|
|
|
the main difference is that Rush usually makes sound arguments. You can argue with many of his points, but generally, there is some intelligent direction he is going.
Michael Moore is almost always purely emotional, with no structure to his argument. Show some images of sad people who have been taken advantage of and then add a conclusion that has nothing to do with these people's strife. For example: in columbine, he is so compassionate that he goes into kmart with a couple of kids who have been shot and whines and shows how evil the mean lady who works at kmart is. Only problem is he also tells how access to guns and ammo do not actually cause shootings, and he can show no correlation between the two. It's okay he's Michael Moore. No need to.
They are both 2 fat white men who have way more success than they deserve. One crafts detailed arguments to prove a skewed point. One invokes irrelevant emotional images to connote a skewed point.
Mike |
|
|