farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)

quote:

---

With Moore on the other hand we have opposition to the very idea that the US has the right to defend itself, along with conspiracy theory and guilt by association worthy of Joe McCarthy.

---

Defend itself?When did Iraq attack the US?When were they ever any kind of threat at all to the US?

See http://EvC Forum: A "Great Debate" for holmes vs. Rrhain? -->EvC Forum: A "Great Debate" for holmes vs. Rrhain?Please, no replies to this here - Do it there.Adminnemooseus

I like Moore and I like F911, but I ain't going to deny that it was entertainment first and foremost... he said the same thing.And this is what disturbs me about your knocking this movie. Did you see it? Did you ever see what Moore said about the movie, and what it is?It really seems like you are coming out of left field making a bunch of conspiratorial and guilt by association claims yourself.Here's the deal, despite the fact that it is a piece of entertainment, and clearly one geared for the liberal crowd, and yeah he advances some innuendos which are likely not as bad as it sounds... it is filled with raw footage that he is not making up or taking out of context and is damning (all by itself).In addition, he does a good job of pointing out the very real appearances of impropriety which Bush has not addressed, and obviously has tried to sweep under the rug. Bush's deliberate obfuscation should worry us, especially when tied to some things which if true are VERY BAD.Again, why is your critical eye on some documentary maker, and a junk food one at that, instead of on the President and his administration?BTW- Moore never opposed the US defending itself. The only problem was when Bush took us on a wholly unrelated offensive, and botching both the offensive and defensive action in the process.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

insisting that I should answer and implying I must be wrong if I don't.

---

Incorrect.Stop thinking about yourself. Instead, I am directly saying that I am not wrong if you don't. As I directly stated numerous times, I have made a claim. You have challenged the claim but have not provided any justification forthe challenge.Therefore, my original claim stands as unrefuted. It could easily be wrong, but we don't know if it is or not because you have withheld any evidence to the contrary. You could quite easily be right, but because you refuse to show your hand, we're left with the conclusion that I am not refuted.That is, after all, how science works, right? The model we have is the most accurate one we have...and it still might be wrong. But until someone can show us where it does go wrong, we are forced to accept it as it's the only thing we have.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Post #287 bars me from responding to your posts on this subject.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Post #287 bars me from responding to your posts on this subject.

---

I don't see it that way. You are perfectly free to respond to question I have asked numerous times:If A, then B. A, therefore B.
If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets.Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets.Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation?Now, if the fact that we're talking about BfC rather than F9/11 is problematic, so be it. I'm happy to let this go.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

In contrast to message 289, this message has at least some real debate content. Holmes is welcome to reply to it.What I was objecting to, was that you and Holmes seemed to be exchanging a lot of "I responded" "No you didn't respond" type messages. Or something like that - Off-topic sniping.Both you and Holmes are far smarter than I am. But it's my job here to try to promote progressive debate. Many of your exchanges didn't seem to be such.I may be wrong. If you wish to discuss my perspective further, please take it to the "Change in Moderation?" topic, link below.Adminnemooseusps: I've also made some {perhaps) relative comments at A "Great Debate" for holmes vs. Rrhain?

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Just added the "(the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)" part.I think this better describes the content of the thread.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Totally misread your post... my humble apologies... ignore this reply.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-08-2004 05:40 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Total misread of Admin's post... my humblest apologies... so ignore this post.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-08-2004 05:38 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, I figured he wasn't refering to that specific question, but rather the other arguments which have been carrying on between us surrounding that question.It was those side arguments which I was refering to as "this subject". I apologize for any confusion.I have already detailed what I require to answer your question, and that conditional still stands... though the following is an added issue: I admit, I was also unsure if our discussing Bowling, and a splinter issue from Bowling at that, rather than F911, could have been an additional problem.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-08-2004 05:46 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just wondering if anyone else was feeling the strength of F911's claims when the White House put out another (obviously) fake terror alert, just for political reasons?Since the announcement it has been learned that most data was 3 years old, and in the rush to put it out as recent news, unearthed a mole that was working on our side in Al-Queda and positioned to get us real future information.Some experts estimate it will set us back on a real war on terror for months, possibly years.Even Britain has now stated the roundups which we went on to proclaim as some sort of victory, was a rushed affair due to our guys botching the whole operation.All this just to have an alert and upstage Kerry after the convention?I was totally seeing red, even before the later revelations, when Ridge mentioned some vague details and then made a clear stump speech for Bush.Yes, I think Moore will have plenty for a second doc, just on the lead up to the election.Haha... it might even be great if he makes a throroughly America positive movie about the 2004 election should Bush get tossed out. I wonder what the right would have to say then. I guess that will mean they hate america.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If I were Moore, I would just add some new material and re-release 911 in October. Come see 911 again with 20 minutes of all new footage.

But as you say previously Moore's movie is much intended as entertainment. Why does he fall short of reaching a more credible sincerity?Maybe the guy is a bit lost in the pleasures of life, prefers the entertainment to the issues, or maybe he's a little crazy and afraid it would show if he became more serious.I think for a large part Moore also discredits the anti-war movement, by this apparent lack of sincerity. Now the message is, we don't want war, we want entertainment. But this seems not to address the issue of the people who'se stated intention is to kill millions of Americans, Jews.Maybe he doesn't believe in the reality of the pain of the criminal in a Dostojewsky sense, or in the sense of hell for sinners. Noticeably his documentaries don't convey an impression of that truth.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Given what he looks like, I imagine he has some interest in the pleasures of life. But that said, his use of entertainment as a vehicle for information is not new and it is not small.I have already stated that a lot of what used to be credible media has switched to this kind of journalism.I think he is making the same pessimistic assessment of the American people, in thinking this is how you reach America, but that is his choice to make. And maybe I am wrong anyway. Well thought out docs which stress good information do not make the kind of money, or reach the numbers of audience members, as his do. Anyone using Moore's piece to discredit the anti-war movement is the one lacking credible sincerity. The facts within F911 are damning and any credible person should be focused on the war movement, not one member of the antiwar movement.I can only assume you have not seen the movie. In it, he does not seem to be arguing against the fact that something needed to be done about terrorism, but rather that the choices made by Bush and co were not serious in confronting that threat.I would add that the extremist's stated intentions (and actions) are to kill millions of Muslims as well as Americans and Jews (by which I assume you really meant Israelis).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)