News Humor: scrutinizing the candidates

[quartodeciman]

This is very appropriate for PF:

link to Tom Tomorrow: THIS MODERN WORLD --->
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17231

Quart

 

[BoulderHead]

lol

 

[GENIERE]

Unfortunately for the Democrats the Wahl "Male Grooming Survey" determined that President Bush has the best hair style of the candidates. Kerry is wrong again.

 

[wasteofo2]

Unfortunately for the Democrats the Wahl "Male Grooming Survey" determined that President Bush has the best hair style of the candidates. Kerry is wrong again.

That would make a great ad contrasteed with something Kerry said just a day ago. Someone asked him something about his ticket compared to Bush's, he outlined differences, then added "And we (Edwards and him) have the best hair!" and then did that retarted laugh of his.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think, if you were to give out team scores Team Kerry-Edwards would beat Team Bush-Cheney.

 

[Njorl]

So, when quantifying DIck Cheney's hair, is it indeterminate, or undefined?

Njorl

 

[Robert Zaleski]

and then did that retarted laugh of his.

It comes effortlessly. After he did his whinny, did you detect any cracks in that horse face of his?

 

[amp]

LOL, funny comic strip, it does illuminate - in the commentary - the uneven, (unfair?), lopsided way the 'conservative' media chooses to portray Mr. Kerry and President Bush.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I don't even think most Liberals believe that President Bush is given the better treatment between the two candidates. The media isn't exactly kind to Republicans.

 

[Njorl]

I don't even think most Liberals believe that President Bush is given the better treatment between the two candidates. The media isn't exactly kind to Republicans.

Then you would be thinking wrong.

I and most other liberals do indeed believe George Bush has been given better treatment by the media.

While Bush made any statement he wanted about Iraq, with no critical analysis from the press, the press was hounding John Kerry about expensive haircuts and Botox.

CNN runs Bush's campaign adds during news segments over and over. They claim it is analysis. Then they don't do any analysis!

Even after being president for over three years Bush is still benefiting from his "underestimation". No measure of competence is expected of him, so criticizing him is just mean.

Papers try to be "fair and balanced", even if this means they have to overlook Bush's blunders and make things up about Kerry. Papers are so terrified of the "Liberal media bias" tag that they would rather be inaccurate.

Njorl

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, look at all the scrutiny given to every single thing said by Kerry, even 30 years ago. Want to guess what Bush was saying and doing at that time ?

A friend of mine has heard reminiscences from a professor at MIT, who was a close buddy of Bush during their Yale years. If you're Republican, you don't want to know what they were doing then !

 

[amp]

I'm independent, Goku43201, old friend do tell what this professor said, do tell indeed.
BTW, there is a NEW documentary film out called 'OUTFOXED' which gets into the outrageous favoritism of just one media giant.

Yes, look at all the scrutiny given to every single thing said by Kerry, even 30 years ago. Want to guess what Bush was saying and doing at that time ?

Right, THEY (for Jdubya - the military or Bush cronies) even (Accidentally?) destroyed payroll records (done in triplicate as well as stored on micro film) that could have shed light on Bushs' military service.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Right, they even (Accidentally?) destroyed payroll records (done in triplicate as well as stored on micro film) that could have shed light on Bushs' military service.

Who are THEY?

I find it laughable that Ted Turner would go out of his way to support George W.

While Bush made any statement he wanted about Iraq, with no critical analysis from the press

No critical analysis? The media has trumped up the NO WMD spiel from Day One. Do you really consider having Ted Koppel read the names of American dead on Nightline as pro-Bush?

I'll give you Fox News. But the rest of the news outlets have been heavily critical of the Bush Administration.

 

[Njorl]

I was talking about the build-up to the war. No mainstream press analyzed the Bush case for war in any meaningful way. It was the single most important issue in our country in the last 25 years, and the press accepted everything the administration said without critique. There is every reason to believe that they had genuine doubts, but they refused to act on them. They became a partisan organ of the Bush administration.

Sure, after the war, when the administration's lies became manifestly obvious, the press could hardly continue to support them. But even now the so-called-liberal-media expect more honesty and intellectual rigor from Michael Moore than they do from George Bush. Have you seen the interviews of Moore? No administration official has ever faced questioning like that. I admit that Moore is a hack. Shouldn't we expect more from our president then we do from a hack? Not according to the "liberal media". They still write articles that they feel sorry for poor Dubya being bullied by Moore.

Njorl

 

[Prometheus]

But even now the so-called-liberal-media expect more honesty and intellectual rigor from Michael Moore than they do from George Bush. Have you seen the interviews of Moore? No administration official has ever faced questioning like that. I admit that Moore is a hack. Shouldn't we expect more from our president then we do from a hack?

Excellent point.

Even after evidence for all of the Bush justifications for the war have been shown to have been lies or based on errant information, Bush still pretends that he was right, and a great many people do not seem to care about the lies and misinformation.

 

[quartodeciman]

Moore is an artist. It pops out ineluctably out of its subject and bias. View the film in abstract, as if it were a rediscovered vestige from an earlier age. Let the other side try to make something equal to it.

 

[quartodeciman]

poles say Bush is ahead

Next week they are going to ask the latvians.

{it works better as a spoken gag}

 

[Gokul43201]

A recent poll (Newsweek, I think) said that Bush's chances were best with Powell as Veep. Fat chance, that happening !

 

[JohnDubYa]

Moore is an artist. It pops out ineluctably out of its subject and bias. View the film in abstract, as if it were a rediscovered vestige from an earlier age. Let the other side try to make something equal to it.

First of all, I don't want our side to stoop to producing such films.

Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?

 

[quartodeciman]

First of all, I don't want our side to stoop to producing such films.

"stoop"? I guess that means you don't think the idea good.

Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?

What is there to explain away? What is "mere" about being an artist? Oh, the Motion Picture Academy votes based on what the members like, whatever their reasons for it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

What is there to explain away? What is "mere" about being an artist? Oh, the Motion Picture Academy votes based on what the members like, whatever their reasons for it.

His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct? And if it was, he is not merely an artist.

Moore is a propaganda film maker, distorting the truth in order to further a political agenda.

Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.

 

[Gokul43201]

Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.

For a minute there, I thought you were taking about FOX News...but I guess not, eh ?

 

[russ_watters]

Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?

Simple - its an Oscar.

His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct?

You're assuming a criterion for the award which does not exist.

The best description of the type of movie I've seen is "mockumentary."

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

 

[Njorl]

Simple - its an Oscar. You're assuming a criterion for the award which does not exist.

The best description of the type of movie I've seen is "mockumentary."

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

Moore is nothing like Limbaugh. Moore very rarely tells outright lies. He certainly tells them less frequently than the president. The worst he does is juxtaposing controversial statements that lead one to come to a false conclusion. Hard to condemn him for that since it was the Bush administration's primary mode of operation to get us into Iraq.

Rush Limbaugh knowingly lies on a constant basis. Generally he has several blatent, defamatory lies per hour.

People have been tearing Moore's movie apart looking for lies, and they just are not finding them. There is some chance he may have lied about when the Bin Laden's were flown out of the US. Yes, there is stupid innuendo like implying we went into Afghanistan for a pipeline (though he doesn't come out and say it), but the majority of the movie is solid. Is it one sided? Yep. It is a documentary, and like all documentaries, it is one sided. When questioned about the one-sidedness of his movie, Moore responded that the entire press had been on the other side of the issue, so his one-sidedness did not account for much.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Moore is nothing like Limbaugh. Moore very rarely tells outright lies.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought Limbaugh up, but if you can substantiate that (outright lies), I'd appreciate it.

Propaganda is the art of getting people to believe that which is not true. In the US, it requires deception, but not outright lies - for some reason people think deception is ok. Moore is a master at it.

People have been tearing Moore's movie apart looking for lies, and they just are not finding them. There is some chance he may have lied about when the Bin Laden's were flown out of the US. Yes, there is stupid innuendo...

The problem is that people aren't paying enough attention (in a movie, that's easy because the director/editor controls the pace), they don't realize that they are taking the inuendo and finishing the sentence/providing the implied answer. You (the audience) provide the lies for him! His talent/skill really is impressive, but I consider that type of deception to be just as bad as an outright lie. A fact can be checked and verified. An inuendo cannot.

I found http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm to be informative. I'm currently reading his latest book ("Dude, Where's my Country") and it appears to be what the movie is based on. There are some things in the book that you can't do with a movie though - like overloading it with citations for the appearance of credibility and to shift th burden of proof.

 

[Njorl]

Here is Limbaugh's lie from yesterday.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407150010

The site is usually good for a couple of outright lies from Limbaugh every week.

There are few human beings more dishonest than Rush Limbaugh.


Another site dedicated just to Rush.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
Njorl

 

[quartodeciman]

His movie was either a documentary, or it wasn't.

That's tautologous. No argument there, also no interesting information.

If it wasn't, then he did not deserve the Oscar, correct? And if it was, he is not merely an artist.

Whether one thinks he deserved it or not, he got it because the MPA decided to give it to him. They could have given it to any filmmaker. It is their's to give, not mine.

Moore is a propaganda film maker, distorting the truth in order to further a political agenda.

Well, there you are. You distrust the content. Leni Riefenstahl made a political propaganda film that probably distorts truth about the world of the 1930s. It is "Triumph des Willens" and a fabulous movie. Maybe F9/11 will be regarded highly far in the future when everybody has forgotten the Iraq war, neocon US executive and everything else associated with this time. I say it may have the values to justify that. It remains to be seen whether that is true or the film just gets forgotten.

Suppose the Right made a movie that used special 3-D effects to place a hated politican (say, John Kerry) in compromising situations that never occurred. Suppose that much of the public believed the incorrect story that was portrayed and the filmakers made no attempt to correct the story. In fact, the film makers intended the audience to form the wrong impression of history. Would you support such a movie? After all, such 3-D techniques are considered an art-form.

I wouldn't likely know all those conditions were true until after the fact. If the movie were well made I might enjoy it and even praise it, all the while disowning its premises. As for "supporting" a movie, I interpret that to mean investing money in it. I'm too much a skinflint to put money into a movie. So under that interpretation, I guess I wouldn't support this movie and I haven't supported F9/11 either (except for price of admission, and I don't consider that "support". It is just the cost of seeing a movie).

P.S. I'm not particularly keen on 3D effects. But I might overlook that if the movie revealed things I hold to be valuable.

 

[Gokul43201]

There are few human beings more dishonest than Rush Limbaugh.

Njorl

I'd put Matt Drudge right up there with Limbaugh, but he is less influential.

Speaking of lies , here's a few interesting sites :

www.tvnewslies.org
www.whoslying.org[/URL]

 

[russ_watters]

Here is Limbaugh's lie from yesterday.

Well...

Eighty percent of them will admit it [emphasis added]

Sounds like a prediction that turned out to be erroneous. In any case, the site you linked did not characterize it as a lie.

This may be a topic for another thread though...

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Well... Sounds like a prediction that turned out to be erroneous. In any case, the site you linked did not characterize it as a lie.

This may be a topic for another thread though...

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

 

[Prometheus]

In any case, he's quite free to make such movies and write such books - I just don't want to hear any Democrats complaining about Rush Limbaugh ever again.

Even if you made this comment in jest, I do not understand it.

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

 

[Gokul43201]

edit: interesting poll though: 54% identify themselves as moderate, 34% as liberal, and 7% as conservative. I wonder what the actual voter registration stats are for journalists - 54% would be quite a lot of registered independents.

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's Scarborough Country) and (FOX's) Bill O'Reilly call themselves moderates.

They're not really journalists, but this seems to suggest to me that more conservatives prefer to call themselves moderates.

Or am I the only one that thinks the above two (esp. Joe) are NOT moderates ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

One man makes a movie that you do not like.

First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors.

Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

This article suggests that many of the self described moderates may actually be...sssshhh! closet liberals.
www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p2.asp - 32k

 

[russ_watters]

Even if you made this comment in jest, I do not understand it.

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy. Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

Yeah, I considered that too, but I don't know. If so, that's dishonest, but not a flat-out lie. Wait, who were we talking about again?

Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC's Scarborough Country) and (FOX's) Bill O'Reilly call themselves moderates.

They're not really journalists, but this seems to suggest to me that more conservatives prefer to call themselves moderates.

Two examples does not equal a pattern. I would expect to find the opposite.

 

[Prometheus]

First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors.

Please provide here a few of the most significant factual errors that you noticed.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

Please explain this in plain English. You might understand what you mean, but there is no way that I can understand how this follows unless you explain it.

 

[Prometheus]

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if a person watches Moore's film and also hears Limbaugh speak, then that alone is enough to qualify the person as a hypocrit if her were to complain about either one of them? How does this follow? Please define hypocrisy so that I can understand how you consider it to apply in this context.

Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

What are you saying? No people who call themselves Democrats have any right at all to complain about anyone who calls himself Republican, no matter how dumb he may think that person, and your reasoning for this is that some guy named Moore made a film that you don't like? I now understand how some religious people think that all mankind are hopeless sinners due to the sins of the first man. That is the argument that you are making, isn't it? Unbelievable??

 

[JohnDubYa]

Please provide here a few of the most significant factual errors that you noticed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

Please explain this in plain English. You might understand what you mean, but there is no way that I can understand how this follows unless you explain it.

Criticizing Rush Limbaugh for distorting the truth, then supporting Moore when he does the same. I think the inconsistency is obvious.

 

[Prometheus]

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Yes, because they would be hypocrites.

Please explain this in plain English. You might understand what you mean, but there is no way that I can understand how this follows unless you explain it.

Criticizing Rush Limbaugh for distorting the truth, then supporting Moore when he does the same. I think the inconsistency is obvious.

To you it is obvious that such people are hypocrites because they support Moore yet criticize Bush. Look at the complete set of our postings on this topic above. In the very first post, I made it clear that such people were not involved in making the film. Nowhere did I, and nowhere did you, claim that these people had watched the film or that they had agreed with it. You made that assumption all on your own, never bothered to tell me until several posts later, and just started throwing out the word hypocrite. I think that we can never agree on anything if you are thinking about critical points that are never made.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

I went to this entry level site and read the one linked article that I could find. It has nothing to do with what you say. All links from that page are similar. If you have a link to a page that supports what you say, please provide me a link directly to a page. Anyway, I asked you what you claim are important points where Moore lied. Can you provide me with some in your own words?

 

[JohnDubYa]

To you it is obvious that such people are hypocrites because they support Moore yet criticize Bush.

I thought we were talking about the criticism leveled at Rush Limbaugh?

Look at the complete set of our postings on this topic above. In the very first post, I made it clear that such people were not involved in making the film. Nowhere did I, and nowhere did you, claim that these people had watched the film or that they had agreed with it. You made that assumption all on your own, never bothered to tell me until several posts later, and just started throwing out the word hypocrite.

I think it is obvious from the context that we were talking about people who saw the film and liked it. I mean, c'mon.

I went to this entry level site and read the one linked article that I could find. It has nothing to do with what you say. All links from that page are similar. If you have a link to a page that supports what you say, please provide me a link directly to a page.

You would not be satisfied with any link I provide, no matter how damning. I will leave it up to the rest of the readers on this board to read the link and decide for themselves if Moore is a complete fraud or not. I am not going on a wild goose chase hunting down information just so that you can say "That isn't enough."

Anyway, I asked you what you claim are important points where Moore lied. Can you provide me with some in your own words?

So you can come back and say "Well, that's just YOUR opinion"? I am not going to fall for that one. Just read the link -- the information is there. And if readers of this thread don't agree, they can say so.

And Balkan, we already know your answer. :)

 

[Njorl]

I think what Limbaugh did to come up with 80% liberal was discard the moderates, since they're neither self proclaimed liberals or conservatives. So 34 + 7= 41(the whole) and 34/41=83% liberal and 17% conservative.

I think it is pretty darn clear that what Rush did to come up with the 80% number is tell an outright lie. When you read 34% liberal and say 80% liberal, it is called "lying". Thes lies he tells make his audience happy. The happy audience makes his ratings high. The high ratings make Rush rich. Is it really that hard?

Njorl

 

[Prometheus]

I think it is obvious from the context that we were talking about people who saw the film and liked it. I mean, c'mon.

If you look back at the very original phraseology, the word used was Democrats. This definition was never expanded, altered, or clarified, expect in your mind. How can you expect the rest of us to guess that the word Democrats does not mean "Democrats" but rather "all people who have watched and liked the Moore movie"? The only word used thus far has been Democrats. You insert a bizarre meaning to the word, and then suggest that everyone should realize what you mean by it. I mean c'mon.

You would not be satisfied with any link I provide, no matter how damning.

When I clicked on your link this morning, I went to a different page from yesterday, and this is the one that you were intending. I read it. There are some arguments that are worth considering. After all, there are certainly different takes on most ideas.

I have a question for you, and I would appreciate an honest answer. You said that you agree with the following, and that such people are hypocrits:

One man makes a movie that you do not like. Therefore, you state categorically that millions of people who were not involved in making this film no longer have any right whatsoever to complain about the rantings of an unrelated idiot who has had his brain tied behind his back his whole drug-ridden career.

Given that you agree with this, then you surely agree that all Republicans (and of course you realize that the word Republicans is obviously based on your definition, and refers to those people who have ever agreed with Limbaugh or like people) have no right to complain against Moore. After all, what is true for "Democrats" who like Moore is equally true for "Republicans" who like Limbaugh or like people. This is of course true, is it not? It would be hypocritical for people to believe otherwise, would it not?

Have you ever appreciated Limbaugh or like types? Don't you think that Republicans who complain about Moore's film are by their very act of complaining therefore hypocrits themselves?

 

[Prometheus]

Millions of people watched the movie. Millions of people listen to Rush. If some of either of those groups complain about the other group's talking head's existence, that's hypocrisy. Democrats often complain that Republicans have the market on propaganda cornered. I never bought it before, but now they have no room to complain at all.

You say that now that Moore has produced this film, all Democrats give up any right to complain.

In like manner, do you not also contend that due to the existence of Limbaugh all Republicans have long ago given up any right that they once had to complain?

Since you accuse all Democrats at the same time for the actions of a few, are you also implying that YOU no longer have any right to complain as you are in this thread, as that would be hypocritical?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You said that you agree with the following, and that such people are hypocrits:

Where did I agree with the statement? In fact, I pointed out an objection to the first line. You must have me confused with someone else.

So to clarify, here goes:

Those who saw the movie and liked it have no complaint about Rush Limbaugh.

There! That should settle the issue regarding my feelings.

 

[Prometheus]

Where did I agree with the statement?

See posting #33.

In fact, I pointed out an objection to the first line.

Where? I cannot find your objection, certainly not in #33.

You must have me confused with someone else.

OK. Am I wrong about your posting #33 and its contents?

So to clarify, here goes:

Those who saw the movie and liked it have no complaint about Rush Limbaugh.

There! That should settle the issue regarding my feelings.

Yes. Finally, you have made yourself clear. People who watch and like a movie that you feel contains factual errors have no right to complain against an obvious idiot. Fair enough.

One last set of questions: Have you listened to and have you ever appreciated anything said by Limbaugh? If so, do you feel that you would therefore have no complaint against Moore without being a hypocrit? If you like Limbaugh, which I do not know, would we all be justified in considering you a hyprocrit for having complained about Moore's film in this forum?

 

[JohnDubYa]

In fact, I pointed out an objection to the first line.

Where? I cannot find your objection, certainly not in #33.

The first line of my post states...

"First of all, it isn't that we merely dislike the movie. The movie contains numerous, intentional, factual errors."


That was my objection to the first line.

Now read Post 38, where I clarified my stance:

Criticizing Rush Limbaugh for distorting the truth, then supporting Moore when he does the same. I think the inconsistency is obvious.

In other words, those that SUPPORT MOORE (and not just Democrats) are guilty of hypocrisy. (And how could you support Moore on this issue if you haven't seen the movie? Therefore, it was implied.)

[/quote]Yes. Finally, you have made yourself clear. People who watch and like a movie that you feel contains factual errors have no right to complain against an obvious idiot. Fair enough.[/quote]

I like the two statements: "... that I *feel* contains factual errors" and "... an *obvious* idiot." You couldn't write a fair sentence if you tried.

One last set of questions: Have you listened to and have you ever appreciated anything said by Limbaugh?

Straw man. Those who saw Moore's film and merely appreciated something that was in the movie -- as opposed to being a supporter -- are not the subjects of this thread.

Again, you continuously slant the emotion of language each time you describe Limbaugh and Moore in the same sentence. One's factual errors are just "perceived", the other's are "obvious."

Try to state a question that isn't loaded for a change.

 

[russ_watters]

Since you accuse all Democrats at the same time for the actions of a few, are you also implying that YOU no longer have any right to complain as you are in this thread, as that would be hypocritical?

If you consider what I'm doing complaining (about Moore's existence), go back and read my posts more carefully. I'm not a hypocrite (and not a Rush fan either). I said more than once that Moore is free to do his thing. My point was simply that you won't hear him ridiculed on the House floor for spewing deceitful propaganda like Rush has been. The double-standard exists on the left side of the fence.

edit: I think there is a reason for that too. The tendency of the media and entertainment industry to lean left gives those industries a perceived (by them, and by liberal politicians) edge in getting a liberal message out. When that edge is challenged, there is a backlash.

edit, edit: More on Moore - I'm not sure if I said it before, but I'm reading his book (borrowed it). I'm not finding anything in it - nothing I don't consider transparently deceitful, nor anything particularly compelling or profound. I really do admire his ability to get so much out of a dry well and am disappointed by those who can't see through him.

 

[russ_watters]

I went to this entry level site and read the one linked article that I could find. It has nothing to do with what you say. All links from that page are similar. If you have a link to a page that supports what you say, please provide me a link directly to a page. Anyway, I asked you what you claim are important points where Moore lied. Can you provide me with some in your own words?

The first sentence of the linked article:

In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush.

Again, sometimes the difference between "lie," "factual error," "propaganda," and "baseless inuendo" is tough to tell. Regardless of how you characterize the claim using those words, it was misleading and deceitful.

Now, I said before that Moore's talent is that he can be extremely deceitful without telling flat-out lies: taking $220 million and turning it into $1.4 billion is a good one, but whether its "just" a deception or actually a lie isn't a line I'm real concerned about.