Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

my thought exactly!

Two people not interested in any kind of discussion, just one-upmanship.

I thought O'Reilly actually got the better of Moore and I'm a staunch Libertarian who can't stand Bill O.

But it could just be because Bill is used to interviewing people in this style and Moore is not.

All in all, a total waste of time.

Blowhard v. Blowhard n/t
 

n

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

Please tell me what in this movie was a lie. I have heard a lot of people say there were lies in it but have never seen a specific example. (I don't know if there are or aren't, but I don't know of the lies if they exist. Just asking for specifics.)

NT

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me what in this movie was a lie. I have heard a lot of people say there were lies in it but have never seen a specific example. (I don't know if there are or aren't, but I don't know of the lies if they exist. Just asking for specifics.)

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Heres an article

and a web page

and a quote from that page:

Michael Moore would have us believe that on 9/11 George Bush threw away seven minutes reading “My Pet Goat” to school children—seven minutes that, had he acted, could have saved hundreds. He’s wrong. But don’t take my word for it—take the 9/11 bi-partisan commission’s word for it (Unless of course you’re a conspiracy theorist, in which case the report has probably exacerbated your paranoia).

[I included this because jokerswild seems obsessed about these 7 minutes too]


and yet another web page

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two people not interested in any kind of discussion, just one-upmanship.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the truth. Instead of actually making points and discussing them (like normal), it seems that each person is looking for the "GOTCHA" knockout punch.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought O'Reilly actually got the better of Moore and I'm a staunch Libertarian who can't stand Bill O.

But it could just be because Bill is used to interviewing people in this style and Moore is not.

[/ QUOTE ]
O'Reilly has much more experience in the dirty style of journalism from his years on Inside Edition (or was it Hard Copy?). Anyway, Bill O. is a master of tabloid journalism.

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

F-911 contains alot of innuendo, after all...it's a film. But from what I've seen, the lies contained in the film are not major ones. For the most part, it's debatable if they are even really lies.

The film can definitely be considered propaganda. With that said, I think it's interesting that the right-wingers have such a problem with it. The right-wind propagandists (Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc.) and strategists (like Rove) have absolutely no problem with spreading information that is deceiving (or in many cases just plain false) on a daily basis. For God's sake, right wing propagandists even have their own news channel.

Considering the uproar that F-911 has made among the right, it would be interesting to see how they would react if the left had Moore (and 3 or 4 others just like him) spreading liberal ideas on the airwaves every day.

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Moore would have us believe that on 9/11 George Bush threw away seven minutes reading “My Pet Goat” to school children—seven minutes that, had he acted, could have saved hundreds. He’s wrong. But don’t take my word for it—take the 9/11 bi-partisan commission’s word for it (Unless of course you’re a conspiracy theorist, in which case the report has probably exacerbated your paranoia).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that's what he was saying. My take was just that he didn't seem to know what the right thing to do was. Obviously, had he immediately gotten up, it would not changed the course of events on that day.

Also, do you look at the actions of George W., or any republican for that matter (or any politician), with the same critical eye that you look at Moore? I'm not looking for an answer, just something to think about.

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, do you look at the actions of George W., or any republican for that matter (or any politician), with the same critical eye that you look at Moore?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should look at everybody with a critical eye, but not make up conspiracy theories as to why they act a certain way. If an action could be taken because a person believes it is the right thing to do, we should give that person the benefit of the doubt that that is why he did it.

When I point out the gaffes of Kerry, it is to make people realize that he would be doing as many stupid things in office as any President has, but I do not attribute his gaffes to "evil intent" or to some conspiracy.

Everything I have done in office has been consistent with doing the best I know how consistent with my beliefs. Moore wants people to believe my actions are evil, selfish, and conspiratorial. Thats why his movie is so wacko. He tried to do the same with the gun industry in his last movie.

Re: Moore vs O\'Reilly Round 1
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think we should look at everybody with a critical eye

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree.

[ QUOTE ]
If an action could be taken because a person believes it is the right thing to do, we should give that person the benefit of the doubt that that is why he did it.


[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know it's what they believe and why should they be given the "benefit of the doubt"? I'm not even necessarily talking about GW here, it could be any politician (or person for that matter). Now, I'm not saying that an "evil" intent should be automatically assumed either, but rather that the facts in the case (whatever the case) should guide such judgements.

[ QUOTE ]
Moore wants people to believe my actions are evil, selfish, and conspiratorial. Thats why his movie is so wacko. He tried to do the same with the gun industry in his last movie.

[/ QUOTE ]
But what if it's true? I'm not saying it necessarily is, but if the facts of the case indicate as such, why would this be so hard to believe? (Of any politician, not just GW). What if his actions are selfish (or bred by the selfishness of others)? There are certainly selfish people out there and certainly some of them do gain influential societal positions. If in fact they were the motivators behind his actions, would he actually admit that?