Well let’s be fair now… bringing up a person’s needs for meds is personal, it’s not like we know Elucidator “…is a cowardly little gang-rapist”.
I mean this is the pit right and all’s fair…except mocking a person’s need for medication. Thatwould be a low blow…unlike calling someguy a gang rapist.
Excuse, please? A moment of your time? You seem to have made a minor error in attribution. I’ve looked over my appointments schedule, and I see that I have not committed any acts of forcible buggery on any drooling morons, either singly or in groups.
Please correct accordingly.
I just read through the last 5 pages of this thread hoping that I could find some concrete things that Michael Moore lied about in this film. Hoping, because I don’t want to believe that things are as corrupt as this film makes them out to be.
Unfortunately I haven’t found much to convince me that the facts that I’ve seen in this film are lies. Maybe the President’s vacations are too long, maybe Michael Moore cut the footage of a scene or two without the complete story to make a point, maybe Bush was told to sit for a minute in that classroom until they figure out what to do. It’s not these things that matter to me.
What are the real facts that he’s lied about?
That was vile, Liberal.
I would, but I don’t think I have to. I have it from a source that I read, whose opinions are; that your acts in this thread are comparable to that of a gang rapist. So I don’t see why I have prove, provide or show anything.
Isn’t that the rule?
-some of the sillier nonsense about the way the Patriot Act was passed and how the climate of fear has been used in some silly ways, yet at the same time it doesn’t seem like giant holes in our security are given much attention.
-soldiers talking off message about their lives, their opinions on the war (obviously, all negative and confused as to why they are even there, but most of what we’ve heard is the exact opposite, all on message)
-wounded soldiers who feel forgotten and ignored and swept under the rug by a media that won’t look at them
-a closer look at a military family that lost a son, before and after: undeniably powerful no matter how you interpret it, and definately worth seeing and mulling over
-military recruiters at work, how they work, and who they work on (I have to admit, I’ve lived a priveleged life: I’ve never ever run into one, but my friends who went to public high school did all the time: it’s a fair point to make)
-Iraqi civilian casualties and U.S. soldiers talking about how they feel about having caused some of them
-U.S. troops taunting prisoners
-What justice in Saudi Arabia, our good pals the great champions of human rights, is like
-Iraq before the war: whatever you want to say about it, a society in which families could exist, live lives, children play, etc.
-in part just compiling a bunch of disparate footage all in one place, even as selective and one-sided as it might be: some I had forgotten, some heard about but saw for the first time
This last is, as I said in the GD thread, something I think is the weakest and most dishonest part of the film. He doesn’t outline that Saddam was a rat bastard who ran a dictatorship that smacked down all who opposed him plus some more for good measure. This is certainly at least a lie via ommision. But at the same time, everyone knows that already. What I don’t think many people have ever seen is that Iraq wasn’t JUST that, either. Real people were in the middle, and fighting the war right then in the way we did wasn’t just some inevtiable sole option, but a particular choice out of many in which the suffering the Iraqi people have made is a consequence that you can’t look away from if you are seriously going to defend not just “the war” but the very specific war plan that Bush chose. Could we have done more to not destroy infastructure and avoid civilian deaths. Plenty of military planners have said: yes we could. In fact, we had a plan to do so, designed so that we could get Iraq back up and running fast. But it called for more troops, and might have delayed the invade date by a few weeks. What was the cause for ignoring things like that, which might have made things better both for our troops and for regular Iraqis (albiet not quite as profitable for reconstruction contracts)? I still honestly don’t know. So that’s part of what I don’t think people spend enough time thinking about when they look back.
Ahhh, the big difference was the “like” in the first, uhhh, comment, whereas the second, ummm, comment, was a simile. He never said anyone was a gang rapist, just like a gang rapist.
Don’t think there’s is a big difference, but that’s me.
Mr. Smith IS a Nigger.
Mr Smith acts LIKE a Nigger.
Don’t see that much of difference. Do you?
But you’re right, I altered what liberal wrote and though that was more a typo, than deliberate; I modified.
apologies.
I think it’s rediculous to expect any hard, fact based discussion about a movie that’s just been out for two weeks by people who have real lives to deal with. Sure it’d be nice to have a Roger Ebert’s ability to sit through the movie a few times and make sure you got everything, but no one here has their own copy (well, unless someone has a pirated version or something) of the film to analyze it. I think a better time to check it out will be when the film is released on DVD a few months from now.
Upon review, I see that I am mistaken, I didn’t see the posting by Gibberal that contained the original slur. Clearly, I was in error. You are not the source of this bit of rhetorical diarrhea, but merely the receptacle by which it was delivered to me. Please be assured that my regard for you is unchanged.
Not for those reasons, no. Again, I’m not saying that Clarke should be trusted about this but not about other things. I’m saying that Clarke gives a credible refutation of Moore’s implication about Bush family favoritism toward the Bin Ladens since Clarke is the very source of authority on the matter. It speaks directly to the credibility of the movie in that it highlights a known issue on which Moore jumped the gun. Maybe he didn’t know then, but he knows now, and he does not mention it in promotional interviews.
Apos
I’m not sure any of those are new, are they? I knew about security holes (especially in seaports). I’ve seen interviews with families who lost loved ones in the war. I knew how military recruiters work. I knew about Saudi Arabian human rights violations. And so on.
But with respect to soldiers talking off-message, Moore admitted in his interview with Lauer that some of the soldiers who spoke did not know that their remarks would be shown and are angry about being duped by him. And the film he had of Iraqis being taunted and sexually molested is quite controversial since he decided to profit from it rather than alert authorities or the press. Finally, not all Iraqis could work and play freely. Saddam was at the top of human rights watchdogs’ lists for many many years. If Moore represented that as the norm for all people there, then he lied.
There is no need nor purpose in capitalizing “nigger”. As they wheel you into the emergency room to remove Mr. Smith’s boot from your rectum, you will see that the matter is of small consequence.
I think you’re mistaken. Mr. Smith will realize that I am merely making a comparison between what someone else * is* and what he is acting as. He will of course thank me for pointing out that, by modifing his behaviour I will no longer consider him comparable to those others.
Now if he was acting gay, well that would be a different story…
You really don’t know when to shut up, do you?
Your karma approaches. Cringe.
Maybe he meant the “Niggar” family from the Dave Chapelle show.
I have to respectfully disagree.
I would not be surprised one iota if news came out tomorrow that the Republican Party leadership had assembled a crack team of fact-checkers, hutched over their computers, all hooked up to the internet, USENET, the collected White House video and PDF archives, and everything else you could think of, waiting for their team of moviegoing ninjas to return with a detailed report of everything in the movie, so they could pounce on every single flaw, shred the film to pieces in a public bloodbath, then smear Michael Moore as a liar, denounce John Kerry as a French-lovin’ diplomat, and enshrine George W. Bush as the Glorious Leader of the Free World™ … and, of course, their massive disappointment at their inability to find something, ANYTHING to tear down this movie with.
Won’t anyone think of all those poor, dejected, disappointed GOP researchers? 
What did they think the cameras were for?
Hmm… “alert the authorities”, you say, about what they themselves were doing. Interesting criticism there.
You say all of this as though it were a *bad *thing! This is a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance, you know. 
rjung, m’lad, close but no cigar. What makes you think they haven’t already done so? Sure as shittin’ somebody did. The silence you hear is not circumspection or polite restraint. They already did all that, and came up with bupkiss.
After all, we have our own crew of Tighty Righty miscreants, with all the 'net sophistication and research capacity one could want, save having Big Svin or the redoubtable Slimin’ Moon on thier team. If they could do better than the meager crumbs that they offer, they damn sure would have, youbetcha!
Its been days now, and the silence is profound, and sufficient cause for mirth and merriment. 'Nuff sed, sez me.
I thought that was my point. 
Of course, in terms of fighting ignorance, there’s still Starving Artist’s misplaced contention that Michael Moore is lying in his movie. I’d like to see him address the silence, myself.