TV: O'Rielly Factor

Radio: Radio Factor

Movie: Lord Of The Rings!!!!!

TWENTY FOUR ROCKS!!!!

wooooo hooooo!!!!!! A new favorite board!!!!!!!

How would you know it's a "must see" movie if you haven't seen it?

The is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time. Excellent and completely fair and (un)balanced. lol! Well worth the download wait. It should win an Oscar for best funny short!!!

I agree that we are still our parent's children (that never changes) but we are not "children" anymore. But Moore's question in the film is dishonest.

It's like this: Your "child" breaks the law. He is sent before a judge in an "adult" court, and found guilty and then sent to "adult" prison.

Michael Moore takes to the streets in protest and complains "BBW's child is sitting in prison!" "Since when do we send our "children" to prison!!"
"Shame on America. Shame, Shame. Now we've sunk so low as to put our CHILDREN in prision!!!!"

Bystander: "But Michael, the kid's 35 years old.

Michael Moore: "He's still someone's child!!!"

Maybe he should have been sent to juvenile detention?

"Actually Lawmakers by agree to go to war actually do send everyone elses children to war."

No. This is not factual. They send soldiers. Adults. If the above statement is true then it's equally true to say Lawmakers send babies into war. My mom considered me her baby and still does. It's an inaccurate statement and therefore false.

"Moore makes the point that only 1 Congressmen had a child (adult child) over in the "war zone". Is this correct or not? I'm not sure."

If Moore makes this point he is wrong. The link I provided earlier lists several. But wait, so what? There is no valid connection between a Lawmaker having an adult "child" in the military and making the decision to go into Iraq. We can only speculate.

"Well that is because if the main stream media reports bad things about Bush, or makes the current administration unhappy - they as Media people will be shut out"

You need to get out more BBW. The mainstream media bashes Bush all the time. I'll find some examples but you are out to lunch on this one.

"Bush looks good. If American start to see that War has a bad side, which (IN MY OPINION) Strongly out weighs the good side, then Bush starts to look bad."

I agree. But if America doesn't see the good that goes on in many places in Iraq, they also get a distorted view.

nuff of that ... ;)

don't get confused. :)

Michael Moore did say that Bush lied and he repeated it on "The Factor" last night.

Just one more example of how Moore twists things. In the film, he asks some Lawmakers if they will sign up their children to serve in Iraq. Moore is going for embarassment here and putting Lawmakers on the spot. He is out to make it look like Lawmakers are ready to commit the children of others to war, but not their own.

However, this fails for several reasons. First, there are no "children" in the war, they are soldiers. Second, NO PARENT sends their "child" to this war or even signs them up for military service. The "adult" signed up, (volunteered willingly) for the US Armed Services. They are NOT children, they are adults and they are soldiers. Period. Here again Moore plays with words. I'm 52 and my mom still thinks of me as her "baby." Of course I'm an adult. I've been an adult and NOT a baby NOR a child for many years. I hope you get the point. Finally, Moore fails to mention the Congressmen that do have "children" currently serving in Iraq. Why ignore this fact? It doens't support his point.

And just a side note: Why is Moore's movie a side of things you won't see in the Media? Mainly because it's a distortion of the true picture. Don't you have a problem with that? I do.

“[When you make this statement: "Just like when Bush was deceiving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know." are you willing to agree that if your statement is proven false that you "lied" to me when you said it?]”

You really didn’t answer this question BBW. The reason it’s important is because according to Moore, you’d be guilty of lying. So I’ll assume you’d say no to this question (which is my answer) and I’ll go further and say neither did you mislead others by saying the statement above. You simply made a statement that was false but, since it wasn’t made with intent to deceive, it wasn’t a lie. (I’m speaking hypothetically)

Secondly BBW, you never did answer my final question. You simply returned a question back. I’ll answer for you to save time but I wish you had taken the time to respond directly to the question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

“Question is: "Did BBW lie when he said that AD is an art teacher in an elementary school?"”

I believe you’d say NO to this. All the facts you had pointed to AD being a teacher. Someone lied and it wasn’t AD’s friends. They had every reason to believe that AD was really an art teacher in an elementary school. Who lied? AD lied of course.

So, even though you were passing information that wasn’t true, you had every reason to believe it was true. All evidence pointed in that direction. This is a very basic idea I’m presenting. Anyone disagreeing would have to explain why they disagree. This is not a matter of opinion. Something is either a lie or it isn’t. Simple.

Michael Moore redefines what a lie is. According to Moore, Bush “lied” to the American people when he said Saddam had WMD. That of course is not a true statement so Moore is the liar. The 911 Commission has stated that NO ONE LIED. All intelligence agencies had reliable evidence that WMD’s existed in Iraq. Iraq has an aggressive military history that included using WMD’s. There is clear evidence for this and NO ONE disputes this fact.

Stick to the single subject of WMD’s BBW. If all the intelligence agencies (Russia, Britain, US) said there were WMD’s, if history records not only their existence but their use by Iraq, and if for the past ten years Saddam defied all attempts to verify the destruction of WMD’s, what other conclusion is possible to make?

So Michael Moore deliberately misleads the world with his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 (on this point at least), when he says Bush lied. On this point, Moore is wrong. Bush was wrong (so far yes), and as we now know there were some serious problems with US intelligence. You can say whatever you want about WMD’s, but you can’t say Bush lied. The facts don’t support it. Say he was wrong, say he acted hastily, say his decision didn’t show proper restraint, but you can’t say he lied. That statement would be false. It simply is not supported by the known facts.

This is the biggest problem with the movie. Michael Moore ignores the facts and redefines terms in order to promote his personal view of things. So what you ask? The problem is that many people will see this film and believe it is all true. That is a tragedy. The real villain is guys like Michael Moore who resort to whatever it takes, word twisting, equivocating, omission of crucial facts, to promote their personal ideology.

In order for a statement to be a “lie” it must accurately meet the legal definition of what constitutes a lie. Just because you or I call something a lie, doesn’t make it so.

A lie is:
*A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood
*Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
*To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

I’m not arguing here that Bush didn’t lie or intend to deceive. That is not the point I’m trying to make. My argument centers around the film Fahrenheit 9/11. I’m asserting that there is ample evidence within the film itself, that Michael Moore twists facts, presents information dishonestly, completely ignores information he obtains that doesn’t support the points he wants to make in the film (and in fact counter his points).

Based on Moore’s own use of the term “lie” it’s accurate to say that Moore is guilty of lying not only to the American public, but to the entire world. According to Moore’s own definition, if even ONE of the “facts” he presents turns out not to be true (and there are plenty that have been shown to be false) then Moore lied.

Sarasota second-graders

or Bush made a decision to stay so as not to alarm the little children knowing that what was being done about the current crisis would not change if he were to get up and leave at that moment. He was aware that there were people in command of the situation. And while he was very calmly finishing up, behind the scenes the people in authority were taking all the appropriate actions to gather information and deal with the crisis as then situation called for. He knew, probably, that information would be slowly coming in, as it did. What action could he have taken in those seven minutes that would have made a difference? No matter what he did however, people would criticize him for it. The problem with Moore's presentation is that he twists events to look like his interpretation of those events as fact. Was Bush confused? How would you or anyone know for sure? To say yes or no is only a guess. What Bush says about those moments is more important than what a Michael Moore might say. Moore has to guess too.

"But when the Bush Administration manipulated data, that is dishonest also."

Of course. But we are talking about the film Fahrenheit 911 and should stick to that. There is no need to bring in what Bush did or didn't do in comparison to what Moore did. That is digression. The bigger truth here is when ANYONE manipulates events to make them look a certain way, the action is dishonest and it applies equally across the board.

Let me ask you a question. If I asked you, do you 'think' Bush lied about WMD, and you said "yes," and I ask, "Why do you believe that?" "On what basis do you assert that Bush lied?" If you were to say "Because he told the American people something that wasn't true." Then your basis for a lie is when something is told that is not true, that is a lie.

Now if I ask you, "But did Bush know these things weren't true or did he actually believe there were WMD as he was being told by many agencies both foreign and domestic?" If you said, "It doesn't matter. Either way it wasn't true so he lied."

Then....look at this scenario:

When you make this statement: "Just like when Bush was deceiving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know." are you willing to agree that if your statement is proven false that you "lied" to me when you said it?

And..........

Let's say you have a discussion with your wife about Brainking. She asks who this AD guy is. You tell her what you know of me. You say that he is a teacher and teaches Art in an elementary school. She asks how you know this and you say, "He told me." Also, let's say, you asked Radiant, Endgame, and a few of my other friends like CindyInTN and Usurper. They ALL tell you, "Yes, AD is an art teacher in an elementary school." Let's say further that I have links on my profile for my personal websites which include the school webpage I claim to have designed (and indeed is has my real name crediting me for the work).

Then dozens of people ask you, BBW, about AD and you tell everyone that asks that AD is an art teacher. Finally, after so many PM's asking about AD, you post to "General Chat" and announce to one and all that AD is and art teacher in an elementary school.

A year later, it is found out that AD is a dishwasher in a greasy-spoon restaurant. He lives with his sister and her husband and as he never went past the 8th grade he can't get a very good job. He uses her computer whenever he's not at work. The "real name" he gave is one he only pretended. The websites do belong to an art teacher, but they are NOT AD's.

Question is: "Did BBW lie when he said that AD is an art teacher in an elementary school?"

just want you to qualify that one BBW so I know that to which you are referring.

Opinions are truth are separate issues. I may have the opinion Michael Moore is a genius, but that opinion is just one man's idea about a particular thing. Truth, on the other hand, is a verifiable fact, (not always, for something might be truth but we just can't know it) and is independent of any person's opinion.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not a documentary. It is a propaganda piece. It's a cut and paste of events put together in such a way as to promote Moore's one-sided-view.

A few snippets that Moore got wrong:

*The Bin Laden family did not get to fly out the next day as Moore reported. True that some flew early, but most flew out after all American could fly again as well. The FBI was NOT prevented from interviewing the Bin Laden family.

*Moore ignores facts that he doesn’t want in his film. When interviewing, he cleverly manipulates the events to put lawmakers in a bad light. Lawmakers to star in Moore film

*In the film Bush is shown reading a story to some Sarasota second-graders when news of the 911 plane attacks reaches him. Moore sarcastically highlights the fact that Bush stayed an additional 7 minutes while he calmly finishes reading the story to the students. Moore implies that the President seems confused and indecisive. But, Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission insists that Bush did the right thing by projecting calm. People should know that when you see only one side of a situation without hearing the complete story, you are likely being manipulated.

*Moore claims that Saddam never harmed or threatened any American. Last year, the Pentagon recorded 366 violations or provocations by the Iraqis in the two no-fly zones -- 221 in the south and 145 in the north

you can read more here

(especially see the bottom for more links)


As yet another innocent person has their head severed by Islamic "extremists," Moore apparently glosses over the fact that democracy, in general – and America, specifically – is under attack. I am innately aware that Michael Moore is first and foremost a provocateur, and he thrives on controversy.

Am I saying Moore doesn’t have a point? No

But when making that point, it would be nice if he’d keep his facts straight and present them honestly. Moore clearly manipulates events in his film to make his points. That is dishonest. Moore was clearly wrong on many points he tried to make in the film. I believe he does this deliberately to promote his ideology.

Moore will be on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor tonight. It ought to be interesting.

that's an answer? ok no point in continuing

Do you think everything in 911 was completely factual?"

1. yes
2. no

That wasn't my question. I didn't ask if you thought Michael Moore collected "facts." I asked if you thought they were factual. It's one thing to collect data, another to prove that data to be factual.

So the question is: "You think everything in 911 was completely factual?"

I'll make it simple for you SF:

1. yes
2. no

Which is it? 1 or 2

You think everything in 911 was completely factual?

Michael Moore's 911 plays loose with the facts. It will be interesting how he handles himself in his interview tomorrow on Fox. He's a smart guy, so let's see how he handles the parts in the movie where he was flat out wrong.

boring......you can read the highlights in the paper or read it on the net. Then networks will cover the highlights too. So why torture oneself by sitting through the whole thing and risking permanant brain damage? ;)

Yes but that assumes his "argument" is true. That remains to be seen.

very true...hard to argue against something you've not gotten a complete picture on..

Propaganda is mean to convince a person of a particular point of view even if doing so means facts must be distorted or even made up. It remains to be seen just how much of the movie is "fact" and how much just one man's (mis)interpretation of things. :)

I actually began liking Michael Moore after seeing him in an interview on Fox. I'm currently reading one of his books just to see what he has to say.

Yeah Rose. I wuz kiddin. ;) A friend of mine just gave me $$ to go and see it. I told him I'd wait for it to come out on video but he said to see it now. hmmmmm

It's a propaganda piece. Not everything in it is true. Just because someone makes a movie doesn't mean the content is reliable. Especially when it's cut and edited to make things look a certain way. But I will see it anyway. Have seen parts and some claims of Moore's are not accurate.

how come it's listed as comedy ;)