Moore is at it again (lying as usual)

[Verto]

Uh, I believe I have posted on several occasions several links from spinsanity and other sites who discredit Moore. Your response is always Michael Teh Moore has 0wnz0r3d those check out his site it is Ub3r!! PH33R HIM!!!!1111

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Verto
Uh, I believe I have posted on several occasions several links from spinsanity and other sites who discredit Moore. Your response is always Michael Teh Moore has 0wnz0r3d those check out his site it is Ub3r!! PH33R HIM!!!!1111

At which point you don't bother to acknowledge moore's defense and stick your head back in the sand.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Verto
Uh, I believe I have posted on several occasions several links from spinsanity and other sites who discredit Moore. Your response is always Michael Teh Moore has 0wnz0r3d those check out his site it is Ub3r!! PH33R HIM!!!!1111

Yes, and I've consistently pointed out Moore's response to those "critics". He has effectively pwned them. You have yet to post anything of substance that contradicts anything Moore says. I think you just listen to too much right-wing media and can't tell the difference between reality and frothing-right wing nonsense.

Imran: The difference between Moore and Limbaugh (besides politics) is huge. Moore presents facts and a point of view supported by facts. If Moore just sat up there saying "blah blah bush sucks", I wouldn't care to listen to him. But he presents information that the mainstream media doesn't... And you're an idiot if you can't see the difference between the two.

Anyways, I'm done here unless anyone has anything of substance about Moore to debate. Please direct all "moore is fat and liar" assertions to your toilet where they belong. Thank you, come again.

[Verto]

At which point I decide a URL to Michael Moore's homepage is not worth my time.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sava
Yes, and I've consistently pointed out Moore's response to those "critics". He has effectively pwned them. You have yet to post anything of substance that contradicts anything Moore says. I think you just listen to too much right-wing media and can't tell the difference between reality and frothing-right wing nonsense.

No, you think it is easier to categorize anyone who disagrees with you as a right-wing extremist.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Verto
At which point I decide a URL to Michael Moore's homepage is not worth my time.

Because you lack the discipline to debate. It might just be laziness on your part. I mean, if you were serious about countering Moore, you'd do some research and present facts of your own. But you don't, and you never do post anything resembling a rational thought. Pick up a book sometime. Yes, reading... left to right, top to bottom, turning each page. Try it some time... you might be able to make some coherent points in the future.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Verto


No, you think it is easier to categorize anyone who disagrees with you as a right-wing extremist.

nah, I judge each person individually. Most people don't realize they are right-wing dopes, so I have to point it out for them.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sava
Because you lack the discipline to debate. It might just be laziness on your part. I mean, if you were serious about countering Moore, you'd do some research and present facts of your own. But you don't, and you never do post anything resembling a rational thought. Pick up a book sometime. Yes, reading... left to right, top to bottom, turning each page. Try it some time... you might be able to make some coherent points in the future.

Yes, I can see articles from spinsanity have no validity in a discussion regarding Michael Moore, neither do they resemble rational thought. And yes, you are correct. I never read. I sit by my radio every afternoon listening to Rush and Hannity, then get my daily dose of Fox News. They provide for all my needs.

This all coming from the guy who complains how rightwingers make personal attacks on Moore's weight, because his films and books cannot be discredited.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moore presents facts and a point of view supported by facts.

You can keep telling yourself that if you want. Any 'facts' Moore spouts are no different (in style, not substance) from the 'fact's Limbaugh presents.

[Sava]

Don't take my perceptions of people as gospel. I just call it how I see it, and I make my judgements based upon the information I have on people. If you feel I have a misconception of you, perhaps you should backtrack and think about how you present yourself. I realize how people online perceive me, based upon how I act, what I say, and the frequency of my trolls. But I don't have any illusions about myself, and I'm comfortable with how I am looked upon. If I wanted to be perceived as an intelligent, rational person who makes coherent debate, I'd act differently.

I doubt many people are how I perceive them as I recognize my own shortcomings in how I classify people. But I'm only human, and you have to ask yourself, do you really care what the **** I think?

[Whoha]

Ok so question:

Why does a movie named for "the temperature at which freedom burns" advocate Corruption of Blood?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Verto


Yes, I can see articles from spinsanity have no validity in a discussion regarding Michael Moore, neither do they resemble rational thought.

It's a strange world where articles written by critics are more valid to a discussion about someone than that person's own writings and counter arguments.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Moore presents facts and a point of view supported by facts.

You can keep telling yourself that if you want. Any 'facts' Moore spouts are no different (in style, not substance) from the 'fact's Limbaugh presents.

well... then IMHO, you have an inability to tell the difference between someone like Limbaugh and someone like Moore. The right doesn't really have anyone like Moore, so it's tough to find someone to compare him to. If you care to listen to Air America, you can definitely find someone like Limbaugh. Randi Rhodes, who is on from 3pm to 7pm EST is comparable to a Limbaugh. I doubt you've read Moore's books, so perhaps you should in order to... uhmmm... know what you are talking about. Because as of now, you don't.

[Spiffor]

Moore does generally back his assertions with facts. However, he does hide facts that are opposed to his argument, and he uses emotions to have people more vulnerable to agreeing with his point of view.

The main difference with Limbaugh (with the little I saw from Limbaugh), is that Limbaugh uses no facts to justify his point of view. Zilch, nada. Limbaugh is a collection of prejudices, which are entirely unsubstanciated, instead of being partly substanciated.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Moore does generally back his assertions with facts. However, he does hide facts that are opposed to his argument, and he uses emotions to have people more vulnerable to agreeing with his point of view.

The main difference with Limbaugh (with the little I saw from Limbaugh), is that Limbaugh uses no facts to justify his point of view. Zilch, nada. Limbaugh is a collection of prejudices, which are entirely unsubstanciated, instead of being partly substanciated.

I agree with Spiffor's assessment.