5/7 Why does anyone take Moore seriously? His movies are fiction,
not documentaties. First columbine now 911.
Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911
http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
\_ written by a democrat who voted for nader.
\_ holy shit! he voted his concious instead of his party! traitor!
kill him! burn the witch! he violated group think! he has
independent thought! destroy the infection!
\_ "independent thought" != intelligence.
\_ its relevant bc its written by a dem, not hannity or foxnews.
\_ A Dem who writes for the National Review. NRO has spent
the last six months openly campaigning for Bush and
slamming Kerry, so they are hardly an objective source.
\_ even before seeing 911, I do not see how any reasonable,
compassionate person could vote for gwbush again.
\_ compassionate? meaning what? you take my money and give it
to yourself and others who haven't earned it through the
power of the federal and state government? get a job and
you won't need compassion.
\_ no, i don't sit around thinking of ways to steal your
money and give it to welfare queens. I am an equal
opportunity bush despiser. there's lots of reasons
to not vote for george bush, i could easily make
a list of several hundred good ones not involving
taxes.
\_ It is a common fallacy of the politically maladroit
to assume that compassion has anything to with
politics. It does not. Politics is about ambition,
and ambition plays to what is expedient and necessary.
How is your Boston Brahmin any more or less despicable
than the Texan? You need wake up and smell the coffee.
Believing that compassion rules human behavior is
something that wisdom and common sense should have easily
discredited.
\_ And yet he sold his platform in 2000 on "compassionate
conservatism". We all knew the term was bullshit, and
yet it sold.
\_ No, it didn't. People voted against Gore because
he did poorly in the debates and is a crackpot.
Very few voted 'for' Bush in 2000. Gore's own
home state wouldn't even vote for him.
\_ Funny, I seem to remember Gore got over 50
percent of the vote...
\_ Funny, you seem to remember wrong. 48.38%.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
\_ Perhaps. But like any good game, politics requires
either compromise or utter domination. For a short
while there, the Repubs had the latter: the House,
the Senate, the Presidency, the Bench, and the
support of the People. Recently, they seem to have
lost the latter two and confused the former two.
This requires compromise, and the Texan (and his
Cabinet) are notorious for being poor compromisers.
The Boston Brahmin is famed for being able to come
to reasonable compromises that diminish neither side.
\_ Famed? I call bullshit. I've *never* heard
anyone claim the most liberal voting Senator is
famed for any such thing.
\_ HE'S A FLIP FLOPPING LIBERAL, I TELL YOU!
(For the clue impaired, "flip flop" is right
wing speak for compromise.)
\_ Incidentally, whatever else may be true,
'flip-flopping' is perhaps the most damaging
smear against Democrats in the Republican
arsenal, in terms of real effects. -- ilyas
\_ What happened to 'waffling'?
\_ you mean it's not a piece of electronics!?
\_ Because the dems are out of power and they need someone like
Moore. The Reps used to use Limbaugh when they were out of power.
The opposition party always needs a wacky muckracking spokesman
to rally the troops. Moor's just the latest in a long line.
\_ Yes Rush is a firebrand but he's never this deceitful.
\_ Bull. Rush spews false stats, misquotes, and is almost
psychotically hypocritical.
\_ Uh? Rush doesn't tend to give any stats at all, when he
does he's quoting someone else, and his quotes are all
checkable online. Where is he a hypocrite? He was never
an anti-drug crusader so turning out to be a drug addict
doesn't make him a hypocrite. Do you know *anything* about
the man or are you just spewing the DNC talking points? I
wonder if you've even listened to his show for more than
5 minutes, if ever.
\_ http://www.fair.org/extra/0311/limbaugh-drugs.html
You are wrong, again. As usual.
\_ More Limbaugh Lies:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
\_ As opposed to CNN, NYTimes, ABC, etc. which is just 100% fact. Yup.
\_ By the kind of argument employed in that url, everyday there
are 10 imes more "deceits" in any of the above than F911.
\_ I've been saying that about the media for years on the motd
but people always call me a crackpot for saying the main-
stream media is inaccurate, biased, or in any way
unreliable. Are you a crackpot, too?
\_ If that means considering mainstream media inaccurate
rather than accusing them of bias along particular
directions, yes.
\_ well, i think you're both off base. if "news" means
15 minutes of ads, 10 minutes of sports, 10 minutes of
weather, 10 minutes of "puppy saved in local lake"
and five minutes of sound bites with pretty pictures
about what's actually going on in the world, who gives
a shit if it's biased or wrong? that's just not the
point. the point is that no responsible journalist
is *ever* going to be able to reduce the news to a
five minute cartoon, and as long as that's all people
will take for their news, we have a serious problem.
I blame the morons who don't bother to *read*, not
the tv news networks that respond accurately to
the demand of the news consumer.
\_ You'd feel differently if it was *your* puppy.
\_ not likely. in my experience, they'd get the
name of the puppy wrong, then say the police
rescued it when it was really the fire department,
and incorrectly name the lake from which it
was rescued.
\_ When your sources include Slate articles by Chris Hitchens, you
really must be scraping the barrel.
\- are you in fact the only person in the world
who refers to Christopher Hitchens as "Chris"?
\_ No, I'm in good company:
http://csua.org/u/81y
However, I promise not to call you "Par."
\_ Either the material is true or it is not. If you have to
attack the source instead of the truthfulness of the material
presented, you're not even in the barrel anymore.
\_ Hitchen's article is a fact-free zone - its just a bloviating
screed.
\_ Maybe. You expected anyone to actually read the URL before
commenting?
\_ So you're saying that the clip in the movie at Camp David
does *not* show Bush sitting next to Tony Blair?
\_ 50 of these "deceits" are not even lies, by any stretch of the
imagination. It is a "deceit" to show that Bush sat and read in
a classroom for nine minutes after being informed of the 9/11
attacks? The author calls it a deceit because Moore offers no
attacks? The author calls it a "lie" because Moore offers no
other suggestion as to what Bush should have been doing....
Whaaaat? Most of the rest are the same. He calls Moore a
"liar" for not presenting both sides of controversial
topics. This is a good example of "bias" but a terrible
example of a "lie." This guy is a big hypocrite anyway,
if you read any of his columns, he does not bother to
present both sides of any views. |
http://csua.com/feed/