satori: Long time, no post. Good summation. You might want to mosey on over to the Political Forum and introduce yourself. I'm sure you'll find many fresh viewpoints to stimulate and challenge your debating skills.
I'm going to spam the thread by interpreting what everyone else said then combine it into a really long thread for no reason.
This "quotation" is from the same source as so much of Michael Moore's information - out his lyin' foot.
When Pilate asked "What is truth?" he inadvertantly spoke for millions, and throughout the ages.
A person without sight might ask, "What is light?" Or without hearing, "What is music?" Or without the sense of touch, "What is real?"
Pilate asked, "What is truth?" So then, are some really born without this inner sense? Why sure, keeds! They are "truth-blind." To them, "truth" is no more than a prevailing opinion, which they may work feverishly to change.
Michael Moore is such a person. His true believers are such people too.
This mental/moral deformity is difficult to detect, because the truthless are often better at assessing circumstances around them then their truth-perceiving neighbors. They have to be, or, like bats, they might constantly be flying into unexpected impediments with a BIG splat!
To survive they become keen observers of human weakness, exploiting it to the fullest to stay ahead of the game.
How do these creatures escape immediate detection? Well, the better question is how to detect them at all. It ain't easy.
We can shut our eyes and experience blindness. We might stop our ears and understand deafness. But how do we separate ourselves from truth? The eyes of truth are always open. We could never relate to truth-blindness, so we may fail to believe it's even possible.
But it's not so hard to understand why we don't easily believe in it. Humanity produces examples of grisly and horrific behavior, and we may hear of it, but we cannot grasp it. Who can grasp Al Qaida's attack upon innocent civilians? Who can grasp suicide bombers' motivation? We know of them, yet we cannot know them.
Enter Michael Moore, and his seedling followers. We see a pattern emerge, a resolute defiance of all standards for integrity. "Surely they must be joking," we may think. "Nobody is that dishonest!"
No, not so much dishonest, as without truth. Honesty is not even in the picture for them, because without the perception of truth, honesty is meaningless.
So there's a rudimentary, metaphysical explanation of Mr. P-Mosh's reply, and of his (de-)mentor Michael Moore.
Hitchens is a stereotype of a jealous, brooding Hollywood loser. Not surprisingly, much of Hitchens’ piece is about how he (a rival, much less successful, film maker) hates Michael Moore.
Hitchens says that Richard Clarke has claimed responsibility for the Saudi flights out of the country. What he doesn’t mention is that Mr. Clarke has said that he gave the go-ahead after consulting with (his memory is foggy here but he thinks) White House Chief of Staff Card.
Hitchens whines because the film has the audacity to show innocent Iraqis enjoying life prior to the invasion but what Hitchens doesn’t mention is the 11,000+ Iraqi civilians who were killed in order to make their lives better.
Hitchens is lying when he says the movie says that Iraq never threatened America. The movie says that the Iraqi civilians never threatened America.
Hitchens misstates the movie’s claims about the Saudis. He says that movie claims that the Bush's and the Saudis “live in each other pockets” but the movie only claims that the Bush's live in the Saudis pockets.
Hitchens' claim that the movie has “bias against the work of the mind” is as artful as it is wrong.
satori001 on Hitchens:
quote:Originally posted by satori001:
he does sound like he belongs to an intellectual elite we rarely see in the US, at least on TV or in the movies.
That's because he's British.
Here’s his take on the latest British import sweeping the nation – F-off Mania
Hey Ala, thanks for the welcome back. Yall are hard to leave ya know. Looks like lots of new folks have come in the last near year I was away. But you knew I was peeking in now and then. Like I said yall are hard to leave. ;)-->
That music thread was a bunch of fun wasn't it? This time around think I'll do less talking and more reading though.
Still taking my guitar lessons and I have some mighty fine calluses I'm proud of. And still on temporary assignment with the FBI. But one of the agents told me he was glad I was locked into the building with them rather than out on the street. What's up with that? :D-->
Sorry thread starter, I have a tendency to derail. And haven't seen the movie yet so ain't got anything to offer.
Hitchens is a stereotype of a jealous, brooding Hollywood loser. Not surprisingly, much of Hitchens’ piece is about how he (a rival, much less successful, film maker) hates Michael Moore.
Whether or not "love matters'" ad hominem attack (echoing the rest, including Linda Z, Hope, etc) describes Hitchens' personality, his contempt for Moore is well justified. The ad hominem extends to Hitchens' motives by mischaracterizing contempt as "hate."
Hitchens says that Richard Clarke has claimed responsibility for the Saudi flights out of the country. What he doesn’t mention is that Mr. Clarke has said that he gave the go-ahead after consulting with (his memory is foggy here but he thinks) White House Chief of Staff Card.
"Foggy." Richard Clarke, man of the hour, defender of our shores, couldn't remember for certain who gave the okay, and raised no alarms about it, except to confirm with the FBI that they had what they needed.
Hitchens whines because the film has the audacity to show innocent Iraqis enjoying life prior to the invasion but what Hitchens doesn’t mention is the 11,000+ Iraqi civilians who were killed in order to make their lives better.
quote:[from the Hitchens article]
In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic.
Doesn't sound like "whining" to me.
Hitchens is lying when he says the movie says that Iraq never threatened America. The movie says that the Iraqi civilians never threatened America.
This comment is just silly. Iraqi civilians couldn't wipe their @sses without permission from the regime.
Hitchens misstates the movie’s claims about the Saudis. He says that movie claims that the Bush's and the Saudis “live in each other pockets” but the movie only claims that the Bush's live in the Saudis pockets.
I don't think so. There was a strong inference of quid pro quo, but it doesn't really matter. Moore's phrasing was artful innuendo, as when he lumped the Bush family together with "friends and associates" in estimating the amount of commerce. The implication was that all the money went to Bush. Only earnest parsing and fact checking will reveal Moore's deceptive wording.
Hitchens' claim that the movie has “bias against the work of the mind” is as artful as it is wrong.
That was Hitchens' well-documented assessment, not a mere "claim," artful or not. I thought the phrasing was a little awkward but I cut him some slack because he's British.
satori001 on Hitchens:
quote:Originally posted by satori001:
he does sound like he belongs to an intellectual elite we rarely see in the US, at least on TV or in the movies.
That's because he's British.
That was funny, though it was probably unintentional.
Here’s his take on the latest British import sweeping the nation – F-off Mania
The British Empire's second-greatest gift to the world
I'm guessing this article is supposed to discredit Hitchens in some way? Maybe you didn't read it. It's on-the-mark social criticism, and (intentionally) funny too.
I saw the Politics thread. Your love affair with Michael Moore is almost... obsessive. You must have a lot more time on your hands since the midnight showing of Rocky Horror was discontinued at your local movie house. I'll admit, Moore is the closest thing around to a cross-dressing alien vampire, if you're looking for that kind of role model.
When he gave Mike the Palme d’Or at Cannes, Quentin Tarantino joked that this is the first movie ever made to justify an Oscar acceptance speech. It’s also probably the first with a list of sources.
How did Mike know that Bush went to sleep the night of September 10th in “a bed made of fine French linens?”
How can it be proven that Saudi Prince Bandar is nicknamed Bandar Bush?
The War Room (a source catalog of things “Fahrenheit 9/11”) has the answers.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
8
11
7
Popular Days
Jun 29
11
Jul 9
8
Jun 26
8
Jun 30
7
Top Posters In This Topic
lovematters 5 posts
Zixar 8 posts
Mister P-Mosh 11 posts
Tom Strange 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 29 2004
11 posts
Jul 9 2004
8 posts
Jun 26 2004
8 posts
Jun 30 2004
7 posts
Zixar
satori: Long time, no post. Good summation. You might want to mosey on over to the Political Forum and introduce yourself. I'm sure you'll find many fresh viewpoints to stimulate and challenge your debating skills.
Well, stimulate them, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
MasterP, where's that quote from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: P-Mosh is being facetious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
This "quotation" is from the same source as so much of Michael Moore's information - out his lyin' foot.
When Pilate asked "What is truth?" he inadvertantly spoke for millions, and throughout the ages.
A person without sight might ask, "What is light?" Or without hearing, "What is music?" Or without the sense of touch, "What is real?"
Pilate asked, "What is truth?" So then, are some really born without this inner sense? Why sure, keeds! They are "truth-blind." To them, "truth" is no more than a prevailing opinion, which they may work feverishly to change.
Michael Moore is such a person. His true believers are such people too.
This mental/moral deformity is difficult to detect, because the truthless are often better at assessing circumstances around them then their truth-perceiving neighbors. They have to be, or, like bats, they might constantly be flying into unexpected impediments with a BIG splat!
To survive they become keen observers of human weakness, exploiting it to the fullest to stay ahead of the game.
How do these creatures escape immediate detection? Well, the better question is how to detect them at all. It ain't easy.
We can shut our eyes and experience blindness. We might stop our ears and understand deafness. But how do we separate ourselves from truth? The eyes of truth are always open. We could never relate to truth-blindness, so we may fail to believe it's even possible.
But it's not so hard to understand why we don't easily believe in it. Humanity produces examples of grisly and horrific behavior, and we may hear of it, but we cannot grasp it. Who can grasp Al Qaida's attack upon innocent civilians? Who can grasp suicide bombers' motivation? We know of them, yet we cannot know them.
Enter Michael Moore, and his seedling followers. We see a pattern emerge, a resolute defiance of all standards for integrity. "Surely they must be joking," we may think. "Nobody is that dishonest!"
No, not so much dishonest, as without truth. Honesty is not even in the picture for them, because without the perception of truth, honesty is meaningless.
So there's a rudimentary, metaphysical explanation of Mr. P-Mosh's reply, and of his (de-)mentor Michael Moore.
Regards...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Wow. Simply input the word "smug" and *poof*, as if by magic, look who the cat drags in.
:D-->
Welcome back, Satori. Nice to see you, too.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Linda, nice of you to fly that old broomstick back in just to say hey. I've missed you too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Well if Satori can come back then so can I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Well... that Pilate guy sure had some quotes... and then he thought up that whole exercise program, too! Whattaguy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
1searcher –
Hitchens is a stereotype of a jealous, brooding Hollywood loser. Not surprisingly, much of Hitchens’ piece is about how he (a rival, much less successful, film maker) hates Michael Moore.
Hitchens says that Richard Clarke has claimed responsibility for the Saudi flights out of the country. What he doesn’t mention is that Mr. Clarke has said that he gave the go-ahead after consulting with (his memory is foggy here but he thinks) White House Chief of Staff Card.
Hitchens whines because the film has the audacity to show innocent Iraqis enjoying life prior to the invasion but what Hitchens doesn’t mention is the 11,000+ Iraqi civilians who were killed in order to make their lives better.
Hitchens is lying when he says the movie says that Iraq never threatened America. The movie says that the Iraqi civilians never threatened America.
Hitchens misstates the movie’s claims about the Saudis. He says that movie claims that the Bush's and the Saudis “live in each other pockets” but the movie only claims that the Bush's live in the Saudis pockets.
Hitchens' claim that the movie has “bias against the work of the mind” is as artful as it is wrong.
satori001 on Hitchens:
That's because he's British.
Here’s his take on the latest British import sweeping the nation – F-off Mania
A Very, Very Dirty Word -
The British Empire's second-greatest gift to the world
.
Edited by lovemattersLink to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
HEY CHATTY!!!!!
:D-->
So glad to see you back with us!!!!! It's been too long! We missed you.
:(-->
Looking forward to having a blast with you here on GS!!! Maybe start up another wonderful music thread again...whatcha' think???
;)-->
Post away honey!!!
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Hey Ala, thanks for the welcome back. Yall are hard to leave ya know. Looks like lots of new folks have come in the last near year I was away. But you knew I was peeking in now and then. Like I said yall are hard to leave.
;)-->
That music thread was a bunch of fun wasn't it? This time around think I'll do less talking and more reading though.
Still taking my guitar lessons and I have some mighty fine calluses I'm proud of. And still on temporary assignment with the FBI. But one of the agents told me he was glad I was locked into the building with them rather than out on the street. What's up with that?
:D-->
Sorry thread starter, I have a tendency to derail. And haven't seen the movie yet so ain't got anything to offer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
satori001,
Thank you for your opinions about my post.
Your guess is wrong. I included the article because I thought it was a hoot and I thought you would enjoy it too.
Thank you for reviewing my dynamically insightful thread on the unfolding history of the award winning “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Welcome back ChattyKathy!
You too, satori001.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Hiya lovematters, thanks for the welcome back.
:)-->
It's good to know some things in life can be relied upon. Like the debating skills yall seem to enjoy.
So nice to sit beside the fire and warm my bones. But ain't you and that chick ever gonna eat that apple?
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
I hope so.
My jaw is getting sore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
When he gave Mike the Palme d’Or at Cannes, Quentin Tarantino joked that this is the first movie ever made to justify an Oscar acceptance speech. It’s also probably the first with a list of sources.
How did Mike know that Bush went to sleep the night of September 10th in “a bed made of fine French linens?”
How can it be proven that Saudi Prince Bandar is nicknamed Bandar Bush?
The War Room (a source catalog of things “Fahrenheit 9/11”) has the answers.
The source listing begins in: The War Room – Section 1
The bottom of each page has a link to the next of the six sections.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.