a Film wich he hasnt even seen.
Nothing in this film will be a lie.
Its merely facts, wich will be meant to look a certain way.
This film is about what you DONT see from the Bush Administration, concerning the war.
Its about the OTHER side of the coin.
The one that the media HASNT been telling you.


Why do you think that The Bush Administration doesnt want you to see this film?[/quote]

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

You misunderstand what I meant.

When I say he had 27 pages of sources...
I mean that he had twenty seven pages of articles and web-sites where the actual quote was taken from, or where the article itself, can be found.

So, obviously, if you were in doubt of a particular statement he made in that book, you could look it up, and see for yourself.

This is what Moore does.

He uses facts.

If he said.."Bush did this ...Bush did it.
Its up to you (the viewer, or the reader) to decide WHY Bush did it.

Also, to those of you who say that Moore is trying to be controversial...
Duh.

He's an entertainer.
OF COURSE hes being controversial.

The guy won an Oscar.
This new one won the highest ward at Cannes.

Its going to be good.

See the movie before you bash it.

You misunderstand what I meant.

When I say he had 27 pages of sources...
I mean that he had twenty seven pages of articles and web-sites where the actual quote was taken from, or where the article itself, can be found.

So, obviously, if you were in doubt of a particular statement he made in that book, you could look it up, and see for yourself.

This is what Moore does.

He uses facts.

If he said.."Bush did this ...Bush did it.
Its up to you (the viewer, or the reader) to decide WHY Bush did it.

Also, to those of you who say that Moore is trying to be controversial...
Duh.

He's an entertainer.
OF COURSE hes being controversial.

The guy won an Oscar.
This new one won the highest ward at Cannes.

Its going to be good.

See the movie before you bash it.He doesn't use facts, but quotes. I didn't bash the movie, only the man and the claim that the movie and his others are documentaries.

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

How do you know Moore refused?
If he did, so what?

He's a busy guy.
He does television interviews all over and each of these ask him tough questions all the time.
He answers them all.
Why should I make my mind up on ONE guy's perspective of Moore, or his movie?

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

A little bit better grammar might help you out there Tyga, but can I add in my two cents please?

If I were in Moore's position, I would accept the debate, only because I enjoy debating and putting others down in an intellectual battle of wits. However, that is just me. I know lots of people who know a lot of information about much less controversial things but will not debate it with people in a very serious manner because they don't like that kind of pressure. Debating subjects and keeping all the information straight in your mind and knowing what to say and how to say it and when to say it during a debate requires a person to think critically and on their toes. Maybe Michael Moore is not good a debate and knows he isn't and chooses not to publicly debate the issue because of this fact. If he is a bad debater, it does not matter how much evidence either side has, the better debater will always win. I know a person who was in a debate and convinced someone the Red China hasn't been communist since World War II. Imagine if Moore did go into the debate, knowing he would lose it, and then did lose. What would happen? Less people would see his movie. Not only would he make less money, but his message would be shared with fewer people. Moore is good at getting his point across through his movies and he sticks to that. Why don't you leave him with that? If I were more in-depth with politics, I would gladly debate the guy from this site in defense of Moore's movie (after watching), but I'm not as interested in politics as I need to be in order to debate it with other people in politics. I simply do not know enough information.

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

And id like to point out the amazing level of contradiction in the bush/cheney/rumsfeld regime

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

How do you know Moore refused?
If he did, so what?

He's a busy guy.
He does television interviews all over and each of these ask him tough questions all the time.
He answers them all.
Why should I make my mind up on ONE guy's perspective of Moore, or his movie?

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Mutant Dogs wrote:

Someone give me a crash-course.

I assume Bush is Liberal. But what does liberal mean?


Bush is a conservative. Basically going by the political spectrum, conservative = right - wing and liberal = left - wing

However that system isn't always the best, it's very complicated sometimes. I mean there are conservative liberals, liberal conservatives, social liberals, economic conservatives... moderate-liberals, moderate-conservatives, plain moderate/centrists...

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

And id like to point out the amazing level of contradiction in the bush/cheney/rumsfeld regime

We have numerous threads about it on these forums. This thread is about Michael Moore.

Well it is a good thing that I do not watch nor read trash. This saves me a lot of time that I would have spent debating Michael Moore.

Quite frankly, this idea that because something is referenced it is fact is quite ludicrous.

Moore makes Joseph Goebells look like an entertainer.

Its nice that you have made your mind up about a film wich you will never see.

Real Open Minded of you.

Character.

The person who wrote the article which the original link directed us to offered to debate Michael Moore on the issues he raises in this movie. This person had seen the movie and drew attention in great detail to the contradiction in the film.
If Michael Moore has so many facts behind his story the why the aversion to strong questioning? Why refuse a debate he will not doubt win based on the fact he has used only facts in his movie?

How do you know Moore refused?
If he did, so what?

He's a busy guy.
He does television interviews all over and each of these ask him tough questions all the time.
He answers them all.
Why should I make my mind up on ONE guy's perspective of Moore, or his movie?

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Of course the author of that article was asking me to make up my mind.
He was telling me that it was "lower than crap"
He was asking me the reader of that article, not to see the movie.
Its an opinion piece.

Moores pictures are too.
HE never calls them documentaries....others do.

Really...why does everyone get riled up over second rate investigatative journalism anyway? The guy lacks substance. That is why his work is often discovered in the "comedy" section of bookstores and video outlets. Nobody with a shred of sanity would take the joker seriously.

Really...why does everyone get riled up over second rate investigatative journalism anyway? The guy lacks substance. That is why his work is often discovered in the "comedy" section of bookstores and video outlets. Nobody with a shred of sanity would take the joker seriously.

Apparently the Judges at the Cannes film festival, the Editors of the New York Times Best Seller Lists, the Panel of Judges at the Academy Awards, and millions of America took him seriously.

But surely his material "lacks substance" right?

Really...why does everyone get riled up over second rate investigatative journalism anyway? The guy lacks substance. That is why his work is often discovered in the "comedy" section of bookstores and video outlets. Nobody with a shred of sanity would take the joker seriously.
If he is such a comedian why do so many Americans get so het up about him?

Really...why does everyone get riled up over second rate investigatative journalism anyway? The guy lacks substance. That is why his work is often discovered in the "comedy" section of bookstores and video outlets. Nobody with a shred of sanity would take the joker seriously.
If he is such a comedian why do so many Americans get so het up about him?

Becuase the truth hurts.

i think whatever he says is the truth.

Moore R0X T3H S0X

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Of course the author of that article was asking me to make up my mind.
He was telling me that it was "lower than crap"
He was asking me the reader of that article, not to see the movie.
Its an opinion piece.

Moores pictures are too.
HE never calls them documentaries....others do.

He was telling you HE thought it was lower than crap. The author of the article actually said to go and see the movie because it would prove his point. See quote from article:

By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

The fact that some people call them documentaries was the concern I was alluding to. I did not say Michael Moore claimed they were documentaries.

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Of course the author of that article was asking me to make up my mind.
He was telling me that it was "lower than crap"
He was asking me the reader of that article, not to see the movie.
Its an opinion piece.

Moores pictures are too.
HE never calls them documentaries....others do.

He was telling you HE thought it was lower than crap. The author of the article actually said to go and see the movie because it would prove his point. See quote from article:

By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

The fact that some people call them documentaries was the concern I was alluding to. I did not say Michael Moore claimed they were documentaries.

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?

One thing you can say for Moore, really the only thing, he is one of the biggest smart asses of all time. His ability to be a smart ass is what makes him famous.

One thing you can say for Moore, really the only thing, he is one of the biggest smart asses of all time. His ability to be a smart ass is what makes him famous.


Absolutely.

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?
and did you ever stop to think that the director of the film might be a Conservative Bush hater, and doesn't want you to vote for Bush?
That by bashing Bush, that he may just sway your opinion?

Sounds like me....

On the last day of school this past year, my senior year, my English teacher called me a smart ass...

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?
and did you ever stop to think that the director of the film might be a Conservative Bush hater, and doesn't want you to vote for Bush?
That by bashing Bush, that he may just sway your opinion?

Absolutely.

But theres a difference.

Micheal Moore tells you that what you just said.....is his goal... RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

The other guy pretends to be a reporter.

Uhm...I think Nader should be Kerry's VP

Uhm...I think Nader should be Kerry's VP

I'd vote for that.

Uhm...I think Nader should be Kerry's VP


That would be great way for Kerry to lose the election. Is that what you want?

And Nader's VP is a genius...heh....they were on C-SPAN last night. He was saying stuff like "How can we explain to the Iraqis that our nation is run by a man who lost the popular vote?" and "How can we explain to the Iraqis that they can only have two political parties?"

Dudes, take a chill pill :shock:

Moore is an ok dude.

Uhm...I think Nader should be Kerry's VP


That would be great way for Kerry to lose the election. Is that what you want?
Yep, why do you ask?

And Nader's VP is a genius...heh....they were on C-SPAN last night. He was saying stuff like "How can we explain to the Iraqis that our nation is run by a man who lost the popular vote?" and "How can we explain to the Iraqis that they can only have two political parties?"


1. The popular vote doesn't matter here

2. We have more than 2 parties, its just none of them are valid yet

3. WTF is the point of his comments anyway?

Uhm...I think Nader should be Kerry's VP


That would be great way for Kerry to lose the election. Is that what you want?

You would vote for Bush over Kerry because Nader was his VP? I think Nader would bring more support rather than push any away from Kerry... I'm not sure what you're basing your argument off of...

Uhm...I think Nader should be Kerry's VP


That would be great way for Kerry to lose the election. Is that what you want?

You would vote for Bush over Kerry because Nader was his VP? I think Nader would bring more support rather than push any away from Kerry... I'm not sure what you're basing your argument off of...


Nader is apart of the Far-Left and the majority of Americans don't support or like them, He would lose all Moderate and Conservative support he has, or atleast most of it.

You know...most of the anti-Nader websites and websites requesting that Nader not run in '04 are Kerry supporters that don't want Nader stealing any of Kerry's support....but if Nader was running with Kerry then he'd be adding to Kerry's support and there would be less anti-Naderites. The only reason I'm not voting for Nader is because it's too important that Bush be out of office, and the only way to do that, realistically, is to vote for Kerry.

You know...most of the anti-Nader websites and websites requesting that Nader not run in '04 are Kerry supporters that don't want Nader stealing any of Kerry's support....but if Nader was running with Kerry then he'd be adding to Kerry's support and there would be less anti-Naderites. The only reason I'm not voting for Nader is because it's too important that Bush be out of office, and the only way to do that, realistically, is to vote for Kerry.

Same here.

I voted for Nader in the last election.

This time....I will vote for Kerry.

You know...most of the anti-Nader websites and websites requesting that Nader not run in '04 are Kerry supporters that don't want Nader stealing any of Kerry's support....but if Nader was running with Kerry then he'd be adding to Kerry's support and there would be less anti-Naderites. The only reason I'm not voting for Nader is because it's too important that Bush be out of office, and the only way to do that, realistically, is to vote for Kerry.

Same here.

I voted for Nader in the last election.

This time....I will vote for Kerry.


I have had a problem with the Green party ever sense they said i had to pay $5 to get their party platform. Greedy bastards. :evil:

You know...most of the anti-Nader websites and websites requesting that Nader not run in '04 are Kerry supporters that don't want Nader stealing any of Kerry's support....but if Nader was running with Kerry then he'd be adding to Kerry's support and there would be less anti-Naderites. The only reason I'm not voting for Nader is because it's too important that Bush be out of office, and the only way to do that, realistically, is to vote for Kerry.There's an argument to be made either way--picking up Nader as VP (assuming he'd do it in the first place) would likely alienate many in the center. Picking someone more conservative would perhaps alienate the more progressive wing of the party and Greens who were going to cross over and vote Dem this time. So the bet becomes, which move gets me more votes in the important places--can Kerry offset the losses from one group with the gains from another?

My bet, cynical as it is, is that he'll go for someone more moderate than liberal, and here's why. If he goes moderate, he's able to poach some of Bush's moderate support--people who vote Nader aren't going to vote Bush in a heartbeat, so the worst they can do to Kerry is just not vote for him--but if he can snag those people who are wavering between Kerry and Bush (and apparently they still exist), then he does more damage. The other reason he can do this in 2004 is because Nader's softer supprt from 2000 is having buyer's remorse right now, and they don't want to hear four years of "Nader cost Kerry the election."

Yea...Bill Maher voted for Nader last time. And actually, I think he said he's always voted independent or third party. But when he was on Larry King Live he was pretty adamant about voting for Kerry in the interest of removing Bush from office.

You know...most of the anti-Nader websites and websites requesting that Nader not run in '04 are Kerry supporters that don't want Nader stealing any of Kerry's support....but if Nader was running with Kerry then he'd be adding to Kerry's support and there would be less anti-Naderites. The only reason I'm not voting for Nader is because it's too important that Bush be out of office, and the only way to do that, realistically, is to vote for Kerry.

Same here.

I voted for Nader in the last election.

This time....I will vote for Kerry.

Me three!

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Of course the author of that article was asking me to make up my mind.
He was telling me that it was "lower than crap"
He was asking me the reader of that article, not to see the movie.
Its an opinion piece.

Moores pictures are too.
HE never calls them documentaries....others do.

He was telling you HE thought it was lower than crap. The author of the article actually said to go and see the movie because it would prove his point. See quote from article:

By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

The fact that some people call them documentaries was the concern I was alluding to. I did not say Michael Moore claimed they were documentaries.

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?

What does that have to do with anything? The same way Moore tries to sway your opinion with his movies and books? The author actually encourages people to go see the movie for themselves in the article as I showed in the quote in my previous post.

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Of course the author of that article was asking me to make up my mind.
He was telling me that it was "lower than crap"
He was asking me the reader of that article, not to see the movie.
Its an opinion piece.

Moores pictures are too.
HE never calls them documentaries....others do.

He was telling you HE thought it was lower than crap. The author of the article actually said to go and see the movie because it would prove his point. See quote from article:

By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

The fact that some people call them documentaries was the concern I was alluding to. I did not say Michael Moore claimed they were documentaries.

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?

What does that have to do with anything? The same way Moore tries to sway your opinion with his movies and books? The author actually encourages people to go see the movie for themselves in the article as I showed in the quote in my previous post.

Whereas, of course, Bush, Blair, Howard and co have no reason to try to sway opinion, and have a proven track record for telling the truth.

:roll:

I don't believe anyone was asked to make up their mind about Michael Moore or his movies from the article. The article merely points out some contradictions in what he says.
That some people take everything he says as fact is concerning as is referring to his films as documentaries. They are opinion pieces, not documentaries.

Of course the author of that article was asking me to make up my mind.
He was telling me that it was "lower than crap"
He was asking me the reader of that article, not to see the movie.
Its an opinion piece.

Moores pictures are too.
HE never calls them documentaries....others do.

He was telling you HE thought it was lower than crap. The author of the article actually said to go and see the movie because it would prove his point. See quote from article:

By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

The fact that some people call them documentaries was the concern I was alluding to. I did not say Michael Moore claimed they were documentaries.

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?

What does that have to do with anything? The same way Moore tries to sway your opinion with his movies and books? The author actually encourages people to go see the movie for themselves in the article as I showed in the quote in my previous post.

At what point does the author tell anyone to see this movie and make up thier own minds?

What he DOES do, is encourage people to see it, to verify his opinion that the movie is crap.

Essentially, he is trying to make up your mind about this film, before you even see it.

and did you ever stop to think that this author of that article might be a Conservative Bush supporter, and doesnt want you to listen to what Moore says?
That by bashing Moore, that he may just sway your opinion?
and did you ever stop to think that the director of the film might be a Conservative Bush hater, and doesn't want you to vote for Bush?
That by bashing Bush, that he may just sway your opinion?

Absolutely.

But theres a difference.

Micheal Moore tells you that what you just said.....is his goal... RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

The other guy pretends to be a reporter.

Ummm...from the title of the article to the final paragraph I think it was clear he was not a supporter of Michael Moore or his movie. He was not hiding his intention to criticise the movie, it claims or Moore at all.
He was a reporter writing an opinion piece, I don't believe he was pretending to be anything.

At what point does the author tell anyone to see this movie and make up thier own minds?

What he DOES do, is encourage people to see it, to verify his opinion that the movie is crap.

Essentially, he is trying to make up your mind about this film, before you even see it.

He says go and see the film. If you go and see the film then you will make up your own mind on how good it is or otherwise unless you are a mindless drone.
The author of the article thinks the movie is crap, his opinion. He does not say "this movie is crap, do not watch it".
I don't know about you, but I do not usually go to a movie to verify another person's opinion, I make up my own mind.
That being said, the author of the article has given his opinion on this movie as he is entitled to do. If you see them film then reread his article then you may be able to work out who is telling the truth and who isn't.

Are we back on about the Hitchens' article again?

Read his column carefully and you'll see how its full of false dichotomies (either the Saudis control US foreign policy of they don't) and straw men and attacks on Moore and not on the film itself. There's no real challenge to the factual accuracy of the film in Hitchens' polemic. It's just a lot of blather and hot air wrapped up in high sounding language.

And it's a shame too, because 20 years ago, Moore and Hitchens might have been brothers-in-arms.

Factual accuracy is not the central problem with Michael Moore. It's his use of propaganda techniques. He has manipulation down to an art.

Mutant Dogs wrote:

Someone give me a crash-course.

I assume Bush is Liberal. But what does liberal mean?


Bush is a conservative. Basically going by the political spectrum, conservative = right - wing and liberal = left - wing

However that system isn't always the best, it's very complicated sometimes. I mean there are conservative liberals, liberal conservatives, social liberals, economic conservatives... moderate-liberals, moderate-conservatives, plain moderate/centrists...

I suspect I've been banging on about this for too long now, but one last try...

Technically, liberal does not equal left. It makes no sense for liberal to equal left because capitalism, an essentially right-leaning philosophy, is a form of economic liberalism. Liberals will tend towards small-state politics.

Liberal as a word has had its meaning horribly mangled in politics. In the US it's used as a term for the left (although in world terms the US left isn't really left at all), in the UK it refers to centrists and I believe that in Australia it refers to the right (humblest apologies if that's incorrect).

Bush is in no way a liberal. He is socially conservative and his economic philosophy is arguably only superficially liberal. Kerry... he's a centrist, I don't think he's liberal.

Take the time to read this, it's long, but a good Slate article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Since most of the people on these boards have not been able to view this film, it is very difficult to judge Christopher Hitchen's article.

However, when the author goes into his own fantasy at the end of his article, the story loses credibility in my honest opinion.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD.

Anything to sell stories? Hmmmmm.

I are teh politics n00b.

Someone give me a crash-course.

I assume Bush is Liberal. But what does liberal mean?Actually in terms of economic policy Bush almost classically fits the neo-liberal description (apart from his tendency to trade protectionism). Liberal doesen't mean left wing anyway. It's a specific political ideology that can veer to either the left or the right. The Democrats are right wing. Bush is far right.I don't know if Moore is a liar or not but I do know he made a real ass of himself at the Oscars.

A little hint for anyone expecting to accept awards in the future: thank those to whom you owe thanks to then sit down and shut up.Absolutely. And Jesse Owens. How dare he disrespect his hosts at the Berlin Olympics.

Take the time to read this, it's long, but a good Slate article.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Since most of the people on these boards have not been able to view this film, it is very difficult to judge Christopher Hitchen's article.

However, when the author goes into his own fantasy at the end of his article, the story loses credibility in my honest opinion.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD.

Anything to sell stories? Hmmmmm.This is an example of what I'm talking about when I said that Hitchens sets up straw men and then fails to knock them down in his "article." This conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the previous argument. As far as I know, Moore hasn't discussed his feelings on the interference in the ethnic cleansing in Serbia, and it sounds as if Moore's opinion on Afghanistan has changed over the last year or so. Not to mention the little problem of the lack of evidence linking Hussein to WMD of any sort, especially the recent sort (which is what would be coming from North Korea).