Moore bashing 101 take a seat

Why this is a distortion of the truth.

The president of the United States does not work on an assembly line. Camp Davis is a place of work. Camp David is a place to plan strategies, hold summit meetings and form alliances. Ever heard of the Camp David Accords? To say GW was vacationing because he was 40 miles from the white house is nothing but yellow journalism.

As for moore:

Bush spent much of the first few months of his presidency on vacation. (Blink, and you might not notice that Bush is meeting with Tony Blair when Moore indicts him for "relaxing at Camp David.")

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6761

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
[B]If that guy can't find the 2001 Washington Post article, he needs to learn how to use a search engine...

---

Negative neither did you whats the difference, nobody except moore has seen it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
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...

---

"Notably, unlike Mr. Moore, the Post noted that these "vacation" days included weekends and also working days away from the White House.
So it is clear that Moore knew that these "vacation" days included weekends and working days away from the White House, but he chose to ignore this information because it made his point less effective." *Hence* And here is a great example of how Moore plays loose with facts;

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
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.

---

Of course I will accuse more of passing lies as facts not (trying), just not on the first article. ;) My first article *hence*And here is a great example of how Moore plays loose with facts;

Mo(o)re facts
www.moorewatch.com
www.moorelies.com
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

You're unbelievable, !mitationRust ;)

The article is in the Washington Post-archive. Articles in their archive can be purchased for $2.95, and I'm not going to :D

Here's the article directly from the Washington Post archives.

Quote:

---

A White House On the Range
Bush Retreats to Ranch For 'Working Vacation' Mike Allen; The Washington Post; Aug 7, 2001; pg. A.01

---

You can preview it there to make sure it's the article in question, and purchase it for $2.95 if you still don't believe it...

No comment, just the attachment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by moxnix
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.

---

The hype is a link of a link of a link to a terrorist organization that's the difference between the two just to name one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pwaring


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.

---

I didn't say it did not exist, what I said is we need to see the exact word for word article that moore and negative speaks of from the post'sURL in question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
You're unbelievable, !mitationRust ;)

The article is in the Washington Post-archive. Articles in their archive can be purchased for $2.95, and I'm not going to :D

Here's the article directly from the Washington Post archives.

You can preview it there to make sure it's the article in question, and purchase it for $2.95 if you still don't believe it...

---

Hey hey, it's not my job to find out if the article you and moore speak of is in their archives, I was just defending the guy who said he could not find it. What can I say I like to debate I come from a family of attorneys and remeber there is always that 1% in any debate that you can ride/harp. ;)

Hey, I had a list of questions for you they are basically yes or no, feel free to reply it's america!

Uuuhhh......is this kind of like a friend of a friend who knew some guy whos friend said??

Quote:

---

The hype is a link of a link of a link to a terrorist organization that's the difference between the two just to name one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
[B]I didn't say it did not exist, what I said is we need to see the exact word for word article that moore and negative speaks of from the post'sURL in question.

---

You said: "you have not shown anything from a www.washingtonpost.com URL untill then it's not from the post." - that implies that without a URL it doesn't exist. If the URLs aren't available for some reason (either because they don't exist or because the WP charges to view the articles) that doesn't alter the fact that the article was published.

Ah yes, good old Moore...

I'll share an interesting story, I was exiting the theatre after watching The Terminal (sucked majorly) with a couple of friends. This so happened to be the opening day of the Moore movie that's out (sucks majorly). As soon as we walked out into the open we were mobbed by this little band of Liberals throwing VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS in our faces. I had but to say one phrase that made them scatter away from me...

I screamed at the top of my lungs "BUSH CHENEY 2004!"

They all silently walked away from me... that's when I asked for one... and was denied... :(

It's ok though I'm already a registered republican :D

Just goes to show ya... by the way anyone checked out the book 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man' .

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/165945.shtml

Might be of some intrest to those who subscribe to my point of view here....

-- Peace :cool:

PS... For anyone who is frustrated with hollywood like I am, the movie King Arthur was pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by THE RADICAL
As soon as we walked out into the open we were mobbed by this little band of Liberals throwing VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS in our faces.

---

You think that's bad? We were mobbed by them over here for some reason, which is kinda stupid considering pretty much everyone there couldn't vote against Bush even if they wanted to.

What makes me laugh is that Moore is anti-Bush, but he doesn't seem to actually be able to think of any policies himself. He is just a critic, and offers very little in suggestions as to how to improve things.

Hey Hey,

I've debated for the last few hours over whether I should I post here or not. I finally decided that I had to. With the exception of pwaring and Neg, everyone that's posted in here is American... and my opinion is that American opinions are biased on this subject.

I have spoken to many Americans who love Moore, they think his movies are well done and respect him for standing up to a tyrant. Well you can think what you want, in the end, that's all Bush is... A Tyrant. I've yet to hear bad things about Moore or his movies from a single Canadian I know. We've had class discussions on the topic and everyone supports him. You can attack him all you like for twisting the facts, as Neg has pointed out, you're only attack on hin is a valid quote. People want to go on and on about how he misrepresents the truth. The truth is the truth, if people come to their own conclusions, that's them... not More that's misrepresenting the truth. You want to defend Bush? How many times has he "misrepresented the truth"... How many times has he "twisted the facts". It's not just him, it's every politician... they all do it... yet you support them.

Hell even Google is in on the propaganda. Check out http://www.michael-moore-review.com/. I've seen this first hand, so don't say it's a bunch of lies. The results went from all negative, to positive reviews... it's one of the reasons why I've recently lost a lot of respect for Google.

If you want to try and defend Bush, take a look at the link to the 2002 Washington Post article.

Quote:

---

Consider, for example, the seven states Bush has not visited. His absence from Washington, Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii might indicate Republicans have written off those states. His absence in Idaho and Kansas suggests those safely GOP states don't require his presence. And his absence from Nevada might indicate concern about local anger over his plan to ship nuclear waste there

---

How can you govern and represent people when you won't even visit them to see how they are living?

Quote:

---

To date, the president has devoted far more time to golf (15 rounds) than to solo news conferences (six). The numbers also show that Bush, after holding three news conferences in his first four months, has had only three more in the last 15 months --

---

I'm sure by now his golf game is getting much better.

Regardless of current relations, what the US did to France when they refused to join the US was ridiculous and immature... Sounds like an A+ government is running things in your country... (Go Freedom Fries (considering French is because of the style the fries are cut in and has nothign to do with france) and Freedom Toast). Who cares what your government has done right, that one action alone should have been enough reason to have a coup d'etat. Regardless of what you die-hard war mongers wish to say, The War on Iraq wasn't rationalized and wasn't a war, it was a terrorist attack.

I could care less if everything Moore says is the truth, because the majority of it is and that's all that matters. He tells the truth more often than Bush. He's an American who finally has the balls to stand up and speak out against a horrid government and for that I respect him.

Peace,
HT