“that’s too bad,” isn’t particularly respectful, which is my point.
You *strenuously[i/] object? Oh. Well in that case…
I disagree. Franken is not a present-the-whole-truth sort of guy. If you’re cherry-picking facts to support your thesis, you’re not being honest.
I’m conservative, but I’m not a moron Mhendo. It should be obvious that Moore, Limbaugh, Coulter, Franken, et al are cut from the same cloth and do the exact same thing.
Aaron Sorkin should sue you for misappropriating his line from A Few Good Men to serve a political interest with which he most likely disagrees. Got a spare $175 mil?
If he shows up, I’ll apologize.
I’d like you to cite the facts you have to make this case. Please.
Franken does not cherry pick. Don’t like it? Tough shit.
Your completely irrational arguments in this thread notwithstanding?
Actually, it’s not obvious at all. Just because you have the, ahem, integrity to include two of the most irrational, rabid conservatives in your formulation to go along with the two leftists does not mean that some sort of actual balance or equivalence has been established.
Personally, i would equate someone like Franken much more closely with, say, P.J. O’Rourke. While the quality and the style of their humor is quite different, they both adopt fairly similar strategies of making political points using irony and hyperbole. Both of them, in my experience, actually have a lot of smart, interesting stuff to say. I’ve tended to find O’Rourke less funny as he’s gotten older and more conservative, but neither he nor Franken begin to approximate the sheer gobsmacking lunacy of someone like Coulter.
When either Moore or Franken calls for killing the leaders of another country and forcibly converting their people to Christianty, let me know. When either Moore or Franken makes an entirely serious call for locking up political opponents based on their political beliefs, let me know.
Great job, it really helped put the whole issue into perspective.
I have to say, I don’t think the quote was edited in a way to twist its meaning. He was used as an example of a person horribly injured by the war, right after a guy mentioned that there wasn’t enough talk about the injured, only the dead. I don’t see how anyone could take away from the movie that Damon was against the war. Since he was actually injured in the war and was just describing his injuries, it’s appropriate for Moore to have used the clip where he did. Assuming he secured whatever legal rights necessary to use the clip.
I also presume that a lot of people who support the war appear at various times in the movie, as long as they’re presented honestly, I don’t see the problem.
As an aside, when the first guy said that the injured weren’t getting the “coverage” they deserved, my first thought was medical coverage, not media coverage.
I the context of the short clip i provided, that’s completely understandable.
But in the movie itself, Moore has already introduced the issue of how injured soldiers are being ignored by the media, so the audience is prepared for it. It’s my opinion that, in the full context of the movie, virtually everyone would be clear that its media coverage that is the issue.
Of course it’s unbalanced. Nobody thinks Moore isn’t an opponent of the Republican Party.
I don’t know where you’ve been all these years, or if you’ve never seen a documentary before, but many documentaries have carried editorial biases pretty much since they started making them.
As usual you change the definition to suit your needs and call me names. MM claimed it was a documentary, MM intentionally misrepresented facts, took things out of sequence and lied - MM is not to be trusted and his works are little more then fiction. The movie was discredited more then once and actually a ‘counter movie’ Farenhype 911 was produced to point out his inconsistencies. But you want to change the definition of documentry once you can no longer claim that MM never made any documentries (when pointed out that MM calls F911 a Documentry on his own website).
Yes call me names again, change the subject, bring up the impeach Bush aspect if you must, but it really is getting tiresome by now. the issue remains that MM is not trustworthy to tell the truth - and you just can’t deal with that issue for some reason.
never have, don’t think I ever will - where did you get this crap.
Making up more crap i see- well I guess we can say making up Moore crap.
Well I wouldn’t go to far as saying I hate America (meaning the US) but have some serious disagreements with some of the policies, such as immigration, defense, war (we are not hitting them hard enough), Iran (those nuke fuels should be taken away from them before they hurt themselves or others).
I in no way said that MM should be stopped from speaking, just that he should be held responsible for his speech and yes that could lead to treason charged. Are you for yelling fire in a crowded theater?
Oh, i don’t know, perhaps from your first post to this thread (post #9), where you say:
What were you implying there, if not that Moore could be charged with and convicted of treason based on the content of his movie?
You are a fucking drooling idiot who’s apparently too stupid even to understand the issues involved here.
Cite? Name something he lied about. How was the soldier in this case misrepresented?
The movie was discredited more then once
[/quote]
Cite?
\You mean a right-wing propganda piece was produced in order to whine about it.
There is no definition of “documentary” which requires them to be disinterested in their subject matter or forbids them from having a point of view.
This kind of thinking says a lot about you, but you forgot to add the First amendment to your list of stuff you hate about America. Your opinions that America is not murderous and reckless enough are probably better left kept to yourself, by the way.
The disingenuousness and self-contradiction in this paragraph is brathtaking. You don’t want to stop him from spaking,. you just want to charge him with treason for speaking. You need to look up the legal definition of treason, moron, it doesn’t include disagreeing with a war or criticizing presidents.
Nor is it particularly disrespectful. Moore didn’t lie or misrepresent the soldier or his service in any way. He did use the soldier in a film that promotes a political message the soldier disagrees with. So what? That’s not disrespectful, neither of the soldier as an individual, nor of his service in the military. The guy doesn’t want his likeness or his words used by the media, he shouldn’t have talked to the media. Once he entered the public arena, his comments are fair game for use by either side of the debate.
Show me where, in one of his books or numerous public appearances, Al Franken has deceived people through omission or misdirection. He hasn’t done it. Putting him in the same list as Coulter or Limbaugh is far more dishonest than anything you’ll find in Franken’s writings or speeches.
I love you guys, again turning to namecalling, calling cites even though you already know that a cite was mentioned, but you chose to not believe it - that’s fine with me. And then you claim to support the laws of the country, and make up terms about treason and give unlimited freedom of speach - which was never intended nor was it ever granted - so you made up a amendment to suit your needs to further your (non-existant) point.
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”
I strenuously disagree.
Sure he has:
http://www.lyingliar.com/media/theview.htm
You true-beleivers really do boggle my mind.
I’m sorry, but saying that Hume was just talking about media priorities is more stupid, The difference in the quotes is so slight, I really wonder why one could think this is a “gotcha”. Saying that what Hume said was an “observation about media priorities” would be a valid statement if California had an army of occupation being killed at that rate on top of the rate of the deaths of the locals. At it is, it shows to me that the lives of Iraqis killed are not worthy to be factored at all.
Swift boating someone with sorry biased evidence like the one you just posted, does mean you have not learned a thing about the need of not relying on sources of info that continue to mislead you. After having egg in your face regarding WMD and the swift boaters, it is sad to see you continue.
What in the great glorious fuck are you talking about! Did you read this cite? Do you endorse it?
Everyone, here’s the big LIE Scylla has uncovered:
According to the cite (and I haven’t even looked anywhere else to investigate the veracity of this; all of this is taken from Scylla’s cite) Franken CLAIMED that Brit Hume said this:
“Statistically speaking, U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California.”
When what Brit Hume really said was:
“Statistically speaking, U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California which is roughly the same geographical size.”
This is the lie you’ve selected to call Franken a liar and support the contention that he is the same as Ann Coulter? That he left out the clause “from all causes” and the clause “which is roughly the same in geographical size”?
The rest of your link appears to be a very stupid defense of the issue I alluded to in another thread just a few days ago. Specifically, comparing the raw number of deaths among citizens of California with the raw number of deaths of troops in Iraq is fucking stupid. Don’t be fucking stupid. As I’ve said before, the numerator is your friend - don’t fight it. The odds of a soldier being killed in Iraq are far greater than that of a citizen of California being murdered.
That’s why they say “War is hell,” and (usually) don’t say “Being a citizen in California is hell.”
You certainly make it hard to not be an asshole towards you when you cite shit like this. Citing stuff like this is, in my opinion, far more offensive than just throwing around a vulgarity. Why do you have to be an asshole?
Sorry, in my post above, that should be “The denominator is your friend.” Of course, the numerator is also your friend.
The odds ratio or relative risk statistic is your best friend with benefits.
I’d still like to know how any of the soldier’s views were misrepresented. I’d also like to know how “context” would change the meaning of anything he said. Since he still claims to believe everything he said in the footage that was shown in the movie, how can he claim it’s a misrepresentation?
Saying it was taken out of context doesn’t even make sense. That would imply that full context would show that he meant something different from what was shown in the film. This guy’s complaint is really that his footage was used in a film which contains other messages he disagrees with and he is falsely claiming that this means the film represents him personally as being against the war. There is absolutely no case here. No misrepresentation, no manipulation, no exploitation, no disrespect, nothing. It’s a naked money grab and nothing else.