Lileks disses Michael Moore!

[Stormbringer]

What is it about the Moore-haters that leads them to make such ridiculous charges, believe the most insanely dubious claims made in an attack against him, classify mere insinuation as "outright lies" if he does them and total bullshit as reasonable accusations if they're done against him, etc?

Mostly because Moore has a long and sorrid history of lying, maniplutating and cheating.

Nichols signed a release form prior to the interview. We know that. He also had a camera staring him in the face while he was talking.

As far as I know, what Nichols is alleging is that Moore took parts of it that he was told were off the record and both recorded them and added them to the movie with out his knowledge. There are a few parts where that's possible.

[Stormbringer]

Same as the Clinton-haters —basic programming.

No, a long and consistent pattern of such behaviour. With all the indiscretions Clinton eventually admitted to it's hard to believe him that this time he didn't.

[Patrick Degan]

Same as the Clinton-haters —basic programming.

No, a long and consistent pattern of such behaviour.

Actual or merely what he is accused of by his detractors?

With all the indiscretions Clinton eventually admitted to it's hard to believe him that this time he didn't.

He admitted to getting blowjobs from the office-girl. That doesn't expand into "proof" of all the other horseshit accusations leveled against him, some of which reached truly psychotic proportions.

[Stormbringer]

Actual or merely what he is accused of by his detractors?

Actual.

He admitted to getting blowjobs from the office-girl. That doesn't expand into "proof" of all the other horseshit accusations leveled against him, some of which reached truly psychotic proportions.

No, but the office corruption and such suggest that he's perfectly capable of doing so. Pardongate anyone?

[Patrick Degan]

Actual or merely what he is accused of by his detractors?

Actual.

Evidence...?

He admitted to getting blowjobs from the office-girl. That doesn't expand into "proof" of all the other horseshit accusations leveled against him, some of which reached truly psychotic proportions.

No, but the office corruption and such suggest that he's perfectly capable of doing so. Pardongate anyone?[/quote]

Pardongate was bullshit; zero evidence of pardons being bought or traded waas uncovered by the investigation. Same as the alledge White House vandalism and all the other non-crimes which a red-faced Ken Starr had to admit having no support for in his final report.

[The Kernel]

He admitted to getting blowjobs from the office-girl. That doesn't expand into "proof" of all the other horseshit accusations leveled against him, some of which reached truly psychotic proportions.

No, but the office corruption and such suggest that he's perfectly capable of doing so. Pardongate anyone?

You're kidding right? Clinton getting a blow job and lying about his sex life (which they had no business asking him in the first place) automatically justifies a witch-hunt? That is exactly the same shit that McCarthy pulled during the Communist scares where a persons personal life or spoken beliefs translated into them being a "commie".

I don't give a flying fuck what two adults did consensually. Clinton may be a horny motherfucker, but that has zilch to do with the job he was doing. Hell, if you want to go down this fucking road, just try to defend Bush and his history.

The only thing that Clinton did "wrong" was lie to the American people about something that wasn't any of their business. Bush lied to us about something that IS important and our business (oh like say, the reasons for invading Iraq?). You pick which is the worse crime.

[MKSheppard]

The only thing that Clinton did "wrong" was lie to the American people about something that wasn't any of their business.

Lets not forget blowing up innocent asprin factories in Africa and going
on TV and claiming they were NBC factories.

[Stormbringer]

Evidence...?

Geee, how about his own confessions about his personal indiscretions and the subsequent coverups. Jones, Lewinsky and other things like that.

Pardongate was bullshit; zero evidence of pardons being bought or traded waas uncovered by the investigation. Same as the alledge White House vandalism and all the other non-crimes which a red-faced Ken Starr had to admit having no support for in his final report.

I take it you mean of organized buy offs, because the Rich case is a stunning example of a major contributor getting an underserved pardon.

[MKSheppard]

Geee, how about his own confessions about his personal indiscretions and the subsequent coverups. Jones, Lewinsky and other things like that.

Funny thing, it wasn't the BJ that brought Clinton to the brink; it was the
coverups and denials, pretty much the same thing that caused nixon
to resign.

[MKSheppard]

I also love how x42 got us involved in a ethnic conflict that has been going
on for the last few hundred years, and bombed the shit out of a country
that was fighting islamic terrorists, and rationalized it over mass graves
that didn't exist at all, sort of like how we can't seem to find NBC weapons.

[Patrick Degan]

Evidence...?

Geee, how about his own confessions about his personal indiscretions and the subsequent coverups. Jones, Lewinsky and other things like that.

You'd better come up with something better than this tired garbage, because 1) Paula Jones' lawsuit was dismissed for lack of merit, 2) Lewinsky herself initiated the affair in that case, and 3) none of the other accusations from the insane "Clinton body-count" charges to the alledged rape of Juanita Brodderick to the mythical black love-child he supposedly fathered ever once arose above the chimerical.

Pardongate was bullshit; zero evidence of pardons being bought or traded waas uncovered by the investigation. Same as the alledge White House vandalism and all the other non-crimes which a red-faced Ken Starr had to admit having no support for in his final report.

I take it you mean of organized buy offs, because the Rich case is a stunning example of a major contributor getting an underserved pardon.

Uh huh. And Clinton was formally indicted for this alledged crime when, exactly?

[MKSheppard]

Seriously, Moore had a valid point in the general thrust of his
movie Bowling For Columbine.

He however shot to pieces his credibility by splicing together
those two Chuck Heston speeches and trying to pass the
edited version off as the same speech that Chucky made
in Denver, among other things.

I don't mind if you get the small details wrong in a documentary,
because you can always go look it up in a book, but I draw the
line on bullshit like that and "...the destroyer Arizona blew up with
a loss of life in the thousands..."

Really, at this point, I consider Moore to be sort of like Ted Kennedy.

Teddy could tell us who really shot JFK on the grassy knoll and who
Sirhan Sirhan was working for when he shot RFK, and we'd all dismiss
it as the alcoholic ravings of a has-ben.

[The Kernel]

Geee, how about his own confessions about his personal indiscretions and the subsequent coverups. Jones, Lewinsky and other things like that.

Funny thing, it wasn't the BJ that brought Clinton to the brink; it was the
coverups and denials, pretty much the same thing that caused nixon
to resign.

Except that Nixon commited a CRIME Shep. Keep it in perspective eh?

[MKSheppard]

Thats the sad thing about Moore.

The man clearly has great talent, he can make almost
anything funny and entertaining, but he just can't
leave the facts like they are, and has to horribly
mangle them. He could really save himself a lot of trouble
by sticking to the facts, but really, he's the Ann Coulter
of the left, they love to make up bullshit.

[MKSheppard]

Except that Nixon commited a CRIME Shep. Keep it in perspective eh?

Uh hum, what about the 18 1/2 minute gap that destroyed Nixon's credibility
and stature as a leader?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except that Nixon commited a CRIME Shep. Keep it in perspective eh?

*starts laughing insanely* You seriously think that's enough to get you in trouble in American politics?

[The Kernel]

Thats the sad thing about Moore.

The man clearly has great talent, he can make almost
anything funny and entertaining, but he just can't
leave the facts like they are, and has to horribly
mangle them. He could really save himself a lot of trouble
by sticking to the facts, but really, he's the Ann Coulter
of the left, they love to make up bullshit.

Sadly, I agree with you here. Although Moore's bullshiting has been exagerated, it would help if he didn't work so hard to pull our emotions/opinions towards his opinion. He's a filmmaker though, and I guess that's what filmmakers are trained to do. It's too bad because he really does have an excellent analytical mind combined with a talented filming style. If he could avoid letting his politics get the better of him, he might actually be a very decent political filmmaker.

The sad part is, Moore is a byproduct of his audience. People don't want the truth, they want the sexed up, exciting version of the truth. People like taking sides and hearing about how horrible those that don't agree with their views are. Heaven forbid that people should actually get along and work together in this country.

[Stormbringer]

You'd better come up with something better than this tired garbage, because 1) Paula Jones' lawsuit was dismissed for lack of merit, 2) Lewinsky herself initiated the affair in that case, and 3) none of the other accusations from the insane "Clinton body-count" charges to the alledged rape of Juanita Brodderick to the mythical black love-child he supposedly fathered ever once arose above the chimerical.

1) Actually, Clinton settled with Paula Jones.

2) It's not the affair, it's the perjury and subsequent cover up.

3) Jennifer Flowers. And there have been serious charges that Juanita Brodderick's allegations never got a fair investigation.

Uh huh. And Clinton was formally indicted for this alledged crime when, exactly?

Never, but then again that doesn't he was innocent. All they nailed Capone for was tax charges. All it means is they couldn't indict him.

It does nothing to explain why pardon were given for fugitives, convicted criminals, and others who contributed to his campaign. Nor does it explain away other corruption charges. All it means is he's a good criminal.

[The Kernel]

Never, but then again that doesn't he was innocent. All they nailed Capone for was tax charges. All it means is they couldn't indict him.

It does nothing to explain why pardon were given for fugitives, convicted criminals, and others who contributed to his campaign. Nor does it explain away other corruption charges. All it means is he's a good criminal.

No it means he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Stormbringer]

No it means he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.

In the eyes of the law only. Unless you mean to tell me OJ, Al Capone, and John Wilkes Booth are all really innocent. There's a major difference between the standards required by courts and that of common sense.

[The Kernel]

No it means he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.

In the eyes of the law only. Unless you mean to tell me OJ, Al Capone, and John Wilkes Booth are all really innocent. There's a major difference between the standards required by courts and that of common sense.

Sure, but you also know the dangers of a highly publicized media trial. People tend to assume guilt right away while the evidence doesn't necessarily back up the claims. If a person in public office is accused of a crime, it is pretty much the same in the public's eyes as being convicted.

Do I think Clinton is innocent? I've never actually taken the time to dig through the allegations and decide for myself. Therefore I have no opinion on his prior acts. I just said what I did because I wanted to make the point that witch-hunt mentality causes people to lay blame unfairly in these situations.

[Stormbringer]

Sure, but you also know the dangers of a highly publicized media trial. People tend to assume guilt right away while the evidence doesn't necessarily back up the claims. If a person in public office is accused of a crime, it is pretty much the same in the public's eyes as being convicted.

Not entirely. A real defense can often times dispell that notion, especially if they are actually innocent. The fact is that often times the accusation are true.

Do I think Clinton is innocent? I've never actually taken the time to dig through the allegations and decide for myself. Therefore I have no opinion on his prior acts. I just said what I did because I wanted to make the point that witch-hunt mentality causes people to lay blame unfairly in these situations.

Not necessarily unfairly but prematurely. My point is that insisting on an indictment and conviction in order to acknowledge a charge is also false, especially with such heavily partisan cases as Clinton generated.

[Patrick Degan]

You'd better come up with something better than this tired garbage, because 1) Paula Jones' lawsuit was dismissed for lack of merit, 2) Lewinsky herself initiated the affair in that case, and 3) none of the other accusations from the insane "Clinton body-count" charges to the alledged rape of Juanita Brodderick to the mythical black love-child he supposedly fathered ever once arose above the chimerical.

1) Actually, Clinton settled with Paula Jones.

Only because she appealed the dismissal and with his money running out, Clinton decided to cut his losses.

2) It's not the affair, it's the perjury and subsequent cover up.

How predictable. I'm afraid I must burst your balloon:

A) When Clinton testified in the deposition hearing in the Jones case, her attorneys asked a question which so strictly defined "sexual relations" that Clinton was able to answer the letter of the query and was telling the strict, legal truth. Not volunteering that he was getting blowjobs from the office-girl was not perjury, no matter how much you think it was.

B) When Clinton testified before the grand jury, he answered all questions put to him truthfully. That he did not answer an earlier question which was not put to him at the original hearing does not create a perjury, no matter how Ken Starr tried to torture the definition of perjury to do so.

C) Since Clinton did testify at the grand jury hearing, and answered all questions put to him, it's not really possible to sustain a charge of coverup.

D) No matter what you may believe, Clinton was not required by law to volunteer information not asked for or assist in his own prosecution.

3) Jennifer Flowers.

An affair which occured twelve years prior to Clinton's presidency and irrelevant to any matter before the bar.

And there have been serious charges that Juanita Brodderick's allegations never got a fair investigation.

Because gossip doesn't merit serious investigation.

Uh huh. And Clinton was formally indicted for this alledged crime when, exactly?

Never, but then again that doesn't he was innocent. All they nailed Capone for was tax charges. All it means is they couldn't indict him.

What sort of horseshit reasoning is THAT?!?!

It does nothing to explain why pardon were given for fugitives, convicted criminals, and others who contributed to his campaign. Nor does it explain away other corruption charges. All it means is he's a good criminal.

Uh huh... More accusations out of thin air and therefore meaningless.

[Stormbringer]

Only because she appealed the dismissal and with his money running out, Clinton decided to cut his losses.

Given that he has yet to pay his legal bills at all (despite raising money for it) I find that explanation funny.

How predictable. I'm afraid I must burst your balloon:

A) When Clinton testified in the deposition hearing in the Jones case, her attorneys asked a question which so strictly defined "sexual relations" that Clinton was able to answer the letter of the query and was telling the strict, legal truth. Not volunteering that he was getting blowjobs from the office-girl was not perjury, no matter how much you think it was.

B) When Clinton testified before the grand jury, he answered all questions put to him truthfully. That he did not answer an earlier question which was not put to him at the original hearing does not create a perjury, no matter how Ken Starr tried to torture the definition of perjury to do so.

C) Since Clinton did testify at the grand jury hearing, and answered all questions put to him, it's not really possible to sustain a charge of coverup.

D) No matter what you may believe, Clinton was not required by law to volunteer information not asked for or assist in his own prosecution.

He quibbled over the meaning of is! My fucking ass he didn't perjur himself.

An affair which occured twelve years prior to Clinton's presidency and irrelevant to any matter before the bar.

Yet another in long line of scanks he lied about and then fessed up to in the end.

Because gossip doesn't merit serious investigation.

Again, it wasn't given a serious investigation, merely dimissed.

What sort of horseshit reasoning is THAT?!?!

It means that indictment is required for guilt only in the legal sense. Do you think Al Capone was innocent simply because he was never indicted for anything but tax charges? Because that's your exact reasoning

Uh huh... More accusations out of thin air and therefore meaningless.

Then why did serious convicted criminals who gave money to Clinton get pardon as opposed to deserving people?

[Patrick Degan]

Only because she appealed the dismissal and with his money running out, Clinton decided to cut his losses.

Given that he has yet to pay his legal bills at all (despite raising money for it) I find that explanation funny.

You're a bear for tossing baseless accusations around, aren't you?

How predictable. I'm afraid I must burst your balloon:

A) When Clinton testified in the deposition hearing in the Jones case, her attorneys asked a question which so strictly defined "sexual relations" that Clinton was able to answer the letter of the query and was telling the strict, legal truth. Not volunteering that he was getting blowjobs from the office-girl was not perjury, no matter how much you think it was.

B) When Clinton testified before the grand jury, he answered all questions put to him truthfully. That he did not answer an earlier question which was not put to him at the original hearing does not create a perjury, no matter how Ken Starr tried to torture the definition of perjury to do so.

C) Since Clinton did testify at the grand jury hearing, and answered all questions put to him, it's not really possible to sustain a charge of coverup.

D) No matter what you may believe, Clinton was not required by law to volunteer information not asked for or assist in his own prosecution.

He quibbled over the meaning of is! My fucking ass he didn't perjur himself.

Except your personal opinion doesn't count for dick. It's the definition of the law that counts. Period.

An affair which occured twelve years prior to Clinton's presidency and irrelevant to any matter before the bar.

Yet another in long line of scanks he lied about and then fessed up to in the end.

More irrelevant bullshit, I see.

Because gossip doesn't merit serious investigation.

Again, it wasn't given a serious investigation, merely dimissed.

Because it was gossip. I'm sorry if reality doesn't suit you.

What sort of horseshit reasoning is THAT?!?!

It means that indictment is required for guilt only in the legal sense. Do you think Al Capone was innocent simply because he was never indicted for anything but tax charges? Because that's your exact reasoning

Strawman fallacy and a Red Herring fallacy combined in one package. How efficent of you. Nevermind you ignoring the fact that the investigation into Pardongate was yet another dry well.

Uh huh... More accusations out of thin air and therefore meaningless.

Then why did serious convicted criminals who gave money to Clinton get pardon as opposed to deserving people?

Again, point out the proof of a quid-pro-quo or conceed. Because otherwise you're simply making a fool of yourself.