Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[pomeroo]

On the topic of the War On Terror. Its quite clear that Bush's eye was on Iraq and not dealing with terror. The pretext was terror (using 9/11, despite no Iraqi involvement) and Iraq were pulled into this using the WMD lies.

The Downing Street Memo clearly shows that Bush's eye was on Iraq from the get go and that intelligence would be fixed around a policy of terrorism and WMDs (which we all know, were not there.)

Now, if consciously misleading your country into war were many US citizens will die isn't a cause for impeachment. Then i don't know what is.

A blast from the past. The left's Big Lie lives on.

There weren't any "WMD lies." The Downing Street Memo may have been super-Viagra to far-left internet wankers, but it was ignored everywhere else for good reason.

A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee concluded that no pressure had been applied to intelligence-gathering services to shape their conclusions.

And why would the Bush administration apply such pressure. Bush was hurt more than anyone by the intelligence failures. I keep asking, with no hope of ever getting a coherent answer, why he would craft a lie that was guaranteed to be exposed. Politicians generally try to win elections, not squander big leads.

 

[Matthew Best]

Also just to be a pedant, F911 did not win the Oscar, Bowling for Columbine did. F911 just happened to be out at the time he one the oscar, common misconception.

I don't rate Moore's work as I would rate say previous winners like Hoop Dreams, or later winners like capturing the Freidmans (Both films if you've not seen, run, don't walk to your rental store and get).

Ahem, since you started the pedantry, I will point out that neither Hoop Dreams nor Capturing the Friedmans won Oscars.

 

[gumboot]

Well when the guy openly admits he is biased and is painting a one sided story... i have to wonder how much of it is really deception. If he was claiming he was making a balanced piece, then yeah absolutely.

Hang on a sec, let's be clear on what the deception is. I'm not saying he's deceiving his audience by pretending to be objective when he isn't. No. He's pretty upfront about that. I'm saying he deceives his audience by intentionally presenting things as true that are not true.

For example, I could tell you I think New Zealand is far better than the USA, and openly admit that I am very biased and not interested in being objective. I'm not deceiving you about my stance at all.

But if, in support of my stance, I tell you that New Zealanders are more patriotic than Americans, I am being deceitful, because a survey by the National Opinion Research Center at Chicago University found the Americans were the most proud of their nation, with New Zealand ranking 7th.

Also, I could claim that New Zealanders earn more. This is also deceitful, because US average income is higher than New Zealand average income - even before taking into account the exchange rate (which increases the margin).

Thus it is possible to be deceitful even while being open about your bias.

-Gumboot

 

[Matthew Best]

What if, in support of your thesis, you claimed all sorts of good things about New Zealand that are true (higher literacy, greater number of sheep), while deliberately ignoring all sorts of thing about New Zealand that are bad (boring, greater number of sheep).

Would you be creating a documentary, or being deceitful?

 

[gumboot]

What if, in support of your thesis, you claimed all sorts of good things about New Zealand that are true (higher literacy, greater number of sheep), while deliberately ignoring all sorts of thing about New Zealand that are bad (boring, greater number of sheep).

Would you be creating a documentary, or being deceitful?

Are you calling New Zealand boring?

If I may, I'd like to alter your options a little. How about this, given your scenario above:

A) I am open in my bias.
B) I present my case as objective.

In scenario A) I am creating a documentary, and I am not being deceitful. In scenario B) I am creating a documentary and I am being deceitful.

-Gumboot

 

[ConspiRaider]

A blast from the past. The left's Big Lie lives on.

There weren't any "WMD lies." The Downing Street Memo may have been super-Viagra to far-left internet wankers, but it was ignored everywhere else for good reason.

A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee concluded that no pressure had been applied to intelligence-gathering services to shape their conclusions.

And why would the Bush administration apply such pressure. Bush was hurt more than anyone by the intelligence failures. I keep asking, with no hope of ever getting a coherent answer, why he would craft a lie that was guaranteed to be exposed. Politicians generally try to win elections, not squander big leads.

Ron, you are so pathetically right-wing biased that it is actually comical reading your posts.

You are trying to be funny, right? Your right-wing parrotting is almost too perfect. It has to be parody rather than parrotting.

On the off-chance (or on-chance) that I am wrong, may I suggest that you submit your resume to the 500 million dollar Bush Library folks over at SMU? You know, the guys who want to rewrite the history of the master criminal Bush so he doesn't come off as pukingly disgusting as he actually is. They NEED you, Ron! Not many folks around in this grand country of ours who are grandstanding for Stupid-Boy. You're marketable. I say, go for it!

BILL CLINTON RULES, DUDE!

And so will Hillary...

 

[Pardalis]

And so will Hillary...

*cough* Obama *cough*

 

[gumboot]

Ron, you are so pathetically right-wing biased that it is actually comical reading your posts.

I bet he'll probably shoot back the same thing at you, but before he does I thought I'd point it out, as someone who couldn't care less about either side of the US political spectrum. Not that this is especially significant. From my experience the vast majority of Americans - even the incredibly intelligent critical thinkers on this forum - are so pathetically biased towards left or right that listening to them talk politics is comical.

The politics subforum of these forums reminds me of the Loose Change Forum.

-Gumboot

 

[Matthew Best]

In scenario A) I am creating a documentary, and I am not being deceitful. In scenario B) I am creating a documentary and I am being deceitful.

I may have misunderstood or be ascribing views to you that you do not hold, but I understood your position to be that Michael Moore does not make documentaries at all, becuase his films are deceitful. Here you seem to be saying that documentaries can be deceitful after all.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron, you are so pathetically right-wing biased that it is actually comical reading your posts.

You are trying to be funny, right? Your right-wing parrotting is almost too perfect. It has to be parody rather than parrotting.

Wow, I thought I had demonstrated the incoherence of the left's Big Lie. But your incisive dissection of the logical fallacies I committed has made me rethink my position.

On the off-chance (or on-chance) that I am wrong, may I suggest that you submit your resume to the 500 million dollar Bush Library folks over at SMU? You know, the guys who want to rewrite the history of the master criminal Bush so he doesn't come off as pukingly disgusting as he actually is. They NEED you, Ron! Not many folks around in this grand country of ours who are grandstanding for Stupid-Boy. You're marketable. I say, go for it!

Really, when you spout this infantile pap about Bush's criminality, don't you feel awfully dumb?

BILL CLINTON RULES, DUDE!

And so will Hillary...

Possibly. If the left has its way, they will, indeed, rule.

 

[Matthew Best]

Pomeroo, are you ever going to figure out how to use the multi-quote function?

(Also, if you ever do, can you explain it to me?)

 

[gumboot]

I may have misunderstood or be ascribing views to you that you do not hold, but I understood your position to be that Michael Moore does not make documentaries at all, becuase his films are deceitful. Here you seem to be saying that documentaries can be deceitful after all.

No, quite the opposite. Michael Moore makes documentaries, and these are deceitful. Documentaries can be deceitful, of course. Documentaries should not by deceitful. It is unethical. Just as Journalists can (and have) completely fabricated news articles. But they should not. It is unethical. If caught, they should be fired. They certainly shouldn't be encouraged.

-Gumboot

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

*cough* Obama *cough*

The presidential run solidifies his position as senator-for-life.

As senators-for-life go, he's one of the better ones.

 

[Matthew Best]

The Academy states:

An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

I think Moore's films come under that heading.

 

[gumboot]

Pomeroo, are you ever going to figure out how to use the multi-quote function?

(Also, if you ever do, can you explain it to me?)

At the beginning of a post, when you use the "quote" function, you'll get a tag like:

Just copy and paste that tag to the beginning of each new segment of the post you want to comment on, and end each segment with the [ / QUOTE ] tag (no spaces). So:

[ QUOTE = Matthew Best;2705546] Pomeroo, are you ever going to figure out how to use the multi-quote function? [ / QUOTE ]

Hopefully he does one day.


[QUOTE = Matthew Best;2705546] (Also, if you ever do, can you explain it to me?) [ / QUOTE ]

I hope my explanation helps.

Becomes:

Pomeroo, are you ever going to figure out how to use the multi-quote function?

Hopefully he does one day.

(Also, if you ever do, can you explain it to me?)

I hope my explanation helps.

No spaces in the tags, obviously.

-Gumboot

 

[ConspiRaider]

No, quite the opposite. Michael Moore makes documentaries, and these are deceitful. Documentaries can be deceitful, of course. Documentaries should not by deceitful. It is unethical. Just as Journalists can (and have) completely fabricated news articles. But they should not. It is unethical. If caught, they should be fired. They certainly shouldn't be encouraged.

Uh-huh.

Well, then I think somebody should stop encouraging Michael Moore by giving him awards for his films.

1 for Bowling for Columbine.

2 for Fahrenheit 9/11. And Moore purposely did not let it be considered for the Documentary Oscar because he didn't want to bigfoot the competition. Obviously, it would have won.

Sicko: How many awards? Maybe none, but that would again be due to Moore's actions to avoid bigfooting. He would not let it be considered for an award in Cannes, for example. Still - I bet it'll garner awards. We'll see.

Maybe I'm wrong. Somehow I think Sicko is gonna rock the house, even if it gets no encouragement from awards. Expect lines - big ones - a week from this Friday when it opens all across the USA.

 

[gumboot]

Uh-huh.

Well, then I think somebody should stop encouraging Michael Moore by giving him awards for his films.

1 for Bowling for Columbine.

2 for Fahrenheit 9/11. And Moore purposely did not let it be considered for the Documentary Oscar because he didn't want to bigfoot the competition. Obviously, it would have won.

Sicko: How many awards? Maybe none, but that would again be due to Moore's actions to avoid bigfooting. He would not let it be considered for an award in Cannes, for example. Still - I bet it'll garner awards. We'll see.

Maybe I'm wrong. Somehow I think Sicko is gonna rock the house, even if it gets no encouragement from awards. Expect lines - big ones - a week from this Friday when it opens all across the USA.

So if a documentary wins awards, that means it's factual? Because there's nothing remotely political about the Oscars, right? C'mon, ConspiRaider, you work in that place. You of all people should know that the Academy Awards are about politics and mass appeal, and nothing more.

I mean, look at the 2001 Oscars. A year of people complaining about racial discrimination, and not enough black people winning the awards, and hey presto, in 2001 "Best Actor" and "Best Actress" go to two crap performances by black actors, both of whom have previously been ignored for far superior performances.

The reality is, for every film that wins an Oscar in a given year, a dozen films are made that same year that are far superior in the given category, and don't even get considered for a nomination.

-Gumboot

 

[ConspiRaider]

I bet he'll probably shoot back the same thing at you, but before he does I thought I'd point it out, as someone who couldn't care less about either side of the US political spectrum. Not that this is especially significant. From my experience the vast majority of Americans - even the incredibly intelligent critical thinkers on this forum - are so pathetically biased towards left or right that listening to them talk politics is comical.

That, Gum, is because you don't live here. You're perched over there in New Zealand and making judgments about American politics based on - surfing the Net?

And actually you DO care about the US political spectrum because you do a helluva lot of commenting on it. Your posts - easy for anyone to see - indicate your leanings towards the right wing.

That you are evaluating Americans as pathetically biased left or right? Again, an indication that you don't live here, don't have that in-country feel and experience for a more accurate assessment. Because mostly - Americans are moderate. We're not defined as a nation of extremes. We're middle of the roaders, mostly. I, for example, am just a bit to the left of center.

If you're picturing an analog clock, just the top half, with 9 being as left and 3 being as right as one can go: Most Americans are going to be shading the 12 up top, a bit on either side. I'd be about 3 or 4 minutes BEFORE the 12. Ron - he'd be 12 or 13 minutes AFTER the 12. Almost on the big 3. Ron thinks I'm really a rabid left-winger (as in communistic or socialistic), but he's wrong. I'm more of a centrist than anything, leaning just a bit left.

And the reason why hackles are raised more now in America is because of the Iraq War. Controversial wars will tend to do that. And why not? Those are MY taxes being sunk into the sand pit over there. Those are MY neighbors getting turned into red mist over there. That's MY nephew that I have to sit down and discuss what may happen to him if he joins the U.S. Army.

 

[boloboffin]

Many thanks to all who provided a link or a focused phrase in the spirit of the lively debate this thread has become. I'm working my way through the material found so far -- or should that read the stages of grief?

8den beat me to the descriptive term I would like to see used with regards to Michael Moore - polemics. I don't know from documentary film theory, but there must be categories that distinguish between what Moore does and what Frontline does. This isn't meant to excuse Moore's techniques - in fact, calling his works polemics invites the exacting kinds of criticisms he receives. Moore certainly welcomes the controversy.

I still find myself scratching my head over some of the "deceptions and lies" at the websites. There comes a point when the exposer begins to look ridiculous. Have I made an objective determination where that point is? Not yet, but criticizing Moore because he says the book Bush was reading was named My Pet Goat, when it was actually a reading textbook with a story named "The Pet Goat" is past that point in my opinion. The clip of Bush at the charity dinner calling the haves and the have-mores his "base" is close to that point. Yet implying that the Bin Laden family flew out of the country on September 13th when they didn't is a legitimate criticism to me. When I have gone through this sea change and have a more rational-sounding approach to what I think that point is, I'll post on it.

PS: Gumboot, the KKK/NRA thing was in the cartoon. That is a huge visual cue that Moore is painting with a broad, broad brush and splashing paint everywhere. And as I said before and will now restate, Klansmen through the decades did indeed take off their hoods and head to the NRA conventions without missing a beat. I'm telling you this from my personal experience of growing up in the South.

 

[Riser Glen]

I always used to take Moore movies with one or two grains of salt. But after hearing this, I'm going to have to watch Sicko with one of these --

When it rains, it pours.