Is Ann Coulter just a political ploy?

Pearl Jam and toast

Number 18 wrote:

Is Moore an extremist? Yeah, probably. Do we need him absolutely. With one extremist, you need another to keep them in check. Both sides have them. It's just ashame they exist on any level, on any side. I think Jon Stewart said it best, "Extremists run this country because moderates actually have shit to do."

That's one of my favorite Jon Stewart quotes. (from an incredible interview with the author of the book "fight club poltics" too ).

I'd be hardpressed to cite references in favor of Michael Moore (i'm not too fond of him either..), but let's just say Ann Coulter is a good distance farther up the crazy pole than he is.

I wouldn't be surprised if Coulter said something like "and may death come swiftly to my enemies" at the end of an interview and meant it. Moore's just a bit more sane and rational.

Byrnzie

jeffbr wrote:

Do you really need to be spoonfed? Is this really something new to you? There was even a movie made (Fahrenhype 911) to debunk many of Moore's deceptions in his movie. Here's a quick link to that: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I've just read through the page that your above link points to. It's a complete fucking joke. Let me quote an example:

"...I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore's film. When you read Kopel, try to detach yourself from any revulsion you may feel at a work of literal propaganda receiving such wide-spread accolades from mainstream politicos, as well as attendance by your friends and neighbors.

Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's "deceits" is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads in turn to another thought."

Much of the article which you hold up as an example of Moore's 'deceits' follows in the same wishy-washy vein. In other words, Saying things that are "true" or "mainly true", within a context that leaves an overall impression which one disagrees with, is a bad thing. Or, put more simply, when the truth offends us, we should question the reasons behind presenting it.

You need to do better than that jeffbr. Again, for the third time, I ask you to provide me with one concrete example of Michael Moore being an extremist.

jeffbr

Byrnzie wrote:

You need to do better than that jeffbr. Again, for the third time, I ask you to provide me with one concrete example of Michael Moore being an extremist.

*sigh* There is unlikely to be any data which will satisfy your requirements for a couple of reasons. Firstly because you are probably philisophically closely aligned with Moore and wouldn't want to think of yourself as extremist, and secondly because you simply don't want to see it.

There are many articles, websites, etc... debunking myths more propogated not only in Fahrenheit 9/11, but also in Bowling for Columbine where he took things out of sequence and out of context to totally change their intended meaning. But none of that will have any impact on you.

So to answer your last post, here's the first time I thought of Moore as an extremist: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=1999-12-07

I was living in Seattle during the "battle of seattle" and the people Moore praises as heros were nothing but black hoodie, bandana clad anarchist punks from Eugene who there there for the thrill of property destruction. Most of the fuckers who were demonstrating did nothing but disrupt normal people going to their daily jobs and trying to earn a living. I, myself, had to go through a few throngs of douchebags, and cross a couple of police lines just to get to my fucking office. It is extremist to give these assholes any kind of praise, yet Moore compared the Battle in Seattle to Lexington and Concord.

Again, I'm sure you'll find nothing extremist in his attitude here, either. That will simply highlight my theory above.

Byrnzie

jeffbr wrote:

I was living in Seattle during the "battle of seattle" and the people Moore praises as heros were nothing but black hoodie, bandana clad anarchist punks from Eugene who there there for the thrill of property destruction. Most of the fuckers who were demonstrating did nothing but disrupt normal people going to their daily jobs and trying to earn a living. I, myself, had to go through a few throngs of douchebags, and cross a couple of police lines just to get to my fucking office. It is extremist to give these assholes any kind of praise, yet Moore compared the Battle in Seattle to Lexington and Concord.

Again, I'm sure you'll find nothing extremist in his attitude here, either. That will simply highlight my theory above.

I wonder if the public have ever been encouraged to analyse a film or documentary with the same intensity as they have Farenheit 9/11. I think not. I wonder why this is?
Secondly, the so-called 'anti-globalisation' protests - the first time these important issues had been brought to the worlds attention - angered you because they made you late for work? Interesting!
And because the efforts of the Seattle protesters were praised by Michael Moore, that qualifies him as an extremist? Again, Interesting!

jeffbr

Byrnzie wrote:

I wonder if the public have ever been encouraged to analyse a film or documentary with the same intensity as they have Farenheit 9/11. I think not. I wonder why this is?
Secondly, the so-called 'anti-globalisation' protests - the first time these important issues had been brought to the worlds attention - angered you because they made you late for work? Interesting!
And because the efforts of the Seattle protesters were praised by Michael Moore, that qualifies him as an extremist? Again, Interesting!

Just as I suspected. Interesting!

Byrnzie

jeffbr wrote:

Just as I suspected. Interesting!

It's a shame that people can't bring these same awesome critical faculties to bear upon the evening news everyday. A film like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and it is dissected like a frog in a science lab, organ by organ, bone by bone. Strange! :eek:

know1

If she's a political ploy, she was probably planted by the left...

know1

eddie's grrl wrote:

i don't even care if his motives are less than pristine. SOMEone has to verbalize this shit. let's face it, Farenheit 9/11 started MANY conversations, most of which questioning the bush administration's motives following the attacks. i think i's important that someone be just antagonistic enough to get people THINKING. this country is finally waking the fuck up from its slumber, and people like michael moore get some credit for that, imo.

Isn't that exactly what Ann Coulter does...just from the opposite side of the fence?

RainDog

jeffbr wrote:

*sigh* There is unlikely to be any data which will satisfy your requirements for a couple of reasons. Firstly because you are probably philisophically closely aligned with Moore and wouldn't want to think of yourself as extremist, and secondly because you simply don't want to see it.

There are many articles, websites, etc... debunking myths more propogated not only in Fahrenheit 9/11, but also in Bowling for Columbine where he took things out of sequence and out of context to totally change their intended meaning. But none of that will have any impact on you.

So to answer your last post, here's the first time I thought of Moore as an extremist: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=1999-12-07

I was living in Seattle during the "battle of seattle" and the people Moore praises as heros were nothing but black hoodie, bandana clad anarchist punks from Eugene who there there for the thrill of property destruction. Most of the fuckers who were demonstrating did nothing but disrupt normal people going to their daily jobs and trying to earn a living. I, myself, had to go through a few throngs of douchebags, and cross a couple of police lines just to get to my fucking office. It is extremist to give these assholes any kind of praise, yet Moore compared the Battle in Seattle to Lexington and Concord.

Again, I'm sure you'll find nothing extremist in his attitude here, either. That will simply highlight my theory above.

People being inconvenienced on the way to work is exactly what these protestors were trying to accomplish. That's how things like the negatives of globalization get noticed in the media. Obviously, the media outlets that are owned by corporations that want to globalize aren't going to report on the negative affects - but they will report on "crazy-eyed protestors." Intuitive people will see the protests and, perhaps, look into why so many people are pissed off. Then - whether they agree or disagree - they'll at least have been informed.

Protests have inconvenienced a lot of people over the years - and have brought attention to a lot of issues. Some attention is positive, some not so. The affects of protests, however, can last a lot longer than your general annoyance at having to walk through douchebags.

Milhouse VanHouten

RainDog wrote:

The affects of protests, however, can last a lot longer than your general annoyance at having to walk through douchebags.

The Daily Show had a field report last night on a guy who is speaking out against walkathons. He lived somewhere in Massachusetts, and the walkathons obstruct his commute to work. He has to go 6 blocks out of his way. It was fricken hilarious, this guy was railing against walkathons for cancer research, hungry poor people, black people, gays, etc. The story was edited to make him seem like the victim of the "walk-a-nazis". Wonderful stuff.

Pearl Jam and toast

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The Daily Show had a field report last night on a guy who is speaking out against walkathons. He lived somewhere in Massachusetts, and the walkathons obstruct his commute to work. He has to go 6 blocks out of his way. It was fricken hilarious, this guy was railing against walkathons for cancer research, hungry poor people, black people, gays, etc. The story was edited to make him seem like the victim of the "walk-a-nazis". Wonderful stuff.

Hysterical. The new guy's they've gotten over the past year are awesome :cool:

Pearl Jam and toast

know1 wrote:

If she's a political ploy, she was probably planted by the left...

Sometimes it seems like it, but i think she helps the right as much as she hurts them.

Then again, the democrats are raving idiots... maybe they did plant her.

*shrugs*

jeffbr

RainDog wrote:

Intuitive people will see the protests and, perhaps, look into why so many people are pissed off. Then - whether they agree or disagree - they'll at least have been informed.

Well, I saw a bunch of fucking failures, society's bottom-feeders, walking around vandalizing private property. It was hard for me to see them as anything but losers.

RainDog wrote:

Protests have inconvenienced a lot of people over the years - and have brought attention to a lot of issues. Some attention is positive, some not so. The affects of protests, however, can last a lot longer than your general annoyance at having to walk through douchebags.

True. But my point for bringing up in the first place was to point out that Moore, in his extremism, portrayed these black hoodied dorks as some sort of heros, comparing their efforts to Lexington and Concord.

Pearl Jam and toast

jeffbr wrote:

Well, I saw a bunch of fucking failures, society's bottom-feeders, walking around vandalizing private property. It was hard for me to see them as anything but losers.



True. But my point for bringing up in the first place was to point out that Moore, in his extremism, portrayed these black hoodied dorks as some sort of heros, comparing their efforts to Lexington and Concord.

^^ You can't really compare his complaint to the guy on the Daily Show either. That guy was complaining about cancer walks and walks to raise money for the poor. It's a bit of a different situation

RainDog

jeffbr wrote:

Well, I saw a bunch of fucking failures, society's bottom-feeders, walking around vandalizing private property. It was hard for me to see them as anything but losers.

And that's you. I felt the same way about the Republican opperatives "protesting" the recount in Florida. But far be it from me to say it wasn't effective.

jeffbr wrote:

True. But my point for bringing up in the first place was to point out that Moore, in his extremism, portrayed these black hoodied dorks as some sort of heros, comparing their efforts to Lexington and Concord.

What went down in Lexington and Concord was carried out by extremists. Revolutions aren't started by those happy with the status quo.

jeffbr

RainDog wrote:

And that's you. I felt the same way about the Republican opperatives "protesting" the recount in Florida. But far be it from me to say it wasn't effective.

I don't like republican protests of abortion clinics, etc... As far as I know, both sides had something to protest in Florida. But from what I saw, the form of protest wasn't wanton destruction of property. Not sure if you're just trying to be argumentative.

RainDog wrote:

What went down in Lexington and Concord was carried out by extremists. Revolutions aren't started by those happy with the status quo.

Compare the two if you'd like. I think you're wrong to do so. There was certainly a populist groundswell leading up to our revolution. Smelly anarchists from Eugene breaking windows out and harrassing people does not a populist groundswell make.

beachdweller

I personally think she could care less about the conservative movement, it's all about money, she has her schtick, and she's going to milk it.