Which is worse: sleazes, or hypocritical sleazes?

[rmcrobertson]

In the interests of morality and bipartisanship, try:

http://www.comedyontap.com/features/congress.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/01_conason.html

And here's a goody on right-wing TV padre, Pat Robertson and his ilk:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5489&abbr=cs_

 

[Cruentus]

THis exactly shows why good churchgoing people need to start voting on freedom rather then values. If one votes for the freedom to choose what morality to follow and what lifestyle to live, then people, churches, and communities can decide what their values are. If you vote on values you end up voting for "champions of morality" like these Deusch bags, who don't really give 3 hoots about your values. They care more about their power and your money.

But, I guess its much easier to let the powerful and the wealthy demonize "liberals" and Clinton for the thinning of the moral fabric while they keep everyone else poor, AND tell us how to behave, all the while behaving however they want.

But shucks.... as long as I have a car, cable, and Micky-d's I don't need to think or vote or buy logically...

Herd the sheep, herd the sheep....baaah!

 

[Melissa426]

Sounds like the next topic for a Michael Moore movie.:whip:​

​

Peace,​

Melissa​

 

[Cruentus]

Sounds like the next topic for a Michael Moore movie.:whip:​

​

Peace,​

Melissa​

Yea. It'll probably be like all his other ones...you know, how he presents a bunch of facts to support his thesis, causing moderate to conservative people to watch it and get really pissed off because the thesis violates there illusions, so they use that as the excuse to completely ignore and and all facts.

Yup...I could see the next movie topic already myself.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, it'd be terrible, wouldn't it? A Moore movie laying out the facts, getting into the constant bombardment of moral judgments and demands from these folks, and then asking: so, if you really think that these guys are the guardians of decency and morality in America, and you voted for them on that basis, then why...?

Particularly hilarious are the endless sexual scandals involving the guys who went after, and after, and after, the Clintons.

Here's another goody, illustrative of the total hypocrisy of the ACLU (American Communists and Liberals Union)--why, those traitors are actually defending people no matter what their politics and proclivities! How DARE they!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/13/backing_limbaugh_aclu_goes_to_court/

 

[Melissa426]

I might actually go see this one, when and if it is made. I have no opinion about his movies, since I have never seen one... just not a big movie person, haven't been to a movie in about 6 months. He's got a knack for picking interesting topics, I understand.
The Fast Food industry would also be a great subject, too.
I hear MM's current project is the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Cryozombie]

Moore's Facts...

Add that to the list of Oxymorons.

Moore's VEIW of the Facts? Ok...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please illustrate exactly which factoids Moore has gotten wrong. Generally speaking, even Moore's harshest critics complain about the way he puts the factoids together, and about context, rather than attacking his facts.

While that one's being worked on, heeeere's a goodie from the other side of the aisle--one that beautifully illustrates what gay-bashers who scream, "traitor," all the time are actually up to. You'll want to glance at both, to get the max comedy effect.

First,
http://www.impeachreno.org/foxtrans080700.shtml

Then,
slate.msn.com/id/2064436

 

[Cryozombie]

Please illustrate exactly which factoids Moore has gotten wrong.

Certainly. I can give you one he outright LIED on, and I know becuase I have firsthand experience with it... It RUINED his credibility with me.

Go watch his old, short lived TV show, Specifically where he Blockaded the Gated Community in Rosemont, Illinois and then get back to me.

I had a friend who lived in that community, I visited her regularly, and I can point out each and every point Moore Lied/decieved the public about.

But you have to grab it and watch it first.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, no. Please simply offer one demonstrably-untrue "fact," advanced by Moore, explain how you know it to be untrue, and provide more than anecdotal evidence to substantiate that claim.

It would be best if this concerned something non-trivial, and was patently not a simple stupid mistake. For example, it should be very easy--if Moore's so loose about the truth--to go to "Fahrenheit 9/11," and easily find all sorts of lies about Bush.

Thanks.

And meanwhile, on something non-trivial, try:

http://www.bushlies.com/

 

[Cryozombie]

Sorry, no. Please simply offer one demonstrably-untrue "fact," advanced by Moore, explain how you know it to be untrue, and provide more than anecdotal evidence to substantiate that claim.

Sorry, no.

You are obviously unwilling to be shown that you too can be mistaken about your idols, So until you are willing to listen and investigate along to those of us who actualy know and dont just buy what he is saying because he tows the same line as us, I can consider your opinion to be uninformed trip-trap and beneath notice.

After all, you were the one who demaned proof, I was willing to give it to you, but you wont bother to veiw the footage I set forth.

But I suppose i am the one with the closed mind, eh?

 

[Cryozombie]

And... BTW, it doesnt matter how "trivial" the lie told... If you are willing to lie about somthing small to prove your adgenda, you are certainly willing to lie about somthing big.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So you don't HAVE any specific examples, but you are willing to try and deflect the problem elsewhere by calling names. Excellent scholarly practice.

See, basically the way to handle this is to say: "If you look at Moore's film, 'NAME HERE,' around an hour in, you'll see a scene set in, 'name here,' in which the following claim is made: 'insert Moore's claim here. Now I happen to know that that isn't true, because, 'insert proof here.'"

When you make a claim, the burden is on you to support that claim: you claimed that Moore lies/gets it wrong all the time, so...

As a general logical rule, incidentally, a) people who lie about small things (which is everybody), MAY lie about big things, but b) people who lie about big things (for example, WMDs in Iraq) can probably be depended upon to lie about other big things.

For example, here're a couple of goodies on the late President Ronald Reagan, including a personal favorite: the Gipper apparanetly told Prime Minister Menachim Begin that he had been personally present at the liberation of a concentration camp in Germany.

The source is "The washington Post," but see:
http://www.bartcop.com/bigliar.htm

 

[Cryozombie]

Ah. So you don't HAVE any specific examples, but you are willing to try and deflect the problem elsewhere by calling names. Excellent scholarly practice.

No, sir... I have specific examples, But before you will understand them, you must watch the Moore Video Segment I pointed out.

YOU REFUSED.

Hmm. Who's defelecting? That would be you. *I* didnt refuse to point out specifics, YOU refused to veiw my sources.

 

[rmcrobertson]

You gave no specific examples, just a claim that somewhere in a whole movie there were Things Wrong.

If they're so obvious, you should be able to list specifics easily: then, we can go look them up. You should be easily able, too, to give your own references, and explain why we should trust them rather than Moore.

But if one recalls correctly, you've made this claim before, on another thread--and there, too, there were no specifics or documentation, simply claims that Moore had distorted things.

Meanwhile, bizarre rightist hypocrisy in Africa!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4387805,00.html

Fortunately, this could never happen here...well, it could happen with J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, Bob Bauman, that guy who used to be head of the RNC...

 

[Cryozombie]

Ok, since you are unwilling to watch the clip you will have to take what I say at face value.

Moore came to my house and punched me in the face, and then when I said "why did you do that Mr. Moore," he said "I am not Mr Moore, I am his evil twin Mr. Moore" and then he ran screaming.

I mean come on. I can SAY anything.

To take a page from "your side" of the argument against people who bashed F911, "How can you comment if you have not seen it". If you will take a moment to educate yourself by watching the Moore Video I pointed out, I will be happy to point out the blatant LIES to you.

But you wont... you are obviously either scared of what you will discover about your Hero, or just plain not interested in the truth. Either way, I have no more time to waste trying to educate the uneducatable, cuz when you know it all, there is no more room in your head for anything else... A typical problem faced by people on your side of the fence.

 

[rmcrobertson]

That's all ya got? A demand that folks watch a whole movie, looking for who knows what, so you can supply unsubstantiated claims about who knows what later--coupled with a couple cheezy insults?

Nope.

Meanwhile, two more goodies. The first comes from townhall.com, and features good old Colonel North talking about how important democracy is, in Iraq.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050107.shtml


The second comes from a summary of Iran/Contra hearings and conclusions, and shows just how important good old Ollie actually thinks democracy is.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_i.htm

One just loves this stuff...these guys are so easy to catch out, if one but looks a little bit. But see, what we don't do is simply demand that everybody go read everything Col. North ever wrote, and we'll tell you what the problems are later...WHAT! you mean you WON'T!! Well, we just can't talk, then.

 

[loki09789]

In the interests of morality and bipartisanship, try:

http://www.comedyontap.com/features/congress.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/01_conason.html

And here's a goody on right-wing TV padre, Pat Robertson and his ilk:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5489&abbr=cs_

I'd say that a 'sleaze' is going to be hypocritical so this is really redundancy but, between the two, I'd say the Hypocritical Sleaze is better because the hypocracy will raise warning bells for us that something isn't right. If the sleaze is too smooth, then he/she gets away with so many more chickens from the coop before we find out what is really going on.

 

[Cryozombie]

That's all ya got? A demand that folks watch a whole movie, looking for who knows what, so you can supply unsubstantiated claims about who knows what later--coupled with a couple cheezy insults?

Last time I looked, I asked you to watch 1 segment on Rosemont IL out of a 30 minute televison program. Gee, I didnt realize 10 minutes of research was asking so much of you.

 

[Tgace]

Apparently youre either "with him or against him" Technopunk.

Can one be a liberal and not believe Michael Moore?
Can one be a conservative and not be a folower of Rush et. al??