Can Michael Moore do ANYTHING without screwing it up?

[Archae]

Seems his latest book "Dude, Where's My Country?" is riddled with errors and lies.
Like everything else Moore puts out.

Face it, Moore is just about the liberal version of Ann Coulter.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. uh...no

Moore uses humor to get his point across. He attacks the powerful for doing bad things to people.

Coulter uses bile to get whatever the hell it is she saying across. And she only attacks those who disagree with her - which, frankly, is childish.

Moore might not be a tip-top reporter, but he never proclaimed himself to be. Still, his book is more factually accurate than anything Coulter could come up with.

[Richardo]

23. That's real close to Rush's "I'm just an entertainer" cop out...

I don't like Moore because he distorts, spins and discards inconvenient facts if they don't support his thesis.

Al Franken is also "just an entertainer" but he's a lot more rigorous and logical in his arguments.

[papau]

26. Spin"sanity" has screwed up - the points they make are their error

Ia agree with you - Moore is in fine shape after many critical reviews of the book have pointed out the truth of the book - and indeed noted the items that spinsanity note - and explained them.

The bank procedure on gun pick-up invalidates the point that Banks handing out guns makes no sense? Get real

Besides they had sample guns in the bank - and who is to say they did not just hand him one for the filming?

As to the rest of the "errors" that spinsanity found - well - folks should read the write up and note the "spin".

[Archae]

44. Ok, contact them and point those out.

Contact spinsanity and actually tell them what they did wrong.

See what they say.

[papau]

79. Spinsanity admits to doing no wrongs - I contacted them in the past

and they never changed a thing.

A bit like contacting Slate or the ABCNote (although last year the ABCNote would respond when the point was obvious by running a less biased story the next day that noted the "question" raised by the bias in their prior story).

When I am convinced that Sinsanity is into truth - rather than being into avoidance of the charge of being left wing biased - I'll contact them again.

[Archae]

81. Bull.

I contacted them when they goofed, and they corrected their mistake, many months ago.

Try again, this lie fell flat.

[charlie]

86. What was the goof?

How did they correct it?

[Archae]

89. Some urban legend about Clinton.

I don't remember the exact one.

[AWD]

129. Spinsanity will never change it....

When I had my Ohio State incident, they tried to debunk it as a lie and used ONE article from the Washington Times to prove.

I wrote the guy, sent him my tickets to the event, the pictures I took, and gave a full account of it. He refused to budge, gave some lame-ass story, and stopped returning my e-mails.

I WAS the source, and Spinsanity refused to believe my account of it. They wouldn't even post my story as a counterpoint.

Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity is just a pompous windbag who's never wrong in his own mind.

[neuvocat]

183. The site said L.A. was in fact a conservative stronghold.

I e-mailed them personally and told them that with all the hispanics registered that their claim was patently false.

Of course their response was that they never made that claim and that I was incorrect in calling them on it. They're full of shit.

BTW don't you wonder why Salon doesn't carry their content on their page anymore?

[NashVegas]

221. I'm Not Too Bothered

In some places Moore does contradict. It happens, and it's regretful. In a couple places, he is apparently wrong.

But in other places in the criticism, SpinSanity is citing the conventional wisdom/official story as a basis to debunk Moore. Just a year ago, they were vehement that Moore got it wrong when he gave credence to the reports about the Bin Laden family flying around. Now they aren't so sure.

I give those parts of the critique about as much merit as I gave the pharmacutical and medical industries in 1992 when my mom's doctor was trying to get her to go on HRT, even though she was not experiencing any great difficulties in menopause - which is zero.

And on a final note: If the left has it's own little Annie Coulter putting out the word, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. If you're going to fight fire with fire, someone's gotta pick up the torch.

[Bombtrack]

2. right

he recently said that John Kerry is a bad candidate because he killed people in Vietnam

and of course his reason for why Davis lost was that he wasn't far left enough.

Hey Michael, if you want to base your life on exposing the excesses of capitalism, maybe you shouldn't weigh 400 pounds

[mac56]

4. You had me up till your last sentence.

What does his weight have to do with anything? A cheap shot.

[Cha]

182. Agree.

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. All fatties eat to much, right!

All rape victims shouldn`t have worn that dress.
Nice logic

[Bombtrack]

8. it was a joke

not my own either

[mac56]

9. So what?

If you're going to criticize Moore, do it based on his ideas and statements. Not schoolyard taunts.

[VermontDem2004]

13. I agree

[kayell]

206. Do you tell racist jokes

and then excuse them by saying, it was just a joke? Same kind of thing, just as mean and hurtful.

[VermontDem2004]

7. Yes

attack his weight. Did John Kerry kill or not kill people in Vietnam? Whether he is when he is rights or whether what he was doing was right is not what I am asking. Did John Kerry not kill people in Vietnam? That is one reason why I will never fight in a war, I don't think I should be given the power to decide when one man's life ends.

[Bombtrack]

12. Kerry risked his life when he didn't have too because it was

the right thing to do.

People of his generation who were healthy either served or got out of it.

If you can't distinguish between fighting for your life and your fellow soldiers lives in battle, and some premeditated malicious act, that's pretty mental.

If you can't respect the couragous and selfless decision that Kerry made, you've got a warped view of the world and history, much less hold it against a person

[VermontDem2004]

17. I am not saying it was right or wrong

I am saying he killed people, simple as that. Vietnamese died in that war and so did Americans, simple as that, both sides were yes killing each other. You can say I got a warped view all you want I don't care, I can understand draft your forced to be put out on the field. But I would not want someone's elses life to end at my hands I would do whatever it takes NOT to fight, if they hang me, execute me, or whatever, I don't care, I am not killing.

[LeahMira]

51. You weren't there...

You can say I got a warped view all you want I don't care, I can understand draft your forced to be put out on the field. But I would not want someone's elses life to end at my hands I would do whatever it takes NOT to fight, if they hang me, execute me, or whatever, I don't care, I am not killing.


The Vietnam era was a terrible time for this country and for our young men. Most of those who fought really believed that they were doing the right and moral thing. As it turns out, they were wrong. Still, they made their decision based on the information they had available to them at the time. That's the best anyone can do.

Of course there are some exceptions. There were men who went to war, killed, and to this day insist that they would do it all again. Their only regret seems to be that they weren't given the support back home that they felt would have enabled them to win decisively.

Still, it's probably best to not paint everyone with the same broad brush. If you don't like Kerry for other reasons, that's fine. Just remember that a lot has happened since Vietnam and none of us in our fifties today is the same person as we were more than thirty years ago.

[VermontDem2004]

233. I am not holding Kerry accountable for anything

that is my point he was angry at Moore for saying Kerry killed people, basically I was saying he DID kill people no matter which way you look at it.

[iverglas]

76. what the hell is the younger generation coming to?

That's my generation you're talking about:

"People of his generation who were healthy either served or got out of it."

"Got out of it"?? What a charming way of describing the hardship that some people went through, and the upheaval of their entire lives that resulted, because they refused to go kill other people in Vietnam.

Not everybody who "got out of" going to Vietnam did it by getting lovely jobs in the pseudo-military at home.

Up here in Canada, I knew a few. Yeah, a whole lot of them were privileged brats, taking up space in our universities and on our faculties. But one I knew well was just a kinda goofy working class kid who believed them when they told him he'd never have to hold a weapon, and then when he found out they'd lied, he left, and turned himself in, and got sentenced to a while in the stockade, and escaped, and got caught, and got sentenced to a while more in the stockade, and escaped and didn't go back. And that all took up several years of his life, what with being in the military and being locked up and being unable to live a normal life in his own country when he wasn't.

And *that* is what I call "courageous and selfless".


"If you can't distinguish between fighting for your life and your fellow soldiers lives in battle, and some premeditated malicious act, that's pretty mental."

You know much about the law of self-defence? IF YOU STARTED IT, you don't get to finish it. "Fighting for your life" against somebody whose house you broke into, so that you could occupy it and kill them if they didn't let you do that, just doesn't quite get you a walk.


"If you can't respect the couragous and selfless decision that Kerry made, you've got a warped view of the world and history, much less hold it against a person"

I can *understand* and *forgive* the decision that *some* USAmericans made, to go to Vietnam and kill people (what do you suppose they thought they were deciding to do?). Many people do many awful things because they don't understand what they are, they think they're good things because they've been told that.

But damn, if that high-school dropout guy I knew could figure it out, and was willing to pretty much toss away his life rather than be complicit in it, I'd have to wonder what was wrong with a bright (privileged?) fella like this Kerry guy.

I could quite well still understand his deluded, well-intentioned mistake, if that's what it was, and forgive him for what he did, especially if he now regretted and denounced it. But "respect the courageous and selfless decision" he made? You've gotta be kidding me. That would kinda be saying that everything *I* was doing at the time to stop that vicious, ugly war was worthless, doncha think? And that's not something I'm likely to do.

.

[Melinda]

224. Thank you.

Thank you for befriending, helping and supporting our American generation, our young men, that young man... And thanks for sharing this experience, it brought back so much for me -- I'm certain to be far from the only one swept back to a time I'd rather not remember but must not, can't ever, forget.

A terrific post in many, many ways.

[Iverson]

225. agreed

iverglas is a sharp cookie who happens to have a great handle.

[bowens43]

34. Attack a person because of their

weight? wow...

[VermontDem2004]

3. hmm

Sounds like a right winger to me, he used the taliban aid story and debunked by showing a statement made by Colin Powell.

Lyons found that the scene in a bank in Michigan that that opens the film was staged. Customers who open long-term CDs at the bank actually have to go to a gun store to pick up the weapon after a background check. Yet the film clearly indicates that the bank itself stores and hands out guns to customers and Moore even jokes as he walks out, "Here's my first question: do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" (This clip from the film can be viewed here in clip 3.)

Where is his proof?

[NickB79]

212. Federal law

Requires a person to possess a Federal Firearms License in order to sell guns and ammunition. Unless someone at the bank possessed an FFL or had a licensed gun dealer come in for the day, it would have been blatantly violating federal law to sell a gun at the bank. Many small businesses around here do similar promotional offers, where you buy an ATV or snowmobile and get a certificate for a free rifle or shotgun at the local gun store. I find it much more believable that the bank was handing out certificates than actually storing dozens of guns on its property.

[CWebster]

5. Not lately.

[Wickerman]

10. Can A Progressive do ANYTHING without the left bitching?

Do Dems really eat their young as they sit comfortably behind their computers taking minimal personal risk?

[CWebster]

15. Do some on the Left bitch

when others show some spine rather than following the example of our cowering Reps standing shoulder to shoulder, not daring to make a peep, much less bitch.

Give me the damn bitchers, there is cause to bitch.

[Wickerman]

19. My point is that Moore IS doing something

and people bitch. I thnik Moore is very effective at doing what he does and here we got people spouting unspecified inaccuracies (can't even take the fucking time to post what any of the inaccuracies are and cite the correct info) and bitching about his weight. Wake the fuck up people and support those who are doing good for the liberal cause.

[CWebster]

25. Agreed

I just wish he would choose some of his battles (and candidates) more carefully.

[sangh0]

27. Point out the inaccuracies?

My god lunabush!!! Didn't you realize that would cut into their bitching time? :-)

[Wickerman]

30. Lol

thanks, I needed that
:hi:

[jonnyblitz]

52. I doubt that many of Moore's detractors here at DU are "on the left"

Plenty of DLC types here on DU I would hardly call "on the left" who don't like Michael Moore because he exposes DEMS when they act like Republicans. See Chapter 10 in "Stupid White Men", Democrats DOA.

[LeahMira]

66. Keep everybody honest...

... don't like Michael Moore because he exposes DEMS when they act like Republicans. See Chapter 10 in "Stupid White Men", Democrats DOA.


That's why I DO like him. He is as hard on President Clinton as he is on any Republican.

OK, so there might not be so much to criticize on the Democratic side, IMO. Still, if a Democrat messes up, Michael Moore will say so. You certainly won't catch any Republican pundits pointing out Republican mess ups... and it's certainly not because Republicans don't make any!

[Mairead]

106. "Plenty of DLC types here on DU I would hardly call "on the left""

Agreed. And what's really sad is that they're not even the worst we have here.

[CatWoman]

11. Say what you will about Mike

at least HE didn't vote for Reagan.

[Archae]

46. What was the alternative?

Back in 1980 and 1984?

A pair of screwups, Captain Peanut and his Boy Whiner?

[charlie]

78. Yoiks!

That's a strange tack to take. Voting for a Republican big-stick cold warrior because the Dem offerings were "a pair of screwups" is forgiveable, but voting for a third-party progressive for ostensibly the same reason makes you a shitbag for life?

[CatWoman]

96. Exactly, Charlie

;-)

[Forkboy]

148. game set match to you Charlie!

[drdigi420]

103. Capt Peanut?

Thats an ignorant thing to say. Jimmy Carter was probably our best president. He had flaws, but he was honest. About the only bad thing I can really say about him is that he believed in a god. (but he was smart enough to put that aside for his duty as president)

[Yupster]

239. "Our best president"

Like Carter or hate him, but probably our best?

Over FDR? Really? I wouldn't even put him in the category below FDR.

FDR fought the depression, started social security, put millions of people to work by changing the whole way the government thought, brought us through WWII, set up the FDIC, recognized the Soviet Union, ended prohibition,brought electricity to much of the south, etc, CCC, etc, WPA, etc AAA, etc.

And Jimmy Carter did.........

[SeattleRob]

126. I see your true colors shining through

"Captain Peanut?" You mean the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize winner versus a 2-bit actor? I guess the choice was simple for you, huh?

[tkmorris]

176. OK that's enough

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but that comment just ended that. Thanks for saving me the effort.

You don't know much about Carter do you? Bah, never mind. Juvenile mud-slinging contests are for, well, ...........

Seeya

[neuvocat]

185. Captain Peanut and his Boy Whiner?

Well, well, well. Very interesting take on a democratic President and his V.P. How mature of you.

[Rex]

200. You would be lucky to be 1/100th the man that

Captain Peanut has turned out to be. That's a fact.

[Hep]

202. amen

That is, "as he turned out to be". But it seems that the person to whom you are replying was talking about Carter as a candidate in 1980.

Note: I have no idea, I was 7. I'm just sayin'

[Rex]

204. Seems that way

:eyes:

[mrgorth]

14. Moore could do a better job..

but he's no Coulter. As a Philly mick I applaude his telling libs that Mumia is guilty.

[tinanator]

39. you need to back that ignorant statement up!

Michael's not stupid. Mumia supporters appreciate his work. Mumia bashers (whatever their motives) dont like Michael. Takes a rocket scientist, dont it?

[mrgorth]

104. I don't

a) I don't NEED to do anything.

b) Without having been there, I think Mumia is most likely guilty and if he is he deserves to be in jail, at least.

c) If he's innocent he doesn't.

d) Call me a "basher" if you want but I love Moore.

[tinanator]

211. perhaps you can appreciate

what an unsubstantiated assertion makes you look like? I know what it brings to my mind. Id rather be wrong about you, and I would love to see an actual cited quote, if Moore did indeed say that. Thanks for the abbreviated alphabet lesson. I presume I dont have to tell you what FOP stands for? Perhaps you can actually put some effort into uncovering facts sometime. The entire story has been out for some time now.

[mrgorth]

217. I really

am not sure what you're getting at here or why you're baiting me. Sure, if you want the quote from Moore I'll dig it up. I'm on his mailing list. FOP? I'm guessing Fraternal Order of Police. Nice avatar BTW.:thumbsup:

[_Wayne_]

16. If the world had more Michael Moores, we'd all be better off

Instead of scutinizing the minute details, the insignificant quasi misstatements, look and listen to his message, his wit, his passion for politics.

He's done more good for the left than bad 100 times over. For mainstream America to know that people like Michael Moore exist is a wonderful thing.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

18. Too bad that a lot of the things they point to are bullshit...

For example:

Bush's policies towards Iraq come in for particular criticism - and, in several cases, gross distortions. Moore writes that "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." (page 69) In reality, that "trade" was done under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to purchase humanitarian supplies. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.) One can only imagine what Moore would have said if the U.S. refused to purchase Iraqi oil and allowed its citizens to starve.

But was Moore wrong? Was the US consuming more than 40% of Iraqs oil? Of course it was! Moore is totally right about US corporations making a "killing", and spinsanity is forced to SPIN this by saying it was done under the UN oil-for-food program. The obvious question here is: So? Moore was still correct in saying that US corporations were profitting from that trade, so where exactly is Moore wrong?

What Moore was criticising was NOT the US purchase of Iraqi oil (which is what spinsanity tries to spin Moore's argument as). What he was criticising was the hypocritical accusation against the French that they were only opposing the war for economic reasons, when it was the US that was benefitiing the most from Iraqi trade, and would benefit even more once the US had seized Iraq's resources.

If this is the kind of argument spinsanity comes up with, they are no better, in fact they are worse than Moore. At least Moore doesn't proclaim to be "The nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric."

Spnsanity should be ashamed of this terribly manipulative political rhetoric it has directed at Moore.

[enki23]

117. amen to that

i've little doubt there are some factual errors in there. i've no doubt virtually every nonfiction work out there does, or at least can be spun to look as though it does. but this is the weakest bit of spinning i've seen in a while.

here's another:

Page 9: Moore, writing about the connections between the Carlyle Group (a private investment firm with a politically powerful board of directors including George H. W. Bush Sr.) and the Bin Ladens, states that "After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response, Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would go away. Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the Bin Laden investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control... And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of the 'good' Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding." Moore is distorting the timeline of when that information came out: He cites Al Jazeera (no date) and two articles published before September 11, 2001 (the articles date from Feb. 28, 2001 and March 1, 2001), not after.

alright. so the only thing wrong with this entire bit, and this is even assuming spinsanity is 100% correct, is that he put the word "after" in it. while they may be right, it doesn't change the substance of the charge *at all*. it's a completely hollow argument.


jesus, i've read the whole list... and this whole thing is so incredibly thin, so weak... i have to wonder what their apparent anti-moore vendetta is all about.

[bleedingheart]

20. You know what;s funny? When Rush Limbaugh made up gross distortions

and lies on his show...I never heard any Republicans make any noise.

Now Moore's tactics may be bit off and I even recognized some issues in his book but overall...I appreciate his efforts.

[MSchreader]

21. I read all of their columns on Moore

From what I can see, they are either splitting hairs, reporting half-facts, or just plain spinning the facts. They seem to forget that even documentary filmmakers mix in a little artistic license into their work.

I'd hate to live their completely grey, lusterless lives.

Martin

[VermontDem2004]

24. exactly what I saw

they are either splitting hairs, reporting half-facts, or just plain spinning the facts.

[sangh0]

62. Me too

I got the same impression. The Iraq invasion was "multilateral" because there was a "coalition".

Yeah, right!

[MrBenchley]

22. Wow...what a pantload....

So Moore asks questions no one dares ask out loud and is taken to task for not providing answers?

Hokay.

[GR]

28. Don't Think Those Criticisms Hold Much Water...

Moore is the best thing we have going for us and although somethings he says may be in dispute, most are not.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. "Screwing it up"?? Let's see...at last count, Moore's won an Oscar...

...for Best Documentary, had a couple of books at #1 on the Best Seller list, and blasts the Bushies every chance he gets.

Speaking of "intellectual dishonesty", let's take a look at the following phrase in the Spinsanity review:

"...documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban..."

"Well-debunked"?? Hmmmm. First, let's examine the relationship between the Taliban and U. S. businesses prior to 911. Here's a good article that appeared in 1997 in the UK's Telegraph:

Oil barons court Taliban in Texas
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html>

After you look that one over, take a look at this September 19, 2001 article from the Sun Times:

Despite differences with Taliban, U.S. gives most aid to Afghanistan
<http://www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-nws-aid19.html>

Excerpt:

"Just a few months ago, Powell announced an additional $43 million to the drought-stricken nation.

'Even before this latest commitment, the United States was by far the largest provider of humanitarian assistance for Afghans,' Powell said during a May news briefing. 'Last year, we provided about $114 million in aid. With this new package, our humanitarian assistance to date this year will reach $124 million.'

That's $238 million given to the Taliban government of Afghanistan during 2000 and 2001 PRIOR to 911. I wonder how Spinsanity managed to miss the articles I was able to find in five minutes using Google?

And to back up the article above, here is a State Department article from May 2001:

Powell reveals $43 million in new aid to Afghans
<http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/41bb9fd6cc6bae50c1256a50002f3ed7?OpenDocument>

I won't even get into the total amount of military and other aid given to the various Afghan resistance groups during the ten year war between the Soviet Union and Afganistan. Those groups included the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden's organization.

I guess if you're going to call someone "intellectually dishonest", you should have some actual experience being the same way, right?

[Hep]

42. Yeah, let's talk about intellectual dishonesty

Let's talk about the time in the mid to late nineties when Moore came to UNC and told 1600 people that if we want to make the D party what we want it to be, all we have to do is get our friends together and go to a local meeting. And then let's talk about how a few years later, the asshole did the exact opposite, abandoning the D party and working his ass off for a man whose stated goal was to destroy the D party. And then let's talk about the man who, after working so hard to GET Bush elected, started writing letters admonishing Bush as if he had driven the high road all along.

Seriously, Moore can get bent. He's not the spokesperson for liberalism. He's just another hack who has far more influence than he deserves. When he makes a political statement, it's no different than if Britney Spears makes a political statement. And I absolutely LOVED Roger & Me, TV Nation, etc. The man has no business telling anyone anything anymore. Until I see an apology for stabbing ME in the back three years ago, the man gets nothing from me.

[Hep]

65. OK, let's not talk about it

Let's just blindly rally around this charlatan and wait for him to screw us again.

[MadHound]

77. Let's look at a little intellectual honesty then Hep

". . . if we want to make the D party what we want it to be, all we have to do is get our friends together and go to a local meeting."
You know what, as a thirty + year member of the Democratic Party, this is what ALL of us were told in one form or fashion. Moore was simply repeating, back in the day when he was still a Dem and still cared about the party(and thought the party still cared about him). As time went on it became obvious not only to him but a lot of others that the party didn't give a flying fuck about what us "little people" thought. If you weren't donating in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Dems weren't listening.

So Moore and a lot of people like him decided to go Green. It was done for two purposes, one to get the corporate money out of politics(after all, how long can this country survive under the two party/one corporate master syndrome that we have today?), and secondly to maybe, just maybe bring the Democratic Party back to it's base, it's roots. And no, neither Moore nor any other Greens were working either for Bush or to get Bush elected. Nice straw man there, but it simply isn't true.

Your hostility seems to be based on the misguided notion that somehow the Greens cost Gore the election in FLA. Well I hate to burst your bubble, but the Greens didn't have a damn thing to do with Gore's loss. The one's responsible for this were Gore, the 'Pugs, and the Supreme Court Five. I've recounted these facts ad nauseum for the past two years, and really don't feel like rehashing them. So go dig up the dirty details, they can be found in Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"

And yes, Moore is a spokesman for modern liberalism, and a mighty effective one at that. I would think that looking at his Oscar and three best selling books that you would be intellectually honest enough with yourself to realize that, but apparently blind misplaced hatred rules your day. How sad.

[Hep]

102. Get ready for a long reply

". . . if we want to make the D party what we want it to be, all we have to do is get our friends together and go to a local meeting."
You know what, as a thirty + year member of the Democratic Party, this is what ALL of us were told in one form or fashion. Moore was simply repeating, back in the day when he was still a Dem and still cared about the party(and thought the party still cared about him). As time went on it became obvious not only to him but a lot of others that the party didn't give a flying fuck about what us "little people" thought. If you weren't donating in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Dems weren't listening.

You might not understand the point of the comment. I'm a Dem. I'm not trying to get my party to listen to me, I'm taking it the F over. And that's what he was SUPPOSEDLY talking about. The concept is ridiculously easy. It's a very simple process. The problem is that it takes work, time, and an incredible amount od dedication to do it. Moore's point was that your county insanely unorganized at the precinct level. You can change that, and if you get enough like minded people to work with you, you gain power from the bottom. Then people have to get YOU to listen to THEM.

Thisw is exactly what is happening in my local Dean campaign. We're taking over the arty FOR REAL, and not just by voting for a guy. We're organizing precincts that don't have chairs (which is more than half in my county, which is very liberal). We're finding precinct chairs who never hold meetings and we're unseating them.

We're sure as hell not sitting on the sidelines whining about party leaderhips and waiting for someone else to do all the F-ing work. And we're not abandoning the party in a feeble effort to destroy it and replace it with something different that won't work.

So Moore and a lot of people like him decided to go Green. It was done for two purposes, one to get the corporate money out of politics(after all, how long can this country survive under the two party/one corporate master syndrome that we have today?), and secondly to maybe, just maybe bring the Democratic Party back to it's base, it's roots. And no, neither Moore nor any other Greens were working either for Bush or to get Bush elected. Nice straw man there, but it simply isn't true.

No, it is true. But it's not that simple. There were lots of reasons why Bush took power. But if you thikn that Nader isn't one of them, I'll remind you that had one in twenty Nader voters in FL voted for Gore, there aouldn' thave been a controversy. I guaran-damn-tee you that at LEAST 1 in 20 Floridian liberals were taken in by the "Bush=Gore" BS. And it wasn't true. And you know it.

Nader wants to destroy the Dem party. He wants to do away with it. He called Gore an anesthetizer. He called Bush a provocateur. And then he said, "'If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us." Well, he got his wish. And we might be mobilized, but look at the mes we have to clean up now that didn't have to happen.

I'm not blinbdly outraged. My rage comes with clarity. I'm working hard to change my party the way it HAS to be changed. It pisses me of to see people on MY side of the idealogical fence undermining my efforts. Especially when I have a table and a flyer, and they have publishing rights.

Your hostility seems to be based on the misguided notion that somehow the Greens cost Gore the election in FLA.

Nader played a role. It wasn't just Nader, it was a ton of different things. But if you think Nader had nothing to do with it, well, 1 in 20.

I've recounted these facts ad nauseum for the past two years, and really don't feel like rehashing them. So go dig up the dirty details, they can be found in Greg Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"

I know the facts. I own the book. And I know better than to think that there was one reason. But this thread is about Michael Moore, you see, and I'm not ready to forgive him. And that's because he'll do it again if certain candidates win the Dem nomination. If he has since vowed to vote D in 2004, if he has issued a public retraction of things he said in 2000, I'll be more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And yes, Moore is a spokesman for modern liberalism, and a mighty effective one at that. I would think that looking at his Oscar and three best selling books that you would be intellectually honest enough with yourself to realize that, but apparently blind misplaced hatred rules your day. How sad.

While I appreciate your willingness to trust people because they're rich and famous, forgive me for applying a higher standard to people I want to call a leader of my philosophy. Charlton Heston won an Oscar. And Ann Coulter has three best selling books. Yeah, how sad.

[Iverson]

105. get ready for a short reply

If your position is so damn compelling and clear, then you shouldn't need to resort to bullshit tactics.

"While I appreciate your willingness to trust people because they're rich and famous, ..."

Walk the walk.

[Hep]

109. that's it?

That's the best you can do?

If you are going to defend Moore with inane crap like "He's got an oscar and he sells books", than you don't deserve anything else.

BIG DEAL, he's an influence peddler. You can have his opinion, but it ain't free! He's a real leader!

[Iverson]

116. (cough)

Not the best I can do, just the best it merits.
Sorry you don't see anything redeeming in Moore, but I'm not going to go off the deep end trying to get you to share my tastes. On the other hand, if you're going to adopt the pose of intellectual fidelity, you'd better do it consistently.

Cheers.

[Hep]

119. OK

Not the best I can do, just the best it merits.
Sorry you don't see anything redeeming in Moore, but I'm not going to go off the deep end trying to get you to share my tastes. On the other hand, if you're going to adopt the pose of intellectual fidelity, you'd better do it consistently.

Since you're suggesting that I'm being inconsistent, please support it with an example.

This isn't about taste. And I see redeeming things in everyone. But i'm not afraid to be angry at him in public for betraying all hard working dems. I'm not afraid to defend myself against such strong arguments as "he's a best seller" and "He's got an oscar". ANd I'm not denying good work that he's done. I'm just saying that this is the WRONG guy to be propping up as a leader of our political idealogy.

[Iverson]

151. OK

The inconsistency is constituted by calling for intellectual honesty, and then in the next breath ignoring your opponent's serious points in favor of frivolous details.

In your post #42, you don't really rebut Media Lies Daily's points from #29. Instead, you personalize the argument and project dubious motives into Moore. That is inconsistent with a call for intellectual honesty. This is reinforced in #65 where you presume as true that which has yet to be demonstrated. As polemic, it works, but as intellectually consistent argument, it is empty.

Next, I cited in #105 your straw man retort to Madhound.

I hope that's clear.

[Hep]

156. connect the dots!

Let's get through this somehow, since I'm sure everyone reading this would love to click all around the thread.

In #42 I brought into question Moores intellectual integrity, and you're faulting me for not addressing the spinsanity claims. The two have nothing to do with each other. And feel free to show me where I said anything about his motives in post #42. I talked about NADER'S motives. And I gave my opinion about the voracity of Moore's words. Nowhere did I say anything about his motive in #42.

Face one point. Nader said he would rather Bush win than Gore. If you supported Nader, you supported his agenda.

Now you're calling out #65? You won't even grant me the frustration of sharing my personal experience to NO reply whatsoever from the yes men and apologists here? Whatever. I showed how he is a charlatan, and there's no dishonesty when I say I believe he will screw Dems again if Lieberman wins the nom or any other dem he doesn't think is progressive enough. I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but it's my honest opinion. So there's another claim of dishonesty down the drain.

And in 105, your reply misses the fact that "He's a best selling author and won an oscar" was given as a reason for trusting Moore, which REMAINS one of the dumbest things I've heard.

No, you fail on all counts. The only thing you have succeeded in is making this about ME instead of the original subject, Moore.

[Iverson]

158. er, no

You haven't understood me, and this is getting ridiculous. If you are interested in working this out, feel free to PM me.

[MadHound]

143. Ooo, you do want to get me into rare form today, alright, let's cowboy up.

"You might not understand the point of the comment. I'm a Dem. I'm not trying to get my party to listen to me, I'm taking it the F over. And that's what he was SUPPOSEDLY talking about. "

I know exactly what you and Moore were talking about. You both want to get the party to listen and respond to your concern. Don't give me that false braggdocio song and dance "I'm taking it the F over". No, you're not(unless you're Clinton, From, or McAuliffe). You are simply trying to make a difference locally that will hopefully be reflected, sooner or later, nationally. And yes, it takes blood, sweat, and tears. And a lot of us Dems gone Green have been there, done that, probably longer than you've been alive. And you know what's going to happen? The national party leadership will come in and flush every damn thing that you do down the drain. Dean(or whoever your particular candidate is) will be woefully comprimised by all of that corporate cash, thank you DLC, his positions will be watered down gruel by the time the party platform is settled on, and coming out of the back end of all of this will be a nice, centerist-right candidate whose true allegiance will be to those corporations and personages who donated the big bucks, not the grunt workers like you and me. I've seen this happen time and again, Moore has seen this time and again, hell, if you were honest with yourself, you've seen it happen time and again. And each time it gets worse.

I can already hear your reply. "Work within the system, it is the only way to make a difference." Well, I've worked within the system on this problem for twenty years, and guess what. All of my effort, all of Moore's effort, and all the effort that anyone who was concerned about this corporate creep put in was all for naught. The party got pulled further to the right, and even deeper into the corporate clutches. That is why we went Green. A last gasp cry, maybe they would hear, maybe they would respond. But no, they don't, they're struck deaf and dumb by the vision of corporate cash. And you know what, to hell with them. Myself and my fellow Greens are now working on something much more important than petty Dem party politics. Getting our government out of the clutches of the corporations. And since the Dems are part of the problem, well, we're going to be the solution. And if you are hanging on to that outdated corrupt party, you're part of the problem also.

As far as your analysis of the '00 debacle, it is woefully inadequate. You say you've read Palast, well let me go through the basics with you, then go on to other facts and figures. If you recall in the Votescam section of Palast's book, when he had uncovered the fact that 50,000(soon to be 90,000+) mostly Dem voters were disenfranchised, Palast called the Gore campaign with this information.
Think about this for a second. The Gore campaign had their opponent dead to rights in a vote fraud scandal, involving the brother of their opponent. Gore could have made the Bush name mud forever. And yet what did he do? He sat on this information. He broke his oath to defend the constitution and sat on this shit. While the recounts were still in play. Gore broke his oath and dashed the hopes of his supporters. WHY!!!! WHY WHY WHY!!! Do you have an answer for that?

Next off, let's look at the recount process. Once again, recall your Palast. I'm also going to throw a little of Hightower's facts in here too, but don't let it get to you. They're both good sources. Anyway, the recount. Gore's method of recounting, ie cherry picking a county here, a county there for recount, was the least effective method to prove that he had won. Why not opt for a total recount of all Florida ballots? It is the logical thing to do, and well within his rights as a candidate. All it required was some backbone, a little fight in his system. Alas, there appeared to be done of that for our dear Mr. Gore. He must meekly, with fear in his heart, cherry pick a county here, a precinct there, and damn, he still almost won. Think of the great victory we would have had(and yes I did vote for Gore) if the man had shown some fight. I mean, c'mon! This is the highest office in the land, the future of our country is at stake, this is not the fucking time to be wussing out!! But it seems that the notions of fight and Gore don't go together. Perhaps it is all of that corporate cash that went to his head, started him thinking like a 'Pug or something. After all, forty plus corporations donated $100,000+ each to both Bush AND Gore, with your leader, Phillip Morris weighing in at a hefty $2,000,0000 for each campaign. I guess that kind of money can go to your head, make you forget things, like your oath of office, or your cajones. Just the way it looks from here.

And speaking of corporations(I know, when am I not speaking of corporations), another factor in the '00 election was who Gore pissed off. And that, apparently, was some of his most loyal supporters, registered Dems, and self described liberals. You see, Gore and Clinton relaxed the rules for offshore drilling on the Gulf coast of Florida. This pissed off 398,000 registered Dems, and 197,000 self described liberal to the point where they decided to double screw Gore, and voted for Bush. Way to shoot yourself in the foot there Gore, all for a little of that oily lucre(specifically BP, who supported Gore just as Haliburton supported Bush). Think about it, damn near 600,000 normally loyal Dem supporters pissed off by Gore's highhandedness with the enviroment(something Gore liked to take pride in). Kinda makes those Green numbers pale in comparison eh?

And no, I don't trust people because they're rich and famous, that would make me a DLC/DNC sycophant, and as you can tell, I'm anything but that. No, I put my trust in Moore and other people because they have facts and figures to back their ass up, something that all of the "blame the Greens" crowd is sorely lacking. Tell you what, when you can come back with some verifiable facts, maybe I'll trust you too. But until then, your logical leaps to nowhere, ad hominem attacks, and liberal use of innuendo aren't going to endear you to myself or any of the other Greens/proggressives around here. But hey, the DLC/DNC always has positions open for good little automatons. Just don't drink the Kool-aid, I hear its a killer.

[Hep]

153. Brick wall!

I know exactly what you and Moore were talking about. You both want to get the party to listen and respond to your concern.

Your first sentence contradicts what I told you in the only sentence you copied! I DON'T CARE IF THEY LISTEN OR RESPOND. I WILL REPLACE THEM. The only way it can be done. Did you vote for Terry McAuliffe?

Your defeatist approach to the issue notwithstanding, you can't predict the future. But you explain to me exactly how the DLC will come and flush it all down the drain. Be specific. Dean has raised more than anyone, and only 1% of donors have hit their cap. Show me where that's happened so many times before. And respect the timeline. There wasn't even more than one election cycle between when Moore made the claims that you consider to be so pie in the sky and when he abandoned those principles. So don't act like it was mounting frustration which led to his change of heart.

It was opportunism. His career has never been what it is since 2000. NEVER.

And your sob story is compelling. But face it. You got 3% in 2000 for a reason. That's about the percentage of americans who share your views. You turned your back on the party and the struggle like the kid who threatens to live with Mom if Dad doesn't get him the XBox.

And stop changing the subject. I've already told you that I don't deny the many causes of the 2000 travesty. And you don't seem to deny them, wait, except ONE. Get over yourself. YOUR cause may or may not have been noble, but Nader's WASN'T. He wanted Bush over Gore. He said it. He wanted dems to blame him for taking votes. HE SAID IT. If you want to defend him, at least have the balls to admit the truth like he does.

Half of your post is about something other than Moore and my gripe with him. How many times is Moore going to FAIL and DISAPPOINT himself before he speaks honestly? He's like a seeing eye dog that chases cars, dragging his admiring public all over the road.

You trust Moore because he has facts and figures to back himself up. Whatever. What are YOU going to do if Lieberman wins the nom? That's what I want to know.

Tell you what, when you can come back with some verifiable facts, maybe I'll trust you too.

Verifiable facts about what? What in the hell are you talking about? Is obfuscation how you "Cowboy Up"?

[MadHound]

160. Personal attacks and slurs,

The last refuge for the factually challenge.

Did you even read my post beyond the first sentence? I dealt with all of your concerns in it. Go back and read it slowly. And then come back and make your arguements with some facts and sources to back it up. Until then all you are doing is blowing smoke. Cite at least one source to back your ass up, otherwise all it is is your ranting. Sorry, we can all rant, but to change minds and parties you need facts. Something you seem to be in short supply of.

Oh, by the by, I will be voting Green if Lieberman wins. In fact I will be voting Green if there is any other nominee other than Kucinich. I'm done with supporting the two party/one corporate master system that got our country into the mess it is in now. So go ahead and blast me for enabling Bush. But at least I can say that I'm working for a real change rather than enabling a system that is corrupt and rotten to the core. Can you say the same?

Stick a fork in it Hep, you're done. I hope those corporate shackles rest easy on you.

[Hep]

163. hypocrisy

Is when someone decries personal attacks and slurs and then opens his post with one.

If you have a problem with the tone of these posts, let's both change our tone. But stop acting like you're the innocent guy being defamed. That's not right. Your tone is just as harsh as mine, so let's move on.

I read your post, and going back over them, it's pretty obvious that you're trying to make this conversation about something else.

You claim I have no facts, but you fail in every way to prove me wrong. That says a lot. We don't need to go further than that.

Yeah, I knew you would be voting green in 2004. It's the kucinich supporter every time. And I mean literally. EVERY TIME. That's cool. Like the vaccuum salesman, you think you can't show someone your product without first dumping crap all over their floor.

And yes, I can say I'm working for real change. And I've seen results. You? 3%. BIG DEAL.

And your corporate shackles comment was just the icing on the cake wasn't it? Hey! I like the matrix. Enjoy a life of never getting what you want.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

188. Response to your last paragraph...

...Heston won an Oscar in 1959 as Best Actor in Ben-Hur. What possible relevance does that have with politics of the 1990s and 2000s?

And yes, Ann Coulter has three best-selling books. That's because there are quite a few people out there on the rightwing lunatic fringe. What possible relevance does that have to our discussion about Mike Moore?

"Yeah, how sad"?? What's really said is that you appear top be so personally bitter that you can no longer see the forest for the trees. Maybe you need to take a break.

[Hep]

193. ...

...Heston won an Oscar in 1959 as Best Actor in Ben-Hur. What possible relevance does that have with politics of the 1990s and 2000s?

<Wide eyed shout, frothing> WHAT POSSIBLE RELEVANCE DOES THE ACADEMY AWARDS HAVE WITH POLITICS?</wide eyed shout, frothing>

Seriously, the Oscar is by no means given solely on the basis of the CONTENT of the film. BFC was a good documentary. But it is important to understand that the FILM won an Oscar. He picked it up because he made the film, but they weren't judging MOORE they were judging BFC.

And yes, Ann Coulter has three best-selling books. That's because there are quite a few people out there on the rightwing lunatic fringe. What possible relevance does that have to our discussion about Mike Moore?

I'm sad that I have to explain this. How many books a person sells has no relevance to how RIGHT a person is or how GOOD a person is. That's the relevance. Don't defend Moore by telling me how many books he sold or how many academy awards he's won, because neither serves as a valid defense. If you want to defend Moore in terms of my problem with him, tell me that he reconsidered his support of Nader or that he regrets pushing for him or that he won't do it again.

What's really said is that you appear top be so personally bitter that you can no longer see the forest for the trees. Maybe you need to take a break.

I'm biiter at Moore, yup, you got it right. How astute. But I won't take a break until certain people make certain admissions. One person helped me out, which I appreciate. Someone else said that he won't go green this time and that he thinks Nader running is a mistake. That's what I was looking for. If you can support that claim, the all the better.

What amazes and saddens me is that when I come here with an honest and valid criticism of the man, all these, forgive me, "lunatics" come out yelling "OSCAR!" and "BEST SELLER!". Yeah, he's an Oscar winning, Best Selling, jerk who betrayed me and thousands of others. And I've explained why, and of course, I'm bitter. And maybe I do need a break, but I doubt you're qualified to determine that.

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hep]

231. well, doctor

I need help? Look at you! Your head is so far up Moore's ass that you've brought this thread back from the dead just to insult me! Whatev!

If your criticism of Moore was so "valid", how come you got blasted by so many posters that obviously disagree? Please don't tell me that you're using the old "I'm the only sane person here" routine.

Get ready for this. I've yet to be blasted. I've yet to see more than one valid defense of the man. ONE. The rest of you throw out Academy awards as if they're given out for political statements. It's like O'Reilly harping about winning Peabody's. I'm not the only sane person here. But apparently I'm one of the only ones who knows what an Academy Award goes out for.

[LeahMira]

91. GRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

Let's talk about the time in the mid to late nineties when Moore came to UNC and told 1600 people that if we want to make the D party what we want it to be, all we have to do is get our friends together and go to a local meeting. And then let's talk about how a few years later, the asshole did the exact opposite, abandoning the D party and working his ass off for a man whose stated goal was to destroy the D party. And then let's talk about the man who, after working so hard to GET Bush elected, started writing letters admonishing Bush as if he had driven the high road all along.


First of all, the Green Party does not intend to destroy the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party moved to the right in 2000 and even before that. The Green Party gave a voice to those of us who objected to that move and would have preferred that the Democrats had maintained their position as a strong advocate for the disenfranchised, for labor, and for the middle class.

I'm sorry to say that although I watched the Presidential debates in 1999, I did NOT see Al Gore speaking to my issues. I saw him trying to prove to Republicans and "undecideds" that he would not be significantly different from any Republican candidate and that he could and would "work with" Republicans in Congress. After President Clinton backed down on the "gays in the military" and supported NAFTA and GATT, more shifting to the right was not what I wanted to see.

So, did Ralph Nader spoil it for the Democrats? I would ask you to go to the Green Party website and take a look at the Green Platform. Here's the link, but you do need to download it: http://www.gp.org/platform_index.html

Please tell me what in that Platform you, as a Democrat, could not support?

If, OTOH, you do support the 2000 Platform, then why did you vote for Al Gore? Because he could win? Well, yes he did win, technically, but that's all water under the bridge now. If you support the Green Party Platform and the Key Values, etc., then damn it! Why did you let Al Gore spoil it for the best candidate? Why did liberal and progressive Democrats let Al Gore spoil it for the Green Party?


:grr:

[Iverson]

92. be calm

Don't let yourself be baited. Besides, as Green-hating goes, that was mild.

There are plenty of posters here who are actually interested in good-faith exchanges.

:pals:

[Hep]

112. no S it was mild

Because I'm not attacking your party. I'm attacking people who are managing to dupe members of your party into supporting his personal agenda.

[Hep]

108. check yourself!

First of all, the Green Party does not intend to destroy the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party moved to the right in 2000 and even before that. The Green Party gave a voice to those of us who objected to that move and would have preferred that the Democrats had maintained their position as a strong advocate for the disenfranchised, for labor, and for the middle class.

I didn't say a damn thing about the green party. I wish people would read my words and respond to them as if you understood what I said. NADER wants to destroy the D party. Moore supported NADER. OK? Not the greens. I have much respect for much of the green platform, except for the dissolution of congress thing, which I do understand would be the only way for a green bill to become law.

Please tell me what in that Platform you, as a Democrat, could not support?

I admire your defense of your platform, and I appreciate your bringing it to me with a nice tone. But I'm really not attacking your party. I've seen a lot of great teamwork between greens and dems in my region. I've already signed the GP petition to have a candidate on the ballot in my state. I'm railing against Nader, and his henchman Moore.

If, OTOH, you do support the 2000 Platform, then why did you vote for Al Gore? Because he could win? Well, yes he did win, technically, but that's all water under the bridge now. If you support the Green Party Platform and the Key Values, etc., then damn it! Why did you let Al Gore spoil it for the best candidate? Why did liberal and progressive Democrats let Al Gore spoil it for the Green Party?

Because I view politics in this countrydifferently than you do. It is a fundamental difference. I firmly believe that this republic is set up such that change can't occur drastically or rapidly. And I have a good understanding of people in this country. And most people in this country do NOT support the G platform. You make the same argument that libertarians make. And it's fine, but you WILL NOT win a presidential election, and even if you do, you'll never get what you want with the political system we have. I'm sorry. That's just my opinion, but it's the answer to your question.

[MadHound]

150. Check your history

Change does occur drastically and rapidly in our political system. Think back to the sixties, when the Dems got noticably more liberal. That was because a lot of the old guard southern Dixiecrats found their true cause in the Republicans and switched parties. Or in the eighties, when the Republicans consolidated their power for a decade with the addition of the Reagan Dems. Or in the ninties, when the corporations consolidated their power over both parties, with the help of the DLC and Clinton's soft money initiative. And on and on. Politics in this country move at a rapid rate, and will bypass you if you're not paying attention(Kevin Phillip's book Wealth and Democracy is a good book to read if you wish more info on this phenomenon).

It also helps to have a little historical perspective(and some figures) when bombasting on what the public wishes in the way of political platforms. It has been polled time and again that the public is more liberal than we have been led to believe. With support numbers up in the sixties or better on issues such as preserving our enviroment, safe public water, clean air, corporate money out of politics, universal health care, pro-choice, and on and on it would seem that the public is much more liberal than you and a lot of other people would like to believe. The public just doesn't want to be called liberal, probably due to the demonization imparted to that label by Limbaugh and others of his ilk.

But hey, if you want to keep your head in the sand so you don't have to feel the winds of change, far be it from me to disillusion you. Just don't be suprised when the Green party comes up and bites you on your collective Dem ass, making you as irrelevant and obsolete as the Whigs. Because generaly speaking when the public doesn't get what it wants from one party they will switch to another. And the process is quite rapid and drastic.

[Hep]

159. but

Change does occur drastically and rapidly in our political system. Think back to the sixties, when the Dems got noticably more liberal. That was because a lot of the old guard southern Dixiecrats found their true cause in the Republicans and switched parties. Or in the eighties, when the Republicans consolidated their power for a decade with the addition of the Reagan Dems. Or in the ninties, when the corporations consolidated their power over both parties, with the help of the DLC and Clinton's soft money initiative. And on and on. Politics in this country move at a rapid rate, and will bypass you if you're not paying attention(Kevin Phillip's book Wealth and Democracy is a good book to read if you wish more info on this phenomenon).


Politics change rapidly in the sense you bring up, true. But that's not the kind of change I meant to talk about. Greens seem to think that if they could just take the presidency, things would change for the better in this country. It won't happen that way. Pot won't be legal by 2008 if Nader wins in 2004. We wouldn't be out of Nafta and the WTO. You have a right leaning supreme court and a right leaning congress. I just don't think that a more liberal or progressive policy will achieve much.

But this is all built on the theory that greens or kucinich could actually get the votes.

It also helps to have a little historical perspective(and some figures) when bombasting on what the public wishes in the way of political platforms. It has been polled time and again that the public is more liberal than we have been led to believe. With support numbers up in the sixties or better on issues such as preserving our enviroment, safe public water, clean air, corporate money out of politics, universal health care, pro-choice, and on and on it would seem that the public is much more liberal than you and a lot of other people would like to believe. The public just doesn't want to be called liberal, probably due to the demonization imparted to that label by Limbaugh and others of his ilk.


Yeah, I read the intro to Big Lies, too. We want clean water, sure, but everyone is offering it. Some people offer it in addition to big tax cuts. Others offer it with more credibility but with smaller tax cuts. Yet others ofer it with the most credibility but don't want to cut taxes at all. One things being the same, people choose based on other things. es, the public is more liberal then individuals will admit, but it doesn't MEAN anything. It's not NEW. And BUSH WON IN 2002, with this "more liberal public". So you can't act like it MEANS anything.

But hey, if you want to keep your head in the sand so you don't have to feel the winds of change, far be it from me to disillusion you. Just don't be suprised when the Green party comes up and bites you on your collective Dem ass, making you as irrelevant and obsolete as the Whigs. Because generaly speaking when the public doesn't get what it wants from one party they will switch to another. And the process is quite rapid and drastic.

You're hanging out with different greens than I am, then. Of the greens that I know (and I'm actually quite liberal, so I know a lot) most have vowed to vote D in 2004 no matter what. But again, your sitch is different. Nader didn't even make the NC ballot in 2000. Yeah, you guys are real organized, a force to be reckoned with.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

184. Your little personal rant has NOTHING to do with the article, does it?

[Hep]

194. by all means

Show me where I claimed it was.

[Archae]

54. Moore got an Oscar.

BFD.

So did Dumdum Stallone's movie "Rocky," nothing but recycled cliches about a down on his luck boxer.

[Hep]

56. Better yet

Charlton eston got an Oscar! Let's all go buy guns!

Unbelievable.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

189. Heston won an Oscar in 1959 for Best Actor in Ben-Hur...

...what does that have to do with modern politics of the 1990s and 2000s, and/or Michael Moore's recent Oscar for Best Documentary?

[Hep]

195. WOW!

There's a documentary called "Michael Moore"? There's a documentary about Michael Moore? I could have sworn BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE won the Oscar.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

219. Well, I thought you were off-balance before...

...but your last post has convinced me that you've gone around the bend.

Seek help. Seek LOTS of help. And quickly.

[Hep]

228. You still don't get it!

It's you who think that a little statue gives credibility. It is you who claim that winning an Oscar MEANS something. You don't even appear to realize that Moore won an Oscar for a movie, which doesn't mean he or his book are credible.

And you think I'm crazy for believing this? Wow indeed!

[Hep]

31. Michael Moore can shove it

I can't even look at him without getting sick to my stomach. Why he has any credibility with any of you is way beyond me.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hep]

33. Did you have something to say?

I guess not.

[Champion Jack]

40. Let me know when I should start

caring about what you think "Hep"

[Hep]

43. Hey feel free

Care about what I think or don't. WTF do I care?

[mac56]

41. I'm waiting for your book and documentary, Hep.

Keep me posted.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

49. well, it IS a start

THat's all it takes for you to assign credibility? A book and a documentary?

[Hep]

53. No it's not.

This coming from Catwoman! Unbelievable. Have you still not forgiven Kucinich?

Now it makes sense! Just like you can't forgive Kucinich for past wrongs, you can't look at Moore objectively because he did some right once. I'm not ready to give Moore any credibility until he takes responsibility for betraing at least 1600 people and god knows how many more.

[CatWoman]

115. Hep -- you've got your "Cats" confused

I never had a problem with Dennis -- that was Catpower.

[Hep]

120. eek!

I humbly stand before you in error. I'm very sorry.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hep]

50. Keep it coming!

I'm waiting for Bill, is that you? And then Sean, is that you? You guys are showing your true inability to think creatively or think objectively. We have our own little group of mindless, left wing idealogues. How precious!

[CatWoman]

48. "any of you"????

:shrug:

[Hep]

55. Yeah, ANY

You call yourself democrats and flock around this guy who doesn't give a shit about our party. How can anyone here do that?

[LeahMira]

94. That's diversity!

Why he has any credibility with any of you is way beyond me.

OK, who do you like that does the same kind of thing... shines a spotlight on the hypocrites out there and exposes them for the fools they really are? I'll be glad to discuss the person(s) you like. OK?

[Hep]

113. exposes hypocrites?

If he's so tough on hypocrites, why hasn't he come out and admitted his own hypocrisy? That's what I want to know. If he has, I'll change my mind about him.

The people I like are Conason, Ivins, Alterman, Pitt, Franken, Palast, Somerby, Lyons, and Krugman.

But this thread isn't about them.

[Q]

35. A juvenile attack...

...against someone (at least) trying to make Bush* accountable.

- What a sad state of affairs.

[sangh0]

36. Bryan Keefer seems to have it in for Moore

and he doesn't seem too hostile to Bush*. In another article of his he disputes the idea that the Iraq invasion was a "war for oil" even though he says at the start that he will only be writing about demonstrable facts and not unprovable opinions about motive and intent, and he also insists that the invasion was multi-lateral.

He's obviously not a Bush*ie, but he's also not a DU-type either.

[Archae]

37. Just like I said in a different posting...

Raise legitimate critisisms of someone's "hero" or be critical of a pet belief like astrology or Mother Theresa being "such a good person," and the FTB's go ballistic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I Don't Agree With Michael Moore On Everything

but he's one of the good guys....

[Archae]

58. Wrong.

By lying and such he discredits any good he does.

To the "Moore Fan Club," why did Moore change his film for the DVD release, and threaten to sue his critics for libel?

Just a thin-skinned liar like Bill OhREALLY?

[Touchdown]

123. He didn't.

MGM postponed it, because his film was still making serious bank. That's the way Hollywood does it. This allowed them to make it a 2 disc special edition, which wouldn't have been had it been released prematurly in the spring. Seinfeld isn't on DVD because TV syndication is making them too much money right now, and they're afraid a DVD might eat into syndication sales. This is the way Hollywood always does it. What would your conspiracy theory be about the DVD delay?

As far as the libel suits are concerned, this is the first I've heard of it. Got a link?

[Evil_Dewers]

61. Good guys don't vote Green and enable the Chimp to destroy America n/t

[Octafish]

57. Moore got the BIG picture correct — Bush is a Crook.

EXCERPT from the first link:

... In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations." (page 34)

CONTINUED...

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

Bushler DID send the fucking Taliban $43 million and he also hosted the sad fucks in Texas:

USA: Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban

by Robert Scheer
Los Angeles Times
May 22, 2001

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

CONTINUED...

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc_deal.htm

But wait, there's more...

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium

Run Date: 05/26/01

(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.

In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine.

Colin Powell, in announcing the gift, said the administration hoped that the Taliban "will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support of terrorism, their violation of internationally recognized human rights--especially their treatment of women and girls--and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement." He also called on other nation's to join the U.S. with “dispatch and energy.”

SOURCE:

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage

Then there's the 1997 Texas Oil-Taliban Gold Bar-B-Q:

Oil barons court Taliban in Texas

By Caroline Lees

THE Taliban, Afghanistan's Islamic fundamentalist army, is about to sign a £2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country.

The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. Last week Unocal, the Houston-based company bidding to build the 876-mile pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, invited the Taliban to visit them in Texas. Dressed in traditional salwar khameez, Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay.

The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the Nasa space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives.

The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr Miller about his Christmas tree.

CONTINUED...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html

[Hep]

70. You make good points.

But when talking about funding the Taliban, how much did Clinton give?

[Touchdown]

125. Good question

Why don't you go off and find out how much Clinton gave to the Taliban. I'm sure the Freeper lurkers are dying to know.:eyes:

[Hep]

130. Objectivity isn't too much to ask

It's well known that many US administrations gave the Taliban millions upon millions of dollars, ranging from aid to incentives to stop opium growth in the region.

We're supposed to win this with truth, TD. If we don't KNOW the truth, how do you think we can do that?

We can beat the right at it's game, but that's only because we will be equipped with the truth. You'll get your ass kicked in an idealogical debate if you trot out that "Bush gave the Taliban money" crap. It's just not that simple.

[Octafish]

140. Not my job to be objective, hep. I'm a Democrat.

If you need the info to debate someone, great. Go get the info. If you want, share it. If I can use it, I will.

What's more, I'll thank you for it because even if I don't use it, I'll appreciate you contributing to what I know. After all, there's not enough hours in the day to do all the stuff I need to do, let alone want to do.

What I'm trying to get across in the present example is that Michael Moore is RIGHT when it comes to writing about Bush and the Taliban. I threw in the reminder about the Texas Oil Bar-B-Q as a bonus of sorts, kapische?

[Hep]

145. Insight

Well now I know where you're coming from. You should have told me you weren't objective right from the get go. I tend to avoid closed minded people.

OK, so I'll tell you something I know. It's one thing to bash bush in a big group of like minded people. It's real easy. And it's easy to oversimplify complex issues and take things out of context when no one is going to call you on it. I'm sorry I bothered to question you.

Yeah, Moore is right when he says Bush gave the Taliban money. Just like all the right wingers are right when they said Clinton did it.

And in the end, I'm right when I say that this is the downfall of political discourse. Every simplified, out-of-context argument you make = a logical, fair argument you miss. Not you personally, of course.

We're supposed to arm ourselves with the truth.

[Octafish]

149. So tell me about it.

I'm not posting on DU to convince anybody about anything. I post what my thoughts on the various topics are. If you need convincing or want more information, I'll try to oblige. What I won't do is go and find the information needed to make someone else's argument. With all due respect, whose job do you think that is?

BTW: If you think I'm closed minded, you're wrong. As far as being subjective in defending Democrats, Liberals and Progressives, you're right.

P.S. You want to understand where I'm coming from, read Robert M. Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." He does as good job of dissecting the duality between observer and observed as Heisenberg.

[Hep]

161. The subject line must not be blank

I'm not posting on DU to convince anybody about anything. I post what my thoughts on the various topics are. If you need convincing or want more information, I'll try to oblige. What I won't do is go and find the information needed to make someone else's argument. With all due respect, whose job do you think that is?

I expect any intelligent, well meaning person to understand the whole story. "Bush gave money to the Taliban" is weak and disingenuous. I expect intelligent and well meaning liberals to toss that tactic out the window, knowing that both bush's, Clinton, and Reagan all gave money to the Taliban. If you are seriously interested in solving this problem, not recognizing the obvious will only hurt you. If all you want to do is rail on Bush and get pats on the back, then I'm sorry I replied in the first place.

BTW: If you think I'm closed minded, you're wrong. As far as being subjective in defending Democrats, Liberals and Progressives, you're right.

One of the major faults I see in conservative idealogy is how they rally around each other no matter what they do wrong or how hypocritical it makes them. Go to that frogweenies board and see what they're like. I don't want my side to act like that. We have tons of solid evidence on Bush, like how he let 9/11 happen out of sheer disdain for Clinton. We don't need to take shit out of historical context.

I do want to read Zen and the Art... Thanks for reminding me.

[charlie]

162. Careful

The Taliban didn't exist before 1994, didn't hold power over the bulk of Afghanistan until 1996.

[Hep]

165. sorry

Good point. My mistake. I was totally unclear with what I was saying.

[dpibel]

208. Removed by author for redundancy n/t

[RevolutionStartsNow]

59. This guy is on OUR side

He writes bestselling books about how Bush lies and his administration is corrupt. Do we really need to tear him down?

[Archae]

60. Yes!

He helped put Smirk in office, and is discrediting liberal causes by his lies, half-truths and propaganda.

We actually CAN do better than that ego-trip Moore.

[LeahMira]

97. Oh, Hep...

He helped put Smirk in office, and is discrediting liberal causes by his lies, half-truths and propaganda.

People didn't vote for Ralph Nader because Michael Moore told them to do that. Michael Moore was simply one among many well-known folks who gave their support to the Green Party. People voted for Ralph Nader because they wanted Ralph Nader as President of the U.S., and because they refused to buy into playing the "game."

Should you be interested, take a look at Mike's response to those who were critical of "Bowling for Columbine." Here ya go: http://michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

[Hep]

114. What?

I didn't write the post to which you are replying, so if you don't mind saving your patronizing subject lines for replies to MY posts, I'd appreciate it.

[CatWoman]

63. Mike must have took the last peice of chicken

or committed some other hideous act towards Archae.

He is always posting anti-Moore threads.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

68. SCHEISSE

There's gold in them thar hills!

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Archae]

80. I used to like Moore.

Especially his TV Nation days.

Then he showed his true colors, as a thin-skinned liar.

Progressives don't need jerks like Moore.

We need more David Corns, Jonathan Alters and Jim Hightowers.

[Terwilliger]

82. A thin-skinned?

Where has he lied? (proof, not semantics check)

Why do you characterize him as thin-skinned?

[Archae]

88. You want thin-skinned?

More recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are "committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

I expect this from Coulter, Rush, OhREALLY? or Savage.

And I keep noticing how the "Moore Is Just SOOOO good!" club keep avoiding the FACT, that Moore did lie, in BFC.
And altered his movie for DVD release, taking that lie out.

[0rganism]

179. the criticisms he denounced ARE character assassination and make-believe

Have you READ the article you linked? Moore makes very solid points as to why several of the complaints and critiques are specious at best. Which of the following extremely common echo-chamber criticisms of "Bowling For Columbine" do you think has solid footing?

1) Michael Moore didn't get a rifle from the bank when he opened his 20-year CD account

2) The Lockheed-Martin factory in Littleton didn't make weapons of mass destruction

3) Heston's speech shown in the film as happening in Denver shortly after the Littleton massacre takes place 900 miles away and a year later

4) Moore asserts as fact that Klebold and Harris went bowling prior to the massacre

I've seen every one of these leveled at the film more than once by its detractors. It seems natural to me that Mr. Moore would want to respond to them on his website. Yet somehow, Moore's rebuttal to specific criticisms is outside the pale of reasonable discourse? And he openly admits and explains the ONE ERROR he corrected for the DVD version, the part about Willie Horton murdering when he escaped from furlough -- rather than merely raping and attempting murder. It's in the same article. You should read it sometime.

[IrateCitizen]

84. In this case, you ARE aware that Hightower supported Nader in 2000?

Aren't you?

And I would hardly put an establishment reporter like Jonathan Alter on the same page as a contributor to The Nation like David Corn. Likewise, it's a TERRIBLE stretch to compare either of them to a progressive populist, organizer and rabble-rouser like Jim Hightower.

Your disdain for Michael Moore, like so many others on these boards, borders on pathology. I agree with an earlier poster -- it's almost as if the guy had sex with your sister and didn't call her again!

[Hep]

121. Hightower

So Hightower was a Rube, too. This is about Moore. It's right up there in the subject line.

Your disdain for Michael Moore, like so many others on these boards, borders on pathology. I agree with an earlier poster -- it's almost as if the guy had sex with your sister and didn't call her again!

That's the thing. Moore is just that type of guy. Actually, no, he's more the type that would get your sister in the car, convince her to fellate him, and then boot her out without even pulling to the curb. That's essentially what he did to every Dem in this country who is trying to fix our party.

[IrateCitizen]

139. READ THE POST I WAS RESPONDING TO!

So Hightower was a Rube, too. This is about Moore. It's right up there in the subject line.

Read the post I'm responding to before you spout off. The previous poster brought up Hightower, David Corn and Jonathan Alter. I was only responding to the previous poster.

That's essentially what he did to every Dem in this country who is trying to fix our party.

Since the work of fixing the party has to be from the ground up, I fail to see how what MM did had any bearing on what you are trying to do. :shrug:

[Hep]

146. get over yourself!

He brought them up, you made the thread about Hightower. I read the post you replied to.

Just because someone bring up a name doesn't mean he intends to veer the thread in that direction. And Hightower's story is completely different.

I'll spout off where and when I want, thanks. Even if you are my dad, I moved out a long time ago. I certainly won't boss you around.

Since the work of fixing the party has to be from the ground up, I fail to see how what MM did had any bearing on what you are trying to do. :shrug:

Seriously, this comes as absolutely NO surprise to me. You try explaining to people the importance of getting involved and making their own change when all they can think about is, "Boy it would be a lot easier to just vote for Nader".

They never even realized what Nader really wants. Neither did Moore. But that never stopped them from turning their back on the D party altogether with their "Gore=Bush" BS. And the end result? A far weaker D party thean we had before, proved by the dismal showing in 2002. You don' tthink that was devastating for the people who tried to take their party back from the roots?

[LeahMira]

99. We need both...

We need more David Corns, Jonathan Alters and Jim Hightowers.

We need people who can write political commentary and editorials in a "scholarly" way and we also need people who can write for the common people.

I'm not saying that citizens of the U.S. are stupid, but there are certainly plenty of intelligent people who come home and flop in front of the TV for an hour or so of entertainment and relaxation. Maybe another day they will read something thought provoking, but Michael Moore's books, films, and appearances across the country are both fun and thought provoking. There's a place for that.

[Hep]

122. sure thing

If you are a green and you like Moore, I don't blame you. He's your guy.

And there is a place for fun and thought provoking political commentary from the left, for certain, as the Daily Show sometimes shows us. I just hope it isn't politically opportunistic like Moore has shown me to be.

[Chovexani]

110. LOL

Taking the last piece of chicken in my house will get you hurt. :)

[WillyT]

170. Hey Cat !!! --- Are There Any Good Powders For Our Current Infestation ???

Bet Tom Delay knows a couple, LOL!!!

:loveya:

[CatWoman]

172. Willy Baby!!!!!

:hi:

:loveya:

****snarf*****

[Rex]

203. Archae is Moore's

brother-in-law. "Ah, Mikes a bum I tell ya...yadda yadda." LOL

[Hep]

64. Who is WE?

When you say OUR side, who is WE?

He's not on my side. He used every ounce of his influence to support a candidate who said this:

"When lose, they say it's because they are not appealing to the Republican voters," Nader told an audience in Madison, Wis., a few months ago, according to a story in The Nation. "We want them to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."

http://slate.msn.com/?id=1006380

[Bridget Burke]

71. No, "we" don't need to tear him down.

But it's apparent that some folks really do.

He's dangerous. He gets the attention of non-DU'ers. He's not perfect or above criticism, but continues to do good work.

[Superfly]

75. Well, with friends like Moore, who needs enemies?

He reminds me of Eminem...shock 'em into agreeing with you.

[Terwilliger]

83. shock em into *agreeing* with you

You said "agreeing"

hmm...and that's bad because... :shrug:

[Superfly]

87. Not the agreeing part

the shocking part is bad. If he has a point to make, he should do so with an appeal to logic, not shock value.

Every time he opens his mouth, he just looks like a big, whiny crybaby throwing a temper tantrum, and he's supposed to be on our side?

[Terwilliger]

100. Yes, and appeals to logic ALWAYS work, right?

This is why we have Bush and a Repuke congress...because the American people want truth and manners :eyes:

[Iverson]

101. now now

They may work less than half the time, but they are still the right thing to do.

[Hep]

124. you're so close!

American people want truth. It's just that the people are easily manipulated.

You got a repuke on one side claioming the sky is green. You got a dem on the left jumping up and down that the sky is blue, dammit, blue! The repuke looks over and says, "I don't know what that guys is getting all uppity about" and evreyone looks to the dem and tihnks, "damn, he is a bit out of control"


The thing is, the right has done a better job of SELLING their message. They stand there with smug looks on their faces because they know that when people don't know what the truth is, they'll believe whoever does a better job of selling it. And we're losing that battle. It's not Moore's fault, but it isn't like he is looking more credible now than he was with Roger and Me. He's just more famous.

[charlie]

132. You've got it backward

Repubs have sold their messages by being out of control. When have we ever had a Limbaugh (not to mention the legions of Rush wannabes)? Where are our insane ministers that have enjoyed the reach and power of Robertson and Falwell? What congressional Dem has matched the rabid demagoguery of Gingrich, Santorum, Dornan, DeLay, et al? What TV liberal is as successful as O'Reilly? We haven't been the ones jumping up and down.

[Hep]

135. wait

You have a point. But there has to be a reason why lies are winning out over truth, and I can't yet believe that it's because people don't want truth. Help!

[charlie]

137. I'm sorry

but I can't think of a reason otherwise. Righteous indignation wins, it seems.

[Hep]

138. Ack

That's disheartening.

You know the people on the right love the power in being able to make whole masses of people believe false things.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hep]

166. Wow!

It's funny how your subject line applies to you as much as anyone else. This whole, "support the guy on the left, he can do no wrong, he must not be questioned" schtick is something I expect from people of a different political idealogy. If you're a D, Moore screwed you. If you're not pissed, you're not paying attention!

I didn't coin that. It was on a bumper sticker.

[Cocoa]

69. one of Moore's "lies" turned out to be true, big time

Remember the story about flying the bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11?

Remember Snopes, and others, calling Moore a liar?

Remember recently finding out that Moore was right, the liars were wrong, and the entire journalistic world that ignored the story were incompetent?

I wonder if Spinsanity joined in the criticism of this "lie", and if so, if they've apologized to him, like Snopes did.

[Starpass]

72. I don't give a flying fuck in M Moore is really Laura Bush in

disguise or John McCain in a baseball hat......anyone criticizing Bush and getting info out through books or movies is a-okay with me. It seems like this "party of the big tent" is really a petty bunch of jealous, little minded fools who expect any member to be Jesus (but minus the religious thing because it's poltically incorrect). You have people coming from all sectors looking at the Dem party anew and looking to us to lead. And what do we give them??---a bunch of school yard little bastards who don't want another kid into our "clique" 'cause maybe the clique will grow and learn and expand and actually fucking do something for once!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[qanda]

74. Number 3 of the new rules

Should have this thread headed down the memory hole.

It states:

If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

[Terwilliger]

85. well...I dont think of spinsanity as conservative

they do some left and right pieces

[Archae]

90. But since Spinsanity is crtical of liberal heroes also...

Then "They're conservatives! Freepers! L-Dotters!" etc, etc.

[Terwilliger]

98. you dont have to tell me that

I've noticed that pattern on a lot of folks here at DU. Like the time Bill Maher went after Gore, and all the sudden he was media-whore number one

I dont think spinsanity is particularly conservative, but they seem to have an axe to grind here.

[qanda]

128. Perhaps this part is a little difficult to read...

or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

I'm not saying that you cannot post this-- I really don't give two flying figs about what somebody does or does not post. You are free to your opinion, but at least follow the rules and state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

[IrateCitizen]

93. Boy, all of this is REALLY productive!

"Michael Moore is a liar!"

"No he isn't!"

"Yes he is!"

"Prove it!"

"He supported Nader!"

"I don't care, I still like him!"

"He's the enemy!"

... and so on, ad nauseum. :eyes:


Really, I would think by now that most of us would have something much, much, much more important to do with our time than engage in this inanity. I'm actually banging my head on the desk for even reading and participating in this thread, and I think I may actually be a bit dumber for having done so.

[charlie]

95. Gabba gabba, we accept you

One of us!

[jiacinto]

107. In a word, no

nt

[Stupdworld]

111. thats about as explosive as saying

"Clinton lied and committed perjury"

you must really like getting flamed.

[LoneStarLiberal]

118. More A Difference In Tastes, Not Facts

This looks more like a jilted lover ruining their ex's night out on the town rather than clear, concise factual error.

Cases in point:

"Page 67: Moore claims that, in building the famous Maginot Line, France "built the bunkers facing the wrong way and Germans were deep into France before you could say 'garcon, stinky cheese, please!'" In fact, the Maginot Line was built with many of the heavy weapons facing back and to the flanks of the line, to allow the bunkers to support each other, and the German invasion avoided it entirely, coming through the Ardennes north of the line."

My take: Nit-picking over Moore's comedic license as an author. If Spinsanity doesn't like his humor, then DON'T READ HIM!

"Pages 74 and 75: Moore writes on page 74 that "between these two bombing campaigns , according to some estimates, 9,000 civilians were murdered." On the next page, he writes that "A British-American research group in London announced estimates of civilian deaths due to the war at between 6,806 and 7,797." Those claims come from two controversial sources: Marc Herold's "Daily Casualty Count" for the Afghan campaign, and the Iraq Body Count web site. As we have noted elsewhere, Herold's estimates of up to 3,600 civilian deaths are considerably higher than estimates from other media organizations, which range from a few hundred to 1,200. Herold's methodology, which relied upon on media reports (including reports using Taliban sources) and information from NGOs, has also come under fire. (Herold wrote a letter responding to our previous criticism). As Moore himself notes, the Iraq Body Count relies on a very similar methodology, with the same sort of problems - media and NGO reports are not always accurate, and the sources cited in those reports have not been critically evaluated by the researchers. Rather than simply citing these figures as coming from a "British-American research group," Moore owes it to his readers to provide a more accurate representation of his source."

My take: Note to Spinsanity "fact" checkers: THEY ARE ***ESTIMATES***!!! If you don't like the sources he bases his estimates on, then write your own freakin' book with sources YOU prefer.

[dreissig]

127. Michael Moore for President

I'd vote for him!

[jiacinto]

131. But 60% of America wouldn't

nt

[Liberal Veteran]

133. My God! Moore is not perfect like we are! Tar and feather him!!!!

Cause we only allow people who never make mistakes in the democratic party!

He should be run out of town on a rail.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

Geez. And we talk about the republicans eating their own?

[Selwynn]

141. I don't see you defending Ann's mistakes....

..why are Moore's different?

[Liberal Veteran]

142. Moore is not a vitriolic asshole who advocates killing people who have....

...differences of opinion like Coulter. Coulter advocates violence against who she perceives as her enemies.

But this is neither here nor there. I didn't realize my job as a democrat/progressive was to be the self-proclaimed protector of my political opposites.

By all means correct Moore's mistakes if you want, but don't expect me to engage in the hysteria of calling Moore a left-wing Coulter because he's only correct 90% percent of the time instead of 100% of the time.

Standards are fine, but I'm getting the impression that in order to pass the standard of some critics within our own community, Moore would need to perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes and walk on water.

Sheesh.

[Forkboy]

157. you gotta be kidding me

:eyes:

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

134. I don't read spinsanity anymore

they've morphed into Republican apologists. Their whole "Bush-Didn't-Aid-The-Taliban" argument -- which is about 50% more shrill than it needs to be -- ignores several painfully obvious points.

They claim that the aid "never went anywhere near the Taliban," which is pretty much like saying that any aid given to Germany in 1943 didn't go "anywhere near the Nazi's."

Their argument that the aid was "only" surplus food ignores the fact that the more cash we free up for the Taliban (by giving them free food), the more money they have to train terrorists and purchase munitions.

Can you imagine the screaming that would take place if the Clinton Administration had done something similar?

[Selwynn]

136. Moore is dangerous, because he is the Democratic Ann

I don't have time to waste on guys like this. I've never trusted Moore - he's seems more concerned with getting attention than with intellectual rigor.

There are too many less flashy but rigorously honest critics and liberal minds out there that are far more worth my time.

[lovedems]

144. I don't for one minute understand the Moore bashing...

In '00 he was disgusted with the democratic leaders, like most of us are today because Bush wouldn't have all of his policies in place without their help. While his support led to Bush being elected, it is not a mistake he is going to make twice. In a way I commend him for trying to hold the democrats up to their ideals of the people they are suppose to represent. I see many people on DU who would like to see any democrat from congress voted out of office if they support the 87 billion. That is what Moore was after in '00. While I don't excuse it, I completely understand his motivation. There are times I feel as if the democratic leaders have abandoned us. They would rather do what is popular than what is right. The democrats need to grow their spines back and stand up to this dim witted president and if Michael Moore provides a voice that causes them to second guess their support for this misadministration, more power to him.

[Hep]

164. you will change my mind about Moore

If you can demonstrate for me that he will vote D no matter who wins the nomination. I don't believe it.

[lovedems]

167. I don't know anything for sure but

I know he won't vote for Lieberman, he thinks he is a Bushie disquised as a democrat. I think only a few dems out there would fault him for that. I know he is giving his tax cut and contributions to any DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE who has a chance of beating a republican. (you can check out his website and provide him with a democratic candidate) I heard him say he would not be voting green this time and it would be a mistake if Nader ran again (Today Show? Conan? I can't remember) While he has been promoting his book, I haven't heard anything but him fighting for the democrats to get the rethuglicans out of office.

[Hep]

168. Gold star for you

You said the magic words! So many people here jumped down my throat for being angry with Moore, and you, the most wonderful person in the world, helped ease my rage! I won't fault him for not voting for Lieberman, because I don't think he has a chance.

THank you so much! Now the healing process can begin.

[charlie]

169. If that's what you needed

then Moore's missive imploring Clark to run should interest you:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-12

[Hep]

171. you know,

I read that when it was published, but it just didn't convince me. I was hoping for evidence in terms of him speaking to crowds or appearing on Tv. Some sign that he is actively working on my side.

Although a personal apology would be nice, too! I don't expect him to reply to my emails though...

[lovedems]

177. Glad to be of help.

[tkmorris]

180. Dunno bout you but

I could not possibly respect someone who would vote for a candidate based solely upon the candidate carrying a "D" behind his name.

[Hep]

230. It don't worry me

Well it's simple really. If you don't vote for the guy with the D, the guy with the R wins. Want proof? Nah, you don't need it.

[Liberal Veteran]

147. Interesting how many have placed all the blame for * on Moore...

And I know that grudges can be hard to let go of, but it is apparent to me that most of Moore's detractors from our side of aisle are doing so out of personal animosity toward Moore for selection 2000 rather than out of some affront to an impossible standard.

[Hep]

173. Please

don't make the mistake of suggesting that anyone here is dumb enough to place ALL blame on Moore. This thread is about Moore. If it were about the media, we'd be blaming them right now. If it were about a republican desire to keep minorities away from the polls, it would be that. This thread is about Moore, and while neither he nor Nader are 100% at fault for anything other than looking kinda goofy (just a loke!) they did play a role in the phenomenon.

OK,

[Room101]

152. Archae- You are the liberal version of a Feeeper

You have read and know the Depths of Ann coulters fascism, to compare the two is sad at best. No wonder the right kicks our ass, because of people like you who throw babies out with the bath water, and eat your own.

[lovedems]

155. Yep

Ann Coulter is in a sick and twisted class all by herself.

[SeattleRob]

174. I agree....

Freeper logic comes to DU

[Selwynn]

196. Whatever - there are far, far, FAR better sources than M. Moore

And why you guys latch on to his self-serving, fast-and-loose with the facts OVER AND OVER AND OVER again self, instead of focusing on sources with impeccable credibility is absolutely baffling. You can do all the name calling you want. The sun still comes up tomorrow on a world where I'm right and you're not. :)

[rman]

226. or rather: a freeper on a liberal forum. n/t

-

[Undemcided]

175. In his own words ...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

[AmericaInWonderland]

178. I have to agree, here is a conservative's response to his letter to Bush

http://www.gweilodiaries.com/archives/000716.html

Dear Mr. Moore:

I read your recent open letter to George W. Bush, in which you graciously offer to "share a few truths" with the President. In response, may I suggest to you, to paraphrase a renowned American educator, that "fat, tedious and stupid is no way to go through life son."

Let's look at a few of your "truths":

1. "No Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that." Perhaps you missed Saddam's television performance a few days ago, in which he threatened to wage war and inflict death around the world, or that of his rapist, murderous son, Uday, a renowned expert on the subject of killing. Perhaps also, you have forgotten Saddam's attempt to assassinate a former president of the United States? I'm pretty sure George H. W. Bush is an American.

2. "The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you. . . " This would be the same majority who never elected Bill Clinton . . . twice.

3. "We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. While I can understand your discomfort with the letters "IQ", Mike, I think you've overlooked a threat -- world terrorism. I knew three people who perished in the WTC and another three who were killed in Bali. I'm pretty sure, if offered a choice, they'd all rather be alive, unemployed, with an underwater 401(k) and paying $2 for gas.

4. "As Bill Maher said last week. . . ." Trust you to quote the only human-being on the planet more annoyingly stupid than yourself.

5. "The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN." The Pope also says homosexuality, birth control, abortion and -- particularly relevant in your case -- gluttony and sloth are sins. The Catholic Church doesn't serve a' la carte. The management insists you take the set menu. Are you ready to order, sir?

6. "If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits." You make it too easy Mike. Like hunting cows with an Uzi. When asked why you, as an opponent of school vouchers, don't send your own daughter to New York City public schools, you replied: "My child is not a social experiment and is not going to be the one used to undo the damage the rich have done to society." Hypocrite.

7. "We love France." Er, no we fucking don't.

8. "Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution?" Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, arrived in Paris in 1784. The Declaration was written in 1776. Jefferson, therefore, would have had some difficulty refining the concepts that led to it while in Paris. Franklin arrived in Paris in December 1776, again, after the Declaration was proclaimed.

9. "A Frenchman built the Chevrolet." I'm pretty sure William C. Durant was born in Boston and lived in Flint.

An impressive performance. Indeed, a tour de force of stupidity. A decathalon of dumb, which you conclude with a reference to Bush's "ignorance." Do you know what they say about glass houses Michael? They say that people who live in them -- especially if they look like you -- shouldn't undress.

Sincerely yours.

Conrad

Notes:
I don't especially agree with Conrad on many things but I have to admit, he makes some good points (with the exception of #2, #3, #7, and #4 which I don't agree with). Moore does shoot himself in the foot a few times -- hopefully not with that bank gun he got.

I think this individual is an expat repug in Hong Kong. I read some of his excerpts from a google search. In general I find his treatment of the natives appalling and condescending -- (maybe it only sucks being a minority in America). Apparently tho its a popular blog.

[0rganism]

186. Except this Conrad fellow makes several other errors of his own

I won't get into the problems with the points you say you don't agree with, i.e. #2, #3, #4, or #7. But look at some of the others!

#8 -- Does Conrad think refinement of the ideals which led to the DoI and the Constitution ENDED once those documents were written?

#5 -- Ad hominem attack on Moore's appearance: his obesity could easily be caused by a glandular problem rather than sloth and gluttony. Missing the point: the pope says many things, and they are not all "family meal" items for Catholics only. The pope addressed this plea with respect to a specific situation.

#1 -- Is Saddam the exception that proves the rule? So far, the one man in Iraq who made the bulk of public threats is the one our armed forces have niether killed nor captured. On the other hand, there are a lot of people dying over there who couldn't have cared less about attacking a country across the fucking globe from where they are (before they were invaded, that is).

Conrad has maybe two points that are reasonably valid, in #6 and #9. Are they even worth contesting?

[AmericaInWonderland]

197. hmmmm...

#5: I agree that the ad hominem attacks convolute his argument (and the arguments of many repugs in general) in #5. I believe what Conrad is implying is that we are only using the Pope as an ally because he happens to support peace; whereas in the past because of his stance on abortion, gay marriages etc., we have attacked him. I think what Moore really meant was that conservatives should be more wary of the war because even the Pope himself is agreeing with us on this issue. Moore should have written this out more clearly.

#8: I am not sure on this one:
"Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that LEAD to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution?"
Seems like if the dates are right, Moore messed up on this one. Perhaps he did mean refinement as the process of honing the ideas AFTER the declaration and constitution were written. Either way he shot himself in the foot here.

#1: I agree with you here but only after reading your post. I would imagine the average reader would make the error to equate Saddam with the Iraqi people. Again I think Moore needs to present his case better.

In general I think Moore does more harm than good. His writing has been called "Chomsky for Dummies". The thing I like about Moore is that he means well unlike that hag, Coulter. However I think that now he is more mainstream, he should not let his passion lead his pen. He should learn to anticipate his opponents' counter arguments and make sure that his prose not be misunderstood. Or at least hire better people than those he has now to do this for him.

[0rganism]

213. I don't want to digress too far, but I'll offer these in response

#5: We aren't "using the Pope", the Pope made the statement himself, it was quite clear and situation-specific. What IS interesting is that many of the people who claim to be having the "full menu service", or however Conrad phrased it, are ignoring this particular side dish. Republican American Catholics who support shrub mainly on the basis of his anti-abortion declarations should be thinking twice about their hero now, but somehow that slipped through the cracks. I agree with you that Moore could have been clearer, but he still manages to make his point.

#8: The precise meaning, based on Moore's text, is ambiguous. However, Conrad presents his rebut on the basis of one possible interpretation. Now this would be acceptible if Conrad spelled out such underlying assumptions in his article. He doesn't. And even if he is right about Moore's intended meaning being factually incorrect, which was that some founders of the USA based their work on time spent refining in Paris, there is no question that the underlying ideas were a direct reflection of those of enlightenment continental philosophy: Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, for example.

#1: Moore made a huge mistake in allowing such a flaw to slip through in imprecise prose, IMHO. All he had to do was preface the statement with "Aside from Saddam..." Yeah, Saddam said a lot of crap, no one would argue with that. But I think it's clear by now that he was bluffing with respect to any direct threats on the USA. Conrad's bringing up victims of Al Qaeda is non sequiter, since Iraq had diddly shit to do with Al Qaeda. Even his icon, shrub*, has admitted as much.

I don't think Moore has harmed anyone. He may make mistakes, but they aren't life-endangering ones, and anyone who isn't dead set against him to begin with can understand what he's saying. Ideological opponents will sieze on apparent weaknesses in details, but the more they split hairs the more they demonstrate that the substance of Moore's arguments is more valid than the imperfect presentation or the appearance of the presentor.

[neuvocat]

181. You'd better check your facts again, dammit!

"the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore."

That was true, and it was done under Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives".
That can be verified with Buzzflash.

Go somewhere else where they don't spin things under a conservative "reasoning".

[Skittles]

187. You'll have to forgive Archae

he voted for Reagan and doesn't regret it.

[neuvocat]

190. Yeah shit, whatever.

Moore called on everyone to vote for the dems in the '02 elections, but that's apparently not good enough for someone to call President Carter "Captain Peanut".

What a hypocrite.

[Octafish]

191. Reagan's the reason the country's so messed up today.

Reagan and Bush stole the election in 1980.

Bush — it seems — tried to assassinate Reagan in 1981.

Bush set up Clinton to fail in 1992, but was foiled by Perot.

Bush Jr. stole Election 2000.

Bush Jr. enabled bin Laden in 2001.

Bush Jr. is looting the Treasury and the planet.

Great. Thanks a lot, Reagan.

All who voted for Pruneface share blame, as well.

[neuvocat]

192. Reagan was more crooked than a barrel of snakes.

You know, if he didn't cut funding for Alzheimer's, Reagan might have been able to remember that he was president once.

[Octafish]

210. Serves the git right.

He once read off the TelePrompTer and told the crowd to "Win one for the Gippet."

BTW: Thanks for the great analogy. It also reminded me of a saying a lawyer I know was wont to say about Nixon: "The guy's so crooked he can't pee straight." Which reminds me of who made it possible for the Reich, Mafia, KKK and GOP to come together to create what passes for today's Amerika.

[Hep]

199. I asked someone else this, but no answer, so...

What relevance IYO does Clinton's giving the Taliban millions of dollars for the same purpose have?

And was the idea of giving Afghanis money to not grow poppy a bad one? I think so, but Bush wasn't the first.

[charlie]

205. Because as far as I know he didn't

I recall that that the drug honcho at the UN had an ambitious plan to eradicate worldwide opium cultivation by offering funds to grow other crops, and that initially Clinton was receptive to the idea. But he was convinced shortly that the program was ineffective. In any case, within months Clinton was bombing Afghanistan in an attempt to nail Bin Laden, who had just bombed US embassies in Africa. Afghanistan remained on the US shitlist for harboring Osama until Dubya blew into office and inexplicably reversed Clinton's policy of isolation.

[Terwilliger]

236. Not if you could give them alternative crops

If you could supplant opium growing with some other sustainable crop, then the effort would be a good one. Problem is, our government has known about and sanctioned Afghan opium production ever since the Russians invaded so that the mujahadeen could have money for guns and whatever else. The CIA itself encouraged the production and made it easier for Afghans to distribute it. Just like Iran-Contra. Probably like the Colombian government and the AUN.

[Rex]

198. Forbes speaks...LOL

At least we all can agree with what Moore said at the Oscars as factual! :)

[quaker bill]

201. You are simply mistaken.

The premise of the book is not wrong. Granted, I would not use any of Michael Moore's stuff, print or film, as a primary source for research on a topic.

Moore's work makes sense when compared to the larger world. Even if all the facts are not thoroughly vetted.

The premise, the raison d'etre, of the entire body of work attributed to Coulter is patently false.

[0007]

207. I like Michael Moore

His last book is a gas. I can see why the folks on the right are goin' crazy. LOL!!

[Democat]

209. No one on the left can do anything right, according to those on the left

Why bother?

The left and right will attack anyone on the left.

The left will attack anyone on the right.

Get it?

We very often lose because we choose to lose.

The right rallies behind their own, we destroy our own.

[Loyal]

214. No, of course he can't

And who was it that said if you are going to be a foe of capitalism, perhaps you should not weigh 400 pounds? I think they had a point with regard to Mr. Moore.

[Hep]

235. LOL

kinda reminds me of the Elvis Costello line: Was it a millionaire who said, "Imagine no posessions"?

[blkgrl]

215. He's simply evening out the playing field

How many BOLD FACED LIARS are in the Republican party right now misleading Americans? I think any exxagerations on Moore's part are just an effort to get the message across to people who simply wouldn't "get it" otherwise. We need more people like him to balance out the people on the right who do it every day.

[enki23]

216. this pantload is still going?

and the greater argument, it seems, is over the wrong thing. you ask, is it ok for moore to make shit up? doesn't matter. he *didn't* make shit up. this spinsanity article is, basically, a load of horseshit. weak, inconsequential nitpickings, pathetic spin, all in an attempt to pad the number up to... seventeen.

whee.

[Character Assassin]

220. He could start by eating it, I suppose

But he'd probably screw that up too.

[eridani]

222. I didn't bash that guy's head in with a tire iron-it was a HAMMER, dammit

What is the point of picking at the following stupid nit anyway? The basic fact is that Powell is and was full of shit. There are and were no WMD in Iraq after the UN got done dismantling them.

At another point, Moore attacks Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." According to Moore, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit.'" (page 82) Moore makes it appear as though the speech Powell gave at the UN included the evidence he had called "bullshit." In fact, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites does note Powell's exclamation, but it details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes "And plenty was cut . Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

[sleipnir]

223. Flame Bait central!This one will get more than "When Will thisThreadDie?"

[Native]

227. Why do you people even waste your time . . .

with these Moore detractors? It's not even good sport.

[KG]

229. yes: he pisses off conservatives of all stripes, even the ones on DU

well done, MM. :)

typos

[Hep]

234. so uh

Did you follow him from D to G back to D? Just kinda do whatever he tells you?

[Terwilliger]

232. kick!!!

Not NEARLY enough responses to this post

[Fescue4u]

237. good thing about Moore

Is that he pisses off Conservatives.

With the exception of his anti-gun zealotry, I can ignore most of his lies and exagerrations because overall he is doing good.

[MrPrax]

238. Read them and read the book...

Moore is provides 'provocation'
Spin-ainity provides commentary..
their 'criticism's are first year TA correction...

why post it...

[Selwynn]

241. That's a good one, Bush should use it in defense of his "mistakes"

I'd say its a tiny bit more that just some "technical" errors. And personally, I am concerned about whether or not representatives like Michael Moore make arguments from the left look ridiculous and uninformed.

To me, doesn't Moore seem a little bit like the lefts? Ann C.?

Edited - to be a little more even-handed in my question asking.

[BackDoorMan]

240. The problem with these drooling slops, is that MM gets huge press

and ALWAYS attacks Bush and his clowns...most of the other authors mentioned above could take a gun to their heads, blow it off and still not get the press and media response MM would receive simply by publicly calling the lying asshole Bush, well, "a lying asshole"...MM knows how to use the media and these others soft spoken liberal fucks (with the exception of Al Franken) make tiny waves, get right wing reviews and spins that jump all over them and go whimpering away...

The people who want to jump on MM for ALWAYS jumping on Bush, because some little fucking fact in their little fucking minds might be incorrect, are jealous and petty and way fucking stupid...and I mean YOU!!!!

[Selwynn]

242. Welcome to DU!

For some people, it really isn't about jealousy, seeing as how I am not in the public eye, never will be, and don't care.

What is about, is getting the facts straight, and not making the positions of the left look like an uninformed joke when they are legitimate and deadly serious.

You can disagre, and I respect that - thats what makes things great. But in my personal opinion, Michael Moore does more to make legitimate positions of the left look laughable than he does to help lend them credibility.

[HEyHEY]

243. B.S.

Moore, while his intentions are good, goes on a lot of half truths...it's just how it is. No matter how much people want to believe that he is such a great honest guy, they're mislead.

Edit: It always seems the only retort the desperate have is to call the accuser jealous.