Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Reign-Mack, Aug 13, 2006.
That was hilarious and quite shocking at the same time. Unbelieveable!!!
Believe it or not, Braiden, the Daily Show is my favourite TV program. Great stuff.
Hey listen mike I can beleive that, even in the other thread I hope you don't take offence at anything said. Just a good discussion from two perspectives.
No offence taken! I like a good discussion.
That was unbelievably funny, so-called educated officials getting completely shot down with simple predictably questions.
Hate to repeat myself, but its the culture of fear again!!
Keep the people scared and you can get away with a lot of dodgy stuff.
I agree with that. Check out Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 for more of the same.
Because Moore isnt just in it for the money is he? His films are based on pratically nothing, just the way he pieces together unlrelated crap makes people think he really knows the truth about everything. If you can believe what moore says then you are having the wool pulled over your eyes more than the rest of us.
Most people who rubbish Michael Moore do so because they have already decided that they are going to believe the official government line, and any other version of events cannot therefore be true. And as Moore himself has said, there are much easier ways to make money than what he does.
but he enjoys the controversy and has no other skills? its like the saying that boxers use about not being able to sing or dance so they box instead
I dont rubbish him because i want to believe the official government line. I know that hardly anything in the media is the full truth, official government or sensationalist film maker it doesnt matter. The fact his nearly every single scene in any of his films has been proven to have been used in the wrong context or with little to no backup. People have literally hacked his work to pieces and showed how much crap has been put into it. I cannot believe that people take this mans word for gospel when his films contradict each other!
But there is also a lot of truth in his films, isn't there?
And on the original subject that started this thread, its just too easy for governments to 'invent' threats that are complete nonsense. Did you actually watch the YouTube clip above? Its so stupid its untrue. Their evidence is that one of the 'suspects' knows the Sears Tower!!! Come on. I know the Sears Tower and have never been in the US.
The US Gov yesterday raised the terror alert to SEVERE. By my reckoning this would mean that something is about to happen. I bet nothing does - because its always the same. For approx 2 years after 9/11, CNN had an on-screen scale of the terror alert, which used to flip between 3 and 4 (out of 5 = SEVERE I think). It would normally sit at 3 and on weekends such as 4th July it would go to 4. But nothing ever happened. In my mind it was just scare tactics.
As for this 'plot' in the UK - I am just waiting to see exactly how many of these men are charged or what evidence will be produced. And to say the 'plot' was similar in severity to WWII just made me laugh.
I try to imagine how these terrorists think. If this 'plot' was real then they will now go back and try to devise another way to kill, but that will probably take years of planning. I would now say that flying today or tomorrow is as safe as ever, yet the entire nation is scared to bits. This is the terrorists greatest weapon. With a few emails, telephone calls or press releases they can bring the West to a standstill.
I'm sorry if I sound cynical but its hard not to be. When we have the case of the Brazilian who was shot 8 times in the head, and find out that the police lied about the whole incident it tends to make you cynical. When the authorities know that 22 men are plotting to smuggle liquid explosives on to planes that looks like baby milk yet know nothing about 18 men who are taking flying lessons and planning to crash planes into 2 of the world's most famous buildings it tends to make you cynical. When they arrest and question nearly 150 people after 7/7 but ALL are released without charge then you tend to get cynical.
I presume the credits list the right people.
.... and guess who hacks his films and works to pieces and publishes the info online....
The very people who he has been having a pop at.
... just how guilible are you ?
It would help if you provided a couple of examples to illustrate what you are saying. Without that your claims are inevitably rather hollow.
It might make a welcome change from all the 9/11 discussion here to take your examples from Bowling for Columbine.
a lot of this so called proof is from neocon authors and filmakers and of course Fox; and then its about the less disturbing revelations.....
Much of his reporting on Bush's dubious business and army record, stealing the 2001 presidential election, protection of the Bin Laden family, the Carlyle Group, Haliburton. etc has been very well documented by the likes of Greg Palast and Robert Greenwald - a well respected investigative journalist and documentary maker. None of their submissions have been disproven.
Why is it i get asked to back up things i say when people can say things like this without knowing who or what source i was talking about initially?
Are you just assuming that im gullible because i dont like Moores work or his intentions? Do you somehow think that because you believe every word that comes out of his mouth that you and him are somehow better than me? That you're in some sort of secret club for people that know the truth and you can laugh at us and call us gullible from your little club house?
I asked you to illustrate your claims with examples so I can understand what you are talking about. If you claim that almost everything Michael Moore has said in his films has been proven to be incorrect or misleading, then it isn't unreasonable to be asked why you make that claim.
Do you have any examples?
Is Bush Lite's cousin still in charge at Fox News? Or is some other organisation now reaping the benefits of his objective, well balanced news reporting ethos?
On Bowling for Columbine:
Which is not bad for a film in which "nearly every single scene...has been proven to have been used in the wrong context or with little to no backup"
Who is having the wool pulled over their eyes?
Farnehiet 9/11 I am duboius about some content (actually, I am dubious about anything written by anybody about 911). However, Bowlin for Columbine is a masterpiece. It has a purpose, and it may just prove to a lot of people how stupid the US gun laws are.
ok consider this, to the people who support Moores books and films and his opinions. Have you read any of the arguments on the points hes made? Have you read any reports of incorrect facts or the altered ad campaign in bowling for columbine? If so? what proof do YOU have that they are untrue, or written by the people who Moore is opposing in the first place?
Ill admit i dont have the time or possible the internet access (at work while im here) to go looking for sources or things to show you that i have read. But at the same time i get moaned at for not backing up the things ive said i see many people countering me without any backup of thier own. So the whole thing becomes pointless. Hence my original question
Moore is an activist rather than a pure documentary maker. His filsm are naturally biased to his point of view. Farhenheit 911 was almost entirely a pro democrat propaganda just before the elections. I did find it interesting and its important that he has his alternative views aired, but i prefer documentaries to be less partial.
Bowling for columbine however was a very powerful polemic against the American gun laws. It's not entirely relevent how he presented the facts in that film as the subject matter is so emotive. thing is tho it changed nothing in the States.
I like to think that it has done, but it will never change anything. The level of US gun ownership is pretty much irreversible now from a social perspective - even if the (misinterpreted) right to bear arms in the constitution could be changed. When you combine that with the very powerful NRA lobby and a president from Texas, there is even less chance of moving away from the wild west mentality that inflicts the US.
But yes, the film is a masterpiece. How could anyone not be dumbfounded at the idea of a bank offering you a free gun if you open an account with them?
So you are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to support your claims, yet you expect others to do just that?
But you are attempting to polarise this into absolute right and wrong. Michael Moore and others like him should be considered as just one of many sources of information on which a balanced view can be developed - provided you don't start with a preconceived idea of what is true and what isn't.
The day that Americans realise that banning and censoring nudity and swearing ....... whilst glorifying war, physical violence and gun crime ..... is a act of lunacy, will be the day that they turn it all around.
They ban, won't air or cut to hell shows like the Trailer Park Boys because of the excessive swearing .... it corrupts society you know
.... yet family entertainment usually envolves guns and explosions .... thats the problem with letting petty prudish fools get a say in censor ship.
It's all to do with hyping up moral outrage - be it against Porn or Terrorists ....
I don't think many people here believe everything that Michael Moore says, nor do they exclude the thought of bias when viewing what he does.
However, even though he may biased, and make the occastional cheap trick to gain an audience, alot of what he is actually saying is still fundamentally true.
.... what you are falling into is being convinced that it is all just a scam and untrue simply by focusing on one or two fine details .... that are usually hunted out by those purposefully trying to discredit him for political motivations.
It the age old miss direction technique ... you can do it on here to look clever and take over an arguement.
example - someone posts a mostly intelligent post with valid arguments, yet makes one mistake on one small facet of a point that does not really make a difference to the post .... yet all it takes is someone to latch onto that point and pull it to bits and keep the conversation focused on it .... to allow the attention to shift away from what was essentially a good post.
( the classic ' you can't spell so you are wrong ' is the most basic and pathetic of these )
Even if 90% of what Michael Moore says is rubbish - the other 10% still makes what Politicians and peoples attitudes rather disturbing.
.... and I have read through alot of the debunking pages against Michael Moore - and the majority of it genrally falls under the category of nitt picking smoke screens.
The seek to mask the fact that fundamentally there is something wrong.
that is why I am so dismissive, its the pure irony envolved, and that fact that you are falling for the more obvious and dangerous traps.
( and I am quite willing to privately go through alot of the sites information and accustations with you should you wish - lets just not do some in public as people will get bored very quickly )
He is hardly a SOURCE of information when all he does is piece together some stats, some interviews, some quotes, some documents to allow him to make a point.
I couldnt think of a better way to phrase what i said but more simply i wanted to ask if you have seen the evidence, reports, opinions or facts which oppose what Moore has put forward in his books and films, and what proof you had obtained that these were infact incorrect. I dont necessarily need to see the proof for myself, admittedly i would like to but i dont have the time to read it
See this is part of the problem, i dont believe the attitudes of people and Americas politicians to be acceptable in these areas (take bowling for columbine for an example) and like you said, say 90% of what moore said was rubbish. Well that bothers me quite a lot. That people can choose to side with him, perhaps take a stance on the state of affairs in another country. When clearly they can see he talks rubbish and deceives readers and viewers. But then again i dont neccessarily believe that Americas gun law is entierly correct either. But then it doesnt bother me that much living in South London. And my opinion on the subject either way doesnt really matter that much because it doesnt affect me.
Its the way he manipulates his viewers (didnt he try and prove that black people lived in canada, found 3, then interviewed the one from Detroit?)
into hating more things about thier own country, giving them an opinon thats not neccessarily truly thiers. All the time making millions of dollars because of the controversy he stirs up. The man should be ashamed of himself.
I also dont like that people dismiss those who research and disprove his so called facts and figures because they want to discredit him, but shouldnt Moore have perhaps gotten it right in the first place? (surely his research skills can be as good as thiers)
or is he yet another one who just likes to make things up in order to get people to follow and believe what he says as the ultimate truth
About being fundamentally true, how fundamental are you talking here. The fact that Americas gun laws are out of date and a bit stupid? Of course! but everyone knew that anyway!!!
From all the evidence I can see - and the points raised by his protractors, it is no where near 90% rubbish. It is more like 90% correct, with 10% potentiall y iffy .... but also that the points that fall into the problem areas seem far less significant to the actual arguements at hand.
I have found that many of his protractors bascially lie or over signify points from my analysis of thier comments and 'evidence'
Something that you need to take into account, is the fact that his style of presentation does get the point across.
The biggest problem with these types of issue is peoples apathy - and trying to address that can sometimes lead to taking a few liberties.
Yes he is not doing this purely out of some sort of philanthropic whim, he is making a living, but due to the publics low attention span, and the tools available in the media to politicians, often it does take an amount of fighting fire with fire.
If all he achieves is a debate on the issues, then he has had an impact.
As long as people like you and I take note, and look into the evidence and do some thinking for ourselves, then it is essentially a good thing.
I have been envolved in political campaigns and counter intelligence / propaganda ( no, nothing to do with Politics in the UK before anyone thinks that ) in the past and understand the power generated from manipluation of the truth.
The old ' no smoke without fire '.
That can be dangerous - it does depend on what that persons 'ultimate truth' happens to be .... and how far they are prepared to go to express it.
I don't beleive that Michael Moore is a depraved fundamental loony. From all the evidence I can see, the level of sneakyness and deception is far lower than you seem to be expressing..... and far lower than your average politician that Michael more is having a pop at.... or even the New or papers if we are being honest.
It it were to be presented 100% factually, with no hype, no tricks, there would only be a few of us bothering to watch it. Quite often the arguements made, especially if they envolve national and international policy, are too complex and esoteric for most people to understand or invest the effort in following.
It is symptomatic of the human race and the societies we inhabit I am afraid .... that we most sometimes be hoodwinked to be made to understand something far more important.... or at least to be pushed into engageing with the debate.
the American public don't seem to be
Separate names with a comma.