Michael Moore the Fraud

[lI1|1!]

more the fraud

[olyclimber]

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070618105243.pdf

[olyclimber]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=alwTfX67vh5M&refer=politics

[mattp]

Not that I'm suggesting Mr. Moore is beyond stretching the truth, but I checked out a "Michael Moore lied 59 times" website and I found it rather amusing: there was lots of detail there and footnotes galore, but the overall complaint was that Moore presented things in such a way that the facts could not be proven wrong so much as he painted an inaccurate story by assembling facts that were prejudicial.

 

The first three things I looked at were where the author pointed out that Moore "lied" by saying that Bush would have lost the Florida election had there been a recount, the second was that Moore "lied" about bush family connections with the Saudi royal family, and the third was that he lied about the # of vacation days Bush took during his first 9 months as president. In each of this case, the author did a good job of assembling facts to show that something Moore said was not fully accurate, but the substantive assertion Moore made in each case remains correct as far as I know.

 

If the other 56 "lies" told by Moore are of similar caliber, I'd say his critics really have little to complain about.

[Dechristo]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

[kevbone]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

Man...what an OLD saying....my father used to say that.

[G-spotter]

Many of the same people trying to prove that Moore lied about various things are also trying to prove that Darwin lied about evolution.

[Off_White]

 

[kevbone]

Michael Moore is no more of a fraud than anyone on this site.

[ZimZam]

Whether MM is a big fat liar or not, the issue that our "health care system" is inadequate, and that profit is the primary culprit is pretty undeniable. Those that think otherwise are deluding themselves.

[ivan]

Michael Moore is no more of a fraud than anyone on this site.

and we've never had a fraud on this site - or their dog, for that matter...fido?

[Couloir]

Michael Moore is no more of a fraud than anyone on this site.

and we've never had a fraud on this site - or their dog, for that matter...fido?

 

Arc?

[Weekend_Climberz]

-

[Weekend_Climberz]

Yup, still works :)

[kevbone]

Michael Moore is no more of a fraud than anyone on this site.

and we've never had a fraud on this site - or their dog, for that matter...fido?

 

Exactly…..how many of you out there post under more than one name?

[Dechristo]

I wonder how many of the defenders of Moore possess the aplomb to assess the claims in his films by watching counter-arguements, like, "Fahrenhype 911", or are his points accepted at face value due to who it is he assails?

[mattp]

I actually do look for counter-arguments and just plain factual background, DeChristo, but if we're casting aspersions according to the political views of those we're casting upon I'd have to observe that the right-leaning posters on this site have been much more prone to posting without actual information, ignoring new facts, and running from the discussion when strong counter-arguments are presented.

[Dechristo]

I'm not casting aspersions due to political leanings. I simply find it common for those with a political persuasion to accept as fact statements that coincide with those leanings.

 

Michael Moore, I believe, is more interested in fueling a "persuasion", than discovering and revealing truths...as are those that defend him without qualification.

[mattp]

Certainly all of us are more receptive to information that confirms what we already believe, but some are more rigid in this respect than others.

 

And yes, I agree that Fahrenheit was intended to present a position more than any balanced factual history - of course. I think, however, that a fair analysis of it would show it was more factual than, say, The Road to 911. I haven't undertaken careful study so I could be wrong.

[JayB]

There are quite a number of factually correct statements in both "Mein Kampf," the Bibble, the myriad Creationist treatises, and virtually every conspiracy theory ever put forward - but the presence of a set of factually correct statements within the context of a larger theory doesn't prove that the central claim put forth in a book or a film is either factually correct or truthful.

 

This seems to be an insight missing from considerations of Michael Moore's work thus far, and this is rather ironic given the fact that people on this thread are riduculing Creationism while falling pray to the very same kind of fallacies that lie at the heart of that body of thought.

 

Perhaps one of Michael Moore's accolytes on this forum would be kind enough to present the central claim at the heart of "Farenheit 9/11"? At this point - much as when creationists stop pretending that what they are really concerned about is the magnitude of the error bars associated with radiometric dating and concede that they are attempting to establish the literal truth of the creation story in the Bible - we can have a real discussion.

[mattp]

Bush is a criminal and incompetent?

[Dechristo]

And yes, I agree that Fahrenheit was intended to present a position more than any balanced factual history - of course. I think, however, that a fair analysis of it would show it was more factual than, say, The Road to 911. I haven't undertaken careful study so I could be wrong.

 

Have you viewed FahrenHype 911?

[mattp]

Nope, but if you recommend it I could invest two hours.

[JayB]

Bush is a criminal and incompetent?

 

Clearly more apostle than acolyte.

 

 

[kevbone]

Michael Moore, I believe, is more interested in fueling a "persuasion", than discovering and revealing truths...as are those that defend him without qualification.

 

 

Great....I agree with his "persuasion".....let him "persuade" all day long.