NationStates Jolt Archive

There are so many people saying that Michael Moore is not telling the truth. Maybe we could, like make a list of his lies, like to get it straight how often he has lied in his films?

How about if anyone remembers a Moore lie, post it here? In short, like.

Maybe it would be easiest to stick to definite lies, and not just those times when he, like, only tells one side of the issue, like at hand.

Apparently Mr. Moore has spoken the truth throughout his fine career! Which is more than can be truthfully said about any president of his sad and sorry country!

This is probably why he is not a politician. He speaks the truth, which people find annoying.

http://www.moorelies.com/

This is probably why he is not a politician. He speaks the truth, which people find annoying.

He doesn't speak the truth more than any politician. He has an agenda to push, and truth is always going to be put to the wayside when people have an agenda to push. No one who has an agenda to advance will tell the total truth, so Moore is really no more "truthful" than Ann Coulter. (But not as frightening).

Canada City']http://www.moorelies.com/

Must I read a book to get the lies? Where are the lies? I want the lies!!! :(

He doesn't speak the truth more than any politician. He has an agenda to push, and truth is always going to be put to the wayside when people have an agenda to push. No one who has an agenda to advance will tell the total truth, so Moore is really no more "truthful" than Ann Coulter. (But not as frightening).

Politicians get caught lying. Moore hasn't. Being biased is entirely different from being a liar.

Apparently Mr. Moore has spoken the truth throughout his fine career! Which is more than can be truthfully said about any president of his sad and sorry country!

This is probably why he is not a politician. He speaks the truth, which people find annoying.

Has he? Is that why the facts contradict his statements most of the times? He couldn't speak truthfully. He's like the left wing version of Ann Coulter. Don't use him to bolster your own opinion, you will find yourself falling down a slope.

And yes he has been caught in many lies. He is a habitual liar and there is even a book out on him showing his lies.

I am not a conservative, but it is widely known that Moore stretches the truth to a point that is questionable. That isnt to say that he raises some good points, but i wouldnt site his facts or take them as 100% true

Politicians get caught lying. Moore hasn't. Being biased is entirely different from being a liar.

Being biased is the same as lying when it involves deliberate misinterpretation of the truth to advance an agenda. All politicians do it to more or less of a degree, and Moore is no different. He's a politician without a title.

Has he? Is that why the facts contradict his statements most of the times? He couldn't speak truthfully. He's like the left wing version of Ann Coulter. Don't use him to bolster your own opinion, you will find yourself falling down a slope.

And yes he has been caught in many lies. He is a habitual liar and there is even a book out on him showing his lies.

So what if there is a book? Have you read it? Which lies does it mention?

Moore uses an atypical amount of documentorial editing, staging and truth-twisting to arrive at predetermined emotional evocations. It's not the truth, if that's what you're looking for.

So what if there is a book? Have you read it? Which lies does it mention?

Read it yourself. I have read the book. There are tons of factual errors in Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. You are starting to act in a rather ridiculous way.. open your mind to the fact that he's not what you want him to be. He's a habitual liar.

11 posts, and no specific lies.

I can't read the person who posted this thread's mind, but it doesn't seem like they're denying that Moore lies. They just want specific examples. Is that too much to ask for?

Being biased is the same as lying when it involves deliberate misinterpretation of the truth to advance an agenda. ....

'deliberate misinterpretation' .... is that the definition of a lie? I doubt it. A lie is usually pretty clear. Like saying: 'We are trying to save everyone' or ' there was no way of predicting this disaster'
....

That's lying.

11 posts, and no specific lies.

I can't read the person who posted this thread's mind, but it doesn't seem like they're denying that Moore lies. They just want specific examples. Is that too much to ask for?
As far as I can see it, he propogandizes and spins more than lies. I don't see value in either.

Read it yourself. I have read the book. There are tons of factual errors in Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. You are starting to act in a rather ridiculous way.. open your mind to the fact that he's not what you want him to be. He's a habitual liar.

Name a lie if you can.

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

You don't need a book. There are 59 lies right here. (Not 56, it has been updated, in spite of the webpage name.)

Here's one example...

2000 Election Recount

Deceit 3



How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.



A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."



Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the vote.



A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."

'deliberate misinterpretation' .... is that the definition of a lie? I doubt it. A lie is usually pretty clear. Like saying: 'We are trying to save everyone' or ' there was no way of predicting this disaster'
....
That's lying.

No, lying and a lie are:

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
3 : something that misleads or deceives

Moore is a definite example of definitions 2 and 3.

Name a lie if you can.

Since someone already cited Dave Kopel.. here is David Hardy on Bowling for Columbine:

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

Name a lie if you can.

2000 Election Night

Deceits 1-2

Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.

Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results. ("Gore Campaigns Into Election Day," Associated Press, Nov. 7, 2000.)

The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)

The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost. Thus, on election night 1980, when incumbent President Jimmy Carter gave a concession speech while polls were still open on the west coast, the early concession was blamed for costing the Democrats several Congressional seats in the West, such as that of 20-year incumbent James Corman. The fact that all the networks had declared Reagan a landslide winner while west coast voting was still in progress was also blamed for Democratic losses in the West; Congress even held hearings about prohibiting the disclosure of exit polls before voting had ended in the any of the 48 contiguous states.

Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the "Redneck Riviera." In that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes. A 2001 study by John Lott suggested that the early calls cost Bush at least 7,500 votes, and perhaps many more. Another study reported that the networks reduced panhandle turn-out by about 19,000 votes, costing Bush about 12,000 votes and Gore about 7,000 votes.

At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox. (The two networks were using a shared Decision Team.) See Linda Mason, Kathleen Francovic & Kathleen Hall Jamieson, "CBS News Coverage of Election Night 2000: Investigation, Analysis, Recommendations" (CBS News, Jan. 2001), pp. 12-25.)

In fact, Fox did not retract its claim that Gore had won Florida until 2 a.m.--four hours after other networks had withdrawn the call.

Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.

Nice pun for the title, but really I think Michael Moore is entitled to his opinions and whether you agree with him or not is your own decision...

Nice pun for the title, but really I think Michael Moore is entitled to his opinions and whether you agree with him or not is your own decision...

Yes, but there is a big issue when he declares something a truth when it is a total lie based on factual error.

Moore heavily misrepresents statistics (though providing both sides so it's easy for anyone with a function brain to understand what they really mean), in order to mislead people who pay attention to soundbites rather than reading a complete paragraph/watching a complete scene. He rarely flat-out lies, though most people lack concentration or a sense of context.

IMHO, anyone who actually interprets the facts the way he wants you to, regardless of how you accept it, is too much of an idle sheep for their opinion to matter. And, you've gotta accept his implied conclusions & interpretations to believe that he actually lied to you.

Now that that's out of the way, a minor pet-peeve.
Canada City']http://www.moorelies.com/
ERm... I'd like to make a statement on "acceptable citations" here. No FrontPageMag, no FreeRepublic, no SocialistWorker, and no to anywhere else where the front page describes the other side as "terrorists", "Traitors", or "Nazis". Snopes and The Straight Dope are usually acceptable, since they have fewer errors on record than most major news sources and are often the only reliable cite for esoteric issues. But, in general, only AP/UPI news outlets, .edu's, major .org's, and primary sources (not someone linking to someone quoting a dramatization of a primary source) are trustworthy.


For instance, here's what's wrong...
That place just states that Moore Lies. It doesn't offer any instances of him lying, though it tried to sell its book in where it explains that he's a marxist (who's going against all of Marx's ideas, too?).

However, about halfway down (http://www.moorelies.com/news/archives/display.cfm?newsID=657), it offers a link to an article which has a point where he skewers statistics. This same article skewers the the same statistic in the other direction in the same sentence. Next sentence, it flat-out lies with the justification that "in a world where Moore's ideals weren't so prevalent," it might be true. And then, in the paragraph, the article claims that no-one in America shares his ideals because they're so wacko.

On the other hand, it does link to some 404's on legitimate news sources and claim they reported actual inaccuracies. If you'd quoted these, you'd just get laughed at instead of lectured.

Name a lie if you can.

Saudi Departures from United States

Deceits 11-14

Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.

If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, "Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens."

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."

Nice pun for the title, but really I think Michael Moore is entitled to his opinions and whether you agree with him or not is your own decision...

As long as you do the research and find out if what he is saying is true.

Some of it is just lies or very decietful misrepresentations.

To be swayed by those, or believe them, leaves you just plain wrong on the issue.

Nice pun for the title, but really I think Michael Moore is entitled to his opinions and whether you agree with him or not is your own decision...
Thank Buddha it is our decision! And as someone with his own bag of Bush complaints, I can say Moore is a POS media parasite.
I love my country simply for the reaon that I can hold this opinion.

But let's so not compare Moore with our rights...

Yes, but there is a big issue when he declares something a truth when it is a total lie based on factual error.

Well, he's a zealous, radical democrat...It's not his fault he was born and breed that way... Personally, I'm surprised by his ability in broadcasting his beliefs and managing to stir up a racket and rake in some cash...

Name a lie if you can.

Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan

This segment is introduced with the question, "Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is shown to be a Unocal pipeline.

Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.

No, lying and a lie are:

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
3 : something that misleads or deceives

Moore is a definite example of definitions 2 and 3.

Definitions extracted from a fine source I am sure. Are they yours? Do you feel that by naming those definitions and not looking for negative definitions, you are a liar?

Name a lie if you can.

Moore claims that Bush "cut terrorism funding from the FBI." Not so. In 2001, the Department of Justice was operating under the budget established in the last year of the Clinton administration, so any proposed change in future budgets obviously could not have prevented September 11. For the 2002 budget, the Bush administration did not propose cutting the FBI counter-terrorism budget. The relevant documents are collected at the website for the Center for American Progress, a self-declared "progressive" think tank which is scathing in denouncing Ashcroft for not agreeing (before September 11) to various FBI proposals for increasing FBI counter-terrorism funding. Rejecting an increase is not the same as imposing a cut.

Fahrenheit shows a document highlighting the one significant cut which Ashcroft proposed (in a Sept. 10 memo; see p. 25). Contrary to Fahrenheit's claim, that cut was not for the FBI budget. The funding was for grants to states to buy equipment; as the memo detailed, the equipment fund already had more than two years worth of money which had not been spent, because states had not yet complied with grant requirements that the states produce state-wide preparedness plans in order to receive funding.

There was also a cut in a special Attorney General fund which had been set up to pay Department of Justice field offices for costs related to the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Senate had voted to eliminate this fund.

Definitions extracted from a fine source I am sure. Are they yours? Do you feel that by naming those definitions and not looking for negative definitions, you are a liar?

No, Merriam-Webster Online:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lie

Choose Lie (4) and Lie (3) for the noun and verb respectively.

No, Merriam-Webster Online:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary: for the definition of the verb "to lie"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary: for the noun "lie
Ouch! :p

Name a lie if you can.

Rep. Porter Goss

Defending the USA PATRIOT Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has an "800 number" for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit shoots back with a caption "Not really true." The ordinary telephone number (area code 202) for Goss’s office is then flashed on the screen.

You’d never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number to which USA PATRIOT Act complaints can be reported. The number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.

Although the Committee’s number is toll-free, the prefix is not "800," and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.

Hawkintom']As long as you do the research and find out if what he is saying is true.

Some of it is just lies or very decietful misrepresentations.

To be swayed by those, or believe them, leaves you just plain wrong on the issue.


Thank Buddha it is our decision! And as someone with his own bag of Bush complaints, I can say Moore is a POS media parasite.
I love my country simply for the reaon that I can hold this opinion.

But let's so not compare Moore with our rights...

I think Moore is a moronic genius with a lot guts...He's a moron when it comes to his documentary, but he's a genius when it comes to publicity and money...Honestly, I don't care about anything he says...Heck, I've never even seen his movie...Well, I'm not old enough to...Anyways, Moore is just some guy who bashes Bush...I do too, but I bash him because I don't like the new policies and the gas prices...

One: He said there had been a cut when there really was just not an increase. Thats a lie :)

Hawkintom']As long as you do the research and find out if what he is saying is true.

Some of it is just lies or very decietful misrepresentations.

To be swayed by those, or believe them, leaves you just plain wrong on the issue.
This is what I dont get. We are not talking about an information product, we are discussing a form of entertainment. Of course it doesnt convey a full and accurate sense of some aspect of reality. Whyever would it? Even entertainment products marketed as providing 'realism' never come any closer than hyper-reality. And isnt that the point; isnt that what makes it entertainment?

Expecting to get a clear picture of political realities from an entertainment product (like an entertainment genre book or movie) is like expecting to learn how to be a lawyer by watching 'The Practise' and 'Alley McBeal' re-runs. There is a difference between entertainment and information, and it dismays me to see that people either are unable to recognise it, or unwilling to acknowledge it.

Republicans are so cowardly. They screw up the country, then they make personal attacks on their opponents to discredit them.

I hate Michael Moore, hes a douche. It doesnt mean hes always wrong though...

But why are they pointing out that he went to a fat camp and eat McDonalds. SO hes fat? Why does that have to do with his agenda

I think Moore is a moronic genius with a lot guts...He's a moron when it comes to his documentary, but he's a genius when it comes to publicity and money...Honestly, I don't care about anything he says...Heck, I've never even seen his movie...Well, I'm not old enough to...Anyways, Moore is just some guy who bashes Bush...I do too, but I bash him because I don't like the new policies and the gas prices...

You are generally correct. If not a genius, then a very hard-working liar. It takes a lot of work to put together that many pieces of footage, and then edit them and carefully craft your words so as to deceive in a way that isn't so obvious that it would just be ignored. You have to couch your deceits in circumstances that the stupid and ideologically rabid will still try to defend, and he does that well. And he's made a ton of money doing it.

Personally though, I think he believes in his ideology completely, and believes that he is superior to the common man, so his ends justify his means. If be being deceitful he can get the average person to agree with him, then I think he feels it is ok to be deceitful to achieve that goal. Since he knows best and all...

As far as I can tell he is NOT lying in his facts/figures. His interpretations however are his interpretations... which may or may not be correct. Everything he said about what Bush did with 9/11 in "Farenheight 9/11" may be correct, but again, we must distinguish between the facts/figures, and Moore's conclusions based on that info. I think when most people say Moore "lies," it's that they don't like his conclusions about Bush/Republicans.

No one has been able to show to me any evidence that Moore is lying about anything. I mean his own damned website has a LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP OF "FARENHEIT 9/11." Check it out - http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

Republicans are so cowardly. They screw up the country, then they make personal attacks on their opponents to discredit them.

I hate Michael Moore, hes a douche. It doesnt mean hes always wrong though...

But why are they pointing out that he went to a fat camp and eat McDonalds. SO hes fat? Why does that have to do with his agenda
I don't see what it has to do with the issue, either. Rush could use a few weeks himself at a fatty camp. :D

Republicans are so cowardly. They screw up the country, then they make personal attacks on their opponents to discredit them.

Someday you'll realize that you can put most of the political parties where you have "Republicans" and be correct in your statement.



I hate Michael Moore, hes a douche. It doesnt mean hes always wrong though...


A stopped clock is right twice a day. He is scum though. Just because there are other scum doesn't make his scumminess any less scummy though. :)


But why are they pointing out that he went to a fat camp and eat McDonalds. SO hes fat? Why does that have to do with his agenda

Nothing. I'm fat and I eat at McDonalds. :D

I don't see what it has to do with the issue, either. Rush could use a few weeks himself at a fatty camp. :D

Send them both to the same camp and televise it. :p

He is scum though. Just because there are other scum doesn't make his scumminess any less scummy though. :)
In what way is he scum, what kind of values are you applying (i.e. based on your comments I would assume that you reject 'free-market' doctrine/reasoning to some degree or other)?

As far as I can tell he is NOT lying in his facts/figures. His interpretations however are his interpretations... which may or may not be correct.


Moore claims that Bush "cut terrorism funding from the FBI." Not so. In 2001, the Department of Justice was operating under the budget established in the last year of the Clinton administration, so any proposed change in future budgets obviously could not have prevented September 11.

For the 2002 budget, the Bush administration did not propose cutting the FBI counter-terrorism budget. The relevant documents are collected at the website for the Center for American Progress, a self-declared "progressive" think tank which is scathing in denouncing Ashcroft for not agreeing (before September 11) to various FBI proposals for increasing FBI counter-terrorism funding. Rejecting an increase is not the same as imposing a cut.

That is a lie.

I think when most people say Moore "lies," it's that they don't like his conclusions about Bush/Republicans.

No, I believe there are plenty of flaws with Bush. And some of what Moore says is true. But it is surrounded by so much deceit and opinion that is becomes an irrelevant smear job instead of a look at the facts.

When he says a Senator is lying about an 800 number because it is actually an 877 number - (I don't know where you are from, but they are the same thing - they are both toll-free and the 888 and 877 prefixes were added to expand the amount of available toll-free lines available here. We use the term 800 generically.) that is a deception, that any reasonable person would consider a lie.

He is trying to mislead people - and often succeeding.

As Mark Twain is often credited with saying, there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Moore appears to be playing the statistics game on many of his deceits. He's hoping that the general public will be too dumb or too lazy to notice and he's hoping the liberals won't care that he lied as long as he sways some of the sheeple.


No one has been able to show to me any evidence that Moore is lying about anything. I mean his own damned website has a LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP OF "FARENHEIT 9/11." Check it out - http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

I guess it depends on what your definition of a lie is... (or what your definition of is is, to quote a President.)

If you don't think the examples above are lies, then you are playing semantics games. You know that he is deceiving and misleading and editing and omitting facts to make something appear differently than it is.

Let me ask you this, would you do business with someone who behaved that way? If you were "mislead" or "deceived" by your banker, but he pointed out that technically almost everything he said was correct, even though the general intent was not what you had been lead to believe it was - would you call him honest when you were telling your friends about how he treated you? Or would you say, "He is a liar?"

No, Merriam-Webster Online:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lie

Choose Lie (4) and Lie (3) for the noun and verb respectively.


Hmmm....kay :rolleyes: . While desperately looking for a negative definition, or just something, I stumbled upon this, at http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Lie An interesting read.
...

Sociology and linguistics of lying
Lying and blaming are so basic to society that it is hard to formally study them. George Lakoff, in criticizing some claims of George W. Bush made prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, notes that

Are they lies - or are they merely exaggerations, misleading statements, mistakes, rhetorical excesses and so on. Linguists study such matters. The most startling finding is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration for most people is whether it is true! The more important considerations are, Did he believe it? Did he intend to deceive? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one? Is it "just" a matter of political rhetoric? Most people will grant that, even if the statement happened to be false, if he believed it, wasn't trying to deceive, and was not trying to gain advantage or harm any one, then there was no lie. If it was a lie in the service of a good cause, then it was a white lie. If it was based on faulty information, then it was an honest mistake. If it was just there for emphasis, then it was an exaggeration.
"These have been among the administration's defenses. The good cause: liberating Iraq. The faulty information: from the CIA. The emphasis: enthusiasm for a great cause. Even though there is evidence that the President and his advisers knew the information was false, they can deflect the use of the L-word. The falsehoods have been revealed and they, in themselves, do not matter much to most people."

The philosopher Leo Strauss, who had a major influence on many of the figures in the Project for the New American Century who dominated the administration during this period, stressed the necessity of lying in order to conceal a strategic position, or to aid diplomacy. So did earlier figures in political philosophy from Niccolo Machiavelli to Plato's "noble lie".

It seems extremely unlikely that lies will ever be entirely eliminated from politics or diplomacy, just as they cannot be removed from the warfare that these activities are, ultimately, supposed to help pre-empt.



BTW, merriam webster is overrated! :mad:

Send them both to the same camp and televise it. :p
Now that's must-see-TV!
Take away the Twinkies, and all hell is loose...

In what way is he scum, what kind of values are you applying (i.e. based on your comments I would assume that you reject 'free-market' doctrine/reasoning to some degree or other)?

I don't know what you mean by the latter part of your post. But to answer your question, I believe that he is scum because he distorts the truth, or even lies, to mislead people so that his opinion is seen as the correct one - rather than using honesty to try and persuade people.

Worse, there is plenty Bush could be attacked on without using the lies and deceptions to try and make him look bad.

Hawkintom'] But to answer your question, I believe that he is scum because he distorts the truth, or even lies, to mislead people so that his opinion is seen as the correct one - rather than using honesty to try and persuade people.

You are sure you want to use that to defend ANY politician..?

You are sure you want to use that to defend ANY politician..?
I'd use the same terminology. But to be correct, Moore is not a public servant. He's a guy who makes a tremendous amount of profit from documentory films.

I'd use the same terminology. But to be correct, Moore is not a public servant. He's a guy who makes a tremendous amount of profit from documentory films.
Oh, agreed. I find his films lacking. What I meant was, that the guy was pointing out lies in Moore's 9/11, then came up with that. Looked odd to me.
(Well, not agreed, I wouldn't call them documentary films)

Oh, agreed. I find his films lacking. What I meant was, that the guy was pointing out lies in Moore's 9/11, then came up with that. Looked odd to me.
(Well, not agreed, I wouldn't call them documentary films)
There is gonna be lots of people who tear apart, or defend Michael Moore based on concrete statements that were made during his films.
I think the general audience walks out with a "gyst" of the movie. They're not interested in statistics and facts (despite what our beloved board members may say).
In that way, his films are misleading, even if the final conclusions drawn were correct. The "gyst" isn't accurate, because it's based on misleading editing techniques and skewed data.

There is gonna be lots of people who tear apart, or defend Michael Moore based on concrete statements that were made during his films.
I think the general audience walks out with a "gyst" of the movie. They're not interested in statistics and data (despite what our beloved board may say).
In that way, his films are misleading, even if the final conclusions drawn were correct. The "gyst" isn't accurate, because it's based on misleading editing techniques and skewed data.
Quite. I have never seen his work as documentaries. He is stirring conversation. Starting right from his TV shows. The man is a populist. "Hey, he distorted facts there!" - Shocking! not.

(He seems to manage to do it everytime though. Heaps of discussion...)

Quite. I have never seen his work as documentaries. He is stirring conversation. Starting right from his TV shows. The man is a populist. "Hey, he distorted facts there!" - Shocking! not.

(He seems to manage to do it everytime though. Heaps of discussion...)
Exactly. Why is anyone concerned if he whores himself a li'l to obtain the objective? :D
He's not obscene...

The Americans who pay ticket prices to view his hackneyed drivvle are.

People like him are needed in a democracy though. Conversation is good. If he manages to make a bit of money off it too, good for him. I just think people take him too seriously.

Hawkintom']I don't know what you mean by the latter part of your post.
If you believe in free-market doctrine, then according to the primary values of free-market doctrine, Moore is a commendable individual.

But to answer your question, I believe that he is scum because he distorts the truth, or even lies,
I dont know that he does lie. I do know that few people get wild because the Lion King distorts reality...lions dont even talk for goodness sake...

to mislead people so that his opinion is seen as the correct one
?Honestly if people believe that watching or reading some entertainment media is an appropriate means to go about forming their opinions, then I doubt the actual content really matters....

- rather than using honesty to try and persuade people.
It's entertainment, it shouldnt be persuading people...

Worse, there is plenty Bush could be attacked on without using the lies and deceptions to try and make him look bad.
The genre is a derivitive of lampooning, hardly a genre likely to decrease the more fuel their is on the fire....

It's an entertainment product. I wouldnt go to a playstation game to learn about race car driving, the military or bandicoots; I wouldnt turn to Roswell, Boston High or Beverly Hills 90210 to learn about the US educational system; if people cant tell the difference between Moore's entertainment products and actual information products, then I think the actual content of Moore's entertainment is the least of our worries... :confused:

Okay, has anyone actually listed any of Mr. Moore's lies? Or are we still operating on a "he-makes-me-feel-kinda-funny" level, here?

People like him are needed in a democracy though. Conversation is good. If he manages to make a bit of money off it too, good for him. I just think people take him too seriously.
I'd agree, save the fact that two-party politics seem to wind up being shamshackles like this. For the "truth", the public should hear from more than hackjobs like we see on both sides. Charicatures are unwelcome, IOW.

I'd agree, save the fact that two-party politics seem to wind up being shamshackles like this. For the "truth", the public should hear from more than hackjobs like we see on both sides. Charicatures are unwelcome, IOW.
I'd imagine that is true. No experience of two-party politics here.

I'd imagine that is true. No experience of two-party politics here.
Lucky bastard. ;)

There are so many people saying that Michael Moore is not telling the truth. Maybe we could, like make a list of his lies, like to get it straight how often he has lied in his films?

How about if anyone remembers a Moore lie, post it here? In short, like.

Maybe it would be easiest to stick to definite lies, and not just those times when he, like, only tells one side of the issue, like at hand.

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/

Have fun.

Okay, has anyone actually listed any of Mr. Moore's lies? Or are we still operating on a "he-makes-me-feel-kinda-funny" level, here?
You know Dobbs, I find this extremely interesting. A thread has been produced to "list Moore lies", and so far, with the exception of one poster ([NS]Hawkintom), nobody has attempted to "list Moore lies". All it has been is a Moore bashing thread and it makes me wonder about the people making deraogatory comments about his character, yet not producing one scrap of evidence.

Even the honest attempt by [NS]Hawkintom to expose any possible "Moore lies", would be subject to a great deal more debate, due to the reality that the evidence put forth is in itself suspect.

Perhaps many of these posters don't even know the truth themselves? Sad to say the least. :eek:

So that makes it five pages so far and no list. Other than being nearly completely unsurprised, I am troubled by my colleagues on the political right and their failure to do so little with so much time and space freely available to them. Five pages, friends... five pages and only drivel to show for it.

Come, now you can all do better than that, surely.

So that makes it five pages so far and no list. Other than being nearly completely unsurprised, I am troubled by my colleagues on the political right and their failure to do so little with so much time and space freely available to them. Five pages, friends... five pages and only drivel to show for it.

Come, now you can all do better than that, surely.

Do you really need a long list of his lies, meticously numbered in some order of your own fashion? Are you incapable to take the examples and links provided as proof enough? Or are you one of Michael Moore's blind followers that no matter what is presented you won't turn your back on him? He lies not so outright as just flat out saying it but by cutting scenes, and doing other little clever tricks in his films he gets the same results. I know this link has already been presented but here it is again, now this time please actually read it and look at the links it provides in itself to substantiate its claims. Note: It also has it numbered for you.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I do have to commend Moore though. He has made himself out to be quite the hero and the villain, while making some very good cash while doing it.

Ive seen all of Moore's films, and read a couple of his books.

I have yet to find one outright falsehood he has made.

In fact, in the back of his book "Dude, Wheres my Country?". there are 27 pages of sources and facts, that he quotes in his book.
Any point or statement he makes, that gives a percentage based on polls, or statistics, are easily backed up.

So...hes no liar.

However, what he DOES do, is misead the viewers in his films with deliberate editing.

Example:

In Bowling for Columbine, we see Charleton Heston, President of the NRA, making a statment that we are led to believe took place three days before the NRA was to have a convention in Flint MI.
This was recently after the shooting of a 6 year old girl, in Burrell, in her kindergarten class.

The reference is made to make us believe that Heston and the NRA were asked not to appear, and chose to ignore a modicum of decency, and went ahead with thier convention.

In actuallity, the speech was made after the convention, and not before.
However, Moore does not mention when this speech took place.
He merely mentions it happened, and shows us the clip.

Now, the truth is, the NRA WAS asked not to appear, and they did it anyway, becuase rescheduling issues would have been nearly impossible.

So, is Moore lying?

No, he merely mentions what took place, and shows us the clip.
He doesnt tell you what to think, but he paints a very pointed picture, and lets you make up your own mind.

Its decpetive somewhat, but its not a lie.


Its not that Moore is a liar, its that he says very negative things about a President that half of the nation believe can do no wrong.
This cuases conservatives to instantly disregard anything Moore says, as falsehood.

Although his dubious editing techniques cast a shadow over his credibility, that doesnt mean that when he says something is fact, that he is wrong.
It means that you must accept what he says with a grain of salt, wich is as it should be.

I prefer his books, myself.
Those are nearly indisputable, mainly becuase he puts so much effort to prove what he says.
If Bush had 27 pages of checkable sources to back up his information, he wouldnt be regarded as such a big lying lair.

Do you really need a long list of his lies, meticously numbered in some order of your own fashion? Are you incapable to take the examples and links provided as proof enough? Or are you one of Michael Moore's blind followers that no matter what is presented you won't turn your back on him? He lies not so outright as just flat out saying it but by cutting scenes, and doing other little clever tricks in his films he gets the same results. I know this link has already been presented but here it is again, now this time please actually read it and look at the links it provides in itself to substantiate its claims. Note: It also has it numbered for you.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I do have to commend Moore though. He has made himself out to be quite the hero and the villain, while making some very good cash while doing it.


You know, to be fair, you really couldnt have picked a less objective source.
These folks are conservative in the extreme, and wrote that book with the explicit purpose of attempting to discredit Moore.

A less partisan viewpoint would be more beleivable.

You know, to be fair, you really couldnt have picked a less objective source.
These folks are conservative in the extreme, and wrote that book with the explicit purpose of attempting to discredit Moore.

A less partisan viewpoint would be more beleivable.

Look at the links provided. I can only put the info there. Of course its partisan. Everything dealing with politics is. You cannot avoid it. SKip that moorelies website and just look at the hardylaw one. It provides specific examples from one of his movies. And from what I've heard you were right, his books are much more credible then his movies. Then again its harder to mislead people with books since you can't splice multiple speeches into seemingly one.

Quick edit: One of my friends said it best and she is a lot more liberal then I am and probably then most of the democrats presidential nominees last election: She said "I do not appove nor believe anything of what Michael Moore says but I'll die to protect his right to say it" That is how I hold it, I just wish my fellow citizens and peers weren't ignorant enough to believe everything that comes from his mouth.

Do you really need a long list of his lies, meticously numbered in some order of your own fashion?
Perhaps you don't understand? This is a thread where people are free to post a "list of Moore Lies", yet they failed to do so. Why?

Are you incapable to take the examples and links provided as proof enough?
How are they proof? They are listed on biased sites.

Or are you one of Michael Moore's blind followers that no matter what is presented you won't turn your back on him?
Moore's documentaries have certainly been informative and if they are in fact "lies" then let's see the proof that refutes them? A listing on some right wing based web site is not proof.

He lies not so outright as just flat out saying it but by cutting scenes, and doing other little clever tricks in his films he gets the same results.
So he is a smooth "liar"?

I know this link has already been presented but here it is again, now this time please actually read it and look at the links it provides in itself to substantiate its claims. Note: It also has it numbered for you.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
And what is David T. Hardy's unbiased approach all about? Oh, it is not unbiased, he wants to sell you his book(s). Nice touch.

I do have to commend Moore though. He has made himself out to be quite the hero and the villain, while making some very good cash while doing it.
Cannot really argue with you on this point.

Do you really need a long list of his lies, meticously numbered in some order of your own fashion?
Nah just something conclusive would probably do.

Are you incapable to take the examples and links provided as proof enough?
None of the examples in this thread if they are examples of lies have been presented so that this is ascertainable. I'm not bothered to do more than pick a couple of articles on the linked to pages and assess the quality of argument based on those. I'm not spending hours trying to track down something that may not be there. Do people believe he is a lier based on 'a feeling' or is there actually some proper evidence of outright lying, if so, why not explain that instead of all the mucking about with links?

Or are you one of Michael Moore's blind followers that no matter what is presented you won't turn your back on him?
Actually I have no particular feelings about Moore one way or the other.

He lies not so outright as just flat out saying it but by cutting scenes, and doing other little clever tricks in his films he gets the same results.
So he doesnt actually lie...
What result? Entertainment...wow fancy using scene cuts and other little clever tricks in films for entertainment purposes...who'd a thought?

know this link has already been presented but here it is again, now this time please actually read it and look at the links it provides in itself to substantiate its claims. Note: It also has it numbered for you.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
No way am I spending a couple of hours just to find out if some entertainer lies or not...you've got access to the link, if you wish to contend X is true, it's up to you to substantiate X is true, not expect those uncertain if X is true to research your argument for you. You either formed an opinion based on facts and so can explain the matter yourself, or not.


I do have to commend Moore though. He has made himself out to be quite the hero and the villain, while making some very good cash while doing it.
Well of course he has made 'some' cash, entertainment can be a very lucretive field and Moore's products appear to have been so far rather profitable ventures over all....what confuses me is why anyone would consider him in particular to be either a villian or a hero. :confused:

Look at the links provided. I can only put the info there. Of course its partisan. Everything dealing with politics is. You cannot avoid it. SKip that moorelies website and just look at the hardylaw one. It provides specific examples from one of his movies. And from what I've heard you were right, his books are much more credible then his movies. Then again its harder to mislead people with books since you can't splice multiple speeches into seemingly one.

Quick edit: One of my friends said it best and she is a lot more liberal then I am and probably then most of the democrats presidential nominees last election: She said "I do not appove nor believe anything of what Michael Moore says but I'll die to protect his right to say it" That is how I hold it, I just wish my fellow citizens and peers weren't ignorant enough to believe everything that comes from his mouth.

Ive perused a lot of anti-Moore sites, this one included.
The best they do is point out his shady editing techniques.
Wich, as Ive said before, damage his credibility somewhat, but I dont believe its the same thing as outright lying.

So, no, do not take everything Moore says as truth.
In fact, dont accept everything ANYONE says as complete truth.

However, for "believing everything that comes out of his mouth"....
I think most Conservatives would be better served by swallowing the same medicine, when it comes to Bush.

Fifty-nine Deceits (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) is a good start.

Perhaps you don't understand? This is a thread where people are free to post a "list of Moore Lies", yet they failed to do so. Why?


How are they proof? They are listed on biased sites.


Moore's documentaries have certainly been informative and if they are in fact "lies" then let's see the proof that refutes them? A listing on some right wing based web site is not proof.


So he is a smooth "liar"?


And what is David T. Hardy's unbiased approach all about? Oh, it is not unbiased, he wants to sell you his book(s). Nice touch.


Cannot really argue with you on this point.


Did you check any of Hardy's sources? Have you checked any of Moore's sources? Or do you just compare one extreme biase to another? I really do get impatient with those who hate moore cause they hate Bush but I get equally aggravated by those who defend Moore because they hate Bush. Hardy's website if he didn't provide links to credible sources by lets say ohhh... independent agencies inside both the US and reaction to the film from the canadian government with the sources to show the discredibility of the film. If he didn't show any of these links, I'd prolly agree with you.

So what if Hardy is trying to get us to buy his book, Moore does what he can to get us to either buy his books and films. The least you could do is hold them to the same standards.

what confuses me is why anyone would consider him in particular to be either a villian or a hero. :confused:


I can answer that.

Moore is indeed a hero.

Why?

Not becuase I personally agree with some of what he says, but becuase he maintains his opinions, and stands up for what he believes, regardless of the opposition.
He points out things that he feels are ruining the country he loves.

Whether you agree with him or not, isnt the point.
The point is that he stands up for what he believes, and that makes all the difference.

Even if you dont like him, you should respect his courage.

Ive perused a lot of anti-Moore sites, this one included.
The best they do is point out his shady editing techniques.
Wich, as Ive said before, damage his credibility somewhat, but I dont believe its the same thing as outright lying.

So, no, do not take everything Moore says as truth.
In fact, dont accept everything ANYONE says as complete truth.

However, for "believing everything that comes out of his mouth"....
I think most Conservatives would be better served by swallowing the same medicine, when it comes to Bush.
Finally someone with half a brain. Don't trust politicians, all they want is power. Don't trust film makers and anyone who wants to cause a ruckus and put a price tag on it, all they want it money and fame. But I do disagree. I follow what the FTC has about lying. Me going up to you and saying Bush is Jesus. Is a flat out lie. Me making an hour and a half movie that doesn't outright say it but uses some fancy editing techniques to get the same point across, is the same thing just longer.

Finally someone with half a brain.
I am sure that BackwoodsSquatches is thrilled with your assessment? :rolleyes:

I can answer that.
And yet have not done so, I suspect you misunderstood the significance of the qualifier 'particular'.

Moore is indeed a hero.

Why?

Not becuase I personally agree with some of what he says, but becuase he maintains his opinions, and stands up for what he believes, regardless of the opposition.
He points out things that he feels are ruining the country he loves.
So do lots and lots of other people; I dont see that Moore is doing anything that particularly singles him out...the respect in which you describe him as heroic could equally be applied to plenty of others - I just dont see that he is a particular hero, I've met school kids who maintain their opinions, and stand up for what they believe regardless of the opposition.

Whether you agree with him or not, isnt the point.
Are you certain? To be honest it seems very much to be the point for a lot of people who categorise him as one or the other, at least that is the impression that I get...

I still see no particular reason why Moore should be singled out as a hero, while I can understand some individuals might personally consider him as such, I dont see this as any different to the way in which some people consider certain sports-personalities, or musicians, or tv presenters to be their personal heros.

I am sure that BackwoodsSquatches is thrilled with your assessment? :rolleyes:
Hey intelligent thought is hard to find here, it needs to be pointed out when it does show.

Hey intelligent thought is hard to find here, it needs to be pointed out when it does show.
Oh, I totally agree with you there. And since you have so graciously deemed BackwoodsSquatches as having "half a brain", I guess that makes the rest of us morons unqualified to carry on a debate with someone of exemplary knowledge, such as yourself?

Oh, I totally agree with you there. And since you have so graciously deemed BackwoodsSquatches as having "half a brain", I guess that makes the rest of us morons unqualified to carry on a debate with someone of exemplary knowledge, such as yourself?
What have you proved? What have you said? I don't know you. I can only tell from what I've seen here. You could have won the nobel peace prize for all I know. But that doesn't matter with the anonymous of the internet. Post something that's an insight and not some regurgitated bs. He posted something that I hadn't seen any one else post. That moore is not a hero for what he says but just for saying it. You do realize that the saying the "half a brain thing" is a figure of speech, right?

I'm actually just gonna edit this one and call it a night...If you don't like my thoughts then ignore them, cause they are only my opinion and some random person on the internets opinion shouldn't really matter to you. And with your sarcastically overhumble wording, I'll take it that you did just that.

To all of those stating this: "I've seen Michael Moore's movies and I have yet to see one lie."

You have managed to ignore the evidence I have posted (Hardy Law's study on the various half truths and downright lies in Bowling For Columbine) and those on Fahrenheit 9/11 posted by the other guy pointing out discrepencies. For those who continue to believe Moore is not lying suffer from provincialism (third definition in dictionary.com).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=provincialism

"Limited in perspective; narrow and self-centered."

You (again not referring to anyone specific) have a narrow-mind set that limits you to what he is saying and believing it is true. I must say, I'm not surprised. He makes very well done fictional movies that some automatically buy into. You have to stop relying on fallacy of authority (in this case the authority is Michael Moore).

To say he does not lie and you have yet to see one is a logical fallacy. You have to actually prove he does not lie, and to that is moot. You cannot. Why? Several posters in here including myself have pointed to studies and examples where he did in fact lie.

And do not, I repeat do not, try to redefine words for your own choosing and liking.

Backwoods, Michael Moore is not a hero. He is a habitual liar and it has been proven as such. You choose to ignore the evidence. Well that will prove to be your own short fall.

Hiberniae, you also have an extensive amount of provincialism in your own arguments. Michael Moore is also only looking for power and therefore he is a politican, without the election and label. He is only concerned about the money. Also stop attacking other people personally. I will be reporting you to the moderators.

Stop committing logical errors, and start recognizing that this is a man you should not be associating with. He is going to make you look very bad.

I can answer that.

Moore is indeed a hero.

Why?

Not becuase I personally agree with some of what he says, but becuase he maintains his opinions, and stands up for what he believes, regardless of the opposition.
He points out things that he feels are ruining the country he loves.

Whether you agree with him or not, isnt the point.
The point is that he stands up for what he believes, and that makes all the difference.

Even if you dont like him, you should respect his courage.

Give me the kind of money that Moore gets for his films, and I'll show some "courage" too.

You have managed to ignore the evidence I have posted (Hardy Law's study on the various half truths and downright lies in Bowling For Columbine).
Er, no, if any such evidence is available at the link, it was too far down the page for me to bother getting to. If you know where the link provides an example of an actual lie, then please cut and paste the text here, since you have already (apparently) located the evidence of lies, how hard can posting it here be?
and those on Fahrenheit 9/11 posted by the other guy pointing out discrepencies.
Discrepancies are not necessarily lies. I've had a skim through the links and could not readily and easily locate any conclusive evidence of lying, and I dont care enough to make a thourough search.

For those who continue to believe Moore is not lying suffer from provincialism (third definition in dictionary.com).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=provincialism

"Limited in perspective; narrow and self-centered."

You (again not referring to anyone specific) have a narrow-mind set that limits you to what he is saying and believing it is true. I must say, I'm not surprised. He makes very well done fictional movies that some automatically buy into. You have to stop relying on fallacy of authority (in this case the authority is Michael Moore).
You realise that not believing someone lied, is not the same as believing they did not lie?

To say he does not lie and you have yet to see one is a logical fallacy.
I dont know if he does or does not lie, I dont care enough to waste a great deal of my time trying to prove your argument for you. I have not yet seen conclusive evidence of lying.

You have to actually prove he does not lie, and to that is moot.
No, the onus is always on the affirmative, that is those contending something (such as a lie) did happen.

You cannot. Why? Several posters in here including myself have pointed to studies and examples where he did in fact lie.
If that has occured, the info is so buried amongst other stuff, that I for one cannot be bothered playing hide and seek with it.

And do not, I repeat do not, try to redefine words for your own choosing and liking.
I'm not redefining anything.

Stop committing logical errors and start recognizing that this is a man you should not be associating with. He is going to make you look very bad.
Associating with him, I've never met the guy, why would he make me look anything? :confused:

Er, no, if any such evidence is available at the link, it was too far down the page for me to bother getting to. If you know where the link provides an example of an actual lie, then please cut and paste the text here, since you have already (apparently) located the evidence of lies, how hard can posting it here be?

Too lazy to read the entire thing? Well that is your own problem. Please read the entire study and there are actual lies. Lies include statement that try to distort the reality.

Discrepancies are not necessarily lies. I've had a skim through the links and could not readily and easily locate any conclusive evidence of lying, and I dont care enough to make a thourough search.

Yes they are if they are stated as truth. If you read for example tabloids, those aren't serious. But Michael Moore states that his statements are the truth.


I dont know if he does or does not lie, I dont care enough to waste a great deal of my time trying to prove your argument for you. I have not yet seen conclusive evidence of lying.

YOU DON'T CARE TO READ THE EVIDENCE. You just are going on the typical sprees ripping apart my posts providing nothing to counter me as usual.


If that has occured, the info is so buried amongst other stuff, that I for one cannot be bothered playing hide and seek with it.

Nice dodge. You are famous for those.


I'm not redefining anything.


I wasn't even talking to you.

Associating with him, I've never met the guy, why would he make me look anything? :confused:

Again you are misintepreting my posts and you are misstating what I said. I was simply talking about his beliefs that are based on clear lies.

I don't know what your problem is Zagat. You attack a well written post with nothing.

Too lazy to read the entire thing?
Not interested enough, I thought I made that quite clear. Why would I trawl through pages and pages of material looking for something that might not be there just to prove your argument for you? If it's your argument surely it should be you who does all the research?

Well that is your own problem.
I dont think so. It's hardly a matter of importance so far as I can see.

Please read the entire study and there are actual lies.
No, I've already trawled through the 1st half, if you want to find this evidence and cut and paste it to support your argument, you are more than welcome to, but I really cannot be bothered devoting anymore of my time to what is frankly a rather boring read.

Lies include statement that try to distort the reality.
No they dont.

Yes they are if they are stated as truth. If you read for example tabloids, those aren't serious. But Michael Moore states that his statements are the truth.
Well reality tv shows state that they are, well reality...do you believe every marketing line media producers spin? Please, it is patentely obvious that it is entertainment.

YOU DON'T CARE TO READ THE EVIDENCE. You just are going on the typical sprees ripping apart my posts providing nothing to counter me as usual.
You dont care to provide the evidence, you keep wafting on about it being linked to, but if it's so easily accessed, why not just cut and paste it directly. I have no need to counter your argument, nor any interest in doing so. I am simply pointing out that neither you nor anyone else has provided a sound argument or proof of lying.

Nice dodge. You are famous for those.
Really? What exactly do you think I am dodging here?

I wasn't even talking to you.
Well there is nothing in your post to suggest you have gone from addressing people generally to addressing anyone particularly, so who was the comment directed at? It seemed to me to be directed at, well no one in particular, or in other words, any 'ol body who happened to be reading.

Again you are misintepreting my posts and you are misstating what I said. I was simply talking about his beliefs that are based on clear lies.
Right. To me it seemed like melodramatic hyperbole.

I don't know what your problem is Zagat.
What problem?

You attack a well written post with nothing.
I consider this an unrealistic appraisal of my actual post and my intent in posting it.

Sheesh, I removed everyone off my ignore list, but I'm now starting to wonder. Why do you have to be so dense in your replies not understanding any other opposing view point? Your failure to read evidence indicates weakness.

No they dont.

YES THEY DO. HELL YES.

Damn, you are going back on my ignore list. I thought I wouldn't have to do that.

Sheesh, I removed everyone off my ignore list, but I'm now starting to wonder. Why do you have to be so dense in your replies not understanding any other opposing view point? Your failure to read evidence indicates weakness.
I dont believe I do fail to understand your point of view. I do fail to understand why you simply will not provide the evidence you are referring to right here in the thread, just cut and paste the relevent text from the Hardy link for instance.

YES THEY DO. HELL YES.
No they dont.

I dont believe I do fail to understand your point of view. I do fail to understand why you simply will not provide the evidence you are referring to right here in the thread, just cut and paste the relevent text from the Hardy link for instance.


No they dont.

I believe you do. And I believe you have difficulty grasping what a lie is. Perhaps a language barrier? You also have a problem with understanding my positions. You always do because you fail to grasp the evidence I provide.

And yes they do. Your juvenile responses of saying "no they don't" doesn't qualify.

I can answer that.

Moore is indeed a hero.

Why?

Not becuase I personally agree with some of what he says, but becuase he maintains his opinions, and stands up for what he believes, regardless of the opposition.
He points out things that he feels are ruining the country he loves.

Whether you agree with him or not, isnt the point.
The point is that he stands up for what he believes, and that makes all the difference.

Even if you dont like him, you should respect his courage.

The description you just used for Michael Moore can just as easially be used for George W. Bush. Do you respect George W. Bush as a hero? Failing that, do you respect his courage? Why? Why not?

I refuse to further participate in any discussion involving megapundits like Coulter and Moore. They upset me.

I believe you do.
I'm not responsible for your beliefs.

And I believe you have difficulty grasping what a lie is.
I believe your belief is mistaken.

Perhaps a language barrier?
Perhaps, but not on my end.

You also have a problem with understanding my positions. I doubt very much that this is the case.

You always do because you fail to grasp the evidence I provide.
What evidence? I have invited you numerous times to post the evidence directly within this thread, instead you insist I should go on some kind of search mission and construct your argument for you. I presume you know how to use the cut and paste function, the ease of cutting and pasting is such that if the links do contain some conclusive evidence of the argument you wish to make, I cannot imagine why you wouldnt simply do so. Wouldnt that be the easiest way to prove your point?

And yes they do. Your juvenile responses of saying "no they don't" doesn't qualify.
No they dont, your no less juvenile assertion and continued insistance that they do doesnt qualify.

This is like arguing with a brick wall. Thanks zagat for proving to me that I shouldn't of cleaned out my ignore list. You are now back on it. I'm sorry but if you want to consistently fail at providing proof for your statements then we won't continue this discussion.

My belief in this regard is not mistaken. You don't even know what it is.

Sorry dude, but I'm not going to argue with one who is embracing provincialism. I never even said you should construct my argument for me. Actually I've already done that and I destroyed your argument. I've done that numerous times.

So good luck with your provincialism.

This is like arguing with a brick wall. Thanks zagat for proving to me that I shouldn't of cleaned out my ignore list.
Your welcome, I would hate for you to fail to protect yourself from having your views queried in any way shape or form, if it makes you as uncomfortable as your comments and posts indicate.

You are now back on it. I'm sorry but if you want to consistently fail at providing proof for your statements then we won't continue this discussion.
What argument? You have made a claim I have asked you to substantiate it in this thread, and you wont despite implying that the evidence is only a link away.

My belief in this regard is not mistaken. You don't even know what it is.
Your belief in what regard?

Sorry dude,
No need to apologise.

but I'm not going to argue with one who is embracing provincialism.
Unless you are confusing skeptism for provincialism, I dont see why you think such a comment is relevent.

Stop being such a brick wall and stop insulting me. Stop telling me that I didn't support myself when I clearly did. You should understand you aren't always right. Your posts are nitpicking and hideous.. they also take things I said out of context grossly.

Stop being such a brick wall and stop insulting me.
I dont believe my comments consitute any particular insult. Can you be more specific as to what it is you are suggesting is an insult directed at you?

Stop telling me that I didn't support myself when I clearly did.
Stop telling me you did support yourself when you clearly didnt...

You should understand you aren't always right.
I do understand I am not always right. It's hard to imagine that anyone could really not understand this about themselves, although apparently it's not an uncommon occurance.

Your posts are nitpicking and hideous..
Are they?


they also take things I said out of context grossly.
Do they? :confused:

From an earlier post (bolding mine):

Also stop attacking other people personally. I will be reporting you to the moderators.

From two subsequent posts:

Why do you have to be so dense in your replies not understanding any other opposing view point? Your failure to read evidence indicates weakness.

Your juvenile responses of saying "no they don't" doesn't qualify.

Perhaps you will report yourself at the same time?

BTW, I am not attacking you. I am just commenting on the irony. :rolleyes:

Zagat: Jeez... damn it.. what is wrong with you today? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You take things I said out of context when you were quoting me (when I said I'm sorry for example). And your posts are always without evidence or merit. Now leave me alone.

Canuck: Those were talking about his responses. You can see I did not attack him as a person.

Zagat: Jeez... damn it.. what is wrong with you today?
Nothing at all.
Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?
No, in fact I'm quite content and happy today.

You take things I said out of context when you were quoting me (when I said I'm sorry for example).
Mesa that is the risk you take when you employ sarcasm. It's not like you were making an argument or supporting a point. I percieve you put in the sorry comment as sarcasm (and your assertion that I responded 'out of context' implies to me that this was an accurate perception). Since the comment served no purpose, there is no context in which it would be meaningful or significant.

And your posts are always without evidence or merit.
Are they?

Now leave me alone.
I'm not forcing you to read my comments. I am as entitled to post here as anyone else.

Mesa that is the risk you take when you employ sarcasm. It's not like you were making an argument or supporting a point. I percieve you put in the sorry comment as sarcasm (and your assertion that I responded 'out of context' implies to me that this was an accurate perception). Since the comment served no purpose, there is no context in which it would be meaningful or significant.

Again I feel it is a language barrier on your part because you can't grasp what sarcasm is. I'm a very cyncial person, and you are just going to have to live with it. It is the best you will get out of me.

Now good luck with your narrow mindset.

You can obviously see the above statement was not a compliment.

:confused: Again I feel it is a language barrier on your part because you can't grasp what sarcasm is.
Right, and what exactly leads you to believe I cant grasp sarcasm, the fact that I did identify it? :confused:

I'm a very cyncial person, and you are just going to have to live with it.
What? I'm not sure why you think I'd be bothered by that, or why I'd have to live with it.

Honestly Mesa, is there some reason other than it being non-existent that explains why you wont cut and paste the evidence of these alledged lies? I admit I'm confused as to why you would bother typing out unconvincing response after response if proving your assertion were as simple as cutting and pasting the already pre-typed argument from any one of the links you have referred to. :confused:

Honestly Mesa, is there some reason other than it being non-existent that explains why you wont cut and paste the evidence of these alledged lies? I admit I'm confused as to why you would bother typing out unconvincing response after response if proving were as simple as cutting and pasting the already pre-typed argument from any one of the links you have referred to. :confused:

Simple, you have no argument. You are just attacking everyone you can here and your english is rudimentary at best.

Unconvincing? Look at your own posts.

Goodbye.

Simple, you have no argument.
Yes, that's right. You are arguing that Moore lies, I am asking for some proof that your argument is true. I am not arguing that you are incorrect, or indeed anything at all.

You are just attacking everyone you can here
I am not attacking everyone here, or in fact even anyone here. I am pointing out the honestly held opinion that no one has yet (within this thread) demonstrated that Moore lies. It is not usual to consider 'it's in the link' evidence, and more so when 'just cut and paste it right here in this thread then' is continously met with further statements roughly to the effect of 'it's in the link'. It is traditional to construct your own argument including directly quoting the supposed proof taken from a larger text linked to in your post.

You see I have no idea which of Hardy's arguments you consider conclusive proof of Moore having lied. Is it justified to state that people are provincial for not being convinced of an argument that you wont specify?
and your english is rudimentary at best.

Unconvincing?
Yes for instance your posts do not specify which of Hardy's arguments you want us to accept as conclusive proof that Moore is a lier.

I am not attacking everyone here, or in fact even anyone here. I am pointing out the honestly held opinion that no one has yet (within this thread) demonstrated that Moore lies. It is not usual to consider 'it's in that link' evidence, and more so when 'just cut and paste it right here in this thread than' is continously met with further statements roughly to the effect of 'it's the link'. It is traditional to construct your own argument including directly quoting the supposed proof taken from a larger text. You see I have no idea which of Hardy's arguments you consider conclusive proof of Moore having lied. How is it justified to state that people are stupid for not being convinced of an argument that you wont specify? Surely before you start calling people narrow minded, the least you could do is provide the particular argument/s from Hardy's text (or any of the other links) that you believe is conclusive evidence of Moore having lied.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. You are as usual attacking me when you cannot and will not demonstrate anything wrong with my argument. You have issues with the facts, and you would not recognize the source. I will now copy and paste the whole thing for the narrow-minded people as yourself. You make me really pissed off. I'm sick of it. I'm going to try to stay cool but this is getting a bit intolerable. I don't see you ever constructing arguments. Just personal attacks and character attacks.

Yes for instance your posts do not specify which of Hardy's arguments you want us to accept as conclusive proof that Moore is a lier.

You want the whole thing?

-David T. Hardy-

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won the Oscar for best documentary. Unfortunately, it is not a documentary, by the Academy's own definition.

The injustice here is not so much to the viewer, as to the independent producers of real documentaries. These struggle in a field which receives but a fraction of the recognition and financing of the "entertainment industry." They are protected by Academy rules limiting the documentary competition to nonfiction.

Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which were not sentences he uttered. Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.

A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be entertaining. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 12 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary is a non-fictional movie.

The point is not that Bowling is biased. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive.

1. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict, not the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of Bowling--Ben Fritz caught it back in November, 2002.

To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the presidential race took advantage of the veto.

The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).


I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS version of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading footage. But as Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it back in in the DVD version! He did make one minor change, switching his edited-in caption to "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Obviously Moore had been informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He responded by correcting his own typo, not by removing the edited in caption, nor by revealing that the ad being shown was not in fact a Bush-Quayle ad.

2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy. A major theme in Bowling is that NRA is callous toward slayings. In order to make this theme fit the facts, however, Bowling repeatedly distorts the evidence.

A. Columbine Shooting/Denver NRA Meeting. Bowling portrays this with the following sequence:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

The portrayal is one of an arrogant protest in response to the deaths -- or, as one reviewer put it, "it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy." The portrayal is in fact false.


Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.


Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.



Moore's second edit (covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd) deletes Heston's announcement that NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.

Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

"NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."



I recently discovered that Moore has set up a new webpage to respond to a chosen few points of criticism, one of which is his, er, creative editing of Heston's speech. Click here for a link to his page, and for my response to his attempted defense of what he did. Basically, Moore contends that he didn't mean for the viewer to get the impression that "cold dead hands" was spoken at Denver -- that just "appears as Heston is being introduced in narration."

B. Mt. Morris shooting/ Flint rally. Bowling continues by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint. Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Here's the real setting, as reported in the Detroit Free Press one day after Heston's speech:

What do Al Gore, Charlton Heston, Jesse Jackson, Lee Iacocca, and George W., Laura and Barbara Bush all agree upon?

That Michigan is a really big deal right now. The candidates, their wives, mothers, and pals are here this week, as post-debate spin control ebbs and political ground control overtakes Michigan with 20 days left to Election Day.....Democratic nominee Gore is to campaign in Flint tonight; Texas Gov. Bush is to visit a Macomb County factory Thursday. . . . . For Republicans, other surrogates include former auto executive Lee Iacocca touting Bush at a luncheon today in Troy, and Tuesday's visit by National Rifle Association President and movie-Moses Charlton Heston.

For the Democrats, the Rev. Jesse Jackson is seeking to mobilize black voters for the Gore ticket Thursday at Detroit's King High School, and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson will do the same at an Arab-American Chamber of Commerce dinner Friday in Livonia.

How does Moore trick the viewer into believing that this speech, given in this context, was actually a defiant response to a shooting in a nearby town months before?

Moore creates the impression that one event was right after the other so smoothly that I didn't spot his technique. It was picked up by Richard Rockley, who sent me an email.

Moore works by depriving you of context and guiding your mind to fill the vacuum -- with completely false ideas. It is brilliantly, if unethically, done,. Let's deconstruct his method.

The entire sequence takes barely 40 seconds. Images are flying by so rapidly that you cannot really think about them, you just form impressions.

Shot of Moore comforting Kayla's school principal after she discusses Kayla's murder. As they turn away, we hear Heston's voice: "From my cold, dead hands." [Moore is again attibuting it to a speech where it was not uttered.]

When Heston becomes visible, he's telling a group that freedom needs you now, more than ever, to come to its defense. Your impression: Heston is responding to something urgent, presumably the controversy caused by her death. And he's speaking about it like a fool.

Moore: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Moore continues on to say that before he came to Flint, Heston had been interviewed by the Georgetown Hoya about Kayla's death... Why would this be important?

Image of Hoya (a student paper) appears on screen, with highlighting on words of reporter mentioning Kayla Rolland's name, and highlighting on Heston's name (only his name, not his reply) as he answers. Image is on screen only a few seconds.

Ah, you think you spot the relevance: he obviously was alerted to the case, and that's why be came.

And, Moore continues, the case was discussed on Heston's "own NRA" webpage... Again, your mind seeks relevance....

Image of a webpage for America's First Freedom (a website for NRA, not for Heston) with text "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was prounced dead" highlighted and zoomed in on.

Your impression: Heston did something 48 hours after she died. Why else would "his" webpage note this event, whatever it is? What would Heston's action have been? It must have been to go to Flint and hold the rally.

Scene cuts to protestors, including a woman with a Million Moms March t-shirt, who asks how Heston could come here, she's shocked and appalled, "it's like he's rubbing our face in it." (This speaker and the protest may be faked, but let's assume for the moment they're real.). This caps your impression. She's shocked by Heston coming there, 48 hours after the death. He'd hardly be rubbing faces in it if he came there much later, on a purpose unrelated to the death.

The viewer thinks he or she understands ....

One reviewer: Heston "held another NRA rally in Flint, Michigan, just 48 hours after a 6 year old shot and killed a classmate in that same town."

Another:"What was Heston thinking going to into Colorado and Michigan immediately after the massacres of innocent children?"

Let's look at the facts behind the presentation:

Heston's speech, with its sense of urgency, freedom needs you now more than ever before. As noted above, it's actually an election rally, held weeks before the closest election in American history.

Moore: "Just as at Columbine, Heston showed up in Flint to have a large pro-gun rally." As noted above, it was an election rally actually held eight months later.

Georgetown Hoya interview, with highlighting on reporter mentioning Kayla and on Heston's name where he responds.

What is not highlighted, and impossible to read except by repeating the scene, is that the reporter asks about Kayla and about the Columbine shooters, and Heston replies only as to the Columbine shooters. There is no indication that he recognized Kayla Rolland's case. It flashes past in the movie: click here to see it frozen.

"His NRA webpage" with highlighted reference to "48 hours after Kayla Robinson is pronounced dead." Here's where it gets interesting. Moore zooms in on that phrase so quickly that it blots out the rest of the sentence, and then takes the image off screen before you can read anything else.



(It's clearer in the movie). The page is long gone, but I finally found an archived version and also a June 2000 usenet posting usenet posting. Guess what the page really said happened? Not a Heston trip to Flint, but: "48-hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead, Bill Clinton is on The Today Show telling a sympathetic Katie Couric, "Maybe this tragic death will help."" Nothing to do with Heston. Incidentally, if you have the DVD version and the right player, you can freeze frame this sequence and see it yourself. Then go back and freeze frame the rally, and you'll make out various Bush election posters and tags.

Yep, Moore had a reason for zooming in on the 48 hours. The zooming starts instantly, and moves sideways to block out the rest of the sentence before even the quickest viewer could read it.

By the way, when interviewed by a reporter for the Times of London, Moore had to admit the point: "When I spoke to Moore last week, he confirmed Hardy's point about the date of the speech, but angrily denied the allegation that he had misled viewers." Link to Times webpage (charge for download).

If this is artistic talent, it's not the type that merits an Oscar.

C. Heston Interview. Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview. Heston's memory of the Flint event is foggy (he says it was an early morning event, and that they then went on to the next rally; in fact the rally was at 6 - 7:30 PM. and the last event of the day.). Heston's lack of recall is not surprising; it was one rally in a nine-stop tour of three States in three days.

Moore, who had plenty of time to prepare, continues the impression he has created, asking Heston misleading questions such as: "After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and, you know, I just, did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?"

Moore knows the real sequence, and knows that Heston does not. Moore takes full advantage.

As noted above, Moore's deception works on reviewers. In fact, when Heston says he did not know about Kayla's shooting when he went to Flint, viewers see Heston as an inept liar:

"Then, he [Heston] and his ilk held ANOTHER gun-rally shortly after another child/gun tragedy in Flint, MI where a 6-year old child shot and killed a 6-year old classmate (Heston claims in the final interview of the film that he didn't know this had just happened when he appeared)." [Click here for original]

Bowling persuaded these viewers by deceiving them. Moore's creative skills are used to convince the viewer that things happened which did not and that a truthful man is a liar when he denies them.

A further question: is the end of the Heston interview faked?

3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK. In an animated history send-up, with the narrator talking rapidly, Bowling equates the NRA with the Klan, suggesting NRA was founded in 1871, "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." Bowling goes on to depict Klansmen becoming the NRA and an NRA character helping to light a burning cross.



This sequence is intended to create the impression either that NRA and the Klan were parallel groups or that when the Klan was outlawed its members formed the NRA.

Both impressions are not merely false, but directly opposed to the real facts.


Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.

.4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan. Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. "No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl."


Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family.


Links:1., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

5. The Taliban and American Aid. In discussing military assistance to various countries, Bowling asserts that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.


Fact: The aid in question was humanitarian assistance, given through UN and nongovernmental organizations, to relieve famine in Afghanistan. [Various numbers are given for the amount of the aid, and some say several million went for clearing landmines.]

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. ( Jörg Altmeppen has emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in 1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the languages in which I can only curse.).

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:



[You can download the entire report, in .pdf format, by clicking here; look for pt. 2 at p.23.] To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752 homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.

After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. (And, after posting this, got an email saying that Switzerland doesn't require all adult males to own guns -- not everyone is in the national militia. Here's an encyclopedia reference to their system. 36% of entire population is enrolled in the militia -- which must mean a very great part of the adult male population, " All of Swiss society celebrates shooting, and skill with the rifle. For example, each year Zurich shuts down a whole day for its "Boys' Shooting Festival."" Sounds like a plan to me.)

And, oh, yes, there is an extremely interesting paper by Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser, presented at a colloquium in, appropriately enough, the Tower of London, and addressing international comparisons of firearms laws and firearm crime rates. I highly recommend reading, if you're interested in serious research rather than Moore's flashing numbers. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Actually, international comparisons lead to some interesting points. Here's a webpage which gives worldwide homicide rates. The U.S. comes in at 23rd place. It only made the list by edging out Armenia and Bulgaria. Its former rival as a superpower, the states of the former Soviet Union, absolutely flatten it in this competition. Russia has four times the US rate. Ukraine and Estonia have twice its rate. Even Poland ranks higher. South Africa's showing is ten times the US rate! Hmm-- another point from a different section of that site. In rape rates per 1000 population, the US ranks ninth, at .32, just ahead of Iceland and Papua New Guinea. Canada is fifth, at .75, over double the US rate, and Australia is third with .80.

7. Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, (sorry--link broke--it was a Canadian government info site) it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

While we're at it: Bowling shows footage of a B-52 on display at the Air Force Academy, while Moore scornfully intones that the plaque under it "proudly proclaims that the plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve of 1972."

The plaque actually reads that "Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas eve 1972." This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, but the viewer can't even trust Moore to honestly read a monument.

(As Spinsanity notes, Moore goes even farther in his add-on DVD. There, he tells us, "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent civilians.")

8. Race. Moore does not directly state that Heston is a racist--he is the master of creating the false impression --but reviewers come away saying "Heston looks like an idiot, and a racist one at that" Source. "BTW, one thing the Heston interview did clear up, that man is shockingly racist." Source.

The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.

Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.

Here's Heston's comments at the 2001 Congress on Racial Equality Martin Luther King dinner (presided over by NRA director, and CORE President, Roy Innes). More on Heston.

Most of the viewers were born long after the events Heston is recalling. To them, the civil rights struggle consists of Martin Luther King speaking, people singing "We Shall Overcome," and everyone coming to their senses. Heston remembers what it was really like.

If Heston fails to explain this in Bowling, we've got to note that Moore (despite his claim that he left the interview almost unedited) cut a lot of the interview out. Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes. About three-quarters of what Heston did say was trimmed out. [Why the clock indicates six o'clock, when Moore is specific that he showed up for the interview at 8:30 AM, will have to await another investigation!]

9. Fear. Bowling probably has a good point when it suggests that the media feeds off fear in a search for the fast buck. For an interesting analysis of this, showing how crime news skyrocketed (largely displacing international coverage) even as crime fell, click here.

Bowling cites some examples: the razor blades in Halloween apples scare, the flesh-eating bacteria scare, etc. The examples are taken straight from Barry Glassner's excellent book on the subject, "The Culture of Fear," and Moore interviews Glassner on-camera for the point.

Then Moore does exactly what he condemns in the media.

Given the prominence of schoolyard killings as a theme in Bowling for Columbine, Moore must have asked Glassner about that subject. Whatever Glassner said is, however, left on the cutting-room floor. That's because Glassner lists schoolyard shootings as one of the mythical fears. He points out that "More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools."

This is as close as Moore comes to having a thesis, an explanation for homicide rate differences. But here he falls flat on his face. As one of his interviewees notes, over a period when homicide rates were falling, media coverage of murder increased by 600%. Okay, flip it around. When media coverage of homicides increased 600%, homicide rates fell. So much for Moore's explanation. In fact, so much for all of his attempted explanations. During the 1990s, homicide rates in the US went into their steepest decline in decades, with handgun homicides leading the way. That was the same period that saw the welfare reform laws, the bombing in Serbia, several million firearms sold each year -- everything, in short, that Moore condemns. (For one source, just go back up the page to the FBI statistics: between 1997 and 2001, firearm homicides fell from 10,729 to 8,719, and 1997 was after the biggest drop had occured.

I suppose we might go farther, and ask if Moore's film is not illustrative of what it condemns. Moore argues that the media (a) distorts reality, and (b) hypes fear of other Americans, because (c) fear is good for a fast buck. Moore distorts reality, hypes fear of other Americans ("are we nation of gun nuts, or just nuts?") and, well, made several million fast bucks.

10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.

After making out Canada to be a haven of nonviolence, Moore asks why. He proclaims that Canada has "a tremendous amount of gun ownership," somewhat under one gun per household. He visits Canadian shooting ranges, gun stores, and in the end proclaims "Canada is a gun loving, gun toting, gun crazy country!"

Or as he put it elsewhere, "then I learned that Canada has 7 million guns but they don't kill each other like we do. I thought, gosh, that's uncomfortably close to the NRA position: Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Bowling concludes that Canada isn't peaceful because it lacks guns and gun nuts -- it has lots of those -- but because the Canadian mass media isn't into constant hyping of fear and loathing, and the American media is. (One problem).

Which leaves us to wonder why the Brady Campaign/Million Moms issued a press release. congratulating Moore on his Oscar nomination.

Or does Bowling have a hidden punch line, and in the end the joke is on them?

One possible explanation: did Bowling begin as one movie, and end up as another?

Incidentally, Moore has issued a webpage responding to criticism. In so doing, he actually admits that much of the above criticism is accurate. He did splice the Willie Horton ad, and Heston's "cold dead hands" was never spoken at Denver, and his statistics do stem from those of the Center for Disease Control, which include self-defense and police shootings of perps. As far as the rest of the criticisms above -- strange, but Moore doesn't have an answer. Here's my response.

Conclusion

The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. To trash Heston, it even uses the audio/video editor to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and sequences images and carefully highlighted text to spin the viewer's mind to a wrong conclusion. If there is art in this movie, it is a dishonest art. Moore does not inform his readers: he plays them like a violin.

A further thought, on a topic far broader (no pun intended) than Moore. Moore's film is unquestionably popular. He's attracted an almost-cult following. And judging from the emails I've received, plenty of his followers don't care a bit about whether they were misled. Can broader lessons be learned from this?

Suppose for a moment that Moore's behavior can be explained as a product of Narcisstic Personality Disorder, that he fits the clinical symptoms to a T, that indeed Bowling is a grand acting out of this character disorder. Does its popularity suggest something of far greater concern than one more narcissist in Hollywood? And does that in turn hold a key to mass slayings?Click here for some thoughts on that score.

David T. Hardy [an amateur who has for the last year been working on a serious bill of rights documentary], to include the Second Amendment.

dthardy at mindspring.com ["at" instead of "@" used to confuse those blasted spam robots]

P.S.: I don't have Moore's $4 million budget (and wound up paying over a thousand in bandwidth overruns, before I found a new host), but if you could see the way to contribute ten or twenty dollars to this research, and to preparing a real documentary, please click below.



There you go.

YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.
I thought we had established that. :confused:

You are as usual attacking me when you cannot and will not demonstrate anything wrong with my argument.
I am not attacking you Mesa. What is wrong with your argument is that I dont know what it consists of beyond 'it's somewhere in in this Hardy's text, find it yourself'...which particular parts of the over 6000 word long text do you consider to be proof?

You have issues with the facts, and you would not recognize the source.
I just dont know is which particular argument or arguments offered by Hardy do you consider is proof that Moore is a lier?

You make me really pissed off. I'm sick of it. I'm going to try to stay cool but this is getting a bit intolerable.
There's no reason to be pissed off. I just want to know which particular part of Hardy's text you consider to be proof that Moore lied.

I don't see you ever constructing arguments.
You cant always be in the in the right place at the right times. ;)

I consider the entire thing to be evidence. I really should be going to bed pretty soon. At any rate, the final thing I will say is I find you highly unreasonable. And yes I do have plenty of reason to get frustrated with you. There is nothing wrong with my argument. Just the fact that you will not read my sources.

You are not a reasonable person to talk with really. The same kind of person I'd avoid being friends with.

The problem with that entire website, is that he makes claims as to how Moore edits his material, but obviously wasnt there during the editing process.
How can he possibly know how it was done, or what words of speeches were ommited in every single instance?

He cant.

Hes a hard-core right winger, bent on selling books to discredit Moore.

HARDLY a non-partisan objectivist.

The funny thing really, is that they have so much in common.

The problem with that entire website, is that he makes claims as to how Moore edits his material, but obviously wasnt there during the editing process.
How can he possibly know how it was done, or what words of speeches were ommited in every single instance?

He cant.

Hes a hard-core right winger, bent on selling books to discredit Moore.

HARDLY a non-partisan objectivist.

The funny thing really, is that they have so much in common.

He's taken it from the released film that anyone can see.

And you are really a non-partisan objectivist? And Moore is really a non-partisan objectivist? Get over it. Hardy Law is right about Moore, no matter his political views. Moore is a liar, and you can't get over the fact that you can't defend him properly.

It is funny you try to say he isn't non-partisan, when your man Moore is so far off the to left it isn't even funny anymore. How in the hell is Moore an objectivist?

He's taken it from the released film that anyone can see.

And you are really a non-partisan objectivist? And Moore is really a non-partisan objectivist? Get over it. Hardy Law is right about Moore, no matter his political views. Moore is a liar, and you can't get over the fact that you can't defend him properly.

It is funny you try to say he isn't non-partisan, when your man Moore is so far off the to left it isn't even funny anymore. How in the hell is Moore an objectivist?

Before flapping your gums, you should go back to my post made earlier tonight. Page 3 or 4, I think.
I have said all I need to concerning Moore.

He doesn't speak the truth more than any politician. He has an agenda to push, and truth is always going to be put to the wayside when people have an agenda to push. No one who has an agenda to advance will tell the total truth, so Moore is really no more "truthful" than Ann Coulter. (But not as frightening).
That reminds me... There was an Ann Coulter doll for sale last Christmas, I think. It was about the size of a Barbie Doll. I remember the ad very clearly, though. The price was 19.99 and the shipping weight was 0.0. She needs to eat a meal, now and again.

There is an Anti Moore who is looking to make a movie.

The problem with that entire website, is that he makes claims as to how Moore edits his material, but obviously wasnt there during the editing process.
How can he possibly know how it was done, or what words of speeches were ommited in every single instance?

He cant.
Actually, yes he can, he has access to the Moore film, and it is undoubtedly easy enough to get hold of the speeches that Heston gave, and when he gave them.

Actually, yes he can, he has access to the Moore film, and it is undoubtedly easy enough to get hold of the speeches that Heston gave, and when he gave them.
Are you sure?

Are you sure?
Not 100%, but the NRA is not a secretive cult. I have no doubts that if you wrote to them, and requested a copy of a specific speech that they would send it to you. And why wouldn't they, whether or not you agree with the NRA's politics, they have no secret agenda.

Apparantly we canadians don't lock our doors.


Yeah, right.

Actually, yes he can, he has access to the Moore film, and it is undoubtedly easy enough to get hold of the speeches that Heston gave, and when he gave them.


Ok.

Granted that would be possible.

But could you not also find nearly any speech, cut and paste a few words here or there, and make any sort of ideal, or intent show through?

Conversely, could you not accuse any film editor of the same techniques, and have it not be at least, partially true?

Now, imagine your trying to sell books, to make some money and discrediting that same film-maker.

It calls both mens credibility into question.

Not 100%, but the NRA is not a secretive cult. I have no doubts that if you wrote to them, and requested a copy of a specific speech that they would send it to you. And why wouldn't they, whether or not you agree with the NRA's politics, they have no secret agenda.
Id probably end up with men in Black suits at my door.
HAng on i hear a knocking.......

I'm not sure if anyone's bothered to post this yet, as I haven't read thru the entire thread, but here's the 59 deciets debunked (http://delaware-dem.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/6/1942/00222).
There's several other sites that shoot the NeoCon mudflinging down. Google is your friend.
Also, it's generally a good idea to look at the man's site when you spot an accusation. He's responded to many of them already.

One: He said there had been a cut when there really was just not an increase.


I really dont think that just not telling the whole truth is a lie. Maybe like, untruthful, but thats just not a lie, really. Because if like youre being asked if you ever used drugs, and you have, and you answer, like, 'I drink a lot of coffe', and leave it at that, thats not a lie. And if it is, everyone is a liar, you and me and the president too.

But what he said about the cut is definately a lie :)

I cant put links or long articles on the list, sorry. But thanks for the help. And please be friendly :(

One: He said there had been a cut when there really was just not an increase.


I really dont think that just not telling the whole truth is a lie. Maybe like, untruthful, but thats just not a lie, really. Because if like youre being asked if you ever used drugs, and you have, and you answer, like, 'I drink a lot of coffe', and leave it at that, thats not a lie. And if it is, everyone is a liar, you and me and the president too.

But what he said about the cut is definately a lie :)

I cant put links or long articles on the list, sorry. But thanks for the help. And please be friendly :(

Linky?

Canada City']http://www.moorelies.com/

You do realize that this was a site created by an intern on the Bush 2004 campaign right?

Linky?

post number 30, only direct accusation of a lie....I have to put something on my list

Exactlly Moore is as truthfull as Rush Limbaugh no more or less.

What saddenes me is people take him at his word with no scrutiny.

But recently I really think he crossed the line by exploiting those that have died in Iraq....reguardless of how you feel about the war this is simply reprehensable, now it looks like he is poised to do the same with Katrina.


He doesn't speak the truth more than any politician. He has an agenda to push, and truth is always going to be put to the wayside when people have an agenda to push. No one who has an agenda to advance will tell the total truth, so Moore is really no more "truthful" than Ann Coulter. (But not as frightening).

'deliberate misinterpretation' .... is that the definition of a lie? I doubt it. A lie is usually pretty clear. Like saying: 'We are trying to save everyone' or ' there was no way of predicting this disaster'
....

That's lying.

or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

(btw, your two examples cannot be confirmed as lies... while mine can. besides, the mayor of NO and governor of LA are far more responsible because it's THEIR CITY AND STATE ...)

or "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

(btw, your two examples cannot be confirmed as lies... while mine can. besides, the mayor of NO and governor of LA are far more responsible because it's THEIR CITY AND STATE ...)

Your example is very good. Even better then mine. Congrats!

Michael Moore is a very skilled propagandist. He's also a socialist with dubious motivations. He's about as far from an unbiased source of information as you can get.

That said, Bush is no saint (I'm getting rather sick of the Bush worship on my side of the aisle), thus far he's just proven to be far more agreeable than most of the alternatives.

Why do people waste so much time debunking douchebags like Moore, Coulter and Limbaugh. Neither of them have ever seen a fact that they aren't willing to misrepresent to get a dig in at their ideological opposites (but spiritual kin). All of them have a boatload of excuses for why they can't be bothered to speak the truth, and all of their excuses are bullshit.

bowling for truth (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com)

spinsanity on Moore (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html)

moorewatch (http://www.moorewatch.com)

Moore exposed (http://www.mooreexposed.com/)


Here are more people calling him to task.

There was another documentary made-- "Farenh-hype 9/11"- where the original people in Moore's film were reinterveiwed-- most, if not all, of them were outraged at how their veiws were slanted and portrayed in the film. I can't remember the specific "lies", etc.... but, watch Farenheit 911 and then this documentray back-to-back. It is an eye-opener.

Michael Moore is a very skilled propagandist. He's also a socialist with dubious motivations. He's about as far from an unbiased source of information as you can get.

That said, Bush is no saint (I'm getting rather sick of the Bush worship on my side of the aisle), thus far he's just proven to be far more agreeable than most of the alternatives.

Propogandist?
Yes.

Socialist?

Not really.
If he were a true socialist, he wouldnt be a millionaire would he?
I really think too many Conservatives fling the word "socialist" at far too many people, who are even an inch towards the left these days.

Dubious motivations?

Hardly.

He makes movies.
Hes an entertainer.
Hes avidly anti-Bush, yet very much Pro America.

The only thing dubious, are his editing techniques.

I believe that he said in one of his movies that the KKK became the NRA. The NRA was founded to arm blacks who were being hunted by the KKK

I prefer www.bowlingfortruth.com myself.

The thing about Moore is, a lot of times, he doesn't actually lie, he just cuts scenes and conversations to imply things that, if he said straight up, would be a lie. To me, the two are one and the same.

If I make a movie that says:

Narrator: "It's amazing the amount of people who still support terrorists these days."
*Queue video clips*
Politician #1: "I think they're a great bunch of guys."
Politician #2: "I support their cause wholeheartedly."
Politician #3: "We definately need to increase their funding."

And then someone points out that the quotes in question, of course, had nothing to do with terrorism or terrorists, I would then counter that I never said they did, I simply said that I was amazed that people still supported terrorism, and then threw out some random video clips of politicians talking for no reason.

Apparently, some people would actually buy that and argue I wasn't really lying. I think those people are trash, and I won't associate with them.

I believe that he said in one of his movies that the KKK became the NRA. The NRA was founded to arm blacks who were being hunted by the KKK
What? The NRA was founded in New York, and was always a political lobby for gun rights among other things. They did oppose attempts made by racists in the south to disarm blacks, but that wasn't the reason they were created.

I feel ya, only I'd say Bush sucked less.


Michael Moore is a very skilled propagandist. He's also a socialist with dubious motivations. He's about as far from an unbiased source of information as you can get.

That said, Bush is no saint (I'm getting rather sick of the Bush worship on my side of the aisle), thus far he's just proven to be far more agreeable than most of the alternatives.

Your example is very good. Even better then mine. Congrats!

hehe. the importance of the lie is debatable, but it is a confirmed lie nonetheless.

Michael Moore has never lied in any of his books or movies. He might of edited parts of his movie, but then again it's HIS movie. If he had ever lied, he would of been dragged into court so fast it would of made our heads spin. The right waits for the day they can sue him for anything, and thus far they haven't even tried to because they have no case. He has not lied.

I feel ya, only I'd say Bush sucked less.
I guess it bothers me a little more when Bush lies, seeing that Bush is the leader of thise fine nation in which I live and Michael Moore is a fat guy who makes movies.

Michael Moore has never lied in any of his books or movies. He might of edited parts of his movie, but then again it's HIS movie. If he had ever lied, he would of been dragged into court so fast it would of made our heads spin. The right waits for the day they can sue him for anything, and thus far they haven't even tried to because they have no case. He has not lied.
Suing a guy like Michael Moore for defamation would be nearly impossible. He would have to report something that was not only blatantly untrue, but didn't even bear a resemblance to the truth. He's not that likely to cross that line.

Moore spoke at the college I go to, and his two personal bodyguards had GUNS! TEH EVIL GUNS!!!!!!! AHHHH!!!! GUNNNNS!!!!! I watched Bowling for Columbine, and I appreciate the fact that I was lucky there wasn't a little of this: :mp5: and this :gundge: , because the gun culture creates a culture of violence -- unless, of course, the guns are being used to defend Michael Moore.

That said, Moore lies a lot. If I say "Michael Moore says the sun is blue," I am lying. And if I show you a photoshopped picture of Michael Moore pointing to a picture of a blue sun, and him saying, "I believe this is the reality of the situation," even though he was not talking about the sun being the color blue, but the sun being the color yellow, then I have lied. Deception, lie -- whatever word you want to call it, it's a misrepresentation of facts and is deplorable. Reagan says, "I have no recollection," at Iran-Contra hearings (assuming his Alzheimers wasn't to blame) is just as detestable as Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."

I've looked at all the sites, haven't bought any of the books, and have read both the indictments and Moore's defenses -- Moore is factually correct, but his analysis and editing negates that factual correctness, and therefore Michael Moore spins webs of deceit and lies, much like my picture in my above paragraph is a lie.

"Moore has the right to say what he wants, leave him alone!" HAH! Please. Michael Moore claims to be furthering the public debate on these issues, but many of his defenders want to call any refutation of Mr. Moore's words heresy. His detractors want to refute his points, not stop him from making them.

Moore spoke at the college I go to, and his two personal bodyguards had GUNS! TEH EVIL GUNS!!!!!!! AHHHH!!!! GUNNNNS!!!!! I watched Bowling for Columbine, and I appreciate the fact that I was lucky there wasn't a little of this: :mp5: and this :gundge: , because the gun culture creates a culture of violence --

You obviously weren't watching very closely, because that was not what the movie said.

However, what he DOES do, is misead the viewers in his films with deliberate editing.


Which is, in the end when you go so far as to call your film a documentary, the same as lying.

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/bank.htm

Michael At the Bank
Moore ridicules a bank for giving customers a free gun


Gunowners.org (a pro-gun source obviously) summarizes this scene accurately and eloquently saying "After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners."

It's an accurate depiction of the intent of the scene. The scene, dubbed “Michael at the Bank” is a good example of what can be brushed off and casually justified as what has been called 'artistic lying.' The scene opens in a branch of the North Country Bank, with Moore supposedly receiving a free gun in exchange for opening an account. North County Bank — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years. The scene has Moore discovering an ad in a local Michigan paper touting that if you open an account at North Country Bank & Trust, the bank (“more bang for your buck!”) will give you a gun.

Moore goes to the bank, is greeted by a customer service representative and moves on to an unnamed teller who goes through the necessary paperwork (which looks ridiculously simple) for Moore to open an account. Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the only thing we see is Moore filling out a form where he says he is not crazy, or a criminal - and of course, that he's white; although he stumbles on spelling the word 'Caucasian' (which I actually had to just fix on spell checker) to further paint the process as unofficial and unsafe while feeding his 'Stupid White Men' theme in the same punch.

The audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle. Moments later, Moore is handed his new rifle in the North Country Bank & Trust lobby, at which point he asks another unnamed bank employee, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?”

Before the employee can respond, Moore turns his inquiry into a punchline by immediately cueing Teenage Fanclub’s rendition of the song “Take the Skinheads Bowling,” the tune to which he marches out of the bank, to be followed by the opening credits featuring black and white footage of silly white folks bowling.

It is a dazzling opening, full of energy, irony and Strangelovian absurdity. Only one problem plagues it's cleverness: It was staged.



Staged scene

Indeed, there's more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I'm a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he'd ever heard of." This is the first example of how Moore completely deceives and manipulates his subjects to be made to look stupid in his film. Unfortunately, it is not the last and more unfortunately, an ignorant audience plays patsy to Moore's dishonest depiction.

Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.

In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. But wait a second... Didn't I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you're not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models.

She says that Moore's signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.

Jacobson says the bank's so-called "Weatherby Program" has "absolutely" been a smashing success. She says their corporate office was braced for some possible criticism because of BFC. But, they got only two calls -- and these were from people wanting to know the details of the "Weatherby Program" so they, too, could get their long-guns!



A non-issue point in the first place

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's careless craziness. Yet, aside to the falshoods the audience isn't aware of, just a moment's reflection on the given information shows that there is not the slightest danger. Aside from the thorough legal background check and paperwork we didn't see, there are fundamental common sense flaws to the scene. The process of getting a 'free gun' isn't quite as easy as Moore wants you to believe, and it's not dangerous unless the person tries to use the gun as a club and wants to be quickly caught by the police.

To take possession of the gun, the depositor must:

Produce photo identification; making it inescapably certain that the robber would be identified and caught.

Give the bank at least a thousand dollars -- (an unlikely way to start a robbery) (1).

Spend at least a half hour at the bank, thereby allowing many people to see and identify him, and undergo an FBI background check, which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery.
The label of this process being ridiculous is in fact ridiculous itself. A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred bucks on the black market, with no identification required, and would want to zip in and out of the bank as quick as possible.

Also - the bank is a licensed firearms dealer - not shooting range. They don't hand bullets to you. Moore had to buy them later, as seen in the barbershop scene. If Moore brought his own bullets and tried to load them into the long-gun right there in the bank, it would be obvious and he'd be immediately stopped.

The 'artistic lying' illustrates the genius of Bowling for Columbine, in that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists.

This theme is developed throughout the film. Don't be fooled.



YOU MISSED THE POINT! - The point of the scene

Many have e-mailed me saying I've missed the point of the scene, telling me that it's purpose is not the ease of which the bank gives you the gun - but the very fact that they are giving out guns! I ask these people to review the scene and actually watch it again if they can, and see if they don't think differently. I can't read the mind of Michael Moore, so I can't say for sure what his point was, however I can say positively that the way the scene was cut (asking for the account with the free gun, going directly to some cheesy questions going directly to holding the firearm and pointing it around to close with "don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank") certainly conveys an issue of ridiculousness on how easy

However - lets take a look at it under the alternate thesis. You come to basically the same conclusion: Moore is a lying hypocrite.

Moore mentions many times in Bowling For Columbine that gun use and gun culture is not what causes gun death. He illustrates this in his own childhood enthusiasm with guns and his endless praise for Canada, which he calls not only a "nation of hunters" but "one gun loving, gun toting country." So if Moore is making a farcical point out of American gun culture, then he is an exposed hypocrite when he advocates rifle use later in the film.

But like I said - I didn't get the impression that this was an attack on rifle users, nor the one I believe most get. But depending on what you think the exact point of the scene is - either Michael Moore deceived you with fictitious representation, or he lied to you to effectively play both sides of an issue. You pick.



Wrong on Killer toasters...

While on Oprah promoting Bowling For Columbine - Michael Moore talks about this scene and North Country Banks gun program. (2) Moore says: "What happened to giving out toasters, you know? I'd never heard of anybody killed by a toaster, you know?"

But, thanks to information that Larry Pratt from Gunowners.org delightfully uncovered - surprise! once again, Moore is fighting against himself:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8/30/02) reports a woman who used a rolled-up newspaper and toaster to light a cigarette started a fire that killed her mentally ill adult daughter. The Irish Times (2/28/02) reports that in Cork, in 1997, one homeless man murdered another homeless man by hitting him in the head with a toaster. And the Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/28/01) tells of a young woman who saw her toaster on fire, threw water on it and was electrocuted instantly. A Global News Wire story (8/3/01) says a pop-up toaster is the likely cause of a fire killing a mother and son in Timaru, New Zealand. A Canadian Press report (7/28/2000) says that in Quebec a house fire started by a toaster killed an autistic young man. And the Richmond Times-Dispatch (5/10/99) says a Yorkshire, Virginia, couple filed a $4.7 million lawsuit against a Delaware business alleging that their toaster was faulty and caused a fire killing their mentally disabled son and his grandmother.

Larry says he found several more stories like this from around the world involving killer-toasters - but I think we all get the point. "Perhaps Michael Moore's next movie will deal with the obvious need for tougher toaster-control laws" he says. -Not likely. Michael Moore knows not the world of consistency.

Why did I say he's fighting against himself? Well, he may never have heard of anybody killed by a toaster, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And isn't that a main thesis in Bowling For Columbine? That the media isn't an accurate gage of current dangers in America? Furthermore, doesn't the media's lack of sensationalism over toaster deaths go strictly against his argument of media scaremongering? After all, toasters are a lot more common place than guns. Why not target THEM for demonization to scare the public? Obviously these media (non liberal leaning at all whatsoever of course) reports on guns put firearms in an unfavorable light - which I would think Moore would like.

Michael Moore makes less and less sense under the revelation of key facts to his arguments - and this is only 6 minutes into the movie!


-----------------------------
(1) In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000
(2) the Oprah Winfrey show - 11/1/02

You obviously weren't watching very closely, because that was not what the movie said.

Then what, pray tell, was it, if not an indictment of the gun culture in America?

Okay, has anyone actually listed any of Mr. Moore's lies?

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

Or are we still operating on a "he-makes-me-feel-kinda-funny" level, here?

No. http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

So that makes it five pages so far and no list. Other than being nearly completely unsurprised, I am troubled by my colleagues on the political right and their failure to do so little with so much time and space freely available to them. Five pages, friends... five pages and only drivel to show for it.

Come, now you can all do better than that, surely.

Not if you pretend that there is no listing of any of his lies when there actually is a listing of at least some of the lies.

Page 2 of this thread. Maybe you missed it?

Or you could just go here...

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

Are neo-cons still crying in their beers about Moore? Lame.

Are neo-cons still crying in their beers about Moore? Lame.

A. I'm not a neo-con. I'm Libertarian. I annoy both parties and they both annoy me.

B. Seems like the neo-cons won what mattered regarding F911 and even BowlingColumbine for that matter. So I wouldn't call it crying in their beers.

C. Someone started this thread, and some of us responded. Is that the game? Start a thread, then when someone graces the original poster with a response accuse the participants of crying in their beer?

:rolleyes:

You know, to be fair, you really couldnt have picked a less objective source.
These folks are conservative in the extreme, and wrote that book with the explicit purpose of attempting to discredit Moore.

A less partisan viewpoint would be more beleivable.

Ha ha!!! Stop, you're making my sides hurt! It's ok though, since you couldn't have picked a less objective source from the other side for this thread to be about to begin with. How can it be wrong then, to use partisan sources to discredit him?

:confused:

Hawkintom']C. Someone started this thread, and some of us responded. Is that the game? Start a thread, then when someone graces the original poster with a response accuse the participants of crying in their beer?

:rolleyes:
LOL. Maybe it's the fact that I see some retard kvetching about Moore or some other "pinko liberal commie socialist America-hating Bolshevik sod" every week.

None of the examples in this thread if they are examples of lies have been presented so that this is ascertainable. I'm not bothered to do more than pick a couple of articles on the linked to pages and assess the quality of argument based on those. I'm not spending hours trying to track down something that may not be there. Do people believe he is a lier based on 'a feeling' or is there actually some proper evidence of outright lying, if so, why not explain that instead of all the mucking about with links?

Rather than assume you are lying, I must politely assume you haven't read the thread completely, since I have posted clear examples of his lying. I even bothered to cut and paste some of the material from the links, since you couldn't be bothered to do so.

Since it will probably be a bother for you to actually go back and read those threads, let me do it again for you in this post.


Rep. Porter Goss

Defending the USA PATRIOT Act, Representative Porter Goss says that he has an "800 number" for people to call to report problems with the Act. Fahrenheit shoots back with a caption "Not really true." The ordinary telephone number (area code 202) for Goss’s office is then flashed on the screen.

You’d never know by watching Fahrenheit, but Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number to which USA PATRIOT Act complaints can be reported. The number belongs to the Committee which Goss chairs, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The number is (877) 858-9040.

Although the Committee’s number is toll-free, the prefix is not "800," and Moore exploits this trivial fact to create the false impression that Goss lied about having a toll-free number.


And:


Moore claims that Bush "cut terrorism funding from the FBI." Not so. In 2001, the Department of Justice was operating under the budget established in the last year of the Clinton administration, so any proposed change in future budgets obviously could not have prevented September 11.

For the 2002 budget, the Bush administration did not propose cutting the FBI counter-terrorism budget. The relevant documents are collected at the website for the Center for American Progress, a self-declared "progressive" think tank which is scathing in denouncing Ashcroft for not agreeing (before September 11) to various FBI proposals for increasing FBI counter-terrorism funding. Rejecting an increase is not the same as imposing a cut.

That is a lie.


Well of course he has made 'some' cash, entertainment can be a very lucretive field and Moore's products appear to have been so far rather profitable ventures over all....what confuses me is why anyone would consider him in particular to be either a villian or a hero. :confused:

Then either you are playing the same game that he plays (deceiving) or you haven't bothered to learn anything about him or his message or you are stupid.

Those are the only three choices I can come up with. Two of them are not complimentary and the other is neutral.

:)

Not interested enough, I thought I made that quite clear. Why would I trawl through pages and pages of material looking for something that might not be there just to prove your argument for you? If it's your argument surely it should be you who does all the research?

You seem content to create pages and pages of drivel (oops, I meant material) for US to trawl through. Seems like if you have enough time to write so much of it, you might actually want to read up on what you are supposedly writing about.

No, I've already trawled through the 1st half, if you want to find this evidence and cut and paste it to support your argument, you are more than welcome to,

Done that, you ignore it.



You attack a well written post with nothing.

I consider this an unrealistic appraisal of my actual post and my intent in posting it.

Really? Then prove it. Keep in mind that I won't be bothered to read any links or evidence you provide and all I will do is dissect your post and try to twist the meaning of your words around and dodge any questions you ask by telling you I can't be bothered to actually research the subject we are talking about, but now the ball is in your court.

You have made a statement.

I'm challenging it.

Defend it.

:p

Your welcome, I would hate for you to fail to protect yourself from having your views queried in any way shape or form, if it makes you as uncomfortable as your comments and posts indicate.

I'm about to put you on ignore too. I think you are a troll with no real opinion on this matter. You are just trying to stir folks up without offering any real repartee.

I'm wide open to having my beliefs challenged. Unlike you, I CAN be bothered with reading an opposing side's links to see if they have valid information or knowledge that might sway me from my position.

That is because I'd prefer to learn the truth, than win an argument.

You are just here to argue and you don't even care to learn the subject you are arguing.

That's why you will end up ignored, not because we aren't willing to consider debate.

:rolleyes:

Zagat: Jeez... damn it.. what is wrong with you today? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You take things I said out of context when you were quoting me (when I said I'm sorry for example). And your posts are always without evidence or merit. Now leave me alone.


Maybe Zagat is more clever than we imagine. Maybe he is pretending to be Michael Moore and using the same tactics as MM on you. I'm not sure what his motivation would be, but it appears to be his methodology.

You take things I said out of context when you were quoting me (when I said I'm sorry for example). And your posts are always without evidence or merit.


Hey, but all of that is so very Moore-like.

Hawkintom']Not if you pretend that there is no listing of any of his lies when there actually is a listing of at least some of the lies.

Page 2 of this thread. Maybe you missed it?

Or you could just go here...

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
There are numerous sources who've utterly debunked the 59 deceits. I already posted a link one (page 7 I think).

There are numerous sources who've utterly debunked the 59 deceits. I already posted a link one (page 7 I think).

Hey, there have been several posted here. No link, just the text. Debunk one...


Moore claims that Bush "cut terrorism funding from the FBI." Not so. In 2001, the Department of Justice was operating under the budget established in the last year of the Clinton administration, so any proposed change in future budgets obviously could not have prevented September 11.

For the 2002 budget, the Bush administration did not propose cutting the FBI counter-terrorism budget. The relevant documents are collected at the website for the Center for American Progress, a self-declared "progressive" think tank which is scathing in denouncing Ashcroft for not agreeing (before September 11) to various FBI proposals for increasing FBI counter-terrorism funding. Rejecting an increase is not the same as imposing a cut.

That is a lie.


:confused:

Before flapping your gums, you should go back to my post made earlier tonight. Page 3 or 4, I think.
I have said all I need to concerning Moore.

I remember clearly what you said.. you called him a hero. How ridiculous.

Hawkintom']Hey, there have been several posted here. No link, just the text. Debunk one...



:confused:
Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm

I remember clearly what you said.. you called him a hero. How ridiculous.


No.

Much before that.

Hawkintom']Ha ha!!! Stop, you're making my sides hurt! It's ok though, since you couldn't have picked a less objective source from the other side for this thread to be about to begin with. How can it be wrong then, to use partisan sources to discredit him?

:confused:


Thats silly.

Youre saying a very biased source created explicitly to weakly discredit Moores films, is equally as believeble as a impartial one?

"To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:

On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?

How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

That's right. Horse shows.

I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.

I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.

Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?

When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?

When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?

Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?

Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?

With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?

Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.

That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.

It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the widow at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"

My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?

And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?

Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.

Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution. Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that maybe the problem will somehow go away?

I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?

I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.

Yours,
Michael Moore"


I 've found the lie, it WASN'T cake but ice-cream

Oh btw ask the Washington state troopers how they feel about GW and his policies about security.... Washington State Patrol Troopers (admin@wspta.org)

Mr. Ashcroft proposed cuts in 14 programs. One proposed $65 million cut was for a program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios and decontamination suits and training to localities for counterterrorism preparedness.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm
Great research!! Clearly you have debunked the anti-Moore propaganda on this one. It is great to see the Moore haters bringing forth the supposed "lies" so that they can be debated properly and not through some "57 deceits" propaganda machine.

Also of interest in the link you posted is the fact that under Ashcroft's "predecessor, Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6 percent in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1 percent in 2000 and 22.7 percent in 2001."

Scoreboard:

Michael Moore 1 Listing Moore Lies 0

Michael Moore 1 Listing Moore Lies 0

There are plenty of Moore lies that have been listed.. for the past few pages.

Thats silly.

Youre saying a very biased source created explicitly to weakly discredit Moores films, is equally as believeble as a impartial one?
It just demonstrates how weak their talking points are?

The New York Times > Dave Kopel (anti-Moore) web site.

There are plenty of Moore lies that have been listed.. for the past few pages.
There has been? From what I have seen, most of the posts here have talked about "Moore lies", and posted links to biased sites, yet most dialogue has been about how fat Moore is and that he lies and is scum. Where's the beef?

How many "Moore lies"have you personally posted? You seem to be one of the flag bearers here? Where is your proof?

Show me one non-biased site that says outright that he lies. Where does the Washington Post debunk him? Does CNN expose falcaties of his? No, Ann Coulter does, and of course we can trust her! <- (sarcasm)

The problem is that whatever te government says is true, most people never seem to think for a second that the government may be lying. It's like George Orwell's masterpeice novel 1984- thew truth is whatever the Party says it is. And though I won't deny that Moore is a bit over the top sometimes, he's telling the truth, which is more than can be said for Bush.

There has been? From what I have seen, most of the posts here have talked about "Moore lies", and posted links to biased sites, yet most dialogue has been about how fat Moore is and that he lies and is scum. Where's the beef?

How many "Moore lies"have you personally posted? You seem to be one of the flag bearers here? Where is your proof?

I posted one from the Hardy Law website. No one has yet to refute any of that, and in fact you haven't. And you talk about bias.. oh please... get over yourself.

Great research!! Clearly you have debunked the anti-Moore propaganda on this one. It is great to see the Moore haters bringing forth the supposed "lies" so that they can be debated properly and not through some "57 deceits" propaganda machine.

Also of interest in the link you posted is the fact that under Ashcroft's "predecessor, Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6 percent in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1 percent in 2000 and 22.7 percent in 2001."

Scoreboard:

Michael Moore 1 Listing Moore Lies 0
Holy shit. I'm so used to sarcasm on this page, I almost insulted you.
Anyway, thanks!

I posted one from the Hardy Law website. No one has yet to refute any of that, and in fact you haven't. And you talk about bias.. oh please... get over yourself.


Once again, you personally attack, instead of debate.

Canuckheaven asked you to provide some proof of your claims.
The Hardy site is invalid, and has been thouroughly debunked, as has the "59 deciets."

If you disagree, please explain, WHY you disagree, instead of being a little troll.

I posted one from the Hardy Law website. No one has yet to refute any of that, and in fact you haven't. And you talk about bias.. oh please... get over yourself.
I was going to try to debunk this, but I haven't seen that documentary so I can't defend it. Anything from 9/11?

"To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:

On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?


It feels good Michael. Real good. I sleep well at night knowing that my vote for George W Bush might have been responsible for at least a point of your probable subsequent blood pressure rise. Equally important to me is knowing that it must have infuriated and disheartened you beyond my ability to imagine when George W. Bush won his second term. :cool:


How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?

That's right. Horse shows.


Well, since I'm honest, I'll tell you that it is irritating. George W. Bush screws up a lot. He comes from a rich, political family and he plays the favor game way beyond what is reasonable.

However, if you were honest (no really everyone, stop laughing and lets imagine that for a moment) you would admit that FEMA has never really been anything but a glorified money hander-outer after a disaster. They don't even do that well. Often people who really need help don't get it and others scam the system. (WAY) Too much money is being handed out for someone not to dip their hand in the cookie jar.

I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty.


Well, honestly I look first to myself for safety, then to the military. FEMA is there to help people recover from a disaster.

Besides, and I know this pisses you off so that is why I want to be sure and say it, I would have left if a hurricane was coming and a mandatory evacuation notice was given. (Actually, that is not entirely true, I would have sent my family away, but I work in the media and would have stayed to help in whatever way I could.) But you get the point.


Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America.


Only if you will acknowledge the wealth of guilty parties in the disaster and not only point your finger at Bush. You won't do that will you?


Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton.


Hold on, let me put aside my hatred... wait, I don't have any hatred towards those people. Michael, you're doing it again. You're lying!!! :rolleyes:


Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.


Hmm. Nope, I can see two sides of an issue. I think he made a mistake here. You see Michael, you are assuming that since you apparently cannot take an objective look at anything, then neither can we. That's where you are wrong. Let me bother you with something here: I FREELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GEORGE W BUSH IS A FLAWED PRESIDENT.

Now that sort of takes some of the wind out of your sails doesn't it?

However, I think Kerry would have sucked a lot more! :p


I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.


Umm, I'm Libertarian. Does that count?


Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?


Yes. As safe as we should be, probably not - but it is a dangerous world out there Mikey. You can't make it perfectly safe. But I think it is safer than before 9/11.


When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?


Quite frankly the Patriot Act and Homeland Security scare me. Ashcroft scared me more though. I'm ready to get someone in office that will protect my civil rights more than this administration seems to believe is necessary. Kerry wasn't that guy though. Quit blaming us for not electing your loser-candidate and why don't you realize that your party nominated such a sad sack that he DID LOSE to George W Bush in spite of his tremendous weakness.


Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?


Yes. This is a fundamental disagreement we have. Why, by your very own admission the government under Bush is screwed up. I believe that private companies can nearly always do a better job at the government at everything except keeping the peace and the most basic government duties.


Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?


Good for me! My experience with the ACE has been negative. Try owning land on any body of water and watch them in action. Red tape and uncaring bureaucracy run wild. So I like to see them weakened especially if I save on taxes!


With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea?


Yep, I'm a big believer in tax cuts. You see, my conscience will not let me create a work of lies and deception in order to make millions of dollars off a gullible public, so I have to work for my money. I don't appreciate people like you taking it from me by force.


Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?


How exactly would that work? I'm inclined to say no.


Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us?


Jesus appears to have been a communist. I disagree with him on Politics.

Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all.


No it didn't. It came in and blew away the facade that man is powerful enough to control nature. It also came in and blew away the liberal left's pretension that poor people are merely poor because of circumstance, and not of their own making. Apparently they are poor for a variety of reasons and one thing that seems consistent is that they don't make good decisions - like NOT LEAVING before a Cat 5 hurricane hits your below-sea-level city when you are TOLD TO LEAVE. Not all poor of course, because I've seen some poor Louisiana and Mississippi residents here in my town, living out of their cars, that left before the storm hit. They were smart enough and managed. Why didn't the rest?

Sure, there were SOME people who couldn't leave, but leave it to you and the lying liberal left to PRETEND that all the losers who were looting the already badly beaten city of New Orleans were there because "they couldn't get out!" That's the usual Michael Moore bullcrap we've been fed since you made your first "movie."


The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.


Hey, that's pretty good. Did you make that up yourself? It is restrained too, I'd have suggested that you eat something else...


That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.


We know Mikey, George W Bush should have been there slogging through the water and trying to hold New Orleans up on his shoulders. There will be a lot of people who will buy into what you said (you left out Condi shopping for expensive shoes BTW) and will forget that all of us had NO IDEA how bad the hurricane would become when the flooding started. We were living our lives as scheduled too. It wasn't until much later that we were able to see how bad some things were getting.


It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the widow at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"


See, this is what I was counting on from you Michael. You are going to blame this all on Bush while ignoring the contributions from the people who ignored the warnings, the Mayor and the Governor - not to mention the useless excuse for a Senator the people of Louisiana elected. So, that means you aren't really interested in any truth, you just want to tar and feather Bush. And that means I tune you out and write you off as a hate-filled lying liberal who is still infuriated that I voted for George W Bush along enough of my fellow country men and women to get him elected, in spite of your movie that you thought would convince us otherwise. It must REALLY hack you off!


My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?


You don't seem to mind being fat, why should I mind being laughed at? Besides, we all know the truth. The rest of the world laughs because they are jealous. Our "poor" in New Orleans would be considered "middle class" by most of the world. We are the most powerful nation on Earth and we've done that in less than 200 years. They are green with envy at the opportunity here - opportunity that the poor in New Orleans chose not to take - but exists nonetheless. They are jealous of our power and the fact that we are willing to use it. These people that are supposedly laughing at us have had to ask us to bail their butts out of a sling several times this century while they sat around and tried to appease aggressors pretending they were too civilized and superior to stoop to violence.

So no, it doesn't bother me. I can't take them seriously. They haven't earned my respect yet.


And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?


They clearly died in vain. By definition. They went to work and they died because of some insane terrorists. There is nothing we could do to make their deaths have purpose. It was a tragedy and the best we could hope for would be to avenge their deaths. We should have done so far more forcefully and swiftly than we did. We should have massively struck anything connected with al qaeda while the world was still in shock and before the pacifists could start preaching restraint. But even Bush wasn't ready to brave that battle.


Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty.


Oh my, this is a first. There was a nugget of truth in that!!! You said "we ALLOW one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty."

Now I disagree with the horrible part, since as I said earlier, those same people would be considered middle class in most European countries, but ALLOW is absolutely correct!!! We ALLOW them to do that. They don't have to if they don't want to live that way, but they CHOOSE to do so and we ALLOW them to do so. That is called FREEDOM!

We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.


Ahh, now you're just makin stuff up again Mikey!


Are we safe? Do you really feel safe?


No, but nobody is willing to try my plan. At least, they haven't given me the access codes to the missles yet...

I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it.

He's there until 2008 from what I can tell. He doesn't seem to be the type to be schlupping interns in the Oval Office, so what are you proposing?

I have a suggestion, but its going to take a serious re-examination of your world view Mikey and I don't think you can handle it... Try finding a candidate that isn't a lying loser this time around. I was a fence sitter. I'd have voted for a moderate democrat. Instead you gave us John - I marry rich so I don't have to work and I know better than you all - Kerry. Accept the blame for your pathetic candidate and work to do better.

You aren't doing that now. You're still just pointing fingers at Bush. Accept the blame and work to do better next time, you might win.


Bush is yours.


No, he's ours. Unless you've given up your citizenship (please - do!!!) the he is your president too. Again, it still gives me such great pleasure to know that my vote helped that to happen to you!

And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?


Hey, your the one who's proposing. Right? I mean, I was sitting here minding my own business and here is this letter. What's your point? Are you STILL pointing out what you think is wrong without offering a SOLUTION???

Figures... :rolleyes:


I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.


Cow?


Yours,
Michael Moore"


Yes, you are mine. A fellow American. I'm not proud of you, but I'll accept some of the responsibility. It goes with the whole free speech thing. We have to tolerate the idiots to protect free speech.

Apparently Mr. Moore has spoken the truth throughout his fine career! Which is more than can be truthfully said about any president of his sad and sorry country!

This is probably why he is not a politician. He speaks the truth, which people find annoying.

Rutherford B. Hayes is never known to have told a lie while in Office. George Washington also was quite truthful. How about James Madison? I think Buchanan was quite honest. Garfield was a good man. Arthur, Harrison, Cleveland, good folks, Ike, Reagan, truthful people. I think your whole post is unreliable and should be ignored. And Moore speaks little truth and makes things up. The second he mentions numbers then close your eyes for that scene so your mind won't be corrupted by falsehood. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, he edited several speeches by Heston into one sentance which made Heston look insensative and then blended footage of two speeches. Then that scene with the photo of the little girl is obviously made up as anyone with eyes can see so.

Rutherford B. Hayes is never known to have told a lie while in Office. George Washington also was quite truthful. How about James Madison? I think Buchanan was quite honest. Garfield was a good man. Arthur, Harrison, Cleveland, good folks, Ike, Reagan, truthful people. I think your whole post is unreliable and should be ignored. And Moore speaks little truth and makes things up. The second he mentions numbers then close your eyes for that scene so your mind won't be corrupted by falsehood. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, he edited several speeches by Heston into one sentance which made Heston look insensative and then blended footage of two speeches. Then that scene with the photo of the little girl is obviously made up as anyone with eyes can see so.
REAGAN? Truthful? Really?

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: The only problem that might come up is if the United States were to promise to give these third parties something in return, so that some people could interpret this as some kind of an exchange.

McFARLANE: I certainly hope none of this discussion will be made public in any way.

PRESIDENT REAGAN: If such a story gets out, we'll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the White House until we find out who did it

I posted one from the Hardy Law website. No one has yet to refute any of that, and in fact you haven't. And you talk about bias.. oh please... get over yourself.
You have posted 19 times on this thread and only in two of them did you even attempt to list "Moore lies". You posted one link to a thoroughly biased anti-Moore web site and you posted (spam would be a better word) a whole Hardy Law page. Not only is David T. Hardy anti-Moore but he wants to profit from the right wingers who would gobble up his propaganda.

Most of your posts seem to favour insults to other posters rather than deal with your golden opportunity to post "Moore lies". If Moore is such a liar as you suggest, then this thread should be a piece of cake. Here is a chance for you to showcase "Moore's lies" and put to rest any thought that the man tells the truth?

Well, this is off topic but I know that is own High School wont allow him into their Hall of Fame.

Apparently Mr. Moore has spoken the truth throughout his fine career! Which is more than can be truthfully said about any president of his sad and sorry country!

This is probably why he is not a politician. He speaks the truth, which people find annoying.

I guess my biggest problem with Michael Moore is that he apparently doesn't care that much of the world judges America based on his appearance and he makes no effort to take care of himself. How would you feel if the person claiming to represent your country wore a worn out pair of blue jeans, jacket and shitty old Michigan State hat? I know I personally don't like it.

Hawkintom']It feels good Michael. Real good. I sleep well at night knowing that my vote for George W Bush might have been responsible for at least a point of your probably subsequent blood pressure rise. Equally important to me is knowing that it must have infuriated and disheartened you beyond my ability to imagine when George W. Bush won his second term. :cool:

Excellent.
As much as I am for chaos, the idea of voting for such a douche, just to irratate one man, is a great idea!
I can see your concern for your fellow american, just welling over!



Well, since I'm honest, I'll tell you that it is irritating. George W. Bush screws up a lot. He comes from a rich, political family and he plays the favor game way beyond what it reasonable.

A sound, if understated, assessment.

However, if you were honest (no really everyone, stop laughing and lets imagine that for a moment) you would admit that FEMA has never really been anything but a glorified money hander-outer after a disaster. They don't even do that well. Often people who really need help don't get it and others scam the system. (WAY) Too much money is being handed out for someone not to dip their hand in the cookie jar.

I think its the inneffectual respnse from FEMA that annoys Mr. Moore.



Well, honestly I look first to myself for safety, then to the military. FEMA is there to help people recover from a disaster.

Besides, and I know this pisses you off so that is why I want to be sure and say it, I would have left if a hurricane was coming and a mandatory evacuation notice was given. (Actually, that is not entirely true, I would have sent my family away, but I work in the media and would have stayed to help in whatever way I could.) But you get the point.

The point?

That moving an entire cities populace, especially considering so many poor, and invalid, would be stranded?
Thats his point, Im thinking.
Its great to see that you arent dumb enough to stand in the way of a cat-5 hurricane, but many had no options.




Only if you will acknowledge the wealth of guilty parties in the disaster and not only point your finger at Bush. You won't do that will you?

I seem to recall where he stated the blame lies with local, state AND Federal levels.






Hmm. Nope, I can see two sides of an issue. I think he made a mistake here. You see Michael, you are assuming that since you apparently cannot take an objective look at anything, then neither can we. That's where you are wrong. Let me bother you with something here: I FREELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GEORGE W BUSH IS A FLAWED PRESIDENT.

Now that sort of takes some of the wind out of your sails doesn't it?

However, I think Kerry would have sucked a lot more! :p

Well, your certainly entitled to your opinion, even though its an incorrect one.



Umm, I'm Libertarian. Does that count?

Sadly, no.
Libertarians dont count for anything in this country.



Yes. As safe as we should be, probably not - but it is a dangerous world out there Mikey. You can't make it perfectly safe. But I think it is safer than before 9/11.

If you want to go round and round on this point alone, I will be happy to oblige you, however, all I can say for now is, your sadly mistaken.



Quite frankly the Patriot Act and Homeland Security scare me. Ashcroft scared me more though. I'm ready to get someone in office that will protect my civil rights more than this administration seems to believe is necessary. Kerry wasn't that guy though. Quit blaming us for not electing your loser-candidate and why don't you realize that your party nominated such a sad sack that he DID LOSE to George W Bush in spite of his tremendous weakness.

Agreed.
The Dems will have no chance unless a strong candidate can be brought forth.



Yes. This is a fundamental disagreement we have. Why, by your very own admission the government under Bush is screwed up. I believe that private companies can nearly always do a better job at the government at everything except keeping the peace and the most basic government duties.

Thats not the only reason why this nation has been befouled by Bush, its just one of many.
I for one, dont like the idea of privatizing our government.






Yep, I'm a big believer in tax cuts. You see, my conscience will not let me create a work of lies and deception in order to make millions of dollars off a gullible public, so I have to work for my money. I don't appreciate people like you taking it from me by force

You voted for Bush.
How can you even say that with a straight face?
What on earth do you think the NeoCons you voted into office have been doing since they got to Washington???

Pot. Kettle. Black..








No it didn't. It came in and blew away the facade that man is powerful enough to control nature. It also came in and blew away the liberal left's pretension that poor people are merely poor because of circumstance, and not of their own making. Apparently they are poor for a variety of reasons and one thing that seems consistent is that they don't make good decisions - like NOT LEAVING before a Cat 5 hurricane hits your below-sea-level city when you are TOLD TO LEAVE.

Im thinking you believe every person under the poverty level is a lazy, welfare collecting, uneducated bum?

How on earth can you actually believe that?
If I have ten bucks to my name until I get paid , how far out of town will that ten bucks get me, when half the city is shut down?

This is by far the most uninformed and frankly, unintelligent paragraph in this post.

Not all poor of course, because I've seen some poor Louisiana and Mississippi residents here in my town, living out of their cars, that left before the storm hit. They were smart enough and managed. Why didn't the rest?

They didnt own cars maybe?






We know Mikey, George W Bush should have been there slogging through the water and trying to hold New Orleans up on his shoulders. There will be a lot of people who will buy into what you said (you left out Condi shopping for expensive shoes BTW) and will forget that all of us had NO IDEA how bad the hurricane would become when the flooding started.

Im getting really anoyed at you, and trying to contain my petty rage.
Please listen very carefully....

The US, has known for a very long time, what the consequences would be, if a hurricane of that magnitude, were to hit the city of New Orleans.
Weal proposals were made to investigate this matter, after a series of award winning articles were published.
No actual headway were made on upgrading the levee sytems, or allocating proper funds to that goal.
Nor, was a sound, and effective emergency plan created.




See, this is what I was counting on from you Michael. You are going to blame this all on Bush while ignoring the contributions from the people who ignored the warnings, the Mayor and the Governor - not to mention the useless excuse for a Senator the people of Louisiana elected. So, that means you aren't really interested in any truth, you just want to tar and feather Bush. And that means I tune you out and write you off as a hate-filled lying liberal who is still infuriated that I voted for George W Bush along enough of my fellow country men and women to get him elected, in spite of your movie that you thought would convince us otherwise. It must REALLY hack you off!

What I dont understand, is why you scrape all blame away from Bush, when portions of it clearly belong to him.
Moore isnt laying the entire blame on Bush....but certainly a goodly portion of the LAME, WEAK, AND SLOW RELIEF EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Wich, as we all know....Bush is the Furher.





Oh my, this is a first. There was a nugget of truth in that!!! You said "we ALLOW one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty."

Now I disagree with the horrible part, since as I said earlier, those same people would be considered middle class in most European countries, but ALLOW is absolutely correct!!! We ALLOW them to do that. They don't have to if they don't want to live that way, but they CHOOSE to do so and we ALLOW them to do so. That is called FREEDOM!

Forgive my next sentence, but of you actually believe anyone chooses to be poor, your a fool.









I have a suggestion, but its going to take a serious re-examination of your world view Mikey and I don't think you can handle it... Try finding a candidate that isn't a lying loser this time around. I was a fence sitter. I'd have voted for a moderate democrat. Instead you gave us John - I marry rich so I don't have to work and I know better than you all - Kerry. Accept the blame for your pathetic candidate and work to do better.

That was worse than "Ive never worked an honest day in my life, and if elected I will never speak a word of truth, unless directly caught in a lie Bush?"










Yes, you are mine. A fellow American. I'm not proud of you, but I'll accept some of the responsibility. It goes with the whole free speech thing. We have to tolerate the idiots to protect free speech.

Man, I couldnt agree more, right now.

One: He said there had been a cut when there really was just not an increase.
(snippage)
But what he said about the cut is definately a lie :)

Actually it possibly is not a lie. Unless there was zero inflation, in 'real terms' no increase is a real value cut. This is an important point, because it isnt specifically a Moore trick, but rather a fairly routine treatment of numbers and statistics.

My concern with people believing Moore has lied when technically he hasnt, is that the same techniques he uses are actually very commonly employed by agencies and individuals in the media and in politics and other various areas where people have some stake in getting their opinions accepted. My concern is that I suspect people are not aware that much of what Moore does is actually fairly standard practise both by media producers and in the political sphere.

The thing about Moore is, a lot of times, he doesn't actually lie, he just cuts scenes and conversations to imply things that, if he said straight up, would be a lie. To me, the two are one and the same.
Well unfortunately this view is at odds with how things work out. The kinds of tricks I see Moore using are very common. If people think Moore is lying to them, then why do they not think others who use these same tricks are also lying... Taking content out of context, splicing footage, playing games with numbers, all very common tricks. If people consider this to be lying then why are they not howling with outrage every other time it goes on (which is all the time)?

Now either people are being hypocritical, or much worse, people really dont realise how common practises of this ilk are. That is people are being routinely mislead by the media and various political stake holders, and they have no idea this is going on....that really worries me!

It' great if people realise how Moore does what he does and also realise how very common (if not usually so extensive) these practises are and are a little more skeptical in their consumption of media as a result. But it seems to me more as though people think Moore's practises are particular to him rather then merely the degree and deviousness of their use being particularly exaggerated in his case.

Which is, in the end when you go so far as to call your film a documentary, the same as lying.
No, in the first place genre is subjective.

More importantly News and current affairs media use the exact same numbers trick, many documentaries, current affairs and News media feature misleading edited and spliced together footage/dialogue.

The long text you posted again doesnt contain proof of lying. In fact a significant portion of it isnt even criticism regarding deception, but just general criticism.

Rather than assume you are lying, I must politely assume you haven't read the thread completely, since I have posted clear examples of his lying. I even bothered to cut and paste some of the material from the links, since you couldn't be bothered to do so.

Since it will probably be a bother for you to actually go back and read those threads, let me do it again for you in this post.
So Moore said that Gross doesnt have an 0800 and Gross doesnt have an 0800. That's not a lie.
Rejecting an increase can indeed be interpreted as a cut.

Then either you are playing the same game that he plays (deceiving) or you haven't bothered to learn anything about him or his message or you are stupid.
That I am decieving, ignorant of the relevent facts or stupid does not necessarily follow from the fact that I dont consider a particular entertainer to be as important and signifant as you do.

You seem content to create pages and pages of drivel (oops, I meant material) for US to trawl through. Seems like if you have enough time to write so much of it, you might actually want to read up on what you are supposedly writing about.
I come to NS to communicate with other posters and read their thoughts and ideas, not to read 6000+word essays by some bloke on the internet. If I wanted to that I would have gone surfing instead of visiting a discussion forum.
Done that, you ignore it.
I dont ignore it. I have yet to see an example of a lie. Being ignorant of killer toasters is not synomonous with being a lier. Creative editing is not lying, nor is using standard economic/budgetary measures in order to interpret facts according to one's own spin.

Really? Then prove it.
Prove what? What I am thinking/believe?

Keep in mind that I won't be bothered to read any links or evidence you provide and all I will do is dissect your post and try to twist the meaning of your words around and dodge any questions you ask by telling you I can't be bothered to actually research the subject we are talking about, but now the ball is in your court.
Rgith, well I'm confident enough that links wont prove what I am thinking/believe, and to be honest, why would I bother even trying to prove that to you. I dont see proof of Moore lying, and I'm not bothered if you dont believe that nothing I consider nothing in this thread to be conclusive evidence of Moore having lied.

You have made a statement.
I'm challenging it.
Defend it.
? Why on earth would I bother to prove to you that I am not convinced of something. :confused:

I think you are a troll with no real opinion on this matter.
Then you are wrong. The opinion I have is that I have not seen proof of lying. Isnt unjustified accusations about trolling flame baiting? It's not trolling to ask people to post their arguments in their own words instead of posting links.

I'm wide open to having my beliefs challenged. Unlike you, I CAN be bothered with reading an opposing side's links to see if they have valid information or knowledge that might sway me from my position.
Well I cant be bothered to read a 6000+ word essay looking for something that might not be there. I have plenty of other material I would gain much greater benefit from reading. It doesnt take 6000+ words to prove on instance of lying. It is not unreasonable to ask that people post their own argument in their own words instead of posting links to 6000+ word essays, especially when the proof of lying is not anywhere in the first few 1000 words. I come here to discuss the views of other people with them, not to read off-site essays by some unknown (to me) person.

That is because I'd prefer to learn the truth, than win an argument.
So would I. I have no idea what argument you think (as you seem to imply) that I am trying to win. I know very well whether or not I have been convinced of something and in this case I have not. Whether or not you believe that is entirely your own issue.

You are just here to argue and you don't even care to learn the subject you are arguing.
That is untrue. Why is it unreasonable to ask that information be presented by the poster rather than having to extract it myself from a 6000+ word essay? An example of a lie does not need 6000+ words, so why is it unreasonable to ask for the actual argument (regarding the lie/s) to be presented by the poster, even if that means cutting and pasting the relevent text (and only the relevent text, not the entire 6000+ word essay).

I posted one from the Hardy Law website. No one has yet to refute any of that, and in fact you haven't. And you talk about bias.. oh please... get over yourself
Speaking for myself, that's because I dont know quite which part of the 6000+ word text constitutes the one that you consider proof of Moore having lied. For instance the fact that the writer is wanting money to make a movie surely cannot what it is you wanted us to evaluate. None of the text that I have read provides a conclusive argument that Moore lied.

ok more is an extreme left wing freak, of COURSE he lies. But here are things he DID not lie about. One Reagan sold your country...thats right he SOLD it to foreign investors. This is the largest reason for your economic woes. Why may i ask? its very simple. The Euro. Its more popular to the asian businessmen who one 45% of your nation, and of course they cant actually take down the real terrorist threat of Saudi Arabia..those really are his good friends. Facts George bush has started many oil companies on Arab money. Fact he ran every single one in to the ground, not unlike what he is doing to the states. Fact he really did rush them out of the country. Fact if they invaded saudi arabia right now your economy would collapse and you would be producing shermans and mustangs for the war on terror, if you even kept fighting.

Now Ronald Reagan. No he isnt a liar nooo the greatest eveil to the world now is socialised medicine...well why didnt he invade the entire world to put an end to it, there are third world nations better off then you for that. Also funny point. Did you know according to the UN all you need is 60% below the poverty line to be considered third world, well with USA at 67% below the poverty line i guess that makes you third world too so i understand why no health care now. Funny thing is when a country is at 67% below the poverty line it means there isnt enough money [well vietnam and the cold war did bankrupt you lol] to go around. So for 5 years after vietnam america suffered a depression. Jimmy carter tried raising taxes to fix it [which is by the way the US didnt collapse under clinton he kept it alive and strong], and he became a monster. Then we get good old reagan whos solution was to sell off your nations debt creating a monstrous debt you couldnt pay off if you put every dime in to it for 3 years...you would need to do it for 4 and no one would get payed in the whole country.


Also did you know..Reagan.. Good saint reagan, oh emperor reagan..was a bloody traitor? Iran Contra scandal. Not only did he allow the CIA to sell Cocaine to fun unpopular wars against communism during the period of glasnost [goes cross eyed starts gnawing on fingers and hitting chest here, its that good] and tried to rekindle the cold war to make more bombs again, but it turns out that when he sold weapons to his Enemy iran so they wouldnt get conquered by Saddam, who he asked to invade him and gave weapons to as well, and when he sent secret police from nicaragua to kill innocent farmers without asking the public..the senate..the congress and the like...was sort of umm Treason...and yes it very well was treason. See the people of the USA were happy nicaraguas evil psychotic fascist american backed dictator got ousted...of course not reagan and his bible thumping regime of ninnies who are taking off right where they left off in destroying america and creating empire.

Now i see Moore calling reagan a nazi and that is sooo wrong. He isnt a nazi..Mcarthy was the NAzi lover, after all he did happen to free about 120 nazi war criminals for the express purpose of rebuilding the american school media and legal systems in a Nazi based system. But you guys didnt turn in to Nazis. No...see its more like Rome...Ceaser invaded Gaul to gain money and public support to make himself Emperor. So really, Dont EVER invoke Reagan in a sane conversation. Because he was NOT sane. Now you want to know the lies? now please please explain to me why being an accountable member of government is "the blame game?". Why cant the bush administration be accountable i mean isnt it in the constitution, wasnt it a majour part of the american beliefs in your revolution that you wanted ACCOUNTABLE government. But Hell if Bush says that accountability is just the blame game and tattling well i mean it must be right. After all he was such a competent CEO that he must know what he is doing in keeping you all in the dark and not accepting responsibility for his actions. IT must be some sort of secret method to running a company really well..oh wait...thats right...he ran every company he ever ran in to the ground...oops!


I think the best part is though that Bush, makes other people be accountable to themselves though. After all his execution record as governor [amount of executions] was only approached by the hanging judge...so well if you want to talk about lies, you only need look at the gov. One of my friends she is a Neo con, but she has been slowly changing her mind on the ideas of the Neo cons as she is a moral person who believes in being accountable good and honest, and after an argument where we got mad at each other she looked it all up...then decided maybe being a neo con wasnt for her. Its that simple. When you look at actual facts [not the Bush supporters central board] you find that oranges are in fact oranges, and not rhubarbs as they would have you believe. But of course the movement in the republicans to abolish elections..the democrats and the congress and Elect bush for life [amazingly he isnt part of this group] probably sounds like a really good idea for you.


remember
Freedom isnt free, 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 freedom, liberty 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 justice, terror 9/11 9/11 9/11 for all man kind 9/11 9/11 WMD are in iraq, we just havent found em 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 it was the CIA's Fault! 9/11 9/11 9/11 freedom 9/11 9/11 liberty 9/11 9/11 ok so the CIA told us they werent sure...it was uhhh there fault 9/11 9/11 for freedom, he supplied terrorists 9/11 9/11 no no those arent apples they only look like them trust us they are grapes 9/11 freedom liberty freedom 9/11

now if this is what you want from your government, if this is what you call accountability and open government..I feel for your country. But then again you did have nazi's design your school system to make you unquestionably obedient [ my fiance lives in NY]. You know in most nations...we dont have to say the pledge of allegiance till we are 12 EVERY DAY...in fact if we were gonna say it we would say it once, and at about 18...not every bloody day till you are old enough to start making choices....thats just low..and explains why most americans eat the bull**** fed to you with a grin on your face and ask for more please.

whoa...DONT F with kerry. He fought in the Vietnam war and those "veterans" that served with him and said he did all this evil crap, the doctor that operated on him..wow that was an impressive procedure...i mean doing it from 180 miles away in a different Theatre and the people that said all this about him but didnt serve with him. Now the funny thing about that was he brought his unit to the Democrat rally and guess what..when people tried to see if they were actualyl with him guess what the records said...yup...they...were!

Kerry was a War hero...George bush was a pansy little deserter who got put in a unit that flew P-51 mustangs so he wouldnt have to fight in the war and never left the country...Kerry went back to serve two terms of service and got a bunch of medals for things he actually did as guess what he wasnt a politician back then, so what if he married rich...did you ever think he may have married for love....you know just cause you conservatives do that sort of thing doesnt mean the rest of the world does...he got lucky so what..George bush was given all his money by his pappies Arab friends...then he lost all the money every time by running the company in to the ground..Guess its kind of hard to run a company find a straw, chop the coke, put it on his then girlfriends butt and sniff it up, while keeping the stockholders happy. Yeah Bush is a real F***ing saint.

Damn

Do you not have anything better to do?

Seriously, the world knows that Moore lies. Just like everyone lies. Deal with it.

Did you know according to the UN all you need is 60% below the poverty line to be considered third world, well with USA at 67% below the poverty line i guess that makes you third world too so i understand why no health care now.
Where did you get 67% of the USA to be below the poverty line.

nah mainly the idea that he lied about the saudi backers...which is bloody true fact for fact...that and when people evoke reagan i get mad...that man was such an evil wad that anyone that thinks he isnt...well lol. But i do know micheal moore lies, i once saw him on phil maher saying women are more spiritually evolved and no womam ever started a war...wow his history is bad lol lol. In fact i know of quite a few women who have started wars...the third crusade was started by a french noble woman who wanted to make a big party event for her friends, half the feudal squabbles were women telliung there noble husbands bad things about there friends, in jealousy over some thing or another...so i mean that one comment about women being somehow higher then men really really didnt make sense compared to the arab connection..which is true.. So is a few of the things but its simple, moore is a bit of a douche...but Bush and his regime are incompetent, evil and dangerous, they lie straight ot the face of the world and there people...and thats just wrong...they dismiss the notion of accountability as a childs game to absolve themselves of any blame for there get richer quick scheme to invade iraq, which like everything Else in the Bush regime, hell in his past...has turned out to be one big F*** up

ohhh ok poverty line is 1 dollar more then minimum wage. out of 260 odd million people you only have about 39 million middle class people making 10$ an hour or more. the rest make minimum wage and under 20k a year thats the poverty line, its more of an issue of overpopulation in the red states, states that are incapable of maintaining as many people in there economies as they have, + migrant workers and outsourcing. its a real number actually. See in our regional newspaper we had an article on how the UN put the US on the third world nations list, then was forced to take it off so as not to shame America with a purely statistical categorization of the nation. oh you are rich that is true its just unfortunately on 1% of your population controls the majourity of it. So it "technically" makes America a third world nation lol, inflation is the reason the numbers hit 67% it used to be at like 58% in clinton

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]

"Libertarians dont count for anything in this country."

Yea they do, I count 2 libertarian votes for Bush just in this post. I agree with most of what Hawk says except I wouldn't vote for a moderate anything.
A moderate is nothing but a liberal afraid to state their beliefs. That includes so called moderate republicans. I would, however, vote for Zel the dueler Miller. Hopefully I'll get to vote for Newt We Have A Contract Gengrich

Oh yea, Hawk I would like to have your permission to use your post. It was awesome. I also work in the media. Cool to know that there are some other non communists.

Apparently Mr. Moore has spoken the truth throughout his fine career! Which is more than can be truthfully said about any president of his sad and sorry country!

This is probably why he is not a politician. He speaks the truth, which people find annoying.
hey communist russias on the other side of earth :mp5:

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

See in our regional newspaper we had an article on how the UN put the US on the third world nations listeconomies as they hav

I'll bet you love the UN and it's biggest donor, the US, is a third world country. In your words, that is. That proves that liberals have a mental disorder. This means that the US should pull all funding right. Shouldn't the UN be giving us money from all those first world countries. How can they be taking our money? It ain't fair. They are all morally bankrupt forcing a third world country to make the greatest sacrifices.

So. Thirteen pages and still not one conclusive lie listed in this thread. Just number games, editing (Editing? Pfft. Dudes, I've worked on documentaries. That's a lame-as-hell, uhh - "lie" as I've ever heard. Didn't any of you bother taking media studies at some point?), and vague assertions of a proverbial 'needle-in-a-haystack' journey through the long-winded ramblings of who was it again? Hardy something-or-other. Wasn't going to bother.

Tsk. It's hardly worth the bother, the way you carry on without cessation. I say let's see the goods, or let's hear less of the fatman jokes and give a good fellow his just due.

There are numerous sources who've utterly debunked the 59 deceits. I already posted a link one (page 7 I think).

Oh yeah? Well I heard of a site that exposed the debunkers of the 59 deceits as themselves being deceitful!

Of course it is very possible that even the exposers of the debunkers of the 59 deceits might in turn be exposed as deceivers.



http://www.thisisull.com/poetry/lee/chocolate/img/tail.jpg

Kerry was a War hero...

3 months in Vietnam and then selling out against one's country makes him a war hero? Hell, I could fly over Iraq and then protest it and become a war hero in your eyes, pretty much. And Kerry's war wounds were little scratches. Kerry was hardly in any way a war hero. He was a lil' boat captain who claimed to be in locations he never saw. He was no more a war hero than you are. Bush volunteered for the Texas Air National Guard which is just as honourable as the Army.

I'll bet you love the UN and it's biggest donor, the US, is a third world country. In your words, that is. That proves that liberals have a mental disorder. This means that the US should pull all funding right.
Presuming everything reported was factual, it doesnt prove 'mental disorder', just a quirk of catergorisation. It's a good example of how a seemingly dramatic assertion "The US is a third word country" could be entirely true (again presuming the article referred to was factual), and yet not necessarily relevent to our every-day understanding of what a third world country is. Depending on what definition were applied to 'third world' the statement could be true without seeming to have any resemblence to reality.

Shouldn't the UN be giving us money from all those first world countries. How can they be taking our money? It ain't fair. They are all morally bankrupt forcing a third world country to make the greatest sacrifices.
I'm not entirely certain how the UN figure the membership fees, but membership is voluntary.

I really am enjoying this.

Those who support Moore freely admit that he misleads, uses deceit, edits together several different events to create a new one, and yet claim he's not lying.

One person has likened Moore's work to the Lion King, which is CLEARLY a work of fiction and a fantasy never portrayed as a National Geographic-esque documentary about the life and society of real lions, whereas Moore uses real events reordered and spliced with staged ones in a documentary format -- in other words, a format normally used to try to present facts to the audience.

One person even has called into question the Merriam Webster dictionary, which if not the best (I would give that honor to the Oxford English Dictionary), is certainly a very solid and widely accepted one. To what purpose would one call into question a reference that I've seen sold on various college campuses over the past twenty years in my experience and certainly far longer than my lifespan?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=lie&x=10&y=14
Now, let's just take a look-see at the thesaurus, shall we?

Entry Word: lie
Function: noun
Text: a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a lie>
Synonyms fabrication, fairy tale, falsehood, falsity, fib, mendacity, prevarication, story, tale, untruth, whopper
Related Words distortion, exaggeration, half-truth; ambiguity, equivocation; defamation, libel, slander; perjury; bluff, pose, pretense (or pretence); humbug, jive, nonsense; fallacy, misconception, myth; misinformation, misrepresentation, misstatement; deceit, deceitfulness, dishonesty, duplicity, fraudulence
Near Antonyms fact, truism, verity; honesty, truthfulness, veracity; authentication, confirmation, substantiation, validation, verification
Antonyms truth

So... if one freely admits that someone else stretches the truth, exaggerates the truth, creatively interprets the statistics, misleads, deceives.... then why play semantic games? It's rather the same game as when a young adult/teen tells their parents they're spending the night at a friend's house whose parents are trusted and respected... but neglects to mention that the parents are NOT home, and that there's going to be a wild party going on.

Honestly, the refusal to consider anything the other side offers reminds me of the person who sticks their fingers in their ears and says in a loud and off-tune voice, LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU!!!!

:D

I met Michael Moore on one of those internet chat site things. He told me he was a 19 year old blonde who wanted to be my best friend, all I had to go was give him my credit card number. I feel so used! :(

So... if one freely admits that someone else stretches the truth, exaggerates the truth, creatively interprets the statistics, misleads, deceives.... then why play semantic games? It's rather the same game as when a young adult/teen tells their parents they're spending the night at a friend's house whose parents are trusted and respected... but neglects to mention that the parents are NOT home, and that there's going to be a wild party going on.
Heh, well you're right & you're wrong. The problem here is that while Moore is - at best - distorting the facts horribly, his political opponents goes to even greater extremes to distort what he says... It's a viscious circle kind of thing.

Take the much talked about Farenhype or 56 (59 really) deceits. Both are almost complete fabrications, with only a very, very, very remote link to anything factual or truthful. It doesn't mean that Moore doesn't lie, misrepresent information and outright fabricates shit. It just means that the political opposition are even bigger liers. Amazing really.
All people accomplish by lying about a lier, is to give him credibility...

Anyway, I've never claimed that Moore is anything more than a para-political freakshow. He isn't. But at least he's pretty funny.

All I can say, is that I never imagined mudflinging, pissing contests, and outright lying could go on at this extreme level in a modern democracy (republic if you prefer you fucking nitpickers). It's what one expects to see in some dictatorship banana republic. I'll never understand why the media doesn't tear both sides apart. It's not like most average people can raise serious doubts about most of the crap both sides spew by just spending 2 hours checking their listed sources. Journalists generally have more time & experience in doing such things, so why in the hell aren't they?

Oh well... The only reason I've linked to a "debunking the right-wing spindocters" site is to show that they too are as trustworthy as a kleptomaniac. Calling someone on a lie isn't real clever when you yourself lie in the process...

Katganistan, you are good... real good. Excellent post.

Similized, not at all. You have to prove the people going after Moore are bigger liars. I have yet to see anybody do that.

"Take the much talked about Farenhype or 56 (59 really) deceits. Both are almost complete fabrications"

Prove it. The list done was actually cited. Moore doesn't cite himself and when he does... the source doesn't match with the information he is providing. Again, those adhering to Moore and saying the opposition are bigger liars, are buying into provincialism, at the very least. A very narrow-mind set.

Around p.7 I posted a link. I have no intention of copy-pasting the lot on here, so either follow the link or ignore my comments. The choice is yours.

Edit: FFS!!! I am NOT trying to defend Moore. I don't think his crap can be defended. I'm simply pointing out that his political opponents are every bit as fooked as he is.

3 months in Vietnam and then selling out against one's country makes him a war hero? Hell, I could fly over Iraq and then protest it and become a war hero in your eyes, pretty much. And Kerry's war wounds were little scratches. Kerry was hardly in any way a war hero. He was a lil' boat captain who claimed to be in locations he never saw. He was no more a war hero than you are. Bush volunteered for the Texas Air National Guard which is just as honourable as the Army.


Except that Kerry was awarded the Silver and Bronze Stars.
The second and third, respectively, highest citations for bravery, awarded to any soldier in the armed forces.

Bush, was AWOL throughout much of his tenure in the Air National Guard.
Also, he was grounded, due to being in no condition to fly.
By his own admittance, he was abusing alchohol, and probably cocaine.
Although many sources claim they have witnessed Bush cocaine use, the President has only publicly admitted to abusing alchohol.

To this date, he has refused to allow the full disclosure of his military record.


There is no comparison as to who better served his country, during Vietnam.

Kerry is a decorated war veteran, and Bush was an alchoholic.

Katganistan, you are good... real good. Excellent post.

Similized, not at all. You have to prove the people going after Moore are bigger liars. I have yet to see anybody do that.

"Take the much talked about Farenhype or 56 (59 really) deceits. Both are almost complete fabrications"

Prove it. The list done was actually cited. Moore doesn't cite himself and when he does... the source doesn't match with the information he is providing. Again, those adhering to Moore and saying the opposition are bigger liars, are buying into provincialism, at the very least. A very narrow-mind set.


Moore himself addresses both of those sources on his website.
Someone has already provided the link to the exact page where his rebuttal begins.
I doubt you have read it.
Maybe you should.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]

"Libertarians dont count for anything in this country."

Yea they do, I count 2 libertarian votes for Bush just in this post. I agree with most of what Hawk says except I wouldn't vote for a moderate anything.
A moderate is nothing but a liberal afraid to state their beliefs. That includes so called moderate republicans. I would, however, vote for Zel the dueler Miller. Hopefully I'll get to vote for Newt We Have A Contract Gengrich

Oh yea, Hawk I would like to have your permission to use your post. It was awesome. I also work in the media. Cool to know that there are some other non communists.

If you would seriously vote for Zel Miller, beuase hes outspokenly insane, or becuase he takes an avid stance to the right....

You do realize that Miller is a Democrat, speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign, right?

If that doesnt say everything that needs to be said, I dunno what does.

.....
One person even has called into question the Merriam Webster dictionary, which if not the best (I would give that honor to the Oxford English Dictionary), is certainly a very solid and widely accepted one. To what purpose would one call into question a reference that I've seen sold on various college campuses over the past twenty years in my experience and certainly far longer than my lifespan?
.....

Because dictionaries describe language as it is. Language does not follow dictionaries. That is why dictionaries need updating and correcting.

According to the definition in m/w, almost everything is a lie. Thus the term looses its strength. Surely you understand that? :confused:

Didja go to any of the links I posted? Especially the Spinsanity site?


You have posted 19 times on this thread and only in two of them did you even attempt to list "Moore lies". You posted one link to a thoroughly biased anti-Moore web site and you posted (spam would be a better word) a whole Hardy Law page. Not only is David T. Hardy anti-Moore but he wants to profit from the right wingers who would gobble up his propaganda.

Most of your posts seem to favour insults to other posters rather than deal with your golden opportunity to post "Moore lies". If Moore is such a liar as you suggest, then this thread should be a piece of cake. Here is a chance for you to showcase "Moore's lies" and put to rest any thought that the man tells the truth?

I seem to recall where he stated the blame lies with local, state AND Federal levels.

You're gonna have to find that and quote it for me, because I looked back over it and sure didn't see that. Michael Moore's letter clearly points at George W. Bush as THE person responsible for the disaster. I saw no mention of the Mayor, Governor or people who chose to stay behind when they could have left. (Not to be confused with the people who couldn't leave, which would have turned out to be a very small number of folks compared to the number who CHOSE not to leave - and subsequently placed a tremendous drain on the resources of the rescue workers who should have been helping the small number who COULDN'T leave.)


Im thinking you believe every person under the poverty level is a lazy, welfare collecting, uneducated bum?

How on earth can you actually believe that?
If I have ten bucks to my name until I get paid , how far out of town will that ten bucks get me, when half the city is shut down?

This is by far the most uninformed and frankly, unintelligent paragraph in this post.


Carefully crafted words - well done. You are implying that I believe something that YOU are saying, but I never said. Let me state my position for you again.

Most of the people that were "poor" could have left. MANY of the people who stayed COULD have left. Those people placed a huge drain on rescue resources. Some poor really were so poor they couldn't leave. If the people who could have left, had left, then the system would have been far better equipped to handle the situation.

They didnt own cars maybe?

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know. They didn't know anyone with a car? And hey, who was responsible for not getting them out of there?

Hint: The answer is NOT George W. Bush on that one...


Im getting really anoyed at you, and trying to contain my petty rage.


Come now my friend, this is an opportunity that we, as free people, get to appreciate. Spirited debate over political issues in which we disagree. Enjoy the moment, don't lose control over your petty rage! Many people in many countries don't even have this opportunity. Savor the moment.


Please listen very carefully....


I am all ears...


The US, has known for a very long time, what the consequences would be, if a hurricane of that magnitude, were to hit the city of New Orleans.
Weal proposals were made to investigate this matter, after a series of award winning articles were published.
No actual headway were made on upgrading the levee sytems, or allocating proper funds to that goal.
Nor, was a sound, and effective emergency plan created.


Now that is whose fault? I live in another State... Now is New Orleans/LA responsible for making sure my city is safe? Am I responsible for learning about the nuances of their city and making sure it is safe? I think that sort of thing is best left to the locals, who - in theory - should understand the situation better. Again, this is my libertarian views coming out, but shouldn't they have been working very hard to ensure that their city was safe?

I don't care how they did it, whether it was to raise taxes or lobby Washington to get the funds, whatever was needed, the people who needed it most didn't do a good job of getting it. They weren't even getting the message out very well. A good PR campaign might have gotten some funds. Tourist taxes. Whatever it took...

What I dont understand, is why you scrape all blame away from Bush, when portions of it clearly belong to him.


Sorry, but that is an outright lie. I have CLEARLY assigned portions of the blame to Bush. I clearly admitted that I didn't like portions of his policy and that he was a flawed President. HOW did you miss that in my post? Part of it was in BOLD print.


Moore isnt laying the entire blame on Bush....but certainly a goodly portion of the LAME, WEAK, AND SLOW RELIEF EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


Yes he is. Show me where he assigns blame to anyone else?

And again, if the people who COULD HAVE left New Orleans had obeyed the evacuation order, the rescue teams would have been more able to concentrate on a smaller number of truly needy people and there wouldn't have been any of these problems. You are exonerating them, and then placing the blame for the problem that they created on the federal government.


Forgive my next sentence, but of you actually believe anyone chooses to be poor, your a fool.


You are forgiven. Now please return the favor. If you believe that most people don't become poor because of the bad choices they have consistently made, you're a fool. People rarely choose to be poor. But most poor make choices that result in them being poor.

:)

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]

"Libertarians dont count for anything in this country."

Yea they do, I count 2 libertarian votes for Bush just in this post. I agree with most of what Hawk says except I wouldn't vote for a moderate anything.
A moderate is nothing but a liberal afraid to state their beliefs. That includes so called moderate republicans. I would, however, vote for Zel the dueler Miller. Hopefully I'll get to vote for Newt We Have A Contract Gengrich

Oh yea, Hawk I would like to have your permission to use your post. It was awesome. I also work in the media. Cool to know that there are some other non communists.

You are in the media and asking for permission? We're supposed to do that? Crap... I always just try to get forgiveness later.

Feel free to use it however you like!

-Tom (Actually) www.hawkandtom.com

Tsk. It's hardly worth the bother, the way you carry on without cessation. I say let's see the goods, or let's hear less of the fatman jokes and give a good fellow his just due.

Giving Michael Moore his just due is illegal in this country... We don't allow that sort of thing here in a civilized nation. ;)

Politicians get caught lying. Moore hasn't. Being biased is entirely different from being a liar.EXACTLY! Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 are biased, but they are not lies because they're all from his research which he did.

snippety...
I 've found the lie, it WASN'T cake but ice-cream

OK, it is established. A liar. :mad:

They were just doing what they needed to do in order to survive!!! :rolleyes:

http://www.zippyvideos.com/8911023771013466/countdown-looting-in-walmart/

Has he? Is that why the facts contradict his statements most of the times? He couldn't speak truthfully. He's like the left wing version of Ann Coulter. Don't use him to bolster your own opinion, you will find yourself falling down a slope.

And yes he has been caught in many lies. He is a habitual liar and there is even a book out on him showing his lies.

I have yet to discover any lies that Moore has told in his films, and you haven't revealed any either. I suspect that the reason he has become the victim of 'ad hominem' attacks is because the truth about the USA hurts.

I have yet to discover any lies that Moore has told in his films, and you haven't revealed any either. I suspect that the reason he has become the victim of 'ad hominem' attacks is because the truth about the USA hurts.

www.bowlingfortruth.com (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com)

he may not lie, but he twists the truth. The link to the bank scene being staged is a fairly good one.

*edit*

kinda hard to navigate the site... it's on the right hand side of this page:

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko.htm