Here's something nobody seems to grasp...
Limbaugh may inject his own opinions; but when he presents something as truth, it is the truth. With the number of Libs, etc out there trying to discredit him, he has to research it very carefully. :nyanya:

"Pointing out that Carter is a democrat and a bad president is bad logic."

And it is different than pointing out that Bush sucks and a Republican because ?.........

Oh yea, because it is OK to lump all Republicans together, but not Democrats, I remember now.

"Carter forsure has made up for some of the bad times during his 4 years. He Def. cares about america and loves his country."

What exactly has he done to make up for complete incompetence ?
Being a nice caring guy does not make up for shit. I am sooooooooooo tired of hearing about how someone "cares"

FUCK feel good psycobabble - Carter was and still is a nit wit, probably more of one than the stooge in there now - that is correct Dubya is a stooge

American political parties

Pro Abortion, Anti Gun corporate party

Pro Gun, Anti Abortion corporate party

Not really a whole lot of difference between the 2, and less than 1% of them are worth the air they breath

Well at least you agree he sucks :)

So where would someone fit who's Pro-2nd Amendment & Pro-Choice (I have yet to meet a single person who's "pro-abortion.")?

This is exactly how I feel about Michael Moore too Peaches!

I used to love the stuff he did in the "The Awful Truth" and "TV Nation". I have been on his fan e-mail list for years... He was REALLY witty and almost an anti-entertainer! When his book Stupid White Men did so well in early 2002 I noticed his emails changed to be totally self promotional.. prior to that his emails were always about some ultra liberal campaign for any underdog cause sort of thing... Usually encouraging people to send a form letter to some Governor appealing for death sentence clemency and stuff like that.. never self promotional. Since about November 2001 I don't think I have seen one e-mail promoting anything but himself.. he's a boring media whore now... his Oscar ceremony speech was just another publicity motivated stunt as is his "passionate" anti war stance I reckon.

you should check out his website... actually don't, he claims that he gets 20 million hits a day :matey: it will probably be slow.. so I'll give you a couple of highlights...

Nowadays he seems to invoke the "name of lord" as being on his side almost as strongly as GWB..

I'd Like to Thank the Vatican...

By Michael Moore
March 27, 2003

A word of advice to future Oscar winners: Don't begin Oscar day by going to church.

That is where I found myself this past Sunday morning, at the Church of the Good Shepherd on Santa Monica Boulevard, at Mass with my sister and my dad. My problem with the Catholic Mass is that sometimes I find my mind wandering after I hear something the priest says, and I start thinking all these crazy thoughts like how it is wrong to kill people and that you are not allowed to use violence upon another human being unless it is in true self-defense.

The pope even came right out and said it: This war in Iraq is not a just war and, thus, it is a sin.


This is his main menu items today.... :barfon:

See Mike's Backstage Press Conference at the Oscars
Moore explains Oscar speech
Michael Moore Stars at Academy Awards

He reminds me of how I felt in about 1979 when I realised Kiss weren't just in it for the love of the music :(

Not only is it presented as documentary, he clearly claims his work as "non-fiction" and a film "documentary" on his website.


Millions of Americans seem to agree. My book "Stupid White Men" still sits at No. 1 on the bestseller list (it's been on that list now for 53 weeks and is the largest-selling nonfiction book of the year). "Bowling for Columbine" has broken all box-office records for a documentary. My Web site is now getting up to 20 million hits a day (more than the White House's site). My opinions about the state of the nation are neither unknown nor on the fringe, but rather they exist with mainstream majority opinion. The majority of Americans, according to polls, want stronger environmental laws, support Roe vs. Wade and did not want to go into this war without the backing of the United Nations and all of our allies.

That is where the country is at. It's liberal, it's for peace and it is only tacitly in support of its leader because that is what you are supposed to do when you are at war and you want your kids to come back from Iraq alive.


I agree fully that if his movie uses fictional setup scenes then Moore should be drawn and quartered and maybe charged with espionage or whatever you do to people that knowingly try and hurt the country for profit!

But seriously... can you accept those allegations could possibly be true? For a start the author appears to be clutching at straws if the first thing he has to say is some lame point about the killers not attending their bowling class. If the story about the gun giveaway is so far from reality why isn't the bank suing/exposing the fraud? he can't call it non-fiction and documentary and then just make up fictional shit can he? or maybe i am being really naive... :P I haven't seen it... but seriously who cares if some redneck community bank gives away guns to attract business... I saw that bit on the TV ads and it really was a funny scene! I don't believe anyone thinks all 250 million Americans are like that... wouldn't be worth making a "documentary" about if it was so normal! (Although BigS, Hooper, GWB, J.R. Ewing and almost everyone else I've ever run across from Texas do make me worry about what the truth really is) :P

Also, back on the thread topic by Todd... It was good to hear an American praise Clinton... I was wondering who it was that supported him through those 8 years! My memories of Clinton was that he held remarkably high opinion poll ratings even through the worst of his "incidents" ... From a foreigners point of view The Clinton years appeared good for America economically.. and in contrast to "Bush the father" and "Bush the son" that book ended him, Clinton developed amazingly good relations with Moscow, Europe and most of Asia... and all with what appeared a weighty economic bias advantage to the USA... he seemed to drive international policy from the inside and used that to ensure American business profited.. I honestly don't know if Clinton was good or bad for America.. I have been starting to think it is just foreigners that liked him from opinions posted around here ;-))

Clinton "promised" Australia the earth and gave us very little apart from more tariffs on our steel and agriculture exports to the US. Bush has already given a lot of this back to Australia.. and I don't doubt there is a lot more "payback" to come.. but I don't think this is all good news for us.. If he has so easily paid off a close ally it makes me wonder how much he has had to sell out to get some of the less friendly 45 coalition nations on board... or maybe he is just a nice guy who wants to help out the 20 million friendly folk down under because they stood up and supported him so fast.... Either way it's a worry imho.

Opti - you got me thinking - why isn't Moore going after the sources that are providing the information regarding the bank set up and other work he has done - one source being the Wall Street Journal? (who I would hope research the work they do)

Could it be that he hopes this doesn't get anymore press? Does he fear a backlash against him and his work if these allegations are true and get major mainstream press?

Crazy as it sounds I'm going to try to give this bank a call and see if they will comment



Last edited by Vick at Mar 29 2003, 02:56 PM

Cool Idea Vick!!!! If he is happy to post that 20 million "people" per day visit his site (which is obviously what he is implying) he may well say anything!

I would love to know if that was true! Wall street journal... well I would hope they checked it out too.. did anyone have a link to the article I have missed? I can imagine the bank teller who was made to look like a goose also might say anything though!

Opti - here's the link to the WSJ article
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233

It is presented as an opinion journal so I guess that protects from lawsuits to some degree

well, i could've believed a lot of what he had to say until i read the 20 million hits a day to his website

:biglaugh:

i'm so sick of celebrities who don't know how to read their website stats claiming bullshit numbers like that. I wish someone would explain the difference between hits and visitors

:headwall:

if he does have 20 million visitors a day *cough*, i want to manage his website.

Torone, I agree with you fully, Rush always presents 100% truth - but he SELECTS the truth very carefully, and ignores facts that don't support his opinions - often ignoring facts that prove him wrong or show that "his side" did the same things when they were in the same situation.

The tax thing is a riot - it really is simple math - even if you had a flat tax percentage rate, the more affluent would pay more tax than the poor. No news here, except to present the numbers in a way to obliterate real logic and replace it with indignation and panic.

Vick

Republicans: Rich white guys denying the existance of crime and poverty
Democrats: Rich white guys accepting that you can't ignore it forever.

Anyway, Toronto was fun... camera work continues to get better... :-)

Alex

Torone, I agree with you fully, Rush always presents 100% truth - but he SELECTS the truth very carefully, and ignores facts that don't support his opinions - often ignoring facts that prove him wrong or show that "his side" did the same things when they were in the same situation.

The tax thing is a riot - it really is simple math - even if you had a flat tax percentage rate, the more affluent would pay more tax than the poor. No news here, except to present the numbers in a way to obliterate real logic and replace it with indignation and panic.

Vick

Republicans: Rich white guys denying the existance of crime and poverty
Democrats: Rich white guys accepting that you can't ignore it forever.

Anyway, Toronto was fun... camera work continues to get better... :-)

Alex[/b][/quote]
Which is worse...telling an outright lie over and over; or selecting the truth.

Aside: I am so tired of the word 'select' and its' various tenses...

Now you have! :bwave:

make it 2..
I am pro-abortion as well...

No, I actually agree with you. Rush Limbaugh does exactly what you are saying. However, I think you're bring hypocritical.

What your referring to in Rush Limbaugh is that he has a belief first and then finds supporting arguments for it ignoring the obvious arguments against it. You do the same with the United States. Many of your posts have a "What is wrong with America" theme. You see the world through an anti-american lense in the same way that Rush Limbaugh sees the world through a conservative one. Find supporting arguments. Ignore all opposing arguments.

The fill in the blank answer was:

Rush Limbaugh is to Democrats as Alex is to the United States.

I don't blame you. Like Mr. Limbaugh, you just have a very strong emotional attachment to your position. One that blinds you to it's weaknesses. It's not your fault.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 31 2003, 10:32 AM

As far as Moore vs. Limbaugh.

I don't think either is any more guilty of any of the things we are discussing than the other.

I saw Moore's latest film this year and liked it. As entertainment. The cartoon was hilarious. He certainly intentionally quoted statistics which most supported his position.

Limbaugh. I listened to his show for a little while on my last trip to Orlando, right about the same time I saw "Bowling for Columbine" actually. It was typical pro-conservative rhetoric.

No doubt, both are very talented. There is a reason why they have large audiences.

Colin, sorry, but I have to disagree with you pretty much all around.

What Moore did in a single movie is like what Rush does in a single radio show... both have a couple of hours of "preconceived" truths they want to tell, and they assemble the "facts" they need to do it. I agree there with you.

Problem is, Rush (and the rushabee soundalikes) are out there daily misinforming the public, garnering huge audiences for their message of moral superiority, all the while not telling ALL of the truth - only telling the often only discussing very specific minutes of an hour long event, just to create an artificial sense of outrage amoungst people. We aren't talking about making them change car companies, or deciding not to buy a rifle, we are talking about affecting their vote and as a result the lay of the land of your country (and the would as a result, as the last 2 years has shown).

You cannot suggest that a single Michael Moore movie could even weigh evenly against years of Rush indoctrination.

Sorry Colin, just not the case. Seeing the world through colored glasses just means that you put your own bend on the facts. Rush ignores facts when they aren't near what he wants.

You keep thinking I am anti-american. That is such shit. I don't like your President, I don't like his actions, I don't like his self righteous little smirk every time he speaks... and I don't like what he has done to many american's thinking in the last couple of years... Don't try to stick one of your stupid "You don't love american so you must hate it" extremist tags on me... don't you ever have any middle ground in anything you do in life?

Alex

Every woman should have a choice...

Alex

I wasn't commenting nor comparing the effects either one has had on society or public opinion. I don't see where you think I suggested that.

However, I don't see at all a campaign to "misinform the public". I have little doubt that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. believe what they are saying.

I've noticed that:

A conservative thinks CNN is far leftist propaganda.
A liberal European thinks CNN is conservative american propaganda.

I believe that O'Reilly thinks he's being "fair and balanced" from his point-of-view. Many that have his point-of-view feel the same thing.

I think you are pointing out qualities that apply to people, not just to "conservatives" - and equally so from where I sit.

Alex, Alex Alex

The difference ..........
Moore purposely produced a fraudulent movie and accepted an academy award for it
Moore acted irresponsibly with the INTENT to fraud

How you don't see that as a world of difference (and Moore's "work" as an offense to intelligence) is beyond me

As far as Rep's and Dem's .....
Rep's might actually believe that people are responsible for themselves and not the government being responsible for bettering the plight of anyone



Last edited by Vick at Mar 31 2003, 11:20 AM

Vick, and Rush daily runs a "less than honest" radio show that brings votes to one party and not the other... which one has the greater effect in your life? There is a great difference... one lied for 2 hours, one spouts half truths every day for years... yup, there is a great difference.

Colin, it isn't just about "seeing things your way"... there is alot more to it.

I remember last summer driving across the US, listening to Rush (AM radio travels further) and trying not to laugh out loud that anyone would fall for his actions. He was complaining about how democrats had done "this thing" (don't even remember what it was) in the house and how it was a shame, a disgrace, a national tragedy that the minority party couldn't accept their being the minority party and how they whined and called people names and blocked legislations and how they were wasting taxpayers money and keeping the president from running the country. Yet, he forgot to mention that not more a couple of years ago, the tables were turned and the republicans did the EXACT same things... at that time it was "standing up for the rights of every decent american"...

It is high brow horseshit. It is deceptive, it isn't being honest, and it changes how people vote. Considering how small the margin was, it could be said that Rush's "opinions" changed the way the race turned out. I know that Rush claimed that big and loud for months...

Michael Moore can't claim that, now can he?

Alex

Alex, you and I must live in different worlds :o

Have you read this
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printT...ml?id=110003233

Here is a snippet
Do you get that was intentional fraud, does with a purpose to deceive?!!

Everyone knows Rush is a windbag, Moore's presents his work as factual when he on many occasions purposely presents fraudulent material that he with willful intent produced

Using statistics and giving your own spin is one thing, totally fabricating scenarios and presenting them in film as factual (and accepting an Oscar for them) is totally another

Vick, MOORE LIED.... can I say it any louder? Foir a two hour movie seen ONCE bya few million people, he lied.

Rush has what size audience? How often? How long?

Vick, let me repeat myself MICHAEL MOORE LIED IN HIS MOVIE.

Rush Limbaugh deceives people every day.

What part of this are you not understanding? It's the difference between getting drunk once and being an alcoholic!

Alex

Me too, Always have been pro choice, always will be.

Vick, btw, yes I read that... have you considered PERHAPS that these people, after being trapped in a bullshit situation, decided to try to shoft the blame a little bit? The cameras didn't just appear out of thin air, now did they?

But that's not the point.

One guy did something that maybe got him an award in a less than honest way.

One guy on a daily basis spreads venom, half truths, and misleading facts which affects the way people vote...

I don't know, I can't really tell which one changes my life more... it's so hard to tell the difference... a few less votes here and there and you would all be bashing a democrat right now.

Alex

I think it is.

It's no different than a liberal who gets upset when Bush acts without UN approval but didn't care when Clinton acted without UN approval.

It's no different than a conservative who got upset at Clinton for wanting to bomb Iraq in 1998 and then suddenly becomes in favor of a war against Iraq in 2003.

This says nothing about Rush Limbaugh nor about conservatives in general. It has everything to do with people.

Are we still discussing ethics or has the subject changed to the "liberal media" vs. the "conservative media" now? Alex looks like he is trying to change the subject from ethics to effects.

Colin, are you not reading? It isn't about "this side or that side" - but the difference between being dishonest in a movie (once) and being less than honest daily (on radio).

The difference is that you probably agree with much of what Rush has to say, so you don't see the dishonestly. I don't agree with either of these people, so it is easier for me to see the deceptions from both...

I see both of them being like the "clinton bodycount" that Mike posted a while back... both use just enough truth to hang their version of bullshit on... just that Rush and his ilk get to do it 5 days a week...

Alex

Alex - I still can't get past this which I posted earlier

"Using statistics and giving your own spin is one thing, totally fabricating scenarios and presenting them in film as factual (and accepting an Oscar for them) is totally another"

I guess what you're saying is it's untruths in one fashion or another and what their reach and effect are

What I saying is the difference between using stats to your advantage to support your argument by presentation (Rush) versus not bothering with stats and instead making up your own reality as presenting it is truth (Moore)

I see Moore as much worse and his acts as criminal and heinous, the fact he accepted an Oscar for documentary when in fact his work is fiction makes a huge statement about Moore

I think it is.

It's no different than a liberal who gets upset when Bush acts without UN approval but didn't care when Clinton acted without UN approval.

It's no different than a conservative who got upset at Clinton for wanting to bomb Iraq in 1998 and then suddenly becomes in favor of a war against Iraq in 2003.

This says nothing about Rush Limbaugh nor about conservatives in general. It has everything to do with people.[/b][/quote]
Colin, that isn't just about seeing things your way... it is about timing, circumstance, situation...

Ignoring the facts that make up a situation, and just presenting a situation (Bush wanted to bomb iraq, didn't get UN permission, Clinton wanted to bomb iraq, didn't get UN permission) makes them sound like the same situation. As if everything was the same - and it isn't. By removing all the supporting information on these two situations, you make both look equal - and they really aren't.

The funniest part of it all is the same people that were pissed off at Clinton for not getting UN permission are the same people now pissed off that he didn't finish the job. History has been carefully re-written to show that Clinton backed down... that he wimped out. Those same people never mention that things could have been fixed in 1991... and we wouldn't be here now.

Right now, I suspect the truth is buried under huge piles on unethical bullshit coming from both sides... so much so that people don't know what is really true - so they rally behind the most strident voices... that is sad.

Alex

Did you miss the post above where I said "No, I actually agree with you. Rush Limbaugh does exactly what you are saying" or are you starting another round of selectively reading?

You have made a leap from someone's actions to claiming to know someone's intentions. Short of being able to read minds, you are presenting pure speculation as fact and then accusing me of being blind to it. Too funny.

Do you realize how absurd it is to present your thoughts about someone's intentions as fact?

Vick, how often can I repeat this: Moore lied. that sucks. He is a moron for doing it. He lied for one movie, for one award that is nothing but a naked gold guy. Big fat hairy deal. Does it affect your day to day life?

Having to say "President Gore" would certainly make your day different, wouldn't it?

Alex

Yes and Yes

:P

Colin, I saw your "political chart" that you so carefully recorded for each of us and posted the results. You are VERY likely to agree with alot of what Rush has to say... he is playing to your preferences...

I have two facts... based on them, I can suspect how you feel about the message (if not the man).

Vick, I can't imagine that an Academy Award is the same as who runs the US. An amusing concept, but not likely. :-)

Alex

Bowling for Columbine (and Moore's other works) is taken seriously and as truth by many and has shaped public opinion

Wining a prestigious award add credence to Moore's work

Long story short - A good friend lives in NYC, works for CBS radio, college educated, intelligent with a good career. Saw Bowling for Columbine and believed the movie, that colored her opinion which influences her actions including voting

and that is how Moore's work in a small way effects other's lives

Actually, there were two political tests.

I think if you look at the other political test I took that I only agree with 33% of the Republican party platform which I feel is about right. I would assume Limbaugh is nearly in complete agreement with the Republican party platform so by that logic I would agree with about 33%. Is that bad or good on your eyes?

I am anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, believe the welfare system is ok the way it is, etc.

Note - getting Alex and Colin in a political themed thread = Lots of posts and page views B)

Pro Abortion - what is it ?

Pro - in favor of
Abortion - a medical proceedure that terminates a pregnancy.

Pro Choice is some watered down soft speak, I like to call things what they are, "Pro Choice" as it is used, simply means keeping abortion legal, there are a large number of "Pro Choice" activists that are completely against counseling of adoption, or other options.

I am by the way "Pro Abortion" I believe it is an acceptable method of birth control.

Did you ever notice that most of the people against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place ? - George Carlin

In addition to being Pro Abortion I am also

Pro Free Speech
Pro Gun
Pro Death Penalty
Pro Drug Legalization

I am also all for taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge becasue they weren't in there to begin with, however I do completely support the right of a religious child to say grace before eating his or her lunch in a public place.

Is there somewhere that this isn't allowed? :blink:

Alex,

You are so easy. You just pulled a Rush Limbaugh.

Now let's look at the silly thing you just said. You intentionally left out the parts of the argument that would quickly and simply nullify your argument.

If the debate is whether the US should only act militarily with UN approval, why would you
point to a conservative president that DID act with UN approval? Bush II didn't have a UN
resolution. Clinton didn't have a UN resolution. Bush Sr. did and he followed it.

Am I to understand you that you think Bush Sr. should have acted outside of the UN resolution
in order for future presidents to act with in it?

No, of course not. EXACTLY like you claim of Rush Limbaugh, you presented facts that support your position, even if they are are very misleading and impertinent. Besides, it contradicts the original thesis, it doesn't support it.

Bush Sr. is a shining example of how one WOULD get UN approval for an action.

You'll notice that I gave an example of where both conservatives and liberals were being
inconsistent.

"It's no different than a liberal who gets upset when Bush acts without UN approval but didn't care when Clinton acted without UN approval."

"It's no different than a conservative who got upset at Clinton for wanting to bomb Iraq in 1998 and then suddenly becomes in favor of a war against Iraq in 2003."

You jumped all over the one and not that other. Why? It has nothing to do with objectivity. You are attempting to choose an arbitrary starting point in a sequence of historical events to demonstrate your point.

Worst of all, you contradicted the original argument in order to try and show that "conservatives are wrong", not to try and demonstrate an honest assessment.

You are a liberal Rush Limbaugh.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 31 2003, 01:27 PM

OldJeff, sometimes people hide behind things... "pro choice" is a soft term (like middle of the road) used to cover alot of people with alot of different opinions... an attempt to get them all to salute the same flag.

On that basis, let me adjust my position statement slightly: It is up to the woman, on an individual case basis, to do what she thinks is right under the circumstances. Nobody should restrict her from making the choices she needs to make - she is the one stuck with the concequences for at least 18 years and nine months.

Ever notice that most of the protestors at abortion rallies (both sides) are men? It's sick.

Vick, how many people saw Moore's movie? How many people listen to Rush (and the other commentators pseudo-journalists out there)? Who does the most damage?

Off to the gym... later y'all.

Alex