Marijuana.com

IBlazedHeavily · 07-09-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman1963

No, he really doesn't have every right to be respected. Not after the shit he's pulled time after time in movie after movie.

Respect is earned and MM has not earned my respect in the least.

care to elaborate...what exactly has he done in every movie?

gabriel420 · 07-09-2007, 04:37 PM

Michael Moore disgusts me. If there were money to be made promoting the health care system and praising it, he'd do it. I wouldn't even call any of his crap "opinion pieces". Michael Moore is first and foremost a capitalist. If he'd just admit this, say "Look, I don't really give a shit about any of this, I just want money." then I'd have some respect for him. But as it is all he does is prey on sensitive and important issues and utilize them to make himself some cash.

***Plainsman1963*** · 07-09-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IBlazedHeavily

care to elaborate...what exactly has he done in every movie?

Damn, really? I would have thought it was common knowledge by now?

Ok, here goes:
[google]9087291936502859172&q[/google]

Truth about Bowling for Columbine.

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

NachtSorcier · 07-09-2007, 08:05 PM

I can accept that Bush did not have any ulterior motives in regards to 9/11, but I still think he's a dummy and an awful president.

IBlazedHeavily · 07-10-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman1963

Damn, really? I would have thought it was common knowledge by now?

Ok, here goes:
[google]9087291936502859172&q[/google]

Truth about Bowling for Columbine.

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?

ur gonna talk back to me in a 1 hour and 15 minute video?

i listened to the first minute or so with moore, hes right, terrorism has been around for a long time. its random acts, sometimes by "wannabe" terrorists. and yea they got clubs, just like every other organization. moores comment was in regards to the government scare tactics/propaganda..

can u tell me ur position on iraq? why did we go in? why did we attack iraq when we knew otherwise?

it boils down to president bush. hes done a lot of harm to this country.that clip of moore...is just a reflection of the american peoples sentiment towards this whore fucking mess

im outta here i could keep on, but im hitting the gym...im not a moore fan btw...not at all

***Plainsman1963*** · 07-10-2007, 02:44 AM

So...Moore should get the respect but to actually spend time watching the other side is too much for you?

That's why I also included two links...For the folks that can't take the time to learn the other side...It's all there.

My opinion on Iraq or anything else has nothing to do with whether Moore should be deserving of my respect.

Just in case clicking on a link would take too much of your time as well:

Quote:

n his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." 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."

Despite repeatedly dismissing his critics, Moore has recently acknowledged some of his errors. For instance, in the DVD release of "Bowling for Columbine," he changed the caption he inserted over a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad, making the text more accurate (although the viewer still is unlikely to realize that the text wasn't in the original ad in the first place). One his web site, Moore explicitly admitted making this correction in the film.

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)

Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore implies that the plant made nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he visited. Actually, while the plant was involved in nuclear missile production years before, it now makes rockets that are used as space-launch vehicles for military and civilian satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the world, built rockets that carried into space the special new satellites that guided the missiles fired into Baghdad" during the recent war in Iraq. (page 74)

At least Moore is finally telling the truth about the US aid and Lockheed. Most other subjects come in for much more dubious treatment in the book. For example, Moore misstates the details of how members of the Bin Laden family left the US after Sept. 11, claiming that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" (page 20) Yet a few pages earlier, Moore himself quotes a November, 2001 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer which notes that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after Sept. 11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (page 4) As this and other reports have made clear, the Bin Ladens did not leave the US until after the resumption of commercial flights. And a Boston Globe article of September 20, 2001 quotes a Saudi government official stating that the Bin Ladens chartered their own plane - hardly a "free" trip as Moore suggests.

Moore's penchant for conspiracy theories often leads him to stretch the facts or make laughable claims. Bashing the proposed Terrorist Information Awareness project, he writes that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?"(page 110, his italics) In Moore's fervor to indict the TIA system, he forgets about the credit cards used by the 9-11 hijackers, which were used to help retrace their steps.

Moore also repeats a well-debunked myth about Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. According to Moore, "Clark has said that he received phone calls on Sept. 11 and in the weeks after from people at 'think tanks' and from people within the White House telling him to use his position as a pundit for CNN to 'connect' Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein." (page 53) Moore cites a June 15, 2003 interview with Clark on NBC's "Meet the Press." Despite somewhat ambiguous phrasing in that interview, however, Clark, has subsequently been consistent in his claim that it was a member of a think tank who contacted him, not the White House, a fact buttressed by a recent report that identified the man who made the call. And Moore pluralizes the single call Clark refers to in the "Meet the Press" interview to "calls" - a claim Clark has never made.

In addition, Moore attacks the Patriot Act with an array of examples that have nothing to do with it. He introduces the list by writing that "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." (page 111) Moore lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists, however, happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of them involve the FBI (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

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.

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 [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

In a recent interview with Bookreporter.com, Moore was asked if he made a special effort to fact-check his new book. "All my work goes through a thorough fact-checking process," he said. "I hire three teams of people to go through the book and then two separate lawyers vet it. There is a reason that I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true." Apparently, Moore needs to hire himself some new fact-checkers. Regardless of the supposed rigors of its vetting process, Dude, Where's My Country? cements Moore's reputation as one of our nation's sloppiest commentators.

[Note to readers: Be sure and check out the companion piece to this article, listing all the errors we found in Dude, Where's My Country?.]

Research assistance by Davis Bell and David Mishook.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Moore's myriad mistakes (Bryan Keefer, 10/16/03)
-Moore admits to altering "Bowling for Columbine" DVD (Brendan Nyhan, 9/23/03)
-Moore alters "Bowling" DVD in response to criticism (Brendan Nyhan, 9/2/03)
-A devotion to distortion [published in the Orange County Register] (Ben Fritz, 1/12/03)
-Forbes finds more falsehoods in Moore's "Bowling" (Ben Fritz, 11/25/02)
-Viewer beware (Ben Fritz column, 11/19/02)
-Dowd, Krugman and Moore make inflammatory accusations (Bryan Keefer, 6/26/02)
-Moore problems (Ben Fritz, 4/10/02)
-One Moore stupid white man (Ben Fritz column, 4/3/02)
-Stupid white lies (Ben Fritz, 3/25/02)
-The Taliban aid trope re-emerges (Brendan Nyhan, 9/17/01)

If you can be bothered to click on the other link, it will go point by point explaining the lies, the fabrications, the unethical ways Moore used in Bowling for Columbine.

So, tell me again why he should be "respected"?

IBlazedHeavily · 07-10-2007, 07:42 PM

okay well i considered the authors points. sounds like this guy is minimizing his goodness and maximizing these small "typos" the guy does a lot of research. . k so the guy has been wrong like 3% of his entire history in terms of his statements and documentaries. big deal! no one is perfect! im in the middle between party afiliation i agree with the basics principles of big versus small government. k given that, moore being a liberal, hes a good represantation for what the majority of americans want.. more government (healthcare,gun control etc) hes doing exactly wat this country instills in us to do. . to have an opinion, to make things happen for ourselves.... i commend his ambition and drive (think about how hard hes worked to get where hes at) its americans like him that inspire initiative.

OpiaticSchism · 07-11-2007, 12:36 AM

To the above poster.. the problem with Micheal Moore is that he doesn't tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help him God. lol

He tells one EXTREME side of the story, and tells nothing at all from the other side. He makes the right wings out to be something that -most- of them are not. Yes, I'm a very left wing liberal. But I'm still intelligent enough to see that Moore is feeding people bullshit. He uses real stories and events, and shows everything in a bad light on one party (the Republicans).

In Sicko, he brings up some very good points. But, it doesn't tell the other story.. and how those other country's health plans are pretty terrible at times, and people are often left in the same situations as us. The only good thing these movies bring is attention to the problem, and yes.. half the story. The other half.. well you'll have to find that out on your own by doing some reading.

**troublemaker_42** · 07-11-2007, 05:59 AM

Exactly....you'll NEVER get the whole truth from someone who insists on telling 1/2 a story. Does MM have a good point now and then? Certainly....buit he also fails to address the other side of the equation completely. Failure to tell the whole truth is just another way of telling a lie IMO

IBlazedHeavily · 07-24-2007, 03:56 PM

BTW anyone see hardball with chris matthews yesturday?

moore was playing hardball, in the middle of a bi partisan campus crowd (it was 50/50 after a quick survey by chris ).

again i consider myself neutral because i see both sides having their good and bad points. well he let a few republicans speak to moore, and they were exactly the type i expected. arrogant conservatives who have grown up with a bias conservative attitude because of their parents.

their lack of political knowledge, and biases opinions (the same ones all conservatives bicker about, specifically healthcare) a grl brought up the idea that socialized healthcare would lower the quality of health care (which i believe a minor trade off between quality and cost would obviously be apparent)

moore chewed her up oh so politely hahaha.

NEXt some dueche bag comes out of nowhere and says but what about the illegal immigrants under this new socialized healthcare. why should they get it too?

i was shocked at this kid, moore made him look like a total ass (even tho hed done that for himself already, but the kid was out of line) and moore says in response something to the nature of "um how are u gonna deny healthcare to another human being? he articulated it better tho u get the point..

then i believe chris brought up the issue of how many conservatives see him as a "radical" he brought up the same defense i said earlier in this thread ..he makes docs on things HE WANTS to be addressed. what is so radical about that? this is basic stuff.... hes always prepared with the facts, and although he might be a liberal, he aint all that radical!

im just shocked that a select few of u have such arbitrary convictions on the guys credibility.

07-09-2007, 04:37 PM	#22
gabriel420 Sr. Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 822 Grams: 4,563.85 Groans: 5 Groaned at 2 Times in 2 Posts Thanks: 6 Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Michael Moore disgusts me. If there were money to be made promoting the health care system and praising it, he'd do it. I wouldn't even call any of his crap "opinion pieces". Michael Moore is first and foremost a capitalist. If he'd just admit this, say "Look, I don't really give a shit about any of this, I just want money." then I'd have some respect for him. But as it is all he does is prey on sensitive and important issues and utilize them to make himself some cash. __________________ WE'll build castles in the sky on the ruins of a hell earth and find a rage to live inside so full it's about to burst.

07-09-2007, 08:05 PM	#24
NachtSorcier Jr. Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 390 Grams: 1,573.50 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I can accept that Bush did not have any ulterior motives in regards to 9/11, but I still think he's a dummy and an awful president. __________________ People put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

07-11-2007, 12:36 AM	#28
OpiaticSchism Jr. Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 206 Grams: 1,709.99 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 1 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	To the above poster.. the problem with Micheal Moore is that he doesn't tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help him God. lol He tells one EXTREME side of the story, and tells nothing at all from the other side. He makes the right wings out to be something that -most- of them are not. Yes, I'm a very left wing liberal. But I'm still intelligent enough to see that Moore is feeding people bullshit. He uses real stories and events, and shows everything in a bad light on one party (the Republicans). In Sicko, he brings up some very good points. But, it doesn't tell the other story.. and how those other country's health plans are pretty terrible at times, and people are often left in the same situations as us. The only good thing these movies bring is attention to the problem, and yes.. half the story. The other half.. well you'll have to find that out on your own by doing some reading. __________________ The Opiatic Windows Experience: Helping Your PC

07-11-2007, 05:59 AM	#29
troublemaker_42 0tolerance4BS Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 11,149 Grams: 22,571.87 Groans: 180 Groaned at 42 Times in 39 Posts Thanks: 1,275 Thanked 2,083 Times in 1,105 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Exactly....you'll NEVER get the whole truth from someone who insists on telling 1/2 a story. Does MM have a good point now and then? Certainly....buit he also fails to address the other side of the equation completely. Failure to tell the whole truth is just another way of telling a lie IMO __________________ You CANNOT help the poor by destroying the rich. You CANNOT strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You CANNOT bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You CANNOT lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You CANNOT further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You CANNOT build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You CANNOT help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. I'll stick to my guns, money, religion and freedom...you can keep the change

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

07-10-2007, 07:42 PM	#27
IBlazedHeavily Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 635 Grams: 5,171.27 Groans: 4 Groaned at 13 Times in 6 Posts Thanks: 14 Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	okay well i considered the authors points. sounds like this guy is minimizing his goodness and maximizing these small "typos" the guy does a lot of research. . k so the guy has been wrong like 3% of his entire history in terms of his statements and documentaries. big deal! no one is perfect! im in the middle between party afiliation i agree with the basics principles of big versus small government. k given that, moore being a liberal, hes a good represantation for what the majority of americans want.. more government (healthcare,gun control etc) hes doing exactly wat this country instills in us to do. . to have an opinion, to make things happen for ourselves.... i commend his ambition and drive (think about how hard hes worked to get where hes at) its americans like him that inspire initiative.

07-24-2007, 03:56 PM	#30
IBlazedHeavily Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 635 Grams: 5,171.27 Groans: 4 Groaned at 13 Times in 6 Posts Thanks: 14 Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	BTW anyone see hardball with chris matthews yesturday? moore was playing hardball, in the middle of a bi partisan campus crowd (it was 50/50 after a quick survey by chris ). again i consider myself neutral because i see both sides having their good and bad points. well he let a few republicans speak to moore, and they were exactly the type i expected. arrogant conservatives who have grown up with a bias conservative attitude because of their parents. their lack of political knowledge, and biases opinions (the same ones all conservatives bicker about, specifically healthcare) a grl brought up the idea that socialized healthcare would lower the quality of health care (which i believe a minor trade off between quality and cost would obviously be apparent) moore chewed her up oh so politely hahaha. NEXt some dueche bag comes out of nowhere and says but what about the illegal immigrants under this new socialized healthcare. why should they get it too? i was shocked at this kid, moore made him look like a total ass (even tho hed done that for himself already, but the kid was out of line) and moore says in response something to the nature of "um how are u gonna deny healthcare to another human being? he articulated it better tho u get the point.. then i believe chris brought up the issue of how many conservatives see him as a "radical" he brought up the same defense i said earlier in this thread ..he makes docs on things HE WANTS to be addressed. what is so radical about that? this is basic stuff.... hes always prepared with the facts, and although he might be a liberal, he aint all that radical! im just shocked that a select few of u have such arbitrary convictions on the guys credibility.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Court Question	idigapony1	Legal Issues	7	05-29-2007 06:12 PM
Beatles Fans check this out	mehow	Music	1	02-05-2002 04:27 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: