Michael Moore has advice for the Democratic Party

[dudalb]

I'm not saying that Gore would have been a legitimate president either. A majority of 51% or even 99% shouldn't have more legitimacy in imposing their will on others than a minority of 49% or 1%.

There is a point up to which it is tolerable, though, and I wouldn't be ruining my life to fight just a minor tyranny. But this country has passed my threshold in the last decade. Thus my tax resistance and other civil disobedience.

I don't think you are old enough and/or make enough a year to pay tax.
God, another revolutionary whose revoultionary action consists in posting crap on the Internet.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Look, I don't have a dog in this race - to me Bush and Gore are two heads of the same monster. But in a state-wide recount, Gore wins, in spite of all the voting problems that have cost him many times more votes than the margin of victory.

That's what the Sore/Loserman team claimed, and that's what they kept on repeatedly trying to prove; and if the courts hadn't put an end to that nonsense, that is what they would still be trying to prove. They weren't successful in the time that they were given to make their case, they wouldn't have been successful if they had kept at it up until now, and they wouldn't have been successful if they had been given a hundred years. It doesn't stop some people from continuing to make this claim, so many years after all attempts at proving it failed.

 

[dudalb]

Moore's total ignorance of the political realities in the US is astounding, but not surprising. Hard core ideologues always think there is some sort of massive "hidden vote" out there.
Moore's is in the same situation that Oliver Stone is in. A lot of his one time supporters are now finding out how full of crap his films are.
And this appears in the "Guardian". Remember their attempts in 2004 to influence the American elections,and what a laughing stock that proved to be.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Moore's is in the same situation that Oliver Stone is in. A lot of his one time supporters are now finding out how full of crap his films are.

We've been over this before. The whole "Moore is a liar" charge is a myth. All of the claims he makes in his films are backed up on his website, with sources. He goes over every film with a fine-tooth comb to make sure everything's accurate.

Now, you can still find fault with his logic, but I've never heard anyone try to do that.

And this appears in the "Guardian". Remember their attempts in 2004 to influence the American elections,and what a laughing stock that proved to be.

No, I don't remember that. What was it like?

 

[RandFan]

We've been over this before. The whole "Moore is a liar" charge is a myth. All of the claims he makes in his films are backed up on his website, with sources. He goes over every film with a fine-tooth comb to make sure everything's accurate.

I'm a fan of Moore and come to his defense when necessary. That said, Moore knows how to effectively use facts and edits for propaganda purposes. He's not the first BTW, cinematic propaganda was effectively used even before the Soviets made an art of it.

Moore has effectively done this on a number of occasions. That's fine. Moore is a partisan and he makes no illusions about that. He's biased and believes that his way is best and therefore he is only interested in not using outright lies to persuade others to his cause.

Most documentaries are to some degree biased even if the documentarian is a social scientist who sets out to uncover and convey the unvarnished truth. It's difficult for humans to escape that which is why science came about in the first place.

Let's be clear, Moore is not a social anthropologist and his "documentaries" and "research" should not be assumed to be scientific. What is Moore's intent? It's to propagate his ideology. Not to find and report the truth regardless of where the chips fall.

Do I think Moore is a prevaricator? No. Do I think Moore is impeccably honest? Don't make me laugh. As Penn Gillette said, we try not to "Michael Moore it". They don't always succeed BTW. At least they don't claim to be making documentaries.

 

[Travis]

I think the only one who thinks Moore is still relevant is Moore himself.

 

[Pardalis]

I think the only one who thinks Moore is still relevant is Moore himself.

... and Hizbollah.

 

[Oliver]

... and Hizbollah.

...and Satan.

 

[Alex Libman]

... and people who benefit from the false left-right political paradigm, which includes all people who work for the government (directly or indirectly) or receive any sort of financial assistance from it - more than half of the population.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Doubtless it was Clooney's advice to be "balanced" that led Obama, on news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, to intone, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."
Link

Having George Clooney giving him advice will certainly help Obama rebut the "inexperienced" charge. Maybe President Obama will find a cabinet position for him.

The problem is that there is no supporting evidence to the claim that Clooney is "advising" Obama on anything. The paper provides no names of those who make the claim. They just throw out the accusation.

But Clooney has issued a strong statement in response to the claims:
"I have never texted or emailed Senator Obama. And I'll offer a million dollars to anyone who could prove otherwise.

 

[BPSCG]

The problem is that there is no supporting evidence to the claim that Clooney is "advising" Obama on anything. The paper provides no names of those who make the claim. They just throw out the accusation.

Well, hell, that's a good enough standard for The New York Times when they want to print a rumor on their front page that John McCain might be having an affair with a pretty blonde lobbyist.

The difference, of course, is that Mail is just tabloid trash, while the Times is the respected "Newspaper of Record."