Moore bashing 101 take a seat
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 65

Thread: Moore bashing 101 take a seat

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161

    Thumbs up Moore bashing 101 take a seat

    What's pissing me off, the fact that the man is a liar and can fool a lot of people that don't pay much attention. There is no film documenting Moores lies. He has every right to say what he wants, he should expect a counter argument most especially when he is trying to pass lies as fact. The record needs to be stated.

    It is frightening that so many people are so gullable that they went and believe what is in the movie to be comprehensive and factual. Uneducated maybe?

    I'm starting to see a scary trend amongst the far left, first North Korea endorses Kerry than Hezbollah wants to fund Moore's movie and did kerry endorse moore's movie or speak out against it?

    And here is a great example of how Moore plays loose with facts;

    The Michael Moore Watch
    « H » email link
    I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I know that Mr. Moore alleges that Bush spent 42% of his first eight months in office (before 9/11) on vacation, and that he proudly declares that this figure came from the Washington Post. I couldn't find a Post article on this from 2001, but I did find this one from 2002--which says that Bush spent 42% of his term to date (Sept. 3, 2002) at vacation locations:

    Bush has spent a whopping total of 250 days of his presidency at Camp David (123 days), Kennebunkport (12) and his Texas ranch (115). That means Bush has spent 42 percent of his term so far at one of his three leisure destinations.

    All of it here:

    http://lawroark.blog-city.com/read/663671.htm



    Awwww. And look here, Hezbollah is attempting to promote the film as well.

    Michael Moore film
    appeals to terrorists
    'Fahrenheit 9/11' gets thumbs-up from Hezbollah

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: June 17, 2004
    5:00 p.m. Eastern



    © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

    Opponents of filmmaker Michael Moore are making the most of an endorsement his Bush-bashing film "Fahrenheit 9/11" received from terrorists affiliated with Hezbollah.

    The Guardian of London reported today organizations related to the Middle East-based terrorist network have offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.

    The terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward released a statement today saying the news about Hezbollah proves a contention it made about terrorist endorsement of Moore's award-winning documentary.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=39012


    And Moore doesn't seem to have a problem with it..


    Moore film distributor OK with terror support
    Exec says firm doesn't want to risk boycott of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' in Mideast

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: June 22, 2004
    1:00 a.m. Eastern



    © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

    The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.

    As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.


    The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=39079


    Seems like Mr Moore also has business contacts in the middle east as well......wasn't he accusing the Bush family of the same?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I know that Mr. Moore alleges that Bush spent 42% of his first eight months in office (before 9/11) on vacation, and that he proudly declares that this figure came from the Washington Post. I couldn't find a Post article on this from 2001...
    If that guy can't find the 2001 Washington Post article, he needs to learn how to use a search engine...

    THE ARTICLE - reprint

    August 7, 2001

    CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 6 -- By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his parched but beloved ranch. That's almost a quarter of his presidency.

    Throw in four days last month at his parents' seaside estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and 38 full or partial days at the presidential retreat at Camp David, and Bush will have spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.

    Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders. But administration officials, who initially believed that regular trips to the Texas ranch enhanced Bush's image as a rugged outsider, are acting like they may be worried about the perception that he is loafing.
    96 days total, and 96 days happens to be 42% of 228 days, which is... guess what?!? 8 months!

    Here is what is said in the movie:
    "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time"
    I'm sorry, buddy, but that is entirely correct... the Washington Post did state that, exactly as Moore said...

    Summary:
    - Moore did quote an article from the Washington Post from 2001.
    - The article does state that Bush spent 96 days away from the White House (54 at his ranch, 4 in Kennebunkport, 38 at Camp David = 96 days).
    - 96 days out of 8 months is roughly 42%.

    The question if all of those were "vacation" days remains open, but Moore's quote was correct.

    You want to argue about facts, but look at what the guy states:
    - I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11... Duh...
    - I couldn't find a Post article on this from 2001... I could.



    The second part of the past is a little off, as well...
    Front Row Entertainment (the United Arab Emirates' distributor of the film, not THE company distributing the film, not Moore himself) was approached by Hezbollah-linked people.
    THE distributor of the film is a joint venture of Fellowship Adventure Group with Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.
    The director of Front Row Entertainment indeed went out of line imo by not being publicly opposed to the offer (although they didn't accept if afterall)...

    Facts, facts and mo(o)re facts, !mitationRust. It scares me that you accuse Moore and his "followers" of trying to pass lies as facts, while the only ones doing it in this case are the ones you quoted your first article from.

  3. #3
    HeadShot Master N1nja Cybr1d's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,840
    WTF!?!? HE HAS FOLLOWERS? Thats just freegin scary....worse than the Harry potter and Lord of the Ring follwers....whats next....Michael Moore Trading Card game?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    I never said I'm a Moore follower

    All I did is prove that the article quoted by !mitationRust is non-factual. I don't care what anyone thinks about Moore, as long as they use facts. Which wasn't the case.
    I'm sure Moore isn't always strictly factual in his movie, so feel free to point out the things that don't take me only 3 minutes to prove that they're waaaaay off.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2
    Originally posted here by Negative
    I never said I'm a Moore follower
    Just a closet follower, huh?

    Originally posted here by Negative

    I'm sure Moore isn't always strictly factual in his movie
    Shouldn't a documentary be based on facts? Or should we brace ourselves for another spin-cycle from you and others who were stupid enough to watch a propagandists film and take it as fact instead of fiction?

    Quote from Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

    Chow commies....

  6. #6
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Moore is an amusing comedian, nothing more nothing less. He doesn't have a clue what he is talking about when it comes to politics - I've seen him do a Q&A session and he basically shouted down anyone who wasn't against the war in Iraq or who didn't agree with him. Now, he's entitled to his extreme left wing views, but I don't agree with him trying to stop other people from voicing their opinion.

    His books are amusings, his shows are well planned, but when it comes to political commentary and "documentary" making, he should leave it to people who actually know what they are doing.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Shouldn't a documentary be based on facts? Or should we brace ourselves for another spin-cycle from you and others who were stupid enough to watch a propagandists film and take it as fact instead of fiction?

    Quote from Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

    Chow commies....
    I haven't seen the movie...

    And what exactly is your problem? !mitationRust quoted someone stating that that particular part of the movie is not true. I proved with facts that that person is wrong.
    Moore did quote an existing Washington Post article. Whether it is true or not, doesn't really matter in this case.

    Compare it to this:
    Someone posts an article stating that AntiOnline is not owned by JupiterMedia.
    I say: "So and so stated that AntiOnline is not owned by JupiterMedia."
    My statement is true, and logically correct, whether or not the statements in my statement are true or not.
    If you go around saying that my statement is false, then who is the propagandist?

    The original quote stated that Moore's statement is false, while it is true. Then who is the propagandist?

    I don't take just anything as a fact, but in this case a fact is a fact: the Washington Post did publicize that article. Email Mike Allen (the author of the article) if you don't want to take that as a fact.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    Originally posted here by Negative


    If that guy can't find the 2001 Washington Post article, he needs to learn how to use a search engine...



    96 days total, and 96 days happens to be 42% of 228 days, which is... guess what?!? 8 months!

    Here is what is said in the movie:
    "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time"
    I'm sorry, buddy, but that is entirely correct... the Washington Post did state that, exactly as Moore said...

    Summary:
    - Moore did quote an article from the Washington Post from 2001.
    - The article does state that Bush spent 96 days away from the White House (54 at his ranch, 4 in Kennebunkport, 38 at Camp David = 96 days).
    - 96 days out of 8 months is roughly 42%.

    The question if all of those were "vacation" days remains open, but Moore's quote was correct.

    You want to argue about facts, but look at what the guy states:
    - I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11... Duh...
    - I couldn't find a Post article on this from 2001... I could.



    The second part of the past is a little off, as well...
    Front Row Entertainment (the United Arab Emirates' distributor of the film, not THE company distributing the film, not Moore himself) was approached by Hezbollah-linked people.
    THE distributor of the film is a joint venture of Fellowship Adventure Group with Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.
    The director of Front Row Entertainment indeed went out of line imo by not being publicly opposed to the offer (although they didn't accept if afterall)...

    Facts, facts and mo(o)re facts, !mitationRust. It scares me that you accuse Moore and his "followers" of trying to pass lies as facts, while the only ones doing it in this case are the ones you quoted your first article from.
    I'm sorry negative but you have not shown anything from a www.washingtonpost.com URL untill then it's not from the post.



    Originally posted here by Negative
    I never said I'm a Moore follower

    All I did is prove that the article quoted by !mitationRust is non-factual. I don't care what anyone thinks about Moore, as long as they use facts. Which wasn't the case.
    I'm sure Moore isn't always strictly factual in his movie, so feel free to point out the things that don't take me only 3 minutes to prove that they're waaaaay off.
    No you didn't prove anything all you did was splash something you found on google in three minutes claiming it was the article in question. Don't discredit my quote as non-factual. So google untill you find the exact URL then you can boast.


    Originally posted here by ImperialFlame


    Just a closet follower, huh?



    Shouldn't a documentary be based on facts? Or should we brace ourselves for another spin-cycle from you and others who were stupid enough to watch a propagandists film and take it as fact instead of fiction?

    Quote from Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

    Chow commies....
    commies?

    Originally posted here by Negative


    I haven't seen the movie...

    And what exactly is your problem? !mitationRust quoted someone stating that that particular part of the movie is not true. I proved with facts that that person is wrong.
    Moore did quote an existing Washington Post article. Whether it is true or not, doesn't really matter in this case.

    If you go around saying that my statement is false, then who is the propagandist?

    The original quote stated that Moore's statement is false, while it is true. Then who is the propagandist?

    I don't take just anything as a fact, but in this case a fact is a fact: the Washington Post did publicize that article. Email Mike Allen (the author of the article) if you don't want to take that as a fact.
    Negative we need the exact URL, that is factual data.
    Moore's myriad misrepresentations perceived as facts.
    http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

    *sigh*
    Do you believe Moore is a known liar?
    Do you agree that Moore is a known liar based on his previous movies?
    Why is Moore threatening to sue anyone who dares criticise him?
    Why will he not debate anyone on the actual merits of his film or answer tough questions?
    What is the propogandist hiding?
    What is the propogandist afraid of?
    What makes me wonder is why and how so many people can be fooled into believing propoganda from a known liar?
    Why do people want to watch fiction being portrayed as fact?



    Liberal Christopher Hitchens got it right, liberals should be embarrassed of this guy and see him for what he is;

    To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
    However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.
    If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
    Looks like that liberal got it right.

  9. #9
    Macht Nicht Aus moxnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Huson Mt.
    Posts
    1,752
    I'm sorry.....I do not see what all the hype is about.

    M. Moore vs R. Limbauh, what is the difference? One is on the left and the other is on the right. Both exagerate and expose a lot of 'facts' that are questionable in the least.

    Its all politics, and in politics 'they' only use the actual facts when forced to. In politics, any lie is better than any fact......facts just get in the way.

    Most of this arguement (notice I didn't say discussion) is around Bush's vacation days. Hell, with modern communications, I really doubt that he has actually had any, no matter where he was physically. He would have been too busy politicing.

    I have said it before and probably will again. American politics is used the same way the Romans used the circus......to keep the masses amused so they would not rise up and dispose them.
    \"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Champagne in one hand - strawberries in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!\"
    Author Unknown

  10. #10
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Originally posted here by !mitationRust I'm sorry negative but you have not shown anything from a www.washingtonpost.com URL untill then it's not from the post.
    Erm, I know lots of newspapers that don't have an URL for every single story they publish. Not having an washingtonpost.com URL doesn't necessarily mean it was never printed in that paper.

    Why is Moore threatening to sue anyone who dares criticise him?
    He is? My legal letter must be in the post then - either that or he's not threatening to sue anyone who criticises him.

    Why do people want to watch fiction being portrayed as fact?
    Because people are not always able to tell the difference. Look at U-571 for an example.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •