Case one: A smug, self-righteous, egotistical liberal, who thinks anyone that disagrees with him is an actual idiot, hears a lie that panders to his world-view. He doesn’t bother to investigate the truth because if he agrees with it, he doesn’t care if it’s true.
Case two: There is no case two.
This is fun!
Well, then, it would be churlish of me to deny you your moment of joy.
As 'luc has already pointed out, it’s not my job to do your work for you. A link is not an argument, and if that’s all a poster provides, then I’m doing them a favor by going there.
What I DON’T have to do (I wonder how many times I’ve said this, in my years on the Dope) is (a) go there, then (b) figure out from the material there just what your argument might be, (c) summarize my understanding of your as yet nonexistent argument, and (d) rebut it, while you sit there with your thumb up your ass.
No: you make an argument. You link to sources to buttress factual claims that others may find dubious. (Or occasionally you quote and link to someone’s argument, if someone’s already made it better than you can, but that’s a special situation.) Then I rebut. And we skip entirely the step of my guessing what your argument is. Or you don’t make an argument, in which case I don’t rebut, because there’s nothing to rebut.
Right now, there’s no argument, and nothing to rebut.
And Rush Limbaugh has been brought up in this thread as a comparison to Moore.
Are you upset about that one? No, of course not.
But WHY aren’t you upset about that one?
It was brought up for a valid reason, and was an appropriate rhetorical tactic. If you understood the rhetorical purpose in bringing up Limbaugh in this thread, I assume you would also understand the reason for bringing up Moore when mentioning O’Keefe.
Of course, there’s another possibility, which is that you don’t understand either, but object to the O’Keefe/Moore comparison and welcome the Moore/Limbaugh comparison for reasons having nothing to do with neutral appreciation for debate.
You’re making the argument that Bowling is factual. You prove it then.
Fuck, did you just bring up ANOTHER attempt at implying hypocrisy? Now you’re upset that people aren’t upset enough about a Limbaugh comparison?
You have failed repeatedly to understand why Moore is not a valid rhetorical comparison to O’Keefe.
Frankly, Limbaugh isn’t much of a comparison to Moore because one is a shitty radio host and the other is a shitty film maker. The only thing they have in common is the use of the same tactic of “mostly lying but telling some truth.” Like saying, “…oil is as natural as sea water.” Well, yes, it kind of is, but that’s stupid.
The reason Moore and Limbaugh get compared is because they hold the same level of magnitude on either political side. Both are veterans of their political bias. Like comparing Sarah Palin to Biden. Michael Jorden to Wayne Gretzky. All people of similar caliber.
O’Keefe doesn’t rank on that scale. He’s a little blip. Just because he employed some of Moore’s shitty tactics doesn’t make a valid comparison. Any more than if O’Keefe played basketball, hockey, or was running for student council.
Now do you see what it’s stupid to compare O’Keefe with Moore?
You’re asking Bricker to recognize his being full of shit. Never gonna happen, not on any subject.
So… wait.
O’Keefe is a nothing, a blip. Moore, Limbaugh, they’re the major leagues. The veterans, grizzled opponents on opposite sides, and O’keefe’s the waterboy?
But what about “O’keefe is worse than Moore because O’keefe brought down ACORN, and all Moore does is entertain people and line his pockets?” What happened to THAT story?
Can you read?
Seriously. Can you read?
No, I’m not upset at all. I agree with the use of Limbaugh as a comparative subject. It’s perfectly valid. And that’s not mysterious, because I said it and you quoted me.
So can you just not read, or what?
O’Keefe used Moore’s tactics to go after and destroy a charitable organization. So the both used shitty tactics to make fake documentaries. That’s where the comparison ends. If O’Keefe used a jump shot to win a highschool game, it would be stupid to say he’s better than Michael Jordan.
What makes him worse than Moore in that his actions had serious negative consequences. But it doesn’t make a valid comparison between the two. The only thing they have in common is the use of that same shitty dishonest film making style.
If it helps, think about comparing the Time Square bomber with Bin Laden. And yes, even a little shit can cause widespread destruction. A wanna-be terrorist can kill hundreds.
Robbing a train doesn’t make you Jesse James, but someone could say, “worse than Jesse James because while robbing one train he kills 2 thousand people.”
That’s what you have either failed to understand, or fully understood and used as a shitty debate tactic to divert attention away from O’Keefe.
HEY LOOK OVER THERE!
no, don’t look here
LOOK OVER THERE!
Here you are trying to equate the comparison of Limbaugh with Moore in a thread about Moore, to your comparison of Moore to O’Keefe in a thread about O’Keefe. Why did you do that? Because you incorrectly compared Moore to O’Keefe, and are trying to find a false equivalence, in an attempt to show you aren’t full of shit.
You failed.
You are essentially using the same bullshit tactic: “hey look over here, someone compared Moore to Limbaugh, and that’s okay, so I should be able to compare Moore to O’Keefe.”
No, it is not a valid comparison. O’Keefe cannot be compared to Limbaugh, even though they both hate ACORN and are okay with lying about the organization.
Well, no, it wasn’t brought up for a valid reason. It was brought up because: the people that defend Moore tend to HATE Limbaugh, because Limbaugh is a fucking asshole of monumental proportions. So to compare the two, infuriates people that defend Moore. Even though Moore is a fucking asshole of monumental proportions that shouldn’t be defended.
The tactic you’re using is a lot like what pedophiles do. It’s all about drawing false equivalence to distract from the original topic.
Fail.
No, I’m pointing out to everyone else that Bricker is full of shit. His credibility has fallen to the level of Starving Artist, and it’s actually kind of sad. That thread about O’Keefe is like watching Michael Jordan play baseball.
Okay, and Michael Moore is a dishonest hack.
Yes.
People do that? I thought it was just George W. Bush scrabbling to come up with an answer that didn’t require him to actually have any knowledge of philosophy. (Not that he has any demonstrable knowledge of Christianity, either.) It wasn’t an answer to, “What do you like best about Jesus,” but rather, “Who is your favorite philospher?”
That comes as a surprise to me. Please quote the place where I did that.
You’re right!!!
No sarcasm. You’re right. There is a valid distinction between Moore and O’Keefe, and it’s exactly what you just said: “his [O’Keefe’s] actions had serious negative consequences.”
My complaint has been:
People complain about O’Keefe’s ACTIONS. They don’t complain as much about Moore’s ACTIONS.
You’re quite correct that O’Keefe’s ACTIONS, plus his RESULTS, make him a different critter than Moore’s ACTIONS, plus his RESULTS.
O’Keefe’s ACTIONS (bad) plus his RESULTS (catastrophic for ACORN) make him worse than Moore’s ACTION (bad) plus his RESULTS (not much of anything).
Now, here are my two questions to you:
Imagine if Moore’s ACTIONS had destroyed the NRA, making Moore’s RESULTS just as serious.
(1) Would you then be just as upset with Moore as with O’Keefe?
(2) Do you think most people on the left would be as upset with Moore as with O’Keefe?
There you go again. What if??? What if you were honest enough to say that Okeefes actions and film was dishonest and edited to damn a liberal organization with bias, dishonesty and purpose. That is not equivalent to Moore’s movies at all, which informed a lot of people what health care is like in other countries . He also informed many of the distorted government power that corporations have gobbled up. There is a lot of information and truth in Moore’s films . Okeefee’s was a hatchet job with no substance and truth. There is no comparison. You are distorting logic and truth to defend the indefensible.
I’ve said that before.
But I’ll say it again: O’Keefes actions and film was dishonest and edited to damn a liberal organization with bias, dishonesty and purpose.
I apologize if I read more into your posts than you intended. I took your ad-hom dismissals of authors that criticize Moore’s staged, edited lies as your way of claiming they weren’t. Now I find you didn’t even read them. If you’d like I can cut-and-paste, the only argument is whether Moore is a liar. Unless you agree or don’t care if he is.
I’d have accepted that apology, if you’d just stopped there.
Your first two quotes from my posts demonstrate that I went to the first link. How do you get this “didn’t even read them” horseshit?
I didn’t read the second one, because (a) I did your work for you on your first link, (b) didn’t feel like doing your work for you a second time, and (c) provided a link which I think convincingly demonstrates why I find the National Review worthless. Did you read that? I guess not!
And finally there’s still the little matter of your claim that I argued “that Bowling is factual.” I’ve never mentioned that movie in particular, because I’ve never seen that movie. I’ll cheerfully defend Moore on the basis of his movies I’ve seen, unless your argument is that he was just dishonest in that particular movie, in which case I would have nothing to contribute. But the argument here seems to be about Moore’s veracity generally - not even restricted to his movies.
Well, if you’ve got something to say that has to do with those two links, then say it. If not, then don’t. But if you do, then yeah, quoting is good.
What the hell, let’s play what if:
1.) IF Moore used O’Keefe’s tactics of going into as many NRA offices as he could, making up a story, and faking interviews; something like asking how a pedophile could get a gun. Then dismissed the hundred or so offices that told him to get the fuck out. Then re-edited an interview where the participants were playing along with his pathetic game. Spliced it all together. And used it to falsely show that, “NRA employees apparently caught on tape giving guns to pedophiles.” Yes, I would be pissed.
And as an example: I am pro-UHC. And I watched Sicko. The movie was pathetic. If Moore had accomplished anything using that pile of feces I would be equally as pissed as I am about the O’Keefe nonsense.
It all comes down to a matter of ethics. As a lawyer, would you consider it okay to lie in order to imprison a guilty man? Are you okay with the police planting evidence if they know the guy is guilty? Would you use evidence you knew was inadmissible? Would you encourage a witness to purger himself?
What O’Keefe, Moore, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and Palin all have in common is this despicable way of bending and manipulating the truth to push an agenda. “…oil is as natural as sea water.” (are there other liberals that do this?) It’s just become all too common now. Like that *study *you found showing liberals know less about economics. All statements that are kind of true but completely bullshit. If they were journalists it would be considered unethical, but instead they’re all *entertainers *so anything flies. They are to the truth as professional wrestlers are to athletes.
2.) No, I don’t. There are people on the left that are moronic fucking partisan hacks. If Moore did what I described in [1] they would be jumping for joy. There are people that hate the NRA so much they would be happy with anything that brought them down. So what does this tell us? That there are partisan hacks on both sides of the isle? Or that liberals are hypocrites?
To be fair, there’s another possibility, which is that some people are more concerned with ends than means. If you believe that the NRA’s actions result in thousands of deaths annually, you may be willing to accept a bit of fraud, chicanery, and character assassination as a necessary evil if it results in the NRA’s destruction.
Not that that’s my position–but not everyone cares about means over ends.