Who is worse: Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh?

[DJPePe]

Alright people. You have a fair comparison between two fatasses of the opposite ends of the political spectrum. I honestly don't believe Moore is as bad as Rush Limbaugh. At least Moore doesn't preach family values while popping pills like Limbaugh does lol

[johnny861]

I'd say they are both cancers of society...

[Ryan]

I'd say Limbaugh for a few reasons. First off, he has a MUCH wider audience. Second, Moore tends to go after the conservative establishment whereas Limbaugh is on a personal crusade against every individual who differs in thought. Third, Limbaugh has no education and no life experience beyond being a radio jockey. And finally, Moore's audience is generally too stoned to get up and actually act on the garbage he preaches, Limbaugh's audience is armed with the Bible and a shotgun and is ready to roll.

[matt]

its a wash. they cancel each other out.

[question]

two negatives cancel each other out. But Moore is still good for the butt of twinkies jokes. But Limbaugh, you get the whole hypocrit aspect.

[willy_jack]

limbaugh cause he has a daily forum to air out his lies.......

[Dionysos]

This is like asking which retarded child drools less; in the end they're both still retarded.

[sladek]

they are both ass hats...but Moore put out a movie on lies...come on

[transparentaura]

Are you referring to Moores movie as being lies because the Bushies denounced it as such and you take their word for it? Or is it because you have read the documentation that Moore provided as to his sources and found it lacking, or perhaps you have read or seen evidence to refute those Moore cited. Was the footage of GWB doctored? I am just curious why so many people I've talked to repeat with absolute certainty that Fahrenheit 911 was nothing but lies (whether they saw it or not). Admittedly biased, the film was intended to cast Bush in the worst light possible, however to anyone who has followed coverage of Bush's career beyond tv "news" or the local paper, there was nothing in the film that had not been previously reported in reputable publications. It wasn't until Moore compiled these "lies" and relased them in an easily digestible form that they were denounced as false.
Limbaugh, on the other hand, mostly just skewers those he doesn't like without pretense of it being more than opinion. Still he has repeated some outrageous charges over the years, especially in regards to Bill Clinton,for example, despite lacking a shred of evidence,alledging that he was complicit in numerous murders. Pretty serious stuff. Yet I don't recall the Clintonistas specifically responding to Rush. I think this speaks volumes about credibility. The fact that the whole freaking GOP was tripping over each other to attack Moore implies that there was something there to worry about.

[johnny861]

They both suck... I think we'll be more productive asking the question of: who's better, Kirk or Picard?

[transparentaura]

I disagree that they both suck, in fact I think that neither do. I agree more with Moores politics and I can't stomach anything that Rush stands for but they both are articulate, intelligent spokesmen for their respective ends of the political spectrum. I do however think Moore speaks with compassion for those in dificult circumstances where Rush projects a sort of social Darwinism and an unforgiving tone that, in the wake off his attempts refill his script of oxys in Dennys parking lot , is difficult to pull off without seeming hypocritical.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by transparentaura

Are you referring to Moores movie as being lies because the Bushies denounced it as such and you take their word for it? Or is it because you have read the documentation that Moore provided as to his sources and found it lacking, or perhaps you have read or seen evidence to refute those Moore cited. Was the footage of GWB doctored? I am just curious why so many people I've talked to repeat with absolute certainty that Fahrenheit 911 was nothing but lies (whether they saw it or not). Admittedly biased, the film was intended to cast Bush in the worst light possible, however to anyone who has followed coverage of Bush's career beyond tv "news" or the local paper, there was nothing in the film that had not been previously reported in reputable publications. It wasn't until Moore compiled these "lies" and relased them in an easily digestible form that they were denounced as false.
Limbaugh, on the other hand, mostly just skewers those he doesn't like without pretense of it being more than opinion. Still he has repeated some outrageous charges over the years, especially in regards to Bill Clinton,for example, despite lacking a shred of evidence,alledging that he was complicit in numerous murders. Pretty serious stuff. Yet I don't recall the Clintonistas specifically responding to Rush. I think this speaks volumes about credibility. The fact that the whole freaking GOP was tripping over each other to attack Moore implies that there was something there to worry about.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

I would have to say that Moore is worse, only because his movies get accepted as fact by people who would otherwise not know better. Limbaugh's demographic could be summed up as simply preaching to the choir. Both suck though since they indulge the extremists of their respective parties.

[casualbill]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

I would have to say that Moore is worse, only because his movies get accepted as fact by people who would otherwise not know better. Limbaugh's demographic could be summed up as simply preaching to the choir. Both suck though since they indulge the extremists of their respective parties.

Your offering evidence that a left-sided argument is a lie, by presenting an ultra-right wing argument????

Why can't people make up their own minds and not have to rely on media-hyped bullshit to argue their point.

Right now almost half of American voters didn't vote for the winner of the election... A movie or book won't change the outcome of what happens in the next 4 years.

[Big Andy]

What is so disturbing about it is that a political climate has been created in this country where anyone who takes a stand is some horrible extremist, as opposed to engaging in a load of fabricated moderate crap that doesn't actually accomplish anything, like so many in our establishment.

Bashing on Michael Moore is just as big of a fad, if not bigger, than the people who believe what he has to say. His comedic comentary makes some implications that may not be proven, but his facts check out. The right merely likes to argue the semantics of his comentary, becuase they most certainly can't argue his numbers.

It's not just the conservative establishment he has a problem with either. He has no sacred cows. He had said that regardless if Kerry or Bush won, the president would be under his camera. He doesn't care about democrats or republicans, he sems to care a great deal about exposing the establishment in general, regardless of party affiliation. In Bowling for Columbine, he's not presenting the issue as "gun control good! NRA BAD!" He even profiles Canada to show that owning guns as a society is not what is causing America's issue with gun related crime. Much in the same fashion as Farenheit, he doesn't actually point fingers, but he does present some information that he feels is being grossly over-looked in mainstream media.


But i'm way off of my original point. Both Limbaugh and Moore are viewed as extremists, and tossed to the side by the mainstream because of that, when neither is really that extreme. I disagree with Limbaugh's politics, but I don't discredit him just because he is at the opposite end of the spectrum from myself.

[zerojunkie]

Your offering evidence that a left-sided argument is a lie, by presenting an ultra-right wing argument????

No.

His comedic comentary makes some implications that may not be proven, but his facts check out.

I'm watching the movie (that I downloaded ) and some of them don't sound like "comedic comentary".