Micheal Moore

[ExiledInIllinois]

I was just looking for an excuse to tell you that you're named from a dildo.

 

My Naked Lunch reference (in another thread) towards The Dan was better and more esoteric!

 

[Steely Dan]

My Naked Lunch reference (in another thread)towards The Dan was better and more esoteric!

 

 

See, watch and learn.

[ExiledInIllinois]

See, watch and learn.

 

 

These youngins don't know the word subtly! Everything is wham bam, cut to the chase...

[OCinBuffalo]

You must LOVE you some Michael Moore. Hell I couldn't fill 50 pages about my Mother and I love her or at least I thought I did. Why are you so obsessed w/ Moore that you get excited when someone defends him? It's just a little strange to me that's all.

Um, apparently you aren't familiar with the concept of exaggeration. Or, is it that you basically have no ability to defend Moore, or his retarded principals, and you want to try and make this about me instead of the topic at hand?(how annoyingly predictable)

 

Spare me the passive-aggressive BS. Nobody bothers to write a post like yours at 10:30pm on a Sunday unless they are bothered to begin with. If YOU didn't care so much, why are YOU bothering to respond? Nothing better to do? Whatever. If you are going to bring it, bring it, and stop acting like an 8th grade girl.

 

A little strange? Buddy, we are living in a country where 20-30% of people actually BELIEVE what this retard has to say. Sorry if you don't see that as a fundamental educational and cultural nightmare. The absence of knowledge, reason, and real accountability is how every major important culture/nation has failed in the past. Please excuse my worry that unless people dismiss this new incarnation of PT Barnum immediately, and on principle, we might have a whole hell of a lot to consider far beyond who we are taking to the prom.

 

Bottom Line: PT Barnum was never taken seriously. This thread proves that our modern-day suckers not only take their owner seriously, they are perfectly capable and willing to defend his BS to the last. Perhaps it's time for some lesser intellects here to watch "Downfall" and see the full measure of how propagandists act when all the chips are down = less than men. And yeah, that is something we should be worried about, because sooner or later, one of these tards might actually end up being in charge of something important, F it up, and blame everybody else, just like Moore does.

 

Why in the heck should we encourage this terrible behavior, especially amongst kids who don't know any better?

[OCinBuffalo]

O get off your high horse, yes Michael Moore is a panderer, but a number of rw knuckle draggers said the same thing about NO before and around Katrina. Also, one those rw preachers said it about NY when the twin towers where first hit. There are idiots on both sides. If you were not so one sided, I'd buy your criticism of Moore, but when you invoke the liar O'Reilly as a counter balance you lose me. Moore is still insane and getting paid handsomely for it, but so is O'Reilly.

 

So, what.

I highly doubt my horse is anywhere near as high as yours is, especially reading this thread. You are riding a Clydesdale and I'm riding a damn donkey here buddy. The difference is: my donkey works 7 days a week and sees the world as it is, because that's how he gets paid. Your Clydesdale lives in the pampered barn all the time and only comes out when its time to do a commercial.

 

The point is: you either choose not to, or aren't capable of, watching all the different analysis shows, on every channel, and separating them objectively into what's what. So, by definition, apparently you can't discern between a simple factual account of reality, and a perceived and assumed statement of partisan loyalty. Look, Moore said what he said, then and now, and I am merely saying that of all the D-bags we have to deal with he is at 80, and O'Reilly is somewhere around 5. I dare you to go to factcheck.org and prove that O'Reilly is anywhere near Moore's league in terms of flat out BS. Or, are you one more practitioner of this nonsense relativity that says because one person is on one side of the screen, they = the retard that's on the other? Fair and balanced indeed.

 

The fact that I watch O'Reilly, Hannity, and whatever else doesn't define my thinking....only tools like you think it does. Buddy, I am trained to gather info from every source I can get my hands on, figure out the BS, use the good stuff, and frankly that's what gets me paid, one way or the other.

 

It's not my job to say who is sane or not, that's for the client to say. It is my job to determine which data is accurate, turn it into information, and then create actionable intelligence. It just so happens that I do it for myself now instead of somebody else. Tens of millions in billable hours later?...Well, I guess the people who have paid me or the companies I work for agree with my assessment and my ability to be objective. Or, there are 50 Fortune 500 companies which I've worked for that are all part of a massive conspiracy. Which one do you think is more accurate?

[OCinBuffalo]

Kindly remove your head and loofah from Bill O'Reilly's ass and share with us your interpretation of the quotes in this thread (from people who actually "matter") regarding Katrina and 911. Your use of is not only ridiculous, but also quite telling and you may as well be wearing a jersey.

You know it's always funny to prove Pavlov right amongst human subjects, without having to pay for the research.

 

O'Reilly is the best possible counter to Moore, Rosie, Franken, basically every idiot who puts ideology above truth. Why? Because O'Reilly hits them all with undeniable truth. This is without question, because he fails if it isn't. So, instead of being intellectually honest and conceding the points where he is undeniably right, or better, pointing out the truth that he intentionally? leaves out, they act the same as you are here. As Pavlov's dog: and instantly yell out profanity and/or nonsense and/or "I know you are but what am I?" crap, that makes them look silly, because they still haven't dealt with O'Reilly's simple-ass truth trap.

 

I use O'Reilly every time Moore comes up not only because he is so good at antagonizing the truth out of people, and not only because he uses emotion to blow by people's prepared PR BS, an not only because he is able to piss people like you off such that you subjugate yourselves far and away to the altar of far-left hypocrisy. I use it because it works, it's as simple as that.

 

O'Reilly is the ultimate BS litmus test. He is exactly the same in that regard as Howard Stern, just from opposite sides. Isn't it interesting that they grew up in the same town, are almost the same age, and went to the same university? If you don't see both of them in that same light, well, you need to do some more traveling or you simply aren't paying very good attention to either. The fact is that both of them use the exact same cultural assessments about good vs. suck. I.E you will hear them call the same things "dopey" if you pay attention to both long enough and at the same time.

 

The simple fact is: if one vows to listen/watch Stern and O'Reilly for 6 months regularly, one will almost certainly be a fan of both, or a hater of both, at the end of it.

 

So, which jersey do I wear? Well, if you haven't noticed, I use the word "dopey" a lot. Especially when replying to posts like yours. I will leave it to you to figure out if I'm an O'Reilly AND Stern fan, at the same time.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wrong. As evidenced by the following:

 

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said. “To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.”

 

There's your context. Therefore, nobody is taking Moore's drivel out of context. Only somebody below the 3rd grade reading level could possibly "misinterpret" what he is saying. Sorry but using the "out of context" defense doesn't work here. I wonder how many people know anymore what the concept of "out of context" actually means... rolleyes.gif ...because I keep hearing it from every tool there is. I'm sure the Jerry Springer crowd thinks it means "way to get out of saying stupid crap". Is that what you are going for here?

 

 

 

So now you've gone from it wasn't out of context to admitting he did say he hoped nobody got hurt because he realized it was an image problem for him and therefore he obviously didn't mean it. Why don't you comment on all of the Repulican comments about Katrina? Nice job of skating over how you were wrong. Why do you want to make 50 pages of Moore stuff? If you can write a full 50 pages go ahead but it has to be 50 pages. I won't defend Moore on everything he says just the stuff that is used out of context to discredit him.

 

I agree it was a dumb thing to say but if you think that the Republicans wouldn't be doing worse if it was the other way around you're naive. Just go back to the quotes I put out and tell me they wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

Chin up guy, I beat Cancer 5 years ago! As long as you keep positive you can keep her positive and that's a big help. Don't let her wallow in self pity. Keep trying to make her laugh.

 

If both of you are ready

First of all, none of this matters when we are talking about beating cancer. Congrats on beating this indiscriminate killer, and please, if you can, find a way to inspire others to do the same. I have been in plenty of oncology wards/treatment centers, and all work aside, I have nothing but the highest respect for those of you who end up winning and the people that treat you, especially when they know its a losing battle. This is all very hard, and people need to know how to do what you did, regardless of how uncomfortable the whole thing is for everyone involved.

 

Now, on to business: the good news is you are around to have me abuse you intellectually....what a reason to live! Aren't you glad you survived, only to be tormented by me?

 

Let's be clear: It wasn't "out of context", and I have gone nowhere but there. I will remain, where I have been, so there's no "going from to going" whatever. You don't get 2-3 sentences fully quoted and claim a context problem. He said what he said, and then tried to make up for it later.

 

The only problem with what I am saying will come from the reporter misquoting him, if they did. Since I highly doubt that, then every Moore supporter has to stop blaming me, and start blaming Mr. "I'm still pissed because a CNN doc, of all people, went on national TV and told people that my 'Sicko' movie was complete crap".<--which is why nobody went = no money for Moore = blame everybody else = no shocker there.

 

Moore gets to make up nonsense when it comes to the military, FBI, CIA, because he won't be challenged, because of their policy not to respond to civilians, and especially not to wingnuts. How do I know? I was in the training that told us precisely that. Let the idiots be idiots = we are defending their right to be retarded, but, if one of them happens to touch you, beat the piss out of him because it ain't you that needs defending, it's your rank and your uniform.

 

However, health care people have no such instructions. And, when he decided to attack them, they fought back and got medieval on his sorry ass. Boo f'ing Hoo. Poor Moore was actually confronted this time and was found sorely lacking in every regard.

 

If you want to start a thread about all the things that Republicans do wrong, go right ahead. This thread isn't about that, and you of all people should know that you don't get to trade one bad thing for another. Good is good, bad is bad, and there ain't no pretending like both don't exist.

 

Bad behavior = bad behavior. And I don't care for rationalization that attempts to justify one set of bad behavior based on, or implied, by another.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I highly doubt my horse is anywhere near as high as yours is, especially reading this thread. You are riding a Clydesdale and I'm riding a damn donkey here buddy. The difference is: my donkey works 7 days a week and sees the world as it is, because that's how he gets paid. Your Clydesdale lives in the pampered barn all the time and only comes out when its time to do a commercial.

 

The point is: you either choose not to, or aren't capable of, watching all the different analysis shows, on every channel, and separating them objectively into what's what. So, by definition, apparently you can't discern between a simple factual account of reality, and a perceived and assumed statement of partisan loyalty. Look, Moore said what he said, then and now, and I am merely saying that of all the D-bags we have to deal with he is at 80, and O'Reilly is somewhere around 5. I dare you to go to factcheck.org and prove that O'Reilly is anywhere near Moore's league in terms of flat out BS. Or, are you one more practitioner of this nonsense relativity that says because one person is on one side of the screen, they = the retard that's on the other? Fair and balanced indeed.

 

The fact that I watch O'Reilly, Hannity, and whatever else doesn't define my thinking....only tools like you think it does. Buddy, I am trained to gather info from every source I can get my hands on, figure out the BS, use the good stuff, and frankly that's what gets me paid, one way or the other.

 

It's not my job to say who is sane or not, that's for the client to say. It is my job to determine which data is accurate, turn it into information, and then create actionable intelligence. It just so happens that I do it for myself now instead of somebody else. Tens of millions in billable hours later?...Well, I guess the people who have paid me or the companies I work for agree with my assessment and my ability to be objective. Or, there are 50 Fortune 500 companies which I've worked for that are all part of a massive conspiracy. Which one do you think is more accurate?

 

What????, nice insults, so at your pace, I would use the analogy of a thoroughbred susceptible to broken legs. So you pointed me to some website about facts on both of them even if it is the University of Penn. Didn't see anything on their front page and any article on the two of them is going to be balanced by the writer. It may be well written because it is Penn, but it is still going to bias.. And I am not talking just Republican, FOX, MSNBC, CNN although that bias is schizoid, whatever gets the best ratings... everyone has a bias Dems, GOP, interests groups, universities and but not acknowledging those bias, especially someone like O'Reilly denegrates you arguement.

 

I only pay credence to facts if confirmed by a number of them on both sides. Even then they could be subject to group think and just plain wrong not slanted.

But when side claims something as fact I know it to be either made up or only with an ounce of truth and a lot of chutzpah .

 

Comparing O'Reilly's full of itness to Moore's is stupid. They both are full of crap, just wish you could admit it.

[Steely Dan]

First of all, none of this matters when we are talking about beating cancer. Congrats on beating this indiscriminate killer, and please, if you can, find a way to inspire others to do the same. I have been in plenty of oncology wards/treatment centers, and all work aside, I have nothing but the highest respect for those of you who end up winning and the people that treat you, especially when they know its a losing battle. This is all very hard, and people need to know how to do what you did, regardless of how uncomfortable the whole thing is for everyone involved.

 

Now, on to business: the good news is you are around to have me abuse you intellectually....what a reason to live! Aren't you glad you survived, only to be tormented by me?

 

Let's be clear: It wasn't "out of context", and I have gone nowhere but there. I will remain, where I have been, so there's no "going from to going" whatever. You don't get 2-3 sentences fully quoted and claim a context problem. He said what he said, and then tried to make up for it later.

 

The only problem with what I am saying will come from the reporter misquoting him, if they did. Since I highly doubt that, then every Moore supporter has to stop blaming me, and start blaming Mr. "I'm still pissed because a CNN doc, of all people, went on national TV and told people that my 'Sicko' movie was complete crap".<--which is why nobody went = no money for Moore = blame everybody else = no shocker there.

 

I agree that Moore uses facts in a loose way to make his points but the vast majority of what he says is verifiable. Moore doesn't have the illusions of grandeur that O'Reilly suffers from.

 

Moore gets to make up nonsense when it comes to the military, FBI, CIA, because he won't be challenged, because of their policy not to respond to civilians, and especially not to wingnuts. How do I know? I was in the training that told us precisely that. Let the idiots be idiots = we are defending their right to be retarded, but, if one of them happens to touch you, beat the piss out of him because it ain't you that needs defending, it's your rank and your uniform.

 

However, health care people have no such instructions. And, when he decided to attack them, they fought back and got medieval on his sorry ass. Boo f'ing Hoo. Poor Moore was actually confronted this time and was found sorely lacking in every regard.

 

If you want to start a thread about all the things that Republicans do wrong, go right ahead. This thread isn't about that, and you of all people should know that you don't get to trade one bad thing for another. Good is good, bad is bad, and there ain't no pretending like both don't exist.

 

Bad behavior = bad behavior. And I don't care for rationalization that attempts to justify one set of bad behavior based on, or implied, by another.

 

 

So it's your belief that leaving out the "I don't want anyone to get hurt" isn't out of context? That's a pretty big thing to leave out dontcha think? Did you scroll down and see the actual video of the exchange?

 

This is not a thread about the facts of what Republicans do wrong that are irrelevant to the argument. I believe you are saying what Moore said is disgusting. I'm just showing you that Republicans have said more disgusting things than he did. Did those piss you off or did you give them a pass? I've said that what Moore said was not tasteful but he did say he hopes nobody gets hurt. Also if you read the Republican quotes you'll see that if the situation was reversed you'd be hearing the same thing, if not worse, not only from the fringe Republican talking heads but from actual Republican politicians.

 

As for O'reilly he makes Moore look like Edward R. Murrow.

 

Let's see;

 

O'reilly claimed to be on an Al Quaeda hit list?!

 

According to a September 20 ABC News Online article promoting an upcoming appearance of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on ABC's 20/20 to promote his new book Culture Warrior (Broadway, September 2006), O'Reilly stated that he receives "death threats on a daily basis," and that it's "a little disconcerting" that "the FBI came in and warned me and a few other people at Fox News that al Qaeda had us on a death list." But O'Reilly's claim to be on an Al Qaeda "death list" has reportedly been disputed by an FBI official and a "correspondent" at Fox News.

 

A federal law enforcement officer reportedly told the website Radar that he is "not aware of any FBI agents warning anyone at Fox News of their presence on any list" and that he is "not aware of any Al Qaeda hit list targeting journalists." Radar also noted that one "correspondent" at Fox News said that "neither he nor anyone he's spoken to at the network has been warned by the FBI," and that "the government has warned Fox about threats in the past, but I don't think they involved specific people." Radar also reported said that Fox News media relations director Leah Yoon stated that the network had "nothing to say" about O'Reilly's assertion, because "[w]e shouldn't be shouldering the burden of something he said on someone else's network."

 

At least Moore doesn't suffer from the illusions of grandeur that O'reilly suffers from. O'Reilly lives in his own little world where he's a lot more important than he really is. Moore will take facts and then use them in a loose way to make his point but he's nothing close to O'Reilly who out and out lies and twists people's words to suit his points. Moore does the same thing but to a much lesser extent and uses facts rather than make them up like O'reilly. Moore also doesn't shout down people who are making points that prove his points wrong.

 

Comparing O'reilly to Moore is not something you want to do.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

So it's your belief that leaving out the "I don't want anyone to get hurt" isn't out of context? That's a pretty big thing to leave out dontcha think? Did you scroll down and see the actual video of the exchange?

 

This is not a thread about the facts of what Republicans do wrong that are irrelevant to the argument. I believe you are saying what Moore said is disgusting. I'm just showing you that Republicans have said more disgusting things than he did. Did those piss you off or did you give them a pass? I've said that what Moore said was not tasteful but he did say he hopes nobody gets hurt. Also if you read the Republican quotes you'll see that if the situation was reversed you'd be hearing the same thing, if not worse, not only from the fringe Republican talking heads but from actual Republican politicians.

 

As for O'reilly he makes Moore look like Edward R. Murrow.

 

Let's see;

 

O'reilly claimed to be on an Al Quaeda hit list?!

 

According to a September 20 ABC News Online article promoting an upcoming appearance of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on ABC's 20/20 to promote his new book Culture Warrior (Broadway, September 2006), O'Reilly stated that he receives "death threats on a daily basis," and that it's "a little disconcerting" that "the FBI came in and warned me and a few other people at Fox News that al Qaeda had us on a death list." But O'Reilly's claim to be on an Al Qaeda "death list" has reportedly been disputed by an FBI official and a "correspondent" at Fox News.

 

A federal law enforcement officer reportedly told the website Radar that he is "not aware of any FBI agents warning anyone at Fox News of their presence on any list" and that he is "not aware of any Al Qaeda hit list targeting journalists." Radar also noted that one "correspondent" at Fox News said that "neither he nor anyone he's spoken to at the network has been warned by the FBI," and that "the government has warned Fox about threats in the past, but I don't think they involved specific people." Radar also reported said that Fox News media relations director Leah Yoon stated that the network had "nothing to say" about O'Reilly's assertion, because "[w]e shouldn't be shouldering the burden of something he said on someone else's network."

 

At least Moore doesn't suffer from the illusions of grandeur that O'reilly suffers from. O'Reilly lives in his own little world where he's a lot more important than he really is. Moore will take facts and then use them in a loose way to make his point but he's nothing close to O'Reilly who out and out lies and twists people's words to suit his points. Moore does the same thing but to a much lesser extent and uses facts rather than make them up like O'reilly. Moore also doesn't shout down people who are making points that prove his points wrong.

 

Comparing O'reilly to Moore is not something you want to do.

 

Touche'

[Steely Dan]

OC even though we disagree politically I still think you're ok.

 

This going to be very long but it's a defense of this Moron's article about Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11:

 

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

 

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

 

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

 

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

 

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

 

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

 

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

 

The rest of my defense against this guys attacks are excerpts from the article where he questions facts or misstates facts. Much of his article is just opinion and I've left that out. The stuff from the article will be bold italic.

 

In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001

 

Saddam Was not overthrown until 2003. For someone railing about Moore's facts being wrong it really seems strange he can't get his own supposed facts right.

 

Fox News

 

Sabri also said Washington refused Iraqi offers of cooperation in the case of Yasin, the man accused of mixing the bomb that blew up in the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, killing six people and injuring 1,000.

 

Iraq arrested Yasin in Iraq in 1994. Baghdad has offered America information and, through an international mediator, said it was willing to hand Yasin over, but the U.S. government rejected the offer, the statement said.

 

It did not explain why the United States would have rebuffed the offer, and U.S. officials could not immediately be reached to confirm the Iraqi account.

 

The reason the U.S. turned them down is that they wanted a lifting of economic sanctions in return for him which, obviously, was not gonna happen. He was arrested in 1994 and was put in prison. I don't call that being a guest. In jail he could be used as a bargaining chip. Letting him out would give him the opportunity to escape.

 

There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others.

 

The point Moore makes in the film is that recruiters don't waste time going to the middle class or rich areas to recruit because they don't want to join. The poor are recruited because they see it as an opportunity whereas the more well to do see it as a step down and don't want to put their lives on the line for the country.

 

I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

 

Moore's point in the film is that in General Shinseki's view it would take several hundred thousand's of U.S. soldiers to secure Iraq and this has been proven true. After the initial conflict had been won the Iraqis were without water and power for months and sectarian violence still hasn't been put under control. The administration crows about the effectiveness of a small troop surge so what would an extra 100,000 troops at the beginning have done? The war was poorly planned at the outset.

 

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

 

Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do?

 

Moore asks members of Congress if they want to send their children to Iraq to help the war effort and the responses he gets are quite funny. Most just run away from him. The point he's making here is that Congress probably would be a lot more careful about starting a war if their kids were in danger.

[Adam]

(ex head of the DNC)on a plane from Denver to S. Carolina on Friday.

 

But the dems are for the people!

Neither are for the people (sheep). They are both for making sure both of them consolidate as much power as possible, while their idiot followers continue their mindless obedience

[Steely Dan]

In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children).

 

I checked the internet and couldn't find a link to establish this "fact".

 

Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

 

Strong words for someone who never served in the military. Moore didn't either but I wonder if this writer has ever given a talk in front of a hostile audience. If he did he doesn't mention it.

 

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet.

 

Nowhere in that article can I find that he says he won't appear on shows where he might face hostile questioning. While it could be technically argued that he doesn't say the article says that it surely leads a person to that conclusion.

 

Since he brought up the article I'll quote from it.

 

Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he -- or any other documentary filmmaker -- has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

 

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie -- such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

 

Here it is.

 

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Saudi’s have $860 billion dollars invested in America.

“Over the next twenty-five years, roughly eighty-five thousand ‘high-net-worth’ Saudis invested a staggering $860 billion in American companies – an average of more than $10 million a person and a sum that is roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Spain.”  Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, (Scribner: New York, 2004).  

“Allan Gerson, an attorney who represents about 3,600 family members of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks … said he is not suing the Saudi government, but he is pursuing ‘Saudi interests’ in the United States he estimated totaled about $860 billion.”  “ $113 Million in Terrorism Funds Frozen,” CNN, November 20, 2002.

 

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: In terms of investments on Wall Street, $860 billion is “roughly six or seven percent of America.”

“With a total market capitalization exceeding $12 trillion, the NYSE Composite represents approximately 82 percent of the total U.S. market cap.” New York Stock Exchange News Release, “NYSE to Reintroduce Composite Index,” January 2, 2003. ($860 billion is about 7 percent of $12 trillion.) 

 

Interesting don't you think. More from the article he links.

 

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks (''Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly,'' Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was ''no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace'' and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

 

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends -- in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

 

''I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree,'' Mr. Moore said. ''The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment.''

 

There's a fact he got wrong and sounds like an idiot defending it. I'd agree with you there.

[Steely Dan]

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

 

By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised.

 

If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

 

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

 

There's that ellipsis he despises. Lets see what follows.

 

Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China.

He knows Moore isn't doing that or even suggesting it and that's why he deliberately leaves it out. He's doing exactly what he's criticizing Moore for doing.

 

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

 

Here's a quote from him earlier in the article.

 

Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.)

 

He never offers that Moore was against the war just that it's cleverness by those who initially opposed the war. So where does he get his own opinion that Moore would be against his sumations?

[BuffaloBorn1960]

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

 

By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised.

 

If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

 

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

 

There's that ellipsis he despises. Lets see what follows.

 

Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China.

He knows Moore isn't doing that or even suggesting it and that's why he deliberately leaves it out. He's doing exactly what he's criticizing Moore for doing.

 

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

 

Here's a quote from him earlier in the article.

 

Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.)

 

He never offers that Moore was against the war just that it's cleverness by those who initially opposed the war. So where does he get his own opinion that Moore would be against his sumations?

better be careful, you may get some repetitive nerve damage on your right index finger (mouse finger) from all that cutting and pasting...

[buckeyemike]

I hate that 'ing saying

 

Mea culpa.

[Adam]

All these idiots like Limbaugh, Coulter, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Moore and the others. All they spew is pure hate. Intelligent people wouldn't bother listening to anything they say. None of them even have any credibility.

[Booster4324]

All these idiots like Limbaugh, Coulter, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Moore and the others. All they spew is pure hate. Intelligent people wouldn't bother listening to anything they say. None of them even have any credibility.

 

 

What he said.

[Wacka]

All these idiots like Limbaugh, Coulter, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Moore and the others. All they spew is pure hate. Intelligent people wouldn't bother listening to anything they say. None of them even have any credibility.

 

Have you ever listened to any of them?

[Gene Frenkle]

Have you ever listened to any of them?

All you really need to do is read the comments of those who take their words as gospel. That alone should be enough to keep any rational person away from the partisan evil that these idiots regularly spew. Not that I would want to single anyone out.