Michael Moore must be pissed for not being able to find this footage before and include it on 'Farenheit 9/11'.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/bushuncensored.wmv
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I hate Michael Moore, he has about 0 credibility, even if 90% of the things he says are true, I would not rely on him due to the other 10% of the time he willfully manipulated facts or documents in the name of his cause. And that's not to say that this was only 10% of the time; perhaps we can reverse the two numbers.
Michael Moore must be pissed for not being able to find this footage before and include it on 'Farenheit 9/11'.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/bushuncensored.wmv
Ah, what a kind-hearted and honest man they have for a president.
So apparently politics is fine to post unless I post it?
So apparently politics is fine to post unless I post it?
Most definitely. When you post something political an alarm goes off that says you must be flamed to an ultimate degree. ;-)
"Hee hee hee, lookit wut I did! Hee hee!"
" I hate Michael Moore, he has about 0 credibility, even if 90% of the things he says are true, I would not rely on him due to the other 10% of the time he willfully manipulated facts or documents in the name of his cause."
Most of the 'manipulation' is simple rhetoric repeated by those that oppose his viewpoint. I have yet to hear any viable rebuttals to what was presented F911.
Most of the 'manipulation' is simple rhetoric repeated by those that oppose his viewpoint. I have yet to hear any viable rebuttals to what was presented F911.
Funny thing is that those who hate Michael Moore the most and accuse him of distorting the truth are the same ones who believe that the most trustworthy and reliable form of information is FOX News.
and there are many who do not
and still believe he is not credible--
all they have to do is see the inaccuries in his other work--- to know he did the same... again
and still believe he is not credible--
all they have to do is see the inaccuries in his other work--- to know he did the same... again
" I hate Michael Moore, he has about 0 credibility, even if 90% of the things he says are true, I would not rely on him due to the other 10% of the time he willfully manipulated facts or documents in the name of his cause."
Most of the 'manipulation' is simple rhetoric repeated by those that oppose his viewpoint. I have yet to hear any viable rebuttals to what was presented F911.
He edited the headlines of one of the newspapers he presented in the film. Neither the headline nor the date were correct. I cannot recall the name of the newspaper, but such was reported by many sources, including the paper itself. This one misrepresentation, regardless of how small or impertinent, is enough for his credibility to be lowered to an almost nonexistent level in my eyes. This is only one example anyway. I prefer to get my information from unbiased sources, anyway. Or at least from slightly biased sources.
"all they have to do is see the inaccuries in his other work--- to know he did the same... again"
All they have to do is see 9/11 to see how wrong the above statement is.
All they have to do is see 9/11 to see how wrong the above statement is.
"I prefer to get my information from unbiased sources, anyway.'
Then you're fairly uninformed, I take it?
All media is biased. It's the media that doesn't APPEAR to be biased that you need to be wary of.
F9/11 isn't a newscast. It's a film. It has a thesis. A point. There's this whole 'moore is biased so the movie is just a bunch of lies' illogical rant coming from the Bush folks. Moore's audience isn't stupid. They *know* it's an anti-bush film.
Of all the 'inaccuracies' pointed out this film, none are of any substance. They are nothing more that minute inaccuracies in *any* film.
I'm not saying Moore's technic is the best out there. There certainly is a lot to critique about his methods and motives, but to accuse him of spewing lies and deceiving the masses, well, that's just loud, insecure rhetoric.
Then you're fairly uninformed, I take it?
All media is biased. It's the media that doesn't APPEAR to be biased that you need to be wary of.
F9/11 isn't a newscast. It's a film. It has a thesis. A point. There's this whole 'moore is biased so the movie is just a bunch of lies' illogical rant coming from the Bush folks. Moore's audience isn't stupid. They *know* it's an anti-bush film.
Of all the 'inaccuracies' pointed out this film, none are of any substance. They are nothing more that minute inaccuracies in *any* film.
I'm not saying Moore's technic is the best out there. There certainly is a lot to critique about his methods and motives, but to accuse him of spewing lies and deceiving the masses, well, that's just loud, insecure rhetoric.
Funny thing is that those who hate Michael Moore the most and accuse him of distorting the truth are the same ones who believe that the most trustworthy and reliable form of information is FOX News.
Yeah, that is kind of bizarre.
Sara, just find a video somewhere of John Kerry and John Edwards going at it and everyone will lap it up ;)
"I prefer to get my information from unbiased sources, anyway.'
Then you're fairly uninformed, I take it?
All media is biased. It's the media that doesn't APPEAR to be biased that you need to be wary of.
F9/11 isn't a newscast. It's a film. It has a thesis. A point. There's this whole 'moore is biased so the movie is just a bunch of lies' illogical rant coming from the Bush folks. Moore's audience isn't stupid. They *know* it's an anti-bush film.
Of all the 'inaccuracies' pointed out this film, none are of any substance. They are nothing more that minute inaccuracies in *any* film.
I'm not saying Moore's technic is the best out there. There certainly is a lot to critique about his methods and motives, but to accuse him of spewing lies and deceiving the masses, well, that's just loud, insecure rhetoric.
Perhaps you would prefer "openly biased" or "clearly biased". You didn't even rebut my point. I always hear how the media is biased, but can it even compare to F9/11? No, unless you can prove me wrong, then I will accept it. The news media does not let biases willfully distort the truth. Reports are more or less accurate to the best of the knowledge of the newscaster. News media does not manipulate and edit documents.
What I am saying is not to say that the things in Moore's movie are inaccurate or incorrect, but that there is no way of knowing whether or not they are so due to the existence of definite falsehoods in the movie.
"You didn't even rebut my point. I always hear how the media is biased, but can it even compare to F9/11? "
There's nothing to compare. Michael Moore isn't a newscast. He's a FILMMAKER.
He's also not a liar. Are there inaccuracies in his numbers? Sure. Are there inaacuracies in most numbers? Sure. Could Moore do a bit more fact checking? Yes. And he did with F911. Again, the critiques against the film are pretty weak. For the most part, he presented the film well. He had an opinion and expressed it well with the film.
"News media does not manipulate and edit documents."
This is a different subject, but since you brought it up, you need to see this documentary:
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Again, Moore has props...not evidence. It's a film. Should he have used that particular prop? Maybe not. Is that a reason to write off everything he says? It's a pretty weak reason.
There's nothing to compare. Michael Moore isn't a newscast. He's a FILMMAKER.
He's also not a liar. Are there inaccuracies in his numbers? Sure. Are there inaacuracies in most numbers? Sure. Could Moore do a bit more fact checking? Yes. And he did with F911. Again, the critiques against the film are pretty weak. For the most part, he presented the film well. He had an opinion and expressed it well with the film.
"News media does not manipulate and edit documents."
This is a different subject, but since you brought it up, you need to see this documentary:
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Again, Moore has props...not evidence. It's a film. Should he have used that particular prop? Maybe not. Is that a reason to write off everything he says? It's a pretty weak reason.