Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The war between Chris Hardball and Michael Moore

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The war between Chris Hardball and Michael Moore
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:03 am Post subject:

Troll_Bait wrote:

On the other hand wrote:

As far as I can tell, Matthews was simply saying that bin laden was using rhetoric similar to that used by Michael Moore, not that Moore endorses bin laden. Plus, he referred to "an over-the-top Michael Moore", which I take to mean that it's not Moore's actual ideas that bin laden endorses, but a distorted version of them.

So no, I don't think he should apologize.

I think these are good points.

However, am I alone in thinking that comparing a film-maker to history's worst terrorist (a remorseless, even proud, mass-murderer of over 3,000 innocent people, including women and children) is somewhat slanderous?

One makes movies.

The other has a program of genocide. September 11th was merely the first "tick" in his to-do list.

Am I the only one who thinks that comparing the two is going just a little bit too far?

Does criticising America make one an enemy of America?

Whatever happened to, "I disagree with you, Sir, but will defend your right to speak"? (I forgot the exact words of the quote, as well as who said the words.)

When do movies become propaganda? What if I made a movie about Hitler and Germany and made him look like the good guy and the rest of the world as the bad guy. Then I put it under the category of fiction, kinda like Da Vinci Code. Is that ok?

Is it ok that Cindy Sheehan goes and meets with Chavez?

Or that 9/11 is full of lies and pretenses that incites hatred towards the president and the US?

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

I am assuming you are not comparing the Da Vinci Code to a book about Hitler being an angel.
But hiding (or banning) something tends not to work. People want it more. Let it out into the open, and show (educate people) just how wacky, hateful or crazy it is. That is a much better (albeit more difficult) solution.

some waygug-in

Joined: 25 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject:

Say what you will about Michael Moore and the things he comes up with(rightly or wrongly), but I have to respect the guy for having the guts to stand up to an obviously corrupt administration. Something a few more of us should do I think.

khyber

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:04 am Post subject:

igtg...did you read a bit more into those "halliburton shares" that "he has"?

Turns out that he has absolutely no control over them. He started up an independent film company with some capital he recieved with roger and me. That money was put into the control of the board who had/s control over that money. They used that money to buy those shares: It's his movie company that is seeing all the money coming in.
He (well, his company) is using halliburton share profits to support other directors in making anti-corporation movies.

Quote:

Is it ok that Cindy Sheehan goes and meets with Chavez?

free country non?

i'd agree that comparing him, to any real extent to bin laden seems a bit of a hyperbole.

And as for what he says "supporting the terrorists", consider the fact that the actions of the administration are what is keeping this war going; it ain't the words from moore's mouth

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: ...

Are Media Ganging Up on Michael Moore?; Interview With Bob Edwards

Aired July 4, 2004 - 11:30 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST (voice-over): "Fahrenheit" boils over. Is the press ganging up on Michael Moore, or just reporting factual errors in his anti-Bush movie? And why is Moore accusing journalists of peddling propaganda?

Quote:

KURTZ: And love it or hate it, the partisans and the pundits have plenty to say.

And what exactly is Kurtz by the end of this discussion? A moderator? Or one of the partisans/pundits?

Quote:

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": It is a deeply patriotic movie, and I think every American ought to see it.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": There's nothing deeply patriotic about Michael Moore.

BEGALA: It's deeply patriotic.

CARLSON: ... who has attacked this country.

Make that "attacked what he sees wrong with the country".

Quote:

BEGALA: He loves this country, and it's a -- the movie is a love letter to America. ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": He is a demagogue. He's anti-American. He lies.

This is coming from CIA-outer Novak.

Quote:

KURTZ: But journalists aren't just writing reviews of the box office smash, they're digging into what they say as Moore's cinematic distortions.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even though there are facts in this movie, on the whole it's not accurate.

On the whole? The movie is a good 120 minutes long. What percentage of that is inaccurate? A good half of it is the woman going to Washington.

Quote:

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One character in this film suggests that President Bush is even worse than Osama bin Laden, one of the excesses and distortions that may undermine the credibility of Michael Moore's message.

And some unidentified female doesn't understand that a person (not character) offering an opinion in a documentary doesn't make it the film-maker's personal belief, nor is it in any way a distortion of anything if someone said it. It's simply an opinion.

Quote:

Michael Isikoff, you say the film is just flat-out wrong on, for example, the question involving the bin Laden family after 9/11. Explain.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, NEWSWEEK: The movie clearly gives the impression that a lot of Saudis were allowed to flee the country, to fly out of the country at a time when nobody else could, because of the political influence that the Saudis have with the White House and that they weren't adequately vetted by the FBI.

A lot of Saudis? No. Bin Laden's family? Yes.
Of course, "a lot" is subjective.

Quote:

This is in some cases flat-out wrong. In some cases, he is raising a legitimate issue, but he's leaving out a whole lot. Mainly, that there has been an independence investigation of the Saudi flights after -- that took place after September 11. The 9/11 Commission looked at it. They determined that many of them were interviewed in detail, that they were screened by the FBI, and that none of them were wanted for or needed to be interviewed who had any information relevant to 9/11.

In some cases. 9/11 Commission findings are after-the-fact. Again, "many" of them. I learned something right there. Apparently, this wasn't all hunky-dory. Interesting.

Quote:

But most importantly, it says the White House approved these flights and gives the impression this was because of the Bush family nexus with the Saudis. Well, we know who at the White House approved the flights, and it was Richard Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton White House.

No denying the Bush family nexus with the Saudis. Who cares if Clarke was a hold-over from Clinton? The White House approved the flights. Moreover, there's no explanation of whether Clarke took it upon himself to do that or whether it was done in conjunction with the other elements of the White House.

Quote:

KURTZ: Why do you dislike the movie so much?

HITCHENS: I made also some of the points that Michael has just made about the -- Moore must have known that Richard Clarke could say this. Maybe he did say it, and Moore didn't think it was useful, because it wouldn't work to say that Richard Clarke had authorized the flights.

Must have? Speculation. Opinion.

Quote:

So that's one small lie, but there's a bigger lie that it's helping to propagate. He says that the whole of American foreign policy is determined by the Saudi Arabian royal family. Now, the Bush administration has been to war with two of Saudi Arabia's friends. The Taliban, who they helped to impose in Afghanistan, and the government of Saddam Hussein, which they regarded as their buffer state against the Shia.

So the speculation is now a lie.

Gee, I missed that part where Moore says that the whole of American foreign policy is determined by the Saudi Arabian royal family. That's pretty big. In fact, that's what I'd call "distortion". So Hitchens is opposing the movie's "distortions" with his own "distortions"? I guess that makes him respectable.

I won't even touch the government of Hussein as Saudi friend bit, but it does make for even more conclusions.

Quote:

The actual history is exactly the opposite of what Moore's paranoid suggestions are. He openly says that he believes that the other side of this war, the Islamic jihad, torturers, saboteurs, beheaders and fanatics and murderers are the equivalent to the American Minutemen. So welcome to his contribution to the 4th of July celebration. The man is openly on the other side in this war, and the film shows it in every frame.

That's reading into his comments, which are not part of the movie. But, to put it a better way, I believe the minutemen, not fighting in standard uniforms and not observing standard battlefield codes of the time, could have been labeled illegal combatants and imprisoned indefinitely if that had been the MO of the time. But I digress.

Nowehere in the movie or anywhere else has he wished ill for US troops.

Every frame of the movie? That's weak.

KURTZ: Speaking of the other side...

HITCHENS: What the Democrats are doing with such a person is beyond me. Beyond me.

Quote:

HITCHENS: Does he believe the war in Afghanistan is about a pipeline that was never built?

That pipeline is still in the works.

Anything to be said about is speculation.

Quote:

PRESS: There are also -- there are also some basic truths that have come out of this movie -- if I can finish my opening statement -- one of which is that this administration and previous ones have been far too cozy looking the other way on the Saudis. And two, that this president led us into an unnecessary and unwise war. That is true.

KURTZ: So you're saying it's OK to distort the facts, as long as it's in the service of the side that you believe in?

Nice "moderator". Where, up to now in this discussion, have any facts been distorted?

Quote:

PRESS: All I'm saying is, let's not have a double standard. OK? If we are going to pick, pick, pick, at everything Michael Moore says, let's pick, pick, pick at everything Bill O'Reilly says, Rush Limbaugh says, Sean Hannity says, and everybody else on the right.

HITCHENS: Excuse me. Can I just say? I have made a number of documentaries myself, including one that was in theaters, calling for Henry Kissinger to be tried for war crimes. And I'm not a friend of Limbaugh or Hannity, thanks all the same.

No one has ever made a factual objection to anything that appears in my movie or my book, as a matter of fact. They don't. Because they couldn't. Because I don't play fast and loose. Michael Moore says that Americans are being killed by people who he supports, incidentally, by jihadist guerrillas in Afghanistan because the Bush family wanted to build a pipeline. That pipeline project was abandoned in 1998. And Moore knows this perfectly well. What he says is flat-out false and sinister.

PRESS: I don't believe that.

First off, Press doesn't even mention Hitchens, but Hitchens is off to the races.

And again, that the pipeline project was abandoned in '98 doesn't mean that it won't be built. In fact, why wouldn't it be if, as Hitchens follows, the Taliban were what was standing in the way?

Quote:

HITCHENS: And his propaganda...

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: ... deliberate, deliberate propaganda for the other side is...

KURTZ: Well, let's let viewers see for themselves, because I want to play a brief clip from the movie in which Michael Moore runs up to and accosts -- verbally at least -- Congressman Mark Kennedy. Let's take a look.

See the propaganda? Nice "moderator".

Quote:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOORE: Congressman? Michael Moore.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you doing?

MOORE: Good. Good. Trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Now, what was left out of the trailer to the movie was Congressman Kennedy's response when he was asked about we're trying to find out whether members of Congress have kids in the war, which is "I have two nephews in the military." That wasn't used.

And nephews are suddenly "your kids"? Wow. I didn't realize I "had kids". Better tell my girlfriend.

And again, nice "moderator".

Quote:

Do you find a lot of omissions in this movie as well? In other words, things that are kind of true are put in and things that might change the view are left out?

ISIKOFF: Well, yeah. I mean, there are glaring omissions. Such as on the pipeline issue, the fact that it was abandoned in 1998.

KURTZ: And this is a pipeline that Moore says that the reason we went to war in Afghanistan was so that Bush's pals could build an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.

ISIKOFF: The actual truth of it is quite fascinating, which is that this was a project that was being pushed in the late 1990s by Unocal, the oil company, and according to Steve Call's (ph) book on -- in which he deals with this, you're a managing editor, Howie -- he talks about how Unocal was having repeated meetings with the Clinton White House trying to promote the project, and getting a quite receptive audience. The problem is that the Taliban, clearly as they hardened their positions and became more and more a protector of Osama bin Laden, the project became untenable. Unocal turned -- and Unocal pulled out of it.

And then what Moore does in this movie...

(CROSSTALK)

ISIKOFF: What Moore does in the movie is then cut to...

HITCHENS: He's a liar.

ISIKOFF: ... a Taliban envoy coming to Washington in March of 2001 and suggesting that the Bush White House was embracing this project. Well, it was a dead issue at the time. It wasn't on the table.

PRESS: I don't buy the pipeline argument at all for the war in Afghanistan. I think the war in Afghanistan was justified. What I want to make is, why suddenly everybody piling on Michael Moore?

But again, the pipeline very likely will be built. The Taliban are out of the way, so why not?

Quote:

(CROSSTALK)

HITCHENS: ... Taliban side of the war is why.

PRESS: I want to say...

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: You think he's been treated unfairly?

PRESS: We had an administration that put out lie after lie after lie about why we had to rush into war in Iraq, and the mainstream media just swallowed it hook, line and sinker and repeated it. And put it out on the network news, on the front pages of papers every day. Why...

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: Let me jump in. Let me jump in.

PRESS: OK.

KURTZ: Are there any parallels between "Fahrenheit 911" and your book, "Bush Must Go," where you say -- it's all in black in white. He lied us into war, he never tells the truth, worst president ever. Black and white.

Compared to the "black and white" of the above analysis?

And let's look at the examples:

1) Lied us into war. Still no proof, but it would hard to argue that he "truthed" us into war.

2) Never tells the truth. Nobody has said this. A baby game to bring it up.

3) Worst president ever. Opinion

These are examples of black and white logic while Hitchens is wailing about him being a liar and every frame of the movie being anti-US?

Interesting.

And again. Nice "moderator"!

Quote:

PRESS: I will say this, OK, in my defense. I don't think you will find any untruth in that book. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Sure. I talk about the war in Iraq, I talk about the war on terror, I talk about the economy. But I'm very, very careful with my facts. But you know, I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist. Michael Moore is not. He's a filmmaker. He is a polemicist. He is the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

ISIKOFF: Can I...

HITCHENS: Documentary means documentary, I'm sorry. It is not kosher to tell conscious lies, it is not kosher to tell them in order to boost the cause of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

And the proof of a lie (for which Moore could be sued if it actually existed)? None. Kind of like WMD.

Quote:

KURTZ: I got to jump in here. First of all, I want to mention my pet peeve, which is the film opens with a suggestion that Bush stole the election, and Moore says that few people know that Bush's cousin at Fox News helped call the election for the president. "Washington Post," November 14, 2000, by Howard Kurtz, "Bush Cousin Made Florida Vote Call" for Fox News. So much for that. Now I also want to turn -- all right, I guess not that many people read it.

I didn't know that until I saw the movie. Nor did I know Bush's car got egged.

Quote:

HITCHENS: No, I remember it very well. It was a very good piece.

KURTZ: I want to turn to what Moore has had to say about your profession, our profession, the media. Let's take a look at an interview he gave to George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOORE: I mean, listen, George, if the media had done their job, if they'd asked the hard questions of the Bush administration, about these weapons of mass destruction, demanded proof -- the media and everybody watching this knows this, got on board. They took the soup. They took the Kool-Aid. They just became cheerleaders for this war. And it was -- and that was a disservice to the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Michael Isikoff, doesn't Moore have a point that the press was less than aggressive in challenging the shaky evidence presented by Bush and Cheney in the run-up to the war in Iraq?

ISIKOFF: Yes, he does. I mean, I think that's a legitimate point. It's been made in a lot of media, you know, inquests since then.

KURTZ: "New York Times" editors know it, for example.

ISIKOFF: "New York Times," and I think we all could have been more aggressive. And there's been a lot written about this and a lot exposed about how intelligence was manipulated and overstated, and I think the media's been quite aggressive. My...

Yes, that is a very good point. Anyone who followed news in 2003 can attest to that.

BUT

Quote:

KURTZ: Christopher is shaking his head.

HITCHENS: Well, look, as someone who was in favor of the intervention, I remember thinking in the run-up before -- to it, that you couldn't -- you could hardly open "The New York Times" without being told the administration's claims were not up to much. And now I would say the media gives everyone the impression that Saddam Hussein was no problem with regards to either weaponry or contacts with terrorism. I think, by the way, that's a very dangerous misapprehension.

And he's talking about the American media as a whole? No. He's talking about the NYT.

And that's very slanted to slip the "no problem" line in there. If Moore had done, some might have called it "distortion".

but Hitchens runs with it:

Quote:

But Michael Moore's film shows pre-war Iraq and says, no problem. This was a happy place, a sovereign country. Which it wasn't. It was under international sanctions, for very excellent reasons, by the way, where children are flying kites. And everything is cool in Iraq. And so suddenly the nightmare weapons of American...

Fahrenheit 9/11 does not say "no problem. This was a happy place", but it was a sovereign country, and it's an obvious distortion to mix issues like that.

Quote:

ISIKOFF: I actually agree with you on both. I thought those were the two most powerful parts of the movie, and I think the movie does raise a lot of legitimate questions and is provoking a lot of real debate.

My problem is that for many people, millions of people who are going to see this movie who don't perhaps read the media or watch CNN regularly, this is going to be all they know about what has taken place in the last few years, and it is...

KURTZ: The Oliver Stone argument.

Nice "moderator".

Quote:

ISIKOFF: Right. And it is a selective, highly selective use of the facts, and I think the media does play a role here in perhaps fleshing things out and sort of pointing out that which has been...

HITCHENS: And it comes from someone who is arguing for the other side. He is an advocate for the other side in the war.

He is against the war. Again, he's never wished ill for US troops, but he doesn't think they belong there.

Quote:

HITCHENS: Well, then he shouldn't say to people like Stephanopoulos, no, this is the truth at last. I mean, he can't have it both ways. But there is a truth about it, he should be taken seriously. It is a sinister thing that we make a culture hero out of someone who is in favor of the Taliban and al Qaeda and the Iraqi military.

Moore is not in favor of "the Taliban and al Qaeda and the Iraqi military".

Proof? Or insinuation?

And that about sums it up. This is what Gopher apparently thinks discredits Fahrenheit 9/11.

In fact, it doesn't really say much.

I believe I know of 2 errors in the movie:
-One is about Bush participation in the Carleton group
-One is about a newspaper date

Can't recall the specifics, but the movie as a whole is factual.

I was a bit disappointed when I watched it just because I'd followed the news extensively during the time period it covers. It was a bit boring in that sense.

As for being "all wrong", I don't believe it was.

Moreover, this example of a bunch of mukluks attacking says at least as much about them as it does about the film.

DISCLAIMER: I deleted parts of the full CNN segment that I didn't wish to address. The full segment is in Gopher's post.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject:

It would be very hard to sue Moore for not telling the truth in a movie.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:51 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

Does criticising America make one an enemy of America?

Some would say that criticism of a friend is the best and finest expression of love - and self-criticism (Americans criticize ourselves far more than the rest of you do) is the highest form of self-love. We who love our country most talk bad about her most also. Yes, it's true ... it's because we know we can be better and fervently hope to make it so.

Quote:

Is it ok that Cindy Sheehan goes and meets with Chavez?

Free and private individual American citizens can go and meet and talk to anyone who wants to talk to them. It's one of the ways we know we are not China. So, yes, it's okay.

We are a strong country, strong enough to withstand criticism from others as well as ourselves. The freedom we have to listen and engage in such criticism is part of what makes us strong.

Quote:

Or that 9/11 is full of lies and pretenses that incites hatred towards the president and the US?

Only stupid people equate the American president with the nation of the United States of America. Really and truly stupid people are relatively rare in my experience. I'm interested in living my life and sacrioficing my liberties merely in fear of what stupid people will think.

I think you meant to type the name of Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 911. The title is a play on the old novel by Ray Bradbury called Fahrenheit 451 which is the temperature required in an oven in order to make books composed of paper to catch fire and burn. Moore's title was intended to say that 911 is the temperature at which Truth burns ... and I nab at some hope for the future at the notion that truth is incinerated at a level much higher than mere paper.

Actually, when you stack up the bald-faced lies of the Bush administration and compare them to a few minor exagerations in Moore's film, you find yourself in the midst of a vast joke ...

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee :

Quote:

It would be very hard to sue Moore for not telling the truth in a movie.

It would be very hard to sue President Bush for not telling the truth a war ... in a perfect world this would be possible, but we haven't got there yet.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Ok, that's a fair quote, but calling Bush and Michael Moore is quite a stretch. Criticism is only effective when it takes the form of exhortation. Meaning, when it is out of love. Michael Moore, though I don't know all of his motivation, seems to be motivated out of something rather than love. I see his type of criticism as more of hatred.

Free and private individual American citizens can go and meet and talk to anyone who wants to talk to them. It's one of the ways we know we are not China. So, yes, it's okay.

Quote:

We are a strong country, strong enough to withstand criticism from others as well as ourselves. The freedom we have to listen and engage in such criticism is part of what makes us strong.

Sure, but only when it is like a Regan/Gorby type setting. Where this isn't a selling of values. Google has sold out. Cindy Sheenhan has sold out. Many corporations and people have sold out.

Quote:

Actually, when you stack up the bald-faced lies of the Bush administration and compare them to a few minor exagerations in Moore's film, you find yourself in the midst of a vast joke ...

What lies? These types of statements are dangerous without facts and wisdom and this is my point. Moore has already tried to discredit Bush, but now is becoming a dangerous far-left who has ties to Chavaz and who knows who else? The parable, what you sow you reap...comes to mind. What Moore is trying to characterize Bush as being he(Moore) himself is becoming.

If Bush has lied then he will be tried. He is not above the law and you know it.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:13 am Post subject:

Octavius Hite wrote:

Yes.

And I think all of you should watch Good Night and Good Luck!

And I think that you should watch Girls Gone Wild. You will likely find more astute and sophisticated political commentary if you do.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Ok, that's a fair quote, but calling Bush and Michael Moore is quite a stretch.

That doesn't quite make sense, but I'll assume you meant "comparing".

Quote:

Criticism is only effective when it takes the form of exhortation. Meaning, when it is out of love.

And what is your comment, then, on the Bush White House criticizing its oppents for "playing the blame game" post-Katrina? Was that love?

Quote:

Michael Moore, though I don't know all of his motivation, seems to be motivated out of something rather than love. I see his type of criticism as more of hatred.

OK, that's your opinion without any back-up. "His type"? Define. Have you seen F911? Who would you say he is "hating"?

Quote:

Free and private individual American citizens can go and meet and talk to anyone who wants to talk to them. It's one of the ways we know we are not China. So, yes, it's okay.

"Private" citizens? Would that be as opposed to the "corporate" ones? That's an interesting distinction. I rather like it, but I doubt for the reasons you wrote it. What do you mean by private?

Your whole post here seems a bit garbled.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:38 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

Michael Moore, though I don't know all of his motivation, seems to be motivated out of something rather than love. I see his type of criticism as more of hatred.

Quote:

We are a strong country, strong enough to withstand criticism from others as well as ourselves. The freedom we have to listen and engage in such criticism is part of what makes us strong.

Sure, but only when it is like a Regan/Gorby type setting. Where this isn't a selling of values. Google has sold out. Cindy Sheenhan has sold out. Many corporations and people have sold out.

First time I've Cindy and google both criticized in the same paragraph. It's an historical moment. You probably have something interesting to say about this stuff, but I'm just not getting it, so it must be my fault.

Quote:

Actually, when you stack up the bald-faced lies of the Bush administration and compare them to a few minor exagerations in Moore's film, you find yourself in the midst of a vast joke ...

All presidents lie. I include my two favorite ones, Jefferson and Lincoln, but of course it applies to Clinton as well. Been said many times, I'll say it again : Clinton lied about a blowjob and they held impeachment hearings. Bush lied about about a war, and people say, "Yeah, buddy, you GO for it!!"

And people die. You want to know how many, take look at Cindy Sheehan's shirt, the one that got her booted out of the SOTUA.

Quote:

If Bush has lied then he will be tried. He is not above the law and you know it.

This is too naive to respond to. Teddy Roosevelt and Cuba. Lyndon Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin. Nixon and Watergate. Reagan and Oliver North and The Contras. Bush's Dad and "Read my lips, No new taxes." Clinton, and "I never had sex with that woman," wanting us to believe that fellatio is not sex.

All of which pales compared to Bush : "Saddam has WMDs and links to Al Queda. The US does not torture. And Congress gave us the power to listen to your phone calls."

Lies. Lies. Lies.

I'd like to think he is not above the law, but history tells me something different. And my eyes, unfortunately, are open.

nasigoreng

Joined: 14 May 2004

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject:

Wednesday, April 14th, 2004
Heads Up... from Michael Moore

Quote:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers!

Michael Moore doesn't know who he's talking about does he?

Last edited by nasigoreng on Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:22 am Post subject:

[quote="The Bobster"]

fiveeagles wrote:

Michael Moore, though I don't know all of his motivation, seems to be motivated out of something rather than love. I see his type of criticism as more of hatred.

We'll have to agree to disagree until you come up with somethnig real that we can look at and talk about. When you think about it, the man took a lot of risks to make that movie, and then had to rely on what seems now to be an outdated sort of faith in the ability of Americans to listen to opposing viewpoints ... and surprisingly, he sold a lot of tickets. [quote]

I was thinking about this point the other day. "What motivates people." I just watched Canadian Bacon... Have you seen it? Anyway, it is a film by Moore. It's funny because there is a foreshadowing of what Moore is to become. The cliches on the country...starting wars because of popularity...and so on.

Moore has a point. As humanity goes, we love to war. I am not going to disagree on this. And this is why he has many people watching his stuff. There is truth in his message. The problem comes when he tries to present his fiction as fact.

A breakdown of 911
-Mocking the President of his slow reaction. What a spinless, cowardly act. Unfortunately, many people love to do this and it's enjoyed. Moore is gaining brownpoints with the Moonies because of their outright hatred of Bush.
-Putting the blame of the Saudis leaving the country on Bush. Not his fault. However, it's easy to blame the guy in charge. Right. Like Bush should have known what would have happened in a terrorist act. Moore moony points.
-Blaming false motivations for starting the war....the pipeline through Afganistan. Not mentioning that it was started in Clinton's era and maybe before.
-What about faulty intelligence? Is that strictly Bush's fault? With Moore's world....of course.

Sure Bush was too rash for entering the war, but that's an easy mistake. Look at the world today and look at the reaction of the Muslims to CARTOONS. Bush took a risk and wanted to bring down the most dangerous regime in the 21st century. So far it's happening. Al Qaeda is on the run. Iraq has a new government. Libya is now working towards being a democracy. Lebanon has ousted Syria. Iran is on the verge of self implosion.

Moore wants to be a self-proclaimed prophet, but I see him more as a dissenter than a nation builder. What I would like to see more of Moore is a vision of what he sees the future can become and how to get there.

Quote:

What did Lincoln lie about? Clinton got busted and that's the difference. You are assuming that Bush lied on the war. Intelligence said Saddam had WMD. What about Syria? The general of Saddam's army says they brought the WMD into Syria and hid them there. A very likely possibilty.

Wiretaps...what's he lying about there?

some waygug-in

Joined: 25 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:18 am Post subject:

there are entire web pages devoted to Bush's lies. http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm This is just one, but there are lots more. Just do a google search for "bush lies" and see what comes up.

laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:13 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

-Putting the blame of the Saudis leaving the country on Bush. Not his fault. However, it's easy to blame the guy in charge. Right. Like Bush should have known what would have happened in a terrorist act. Moore moony points.

I try not to respond to fiveeagles anymore, but the bolded part is really funny. I'm curious, who should be blamed other than the one [b]in charge?[\b]

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe