The author of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” (taken from Shakespeare); “I Sing the Body Electric!” (taken from Whitman) and “Golden Apples of the Sun” (taken from Yeats) has no moral right to complain about others riffing off of his titles.
You don’t know what your missing, brother!
Would you care to specify just what, if anything, about my post quoted here in its entirety comprises partisan blather? Are you saying that to disdain dishonesty is a conservative trait? Are you saying honesty isn’t important to those on the left?
I thought not. (But I am surprised you’d engage in such thoughtless stereotyping here where the idea is supposed to be fighting ignorance.) Tsk, tsk, tsk!
It’s all in the context, of course. I’m quite sure that if you spent 1/100 the time you seem to have availble to argue against whatever you define as ‘liberals’, you might find questionable actions by the administration sometime over the past four years. Yet you remain silent. Why is that, exactly?
Point taken. Hey, but don’t worry; like I said, I’ll be back in week. If you’d rather get some insults in right now, rather than wait, go for it.
Martha Stewart got 5 months for that!
Wait, wait…the Bloomington Pantagraph is “the right” now?
Come on, they asked for compensatory damages of a DOLLAR. They’re a newspaper in a college town. And they’re “the right.”
Riiiiight…
It’s because unlike those such as you, I know what I don’t know. For example, the pure and unadulterated truth of the matter is that no one here knows for an absolute certainty that Bush lied about anything! Yet one hears it over and over around here. I don’t know whether he did or not, but unless I learn incontrovertible proof that he did, I’m going to believe that he didn’t.
I detested Clinton with the fire of a thousand suns, and I knew him to be a liar, based on his own words, before he ever took office. But I never would have accused him of deliberately lying and using those lies as a justification for sending American men and women off to die in a war concocted for private reasons.
I wonder sometimes if people around here realize just what they’re saying. Here you have in President Bush a man who has lived his whole life prior to the presidency without assaulting anyone or having any sort of violently oriented run-ins with the law. He was a typical citizen. He had a wife and daughters, a job, attended church, and had a clean police record (other than maybe something related to partying in his younger days). But then he becomes president and turns into this cold-hearted, vengeful, mass murderer who not only cares nothing for the lives of thousands of Iraqis, but of hundreds if not eventually thousands of young American men and women.
And not only that, but he’s so driven to engage in this viscious murderous rampage that he deliberately undertakes to lie to and deceive the American public in order to make his villainous and murderous dreams come true. But wait, there’s more…he works to enlist the support of other countries in his murderous sceme and manages to trick their leaders into believing him to the point that they are willing to send their own countryment to kill and be killed. And of course, for all this to be possible, he also has to decieve his own advisors and cabinet officials.
Does this sound plausible to you? It most certainly doesn’t to me, thus my defense of Bush on these boards.
I haven’t seen F9/11 yet, so excuse the kinda dumb questions, but exactly what point was Moore trying to prove with this headline? Was he trying to prove that Gore really did win the election, or is he merely trying to illustrate how controversial the election was? If it’s the first, then yeah, Moore’s definetly in the wrong. But if it was the later, as the link in the OP seems to suggest… well, what’s the big deal? The “headline” in its original context makes exactly the same point, it’s just harder to see on a movie screen. The only real problem there is that it makes the folks at the Pantagraph sound more radically liberal than I assume they actually are. If I worked for that newspaper, I might be pissed, but as an unaffiliated hypothetical viewer, I don’t see how that changes the message of the movie or seriously impugns its credibility.
Moore was trying to illustrate how* fishy * the whole thing was.
One doesn’t have to go too far down memory lane for evidence:
If not a liar, then he is an incompetent, make your choice.
Yes, Yes they did.
Misleading: (transitive senses) to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit
Deceit: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
Lie: to create a false or misleading impression
So if Misleading == Deceit;
and Deceit == false impressions && Lie == false impressions
Therefore Misleading == Deceit (Boolean TRUE)
At least you got the typing thing down, maybe a few more years you’ll get the comprehension and logical thought down.
As if a lie should be uignored if it’s discovered too late?
AS if a lie discovered means no other lies were made?
Not that Michael Moore hasn’t already been totally discredited except among those who comprise his cult…
Michael Moore IS the liar of the century. He lied for nothing more than personal aggrandizement and personal financial gain, no matter what his PR people (he can afford them) tell you.
Shit, he even beats Dubya Bush in lies!
As if a lie should be uignored if it’s discovered too late?
AS if a lie discovered means no other lies were made?
Not that Michael Moore hasn’t already been totally discredited except among those who comprise his cult…
Michael Moore IS the liar of the century. He lied for nothing more than personal aggrandizement and personal financial gain, no matter what his PR people (he can afford them) tell you.
Shit, he even beats Dubya Bush in lies!
Oh sweet Jesus.
El_Kabong, the Manson family needs you and your type of thinking.
Lemme get this straight, Marty…
After Fahrenheit 9/11’s been out for over a month, after every partisan dink and their roommate have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb, after all the alleged “lies” and “deceits” in the movie have been proven accurate after all, the anti-Moore folks have finally shown that a headline shown in the film wasn’t the exact same headline used in the newspaper?
I mean, I want to get this straight: the facts claimed by the segment are still unambiguously correct – that a full recount showed Gore with more votes than Bush – but because a visual element was “off,” that somehow invalidates the entire movie?
Uh, yeah. :dubious:
Uh, Marty, have you ever considered getting a hobby? Maybe meeting some girls, perhaps?
Aside from the mind-numblingly stupid hair-splitting aspect of this entire OP (El_Kabong nailed the point in his first post, IMO), I just wonder where was this ultra-exacting demand for accuracy and veracity from the resident SDMB conservatives when Mr. Bush was selling his war with Iraq. I mean, Colin Powell’s little slideshow at the UN last year makes Michael Moore look like the Patron Saint Of Unerring Truth-Telling by comparison.
If what the article says is true, I’m going to have to discard partisanship and say I think it’s a valid criticism of Moore’s film. I really don’t think it’s hair splitting; if he fabricated a headline and passed an opinion piece off as a front-page story, that’s wrong. I too will be interested to hear if Moore addresses the issue.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far…
Where is your liberal compassion? These guys haven’t won one in so long, they’re starting to develop some real self-esteem issues. And besides, Moore’s kind of a dink anyway, we can easily afford to chuck him over, F-9/11 has already happened, the bomb done gone off, let 'em bitch about the crater if it makes 'em feel better.
Yeah, OK, MM bites it, too bad he made your guy look like a drooling goon, but hey, we weren’t holding the camera. And lets face a fact, if The Leader was as hot of shit as you would like us to believe, a chubby audio-visual geek wouldn’t have been able to make him look like a shallow dweeb.
Content yourselves with the certainty that, as a liberal, he is often shot through with bitter pangs of regret and remorse, in those contemplative moments that arise when one is rolling in a pile of hundred dollar bills with supermodels.
There. Feel better now?
Now watch this drive…
Actually, by bringing in a bunch of completely non-topical issues (what the fuck does Bush’s credibility have to do with Michael Moore? They’re not the same person.) intended solely to attack the persons making the arguments, you’re the one who’s trying to make yourself “feel better.”
It’s quite amusing–there’s a chorus of liberals who constantly whine about how Bush is dishonest, misleading, a liar, etc., and when one of their own gets caught in a lie, they largely refuse to recognize that fact and instead launch salvos of ad hominem attacks against the conservative posters who brought this up. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that people say the right-wing talking heads do!
Would it really have been that fucking hard to say (like several–Hi, Blowero!–did), “OK, if this is true, then Moore lied, and has lost credibility has a journalist.” And then (here’s the important part), don’t say anything else.
Don’t say, “Oh yeah!!! SO WHAT!! Bush lied too, and you like Bush, so you really don’t care about the truth you partisan STOMA-FUCKER!”, because shit like that stinks just as bad as “Oh yeah!!! CLINTON LIED!!!”.
Don’t say “Oh yeah!! SO WHAT!! The PAPER didn’t say that he lied–they just said that he was misleading!!!”, because that sounds an awful lot like “We didn’t say Sadaam and Al-Qaeda had connections–we just said they had contact.” It’s doubletalk, and it’s every bit as lame as what y’all accuse the right of doing.
Get a fucking spine: Rhetorical integrity shouldn’t get discarded when speaking to someone who holds different political beliefs.