NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=128

man, i cna't get enough of this guy. FInally someone willing to get up and spread the truth.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=128

man, i cna't get enough of this guy. FInally someone willing to get up and spread the truth.


Well I guess when they said "there's a sucker born every minute" you were the sucker. Yup believe everything you see on a totally biased website. Did you know Michael Moore is a Stupid White Man, and is Fat!

:rolleyes: This is like me taking everything Micheal Savage says as word for word, Please dont tell me you believe everything he says.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=128

man, i cna't get enough of this guy. FInally someone willing to get up and spread the truth.
Not surprusing really. This new CIA guy is probably some distant relative of Bush anyway. Seeing how being unqualified for even a lowly position, makes this old rag qualified to run the CIA, is a mystery to me.

Micheal Moore is not a documentarian. He is a comedian, and a racist.

When the man who gets the job admits that "I am not qualified".....

How can Bush possibly give him the job?

THATS the point Moore is making.

Just becuase Moore is the one who points it out....does not mean that he is automatically wrong.

Micheal Moore is not a documentarian. He is a comedian, and a racist.


How is he a racist?

Micheal Moore is not a documentarian. He is a comedian, and a racist.

How is he a comedian?

How is he a racist?
Yeah really... all his comments are AGAINST whites and he's white....

How is he a comedian?


His books are pretty funny, actually.

How is he a comedian?

REAL documentarians are unbiased, and search only for the truth. Moore is one of the biggest anti-Bush propaganda pushers out right now, if not the biggest. He also relies on humor and satire to help get his point across.

Yeah really... all his comments are AGAINST whites and he's white....

You just answered for me. Moore literally HATES Americans, and is conveniently open with his hatred of Americans with the international community. Ironic, as he himself is American.

REAL documentarians are unbiased, and search only for the truth. Moore is one of the biggest anti-Bush propaganda pushers out right now, if not the biggest. He also relies on humor and satire to help get his point across.



You just answered for me. Moore literally HATES Americans, and is conveniently open with his hatred of Americans with the international community. Ironic, as he himself is American.
So what? I'm German and pretty open with my hatred of americans. Right now, it is THE fashionable thing to do. The majority of mankind does it, so it cant be wrong. Did you ever check *why* there is hatred against americans? No? Typical.

When the man who gets the job admits that "I am not qualified".....

How can Bush possibly give him the job?

THATS the point Moore is making.

Just becuase Moore is the one who points it out....does not mean that he is automatically wrong.

To paraphrase an old saying, the kettle is no less black for the pot's calling it so.

So what? I'm German and pretty open with my hatred of americans.

Good, it is your rights as human being to express yourself.

Right now, it is THE fashionable thing to do.

Wait, wait, WAIT...hold on a sec, I need to hear that one more time.

Right now, it is THE fashionable thing to do.

So, the reason why you hate America is because it is 'in' right now? What, the popular kids at school hate America, so to try and fit in you say you hate us as well?

The majority of mankind does it, so it cant be wrong.

You make it sound like America-bashing is a drug. Since you've already pretty much summed up your knowledge on this situation with your past few quotes, I shall leave it at that.

Did you ever check *why* there is hatred against americans? No? Typical.

Here is but a small list of what GEORGE W. BUSH has done to incur the wrath of the international community:

1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
2. Leader by leader and member by member, al Qaida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaida leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
3. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.
4. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.
5. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
6. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).
7. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
8. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).*
9. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.
10. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."


I'm not TOTALLY sure, since my knowledge of this matter is obviously insignificant when matched to your superior intelligence, but I do believe that is the sum of things. Care to here some other things he has done to make the world a better place? No? Typical.

Well I guess when they said "there's a sucker born every minute" you were the sucker. Yup believe everything you see on a totally biased website. Did you know Michael Moore is a Stupid White Man, and is Fat!

Ooooooooooooooh no! He's FAT?! Well, I can't listen to him NOW!

Idiot

REAL documentarians are unbiased, and search only for the truth. Moore is one of the biggest anti-Bush propaganda pushers out right now, if not the biggest. He also relies on humor and satire to help get his point across.



You just answered for me. Moore literally HATES Americans, and is conveniently open with his hatred of Americans with the international community. Ironic, as he himself is American.


1. So does Rush Limbuagh.

2. Thats not true.
That is the most ignorant thing you have ever posted, and clearly you have never read, or seen anything that Moore has done.
All further posts from you will be ignored for the foolishness that they are.

Get this.....

The reason Moore does what he does, is becuase he loves this country, and the people in it, and wishes to make, what he feels, is a positive change.

Wether you agree with him or not, you have no right to say he hates america.
That kind of ignorance is what is truly killing this country.
Ther very idea that anyone who disagrees with you, or Bush, automatically means they hate this country?

You sicken me.

You have never seen his films, or read even one of his books, so how can you make an accurate judgement of his character?

You cant.

You simply buy into whatever propoganda you are listening to at the time, and believe every word of it dont you?
Moore, at least, offers a different opinion, and lets his veiwers/readers decide for themselves.

There should be more people like him, and far less people like you.

To paraphrase an old saying, the kettle is no less black for the pot's calling it so.


I guess I dont get what you mean.

Bush hires a man to run the C.I.A , who openly admits that he isnt qualified for the job.
Moore points this out.

How can Moore be wrong about this issue?

Even the most anti-moore conservatives MUST admit that on this issue, Moore has a valid point.

I rest my case. (http://scaryjohnkerry.com/moore.htm)

For the record, I have not seen Farhenheit 911, nor have any desire to. I have, though, seen Bowling for Columbine. I would also appreciate it if you did not flame me in the future. It is alright to agree with what Moore discusses, just try to get your facts from another, less biased source.

I guess I dont get what you mean.

Bush hires a man to run the C.I.A , who openly admits that he isnt qualified for the job.
Moore points this out.

How can Moore be wrong about this issue?

Even the most anti-moore conservatives MUST admit that on this issue, Moore has a valid point.

For "the pot", read "Moore". That clear things up?

I have picked out a few quotes from this flash that proves my case.

"I like America to some extent. "
~After being asked 'You really don't seem to like the US, do you?'

White people scare the crap out of me. … I have never been attacked by a black person, never been evicted by a black person, never had my security deposit ripped off by a black landlord, never had a black landlord … never been pulled over by a black cop, never been sold a lemon by a black car salesman, never seen a black car salesman, never had a black person deny me a bank loan, never had a black person bury my movie, and I've never heard a black person say, 'We're going to eliminate ten thousand jobs here - have a nice day!'
Michael Moore

These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.
Michael Moore


Things said about Moore:

Comedian, director and outspoken critic of the Bush government in the USA
(source http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/m/michael_moore_2583.php)

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/dudewheresmycountry/15-20.htm

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38776

http://www.thehill.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38632

For the record, Daikerta, documentarians are never unbiased. Never. It's the very nature of filmmaking and storytelling to have an opinion and a bias in how you select your footage, in the questions you ask of your subjects, in the way you edit your film and construct your narative. It's part of the process, the nature of the beast. If a documentarian claimed to be objective, I'd make sure my wallet was still in my pocket.

Secondly, I love how all the people badmouthing Moore have exactly nothing to say about Porter Goss's words, about what he said concerning the CIA, especially the part where he says he wouldn't qualify to be in the CIA anymore because he has no Middle East expertise. Blind partisanship at work, as per usual.

Astounding ...

Mike Moore: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States."
Neocon: "LIAR! FAT BASTARD LIAR! YOU HATE AMERICA!"

I'd thought about writing a thesis on the mind of the neocon, but then I realized that the paper would be too short.

I have picked out a few quotes from this flash that proves my case.

"I like America to some extent. "
~After being asked 'You really don't seem to like the US, do you?'

White people scare the crap out of me. … I have never been attacked by a black person, never been evicted by a black person, never had my security deposit ripped off by a black landlord, never had a black landlord … never been pulled over by a black cop, never been sold a lemon by a black car salesman, never seen a black car salesman, never had a black person deny me a bank loan, never had a black person bury my movie, and I've never heard a black person say, 'We're going to eliminate ten thousand jobs here - have a nice day!'
Michael Moore

These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.
Michael Moore


Things said about Moore:

Comedian, director and outspoken critic of the Bush government in the USA
(source http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/m/michael_moore_2583.php)

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/dudewheresmycountry/15-20.htm

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38776

http://www.thehill.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38632

I've been viewing all the links for flash movies you've been posting.

It's amazing- you criticize Moore, then endorse movies which use the EXACT same formula he does for making a case persuasively:

1) Take a quote, out of context (best example the "To all John Kerry Supporters..." thread you posted earlier) statements made by the individual concerned (perhaps you should actually read into what Kerry said later and before the afore mentioned statements: makes quite a bit of sense really :rolleyes: )

2) Insinuate that because one or two groups/individuals share a common view (Michael Moore/Democrats as per the movie posted by you in this thread), they are really one and the same. Honestly, I cannot think of a better example of an ad hominem arguement ("Democrats believe 1 + 1 = 2, Bin Laden thinks 1 + 1 = 2.....OMG DEMOCRATZ R TERORISTS")

The hypocrisy here is nearly palpable.

But, if you enjoy basing your entire political beliefs around flash movies that manipulate fact like I manipulate my parents, try these:

www.bushflash.com/animation
www.whitehouse.org

Before anyone starts to think I'm a Moore sycophant, let me just clarify that I regard him as highly as I do Daikerta's sites: he uses whatever he can to justify his case, whether it is taken out of context/manipulated/etc etc to prove his points. In other words: you are a fool to base opinions solely on what one or another of these individuals or groups present as 'fact' most of the time.

Edit: I just read Incertonia's most recent post: good point mate. The question of why the Neo-Con's are appointing such idiots and those (such as Goss) who have themselves stated that they are not fit for their jobs. The only reason I can think of is because they are particularly maleable (e.g. Paul 'Wolfie' Wolfowitz and GWB- Wolf's doctrine of pre-emptive war in Iraq [first compiled circa 1991-2) was effectively agreed to by GWB within 1-2 years of his 'election' to president)

Astounding ...

Mike Moore: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States."
Neocon: "LIAR! FAT BASTARD LIAR! YOU HATE AMERICA!"

I'd thought about writing a thesis on the mind of the neocon, but then I realized that the paper would be too short.

LOLLERS!!! KUNSERVATIVES R STOOPID!!!!

In the end, we all use Moore's method of getting a point across. Kerry, Bush, myself, even you. We have our opinions, and thus present our individual cases defending our opinions. Moore does this, and has been sucessful(sp?) at it as well. The problem is, he is a Documentarian, and we aren't.

documentary-doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: noun: a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event.


Moore's film has nothing to do with presenting facts, it's about pushing his anti-gun, anti-Bush agenda. He uses lies and selective editing to make his point. The movie is fiction disguised as a documentary. Milli Vanni had their Grammy taken away in the 80s for faking it, and Moore is no different. He won the Best Documentary Oscar for a work of fiction. It should be taken away.


Moore is regarded as a documentarian throughout the world. What other documentaries can you name right off the top of your head that have shared the same popularity as his two major films? Not many, I suppose. Why do you think this is true? Because his documentaries take his views to the extreme and push his ideals. Documentarians strive for the truth of both sides. Whoever said earlier that no documentarian is unbiased...you are correct. This should be no defense for Moore, though, as even supporters of him can clearly see the facts presented.

I stress the fact that we all resort to the same way of presenting our opinions, as stated above.

Astounding ...

Mike Moore: "George W. Bush is the President of the United States."
Neocon: "LIAR! FAT BASTARD LIAR! YOU HATE AMERICA!"

I'd thought about writing a thesis on the mind of the neocon, but then I realized that the paper would be too short.

The neoconservatives are one of the most varied groups around right now without solid stances on most issues. Being a neocon doesnt tell you much about stances on religion, homosexuality, economic policy, healthcare, drug policy, environmental policy, etc at all. I find people who try to classify neocons as a solid group to be simply put, imbicelic. Another thing i find quite displeasing is trying to make out neoconservatives as short-tempered fanatics aka activists, which is something they have not done much of. One trait they do seem to have though is a dislike of the socialist ideals Moore glorifies, and Moore has told more than enough lies in his time to deserve such reflexive distrust anyway. I wouldnt be suprised if that directoral canidate isnt qualified, but im sure there is A LOT more to this story than Moore tells.

Did anyone even read the excerpt from the interview that this whole thing is based on?

Talk about taking a comment out of context. From what I can gather, Goss stated that he would not be qualified to work in the role he held from the 50's to the 70's within the CIA. He said this because the world has changed in so far as the linguistic requirements of the job back then compared to the job today.
The second part of the statement referred to his lack of expertise in using computers. As head of the CIA, I doubt he will need to have any more prowess on a computer than checking his email.
So, based on this, I would say Moore is guilty of his usual misleading activities and the usual suspects have closed their eyes and opened their mouths as Mr.Moore feeds them some more sugar-coated BS.

After all the outright lies and stupidity these last decades of the Dynasty and Dallas alike administrations, why shoiuld we not feel misled, distrustfull up to simple anger and hate for these so called leaders speeding up our doom?

Same for power elite south america, middle east, Africa, Asia, euroland.

I found Ron Reagan his critique just,

why should we trust them? The current administration show no signs of trusting us or anybody, that is.
They work to keep or enlarge power, wealth, especially for good friends such as the Saudi Royal elite where loot is to be found.

REAL documentarians are unbiased, and search only for the truth. Moore is one of the biggest anti-Bush propaganda pushers out right now, if not the biggest. He also relies on humor and satire to help get his point across.
so does the Daily Show, doesn't mean it's wrong

In the end, we all use Moore's method of getting a point across. Kerry, Bush, myself, even you. We have our opinions, and thus present our individual cases defending our opinions. Moore does this, and has been sucessful(sp?) at it as well. The problem is, he is a Documentarian, and we aren't.

documentary-doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: noun: a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event.


Moore's film has nothing to do with presenting facts, it's about pushing his anti-gun, anti-Bush agenda. He uses lies and selective editing to make his point. The movie is fiction disguised as a documentary. Milli Vanni had their Grammy taken away in the 80s for faking it, and Moore is no different. He won the Best Documentary Oscar for a work of fiction. It should be taken away.


Moore is regarded as a documentarian throughout the world. What other documentaries can you name right off the top of your head that have shared the same popularity as his two major films? Not many, I suppose. Why do you think this is true? Because his documentaries take his views to the extreme and push his ideals. Documentarians strive for the truth of both sides. Whoever said earlier that no documentarian is unbiased...you are correct. This should be no defense for Moore, though, as even supporters of him can clearly see the facts presented.

I stress the fact that we all resort to the same way of presenting our opinions, as stated above.
fahrenheit 9/11 has more facts in it than Bush's campaign commercials

The neoconservatives are one of the most varied groups around right now without solid stances on most issues. Being a neocon doesnt tell you much about stances on religion, homosexuality, economic policy, healthcare, drug policy, environmental policy, etc at all. I find people who try to classify neocons as a solid group to be simply put, imbicelic. Another thing i find quite displeasing is trying to make out neoconservatives as short-tempered fanatics aka activists, which is something they have not done much of. One trait they do seem to have though is a dislike of the socialist ideals Moore glorifies, and Moore has told more than enough lies in his time to deserve such reflexive distrust anyway. I wouldnt be suprised if that directoral canidate isnt qualified, but im sure there is A LOT more to this story than Moore tells.
neocon: anti-homosexuality, for gun control for the protection of rights but support the removal of rights gun control is supposed to protect, everything should be privatised which will magically fix everything, people are poor because they are lazy bums and dont deserve to live, the environment looks nice on post cards cut down a tree and make one, anyone who speaks against the GOP is anti-american and un-patriotic and Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter are geniuses and O'Reilly is an independent. etc etcm its not really that hard

Did anyone even read the excerpt from the interview that this whole thing is based on?

Talk about taking a comment out of context. From what I can gather, Goss stated that he would not be qualified to work in the role he held from the 50's to the 70's within the CIA. He said this because the world has changed in so far as the linguistic requirements of the job back then compared to the job today.
The second part of the statement referred to his lack of expertise in using computers. As head of the CIA, I doubt he will need to have any more prowess on a computer than checking his email.
So, based on this, I would say Moore is guilty of his usual misleading activities and the usual suspects have closed their eyes and opened their mouths as Mr.Moore feeds them some more sugar-coated BS.
neocon rationalization attempt alert, sound the alarm

Ooooooooooooooh no! He's FAT?! Well, I can't listen to him NOW!

Boy you just completely missed the reference to the new book Michael Moore is a Big Fast Stupid White Guy....whose title is satire on the names of Michael Moore's movies and books.

Guys, anybody who thinks Michael Moore is honest is a sucker. If you think his movies and books are honest, you are gullable. The guy is untra left, and a sharp director/story teller, and he uses misdirection, film tricks, and at times out right lies to convince people to believe his ultra-left nonsense. Believing him word for word is as bad if not worse than believing ultra-right people like Rush. I think at least people understand what Rush is. Moore is preying on Americans who are not smart or interested enough to do their own home work. He's made a career off of it. Europeans love him because his BS about America sounds exactly like the want to believe. If you hate something or somebody and somebody comes along and says something that matches your oppinion, you tend to believe them. Here is a link on lies and misdirections in 9/11, and Moore's responses to alot of them.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Boy you just completely missed the reference to the new book Michael Moore is a Big Fast Stupid White Guy....whose title is satire on the names of Michael Moore's movies and books.

Guys, anybody who thinks Michael Moore is honest is a sucker. If you think his movies and books are honest, you are gullable. The guy is untra left, and a sharp director/story teller, and he uses misdirection, film tricks, and at times out right lies to convince people to believe his ultra-left nonsense. Believing him word for word is as bad if not worse than believing ultra-right people like Rush. I think at least people understand what Rush is. Moore is preying on Americans who are not smart or interested enough to do their own home work. He's made a career off of it. Europeans love him because his BS about America sounds exactly like the want to believe. If you hate something or somebody and somebody comes along and says something that matches your oppinion, you tend to believe them. Here is a link on lies and misdirections in 9/11, and Moore's responses to alot of them.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I missed it? Or I chose not to acknowledge it; instead of making a lame reference to one book as the entire basis of my post, I simply decided to insult a small section of his post by taking it out of context. Because, when it all came down to it, the small, insignificant little book really wasn't worth the time or effort I would have to spend in order to bearly acknowledge it's presence in someone else's post.

Ooooooooooooooh no! He's FAT?! Well, I can't listen to him NOW!

Idiot

Idiot Bleeding Heart. Yeah America is so bad, what with the terrible economy and all. But you seem to have enough resources to be using a computer. Your mom should have aborted you since you probably believe in that too. Filthy liberal. Michael Moore is a fat slob. Kind of hard to take anyone seriously when they look like Jabba the Hut.

Idiot Bleeding Heart. Yeah America is so bad, what with the terrible economy and all. But you seem to have enough resources to be using a computer. Your mom should have aborted you since you probably believe in that too. Filthy liberal. Michael Moore is a fat slob. Kind of hard to take anyone seriously when they look like Jabba the Hut.

You will not flame. Read the rules. Consider yourself warned. Don't do it again!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Idiot Bleeding Heart. Yeah America is so bad, what with the terrible economy and all. But you seem to have enough resources to be using a computer. Your mom should have aborted you since you probably believe in that too. Filthy liberal. Michael Moore is a fat slob. Kind of hard to take anyone seriously when they look like Jabba the Hut.
WOO WOO CLUE TRAIN COMING IN TO THE STATION

just because you believe in the freedom of letting some one have an abortion doesnt mean you're going to have one

WOO WOO CLUE TRAIN COMING IN TO THE STATION

just because you believe in the freedom of letting some one have an abortion doesnt mean you're going to have one

Don't feed the trolls please. Thank You.

WOO WOO CLUE TRAIN COMING IN TO THE STATION

just because you believe in the freedom of letting some one have an abortion doesnt mean you're going to have one
Don't be a troll.

I'll be the first Moore supporter to admit it: he's a sneaky bastard in his movies. When he presents a FACT (like, say, "We had X troops on the ground X months into the war in Afghanistan,") it is almost always true. However, he does use his share of film tricks, creative editing, etc. Doesn't mean he isn't right about a lot of things, just means he's tricky.

Don't feed the trolls please. Thank You.
but trolls need to eat too

Don't be a troll.
yeah no trolling man

You will not flame. Read the rules. Consider yourself warned. Don't do it again!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I guess with your superior education, that makes you the smartest person on the net. But alas you are probably a nutcase like the rest of us.

BTW I'm so scared!

PS-Moore is still a stupid white man, with high BP.

In the end, we all use Moore's method of getting a point across. Kerry, Bush, myself, even you. We have our opinions, and thus present our individual cases defending our opinions. Moore does this, and has been sucessful(sp?) at it as well. The problem is, he is a Documentarian, and we aren't.

documentary-doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: noun: a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event.


Moore's film has nothing to do with presenting facts, it's about pushing his anti-gun, anti-Bush agenda. He uses lies and selective editing to make his point. The movie is fiction disguised as a documentary. Milli Vanni had their Grammy taken away in the 80s for faking it, and Moore is no different. He won the Best Documentary Oscar for a work of fiction. It should be taken away.


Moore is regarded as a documentarian throughout the world. What other documentaries can you name right off the top of your head that have shared the same popularity as his two major films? Not many, I suppose. Why do you think this is true? Because his documentaries take his views to the extreme and push his ideals. Documentarians strive for the truth of both sides. Whoever said earlier that no documentarian is unbiased...you are correct. This should be no defense for Moore, though, as even supporters of him can clearly see the facts presented.

I stress the fact that we all resort to the same way of presenting our opinions, as stated above.And you don't see how you've contradicted yourself. You admit that documentarians are biased, and then you criticize Moore for being open about his bias. There's nothing about a documentary that is necessarily open to more than one view--it is, by its very nature, a singular view, namely, the view of the filmmaker.

As to the popularity of his last two films, I would argue that's due to the fact that Moore is a good filmmaker. He's entertaining, and he really knows how to use other people's footage to good effect. He knows how to put together a story, and so his films do well.

Lastly--I'm just going to ask you to find some place where F9/11 is factually inaccurate. I'm not talking about a question of interpretation or whether you disagree with his conclusions--those can legitimately be disputed by honest people on the various sides of the debate. I want to know what parts of the film are factually inaccurate.

From what I can gather, Goss stated that he would not be qualified to work in the role he held from the 50's to the 70's within the CIA. He said this because the world has changed in so far as the linguistic requirements of the job back then compared to the job today.
The second part of the statement referred to his lack of expertise in using computers. As head of the CIA, I doubt he will need to have any more prowess on a computer than checking his email.
So, based on this, I would say Moore is guilty of his usual misleading activities and the usual suspects have closed their eyes and opened their mouths as Mr.Moore feeds them some more sugar-coated BS.

I dunno, I think a lack of computer expertise is a pretty serious problem for a person who is going to be responsible for organizing the CIA! It's only (unless the intelligence czar position is created,) the highest international intelligence position in the country! What kind of criteria ARE important then?

Idiot Bleeding Heart. Yeah America is so bad, what with the terrible economy and all. But you seem to have enough resources to be using a computer. Your mom should have aborted you since you probably believe in that too. Filthy liberal. Michael Moore is a fat slob. Kind of hard to take anyone seriously when they look like Jabba the Hut.

1) You know, it's funny you say that, seeing as you stand up for our monkey-boy president. Oh, look at me, I can make fun of the way people look! My little brother's better then that-and he's not even 10.

2) This is actually funnier then number one, but I don't recall mentioning my computer, resources, the economy, or even America for that matter. SO where did those come from?

3) Actually, both my parents hate me and left me in a store when I was 7. See, they're both anti-abortion, so that was a no-no.

4) Filthy? I bathe regularly, I'll have you know!

Moore's film has nothing to do with presenting facts, it's about pushing his anti-gun, anti-Bush agenda. He uses lies and selective editing to make his point. The movie is fiction disguised as a documentary. Milli Vanni had their Grammy taken away in the 80s for faking it, and Moore is no different. He won the Best Documentary Oscar for a work of fiction. It should be taken away.


.

I stress the fact that we all resort to the same way of presenting our opinions, as stated above.[/QUOTE]

Hey, buddy, that's a big ol' flip-flop on your part. You stated pointedly you hadn't seen the movie. Therefore you DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Reading a review of the latest production of Hamlet for your local theater doesn't mean you actually know anything at all about the subject matter. You should save your theories for your experience. If you saw Columbine, fine, bitch about Columbine. If you didn't see 911 then retain some dignity.

Whats funny, is that Conservatives call Moore a liar, but cant point out one single lie, without resorting to a cheap web-site, that has been proven to be false.

...One of the things that has filtered through up here is that the Bush Administration, G.W. in particular, has a constantly-updated list of 'enemies', and that a perpetual siege mentality, very similar to the dying days of Nixon's White House, has taken hold. Many of the White House staffers are on edge.

I read about this in several op-ed articles published here, and saw it on more than one web page. No, I don't have links. I don't move through life with a clipboard. And no, I'm not asking for anyone to be rude or condescending towards me. I mention this as I found it illustrative, at the time. It painted a picture for me, of turmoil and insecurity, and it's that sense of insecurity that is being projected onto the American people.

Honestly, I don't believe that the average American is anywhere- ANYWHERE near as paranoid, reactionary, and duplicitous as their current leadership is.

REAL documentarians are unbiased, and search only for the truth. Moore is one of the biggest anti-Bush propaganda pushers out right now, if not the biggest. He also relies on humor and satire to help get his point across.

Only when they're on nature. A political documentary is always going to be slanted one way or another, we just know what way Moore slants his. Why can't a documentary have humor in it? It makes the movie mor enjoyable than just a long series of interviews.

You just answered for me. Moore literally HATES Americans, and is conveniently open with his hatred of Americans with the international community. Ironic, as he himself is American.

No, just Bush, republicans, and big business. Not Americans.

I dunno, I think a lack of computer expertise is a pretty serious problem for a person who is going to be responsible for organizing the CIA! It's only (unless the intelligence czar position is created,) the highest international intelligence position in the country! What kind of criteria ARE important then?
Define "computer skills." All he does is coordinate, that means forwarding emails to the appropriate department. The national position is a stupid idea created by a stupid commission, and it won't have any affect on anything anyway.

You see, I don't consider my Left-wing or Right-wing. I saw Moore's new movie, and like what the Righties say, it's not a true documentary. Just like Bowling for Columbine. I show Bowling for Columbine to my friends because I thought it was funny, not because I was like, "That Michael Moore is so wrong, I'll laugh at him." I thought it was funny like, "Haha!! I thought that joke was funny." It was entertainment. I think it is funny, however, how Lefties say, "If Michael Moore says it, it must be true." Or the Righties that say, "If Michael Moore says it, it has to be a lie." But I seriously don't know what political party I am.... Not left or right, not central, maybe somewhere underground? I am in support of peace, I mean like global peace, but that's basically like saying I believe in happy magical elves. But dammit people, if your not peaceful I'll have to beat you with a sack of frozen oranges. :D

neocon rationalization attempt alert, sound the alarm

No, its called actually reading what was said in the context it was said. I have given up trying to get a rational response out of you because it seems you are incapable of comprehending anything that doesn't fit your conclusion...you aren't HIM are you?

You are one of those rare people here that bring nothing to the table but lame attempts at insults and somehow think you have proved your intelligence.

I dunno, I think a lack of computer expertise is a pretty serious problem for a person who is going to be responsible for organizing the CIA! It's only (unless the intelligence czar position is created,) the highest international intelligence position in the country! What kind of criteria ARE important then?

You obviously have not heard of Personal Assistants? The people who work beneath him will more than likely take care of most of the "computer work". Its pretty much the same in all big organisations. What types of criteria would be important? Work ethic, experience, trustworthiness. Things that he obviously had when he worked for the CIA for 20 years.
But, yes, looking back..an out of context remark from Michael Moore's website probably does have more credibility than 20 years working in the CIA. :rolleyes:

Whats funny, is that Conservatives call Moore a liar, but cant point out one single lie, without resorting to a cheap web-site, that has been proven to be false.

What website are you referring to and where is the proof it is false?

What website are you referring to and where is the proof it is false?

Moore has something on his site saying they're wrong.

Actually Tygaland, Moore didn't say he hates all big corporations, he said that a flat income tax is a bad idea.

That was in The Big One.

Whats funny, is that Conservatives call Moore a liar, but cant point out one single lie, without resorting to a cheap web-site, that has been proven to be false.
A liar can lie with facts. It just takes more skill and less ethics.

You obviously have not heard of Personal Assistants? The people who work beneath him will more than likely take care of most of the "computer work". Its pretty much the same in all big organisations. What types of criteria would be important? Work ethic, experience, trustworthiness. Things that he obviously had when he worked for the CIA for 20 years.
But, yes, looking back..an out of context remark from Michael Moore's website probably does have more credibility than 20 years working in the CIA. :rolleyes:

What's out of context about it? Is there something earlier in the interview that sheds more light on his statements, or are you just assuming? Also, I would like to think that someone tapped to become the head of the CIA would be a person of exceptional intelligence and knowledge. Sure he coordinates the intelligence others have gathered, and he won't be doing any of the grunt work himself, but a thorough knowledge of pertinent skills would be a boon in him determining what is relevant enough to hand to the president, right? It's like saying a general doesn't need to know about weapons systems or military theory, because that is what his subordinants are for.
The head of the CIA needs to be a non-partisan of the very highest ability, or we aren't really fixing things, are we?

If you're tired of intellectual discourse, visit this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349138

What's out of context about it? Is there something earlier in the interview that sheds more light on his statements, or are you just assuming? Also, I would like to think that someone tapped to become the head of the CIA would be a person of exceptional intelligence and knowledge. Sure he coordinates the intelligence others have gathered, and he won't be doing any of the grunt work himself, but a thorough knowledge of pertinent skills would be a boon in him determining what is relevant enough to hand to the president, right? It's like saying a general doesn't need to know about weapons systems or military theory, because that is what his subordinants are for.
The head of the CIA needs to be a non-partisan of the very highest ability, or we aren't really fixing things, are we?

If you're tired of intellectual discourse, visit this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349138
Who would you propose instead? Tenet?

Here's another one to bury in hate mail:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

Also check out Noam Chomsky but take into account he must be vastly less intelligent than oh so very credible Mr amuse-Bush, your foully beleagered icon of honesty.

Here's another one to bury in hate mail:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

Also check out Noam Chomsky but take into account he must be vastly less intelligent than oh so very credible Mr amuse-Bush, your foully beleagered icon of honesty.

That's a joke, right?

What's with "Please do not read this message unless you have a top secret clearance. Otherwise you will present a danger to ... YES! National Security! Oh God." scrolling across near the bottom?

Actually Tygaland, Moore didn't say he hates all big corporations, he said that a flat income tax is a bad idea.

That was in The Big One.

Where did I say Moore hated all big corporations?

What's out of context about it? Is there something earlier in the interview that sheds more light on his statements, or are you just assuming? Also, I would like to think that someone tapped to become the head of the CIA would be a person of exceptional intelligence and knowledge. Sure he coordinates the intelligence others have gathered, and he won't be doing any of the grunt work himself, but a thorough knowledge of pertinent skills would be a boon in him determining what is relevant enough to hand to the president, right? It's like saying a general doesn't need to know about weapons systems or military theory, because that is what his subordinants are for.
The head of the CIA needs to be a non-partisan of the very highest ability, or we aren't really fixing things, are we?

If you're tired of intellectual discourse, visit this thread: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349138

Ok, let me put it more simply.

This is from the article on MichaelMoore.com referred to in the OP:

INTERVIEWER: You come from intelligence. This is what you did, this is what you know.

REP. GOSS: Uh, that was, uh, 35 years ago.

Thus creating the impression that the discussion was about his work 35 years ago. When he did the "grunt work" you refer to. Without further prompting by the interviewer and hence on the same topic (his work in the CIA 35 years ago) he continued:

REP. GOSS: It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.

Now, he mentions linguistics and computing skills to say why he would not be qualified to do that "grunt work" today with the skills he had then and the skills he had now. I thought it was fairly clear. At no point was he asked, "Are you qualified to lead the CIA today?" So taking an answer to an unrelated question and using it out of context is, in my mind, deceitful. Therefore, the story Moore is trying to portray is feeble.

How do you know he is not a man of exceptional intelligence and knowledge? He is less intelligent because he can only speak Romance languages and not Arabic?

Your reference to the General in the military is pointless. It has already been established that Goss worked for the CIA for 15-20 years and he would therefore have a pretty good idea of how things worked and what was and wasn't relevant to be passed on to the President. Just because he is not 100% up to speed on computers does not make him an idiot. He has experience and skills that far outweigh that from his work in the CIA.

have any of you anti-moore anti-farenheit 9/11 people stopped to think that if it was all just a pack of well edited lies and leftist properganda the bush family would have got together their big hot shot lawers and sued moore for all hes worth by now :confused:

have any of you anti-moore anti-farenheit 9/11 people stopped to think that if it was all just a pack of well edited lies and leftist properganda the bush family would have got together their big hot shot lawers and sued moore for all hes worth by now :confused:


Why would they?

You obviously have not heard of Personal Assistants? The people who work beneath him will more than likely take care of most of the "computer work". Its pretty much the same in all big organisations.

Right, so you're ok with the head of the most powerful intelligence agency in the world during the most important period in recent times can't use a computer, because other ppl will 'take care of it'. Now how is he going to know that it's valid and not doctored, inflated, 'sexed-up' or otherwise balant lies if he can't check himself?

One thing I can't stand about ppl, is pedantic nitpicking. The idea that if you can prove that one thing is wrong then everything is. Sure Moore has an agenda - he has always said the reasons why he makes documentaries - but this nitpicking by right-wingers is just pathetic. For example:
(from http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/dudewheresmycountry/15-20.htm)
On page 20, Moore quotes a New Yorker piece on page 4 of his book noting that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after 9-11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe."
Moore writes that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" The statement is still false in that a September 20, 2001 Boston Globe article notes that the Bin Ladens apparently chartered their own plane. They did not get a "free trip" as Moore tells us.

Oh, ok then. Gee, Moore said the Bin Laden family got a free trip to Paris, but in actual fact it was chartered! Well then, I guess I best not listen/read/watch anything else Moore ever says again cause he's a liar! gosh, also this means that cause Moore used 'free' (he couldn't mean the word in any other context surely) the Bush govt doesn't need to answer the question as to why the Bin Ladens were allowed out when no-one else was. How clever. By focusing on just one minor little grammatical point, you can totally ignore the entire question.

You obviously have not heard of Personal Assistants? The people who work beneath him will more than likely take care of most of the "computer work". Its pretty much the same in all big organisations. What types of criteria would be important? Work ethic, experience, trustworthiness. Things that he obviously had when he worked for the CIA for 20 years.
But, yes, looking back..an out of context remark from Michael Moore's website probably does have more credibility than 20 years working in the CIA. :rolleyes:Isn't that the same argument that got us Bush in the first place--he doesn't have to be smart because he can surround himself with good people? That's worked out soooooooooo well. No thanks.

But that's beside the point. Goss is likely to sail through confirmation hearings and with any luck, will be asked for his resignation on the day President Kerry takes office.

Right, so you're ok with the head of the most powerful intelligence agency in the world during the most important period in recent times can't use a computer, because other ppl will 'take care of it'. Now how is he going to know that it's valid and not doctored, inflated, 'sexed-up' or otherwise balant lies if he can't check himself?

He didn't say he can't use a computer, he did say he needed to work on it. And every person in charge of large organisation has assistants and people beneath them to do the monkey work. You don't think his experience working in the CIA for 15-20 years is enough experience to sort through intelligence and pass on the relevant information to the President? Well, who would be qualified according to your criteria?
The fact of the matter is that his comments were used by Moore out of context. Simple. You can keep blowing smoke up my arse about irrelevence and speculation but the fact is he was quoted out of context. If you can't work that out for yourself then I suggest you open the other eye and read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.

One thing I can't stand about ppl, is pedantic nitpicking. The idea that if you can prove that one thing is wrong then everything is. Sure Moore has an agenda - he has always said the reasons why he makes documentaries - but this nitpicking by right-wingers is just pathetic. For example:
(from http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/dudewheresmycountry/15-20.htm)


Oh, ok then. Gee, Moore said the Bin Laden family got a free trip to Paris, but in actual fact it was chartered! Well then, I guess I best not listen/read/watch anything else Moore ever says again cause he's a liar! gosh, also this means that cause Moore used 'free' (he couldn't mean the word in any other context surely) the Bush govt doesn't need to answer the question as to why the Bin Ladens were allowed out when no-one else was. How clever. By focusing on just one minor little grammatical point, you can totally ignore the entire question.

Yes, Moore said they got a free trip and they didn't. What is hard to understand about that being deceit? Minor grammatical point? My god, are you serious. Your "minor grammatical point" changes the meaning entirely from FREE to CHARTED THEIR OWN FLIGHT. Hardly pedantic nitpicking in my opinion.

Isn't that the same argument that got us Bush in the first place--he doesn't have to be smart because he can surround himself with good people? That's worked out soooooooooo well. No thanks.

But that's beside the point. Goss is likely to sail through confirmation hearings and with any luck, will be asked for his resignation on the day President Kerry takes office.

Again, who says the man is not intelligent? Because he can't use Yahoo messenger he is a moron? The point I am making is, Moore used the quote completely out of context (quelle surprise) and therefore to say he admitted he was not qualified to lead the CIA when in fact he was commenting on the fact his language and lacking computer skills would mean he would not be qualified to work as a case officer today. At no point was he asked if he was qualified to lead the CIA so how can you take a comment made on one topic and try and apply it to a different scenario?

probably already pulled up, didn't bother to read any pages, but it's a nice read...

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Idiot Bleeding Heart. Yeah America is so bad, what with the terrible economy and all. But you seem to have enough resources to be using a computer. Your mom should have aborted you since you probably believe in that too. Filthy liberal. Michael Moore is a fat slob. Kind of hard to take anyone seriously when they look like Jabba the Hut.

You do realize that there's an ad hominem in just about every sentence there, don't you?

A liar can lie with facts. It just takes more skill and less ethics.

Like claiming there are WMD's in Iraq?

Yes, Moore said they got a free trip and they didn't. What is hard to understand about that being deceit? Minor grammatical point? My god, are you serious. Your "minor grammatical point" changes the meaning entirely from FREE to CHARTED THEIR OWN FLIGHT. Hardly pedantic nitpicking in my opinion.

Sorry, but it is pedantry because it's missing the WHOLE point!!! Moore was asking why were the Bin Ladens allowed out of the country immediately after 9/11 when no one else was allowed in the sky? By focussing solely on one word (and he meant free as in a gift to them - i.e. Not subject to a given condition*) you are ignoring the entire point of his (facetious) statement.
Why did the Bush admin allow family members of the person they had most reason to suspect as the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil to fly out of the country in the days afterwards? When surely it was more prudent to keep them there, interogate them as to his possible whereabouts or even use them as bargaining chips to get to him. This has never been explained (to my knowledge) and whenever it's brought up I have to put up with pedants like yourself saying "It wasn't free! It wasn't free! So 'cause he used a wrong word, Bush doesn't need to answer!"

* Incidently b4 you say that free doesn't mean "Not subject to a given condition", I suggest you look it up on Dictionary.com - definition #4(b).

Sorry, but it is pedantry because it's missing the WHOLE point!!! Moore was asking why were the Bin Ladens allowed out of the country immediately after 9/11 when no one else was allowed in the sky? By focussing solely on one word (and he meant free as in a gift to them - i.e. Not subject to a given condition*) you are ignoring the entire point of his (facetious) statement.
Why did the Bush admin allow family members of the person they had most reason to suspect as the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil to fly out of the country in the days afterwards? When surely it was more prudent to keep them there, interogate them as to his possible whereabouts or even use them as bargaining chips to get to him. This has never been explained (to my knowledge) and whenever it's brought up I have to put up with pedants like yourself saying "It wasn't free! It wasn't free! So 'cause he used a wrong word, Bush doesn't need to answer!"

* Incidently b4 you say that free doesn't mean "Not subject to a given condition", I suggest you look it up on Dictionary.com - definition #4(b).

The quote you lifted from the bowlingfortruth website in your earlier post, the emphasis is mine:

On page 20, Moore quotes a New Yorker piece on page 4 of his book noting that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after 9-11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe."
Moore writes that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" The statement is still false in that a September 20, 2001 Boston Globe article notes that the Bin Ladens apparently chartered their own plane. They did not get a "free trip" as Moore tells us.

Moore states that the FAA permitted overseas flights after 9-11 and before the bin Ladens flew out of the country in their chartered jet. If, as he states, the airspace was open what is Moore's point?

From the 9/11 Commision report, emphasis is again mine:


Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion

(Source: http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States)

So, the airspace was open when the Saudis flew out on a chartered flights from September 14 after they had been interviewed and screened by the FBI. The bin Ladens flew out on September 20. So, Moore lied about the date the Saudis flew out, he lied about how they obtained the flight and he omitted the fact that the airspace had opened when the Saudis flew out. Not to mention his inference it was Bush who ordered the flights out when it was in fact Clarke.

Demented Hamsters? I have answered your question..nothing to add?

Coming from a liberal Jew, I find this extraordinarily hilarious.

Michael Moore bashed by Jews (http://www.jdl.org/position/moore.shtml)

Coming from a liberal Jew, I find this extraordinarily hilarious.

Michael Moore bashed by Jews (http://www.jdl.org/position/moore.shtml)
Brillian, and why do the jewish voters vote left, when the left hates Israel, loves the arabs, and could care less about the anti-semitsm that spews out of their allies in france and germany, and out fo their canidates?

We aren't as left as Israel. Duh.