Michael Moore Is Alright,but...
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
sentrido
Veteran
- Jan 8, 2004
- 1,004
- 0
Thanks, thats pretty good. It is nice to see someone doing what real journalists should be doing. After reading the article, I still have the same opinon I did before ( even though i havent seen the movie). Most of the Facts or events in the movie are presented in a biased way and not lies,but are disputable.A lot of the "deceits" hinge on opinions. I see a lot of "moore implies" and such. Seems no better or worse that an afternoon with hannity?
Anyway this sort of discussion is what I prefer than calling it all lies and propaganda.
Anyway this sort of discussion is what I prefer than calling it all lies and propaganda.
Of course, Moore is a polemicist spreading a bit of agit-prop.
As is Limbaugh and O'Riley.
Man, some folks have short memories. Remember when the right-wing media, and their fellow travellers Falwell and Robertson ("by their fruits, ye shall know them") had a President and the First Lady in the docket for the murder of their adviser? He//, even Safire got in on the action.
When you pitch inside, remember - you've got to come up to bat, eventually.
As is Limbaugh and O'Riley.
Man, some folks have short memories. Remember when the right-wing media, and their fellow travellers Falwell and Robertson ("by their fruits, ye shall know them") had a President and the First Lady in the docket for the murder of their adviser? He//, even Safire got in on the action.
When you pitch inside, remember - you've got to come up to bat, eventually.
Al-quaida wouldn't need recruits if we weren't over in the middle east protecting ourselves and this world.mweiss said:
I'm still confused about one thing though. John Kerry opposes the war in Iraq, even though he voted for it, along with the majority of the United States Senate (then later voted against funding them, but that's another issue). The Senators that voted for this war were acting on the same information that was provided to the President, which we now know was inaccurate. How come the distinguished Senator from Massachussetts isn't just as accountable for this war as the President himself?
Another thing.... as we know, the CIA and FBI were in terrible shape operationally at the time of the 9/11 attacks. While President Bush should share the blame for a portion of this simply because he was "behind the wheel" when the attack happened, isn't it appropriate to point some fingers at the [democratic] Former President Clinton? Afterall, he was there for eight whole years prior to 9/11, whereas Bush only 8 months.
None of this adds up.
Sidenote: if you get a chance, you should read "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror". It's well worth your time.
sentrido
Veteran
- Jan 8, 2004
- 1,004
- 0
Actaully , if you would have read the 911 commission report, you would know that the inforamtion the white house had access to was not the same as that provided to the senet. Nobody seems to know if Bush botherd to look at it all. Seems he only wanted the clif notes version. Guess we will never know for sure. Also Kerrys statment when voting to give the president AUTHORITY to go to war (which is different than voting for war) made clear that he expected the president to do it only as a last resort, which obviously was not the case.
As for the other issue of "voting against the funding" that vote was clearly a protest vote on a bill that had no chance of not passing.Bush stated that he would veto the version of the bill that Kerry supported( and voted FOR) . Whats the difference between a VETO and a no vote?
As a side note, read this: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/arti...they_knew_0802/
The main difference is that Hannity, O'Reilly and company PRETEND to be 'fair and balanced' and impartial and Moore has the honesty to be up front about the partisan nature of his work. He raised a lot of valid points, points the Republicans are trying hard to avoid and that's a good thing. It used to be the sort of thing we could expect the media to do, before they were bending over backwards trying not to be called 'Liberal'.
It should be noted that far from being the "new "spokesperson" for the democratic party", Michael Moore is not even a registered Democrat, by his own admission he's registered as an Independent.
It should be noted that far from being the "new "spokesperson" for the democratic party", Michael Moore is not even a registered Democrat, by his own admission he's registered as an Independent.
Not exactly sure what that sentence is supposed to say but I'm not trying to 'defend' him at all, he is quite capable of doing that for himself and is doing a very good job considering the smear campaign the Republicans have put out against him. I merely pointed out what is quite obvious to the rest of us; that despite the Republicans assertions to the contrary, Michael Moore does not speak for the Democrats, nor does his voter registration show he is a Democrat.FredF said:
Smear campaign, are you kidding me? He does that on his own. By going around and taking anything he can, putting spin on it and using it to push his own beliefs. I for one find him to be completely un-American... and it doesn't surprise me that the Democratic party won't endorse this guy. In fact, I heard he was asked not to come to the convention in Boston. I don't blame them either. If I'm John Kerry, right now the last thing I need is to be associated with someone who is trying to divide this nation and tear up any last shred of unity we have left. And doing it by lying and taking information out of context, no less. Oh, wait, he chose John Edwards, Mr. "Two Americas" himself. Oooops!NWA/AMT said:
Speaking of registered party... I am a registered Democrat. They just haven't had anybody worth voting for in the last 2 decades.
And what I am trying to point out which one of his two registrations are you talking about because one has him listed as a dem the other one an independant.
I am also say, who cares how he is registered and that that means nothing regarding what he is saying.
The same people that get all in a tizzy saying that Rush or Hannity are speaking for the Republicians are the first to say the Moore is not speaking for the dems. He is a shill and the dems let him do it. sKerry is even beginning to use items contained in his film, as if they were fact, in his campaign.
Now that is pretty scarry.
Well, maybe not.
I am also say, who cares how he is registered and that that means nothing regarding what he is saying.
The same people that get all in a tizzy saying that Rush or Hannity are speaking for the Republicians are the first to say the Moore is not speaking for the dems. He is a shill and the dems let him do it. sKerry is even beginning to use items contained in his film, as if they were fact, in his campaign.
Now that is pretty scarry.
Well, maybe not.
Again, Michael Moore does not make any pretense to being an impartial news outlet. Fox News and Rush's Excrement In Broadcasting network do. Until Rush had his little run in with the law the Republicans were pretty cozy with him too.FredF said:
Since I'm officially registered as a Republican but have voted in the Democratic primaries for years, I too have two registrations. So what?
Where in there did anyone say Fox News and when did anyone say the Rush was or even represented the fact that he was impartial? Rush is a talk show host and by extension an entertainer. He has never calimed that he was a news show.
I said Hannity. He has 1/2 a show on fox true, but it is an opinion show and has Colmes on there as well to provide balance.
You want to talk about bias in news outlets now?
Fine by me. We can do that all day long. There are countless studies out there factually demonstrating the liberal and left leaning bias of say, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC not to mention the overwhelming majority of papers.
When FOX news doesn't fall into the mold, when they actually report both sides of the issue, and I understand that liberals in general believe that there is only one side to each issue(theirs), then they are called right wing, or impartial when they are nothing of the kind. They give the same credence to issues from both sides.
I said Hannity. He has 1/2 a show on fox true, but it is an opinion show and has Colmes on there as well to provide balance.
You want to talk about bias in news outlets now?
Fine by me. We can do that all day long. There are countless studies out there factually demonstrating the liberal and left leaning bias of say, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC not to mention the overwhelming majority of papers.
When FOX news doesn't fall into the mold, when they actually report both sides of the issue, and I understand that liberals in general believe that there is only one side to each issue(theirs), then they are called right wing, or impartial when they are nothing of the kind. They give the same credence to issues from both sides.
Of course! James Carvelle... talk about beacons of truth. Please.sentrido said:
The difference between people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore is that at least Rush is accountable for the things he says... he doesn't pull facts out of thin air. There is no question to the fact that he does not have a biased program, I don't know why you are debating that. We agree with you. Sean Hannity as well, but don't knock Hannity simply because his sidekick can't come up with a decent argument. I'd put him (or O'Reilly) on Crossfire in a heartbeat... except they probably wouldn't shut up long enough for him to get a word in.
Bottom line, if you truly want "fair and balanced" news, you're not going to get it from CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. Try NPR.
Similar threads
