Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man

Come on don't pick on physical appearance.


Hell, he's HOT. The unshaven-whale look is in for 2004.
 
That's it?

You can't come up with even one complaint about the accuracy of F911? Are you telling the world that you think Michael Moore's information is so overwhelmingly accurate that the only thing you can dribble on about is some Usenet whacko's online column?

And even then, the guy rambles on but never once claims that M2 produced any factual misinformation in F911. What you've produced is some loon who cuts up part of a newspaper article that M2 didn't write; and didn't get to edit or factcheck before it was released; and the only factual error he implies is one about the count of funerals that Michael Moore could remember from his community during the time he was in High School. His community would include his neighborhood, his suburb of Flint and parts of the other suburbs, the rural areas and the city of Flint itself... if he had friends there or it was common knowledge in the community, or if it was well publicized in the local press. But yer hackjob friend tries to run some database and comes up with 5 names from a single zipcode and declares that Michael must not be trusted and obviously hates America.

Your moron-of-choice even says in one breath that Michael is foolish to think that right-wing nutters are wrapping themselves in the flag and calling dissenters unpatriotic... and then exhales with a tirade about how Michael hates America because... well, just cause a crazy blowhard says so.

Come back when you have some factual complaint, please.
 
As has been pointed out, by smarter people than I (notably Paul Krugman of the NYTs) -- isn't it interesting and sad that Michael Moore, an admitted polemicist and political activist, is held to a higher standard of truth and accuracy for an explicitly political though artistic creation, than the President (and Vice President) is in his conduct of actual policy?
 
aerocontrols said:



You might peruse this.
Click to expand...

Wow, I only got as far as the first 4 "deceits" in your link and I can tell you they are deceits themselves.

For example:

According to Fahrenheit, Bush cronies hired Data Base Technologies to purge Florida voters who might vote for Gore, and these potential voters were purged from the voting rolls on the basis of race. ("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.")
Click to expand...

This is not true. Moore did not say that voters were purged on the basis of race, the skin color comment was sarcasm because a disproportionate number of African Americans were "purged" off the voter rolls.
BTW, according to Moore's interview in Time he is considering offering a $10,000 reward for finding a factual error in F9/11
 
headscratcher4 said:
As has been pointed out, by smarter people than I (notably Paul Krugman of the NYTs) -- isn't it interesting and sad that Michael Moore, an admitted polemicist and political activist, is held to a higher standard of truth and accuracy for an explicitly political though artistic creation, than the President (and Vice President) is in his conduct of actual policy?
Click to expand...

Yes, but by whom?

Claims of zero factual errors, non-fiction, $10,000 dollars for any errors, etc. are pretty extreme assertions.
How is being skeptical of such extreme assertions holding Moore to any standard other than the one he claims for himself?
 
Aerocontrol's link is a pretty nice debunk. Feels good to see some Moore-bashing by someone who's not a hotheaded pompous right-wing freak. But now, what about a debunk of that debunk?
 
wjousts said:
This is not true. Moore did not say that voters were purged on the basis of race, the skin color comment was sarcasm because a disproportionate number of African Americans were "purged" off the voter rolls.
Click to expand...

He didn't say race, he said "color of their skin"? How do those two statements differ?

MattJ
 
aerocontrols said:



You might peruse this.
Click to expand...


Well thank you. It's lots of innuendo burying any real substance but as I kept reading I eventually found a fact. After the discussions of quotes from sources outside F911 and trying to paste them on top of the biased author's opinion of what Michael's attitude in F911 was.... and all the other subjective non-factual garbage I eventually dug out a nugget.

The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox
Click to expand...

If that's true... and the author clearly needs to be fact-checked, then I think this is in contrast to my memory of something said in the film - F911. Maybe. But it's the closest thing I've seen yet...

With a few minutes effort, you might be able to earn $10,000 for this discovery. I think I'll wait to see which comes forward to accept the challenge first: Sylvia Browne or any of the anti-Moorites. I admit, Sylvia has a greater potential reward dangling in front of her... but the mad, mad anti-Mooreites might be slightly less afraid of being exposed than Sylvia. So it should be a tight race.

But I need to emphasize that I may have seen my first factual statement... not from anyone here, but from a link I had to dig through... but still, it is phrased in the form of a fact... unverified, but still it looks and smells better than anything else I've heard here yet.






Still, it never addresses the problem with KingRat. KingRat never produced any value or substance to his post here. Some kind soul had to rush to change the subject and use a differnt source... and even then, no one posted any facts here, they just let me read the babbling article until I foudn something I liked.




More importantly, and yet less on topic for the KingRat's failures, many of us still want to know why the discussion has to be about Moore's film when Americans are dying because of Bush policy, bin Laden is still operating his vast terrorist network and Bush hasn't been effectively trying to stop him... indeed he has squandered resources and diverted them away from terrorists who are engaged in attacks on our own soil for a fool's errand in Iraq, and many many other valid concerns. Loyal and patriotic Americans are more concerned with protecting our nation than with trying to find fault with an emotional and patriotic film from Michael Moore. ?

*[Spelling Edit]
 
"But I need to emphasize that I may have seen my first factual statement... not from anyone here, but from a link I had to dig through... but still, it is phrased in the form of a fact... unverified, but still it looks and smells better than anything else I've heard here yet."

Just out of curiousity, who exactly is supposed to care whether or not *you* in particular have been able or willing to see any statements about Moore's accuracy? And why exactly does it need to be emphasised?

Is that the sum total of your proof that claims of 100% accuracy are valid? 'I've haven't seen anything to the contrary, and no one has claimed a non-existent prize'?

Pardon me if I remain skeptical for now.

Particularly while the Bandar, Tanner, and Bin Laden family questions sit here on this very board completely unanswered.

Even more particularly when even asking such questions results in a spate of ad hominem tap dancing, followed by claims that no questions about Moore' accuracy even exist, but if they did, they would be beneath answering because anyone questioning Moore's accuracy must be a mad, mad, anti-Moore.
 
aerocontrols said:


He didn't say race, he said "color of their skin"? How do those two statements differ?

MattJ
Click to expand...

They don't and he didn't say that voters were purged on the basis of their race or the color of their skin.
 
Anyone living in Florida for a period of time gets at least a little bit darker, no?

:D
 
Sloe_Bohemian said:
That's it?

You can't come up with even one complaint about the accuracy of F911? Are you telling the world that you think Michael Moore's information is so overwhelmingly accurate that the only thing you can dribble on about is some Usenet whacko's online column?

And even then, the guy rambles on but never once claims that M2 produced any factual misinformation in F911. What you've produced is some loon who cuts up part of a newspaper article that M2 didn't write; and didn't get to edit or factcheck before it was released; and the only factual error he implies is one about the count of funerals that Michael Moore could remember from his community during the time he was in High School. His community would include his neighborhood, his suburb of Flint and parts of the other suburbs, the rural areas and the city of Flint itself... if he had friends there or it was common knowledge in the community, or if it was well publicized in the local press. But yer hackjob friend tries to run some database and comes up with 5 names from a single zipcode and declares that Michael must not be trusted and obviously hates America.

Your moron-of-choice even says in one breath that Michael is foolish to think that right-wing nutters are wrapping themselves in the flag and calling dissenters unpatriotic... and then exhales with a tirade about how Michael hates America because... well, just cause a crazy blowhard says so.

Come back when you have some factual complaint, please.
Click to expand...

The article that James Lileks is responding to was written by Michael Moore.

It can be accessed here.

If Michael Moore didn't write it, why does it say By Michael Moore?

So your response seems to be that Michael Moore didn't write or edit or factcheck the article that James Lileks was responding to, even though the article's byline indicates that it was written by Michael Moore, and calling Lileks a Usenet whacko, which makes no sense. Let me see if I can understand your thought process - Oh, no, somone wrote something and published it on the web that I disagree with, so he must be a Usenet whacko!

Do you always post when you don't know wtf you're talking about?
 
KingRat said:
So your response seems to be that Michael Moore didn't write or edit or factcheck the article that James Lileks was responding to, even though the article's byline indicates that it was written by Michael Moore, and calling Lileks a Usenet whacko, which makes no sense.
Click to expand...

James Lileks, Usenet whacko. I mean... syndicated columnist.
 
headscratcher4 said:
As has been pointed out, by smarter people than I (notably Paul Krugman of the NYTs) -- isn't it interesting and sad that Michael Moore, an admitted polemicist and political activist, is held to a higher standard of truth and accuracy for an explicitly political though artistic creation, than the President (and Vice President) is in his conduct of actual policy?
Click to expand...

Grady,

That's a fine observation, but ad homenem tu quoque is a logical fallacy. You usually don't use fallacious reasoning. Why do it now?

Example of ad-hominem tu quoque:
You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year.
Click to expand...

ta,
-z
 
Sure theres all the slant and spin in the movie. Thats no secret. But those video clips arent computer generated. They may not be in the best context all the time, but he didnt invent the footage that makes Bush look like an ass.
 
Sloe_Bohemian said:



Well thank you. It's lots of innuendo burying any real substance but as I kept reading I eventually found a fact. After the discussions of quotes from sources outside F911 and trying to paste them on top of the biased author's opinion of what Michael's attitude in F911 was.... and all the other subjective non-factual garbage I eventually dug out a nugget.
Click to expand...

Okay, how 'bout this nugget?
Iraq and al Qaeda Deceit 43-44 Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.” The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.
Click to expand...

Tell us once again how an anti-American polemicist who twists and edits truths into half-truths and lies...who purposely and maliciously misleads his viewers to adopt his own anti-American views is the maker of a "patriotic film".

-z
 
rikzilla said:


Okay, how 'bout this nugget?


Tell us once again how an anti-American polemicist who twists and edits truths into half-truths and lies...who purposely and maliciously misleads his viewers to adopt his own anti-American views is the maker of a "patriotic film".

-z
Click to expand...

You should right for Moore. You twist his anti-Bush views into anti American.

(Connies comment is still laughable even with the whole quote. She takes a tenious link and still manages to get "Iraq/911" out on her quote. Why do you think so many Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 911?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom