# The Lies of Michael Moore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 26, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278 "2004-06-26T04:26:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/221 "2004-06-29T03:59:27Z")
**You with the face** , if you reveal the state The Twilight Zone is in, I can find the SoS webpage for party entrollments and prove your case 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/222 "2004-06-29T04:14:13Z")
> [@milroyj](#): > > How does that work, exactly? In my state (IL) anyway, one registers to vote, not for a particular party. And since 'independent" isn’t even a party… In Pennsylvania, it is possible to register as an “independent”. A registered independent can’t vote in a party primary, which is the only drawback. There was a benefit to registering independent, but I can’t think of what it is at the moment. Robin, who scrambles to change her registration back to “Democrat” where it belongs. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/223 "2004-06-29T04:21:30Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > I don’t need his permission, per se, but I do need him to babysit. Heck, drop off a case a beer and the little tyke by **Uncle e.'s** house, and you guys can take off. He can help me clean the guns, feed the rottweillers. We’ll have us a good ol’ time! ---
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/224 "2004-06-29T05:27:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Attacking **Lib’s** posts is one thing but cheap-shotting him abut his meds is uncalled for and insensitive. It’s no different than people attacking Michael Moore for his weight. It’s _ad hominem_, it’s unfair, it’s off-point and it’s counter to the philosophy of this board. I wholeheartedly agree. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/225 "2004-06-29T06:46:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Heck, drop off a case a beer and the little tyke by **Uncle e.'s** house, and you guys can take off. He can help me clean the guns, feed the rottweillers. We’ll have us a good ol’ time! He’ll love the dingo farm out back. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/226 "2004-06-29T07:05:26Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > So what will you say when I watch it and still pan it into next week? We’ll have to get someone to explain to you that napping for 100 minutes doesn’t constitute “seeing” a movie. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > Oh, and in case I hadn’t made my thoughts abundantly clear, you are a pure, unadulterated dickhead. Given how off-kilter your other views are, I consider this the highest compliment you can give. 🙂 > [@Airman Doors](#): > > I have had enough of you. Good, because I was getting a tad tired of having a stalker around the place. Have fun playing in traffic! > [@Zoe](#): > > Those of us who do take medications in order to have normally functioning brain chemistry don’t find anything humorous in mental illness. While I certainly understand your sensitivity to the issue, I have to say this sounds like it’s being a tad oversensitive as well. “Please don’t joke with me about X” is one thing; “Do not make any jokes about X in my presence” is IMO another. > [@MsRobyn](#): > > I don’t need his permission, per se, but I do need him to babysit. Feh. _Real_ men would boldly leap forward to help their wives out of a jam, no questions asked. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/227 "2004-06-29T10:18:56Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **Liberal** , I can understand and respect your choice not to see the movie. But so far no one has been able to come up with _any_ lies or inaccuracies in the film. > > 1. In another thread, I was supported in my contention that Moore did not say that Saddam had never threatened any American. He said that Saddam had never threatened America. > > 2. Other claims of inaccuries have been addressed in this thread and dismissed. > > 3. You have demonstrated problems with understanding what was said in at least one of the reviews. > > 4. If you haven’t seen the movie, then you can’t “find” it to be anything – true, false, tacky, eloquent, biased, moving, entertaining, – whatever. You have no real opinion of your own. Your opinion is _not based on the film_ but on what others have said about it – liberals and conservatives alike. > > 5. In your need for this film to be inaccurate, you yourself have lost credibility. > > If you can verify that the film does indeed claim something that is not true, then by all means, go after it! _But at least double check to see what is actually in the film._ I haven’t said that the film is inaccurate. I haven’t seen it. I quoted a PBS journalist who said that, on the whole because of how it was put together, the film, while stating facts, is inaccurate. As she explained, it was the juxtaposition of certain suggestive scenes that raised questions but didn’t answer them. It is rather like a newspaper headline that says, “Is Senator Smith a Child Molestor?” Then, there are stories and pictures of Smith with his grandchildren, statements that they often sit in his lap or take baths at his home, and so forth. All true, but suggestive of something that isn’t true even though no direct lie is ever told. In this film, as one example, Moore suggests that the Bush administration’s rescue of the Bin Laden family demonstrates some sort of hypocrisy about terrorism. I know this because he was interviewed by Matt Lauren. He failed to mention that it was Richard Clarke who approved the Bin Laden exodus, and he can hardly be pegged as pro Bush. Maybe not an outright lie, but a misrepresentation of the facts nonetheless. This has always been Moore’s tactic. I did see Roger and Me, and I saw Bowling for Columbine. Fooling me twice was enough, I figure. And I accept the word of the leftist journalist from PBS. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/228 "2004-06-29T10:20:36Z")
Matt Lauer. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/229 "2004-06-29T13:05:44Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > He failed to mention that it was Richard Clarke who approved the Bin Laden exodus, and he can hardly be pegged as pro Bush. Maybe not an outright lie, but a misrepresentation of the facts nonetheless. I thought you read Christopher Hitchens’ article, **Lib**. Because even Hitchens concedes that Clarke’s role in approving the Bin Laden family’s plane flights came to light _after_ Moore’s film was completed. If you look at the article linked to by Hitchens, in which Clarke is reported as taking responsibility for the decision, you’ll see that it is dated May 26, and that it discusses events that happened “yesterday.” Now i’m no movie-making expert, but it’s obvious even to me that a film due to be released in late June will be well into post-production in late May. You can argue that Clarke’s admission might undercut some of the strength of Moore’s argument about Bush, but to call the ommission of that admission a “misrepresentation of the facts” is, in itself, a misrepresentation, because the only way Moore could have taken it into account is to travel backwards in time. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/230 "2004-06-29T13:15:53Z")
I think that’s a good point, Mhendo, and thus I retract my charge of misrepresentation on that point. Thanks for setting the record straight. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/231 "2004-06-29T13:20:46Z")
I do still hold, though, to the point I originally made before hearing Ms. Ifill’s remarks. And that is that the whole Bin Laden family thing is a cheap shot. They were Arab. Their names were Bin Laden. Ordinary brown people _suspected_ of being of Arab descent were being harrassed by an enraged populace. There was every reason to believe that the Bin Laden’s lives were in danger, and Moore’s implication that they were somehow tied to the terror of their black sheep Osama and therefore should have been detained was a low blow even for him. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/232 "2004-06-29T13:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I do still hold, though, to the point I originally made before hearing Ms. Ifill’s remarks. And that is that the whole Bin Laden family thing is a cheap shot. They were Arab. Their names were Bin Laden. Ordinary brown people suspected of being of Arab descent were being harrassed by an enraged populace. There was every reason to believe that the Bin Laden’s lives were in danger, and Moore’s implication that they were somehow tied to the terror of their black sheep Osama and therefore should have been detained was a low blow even for him. In danger from whom? Were the bin Laden’s hanging out at the laundromat? On their way down to the McDonalds for lunch? Are you suggesting that they might have been in danger due to a general backlash against Arab-looking people? Or are you proposing that a plot to infiltrate their security apparatus would have been launched? Do you think the bin Laden’s safety trumped the need to investigate the crime? Isn’t it possible that we could have provided reasonable security long enough to conduct a reasonable questioning of the relatives of the person who was responsible for arguably the single greatest crime on American soil? Again, this juxtaposes the willingness many show to impinge upon general “Arab- looking” people’s civil rights in the name of American security with the apparent desire to have one set of Arab looking relatives enjoy personal liberties at the (arguable) expense of American security. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/233 "2004-06-29T13:39:49Z")
Didn’t see it either. The Hair Apparant did, and I have had a fulsome review that likely came close to the actual running time. At any rate, the impression I gather is that the Saudis in general, and the bin Ladens in particular, recieved rather extraordinarily special treatment. Deferred to, as it were. Pampered. All in all, as I recollect, it wasn’t that great a time to be swarthy and Middle Eastern in appearance, here in America. Even for Americans of swarthy, Middle Eastern derivation. Any Americans like that spirited away? Swathed in a cocoon of security? We have, unless I’m very much mistaken, incarcerated hapless goat herders for one to several years on charges of being residents of a bad place at the wrong time. Not that they were actually guilty of anything, but fuck 'em. “Implication” is in the mind of the beholder even more than beauty, seems to me. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/234 "2004-06-29T13:43:43Z")
> [@Hentor](#): > > Isn’t it possible that we could have provided reasonable security long enough to conduct a reasonable questioning of the relatives of the person who was responsible for arguably the single greatest crime on American soil? Hell if I know, and you don’t either. Richard Clarke says he knew and that he acted appropriately. And what the hell does being a relative have to do with it? He wasn’t their live-in son or anything. Criminey, no wonder we’re losing our civil liberties. Even the leftists are now vigilantes who suspect that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/235 "2004-06-29T13:48:11Z")
5 pages in, still no lies. Alot of leaps of logic to try and conjure up what Moore says that might be a lie, but still no lie. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/236 "2004-06-29T13:55:38Z")
I don’t think you quite understand what a lie is. One definition is “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood”. But another is “Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression”. (Both from American Heritage.) Your constant claim that no lie has been shown is itself a lie in the second sense. By equivocating, you hope to deceive people into believe that Moore’s cheap hackjob represents reality. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/237 "2004-06-29T14:02:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Hell if I know, and you don’t either. Richard Clarke says he knew and that he acted appropriately. And what the hell does being a relative have to do with it? He wasn’t their live-in son or anything. Criminey, no wonder we’re losing our civil liberties. Even the leftists are now vigilantes who suspect that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. **Lib** , do you think it’s unreasonable to simply question the relatives of a suspect? Surely relatives at least might at least have as idea of where the suspect is… You kinda know where many of your relatives are, right? I don’t think anybody is saying they should have been thrown into prison indefinitely under the material witness statute. Just they they should have been questioned. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/238 "2004-06-29T14:06:00Z")
Well, gee, **Lib** , we need some perspective here, no? Some way of making a comparison, sort of “size up” the degree to which implications and innuendos constitutes a “lie”, in the sense of purveying a false impression. Now, if we could only think of some public figure who’s statements and suggestions might be construed as being misleading, less than straight-forward, not representative of utter and complete candor. Got any suggestions? ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/239 "2004-06-29T14:11:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t think you quite understand what a lie is. One definition is “A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood”. But another is “Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression”. (Both from American Heritage.) Your constant claim that no lie has been shown is itself a lie in the second sense. By equivocating, you hope to deceive people into believe that Moore’s cheap hackjob represents reality. Nonsense. You still have to show one intentional factual innaccuracy in F911. Really, your “perning in a gyre” act would make Yeats proud. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278/240 "2004-06-29T14:17:09Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I don’t think anybody is saying they should have been thrown into prison indefinitely under the material witness statute. Just they they should have been questioned. How do you know they weren’t? How long does it take to ask, “Do you know where Osama is?” > [@Twist](#): > > You still have to show one intentional factual innaccuracy in F911 I do? What are you, the hall monitor? If you can ignore definitions, I can ignore your demands. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-michael-moore/252278.md?page=13)