Michael O'Malley

[calf]

Quick Link

I'm tired of turning on the news, and once a week this self-righteous 'victim of the system' is on bitching and complaining about something...the board's too private, everyone's picking on him waa waa waa. Seems like he's just out there to cause a ruckus instead of doing his job as a trustee. I can't wait until he gets censored further by the Catholic school board so we can stop seeing this w**ker on TV.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Glad you started a thread to call out this scumbag. I think the word "shinguardisturber" has never fit a man better. For those of you that don't remember, O'Malley lead the crusade against Calgary's Kensington abortion clinic and generally practiced every attention grabbing stunt in the book to draw attention to his concerns. Sound familiar? Eventually the clinic got a restraining order and he seemed to fall out of the public limelight.

That is until he got elected as a Catholic School Board Trustee. When I saw his name on election day, I wondered how long it would take until he made a commotion. Did that pretty quick when he suggested that: If a girl would to consider an abortion after 12 years of education in the Catholic system, the system has failed her. Then I understand he got involved directly with some disciplinary action for a student which has lead to the current debacle.

What's clear is that O'Malley doesn't give a damn about the kids, but instead sees his trusteeship to advance his own personal agenda. The Board is spending a lot of it's time that could otherwise have been spent on other issues, and now legal fees to deal with this zealot. I would love to see what people of his Ward think now, and if they could recall him.

It's people like this that tarnish religion for a lot of people. I know a lot of Catholics that hate this guy for the negative light that gets cast on them because of him.

[calf]

I also found it funny on the news tonight that he was talking about how he's been involved in tons of lawsuits before (half he was the plaintiff, half the defendant)...big surprise.

[4X4]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Feb 21 2005, 11:09 PM


What's clear is that O'Malley doesn't give a damn about the kids, but instead sees his trusteeship to advance his own personal agenda. The Board is spending a lot of it's time that could otherwise have been spent on other issues, and now legal fees to deal with this zealot.

The funny thing is that this is part of what he's calling out the board for. He is going on the evening news spinning his side of the story out to make it seem as though he is asking for something that should be a right, and accusing the board of wasting time by arguing with him. I'm not as familiar with the story, but I remember him whining recently that the board was resisting his motion.
Essentially, he was angry that the board did not just do as he asked.
Michael Moore tactics. Goofs like these tarnish thier cause.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by 4X4+Feb 22 2005, 08:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4X4 @ Feb 22 2005, 08:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-I-Hate-Hulse@Feb 21 2005, 11:09 PM


What's clear is that O'Malley doesn't give a damn about the kids, but instead sees his trusteeship to advance his own personal agenda. The Board is spending a lot of it's time that could otherwise have been spent on other issues, and now legal fees to deal with this zealot.

The funny thing is that this is part of what he's calling out the board for. He is going on the evening news spinning his side of the story out to make it seem as though he is asking for something that should be a right, and accusing the board of wasting time by arguing with him. I'm not as familiar with the story, but I remember him whining recently that the board was resisting his motion.
Essentially, he was angry that the board did not just do as he asked.
Michael Moore tactics. Goofs like these tarnish thier cause. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, I must be tired. What connection do Michael Moore and Michael O'Malley have aside from same first name?

What are 'Michael Moore' tactics, and how is O'Malley using them?

[Cheese]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Feb 22 2005, 01:09 AM
Glad you started a thread to call out this scumbag. I think the word "shinguardisturber" has never fit a man better. For those of you that don't remember, O'Malley lead the crusade against Calgary's Kensington abortion clinic and generally practiced every attention grabbing stunt in the book to draw attention to his concerns. Sound familiar? Eventually the clinic got a restraining order and he seemed to fall out of the public limelight.

That is until he got elected as a Catholic School Board Trustee. When I saw his name on election day, I wondered how long it would take until he made a commotion. Did that pretty quick when he suggested that: If a girl would to consider an abortion after 12 years of education in the Catholic system, the system has failed her. Then I understand he got involved directly with some disciplinary action for a student which has lead to the current debacle.

What's clear is that O'Malley doesn't give a damn about the kids, but instead sees his trusteeship to advance his own personal agenda. The Board is spending a lot of it's time that could otherwise have been spent on other issues, and now legal fees to deal with this zealot. I would love to see what people of his Ward think now, and if they could recall him.

It's people like this that tarnish religion for a lot of people. I know a lot of Catholics that hate this guy for the negative light that gets cast on them because of him.

hmmmm...that doesnt sound like good ole Christian dogma to me! Arent they supposed to forgive and forget? What about not judging others lest they be judged themselves?

[4X4]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 22 2005, 10:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 22 2005, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The funny thing is that this is part of what he's calling out the board for. He is going on the evening news spinning his side of the story out to make it seem as though he is asking for something that should be a right, and accusing the board of wasting time by arguing with him. I'm not as familiar with the story, but I remember him whining recently that the board was resisting his motion.
Essentially, he was angry that the board did not just do as he asked.
Michael Moore tactics. Goofs like these tarnish thier cause.

Sorry, I must be tired. What connection do Michael Moore and Michael O'Malley have aside from same first name?

What are 'Michael Moore' tactics, and how is O'Malley using them? [/b][/quote]
I classify Michael Moore tactics as running around spouting off to microphones alleging things that you have no proof of. Spinning things to make it appear exactly how you want it to, regardless of reality.

[Clarkey]

I get a kick out of his rather obvious curly grey wig.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by 4X4+Feb 22 2005, 05:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4X4 @ Feb 22 2005, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sorry, I must be tired. What connection do Michael Moore and Michael O'Malley have aside from same first name?

What are 'Michael Moore' tactics, and how is O'Malley using them?

I classify Michael Moore tactics as running around spouting off to microphones alleging things that you have no proof of. Spinning things to make it appear exactly how you want it to, regardless of reality.[/b][/quote]
So, having an opinion makes one a 'Michael Moore'? I argue subjectively (because there's really no other way) with people all the time... does that mean I'm 'spinning' my argument? Is someone who disagrees with you 'spinning' their side simply because you've designated them wrong? How do you know Moore/O'Malley are wrong?

Obviously you're not a fan of Moore's style of filmmaking/storytelling, but I wouldn't classify him as 'running around spouting off to microphones alleging things you have no proof of'. Or, if he has, then so have Rumsfeld and Bush, 'spouting off' about WMD's in Iraq, 'alleging things' they 'have no proof of'.

Is Rumsfeld a 'Michael Moore'? Bush?

[4X4]

I'll just never respect Moore for teh way he ambushes people with a camera & mic, asks questions & edits the response. Thats spinning your opinion. O'Malley may not be nearly as bad as Moore, so if that is your point, I concede.
O'Malley uses the same type of BS media pressure to make himself appear credible (not that he is not credible), at the expense of his opposition's credibility.
It's just like the PA, or Goodenow in particular. Bettman gives a speech on how the PA set them up, but remains respectful & direct. He makes some good points and refrains from attacking character. Bob gets behind the mic & pins the whole thing on Gary. Thats it, Gary's fault. (don't tell bob that gary wasnt there).

So, Agamemnon, are we debating Moore tactics because you disagree with the association, or are you defending Moore? If its the former, I concede. If its the latter, I'd love to bash Moore some more for you in a different thread.

I gues the third possibility is that you are defending OMalley. That would be your opinion & as I previously stated, I don't have enough of his background for that kind of battle. What I know of him is fairly recent (as a separate school supporter).

[Clarkey]

But what about the bad toupee!

[Agamemnon]

I'll just never respect Moore for teh way he ambushes people with a camera & mic, asks questions & edits the response. Thats spinning your opinion. O'Malley may not be nearly as bad as Moore, so if that is your point, I concede.
O'Malley uses the same type of BS media pressure to make himself appear credible (not that he is not credible), at the expense of his opposition's credibility.

Fair enough. Though to think that Moore alone 'edits' his interviews, and no other news organization or documentarist does the same is foolhardy. Every peice of video that is taken by anyone to be shown on television is usually edited, and not just for sound. I'm not sure how much 'media pressure' O'Malley has generated... most of the media reports seem fairly negative on him.

So, Agamemnon, are we debating Moore tactics because you disagree with the association, or are you defending Moore? If its the former, I concede. If its the latter, I'd love to bash Moore some more for you in a different thread.

We're debating 'Moore tactics' because you said O'Malley is guilty of committing them. So far you've defined 'Moore tactics' as speaking ignorantly into a microphone, and editing press releases/news footage/his own material to look the way he wants it to look. Please explain to me how this is different from most 'legitimate' news stations, or the American administration itself. I asked you that earlier, but you didn't answer.

I gues the third possibility is that you are defending OMalley. That would be your opinion & as I previously stated, I don't have enough of his background for that kind of battle. What I know of him is fairly recent (as a separate school supporter).

As for O'Malley, I find most big-mouths in general to be somewhat protestable.

Supposedly one of his biggest beefs with the School Board is that they hold their meetings 'closed', so there can be no public record (though I'm sure there are minutes or something). He (again, supposedly) is pushing for public accountability among the Board, and also rails against a Board member who used students in her campaign in return for some vague 'service achievement' or something.

I don't know enough about O'Malley to really comment more on him. Anyone know specifics?

[4X4]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 22 2005, 01:50 PM

So far you've defined 'Moore tactics' as speaking ignorantly into a microphone, and editing press releases/news footage/his own material to look the way he wants it to look. Please explain to me how this is different from most 'legitimate' news stations, or the American administration itself. I asked you that earlier, but you didn't answer.

Well, I'm not really going to say that all news stations, or that political administrations are doing this.
Moore's "documentaries" are so full of garbage, it amazes me. He creates impressions of situations and claims that it is fact. Moore is the equivelant of the National Enquirer if you want to talk about news outlets. When he starts rambling, there may be some fact mixed in with the trash, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Let me ask you: how much of what he says do you believe? (50%, 80, 20?)

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by 4X4@Feb 23 2005, 03:21 AM
Well, I'm not really going to say that all news stations, or that political administrations are doing this.
Moore's "documentaries" are so full of garbage, it amazes me. He creates impressions of situations and claims that it is fact. Moore is the equivelant of the National Enquirer if you want to talk about news outlets. When he starts rambling, there may be some fact mixed in with the trash, but hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Let me ask you: how much of what he says do you believe? (50%, 80, 20?)

Well, I'm going to say that _all_ news stations and political administrations do 'this', by which I assume you mean 'spin' a story from their point of view. How can they not? No one has an all-encompassing, altruistic image of the world that they can share objectively. The best one can do is try to find the truth and present it... the worst, actively hide and distort the truth. If you think Moore is actively trying to hide and distort truth, you might be right. I'd wonder at his motives though... I know governments have things to hide and protect, as well as corporations. Moore interests are.... tacos? I suppose you could make the argument that he's making a lot of cash out of this, but I'm sure for a guy of his talent he could have been less contentious and still very professionally successful.

Moore is the equivalent of the National Enquirer? I'd agree with that, as long as you agree that Bush is a stupid, gun-toting maniac bent on destroying anyone or anything not 'American'. Both examples are extreme, wrong, and filled with bias.

It sounds to me that you've decided, whether based on ideology or personal taste, that Michael Moore is someone you heartily dislike. I'd even venture (gasp) to suggest you're probably a 'right-winger' or 'conservative', or at least find yourself agreeing with that 'side'. As such, I'll dismiss your baseless crap flinging at Michael Moore as just that. You hate the guy, fine, half the people out there do. That doesn't make the other half wrong.

Let me ask you: how much of what the Bush administration says do you believe? 50%? 80? 20?

[4X4]

about 50, what about you & moore?

sound to me like you've decided too

[4X4]

aahhh make that 60

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by 4X4@Feb 23 2005, 03:54 AM
about 50, what about you & moore?

sound to me like you've decided too

Why bother throwing out a figure? I've provided numerous points and questions about 'Moore tactics', all of which you've ignored, so I don't see the point.

[4X4]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 23 2005, 01:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 23 2005, 01:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-4X4@Feb 23 2005, 03:54 AM
about 50, what about you & moore?

sound to me like you've decided too

Why bother throwing out a figure? I've provided numerous points and questions about 'Moore tactics', all of which you've ignored, so I don't see the point. [/b][/quote]
I believe I've address the questions about Moore tactics. Re read my posts. Did you want specifics? Did you want me to start talking about him knocking on Charton Heston's door with a picture of a dead girl and a camera?
The numerous points you claim to have made are vague comparisons (as are mine). We are speaking the same language here, where's the confusion?

I sense negative overtones with your assessment of my ideology. Are you suggesting that all righties hate Moore & all lefties (opposite of hate) him? Thats a stretch. My sister is a staunch liberal & likes him even less than I do.

Look, agamemnon, I know the outcome of the US election ticked off alot of left wingers, but that doesn't mean that people who can't stand Moore's style of "journalism" are right wingers, crap flingers, or Bush lovers. Get over yourself pal. You may think you've got everyone figured out, but really, you're just another loudmouth with a hate on for the right wing.

[Agamemnon]

I believe I've address the questions about Moore tactics. Re read my posts. Did you want specifics? Did you want me to start talking about him knocking on Charton Heston's door with a picture of a dead girl and a camera?
The numerous points you claim to have made are vague comparisons (as are mine). We are speaking the same language here, where's the confusion?

You didn't address the question concerning your definition of 'Moore tactics' when compared to Bush and Rumsfeld's actions fulfilling the exact same definition. I asked you if they were guilty of 'Moore tactics', and you ignored the question. Obviously I wanted specifics, thats why I asked. Moore showing up at Heston's house with a girl shot by a gun is extreme, to be sure, but many, maaany sources of media today are 'extreme' in their reporting. You think that type of action is beyond a FOX news reporter? I doubt it.

I sense negative overtones with your assessment of my ideology. Are you suggesting that all righties hate Moore & all lefties (opposite of hate) him? Thats a stretch. My sister is a staunch liberal & likes him even less than I do.

Lol, well, nowhere did I suggest this, you put it directly in my mouth (and it tastes bad). I'm also not sure what a 'liberal' is, I find most often its a convenient tag for the Left invented by the Right. The term is missused today frequently.

I'm suggesting that you dislike Moore based simply on your knee-jerk political ideology... I suppose you also have little time for Chomsky? Do you really like John Stewart? Did you appreciate the point in Supersize Me? If your answer is no, or close to no on all these questions, then I could probably pigeon-hole you as 'joe-conservative', in the same sense that you appear to have pigeon-holed anyone who 'defends' Moore as a 'leftie'.

Look, agamemnon, I know the outcome of the US election ticked off alot of left wingers, but that doesn't mean that people who can't stand Moore's style of "journalism" are right wingers, crap flingers, or Bush lovers. Get over yourself pal. You may think you've got everyone figured out, but really, you're just another loudmouth with a hate on for the right wing.

The outcome of the election didn't really bother me a whole lot, I don't see how Kerry would have been the answer to US foreign-policy-stupidity, I'm sure he'd make the same mistakes. I also don't recall suggesting that I have everyone figured out, nor do I recall insulting you personally, which you've now done to me (you're a credit to your ideology!).

You defined 'Moore tactics' early on in this conversation, as being the chief reason why you dislike Michael Moore. You went on to give a _lame_ description of what 'Moore tactics' are, and then blindly defend the inadequate explanation by attacking me for pigeon-holing you into an ideology, while you go right ahead and do the same thing. I was trying to have a debate by questioning your motives. It was my belief that your motives here are a knee-jerk reflex of your ideology, as opposed to knowing any real facts or data about 'Moore tactics'.

You may think you've got everyone figured out, but really, you're just another loudmouth with a hate on for the right wing.

This about sums up where I see your position being. Indefensible and resting on counter-attacking for legitimacy. I try to debate points, you call me a loudmouth... you can't even hear me! Pretty poor argument indeed.

[4X4]

How did I put words in your mouth? I asked you if you were suggesting it. I did not say that anyone who defends Moore is a leftie, quite the contrary in fact. As for my position relying on counter attack & being indefensible, I digress. If you refuse to acknowledge what I am saying about Moore, thats your right. I'm not attempting to get you to agree with me. If my description of Moore tactics is 'lame' in your eyes, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

So far, what you've relied on in this discussion is pure counter attack. You have yet to produce any evidence that Moore is anything other than "no worse than mainstream media & certain political administrations". How do you classify my opinion as a knee jerk reaction of my ideology? My opinion of Moore has formed over the course of 3 years, since I saw Bowling for Columbine.
My opinion has been clearly laid out. I cannot stand his style of "journalism", weilding a camera & random pictures, ambushing people with strange questions, then triumphantly declaring that they must be guilty because they didn't answer a question. You are not debating anything, you are simply picking apart my opinion. How is that a debate? Lest you think that I am offended by this, I will take this opportunity to reiterate taht I won't lose sleep over anything you say to me.

Lastly (yes, this will be my last post in this thread), your style of debate leaves much to be desired. You have yet to clarify any opinion on anything. You vaguely defend Moore, & vaguely attack conservativism. No clear indication of whether you are really defending Moore, or attacking (I use the term loosely) conservatism. Either way, the only clear thing is that you dislike attacks on Moore's credibility (for whatever reason).
This reminds me of the Canadian PM race last june. Three out of 4 parties tabled a platform, clearly indicating what they stood for, 1 did not. Taht 1 party simply attacked the other three platforms, and raised enough doubt in the public's mind to win on the premise "the devil you know".
Oh, even better illustrated by King Ralph (a conservative!) in the recent provincial election. Lack of substance, no stance on anything except that the other guy is wrong. This is a strategy of wait & respond. Typically used by people with strong opinions, but lack of assertiveness. That may not be you in real life, but thats how you're coming off. I'm not going to go back & forth on a topic with an opponent that waits for new content to pick apart, without saying anything new.
I stand by my description of Moore tactics, and I stand by my statement that O'Malley employs them