I guess that proves that he is a fair and responsible journalist. I mean if people watch in large numbers then how can it not be true? Unfortunately ratings are not a barometer of anything except the ignorance of the public at large. American Idol, Faux News, etc...

Quote:I guess that proves that he is a fair and responsible journalist.

Well let's say he's not a responsible journalist, and that he's a liar and an idiot. Does that mean the American people turn out in droves to watch liars and morons? If that's the case then Maury Povich would be killing Oprah in the afternoon.

You can pooh-pooh his ratings if you want. Those people are watching a program that fits their value system. They're expressing their opinion with their channel changer. Most are too busy conducting their daily lives to hang out at the federal building protesting whatever the "cause of the day" might be.

I've never quite grasped the point of standing on a street corner for 8 hours, holding a sign saying "Impeach Bush." Might as well be holding a sign saying "Men from Mars Arrive Tomorrow," cause in both cases it ain't going to happen.

BroncoPhilly Wrote:Moore is biased, no question. He sees no ills on the Democrat side of things but endless ills on the Republican side. In my book, both major parties are hopelessly corrupt. Neither one more than the other.

BP - you are correct about Moore. That alone is why I pay very little attention to what he says. I'm fair though, I treat Rush the same way.

You are also spot on about both parties being corrupt. Todays politics has made me so cynical I would prefer to ignore it all....but I can't. I guess we're left to try & glean the truth through all the garbage put forth.

Michael Moore has NO credibility at all.

Are we now gonna get on the movie Transformers as the real pollutants and orchestrator of the green house effect ?

Both of the movies have about the same real life credibility.

BP,

You don't like Bush and thats fine. Some issues you raised are in good standing. Although the alternative is much worse, I disagree w/GWB on issues, but nobody can discount his ecominc tax plan has worked wonders here. Hes a bit liberal on other things imo.

The line you crossed on your arguement is quite obvious and I think you know it. You don't cite fiction on a research project w/out losing credibility.

PS, I still think you are a fine bronc fan.

Quote:The line you crossed on your arguement is quite obvious and I think you know it.

And what line might that be? Don't make insinuations in a debate. If you have a point, make it in a clear and concise manner and then I can debate it. Insinuations suggest you don't have belief in your own viewpoints.

Jeeze, the line "these are people of the land, you know, morons" comes to mind here.

Michael Moore uses his films to make people think, question instead of taking at face value everything that we're told to be true. If you believe everything he presents in his films or choose to discredit him because of what he has in his films, you're in the same light as the tools who used to ride around with bumper stickers saying "Archie Bunker for president", as well as those who thought that the people behind Blazing Saddles were prejudiced and racist.

Phil is the only one who hasn't gotten caught up in that vortex and sees it for what it is. The rest of you.......whoooooosh!!

BroncoPhilly Wrote:

Quote:The line you crossed on your arguement is quite obvious and I think you know it.

And what line might that be? Don't make insinuations in a debate. If you have a point, make it in a clear and concise manner and then I can debate it. Insinuations suggest you don't have belief in your own viewpoints.

Phil,
There was a second sentence to that parapraph explaining the first. Again " You don't cite fiction on a research project.


DB,

Michael Moore doesn't do anything w/out trying to gain money by working off of a certain groups agenda/feelings. Its almost cruel what he does to people that are emotionally invested in their thought process and get revved up by a "Sicko" like him. He spews lies and not even half truths to those who want to believe him. It happens on both sides of the aisle but the left media allows him moreso because he falls into their agenda. You are right to the extent that he should not be taken seriously but the media and his base have accepted him to be a fighter for their cause. Thats where the problem exists.Anybody who needs to look at him to get themselves to think should really discover another avenue.

Quote:but the left media allows him moreso because he falls into their agenda.

Most of his major work recently has been films, released and distributed through the theatres, people choose or choose not to watch those.

Not everything that is distasteful to you is the fault of the 'evil liberal media', as much as you would like it to be. Be nice if life were that simple.

Quote:An amazing fact presented in the film was that, days after the attack when it was evident that Bin Laden was probably involved a great many members of the Bin Laden family (think the number was 124) who were in America for many reasons were spirited out of the country on special visas! This at a time when the regular US airlines were grounded and NOBODY was flying.

This is not to say these members of the Bin Laden family were involved in the attack, but they were not even sub poened to answer questions or provide information before being whisked out of the country. Why were they allowed to leave like that? The Saudi Royal family-longtime friends of the Bush family-requested it.

So, the Saudis, who's nation provided most of the funding for the Bin Laden terrorists, were given a bye and we attacked Iraq, devestating that nation, who had nothing to do with the attack (3600 Americans having paid the ultimate price since then). It makes you sick to watch the duplicity of this Administration.

Why does Michael Moore's credibility get attacked when this point is brought up? I've even heard John McCain on "Meet the Press" say he would like answers to why his family had a pass the next day. I still haven't heard a plausable answer from anyone who could be held accountable, why not?!

DesertBronco Wrote:

Quote:but the left media allows him moreso because he falls into their agenda.

Most of his major work recently has been films, released and distributed through the theatres, people choose or choose not to watch those.

Not everything that is distasteful to you is the fault of the 'evil liberal media', as much as you would like it to be. Be nice if life were that simple.

The point is not distasteful but rather acceptable. For instance a few years ago a conservative book bashing done by Kitty Kelly which was proving filled w/falsehoods was introduced on every morning show etc. But when another book bashing Clinton was presented the stations did not take to it. There is no doubt that the viewing media is presented by those who are liberals. On the flip side the conservatives have done well on the radio. The differance is the liberal media has presented "news" liberally slanted as where the radio is an opinion. Rush presnts news events and then presents his conservative take.

Moore is an opinion that has been acceted by the liberal media as a news documentary. As for his distribution process through the theaters and production I would assume you would accept that liberals run Hollywood and his access to have his films produced by Weinstein's group at Miramax have a better chance to be seen than a conservative film, unless a man w/the funds can create it and than forward w/out the help of Hollywoods liberals.

^

Myth. If a film makes money, it gets distributed, that's what rules Hollywood. Mel Gibson is the most conservative person around, when his films made money, he was distributed.

And that movie based on the Clinton book sure got made and distributed okay, didn't it?

Mel Gibson did it on his own. Liberal Hollywood tried all it could to rip his film about Jesus' Passion but unfortunately for them Gibson had the financial will and power to market it through churches and push it. Theatres played it because they want to make money.

The liberal media ripped it everyday trying to say it was anti-jewish, violent etc..., but the public saw through it and actually believe the Bible and therefore disavowed liberal hollywoods attention and saw it.

Its very unique for a private person to be able to do what Gibson did w/out help from the industry.

Quote:I would assume you would accept that liberals run Hollywood and his access to have his films produced by Weinstein's group at Miramax have a better chance to be seen than a conservative film, unless a man w/the funds can create it and than forward w/out the help of Hollywoods liberals.

Disney blocked the distibtuion of 911, remember?

Mel Gibson is a raving lunatic, he has no crediblity what so ever. I saw the tape on youtube.......

Quote:but the public saw through it and actually believe the Bible and therefore disavowed liberal hollywoods attention and saw it.

They did huh? That certainly is one persons opinion.

Quote:There was a second sentence to that parapraph explaining the first. Again " You don't cite fiction on a research project.

I guess that passes for a straight answer in some circles.

DesertBronco Wrote:

Quote:but the public saw through it and actually believe the Bible and therefore disavowed liberal hollywoods attention and saw it.

They did huh? That certainly is one persons opinion.

Now I have a greater understanding where you come from. I hope all works out for you. I'll be moving on now w/you. Take care.

Right on, peace brother.

I love how righteous you get when you have no point, you've pulled that out of your hat before. Please move on, you're a hypocrite.

His point was obvious, and it was made well.

Mainstream media and Hollywood have one standard for media with a left wing slant, and another standard for media with a right wing slat.

That's fine and all, except they promote themselves as "objective" when they're the farthest thing from it. Talk radio leaves know doubt as to what their slant is, so when they pan something or promote it, at least you know where they're coming from.

As stated, the media hated "Passion" and blasted it daily. "Too violent, anti-semitic, etc." None the less Passion generated 370 million and is the 11th largest grossing movie of all time. I think those numbers prove the point that the "people saw through the bias."

Box office reciepts do nothing to prove or disprove bias, and if his opinion was so well made you wouldn't have needed to come in and make it for him.