A_M_Swallow
Regular
Carter was honest but did he succeed in doing anything?
(Looking for something good.) Did he say half the number of homeless?
-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Fahrenheit 9/11 (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Ninja_Squirrel
- Start date
(Looking for something good.) Did he say half the number of homeless?
hypatia
Regular
I suspect it's just sticking in the craw of some people that MM did such an effective job of pointing out how right-wing our media really is.
Liberal bias? Heh!
Michael Moore has stated over and over again, when asked, that he felt the "other side" was quite well represented every single day on the evening and morning Whitehouse press release... er... I mean the news.
And look at how upset people get when a different persepctive is presented. And yet, look at how many flocked and are still flocking, to see it.
Liberal bias? Heh!
Michael Moore has stated over and over again, when asked, that he felt the "other side" was quite well represented every single day on the evening and morning Whitehouse press release... er... I mean the news.
And look at how upset people get when a different persepctive is presented. And yet, look at how many flocked and are still flocking, to see it.
GKarsEye
Regular
Moore's sources for facts in F 9/11
Looking through this fascinating material confirms my opinions on Moore (and don't we all have one? ): he doesn't lie, he cherry-picks. That's what Fox News does.
Looking through this fascinating material confirms my opinions on Moore (and don't we all have one?
): he doesn't lie, he cherry-picks. That's what Fox News does.
Sindatur
Regular
Which is the way you see it. Others may say, that means 70% of it is false, so therefore that is reason to keep Bush, because of the massive smear campaign involved. (Note, I haven't actually seen the movie, nor anything else of Michael Moore's than interviews with Bill O'Reilly, so I'm not a good source for arguing the legitimacy of the movie itself)
I happen to agree with you, that Bush should be replaced, but, I'm just showing you the other side of the mentality.
hypatia
Regular
The interesting thing is, how could it be 70% false? I have yet to hear any fact questioned. You might say it has a slant, as does ALL news to some extent. But you simply cannot say it is X% "false" unless you can start finding some falsehoods in it.
And that is what is really annoying most people.
And that is what is really annoying most people.
Sindatur
Regular
The interesting thing is, how could it be 70% false? I have yet to hear any fact questioned. You might say it has a slant, as does ALL news to some extent. But you simply cannot say it is X% "false" unless you can start finding some falsehoods in it.
And that is what is really annoying most people.
Oh, I agree with you, like I said I haven't even seen it. I was merely showing Za_ha_dum that if it's said to be 30% true, than others will say that makes it 70% false. And you are absolutely right, no evidence is likely to be given to support the 70% false claim.
O'Reilly does the same thing all the time, takes the undecided portion of a poll and adds it to his preferred winning side, saying the other side is only the net of 100% minus the undecided minus side he favors. Which is disingenuous, but, he usually doesn't lie about it, he just says it in a way to give you a different impression of it.
hypatia
Regular
Although I have yet to hear O'Reily (unless he's being quoted by Al Franken ) but I do think O'Reily has said some things that are outright falsehoods.
But talk radio is almost expected to do that these days, if it's politically focussed, isn't it?
MM was very smart about how he approached F9/11. I really think what is said is 100% accurate, but he most definitely does pick what facts to place in what order to give a sense that some conclusion should be drawn. So 30% true as an analogy really doesn't work in the first place (and I do take your point, and agree, with how people can see the same numbers very differently).
Actually, I think you can count on this to be a much-used tool of the right, now. MM proved it can be effecive, to some extent, and he certainly proved it can be popular. And, in my opinion at least, he is also convincingly arguing that it already has been done by the so-called mainstream media.
Michael is really just taking it one small step further. IF documentaries made more money, it would have been done a long, long time ago.
) but I do think O'Reily has said some things that are outright falsehoods. But talk radio is almost expected to do that these days, if it's politically focussed, isn't it?
MM was very smart about how he approached F9/11. I really think what is said is 100% accurate, but he most definitely does pick what facts to place in what order to give a sense that some conclusion should be drawn. So 30% true as an analogy really doesn't work in the first place (and I do take your point, and agree, with how people can see the same numbers very differently).
Actually, I think you can count on this to be a much-used tool of the right, now. MM proved it can be effecive, to some extent, and he certainly proved it can be popular. And, in my opinion at least, he is also convincingly arguing that it already has been done by the so-called mainstream media.
Michael is really just taking it one small step further. IF documentaries made more money, it would have been done a long, long time ago.
darth_librarian
Regular
Guys, the whole media selection of sources thing is interesting, maybe it should get a new thread...
My two pence, I think its' hard not to cherry pick your sources these days, in the age of cable, Lexi-Nexis, citation indexes and the magical Interweb you can bascially
find information to support any reasonable claim you want to make.
Journalists have to be selective anyway due to the sheer weight of information available, so arguably they are going to default to sources they know, trust, and that inevitably reflect their own opinion. It's human nature.
As media consumers, i guess it's up to us to judge the validity of the sources rather than take facts at face value. Not so easy when news is thrust into our faces with tag-lines such as 'fair and balanced' and 'you decide'.
Hypatia, i've just finished Franken's 'Lies and the Lying liars who tell them'. Its great!
My two pence, I think its' hard not to cherry pick your sources these days, in the age of cable, Lexi-Nexis, citation indexes and the magical Interweb you can bascially
find information to support any reasonable claim you want to make.
Journalists have to be selective anyway due to the sheer weight of information available, so arguably they are going to default to sources they know, trust, and that inevitably reflect their own opinion. It's human nature.
As media consumers, i guess it's up to us to judge the validity of the sources rather than take facts at face value. Not so easy when news is thrust into our faces with tag-lines such as 'fair and balanced' and 'you decide'.
Hypatia, i've just finished Franken's 'Lies and the Lying liars who tell them'. Its great!
hypatia
Regular
He's a very good author. He has a comic spin to it, of course, but he still makes his points.
Like Michael Moore, I think his tactics can be a bit mean. But like old Mighty, I think it's damned well time that liberals start fighting with the same tools the conservatives have for many years, quite successfully.
He has a comic spin to it, of course, but he still makes his points. Like Michael Moore, I think his tactics can be a bit mean. But like old Mighty, I think it's damned well time that liberals start fighting with the same tools the conservatives have for many years, quite successfully.
I've read Lying Liars - it was one of the first books that I read when I started getting interested in American politics. I laughed like Hell - especially at the "Operation Chickenhawk" chapter.
I know what you mean about MM being a bit mean sometimes. I've just finished watching the second season of The
Awful Truth on DVD. In one of the episodes, Moore is chasing around candidates from the 2000 election to jump in his "marge"[?] pit. At one point, he chased after John McCain. And when McCain wouldn't play ball, Moore made some quip about the 'Hanoi Hilton'. I thought "ouch!" And I think that maybe Moore thought the same thing on reflection. This was one of the episodes he did an audio commentrary for, and as he watched it, Moore said something to the effect that it was a bit low, and that he shouldn't have said it.
Still - it seems pretty mild compared with some of the things that some of the Republicans have been alleged to have said about people who don't agree with him. Ie, I believe that Bush in 2000 called McCain's mental stability into question, along with the fact that he had a wife who suffered from depression, and an adopted child.
And then there was this Democratic representative - I think his name was McCleland or Cleland - no doubt someone here will know who I'm talking about. He had served in Vietnam, and it was alleged that he had given less than his all to thw war - never mind that he had lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. And he was also compared with Osama Bin Laden because he had not supported an anti-terrorist bill - never midnt that there had been certain aspects of it that he disagreed with, not the whole thing.
And there is Ann Coulter. Double Ouch! She really tears into what she labels as liberals. But the meanest thing that the liberals have to say about her, is that it's a shame that a rightwing nutjob like her has such nice legs.
I know what you mean about MM being a bit mean sometimes. I've just finished watching the second season of The
Awful Truth on DVD. In one of the episodes, Moore is chasing around candidates from the 2000 election to jump in his "marge"[?] pit. At one point, he chased after John McCain. And when McCain wouldn't play ball, Moore made some quip about the 'Hanoi Hilton'. I thought "ouch!" And I think that maybe Moore thought the same thing on reflection. This was one of the episodes he did an audio commentrary for, and as he watched it, Moore said something to the effect that it was a bit low, and that he shouldn't have said it.
Still - it seems pretty mild compared with some of the things that some of the Republicans have been alleged to have said about people who don't agree with him. Ie, I believe that Bush in 2000 called McCain's mental stability into question, along with the fact that he had a wife who suffered from depression, and an adopted child.
And then there was this Democratic representative - I think his name was McCleland or Cleland - no doubt someone here will know who I'm talking about. He had served in Vietnam, and it was alleged that he had given less than his all to thw war - never mind that he had lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. And he was also compared with Osama Bin Laden because he had not supported an anti-terrorist bill - never midnt that there had been certain aspects of it that he disagreed with, not the whole thing.
And there is Ann Coulter. Double Ouch! She really tears into what she labels as liberals. But the meanest thing that the liberals have to say about her, is that it's a shame that a rightwing nutjob like her has such nice legs.
Sindatur
Regular
Yea, Cleland didn't give his all, he rolled away with arm and his life intact. If he really wanted to show he was giving his all he should've at least given up his remaining arm.
Anne Coulter is a truly vicious woman. Perhaps she should be on the frontline, I'm not even sure the terrorists would wanna mess with her. :devil:
McCain, I believe they claimed his wife was a drug addict, and it turned out she was perscribed Depression drugs. Terrible thing to do to someone who seems to be such a good man, and would've almost certainly been a better President than my current view of Bush.
Anne Coulter is a truly vicious woman. Perhaps she should be on the frontline, I'm not even sure the terrorists would wanna mess with her. :devil:
McCain, I believe they claimed his wife was a drug addict, and it turned out she was perscribed Depression drugs. Terrible thing to do to someone who seems to be such a good man, and would've almost certainly been a better President than my current view of Bush.
GKarsEye
Regular
Re: Max Cleland
He was a senator from Georgia running for re-election in 2002. He did indeed lose both legs and an arm in 'Nam.
Sen Cleland was one of the early sponsors of a homeland security department, an idea initially rejected by the Bush administration (of course Bush would create won. FLIP FLOP). Karl Rove ran polls that showed people overwhelmingly supporting it (Bush cronies constantly attack Dems like Kerry and Gore for making policy based on polls. FLIP FLOP) so rounded up some Republican congressman to quickly write up their own version of a similar department, but with what Cleland felt was a bunch of important stuff missing. He voted against it. This gave Repub campaigners running ads that morphed his face into Bin Laden and Hussein.
So, uh, yeah, he's supporting Kerry...
He was a senator from Georgia running for re-election in 2002. He did indeed lose both legs and an arm in 'Nam.
Sen Cleland was one of the early sponsors of a homeland security department, an idea initially rejected by the Bush administration (of course Bush would create won. FLIP FLOP). Karl Rove ran polls that showed people overwhelmingly supporting it (Bush cronies constantly attack Dems like Kerry and Gore for making policy based on polls. FLIP FLOP) so rounded up some Republican congressman to quickly write up their own version of a similar department, but with what Cleland felt was a bunch of important stuff missing. He voted against it. This gave Repub campaigners running ads that morphed his face into Bin Laden and Hussein.
So, uh, yeah, he's supporting Kerry...
A_M_Swallow
Regular
If you want to get Bush on his war record compare the first 3 years of the War on Terror with the first 3 years of the WW1 and WW2.
Not just the battles, which are controlled by the generals, but the law changes. The increase in the size of the military, conscription and tax rises to pay for it - none of this cowardly waiting until after the election.
Bush is not even offering something like "Blood, toil, tears and sweat". Nor is he asking permission to do what is necessary no matter how unpleasant.
Not just the battles, which are controlled by the generals, but the law changes. The increase in the size of the military, conscription and tax rises to pay for it - none of this cowardly waiting until after the election.
Bush is not even offering something like "Blood, toil, tears and sweat". Nor is he asking permission to do what is necessary no matter how unpleasant.
A_M_Swallow
Regular
Several things. After 9/11 Bush did not double the size of the US Army but needed to. Troops have to spend time in Iraq way past the normal end of their tour.
Not asking for permission to put up taxes.
Not asking permission to put up working class taxes.
Not asking permission to use several years of many people lives fighting in the War on Terror.
Not asking permission to introduce conscription.
Not asking permission to introduce conscription for women, or even working out what to do with them.
Not asking permission to send lots of people to their death, fighting this war.
Not asking the US voters permission to fight anyone he considers an enemy of the USA. Preferably with UN agreement but alone if needed.
Not asking for permission to do things like spy on the US population.
Not asking for permission to control terrorist weapons like fertiliser.
Not asking for permission to deport mullahs who preach anti-American rhetoric.
Tony Blair needs to ask for similar permissions.
Kerry also needs to get similar permissions.
