Micheal Moore vs. Rush Limbaugh

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]turbot33 wrote:
The message of the film?

That this President is the product of a failed educational system; a man bereft of intellectual curiosity.

That his moral vision is nonexistent or myopic.

That this administration has long had economic ties to the Saudis and Bin Laden himself.

That this President had no right to send my friends to die.

That’s all I can gather so far from the numerous reveiws I’ve read. I’m sure there’s more reasons for every patriotic American to see this film.[/quote]

The message of the film?

That this President is the product of a failed educational system; a man bereft of intellectual curiosity

I guess I am also the product of a failed educational system because I dont get this at all? So intellectual curiosity is a presidential requirement? Bush I believe graduated from college and as far as know he meets all the educational requirements to do the job.

That his moral vision is nonexistent or myopic.

Again, you lost me. I believe anyone that has listened to the Presidents speeches, radio addresses or interviews understands his moral stance. If anything I could seem him being accused of taking too moral of a stance in some issues.

That this administration has long had economic ties to the Saudis and Bin Laden himself:

We have ties to the Saudis, no ever said we didn?t. They are not a rouge nation. Our ties with them are no different than having ties to England, France, Germany, etc. Furthermore you referred to this administration but the United States ties with the Saudis predate Bush by some time.

As far as ties to Bin Laden himself, maybe we did maybe we didnt. He wasn?t born a terrorist he became a terrorist. Situations can make past alliances into current enemies.

That this President had no right to send my friends to die.

I am sorry if any of your friends died, but in all respect, I will say two things:

There is no draft so everyone in the military volunteered to sign up knowing what the risks were.

secondly, Im sorry to be the one to break it to you but yes the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces with the backing of Congress absolutely had the right the send troops to battle. That?s how it works.

Thats all I can gather so far from the numerous reveiws I’ve read. Im sure there’s more reasons for every patriotic American to see this film.

Patriotic Americans support their country and do not support clearly anti-American sentiment. Thats sort of the whole idea of being patriotic.

22

Again with the morals.

On the other Moore thread Tme accused Bush of being “debauched” which means

“To corrupt morally”

and here andyhepler said of Bush

“That his moral vision is nonexistent or myopic.”

Please any of the liberals explain to me what the left/liberals mean by the word “morals”. We know what the right/conservatives mean (e.g. traditional values). But I thought the left believed in moral relativism i.e. there is no evil, there are no morals (I’m exagerating, but I’m not sure by how much).

23

TurboT33,

Each in turn.

Failed educational system: Bush was educated in private schools all his life, finishing at Yale and Harvard. I have my issues with our education system, but Bush got the best education you could hope for.

Intellectual curiosity: Bush is no TR or Wilson, but I don’t measure statesmen solely by their ability to win at Trivial Pursuit. And Bush’s intelligence is just fine, just underestimated, as usual.

Moral vision: nonsense. Bush’s critics accuse him of having too much of a moral vision, and you can’t even make up your own mind - does he have none or too much (myopic)? Big diffrence. The answer is: Bush has a moral vision. It’s fair to disagree with it, but at least the man leads with an idea and doesn’t spend half his day saying “on the other hand…”. Executives make decisions - they are not paid or elected to equivocate.

Right to send your friends to die: no, he has the right and duty to send them to fight. In this most recent case, he sent troops to fight a war Congress authorized. I don’t want this to sound callous, as I hate to see even a single life lost, but those who join the armed forces sign up to fight. That is their job. The real question is: did they die for a good cause? I say yes - protection of America.

24

Scottl: wish you were here.

[quote]ScottL wrote:
Again with the morals.

On the other Moore thread Tme accused Bush of being “debauched” which means

“To corrupt morally”

[/quote]

Scott, accused who of what? WTF are you even talking about? All I did was insert a quote from H. L. Mencken that seemed particularly relevant to that thread. So somehow you infer that I accused Bush of being “debauched”. You’re free to interpret things in your own way, which based on your reply on that thread you obviously do.

25

Tme your quote is here. You felt it relevant in a discussion of Michael Moore i.e. someone accused of hating our country, so perhaps you can explain why it is relevant. Please correct me if I misunderstand your implications:

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic.”

Since libs/dems are often accused of hating our country I take it that the dems/libs are the radicals in your analogy.

"He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.

OK Tme so the “radical” i.e. libs/dems loves his/her country so much he/she is disturbed when he/she sees it debauched. Sooo who is doing the debauching and what does debauching mean in your analogy (if not Bush/conservatives)??

Oh and anyone remember my post on liberals and anger from yesterday? Please explain why I post reasonable non-hostile questions and Tme wishes me on the moon?

26

[quote]zhavas wrote:
Mutt wrote:
What’s wrong with Rush?

rush limbaugh? he’s the first person I’ve ever wanted to kill in my whole life, aside from bush…

what’s wrong with you?[/quote]

Why?

27

Hey Tme - you still didn’t answer my question.

28

Ok ScottL, take a deep breath and try to follow along, I’ll go slow.

[quote]ScottL wrote:
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic.”[/quote]

Moore is considered a radical by many, and has been accused here and elsewhere of hating his country. The notion that Moore or anyone else who is critical of this country, its government or policies must by definition hate America is both naive and idiotic.

[quote]
Since libs/dems are often accused of hating our country I take it that the dems/libs are the radicals in your analogy.[/quote]

I’m not a lib or a dem. Can I still be critical? Do I need your permission? Will that make me a radical, too?

[quote]"He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.

OK Tme so the “radical” i.e. libs/dems loves his/her country so much he/she is disturbed when he/she sees it debauched. Sooo who is doing the debauching and what does debauching mean in your analogy (if not Bush/conservatives)??[/quote]

Ask Moore that question, he is the one who thinks he sees it being debauched, not me. You are drawing inferences, suppositions and conclusions out of your ass. If Moore or anyone else thinks that they are witnessing the debauching of something they love, then they have the right and responibility to speak up. Whether they are right or wrong is another matter entirely, but if they have the perception that something isn’t right then they should stand up and say so. I’ve never said if I like Moore or give two shits what he has to say, but I won’t take away his right to say it just because I disagree with it. There are “patriotic” groups trying to pressure theaters to not show Moore’s film. Why? Is free speach selective now? It only applies to what the ruling party deems acceptable? Yeah, that’s patriotism all right. Damn Bill of Rights anyway, always complicating shit.

That isn’t the moon, son. Take a closer look, then come back to planet Earth.

29

[quote]Mutt wrote:
Hey Tme - you still didn’t answer my question.
[/quote]

What question? I must have missed it.

30

[quote]tme wrote:
Mutt wrote:
Hey Tme - you still didn’t answer my question.

What question? I must have missed it.
[/quote]

One of the other threads. I don’t believe Bush ever denigrated Kerry’s service in Vietnam, just his actions afterwards.

I’m not saying that you implied or stated that distinction or the lack of it.

I’d just like to know when Bush denigrated Kerry’s time in Vietnam, as opposed to him protesting the war post-service.

31

I watched Michael Moore last night on “The No Spin Zone” from two years ago. Moore clearly advocates 60-70% of your income to be taken from your check and given to the government! That is insane!
Can any of the Moore supporters/liberals on here really agree with that? Guys…thats a lot of your RED BANDS, ALPHA MALE and 4-AD-EC money gone right from your check before it ever hits your bank!

32

Rush, Hannity and O’Reilly regularly lie and distort. Look at the website
http://mediamatters.org/

BostonBarrister said that elected officials don’t sue for slander or libel. Tell me which elected officials Moore lied about, that might have sued over “Bowling For Columbine”? Charlton Heston? LOL

A lot of people have referred to Moore as a liar here, without any evidence to back up their claims. The claims that Moore lied in “Bowling” have been addressed and dismissed. The main beef seems to be that Moore cut in a shot of Heston raising a gun in the air (a trademark gesture of his) during footage of another Heston speech. That doesn’t qualify as lying.

The whole point of a documentary is to convey a strong opinion and point of view. A documentary without a strong viewpoint is a failure and a weak film, usually. One documentary most people here are familiar with is Pumping Iron. Do you retards think Pumping Iron was completely honest and treated everyone in the film fairly, and did not take any liberties in order to make the film stronger?

In the new Moore film, most of it has no Michael Moore in it, just Bush and others on camera saying things in their own words. So I wonder who is supposed to be “lying” when it shows these bozos in real time, unedited?

Ha, some of you think Ann Coulter is smart???

33

Lumpy,

Check out Spinsanity - they have a whole section devoted to Moore, along with many others. Of course, assuming you can be bothered to read something.

As for Coulter, I can’t stand her, but is she intelligent? Are you kidding? She is whip-smart. She has the resume to prove it. If you don’t believe so, you haven’t read any of her stuff - but then, that would be par for the course.

As for intelligent Left wingers, Moore and Franken don’t qualify - you might try Noam Chomsky. I don’t think he is mistaken, but he’s incredibly intelligent.

34

Lumpy:

I’m just guessing, but I’m guessing that Ann Coulter is a lot smarter than you are. I’m guessing you wouldn’t have the LSATs or GPA to even get a tour of University of Michigan Law School, or the law school GPA and resume to clerk for a federal appellate judge (very competitive):

ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter is the author of three books, all New York Times best sellers – Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998). Her next book will be released this fall.

Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, The O’Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper’s Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.

35

Oh and Lump, just for fun, here’s a collection of sites devoted to debunking Michael Moore’s “strong viewpoint” (BTW, why is it that when Bush says something unclear or that has not proved true, you say it’s a “lie,” but when Moore lies through his teeth or blatantly via omission and taking things out of context, you say it’s “strong viewpoint”?)

http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Movies_and_Film/Filmmaking/Directing/Directors/Moore__Michael/Anti_Michael_Moore/

36

"why is it that when Bush says something unclear or that has not proved true, you say it’s a “lie,”…

Gee, what is it then Mr. Lawyer?

An “untruth”?

He “misspoke”?

Not entirely correct?

Please, tell me how to describe it in Lawyer-Speak.

As far as comparing Moore to Bush, and why would I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard of truthfulness than I would for a documentary filmmaker, are you kidding me???

Re: Ann Coulter, she and Al Franken had a debate last week in Connecticut where (according to Franken) she was trounced thoroughly. Believe it or not, I don’t care. But during the debate, Coulter complained that she wasn’t getting a chance to discuss the topics she wanted to discuss. So the moderator said “Okay Ann, you have the floor to bring up any topic you like”.

Ann Coulter sat there for a few seconds, and then she said she couldn’t think of anything.

DUH!!!

37

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
"why is it that when Bush says something unclear or that has not proved true, you say it’s a “lie,”…

Gee, what is it then Mr. Lawyer?

An “untruth”?

He “misspoke”?

Not entirely correct?

Please, tell me how to describe it in Lawyer-Speak.

As far as comparing Moore to Bush, and why would I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard of truthfulness than I would for a documentary filmmaker, are you kidding me???

Re: Ann Coulter, she and Al Franken had a debate last week in Connecticut where (according to Franken) she was trounced thoroughly. Believe it or not, I don’t care. But during the debate, Coulter complained that she wasn’t getting a chance to discuss the topics she wanted to discuss. So the moderator said “Okay Ann, you have the floor to bring up any topic you like”.

Ann Coulter sat there for a few seconds, and then she said she couldn’t think of anything.

DUH!!![/quote]

Lumpy:

This is getting pathetic. Do you mean you think there is not a difference between misspeaking, saying something you believe that turns out to be wrong, and lying? Gee, I guess “lawyer speak” means knowing that words actually have their own definitions, and actually caring about the definitions of the words one uses. Those darn lawyers.

As to your story about a debate, I know even less about it than you do, given your info is second hand and mine is from you.

But let’s just look at what you do: You disclaim an association with the ever-more-pathetic Al Franken’s opinion, but then use his anecdote as your one and only exhibit to trying to make your weak case about Ann Coulter not being intelligent. I’m pretty certain his representation of who won the debate is just as accurate as his representation of specific instances. Weak.

Then, just for fun, let’s assume that what he said was correct. Are you really basing an entire argument that a woman with Ann Coulter’s achievements and resume – irrespective of how much I disagree with her, which is documented above – is stupid because she had a “brain fart” in the middle of a discussion and lost her train of thought. Really, this is your entire argument? Pathetic. Although, understandable, I guess, given that you seem to base your assumptions about Bush’s intelligence on malapropisms. Please don’t let reality intrude on your little world.

38

Malapropism: a ludicrous misuse of words that sound alike.

Nope, doesn’t seem like a good lawerly way to describe lying. Keep trying.

Here’s what they say about the Al Franken Ann Coulter debate on the ultra right Free Republic forum:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135991/posts
(“He kept interrupting her! That was unfair!” LOL. But interrupting’s not unfair when they do it on Fox news Channel, is it?)

I was wrong, the debate was a month ago.

39

Lumpy is quite the funny little lefty, equipped with the smarter than thou attitude and the usual bag of tricks.

mediamatters.org says that Rush and Hannity lie and distort regulary, so of course they do.

Allegations against Moore have been addressed and dismissed, so tautologically, they have.

The camera of course doesn’t lie, because it’s all caught on film.

I’m not quite sure who said it, but a while back, someone, perhaps even in the TV news business, stated that in fact the camera can in fact be the best of liars, depending on the balance of images it captures, and doesn’t, among other things. Of course no one making a documentary would edit raw footage to such an effect, now would they? Not on the left anyway, that’s for extra sure.

“Something unclear or that has not proved true…” can never be clarified or later substantiated with additional evidence, especially if Dubbya said it. Clinton, of course was just heard incorrectly you see. Bubba , no doubt, differed on the correct meaning of ‘is.’

Al Franken, a participant in the debate, said he won, so of course, he did.

My side, you see, has special insights to the real way the world works that you ‘retards’ collectively don’t. My sources are pure and beyond reproach, and not just because I use them. They just happen to share my views. They say they are objective and their labels imply as much, and hey, one mustn’t argue against that. Take the Newspaper of Record that Jason Blair used to write for as an example.

I of course am not privy to the subtle yet sublime insights of the left, or whatever Lumpy calls himself, but I’m under the vague impression that the purpose of a documentary is to document, “to provide with references as proof or support of things said in it.” “…to convey a strong opinion or point of view” may better belong to the realm of polemics, or the op-ed page. Perhaps the putative documentarian can make things interesting by picking a interesting subject and providing an captivating pro-con, or even multi-sided, debate. Perhaps…

Calling Pumping Iron a documentary was perhaps a misnomer. Maybe further experience has revealed that the film was made as a promo for Arnold. One may even surmise those labelling the film back then did so not knowing the whole story behind its making. So maybe we ought not call it a Lumpy Lie, but just a mistake made with the available, if incomplete, information.

I haven’t seen any of Moore’s films. From what I have seen of him, I do not care for him or his viewpoint. I don’t want to give the man one thin dime. Someone on the right is supposedly making a documentary (true to form, one hopes- perhaps Lumpy and his ilk can decide for us). I hope that it will be interesting. If it hits home and gains traction, the reaction of that obese and ugly (care to argue those assertions, Lumpy) (beta)man will be interesting indeed.

40

Lumpy -

Dude - you gotta know when to say when!

Short of that at least read the posts before you reply to them.

Malapropism - in your case has nothing to do with lying. It’s your convoluted logic.

Merely bringing in Al Franken into an argument as support is an obvious cry for help.