I don't give a damn what side left or right Michael Moore is on..he opened a lot of eyes this weekend including my own.
And on another note, not to offend anyone, but I am fortunate to have parents that stressed to me at a young age, to better myself through going to college, not the military. My father served in the Navy and my uncle served in the Army during the Vietnam war. Both of them taught me the advantages and disadvantages of serving in the military, and I chose college straight out of high school. After seeing that movie, although I feel for the troops, I am glad I chose the latter.
Michael Moore for President!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- On Moore being the new darling of the Left
On Moore being the new darling of the LeftFollow
Quote:
Wow, pickle is getting more and more angry with every passing day.
Trick, I just get annoyed with this same old crap getting rehashed. Piddling little arguments from both sides.
Just vote and shut the FU[i][/i]CK up already.
Eb
Forget about the opinions - everyone has an opinion, Moore, Bush, Stern, Limbaugh, myself, everyone. All you need to do is look at the facts. The money and oil connections surrounding Afghanistan and Iraq. The close connections between the Saudi Royal family and the Bushes (not opinion). 42% vacation time spent in first 8 mo. of office by Bush (LOL - fact, not as serious but still interesting). The staggering loss of rights as a result of the patriot act (fact). The staggering lost of good foreign relations (fact). Moore is one of the most opinionated Lefties out there. YET! Just look past his opinions to the black and white (yes it's possible if you are aware of the bias). The facts of Bush's time in office speak for themselves. To anyone who doesn't realize how bad things have gotten, or are too stubborn or partisan for some unknown reason to wake up -- WAKE UP!!
Gadin, I grew up in a military family as well; my father was Army (Specialist/Surveyor), my grandfather was Army Air Corps (WWII), my great-grandfather was Army Infantry (WWI). I'm actually the first first-born male to not join the military at 18; I went to college after high school.
Years later I'm a defense contractor. I became one in November, 2001, shortly after the attacks we're oh so familiar with. I did it partly because there was a need for my particular set of skills, and partly because I wanted to do something along the lines of service. I don't have the connections necessary to get into the government side of things and I don't have the right temprament to take orders I disagree with, so contracting has been the best option for me. I've worked on military bases for the last several years, including a two and a half year stint at the Pentagon. Politically I'm as centrist as you get; stray into the left or the right and I start looking at you like you're weird. Adopt the party platform of the Republicans or Democrats and you effectively remove anything we've got to talk about - anybody who puts their party ideology ahead of rational thought and careful examination of actual facts is pretty much hopeless; they're off in opinion-land and cannot be altered.
I find Michael Moore to be personally detestable, and as such, not worth listening to.
After the misrepresentations of Bowling for Columbine were exposed, I'd thought people would realize that Moore is interested in lining his pockets at the expense of truth; he's a shock writer, his work is pulp fiction, and it can only really be taken as such. That he sets his work in a historical context does not give it legitimacy. The problem is that many people think of what he's producing as actual, unalterable truth.
I rather appreciated Slate's editor for tearing it up for me in advance. It saves me a lot of trouble. I also read the HBS piece. Here's what's wrong with that: It's a meta-article. Instead of reviewing Farenheight 9/11 and actually attempting to back up Moore's points (it cannot; they're fiction), Parry (HBS) instead takes apart Hitchens' (Slate) opinion in point-by-point fashion. This kind of disassembly is childish and disingenuous; instead of actually addressing the complaints made, Parry spends his time critiquing the style, the tone, and adding in conspiracy-theory language (see the note about the Carlyle Group purchasing Lowe's Theaters, etc).
Parry hasn't come out to say that Hitchens is wrong and that Moore's work is at all good - far from it. He comes out to say that he doesn't like that Hitchens has criticized Moore, and so attacks the criticism.
Unfortunately, critiquing the critique, while a nigh inescapable practice in this country, doesn't fix a frickin' thing and doesn't actually do anything but incite further anger among the readership.
Moore's points are still undefended, Hitchens' piece does a great job of listing where, how, and why.
Years later I'm a defense contractor. I became one in November, 2001, shortly after the attacks we're oh so familiar with. I did it partly because there was a need for my particular set of skills, and partly because I wanted to do something along the lines of service. I don't have the connections necessary to get into the government side of things and I don't have the right temprament to take orders I disagree with, so contracting has been the best option for me. I've worked on military bases for the last several years, including a two and a half year stint at the Pentagon. Politically I'm as centrist as you get; stray into the left or the right and I start looking at you like you're weird. Adopt the party platform of the Republicans or Democrats and you effectively remove anything we've got to talk about - anybody who puts their party ideology ahead of rational thought and careful examination of actual facts is pretty much hopeless; they're off in opinion-land and cannot be altered.
I find Michael Moore to be personally detestable, and as such, not worth listening to.
After the misrepresentations of Bowling for Columbine were exposed, I'd thought people would realize that Moore is interested in lining his pockets at the expense of truth; he's a shock writer, his work is pulp fiction, and it can only really be taken as such. That he sets his work in a historical context does not give it legitimacy. The problem is that many people think of what he's producing as actual, unalterable truth.
I rather appreciated Slate's editor for tearing it up for me in advance. It saves me a lot of trouble. I also read the HBS piece. Here's what's wrong with that: It's a meta-article. Instead of reviewing Farenheight 9/11 and actually attempting to back up Moore's points (it cannot; they're fiction), Parry (HBS) instead takes apart Hitchens' (Slate) opinion in point-by-point fashion. This kind of disassembly is childish and disingenuous; instead of actually addressing the complaints made, Parry spends his time critiquing the style, the tone, and adding in conspiracy-theory language (see the note about the Carlyle Group purchasing Lowe's Theaters, etc).
Parry hasn't come out to say that Hitchens is wrong and that Moore's work is at all good - far from it. He comes out to say that he doesn't like that Hitchens has criticized Moore, and so attacks the criticism.
Unfortunately, critiquing the critique, while a nigh inescapable practice in this country, doesn't fix a frickin' thing and doesn't actually do anything but incite further anger among the readership.
Moore's points are still undefended, Hitchens' piece does a great job of listing where, how, and why.
Wingchild wrote:
Gadin, I grew up in a military family as well; my father was Army (Specialist/Surveyor), my grandfather was Army Air Corps (WWII), my great-grandfather was Army Infantry (WWI). I'm actually the first first-born male to not join the military at 18; I went to college after high school.
Years later I'm a defense contractor. I became one in November, 2001, shortly after the attacks we're oh so familiar with. I did it partly because there was a need for my particular set of skills, and partly because I wanted to do something along the lines of service. I don't have the connections necessary to get into the government side of things and I don't have the right temprament to take orders I disagree with, so contracting has been the best option for me. I've worked on military bases for the last several years, including a two and a half year stint at the Pentagon. Politically I'm as centrist as you get; stray into the left or the right and I start looking at you like you're weird. Adopt the party platform of the Republicans or Democrats and you effectively remove anything we've got to talk about - anybody who puts their party ideology ahead of rational thought and careful examination of actual facts is pretty much hopeless; they're off in opinion-land and cannot be altered.
I find Michael Moore to be personally detestable, and as such, not worth listening to.
After the misrepresentations of Bowling for Columbine were exposed, I'd thought people would realize that Moore is interested in lining his pockets at the expense of truth; he's a shock writer, his work is pulp fiction, and it can only really be taken as such. That he sets his work in a historical context does not give it legitimacy. The problem is that many people think of what he's producing as actual, unalterable truth.
I rather appreciated Slate's editor for tearing it up for me in advance. It saves me a lot of trouble. I also read the HBS piece. Here's what's wrong with that: It's a meta-article. Instead of reviewing Farenheight 9/11 and actually attempting to back up Moore's points (it cannot; they're fiction), Parry (HBS) instead takes apart Hitchens' (Slate) opinion in point-by-point fashion. This kind of disassembly is childish and disingenuous; instead of actually addressing the complaints made, Parry spends his time critiquing the style, the tone, and adding in conspiracy-theory language (see the note about the Carlyle Group purchasing Lowe's Theaters, etc).
Parry hasn't come out to say that Hitchens is wrong and that Moore's work is at all good - far from it. He comes out to say that he doesn't like that Hitchens has criticized Moore, and so attacks the criticism.
Unfortunately, critiquing the critique, while a nigh inescapable practice in this country, doesn't fix a frickin' thing and doesn't actually do anything but incite further anger among the readership.
Moore's points are still undefended, Hitchens' piece does a great job of listing where, how, and why.
Years later I'm a defense contractor. I became one in November, 2001, shortly after the attacks we're oh so familiar with. I did it partly because there was a need for my particular set of skills, and partly because I wanted to do something along the lines of service. I don't have the connections necessary to get into the government side of things and I don't have the right temprament to take orders I disagree with, so contracting has been the best option for me. I've worked on military bases for the last several years, including a two and a half year stint at the Pentagon. Politically I'm as centrist as you get; stray into the left or the right and I start looking at you like you're weird. Adopt the party platform of the Republicans or Democrats and you effectively remove anything we've got to talk about - anybody who puts their party ideology ahead of rational thought and careful examination of actual facts is pretty much hopeless; they're off in opinion-land and cannot be altered.
I find Michael Moore to be personally detestable, and as such, not worth listening to.
After the misrepresentations of Bowling for Columbine were exposed, I'd thought people would realize that Moore is interested in lining his pockets at the expense of truth; he's a shock writer, his work is pulp fiction, and it can only really be taken as such. That he sets his work in a historical context does not give it legitimacy. The problem is that many people think of what he's producing as actual, unalterable truth.
I rather appreciated Slate's editor for tearing it up for me in advance. It saves me a lot of trouble. I also read the HBS piece. Here's what's wrong with that: It's a meta-article. Instead of reviewing Farenheight 9/11 and actually attempting to back up Moore's points (it cannot; they're fiction), Parry (HBS) instead takes apart Hitchens' (Slate) opinion in point-by-point fashion. This kind of disassembly is childish and disingenuous; instead of actually addressing the complaints made, Parry spends his time critiquing the style, the tone, and adding in conspiracy-theory language (see the note about the Carlyle Group purchasing Lowe's Theaters, etc).
Parry hasn't come out to say that Hitchens is wrong and that Moore's work is at all good - far from it. He comes out to say that he doesn't like that Hitchens has criticized Moore, and so attacks the criticism.
Unfortunately, critiquing the critique, while a nigh inescapable practice in this country, doesn't fix a frickin' thing and doesn't actually do anything but incite further anger among the readership.
Moore's points are still undefended, Hitchens' piece does a great job of listing where, how, and why.
Where is the substance to this critique? A whole lot of blah blah Michael Moore is trying to make money (bad!), blah his work is "Pulp Fiction" (oh really? what, exactly, in F 9-11 was fiction?) All I'm hearing is character bashing. Lets deal with the facts. Enlighten me please, otherwise tone down your blathering. It makes my ears hurt.
Quote:
Parry (HBS) instead takes apart Hitchens' (Slate) opinion in point-by-point fashion. This kind of disassembly is childish and disingenuous;
Nothing Perry quoted seemed to be taken out of context. If Hitchens wrote "Moore is wrong about everything except..." and Perry quoted "Moore is wrong about everything" and tore Hitchens apart on it, you'd have a point. Right now, you're just crying about Perry's style and tone. We all know you should never do that when commenting on an article, right?
Quote:
instead of actually addressing the complaints made, Parry spends his time critiquing the style, the tone, and adding in conspiracy-theory language
Perry also corrects a lot of misconceptions and misleading statements from Hitchens. See, that's part of how a debate works. Party A says something and Party B says where they disagree. Hitchens says a lot of stuff about the film that Perry believes is wrong and, thus, Perry retorts by pointing out those inaccuracies.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Gadin, I grew up in a military family as well; my father was Army (Specialist/Surveyor), my grandfather was Army Air Corps (WWII), my great-grandfather was Army Infantry (WWI). I'm actually the first first-born male to not join the military at 18; I went to college after high school.
First pus[/b]sy in the family? If all goes well, you can be the first to come out of the closet too!
[b]
Years later I'm a defense contractor. I became one in November, 2001, shortly after the attacks we're oh so familiar with. I did it partly because there was a need for my particular set of skills, and partly because I wanted to do something along the lines of service.
There was a need for nickel blow[/b]jobs?
[b]
I don't have the connections necessary to get into the government side of things and I don't have the right temprament to take orders I disagree with, so contracting has been the best option for me.
Yeah, it's great. You get to take taxpayer money, get paid more than people risking their lives for this country and have no real responsiblity at all.
Fantasitc.
I've worked on military bases for the last several years, including a two and a half year stint at the Pentagon. Politically I'm as centrist as you get; stray into the left or the right and I start looking at you like you're weird. Adopt the party platform of the Republicans or Democrats and you effectively remove anything we've got to talk about - anybody who puts their party ideology ahead of rational thought and careful examination of actual facts is pretty much hopeless; they're off in opinion-land and cannot be altered.
So not only do you not have the balls to serve in the military, but you don't even have the balls the take a political position.
Fantastic.
I find Michael Moore to be personally detestable, and as such, not worth listening to.
Me too. That's got nothing to do with his films accuracy though.
After the misrepresentations of Bowling for Columbine were exposed, I'd thought people would realize that Moore is interested in lining his pockets at the expense of truth; he's a shock writer, his work is pulp fiction, and it can only really be taken as such. That he sets his work in a historical context does not give it legitimacy. The problem is that many people think of what he's producing as actual, unalterable truth.
Every single documentary in the history of the world has misrepresentations. Unless you set up a camera and just film for two hours and release that, unedited as a movie, you HAVE to have them.
The only people who seemed concered with nit picking any sort of misrepresentation in "Columbine" was the NRA.
I rather appreciated Slate's editor for tearing it up for me in advance.
Yes, he can tell you what to think before you actualy see it. That must be handy for an acowed free thinker like yourself.
It saves me a lot of trouble.
Indeed.
I also read the HBS piece. Here's what's wrong with that: It's a meta-article. Instead of reviewing Farenheight 9/11 and actually attempting to back up Moore's points (it cannot; they're fiction), Parry (HBS) instead takes apart Hitchens' (Slate) opinion in point-by-point fashion.
Pardon? So, just to be clear. You're an open minded centrist who doesn't let other people tell him what to think, yet you haven't seen the movie, but have decided that it's fiction because other people told you so. You then take issue with a reviewer who's responding to someone else's blatently biased review because instead of pointing out the review's obvious bias and letting people draw their own conculsions instead of propping up More's movie and telling them what to think.
Nice ethical system you have going there.
This kind of disassembly is childish and disingenuous; instead of actually addressing the complaints made, Parry spends his time critiquing the style, the tone, and adding in conspiracy-theory language (see the note about the Carlyle Group purchasing Lowe's Theaters, etc).
Both articles are silly and pointless. That you'd lend credence to one and not the other WITHOUT EVEN HAVING SEEN THE FILM exposes you as a pathetically biased mush brained fool ready to listen to anything that sounds like what you want to hear without any actual examination.
Parry hasn't come out to say that Hitchens is wrong and that Moore's work is at all good - far from it. He comes out to say that he doesn't like that Hitchens has criticized Moore, and so attacks the criticism.
Yes, and? How does that possibly shore up Hitchens article, which does presicely the same thing?
Unfortunately, critiquing the critique, while a nigh inescapable practice in this country, doesn't fix a frickin' thing and doesn't actually do anything but incite further anger among the readership.
Who's angry?
Moore's points are still undefended, Hitchens' piece does a great job of listing where, how, and why.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even adress the points it claims the film makes, it just raises tiny minor points that Moore didn't mention.
List me the things it refutes, oh free thinker.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 267
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (267)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- On Moore being the new darling of the Left
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC