Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?

[Burz]

Still got a can in my fridge.

[Cartumandua]

Well I read through the article and if the conclusions made by the author of book quoted from are correct and the KGB papers he claims to have are authentic then the actions detailed within could very easily be considered treason.

So let's all just run out and buy us a copy, huh?

This is just crap to sell a book of crap. inflammatory nonsense for the pigs at the trough.

[Croinc]

Carter sucked.

Reagan por vida!

[Burz]

[clubbin]

Rsak wrote:

The fact remains that both conclusions are reached via jumps in logic that are not supported by the evidence or at best very spotty evidence.

Michael Moore, a leftist whacko, put together a documentary of primary sources and added his own biased interpretation. These primary sources include video footage of US elites, de-classified documents, and written testimonies as well as video footage of the raw hate escalating exponentially on the other side of the world. Take it for what you will, but the primary sources are there and you can interpret them for yourself as well. Those of you that can read and have the ability to formulate your own opinions have probably done so. The ties Moore has made between the Bush family and the binLaden family on paper, the video footage and testimonies of former CIA and FBI officials who have criticized the Bush administration's pre-9/11 and the Iraqi invasion decisions on record, and the Bush administration's failure to corroborate any of the reasons for going to war with Iraq, is more than enough evidence to convince me that Bush is a mockery of the American presidency. I believe all of these allegations to be true and if any of them are true then it will not alter my opinion; I am not here to argue that. These were allegations that I was aware of prior to watching F9/11, that were brought up in F9/11, and these are conclusions I've made for myself. This evidence is beyond "spotty" and is directly related to the issues at hand, and not a "jump in logic" as previously ascertained.

This right wing whacko, on the other hand, has written a review on a secondary source which claims to have access to formerly classified foreign documents. I haven't seen the primary documents from which the author has made these claims, so I haven't had a chance to judge this for myself. Carter too may be an asshole, I will not deny that, but how are these comparable? The author only presents biased secondary information of biased secondary information. Michael Moore's documentary is very biased, there is no question, but he provides you with that evidence from which he bases his argument, so you can think for yourself and make your own conclusions. Yes, even you. The author of this review provides no like evidence. The only evidence he sites is from the book he's reviewing. Again, no primary sources, no basis for argument, only accusation. The evidence may very well exist, but it is not there. Saying its there does not mean its there. If all the sheep in America could understand this then it would be a much better world to live in. So how were these arguments similar again?

As much as I hate to say it, this clown isn't even in Moore's league. Michael Moore has the support of millions with F9/11 being the most successful documentary ever released and all the money its made since release. This guy writes on a website where apparently the blind go to masturbate. Michael Moore may be an egomaniacal extremist, and I found his documentary to be distasteful even borderline ethnocentric at times, but he provides legitimate evidence which presents serious political, socio-economic, and someday historical problems which have yet to be adressed in any meaningful way.

[SicTimMitchell]

Four words: GINORMOUS KILLER AQUATIC RABBIT!!!

[Rsak]

Clubbin,

Whether your evidence is primary or secondary if it does not support the conclusion that you have jumped to then it is spotty at best. The evidence in the movie does not prove anything for many reasons such as ignoring contrary evidence (Thus lacking that whole objectivity thing and proving the bias in the peice).

I am not here to support the attacks directed at Carter because I honestly don't think it matters. Carter is not a major player in the world anymore and it is just not worth the effort to discredit him for an apparent lack of any gain.

And you will excuse my laughter as you raise Moore up on a pedestal when he resorts to having a sign up sheet for congressmen to sign their children up for military service in a volunteer force when the only way those congressmen could have the legal authority to do so is if their children are uneligable for service. But go ahead and hang your hat up on that post of high standing and journalistic integrity!

Both are attack peices and since both cannot prove their accusations the simliarity is valid.

[Relbeek Einre]

Michael Moore, a leftist whacko, put together a documentary of primary sources and added his own biased interpretation.

And you will excuse my laughter as you raise Moore up on a pedestal

Waterhead.

Just out of curiosity, have you even SEEN F9/11?

[Rsak]

I watched it just a few weeks ago actually.

While it may have been distateful for Clubbin to do so I fail to see how the leftist wacko comment can trumph this one where Moore was very clearly put on a pedestal:

As much as I hate to say it, this clown isn't even in Moore's league. Michael Moore has the support of millions with F9/11 being the most successful documentary ever released and all the money its made since release.

[Relbeek Einre]

And why is stating pure unadulterated fact putting Moore on a pedestal? Waterhead.

[Burz]

"pure fact" and Moore...haha you slay me.

[Rsak]

There you go confusing fact with opinion.. Your irrational hatred is clouding your judgement again.

Stating that this author is not in Moore's league is not a fact, but an opinion. Well unless you have proof of it... You know those little things that distinguish between opinions and facts.

Just because a large number of poeple agree with the conclusions Moore made does not mean they are proven true. This is yet another example of ignoring contrasting data such as the even larger number of millions that do not support Moore and F9/11.

[Partha]

"I heard from a guy who heard from a guy" is not the same as video footage.

[Relbeek Einre]

As much as I hate to say it, this clown isn't even in Moore's league. Michael Moore has the support of millions with F9/11 being the most successful documentary ever released and all the money its made since release.

OK. Please tell me what of the above is opinion and not fact - well apart from the "I hate to say it".

The guy isn't in Moore's league.

"League" is defined in the paragraph as being related to success and effectiveness.

Moore has the support of millions.

F9/11 is the most successful documentary ever released.

F9/11 made huge amounts of money.

I don't see any opinion there.

Waterhead.

[Embar Angylwrath]

There you go confusing fact with opinion.. Your irrational hatred is clouding your judgement again.

.

Chimp is speaking to itself again.

[Rsak]

Sorry Relbeek but you apparently have not been following along!

The league was defined by quote that Clubbin used which framed it in the method of reaching conclusions (making jumps in logic without supporting evidence).

That very much is an opinion since there is no factual difference betwen the methods of reaching conclusion since neither of the sets of evidence prove the conclusions being put forward. Primary or Secondary is immaterial to the fact that none of them prove the conclusions, but your inability to see the obvious is not a shocking revelation!

[clubbin]

Rsak wrote:

Stating that this author is not in Moore's league is not a fact, but an opinion. Well unless you have proof of it... You know those little things that distinguish between opinions and facts.

What you are trying to do is completely besides the point of any argument that's been made here Rsak. Whether or not Moore is put on a pedestal has nothing to do with the underlying issues here. If I was putting Moore up on a pedestal then it was only to show a comparison to the clown that wrote the article. Unless you have a walnut for a head, you'll notice that Moore has the support of millions of people. You'll also notice that the moron who wrote this article hasn't influenced shit. In the same words I could put that guy on a pedestal above somebody else. Does it mean anything? No.

And yes, a primary vs. secondary source DOES matter. What one person says another guy said about a document is NOT the same as showing video footage, documents, etc.

Try and argue the point of my post rather than what I said at the end of it. My argument is that Moore uses more reliable information, which he documents, and has the support of millions upon millions of people; therefore, he is the more reliable source than the guy who wrote this article. What you have been quoting me on stands because I have provided this argument. Your counter argument is that this is my opinion. Well, yeah, it is my opinion, but I've backed it up with evidence to which you are doing your best to avoid.

[Rsak]

And yes, a primary vs. secondary source DOES matter. What one person says another guy said about a document is NOT the same as showing video footage, documents, etc.

I never said they were the same. I merely pointed out that when the primary or secondary evidence does not support the conclusions you have reached then there is no practical difference between the people that use them.

If i offer the assertion that Aliens caused 9/11 and I have to decide between writing a book or a movie. In the movie I provide a video (primary source) of an interview of an individual who claimed to see something up in the sky before the crash. In the book I offer the quote of someone who spoke to the individual in the video previously mentioned (secondary source). In both examples I have offered nothing to prove the assertion and jumps in logic were used since the interview and the quotes do not specifically mention aliens or knowledge of what the was seen in the sky.

The primary source is more reliable then the secondary source, but that reliablity does not transfer to the author of the peice using that source unless the conclusions being reached are supported by the sources. In this case the movie or book I am debating between are both equally unreliable because they fail to prove the assertion I have put forward.

That reliablity of the author is what we have been discussing and just because millions agree does not make Moore reliable because as I have pointed out there are even more that disagree with Moore. He flat out stated he was trying to get Bush kicked out of office and simple fact of the matter is that he failed because more people disagreed with him then agreed by even the most generous view for Moore.

Because of the verifiable facts that Moore used the same tactics and unproven jumps in logic as the author of the hit peice directed at Carter show that they are in the same league. The only difference between the two is that Moore reached a larger audience, but that has to do with the medium rather then any kind of skill.

[Relbeek Einre]

Waterhead, I ask again: Have you even watched F9/11? You speak like someone whose only knowledge of the film was -- secondary sources.

[Aabe]

The guy isn't in Moore's league.

"League" is defined in the paragraph as being related to success and effectiveness.

Moore has the support of millions.

F9/11 is the most successful documentary ever released.

F9/11 made huge amounts of money.
.

"Hitler had the support of millions" , HItler had many "effective documentarys" created to educate the masses on the evils of Jews, and he took a destitute country, made "huge amounts of money" and turned his countrys economy around, so could we say Moore is in the same league as Hitler? =P heh heh heh.