budullewraagh Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 blike, could you give me some sources? as of now, since you have not given sources and moore's facts were checked, he is more credible. if you come back and give me valid sources, i would appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 25, 2004 Author Share Posted August 25, 2004 Thanks Phi. I'm just trying to pick up as much as I can and hopefuly, one day, maybe find an arguement where you or Sayo are on the same side as me. Never let that be more more important than expressing yourself honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 blike, could you give me some sources? as of now, since you have not given sources and moore's facts were checked, he is more credible. if you come back and give me valid sources, i would appreciate it. "No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day." See ABC News which quotes "Organizers said as many as 20,000 people would take part in the weekend demonstrations, the most since President Richard Nixon's second inauguration in 1973." From CNN "Not since 1973, when 60,000 protesters entered Washington to express their displeasure with the second inauguration of Richard Nixon, have so many activists been expected to try to get their divergent points across on a new president's day of anointment." Some 20,000 turned up to protest Bush. "The plan to have Bush get out of the limo for the traditional walk to the White House was scrapped." Not so. "Mr Bush delighted supporters by getting out of his limousine and walked the last block of the parade, holding hands with his wife Laura." "It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis." The highest ranking official to approve the flights was Richard Clarke. See pages 328-329 here (9/11 commission report, massive PDF, be forewarned). "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Sergeant Brooks Johnson, Duncan Hunter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 with regard to your first point, one cannot say that the number of protesters determines the originality of the situation. with regard to your second point, bush scrapped the majority of his walk, so the statement was mostly accurate. one block makes little difference. with regard to your third point, richard clarke's decision represented the white house. with regard to your final point, i would like to quote your article: A second lieutenant, he recently completed artillery training at Fort Sill, Okla., and is now at Camp Pendleton in California awaiting orders to leave for Kuwait. at the time this article was written, he was in the united states. if he has gone anywhere since then, it is in the united states or kuwait. i would like to commend you on finding legitimate sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 This movie makes you think, I think some people are afraid of that. Afraid that if even some of the movie is right, then they have been wrong. People don't like to be wrong....so they are afraid instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuTze Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 "out of the 535 members of Congress' date=' only one had an enlisted son in Iraq."Sergeant Brooks Johnson, Duncan Hunter. Thats actually true. From the first link you provided: "Senator Johnson is the only member of Congress with a son or daughter on active duty in Iraq." and from the second: "His son, Duncan, who holds a master’s degree from San Diego State University, quit his job as a Web designer after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to join the Marines. A second lieutenant, he recently completed artillery training at Fort Sill, Okla., and is now at Camp Pendleton in California awaiting orders to leave for Kuwait." So he's not on *active* duty in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 ay, as i said above he was not in iraq, and if he was going anywhere it was kuwait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 with regard to your first point' date=' one cannot say that the number of protesters determines the originality of the situation. with regard to your second point, bush scrapped the majority of his walk, so the statement was mostly accurate. one block makes little difference. with regard to your third point, richard clarke's decision represented the white house. at the time this article was written, he was in the united states. if he has gone anywhere since then, it is in the united states or kuwait.[/quote'] Well why doesn't Moore come out and say any of this? He distort the facts so much that he can still claim they are facts, but only through technicalities. This movie makes you think, I think some people are afraid of that. Afraid that if even some of the movie is right, then they have been wrong. People don't like to be wrong....so they are afraid instead. I find it quite the opposite. I scared the movie wont make people think. I'm scared they'll walk away saying "Moore, yeah I've heard that name before. He's pretty famous so he must be right." This sort of relates: I was talking with a friend a while ago about why he loses interest in bands when they make it big. The reason he gave is that they don't try anymore. People will buy there cd's just because the name is on the cover and the band gets lazy and lousy. Well I think the same can be true with Moore at times. His name is pretty well established and I think a lot of people see the movie and never question it because it's Michael Moore. He can start getting more biased and distorted and people will still walk away saying it was great. (I don't think anyone around here would do that, but the again I think many of us can reason better than the average person.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Well why doesn't Moore come out and say any of this? he has points to prove. i never said he wasn't deceptive, rather i addressed the fact that he only told truth in his latest film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 he has points to prove. Which is what? That he can be the most deceptive? What does he have to lose by giving a fair presentation of all the facts? i never said he wasn't deceptive, rather i addressed the fact that he only told truth in his latest film. OK fine. You've proven you can tell the truth just like Moore does. I don't understand what the big deal is about him only giving facts (kind of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Which is what? That he can be the most deceptive? What does he have to lose by giving a fair presentation of all the facts? come now, it's not that hard. if somebody is trying to influence somebody, they present evidence. if the subject learns things contrary to what the presenter presented, they will change their opinion. otherwise, a greater impact may be made than that which would be made by telling complete truth with points and counterpoints against the presenter's thesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Well I'll try to look at the possible motives here. Remeber, Moore has slanted the facts to lean to the left (I think we've agreed to that). 1) Telling the truth straight out leads to a picture different from what Moore has presented. 2) Telling the truth straight out leads to the same picture Moore has presented. If 1 is true, I stand correct that Moore has doctored the fact so much that he has decieved the public in doing so. If 2 is ture, I don't understand what he's doing. Why shift to the left when it's the rights he needs to convince. It doesn't matter if he strengthens the resolve of the diehard left because they're with him already. If he keeps the movie unbiased he has a chance to swing some moderate conservatives to his side and that's what he needs...if his motive is to get Bush out of office. Personaly, I think a lot of this is, like I mentioned before, is a grasp for attention. His name is already respected, the war is already hated, so why not go for the shock factor that will get him more attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mardigan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Micheal Moore, the fraud. The (Bloomington) Pantagraph newspaper in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore and his production company, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking Moore to apologize for using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film, the paper reported Friday. It also is seeking compensatory damages of $1. A scene early in the movie that shows newspaper headlines related to the legally contested presidential election of 2000 included a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline: "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." The paper says that headline never appeared on that day. It appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition, but the headline was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer." "If (Moore) wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job," the paper said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Well I'll try to look at the possible motives here. Remeber' date=' Moore has slanted the facts to lean to the left (I think we've agreed to that). 1) Telling the truth straight out leads to a picture different from what Moore has presented. 2) Telling the truth straight out leads to the same picture Moore has presented. [/quote'] Jordan, meet The Onion, The Onion meet Jordan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 lol good call! haven't been there in awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Jordan, meet The Onion, The Onion[/url'] meet Jordan. Yes, we've been properly introduced before. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Here is Mad Mardigan's source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Doctored paper: Original paper: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 im not sure how valid that last source is considering it's heavily biased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 OMG! Not the dreaded dramatic device! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Very well, read the story at CNN in yourself. The images were just bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Yes, we've been properly introduced before. What's your point? The motives for political commentary are separate from the need to use the absolute truth. Sometimes exaggeration is the best method of making a point. Satire is the key to effective political commentary. The point about the onion is it uses whatever facts it feels fit to use to emphasize political points, as does Michael Moore. You asked why Moore doesn't use the absolute truth, the onion is the answer. Pop culture demands satire for the wide audience, not in depth political commentary. Perhaps Moores goal is just to get people to question what the Government tells them. That, if it is true, is laudable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 im not sure how valid that last source is considering it's heavily biased That's really funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I`ve not seen it yet, is it any good? I`ve seen "shooting for columbine" and that was pretty hard hitting, even though a little biased perhaps. I`ve yet to see this new one though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now