Michael Moore is back at it

[byu71]

I can't believe I missed this thread. This may come as a surprise, but I would rather hang out with my ex-mother in law than Michael Moore.

[woot]

I'm going to go with Moore. Ball's in your court to find stuff that Bush obviously lied about.

I'll be giving these examples the full Finderson treatment, by the way. Word parsing and all.

What do you mean by "obviously"? Hopefully you aren't looking for anything that Bush said that is not only completely untrue, but also about which you can find no cause to assume ignorance, or to claim that circumstances changed, or that he "misspoke," because that would mean that nobody that you agree with has ever told a lie.

Let's try one. Bush declared that the Iraqi government was involved in 9/11, and his administration continued to do so long after it was clearly false. Please explain how this is not a lie.

Edit: And since I don't plan to come back to this thread for a bit, feel free to discuss how Bush didn't lie about Iraq having WMDs, how he didn't manipulate or ignore intelligence reports to fit into his goals, how he didn't increase the threat level before the election to scare the people into voting for him, how he didn't lie about what goes on at Gitmo, how he didn't lie about how nobody expected the levies to break, how he didn't lie about the effects of global warming or classify satellite images of glaciers in order to hide the effects thereof even from the scientific community...

Whew it's been a while but I guess I still hate Bush. Not that I have much interest in rehashing this stuff; it just startles me to see someone that won't acknowledge that he ever lied, when most sane people would admit he did quite a lot of it.

[JohnnyLingo]

What do you mean by "obviously"? Hopefully you aren't anything that Bush said that not only completely untrue, but that you can find no cause to assume ignorance, or to claim that circumstances changed, or that he "misspoke," because that would mean that nobody that you agree with has ever told a lie.

I'm unclear about what you're saying here.

Let's try one. Bush declared that the Iraqi government was involved in 9/11, and his administration continued to do so long after it was clearly false. Please explain how this is not a lie.

Need more than that. Exact quotes, referenced, complete with date, as well as supporting evidence that what was said had been clearly proven false at the time of the quote.

EDIT: Oh, and I take this turn in the discussion to mean that you agree that Moore is a liar, "but Bush is a bigger one!"

[woot]

I'm unclear about what you're saying here.



Need more than that. Exact quotes, referenced, complete with date, as well as supporting evidence that what was said had been clearly proven false at the time of the quote.

EDIT: Oh, and I take this turn in the discussion to mean that you agree that Moore is a liar, "but Bush is a bigger one!"

Since I'm still here:

No, that's not what my position would be at all, and if you'd read the thread you'd know this. They both lied often when it suited their purposes. I'd have to hear a description of liar bigness for that concept to be of any use to me. I'll let you look up the quotes; I'm sure you're aware that they're out there and I have no interest in doing your homework for you. Perhaps this is what you were counting on.

[JohnnyLingo]

Since I'm still here:

No, that's not what my position would be at all, and if you'd read the thread you'd know this. They both lied often when it suited their purposes.

Okay.

I'd have to hear a description of liar bigness for that concept to be of any use to me.

Rats, that was my next step. I also have no idea how to judge bigness in lies.

I'll let you look up the quotes; I'm sure you're aware that they're out there and I have no interest in doing your homework for you. Perhaps this is what you were counting on.

I know this isn't your fault, but earlier when I called Moore a liar Blue Hair told me the burden of proof was mine. I'm applying that standard to you now.

[TripletDaddy]

I knew this topic sounded familiar. We explored this previously on CG. One post, in response to a claim that MM doesn't make "real documentaries" because of his bias:

You have said this before but I am not sure what you mean. Or better said, I am not sure I understand your use of the term "documentary."

If you have ever taken a film studies class, one of the first things, if not the first thing you learn about the docu-genre is that documentary simply refers to non-fiction with documentary value. It has nothing to do with politics and certainly does not require all opinions to be represented.

From the turn of the century, through the cinema verite era, to today, "documentaries" have always been non-fictional accounts told through the eye of the director. Even a cursory look at a list of Academy Awards for "documentaries" over the years shows a wide spectrum of topics, many of them controversial in nature (see Life and Times of Harvey Milk).

What are examples of "real documentaries" as you call them? And how do you reconcile films like Harvey Milk or American Dream (which could be argued is a one-sided account of the strike against of the Hormel factory in Minnesota)?

Indeed, a look at the list of Academy Awards for Documentaries over the years will reveal a list chock full of movies with clear political or social agendas. I am not sure that the notion of a fair and balanced documentary has any legs to it at all. In fact, I am almost positive that it does not. Either that, or even the Academy of Motion Pictures doesn't quite understand the meaning of "documentary" as it pertains to filmmaking. I suppose it is possible that the dictionary.com approach is more sound.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Is there some irony in him using the gunshot sound effect from the MIA Paper Planes song?

[il Padrino Ute]

lol. epu, are you suggesting that the right can't get a movie funded? Corporate freaking america? Big oil? Big tobacco? You don't think the NRA could have put together the money for a response piece to Bowling for Columbine?

There is a reason why far-right docs don't get made, but it has nothing to do with money.

I re-read that and realize I sounded silly about the funding. I meant to say that the right would have a tougher time getting Hollywood types to fund it.

[il Padrino Ute]

100% serious. Maher and Moore are funny. Rush and Hannity are intolerable.

Maher and Moore are not even close to being sort of funny. Both are a horses ass.

I'd rather listen to Rush or Hannity, but then, I'm a conservative and not a bleeding heart.

[il Padrino Ute]

It isn't misleading. It is an obvious opinion. If you think an obvious opinion is 'misleading,' either you are stupid, or you think most everyone else is stupid. Pick you poison.

Moore might take the low road, and some times he takes a nauseatingly high road. I don't always like his style myself, but so far I'm still waiting for the 'lie' and 'untruths.'

When has Moore ever taken the high road? I'd like an example, please.

[il Padrino Ute]

Hitchens' so called lies pale in comparison to the big lie Bush told to justify the on a sovereign nation. How many years have we been in Iraq and how many WMDs have been found? As far as I know, Hitchens lies didn't kill anyone.

The big lie that 95 Senators felt had enough truth to it to give the ok to an attack?

Has it ever been proven that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before this alleged lie was told?

[il Padrino Ute]

Now YOU are the liar. He didn't say that. The point of the cartoon (shown below) is to draw parallels between American's fears and our culture of violence. It starts with the pilgrims and the slaughter of American Indians as the first parallel. The coincidental organization of of the NRA the same year as the formation of the KKK is just another historic parallel between a culture of violence and a culture of fear. This connection, that Americans' fears make us prone to do stupid things, is one of the primary points of the film.

As you will see in the cartoon, yes, NRA members are shown pouring gasoline on a cross which KKK members then light. You might disagree with that as a rhetorical device, but that is all it is. The film does NOT say that the KKK turned into the NRA.

That kind of sounds like Moore is saying that the NRA and KKK are affiliated, which would be a lie, no?

[BlueHair]

I'd rather listen to Rush or Hannity, but then, I'm a conservative and not a bleeding heart.

It's funny that the worst insult conservatives hurl at liberals is that they are too compassionate. They have no problem with the Bush administration illegally spying on US citizens, going to war under false pretenses, and detaining people without trial, but they have a problem if someone could possibly get a handout. Doesn't sound real Christian to me. I'm no authority on the Bible, but I don't remember Christ condemning those with charity. I can't see how Christians can be part of the conservative movement. They hold such contempt for the less fortunate. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. I'm pretty sure Christ condemned the hypocrite.

I am a Libertarian, but if I had to choose between spending tax dollars on social projects like health care or killing people to secure their oil, I'd choose the health care package. They both lead to bankruptcy, but health care seems like a better choice.

[BlueHair]

The big lie that 95 Senators felt had enough truth to it to give the ok to an attack?

Has it ever been proven that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before this alleged lie was told?

The proof is in the pudding. No WMDs were found. A reasonable, sane person would not overthrow another sovereign nation on a "maybe".

[BlueHair]

I'm unclear about what you're saying here.



Need more than that. Exact quotes, referenced, complete with date, as well as supporting evidence that what was said had been clearly proven false at the time of the quote.

EDIT: Oh, and I take this turn in the discussion to mean that you agree that Moore is a liar, "but Bush is a bigger one!"

Here you go:

On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

Either Bush lied or he's not smart enough to verify the facts before going on tv.