Michael O'Malley

[Agamemnon]

This 'debate' began when you said,

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.

I found this description to be pretty inadequate, and went on to equate 'Moore tactics' with the stylings and presentation of G. Bush and Rumsfeld, and asked you if their actions fit your description of 'Moore tactics'.

That's the core of this 'debate', and its what you've yet to respond to. I have no idea why you write so much, and yet refuse to elaborate your definition after being asked repeatedly, as this is your main assertion that I've been trying to get you to develop.

For some reason you don't feel its appropriate to clean up your definition of 'Moore tactics', beyond;

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.

If you hate Moore, give some solid reasons. Moore does not identify himself as a 'journalist'. He clearly has a point of view, and goes about representing it, just like _any_ documentarist. If you don't like his point of view, fair enough, but you seem to attack his style, or his 'Moore tactics'. If it is his 'tactics' you have an issue with, explain what they are... if you can't, don't.

[4X4]

I can't believe this still evades you. You are trying to turn my utter disdain for Moore's style of "documentaring" or whatever you want to call it into another Bush debate. I don't give a flying crap about Bush in this discussion. I don't care about whether Michael Moore is a nice person or whether I like him or hate him. What I am talking about is the methods he uses to get attention. Why is this so muddy? You are trying to nullify my point by saying that Bush & Rumsfeld, other news organizations & political administrations are just as bad. If you say so.

The core of the debate is whether these things are the same? I have yet to respond? If you equate them, thats your opinion. I don't see why it's my responsibility to differentiate between the two. IMO, they are not the same. Bush & Rumsfeld don't run around with cameras & try to get people at their worst moment & sell it as news. Bush & Rumsfeld deploy troops to take care of the issues they feel are important. Bush & Rumsfeld aren't attention whores. They may have similar levels of truth:lie ratios, but they are definately not the same.

I know my last post said it was my last post... I lied. This is my last post in this thread. Agamemnon, whether you like or dislike a person, there will always be someone of the other opinion. Your mission to uncover a blind conservative that just believes Bush was not succesful. As I said before, you may think you've got everyone figured out, but really you are just another loudmouth with a hate on for the right wing. You are a dime a dozen. Get yourself an opinion. You have yet to say anything in this back & forth aside from claims that I have not expressed myself clearly enough.
This thread is dead.