Capitalism will Prevail

[Kimmo]

...are you really blaming Moore for making a very good living at what he does?

 

Nope. Seems a bit of hypocrisy in operation, though.

 

how is his money situation "hypocrisy"?

[billcoe]

how is his money situation "hypocrisy"?

 

I could talk a lot of sh*t about Michael Moore, but I don't recall him asking US to bail HIM out? So even if he did make 50 million, he's not asking congress for help is he? Did I miss something?

 

From the trailer, it looks like he had very little and still turned it into an interesting watch.

[Buckaroo]

Do you really think anyone believes that "appropriate" government oversight is bad? The only arguments you'll get from 99.99% of self-described Capitalists is in degrees.

 

the only trouble is like right now when there is so very little effective or "appropriate" oversite.

 

the bankers are doing whatever they fricking want to.

[Buckaroo]

...are you really blaming Moore for making a very good living at what he does?

 

Nope. Seems a bit of hypocrisy in operation, though.

 

Moore is simply another side of the same coin as Limbaugh, et al.

 

not even close, Moore exaggerates but he usually gets his facts correct. about 75% of the time Limbaugh is essentially fact free.

[Fairweather]

Moore exaggerates but he usually gets his facts correct.

 

You don't really believe that do you?

[j_b]

...are you really blaming Moore for making a very good living at what he does?

 

Nope. Seems a bit of hypocrisy in operation, though.

 

Not really. He isn't gambling with people's investments and retirement funds, refusing people the minimum wage or union busting, or doing anything else highly unethical that would deny someone his human and economic rights. He is probably overpaid but that is the lot of most the media-entertainment industry. At least he uses his access to an audience to attempt moving things forward.

 

Moore is simply another side of the same coin as Limbaugh, et al.

 

Moore's movies are all fact-based. He editorializes but you can go on his web site to check that he has debunked all criticisms to the effect that his movies were inacurate. Limbaugh is a gasbag who lies through his teeth most of the time (or is so badly deluded one wonders how he has access to a pulpit).

[Fairweather]

Moore's movies are all fact-based. He editorializes but you can go on his web site to check that he has debunked all criticisms

 

 

A truly amazing demonstration of the moron mindset. "It's all true, because he says so on his website!"

[billcoe]

Moore's movies are all fact-based. He editorializes but you can go on his web site to check that he has debunked all criticisms

 

 

A truly amazing demonstration of the moron mindset. "It's all true, because he says so on his website!"

 

...and yet you bring NOTHING to the table to debunk Moore or anything he has ever said. I personally know there is plenty, but what does that say about you?

[Fairweather]

The onus falls upon the one making the claims. Ask j_b and Buckaroo where their faith in Moore is grounded.

[j_b]

It is standard operating procedure for FW. He knows that his position is untenable so he resorts to insulting and demonizing one liners. It just shows the type of readers he targets that he rarely attempts to provide a cogent answer. Pathetic really, but then again he can always count on the 15-20% dead-enders that didn't find anything wrong with the Bush administration.

 

I don't fact-check everything that goes into Moore's movies but the times I checked (notably when the wingnuts tried to smear him over columbine and F911), it was quite accurate. I suspect it is possible that he made errors somewhere but I'd think it is pretty rare.

[j_b]

The onus falls upon the one making the claims. Ask j_b and Buckaroo where their faith in Moore is grounded.

 

No. You are making the claim Moore's movies aren't truthful. The onus is on you to support your assertions and unsurprisingly you never do.

[Fairweather]

Since I'm bored, I'll waste a few minutes on you. Hell, if even Hitchens thinks the guy's a fraud, well...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_911#Controversy

 

"The film generated substantial controversy and criticism after its release shortly before the U.S. presidential election, 2004. British-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens contended that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths.[32] This drew several rebuttals, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.[33] Former Democratic mayor of New York City Ed Koch, who had endorsed President Bush for re-election, called the film propaganda.[34] Moore published a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document that he says establishes agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission.[35]"

[j_b]

Nice circle-jerk you have there. Hitchens is a closet neocon who still supports the invasion of Iraq. Koch is an establishment conservative who supported Bush. Plenty of pundits didn't like F911 but I haven't heard one who had a leg to stand on as is typically the case.

 

Basically, per usual you don't have anything, except insults and fear-mongering of course.

[AlpineK]

Fairweather rebutted ITCC findings on climate change by providing us with links to papers published by veterinarians from southern Oregon regarding the subject.

[Kimmo]

Since I'm bored, I'll waste a few minutes on you. Hell, if even Hitchens thinks the guy's a fraud, well...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_911#Controversy

 

"The film generated substantial controversy and criticism after its release shortly before the U.S. presidential election, 2004. British-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens contended that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths.[32] This drew several rebuttals, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.[33] Former Democratic mayor of New York City Ed Koch, who had endorsed President Bush for re-election, called the film propaganda.[34] Moore published a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document that he says establishes agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission.[35]"

 

you do of course realize that not a single point from the film is being discussed above?

 

i believe that if you could provide one single point from the film that you think is non-factual, your position might improve. but, maybe that's not how the game is played?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Nice circle-jerk you have there. Hitchens is a closet neocon who still supports the invasion of Iraq. Koch is an establishment conservative who supported Bush. Plenty of pundits didn't like F911 but I haven't heard one who had a leg to stand on as is typically the case.

 

"Per usual" you attack those rebutting your points rather than the points they make. You asked for evidence that Moore is a fraud, whose "documentaries" are full of distortions, and you got them. I guess it's just an "inconvenient truth" - just like this:

you're a fucking joke, j_b.

 

Basically, per usual you don't have anything, except insults and fear-mongering of course.

 

That sums you up to the letter.

 

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

Deep down he knows that posting a link to Rush's website, while constituting his version of 'bringing out the big guns', will simply earn him ridicule.

 

[prole]

You asked for evidence that Moore is a fraud, whose "documentaries" are full of distortions, and you got them.

 

"The film generated substantial controversy and criticism after its release shortly before the U.S. presidential election, 2004. British-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens contended that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths.[32] This drew several rebuttals, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.[33] Former Democratic mayor of New York City Ed Koch, who had endorsed President Bush for re-election, called the film propaganda.[34] Moore published a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document that he says establishes agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission.[35]"

 

I'm not sure this would meet the definition of "evidence". Try harder people!

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You asked for evidence that Moore is a fraud, whose "documentaries" are full of distortions, and you got them.

 

"The film generated substantial controversy and criticism after its release shortly before the U.S. presidential election, 2004. British-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens contended that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths.[32] This drew several rebuttals, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.[33] Former Democratic mayor of New York City Ed Koch, who had endorsed President Bush for re-election, called the film propaganda.[34] Moore published a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document that he says establishes agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission.[35]"

 

I'm not sure this would meet the definition of "evidence". Try harder people!

 

 

Not the "point" j_b made.

[j_b]

Nice circle-jerk you have there. Hitchens is a closet neocon who still supports the invasion of Iraq. Koch is an establishment conservative who supported Bush. Plenty of pundits didn't like F911 but I haven't heard one who had a leg to stand on as is typically the case.

 

"Per usual" you attack those rebutting your points rather than the points they make. You asked for evidence that Moore is a fraud, whose "documentaries" are full of distortions, and you got them. I guess it's just an "inconvenient truth" - just like this:

you're a fucking joke, j_b.

 

 

Terrible logic as per usual. FW cited wikipedia as if the people mentionned in the quote were to be trusted regarding Moore's work. No point they made was cited. I simply pointed out some of the reasons why these people couldn't be trusted to be impartial.

 

Basically, per usual you don't have anything, except insults and fear-mongering of course.

 

That sums you up to the letter.

 

 

 

anyone knowing our respective histories of posting here probably had a good laugh.

[Fairweather]

Fairweather rebutted ITCC findings on climate change by providing us with links to papers published by veterinarians from southern Oregon regarding the subject.

 

That's I-P-C-C, genius boy.

[Hugh Conway]

Fairweather rebutted ITCC findings on climate change by providing us with links to papers published by veterinarians from southern Oregon regarding the subject.

 

That's I-P-C-C, genius boy.

 

Couldn't you have found some Dentists expounding?

[Kimmo]

Fairweather rebutted ITCC findings on climate change by providing us with links to papers published by veterinarians from southern Oregon regarding the subject.

 

That's I-P-C-C, genius boy.

 

i sincerely hope you're rolling eyes at yourself, cliff.

[Fairweather]

Why? Because CC.com's most moronic moderator can't even get his own church's name right? I guess it's possible that he did, in fact, mean ITCC, since this is the Chicago venue where he first sucked Obama's cock. Looks like you've been there too:

 

http://www.itcc.org/

 

 

 

 

[Kimmo]

Why?

 

because you're clutching at straws, and you STILL haven't come back with a SINGLE misassertion from Moore. i mean hell, even liberal me can call shit on SOME thing of that fat fuck's (i love you mike!).