The Shrine

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>You can check out the trailers for Michael Moore Hates America on the website (same name). Looks like yet another steamin' pile of cow dung, so just check out the trailers and that's it, don't bother wasting time or money going to the theatres</div>

<div style='font: 12pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I'll be sure to check that one out... :P Seriously, can the right-wingers think of nothing but sinking to petty personal attacks?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I'm with Manaman on this one, I'll check it out, but for the sole purpose of just getting a few laughs and to see if they get an opinion by a southerner named Cletis, Billy, or Clint =)</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>That's all you can do when you don't have facts on your side</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>But, if you're going to preach fairness and looking into "facts", you also have to seriously consider the points the other side is making, otherwise, you become a Republican nut (or the Liberal version of it). I just can't see the film 'cause it looks like steamin' cow dung and I've sworn off that..</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>No kidding. I heard O'Rielly's best shot was calling Moore fat. That's pretty pathetic.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>you people know nothing about credibility, do you? If you show the speaker to be a constant liar, twister, etc aka uncredible, then it shows you can't believe what he says and therefore all his arguments are invalid</div>

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>you're doing the same thing the Repub's are doing. They're ignoring what few facts Moore brings up and attacking his character. You're ignoring his lack of credibility and saying "look at these facts!"</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>It doesn't change the fact that when you look up the facts and numbers somehow they all manage to be true. I mean shit yeah he cuts things out to get his point across. everyone does. But every fact can be checked and turns out to be true</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Just because someone has a record of constant lying and twisting, does not automatically mean that their argument is invalid.

There is a chance they aren't lying this time, improbable as it might be, or that the same conclusion could be reached by other more valid means than presented.

However, when someone has a record of constant lying and twisting, although theoretically one should provide the same level of scrutiny to all information and "facts" being brought forward, it would make sense to make especially sure to double check what a liar claims.

This also applies to conditions other than lying and twisting, maybe one's bias' can play a factor. Moore, for example, may be pretty well assumed to be biased towards the left. Christopher Hitchens, according to some, may be coming from the right.

Christopher Hitchens isn't magically immune to critisism, it can be brought upon him just as well as he can bring it upon Michal Moore.

Having watched the movie, read Hitchens' critisism, and having read the counter-critisism against Hitchens, I'd have to say that while Hitchens' critisism is in some places warranted, overall it looks like he held some bias against Moore from the start and furthermore his critisism in no way weakened the impact and point of the movie.

Did Moore twist facts? Sure did. Did he omit stuff? Yeah, he seems to be keeping with his record. Does that make his movie "a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness"? No, not really.

Taking one example, where Moore says that Saddam never murdered anybody from the US. Yeah, Moore completely fouled that one up. But ask, how did that affect his point that our attack upon Iraq was unneccessary, unwarranted, and generally a waste of resources and lives save for Haliburton? Not at all.

Like I said, Hitchens isn't immune to critisism, indeed, he came off (at least to me, I suspect others might agree) as having a bit of his own agenda. Now, I hadn't heard of this Hitchens character prior, and I didn't follow the discussion about his right/left affiliations, so all I did was take his review at face value.

You accuse others of not looking at all the facets of his character, and go into a tizzy about them being Republicans for name-calling against Hitchens.

Looking again through that thread, I can hardly see any instance of name calling save from Seeker. And really, Seeker using ad hominems is nothing new and we should've all seen it a mile away anyways, so I'll hold him exempt.

At a glance, and admittedly a glance doesn't do full justice but I don't intend to spend the next hour sifting through an old thread when the burden of proof lies upon you, it looked like a fairly clean critisism of Hitchens' review.

But, on the subject of ad hominems and ignoring all else, how open are you to Moore's views? I do belive labeling him a "liar" and announcing that thereby all of his arguments and points are invalid is indeed an instance of the very name-calling you decry.

Regardless of lying, twisting, bias, or whatever, a valid point can be made and valid facts given. It simply aught to be critisized thoroughly, and invalid points and facts discarded. Think of Clinton's "Line Item Veto" debacle. Keep what's good, cut the rest, and see how it adds up.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>You're missing one important thing: they attack him on small, unimportant things (ie. what movies he's been in, how fat he is, etc.) or flat out lie rather than one his anti-Republican attacks, since they know they can't defend themselves from the facts</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I leave arguing against Republicans up to Jon Stewart, because lets face it, he's the absolute undisputed master with a world of resources open to him; mostly I just like to sit back and laugh at them. I don't dislike all republicans, I mean, how can anyone hate Ben Stein? =P</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>

Taking one example, where Moore says that Saddam never murdered anybody from the US. Yeah, Moore completely fouled that one up. But ask, how did that affect his point that our attack upon Iraq was unneccessary, unwarranted, and generally a waste of resources and lives save for Haliburton? Not at all.

Actually, at the bottom of the HBS article, it points out that the wording was wrong and he was talking about how "Iraq never threatened to attack America". There was also a transcript of a ABC interview that I found rather funny:

<i>TAPPER: You declare in the film that Hussein's regime had never killed an American …
MOORE: That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly.
TAPPER: What is the quote exactly?
MOORE: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I'd like you to point out one.
TAPPER: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police — now this is not a murder but it's a plan to murder — to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?
MOORE: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof. You're talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after he committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2982099.stm">the telethon that the Saudis were having</a>? It's our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That's the story you should be covering. Why don't you cover that story? Why don't you cover it?
TAPPER: I've been told that's all the time we have. Thank you very much for this spirited debate, I appreciate your time, good luck with the movie.</i>

(NOTE: My link above.)

Regardless of lying, twisting, bias, or whatever, a valid point can be made and valid facts given. It simply aught to be critisized thoroughly, and invalid points and facts discarded. Think of Clinton's "Line Item Veto" debacle. Keep what's good, cut the rest, and see how it adds up.

God, that was a fucking mistake to repeal that bill. We had it and the Supreme Court, in an air of stupidity, declares it unconstitutional. Hell, it was built into the Confederate Constitution, for god sake!</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Aye. There's nothing like catching a Republican lie with his own footage.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>

Taking one example, where Moore says that Saddam never murdered anybody from the US. Yeah, Moore completely fouled that one up. But ask, how did that affect his point that our attack upon Iraq was unneccessary, unwarranted, and generally a waste of resources and lives save for Haliburton? Not at all.

Actually, at the bottom of the HBS article, it points out that the wording was wrong and he was talking about how "Iraq never threatened to attack America". There was also a transcript of a ABC interview that I found rather funny:

<i>TAPPER: You declare in the film that Hussein's regime had never killed an American …
MOORE: That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly.
TAPPER: What is the quote exactly?
MOORE: "Murdered." The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen. I'd like you to point out one.
TAPPER: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police — now this is not a murder but it's a plan to murder — to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?
MOORE: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof. You're talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after he committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50260,00.html">the telethon that the Saudis were having</a>? It's our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That's the story you should be covering. Why don't you cover that story? Why don't you cover it?
TAPPER: I've been told that's all the time we have. Thank you very much for this spirited debate, I appreciate your time, good luck with the movie.</i>

(NOTE: My link above.)

Regardless of lying, twisting, bias, or whatever, a valid point can be made and valid facts given. It simply aught to be critisized thoroughly, and invalid points and facts discarded. Think of Clinton's "Line Item Veto" debacle. Keep what's good, cut the rest, and see how it adds up.

God, that was a fucking mistake to repeal that bill. We had it and the Supreme Court, in an air of stupidity, declares it unconstitutional. Hell, it was built into the Confederate Constitution, for god sake!</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Yeah, you're right, I didn't quote him right. But like the guy who criticized Hitchens said, technicality is a poor defense. As for the Line Item Veto, on one hand I liked it, on the other that's some pretty massive power. Imagine what Bush'd be using it for today if it weren't repealed?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Seriously, saying Saddam is allied to Osama Bin Laden is like saying Adolf Hitler was allied to Charles De Gaulle just because they were both European and general enemies of the US.</div>