Another faux Moore docudrama discredited.
Moore Fact Checked...again!
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
I'm glad to see that you now are in support of TARP and Senator Dodd, that leaves only the Walmart segment which was true at one time but not now. Does that make it any less heinous? Walmart's hierarchy then was the same as it is now.
As per usual the liberal retort of deflecting from the emphasis of what is being said. Moore is a boorish bloviating and disingenuous film maker. His films are NOT in any way documentaries...that's the point.
Are you attempting here to claim that they are? That they are factual and compelling documentaries presenting facts so that viewers can make up their minds based on actualities and not propaganda?
Norman Paperman
The Wino
It's a shame the distributors of his tripe don't bother to fact check his crapumentaries before they release them.
I'm attempting nothing. I merely find it amusing that those who criticized Dodd for allegedly taking a sweetheart loan and holding TARP up as the end of the earth are now taking a contrary position in order to gotcha Moore. That leaves only the Walmart portion which is a true statement but does leave out the fact that after some years, they changed their policy. It was not a lie but did withold truth.
Certainly you should be able to provide stronger evidence than that to back your conclusion.
How consistent are you regarding ALL distortions by those presenting propaganda and not fact?
Last edited:
The hypocrisy of the slobbering pig is astounding! I love the way his followers lap up his anti American anti capatilism propaganda seemingly blind to the fact that he is getting rich via capitalism....irony that!
I wonder why this disingenuous piece of crap docudrama isn't being distributed and shown for "Free" to the masses? Or perhaps Mr. Moore is going to donate all profit to the poor???
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So essentially Moore's film is guilty of being in the can BEFORE certain events transpired. That makes his film DATED...and all dated films have facts in them that are changed through time.
However, Moore's films usually have enough RELEVANT FACTS in them to make the status quo very nervous.....that coupled with his usual cheesy showmanship just downright pisses off his targets!
I can't wait to see the film!
However, Moore's films usually have enough RELEVANT FACTS in them to make the status quo very nervous.....that coupled with his usual cheesy showmanship just downright pisses off his targets!
I can't wait to see the film!
christiefan915
Catalyst
You must have seen it in order to claim it doesn't contain any facts, so I guess that makes you a PINHEAD.
uscitizen
Villified User
Good point. I have never seen an MM movie myself.
Norman Paperman
The Wino
I used to like Michael Moore's television show. The episode where he went on a picnic and kite flying with Doctor Kevorkian was funny as hell. I liked Roger & Me, until I found out he actually had a meeting with Roger, WHILE making the movie. The there was Bowling for Columbine, so full of lies and bullshit as to be laughable. After that film, he lost me for good. Thankfully, I haven't paid to see one of his hackumentaries since R&M.
i see his movies just for shits and giggles. I actually think moore is a pretty entertaining guy, views not withstanding. Bowling for columbine definitely assumed a lot of facts not in evidence though
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
סּ_סּ;530741 said:
Not quite......I'll be the first to concede that Moore will get somethings wrong in his films...case in point saying a letter to the editor was actually a headline story (or something to that effect). Or trying to tie the death of a little girl to the late Charlton Heston's gunner rally.
But the VAST majority of his films connect valid, documented facts with the words and actions of those involved....and THAT is what gets the neocon's knickers in a twist...because as we all know a picture is worth a thousand words.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Beg to differ on Bowling for Columbine. A lot of dramatic cheese, but hardly as flawed as you make it out to be.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=531222&postcount=13"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Moore Fact Checked...again![/ame]
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I'm beginning to believe the guy is clinically fucking stupid.....I wonder if what you say here will actually register with him? It's painfully evident that my post didn't....but I forget he substitutes calling someone a "pinhead" for reading carefully and comprehensively....so much more to pity him for.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
I have a few questions. Did the government bail out the banks and other companies because the "financial products" were insured by the government similar to accounts being insured by the FDIC?
If that is the case why does the government insure private money? Also, if the government insures money deposited in a bank why doesn't the government run the bank?
If that is the case why does the government insure private money? Also, if the government insures money deposited in a bank why doesn't the government run the bank?
Postmortem Profit
Verified User
The 9 banks bailed out held about 75% of the banking capital in the USA.
Does this indicate a problem?
Does this indicate a problem?
i like grayson's take on the rep health plan - 'do not get sick, if you do get sick, die quickly...'
corporations exist to make a profit, if they do not they die
taking money from public funds to 'live' because they are too big to fail id bad news since some of the corporations that were too big to fail are now even bigger due to mergers and takeovers