|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2004 : 12:51:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
www.foxnews.com? Why not just use a White House press release?
@
Are you implying that the article has no merit, or does Mr. Moore's movie misrepresent the facts as this article says? |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 13:09:07 [Permalink]
|
I am implying the article has no merit. At the very least I would no discount the entire movie based on the few(very few) items the Fox article refers to. I also challenge the Camp David statement. I also remember reading for years that no matter how you slice it this wartime president has vacationed more than any other...ever. On this point Moore is solid. Quibble about the details if you want to try and dilute a fact.
I think Bush looked like a total fool sitting there in that classroom finishing his photo-op while someone with their wits about them would rush to a phone to be brought up to speed on the situation and start making some presidential decisions. I don't care that someone on the 9/11 commission thought it was AOK with them. I think he looked like a chump that had no idea what to do without someone there to remind him he was the President of the United Fricken States of America! My God! He sat there looking confused. You could see it in his eyes!!
Yes, I think the article was without merit and I have told you why.
The article was is a weak, poorly thought out attempt at smearing Moore without truly addressing the movie by trying to alter statistics to suit them and grabbing a statement by someone and presenting that as all you need to make a bad leader look like a good one.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 13:22:36 [Permalink]
|
What is it about fundamentalists and FOX News? I know you guys aren't interested in critical thinking with concern to your faith..... but why have you guys latched onto G.W. Bush and FOXNews with such fervor?
Can't you atleast apply the basics of critical thinking to everyday events and especially the words that come out of politician's mouths? Neocon fundies seem to have no problem believing that Clinton = antichrist, but you refuse to even acknowledge that Bush has made mistakes. You all latch onto the Bush admin's talking-points and parrot the soundbites back like the people on FOX News do(and call themselves jounralists).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 14:40:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Yes, I think the article was without merit and I have told you why.
@
Thank you. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 14:48:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
What is it about fundamentalists and FOX News? I know you guys aren't interested in critical thinking with concern to your faith..... but why have you guys latched onto G.W. Bush and FOXNews with such fervor?
Can't you atleast apply the basics of critical thinking to everyday events and especially the words that come out of politician's mouths? Neocon fundies seem to have no problem believing that Clinton = antichrist, but you refuse to even acknowledge that Bush has made mistakes. You all latch onto the Bush admin's talking-points and parrot the soundbites back like the people on FOX News do(and call themselves jounralists).
Calm down Dude, I just wanted @tomic to explain why he thought the article was without merit and not just dismiss it because of the source. I know this kind of rant against "neocon fundies" is a favorite on this site, but I think that's for a different thread. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 16:41:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I know this kind of rant against "neocon fundies" is a favorite on this site, but I think that's for a different thread.
I see it all the time, this willingness for the rightwing to believe that FOXNews is a credible source for facts and that the people there have journalistic integrity.
They are pandering to you. They confirm your pre-existing beliefs, and you look no further. You ever wonder why you hear the FOX punditry squad repeating the talking points that the Bush administration uses? Because whenever the Whitehouse briefs their people on these things they send a copy to FOX. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 16:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Because whenever the Whitehouse briefs their people on these things they send a copy to FOX.
And what does Fox get out of allowing itself to be a part of the conservative propaganda machine? Nothing less than media ownership laws specifically rewritten for foreign owners and rules changed to allow a single company to own more media outlets in a market. Not too shabby. Talk about your quid pro quo. Is it any wonder people have problems with Fox when they are considered a real source of news?
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 05:15:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I see it all the time, this willingness for the rightwing to believe that FOXNews is a credible source for facts and that the people there have journalistic integrity.
They are pandering to you. They confirm your pre-existing beliefs, and you look no further. You ever wonder why you hear the FOX punditry squad repeating the talking points that the Bush administration uses? Because whenever the Whitehouse briefs their people on these things they send a copy to FOX.
Look, refute what the article claims if you wish, but please stop assuming that I believe everything I am told just because I quoted a FOXNews article. If that is the only evidence you have to declare me an unthinking fundie then I suggest that you are not thinking critically. I know your stance on FOXNews but not on what you think about the article itself. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2004 : 19:59:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
<snip>Because whenever the Whitehouse briefs their people on these things they send a copy to FOX.
Is this a documented fact? Just curious - I'd love a source too. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2004 : 00:13:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is this a documented fact? Just curious - I'd love a source too.
It's documented. I'm not sure if the source is entirely credible. I know the source is definitely bias, but the fact-checking and research he does is fairly dependable. Read that in Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", also may have read it in another book who's title/author I can't remember.
There are several instances of republican talking points being published on the web also.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/Luntz.pdf
And it's not in question that FOX repeats the republican talking points as part of their regular agenda. There are a ton of references to that from a simple google search, and you can see it if you just watch FOX news. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2004 : 05:27:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Is this a documented fact? Just curious - I'd love a source too.
It's documented. I'm not sure if the source is entirely credible. I know the source is definitely bias, but the fact-checking and research he does is fairly dependable. Read that in Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", also may have read it in another book who's title/author I can't remember.
There are several instances of republican talking points being published on the web also.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/Luntz.pdf
And it's not in question that FOX repeats the republican talking points as part of their regular agenda. There are a ton of references to that from a simple google search, and you can see it if you just watch FOX news.
I can't bring myself to watch Fox "News."  So I'll have to take your word for it. I'm pretty confident that Franken's book was VERY meticulously researched - it HAD to be since his main bitch was the fundie's lack of accuracy. So I trust that source. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
frotty
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 04:44:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And.... having said that.... I also have to say that M. Moore is a jackass of titanic proportions. I have no doubt that this movie, so well recieved at CANNES, is nothing more than a massive argumentum ad hom directed at G.W. Bush. People like Moore give liberals a bad name!
I know I shouldn't bite, but it's fairly obvious to anyone who's seen the movie that what you "have no doubt" about not only isn't the entirety of the film, it isn't to be found.
Essentially the film begins by tracing the connections between Bush and an old war buddy of Bush's, only noticed because his name was oddly removed from a document which Moore had an uncensored version of, and follows a money trail around the world and back while questioning the motives of all involved.
Not subscribing to any polar recognition of political aspirations, left-right-up-down, whatever, I found the presentation of the facts and connections of people to be revelatory for the most part.
The second half of the film focused on the notion that perhaps the Iraqi people have been painted an enemy and that the soldiers are victims of a lie - they're not defending our country so much as preserving big business, old money. Sitting in a state of the art theatre to watch a film denouncing this was just a touch ironic.
This film is a documentary, certainly, but it also certainly has a lot of fluff which guides a captive, entertainment-seeking audience by the harness towards interpreting certain facts a certain way.
It has a soundtrack. Michael Moore frames shots, aims the camera. There are also edited stock footage inserts that contrast with voiceovers. Get the point? All documentary is subject to the author's fingerprint: the documentary can only be rationally considered a documentation of someone's perception of events and opinions.
For instance, there are plenty of hypothetical questions. What does a hypothetical question document but one person's feeling of what a relevant and otherwise important question might be?
Well, shame on me for arguing someone who dismisses someone for making an argumentum ad hominum because they ASSUME that someone is making an argumentum ad hominum... was that done in an attempt to be clever? |
|
|
|
frotty
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 04:48:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, shame on me for arguing someone who dismisses someone for making an argumentum ad hominum because they ASSUME that someone is making an argumentum ad hominum... was that done in an attempt to be clever?
whoopsy,
I inadvertantly omitted that it appears that by doing this you are in fact making an argument ad hominum (and that's what I was left to wonder about) |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 08:42:22 [Permalink]
|
I talked to a friend of mine, who happens to be conservative and religious, about Fahrenheit 9/11. He said the film is a pack of lies that is giving comfort to the enemy. I asked him what lies, exactly, was he referring to. Had he seen the film? No. But he's heard that China is giving the film its highest rating. China?
It strikes me that if the film is so full of lies, the conservatives would not be content with saying it is a pack of lies. They would, if armed with the truth, organize a full frontal assault on the movie. Name the lies and show exactly how Moore manipulated the "facts." Instead, they have only, as far as I can see, taken half hearted swipes at some of the movies lesser facts and contend themselves with accusations that the movie is liberal propaganda. Well, that it may be. But apparently it is well researched propaganda. The right is throwing softballs at the film. My guess is they really don't want to address the movies main points in an election year for fear that a close examination of those points may not work to their advantage.
Rather than address what they think is wrong with the movie, they have attacked Moore. Over and over again, I see this. I'm still waiting for a point by point rebuttal of the evidence Moore has presented to support his premise. Is it just me? Have I missed the critical breakdown of the movie? The White House has been almost silent on the matter of the film except to say that it's a pack of lies. The speculation is that they feel that doing more than this will only sell more tickets. Huh? So they are content with ad hominum attacks? Would not a full on debunking of Moore's claims be more effective if they want to demonstrate that Moore is indeed lying?
The idea that the movie is giving comfort to the enemy is perplexing to me. First of all, I think our actions in Iraq has given comfort to the enemy, if we are talking about terrorists. Also, I resent being told that we should withhold dissent just in case it might make those who really don't like us happy. I have never been big on the idea that as a patriot I should support my countries actions, right or wrong. If that notion isn't dangerous, I don't know what is...
edited, a little... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 14:18:20 [Permalink]
|
I have noticed that the attacks have quieted down since Farenheit 9/11's opening. I have a feeling that when the movie was catapulted to #1 with sell out crowds they reconsidered all the free publicity they had given Moore and that the result would be even more people seeing the movie than might have otherwise.
Kil is completely correct about the meager swipes at facts that have been attempted. All I have seen are attacks that look like someone trying to take a chip off of the Washington Monument as if that will make it fall down. But there's a hell of a lot of concrete to hold that baby up. I suggest people go see it a few more times. Keep it in the movie theaters as long as possible and keep the discussion going. The President looks really, really bad in this movie and it's not because of a distortion of facts. The most disturbing parts of the movie come from clips of Bush speaking all by his lonesome.
I have heard little murmors about how Moore's points came from clips and quotes being taken out of context but to argue that you usually want to present the entire context so you can judge for yourself. I haven't seen anyone to the trouble of presenting entire speeches and the like so we can see just how Moore took statements out of context. If you hear anyone try this "out of context" argument ask whover is using it just what they mean because after a few weeks I'd still like to know what examples they have of this.
@ |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
