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

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

Simple, but just like Moore it is intentionally misleading.

For one, when you 'wrap your facts in very biased opinion' as you put it well enough, you intentionally obscure the facts. That is most certainly not consistent with someone who is "quite good at stating facts".

In addition, there is also only one real reason to use such tactics: your opinions don't stand up under scrutiny so you have to intentionally mislead to convince people your opinions are viable. People who cut through the intentionally deceptive wrapper see the opinions for what they are: blind religous-style beliefs that are unconnected with reality and unworthy of attention. Ironically enough, that makes Moore's target audience like-minded people who don't really need to be propagandized to agree with him! People who see through the deception are those who have a mindset that leads them to challenge it and they don't go to his movies anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, cool. I was looking for exit polls on Michael Moore movies to see who watches them and I found this: http://allforums.net/archive/t-8278.html

Seems Moore's next movie is going to argue the common conspiracy theory that the 2004 election was rigged, based on exit poll data. Funny stuff.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Oh, cool. I was looking for exit polls on Michael Moore movies to see who watches them and I found this: http://allforums.net/archive/t-8278.html

Seems Moore's next movie is going to argue the common conspiracy theory that the 2004 election was rigged, based on exit poll data. Funny stuff.

Man, oh man, what is Moore going to do starting January 2009?

 

[tribdog]

Man, oh man, what is Moore going to do starting January 2009?

Break his new year resolution to lose weight.

 

[wildman]

To answer your original question: No.

 

[vanesch]

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

Nope, that's the regular thing in France. There used to be legal 26 days of holiday, and then the famous "35 hour week" is in most companies converted in 23 extra days of holiday (while keeping something like a 9-5 day). Now because of years on the job, I got a few more days, then there's a rule that says that if you don't take all your holidays together, you get 2 more days, and then because I'm not a French national, I get 2 more days to go and see my family.

From a macro-economic viewpoint, it's a disaster. But from a personal viewpoint, it's nice :-)

 

[mheslep]

.. our whole lives is just a big vacation. ...

Does not bode well for the future of western civilization. I recall hearing Gov. Schwarzenegger say one reason he immigrated to the US from Austria was he had enough of listening to Austrian 18 year olds talk about their pension plans.

 

[mheslep]

...Also, where do people get this long wait time thing in Canada? ...

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc35/2005scc35.html"

...The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness..

 

[JasonRox]

Does not bode well for the future of western civilization. I recall hearing Gov. Schwarzenegger say one reason he immigrated to the US from Austria was he had enough of listening to Austrian 18 year olds talk about their pension plans.

You're assuming I'm taking advantage or abusing the system and doing nothing. I'm a hard worker. I'm saying it's like vacation because it's a beautiful life if arranged well.

Friends who followed what I do agreed. Some stop driving and started riding bikes and walking and taking the bus around because the cost was so much cheaper. Some things free up income which allow you to do the things you want. None of my friends complain about taxes and are willing to pay more (not all are in school).

The bottom line is that people get benefits from paying high taxes. The only problem now is that everyone complains about taxes in such a way that they hope to keep the benefits while paying no taxes. People like that drive me nuts.

 

[badeany]

if i have two different I beams (connected by bolts through the flange) and a plate of top of that, how would i find the neutral axis? i have the gross cross sectional area, depth and second moment of area of each.

 

[russ_watters]

Man, oh man, what is Moore going to do starting January 2009?

McCain's a republican too, so he'll have plenty to work with. Probably a start with a conspiracy theory about McCain's captivity.

 

[russ_watters]

if i have two different I beams (connected by bolts through the flange) and a plate of top of that, how would i find the neutral axis? i have the gross cross sectional area, depth and second moment of area of each.

I'd start by connecting the beams to the proper forum for the question...

 

[B. Elliott]

if i have two different I beams (connected by bolts through the flange) and a plate of top of that, how would i find the neutral axis? i have the gross cross sectional area, depth and second moment of area of each.

First you must estimate the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

 

[LightbulbSun]

McCain's a republican too, so he'll have plenty to work with. Probably a start with a conspiracy theory about McCain's captivity.

I wonder what kind of title he'll stamp on this one?