Is Michael Moore's The Awful Truth the Most Entertaining Political Commentary?

[russ_watters]

Actually, in many companies, vacation time and maximum hours of work per week are tightly government regulated. So it isn't common for your boss to screw you over overtime/vacation.

And it is getting rarer in the US too, at least for skilled workers.

edit: It tends to work out in the wash, too. People who make such sacrafices tend to get paid more. Figuring true pay requires calculating total hours worked and benefits.

 

[russ_watters]

Because there's this ill-informed notion from socialists that a person wanting to make a lot of money is just a bloodsucking bastard. What's wrong with wanting to have a large income?

There's the other side of the coin, too - that socialism is generally harmful to economies. There is a balance to be struck, of course, but most western countries already have too much socialism for their own good, and it is hurting economic growth. And that compromise is historically unAmerican: America is a country founded on freedom and individuality. Socialism trades individual freedom and an overall faster growing economy for forced equality and slightly slower growth.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There's the other side of the coin, too - that socialism is generally harmful to economies. There is a balance to be struck, of course, but most western countries already have too much socialism for their own good, and it is hurting economic growth. And that compromise is historically unAmerican: America is a country founded on freedom and individuality. Socialism trades individual freedom and an overall faster growing economy for forced equality and slightly slower growth.

Agreed, I know it's a tired talking point, but socialism provides no incentive for growth. Why would someone want more responsibility if everyone in the end gets a piece of their pie?

 

[JasonRox]

The US has higher growth than most western nations, largely for productivity reasons related to hours worked.

Yeah, you Americans work ALOT. No offense, but not something I'm into. I'm not into 50+ hour work weeks. I will never want more than 40 hours, but 35 hours is preferred for me.

I have no idea how Americans put up with all the work. Sad.

 

[JasonRox]

I don't get paid vacation. I don't even always get two days off per week. I bet even in those countries you mention that there are people who work jobs where they don't get vacation or are not able to take full advantage of it. The one job I had that offered paid vacation would not let us use it except during certain time frames because at many instances it was too busy to not have a full staff. Only one of us could take vacation at a time aswell. Almost every time I asked for vacation I found out that a couple other employees had already taken up all of the possible days for it. They wouldn't pay us out for the accrued time either unless we left the company. So I left the company.

In France, they force you to take vacations. If a company is caught not allowing you to, they are in SERIOUS trouble. It's no joke.

Culture values are strong and countries that have them don't joke about them or let it "slide".

 

[JasonRox]

And France has perpetually high unemployment, low productivity, and low economic growth. Coincidence?

Yes, but isn't productivity per person in France higher?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/27/812/

Basically explains the differences in a different light.

 

[rootX]

Yeah, you Americans work ALOT. No offense, but not something I'm into. I'm not into 50+ hour work weeks. I will never want more than 40 hours, but 35 hours is preferred for me.

I have no idea how Americans put up with all the work. Sad.

It's not hard to find Canadians who are working +50/week. I know someone who is working >10 hrs/day, 7 days a week (on 4-5 months contract).

 

[JasonRox]

Choice.

We do have choice and easy ones too. Any school (all similar prices), any hospital, any drug (all cheap), any job, and just about basically anything.

Do you have that choice in the US? Only if you're wealthy...

 

[JasonRox]

It's not hard to find Canadians who are working +50/week. I know someone who is working >10 hrs/day, 7 days a week (on 4-5 months contract).

Yeah, I know that. I never said Canada is not following the insane work week. Americans do work more than us. (I was talking about the US productivity versus France.)

 

[JasonRox]

Where do people get long wait times? I've been to the hospital 3 times in the past year and the total accumulated time waited for all 3 visits doesn't even total up to 45 minutes. I even got free drugs the one time so I didn't even have to go to a pharmacist. Does the US get that? Nope.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, you Americans work ALOT. No offense, but not something I'm into. I'm not into 50+ hour work weeks. I will never want more than 40 hours, but 35 hours is preferred for me.

I have no idea how Americans put up with all the work. Sad.

We need money for food and clothing and rent money?

 

[JasonRox]

We need money for food and clothing and rent money?

I would hope that doesn't require 50 hours a week! Sometimes it does for some people but I would not for the average person. I wouldn't consider that high living standards.

 

[Cyrus]

I would hope that doesn't require 50 hours a week! Sometimes it does for some people but I would not for the average person. I wouldn't consider that high living standards.

Most americans probably work much more than 50 hours a week to make ends meet.

Look, the USA is not france. We are not a small country. We are a super-power. We have the biggest most advanced fighting force in the world, deployed all over the world. That takes money. Fighting wars take's money. Fixing the infrastructure of such a HUGE country takes money. Don't compare a small country the size of one state in the US, to the entire US.

 

[JasonRox]

Most americans probably work much more than 50 hours a week to make ends meet.

Look, the USA is not france. We are not a small country. We are a super-power. We have the biggest most advanced fighting force in the world, deployed all over the world. That takes money. Fighting wars take's money. Fixing the infrastructure of such a HUGE country takes money. Don't compare a small country the size of one state in the US, to the entire US.

Working 50 plus hours a week is NOT high standards of living. I consider them VERY low. Sorry buddy. We live a life with higher standards in Canada and France and elsewhere in the world.

 

[Cyrus]

Working 50 plus hours a week is NOT high standards of living. I consider them VERY low. Sorry buddy. We live a life with higher standards in Canada and France and elsewhere in the world.

When did I say it was a high standard of living?

Isnt all the medical research done in the USA, and paid for by customers in the USA, so Canada, etc, can buy the end product cheap and give it away cheap. I'd like to see Canada research and develop their own drugs and give it away for free...

Also, last time I checked...what's your military doing? Oh right...nothing. Of course you're going to have more money to put back into the people. You have a lot less over head.

Oh yeah, and have your government have major funding for all areas of high tech research while your at it. Face it, we are the leading country in high tech stuff because we spend loads and loads of money on it. That money has to come from somewhere -taxes.

People want good schools for their kids - taxes

People want a police department and fire station - taxes

People don't want to be blown up by terrorists - taxes

People want the best, most advanced military in the world - taxes...

My friend gets taxed 30% because he's single with no kids. Also, most people have to work two jobs because min wage doesn't cut it at 35 hours a week.

 

[JasonRox]

When did I say it was a high standard of living?

Isnt all the medical research done in the USA, and paid for by customers in the USA, so Canada, etc, can buy the end product cheap and give it away cheap. I'd like to see Canada research and develop their own drugs and give it away for free...

Also, last time I checked...what's your military doing? Oh right...nothing. Of course you're going to have more money to put back into the people. You have a lot less over head.

Um... we do our research. How are you damn ignorant? Sure they're American companies, but there are research facilities in Canada!

We don't need an army. The world doesn't hate us.

 

[Cyrus]

Um... we do our research. How are you damn ignorant? Sure they're American companies, but there are research facilities in Canada!

We don't need an army. The world doesn't hate us.

Oh, so you mean its ok when you make generalizations about the US, but if I do it to Canada you're offended? If you're going to make silly comments about the US, I'm going to make silly comments about Canada. OR, we could both just knock it off.


Jason, our military spending alone is more than the entire world combined. Who do you think pays for that? Candians can rest assured at night that no one is going to bother them because they know if anyone does try anything, and I mean anything the United States government is going to turn that country into a parking lot since it will be viewed as a threat to our security. So, yes you don't have an army jason. Because you don't need one. The US military and US dollar very much pays for your security.

I'd like to know EXACTLY how much research Canada does in comparison to the united states, and how much of your 'free medicine' comes from US companies that did the research. Research is very very expensive. If all a country does is buy the results and doesn't put up any of the money for the R&D, and then boasts about how they give away free medicine, that's sleezy.

BTW, those airplanes you Candian's are flying around in...are american made F-18's. That airplane was made in part with the help of american government agencies like NASA, the US military, DoD, and universities. We put up tremendous intellectual property in the things you guys buy. Let's see Canada design and build their own equivalent F-18 at anywhere near the same price they buy them from the US government.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.washingtonceo.com/home/story-display/article/225/the-health-c.html I didnt read this link, but it has a nice chart to show you in terms of how much we spend on healthcare compared to the rest of the world.

Look at our spending at NIH (a pure research institution) alone, $28 billion annually. That's just government research, and its a quarter of all of what Canada spends on their healthcare.

http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

There's a reason why we have the best military, best medicine, best colleges, best opportunity to advance, as compared to any other country in the world. But you have to work hard in order to obtain these things. That's why this isn't socialism.

You really need to grow up and stop sitting there pointing your finger at americans every chance you get jason. Do you ever hear americans talking about Canadians the way you talk about americas? -Never.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In France, they force you to take vacations. If a company is caught not allowing you to, they are in SERIOUS trouble. It's no joke.

Culture values are strong and countries that have them don't joke about them or let it "slide".

What sort of employment is necessary to have the legal right to those five weeks paid vacation in France? Do you get those five weeks if you are on a temporary employment contract? And what percentage of the work force in France are on temporary employment contracts because their employers can't afford to hire permanent employees due to these mandatory benefits? How long does it take for benefits to kick in once you start work on a regular contract? I think I've read that it's about a year unless you have one of the new contracts which allows a probation period of up to two years before you are permanent. And of course companies like to hire people and then fire them or lay them off before their probation period is up to avoid these expenses. A year makes for a lot of work you can get out of someone. In the US probabtion is only three months tops.

I'm looking and so far I can't find answers to these questions.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, you Americans work ALOT. No offense, but not something I'm into. I'm not into 50+ hour work weeks. I will never want more than 40 hours, but 35 hours is preferred for me.

I have no idea how Americans put up with all the work. Sad.

[separate post]
I would hope that doesn't require 50 hours a week! Sometimes it does for some people but I would not for the average person. I wouldn't consider that high living standards.

That's fine. I work more, I get paid more, I have more money. I consider that a higher standard of living.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but isn't productivity per person in France higher?

It doesn't actually give any data, so it is hard to say what they mean. Given that American workers make considerably more money than their French counterparts, I suspect he means they have higher productivity per hour worked, not overall.

And his attempt at explaining the French youth unemployment problem is pretty silly/illogical.

He's also quite wrong about there not being a need to stay competitive (that 'once you're developed, there is no need to develop more' rediculousness). The simple truth is that if you don't continue to increase your GDP, your absolute standard of living will go down. The easiest example demonstrating that is the price of oil, but the concept applies everywhere. As demand goes up, price goes up, and if your income doesn't go up with it, you can afford less of it. This will become a very serious problem for France (and much of Western Eurpoe), as China develops.

Not a well-written article (and not a mainstream source, I might add).

 

[Alfi]

From
I like / dislike the entertainment that Mike Moore produces
to
productivity in France and vacation time.


back to the OP
I think Mr. Moore is good at what he does. He makes films that people pay money to see.
It's probable that there are productions that show 'other' depictions of the same events but they must not be as good because they are not pointed to/at as often.

In this site, I have noticed that almost all statements are asked to be proven or dis-proven with specific examples. I also notice that Moore's films are only said to be lies or distortions as a whole without any specifics. It would be nice to see an example of 'he said " ..." and that is incorrect because of "...".

 

[JasonRox]

In Quebec City, I met a group of Americans who are in the Navy. The shipped docked off to show tours to the tourists and so on. The ship was accompanied by two Canadian ships, one Australian and one from France. Clearly, the American ship in the group was the best. It had the longest line for the tour and so on. I chose to see the Canadian ships since the line wasn't so long and you get to see both ships in one tour.

The group of Navy I met said they couldn't wait to finish their term and then come live in Canada. For such a great country, it's unfortunate that this is happening. I wouldn't want soldiers fighting for my country with that kind of attitude.

The thing you also need to consider is that Canada has 30 million compared to 300 million in the US. So, you must compare things in terms of GDP and not in term of plain dollars. You have to look at what is representative of what the country is doing. Yes, we spend next to nothing from our GDP onto military objectives. Hence, poor army. We do spend a lot on other things. Remember, our highways are free. We let anyone drive on them for free. That's NOT cheap. We pay higher taxes for this. Anyways, I'd be willing to pay even more taxes to have a better army and to wipe out debt. I even put 5% of my tax return directly on our debt in Canada (optional). It would make no sense for me to say I'd be willing to do it if I don't do it when I have the opportunity to. But yes, I stand by paying higher taxes to keep the life I have. I don't pay much as a student but then again, I never use my tax returns and so on for living. So if I didn't get it back, it wouldn't affect me and neither would paying 3-5% more in taxes.

My roommate was pro-American and he lived in Canada for 4-5 years (from Morroco). After spending 3 months with me, he saw what I was explaining to him is Canadian life. He hated taxes and all that jazz. After those 3 months, he said he'd be willing to pay more to live like that. He basically looked at it like our whole lives is just a big vacation. Sacrifices must be made like paying more taxes, don't spend all your money on things you don't need (PS3, XBOX360, new laptops every year, new cellphone every 6-12 months, a new car when the old one is running solid). I'm sure my roommate still wants to go to America although he rarely speaks about it now. I did insist that he apply for his green card and so on, and to do it now while he's younger.

Also, I would hate to hear Americans think that they only ones contributing to this world. Maybe that's just a cultural thing.

Anyways, some interesting links...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/o...ewanted=all&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=all

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Also, where do people get this long wait time thing in Canada? If you go during rush hour, you will wait awhile for sure. (Canadians can go to the hospital anytime they want with no worries so they all go at the most convenient time which is practically the same for everyone. That is early morning or right after work.)

I've had many surgeries in my life and no I will not count them. I've never waited longer than 2-4 weeks. You just have to know where to go. Canadians all go at the same time and the same place. I went to the doctor 2 weeks ago and it was just after the rush was ending. If you go at the wrong place, you'll wait like an hour or two (at most). But then, I went to a different place and waited 15 minutes. Wrong place plus wrong time equals long wait time. I went after the rush and to a different location. People choose the same location because it's on path to work or on path to go home and so on. So some hospitals and clinic get filled up really fast because that's the number 1 location while some other location has available capacity. (This may not happen in the US because you don't seem to have the freedom to go anywhere.) It's kind of like going to McDonald's. Go during rush hour in the popular part of town, you will wait.

One of the surgeries I needed required a 3 month wait minimum at some hospital and I called that hospital basically because it was the most popular for that kind of procedure. It's just a simple surgery too. So, I went around and looked for other surgeons who perform the surgery like routine and I found a surgeon (you can do this online or through yellow pages since again we don't need to double check with insurance or anything ridiculous). Met up with him so he can see the issue and see what needs to be done, and then I had an appointment 2 weeks later compared to a minimum of 12 weeks. How was the surgery? Just like I expected it to be. Full recovery.

Yeah, so that wait time thing is crazy.

 

[Topher925]

I don't really like Moore, but you can't really argue with him. He gets his information directly from primary sources and while his opinions are biased, they make sense. He should get rid of that fat southern hippie look though. Thats not doing to much for his image.

EDIT: Thanks for taking out nuclear waste Canada!

 

[Alfi]

He should get rid of that fat southern hippie look though. Thats not doing to much for his image.

I don't really think his films are aimed at the white collar wall street types.
He plays to his audience, with an image a majority of people can identify with.

 

[russ_watters]

In Quebec City, I met a group of Americans who are in the Navy. The shipped docked off to show tours to the tourists and so on. The ship was accompanied by two Canadian ships, one Australian and one from France.

I was on a deployment like that, possibly the same one, 6 years ago. Were all the ships roughly the same size frigates and was it a NATO exercise?

Clearly, the American ship in the group was the best. It had the longest line for the tour and so on. I chose to see the Canadian ships since the line wasn't so long and you get to see both ships in one tour.

Ironically, when I was on that deployment, we were with a Spanish ship that was identical to ours. We still had perhaps 5x as many people tour ours - it had nothing to do with who'se ship was the "best". In fact, the American ship was probably an old, obsolte frigate. A real piece of crap.

The group of Navy I met said they couldn't wait to finish their term and then come live in Canada. For such a great country, it's unfortunate that this is happening. I wouldn't want soldiers fighting for my country with that kind of attitude.

Ok, now I understand why you think what you think about Americans - for sailors, every port (while they are there) is the best port they've been to. They are so hard up for some beer and women that it doesn't matter where they are. None of them ever end up living in those ports, though.

I will say this - if you're in Nova Scotia, that is generally considered to be one of the best ports due to the male/female ratio being so favorable.

In any case, that's not a very good cross section of the American population that you observed.

 

[russ_watters]

In this site, I have noticed that almost all statements are asked to be proven or dis-proven with specific examples. I also notice that Moore's films are only said to be lies or distortions as a whole without any specifics. It would be nice to see an example of 'he said " ..." and that is incorrect because of "...".

A google for "Michael Moore Debunk" turns up lots of good hits. Here's one for F911:
http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP080304moore.html

Sicko: http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=20

 

[JasonRox]

I was on a deployment like that, possibly the same one, 6 years ago. Were all the ships roughly the same size frigates and was it a NATO exercise? Ironically, when I was on that deployment, we were with a Spanish ship that was identical to ours. We still had perhaps 5x as many people tour ours - it had nothing to do with who'se ship was the "best". In fact, the American ship was probably an old, obsolte frigate. A real piece of crap. Ok, now I understand why you think what you think about Americans - for sailors, every port (while they are there) is the best port they've been to. They are so hard up for some beer and women that it doesn't matter where they are. None of them ever end up living in those ports, though.

I will say this - if you're in Nova Scotia, that is generally considered to be one of the best ports due to the male/female ratio being so favorable.

In any case, that's not a very good cross section of the American population that you observed.

I went out the night the Navy went out but the only ones to get girls were the French from France. That's what I saw anyways. Lots of laughs that night though.

 

[russ_watters]

Most americans probably work much more than 50 hours a week to make ends meet.

These numbers probably include unemployed (but in the work force) and part time workers, but for the US, they have 34 hours a week and France 26: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Annual_hours_over_eight_centuries

The "standard" work week in the US is 40 hours and the "standard" work week in France is 35. For those stats, they have a lot more vacation and stricter control of overtime, as well as higher unemployment. At the same time, I suspect they have fewer part time, particularly young workers.

Btw, it seems I have been misusing a word here and I want to make sure my meaning is clear: When I have said "productivity", I mean the actual production of the country per worker. This is probably just per capita GDP. When we read about "productivity" in newspaper articles, they are generally referring to output per hour. It should be relatively obvious that the efficiency of workers increases as their hours worked decreases (they don't get tired, burned-out, etc.). But what I'm going after is the effect that has on the overall economy - it makes the economy smaller.

 

[russ_watters]

I went out the night the Navy went out but the only ones to get girls were the French from France. That's what I saw anyways.

Oh, I didn't say they got girls - just that there are a lot of girls there.

 

[JasonRox]

Oh, I didn't say they got girls - just that there are a lot of girls there.

Quebec City is the same way.

I should plan a trip out east though.

 

[LightbulbSun]

So Jason, are you going to explain why socialism is the way to go?

 

[Alfi]

Originally Posted by Alfi
In this site, I have noticed that almost all statements are asked to be proven or dis-proven with specific examples. I also notice that Moore's films are only said to be lies or distortions as a whole without any specifics. It would be nice to see an example of 'he said " ..." and that is incorrect because of "..."....

A google for "Michael Moore Debunk" turns up lots of good hits. Here's one for F911:
http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP080304moore.html

Sicko: http://www.davepetno.com/blog/index.php?itemid=20
__________________hmmm - they're not very good at debunking.
They tend to agree with Moore as to the 'facts' but just try to interrupt them in their own slant. Just as Mike did.

 

[LightbulbSun]

hmmm - they're not very good at debunking.
They tend to agree with Moore as to the 'facts' but just try to interrupt them in their own slant. Just as Mike did.

Did you even read the sources cited? They clearly do not agree with Moore.

 

[vanesch]

Come on, 2 weeks of vacation a year... sad just sad. France, Morroco, New Zealand all get minimum of 5 weeks vacation and the list of countries is bigger (just can't reference them but those 3 I know for sure).

Mmm... I get 11 weeks of vacation a year... (55 days, apart from weekends and official hollidays...)... It didn't take me too long to get used to it

 

[Alfi]

Did you even read the sources cited? They clearly do not agree with Moore.

Why Yes! I did.
That is why I could reply with an informed opinion.

I read and I concluded that they very clearly do not agree with Moore.
However, they do not disagree with any statement that Moore makes either.

Facts/claim: F 9/ll: President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar.
responce : Facts: A tie to the Bin Laden family is not a tie to Usama.

Duh ! nor is any other ( add fictional/additional/sidetracking reference here ) claim to tie anyone to Usama
Ya ?? so what ? Is this a refute to the ties between President Bush and to the Bin Laden Family? Or a sad deflection to try to include things that were not said or claimed?
The relationship as stated, exists.
This is a deflection from the Fact that "President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar." was the claim.
He does, and he still does is the fact.Facts: The Bin Laden family members did not depart until 9/20,
reply : They were allowed to leave by the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism, Dale Watson, but ...
BUT!... ? 'but' doesn't deny the fact as stated.
Did, or did not? the plane leave US airspace when all other planes non warplanes were grounded?

Fact:?? Bush protected Bin Laden by not attacking Afghanistan rapidly or aggressively enough.
duh ! this is only a Mike Moore opinion.
? Why did this site claim that what was opinionated to be a 'fact' to be debunked?NOT very good ! ...at debunking any 'fact' that Mr. Moore states is still my opinion about the site offered and their ability to debunk the facts ... as stated.

 

[Cyrus]

Why Yes! I did.
That is why I could reply with an informed opinion.

I read and I concluded that they very clearly do not agree with Moore.
However, they do not disagree with any statement that Moore makes either.

Facts/claim: F 9/ll: President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar.
responce : Facts: A tie to the Bin Laden family is not a tie to Usama.

Duh ! nor is any other ( add fictional/additional/sidetracking reference here ) claim to tie anyone to Usama
Ya ?? so what ? Is this a refute to the ties between President Bush and to the Bin Laden Family? Or a sad deflection to try to include things that were not said or claimed?
The relationship as stated, exists.
This is a deflection from the Fact that "President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar." was the claim.
He does, and he still does is the fact.


Facts: The Bin Laden family members did not depart until 9/20,
reply : They were allowed to leave by the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism, Dale Watson, but ...
BUT!... ? 'but' doesn't deny the fact as stated.
Did, or did not? the plane leave US airspace when all other planes non warplanes were grounded?

Fact:?? Bush protected Bin Laden by not attacking Afghanistan rapidly or aggressively enough.
duh ! this is only a Mike Moore opinion.
? Why did this site claim that what was opinionated to be a 'fact' to be debunked?


NOT very good ! ...at debunking any 'fact' that Mr. Moore states is still my opinion about the site offered and their ability to debunk the facts ... as stated.

Could you possibly type a response like a normal human being so I can understand that the heck you're talking about?

 

[Gokul43201]

Mmm... I get 11 weeks of vacation a year... (55 days, apart from weekends and official hollidays...)

Wow!

 

[Cyrus]

Wow!

(I think he's a teacher, i.e. summer breaks!)

 

[B. Elliott]

(I think he's a teacher, i.e. summer breaks!)

For most teachers I know, they really only get about a total of two weeks off every summer.

 

[russ_watters]

I read and I concluded that they very clearly do not agree with Moore.
However, they do not disagree with any statement that Moore makes either.

Facts/claim: F 9/ll: President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar.
responce : Facts: A tie to the Bin Laden family is not a tie to Usama.

The point of many of those - and indeed, the MOS of guys like Moore - is that they aren't necessarily untrue, but they are intentionally misleading. That one in particular - what's the point of having it in the movie if it isn't to try to link Bush with Bin Laden? If Bush was merely helping the estranged family members of a madman get out of the country so they didn't become targets of vigilantes, that's not really worthy of being in the movie (and he certainly isn't trying to play up that angle). The only reason to put it in the movie is to imply some sort of Bush-Bin Laden connection in order to pin the blame on Bush either directly (they were in cahoots) or indirectly (Bush supported/financed him).

So you see - the facts actually presented aren't exactly lies, but what they are intended to imply is at best misleading and at worse, implications of untrue facts (sorta implied lies). That's still dishonest. Anyone who has ever had an ethics course knows and every honor code says that intent to decieve is what makes a person dishonest. So while Moore may not, strictly speaking, be a liar, he is dishonest.

More generally, he's a propagandist. Deception is just one part of the propaganda playbook (it's a big one, though), and he uses many others. One of his other prinary devices is appeal to emotion. Images of nuclear weapons in the beginning of and throughout Bowling for Columbine have no relevance whatsoever to the point of the movie, but they produce an emotional reaction that supports his intended argument. Appeal to emotion is so important for a guy like Moore because it turns off people's brains and makes them more succeptible to other forms of propaganda. For a propagandist, what must be avoided at all costs is allowing people the opportunity to think about what he is saying to them.

 

[Evo]

At my last company I got 5 weeks off paid vacation a year plus 8 days of "other' time off. Now I only get three, but will get more as I get more years with them.

 

[lisab]

I get 11 holidays, 15 vacation days, and 12 "personal" days that are to be used as sick days or for personal business, or as what we call mental health days. I take all my vacation and holidays but rarely take more than 3 or 4 personal days a year.

Guess this thread has been officially gang-hijacked.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why Yes! I did.
That is why I could reply with an informed opinion.

I read and I concluded that they very clearly do not agree with Moore.
However, they do not disagree with any statement that Moore makes either.

Facts/claim: F 9/ll: President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar.
responce : Facts: A tie to the Bin Laden family is not a tie to Usama.

Duh ! nor is any other ( add fictional/additional/sidetracking reference here ) claim to tie anyone to Usama
Ya ?? so what ? Is this a refute to the ties between President Bush and to the Bin Laden Family? Or a sad deflection to try to include things that were not said or claimed?
The relationship as stated, exists.
This is a deflection from the Fact that "President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar." was the claim.
He does, and he still does is the fact.


Facts: The Bin Laden family members did not depart until 9/20,
reply : They were allowed to leave by the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism, Dale Watson, but ...
BUT!... ? 'but' doesn't deny the fact as stated.
Did, or did not? the plane leave US airspace when all other planes non warplanes were grounded?

Fact:?? Bush protected Bin Laden by not attacking Afghanistan rapidly or aggressively enough.
duh ! this is only a Mike Moore opinion.
? Why did this site claim that what was opinionated to be a 'fact' to be debunked?


NOT very good ! ...at debunking any 'fact' that Mr. Moore states is still my opinion about the site offered and their ability to debunk the facts ... as stated.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Here is a better review.

Air traffic restrictions were eased by the 13th and commercial air traffic resumed by the 14th so by the 20th it would not have been unsual for them to have been allowed to leave especially after having been interviewed by the FBI which the movie insinuates they weren't.

Moore insinuates close ties between the Bush's and the Bin Ladens through the Carlyle Group when those ties are only circumstancial and do not prove that they even knew each other.

And saying that Bush didn't attack Afghanistan rapidly or aggressively enough is an absolutely idiotic and ignorant statement. They were attacking not a government military but a militia that claims authority of the country. They were also hiding out in cities with civilians or in caves in a landscape that no one but the natives know well enough to walk into without proper preperation and scouting.

 

[grant9076]

Fact:?? Bush protected Bin Laden by not attacking Afghanistan rapidly or aggressively enough.
duh ! this is only a Mike Moore opinion.
? Why did this site claim that what was opinionated to be a 'fact' to be debunked?

As you did not point out, matters of opinion depend on the person's viewpoint while matters of fact are completely independent of the person's viewpoint even if the person believes otherwise.

For example, the following assertions are matters of opinion:
1. Math is more interesting than History.
2. Cindy Crawford is prettier than Angelina Jolie
3. Doughnuts taste better than chocolate candy.

On the other hand, the following statements are matters of fact and their accuracies or inaccuracies are not influenced by personal biases. In other words, they are either accurate or they are not.

1. The sun is a star.
2. 1+1=2.
3. Positive eigenvalues indicate an unstable system.

Similarly, whether Bush did or did not intentionally protect Bin Laden by dragging his feet is in no way influenced by Michael Moore's opinion. This makes the assertion a matter of fact and therefore it is either true or false. Considering the remote location of Afghanistan relative to the USA and the logistics, and planning that it takes to conduct a war, the expeditious nature of the response clearly indicated that Michael Moore's assertions are false.

 

[Alfi]

So you see - the facts actually presented aren't exactly lies, but what they are intended to imply is at best misleading and at worse, implications of untrue facts (sorta implied lies). That's still dishonest. Anyone who has ever had an ethics course knows and every honor code says that intent to decieve is what makes a person dishonest. So while Moore may not, strictly speaking, be a liar, he is dishonest.

That's a nice turn of phase.
I'll have to remember it when next I think about the facts given for the invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps Mike Moore and Bush took the same ethics course.

So you see - the facts actually presented aren't exactly lies,

I guess that would explain why the debunk sites have a such a difficult time.
They are attempting to debunk an opinion or a conclusion but not presented facts.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Why Yes! I did.
That is why I could reply with an informed opinion.

I read and I concluded that they very clearly do not agree with Moore.
However, they do not disagree with any statement that Moore makes either.

Facts/claim: F 9/ll: President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar.
responce : Facts: A tie to the Bin Laden family is not a tie to Usama.

Duh ! nor is any other ( add fictional/additional/sidetracking reference here ) claim to tie anyone to Usama
Ya ?? so what ? Is this a refute to the ties between President Bush and to the Bin Laden Family? Or a sad deflection to try to include things that were not said or claimed?
The relationship as stated, exists.
This is a deflection from the Fact that "President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden Family and with Prince Bandar." was the claim.
He does, and he still does is the fact.

I love how you quote mine the facts portion. I'm assuming that's about all you read. In case you missed the rest, here's the full version:

A tie to the Bin Laden family is not a tie to Usama. Usama hates and wants to kill most of the Bin Laden family because they hate him, they disowned him, and they share a pro-Western perspective. Moore’s “ties” include the fact that James Bath, a co-investor in Arbusto Oil with Bush, also provided investment services to some members of the Bin Laden family. And this proves what? What about the relationship between Saudi Arabia’s US ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family? Prince Bandar has been a high-profile Saudi-US intermediary for many years figuring prominently in attempts to arrange peace settlements in the Middle East during the Clinton administration. An attempted guilt-by-association triple play results in a strikeout for Moore.

Facts: The Bin Laden family members did not depart until 9/20,
reply : They were allowed to leave by the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Terrorism, Dale Watson, but ...
BUT!... ? 'but' doesn't deny the fact as stated.
Did, or did not? the plane leave US airspace when all other planes non warplanes were grounded?

You seem to like to view things without any context whatsoever. You remind me of one of those simple-minded folks who are authoritative in their responses "DID OR DID NOT?! I DON'T CARE ABOUT CONTEXT BLAH BLAH BLAH!" You just stick to your authoritative did or did not. Since you refused to read what came after the but, here is what was said afterwards:

but only after 22 out of a total of 26 Bin Ladens on the 9/20 flight were interviewed by the FBI and after they were checked against various FBI databases. The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission found no fault with the flights. Richard Clarke supported the departures. To this day there is no suggestion or evidence that any of these Bin Laden family members were involved in or had any sympathy with Usama or the 9/11 terrorists. Another big lie falls to the facts.

Fact:?? Bush protected Bin Laden by not attacking Afghanistan rapidly or aggressively enough.
duh ! this is only a Mike Moore opinion.
? Why did this site claim that what was opinionated to be a 'fact' to be debunked?

Did you read what was said after that? No, of course not, because if you did you would see how Moore totally contradicts himself. Since you didn't read that portion, here it is:

Michael can’t have it both ways. Kopel quotes Moore three days after September 11th as saying:

“Declare war? War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on Earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f—wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on Earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request...

But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden’s previous act of terror, our last elected president(Clinton) went and bombed what he said was bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan — but instead just killed civilians.”

So which is it Michael? Too fast? Too slow? Maybe you’d like to wait a little longer to see how things go so you can fully utilize your 20/20 hindsight.

NOT very good ! ...at debunking any 'fact' that Mr. Moore states is still my opinion about the site offered and their ability to debunk the facts ... as stated.

You're not very good at reading full versions of things because you refuse to accept any context. It's either "he did or he didn't" with you which is ignorant and simple minded of you. Shame on you.

 

[Alfi]

Shame on me.
You remind me of one of those simple-minded folks

Name calling doesn't actually make your position stronger.

It still seems ro me that Mr. Moore states some facts and then wraps them in opinion. very biased opinion but just opinion none the less. The process makes money for him.

Then a site treats these opinions as if they were some kind of fact that Moore is pushing, and proceed to try and debunk an opinion.
I seems Mr Moore is quite good at stating facts, but not liked by a few for his opinions.


Is that simple enough?

 

[russ_watters]

That's a nice turn of phase.
I'll have to remember it when next I think about the facts given for the invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps Mike Moore and Bush took the same ethics course.

Perhaps they did, but this isn't a thread about Bush.

I guess that would explain why the debunk sites have a such a difficult time.
They are attempting to debunk an opinion or a conclusion but not presented facts.

Not quite. They are debunking opinions that are presented as facts. And as shown by the couple of very easy examples here, in many cases, the deception is clear-cut even if he doesn't overtly lie. Not a difficult time at all.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Name calling doesn't actually make your position stronger.

It still seems ro me that Mr. Moore states some facts and then wraps them in opinion. very biased opinion but just opinion none the less. The process makes money for him.

Then a site treats these opinions as if they were some kind of fact that Moore is pushing, and proceed to try and debunk an opinion.
I seems Mr Moore is quite good at stating facts, but not liked by a few for his opinions.


Is that simple enough?

No. It's more like Moore states his opinions as facts or as an actual narrative of how history unfolded. He implies conspiracy when there is none.