Moore is at it again (lying as usual)

[GePap]

Drake: an Oscar Wilde in the making!

I see you share the Wit of the Coulter.....

Lets have an honest little poll- how many of theose people attacking Moore had any intention whatsoever of seeing the movie but were convinced not to by this press? anyone?

And anyone in the middle, perhaps thinking of seeing the movie- do any of these pieces make an impact? anyone?

[Ming]

ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL CRAP...

[Giancarlo]

Anything Moore puts out only influences people on the far left for the most part... it is political nonsense intended to please the leftist ears.

Oh by the way, I saw Bowling For Columbine. I wanted to sue because I lost an hour and some odd minutes of my life.

Edit: Sorry Ming.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Sales are, of course, the number one indicator of a work's importance and quality. As such, I think it's about time that we all acknowledge Ann Coulter as one of the greatest writers of our era.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Gibsie, his other film Bowling for Columbine, had some clear misrepresentations in it. And from what I see in the articles I posted, there were several huge factual errors.

I specifically asked for examples from this movie. But huge factual errors? If they are ctual errors, they can't be lies. In which case, you're as bad for Moore for repsenting errors as being lies.

(I hope saying Giancarlo is as bad as Moore isn't too harash a personal "attack", ming )

[Agathon]

The only falsehood I've heard him accused of so far is that it was in fact Richard Clarke who authorized the flights of Saudis out of the US. But I fail to see how that makes a difference, surely Clarke told others in the administration that he was going to do it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Sales are, of course, the number one indicator of a work's importance and quality. As such, I think it's about time that we all acknowledge Ann Coulter as one of the greatest writers of our era.

You just proved that Swedes have no sense of humor, apparently...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Gibsie


I specifically asked for examples from this movie. But huge factual errors? If they are ctual errors, they can't be lies. In which case, you're as bad for Moore for repsenting errors as being lies.

(I hope saying Giancarlo is as bad as Moore isn't too harash a personal "attack", ming )

First off, you are making one big mistake. Because Moore lies about Bush and the war in Iraq in the film, and represents the factual errors as fact.. it is a lie. The man is a idiot with a bad case of mouth diarrhea.

[Agathon]

I don't think there are any factual errors in the film. From the reviews I've seen there is little that hasn't already been gone over; although there are some horrible clips from the war itself that were previously unseen.

I think the mistake people are making is that they assume that Moore draws conclusions where he doesn't. Sure Bush was in bed with the Saudis – that's a known fact. It's also a fact that Bin Laden's relatives were spirited out of the country at the earliest opportunity. Make of this what you will.

[Gibsie]

Show me the lies. Please. If you are to beleived every time the man opens his mouth lies flow freely. So put your money where your mouth is, and provide one example of a lie. It should be the easiest thing in the world. Even Agathon could give an example of an actual factual error.

[Giancarlo]

Since you Gibsie have an inability to look at my previous posts, I will repost what I said previously:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm

"* The film's amusing (if bordering on racist) Saudi-bashing sequences rely for their effect on the audience having forgotten that President Bill Clinton was every bit as friendly with Prince Bandar (or "Bandar Bush," as Moore calls him) and the Saudi monarchy as his successor. In general, the movie is packed with points that Moore assumes his audience will never check, or are either lies or cleverly hedged half-lies:

* Moore says that the Saudis have paid the Bush family $1.4 billion. But wait —the Bushes aren't billionaires. If you watch the film a second time you'll note Moore saying that they paid $1.4 billion to the Bush family and (added very quietly and quickly) its friends and associates.

* Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking at the idea now, but nothing has come of it so far, and in any case Unocal has nothing to do with it.

* In a "congressmen with no kids at war" stunt, Moore claims that no one in Congress has a son or daughter fighting in America's armed services, then approaches several congressmen in the street and asks them to sign up and send their kids to Iraq. His claim would certainly surprise Sgt. Brooks Johnson of the 101st Airborne, the son of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). And for that matter the active-duty sons of Sen. Joseph Biden and Attorney General John Ashcroft, among others.

The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s long two hours lasts only a few minutes. It's Moore's file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.

What Moore presumably doesn't know, or simply doesn't care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren't allowed to visit — on pain of death.

And if Moore weren't a (left-wing) version of the fat, bigoted, ignorant Americans his European friends love to mock, he'd know that prewar Iraq was ruled by a regime that had forced a sixth of its population into fearful exile, that hanged dissidents (real dissidents, not people like Susan Sontag and Tim Robbins) from meathooks and tortured them with blowtorches, and filled thousands of mass graves with the bodies of its massacred citizens.

Yes, children played, women shopped and men sat in cafes while that stuff went on — just as people did all those normal things in Somoza's Nicaragua, Duvalier's Haiti and for that matter Nazi Germany, and as they do just about everywhere, including in Iraq today.

Moore has defended deliberate inaccuracies in his prior films by claiming that satirists don't have to tell the exact truth. Fair enough. But if you take the lies, half-lies and distortions out "Fahrenheit 9/11," there isn't much of anything left."

[Agathon]

What errors?

As I said, who cares? The right lost this argument a long time ago. Their arguments for the war were not good, and their attempts to retrench since then have been positively feeble. I mean, even the gutless US press has started to turn on them.

Every day their denials grow ever more desperate, but the torture scandal was the straw that broke the camel's back. Bush has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the majority of the world's population.

Bush might be able to pull off a miracle in the US, but in the rest of the world his name is mud and the name of his country is mud as long as he's in charge. As someone once said, "you can fool all of the people some of the time.."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Show me the lies. Please. If you are to beleived every time the man opens his mouth lies flow freely. So put your money where your mouth is, and provide one example of a lie. It should be the easiest thing in the world. Even Agathon could give an example of an actual factual error.

Even Agathon....



thanks a lot, you git!!

[Giancarlo]

Damn it. I posted the errors there and stop denying it. Your beloved candidate, John Kerry, is losing support in the polls and you are getting more frustrated. You are a simple minded person, Agathon. I'm sorry to see that. You don't look at things in the bigger picture nor do you look at the sources I posted. The arguments for the war were good.

[GePap]

What is funny is that the typical anti-Moore colum is on the same level as Moore's film in terms of "truthfulness", as in, ignoring certain trusths when inconvinient, and acting as if assumptions were truths.

The difference, as I said, is that in the end Moore's movie stand to be far more important and effecitve, a truth that is obviously apparent given how many colums are coming out about Moore's movie, meaning that the people writing them feel the urge and need to counter Moore, something that would not be true if Moore's movie was expected to be a total dud. You know, much like how Bush and Kerry spend tens of millions attacking each other and don't spend a dime worrying about Nader's candidacy.