News Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

  • Thread starter Tigers2B1
  • Start date
29
0
And thanks Nereid for being a crowning example of a guy who gives liars a free-pass when you agree with their politics. The hypocrisy is just amazing --
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
Nereid isn't a guy. But yeah, I agree with you.
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
Nereid said:
Or, if I may be so bold as paraphrase in terms of this thread ... 'don't vote for (or against) Bush just because of the lies he's told (or not told), nor cast your vote for (against) him just because of the lies Moore told (or didn't tell)' ... or 'this thread doesn't do much to help any reader understand Bush's platform'.
Yeah, pretty much. Weed through the propaganda and vote based on reason.
 
15
0
So, I've been away for most of the week. Do we yet have an example of Moore lying?
 

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
loseyourname said:
Here's a decent overview of the oil situation in Sudan:

http://southsudanfriends.org/issues/oil000614.html [Broken]

Just so that nobody is stupid enough to believe that the reason we are in Iraq and not Sudan is that Iraq has oil. By the way, Venezuela, which is (I believe) either the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the US (it is certainly a larger exporter than Iraq), had a great deal of civil unrest and yet we did not invade and take over there.

War for oil? I don't think so. On to the next vast right-wing conspiracy, please.
So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?

a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.

Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.

AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
loseyourname said:
Nereid isn't a guy. But yeah, I agree with you.
Nereid isn't a US citizen, so cannot vote for (or against) Bush, Kerry, Nader, ....
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,833
5,017
amp said:
Russ Vote for Nader, who is now the republcan 'safe' vote.
Nope. I don't like him either. He pushes a flat tax, right?

Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.
loseyourname said:
I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.
Actually, honesty is more important to me than that. I hate the "lesser of two evils" argument. Call me idealistic (I've been called worse), but I want to want to vote for someone. In last year's election, I didn't vote for a major candidate for the Senate - I voted for someone who I first heard of when I read about him in the newspaper that night. Some organization publishes candidate facts and answers to questions: his was the only answer that wasn't canned. He sounded sincere and real, so I voted for him. I may do the same thing this November.
 

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
russ_watters said:
Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.
:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?
 
464
1
You can make any true claim about your product.
No mention of puffery anywhere in your statement.

Again, is your statement true, yes or no? If yes, then how can you explain the following?


Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.
This directly contradicts your statement, does it not? Just answer the questions.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,833
5,017
Nereid said:
:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?
Well, at an average of $8 apiece, thats 12.5 million people. Some of that is the Howard Stern Effect - if you saw his movie, there was discussion of how people who hated Howard Stern used to listen to him twice as much as those who liked him. Like him or hate him though, Moore elicits a strong emotional response - and that fills seats.
 
464
1
Goebbels had a strong following too.
 

pervect

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
9,554
828
Well, I must admit that I'm mildly interested in what opponents of Moore think.

So I visit this web site - and what do I see? O'Reily - from "Faux" Fox news! He's the guy who's telling the "truth" here

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

It'd be funny if it werent' so tragic.
 
464
1
If you have examples of where O'Reilly behaved in a manner like Moore, feel free to post them. Otherwise, of what value is your post?
 

loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,717
5
Nereid said:
So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?

a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.
a) First, he was one of the worst. Second, removing him and installing a democratic regime could be key to reforming a good deal of the middle east.

b) It was probably more important to the US that he ignored mandates from the US. Israel is our ally, and is also democratic. There is no need to overthrow a democratically elected administration. They can be voted out.

c) N Korea may very well be next if it doesn't shape up. Of course, all of these other nations have nuclear capabilities, which makes it a little trickier to deal with them, and most of them are our allies and have shown no inclination to use their WMD for first-strike. The concern is over regimes having the capability to perform a first-strike using WMD.

Also, with regard to Iran, I was watching the senate hearing before the decision to go to war was made. The intelligence men testifying before the senate sold the committee that they had good reason to believe the Iranian regime might be overthrown by the people of Iran if Iraq were to become democratic. If that is the case, it is better to wait and see rather than go right in and fight two wars.

d) Of course. It suits many interests to have a democratic government in place in one of the largest and most affluent (especially once they get into their oil reserves) nations in the middle east.

e) I'm sure you have a lot of evidential basis from which to make the claim that GW Bush took us to war because he felt his family was slighted, right? Who is he? Agamemnom?

Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.

AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).
Countries go to war over access to resources when there is a dispute over resources and those resources are scarce. You're acting like the US annexed the land and claimed ownership of the fields. Why not open up the reserves in Alaska if oil is such a huge concern? Surely that's easier than fighting a war in the most volatile part of the world for which myriad terrorist groups are plotting revenge.
 
15
0
Note that the new USA-installed government is debating bringing back the death penalty. Yay for executing opposition in a democractic society!
 
464
1
They are not going to be executed for being political prisoners, but for real crimes in which they terrorized a country with brutality.
 

Related Threads for: Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

  • Posted
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
113
Views
11K
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
47
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
376
Replies
19
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top