Wolfe Blitzer sure doesn't pull any punches though, does he?

Doorman, yes. Butler, yes. Journalist?

Well, maybe, if he lived in Buttfuck Nowhere and his biggest story was how a fireman didn't manage to save little Jimmy's cat from a tree. "Not his best effort, really. The cat is still in the tree."

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Wolf-Blitzer-Will-The-Syrian-Ambassador-Deny-WMDs

I can't follow it on TV, because TV coverage sucks. It makes me wish I had a brickbat every time Wolf Blitzer opens his mouth.

And I really can't follow it anywhere else because I'm a superstitious freak who's had just enough science education to believe that if I watch any event unfold I will somehow alter its outcome. Negatively. Therefore I choose to spend the night the way I do most nights: Getting whipped by Mistress Gretchen until I say my safe word. (It's "Cheney".)

Why is Wolf Blitzer YELLING?

Cool. I never got into their music, myself. My friend's band is Thursday. They've been around for a while.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You a fan of Thrice? They opened for my friend's band once, but since then they've gotten too big to do that again, obviously.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Honestly, anyone who can't make the connection between expansive monetary policy and inflation need not position their head anywhere near the business end of a TV camera. I disagree with Ron Paul on a bunch of issues but there's no denying he does an impeccable job of humorously making the other Republican candidates look like complete buffoons in TV debates.

Yeah, big fan of them I love how they reinvent the wheel every time they release an album. Nifty, which band was that? I remember someone else I know was going to play violin in one of their live performances but it got cancelled

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You a fan of Thrice? They opened for my friend's band once, but since then they've gotten too big to do that again, obviously.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Honestly, anyone who can't make the connection between expansive monetary policy and inflation need not position their head anywhere near the business end of a TV camera. I disagree with Ron Paul on a bunch of issues but there's no denying he does an impeccable job of humorously making the other Republican candidates look like complete buffoons in TV debates.

Yeah, big fan of them I love how they reinvent the wheel every time they release an album. Nifty, which band was that? I remember someone else I know was going to play violin in one of their live performances but it got cancelled

You a fan of Thrice? They opened for my friend's band once, but since then they've gotten too big to do that again, obviously.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Honestly, anyone who can't make the connection between expansive monetary policy and inflation need not position their head anywhere near the business end of a TV camera. I disagree with Ron Paul on a bunch of issues but there's no denying he does an impeccable job of humorously making the other Republican candidates look like complete buffoons in TV debates.

Like you said, great if you live in a state like Oregon, but if you live in a state like Louisiana and happen to be African American you're probably going to get the short end of the stick when it comes to just about everything. I don’t think we should turn a blind eye to civil injustice just because it’s happening in another state. One of the jobs the federal government serves is that of a check on the state governments. Unfortunately our system of checks and balances has been trampled over as of late.

I gotta agree with you about Homeland, most worthless pile of fecal mater the government has created in recent years. The problem with the CIA is that it has become too politicized. I think it’s a critical department as far as national security is concerned, but it’s apparently way too easy for people with political agendas to influence it.

I suppose why Ron Paul is so refreshing is because his voting record reflects his rhetoric (Dr. No), and he’s pretty straight forward with it, though I still think there’s a lot of reading between the lines that needs to be done.

The revolution I’d like to see is our political and election process not getting dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Where two words like “fuzzy math” aren’t used to flippantly dismiss a whole argument. Where people like Wolf Blitzer don’t ask questions on complex issues like, “the importance of human rights vs. national security” in yes or no format or ‘buzz words’ like WMD don’t beat the drums of war that lead this country into Iraq. A lofty dream I know, but hey change has to start somewhere.

Moore ++

Lou Dobbs --
Sanje Gupta --
Wolf Blitzer --

Friggin talking heads.

@Rotty,

Actually, not entirely true. There was a second part to that interview that isn't very popular, probably because it was about the actual issues and not this little argument that's erupted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs&eurl=

Also, aside from the interview with Wolf Blitzer, there are TONS of other TV shows that have had him on their show and they had a very interesting conversation about the real problems in health care. So this one specific time when Moore got side-tracked and decided to get upset on the innacurate segment played before -he was even allowed to speak-, I'll excuse, because I would've been plenty pissed off myself.

Check out just about every other TV show that allows guests, he's been on most of them already, and they've all been interesting. Also, it's also good to mention that aside from this segment that showed minor 'inaccuracies', all of the other TV shows that have had him have said that his documentary is not only powerful, but checks out with them as a good source of information. So if you want "the truth on exposed health care", i think it's safe to say at this point that the documentary itself is an excellent source.

Also, a 'good debate' between Gupta and Moore about the movie would actually be a bit hard to have, because it seems to me that aside from these very small differences in statistics, they both believe in the same thing. Several times Gupta heard Moore speak and said "I agree with all of that".

@Slyrr

While your argument makes some sense from a very greedy perspective (and yes, I know that one of humanity's biggest flaws is greed), I just can’t find myself convinced of it just yet. Have you ever suspected that maybe he actually, i don't know, stood behind his beliefs for reasons other than profit?
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not one to trust anyone, and I expect the worst from people, but something about the whole "Moore is nothing but a money-grubbing asshole that's trying to manipulate society so he gets a fatter paycheck" that I've heard from so many people just doesn't make much sense to me. I guess because his history shows that he's genuinely cared for activism for pretty much his whole life. From being personally effected in the whole Flint, Michigan fiasco up til now. He throughout school did all kinds of positive activism, did some pretty crazy things (without anyone even knowing who he was). And now, having seen SiCKO (through videosift =p), the documentary itself is very genuine.
Will I hold what you said past him, registering it impossible to be true? Of course not, people never cease to surprise me. But I just haven't been convinced of it yet. All I've seen is just a bunch of insults without citation thrown at him because he does what he does, and not everyone agrees with it.


But about all of your other points, I can pretty much easily disagree with about all of them. First of all, it was 9th place at the Box Office. I'm not sure that's 'getting the tar beat out of it', considering it's a documentary. No, I'd think that should be under the "very successful" category. I'm not sure what documentary's you've seen recently that have beaten that (aside from Fahrenheit 9/11, of course).

And also, from my perspective, he didn't go "stomping with rage" at the fact that CNN shared their opinion about the film. He was "stomping with rage" at the fact that there was an entire session of nit picking going on towards his documentary before he was even allowed to speak. Not to mention pretty much the entire segment was proven false, as well. I don't know about you, Slyrr, but I'd be pretty mad too if I had made a documentary, only for some news segment to trample on it with inaccuracies, showing the public outright lies about the film. You're saying you wouldn't be mad about that? I think you would.

"I'm sure he agrees with free speech - but only the free speech that agrees with his point of view. CNN has just seen an example of how 'free' Moore would like speech to be by trying to stomp on them."
A good example of your accusation would be if Michael Moore tried to pay money to have that segment taken off of the air. THAT'd be him not believing in Free Speech. He did absolutely nothing that screamed "My opinion is the only correct opinion!". He hated the segment, got mad at its inaccuracies, and proved it wrong. If that's not free speech, then I don't know what is.

"Even conservative estimates say that for the government to pay for this so-called 'free' health coverage that Moore dreams of, your ever-ready goverment is poised to take at least 50% out of each and every one of your paychecks" Not that I’m supremely educated on this little nugget, but this sounds extremely distorted and very wrong. I'm DEFINITELY going to need citation on that one, or at least more reasoning behind this, because I don't see Canadians getting 50% of their paychecks taken out (Yes, I understand GROSS, not NET).

"We all saw what happened when Moore ran into an opposing point of view - he started gnashing his teeth and stamping his feet in rage. Because he THOUGHT these reporters were supposed to be on 'his' side and say nothing against him." I know, right? Because these guys were SO FOR HIM during his last documentary release, Fahrenheit 9/11. SO SUPPORTIVE that they attempted to rip it to shreds. Damn, I’m surprised Michael didn’t expect a hug from Blitzer before the interview started. Maybe THAT’S why he was upset.

"Fact is, this movie Moore made is so wrong in so many instances, that even the 'news' network that wrote glowing reviews for it couldn't believe all his distortions and inaccuracies." Um, what? First of all, that doesn't make sense. Second, if you're referring to CNN, they simply said "It was good, but these were the minor details that aren’t true…”. Even Wolf Blitzer after the interview admitted that he thought the documentary was especially powerful and overall “good”, and that he liked it. There are so many other sources (both right and left) that researched this documentary and said that it ‘checked out’ as being true. So what exactly are you referring to?

There’s more, but this is entirely too long already. Sorry for this.