Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login



Register Here


Forum posts for Michael Moore vs. The Who!

Thats great.
Posted by Miguel on Jul 15, 2004

A pedophile doesn't like Michael Moore. Wow.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 15, 2004
He was never accused of being a pedophile.

He was accused of having child porn. And he was not convicted of it.

Posted by Miguel on Jul 15, 2004

Because he was doing a "research project" so he used his "credit card" to "pay" for "child pornography". Which he admitted he did.

So not a pedophile, just a sick freak who uses lame cop outs when the shit hits the fan.

To me, Pete Townsends credibility issues are much more grave than Michael Moore, who is no angel of truth in his own right, but at least he's never lied about looking at little girls and boys.

Oh I'm sorry
Posted by phduffy on Jul 15, 2004
I didn't realize you were a court of law!

Can you convict nerhael or something, just as a joke?

Posted by Miguel on Jul 15, 2004
Lets see:

Me: Pete Townsend is a pedophile


Me: Ok he is a sick fuck, he has admitted that he bought child porn (link provided) but it was for some "research project" that turned out to be some essay about how child porn is easy to get and hey you can get in trouble for looking at it. This seems fishy to me, and I think he is a lawyer.


Posted by Miguel on Jul 15, 2004
I think he is lying, not a lawyer. Although people think many lawyers lie....I don't.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 15, 2004
You think he's lieing, despite the fact that he wasn't convicted, and that he is writing a book.

Hence, you = court of law.

So get onto convicting Nerhael!

Also, I didn't say he was accused of being a pedophile and not convicted.
I said he wasn't accused of that.

You also say that he admitted some horrible thing, but that gives him credibility issues.

Anyways, the point of this link had nothing to do with Pete Townsend.
The point is that Michael Moore will lie and manipulate as much as he can.

Posted by Nerhael on Jul 15, 2004
Please don't referring to me and child porn in the same post.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 15, 2004
He did it first.


Posted by Miguel on Jul 15, 2004
The point is that you are taking the word of Pete Towsend over Michael Moore. Which is fine, but I am rebutting with a few facts here.

FACT 1: Slippery Pete is on a U.K. register of sex offenders because he visited a web site containing child porn images.

FACT 2: This bastion of virtue and truth only fessed up when the 5-0 nabbed him because his credit card came up as having purchased access to some website.

FACT 3: Pete says that the reason he was visiting this website, and the reason why he bought access to those pictures was because of some "research project", of which the only thing he has produced is a six page essay on the easy availability of child pornography on the Internet. Wow, I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out to me by going and buying pictures of kids being abused. He went to a child porn site hoping to find....child porn, brilliant!

FACT 4: In this essay Pete goes on to say that he found pictures of a little russian boy being raped, and he was horrified and was going to notify the authorities so they could go and arrest the fucking creeps who did this. But oh yeah, his lawyer told him not he's still writing his book (is it even a book? I want to see a link to that, I've just heard "some kind of document...")

MIGUELS OPINION: It's the year of our Lord 2000 and 4...Pete Towsend has not produced any book and I fail to see what important research he needs to conduct that actually involves buying pictures of little boys and girls getting it on. Pete Towsend is not a cyber vigilante and is not legally allowed to visit those sites under any circumstances. I think Pete actually was planning on writing something or other about child pornography, but he is in fact fascinated with this world, perhaps due to some admitted abuse issues he had, and is lying about the reasons why he purchased said porn.

So I am questioning whether Pete is telling the truth in this case or not. Michael Moore may be a slimy truth manipulator, but I believe that due to the above facts outlined, Pete Towsend is just as bad.

The difference being the Michael Moore manipulates the truth for what I believe is a worthy cause, and Pete lies to protect the fact that he got his rocks off while looking at little boys or girls (maybe both, I don't know).

Does your hatred of Moore run so deep that you need to rely on the words of a registered sex offender? A VOTE FOR PHDUFFY IS A VOTE FOR CHILD PORN!!!11

Hey is Pete Towsend your uncle? I don't think he is a monk out West.

Excellent Job!
Posted by phduffy on Jul 15, 2004
Of summarizing the Smoking Gun Article.

You forgot to mention the part about how the police didn't find any child porn at his house or on his computer though.


Anyways, that isn't the point.

Do you think Pete Townsend is lying about Michael Moore?

commie rant
Posted by bryan on Jul 16, 2004
i have divided this post into two sections the top being my skippable two cents on michael moore's postion in the spotlight, and the end being my skippable 2 cents on phduffy and miguel's argument.

/* BEGIN commie rant section */

Michael Moore

A) has a political agenda.
B) runs fast and loose with the facts to promote his agenda.

but points a) and b) also apply to the right wing conservative think tanks and journalists that supply a steady stream of operation: "freedom isn't free" B.S. to the masses.

so due to conflicting ideologies, moore attacks mass (corporate controlled) media, and mass media attacks moore. Who wins that fight?

/* END commie rant section*/

I don't know who to believe in this pete t. vs. moore thing, but i do know that there isn't a site called set up by a bunch of people who spend their spare time picking apart every detail of pete's life and exposing how wrong he is.

also, it doesnt matter if they were on his computer or not, if he used his credit card to buy child porn, BANGO! he purchased child porn.

Purchasing any product helps continue the supply of it = townsend indirectly contributed to future child porn being made.

that was long, im going to bed.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 17, 2004
Yes, some of the people that disagree with Moore use similar tactics.

I my opinion this makes Moore even more of a sleazeball. Instead of showing what they're doing, and using legitimate arguments (being the bigger man if you will) he resorts to their level.

And the reason there's no is because Pete doesn't have a history of lying and distorting the truth. I'm not sure if you brought that point up as something in Townsend's favour or Moore's favour actually.

As for the child porn, I tend to believe the authorities in this case. We know that:
Townsend was not charged
Townsend was abused as a child (well, we think that anyways)
Townsend didn't actually have any child porn
Townsend used a credit card with the name PETE TOWNSEND!!! on it to make his purchases
Townsend has written an article about the subject
Townsend has been in contact with people regarding his longer writings on its subject

Based on all that, I tend to believe the legal authorities that did not convict him.

Purchasing any product helps continue the supply of it = townsend indirectly contributed to future child porn being made.

I don't think that this is clear at all. I'm not sure if there's any evidence to back up your claim (there may be, I'm just saying it's not a clear issue). It seems to me that the problem with child porn is much more on the supply side than on the demand side. I don't know that demand would make the slightest bit of difference in how much is produced.

pet rocks
Posted by bryan on Jul 18, 2004
do they still sell pet rocks?

People don't supply things there is no demand for. I realize that whole "one person spitting in the ocean" argument may come up here, and i know pete townsend using his credit card to buy child porn once doesnt mean he is contributing to the demand for it all that much, but it is still a drop in the bucket, and him being a celebrity may allow someone else to incorrectly rationalize their own child porn cravings with the old "pete townsend jumped off a bridge, so will i" mentality.


When did Michael Moore lie? I'm sorry, i dont pay attention to the news anymore, i have long ago stuck my head in the sand and medicated myself appropriately.

so your saying that moore is a sleazeball because he uses the same tactics as the media? so all mass media types are sleazeballs?

It's a shame that we have to resort to mud-slinging and grandstanding to get our voices heard.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 18, 2004
People don't supply things there is no demand for.

Right, if we're talking about a normal good. Child pornography is absolutely not a normal good. It's NOT clear to say that child pornography wouldn't be produced if there was no demand for it. The people producing could be making it for other reasons than financial rewards.

When did Michael Moore lie? Is that a serious question?

You provided a link to one site that tells of his manipulations.

And I didn't say that he used the same tactics as the media. You mentioned that the right wing media (ie Fox News) uses certain tactics that Moore also uses. And what Moore does is far worse than what your typical ABC, CBC etc report. They at least have to attemp to be responsible, whereas Moore (the Left's Ann Coulter) has no such responsibility).

michael moore lying
Posted by bryan on Jul 18, 2004
it still adds to the "popularity" of child porn, which might provide further justification for people to seek it out...

CBC i will not slag, but we are talking about shitty american news peddlers here, and they DO NOT attempt to be responsible.

They have an agenda. PEOPLE WITH AGENDAS colour what they report. Conrad black is living proof of this, i cant think of any examples off the top of my head, but the guys just a sleazy bastard.

i suggest at least thumbing through manufacturing consent by edward herman and noam chomsky... at least have a peak at the footnotes section, which is probably close to a 1/4 of the book....

i never said moore uses the same tactics as the media... i said they attack him, he attacks them. The difference between Michael Moore and ann coulter, who i have not read, is that Ann coulter says stuff that falls in line with what the mainstream media is saying, so she doesnt get slagged.

Are we fagdancing? I don't really think
Posted by phduffy on Jul 18, 2004
CBC absolutely has an agenda. (Ask a Conservative supporter what they think about it). I don't know if there's a news organization in the world that doesn't have an agenda. All 4 major Canadian newspapers have agendas. The Sun drives Liberals/NDP insane, the Star drives Conservatives nuts, and the Post and Globe and Mail also drive people insane, although not so much.

Yeah, Conrad Black had an agenda, so does Ruport Murdoch, so does NPR, PBS, etc.

I don't think that the mainstream media attacks Moore. He's attacked by Fox News and Conservatives commentators.

Ann Coulter absolutely does not say things that fall in line with what the mainstream media is saying. (examples: McCarthy has been exonarated by history, Democrats are traitors, liberals are baby killers).

And Ann Coulter gets slagged like nobody's business (as she should). My point is that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are two sides of the same coin. They are both full of shit and say things that they know to be false. They both hurt their cause more than they help. There are intelligent, honest liberals, but Michael Moore is not one of them. There are intelligent, honest conservatives, but Ann Coulter is not one of them.

Posted by bryan on Jul 18, 2004
i said slag twice in my last post. You win the argument, lets not fight anymore paul.

I agree
Posted by phduffy on Jul 18, 2004
Let's not fight/

Posted by vivian on Jul 19, 2004
awww.. you two are in love..!

... ^2
Posted by bryan on Jul 20, 2004
forbidden, internet type love.

its all exotic, like dating an asian.

Small observation and a question
Posted by Miguel on Jul 20, 2004

in my opinion, the Post drives people insane just as much as the Sun. It has a conservative slant, which is fine, and a gigantic pro-American slant, which pisses off people to no end.

People like the Financial Post lots, but have an issue with just about everything else in the paper.

How do you feel about Al Francken?

you are getting silly, I don't love you
Posted by Miguel on Jul 20, 2004
"if we're talking about a normal good. Child pornography is absolutely not a normal good. It's NOT clear to say that child pornography wouldn't be produced if there was no demand for it. The people producing could be making it for other reasons than financial rewards."

Right, if you're talking about child pornography as a sick hobby that some dude does in his basement and keeps only to himself.

But , people are now putting said pornography on the internet and CHARGING PEOPLE TO ACCESS IT. That glorious fuckhead Pete Townsend shows up and pays to access that site, thereby DIRECTLY benefiting that website, contributing to its continuation and presumably the creation of more pictures = more hurt children.

I just think Pete got curious, and maybe accessed the site as a one time thing just to check it out. (I fail to see how the fact that he was abused is somehow exculpatory, as a majority of pedophiles were abused as children.) I mean fuck, what the hell kind of research entails actually accessing a site?

Being "curious" is no excuse, and accessing child pornography under almost any situation (minus actual law enforcement) is punishable by law.

Posted by Miguel on Jul 20, 2004
my previously title should have kept on going:

you are getting silly, I don't love you when you're silly.

Because of course I love you.

From the moment I wake up
To the moment I put on my make up.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 20, 2004
The fact that people are charging for child porn is not important.

The question is, would people still make it/abuse children if people weren't buying it?

And despite the claims made in this thread, we don't know the answer to that.

People don't make pet rocks anymore because people don't get any utility out of making pet rocks. While they may for child porn.

Consider that there's lots of people that write stories, poems, play in bands, etc, even though they know that they're not going to make money at it. They do it because they get some sort of enjoyment out of it.

It's possible that demand affects child porn. However, I strongly suspect that the problem is a supply one, and you could arrest 10,000 people a week for downloading pictures and not make one iota of difference to the amount of this stuff being produced.

I am not making excuses for anyone involved with child porn. I listed reasons for why I believe Townsend. (The glorious fuckhead that wasn't charged with anything).

Being "curious" is no excuse, and accessing child pornography under almost any situation (minus actual law enforcement) is punishable by law.

I don't even know what that has to do with anything. I don't want to figure out what Townsend did or did not do. I'll leave that up to the police and the courts.

To your previous post:

I haven't read much of the Post, because they're idiots and don't make the paper available for free online. I think Warren Kinsella's pretty good though. It's okay to have a slant on your editorials and columnists, which I presume is what the Post does. What drives people nuts about the Sun (and to a lesser extent the Star) is that they have a slant on the reporting of news. ie, you won't see the Globe and Mail or Post with a front page article about the "Fiberals". The Star's sports section now resorts to making up the news. And yes, I'm serious about that. They make up trade rumours and speculation and report it as fact.

I don't understand why Al Franken is lumped in with Michael Moore and, etc. As far as I can tell he's telling the truth. He certainly went to great pains to research his book. Unless he's in the habit of making things up and we haven't been told about it I don't have any problems.

I totally unconditionally agree with you
Posted by Miguel on Jul 20, 2004

Not about Townsend, that was my last fagdance on the subject.

I also think the Star is deliberately making up stuff to stir the Raptors and I call bullshit on them.

I used to love riling you about the Globe And Mail, but they are my most respected newspaper now.

I still like the Star's slant and they have awesome investigative reports (like their expose on senior care facilities) and I like their movie critics more than G&M, who is the stingiest bastard alive.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 20, 2004
The Star's baseball reporters are also terrible.

That's what makes me wonder about them. I follow baseball and basketball, and they make things up and are terrible.

So who knows about the rest of the newspaper?

I like the Salon movie critics. A Stephanie Z does most of them, and she's pretty good.

Plus, they don't actually give the movies a rating. You just have to read what they say about it.

Another Link
Posted by phduffy on Jul 26, 2004

Posted by Miguel on Jul 29, 2004
Ann Coulter is not at all the right equivalent of Michael Moore.

Michael Moore is a pundit and polemicist that unfortunately chooses to call his films "documentaries". I would describe him as an essayist.
You once called his statement that "only one member of congress has a child in Iraq" an outright lie and that there are in fact several. I want to see a link to that.

He will carefully arrange facts and omit contexts to get his point across (he never outright lies). But he is nowhere near the level of insanity and bitter hate-bitch levels that Ann Coulter reaches. In a fair and just world, Ann Coulter would have grown up a black poor woman in Compton who has to offer her body to violent men in exchange for crack. I am serious about this.

Here are some of her choice quotes:

“The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster.”-- Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

• “I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”-- Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

• “...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start.”-- Speech, 11/01, rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002

• “In his brief fiery ride across the landscape, Joe McCarthy bought America another thirty years. For this, he sacrificed his life, his reputation, his name. The left cut down a brave man, but not before the American people heard the truth.”-- The Drudge Report, quoting from Coulter’s new book, Treason, 6/19/03

• “When I began swooning for George W. Bush during the Republican primaries, my friends warned me that I was going to have to eat my words. It's now a month into his presidency, and I'm even more doe-eyed about Bush than ever.”-- Column, 2/22/01

• “We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs.”-- Column, 9/25/02

• “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.”-- Column, 9/13/01

• “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”-- Speech to Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002

• “The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle.”-- Column, 1/24/02

• “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."-- New York Observer interview, 8/20/02

• “Then there are the 22 million Americans on food stamps. And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal.”-- WorldNetDaily, 12/10/03

• “God help us if the Democratic Party ever wavers on its three major planks: abortion, gay marriage and banning the Boy Scouts. (Perhaps they could save a step by figuring out how to automatically abort all future Boy Scouts.)”-- WorldNetDaily, 12/10/03

• “It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not...on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.”-- Column, 2/18/04

And most of the stuff you mention in that link is an attack on the context and framing of Moore's arguments (although I will grant you that there are a VERY FEW instances of what you might call deceit).

And links are fun:

Posted by phduffy on Jul 29, 2004
This came out of nowhere. I thought this had died.

It's funny you mention that, because I mentioned on another site how Michael Moore is like Ann Coulter (actually, I said that the Toronto Star and Sun are like the Michael Moore and Ann Coulter of newspapers). This brought up some debate, and it pretty much came down to which side you were on. If you're a big leftie then you get all offended by the compairison and hate Coulter. If you're a big rightie you get all offended by the compairison and hate Moore. If you're in the middle you start to realize that maybe it's somewhat close to the truth.

One important fact to remember is that the serious and important parts of the left and right in America want nothing to do with either one of them. The Weekly Standard fired Coulter for being too right wing, and with the exception of Wesley Clark, the Democratic nominees for president want nothing to do with Moore.

Anyways, I think they're pretty much exactly the same. Ann Coulter says we should kill all Muslims, Moore says that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban, which supports terorism. They're both fucking nonsense. And that statement by Moore is an out right lie. Don't give me this "Well, he just rearranges stuff and omits facts, he doesn't lie". What kind of argument is that? So he's only 98% deceitful, not 100%?

If I deceive you then I'm lieing to you.

As for your website, I provided a link to spinsanity, and independent website who's only goal is the truth, and attacks both the left and the right. (In fact, one of the items they frequently talk about is the media's mistruths about Al Gore).

You provide a site in which the first line staes "The purpose of this site is to defend Farenheit 9/11".

I know which one I'm going to trust more.

If you're a big Moore fan and really want to get angry, go read liberal commentator Christopher Hitchens review of it. (Although he's a weird kind of liberal that thinks Clinton was sub human and that Princess Di and Mother Theresa were hiding all kinds of stuff).

Posted by Nerhael on Jul 29, 2004
You thought it had died?

The rest of us thought it was dead on the 20th, then on the 26th you posted that followup link.

He only waited 3 days to go at the body of the horse. You waited 6.

Read this comment
Posted by Miguel on Jul 29, 2004
“We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs.”--

Seriously, you think this is the rhetorical or even moral equivalent to saying that the Bush administration gave millions of dollars for the Taliban to curb poppie farming, which contributed to terrorism?

I'm not really that big of a Moore fan, but I certainly wonder why we hold him to a higher standard of accountability than the Bush administration.

And I'm still waiting for the children of congressmen going to the military link.

Posted by phduffy on Jul 29, 2004
I thought it had died, we haven't had any conversation about this for a while.

That is a fucking weird quote you end with. (And his issue seems to be with me comparing Coulter and Moore, which was not 3 days ago)

Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.

7 congressmen have children in the military.
And oh yeah, John Ashcroft's son is serving on a ship in the Persian Gulf.
Moore probably didn't remember who Ashcroft was, easy mistake to make.

Interesting editing regarding this segment:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

Interesting qutoes:

"I mean, they are up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they’re going to screw today,” Moore continued. “The hate, they eat for breakfast. They are going to fight and they are going to smear, and they are going to lie, and they are going to hate."

“They’re not patriots,” Moore said. “They’re hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism. Hate-triotism is where they stand, and patriotism is where real Americans stand.”

Posted by phduffy on Jul 29, 2004
No one is holding anyone to a higher standard than anyone.

Michael Moore is a manipulative, lying sack of shit.

Ann Coulter is a manipulative, lying sack of shit.

I strongly suspect that some members of the current US administration are manipulative lying sacks of shit.

I'm interested in the truth. I find it more offensive whens someone attacks the truth than when someone attacks the left or the right with legitimate ideas. Saying that Michael Moore is like Ann Coulter is not a pro Ann Coulter statement. They're both useless in any serious discussion of the way things are right now.