Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tables Turned on Fahrenheit 9/11's Maker

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, "he" was more right than wrong.

Of course there was lack of quality and information- he left out many things but that would have been high DRAMA and not a light hearted documentary......

Lets count on a right winged movie producer to tell us the complete "truth" shall we?

I cant wait.


Youre talking about Farenheit? Theres already a couple of "rebuttal" movies out there. I think "Farenhype" is the most popular. Of course none of them got wide release or even any publicity whatsoever but theyre out there.




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Seriously, there's no defense for this guy. All I can figure is that those of you who defend him don't know all of the facts.


Since you seem to consider that to be the case i will step up and 'defend' Mr Moore against slander and lies he clearly does not deserve.


The stories he tells in his "documentaries" range from truth to outright bold lies and fraud.


Then provide us with say five examples and please do not insult me by referring me to other pages who attempts to discredit him. If you can not, for lack of research, go to the trouble of making the accusations in your own words just let it be.


When one makes a "documentary" and it is later proven that certain facts in said "documentary" are outright manipulation of information that is prevented as a fact, that makes the entire documentary political propaganda and it should be presented as such.


Having one of your facts exposed as a half-truth or lie opens you up to ridicule and suspicion but i doubt if there if there is a single documentary in existence that does not use disputed information or at least misrepresents certain information. Fact is 'facts' are hardly ever as factual as the bringers would suggest and while mistakes in such documentaries may lead some to dismiss the entire volume of information i am confident that i can show how such actions have very little to do with the general credibility of the research and everything to do with the given viewers preconceived notions and opinions on the issue.


If Sean Hannity or Rush Bimbo put out a "documentary" that condemned the left and it was presented as a documentary, the left wingers would be up in arms.


Haha... Probably using the 'liberal' media, right? Hehehe...


However when you're a lefty, if it pushes the agenda, it's ignored.


It's just insane that there are still people ignorant enough of reality to consider the American media 'liberal' in any sense. It's quite shocking that such a belief ever gained credibility and i must wonder how the right wingers managed to gain enough air time to tell us about the so called left wingers who controls the media... 'Right wingers', like you, (i am being generous as i think your just plain ignorant of what's really happening politically speaking) do not seem to have a problem with conspiracies ( the Liberal media ownership, the communist,feminist etc) as long as it does not involve fellow right wingers.



One great example from farenheight 911. I'm sure you've all read about the infamous newspaper article in the Pantagraph. The article actually never existed as he presented it. In the movie, Moore shows a bold headlined news article at the top of a page that states "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election". However, strangely enough, if one goes to the date (12/19/2001) and page# of the Pantagraph that it shows in the movie...the article isn't there. How very strange.


Well his human and fallible ( or possibly a good old fashioned liar in this case) but if you want to be taken seriously let's have some extracts or links to his statements and the absent evidence.


What actually happened here is that Moore took a letter to the editor (by a reader of the paper) from the 12/5/2001 issue of the Pantagraph, bolded the title, made it look like a news article rather than a letter to the editor, moved it to the top of a page, changed the page #, changed the date of the paper...and after doing all this he presented it as factual evidence in his "documentary".


Since i have no opinion about your credibility so far your word is worth absolutely nothing to me; links and references please.


That is fraud, my friends, pure and simple.


If true, yes. Maybe you want to check the following list just to ensure that you are at leas dealing with the IMPORTANT issues he raised. It's always funny how some attempt to undermine the credibility of others by questioning the merit of some fringe issue while just disregarding the massive volume of solid and truthful information that destroys the beliefs they are trying to defend by proxy and so very cowardly.


He does it throughout his movies.


Evidence?


Not every incident is outright fraud like this one, but he has a tendency to present a situation from one side and "lead the horse to the water" so to speak, so that the watcher thinks they're forming their own opinion.


Basically he does what every other person or institution on the planet does then? You mean to suggest that his possibly HUMAN?


However, it's based on one-sided information and manipulation.


Like what and both of us have presented so far is not one sided and manipulated by our minds in ways we are not even aware of? One sided is not the problem if it's the truth and objectivity is a illusion few in the media even aspire to anymore. Lets just deal with whatever factual material we can find ( your the one making accusations so it would probably help if you kicked it off ) and stop pretending that either of us are magically endowed with senses that leads us directly to 'the truth'(TM).

Stellar



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
I cannot stand to look at the man, let alone listen/watch his endlessly biased, opinionated,


Sure he includes a few opinions but it's pretty obvious when they are introduced and when not. (snip)


LOL In light of his hyppocritical actions I was being hyppocritically overly and overtly endlessly biased and opinionated myself showing the irony-which you caught but not in the right sense. My sense of humor gets lost on others sometimes I realize-it's more for amusing myself.


Originally posted by StellarXWhatever the flaws of Fahrenheit 911 ( Which is probably the one that got you so worked up ) endlessly biased and opinionated his documentaries are most certainly not.


Actually it was the Flint MI thing I first saw, but it's not his "work" that gets me going as much as his personality and perceived motivations do anyway. I still think he is very biased, and of course that will motivate him as much as fame has.


Originally posted by StellarXIt's pretty evident that this is a emotional issue for you and almost as apparent that it's not really related to the factual content ( or absence of it) of his movies.


No, I certainly don't don't like the guy, but what was emotional was the fact my Dad was on his death bed and actually died by the next morning when I wrote that- which motivated my endless "emotional" rambling of how much I dislike Moore and how he does his "work" without specifically commenting on what specifically I disagree with on a factual basis.

Basically, he reminds me of Gerald Rivera in a sensational sense, while trying not to be sensational so he'll be taken "moore" seriously.


but ok, more concise and on topic, I do think that the OP article proves him to be at least hyppocritical.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by 2l82sk8]
and again...for form!!!

[edit on 16-3-2007 by 2l82sk8]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
LOL In light of his hyppocritical actions I was being hyppocritically overly and overtly endlessly biased and opinionated myself showing the irony-which you caught but not in the right sense. My sense of humor gets lost on others sometimes I realize-it's more for amusing myself.


I intended to be a bit more serious than you seem to think i was...


Actually it was the Flint MI thing I first saw, but it's not his "work" that gets me going as much as his personality


If you are not able to separate his personality from the facts and information in his movies that is your problem entirely and you better deal with it in your own time...


and perceived motivations do anyway. I still think he is very biased, and of course that will motivate him as much as fame has.


We are ALL biased and i don't see how one can discriminate based on that alone. How will you be able to tell when it's bias you are dismissing and not just what you just do not want to believe? What about your bias?


No, I certainly don't don't like the guy, but what was emotional was the fact my Dad was on his death bed and actually died by the next morning when I wrote that- which motivated my endless "emotional" rambling of how much I dislike Moore and how he does his "work" without specifically commenting on what specifically I disagree with on a factual basis.


Sorry to hear that but it would probably be better if you don't post when dealing with such stressful experiences...


Basically, he reminds me of Gerald Rivera in a sensational sense, while trying not to be sensational so he'll be taken "moore" seriously.


I have it on good authority that Michael does not in fact like publicity even it's forced on him by a conservative reactionary media that hopes to discredit his information by involving his person. I remember where Michael responded to a question on this issue and he said something like " You think i want to put myself on show?" That being said he is a brand now and his name does aid him in getting the word out.


but ok, more concise and on topic, I do think that the OP article proves him to be at least hyppocritical.


What it mostly shows is the lengths some will go to to avoid the real issues he brings up in a concerted effort to discredit the person when the facts are so untouchable.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Michael Moore is a liar and an opportunist. I welcome anything that exposes his corruption so that people will stop spending money on the garbage he pumps out.


He might be all those you state...But he also draws a view into political corruption. I'm not rushing out to grab his dvd's but I do support him taking on political figures be it partisan or not. I support those who challenge the government and be it Republican or Democrat who cares because they are all the same. I find him a smart ass and a hollywood kiss up, And in the same breath I think he has a set of balls on him for taking on political views that pit him against a current administration...If this was some no name Joe he would have been tossed into a Cuban prison and forgotten about for some of the things he has said.



posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I intended to be a bit more serious than you seem to think i was...


Oh, no, I understood how serious you intended to be. I just didn't really care. I do not intend to be as so damn serious as you on the subject of Moore because I think he's a joke.


Originally posted by StellarX If you are not able to separate his personality from the facts and information in his movies that is your problem entirely and you better deal with it in your own time...


First of all, I am able to separate his personality from the facts and information in his movies, and you may be surprised to learn my personal view of many of those facts and much of that information, however I am not here to share that information with you.

I am here to voice that I think the man is a sensationalist, hypocrite, and celebrity monger and think it's funny, but unfortunate in some respects that his true colors are showing.

See, I do not like the man, do not like the way he presents his facts and information much of the time, and do not trust his motives, and cringe at his bias, personality, and public persona because it drives people away from the very facts, and information they could benefit from knowing, accepting etc. More specifically 9/11.

See, those that already know such facts and information, herald him as some sort of hero-and defend him tooth and nail and celebrated him and boy didn't that go to his head? I think he is an embarrassment to many people that would agree with the facts certain things, but do not agree in his approach, persona, or his celebrity.

I think sadly, that it is his personality, his projected persona, and now his celebrity, and the maniacal, obsessive, liberal defense of his work and him as a professional, and a person which makes his presentation of facts and information less acceptable to many.

Those "many" unfortunately are the ones that most need to ponder certain facts and subjects, not his avid fans and supporters who like his work because they already agree with it.

So it is because of his bias and pseudo downplayed sensationalism, and celebrity that drives many away from learning or accepting the facts, as it makes a mockery of those that would agree with his presentation of the facts.

Those who already know the facts and have the information he "spreads" truth about are his main audience...his fans and supporters-what good does that do? It's like organizing a food drive but making it accessible only to the well fed instead of the starving, and as they all break bread together and eat drink and make merry, the hungry say "What idiots."

Now as far as your opinion about

Originally posted by StellarX that is your problem entirely and you better deal with it in your own time...


Well, I'll tell you what, in case you don't know it, you are neither God nor a Mod, so you don't have any authority over me or what I do or say, nor when or where, and especially not on ATS/BTS/PTS.

This is my own time. I like to spend my "me" time on ATS/BTS/PTS. There is just no better place on the Internet. Now, If you feel that I've infringed upon your time somehow by voicing my opinion here, that is your problem entirely and I suggest you deal with it.

(However, I wont impose my opinion as to how, when, or where, because I'm pretty sure the suggestion and expression violates the TOS)


Originally posted by StellarX We are ALL biased and i don't see how one can discriminate based on that alone. How will you be able to tell when it's bias you are dismissing and not just what you just do not want to believe? What about your bias?


First of all I don't discriminate on bias alone. That is your assumption. I do consider how one's bias is shown and used, as I also consider motivation and other factors when I discriminate. As far as how do I differentiate between dismissing someone's bias, over merely facts I do not wish to believe, I do think I exercise discernment to the point that I am always looking for the truth of the matter, even the possibilities, but I dismiss or note, bias as bias, whether I agree with the subject/facts or not.

What about my bias, you ask? What about it? Like you said, we ALL have biases, and I do not disagree.


Originally posted by StellarX
Sorry to hear that but it would probably be better if you don't post when dealing with such stressful experiences...


Does ATS have a staff psychologist now? Is it now, Admin, Supermods, Mods, and Shrink?

Again, I'd have to remind you, your opinion of when and what and where I post carries no weight with me. Posting, on any subject, just being here, is cathartic for me and I'll come here whenever I want or need to, maybe especially during very stressful experiences-this place is that great!


Originally posted by StellarXI have it on good authority that Michael does not in fact like publicity even it's forced on him by a conservative reactionary media that hopes to discredit his information by involving his person.


BAHAHAHAHAA thank you. See how funny, entertaining and cathartic even PTS can be! You and your "good authority" crack me up...I don't care if you think you are best friends in some deluded fantasy, or you are actually his neighbor, or what other mysterious "good authority" you personally have, or think you have that the public doesn't, I don't believe for a second that he doesn't like a little of the lime light, or what lines his pockets these days.


Originally posted by StellarX
I remember where Michael responded to a question on this issue and he said something like " You think i want to put myself on show?" That being said he is a brand now and his name does aid him in getting the word out.


Of course he'd deny his celebrity to appease his followers and try to retain some credibility amongst them as well as those who aren't his fans. It's a game I wouldn't expect him to play it any other way.

But I suppose, since you remember where he responded to a question that he didn't want to put himself on a show...that you have it on good authority then that it is the factual truth that he abhorrers his celebrity and only accepts it reluctantly as a mere tool to spread the truth.


Originally posted by StellarX What it mostly shows is the lengths some will go to to avoid the real issues he brings up in a concerted effort to discredit the person when the facts are so untouchable.


What lengths? Avoiding? Are you still addressing me here? Are you confused? I don't attempt to discredit his facts or his issues. I state I don't like the man. I don't like the way he presents facts or issues. I don't see how my facts got so misinterpreted, or why you've bothered to put forth such a concerted effort to avoid my real issue with him, or the fact I dislike him, or that he can be so dislikable whether his facts are fact or fiction or hype.

Btw, though I didn't read it or hear it anywhere, I can indeed say I have it "on good authority" that Michael is a pompous idiot quite full of himself.

(Hi Mikey!!)

2l82sk8


[edit on 27-3-2007 by 2l82sk8]


SR

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The thing is even though people don't like the guy for many of the reason's already metioned it seems it doesn't matter who you are these days you just get picked apart like seriously no one ever remembers the good things people achieve and yet while you can't win them all and if you act and do business in certain ways as Mr Moore has done you will face then in turn face this negativity.


Personally i find him hypocritcal. But you have to remember at least he's got people thinking and come on everyone can see that yes he has an ego and he does use biasm to forward his case.... who hasn't at times done the same in some form or another? Yet he gets the spark going which is a good thing.

Plus seriously come on guy's if you were in his position and instead of him it was you that made the movies would you seriously not take the money I mean you would seriously turn down a couple of cool million dollars written on cheque????? It would be very tempting.

Yet the downside is comprimising what you believe and facts for that money then you in turn get the negativity like Mr Moore faces now. But again a problem is there just degree's of the truth i.e. 9/11 official story and the story presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 it's up to you to believe what truth you want yet it doesn't mean it's right. So people will always be aruging until there is a defintive answer and there will always be opportunists like Micheal Moore and the funny thing is the people making the documentary on him have seen a great opportunity and grabbed it with both arms.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
Oh, no, I understood how serious you intended to be. I just didn't really care. I do not intend to be as so damn serious as you on the subject of Moore because I think he's a joke.


Well the topics he touches on are deadly serious and the key 'facts' are admitted by even the government 9-11 commissions... So whatever you may be thinking , or in my opinion not, you better take this more seriously that you have so far.


First of all, I am able to separate his personality from the facts and information in his movies, and you may be surprised to learn my personal view of many of those facts and much of that information, however I am not here to share that information with you.


Just here to make jokes about a man who talks about VERY serious issues even sometimes in a not so serious way. I doubt i will be all that surprised to hear your views...


I am here to voice that I think the man is a sensationalist, hypocrite, and celebrity monger and think it's funny, but unfortunate in some respects that his true colors are showing.


And i am here to show that that matters NOTHING as long as he keeps dealing with the facts he so far has. To suggest that those who speak the truth , rare really, should not have any human weaknesses or be allowed to be 'sensationalist ( the truth tends to be) and celebrity monger ( you REALLY believe that?) is quite typical of those who hates reality and would rather stick to the well accepted lies.


See, I do not like the man, do not like the way he presents his facts and information much of the time,


I don't care how you feel about the man or if you think his presenting the facts , and they are, in the 'wrong way' and i am surprised this matters to you.


and do not trust his motives, and cringe at his bias, personality, and public persona because it drives people away from the very facts, and information they could benefit from knowing, accepting etc. More specifically 9/11.


I trust your motives less than his as anyone who has actually watched his latest movies know there is far more good than bad and his standards are quite a great deal higher than most of the so called 'investigators' out there. His public persona has largely been constructed by those in the media that would rather see him dead and if such media manipulation drives the more ignorant among 'truth seekers' away from reality that is just too damn bad and i doubt we would benefit much by their 'support'. Those who are easily swayed one way are easily swayed another and the lure of 'convention' is normally quite overwhelming.


See, those that already know such facts and information, herald him as some sort of hero-and defend him tooth and nail and celebrated him and boy didn't that go to his head?


I most certainly don't 'revere' him and i find people who indulge in such mindless hero worship quite stupid and useless in this particular battle. Anyone who seeks a leader for his supply of truth and reality don't in my opinion serve humanity very well. I just don't see why you think this has gone to his head as all i see him doing is try cash in on his 'celebrity' (and he did not seek it in my opinion..) by using it to gain more publicity for his work which will not be a bad thing anywhere but America where his allegations must be denied for anyone to feel comfortable at all.


I think he is an embarrassment to many people that would agree with the facts certain things, but do not agree in his approach, persona, or his celebrity.


There is no accounting for taste and i most certainly do not agree with some of his methods or approaches to 'exposing' the truth. Frankly i feel it may very well be the only way you get something done in America as personality cults seem to be the norm.


I think sadly, that it is his personality, his projected persona, and now his celebrity, and the maniacal, obsessive, liberal defense of his work and him as a professional, and a person which makes his presentation of facts and information less acceptable to many.


I find the right wing American commentators to be far more offensive, maniacal, obsessive and the right wing media's defense of their created reality far less acceptable than any of the so called ' liberal ( what liberal media? ) media outlets. In fact i think Michael Moore is quite sparing in his presentations of reality knowing full well that even such well documented truth will have a hard time surviving such harsh and persistent attack.


Those "many" unfortunately are the ones that most need to ponder certain facts and subjects, not his avid fans and supporters who like his work because they already agree with it.


Those who are not swayed into thinking by his work do not want to be and unless one of their own starts telling these truths ( in which case they might lynch him in the media as they normally do) it wont really matter if a so called 'liberal' tells it.


So it is because of his bias and pseudo downplayed sensationalism, and celebrity that drives many away from learning or accepting the facts, as it makes a mockery of those that would agree with his presentation of the facts.


So now you want to turn away from reality and focus on what can be 'sold' to a skeptical public in such deep denial? I think what you are suggesting is quite a great deal worse than what he is doing. He is not responsible for who believes the truth as long as that is what he is spreading.


Those who already know the facts and have the information he "spreads" truth about are his main audience...his fans and supporters-what good does that do?


Sadly the vast majority of even the 'truth seekers' wants leadership and many have apparently found one in him. Remember that just like church goers the average guy who is attempting to discover the truth also needs his sermons and prayer sessions and that has much more to do with the human condition than anything Michael is doing right or wrong. You can blame human nature but don't hold him responsible for doing what his loyal supporters demand of him.


It's like organizing a food drive but making it accessible only to the well fed instead of the starving, and as they all break bread together and eat drink and make merry, the hungry say "What idiots."


In this case 'the hungry' don't want to eat and you wont be able to feed them till they start developing a hunger for the truth or are simply forced by the environment to eat what they must...


Now as far as your opinion about
Well, I'll tell you what, in case you don't know it, you are neither God nor a Mod, so you don't have any authority over me or what I do or say, nor when or where, and especially not on ATS/BTS/PTS.


That i am not but since i feel this is a particularly mindless and unwarranted attack against his person i will point out why i think you should leave him alone and spend the time informing people on ATS where it is relatively hard for them to evade your attention.


This is my own time. I like to spend my "me" time on ATS/BTS/PTS. There is just no better place on the Internet. Now, If you feel that I've infringed upon your time somehow by voicing my opinion here, that is your problem entirely and I suggest you deal with it.


I freely chose to be here and spend my time correcting ignorance when i find it. In your case i think your serving nothing but your own bias by attacking the source, or it's method of propagation, and not the information.

[quote[(However, I wont impose my opinion as to how, when, or where, because I'm pretty sure the suggestion and expression violates the TOS)




First of all I don't discriminate on bias alone. That is your assumption. I do consider how one's bias is shown and used, as I also consider motivation and other factors when I discriminate.As far as how do I differentiate between dismissing someones bias, over merely facts I do not wish to believe, I do think I exercise discernment to the point that I am always looking for the truth of the matter, even the possibilities, but I dismiss or note, bias as bias, whether I agree with the subject/facts or not.
What about my bias, you ask? What about it? Like you said, we ALL have biases, and I do not disagree.


Since you seem to be suggesting that you think he is deliberately leading people astray ( I'm not sure why else you would feel so strongly) i will need you to elaborate as i have so far found his work to be stand up and his movies well made for the type of audience few documentary makers even attempts to shoot for. The fact that he won best docummentry ( unless you believe it's some conspiracy to undermine 'the real truth') not so long ago should tell us at least something about the quality.


Does ATS have a staff psychologist now? Is it now, Admin, Supermods, Mods, and Shrink?


Then do not attempt to use personal tragedies as excuse for your behaviour; you need not have told anyone but you did and as such i pointed out why you may want to stop posting for a few days.


Again, I'd have to remind you, your opinion of when and what and where I post carries no weight with me.


Nor does yours to me..


Posting, on any subject, just being here, is cathartic for me and I'll come here whenever I want or need to, maybe especially during very stressful experiences-this place is that great!


Then you will probably he hearing more from me as i don't have great volumes of patience with emotional outbursts that serves absolutely no purpose other than character assassination.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

BAHAHAHAHAA thank you. See how funny, entertaining and cathartic even PTS can be! You and your "good authority" crack me up...I don't care if you think you are best friends in some deluded fantasy, or you are actually his neighbor, or what other mysterious "good authority" you personally have, or think you have that the public doesn't, I don't believe for a second that he doesn't like a little of the lime light, or what lines his pockets these days.


So basically you just hate his guts no matter how much truth pours forth? Glad i am providing you with some comic relief but i can assure you i have never met Michael or corresponded or care to do either. The good 'authority' i was talking about was some of his colleagues who's opinions i happened to find credible as it's in line with his behaviour. I do not think he is in this for the personal attention and if that is what you believe i think your trying too hard to hate him.


Of course he'd deny his celebrity to appease his followers and try to retain some credibility amongst them as well as those who aren't his fans. It's a game I wouldn't expect him to play it any other way.


So when you spread the truth you must deny that you want to gain a wide as possible audience trough the normal celebrity channels? This is interesting and i wonder why they must follow different rules ( according to you) than those habitual fabricators of reality that fill our airwaves with garbage.


But I suppose, since you remember where he responded to a question that he didn't want to put himself on a show...that you have it on good authority then that it is the factual truth that he abhorrers his celebrity and only accepts it reluctantly as a mere tool to spread the truth.


I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but it hardly matters if i am wrong in this instance as what he is attempting to do serves my own purpose of getting information out there so that people have to choose.


What lengths? Avoiding? Are you still addressing me here? Are you confused?


I am confused as to why you think i am not addressing you anymore....


I don't attempt to discredit his facts or his issues. I state I don't like the man.


This thread was created to discuss his 'facts' and 'issues' and it seems i wrongly assumed that you had something to add to the real discussion.


I don't like the way he presents facts or issues. I don't see how my facts got so misinterpreted, or why you've bothered to put forth such a concerted effort to avoid my real issue with him, or the fact I dislike him, or that he can be so dislikable whether his facts are fact or fiction or hype.


Maybe due to the fact that this thread was not created for you to tell us about your personal likes and dislikes about the person. Once again i just assumed , wrongly, that you had something of substance to add other than your own personal bias. That being said you are welcome to your opinions even if they are in my opinion quite pointless.


Btw, though I didn't read it or hear it anywhere, I can indeed say I have it "on good authority" that Michael is a pompous idiot quite full of himself.

(Hi Mikey!!)

2l82sk8


So noted and it's good that even pompous idiots can discover and spread so much truth; it certainly bodes well for you and many, many others.

Stellar

[edit on 30-3-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
This is the part of the original article I think says a lot


Yet the latest assault on Moore’s film-making techniques has come from an unexpected quarter. In Manufacturing Dissent, a documentary to be shown for the first time at a Texas film festival on Saturday, a pair of left-wing Canadian film-makers take Moore to task for what they describe as a disturbing pattern of fact-fudging and misrepresentation.

“When we started this project we hoped to have done a documentary that celebrated Michael Moore. We were admirers and fans,” said Debbie Melnyk, who made the film with her husband, Rick Caine. “Then we found out certain facts about his documentaries that we hadn’t known before. We ended up very disappointed and disillusioned.”



No, They can't be talking about "Michael Moore", can they?


[edit on 31/3/07 by Keyhole]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well the topics he touches on are deadly serious and the key 'facts' are admitted by even the government 9-11 commissions... So whatever you may be thinking , or in my opinion not, you better take this more seriously that you have so far.


I better? Or what? Is that a personal threat? Are you going to tell me I shouldn't post here until I take you or your subjects more seriously...or are you going to make me talk to the ATS shrink? What that's you, right?

What I take serious I will, what I do not take serious, I will not. You don't know what I am thinking, especially about 911, so you really can not make an informed decision or informed opinion on what I am thinking-or not thinking. Maybe being well informed is not important to you before making such assumptions, but I will give you one fact to inform you more about me, and that fact is, I do not take you that serious.



Originally posted by StellarX Just here to make jokes about a man who talks about VERY serious issues even sometimes in a not so serious way. I doubt i will be all that surprised to hear your views...


I doubt you'd take the time to hear my views with an open mind. Anyway, you are wrong, as I am not just here to make jokes about a man, nor have I made a single joke specifically about Moore have I? I have stated my opinion, in an ironically hypocritical way for some amusement, but I've made no jokes about him. I probably could, but I'm not that great at making up jokes. Let me try.

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Moore.

More who?

Moore lies.

Bahahahahaha that was pretty funny, huh? Not bad for my first quick off the top of my head joke about the man.


Originally posted by StellarX
And i am here to show that that matters NOTHING as long as he keeps dealing with the facts he so far has.
So it's OK to lie a little, sensationalize, and fudge some facts as a means to an end to spread other truths?


Originally posted by StellarX
To suggest that those who speak the truth , rare really, should not have any human weaknesses or be allowed to be 'sensationalist ( the truth tends to be) and celebrity monger ( you REALLY believe that?) is quite typical of those who hates reality and would rather stick to the well accepted lies.


I do not suggest that those who speak truth should be perfect or without human weakness, I am saying that Moore's personality, sensationalistic biased journalism, fudging of facts and other hypocrisies render the truth vulnerable to be measured by, and compared to, his ethical standards, or lack of, for validity, and such validity may be found lacking because of his particular weaknesses. Is it really that hard for you to understand? And yes, I really believe that.


Originally posted by StellarX
I don't care how you feel about the man or if you think his presenting the facts , and they are, in the 'wrong way' and i am surprised this matters to you.


Then why do you continually defend him, or try to discredit my opinion of the man if you do not care how I feel about him or how he presents the facts? And yes it does indeed matter to me how facts, of a large consequential nature, are presented, as it is important for finding root for the truth in many, and the truth will not take root in many if the seed it comes from is lacking so much.

Why is that surprising to you? You presume to know me so well, and what I think, or think you and I have so much in common that it actually surprises you that it matters to me how certain facts are presented? The source affects the substance, and my POV has been consistent to that, so it should come to you by no surprise that it hasn't changed.


Originally posted by StellarX
I trust your motives less than his as anyone who has actually watched his latest movies know there is far more good than bad and his standards are quite a great deal higher than most of the so called 'investigators' out there.


Well, of course! It would be a sad statement if you trusted my motives more than the man whom you've been defending by attacking me. However, I don't care if you trust my motives or not. I also do not compare him or his standards to other 'investigators' (other than my quip about Geraldo) as I find most media corrupt when it comes to issues that really count-why do you think I've come to ATS?

"More good than bad" you say...Hmmmm....isn't that how even some people justify war and the means to an end of getting there?...."more good than bad"...it's sad to lose some troops, (bad) but we must protect our entire country and those of other countries from terrorism (good)... I guess it just serves everyone to expect everyone to accept anything that has more good than bad, no matter what the bad is or where it will lead, huh?


Originally posted by StellarX
His public persona has largely been constructed by those in the media that would rather see him dead
Oh my! BAHAHAHA Now you are getting really dramatic! I can see why you love Moore so. The media would rather see him dead? The mainstream media are pawns they don't care either if someone is dead or alive. His public persona comes from his own goofy self, his website, his blogs etc. At least that's mainly where I've come to think of him as a fool.


Originally posted by StellarX
and if such media manipulation drives the more ignorant among 'truth seekers' away from reality that is just too damn bad and i doubt we would benefit much by their 'support'. Those who are easily swayed one way are easily swayed another and the lure of 'convention' is normally quite overwhelming.


I agree, to the facts and premise, not to your insinuations. "Such media" to me would be mainstream and Moore mainstream as it's become as well. I personally am not easily swayed, and I feel bad for those that don't do their own research, can't have original thoughts, or come to their own conclusions, regardless of popular opinion, convention, or celebrity back-up, etc but by merely watching a Moore movie are easily swayed...because likely, you are right, if Moore goes down, so does their support...or if Moore fades away...so will they...so in fear we have people like you, the defenders of Moore in full force...but does it help?

I personally hate having to discuss how I am not a brainwashed paranoid left winged Fahrenheit 911 Moore fan conspiracy zealot just because I do not agree with mainstream thought.


Originally posted by StellarX
most certainly don't 'revere' him and i find people who indulge in such mindless hero worship quite stupid and useless in this particular battle. Anyone who seeks a leader for his supply of truth and reality don't in my opinion serve humanity very well. I just don't see why you think this has gone to his head as all i see him doing is try cash in on his 'celebrity' (and he did not seek it in my opinion..) by using it to gain more publicity for his work which will not be a bad thing anywhere but America where his allegations must be denied for anyone to feel comfortable at all.


Blah blah blah blah, I was agreeing with you until the same rhetoric about how he didn't seek any celebrity and how he cashes in on it only to further the cause of truth etc...see you don't understand we could be on the same team for truth and similarly disgusted by the mindless sheep of America, and mainstream media...I do not question your motives as you question mine just for questioning the validity of Moore as a source of spreading truth, but that is what it boils down to. I do not like Moore or appreciate his work, and you do. I believe he is detrimental to spreading truth to those who need to accept it most, you do not. See, I will tell someone to come to ATS long before I'll tell them to watch a Moore movie.


Originally posted by StellarX
There is no accounting for taste and i most certainly do not agree with some of his methods or approaches to 'exposing' the truth. Frankly i feel it may very well be the only way you get something done in America as personality cults seem to be the norm.


No, no accounting for taste. Glad to know you don't agree with all his methods or approaches. So you do agree then, that Moore's fan base is seen as a personality cult...can you then see why those that try to spread truth run into problems of credibility when they are seen as silly Chicken Littles following after the likes Moore? Hard to break that stereo-typing and quite frustrating.


Originally posted by StellarX
I find the right wing American commentators to be far more offensive, maniacal, obsessive and the right wing media's defense of their created reality far less acceptable than any of the so called ' liberal ( what liberal media? ) media outlets.


Give me a break. What liberal? There is left and right media according to whom the government has in charge and to whom it targets. Those that think the media is conservative and right-winged and deny when the media is liberal and left are ignorant to the overall corruptness of the media as a whole. The American media is a tool of the government.


Originally posted by StellarX
So now you want to turn away from reality and focus on what can be 'sold' to a skeptical public in such deep denial? I think what you are suggesting is quite a great deal worse than what he is doing. He is not responsible for who believes the truth as long as that is what he is spreading.


I want to turn away from reality you say? No, not at all. But when it comes to truth and sensationalizing it, Moore degrades it, and what good is truth if it is degraded, how can it be spread as truth then-who will listen?


Originally posted by StellarX
Sadly the vast majority of even the 'truth seekers' wants leadership and many have apparently found one in him. Remember that just like church goers the average guy who is attempting to discover the truth also needs his sermons and prayer sessions and that has much more to do with the human condition than anything Michael is doing right or wrong. You can blame human nature but don't hold him responsible for doing what his loyal supporters demand of him.


Sad if he does what he does because his "supporters" ($$ching ching$$) demand it of him. As for church and sermons and the human condition, I would HOPE, anyone seeking spiritual truth and enlightenment and a leader for such, would choose someone sincerely humble, honest and enlightened, and not a clown, like Moore.


Originally posted by StellarX
That i am not but since i feel this is a particularly mindless and unwarranted attack against his person i will point out why i think you should leave him alone and spend the time informing people on ATS where it is relatively hard for them to evade your attention.


I don't like Moore. I have many reasons. None of them are mindless, nor is my opinion, nor is the attack you perceive it as, unwarranted. I have reasons for my opinion, and for stating it, and for defending it. You merely feel it is mindless because it is not your mind, but mine I speak. We disagree about Moore. I am not out to change your mind about him, and you are not going to change my mind about him.


Originally posted by StellarX
I freely chose to be here and spend my time correcting ignorance when i find it. In your case i think your serving nothing but your own bias by attacking the source, or it's method of propagation, and not the information.


Well, I guess that's good for you. What a lofty endeavor for you to go around here at ATS/PTS/BTS spending your time correcting ignorance when you find it-I hope that includes within yourself. I personally come here to deny ignorance for myself, and to help others when I can, but not because I think ATS needs me to correct the opinions of others to conform to my own, for them to be considered denying ignorance.

As for serving my own bias here. Yeah well I probably am. Why would I be here to serve YOUR bias? I serve my bias here, and state what my opinion is.


Originally posted by StellarX
Since you seem to be suggesting that you think he is deliberately leading people astray ( I'm not sure why else you would feel so strongly)


That is some assumption on your part. I hadn't thought about it until you propose it, but I am sure there is a conspiracy theorist out there somewhere that would show by Moore's hype and rise and fall that over a period of years he was used to actually purposefully discredit the 911 truth movement...but no I've said nothing to suggest I think he is deliberately leading people astray with facts or anything, and though you can not figure out why else I'd feel so strongly, I would not say the answer to that would be to pull reasons out of your rear.

I state in many ways he does keep people from the truth because he, and those who love him so, personally repel certain types, like me, but more importantly others that remain ignorant to many truths I am aware of, but I've never even suggested he deliberately leads people astray.


Originally posted by StellarX
i will need you to elaborate as i have so far found his work to be stand up and his movies well made for the type of audience few documentary makers even attempts to shoot for. The fact that he won best docummentry ( unless you believe it's some conspiracy to undermine 'the real truth') not so long ago should tell us at least something about the quality.


Elaborate on what? I've said why I don't like him and what I think his persona and sensationalism does to the truth and those that need to hear it. I am not going to get into a discussion about documentary filmmaking or the cinematographic values of his films. As for winning "best documentary"...you are talking Hollywood!! That means nothing but hype. It was an anti-right, so of course the majority entertainment-left would support it, but apparently you are unaware of how awards work in America anyway.

Someone who wants to win an award has to apply for acceptance in the category they seek an award in. Yeah, they submit a piece of their best work in acting in a film, directing it, etc. Best movie, best foreign film, best documentary....it's all the same. Pick a category, pick a nominee, and a winner and you will find people who submitted their work, campaigned (shmooozed and brown-nosed) for acceptance (nomination) and further schmoozed to win.

I'm sure you might be likely to defend Moore's seeking of for acclamation as a pure desire to make his work more widely known and thus spread more truth, but I see it otherwise. I don't see his "fame and fortune" as a side effect of spreading the truth, but vice-versa, the spreading of truth as a side effect of seeking something else...something worth fudging facts for and behaving hypocritically for.


Originally posted by StellarX
Then do not attempt to use personal tragedies as excuse for your behaviour; you need not have told anyone but you did and as such i pointed out why you may want to stop posting for a few days.


I didn't attempt any such thing, so don't attempt to paint a picture of me that I would do such. First of all, I don't feel I need to excuse my behavior at all. Secondly, I need not have told anyone, true, but I did. I told you directly. So what? I simply agreed with you that I probably was speaking emotionally in my first post and explained that my father was dying and died, so you could understand I was not emotionally motivated by my dislike of Moore, that my dislike was based on facts for which I dislike him, but my tone, or possibly excessive description of my dislike of him, could have been emotionally exaggerated by extenuating IRL circumstances.

You jumped on that and tried to tell me then I shouldn't post while under stressful circumstances... and I pointed out you have no right to tell anyone when, why, or where to post-and I stand by that. I have even re-read my first post and realize I wasn't really emotionally affected in my writing, there is a reason I said what I said and how I said it and I will post about THAT in another post.

I assumed there was more to my original post when you accused me of being emotional, and me knowing my Dad died, accepted the possibility and just quickly explained how it may have occurred because of the timing-but fact is, I wasn't excusing anything, wasn't seeking to excuse, didn't need to, and still don't...and you still don't have the right to tell people what to do, nor do you have the right to make false accusations as you have here stating fiction and suppositions as fact. You not only make assumptions, but stretch the truth to make implications and accusations. You may not be from the school of More Thought, but I'd say you are from the school of Moore thought.


Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
Again, I'd have to remind you, your opinion of when and what and where I post carries no weight with me.


Nor does yours to me..


Nice try, but I didn't attempt to tell you my opinion of when and what and where you post.



Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
Posting, on any subject, just being here, is cathartic for me and I'll come here whenever I want or need to, maybe especially during very stressful experiences-this place is that great!


Then you will probably he hearing more from me as i don't have great volumes of patience with emotional outbursts that serves absolutely no purpose other than character assassination.


I hardly have great volumes of patience with you self-important types who make assumptions and put words into people's mouths, but I'm humoring you anyway. Oh, and I did not have an emotional outburst, nor was the purpose of my original post character assassination. Could you be more over-dramatic? I'm sure I'll hear more from you anyway, as will everyone, as it seems you enjoy trying to believe everyone in disagreement with you is ignorant and your calling on ATS, your goal of being here is to correct that, right?



[edit on 4-4-2007 by 2l82sk8]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
This film...Manufacturing Dissent... will be shown at Hot Docs, the Toronto International Documentary Film Festival later this month. (I have tickets for the debut of 'Let's All Hate Toronto', myself)

Coming soon will be Moore's take on the American pharmaceutical and health industry. Wonder if Big Health offered any financing to the producers of the former? Wonder if we'd ever find out?



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So basically you just hate his guts no matter how much truth pours forth? Glad i am providing you with some comic relief but i can assure you i have never met Michael or corresponded or care to do either.The good 'authority' i was talking about was some of his colleagues who's opinions i happened to find credible as it's in line with his behaviour. I do not think he is in this for the personal attention and if that is what you believe i think your trying too hard to hate him.


I do not hate Michael Moore, nor his guts. I too am glad in all of this, you do occasionally provide me with some comic relief. Even in your statement that your good 'authority' is based on opinions of his colleagues which you find credible because their opinions are in line with Moore's behavior....well...that's just funny to me!

That's like saying Bush is right in going to war, and I know this because those who support him have opinions in line with his behavior, therefore they are credible, and then if they support Bush then they supply us with good authority to know for a fact his reasons and intentions of going to war are correct and everything he says there are.

There is no difference, so if that is your reasoning, then logically I can say I have it on good authority that Bush didn't want to go to war, but had to, and reluctantly did, to save our country and protect the world.


Originally posted by StellarX
So when you spread the truth you must deny that you want to gain a wide as possible audience trough the normal celebrity channels? This is interesting and i wonder why they must follow different rules ( according to you) than those habitual fabricators of reality that fill our airwaves with garbage.


No, this isn't so interesting as here you go again, interpreting to your own design and making assumptions and presenting them as twisted facts. I think in Michael Moore's words, someone like you would be called something to the affect of a "lying liar" or a "wacko attacko." Or do those terms not apply to those who may attack using twisted facts, but only apply to those that don't agree with Moore?

In any event, no, I do not believe or say that I-or anyone- needs to deny celebrity to spread truth if celebrity comes knocking. I know I'd open the door. So, it is not according to me as you accuse that "they" (truth spreaders, I suppose you mean?) must follow different rules than the media-(I again suppose you mean) I never said such or anything like it.

I point out that I feel he sought validation, celebrity, and acclamation and found it by spreading some truths, and not vice versa. Is that so hard to understand? I never said he needed to play the game by any other means, I just state what game I think he has played. Then furthermore explain that in my opinion, that game and those motives and his actions and personality move to discredit him or his motives somewhat, and thus sheds shadows of doubt on the truths he attempts to spread.

I do not state anything about the rules of the media vs propagators of truth, so please stop putting words in my mouth by trying to gain credibility yourself here by saying something false, but attributing it to me by saying "according to you" when it just isn't so. If you are confused and seek clarification of something I've said or implied or the meaning of an example, please present your question in another format such as "So are you saying..." or "So, do I understand correctly..." etc. thank you.


Originally posted by StellarX
I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but it hardly matters if i am wrong in this instance as what he is attempting to do serves my own purpose of getting information out there so that people have to choose.


I agree the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I don't know that if what he is attempting is really serving your own purpose of getting information out there-in a credible way-so people can choose, because I think you honestly do want people to be well informed. I am impressed by that, but not with Moore.


Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 2l8sk8
What lengths? Avoiding? Are you still addressing me here? Are you confused?


I am confused as to why you think i am not addressing you anymore....


You are? Well, I am confused as to why you are confused that I was confused and wondered if you were still addressing me anymore.


For clarification, you started making all sorts of statements that did not apply to me, about how some people go to great lengths to avoid reality an/or truths, etc, and I certainly am not one of them and do not avoid anything, so I became confused and wondered why you were implying such about me just because I don't like Moore.

So for further clarification, I first sought to see if you were even addressing me still since it did not apply to me, before replying. But it seems to be your M.O. here, or at least with me, it's par for the course to assume things about me and present them as facts as much as twisting things I say to put new words into my mouth.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by 2l82sk8]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Continuing on stellarx... let me comment on your last words to me, and in my opinion, your biggest misconception here.


Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by 2l82sk8X
I don't attempt to discredit his facts or his issues. I state I don't like the man.


This thread was created to discuss his 'facts' and 'issues' and it seems i wrongly assumed that you had something to add to the real discussion.


You wrongly assume a lot, but I'd say in assuming I had something to add to the "real discussion," that is where you finally get something right. I do have something to add to this discussion, the 'real' discussion, and this thread, and I have given my valuable input, whether you appreciate it or not.

And who are you to state why this thread was created or what the 'real discussion' is anyway? Playing God or Mod again?

Did you create this thread for that purpose? No, wait, you did not create this thread at all, did you? NO. So how is it you presume, and where do you get the audacity to state as if it were a fact, that it was created to discuss his 'facts' and 'issues?'

This thread presented in the OP an excerpt and a link to the article which brings into question Moore's ethics and credibility. So,see, it appears you are wrong. Very wrong, as it has never been stated what the purpose of this thread is, however by the OP and the article one can easily surmise the purpose was to discuss that article or points made in it, such as Moore's questioned credibility and ethics, his hypocrisy, etc.


Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe due to the fact that this thread was not created for you to tell us about your personal likes and dislikes about the person. Once again i just assumed , wrongly, that you had something of substance to add...
(snip)

No, once again, here you are wrongly stating something as a fact. Is this a habit with you? Maybe you should work for the press.

The facts are, you did not create this thread! You do not have the authority to say what it was created for, nor can you claim falsely that it was not created for me or anyone to post what their opinion of Moore is!

I see nothing in the OP that states: "Discuss Moore's facts and issues, and please refrain from sharing any personal opinions of him."

Furthermore, you are quite the hypocrite to claim that this thread is to discuss the facts and issues and NOT to post about personal likes and dislikes about Moore when you do that very thing! Your posts talk of why you defend him, why you like him, believe in his work, and why he is so beneficial to the purpose of spreading truth etc.

But your hypocrisy aside...


Originally posted by StellarX[/i
So noted and it's good that even pompous idiots can discover and spread so much truth; it certainly bodes well for you and many, many others.


:shk: No stellarx you just don't get it, it does not bode well for very many when hypocritical pompous idiots represent truths, but repel people from accepting those truths in the process. When they are found to be less than credible or ethical in other means as well, and thus cast doubts on the truths they attempted to spread, as well as casting doubt on the credibility of others who attempt to spread the same truths...even in less sensational, more rational, and more refined ways.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by 2l82sk8]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Fat, lying Hypocrite! ANYONE who believes ANYTHING this fat, bloated, self-serving son-of-a-whore released is dumber than a bag of hammers!

Doesn't invest in stocks? BS - he has hundreds of thousands in stocks from the very companies that he claims to avoid!

Doesn't manipulate? BS - there is evidence that he has done so with newspapers op eds being presented as articles and interviews cut and edited and taken completely out of context to promote his opinions!

He such a piece of... I won't go there cuz I don't want to be warned. Michael More is the BIGGEST liar to ever walk the face of the Earth. His existence makes me sick


I am THRILLED to see that the tables have been turned on this disgusting sack of crap! Hopefully all of the stupid sheep out there who accept anything and everything he has ever produced as gospel truth will get their much needed wake-up call!


Oh, and by the way - before you partisan parrot hacks start calling me a neocon - I hate Bush, I don't support the Republicans and I think ALL politicians are lying pieces of garbage! I am a proud moderate Independent that is equally disgusted with the likes of either Ann Coulter OR Michael Moore. For those of you that support such far-flung ideologies - YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Fat, lying Hypocrite! ANYONE who believes ANYTHING this fat, bloated, self-serving son-of-a-whore released is dumber than a bag of hammers!
(snip)He such a piece of... I won't go there cuz I don't want to be warned. Michael More is the BIGGEST liar to ever walk the face of the Earth. His existence makes me sick


No, seriously kozmo, how do you really feel? what do you really think about Michael Moore... and his "work?"

hehehehehe



Originally posted by kozmo
Oh, and by the way - before you partisan parrot hacks start calling me a neocon - I hate Bush, I don't support the Republicans and I think ALL politicians are lying pieces of garbage!


amen.

Though you and I may have differing opinions on different things, I hate that people are quuick to judge me and I am often discredited in spreading truth as it is assumed I am “one of them” and “they” have become to be seen as left-wing-alarmists-lunatics, anti-right-wing sensationalists and thus not very credible.

But by those very left-winged lunatics I am seen as some “wacko attacko” as Moore would call me, and some head-in-the-sand conservative republican, but then again by the right-wing conservatives I am acussed of bveing, I'm seen as some left wing liberal conspiracy nut. ARGH! Give me a break.

I am for the truth, I seek the truth, I promote the truth as far as I know it and I do not believe you have to go along with the majority, parrot the media, or side with some celebrity or another to defend that truth, and in contrast I feel the media and celebrities and the hypocrisy and scrutiny that is ingrained and follows them is as detrimental to the truth, and in that I feel Michael Moore is a disservice to the truth.



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Oh, and by the way - before you partisan parrot hacks start calling me a neocon - I hate Bush, I don't support the Republicans and I think ALL politicians are lying pieces of garbage!



Originally posted by 2l82sk8
amen.


I wanted to clarify that amen was to "parrot hacks calling me a neocon" etc, and that I believe most politicians are liars and garbage part, but I don't hate Bush.

I don't hate anyone, politician or otherwise, though I really really dislike Hillary Clinton! And Former President Clinton doesn't get any brownie points from me, with the amount of people killed in his cover-ups either.

Ok, 'nuff said.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Well his human and fallible ( or possibly a good old fashioned liar in this case) but if you want to be taken seriously let's have some extracts or links to his statements and the absent evidence.

...

Since i have no opinion about your credibility so far your word is worth absolutely nothing to me; links and references please.



Wow. I can only assume that instead of reading the post immediately after the post of mine that you attempted to tear apart, you just jumped right in. I clearly posted links to the evidence and it's in a post that's earlier than yours so maybe you should read it. I can't wait to see how you manipulate the outright lie that your hero concocted.

If there's one thing I've learned in my years on this planet. It's the power of honesty. Once I know for a fact that somebody has lied to me, every statement they make from that point on is suspect. For this reason, anything that spews out of Mr. Moore's mouth isn't even worth consideration for me.

And since you decided to bring up the "liberal media"...which I didn't even comment on, I'll comment on it too. As a matter of fact, I don't necessarilly think the media is leftwing, I think it's just "bad news". The major news networks very rarely show anything that can be considered "good news", due to this it makes the current administration look bad. So, I guess what I'm saying is that currently the mainstream media appears to be left wing. However, look what they did to the clinton-lewinski scandal...were they left wing then? Mainstream media just reports the bad news, period. That's where the ratings are and that's what people want to see.

I apologize for the delayed reply, I just now revisited this thread.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def