Are any Michael Moore fans brave enough to do a little research?
 

These first two links are to articles written by LIBERAL writers that are both pro-kerry.

I have a theory that most of the left on this board would rather rattle off slogans than take the trouble to do any reading of any content that shows another side.

Am I correct?

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/


This last link deals with the bowling for columbine "documentary" *cough cough*

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


Just wondering if any of the left will read any of it, or just go blindly along only looking at things that they already agree with....:2 cents:

Damn, I was hoping to be proven wrong. :(

instead of trying to discredit the info that contradicts moore, they'll try and discredit the author.

already happened many times.

But in these cases, the authors of the first two articles are well known liberal writers, and total democrats......

C'mon, what about you MetaformX? Are there ANY left-wingers on this board that are intellectually honest enough to look at all sides of a story?

ANY?:ugone2far

the fact of the matter is, that ANY side of the story is slanted. there is alot of truth to his documentaries. there are some inferences.

it bemuses me to see you conservatives getting so flustered over this movie.

perhaps we should all follow your path of the domicile sheep. herded towards the bitter gates of tyranny by politicians who take your civil liberties when you're not looking.

Pardon me, just getting my seat early.

http://www.freakmanor.com/smilies/popcorn.gif

Seriously, im right there with you.

I am staying out of this debate.

I am not a Michael Moore fan simply beacuse he does have his own agenda, and the biases show in his films, but he is correct on some of the issues!

Following ANY political viewpoint with blind allegence is sheeplike behavior.

Just wondering, did you actually READ the first two articles? (They were NOT written by conservatives BTW.)

Bush Sucks!!

:banana :GFYBand :banana
:thefinger :thefinger

*passes you some fresh popcorn and continues to read the literature passed out earlier*

Like I said in my original postit's sad really:disgust

You swallow!

(hey, if you can make crude comments about someone you don't know, so can I)

if you look hard enough you will find people that disagree with his point of view even if they adhere to his general viewpoint. i'm sure if you went digging you could find some conservative writers who agree with his words.

also, he does roast the democrats. to be fair not as much as bush, but he does point out some of their flaws as well.

perhaps when they're involved in a major international scandal involving a war of agression against a sovereign nation he will make a movie about them.

I don't think either of the writers are liberal or pro kerry.

The second story is writen by Michael Isikoff. I really doubt he's a liberal or pro Kerry. He's know for his relentless, years-long pursuit of fact and rumor about exPresident Clinton's personal affairs

http://www.salon.com/media/1998/06/12mediab.html

I don't think Christopher Hitchens is a liberal either. He seems like more of a nut case to me. Check out this interview that recapitulates his devastating critiques of Mother Teresa.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...hens_16_4.html

He also wrote an anti-clinton book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

I'd like to see the source that told you these guys are LIBERAL writers and that they are both pro-kerry, please.

^^ as i was saying...

Point of view is one thing....deliberate lies and distortions of historical facts are another....

And just for the record, The democrats DID wage a war of aggression against a sovereign nation......or are you too young to remember Cosevo? It wasn't THAT long ago people! LOL

What's next? Moore sex scandal and impeachment proceedings? Don't you have anything better to do?

And before someone starts ranting about how liberal or conservative I am, let me explain something.

I am NOT a member of the "Anybody But Bush" campaign. Quite frankly, I think John Kerry is scary, lying sack of shit. Nor am I thrilled with George Bush trying to shove his religion down my throat.

I don't ascribe to any political party. The closest thing I come to that is Libertarian, and even then, I'm not so sure about certain aspects. I guess I'm just not that much of a political mind.

But I sure as hell am not a sheep to the two party system, either. Time to think outside the box, kids.

Now I'm a shutup with my popcorn.

Darn it, I hate it when you are proven correct so EARLY in the proceedings! It will make you cocky... LMAO:1orglaugh

I don't think moore can be classified as an outright liberal so just because some democrat wrote something doesn't make itmean that much more..and no I haven't read it yet...not because I'm afraid I'm just not going to waste my time I have better things to do like post on GFY.

we went into kosovo with NATO and UN backing.

Sure why not.....



Bush already knew the first plane had hit the WTC, he made the comment something like..."man, that's some bad pilot".... but didn't want to pass up on the chance for the scheduled media opportunity of him reading to the kiddies.

Perhaps if he wasn't so worried about posturing for the american public - pretending like he gives a shit about schools and kids, and instead, went off to deal with the emerging situation - then some of the events that followed could have been prevented

"heh, hehehe...he said 'cock'..."

http://www.freakmanor.com/images/beavisbush.jpg

I'm discussing a popular subject on this board..... That's what it's for.... What are YOU doing here? :glugglug

i got sick of hearing about moore.

RIIIIIIGHT! In that five or ten minutes he could have circled the earth at hyperspeed in the oposite direction to it's spin, thus going back in time so that he could then stop the planes with his chest!:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

No one givs a fuck about that fat ass Moore. What we do give a fuckabout is ass clowns running the Counrty.

Moore did point out truths. If you cant see it you are fucking blind. i dont like Moore, I dont like Kerry either, but i HATE Bush and what he has done to this Counrty and the mess he has gotten us into in Iraq. In four more years, Bush will have chips in all of our heads, monitoring our every move.

The man is truly scary.

Someone read one too many Superman comics when he was a kid. :winkwink:

[quote]

Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Trailer: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Fahrenheit 9/11
1/62/63/64/65/66/6


? Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
George W. Bush is shown taking some leisure time in Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
? Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Michael Moore asks members of Congress if their children will enlist in the U.S. military

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
? Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
A Secret Service officer asks why Moore and his crew are outside the Saudi embassy

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
? Clip: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Moore reads the Patriot Act to members of Congress from an ice cream van

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
? Trailer: 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
Michael Moore's latest documentary dissects the September 11 attacks and how the Bush administration responded to them

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp
? Fahrenheit 9/11
June 18: Filmmaker Michael Moore talks to Matt Lauer about this controversial new movie, ?Fahrenheit 9/11.?
Saudi flights out of the United States. The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis?including members of the bin Laden family?could leave the country. Author Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14?after airspace reopened. Moreover, the report states the Saudi flights were screened by the FBI, and 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. None had any links to terrorism.
[/b]

I don't know about them flying out Sept 14 "after air space was opened"... but I would bet that this article is again trying to spin the truth and that that the airspace wasn't opened for _everyone_ at the time they were allowed to fly...and that it may have only openend for military and _US_ government officials. Ie, Bush's dad was grounded... maybe on Sept 14th he could have flied if he wanted to.

"Screened by" does not = interviewed.

It probably means more like: "checked against the outdated or possibly incorrect data on file and allowed to pass".

you guys are way off base.

Michael Moore wanted controversy, attention and wanted everyone to debate and discuss.

He achieved that goal better than anyone in contemporary history has.

This thread and countless others offer further proof of that.

I am pretty conservative and I do not remember ever hearing Michael Moore say that he was offering 100% factual and verifiable information.

No matter what you say most of the sheep that follow Moore, will never do more research then what is put in front of them by bias media and liberals. :2 cents:

Don't be a moron. Everyone knows the only guy who could have done that is now out of business and confined to a wheelchair. :winkwink:


But I feel that he should have been able to do something more than continue on with that press opportunity that was BS anyway.

His _actions_ towards public schools and children have said alot more than him sitting there reading a book to the kids ever will.

Or maybe he was just trying to disprove suspicions and show everyone that he can actually read?

... regardless, I think he could have done more for the emerging problem than he did.

and if he had rushed out of their....Michael Moore would now be protraying him as panicking wildly.... gimme a break

You never said if you read the articles or not.....


*heavy sigh*

And I suppose there aren't any conservative / republican sheep? :1orglaugh

Look, It doesn't matter if you are liberal, conservative, democrat, republican or whatever.... the majority of the people in your groop will take what your leaders say at face value, without doing any research (because that would take time... and...ugh...might require reading)

So WHY do people take what's on the TV and Radio at face value without reading and doing their own research?

Well, besides trusting those who are in charge (of the government & media outlets) to tell you the truth, maybe it's because...

~50% of all Americans over 65 years old are functionally illiterate.

~60% of Urban School Children do not graduate from High School. Forty percent of those who do read at only a 4th grade level.

~64% of 12th graders never make it to the proficiency level.

who's more pedictable
Michael Moore or his detractors?
both are just a bunch of parrots

....And if the total votes from the American people actually dictated who would become our next president (instead of the electoral college), none of this would have happened in the first place.

It's easy to speculate what could have, or would have happened if this wasn't that.

You give me a break.

Maybe they can't see very well over 65

That's probably why they flunked out of High School

"the proficiency level"? What is the proficiancy level mean?

How about this statistic..... 95% of all statistics are pure crap, easily manipulated by changing and obscuring the parameters of the point in question. As was once said..."There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics"
:2 cents:

Actually, here's a journalist's perspective, and they contend all the facts check out.

Of course you'll have to wait till the site comes back, since these "unafraid" neo-cons are staging a DOS attack on their site.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n... 216620&rfi=6

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying....we completely agree!

I read both articles and there are NO sources cited for what they're saying. I'm reading Michael Moore's stupid white guy and he was saying some wild shit in there. So much that I didn't believe it until I turned to the back where he has PAGES AND PAGES of documented sources.

Therefore those articles are nothing but bullshit...

Hell, Even Ghandi had haters. Martin Luther King had haters....No matter who you are, if you speak up for something, there will always be haters to try to bring down what you say...It's no different here.

I'll be glad to read it. I try to get my facts FROM ALL SOURCES, even the ones that I don't agree with. I wish more people would stop being so lazy and would do the same.

Thank you for reading the articles BVF. You have renewed my faith.

If you would like to read another very well documented book as a counterpoint to Michael Moore's (and I've read both), check THIS out!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Maybe because they can't afford glasses? :1orglaugh

And besides agreeing that the public schooling systems "leaves children behind" as early as the 4th grade -- your point is?


I guess we know which group you're in. :(



Ah, finally we agree. :winkwink:

LOL, not EXACTLY... I'm saying that as president, Bush should have cancelled his BS media op after the FIRST airplane hit the fucking WTC.

I'm not so much emphasizing on what could have happend if he had done so, as much as I am that I think (and hope that most of the people in this country would agree) that it is just something he should have done. A no-brainer.

Ie... cancel interview, get (and stay) in contact with my advisors, and see wtf is going on.

Maybe I can offer SuperBonzo some assistance in finding said individual...

http://www.civilization.ca/hist/verr...es/intr02b.jpg

Calling either of those writers liberals is stretching reality more than somewhat. And in any case those articles, like Moore's own works, are opinion pieces. That they draw different conclusions from the facts or place more weight on other facts, does not undermine the validity of the facts that Moore presented.

Moore didn't originate any of his material: he assembled it from a wide variety of sources in the US and abroad. Write off the French, German and Italian sources if you want (since you will doubtless say they were against the invasion of Iraq from the start), but that still leaves - among many others - UK newspapers, including centrist like the Independent and right-wing like the Daily Telegraph.

Apologists for Bush's administration need to get their heads out of their asses. If a Democrat had taken the country to war based on a pack of lies, half-truths and omissions, and helped his friends get the major share of the trough, Republicans would be all over him and Moore would be their hero. So stop trying to make out that anyone who disagrees with Bush is a liberal or a conspiracy theorist. Stop implying the facts are lies, when you cannot point up a single one that is inaccurate.

Like it or not, Moore has put together a piece of work that will persuade many people to his point of view. If you want to get them back before November, stop wasting your time on rhetoric and put your side of the story as coherently as he put his.

No you are not. First, Christopher Hitchens is no liberal and your statement that he is simply shows your ignorance. Anyone who follows politics knows he is a conservative. And notice how Hitchens, like other conservatives who attack this movie, talks in generalities and not specifics. He says "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims". Yet in the entire article article he cannot come up with specifics of those supposed faslehoods and big lies. The other article by Isikoff can only manage to come up with a few minor mistakes of detail, not substance. For example, that the members of the bin Laden family were flown out right after the airspace restrictions were lifted instead of the day before. So what? The point is that they were allowed to leave with minimal scrutiny. Or that Poppy Bush is no longer affiliated with the Carlyle group. Geez, everyone knows the the Bushes are tight with the movers and shakers in the military industrial complex, which not coincidentaly is making hundreds of billions of dollars off this Iraq mess. From the defense contractors to Haliburton, you need only look at where their political contributions go.
You can bet that this film has been examined from top to bottom for errors by conservatives hoping to discredit it in any way they can, and minor stuff like this is the best they can come up with?

:glugglug



Now if only those conservatives would spend as much time investigating and responding to the truths of the film.