http://www.migop.org/pressreleases/read ... ss&id=2190
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/messa ... 2004-10-06
you couldn't make this up could you?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
you couldn't make this up could you?
gmc wrote: http://www.migop.org/pressreleases/read ... ss&id=2190
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/messa ... 2004-10-06
(the first link above didn't work for me)
i think it's great. the professional harrasser gets a little harrassment back, and starts crying into his oatmeal about it. what does he expect?
the fact of the matter is, he really is violating the law, whether he calls it satire or not.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/messa ... 2004-10-06
(the first link above didn't work for me)
i think it's great. the professional harrasser gets a little harrassment back, and starts crying into his oatmeal about it. what does he expect?
the fact of the matter is, he really is violating the law, whether he calls it satire or not.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
you couldn't make this up could you?
The first one was a link from michael moore to the michigan republican party site which is perhaps why it doesn't work.
personally I think it smacks of desperation. You might not agree with michael moore but just to try and shut him up because you don't like what he is doing doesn't exactly help your case. If the facts in fahreinheit 911 are inaccurate then take him to court for slander, but that they don't suggests that he has a point.
Also given the corruption surrounding enron and halliburton it does seem a bit hypocritical. I bet he loves the extra publicity
personally I think it smacks of desperation. You might not agree with michael moore but just to try and shut him up because you don't like what he is doing doesn't exactly help your case. If the facts in fahreinheit 911 are inaccurate then take him to court for slander, but that they don't suggests that he has a point.
Also given the corruption surrounding enron and halliburton it does seem a bit hypocritical. I bet he loves the extra publicity
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
you couldn't make this up could you?
gmc wrote:
personally I think it smacks of desperation. You might not agree with michael moore but just to try and shut him up because you don't like what he is doing doesn't exactly help your case. If the facts in fahreinheit 911 are inaccurate then take him to court for slander, but that they don't suggests that he has a point.
how is it 'trying to shut him up'? the matter at hand is offering something in exchange for votes. that's illegal. simple. his website is still up. his movie is still playing. he's still making millions. how is it an effort to shut him up?
he can't be taken to court for slander. he's free to make a work of fiction, which is what F911 is. consider that mr. moore won't be submitting his film for an oscar in the documentary category. he claims it's for other reasons - but the fact is, it's a work of fiction, so he can't submit it as a documentary.
Also given the corruption surrounding enron and halliburton it does seem a bit hypocritical. I bet he loves the extra publicity
i don't understand the reference to enron/halliburton. what does that have to do with this matter?
as to him loving the extra publicity, of course he does. he's now a millionaire many times over. he is a rich white man - the very thing he pretends to hate. but because he's a liberal, it's okay - it's only conservative rich white men who are evil.
what i might suggest is that you go to sources other than mr. moore's own self-aggrandizing website for information about the matter. if you really are getting your news about the US from his site, you are looking at us through six layers of filters.
personally I think it smacks of desperation. You might not agree with michael moore but just to try and shut him up because you don't like what he is doing doesn't exactly help your case. If the facts in fahreinheit 911 are inaccurate then take him to court for slander, but that they don't suggests that he has a point.
how is it 'trying to shut him up'? the matter at hand is offering something in exchange for votes. that's illegal. simple. his website is still up. his movie is still playing. he's still making millions. how is it an effort to shut him up?
he can't be taken to court for slander. he's free to make a work of fiction, which is what F911 is. consider that mr. moore won't be submitting his film for an oscar in the documentary category. he claims it's for other reasons - but the fact is, it's a work of fiction, so he can't submit it as a documentary.
Also given the corruption surrounding enron and halliburton it does seem a bit hypocritical. I bet he loves the extra publicity
i don't understand the reference to enron/halliburton. what does that have to do with this matter?
as to him loving the extra publicity, of course he does. he's now a millionaire many times over. he is a rich white man - the very thing he pretends to hate. but because he's a liberal, it's okay - it's only conservative rich white men who are evil.
what i might suggest is that you go to sources other than mr. moore's own self-aggrandizing website for information about the matter. if you really are getting your news about the US from his site, you are looking at us through six layers of filters.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
you couldn't make this up could you?
slander // n. & v.
n.
1 a malicious, false, and injurious statement spoken about a person.
2 the uttering of such statements; calumny.
3 Law false oral defamation (cf. libel n. 1).
v.tr. utter slander about; defame falsely.
If it's fiction then it is also slanderous, I suspect if it would stand up in court then he would be taken there pretty quickly. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of US law but false claims made in a documentary can be tried in a court of law in the UK.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
what i might suggest is that you go to sources other than mr. moore's own self-aggrandizing website for information about the matter. if you really are getting your news about the US from his site, you are looking at us through six layers of filters.
Actually I'm not I am quite capable of cross referencing sources and do so as a matter of course. Also it was one of the appeals of this kind of forum. At least I can raise issues with someone like yourself and have a reasonable discussion without you getting het up about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ ... 1091.shtml
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
Just to give you a quick british perspective
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 11,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/keypla ... 79,00.html
"The sheer relentless scale of the pressure [applied to the BBC by the government] has been laid bare by Mr Dyke's damning account of the way Mr Blair and Mr Campbell cynically sought to suppress legitimate criticism. And his conclusion that he can no longer regard the prime minister as 'someone to be trusted' is all the more powerful coming from a man who was once Mr Blair's friend, ally and financial backer. Mr Campbell, the chief aggressor against the BBC, is gone. But the man who gave him unprecedented authority is still there. The message from Mr Dyke is clear: so long as Mr Blair is in office, trust in the honesty of our political leaders will remain at rock bottom."
I am not american, michael moore is an obscure documentary film maker that I had never heard off until fairly recently, the controversy over his documentary tweaked my curiosity. He is obviously selective in what he reports and has his own agenda but like anything else you can check things out.
By the way whar does GOP stand for?
n.
1 a malicious, false, and injurious statement spoken about a person.
2 the uttering of such statements; calumny.
3 Law false oral defamation (cf. libel n. 1).
v.tr. utter slander about; defame falsely.
If it's fiction then it is also slanderous, I suspect if it would stand up in court then he would be taken there pretty quickly. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of US law but false claims made in a documentary can be tried in a court of law in the UK.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
what i might suggest is that you go to sources other than mr. moore's own self-aggrandizing website for information about the matter. if you really are getting your news about the US from his site, you are looking at us through six layers of filters.
Actually I'm not I am quite capable of cross referencing sources and do so as a matter of course. Also it was one of the appeals of this kind of forum. At least I can raise issues with someone like yourself and have a reasonable discussion without you getting het up about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ ... 1091.shtml
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
Just to give you a quick british perspective
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 11,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/keypla ... 79,00.html
"The sheer relentless scale of the pressure [applied to the BBC by the government] has been laid bare by Mr Dyke's damning account of the way Mr Blair and Mr Campbell cynically sought to suppress legitimate criticism. And his conclusion that he can no longer regard the prime minister as 'someone to be trusted' is all the more powerful coming from a man who was once Mr Blair's friend, ally and financial backer. Mr Campbell, the chief aggressor against the BBC, is gone. But the man who gave him unprecedented authority is still there. The message from Mr Dyke is clear: so long as Mr Blair is in office, trust in the honesty of our political leaders will remain at rock bottom."
I am not american, michael moore is an obscure documentary film maker that I had never heard off until fairly recently, the controversy over his documentary tweaked my curiosity. He is obviously selective in what he reports and has his own agenda but like anything else you can check things out.
By the way whar does GOP stand for?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
you couldn't make this up could you?
gmc wrote: If it's fiction then it is also slanderous, I suspect if it would stand up in court then he would be taken there pretty quickly. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of US law but false claims made in a documentary can be tried in a court of law in the UK.
he has a right to free speech in this country, and that includes making things up. public officials can't bring libel/slander suits on political matters, as far as i know.
Actually I'm not I am quite capable of cross referencing sources and do so as a matter of course. Also it was one of the appeals of this kind of forum. At least I can raise issues with someone like yourself and have a reasonable discussion without you getting het up about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ ... 1091.shtml
cbs news is highly biased to the left. not sure if you're aware of the recent incident with dan rather of cbs news. there is a long history of such bias. see http://www.ratherbiased.com
i am still unclear what halliburton has to do with michigan republicans seeking to press charges for voter tampering. i see no connection. none. zilch. zip. zero.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/
that site certainly does not appear to be unbiased either.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
again, what is the relevance to the vote tampering charge? i'm lost. unless you're suggesting it's *all* part of the same right-wing conspiracy.
Just to give you a quick british perspective
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 11,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/keypla ... 79,00.html
and again, same question of relevance. i'm sorry, i am lost!
I am not american, michael moore is an obscure documentary film maker that I had never heard off until fairly recently, the controversy over his documentary tweaked my curiosity. He is obviously selective in what he reports and has his own agenda but like anything else you can check things out.
By the way whar does GOP stand for?
'Grand Old Party'. it's a very old term.
i'd recommend www.factcheck.org for far less biased analysis of things.
he has a right to free speech in this country, and that includes making things up. public officials can't bring libel/slander suits on political matters, as far as i know.
Actually I'm not I am quite capable of cross referencing sources and do so as a matter of course. Also it was one of the appeals of this kind of forum. At least I can raise issues with someone like yourself and have a reasonable discussion without you getting het up about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ ... 1091.shtml
cbs news is highly biased to the left. not sure if you're aware of the recent incident with dan rather of cbs news. there is a long history of such bias. see http://www.ratherbiased.com
i am still unclear what halliburton has to do with michigan republicans seeking to press charges for voter tampering. i see no connection. none. zilch. zip. zero.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/
that site certainly does not appear to be unbiased either.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1665.htm
again, what is the relevance to the vote tampering charge? i'm lost. unless you're suggesting it's *all* part of the same right-wing conspiracy.
Just to give you a quick british perspective
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 11,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/keypla ... 79,00.html
and again, same question of relevance. i'm sorry, i am lost!
I am not american, michael moore is an obscure documentary film maker that I had never heard off until fairly recently, the controversy over his documentary tweaked my curiosity. He is obviously selective in what he reports and has his own agenda but like anything else you can check things out.
By the way whar does GOP stand for?
'Grand Old Party'. it's a very old term.
i'd recommend www.factcheck.org for far less biased analysis of things.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
you couldn't make this up could you?
I tend to assume you will know about hutton et al as it was such a big deal here.
What happened in the UK was that TB was accused of "sexing up" the intelligence dossier to make the case that saddam and WMD's and justify going to war. That is the wording of intelligence reports was amended to make the case stronger, the basic information was not changed just the wording, may have became does have and so on.
The jounalist making the report and the chairman of the BBC lost their jobs in the resulting scandal, Lord Hutton produced a report exonerating the government, roger Kelly the scientist allegedly making the allegation in a private conversation with a journalist was thrown to the wolves by the civil service i.e. his name was made known against accepted custonm and practice and subsequently commited suicide.
It is now clear that the basic allegation was in fact true, if the intelligence dossier had been reported in its original form the motion to take the UK in to Iraq with the americans would have been defeated in parliament. Getting rid of Saddam was never an issue in the UK it was all about WMD's. TB stood up and said saddam could attack within 45 minutes. He now says he didn't realise the reference was to battlefield weapons not strategic which suggests he is either stupid or incredibly gullible. In short the way the evidence was presented was altered to make the case more convincing. The implication being that TB thought was the right thing to do and was prepared to ignore the facts and alter wordings to get his way. It also looks as if a similar thing happened in america. Despite the attempted whitewash most people now accept that is what happened and it was a the result of political pressure. it will be interesting to see what happens at the next election because people will tolerate so much spin and bullshit. There is a lot of resentment about being duped. He is now on record saying he will remain leader for another term hich is a bit premature as we haven't had an election yet.
Recent polls show that the voting population trust the BBC before they will trust a politician
What was also blurred over was the assertion in our intelligence commiunity and also yours that invading Iraq would result in more not less terrorism to the extent that it was almost not mentioned at all.
Going in to Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism but the suspicion that it was all about power politics and controlling the oil in the middle east is rife, and that the invasion was motivated more by greed than by any real desire for long term solutions. when you look at the likes of who is benefiting from the contracts to rebuild iraq etc it is companies like halliburton which have former ceo's in the government that seem to be benefiting most and also the connections to saudi you can understand where the allegations come from.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Saudi arabia clearly did so questions about why the saudi connections were ignored do have a point. The problems in the middle east have taken a long time to brew, there is no quick fix. Maybe bush really did believe iraq was connected to alqueda-I don't know- but it does ignore the facts.
The point about enron and halliburton is there seems to be a culture amongst big business leaders that they control things and can do what they like and that the only moral question asked is whether it benefits then and can they get away with it. I don't think its true but it seems that way sometimes.
While getting rid of saddam may be a good thing most people, and certainly most of our media start off by saying, hang on how did he get there in the first place and who sold him the materials for WMD's in the first place-and no i don't just mean america. It's a bit hypocritical to condemn a man for using the mustard gas you sold him knowing he was going to use it and then twenty years later go to war against him. But that is what seems to have happened.
QUOTE]*all* part of the same right-wing conspiracy.
The Labour party used to be left wing, now they are so far to the right on some issues you wonder what happened.
The point about my first post is basically, if meant seriously, then they have lost their sense of humour and they are playing right in to his hands, he couldn't get better publicity if he tried. If it is tongue in cheek then its quite funny. The rest of it sort of wandered off on to something else.
I find michael moore interesting as he seems to be getting things stirred up, for good or ill i dont know. But politicians should never be allowed to feel safe or feel they have a right to power.
Thinks for the link by the way.
What happened in the UK was that TB was accused of "sexing up" the intelligence dossier to make the case that saddam and WMD's and justify going to war. That is the wording of intelligence reports was amended to make the case stronger, the basic information was not changed just the wording, may have became does have and so on.
The jounalist making the report and the chairman of the BBC lost their jobs in the resulting scandal, Lord Hutton produced a report exonerating the government, roger Kelly the scientist allegedly making the allegation in a private conversation with a journalist was thrown to the wolves by the civil service i.e. his name was made known against accepted custonm and practice and subsequently commited suicide.
It is now clear that the basic allegation was in fact true, if the intelligence dossier had been reported in its original form the motion to take the UK in to Iraq with the americans would have been defeated in parliament. Getting rid of Saddam was never an issue in the UK it was all about WMD's. TB stood up and said saddam could attack within 45 minutes. He now says he didn't realise the reference was to battlefield weapons not strategic which suggests he is either stupid or incredibly gullible. In short the way the evidence was presented was altered to make the case more convincing. The implication being that TB thought was the right thing to do and was prepared to ignore the facts and alter wordings to get his way. It also looks as if a similar thing happened in america. Despite the attempted whitewash most people now accept that is what happened and it was a the result of political pressure. it will be interesting to see what happens at the next election because people will tolerate so much spin and bullshit. There is a lot of resentment about being duped. He is now on record saying he will remain leader for another term hich is a bit premature as we haven't had an election yet.
Recent polls show that the voting population trust the BBC before they will trust a politician
What was also blurred over was the assertion in our intelligence commiunity and also yours that invading Iraq would result in more not less terrorism to the extent that it was almost not mentioned at all.
Going in to Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism but the suspicion that it was all about power politics and controlling the oil in the middle east is rife, and that the invasion was motivated more by greed than by any real desire for long term solutions. when you look at the likes of who is benefiting from the contracts to rebuild iraq etc it is companies like halliburton which have former ceo's in the government that seem to be benefiting most and also the connections to saudi you can understand where the allegations come from.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Saudi arabia clearly did so questions about why the saudi connections were ignored do have a point. The problems in the middle east have taken a long time to brew, there is no quick fix. Maybe bush really did believe iraq was connected to alqueda-I don't know- but it does ignore the facts.
The point about enron and halliburton is there seems to be a culture amongst big business leaders that they control things and can do what they like and that the only moral question asked is whether it benefits then and can they get away with it. I don't think its true but it seems that way sometimes.
While getting rid of saddam may be a good thing most people, and certainly most of our media start off by saying, hang on how did he get there in the first place and who sold him the materials for WMD's in the first place-and no i don't just mean america. It's a bit hypocritical to condemn a man for using the mustard gas you sold him knowing he was going to use it and then twenty years later go to war against him. But that is what seems to have happened.
QUOTE]*all* part of the same right-wing conspiracy.
The Labour party used to be left wing, now they are so far to the right on some issues you wonder what happened.
The point about my first post is basically, if meant seriously, then they have lost their sense of humour and they are playing right in to his hands, he couldn't get better publicity if he tried. If it is tongue in cheek then its quite funny. The rest of it sort of wandered off on to something else.
I find michael moore interesting as he seems to be getting things stirred up, for good or ill i dont know. But politicians should never be allowed to feel safe or feel they have a right to power.
Thinks for the link by the way.