Bragging rights

[ShinIchiro]

No, but he has closed down some very successful programs.

[Cantousent]

I truly hate talking public policy online. It's unfulfilling for me in sooo many ways. However, I will take the time to provide a few links concerning Michael Moore.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

 

The above is from a decidedly biased writer, Christopher Hitchens. It is published on MSN's Slate Magazine. MSN, as you know, is widely believed to be a supporter of all things "conservative." Well... actually, not.

 

Of course, in much the same way I perceive the scourge of conservative talk radio, I hate Moore. He doesn't think the truth can win, and so he prints falsehoods. Maybe some can be seen as merely slanted viewpoints, but splicing together two different ads and then claiming that a single candidate paid for the hybrid when indeed he didn't is a lie.

 

Of course, other directors have made "documentaries" about presidents. In fact, apparently, Mr. Nixon had a fanclub. Here's the link:

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103849/

 

Once again, that's slate magazine. If it were meant to knock Nixon out of the white house, it didn't work.

 

To be fair, however, you aren't the only folks who carry the Moore flame. Linda Ronstadt got a warm welcome here in Las Vegas. (I happen to be here right now and I read it in the Newspaper.)

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126222,00.html

 

Not to be slanted in whom I choose to cite, I decided to use the Fox News link. After all, they're known for being a strong supporter of all things "liberal." Hmmm, not quite right on that one, either.

 

Of course, you can't cite links about Michael Moore without linking the man himself. Read his page. Really, read it. It's amazing. The man isn't trying to get Bush defeated. It really is all about Michael Moore himself. What an ego! *shrug* it's his webpage. I've been to it a few times. (As an aside: it used to be, and rightly so, that internet links were less credible than print media. Actually, print is still superior to links and I will prefer to cite print where applicable. If you can't find the print, then that's your fault. After all, well-educated Europeans should have access to refereed journals. I do.)

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

 

Of equal course, we can't cite the man without citing the anti-man, right? So, here's the opposition:

 

http://www.moorelies.com/

 

I actually prefer the delivery on this site. It doesn't appear to have quite the rabid style of the previous page.

 

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

 

With a name like Independence Institute, you have to figure this might be a bit biased. However, the writer does include his sources. For your reading enjoyment:

 

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

 

Note that the author of this work is Dave Kopel. Apparently, according to Kopel, he supported and voted for Nader. You might be able to find additional information on him. I've already done much of your homework for you.

 

Now, I'll give the defense the last word. These are Michael Moore's war room responses. ...At least some of them. I'm willing to let folks, preferably educated Europeans, take a look and decide the issue for themselves.

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

 

Now, I'd like to point out that the "war room" idea is clever. The film still lies, but the idea of having a group of attorneys arguing the case is sublime.

 

Let's face it, though. Most folks here had an opinion of Moore before coming to this forum. That opinion is likely to remain the same no matter what links I post. It's a ridiculous sham to suggest that we provide internet links because, frankly, it requires both readers to agree to trust the same sources in evaluating the evidence. That seems quite unlikely.

['JN]

Yeah, I had an opinion of Moore before I read this thread. I thought he was an obnoxious, arrogant fatass who thrives off of attention. I still do.

 

As for the links, good finds overall, but you forgot one of the better anti-Moore sites, Bowling for truth. I was going to use that as a source to disprove anyone who actually tried backing up their arguments supporting BFC, but no one really tried to do that.

 

Another good link for anyone who doesn't see Moore for the scumbag that he is would be this one.

 

The bottom line is that Moore is just another loud-mouthed liberal with an agenda. He clearly hates America, which isn't surprisng considering how full of himself he really is.

 

His movies are entertaining and very easy to agree with, but it doesn't take much research or independent thought to see that he is wrong.

[taks]

So you'd prefer if he campaigned for more to be given to the rich? And poor people only should campaign for the poor?

you apparently don't understand the concept of hypocrisy. he decries the very thing that made him rich while flaunting the fact that he's rich. spin it how you want...

 

more shouldn't be given to the rich or the poor, btw. and campaigning either way is advocating socialism, coincidentally a system destined for failure. a concept at odds with capitalism (something that moore denounces).

 

taks

[taks]

i don't bring up BFC, 'JN, because that has been done to death.

 

you'll note that even the most liberal politicians are staying away from him or making statements like "it's a film that will make you think." of course it will make you think... think about how much nonsense can be included in 90 minutes of film.

 

rational, objective thought precludes such conspiracy theories posited by moore. but appealing to the fears of the average american is the tactic moore uses to preclude rational, objective thought.

 

taks

[mkreku]

Nooo, what is happening to my bragging thread!?

[mkreku]

Actually, I think Newsweek (an international magazine about politics, based in the USA) is about to rank the nations in a list of their own.. If my sources are correct the US citizens of this board might be pleasantly surprised by that list if they didn't like the first one (by the UN). Newsweek are supposed to be basing their ranking on (among other factors) average income, health, democracy, economics, environment and honesty (as in little corruption). I'll try to find the Newsweek list as soon as I can. It might be published tomorrow..

[taks]

Actually, I think Newsweek (an international magazine about politics, based in the USA) is about to rank the nations in a list of their own.. If my sources are correct the US citizens of this board might be pleasantly surprised by that list if they didn't like the first one (by the UN). Newsweek are supposed to be basing their ranking on (among other factors) average income, health, democracy, economics, environment and honesty (as in little corruption). I'll try to find the Newsweek list as soon as I can. It might be published tomorrow..

as i noted earlier, mkreku, the UN list isn't bad at all NOR does it indicate the best places to live. i have no problem with the numbers as they are probably correct. objective data is objective data. the "ranking" is not about where it is better to live, but just the countries with the highest averages with the top numbers (education, life expectancy and GDP per capita).

 

it becomes subjective when you actually do the averaging and weight each statistic in your own manner and THEN, make comments about what that means. some people may prefer money (GDP per capita) so they would weight that heavier. some may simply want to live longer so that carries more weight. heck, some people may just perfer NONE of those stats and go for something more esoteric like "mountains to ski on" rendering the list meaningless to them... either way, it's based on opinion.

 

the #s for this list were probably weighted evenly... but what exactly is a "human development index" anyway? a subjective term to say the least. as such, newsweek's list will be equally subjective though an interesting read nonetheless.

 

taks

['JN]

I find it rather amusing that so many Europeans read American publications. Whatever happened to the Scandinavian times? I subscribed to Volvo weekly a while back, but I haven't gotten any new issues in months. Maybe their printing press is frozen.

[JohnDoe]

So you'd prefer if he campaigned for more to be given to the rich? And poor people only should campaign for the poor?

you apparently don't understand the concept of hypocrisy. he decries the very thing that made him rich while flaunting the fact that he's rich. spin it how you want...

 

more shouldn't be given to the rich or the poor, btw. and campaigning either way is advocating socialism, coincidentally a system destined for failure. a concept at odds with capitalism (something that moore denounces).

 

taks

What is the thing he decreies that made him rich? And when has he flaunted the fact that hes rich? It seems mostly his critics who constantly attack him for having money.

 

And money to the poor/rich - Thats not advocating socialism. Its advocating things like tax breaks, a health care system, social security, public education, tertiary education, public transport. All of which are important parts of society, even if they aren't purely Capitalistic.

[taks]

What is the thing he decreies that made him rich? And when has he flaunted the fact that hes rich? It seems mostly his critics who constantly attack him for having money.

 

And money to the poor/rich - Thats not advocating socialism. Its advocating things like tax breaks, a health care system, social security, public education, tertiary education, public transport. All of which are important parts of society, even if they aren't purely Capitalistic.

he decries capitalism, john... blatantly. he regularly refers to capitalism as an evil system, or even a sin... that's hypocrisy when you tend to make your money of said system. he advocates extremely high tax rates on the rich, which he is, yet i don't see him giving any of his money back to the government. that's hypocrisy. he's abusive to the people that have worked for him, laborers no less, yet says he speaks for the "common man." hypocrisy.

 

and yes, advocating taking taxes out of my paycheck and giving it to the poor is socialism (actually, a more encompassing term is statism). any time taxes are used to provide for those that don't have, you're advocating socialist principles. by definition.

 

taks

[JohnDoe]

When the majority of the population use public schools, require public health services at some point in their lives, and use public transport, I don't refer to that as socialism. I see it as the Democratic government providing services for the people that elected them.