[QUOTE=Apos]
You called him a stooge and a dupe for taking people to Cuba to be treated, having them get treated, and saying, essentially, why can a third world country do what we can’t? Yes or no?
You want to use that sort of language, but then you don’t want to bother backing any of it up.
Inventing positions for Moore to hold so that you can attack them without providing evidence of his views or his intentions doesn’t fly. Calling the “comparison” invalid is nonsense unless you can provide some evidence that Moore makes any sort of claim about comparing the systems on anything other than that somehow Cuba is able to treat people affordably that America is not, and America should be. You are the one inventing all sorts of much more complex arguments, ascribing them to Moore and then complaining that they are invalid.
Again, provide some actual evidence that it’s Moore intention to prop up or celebrate Castro or his regime, especially given that he’s explicitly said that this is not his intention.
Or is this just a “Moore = bad so Moore says something = bad” argument?
[/quote]
You’re piling straw on top of straw, dude. I never said Moore was sucking up to Castro, and never said Moore = bad.
Um, I think that says more about you, than me, pal.
Well, you’re right. You can say it. It just isn’t worth the words it’s said with. Why should we be able to do it if we aren’t willing to use the same methods? The Chinese are able to have an annual GDP growth rate of 8% per year. Why shouldn’t we be able to do that? The North Koreans hardly have any problems with traffic. Why shouldn’t we be able to do that? Africa countries hardly emit any greenhouse gases. Why shouldn’t we be able to do that?
I think anyone who calls someone a stooge and dupe and then turns around and complains when someone calls them on it needs a serious look in the mirror of honesty. You are the one who built a bunch of straw men.
Well, gee, I never said “Cheney = bad” but that was how you chose to play it. Somehow you manage to demand things be extremely litteralistic when others say them, but when you say something, anything goes, regardless of how unjustified and lacking in citation or explanation.
I’m not even seeing the argument here. How does seeing something you think should exist and saying “hey, that’s something we should have” not worth “the words its said with.” Where’s the logic here? How does that translate into him being a stooge and dupe for anything? No all the countries he profiles are not all the same. But they all do something he thinks it worthwhile. It’s one thing to disagree with him. It’s quite another thing to turn around and lie like Thompson did and claim that Moore needs to answer for Castro’s regime, or invent convulted arguments Moore never made in the first place in order to refute them.
If he is nothing more than a reaction-monger pretending that his heavily biased and spun reports are serious investigative journalism, he is no worse (and no better) than Fox News, and nowhere near as pervasive.
He exists to provoke, and right in this very thread we see numerous examples of our local tighty-righties getting aluminum Christmas trees up their asses about a film that hasn’t even been released yet.
I’m definitely seeing it in the theaters. I’ve already got the entertainment value of that much right here.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nevertheless, he is at the same time furious. It puzzles me.
[/QUOTE]
It makes perfect sense to me…he is furious, not because he might lose money…he doesn’t care enough about money or copyright laws for that! He is furious because it is a government conspiracy against him.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It makes perfect sense to me…he is furious, not because he might lose money…he doesn’t care enough about money or copyright laws for that! He is furious because it is a government conspiracy against him.
[/QUOTE]
Actually he’s blaming the studio execs, not the government. But what motive he attributes to them is unclear to me.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Actually he’s blaming the studio execs, not the government. But what motive he attributes to them is unclear to me.
[/QUOTE]
You are right, but in any case, his issue is NOT about money. He doesn’t care about the money AT ALL. Honest.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
If he’s telling the truth, or even has a case, what difference do his character flaws make?
[/QUOTE]
In this case, it probably doesn’t. It’s just fun to rip on the guy because he’s such a hypocritical buffoon.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nevertheless, he is at the same time furious. It puzzles me.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see any indication in the article that Moore himself claims to be “furious.” The linked article characterizes him as “fuming,” but that’s the author talking, not Moore. Is there a quote somewhere from Moore himself where he claims to be particularly upset?
His observation that the quality of the leaked footage means it has to have been leaked by studio execs does not necessarily indicate that he is “furious” about it.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
In this case, it probably doesn’t. It’s just fun to rip on the guy because he’s such a hypocritical buffoon.
[/QUOTE]
And, also, he’s fat.
If you have a problem with the points he makes, address them on their own merits.
As a side note: I think it’s Moore’s non-profit organization that technically owns the Halliburton stocks. That said, I’d still be interested in hearing Moore’s explanation/reasoning for this.
LilShieste
It’s a link to some right wing blog claiming Michael Moore owned stock in Halliburton. I don’t see any proof of that claim on the page, nor do I find the claim believable. So, no. This isn’t a cite for MM being a hypocrite. It’s a cite that some right wing crank on the internet doesn’t like Michael Moore.
)
)