Lurve wrote:
Shake It Shake It
here is a nice little rebuttal.
Did you write that? The tone and attitude match perfectly what you've been posting here since you arrived.
Anthony Wade wrote:
If you pile up enough excrement in front of something, you may block the view, but the fact is it's still just **** blocking the view.
Quote:
If Kopel has no problem with GWB working from home, then I guess we disagree philosophically. Either way, despite hanging out with Tony Blair to concoct wars,
Quote:
For proof, Kopel cites such bastions of fair-minded press as The Weekly Standard and Newsweek (which has been cited for errors on Moore’s own website). Well, why didn’t you say so Mr. Kopel? If the Weekly Standard says it is so, it must be. Actually, lets quote Time magazine, shall we?
Holy cow... if this guy won't trust Newsweek, which is FAR from a right-leaning magazine, what does that say about him?
Quote:
I will try to summarize these points because again, Kopel’s sources are the ever non-partisan NY Post (owned by FOX WePretendtobeNews Channel’s Rupert Murdoch),
And his e-mail address?
takebacktheus@yahoo.comThis guy is nothing more than one of those nuts who would love to see Bush impeached (laughable) and believe the elections of 2000 and 2004 were "stolen". I also find it hilarious that he constantly rips on the National Review because it has hardcore conservative ads on its site... yet Wade's article is posted on a site that has a "Get rid of Bush Contribute $$ Now to John Kerry" ad and a "Reach Passionate Liberals. Your Ad Here; Advertise here" ad. Not exactly middle of the road yourself, are you Anthony?
Anyway, I read the entire thing, and while the main thing I noticed was the mean-spirited way the article was written, I also noticed Mr. Wade refuses to agree with Kopel on anything whatsoever, with the exception of where Kopel agrees with Moore. Wade's main argument seems to be "Moore didn't lie, but he does spin things and present a biased view because he has an agenda." Well okay, then. I don't think I'll disagree with him on the second and third points.
Quote:
47) Using the Debbie Schlussel source again, Kopel now expects us to believe that the media has not given this President a free pass on this war? The complicity of the media is a well-known and widely accepted truth that Moore correctly points out. Whether Jennings actually opposed the invasion, does not belie what his network did not do, in holding this President accountable.
The media has given the President a free pass on the Iraq war? What is Wade smoking? Go to any of the main news channels (CNN, CSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS) and you'll see a story on how the Iraq war is unjustified and horrible and US soldiers are killing hundreds of millions of innocent people... at least you would have until the Israel\Lebanon thing started again and the news networks' attention was drawn there.
Quote:
I would welcome Mr. Kopel to supply a reputable source, unlike the right wing organizations used to write this article, and I will certainly look into it. Jim McDermott is a duly elected representative of the people of Washington . His opinion does count, despite whatever unfounded allegations Mr. Kopel, through Ms. Schlussel wish to lodge toward him.
It's good to know we can trust someone with absolute confidence as long as they're a "duly elected representative of the people of Washington." Phew. But once someone allies themself with a right-wing organization, their credibility is GONE.
Finally, Wade does not address all the points in Kopel's arguments. He refuses to counter this point:
Quote:
"Moore mocks Attorney General John Ashcroft by pointing out that Ashcroft once lost a Senate race in Missouri to a man who had died three weeks earlier. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Moore says, delivering one of the film’s biggest laugh lines.
It’s a cheap shot. When voters in Missouri cast their ballots for the dead man, Mel Carnahan, they knew they were really voting for Carnahan’s very much alive widow, Jean. The Democratic governor of Missouri had vowed to appoint Jean to the job if Mel won."
And this point:
Quote:
"Moore wraps up the 'vacation' segment: 'It was a summer to remember. And when it was over, he left Texas for his second favorite place.' The movie then shows Bush in Florida. Actually, he went back to Washington, where he gave a speech on August 31."
And this point:
Quote:
There are several scenes involving Oregon state troopers who patrol coastal areas in the state. The Troopers are presented as underfunded and spread far too thinly.
But this has nothing to do with Fahrenheit's claim that the Bush administration is not sincerely interested in homeland security. The Oregon State Police are paid by the Oregon state government (which has been suffering from a budget crisis). Whatever the problems with Trooper funding, the problems are the responsibility of the Oregon state government, not the federal government. Moore's point makes no more sense than blaming the Oregon state government for shortages of FBI personnel in Eugene.
Moreover, the job of protecting the Oregon coastline from foreign invaders is not a job of the Oregon State Police. That job is the responsibility of the United States Coast Guard and the United States Navy. For the Oregon-Washington coast, the Coast Guard has 1,287 personnel on active duty, 459 Coast Guard Reserves, and 1,600 volunteer in the Coast Guard Auxiliary.
You get the idea. It's a nice try, Lurve, but writing your own rebuttal and then trying to pass it off as written someone with crediblity because the article is posted on the internet is just sad.
Bottom line, Moore lied. I do not state his entire film is lies. I do not state the Bush administration has never lied. But people who refuse to acknowledge that Moore did not lie in this film are being naive.
(Note to everyone: This is how you respond to someone's arguments if you disagree with them. Notice how I didn't just post "No way ur wrong im rite lololol")
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
That rant was tic.
