FeloniusThunk

I certainly am no fan of Michael Moore, though I haven't bothered to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm curious, though, about a couple of things:

Should there be any restrictions on films? Are commercials different than films? Does it make a difference who pays for the films or commercials (if they're not for profit)?

Also, does Kerry and Bush not condemning the film and commercial cancel each other out? Are they both 'ok', since the other one didn't do it either? Is this just a calculus to make sure 'our' guy is no worse than 'their' guy, and no condemnation or feeling of guilt required?

Iwatas

IMO, no. No holds should be barred. Both sides have a lot of money (counting the "527" groups, Dems are spending more than Repubs this election year). Let 'em at it!

Iwatas

I loved this:

Nobody is ever prevented from sending a check to the US Government with an extra donation to help people get food. Though usually people prefer to send via a charity, since that is a lot more efficient.

Still, it amuses me that you equate *taxes* with your willingness to give up money. If you are in favour of higher taxes, you are actually in favour of *other people* being compelled to give up more money, since you are always welcome to do so.

It is not big-hearted or compassionate to force someone else to give up their money in order to give it to someone whom you believe needs it more. It is forced redistribution of wealth. Call a spade a spade.

Iwatas

I saw a poll recently which showed that among 5,000 or so people, 10% had seen Moore's latest movie. 12% had listened to Rush Limbaugh in the past week or two.

Which means that at least 1000 people (representing 20% of the electorate) are highly politically involved (since both Rush and Moore are focused on political issues).

And out of these 5,000 people, only a handful -- less than 1% -- had done both. Which means the disconnect between the right and the left is pretty complete, since we live in different worlds. We get different information, and we draw very different conclusions.

Has anyone on this list both seen the movie and listened to Rush in the last month?

Perfection

Fair enough. I must say, I have spent a significant amount of time in Europe and do perfer a more "socialist"...by which I mean larger redistrubution of wealth then capitalism provides...ideas of a place such as Sweeden. Don't get me wrong, I still prefer America for many, many things (to quelm all of those "why don't you move there" people), but coming from an upper-middle class family that lives in a poor area, I guess I have a unique perspective.


On another note, I haven't listened to Rush (I don't know when he's on), but I have seen Farenheit 9/11 and DO watch Fox News (O'Reilly/Hannity/Cavuto) and occasionally listen to Michael Savage/O'Reilly/Hannity on the radio when I get bored. A week ago I got stuck in some traffic on 84 while going to Eastern Oregon, and so I got a healthy dose then. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with just about everything that these hardcore conservatives push for. Despite them not really being "fair and balanced", I listen to them for their side of the story....and some entertainment value as I listen to O'Reilly interrupt and browbeat any rare liberal he brings to come on his show.

Believe me, living in a large Fraternity where 78 of the 83 guys are conservative provides me with enough of the other view point.

I feel that it is important to be informed, and you don't get the "whole picture" from just one source. But at the same time, I hardly ever find myself agreeing with O'Reilly. I guess not having school or a job right now gives me the extra time to follow the politics.


Yeah to me....the Critical Thinking Party.

Air America

Deleted. No personal attacks.

Iwatas

Fair enough.

I recommend Rush. I don't care as much for the other guys, and I find Savage positively evil (his anti-immigration stance is the worst thing about the nativist right wing in America, IMO). But Rush is thoughtful, always polite to callers, and often thinks of angles others miss. He is also reliably entertaining. His line is basically that of an idealistic republican, and he cares more for domestic politics than international, FWIW.

Minstrel

Partisan describes every commentator in the political landscape. He's considered a "propogandist" by conservatives and others who have a reason to dislike what he says.

Ad hominem alert!

You're simply attacking the people who take Moore seriously, rather than providing any reason why they shouldn't.

It's as valid to say the only people who dismiss Moore are close-minded, emotional, far right and not possessed of any critical-thinking ability.

More accurately, he reports the truth as he sees it, just like any non-beat reporter. Beat reporters provide the facts and nothing but the facts. Editorialists, column-writers, TV commentators, etc, all believe they're "aiding in the search for truth" by providing their own interpretation of the facts. Moore fits right within that group. He doesn't just gather facts and list them on the screen in list form, any more than a Wall Street Journal opinion columnist does. He takes the facts and throws an interpretation on them, based on his world view. And he uses his craft to argue his case as persuasively as possible.

Sub out "Michael Moore" and sub in anyone who is not a pure reporter and it reads just the same. Moore is just better at it than most, which infuriates those who disagree with him.

Subtle attempt to discredit Moore not on any valid attack but with the insinuation that he's just trying to earn money and fame.

Pretty much all of the claims laid out by those "MANY articles" have been debunked by Moore. Moore has a standing offer of $50,000, or somesuch, for anyone who confronts him with a true lie or factual error. So far, no one has taken the challenge.

Clearly, you don't like Moore. That's cool. I don't like a lot of people in the media, Bill O'Reilly chief among them. But your insinuations that only overly-emotional wackos take him seriously and logical, reasoned types (presumably such as yourself) know he's just a liar are fairly absurd and just as propogandist as you claim Moore is.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Iwatas

I do not think this is correct. Moore does much more than take certain facts and draw conclusions from them. On many occasions, he *invented* facts.

The most eggregious example?

http://www.newsletters.newsweek.msnbc.com/id/5575561/

I'd say inventing a newspaper headline counts as an outright falsehood, and something which discredits Michael Moore entirely. One does not "accidentally" invent a newspaper headline, have a fake one made up, and then shoot it on film as if it were real.

Minstrel

This is old news. First of all, he didn't "invent it." If you bothered to read your own source, the newspaper asserts that it existed in their paper, just not on the front page.

Second of all, it's absurd to say that moving the headline, in a split-second newspaper prop, completely discredits Moore. That's like saying one of Bush's English screw-ups completely discredits his entire speech.

Moore is a film-maker, and he was using that headline as a prop to describe a true sentiment at the time he was talking about...that most media outlets were reporting Gore would have won recounts.

So, Moore wasn't lying about his point...moving the headline was simply to illustrate a true point. There was nothing deceptive in the intent.

The point of that split-second was not to make audiences think, "The Pantagraph reported Gore would have won any recount!" If that had been the point, then yes, it would be highly deceptive. But, in fact, I seriously doubt anyone really noticed or cared which paper it was.

The point of that split-second was to make audiences think, "Media outlets were reporting Gore would have won Florida under just about any recount standard." And that was perfectly true, at that time. So Moore's prop was just effective film-making in illustrating a perfectly valid, true point.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

hoojacks

If anything, Moore just gives the republican party someone to rally against.

I'd suggest looking on Moore's website, where he has 9 pages of news stories to back up his claims. True, some of the footage might of been shown in a misleading manner. But who went to that film that either didn't already agree with him or vehemently disagrees with him?

If I were to call myself a democrat, I'd rather have Michael Moore, Bill Maher, John Stewart and William Farrell fighting for my cause than Rush, O'Reilly, Savage or ANN COULTER. Those people are INSANE.

Basically, Moore gets the general feeling right in F9/11. He tried to put too many "outragoues" things in there, but America is pretty dumb, they might not get it when you say "Suadi Arabia, our allies, fund more terrorism than Iraq could ever afford to."
You need examples and over exagerations to get the troops rallied. That's what he did, and I can't blame him, because the generality of the whole issue was perfectly presented.

__________________

STOMP

a local angle on this...

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...0303292321.xml

STOMP

STOMP

Ad hominem alert!

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

btw... here's the mission statement of the source I linked above.

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

STOMP