• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Michael Moore=Rush Limbaugh

S

Sahrin

Member
I just listened to a BBC Reporter try to interview Michael Moore. This guy just didn't want to here about reality. One of the questions I think was "Was war in Afghanistan justified?" Moore's answer? "no." The interviewer was completely shocked, it was hilarious. Moore tried to make the case that weren't it for the oil in Afghanistan (Afghanistan has HUGE oil reserves, apparently...there's no different way to route that pipeline), we would have tried to hunt Bin Laden (with the aide of the cooperative virulently Anti-American Taliban, I suppose) without launching an all-out war in Afghanistan. His exact words were "you don't go after the landlord, you go after the tennant." The Bush Doctrine, perhaps? How is it possible that people who identify themselves as liberal are able to say, with a straight face, that Michael Moore has some good ideas, and with the same breath curse Rush Limbaugh for spewing idiotic nonsense. Any thoughts regarding that, or is anyone ready to concede the post title?
 
Michael Moore = Anne Coulter = Al Franken = Rush Limbaugh

All of them are overblown windbags who excel at pandering to their core demographic and manipulating things to fit their skewed view of reality.

Frankly, I think the lot of them do far more harm than good by making honest, civil debate impossible by polarizing the issue into "You agree with us, or you're evil/liberal/commie/pink/fascist/fundie/whatever-viewpoint-they-hate."

I hope the lot of them come down with an incurable case of laryngitis and writer's block simultaneously and never recover.
 
Originally posted by: MachFive
Michael Moore = Anne Coulter = Al Franken = Rush Limbaugh

All of them are overblown windbags who excel at pandering to their core demographic and manipulating things to fit their skewed view of reality.

Frankly, I think the lot of them do far more harm than good by making honest, civil debate impossible by polarizing the issue into "You agree with us, or you're evil/liberal/commie/pink/fascist/fundie/whatever-viewpoint-they-hate."

I hope the lot of them come down with an incurable case of laryngitis and writer's block simultaneously and never recover.
Click to expand...

Amen!

We'd all benefit if everyone made more of an effort to understand both sides of every position, and perhaps even acknowledge that the people on the "other side" have some valid points.
 
I disagree for a couple reasons:

1) Moore doesn't spew his opinions daily

2) Moore's style puts forth an arguement that directs the audience to consider the issue at hand, I haven't seen F/911 yet so it might be different than BFC. OTOH, Limbaugh puts forth a Conclusion and harps on it.
 
Originally posted by: Sahrin
I just listened to a BBC Reporter try to interview Michael Moore. This guy just didn't want to here about reality. One of the questions I think was "Was war in Afghanistan justified?" Moore's answer? "no." The interviewer was completely shocked, it was hilarious. Moore tried to make the case that weren't it for the oil in Afghanistan (Afghanistan has HUGE oil reserves, apparently...there's no different way to route that pipeline), we would have tried to hunt Bin Laden (with the aide of the cooperative virulently Anti-American Taliban, I suppose) without launching an all-out war in Afghanistan. His exact words were "you don't go after the landlord, you go after the tennant." The Bush Doctrine, perhaps? How is it possible that people who identify themselves as liberal are able to say, with a straight face, that Michael Moore has some good ideas, and with the same breath curse Rush Limbaugh for spewing idiotic nonsense. Any thoughts regarding that, or is anyone ready to concede the post title?
Click to expand...


Well put....Thank you!

Politics usually has two very opposite extreme realms....In each case both of them lack any sort of objectiveness, ration, or ability to compromise. Some people will try to make excuses for this type of stuff, purely because it fits the type of agenda they are trying to promote. People who blindly buy into Michael Moore?s (or Cultur's, or Limbaugh's) rhetoric without questioning it are the same kind of lemmings who once bought into the anti semantic agenda under Hitler?s rule and the Cold War propaganda that immediately followed.
 
Originally posted by: Mockery
Originally posted by: Sahrin
I just listened to a BBC Reporter try to interview Michael Moore. This guy just didn't want to here about reality. One of the questions I think was "Was war in Afghanistan justified?" Moore's answer? "no." The interviewer was completely shocked, it was hilarious. Moore tried to make the case that weren't it for the oil in Afghanistan (Afghanistan has HUGE oil reserves, apparently...there's no different way to route that pipeline), we would have tried to hunt Bin Laden (with the aide of the cooperative virulently Anti-American Taliban, I suppose) without launching an all-out war in Afghanistan. His exact words were "you don't go after the landlord, you go after the tennant." The Bush Doctrine, perhaps? How is it possible that people who identify themselves as liberal are able to say, with a straight face, that Michael Moore has some good ideas, and with the same breath curse Rush Limbaugh for spewing idiotic nonsense. Any thoughts regarding that, or is anyone ready to concede the post title?
Click to expand...


Well put....Thank you!

Politics usually has two very opposite extreme realms....In each case both of them lack any sort of objectiveness, ration, or ability to compromise. Some people will try to make excuses for this type of stuff, purely because it fits the type of agenda they are trying to promote. People who blindly buy into Michael Moore?s (or Cultur's, or Limbaugh's) rhetoric without questioning it are the same kind of lemmings who once bought into the anti semantic agenda under Hitler?s rule and the Cold War propaganda that immediately followed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Lemmings are usually the first ones in line at the Polling Places.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree for a couple reasons:

1) Moore doesn't spew his opinions daily
Click to expand...

??????????????????????

A simple check of his Web site would reveal that he does spew his opinions daily. Maybe, it's not in film form, but he does spew any chance he gets.

Michael Moore = Anne Coulter = Al Franken = Rush Limbaugh
Click to expand...
Agreed. If you are an individual who uses these individuals to reinforce your views ... well, no further comment.
 
Originally posted by: MachFive
Michael Moore = Anne Coulter = Al Franken = Rush Limbaugh

All of them are overblown windbags who excel at pandering to their core demographic and manipulating things to fit their skewed view of reality.

Frankly, I think the lot of them do far more harm than good by making honest, civil debate impossible by polarizing the issue into "You agree with us, or you're evil/liberal/commie/pink/fascist/fundie/whatever-viewpoint-they-hate."

I hope the lot of them come down with an incurable case of laryngitis and writer's block simultaneously and never recover.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better.

In regards to the "with us or hate us", that's because the simpletons in our midst like to live like that. Die hard libs or repubs are that way because it means that they don't have to think.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Unfortunately Lemmings are usually the first ones in line at the Polling Places.
Click to expand...

How true.....How unequivocally true........🙁

This coincides with my belief that the Primary system is directly responsible for all the pathetic Presidents we have had over the years. The extremists have too much influence in who actually gets the parties bid. Leaving the rational, more moderate, choices excluded like spoiled leftovers.......(McCain and Edwards come to mind here)
 
Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh? I think you have it. Both sides are extremely radical, and while both sides also have good ideas, they don't represent the majority of the American public. I don't know of many senior citizens (who represent the largest single voting group) listening to Rush or Moore. Both of them spew unqualified opinions. If you want to listen to someone who knows a thing or two about the way politics work, listen to those scholars who study PoliSci as a job. Especially listen to those who are not the most well-known.
 
But what's more entertaining to listen to/watch? Someone who is extreme left or right? Or someone who just sits on the fence?
 
They are all the Same, Yet Nobody has ever had anything as Funny as the Caller Abortion. I still Laugh at that to this day.
 
I don't know if you can put Al Franken in with those guys. He actually checks his facts most of the time. M.M. and R.L. just start with a conclusion, then manipulate facts (or take out of context video or audio) to try to support that conclusion.
Not to say that Franken is a nice person to hise opponents , but he doesn't go around spewing bald-faced lies everyday, like many (coulter, limbaugh, ted rall)
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree for a couple reasons:

1) Moore doesn't spew his opinions daily

2) Moore's style puts forth an arguement that directs the audience to consider the issue at hand, I haven't seen F/911 yet so it might be different than BFC. OTOH, Limbaugh puts forth a Conclusion and harps on it.
Click to expand...

>>If you had listened to the BBC interview, you would know that he does.

And as for that fact that he makes an argument provides evidence...if you are under the impression that Limbaugh does not, you are gravely mistaken. To someone who leans conservative, his arguments are very persuasive. He uses publicly available facts, his own opponent's news outlets (at least that's how he describes them) etc. etc. to make his points. Weren't it for the fact that they conveniently avoid the truth, he would be president.

That last paragraph also perfectly describes Michael Moore.
 
I have to disagree on the Al Franken comparison as well. I have still yet to see anyone refute(with evidence) a single point he made in his books (O'Reilly's attempt at confronting him at that book thing was pretty funny though). And if he made a mistake he would be perfectly willing to admit it. I doubt you could say the same about Moore, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc....

Pretty much every other host on Air America falls into the Rush Limbaugh category though.
 
I do get a kick out of Franken's stuff and I'd like to think I can at least smell the points in his books where his case is either relatively weak or simply a joke.

Quoting the steamy scene in O'Reilly's novel in his dramatization of the Florida recounts had me spewing pop out my nose when I listened to it. That's entertainment! 🙂

I could jump on board a Moore=Rush comparison. While I don't think they're spot on the same, they likely have far more similarities than differences. Personally, Rush gets a huge eyeroll from me. Moore, on the other hand, gets an occassional eyeroll. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
I disagree for a couple reasons:

1) Moore doesn't spew his opinions daily

2) Moore's style puts forth an arguement that directs the audience to consider the issue at hand, I haven't seen F/911 yet so it might be different than BFC. OTOH, Limbaugh puts forth a Conclusion and harps on it.
Click to expand...


Right the big difference is that Moore includes supporting evidence and analysys for his conclusions.

Rush + analysys + documentation = Moore
 
Moore quotes people out of context, cuts and pastes his interviews so as to make the interviewee's answers best fit the impression he's trying to get across, and has been known to blatantly distort the truth and manipulate facts beyond the point of recognition.

If Moore claimed he was a journalist, he'd be in breech of nearly every bit of ethics they're supposed to practice.
 
Pete Townshend clarifies another Moore distortion

Michael Moore has been making some claims ? mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.

He says ? among other things ? that I refused to allow him to use my song WON?T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.

[...]

I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn?t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven?t seen. But he?ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Pete
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: MachFive
Michael Moore = Anne Coulter = Al Franken = Rush Limbaugh

All of them are overblown windbags who excel at pandering to their core demographic and manipulating things to fit their skewed view of reality.

Frankly, I think the lot of them do far more harm than good by making honest, civil debate impossible by polarizing the issue into "You agree with us, or you're evil/liberal/commie/pink/fascist/fundie/whatever-viewpoint-they-hate."

I hope the lot of them come down with an incurable case of laryngitis and writer's block simultaneously and never recover.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top