The 'Name the Prick' Thread
- Thread starter ninetysixcavy
- Start date
You don't like "Alex Trebek" ???:1orglaugh
I actually find him very witty, he's extreamly arrogant, but what writer isnt :dunno:
Hey, this thread was meant to be apolitical. I don't care about what side they're on, if they are an a-hole they're an a-hole. 
Don't get me wrong I like him as well.The point was as you say he can be arrogant.Really the better example of what this thread is looking for IMO was people like Leona Helmsley who really treated people like dirt reportedly.Fired people for almost anything ,screamed at them etc.
I'm sure there are similar people that make the gossip pages and such these days.I just don't read that so am unaware of who they are.
I agree with you. Christopher Hitchens is a "prick" in the sense that he has a sharp tongue and does not suffer fools easily. But being a "prick" doesn't necessarily make someone wrong. Likewise being "mild mannered" doesn't make someone right. More to the point, being "mild mannered" doesn't make someone not a "prick".
No sensible person can disagree with the fact that Michael Moore is a propagandist. To say that all of his documentaries are based heavily on insinuation and innuendo would be a dramatic understatement. His propaganda is quite deliberately inflammatory. (maybe he just does it for the money?) Some of his conclusions I agree with, some I do not. Yet agreeing with his conclusions is not the same as condoning his methods or the veracity of his argumentation (assuming such a thing exists).
This is where Cristopher Hitchens has taken the bait. He assumes that Michael Moore has a coherent argument.
The fact that Moore has no coherent argument leads to so many inconsistencies that it takes a veritable tome to attempt to address the number found in just one film.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
To attempt to discuss political issues with Michael Moore based on the "facts" presented in his films is as futile as trying to debate Trey Parker and Matt Stone about an episode of South Park. They have opinions and insinuate positions, but they haven't formulated a coherent argument. They collect and present images to make a point. Many statements and images are deliberately taken out of context. Many of the facts are deliberately left out. That is part of what propaganda is.
Moore is a self confessed muckraker.
Michael Moore deliberately hounds his subjects and then sets them up for the sound byte he is seeking. (If they refuse to give him the sound byte he wants - he uses that refusal as an image to further impugn their character). He then pairs those interviews with images designed to create a specific impression. (man clutching a gun, injured baby, Bush on a golf course, etc...) When other documentarians attempt to do the same to Moore, he reacts as his victims do - rude dismissive avoidance / threatens to sue. The fact that I may agree with some of Moore's conclusions in his films is beside the point. Moore can still be quite a "prick".
I think this is what I think Georges meant when he called the "mild mannered" Moore a prick.
That's what I was thinking too..not sure if this is actually a better or worse idea??
Violator79
Take a Hit, Spunker!
Only saying his name backwards will send him back to the 5th dimension where he belongs.
Yeah I know the joke :tongue:
I just noticed this ---->"Know one will get this joke"
God I'm a freakin' retard. Pretty sure I meant 'No' instead of 'Know'. If I could neg rep myself I would.
Moore is mild mannered? Come on. You have to remember, Limbaugh has something that he has to take care of- sponsors and advertisers. I don't think that gives an explanation to all of his ultra-right wing views and such, but I would say he's an entertainer as much as he is a political guy.
But let's not make Moore out to be some kind of noble, philanthropic filmmaking journalist. This guy has been nasty, and just because you're not an overt jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk. Some of the biggest, condescending assholes on planet earth act nice to you. And let's not pretend his movies aren't veiled (and sometimes NOT veiled) shots at people, professions, etc. He's a prick.
But I'll say something nice about Moore now, because that would be the polite thing to do. Hmmm.... something nice.... AH! Yes, he's not as big of a prick-jerk-condescending asshole as Al Franken or Ann Coulter.
:hatsoff:
H
Why worry? People are just speaking their minds.
Violator79
Take a Hit, Spunker!
People ARE pricks at some point or another. Everyone comes across someone else that's being a prick to them. It sure as shit happened when I was in the Army.
I will not go through that very lengthy piece by Hitchens and try to point all the areas where I think he does exactly what he and you accuse Moore of doing but will just focus on one.I will also point out that his piece was written in 2004 and I think a lot of his assertions look a lot less valid now with the passage of time.The overall message to Fahrenheit 9/11 was that 9/11 was being used as an excuse to pursue an agenda unrelated to the attack itself and that invading Iraq was clearly not related to the attack.That I think is clearer now then it was when the invasion started and when this piece was written in 2004.The agenda was a permanent prescence in Iraq by American forces which is why we are now arguing with Iraq over any sort of timetable to withdraw.It wasn't about liberation,Saddam or wmds ever.It was about having permanent forces in another oil rich mideast nation.I won't even argue that it is not in our interest to do that ,as we do consume so much oil and we know that new demands for oil by emerging economies may hurt our ability to obtain it at some point.Thats what Iraq is all about, being in a position in the region in the future to dictate where that oil is allowed to go.
But here is the one part I will give as an example from Hitchens article where I think he is intellectually dishonest.
"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad?"
He makes this statement as though it is all or nothing.That eithier the Saudi royal family does our bidding completely and is in the "pocket" as he says of Bush and the Americans or they are not.That is intellectually a dishonest arguement IMO.While it is clear the al-saud family has a long and close relationship with the Bush family if people took that as meaning it was only with the Bush family and not many american govt's that is their own ignorance being shown,both are true.And further while the Royal family does do our bidding quite a bit there are limits due to internal reasons of how far they can go with that.They risk internal overthrow if they are seen as being just pawns of American interests.Osama is by far not the only Saudi who thinks our prescence in Saudi Arabia,our support for Israel etc is counter to everything they beleive in.So the Royal family must try to walk a tight rope of trying to cooperate with the Americans while not angering internally those forces within their own country.But you hear none of that from Hitchens in his piece.
The point Moore was making was that even though 9/11 was done mainly by Saudis,Osama and most of the hi-jackers were Saudis they were not singled out for that due to our cozy relationship with the Royal family.Hitchens tries to de-bunk that unsuccessfully IMO.Instead we invade Iraq which had no one involved in 9/11.And let me add Hitchens analysis of how well things were going in Afghanistan seems much less valid now as everyone see's we are far from having that under control and both candidates are advocating we need more troops there now, 4 years later than Hitchens article was written.
I've seen quite a few people at the Mall of America over the years. A lot of pro athletes and such. My buddy was a dealer at a casino around here a while back and he dealt to Daunte Cullpepper and Randy Moss. I guess Cullpepper was pretty cool and Moss was alright.
Met Kenny Lofton at the MOA and he was alright. I swear he had a hooker with him (being out of town), she looked pretty good.
Now...we need to start a 'Name the Cool Person' thread as well.
Met Kenny Lofton at the MOA and he was alright. I swear he had a hooker with him (being out of town), she looked pretty good.
Now...we need to start a 'Name the Cool Person' thread as well.
:1orglaugh thought the same thing at first!
i believe whipping it "out" would be more appropriate
Back on topic, former Chicago Bull Scottie Pippen. The guy, known as "no tippin Pippen," is an arrogant a-hole. He likes to play the "do you know who I am?" card quite a bit. He was causing problems at a downtown bar/club and was getting belligerent. he calmed down after the bouncer (a friend of my uncle, the guy was involved in the creation of the Mortal Kombat games and knows about 5-10 different styles of martial arts) offered to escort him outside.
