But lib’ruls are stoooopid, and if we don’t SEE paperwork getting filled out, we’ll assume that a bank just broke the law!
On this I disagree. I think he really believes he’s doing good by propagandizing on behalf of (mostly) progressive viewpoints, even if he also realizes he’s engaging in deliberate misrepresentation. I think O’Keefe also believes he’s doing good.
On the other hand, I believe Limbaugh and Beck are pure snake oil salesmen - they understand that what they’re selling is bullshit, and just hoping the FDA doesn’t evaluate their claims, so to speak.
Ford? GM. :smack:
“Moore lies by inference and omission…”
You mean like every politician who ever stood in front of a camera? If you held your politicians to as high a standard as you do this particular entertainer, you’d be in half the trouble you are in now.
I was trying to keep this about Michael Moore only, but since you insist on attributing thoughts to me I guess I’ll just put some thoughts down. Not that I haven’t done this a million times already, but who knows, maybe this time it will sink in.
“Lib’ruls” support the banning of “assault weapons” because they are “designed to spray-fire from the hip, they are fully automatic”, they have “barrel shrouds”, and “bayonet mounts” and “flash hiders”, all of which make a weapon more deadly.
That these things are believed leads me to one conclusion: with regard to guns, lib’ruls ARE stoooopid. It’s always intriguing to me that people want to ban things when they don’t even know what they are.
Why, then, would I not believe that people who are predisposed to believe such nonsense would have no trouble swallowing the idea that a bank would simply hand over a weapon without following the requisite procedures? It’s not like some people have any trouble swallowing all the other falsehoods.
Now, if we can get back to Michael Moore, I’ll be glad to discuss him.
I do. And what trouble am I in now, precisely?
It’s an interesting demonstration of the contrast in our attitudes and beliefs that we could see the same scene and find fault with two different things about it.
I’m not talking about what pretty little lies he tells himself. I’m talking about deep-down what it’s really all about. And I think that somewhere, deep inside, Michael Moore just gets off on attention.
1.) That mistaken belief certainly isn’t one shared by all liberals–or even liberals exclusively.
2.) You’re a fucking retard. Believing lies/propaganda about guns has no relation to whether or not someone would fill in a blank that would logically be filled with paperwork with nothing at all.
Speaking as a liberal, there are a lot of liberals who are goddamn stupid as fuck about firearms, though (like my mother in law, who would literally refuse to come to my house if she knew I had guns in a safe with trigger locks and separately locked ammunition in the basement, on the grounds that “guns are DANGEROUS”). I would expect that Airman’s use of “Lib’rul” was intended to convey “left-wingers who are stupid” rather than “all left wingers” as I don’t often see him painting with that broad a brush in general.
Wow. Irony really is wasted on some people. It’s not that he did/did not fill out the requisite paperwork, did/did not represent correctly whatever hoops he may have had to jump through, gun as weapon/tool.
It’s the irony of a bank handing out guns as gifts. Y’see, often, when banks are robbed, it’s by someone with a - wait for it - gun in their hand. So giving out guns, (regardless of proper paperwork), actually in the bank, strikes a lot of people as a little odd.
See? It’s ironically humorous. Damn it people, try to keep up!
I addressed that a while ago, and I disagree with you. People can disagree about different things.
You’re right on target with that (pun intended). I was simply responding with his words. Condescension goes both ways, and I responded in kind.
He’s a she.
Except that he was already making the claim before I lampooned it by spelling it that way.
So, if you think there are vast quantities of morons who think that the point of that scene was that he didn’t have to fill out any kind of paperwork to get the gun, I’m sure you can provide us with lots of examples of retarded “omg the bank is just handing out guns with no background checks!!!” blog posts and the like.
Her words. And, as I’ve already observed in this post, your condescension started well in advance, when you implied that all people who agree with the general thrust of the film are *so fucking retarded *that they can’t fill in the paperwork-blank.
Well, that’s exactly it. Seeing things differently and being dishonest are two different things.
Wow, a meme! Well, that just proves everything. :rolleyes:
Yeah, here we are, running away. And I’m really not that big a Moore fan, but I’m standing right here, running away.
That’s because they don’t care about the facts. Limbaugh (and much of conservatism generally) is all about tribalism. His listeners feel he’s on their side, and that’s all that matters.
This is not a virtue.
Whatever. The reality-based community is happy to note Moore’s errors when demonstrated. So far, the best y’all seem to have is the story about the janitor.
And the Michael Moore of the right…well, there isn’t one, because quite frankly there’s no prominent conservative propagandist or commentator who is half as accurate and truthful as Moore. Speaking the truth gets you kicked out of places like AEI.
Y’know, there’s nothing particularly immoral about being an attention whore.
But what’s the definition of …
ahhh, never mind 
It is misleading for another reason: The bank is not “giving” out “free” guns. The film makes it seem like you put a hundred bucks in a checking account, you walk out with a nice rifle.
As the link upthread notes, you have to deposit a minimum of $800 in a 20 year CD and give up all interest.
This is how Moore always gets away with his nonsense. Nothing he says is directly and factually untrue, but the impression that he intentionally leaves with the viewer is one that is inaccurate.
<gasp>! Next thing you’ll be telling us is that my “free” chequing account is not really free, because I must maintain a minimum deposit! Someone call the cops! My bank is lying to me!
Its a pity we cannot quantify mendacity, compare the metric buttloads of sheer lies that Rush delivers on a daily basis to the exaggerations that Moore delivers in a new movie every other year or so.
But thats the point, to me. I’ve seen Moore exaggerate a point, and checked it out, and said to myself, he’s blowing this out of proportion, but the fundamental fact is sound. And I wish he wouldn’t, I think he lets down The Team when he does.
But Rushbo tells bald-faced, huge, slanderous, vicious lies on a daily basis. On top of it, he’s cruel. Moore doesn’t like the right, Rush hates the left. There is a numerical equivalence, there is one Moore, there is one Rush. Beyond that, equivalence fails.
And don’t forget the legion of wannabes Rush has inspired, and the malignant effect they have, You can probably name five off the top of your head. How many second string Moores can you name?
I don’t know that the comparison’s fair–I pretty much hate both of them, after all, for pretty much the reasons you’ve mentioned here. I think at least some of us liberalish types who don’t like Moore don’t like him because we’re holding him to a higher standard.
That and the fact that his movies are basically gigantic snore-fests interspersed with retarded hyperbole so thick it ruins the points he ostensibly is trying to make.