1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Michael Moore targetted by U.S. Treasury Department

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Double J, May 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simple.
    Judge what I asked -- what is Moore's position on guns in America as illustrated by Bowling For Columbine? Find me anything of Coulter's that is equally ambivalent or nuanced.
     
  2. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    If anyone wants to fire up the scoreboard for a tit-for-tat ledger of outrageous statements between Moore and any one of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly et al, line 'em up. I know the result of that game before we even kick off. And I'd wager that the fact-accuracy battle between the sides would make Super Bowl XXIV look like a nail-biter, too.

    Fahrenheit 9/11 made $222 million in worldwide receipts on limited screens after the oh-so-liberal Disney Co. dropped it, so, despite what some want to believe, the entire audience was not made up of Daily Kos readers.

    Look, I've enjoyed Moore's work, but do I take everything he says as gospel? No. He was front and center with the notion in 2000 that Bush equals Gore. He was proven spectacularly wrong, and I'll never forgive him for it.

    But actually providing citations of Moore's "looseness with the facts," which I'm seeing very little of in this thread, takes some work. It's much easier to baselessly equate him with Limbaugh, the man most responsible for the third-grade level of current-event discourse we have in this country.
     
  3. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Every one of Moore's movies is exhibit A of a guy taking creative liberties with facts.

    I'll give you one example which is all you asked for....

    If you believe Michael Moore the NRA organized and brought a huge second amendment rally in Denver just a week after Columbine to make a statement for the gun culture in America.

    The fact is the site for that "rally"which was the annual convention was planned at least two years in advance and had nothing to do with making a national statement about the second amendment in the same state as Columbine -unless of course the organizers were psychic.

    There are plenty of other examples of out of context interviews, very liberal leaps of faith to make connections between events and whatnot in every one of his movies.

    To argue otherwise, to say he is any more or less dishonest than the conservative commentators in question is flat out being dishonest.
     
  4. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    A message's subtlety, nuance and ambivalence don't matter, but the credibility of the person who is delivering the message certainly does matter. If the person has no credibility, their entire message can be dismissed. Therefore, Moore = Coulter = Limbaugh.
     
  5. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    When Michael Moore advocates the assassination of a conservative political leader, come back to me with that assertion that he's every bit a Coulter.
     
  6. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    You're missing the point. It's not Moore's message that justifies comparing him to Coulter, it's his lack of credibility.
     
  7. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    What are you talking about? So we are going to go line for line with all of these peoples lies and deceptions and decide which is worse?

    That's such a typical and weak rationalization by partisans that it barely warrants a response.

    And some of Michael's Moore's hatred spewed at corporate ceo's and George W. Bush clearly approach or even exceed the level of Coulter's nonsensical rants so that point is moot to begin with.
     
  8. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    You're missing the point. One who does not advocate murder is far less of a nutcase than one who does.
     
  9. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    The point is about self-promotion and credibilty among so-called opinion makers and social commentators and the fact that both sides have guys/women who are full of shit and Moore is one of them.
     
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Quibble on the details, if you must, but as far as larger truths, Moore is spot on regarding many things.

    Moore says health care should be accessible to all: Spot on.
    Coulter says liberal politicians should be assassinated: Not spot on.
     
  11. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    That might be the dumbest and most ridiculous attempt to rationalize your inability to get beyond your partisanship and just admit that Michael Moore is just as full of shit as the others in question, he's just full of shit and mostly on your side of the aisle so you can forgive his shortcomings easier.

    Can you just admit that?
     
  12. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    No, because he lays out arguments, and has the chops to make films that put over compelling arguments that sway people. Even if only 70 percent of what he does is in context, I'll take that over the 100 percent pure hatred and irrationality that Ann Coulter is.

    What would rather have, health care for all, or a liberal politician dead? I wish I considered this a rhetorical question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page