So, have YOU seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

[Alexander's Horse]

I find Moore annoying. But we need people like him to shake up the system.

[Drake Tungsten]

I find Moore annoying. But we need people like him to shake up the system.

Funny. I feel the same way about you...

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ah, so even though Moore is a political commentator who uses an entertainment medium to get his message across in a humorous manner, he's different from Limbaugh because his medium is different?

OK!

Originally posted by MrFun
if it walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, looks like a duck . . . . .

See, this is what I find absurd- Bergen is a political commentator-does that make him like Rush Limbaugh?

Being a political commentator does not equal pundit or talking head. And Rush is a talk show host beyond being a political commentator.

I find this honestly childish attitude towards being policitcal incredably annoying plus utterly hypocratical,, specailly from anyone , ANYONE, who uses left and right as a pejorative.

Yes, Moore is different because he is jot just a talking head. He can go years without a project-he is much more an activist with one issue. I have never seen Moore comment on gay marriage or animal rights on TV, or a hundred different issues. He might mention it in a book, but you don't see him in the press daily spounting off.

And yes, I do add the fact he does more than just sit in a studio and pontificate. He interviews people- he tries to meet with the very people he criticizes to speak to them. I would recommend his film fro 96 that follows his book tour that year. He meets with the Chairman of Nike and asks about factories in indonesia employing kids, or goes to Madison and the state house with welfare mothers asking for work. He does speak himself, but at least outside his books much of what he does is letting others speak. For example, in Columbine when he interviews Charleton Heston- Heston should have known who Moore was- he willingly gave the interview and he hung himself on his own words.


So:
1. Being a political commentator does not equate one with pundit or talking ehad.
2. Moore is hardly a commentator. He is more of an activist against big business, which is the main topic of all his work.

And I would like those who still think he is "the Limbaugh of the left" to lay out the similarities other than having an opinion. And in doing so not essentially describing half the posters here on the OT.

[JohnT]

I find this honestly childish attitude towards being policitcal incredably annoying plus utterly hypocratical,, specailly from anyone , ANYONE, who uses left and right as a pejorative.

And I find your incessant need to split hairs on this issue to be amazingly obtuse. Both Limbaugh and Moore are entertainers who use their mediums to expound their political beliefs. Period. Any arguing to the contrary is pure sophistry. And not very good sophistry at that.

[Drake Tungsten]

And I would like those who still think he is "the Limbaugh of the left" to lay out the similarities other than having an opinion.

They're both the most popular and most vocal idiots on their side of the aisle...

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

And I find your incessant need to split hairs on this issue to be amazingly obtuse. Both Limbaugh and Moore are entertainers who use their mediums to expound their political beliefs. Period. Any arguing to the contrary is pure sophistry. And not very good sophistry at that.

That is such an absurd level of comparison" -heck, both are men..why, they must be the same!

That is on the same level as saying that Piccasso and Rapahel are the same thing cause they are both painters who are famous! Heck, we could say that Moore is the Dennis Miller of the "left". Why not the PJ Rourke (or whatever) of the "left"?

The first problem is you definition of "entertainment"- maybe you label talk radio as entertainment- but then some people would label Nova as enternainment I guess.

But you miss my oft repeated point: Moore is not a talking head! That is what Limbaugh is. Moore is an activist type. There is a difference in that, a big one.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

They're both the most popular and most vocal idiots on their side of the aisle...

Not so. First, I would say that Al Franken is a bigger liberal commentator. In fact, Al Franken does what Limbaugh does, NOT Moore.

And Limbaugh has plenty of competition. Would we not label O'Reilly the most popular conservative commentator? Or so he says.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I would like those who still think he is "the Limbaugh of the left" to lay out the similarities other than having an opinion.

Both bend the facts to their utter breaking point when trying to 'present the facts'. They both hide and conceal and spin facts they don't like and present only one side of the story, chopped up and edited to make it seem like their 'facts' are the only true ones. Moore is no better than Limbaugh on this (asking to send relatives of Congressmen to Iraq and then cutting the verbal response).

Would we not label O'Reilly the most popular conservative commentator

IIRC, Limbaugh has the bigger audience. And I don't know if I'd consider O'Reilly to be 'far right'.

[Drake Tungsten]

Not so. First, I would say that Al Franken is a bigger liberal commentator.

Yeah right. Franken isn't even popular enough to keep his ****ty network afloat. Face facts; Moore is the star of the left and their equivalent of Limbaugh.

[The diplomat]

So why should I see this movie?
1) I don't agree with the basic premise that the war in Iraq was wrong.
2) I don't like Moore.
3) The movie has no educational benefit. It's not like a real documentary where you learn something about history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Both bend the facts to their utter breaking point when trying to 'present the facts'. They both hide and conceal and spin facts they don't like and present only one side of the story, chopped up and edited to make it seem like their 'facts' are the only true ones. Moore is no better than Limbaugh on this (asking to send relatives of Congressmen to Iraq and then cutting the verbal response).

Wait, you mean like every polemicist? Tell me how David Brooks and Bill Kristol are any different fundamentally? They differ in tone.

IIRC, Limbaugh has the bigger audience. And I don't know if I'd consider O'Reilly to be 'far right'.

And since when is Moore "far left"? What is his position on the environment? I don't know, he never says. That being the point. He is not an all issue commentator. He is an anti-business activist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yeah right. Franken isn't even popular enough to keep his ****ty network afloat. Face facts; Moore is the star of the left and their equivalent of Limbaugh.

Except that isn;t a fact at all but an opinion of a few people here, and one which they base, given on what they have said, on very borad prejudices.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tell me how David Brooks and Bill Kristol are any different fundamentally? They differ in tone.

At the very least they attempt not to mislead by manipulating the facts. They may focus on good facts and say this is why I believe X, but they aren't going to erase the bad facts entirely from the discussion and then say or imply X is fact.

He is an anti-business activist.

Which makes him..... far left!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

At the very least they attempt not to mislead by manipulating the facts. They may focus on good facts and say this is why I believe X, but they aren't going to erase the bad facts entirely from the discussion and then say or imply X is fact.

It's ncie this is your opinion of Moore, but if that is the whole basis of your comparison, well, what can I say but to call it unsibstantiated?

My point is one based on how they do things. Yous is based on simply not liking either and then equating them.

Which makes him..... far left!

NO. Buchanan is against free trade and pro-union. Yup, that left-wing wacko!

[Imran Siddiqui]

what can I say but to call it unsibstantiated?

All the evidence of splicing film, cutting film before the questioned can answer, etc, etc., points to a very substantiated effort to mislead.

My point is one based on how they do things.

No, that is my point. Your point is based on not liking one, but liking the other and saying they are different.

[q]Buchanan is against free trade and pro-union. Yup, that left-wing wacko![/q

My, my... this must be the first time I've ever heard Pat Buchanan is ANTI-BUSINESS!