DB: Goodbye GM - Michael Moore

[HailGreen28]

I'm old enough to have seen Farm Fresh, IGA, Shell, KMart, and others come and go around here. I think we can, and should, survive any company hitting the skids, without acting like it's the end of the world.

[Busch1724]

Mass transit in this country isn't profitable now. As someone mentioned earlier, Amtrack has been subsidized for some time now.

One of the reasons trains don't work (at least in PA) is the unionization of the workers. The overhead is way too high and thereore isn't profitable. We just had a 25% hike in turnpike tolls, half of that hike goes to Philly and Pittsburgh's mass transit systems that aren't profitable.

[JMS]

Bullet Trains are losers - financial sinkholes.

Gasoline was 4$ a barrel not to long ago. A single jumbo jet burns more gasoline on taking off than 10 families use in a year. If you traveled our highways lately you might also note the congestion on them, which is only going to get worse. The US has some of the most densly traveled air corredors and highways in the world. A rail system can move a ton of goods 423 miles for a single gallons worth of energy. Rail's time has come. It must be an integral part of any energy independence effort.

The TGV did nothing to revive the economy of Lyons, for example.

Europe, S Korea, Japan and China have all made signiifcant investments in high speed trains and all have superior infrastructure in this regard to the US. Europe and Japan have been buidling third and fourth generation trains now as they've first moved to high speed rail nearly four decades ago. Your statements just don't make any sence and don't correspond to reality.

Amtrak has been grossly subsidized for decades, and now we want to pump billions more for a sexy sounding idea that's been a proven money loser. Brilliant!

Let me give you some other subsidized proven money loosers. Air lines, Air ports, Highways, roads, power grid, and telephone grid. However, If we didn't invest as a nation in these "proven money loosers", we would still be living in the 1880's.

Waiting 50 years for building our first high speeed rail system seems like a big enough wait if you ask me. The economics of it are a no brainer.

[JMS]

It would provide tons of jobs' date=' just as the creation of highways did. But there is not a pressing need for a mass production of bullet trains in America.

[/quote']

Yeah because we don't have an energy problem, we don't have traffic congestion on our streets, we don't have a problem with available runways for planes or congested air traffic problems....

What are you talking about? We do have all those problems..

I know, we shouldn't invest in unproven technology! Coarse that doesn't apply either, since we've waited some 50 years before going to high speed rail.

Fact is high speed rail would be safer, 1000x more efficient, provide better service, and would significantly boost our transportation systems. It won't replace automobiles, but it sure will eleviate some of the congestion and expense of our transportation systems.

[JMS]

Every time Michael Moore's credability comes up, I'm obligated to post this link:

Truth about Bowling for Columbine.

I goes through all of the edits and distortions Moore had to use in just a few seconds of his movie. Short version: In order to produce a scene that lasted about 15 seconds, Moore had to splice together video and audio from, IIR, seven different speeches, given on three different occasions, including splicing together two partial sentences to construct a sentence that the speaker never said.

I didn't see Bowling for Columbine. I did see Farenheit 911. Moore's accusations in that movie are epic. His detractors published a list of his "errors". Truely they were idiotic complaints compared to the accusations he made in that film....

I remember the biggest accusation of inaccuracy against Moore in that movie. Moore made the statement that not a single immediate family member from the GOP congressmen who voted for the war was serving in Iraq. GOP cried foul. Their was one congressmen who had a nephew who was going to be deployed to Iraq.

If you want to express an opionon about Moore, I would strongly reccomend you actually watch the mans films. They are very thought provoking and persuasive. I find his facts meticoulously researched, and the conclusions he draws from thosefacts really where the controversy should lie....

Moore is an editorialist, not a documentary film maker. He definitely presents his side of the argument rather than the full story. What's amaizing is his facts however much you disagree with his conclusions.

In another scene, in which he attempts to prove that George Bush ran a racist campaign commercial, he takes a George Bush commercial, removes only the first sentence and the last one (the "I'm George Bush and I approved this message") and places a different commercial in between them. And then edits that commercial to say things that it didn't say.

The fact is John McCain's campaign in the 2001 election was destroyed in South Carolina by smear tactics by Bush's campaign orchestrated by Karl Rove. They spread the bold faced lie that John McCain had an illigitamate black child out of wed lock, and showed pictures of his family including his adoptive daughter as proof. It was particularly slimy politics which became a trademark of Karl Rove's campagnes. John McCain said as much after leading in South Carolina and seeing his lead evaporate.

(When caught at this fraud, he removed the footage that he added to the commercial from the VHS version of his movie. Then re-inserted it (although correcting his factual error) in the DVD version.)

Sorry, Mr. Moore. But I frankly can't imagine why anybody would want to watch a "documentary" where, when the "documentary" shows you footage of something which was recorded on video, you can't trust that the video hasn't been faked.

Moore also spliced together clips from the 1960's TV show Dragnet with modern interviews of folks discussing why the Bin Laudin family in the United States were allowed to leave the country after 911 without even being interviewed by the FBI.

Larry you are a very fair guy. Smart too. I would honestly suggest you watch Farenhight 911 or Sicko before you condemn Moore. Again I wouldn't call him a documentary film maker. He's definitely an editorialist. A very persuasive one...

Ultimately I haven't ever heard a convincing informative attack on his facts and I've seen several folks try it.

Remember Sonjay Gupta on CNN who called into question Moore's film Sicko on his facts? They appeared on Larry King Live and Sonjay starts out the show by admitting he was wrong on most of his assertions, and the one's he left open as valid critism; Moore crushed him on....

I know you don't have a lot of time, But if you do have an interest actually informing your opinion on Moore, definitely see his flicks.

[JMS]

The iconoclast in me wants Moore's movies to be fully credible. But they just aren't. And they certainly aren't documentaries.

That's the only thing in your post I agreed with. They aren't documentaries, Moore makes editorials. He's not interested in presenting a balanced fair view of the subject, he's out to prove a point.

That he chooses to do so with facts, amaizing outlandish fantastical facts which our press doesn't report is nothing short of astonishing.

I really don't know why he engages in distortion and (occasionally) flat-out deceit in his films. The topics he picks are slam-dunks, no BS necessary. Witness:

I would agree there are some distortions in his films; I would disagree their are flat out deceit. Typically the distortions are not among his most astonishing points.

.

Not exactly cuckoo-crazy claims. Whether you agree with each individual message or not, you have to admit that a credible filmmaker could easily make a very convincing and fully legitimate film full of well-researched and substantiated evidence to advance each of those points of view.

Moores biggest issue with credibility is because he's not afraid to tell us fantastical trueths on his subject matter. Truths our news media are to afraid to state, or too controversial for their sponsors to be associated with.

Like the WHO reporting the US healthcare system the most expensive in the world both in per capita spending and percentage of GDP ranked just ahead of Cuba's. Cuba which spends about 1/200th the US does per capita and covers 100% of their population.... That's a freaking amaizing statistic!!!

Outragous statements like

"the President of UnitedHealth (Minnisota) made so much money, that one of every $700 that was spent in this country on health care went to pay him"

Those kinds of statements are the ones which I find amaizing, and informative and I don't really hear from watching the news or reading the newsaper. What do these facts prove exactly.. That we could have a conversation on. But the facts alone are the reason to go and watch Michael Moores movies. They are informative and very thought provoking.

Or he could lay down his Get Out Of Truth Free card over and over, and diminish even the good points he makes by peppering them with manipulated tripe labeled as "evidence." ...Thereby calling into question not only the affected parts of a particular film, but all parts of all of his films.

yeah he could delute his own argument? Let him make the strongest case he can. His oponents do. I'll trust in myself to filter out what I find the most convincing... Moores problem has never been in finding truth, it's been exposing the amaizing facts he uncovers and still sounding creditable.

It's such a stupid thing to do. I think he believes that convincing people of the truth requires going beyond the truth; that some "snap-back" phenomenon will leave people believing less of the movie a year later than on the day they see it -- so he had better stake his claims out there at 150% of what reality would support, if he wants to get people to believe all of the actually-true parts in the long term. And of course the movie has to be entertaining as well as convincing, so showmanship and simple ego probably play a major role as well.

We should really talk in specifics in order to demonstrate the differences in our percieved views of Michael Moores films.

]

[Switchgear]

I know you don't have a lot of time, But if you do have an interest actually informing your opinion on Moore, definitely see his flicks.

Man, I need to get into the business of making films full of questionable assertions and having people claim you need to see them (thereby increasing my profits and perceived popularity) in order to have an opinion. Must be nice.

You've still never provided links to back up his assertions you claimed to be true.

Edit: Found this description of Moore from an article, and thought it was quote worthy:

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

[Dan T.]

Oh man :munchout: if this thread turns into mjah and JMS wrasslin' about Michael Moore...

[Jrew1223]

Man, I need to get into the business of making films full of questionable assertions and having people claim you need to see them (thereby increasing my profits and perceived popularity) in order to have an opinion. Must be nice.

You've still never provided links to back up his assertions you claimed to be true.

:doh::doh::doh::doh:

Im pretty sure you could find a way of watching the movie without contributing a dime to Michael Moore... (Its called the internet shhhhhhh dont tell anyone)

I set aside my personal bias and went into the movie with no preconceived notions... Were there some statements that were pretty outlandish? Uh Yep... Did I think to myself, "It has to be right because Michael Moore is telling me it's right? Uh Nope... I did my own research and I thought for myself... I didnt base my opinion on other peoples opinions and assumptions...

Your statement deserves another couple of these:

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

[JMS]

links?

• Bush Sr was sitting across the table from Osama Bin Laudin's brother on the morning of 9/11.
  

Here is what the movie said..

“Carlyle Group was holding its annual investor conference on the morning of September 11th in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C. At that meeting were all of the Carlyle regulars, James Baker, likely John Major, definitely George H. W. Bush, though he left the morning of September 11th. Shafiq bin Ladin, who is Osama bin Laden’s half-brother, and was in town to look after his family’s investments in the Carlyle Group. All of them, together in one room, watching as the uh the planes hit the towers.”

Here is the Refference to Fortune Magazine..

On the morning of September 11, 2001, “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as they terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11. In any circumstance, a confluence of such politically complex and globally connected people would have been curious, even newsworthy. But in the context of the terrorist attacks being waged against the United States by a group of Saudi nationals led by Osama bin Laden, the group assembled at the Ritz-Carlton that day was a disconcerting and freakish coincidence.” Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, p. 139-140. See also, Melanie Warner, “What do George Bush, Arthur Levitt, Jim Baker, Dick Darman, and John Major Have in Common? (They All Work for the Carlyle Group),” Fortune, March 18, 2002,

• Bush Jr had been personally bankrolled in several unsucessful business deals by the Saudi's before becoming President.
  

I should have been more specific and said bin Laudin's...

James Bath was a buddy of Bush's from the air national guard.

In 1972, two airmen were suspended for failing to take their medical examination. One was George W. Bush and the other wasJames R. Bath.

• See National Guard Bureau, Aeronautical Orders Number 87, September 29, 1972, Attachment B, paragraph 7 (original document):
  

The Document as Released in 2000:

Page 1

|

Page 2

The Document as Released in 2004:

Page 1

|

Page 2

James Bath was also the finance guy for Bush's first Company "Aribusto"

oil company which went bankrupt.

James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the Bin Laden family.

• See Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, signed by Salem M. Binladen, July 8, 1976 (original document), Attachment C (“I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas.” Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.
  

• “According to a 1976 trust agreement, drawn shortly after [George H. W.] Bush was appointed director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Sheik Salem M. Binladen appointed Bath as his business representative in Houston. Binladen, along with his brothers, owns Binladen Brothers Construction, one of the largest construction companies in the Middle East.” Jerry Urban, “Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis,” Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992.
  

Other Bush business efforts..backed by the Saudi's.

• Bush Exploration
  
• Spectrum 7
  
• Harken Oil..
  
• Caterair’s board of directors ( owned by Carlyle Group heavily invested in by bin Laudins and Saudi's ).
  

James Bath, invested Saudi money in Aribusto, Bush Exploration, Spectrum 7 all companies founded by GW Bush. The Saudi money in question was from the Bin Laudin family. That's freaking amaizing... Not sure it proves anything, but it's still freaking amaizing.

The money James Bath was investing came from the Bin Laudin family he was their investment manager in the United States.

• Bush senior anual check / pension for being president is dwarfed by more than 50-1 from the money Bush has made from business deals involving the Saudis.
  

• 1$ in every 200$ spent on healthcare in the United States goes to pay the salary of a single executive in United Insurance company.
  

It's actually 1 in 700$ still an amaizing statistic considering.

William W. McGuire, the President of United Health made so much money, that one of every $700 that was spent in this country on health care went to pay him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire

[JMS]

Man, I need to get into the business of making films full of questionable assertions and having people claim you need to see them (thereby increasing my profits and perceived popularity) in order to have an opinion. Must be nice.

If you told me Bush's father was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on Sept 11th 2001 watching the planes fly into the buildings. That's a pretty freaking amaizing statement. One I never heard from any US news organization.

If you told me George W. Bush was backed by Bin Laudin money in three failed business ventures before he got into politics as his father was CIA director then VP... I would say that's a pretty freaking unbelieveable statement.

That Michael Moore is the guy who put these facts out there is justification enough to go see his movies. Again, Im not sure these facts proove Moores assertions, but their pretty amaizing facts and their only a taste of the facts contained in Moore's editorial pieces.

You've still never provided links to back up his assertions you claimed to be true.

I did after you posted this....

I would ague none of the critisms of Moore's facts for the movie touched these incredible assertions. I would argue these werne't even the most outragous of Moores facts he presented. The GOP complained cause Moore didn't count a nephew of a congressmen as his immediate family member for service in Iraq....

I'm just saying... See the flicks... Their worth the 7$. Lease Fareingheit 911 and Sicko were.

[mjah]

Don't worry Dan, this won't become a wrasslin' match between JMS and me. We're capable of being civil while disagreeing. Maybe some other folks could learn from our example.

They aren't documentaries, Moore makes editorials. He's not interested in presenting a balanced fair view of the subject, he's out to prove a point.

Problem is, you can't "prove" anything to the public when you build a movie with, say, 90% truth and 10% distortion. Oh, and then call it a documentary.

Alter those two numbers if you like, to increase the 90% and decrease the 10%. They're just placeholders. But ultimately you'll have to admit that the truth column runs lower than 100% in Moore's movies. And when it comes to convincing a skeptical public, that's the only statistic that matters.

Moore is a smart guy and knows his stuff. That actually makes the dishonest aspects of his movies less forgivable. When you force your audience to pick over your claims to figure out what's real and what isn't, your credibility is already crushed.

I would agree there are some distortions in his films; I would disagree their are flat out deceit. Typically the distortions are not among his most astonishing points.

Nice to see you acknowledge the distortions. The fact that he's distorting even the comparatively "little" things further diminishes his claim to be a reliable narrator. There's just no need for it. It casts a shadow over all of his work. He could cover the same topics with the same (or better) result and a far more bulletproof reputation if he just stuck to the truth.

And his movies would actually be better.

Moores biggest issue with credibility is because he's not afraid to tell us fantastical trueths on his subject matter. Truths our news media are to afraid to state, or too controversial for their sponsors to be associated with.

That's not a credibility issue at all, except with other credibility-challenged people of whom the public is also skeptical. His one and only credibility issue is his willingness to package something that isn't the truth and then call it the truth.

yeah he could delute his own argument? Let him make the strongest case he can. His oponents do. I'll trust in myself to filter out what I find the most convincing...

A strong case is based in lucid interpretation of undistorted fact, not fact augmented with exaggeration and twist. ...Unless you want to claim that, say, Limbaugh's best-known arguments are "strong." They aren't. They're just loud and distorted.

And I'm pretty sure that Moore's claimed standard isn't to simply stoop to the rhetorical liberties of others ("His opponents do."). Are you really okay with him cribbing the strategies of those guys, even in smaller measure? That doesn't lead to credible movies.

If you want to speak in specifics, perhaps you can start with Larry's description of the South Carolina primary commercial. I noticed that in your previous post you actually sidestepped Larry's point entirely and just started listing Bush/Rove's transgressions in South Carolina. That wasn't at issue and you know it. The issue is Moore's treatment of the topic, which you didn't address at all.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying Moore's films are worthless, or that he doesn't bring up a lot of good points that otherwise would go unreported. I'm just saying he shoots himself in the foot when he decides to resort to second-tier distortions for absolutely no good reason. It does far more harm than good, for him and for his movies. And really, for a nation that deserves better.

[JMS]

Im pretty sure you could find a way of watching the movie without contributing a dime to Michael Moore... (Its called the internet shhhhhhh dont tell anyone)

I set aside my personal bias and went into the movie with no preconceived notions... Were there some statements that were pretty outlandish? Uh Yep... Did I think to myself, "It has to be right because Michael Moore is telling me it's right? Uh Nope... I did my own research and I thought for myself... I didnt base my opinion on other peoples opinions and assumptions...

I agree. I don't necessarily agree with Moores conclusions. I don't know if the facts he presents even entirely support his conclusions. But the facts are pretty freaking amaizing. From 2001-2005 when Moore's 911 movie came out I was pretty much a news junky. I thought I knew what was important about the events....

Moore's facts tieing the Bush's and Bin Laudin's families financies and business concernes together and futher showing the close relashionship between the Saudi's and Bush's was totally news to me. Not sure it proves anything, but I'm glad I saw the picture. Freaking Pappy Bush sitting at the same table on the morning of 911 with Bin Ladin's brother? How the hell does that not get reported in our press?

I'm also blown away Moore has the capacity to find these incredible facts and present them to us.

I can't believe some of this stuff isn't common knowledge.

[Kilmer17]

You continue to say that Bush 1 was sitting across from a Bin Laden when the planes hit, yet the links you post clearly state he had left already and was not there.

Why?

[Kilmer17]

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

http://www.moorewatch.com/

Michael Moore "lies" in the exact same fashion that his left wing supporters claim the Bush "lied".

And ftr, I LOVE his movies. roger and me is an amazing documentary. I even liked F9/11. And said so here.

[Skin'emAlive]

Yeah because we don't have an energy problem, we don't have traffic congestion on our streets, we don't have a problem with available runways for planes or congested air traffic problems....

What are you talking about? We do have all those problems..

I know, we shouldn't invest in unproven technology! Coarse that doesn't apply either, since we've waited some 50 years before going to high speed rail.

Fact is high speed rail would be safer, 1000x more efficient, provide better service, and would significantly boost our transportation systems. It won't replace automobiles, but it sure will eleviate some of the congestion and expense of our transportation systems.

Yes i agree that we do have all those problems. And yes i agree that high-speed rail would be safer, 1000x more efficient, and would provide a significant boost to out transportation systems. However there is no master planner directly responsible for the infrastructure of america. Japan is a completely different story unto itself. It would take a lot to be able to switch gears and start building a high speed railway system, and thats an understatement.

Who has jurisdiction over the rails? Who gets the taxes? Where are the rails going to be built? What is going to be destroyed to make way for the rails? Who pays for this change? A huge part of our economy is built off of the automobile and the interstate. What we are looking at here is a repeat of London after the great fire. They had the ability to redevelop the city in an understandable and logical grid system ( one that has been thoroughly replicated over the entire world) but could not because all the citizens owned their own piece of land. This meant each person would have to give up their land to the government. Needless to say, london did not change, and the streets are as the same as ever.

Just like london, we are going to stay attached to our past. It is too late to try and change our infrastructure, but it is not too late to improve it. Im not saying that im against highspeed railways. Im saying the cost at introducing them would surpass our means among other predicaments.

[JMS]

Don't worry Dan, this won't become a wrasslin' match between JMS and me. We're capable of being civil while disagreeing. Maybe some other folks could learn from our example.

I totally agree, and will try to live up to the high standards you set for the discussion.

Problem is, you can't "prove" anything to the public when you build a movie with, say, 90% truth and 10% distortion. Oh, and then call it a documentary.

I agree with that too. I agree Moore's conclusions are not proven by his films. Supported yes, proven no. But that's an inditement on the medium not Moore.

I would disagree on the 90-10 ratio. Moore definitely bends the truth a little, but I haven't seen anybody convincingly discredit him with specifics. I've seen folks try and have to eat their words too, like Sonjay Gupta on CNN who got beaten like a red headed step child on Larry King by Moore after Sicko. Probable cost Sonjay the surgeon general spot in the obama administration too. Showing he was clueless on healthcare delivery systems and to lazy to research his own story.

Alter those two numbers if you like, to increase the 90% and decrease the 10%. They're just placeholders. But ultimately you'll have to admit that the truth column runs lower than 100% in Moore's movies. And when it comes to convincing a skeptical public, that's the only statistic that matters.

Here is a problem I had with one of Moore's factoids. He made several incredible claims that the Bush / Saudis were extreamly closely tied together. Then he shows a guard outside the Saudi embasy sporting a White house security badge suggesting Bush loaned the Saudi's uniformed secret service guards. Fact is many embassies in the DC area have uniformed secret service guards. Did Moore lie? No but he was misleading...

That's really the most damaging factoid I came away with out of reviewing the critisms of Moores incredible 911 editorial....

Some of the facts presented in that movie were mind blowing, and again well worth the 7$ admission fee.

Moore is a smart guy and knows his stuff. That actually makes the dishonest aspects of his movies less forgivable. When you force your audience to pick over your claims to figure out what's real and what isn't, your credibility is already crushed.

I don't think that's reasonable. I read the post, it's a moderate left leaning paper. I read the Washington Times it's a moderate right leaning paper. Does that discredit them as news sources? Moore is definitely reporting facts, it's his conclusions which are subject to debate. I'm just saying the facts he presents are worth the price of admission, and your yard stick for credibility seems high when compared to what Moore accomplishes in his flicks.

Your argument could be used to discredit every editorialist in the country who present biased arguments every day in the newspapers because they have previously stated and known leanings on issues to tie their arguments around...

It's actually an interesting point. I just still enjoy reading their arguments. Especially the very good one's like Michael Moores.

Nice to see you acknowledge the distortions. The fact that he's distorting even the comparatively "little" things further diminishes his claim to be a reliable narrator. There's just no need for it. It casts a shadow over all of his work. He could cover the same topics with the same (or better) result and a far more bulletproof reputation if he just stuck to the truth.

Actually I totally disagree with you here. What get's Moore in trouble is more about publishing the truth than his distortions. It's somehow become more controvecial to report the facts in the United States on certain topics than quoting the status quoe.

When Sonjay Gupta made the general statements condemning Michael Moore's sicko it wasn't news, it wasn't controversial. That's why Gupta did it, he thought he was on safe ground. Certainly it was more Safe for Gupta to deliver a story saying Moores facts were wrong, than it would have been if Gupta had come out and said Moore got it right...

Sonjay didn't count on Moore going on Larry King and calling him out however.

Fact is Moore's facts are pretty painstakingly researched and the controversy is they hit the American public like a wet rag hits a sleep walker.

And I'm pretty sure that Moore's claimed standard isn't to simply stoop to the rhetorical liberties of others ("His opponents do."). Are you really okay with him cribbing the strategies of those guys, even in smaller measure? That doesn't lead to credible movies.

I would argue there isn't much comparsion between Moore and Rush other than both guys are smart. Rush puts together sound bites which on their face are untrue or misleading and they are the story. Moore puts together a 2 hour proof using mind blowing facts to suport his viewpoint.

Moore is making an intelectual argument as well as being entertaining. I don't think his movies proove or totally support his conclusions. But they are informative and they are thought provoking. I don't know if I would make the same claim of Rush's sixty second parities.

If you want to speak in specifics, perhaps you can start with Larry's description of the South Carolina primary commercial. I noticed that in your previous post you actually sidestepped Larry's point entirely and just started listing Bush/Rove's transgressions in South Carolina. That wasn't at issue and you know it. The issue is Moore's treatment of the topic, which you didn't address at all.

I'm sorry I thought I did. Moore clipped a Bush statement taking credit for a political ad, directly after a Bush campaign Karl Rove add saying McCain had an extra marital affair with a black woman resulting in his Nego love child. Culminating in the picture of John McCain's family focusing in on his adopted dark complected Indian daughter.

I don't think folks watching the clip believed Bush actually took credit for the campagne add as Larry proposed. I thought it was pretty clear what Moore was saying.

Karl Rove and Bush's campagne set out to destroy John McCain's credibility with South Carolina voters, and it worked. Which is pretty much spot on accurate. The voice over said as much before showing the Bush Clip.

I don't think that was misleading or even a controvercial assertion for the 2001 campagne. As I said John McCain has made similar assertians publically.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying Moore's films are worthless, or that he doesn't bring up a lot of good points that otherwise would go unreported. I'm just saying he shoots himself in the foot when he decides to resort to second-tier distortions for absolutely no good reason. It does far more harm than good, for him and for his movies. And really, for a nation that deserves better.

I would say he's not an documentary producer. He's an editorialist who sets out ot make a strong case for his opinions which often fall outside the political middle of this contries politics. I would say he's very gifted at this. Roman politicians like Cisero built entire sciencetific classifications of retorical arguments used to convince folks of the correctness of their positions. Ciscero had nothing on Michael Moore.

Moores arguements are well thought out, meticoulously researched and super convincing.

Unfortunately the retorical argument ultimately doesn't conclusively proove the correctness of a conclusion. Not in Ciscero's case, and arguable not in Moores case either. It's the argument which educates us though.

[JMS]

However there is no master planner directly responsible for the infrastructure of america. Japan is a completely different story unto itself. It would take a lot to be able to switch gears and start building a high speed railway system' date=' and thats an understatement.

[/quote']

Who had the first national rail system? America, China, or Japan?

Who had the first national air traffic control system?

Who had the first national power grid?

Who put telephones throughout the nation first?

How about National Highways?

The United States did that's who every one of those projects was accomplished with overwhelming government support too.. Fact is the only reason we don't have the capability anymore is because we've lapsed. We could do all those things again if we decided it was in our national interest and we had the will to do it.

[Busch1724]

Who had the first national rail system? America, China, or Japan?

Who had the first national air traffic control system?

Who had the first national power grid?

Who put telephones throughout the nation first?

How about National Highways?

The United States did that's who every one of those projects was accomplished with overwhelming government support too.. Fact is the only reason we don't have the capability anymore is because we've lapsed. We could do all those things again if we decided it was in our national interest and we had the will to do it.

Actually taxpayer money has been spread to too many different areas of political and welfare interest to get anything innovative off the ground.

[JMS]

You continue to say that Bush 1 was sitting across from a Bin Laden when the planes hit, yet the links you post clearly state he had left already and was not there.

Why?

Links said he was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on the morning of 911..... Four years after 9/11 I never heard that before till Michael Moore's movie came out.

I don't know what it proves, but it's interesting.

[Switchgear]

First off, you are linking to michaelmoore.com to back up your, or rather his, assertions? That's rather ludicrous, to be honest.

If you told me Bush's father was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on Sept 11th 2001 watching the planes fly into the buildings. That's a pretty freaking amaizing statement. One I never heard from any US news organization.

Did you even read what you posted? As Kilmer pointed out, it doesn't match what you're saying.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, “in the plush setting of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Washington, DC, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual international investor conference. Frank Carlucci, James Baker III, David Rubenstein, William Conway, and Dan D’Aniellow were together, along with a host of former world leaders, former defense experts, wealthy Arabs from the Middle East, and major international investors as the terror played out on television. There with them, looking after the investments of his family was Shafiq bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s estranged half-brother. George Bush Sr. was also at the conference, but Carlyle’s spokesperson says the former president left before the terror attacks, and was on an airplane over the Midwest when flights across the country were grounded on the morning of September 11.

So this Fortune article (which I can't find at fortune.com, but will assume exists) says Bush Sr. and Bin Laden's (estranged, half) brother were both at an annual investor conference, but Bush Sr. left before the attacks started. No more detail is offered, and somehow that turns into "Bush's father was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on Sept 11th 2001 watching the planes fly into the buildings". Seriously?

If you told me George W. Bush was backed by Bin Laudin money in three failed business ventures before he got into politics as his father was CIA director then VP... I would say that's a pretty freaking unbelieveable statement.

I don't find it that unbelievable at all, to be honest. I imagine the Saudi's though he'd make them some money. They were wrong. Lots of people have been wrong about the guy, including a lot that voted for him thinking he'd be a good president and a lot that want to paint him as an evil overlord who is a genius planner, and/or a bumbling moron.

That Michael Moore is the guy who put these facts out there is justification enough to go see his movies. Again, Im not sure these facts proove Moores assertions, but their pretty amaizing facts and their only a taste of the facts contained in Moore's editorial pieces.

That you still have any faith in MM as a person interested in facts is pretty amazing. These "facts" really don't mean anything, and are of dubious origin to boot.

It reminds me of a great movie: "Man gives birth to baby" - That's a fact.

I would ague none of the critisms of Moore's facts for the movie touched these incredible assertions. I would argue these werne't even the most outragous of Moores facts he presented. The GOP complained cause Moore didn't count a nephew of a congressmen as his immediate family member for service in Iraq....

I'm just saying... See the flicks... Their worth the 7$. Lease Fareingheit 911 and Sicko were.

Once again, I refuse to bankroll this hack. Now that will be 7 dollars for having read my opinion.

[JMS]

Actually taxpayer money has been spread to too many different areas of political and welfare interest to get anything innovative off the ground.

So you think we are politically more corrupt today than we were in the 1840's when we started the rail system in this country....

I disagree with that.

[mjah]

JMS, it's possible that we're just expecting two different things from Moore's movies.

You're willing to tolerate some (we can disagree on what "some" means) deliberate twisting of evidence in return for a large volume of fascinating truth that has the potential to totally change the discussion on Moore's issues of choice. If a large volume of the latter requires a bit of the former, then so be it. And we agree that Moore's movies are not documentaries, despite their mostly-factual content -- so one could say the door is open for adding content beyond the boundaries an impartial point of view would require.

I'm looking for a more rock-solid and wholly credible interpretation of historical and current events, observing that even a small amount of evidence manipulation is enough to impugn a man's overall credibility and his films' as well (as it has Moore's). It certainly emboldens the opposition. And I'm further observing that none of the evidence manipulation is even necessary, making it all the more unfortunate.

In my mind it really comes down to what Moore promises vs. what he delivers. He calls his own films documentaries and wants you to believe that they're honestly edited, but it's easy to find instances where both claims simply aren't true. And they aren't honest mistakes, either.

We'll have to disagree on whether that diminishes Moore/his causes, or is just a side issue to business as usual/necessary. :whoknows:

[Busch1724]

So you think we are politically more corrupt today than we were in the 1840's when we started the rail system in this country....

I disagree with that.

I will say we didn't have nearly as many entitlement programs around then as we do today that have zapped the middle and upper classes.

We were able to do some of these things before the days of social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc. The only thing we've gotten done as far as technological advancement in this country the last several decades has been the spread of the Internet and computers. We haven't been the frontrunner in a lot of technological change since Lyndon Johnson was president.

It could have been more corrupt then because of a less aware public. The Internet has been great for transparency/spreading rumors and false facts.

[Madison Redskin]

If you told me Bush's father was sitting across the table from Bin Laudin's brother on Sept 11th 2001 watching the planes fly into the buildings. That's a pretty freaking amaizing statement. One I never heard from any US news organization.

It's newsworthy in the sense that it's interesting. However, Michael Moore didn't include facts like that because they are interesting. He included them to try to paint the Bush family as evil and perhaps even involved in 9/11. Many of Michael Moore's films work that way, i.e., they present facts which may be true, but he puts them together in a way that is very intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

Frankly, I think Michael Moore is scum. He lambasts the right for being dishonest, when he goes and does the same thing.