[Michael Moore] Ralph Nader criticizes Moore's lies and hypocrisy

Oh wow, even Ralph Nader has decided to take some shots at Michael Moore:

Quote:

Hey Michael, Where’s Your Past?

The saga of Michael the Second continues. From a stalwart collaborator before huge rallies in our 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign to a puzzling sidelines posture, to an endorsement of Wesley Clark, you have perplexed more than a few of your admirers.

Now you have declared in the June 24, 2004 issue of USA Today that you "hope to have a significant impact on the 4 to 6% who now say they are going to vote for Ralph" to vote for Kerry. Wow! That’s a long way from Michael of Flint and Michael of Washington, DC. You are some traveler.

On "The Charlie Rose Show" last Thursday you repeated the false statement that I promised to avoid the close states in 2000 and therefore you broke away from the campaign in the last month and urged a vote for Gore. Strange – you were berating Democrats before nearly 10,000 people at our MCI Rally on November 5 – two days before the election. If you would like to see a copy of the tape of your speech let me know. And, you campaigned with us in some of those close states. I have called you on this false assertion regarding the close states yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Our 2000 Campaign was a 50 state run, (and I campaigned in all 50 states) from the beginning, a point repeated again and again, even though I spent 28 days in California and only 2 ½ in Florida.

In my last message to Michael the Second I mistakenly believed that your views had not changed, with an exception or two, "It’s that your circles have changed. Too much Clinton, not enough Camejo," I observed. Now on "The Rose Show" you, the great freedom fighter, urged us to withdraw, urged rejection of the opportunity for millions of Americans to vote for a candidacy of their choice and a good agenda for their future.

So the anti-war Michael supports the pro-war Kerry; the anti-Patriot Act Michael supports the pro-Patriot Act Kerry; the pro-tax on corporations Michael supports the low tax on dividends and capital gains Kerry. What ever happened to the great resister?

Do you think any of the corporate lobbies are quaking in anticipation of a Kerry win, e.g. the military industrial complex (to use Eisenhower’s warning phrase), the pharmaceutical, nuclear power, banking, securities, insurance, petrochemical, agribusiness, biotechnology, real estate and fossil fuel industries. The corporate government in Washington is the permanent government – as you well know.

Oh well, we thought we knew ye, Michael. At least while you mingle with the people born to the purple and other nouveau riche, you’ll still wear your working clothes and keep your cap on real tight as you bend to the wind.

Best wishes for future films,

Ralph Nader

The title to this thread should be:

"Ralph Nader Desperately Grasps Toward Press Coverage"

Or maybe the title should read:

"Ralph Nader shows how Michael Moore is a hypocritical, lying pile of dung"

One thread cannot possibly contain both Nader and Moore’s egos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grindel

The title to this thread should be:

"Ralph Nader Desperately Grasps Toward Press Coverage"

How would we tell the Nader threads apart then?

Moore has realized, unlike Nader, that defeating the Bushites is the greater goal, not just posturing and posing like Nader.

Quote:

Moore has realized, unlike Nader, that defeating the Bushites is the greater goal, not just posturing and posing like Nader.

And this is why at this moment I won't vote democrat. Maybe if they would get down to stating their views instead of just bashing the other guy all the time. I mean isn't it a given that democrats want Bush out of office? Why not actually try to attract people to their side with their view points?

Nattik, I think that if you check out the theme of the convention that's just what they're trying to do. With just a few exceptions there aren't a whole lot of attacks on the President directly going on (Jimmy Carter's speech being the obvious exception). If anyone else screams about Vietnam service I may have to kick a spotted owl, though.

What I don't get is why you clowns didn't let me know O'Reilly was going to have Moore on his show yesterday! Talk about a theatre of the bizarre; anyone know if there's a video transcript of their conversation?

Quote:

And this is why at this moment I won't vote democrat. Maybe if they would get down to stating their views instead of just bashing the other guy all the time.

Um, 75% of bush's ads have attacked kerry, while only 25% of kerry's ads have attacked bush. But.. see what you want to see.

Edit: or what fox news wants you to see

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grindel

anyone know if there's a video transcript of their conversation?

I don't know about a video of it, but Drudge has the text transcript
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

I almost felt bad for Moore, he was skewered.

yeah, Moore didn't come out of that too well.

I do not take anything on Sludge as fact anyway.

What does "an embargoed transcript" mean? Embargoed by who, Moore or Fox?

Edit: Yurik, the pieces of the interview that I heard today pretty much match that transcript. I have no reason to believe that it's false. O'Reilly was kind of wrong to use that one quote from Woodward's book though. If you read the whole paragraph, Bush asked Tenet what they had and then was like WTF you guys have been saying you have all this evidence and this crap is all you have to give me? That's when Tenet said it was a slam dunk case. Bush doubted the strength of the intelligence, yet still went forward with its use to justify the war in Iraq.

yeah, i saw the interview on tv last night, and it pretty much matched the transcript. Moore didn't really address the issue of 'what a lie is' very well. :( I thought he could have done better.

I just thought it was hilarious that fanatical right news program had nutso left fat guy on. It was basically a shouting match to see who could interrupt who the most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nattik Frostreaver

And this is why at this moment I won't vote democrat. Maybe if they would get down to stating their views instead of just bashing the other guy all the time. I mean isn't it a given that democrats want Bush out of office? Why not actually try to attract people to their side with their view points?

Watch the convention speeches, they do nothing of the sort.

Quote:

I do not take anything on Sludge as fact anyway

You make me giggle.

Quote:

You make me giggle.

I hope you're giggling cause he's crazy Yurik and not cause he distrusts Drudge. I'm still waiting on that Kerry-Intern story he said he had proof on and was DEVELOPING . . .

Quote:

And this is why at this moment I won't vote democrat. Maybe if they would get down to stating their views instead of just bashing the other guy all the time. I mean isn't it a given that democrats want Bush out of office? Why not actually try to attract people to their side with their view points?

Are you even watching the Democratic Convention?

I’m watching. Just like the RNC in a few weeks, the DNC is a show intended to woo Independents. That’s why Obama and Edwards have stressed such blasé substances issues such as “hope,” while essentially ignoring the issues that the base cares about. Watching the DNC would give you the impression that the Democrats don’t have a stance on Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action, Abortion, the War, or wealth redistribution.

Just like watching the RNC would give you the impression that the Republicans don’t have a stance on Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action, Abortion, or wealth redistribution. The only core issues that the RNC will stand firm on, and in stark contrast to the DNC hiding its feelings, is its support for the War and tax cuts. The Democrats have to hide that they want to raise taxes on the Middle Class to redistribute it to the poor and hand over US foreign policy to the UN and France.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remfin

I hope you're giggling cause he's crazy Yurik and not cause he distrusts Drudge. I'm still waiting on that Kerry-Intern story he said he had proof on and was DEVELOPING . . .

I giggled too, because of the one way nature of Yurik's distrust.

I believe the Intern story. I know at least two girls (who are not political) Kerry hit on while in an upscale Boston bar. I don’t care if anyone believes this hearsay, but the man is a predatory sexist pig.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torcer Arcana

The Democrats have to hide that they want to raise taxes on the Middle Class to redistribute it to the poor and hand over US foreign policy to the UN and France.

I guess we'll find out tonight when he gives his speech. Unless people want to discount that he'll just be lying to get elected. It sounded pretty clear from Edwards last night that the middle class was not looking at a tax increase under any Kerry plan.

It sure is a good thing that politicians don't lie, mislead, or obscure the truth in order to further their own power goals...isn't it?

Quote:

I guess we'll find out tonight when he gives his speech. Unless people want to discount that he'll just be lying to get elected. It sounded pretty clear from Edwards last night that the middle class was not looking at a tax increase under any Kerry plan.

Kerry will raise my taxes if he is elected. Have you seen his plans? Besides, when the Democrats say “the rich,” they mean everyone who works and makes more than 50,000/yr.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grindel

I guess we'll find out tonight when he gives his speech. Unless people want to discount that he'll just be lying to get elected. It sounded pretty clear from Edwards last night that the middle class was not looking at a tax increase under any Kerry plan.

Do you think Kerry supports gay marriage? I can't imagine that his position here is not a lie.

"Read my lips!..."

Kerry doesn't support gay marriage; he's against the concept. Kerry supports states rights and civil unions.

Quote:

Kerry will raise my taxes if he is elected. Have you seen his plans?

If you make two hundred thousand or more dollars a year, your taxes will be raised. You don't need all that money anyway. If you don't make two hundred thousand or more dollars a year, your taxes will probably be lowered, since your state will need to tax less of it as it will be getting more assistance from the federal government, and the federal government will be taxing you at the same rate as it was under Bush.

Quote:

Besides, when the Democrats say “the rich,” they mean everyone who works and makes more than 50,000/yr.

This may or may not be true. However, when Kerry says "the rich," he means those making over two hundred thousand dollars a year.

Quote:

Do you think Kerry supports gay marriage?

At this point, only idiots believe that Kerry supports gay marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eamin

If you make two hundred thousand or more dollars a year, your taxes will be raised. You don't need all that money anyway. If you don't make two hundred thousand or more dollars a year, your taxes will probably be lowered, since your state will need to tax less of it as it will be getting more assistance from the federal government, and the federal government will be taxing you at the same rate as it was under Bush.

Good thing I haven't eaten yet. This actually made me sick.

Why is this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eamin

If you make two hundred thousand or more dollars a year, your taxes will be raised. You don't need all that money anyway. If you don't make two hundred thousand or more dollars a year, your taxes will probably be lowered, since your state will need to tax less of it as it will be getting more assistance from the federal government, and the federal government will be taxing you at the same rate as it was under Bush.

Considering that most places that people make more than $200,000 a year, the cost of living is substantially higher than the rest of the country this is kind of a bullshit standard. Making $200K in Manhattan, NY, is less money than making $60K in my hometime in WV. And since NY state raised taxes to match the federal "tax cuts" how exactly is fair to restore that tax rate to someone in Manhattan who is "rich" but would be firmly middle class outside of Manhattan?

Quote:

This may or may not be true. However, when Kerry says "the rich," he means those making over two hundred thousand dollars a year.

Salaries are related to where you live, nothing more.

Quote:

At this point, only idiots believe that Kerry supports gay marriage.

Why's that? I admit i don't know him that well, but you don't earn a reputation for being the most liberal senator in Congress without being pretty liberal on issues. Is this a pet peeve of his?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seriati

I admit i don't know him that well, but you don't earn a reputation for being the most liberal senator in Congress without being pretty liberal on issues. Is this a pet peeve of his?

Actually it's more a case of listening to what others are saying about him rather than listening to he himself. It's called framing. Try listening to him directly tonight; you'll have a first-person reason to dislike him rather than having stuff framed for you. I recommend C-SPAN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grindel

Actually it's more a case of listening to what others are saying about him rather than listening to he himself. It's called framing. Try listening to him directly tonight; you'll have a first-person reason to dislike him rather than having stuff framed for you. I recommend C-SPAN.

I see Grin. What I was criticising is him saying one thing because it's popular and likely believing another, and your answer is "he believes it because he says it". Since I don't believe, he says what he believes, I believe he says what he thinks we want to hear, we're at kind of at an impass, without some more information (like an actual agrument he put forth) I don't see us getting off it.

In the interest of parity I will correct Torcer's statements:

Quote:

Watching the DNC would give you the impression that the Democrats don’t have a stance on Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action, murdering doctors, the War, or taxes.

Just like watching the RNC would give you the impression that the Republicans don’t have a stance on Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action, murdering doctors, or taxes.

Wouldn't it be easier if you just stuck to the words everyone else uses instead of your own incorrect partisan ones?

I don't get it.

Hmmm.

This article:

Linked here

states that Nader and Moore "they became firm friends when Moore supported Nader's campaign four years ago (00)."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vashanti

Hmmm.

This article:

Linked here

states that Nader and Moore "they became firm friends when Moore supported Nader's campaign four years ago (00)."

Well, that article was quoting the New York Post, so I'm not sure how reliable it is.

I find it interesting that a thread about Ralph Nader and Michael Moore, two individuals people on these boards just love to talk about, was derailed so thoroughly away from either of them. Nice try for a re-rail though :)