OT: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
Cyclones
This is my first off topic post but figured I'd give it a go:
First off, I am a registered independent. However, I find myself
swinging to the left on many issues. So I suppose you could say I am a
liberal. Where does Michael Moore come in? Well, frankly, I hate
Michael Moore, despite being liberal. This tree-hugging, flaming
liberal, gives Democrats a bad rep. If you want to be depressed or
outraged (at Bush or Moore's incompetence), go see Fahrenheit 9/11 (or
Bowling for Columbine for that matter). Here's my suggestion for Mr.
Moore: Now that he has covered many of the "problems" in our society -
9/11, President Bush, gun control, poverty - it's time to take the next
step and produce a documentary on another American epidemic: OBESITY.
He sure could stand to lose a bit of weight don't you think?
Comments, concerns, additions? .... I can't wait
--
Cyclones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pokeritis - A poker community, and more.
http://www.pokeritis.com/forums
View this thread at Pokeritis.com forums: http://www.pokeritis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=57546
Poker Blog Dude
ask him for weight loss advice. :)
http://pokerblogdude.blogspot.com
Here's my suggestion for Mr.
> Moore: Now that he has covered many of the "problems" in our society -
> 9/11, President Bush, gun control, poverty - it's time to take the next
> step and produce a documentary on another American epidemic: OBESITY.
> He sure could stand to lose a bit of weight don't you think?
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Rob Borer
hominem attacks?
_________________________________________________________________
E. P. E.
>it's time to take the next
> step and produce a documentary on another American epidemic: OBESITY.
> He sure could stand to lose a bit of weight don't you think?
>
> Comments, concerns, additions? .... I can't wait
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.
I apologize, I have yet to see the movie, and that comment adds nothing to
the thread, except to say that this prompted my first post on RGP.
Gfats
Moore as right-wing attacks on a poor liberal soul. My biggest problem
with moore is that he is irresponsible as a film-maker, I don't mind his
views, i may nnot agree with what he says but he certainly is entitled to
believe what he wants. the problem is that he holds his films up and
claims that they are documentaries.....which they are not, just because
mr. moore doesn't use a script doesn't mean he is a documetary film maker.
"bowling for..." is probably the most blatant misrepresntation of the
truth in a oscar winning film. if you want a real documentary about the
"problems with society" go see fog of war.
gfats.
_________________________________________________________________
DennyLynch
So that explains your cracks about "tree huggers," "flaming liberals" and your
oh so clever slam on Moore for his weight. If you're a liberal, who's your
liberal role model? Rush Limbaugh?
jeffc
"Cyclones" <Cyclone...@timelimit.null.com> wrote in message
news:Cyclone...@timelimit.null.com...
>
> This is my first off topic post but figured I'd give it a go:
>
> First off, I am a registered independent. However, I find myself
> swinging to the left on many issues. So I suppose you could say I am a
> liberal. Where does Michael Moore come in? Well, frankly, I hate
> Michael Moore, despite being liberal. This tree-hugging, flaming
> liberal, gives Democrats a bad rep. If you want to be depressed or
> outraged (at Bush or Moore's incompetence), go see Fahrenheit 9/11 (or
> Bowling for Columbine for that matter). Here's my suggestion for Mr.
> Moore: Now that he has covered many of the "problems" in our society -
> 9/11, President Bush, gun control, poverty - it's time to take the next
> step and produce a documentary on another American epidemic: OBESITY.
> He sure could stand to lose a bit of weight don't you think?
>
> Comments, concerns, additions? .... I can't wait
Well, you have to take the for what it's worth. Think of it like this. You
are not going to get the full story of what's going in with the current
aministration *from* the current administration. They're biased. So to
balance that, Moore is also biased. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
It's like how the legal system works. Think of Moore as the prosecuting
attorney, and the Bush administration as the defense attorney. They are
each going to paint their own spin on the truth, and of course neither one
are going to try to bring out the full truth - only that which bolsters
their position. We've basically had the defense attorney. We needed to
hear from the prosecuting attorney too.
GambleAB
are no blatent lies, although there may be misrepresentation. Everything
that he presents can be found for yourself through documents or personal
interviews.
You can not like them because his political stance is different from
yours, but what do you expect? You cannot direct a movie without
interjecting your personal beliefs in it. He has never gone out and said
"Everyone should believe in everything in all of my films, because I
represent every side fairly", he goes on record to state that he does not
give the republicans equal time in his movies. His films are meant to
inspire thought and action.
Gfats
about it is what he leaves out, particulalry the background check process
that ended up on the cutting room floor
James L. Hankins
> Comments, concerns, additions? .... I can't wait
Yeah, here's my comment: You post here about this highly politicized movie
and the only thing you can say is that Michael Moore is fat?
DennyLynch
>and the only thing you can say is that Michael Moore is fat?
You forgot: he also called him a tree-hugger. (No doubt because Columbine and
Fahrenheit has some much to do with environmental issues.)
joe
well. I havn't see his new movie but I assume he changes facts or ignores
key parts of the situation to suit his goal in this film too. I'm fairly
liberal and really dislike Bush's policies btw, just think Moore is almost
as big an asshat.
"Gfats" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AWKDc.18494968$Of.30...@news.easynews.com...
eleaticus
"GambleAB" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nNKDc.18402185$Id.30...@news.easynews.com...
>... He has never gone out and said
> "Everyone should believe in everything in all of my films, because I
> represent every side fairly", he goes on record to state that he does not
> give the republicans equal time in his movies. His films are meant to
> inspire thought and action.
He frequently says the facts are facts and the glue is his opinion.
eleaticus
Arcteryx
gullible space-case. If you actually believe Moore's films are all based
on absolute facts you need help!!!! Hey, by the way, I'm a great money
winning poker player (absolute FACT)......want to back me and send me some
cash???
OrangeSFO
> Comments, concerns, additions? .... I can't wait
I would comment that you really didn't say anything about the film.
OrangeSFO
informed that America is under attack.
Watch the soldier who stares into the camera with frighteningly blank eyes
and sings: "Burn motherfucker...burn."
Listen to the letter from the deceased soldier, declaring that we are at
war in Iraq "for nothing," calls his Commander in Chief a moron, and
urges his mother to work to see that he's defeated in November.
Listen to the businessman at a fair for companies looking for business in
Iraq admitting: "It's great for business, bad for people."
Look at the dead and maimed children and ask yourself: Why?
NOW PLAYING AT A THEATER NEAR YOU
A. Prock
>[Michael Moore's] political opposite Rush Limbaugh lost a
>lot of weight. Perhaps, he can ask him for weight loss advice. :)
Wow, you should join a softball league.
Proven path to weight loss: uppers.
- Andrew
A. Prock
> "bowling for..." is probably the most blatant misrepresntation of the
>truth in a oscar winning film. if you want a real documentary about the
>"problems with society" go see fog of war.
True on both counts.
Just got back from F-9/11. It's much better than BFC, or
The Big One for that matter.
OrangeSFO
the highest-grossing documentary of all time on its first weekend in
release, taking in $21.8 million as it packed theaters across the country
this weekend.
Theater owners in large cities and smaller towns reported sellout crowds
over the weekend, with numerous theaters declaring house records.
"We sold out in Fayetteville, home of Fort Bragg," in North Carolina, Mr.
Moore said on Sunday. "We sold out in Army-base towns. We set house
records in some of these places. We set single-day records in a number of
theaters. We got standing ovations in Greensboro, N.C.
"The biggest news to me this morning is this is a red-state movie," he
said, referring to the state whose residents voted for George W. Bush in
the 2000 election. "Republican states are embracing the movie, and it's
sold out in Republican strongholds all over the country."
Hear that Junior?
They're on to you.
eleaticus
"A. Prock" <proc...@pokerstove.com> wrote in message
news:40df9419$0$1454$8026...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
> According to Poker Blog Dude <anon...@hotmail.com>:
> >[Michael Moore's] political opposite Rush Limbaugh lost a
> >lot of weight. Perhaps, he can ask him for weight loss advice. :)
Probably the effect of drug abuse/addiction.
eleaticus
DaVoice
"Cyclones" <Cyclone...@timelimit.null.com> wrote
>
> This is my first off topic post but figured I'd give it a go:
>
> First off, I am a registered independent. However, I find myself
> swinging to the left on many issues. So I suppose you could say I am a
> liberal. Where does Michael Moore come in? Well, frankly, I hate
> Michael Moore, despite being liberal. This tree-hugging, flaming
> liberal, gives Democrats a bad rep. If you want to be depressed or
> outraged (at Bush or Moore's incompetence), go see Fahrenheit 9/11 (or
> Bowling for Columbine for that matter). Here's my suggestion for Mr.
> Moore: Now that he has covered many of the "problems" in our society -
> 9/11, President Bush, gun control, poverty - it's time to take the next
> step and produce a documentary on another American epidemic: OBESITY.
> He sure could stand to lose a bit of weight don't you think?
>
> Comments, concerns, additions? .... I can't wait
Michael Moore is getting EXACTLY what he wanted. Publicity. Not even *he*
can possibly believe all of the Bullshit he spreads around in this
propaganda piece. The fact that others fall prey to this preposterous B.S.
is proof of how Gore won the popular vote. We are a Country full of people
who can't think for themselves. By the way, on a positive note, the Federal
Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
"film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
RC
DaVoice
"GambleAB" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote
> His films are documentaries because everything in them are facts. There
> are no blatent lies, although there may be misrepresentation.
Speaking of lies and misrepresentations...read above. Documentary?
PUHLEEZE. He's about as much a "documentarian" as Goebels was for Hitler.
I'm not CALLING him a nazi, so don't go off on a tangent, I'm just drawing
an analogy.
>Everything
> that he presents can be found for yourself through documents or personal
> interviews.
People in prisons are *never* guilty when they're interviewed. Does that
make it a FACT? Manson said he's Jesus Christ on film. Is that a fact?
> You can not like them because his political stance is different from
> yours, but what do you expect?
I think he's a great propagandist. His films are cut to say exactly what he
wants the sheep to believe. Big difference between documentary and
propaganda.
RC
DynaMike
right after his Donovan McNabb comments? Sounds like he pissed off the
wrong people.
>
> Proven path to weight loss: uppers.
>
> - Andrew
>
> --
> http://www.pokerstove.com
_________________________________________________________________
Jeff Turner
he interviewed on the street in his last film, why do you think they
wanted to take his oscar away for 'best documentary' ?
His films, whether he intended it or not, are not meant to inspire
thought, just action; from people overseas who felt we deserved 911 and
for people in usa who felt ripped off by the elections - plain and
simple.
Anyone with a clue will look at his work as anything but a documentary.
* Posted via RGP ACCESS at http://www.liveactionpoker.com
* Free $30 for Pacific Poker at http://www.liveactionpoker.com/free30
Take another bite!
Size Me" currently in theaters.
TAB
kevin
> Michael Moore is getting EXACTLY what he wanted. Publicity. Not even *he*
> can possibly believe all of the Bullshit he spreads around in this
> propaganda piece. The fact that others fall prey to this preposterous B.S.
> is proof of how Gore won the popular vote. We are a Country full of people
> who can't think for themselves. By the way, on a positive note, the Federal
> Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
>
> RC
that they will ban this movie. What they are trying to do is ban
commercials using the president from being shown in a bad light on tv.
This is because of the equal airtime rules, and the money spending by non
campaign rules (sorry for bad word use). Anyway i saw this movie only
becase i wanted to see what i disagree with. I like to get both points of
view but of course i am going to be biased in my opinion.
Moore's movie was horible and even worse than BFC (i'm also a member of
the nra). He didn't really add anything, and even blames the president for
torture "immorality breeds immorality" and to add to this is making a
prisoner get undressed torture or embarrassment. When i think of torture i
think of electric shocking... not making a guy get naked and keeping him
hooded.
Just a republican opinion.
-kevin
jdean
"DaVoice" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10dvbte...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> PUHLEEZE. He's about as much a "documentarian" as Goebels was for Hitler.
> I'm not CALLING him a nazi,
Heh, no - he's not a nazi. Marxist\Leninist perhaps; but definitely not a
nazi. In which case he would be more like Marx's best buddy - Engel's. Or
possibly Stalin's Molotov.
E.L. Flake
I just saw a great film on the "American obesity epidemic", Super
Size It. My kids asked to go, ( they're not normal american
teenagers), and I thought it would be boring, just regurgitating stuff
I already knew. I was wrong; it was very entertaining. The filmmaker
goes on a McDonald's only diet for thirty days, and without spoiling
it, gets very sick. It should be shown in every school in the country.
I'm very biased, of course. I became a vegetarian when I was 16,
(after working in a steakhouse for several months), and I haven't
eaten at a McDonalds in 24 years. Although I am no longer a
vegetarian, I rarely eat meat, and the rare trip to a Wendy's is a
grilled chix, no sauce, and baked potato. It is possible to eat okay
at some of these places, (and they seem to be getting healthier), but
there are always better alternatives. Subway, and similar sandwich
shops, are a much better choice, but even there you have to carefully
order. On a road trip, I can just stop at a grocery and get a healthy
meal.
I sympathize with the overweight, ( I at one point weighed over
280, when I owned a restaurant), but with discipline you CAN regain a
healthy weight.
What's wrong with hugging trees? Have you ever tried it?
Sometimes they have good knotholes....
botaneroticcally,
E.L.
OrangeSFO
> By the way, on a positive note, the Federal
> Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
ONE HUNDRED-PERCENT FALSE. Do you take some kind of twisted pride in
being an utter moron?
DaVoice
"OrangeSFO" <anon...@aol.com> wrote
> ONE HUNDRED-PERCENT FALSE. Do you take some kind of twisted pride in
> being an utter moron?
Actually, I'm not the moron. This was reported by the "Beltway Boys" this
weekend. If they're misinformed, then so be it. By the way Mort Kondracke
wasn't on the show this week, it was NPR's Juan Williams who mentioned the
topic, not the right-wing Fred Barnes.
RC
SYeates485
DoubtingT
news:nNKDc.18402185$Id.30...@news.easynews.com:
> His films are documentaries because everything in them are facts.
> There are no blatent lies, although there may be misrepresentation.
LOL! That makes them propaganda not documentaries.
> Everything that he presents can be found for yourself through
> documents or personal interviews.
Exactly where do I find verification for his misrepresentations?
> You can not like them because his political stance is different from
> yours, but what do you expect? You cannot direct a movie without
> interjecting your personal beliefs in it. He has never gone out and
> said "Everyone should believe in everything in all of my films,
> because I represent every side fairly", he goes on record to state
> that he does not give the republicans equal time in his movies.
His political views aren't the issue. Everyone has a political view.
The issue lies in his promotion of misrepresentations; i.e. propaganda.
> His films are meant to inspire thought and action.
Thought and action? Thought and action based on misrepresetations?
That was tried in the 30's in Germany by a ground-breaking documentary
film maker named Josef Goebbels. Nice to know Mike is in such esteemed
company.
Look, you want to make a film with an agenda, go ahead. Make a film for
Demos by Demos. Make a film for Repubs by Repubs. Make a film to shock
the conscience of the masses of apathetic citizens. Just don't lie and
call it a documentary.
<snipped>
DoubtingT
news:1KLDc.18498301$Of.30...@news.easynews.com:
> WOW, you are either a very young naive college kid or just a plain
> gullible space-case. If you actually believe Moore's films are all
> based on absolute facts you need help!!!! Hey, by the way, I'm a
> great money winning poker player (absolute FACT)......want to back me
> and send me some cash???
<snipped>
What's my cut? If you think I'll take less then 5% for your entry in the
next WSOP, you underestimate my business savvy.
DoubtingT
news:10dvbte...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> "GambleAB" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> His films are documentaries because everything in them are facts.
>> There are no blatent lies, although there may be misrepresentation.
>
> Speaking of lies and misrepresentations...read above. Documentary?
> PUHLEEZE. He's about as much a "documentarian" as Goebels was for
> Hitler. I'm not CALLING him a nazi, so don't go off on a tangent, I'm
> just drawing an analogy.
Ah shit!! I used the Goebbels reference in my reply! Damn it!
>>Everything
>> that he presents can be found for yourself through documents or
>> personal interviews.
>
> People in prisons are *never* guilty when they're interviewed. Does
> that make it a FACT? Manson said he's Jesus Christ on film. Is that
> a fact?
Yes. The fact is he SAID he was Jesus Christ not whether he IS Jesus de
Cristo.
>> You can not like them because his political stance is different from
>> yours, but what do you expect?
>
> I think he's a great propagandist. His films are cut to say exactly
> what he wants the sheep to believe. Big difference between
> documentary and propaganda.
You totally SUCK! You absolutely stole (well you posted it first but
you must have stole it from my thoughts) the gist of MY reply!
> RC
2fold
> The fact that others fall prey to this preposterous B.S.
> is proof of how Gore won the popular vote. We are a Country full of people
> who can't think for themselves. By the way, on a positive note, the Federal
> Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
>
> RC
Anyone who bothers to keep informed knows that the FCC is considering
banning the ads--not the movie itself. Are you uninformed DaVoice, or are
you just spreading preposterous BS?
Jerry
2fold
> I am a registered Republican so I suppose most will dismiss my opinion on
> Moore as right-wing attacks on a poor liberal soul. My biggest problem
> with moore is that he is irresponsible as a film-maker, I don't mind his
> views, i may nnot agree with what he says but he certainly is entitled to
> believe what he wants. the problem is that he holds his films up and
> claims that they are documentaries.....which they are not, just because
> mr. moore doesn't use a script doesn't mean he is a documetary film maker.
> "bowling for..." is probably the most blatant misrepresntation of the
> truth in a oscar winning film. if you want a real documentary about the
> "problems with society" go see fog of war.
> gfats.
I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine but I have seen "Roger and Me" and
now, "Farenheit 911". F-911 is almost completely factual with a lot of
editorial comment mixed in--kind of like what Rush Limbaugh does for three
hours every day.
I didn't see any outright lies in the movie, but he came closest when he
said that Iraq had never killed a single American. With Saddam's admitted
financial support to the families of suicide bombers in Israel that
statement was a bit of a stretch. The other points emphasized are all
easily verifiable and confirm that Bush is a disgrace, just like Clinton
before him. If he wins re-election, and he very well may because Kerry is
such a poor alternative, he wiil probably become the second consecutive
president to be impeached. Mark my words, it will happen if Bush wins.
You should see the movie for yourself before commenting; and your bigger
concern should be how our system is so messed up that we cannot nominate
good men (or women) for the presidency.
DaVoice
"DoubtingT" <UpY...@fuckyou.org> wrote
> You totally SUCK! You absolutely stole (well you posted it first but
> you must have stole it from my thoughts) the gist of MY reply!
Sorry about that. I think it was just common sense, shows we BOTH have it.
RC
eleaticus
> who can't think for themselves. By the way, on a positive note, the
Federal
> Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
As Moore says, using other words, he hopes the assholes try it.
eleaticus
>
eleaticus
"kevin" <anon...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:%WODc.18422035$Id.30...@news.easynews.com...
> ... When i think of torture i
> think of electric shocking... not making a guy get naked and keeping him
> hooded.
You have been where this last couple months?
eleaticus
DaVoice
"2fold" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Anyone who bothers to keep informed knows that the FCC is considering
> banning the ads--not the movie itself. Are you uninformed DaVoice, or are
> you just spreading preposterous BS?
>
> Jerry
Sorry to burst your bubble here Jerry, but there are now TWO legal
complaints (one actual lawsuit) filed with the FEC (not FCC) about the
commercial AND the movie. The FCC can only implement a ban on political
advertising if they're directed to do so by the FEC.
In fact, if I was a legitimate candidate for any office I can buy time at
the cheapest rate available from ANY broadcast radio/tv outlet and sit there
naked saying "fuck you" throughout the 30 seconds. The FCC can't do
anything about it, they have no control over political advertising, and
neither do the stations.
RC
eleaticus
"DoubtingT" <UpY...@fuckyou.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9516B7589...@216.40.30.69...
> His political views aren't the issue. Everyone has a political view.
> The issue lies in his promotion of misrepresentations; i.e. propaganda.
Sorry, Charlie, but propaganda is any attempt to influence, whether factual
or its direct opposite, Gingrich/Bush Republican.
eleaticus
RazzO
fact, if I was a legitimate candidate for any office I can buy time at
> the cheapest rate available from ANY broadcast radio/tv outlet and sit there
> naked saying "fuck you" throughout the 30 seconds. The FCC can't do
> anything about it, they have no control over political advertising, and
> neither do the stations.
>
> RC
Sounds like a would-be Howard Stern campaign. Hard to believe.
razz
Gary Carson
>You forgot: he also called him a tree-hugger. (No doubt because Columbine and
>Fahrenheit has some much to do with environmental issues.)
In a rerun of Arrested Development tonite the sister was telling the brother
about her concern for enviornmental issues. He pointed out that she was
wearing otter skin boots. She said, "Who cares about otters?"
--
Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com
Gary Carson
>Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
>"film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
>unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
>
No, they may ban televised ads showing images of Bush after Aug 1st.
Gary Carson
>think of electric shocking... not making a guy get naked and keeping him
>hooded.
>Just a republican opinion.
So sexual sadism is normal behavior for a republican?
Gary Carson
>Actually, I'm not the moron. This was reported by the "Beltway Boys" this
>weekend.
I actually saw the Beltway Boys this weekend. And, they didn't report what
you're claiming.
This is scary. You not only rely on Fox News for information, you get even
that wrong.
No wonder over half of American thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Which way to Canada?
Bad Bob
propaganda, but they give the Bush administration a complete pass on its propaganda that
took us into a war with Iraq and has turned out to be all bullshit.
If we had stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job we started there at least we night
have captured or killed the actual person who attacked us on 911... Osama Bin Ladin.
JMHO
Bad Bob
"Cook him till he's blue,
and smother him in onions."
Secular
>>Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the >>showing of
this
>>"film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the >>Election as
>>unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
>No, they may ban televised ads showing images of Bush after >Aug 1st.
Right you are Gary. The Federal Elections Commission may indeed ban
advertising for this film. For those who are ill-informed, neither the FCC
or the FEC has any right whatsoever to ban the showing of the actual
movie. The FEC is allowed to regulate campaign-related advertising to
provide equal airtime for candidates on television and radio. The FCC is
designed to regulate content of what is broadcast over PUBLIC airwaves.
Last I checked, the movie theater operates on no such public airwaves. The
movie screens upon which Moore's film is being showed are private,
non-broadcast media outlets. Were anybody in government to ban a film from
being showed at a private movie theater, it would be a terrific blow to
our civil liberties. Just think of the consequences: They could just as
easily force us to parse out movies from our DVD collections, books from
our shelves, etc. It would be terrible.
I will grant that Moore's film is rather biased and propagandistic.
However, it is no more so than Fox News Channel's representation of
current events and right-wing editorializing. Moore presents factual
content, and creates an editorial narrative to make his point. I
particularly appreciate the quoted commentary above that it is a "film".
It is most certainly a film. Furthermore, it is a documentary film,
detailing certain facts about an event or person ("documentary film"
defined by Wordnet v. 1.6). Professor and Historian Howard Zinn tells us
that history cannot be viewed without bias. We all have our individual
perspective. In recounting history, we use that perspective to offer
commentary. Moore makes no secret about the fact that the intention of
this film is to aid in ousting George W. Bush. He has every intention of
working to see that this president is not re-elected. Full Disclosure: So
do I.
The thing that sets us apart is our ability for critical analysis. This
film shows us an image, a perspective on history. There is much that is
factual. There is much that fails based on errors of omission, or
misrepresentation. But the strength of this film is that Moore largely
keeps himself out of it. He allows the words, images, and actions of the
people he portrays to make his point. The pictures of Bush goofing off on
camera as he is prepped to tell the world that we were going to war, the
flip and glib responses of administration officials, and the images of the
dead and dying that we have never seen on our TV screens all indicate that
maybe things aren't as rose-colored as Sean Hannity might have you
believe. Of course, this is not to say that Moore is 100% accurate. He
wants us to think that. He has vested interest in the defeat of George W.
Bush. We have the ability to understand both sides of an argument.
Therefore we should accept that both sides have valid points to be made.
Right now Mr. Moore is one of the few who has the guts to represent the
left-side of the picture. For that, he has my respect.
ChuckJ
> can possibly believe all of the Bullshit he spreads around in this
> is proof of how Gore won the popular vote. We are a Country full of people
> Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
Are you really as stupid and uninformed as you sound?
Only people "who can't think for themselves" still support a man who:
(1) did nothing to fight terrorism until we suffered the 9/11 disaster and
then became distracted in that fight by returning to a grudge match in
Iraq,
(2) has brought this country back to crippling deficits that are taxing
our children and this nations future,
(3) started a war on false pretenses that is costing thousands of lives
and hundreds of billions of dollars.
The FEC cannot ban the film. Stick to being DaVoice of poker -- not sure
how much you know about that, but you certainly know nothing about this
film or the news around it.
C
ChuckJ
> If you are trying to start a serious discussion, why start by making ad
> hominem attacks?
>
Because the Bushies are running scared. It has become apparent that the
only chance for re-election is to confuse the public by distraction.
ChuckJ
> http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp represents the lies very
> well. I havn't see his new movie but I assume he changes facts or ignores
> key parts of the situation to suit his goal in this film too. I'm fairly
> liberal and really dislike Bush's policies btw, just think Moore is almost
> as big an asshat.
>
Each and every "issue" raised in the silly national review piece cited
here was refuted by Michael Moore on his own website a long time ago.
This piece is nothing but outdated and discredited trash.
da pickle
news:40dfb6bd$0$16448$c39...@news.newsgroups.ws...
> For a great documentary film about obesity see "Super
> Size Me" currently in theaters.
From what I understand from the reviews, someone ate nothing but "super
sized" fast food for a month and gained about 20 pounds. Do I have that
right? So, what did "he" expect? What do "you" expect? It reminds me of
the "studies" that have "just come out" that show that if you stick your
dick in a paper shredder, it might cause some discomfort. Perhaps you might
elucidate me as to why one should spend money to see this movie ... as
opposed to watching a porn flick and beating off in the privacy of one's
home?
Asha34
excellent -- though overdone.
Ashley Adams
author of Winning 7-Card Stud
tuffmonkey
"His films are documentaries because everything in them are facts."
"You cannot direct a movie without interjecting your personal beliefs in
it."
These two statements completely contradict each other. You need to learn
the definition of 'documentary' before you wax poetic on the subject.
Additionally, you said "His films are meant to inspire thought and
action."
This couldn't be further from the truth. His films are meant to make
money while attempting to convert people to his point of view. He does
not make documentaries, he spews leftist propoganda under the guise of the
'documentary' format. (The fact that Moore is on screen in his
'documentaries' is your (the viewer) first clue that these are not
documentaries at all.)
Any idiot can make a documentary the way Moore does. Moore creates the
documentary as he sees fit. He simply gets on his soapbox and picks and
chooses his 'facts' while conveniently leaving out content relevant to
those facts. That is not an 'equal time' issue. That is a distortion of
reality issue. No rational person would expect Moore to give the right
'equal time'. It's not a fucking election, it's a cinematic work.
Moore is a self-righteous name-caller who will never concede that his line
of thinking could be (notice I did not say 'is') skewed. He is a man who
does not know the meaning of the word concession.
For example, If Moore was given the choice of either:
1) Learning the entire truth (if this were possible) of all events and
activities that led to the 9/11 disaster. But this would mean that Bush
would get re-elected.
OR
2) Learn nothing but guarantee that Bush would lose the upcoming election.
I am absolutely certain that he would go with choice #2. He is so buried
in his own agenda that he would rather get Bush ousted than actually do
the world some good. He is not looking out for the best interests of this
country, he is looking out for the best interests of Michael Moore's
personal agenda.
Further evidence of this mans's zeal can be found in the latest Playboy
interview. Also, to get a feel for his mindset, go to
www.michaelmoore.com and read about the Rep. Mark Kennedy exchange.
Moore is completely pathetic.
tuffmonkey
On Jun 27 2004 8:48PM, GambleAB wrote:
> His films are documentaries because everything in them are facts. There
> are no blatent lies, although there may be misrepresentation. Everything
> that he presents can be found for yourself through documents or personal
> interviews.
> You can not like them because his political stance is different from
> yours, but what do you expect? You cannot direct a movie without
> interjecting your personal beliefs in it. He has never gone out and said
> "Everyone should believe in everything in all of my films, because I
> represent every side fairly", he goes on record to state that he does not
> give the republicans equal time in his movies. His films are meant to
> inspire thought and action.
_________________________________________________________________
jgm
"Bad Bob" <bad...@blueflintcat.us.invalid> wrote in message
news:n830e01avf4h7emr6...@4ax.com...
> have captured or killed the actual person who attacked us on 911... Osama
Bin Ladin.
> JMHO
How do you know it was Bin Ladin?
Noodles
> I think he's a great propagandist. His films are cut to say exactly what
he
> wants the sheep to believe. Big difference between documentary and
> propaganda.
>
> RC
What's the difference between this and what governments do?
cpitt398
serve its purpose. I am a big Michael Moore fan. This movie wasn't a
shock to me or anybody that follows politics and is a libereal minded
person. But in the same aspect it is not what they said it was going
to be, a movie preaching to the choir. This movie is going to be big
enough where people who have no opinion about politics will see it and
it will form an opinion, which i belive, is its main purpose.
The contreversy and attempted blockout of the movie will bring more
people into see it , which will form a lot of opinions which were not
aLREAdy made, which is what we need in America, more open mindedness.
Good for Michael Moore, good for America.
Jeff Goslin
news:_4CdnRB4e8I...@www.bayou.com...
> right? So, what did "he" expect? What do "you" expect? It reminds me of
> the "studies" that have "just come out" that show that if you stick your
> dick in a paper shredder, it might cause some discomfort. Perhaps you
might
*ahem*... if you can physically fit your dick into a paper shredder, you've
got bigger (perhaps I should say "smaller") problems than abject stupidity.
;)
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right
Der letzte Mohikaner
Why would one want to watch a porn film and beat oneself off when the
world is full of women who can beat one off while watching aforementioned
porn film with one (Ed. thats quite enough of the 'one' thank you very
much).
ChuckJ
I haven't seen it yet, but I am willing to admit that much of Moore's work
is overdone -- it's his over the top style -- remember the rabbit-skinning
scene in Roger & Me?
Jersey_Stu
liberal / fiscal conservative - I live in Dallas, Texas...
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on Friday with a number of my investment club
buddies (in fact it was my idea because I thought Bowling for
Columbine was very thought-provoking).
I had high hopes for this movie...
Moore's true agenda is not to deliver a revealing documentary. It is
(and he has just about stated as much) to remove George W. Bush from
office. I personally am going to vote for Kerry although I'm not a
big fan of him just because (a) I am somewhat fearful of Rumsfeld's
handling of things and would feel much more comfortable if he had
resigned (b) George W. is really just a good 'ol boy and is capable of
some extreme mishandling in the wrong circumstances...
Regardless, this movie was so pre-occupied with making Bush look like
an ass that it actually started having the OPPOSITE effect on me... I
started looking for ways to defend the way Bush acted and the
decisions that were made...
People do need to realize that the energy industry has a great
influence in policy and I think this movie does a great job in doing
that, but further education needs to be provided to the people that
actually think in this country along the lines of the following:
(a) Iran is really the biggest supporter of terrorist groups
(b) the reason Iraq and its oil is so important (Iraq when fully
engaged is the number 2 oil producer) is that the number 1 producer -
Saudi Arabia has it's hands full with extremists in its own country
(in fact Bin Laden has said that his two main objectives are to
overthrow the Saudi government and continue his attack on America)...
thus if Saudi Arabia turned into another Iran, then the supply of
precious black gold would be SEVERLY jeopardized - therefore if we
"control" the 2nd most important source it is VERY good from a
strategic standpoint...
(c) there is big $$$ to be made in post-war Iraq for American business
---
Fahrenheit 9/11 is worth watching but take it for what it is - and
also understand that his message will definitely increase hatred for
America and our policies with the general populace in the Middle
East...hopefully our servicemen and citizens don't suffer more as a
result...
- Stu
Howard Treesong
> Thought and action? Thought and action based on misrepresetations?
> That was tried in the 30's in Germany by a ground-breaking documentary
> film maker named Josef Goebbels. Nice to know Mike is in such esteemed
> company.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I think the name of the film maker
on many of those was a woman named Lili Reifenstahl (sp?).
> Look, you want to make a film with an agenda, go ahead. Make a film for
> Demos by Demos. Make a film for Repubs by Repubs. Make a film to shock
> the conscience of the masses of apathetic citizens. Just don't lie and
> call it a documentary.
I'm with you here. Misleadingly representing facts as truths takes a
film out of documentary and into fiction. By the way, I think Larry
Elder (the libertarian/conservative radio host) is making a movie
about Moore that does to Moore what Moore does to others. Now THAT
one, I'll go see.
-Howard Treesong
Dan
where there are gaps in his arguments he fills them in with whatever he
makes up to do so. Then he presents his half truths and misinformation
as some kind of an objective documentary when its mostly fluff and
propoganda. He contradicts himself all the time. He is really just a
big fat idiot who knows how to push the right buttons and stir up
controversy. He can go fuck himself as far as Im concerned.
* Posted via RGP ACCESS at http://www.liveactionpoker.com
* Free $30 for Pacific Poker at http://www.liveactionpoker.com/free30
James L. Hankins
> By the way, on a positive note, the Federal
> Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
>
> RC
I'd like to see that court battle. I think the federal courts would put the
smack down on the FEC and declare part of the M/F act unconstitutional if
they tried this.
Lester Hayes
> news:40dfb6bd$0$16448$c39...@news.newsgroups.ws...
> sized" fast food for a month and gained about 20 pounds. Do I have that
> right? So, what did "he" expect? What do "you" expect?
You probably expect that he'll get quite ill, and you're right. What you
don't expect is just how sick he gets, and just how long it took him after
he stopped his 30-day binge, to get back to normal weight and health (14
months)
The movie is worth seeing, but here's are some highlights:
* he gains about 10 lbs a week eating 3 square meals a day at McDs
* his cholesterol goes from very healthy to critical
* his liver starts shutting down
No one is surprised to hear that McDs food is bad for you. Just HOW bad
might surprise you.
tuffmonkey
It was Leni Riefenstahl. She was Hilter's film maker of choice. The film
Doubting T is speaking of is 'Triumph of the Will'. Goebbels was the
reich's Minister of Propoganda.
Read below about Goebbels...
(Following the Fuhrer's suicide, Goebbels disregarded Hitler's political
testament, which had appointed him as Reich Chancellor, and decided to
follow suit. He had his six children poisoned with a lethal injection by
an SS doctor and then himself and his wife Magda shot by an SS orderly on
May 1, 1945. With characteristic pathos and egomania he declared not long
before his death: "We shall go down in history as the greatest statesmen
of all time, or as the greatest criminals.") - From the Jewish Virtual
Library website.
While the propoganda correlations between Moore and Goebbels are apropos,
at least Goebbels had the foresight to ponder that he could be wrong.
Moore knows no such shame and would never make such a concession.
tuffmonkey
_________________________________________________________________
A. Prock
>http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
Wow,
Someone actually reads the NRO and believes what they
write? Next you're gonna tell me that Ann Coulter is
a bastion of the truth.
- Andrew
A. Prock
>
>"GambleAB" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> His films are documentaries because everything in them are facts. There
>> are no blatent lies, although there may be misrepresentation.
>
>PUHLEEZE. He's about as much a "documentarian" as Goebels was for Hitler.
>I'm not CALLING him a nazi, so don't go off on a tangent, I'm just drawing
>an analogy.
It is quite possible for a movie to both:
1) A documentary
2) Propoganda
Michael Moore's movie is clearly both. "Not that there's anything
wrong with that..."
>>Everything
>> that he presents can be found for yourself through documents or personal
>> interviews.
>
>People in prisons are *never* guilty when they're interviewed. Does that
>make it a FACT? Manson said he's Jesus Christ on film. Is that a fact?
I saw the movie last night, and I don't remember him interviewing
Charles Manson. Did we see the same movie?
>Big difference between documentary and
>propaganda.
Yes there is a difference. But they are *not* mutually
exclusive. His movie is both.
ChuckJ
> Fact is, there are no facts.
> ... shaky logic at best ...
> ... gaps in his arguments ...
> ... presents his half truths and misinformation ...
> ... contradicts himself all the time ...
Care to provide an example of each?
> He can go fuck himself as far as Im concerned.
Or maybe you are just one of the many frightened Bushies... time to open
your eyes, pal.
A. Prock
>I'm with you here. Misleadingly representing facts as truths takes a
>film out of documentary and into fiction.
Unfortunatly, nearly all documentaries suffer from the problem
of misleadingly representing facts. I don't think you could
actually name one that doesn't. There is something inherit in
the process of turning truth into a movie which causes distortions
to creep in. If this makes them all fiction then the word
documentary has nearly no meaning.
A. Prock
>Additionally, you said "His films are meant to inspire thought and
>action."
>
>This couldn't be further from the truth. His films are meant to make
>money while attempting to convert people to his point of view.
Pretty much spot on. Moore is just like any other movie maker
in this regard. When he crafts his propoganda, he not only wants
to influence people, but he also enjoys the revenue that they
generate.
I think a great double feature would be:
"The Passion of the Christ"
"Farenheit 9/11"
Two great tastes that taste great together.
A. Prock
>"Bad Bob" <bad...@blueflintcat.us.invalid> wrote in message
>
>Bin Ladin.
>> JMHO
>
>How do you know it was Bin Ladin?
He believes the Bush administration?
jdean
"Noodles" <noaddress@unavailable> wrote in message
news:40e02214$0$111$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
>
> What's the difference between this and what governments do?
>
Let's see, um - government are acting in their own self-interest to get
their side of an issue out to the public. Moore motives are diametrically
opposed on a number of levels. First, its not his business, at least not
directly; therefore Moore is essentially a buttinski. Second, as a commie
Moore supports the Democratic party and they are all becoming frantic over
the chances (or extreme lack thereof) of their nominee being able to win in
November. Third, Moore is producing a product for profit and is making it
big time. Fourth, Moore's so called documentary is clearly full of lies of
both commission and omission, half-truths, deceptions and fantasy. All
matters commonly considered taboo in actual documentaries. I could go
on....... probably ad-infinium.
jdean
"ChuckJ" <anon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:83XDc.18460085$Id.30...@news.easynews.com...
> On Jun 28 2004 11:02AM, Dan wrote:
>
> Or maybe you are just one of the many frightened Bushies... time to open
> your eyes, pal.
>
ROTFLMFAO
jdean
>
> Because the Bushies are running scared. It has become apparent that the
> only chance for re-election is to confuse the public by distraction.
God almighty - what the fuck have you been smoking this morning? Fucking
heroin?
Art Class
> Look at George W. Bush, staring motionless for 7 minutes after being
> informed that America is under attack.
To clarify, those 7 minutes occurred *after* Bush had been told about
the second plane hitting the WTC. Moore asks a reasonable question
here - "What the hell was he thinking?" Bush had that familiar blank
look on his face he often has when he has no fucking clue about what
to do or say next.
Moore used the moment to opine that Bush may have been second guessing
how deep his Saudi connections went, but it was clear that the
President of the United States, when informed that the country was
under attack, was a completely empty bag of nothingness.
Moore did not stage or lie about those 7 minutes. He simply showed
them.
> Watch the soldier who stares into the camera with frighteningly blank eyes
> and sings: "Burn motherfucker...burn."
I know critics are going to jump on that moment as Moore being
"critical of the troops," but I don't think that was Moore's point.
It was really a variation on something that has probably happened to
young soldiers in every war ever fought.
Going into the war, they are high on adrenaline and full of bravado
and "Kill Kill Kill!!" The "Baghdad 500" was a barrel of laughs for
the soldiers and the media - including right wing targets like Rather.
But after being in Iraq for a while, the attitudes changed to "This
fucking sucks." That isn't a knock on US troops at all, just part of
sending very young men off to fight. The soldier having a blast
singing "Burn motherfucker burn" was quite likely frightened out of
his gourd and trying to compensate.
When people find out the truth about Iraq, like they had no WMD, they
did not welcome US troops with sweets and flowers, and many of them
are hell bent on killing US soldiers, their attitude on the war
changes. Moore did not invent this, he simply displayed it.
People are jumping all over Moore for being "Anti-troops" but all he
has done is show some of the thousands of US soldiers who continue
home with frightening wounds and loss of limbs. We simply are not
seeing that part of the story.
> Listen to the letter from the deceased soldier, declaring that we are at
> war in Iraq "for nothing," calls his Commander in Chief a moron, and
> urges his mother to work to see that he's defeated in November.
Again, this is a side of the war and US troop opinion we don't see on
the news. It exists and Moore showed it, he did not invent it. There
are plenty of US soldiers who remain completely in favor of the
invasion of Iraq and we do see them on the news daily.
Another common knock I see against Moore is that he did not show
Minnesota Rerepsentative Mark Kennedy's retort that he "had a nephew
on his way to Afghanistan" when Moore was encouraging Senators and
Representatives to have their kids enlist and go to Iraq.
Moore did not show Kennedy's response, which actually was positive
toward Moore, but Moore's point was that only one member of Congress
had a child in Iraq at the time.
> Listen to the businessman at a fair for companies looking for business in
> Iraq admitting: "It's great for business, bad for people."
I saw a blurb in the local paper:
---
In the 29 months since President Bush declared Iraq as part of an
"axis of evil," amount of money collected by 14 executives and
insiders at Alliant Techsystems through the exercise of stock options
and other stock sales: $377 million
Amount of money made by Alliant Techsystems insiders through the sales
of company stock in the 29 months prior to the "axis of evil" speech:
0.
Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/27/04.
---
I understand that investing in defense is a good idea when a war in
launched, but 377 million dollars compared to ZERO between 14
individuals?
> Look at the dead and maimed children and ask yourself: Why?
>
> NOW PLAYING AT A THEATER NEAR YOU
A. Prock
>"Noodles" <noaddress@unavailable> wrote in message
>>
>
>Let's see, um - government are acting in their own self-interest to get
>their side of an issue out to the public. Moore motives are diametrically
>opposed on a number of levels.
I'm confused here. Are you saying that Moore isn't "acting in [his]
own self-interest to get [his] side of an issue out to the public." ???
>First, its not his business, at least not directly;
And here I thought being a propaganda artist was EXACTLY his business.
>Second, as a commie Moore supports the Democratic party and they are
>all becoming frantic over >the chances (or extreme lack thereof) of
>their nominee being able to win in November.
I watched "The Candidate" this weekend. Pretty good movie. Here's
a quote that I think fits in quite well:
quote: "I'm the underdog, I don't believe in polls."
>Third, Moore is producing a product for profit and is making it
>big time.
Exactly. Compare this with BushCo, and you'll see that "making it
big time" is not only a part of the American Dream, but an integral
part of politics as well.
>Fourth, Moore's so called documentary is clearly full of lies of
>both commission and omission, half-truths, deceptions and fantasy.
This is mostly true. There are plenty of lies of omission, plenty
of half truths, and plenty of decpetion in the movie. I would be
interested in specific lies of commission, and specific fantasies
that are expounded upon in the movie. Care to share?
Dave Hill
for this man after watching this movie is beyond me.
43% of the time on vacation?? are you kidding me?
OrangeSFO
> Moore's so called documentary is clearly full of lies of
> both commission and omission, half-truths, deceptions and fantasy.
Then I guess he's just fighting fire with fire.
JohnnyD
how many people make their voting decisions based on things like this.
JohnnyD
"Dave Hill" <nycs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84b66675.04062...@posting.google.com...
OrangeSFO
> The fact that idiots believe this crap is beyond me. It's scary to think
> how many people make their voting decisions based on things like this.
>
OK...make your case for Junior.
JohnnyD
facts.
--
JohnnyD
www.JohnnyDPoker.com
"Secular" wrote:
> Right now Mr. Moore is one of the few who has the guts to represent the
> left-side of the picture. For that, he has my respect.
>
Dan
Here dummy follow that link and learn something.
----Or maybe you are just one of the many frightened Bushies... time to
open
your eyes, pal.
This isnt about my political opinions, this is about a guy passing off
his opinion as fact. I dont deny him the right to have an opinion.
But since youre going to attack my politics I'll tell you the problem
with liberals.
All you people do is piss and moan about how messed up things are and
how were doing everything wrong but when we ask you for a feasable
solution you sit there with a thumb up your ass. Heres an idea IF YOU
THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG DONT JUST BITCH ABOUT IT COME UP WITH A WAY TO
FIX IT YOU STUPID FUCKS.
DennyLynch
>> both commission and omission, half-truths, deceptions and fantasy
But enough about Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Fox News..
OrangeSFO
Anyone here who BELIEVES that a movie criticizing the "President" could be
banned in the months before election day please check your passports and
confirm what country you live in.
Anyone who would find this a "positive note" forfeits his right to call
himself "American."
JohnnyD
based on lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations. How is that good for
America?
--
JohnnyD
"cpitt398" wrote:
This movie is going to be big
> enough where people who have no opinion about politics will see it and
> it will form an opinion, which i belive, is its main purpose.
> Good for Michael Moore, good for America.
OrangeSFO
> On Jun 28 2004 9:31AM, Asha34 wrote:
>
> > I can't add much to this political debate. But I thought the film was
> > excellent -- though overdone.
> >
> > Ashley Adams
> > author of Winning 7-Card Stud
>
>
> I haven't seen it yet, but I am willing to admit that much of Moore's work
> is overdone -- it's his over the top style -- remember the rabbit-skinning
> scene in Roger & Me?
His over the top style, while often unfair and factually hazy, puts the
spotlight on larger truths.
Rabbit skinning-- denizens of a previously thriving industrial commumity
in America are now reduced to desperate, subsistence measures to
survive...like selling rabbits out of the back yard "Pets or Meat"
Cornering Congressmen to ask if they would like to sign their children up
for military service in Iraq-- illustrates the larger issue of a miliary
force built largely on the backs of the underclasses while the privileged
elite remain safely at home.
OrangeSFO
> On Jun 28 2004 1:34AM, DaVoice wrote:
>
> > The fact that others fall prey to this preposterous B.S.
> > is proof of how Gore won the popular vote. We are a Country full of people
> > who can't think for themselves. By the way, on a positive note, the
Federal
> > Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> > "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> > unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
> >
> > RC
>
> Anyone who bothers to keep informed knows that the FCC is considering
> banning the ads--not the movie itself. Are you uninformed DaVoice, or are
> you just spreading preposterous BS?
I'll go with the former.
A. Prock
>The fact that idiots believe this crap is beyond me. It's scary to think
>how many people make their voting decisions based on things like this.
Propaganda is the bread and butter of our political
discourse. To think that most people *don't* base
their political decisions on propaganda from one
side or another is rather naive.
It *is* scary, but it is also true.
jdean
"JohnnyD" <jo...@johnnydpoker.com> wrote in message
news:J1YDc.3937$lh4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> The fact that idiots believe this crap is beyond me. It's scary to think
> how many people make their voting decisions based on things like this.
>
Maybe so - but aren't you glad they play poker? lol
OrangeSFO
> On Jun 28 2004 1:34AM, DaVoice wrote:
> > By the way, on a positive note, the Federal
> > Election Commission (bi-partisan) may step in and BAN the showing of this
> > "film" from the end of the conventions til the day of the Election as
> > unlawful under the Mc Cain/Feingold act.
>
> Are you really as stupid and uninformed as you sound?
BushCo is praying that he is.
A. Prock
Ok, I went. I learned something.
But the one thing that was missing was any metion
of lies in "Fahrenheit 9/11".
I'm fully aware of several "lies of omission" in
the movie, but so far I have not found a single
blatent lie. I'd love to find on or two among the
thousands of facts presented in the movie. Any
help here?
A. Prock
>So you want people who have no opinion about politics to form their opinion
>based on lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations. How is that good for
>America?
Excellent question.
A. Prock
>While he does represent the left-side of the picture, he misrepresents the
>facts.
Who doesn't?
That's not an excuse of any kind, just an honest question.
In the world of politics, the misrepresentation of the facts
is a fundamental tool of persuasion. Is this good? Probably
not. Is this effective? Most certainly.
LizardKing
>
> Anyone here who BELIEVES that a movie criticizing the "President" could be
> banned in the months before election day please check your passports and
> confirm what country you live in.
>
> Anyone who would find this a "positive note" forfeits his right to call
> himself "American."
Try holding up a protest sign next time Bush is speaking in your town.
You'll quickly be ushered to a "free speech zone" thousands of feet away
where you can protest all day with no effect whatsoever.
Do I believe that this administration, with Ashcroft leading the charge,
would enjoin the showing of this movie until after the election if they
could (say, to a temporal "free speech zone")? Abso-fucking-lutely. In a
heartbeat.
Do I believe millions of Americans would refer to that a positive note?
You bet your ass I do.
OrangeSFO
> So you want people who have no opinion about politics to form their opinion
> based on lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations. How is that good for
> America?
BushCo thinks that would be swell!
James L. Hankins
> Cornering Congressmen to ask if they would like to sign their children up
> for military service in Iraq-- illustrates the larger issue of a miliary
> force built largely on the backs of the underclasses while the privileged
> elite remain safely at home.
Yes. Moore's confrontational style isn't easy to watch, but I think members
of Congress are fair game for this type of thing.
ChuckJ
You see, another Bushie responds incoherently.
OrangeSFO
> On Jun 28 2004 12:29PM, jdean wrote:
>
> > "ChuckJ" <anon...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:XxUDc.18543246$Of.30...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Because the Bushies are running scared. It has become apparent that the
> > > only chance for re-election is to confuse the public by distraction.
> >
> > God almighty - what the fuck have you been smoking this morning? Fucking
> > heroin?
>
> You see, another Bushie responds incoherently.
There are two kinds of Bushies at this moment. Those awakening to the
truth about their "President"... and those in deep, deep denial.
Tammy
> I'm also an independent, although I could be described as a social
> liberal / fiscal conservative - I live in Dallas, Texas...
>
> I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 on Friday with a number of my investment club
> buddies (in fact it was my idea because I thought Bowling for
> Columbine was very thought-provoking).
>
> I had high hopes for this movie...
>
> Moore's true agenda is not to deliver a revealing documentary. It is
> (and he has just about stated as much) to remove George W. Bush from
> office. I personally am going to vote for Kerry although I'm not a
> big fan of him just because (a) I am somewhat fearful of Rumsfeld's
> handling of things and would feel much more comfortable if he had
> resigned (b) George W. is really just a good 'ol boy and is capable of
> some extreme mishandling in the wrong circumstances...
>
> Regardless, this movie was so pre-occupied with making Bush look like
> an ass that it actually started having the OPPOSITE effect on me... I
> started looking for ways to defend the way Bush acted and the
> decisions that were made...
>
> People do need to realize that the energy industry has a great
> influence in policy and I think this movie does a great job in doing
> that, but further education needs to be provided to the people that
> actually think in this country along the lines of the following:
>
> (a) Iran is really the biggest supporter of terrorist groups
>
> (b) the reason Iraq and its oil is so important (Iraq when fully
> engaged is the number 2 oil producer) is that the number 1 producer -
> Saudi Arabia has it's hands full with extremists in its own country
> (in fact Bin Laden has said that his two main objectives are to
> overthrow the Saudi government and continue his attack on America)...
> thus if Saudi Arabia turned into another Iran, then the supply of
> precious black gold would be SEVERLY jeopardized - therefore if we
> "control" the 2nd most important source it is VERY good from a
> strategic standpoint...
>
> (c) there is big $$$ to be made in post-war Iraq for American business
>
> ---
>
> Fahrenheit 9/11 is worth watching but take it for what it is - and
> also understand that his message will definitely increase hatred for
> America and our policies with the general populace in the Middle
> East...hopefully our servicemen and citizens don't suffer more as a
> result...
>
> - Stu
Let us not shoot the messenger. I believe that it is the acts
portrayed in the movie that has increased the hatred for America, not
the reporting of those acts in the movie. The hatred for America has
been increasing ever since Bush told our allies to buzz off in January
of 2001. A poll a few months ago showed that 92% of the Arab world
hate America. The events of the movie were well reported in the Arab
world long before Michael Moore produced the movie. It is hard to
believe that the hatred of Americans in the Arab world, Europe,
Canada, Latin America, and Africa could increase.