|
Watch NOLAwitch foam at the mouth! | by toxin | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
This is an example of the way the moron in the | by NOLAWitch | 2004-09-22 09:51:44 |
|
was that Jackson or Moore? (n/t) | by shepmagoo | 2004-09-22 10:34:43 |
|
Can you show proof Moore is deluded? | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 10:42:02 |
|
Its not all about major facts though | by shepmagoo | 2004-09-22 11:17:46 |
| It's a little more than that. |
by Illiad |
2004-09-22 11:25:32 |
| I see it as a counter-weight to the Bush Forces of Spin.
The current administration's ability to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate is staggering. They're constantly caught in lies but adamantly refuse to acknowledge such (Cheney's the winner of the ribbon here). Moore comes along, spins the facts in the other direction, and the Bushites proceed to call the kettle black. In fact, their shrieking reaches a crescendo of hypocrtical outrage.
There's no question in my mind that Moore manipulates the facts in his film, but he's no worse than the Bush camp.
I submit that Moore's film was not meant for the thinking, educated voter. Rather, it's meant for the unthinking voter, the ones that are easily swayed by emotional argument and sophistry.
These are the same people that are readily affected by Bush spinnery. Thus, Moore's film is simply a counter-weight to balance the scales of bulls4 in America. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I do wish Someone | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 11:29:44 |
|
Eh. Can't do that in modern society. | by Illiad | 2004-09-22 11:32:01 |
|
You're right, about agendae | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 11:34:58 |
|
<nitpick> | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-22 11:40:52 |
|
D'oh! Typing-by-habit of words, based . .. | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 11:47:08 |
|
The Truth? You want the Truth? | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 12:19:52 |
|
Not true. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 12:48:47 |
|
If the truth, or 'reality' as you call it, | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 12:54:02 |
|
What does being relevant have to do with it? | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-22 12:57:56 |
|
correction | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-22 13:02:32 |
|
Can an unknown truth be called true? | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 13:29:31 |
|
Of course it can. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 13:41:34 |
|
Except, of course, in Copenhagen | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 13:48:41 |
|
But what happens when | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:26:42 |
|
Then the two statements: | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:41:32 |
|
It doesn't. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:24:05 |
|
These philosophical differences _are_ important. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:01:41 |
|
I never said that you could rely on Everybody | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:31:40 |
|
I think we have already established that | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:50:05 |
|
Just because we cannot know the entirety | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:05:05 |
|
In addition to Matthewdba's comments... | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 13:26:46 |
|
In order to perceive the truth, the whole truth | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 13:47:02 |
|
You are doing the impossible! | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 13:53:36 |
|
That wasn't what I said, though. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:14:10 |
|
I see your mistake, now. Sorry I overlooked it | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:23:25 |
|
What it means is, that | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:26:05 |
|
In certain limited situation, perhaps. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:29:17 |
|
How do you determine which category | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:43:36 |
|
Heisenberg? | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 13:54:53 |
|
I disagree. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:06:39 |
|
That is _so_ limited a view of the truth. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:22:41 |
|
You are _so_ equivocating. | by Naruki | 2004-09-22 14:26:51 |
|
What I don't understand is why you insist | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:39:15 |
|
What has any of that to do with | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:45:14 |
|
The fact that there is an answer that is | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 14:57:46 |
|
Some truths are relative, yes, but others | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:22:55 |
|
Different observers *can* see a pin up or down | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 15:32:28 |
|
Let's try a different example. | by cencithomas | 2004-09-22 16:45:59 |
|
Ah, but until the pins stop moving . .. | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 14:57:34 |
|
What does anyone Knowing it | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 14:38:24 |
|
In the Copenhagen interpretation, everything | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 14:59:30 |
|
Is that the "collapsing probability wave" theory? | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:07:00 |
|
Yep, that'd be it. | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 15:28:40 |
|
Thanks for jumping in. | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 15:45:43 |
|
What does something being true for you | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 15:00:33 |
|
Viewpoint only matters | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 15:32:59 |
|
I believe he qualified that in his final... | by bytemedammit | 2004-09-22 12:55:42 |
|
/s\on\one (n/t) | by bytemedammit | 2004-09-22 12:56:37 |
|
Then he did it backward. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-22 13:16:58 |
|
How do you separate one from the other? (n/t) | by LurkerMo | 2004-09-22 13:48:51 |
|
"spinnery" | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-22 11:32:02 |
|
If only they'd turned to fiber arts | by voxwoman | 2004-09-22 11:52:40 |
|
But do the scales of bulls4 *need* balancing? | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 11:32:35 |
|
I think it does. | by Illiad | 2004-09-22 11:34:16 |
|
Unless, of course, . . . | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 11:43:53 |
|
Given the history of the sheeple, that's too far | by Tomo | 2004-09-22 12:31:09 |
|
But it too far really too far, or not far enough? | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 13:35:55 |
|
*giggle* | by karaken12 | 2004-09-22 11:36:32 |
|
I love that word too... | by moongoddess | 2004-09-22 11:45:36 |
|
Hadn't thought of 'original s(p)in' in isolation | by HadEnuf | 2004-09-22 11:51:00 |
