Watching Michael Moore
steven x brown
Watching Michael Moore
: As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's
Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East Village
of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already sold out all
night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his obvious,
visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the cheapest
tin-horn demagog.
Take this scene: Moore shows dead American soldiers in Iraq, many of them,
the more blood the better. Then he says we need to replace them and he asks
where they'll come from. He takes us to his favorite man-of-the-people
populist playground, Flint, MI, and says that we'll find soldiers "in the
places that had been destroyed by the economy." He focuses on poor black men
as Bush's next victims -- not even acknowledging that virtually every
soldier he has just shown -- and ridiculed -- in the film is white. It's all
so convenient: anti-war-pro-poor-multi-culti-heartland. The rhetoric is as
obvious as the gut on the guy.
But as I leave, I hear an older woman behind me, with a voice as loud at New
York traffic, saying to someone who's passing her on the escalator,
obviously a stranger: "Don't you sign up, now! Don't you join!" I turn
around. She's saying this to a black man, just because he's black: After
all, Michael Moore said those people are all conservative cannon fodder,
didn't he? The man and the woman with him are polite enough to wait until
they're out the door before they laugh and then sadly shake their heads.
Hoo boy.
: One of the many things I've learned from blogging confrere Jay Rosen is
that you have to stand back and investigate the assumptions that underly a
media enterprise.
Moore's assumption is venality. He assumes that President Bush and his
confreres are venal, that their motives are black, that they are out to do
no good, only bad, and that the only choices they make in life are between
greed and power.
That's inevitably a bad analysis. It's the exact same analysis Bill
Clinton's enemies made of him. If they were wrong about Clinton, well then,
Michael Moore is wrong about Bush. Life is never that simple, never that
obvious, unless you're a propagandist or one who believes propaganda. I
especially can't buy that analysis when we are a under attack as a nation,
when we need to decide who the "us" and "them" are. The war on us as well as
the dialogue among my confreres here online has made me question that
assumption of venality in American politics.
Oh, you can argue Bush is incompetent; sometimes I do wonder. You can
disagree with his policies; I disagree with many. You can question his
intelligence; jury's out still. I didn't vote for Bush the last time and
don't plan to this time. But I don't buy Moore's Bush. To say that he's the
dark force of the universe only leads to simple-minded over-generalizations
and bilious caricatures.
Like Fahrenheit 9/11.
: The real problem with the film, the really offensive thing about it, is
that in Fahrenheit 9/11, we -- Americans from the President on down -- are
portrayed as the bad guys. If there's something wrong about bin Laden it's
that his estranged family has ties with -- cue the uh-oh music -- the Bush
family. Saddam? Nothing wrong with him. No mention of torture and terror and
tyranny. Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read:
liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it's a place filled with nothing but
happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No
rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these
scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her
soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, "Why did yo have to take him?" Moore
does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, "insurgents")
in Iraq or killed him -- or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the
soldier's father says the young man died and "for what?", Moore doesn't show
liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.
He doesn't try, not for one second, to have a discussion, to show the other
side -- and then cut that other side down to size with facts and figures and
the slightest effort at argument. No, he just shows the one side. And that,
really, is a tragedy. It would be good if we had a discussion. It would be
good to have a movie that made us think and reconsider and talk.
But polemics don't do that. They're only made of two-by-fours.
: The cheap tricks keep on coming, mostly in what is not said. At the start
of the movie, Moore fuzzes the video of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft,
Wolfowitz, et al to make it look as if it were recovered World War II film
from Hitler's Berchtesgaden: the bad guys in happier days. The trick is
unintentionally appropriate: He's trying to say that these guys are Nazis
but he's also using the Nazi propaganda motif to say it.
He asks the same questions, streteches out the same memes, we've seen on the
Web regarding Bush and 9/11: Why did he sit there in that school another
almost seven minutes after hearing that the second tower had been hit? The
implication was that he could have done something. But how often do we hear
anyone ask -- certainly Moore does not -- what he would have done? What if
he had popped up in a panic and ran off? How would that have looked on TV to
a nation and a world in such a moment of disorder? Is there some order he
could have given in those minutes that the vast federal power structure
could not -- and, in fact, was not better equipped to handle than Bush? And
if you think Bush is such a frigging idiot, isn't it better that he sat
there? The question keeps getting asked. The ellipsis carries the message.
But that's no answer.
He goes after Bush ties to the Saudis again and again but never enumerates
the Saudi sins. They're there. It wouldn't be hard. It would be helpful. Why
not? Just laziness? Or is it easier to end with another ellipsis?
Conspiracies are spiced with silence.
We know that Moore opposed even the war in Afghanistan but here he doesn't
say that. Here he says we didn't bring enough force to Afghanistan and
thereby gave bin Laden "a two-month headstart." Moore doesn't say that Bush,
with his family ties to bin Laden's family, wanted that to happen. But the
ellipsis whispers it.
He ridicules the terror threats and alerts, showing goofy stories about
poison pens and model airplanes and goofier guys from the canned-bean crowd
showing off their terror shelters. He gets a congressman, Rep. Jim
McDermott, to downright say that the alerts are all engineered to keep us on
edge. The implication is -- the sllipsis says -- that we're not in danger. I
watch this scant blocks from where almost 3,000 Americans were killed that
day. Oh, yes, Moore, we are in danger.
But Moore wants to pooh-pooh the danger and make it into a conspiracy: "Was
this really about our safety or..." [pregnant ellipsis] "...something else?"
He adds (and I can't read one word of my scribbled transcription): "The
terrorism threat wasn't waht this was all about. They just wanted us to be
fearful enough to get behind their plan."
Of course, it was all about Iraq.... Wasn't it?...
: If you don't believe that, well, says Moore, you're an idiot. You're
Britney Spears, shown in all her ditziness saying, "Honestly, I think we
should just trust our President." There's your spokesman for the other side:
Britney.
Or you're a bloodthirsty American goon, which is how Moore portrays soldiers
who rush into battle hopped up on rock 'n' roll. He spares us the obvious
napalm, morning, smell thing.
In Moore's view, you're either with him or against him. Hmmm, who else looks
at the world that way?
Yup, Moore is just he mirror image of what he despises. He is the
O'Reilly... the Bush of the left.
: After leaving the theater and walking by the black man now shaking his
head at what Moore had wrought and the people with bring-down-Bush
clipboards, I made my way back to New Jersey through the PATH train at the
World Trade Center where, most of you know, I was on 9/11. And now I was
shaking my head. Michael Moore did not present bin Laden and the terrorists
and religious fanatics (from other lands) as the enemy who did this. No, to
him, our enemy is within. To him, our enemy is us. And that's worse than
stupid and sad and it's most certainly not entertaining. It's disgusting.
--
Steven X Brown
If there were in the world today any large number of people who
desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness
of others, we could have paradise in a few years.
Bertrand Russell
Mike Mitchell
<cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>
>Watching Michael Moore
Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
office, and it will become a lot safer after he goes in November. If
Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
luck to them. The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
MM
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
steven x brown wrote:
> http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>
> Watching Michael Moore
>
> : As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's
> Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East
> Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already
> sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his
> obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the
> cheapest tin-horn demagog.
Meaning that it's damn good anti-Bush propaganda and is 'doing the business'.
It gets a thumbs up from me.
Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
abelard
<di...@neopax.com>
typed:
>
>
>steven x brown wrote:
>> http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>>
>> Watching Michael Moore
>>
>> : As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's
>> Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East
>> Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already
>> sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his
>> obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the
>> cheapest tin-horn demagog.
>
>Meaning that it's damn good anti-Bush propaganda and is 'doing the business'.
>It gets a thumbs up from me.
of course it would...it would get the thumbs up from any
dishonest person/socialist who believes the end justifies the means
what always surprises me is when people like you imagine people
like me would be surprised you have such 'ethics'.....
>Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
you are of course a politician.....
you seem to be whining that anyone could demand ethical standards of a
politician
no sale.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >750,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
you are, i see, another one who is prepared to use lies in pursuit of
their desires.....
>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
it is wondrous that your kind line up to defend the indefensible.....
two down....whose next?
c'mon now buzzy.....let's see that integrity you claim, in action....
David Platt
abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 19:53:37 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> <di...@neopax.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>
>>steven x brown wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>>>
>>>Watching Michael Moore
>>>
>>>: As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's
>>>Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East
>>>Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already
>>>sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his
>>>obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the
>>>cheapest tin-horn demagog.
>>
>>Meaning that it's damn good anti-Bush propaganda and is 'doing the business'.
>>It gets a thumbs up from me.
>
>
> of course it would...it would get the thumbs up from any
> dishonest person/socialist who believes the end justifies the means
>
> what always surprises me is when people like you imagine people
> like me would be surprised you have such 'ethics'.....
>
>
>>Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
>
>
> you are of course a politician.....
> you seem to be whining that anyone could demand ethical standards of a
> politician
Could you name 1 politician with impeccable ethical standards?
ivan
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2k5v1fF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> steven x brown wrote:
> > http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
> >
> > Watching Michael Moore
> >
> > : As I walked out of the theater on the opening day of Michael Moore's
> > Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought (read: hoped) that even here, in the East
> > Village of Manhattan, true Moore country, where the flick was already
> > sold out all night, surely even here they wouldn't fall for all his
> > obvious, visual/rhetorical tricks, his propaganda too unsubtle for the
> > cheapest tin-horn demagog.
>
> Meaning that it's damn good anti-Bush propaganda and is 'doing the
business'.
> It gets a thumbs up from me.
> Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
>
threat to the West whatsoever, whilst no one can deny that Iraq wasn't a
small sore in the scheme of Western 'economic' interests in Middle Eastern
affairs, since the occupation it has now been turned into a gaping wound.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
They tend to be old style socialists.
DaveVH
Mike Mitchell <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gg7rd0lrujvjrhmk3...@4ax.com...
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams.
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:23:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:06:37 +0100, Mike Mitchell <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:26:56 +0100, steven x brown
>>><cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>>>>
>>>>Watching Michael Moore
>>>
>>>Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
>>>office, and it will become a lot safer after he goes in November. If
>>>Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
>>>respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
>>>and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
>>>luck to them.
>>
>>you are, i see, another one who is prepared to use lies in pursuit of
>> their desires.....
>
>I see no lies in MM's original post. Before you accuse another poster
>of lies lardy, you should detail *exactly* what lies have been told.
you lack subtlety...it is a severe problem in dealing with you...
tedious though it be i shall try to get through your thik pate....
but there is just so much such effort that does not start to
drive me to distraction with boredom.....
mm has written approvingly of radical dishonesty in the pursuit
of objective mm wishes....
moron moore uses lies/visual-tricks/misdirection to sell a dishonest
message....that is lying....
mm wrote in support of that dishonesty/lying......
>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>
>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>
>That is your opinion. Coming from somebody who claims to deal only in
>facts, not opinions, I see a contradiction & lack of integrity.
no you don't....you simply cannot follow subtlety as usual.....
that appears to make you insecure and imagine you are being conned....
the problem is primarily in your own sloppy mind....
it seems i must be more aware of this problem among several posters.....
(to me, a very interesting problem with on-line work)...i can spot it far
faster when i have voice tones available....
several of you pretend to understand when you do not....you included.
you also wish to be taken seriously when that is not possible
>>it is wondrous that your kind line up to defend the indefensible.....
>
>Many others have the view that it is *you* and your gang who have been
>trying to defend the indefensible -- and without much success.
don't be ridiculous....madsam is no longer in power!!!
>>two down....whose next?
>>c'mon now buzzy.....let's see that integrity you claim, in action....
>
>I have already expressed my views on the loooony Bush many times.
and an empty noise it has always proved to be....
>I do not propose to do so again at this moment.
>
>Time to get a life lardy.
watching simulations of idiots chasing a pig's bladder.....again?
abelard
typed:
i am not able to read minds....read this and then try to phrase your
question more realistically....
http://www.abelard.org/ethics.htm#Abs-ethics
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:19:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>of course it would...it would get the thumbs up from any
>> dishonest person/socialist who believes the end justifies the means
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong but w/r/t Iraq, isn't it you who have long
>claimed the end justifies the means.?
i note that you are attempting to change the subject.....
is your attempt desperate? it could appear that way......
are you dishonestly attempting to escape from admitting the moron moore
crap is dishonest
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
You could have argued that Bin Laden posed no direct military threat
to the West whatsoever. In fact, people did.
--
Stephen Horgan
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:59:03 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:08:44 +0100, hummingbird
>><YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:19:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>>>of course it would...it would get the thumbs up from any
>>>> dishonest person/socialist who believes the end justifies the means
>>>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong but w/r/t Iraq, isn't it you who have long
>>>claimed the end justifies the means.?
>>
>>i note that you are attempting to change the subject.....
>>is your attempt desperate? it could appear that way......
>
>Your comment above was about other people, not about Moore's film,
a person who support dishonest rhetoric is dishonest....
a person who allies themselves to that dishonest rhetoric is an
accessory.....and is therefore guilty...
>so I was not changing the subject.
oh yes you were....
>>are you dishonestly attempting to escape from admitting the moron moore
>> crap is dishonest
>
>Have you stopped beating your partner.?
i note your further evasion.....interesting that you cannot come
out and truth tell....
Certic
abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:42jrd05ipmal9lf6b...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:06:37 +0100, Mike Mitchell <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:26:56 +0100, steven x brown
> ><cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
> >>
> >>Watching Michael Moore
> >
> >Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
> >office, and it will become a lot safer after he goes in November. If
> >Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
> >respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
> >and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
> >luck to them.
>
> you are, i see, another one who is prepared to use lies in pursuit of
> their desires.....
>
> >The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>
> no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>
> it is wondrous that your kind line up to defend the indefensible.....
This reads like something thrown up by the Goth Quote Generator...
http://www.brunching.com/gothquote.html
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
All important political action should be
aimed at persuading people of the
necessity of further sacrifices.
- Ardian Vehbiu, "Handbook for
Aspiring Stalinists"
--
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>My Q was no more evasive than yours.
ie you admit evasion
Bill Willis
The world is a more dangerous place since Bush came to office but not
because of Bush rather in spite of him. The world is more dangerous
because of the rise of Islamic fanatacism and the pusilanimous
behavior of leading European politicians who are scared silly of
confronting the poison that is apt to destroy them.
Do you say good luck to Michael Moore even if he is nothing more than
a scoundrel who knowingly and deliberately misstates and manipulates
the truth? I know you criticize Bush and Blair for making a false
case for the war. In some respects you are correct on this point but
does that lead you to support someone else making an entirely bogus
case in order to as you say "hasten his demise"?
Bill
>
> MM
Clough
>of course it would...it would get the thumbs up from any
> dishonest person/socialist who believes the end justifies the means
If the end is the demise of madsam, then who will be so pettifogging
and trivial as to quibble over means?
Or even consequences.
Clough
Clough
>>a person who support dishonest rhetoric is dishonest....
>>a person who allies themselves to that dishonest rhetoric is an
>> accessory.....and is therefore guilty...
>OK I accept that. You are guilty of dishonesty.
Abelard is not dishonest.
He is a pretentious intellectual lightweight whose delusions regarding
self tell him the opposite.
Clough
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>>
>>Watching Michael Moore
>
>Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
>office,
Yes, but he didn't plan 9/11...
>and it will become a lot safer after he goes in November.
Probably
>If Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
>respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
>and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
>luck to them. The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
Agreed
--
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Chris X on 9/11 "They deserved it"
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>
>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
3) Domestic economy
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>Time to get a life lardy.
>
>watching simulations of idiots chasing a pig's bladder.....again?
Nowt wrong with that! :)
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
>
>you are of course a politician.....
>you seem to be whining that anyone could demand ethical standards of a
> politician
>
>no sale.
Does this cohere with your position on Bush over-selling Hussein/AQ
links?
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>> Could you name 1 politician with impeccable ethical standards?
>
>They tend to be old style socialists.
LOL! Like whom?
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>> Meaning that it's damn good anti-Bush propaganda and is 'doing the business'.
>> It gets a thumbs up from me.
>> Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
>>
>We didn't have to be there, Saddam posed absolutely no direct 'military'
>threat to the West whatsoever, whilst no one can deny that Iraq wasn't a
>small sore in the scheme of Western 'economic' interests in Middle Eastern
>affairs, since the occupation it has now been turned into a gaping wound.
Not merely western economic interests
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
>
> >On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:26:56 +0100, steven x brown
> >
> >>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
> >>
> >>Watching Michael Moore
> >
> >Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
> >Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
> >respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
> >and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
> >luck to them.
>
> their desires.....
>
>
> no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>
>
> c'mon now buzzy.....let's see that integrity you claim, in action....
Excellently said abelard. Bush is a GREAT president and all the
lefties are only bitching because their loser hero Al Gore got his ass
well and truly whooped back in 2001, just like the demotwats will get
whooped again this election!
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
Moore is just a fat lefty git who sold out to the democrats and can't
handle that he backed losers last election. This is just another
making scheme for the
amoral lardass. Don't forget he blames Bush and America for absolutely
everything, even the 911 hijackers who murdered a stewardesss were
totally
blameless in the git's opinion.
Maria
Codeword) wrote:
What did you think about his policy of making illegal immigrants
legal?
Mike Mitchell
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:23:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>
>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>
>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>
>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
>3) Domestic economy
Er, you forgot one: Taking the world into an illegal war.
MM
Mike Mitchell
Michael Moore's case is not bogus. It is as real as air. Bush will
become infamous for being the worst president ever as the one who
exacerbated the threat of world terrorism. Michael Moore will be
remembered as the guy who helped remove this despot.
MM
Bill Willis
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:06:37 +0100, Mike Mitchell
> <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
> >>
> >>Watching Michael Moore
> >
> >Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
> >office,
>
> Yes, but he didn't plan 9/11...
>
> >and it will become a lot safer after he goes in November.
>
> Probably
>
> >If Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
> >respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
> >and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
> >luck to them. The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>
> Agreed
I address my reply to Mike Mitchell to you as well. As a matter of
fact the extremes to which Moore apparently went to discredit the Bush
administration is likely to backlash and provide sympathy and support
for Bush. Americans still believe in fair play and it is hard to miss
that Michael Moore is playing a most dirty game.
Bill
Mike Mitchell
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:06:37 +0100, Mike Mitchell
><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
>>>
>>>Watching Michael Moore
>>
>>Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
>>office,
>
>Yes, but he didn't plan 9/11...
Nope. His old Saudi mate, Osama, was the one wot did it! Doesn't the
whole mess make you wonder just what Bush and Co were doing, cosying
up to the bin Ladens and flying them out of the country? Stinks of
insider trading, if you ask me.
MM
Mike Mitchell
Well, I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands of bereaved Iraqi
citizens quibbling right now! Not to mention the thousands of loved
ones of the American, British and other soldiers who have been killed
or maimed for life because of Bush's mad desire to play his neo-cons
war games.
If Saddam were still there right now, with surveillance so tight over
Iraq that he wouldn't be able to fart without some guy in the Pentagon
detecting it, how many innocent civilians would have died by now? How
many insurgents would there be in Iraq? How much of a threat to world
terrorism would Al Queda be? How many foreigners would have been
beheaded? How would America's standing in the world be right now?
You know the answers. They are plain to everybody. This whole thing
had nothing to do with the "war on terror", but all to do with Bush's
urge to assert his position, having witnessed the atrocity of 3,000
dead and a flagship of America destroyed as the world sat agog in
front of its TV screens.
But because the neo-cons knew that they could never get a whiz-bang
shock and awe effect from a few SAS-type special forces hunting down
Osama in the wilds of the Afghan mountains, even though such forces
may well have been successful in the long run, Bush "invented" Iraq as
the big bogeyman and threat to world peace. As a putative Hollywood
scriptwriter, Bush may have found an opening in life, but to make up
stories and then push for his own brand of vanity publishing by
spending $100 bn and killing thousands, his job as president threatens
the stability of the entire world. It must be every American's duty to
get rid of this man in November. You only have to take one look at
George Dubya Bush when he appears on the world scene nowadays to see a
close resemblance to the lad on the front of Mad magazine. And now
even Britain is at last beginning to distance herself from the crazies
in the White House by demanding that our Guantanamo captives be set
free.
MM
Mike Mitchell
Codeword) wrote:
>Moore is just a fat lefty git who sold out to the democrats and can't
>handle that he backed losers last election. This is just another
>making scheme for the
>amoral lardass. Don't forget he blames Bush and America for absolutely
>everything, even the 911 hijackers who murdered a stewardesss were
>totally
>blameless in the git's opinion.
Huh, that all sounds like you're just pissed because we antis have
been proved right!
MM
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:45:21 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>Time to get a life lardy.
>>
>>watching simulations of idiots chasing a pig's bladder.....again?
>
>Nowt wrong with that! :)
keeps the dope out of the streets i s'pose....
regards.....
abelard
typed:
i have no idea....will you?
perhaps you should gotten on the phone and asked him to
please retire gracefully....
>Or even consequences.
which 'consequences'...that he is no longer in a position to
cause further problems...
abelard
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:10:18 GMT, Clough <in...@canoemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:19:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>of course it would...it would get the thumbs up from any
>>> dishonest person/socialist who believes the end justifies the means
>>
>>If the end is the demise of madsam, then who will be so pettifogging
>>and trivial as to quibble over means?
>>
>>Or even consequences.
>
>Well, I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands of bereaved Iraqi
>citizens quibbling right now! Not to mention the thousands of loved
>ones of the American, British and other soldiers who have been killed
>or maimed for life because of Bush's mad desire to play his neo-cons
>war games.
ah, the bleeding heart liberal....
and you are so dishonest with it.....
an honest accountant would not only list costs...but also list benefits...
increasingly, imv you have no ethics.
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:19:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
>>
>>you are of course a politician.....
>>you seem to be whining that anyone could demand ethical standards of a
>> politician
>>
>>no sale.
>
>Does this cohere with your position on Bush over-selling Hussein/AQ
>links?
inasmuch as that can be shown....of course it would......
i am not in a position to examine bush's alleged conscience....
only to watch and record a selection of his acts in the world....
regards...
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:23:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>
>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>
>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>
>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
unconvinced on that score....considerably so....
>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
probably....
>3) Domestic economy
more data required....
4.....for fear of sommat worse....
regards....
J&KCopeland
"Bill Willis" <Billw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7564c612.04062...@posting.google.com...
I am forced to disagree. Michael Moore propaganda tour de force, will be
acknowledged in the future. Perhaps, not as Moore imagined. Leni
Riefenstahl, pioneered the mock-documentary genre in Nazi Germany and she is
widely acknowledged to be one of the best ever. Moore has joined that very
select group. It's a testiment to his skill, not his political acumen.
(Before anyone gets their underware in a wad, I'd be entirely comfortable
including Mel Gibson's "Passion" in that field.)
I do wonder if people that so willing accept Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" would
have any problem identifying with the people that accepted Riefenstahl's
"Trimuph of the Will"?.
However, there will be a reaction. Just as the leftists woke up one day and
found "talk radio" dominated by amazingly effective conservative
commentators, the rightist's will figure out that they've missed the boat
with the naked propaganda value of mock "documentaries".
Just as the Left is trying to create a left-wing radio network to counter
the Right, the Right will begin investigating the creation of these
"shocking" films.
It's an easy prediction that just as the Left is still reeling from an
inability to produce a "Rush Limbaugh" with the delicate balance of
ideaology, humor and pure entertainment value, the Right will have a
similiar problem producing a director with the high level of expertise of
Michael Moore, to create counter-movies.
(I can, however, see a collabaration between Mel Gibson and P.J ORorke as
one possible winning combination)
More than one pundit has observed that we need a new word, rather than
"documentary" to describe this type of film that has the look and feel of a
documentary, but is purely agenda driven, so selective in facts and editing,
that it would not be of value to any serious student. Docu-drama doesn't
fit. The entertainment value is over-shadowed by the a psy-ops edge than
any loosely created docu-drama.
James....
Chris X
news:o9utd05nojh0dn1m0...@4ax.com...
> --
> website at www.abe-blah.con - lies, noos, koment, propaganda, loonacy
> on enerjee, edukashon, pollytiks etc >75 dokument calls each century
> i rite the Daily Slime and wen i say it is so, IT IS SO.
> Middle East oil *belongs* to the West. i sed so. i AM Pope Lardy.
> my best fiend is Greg Haemorrhoids.
> George Bush is my icon & hero, he is a grate leeder.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> all that is necessary for [] walk quikly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that [] a big yak poop.
> the neo-cons stay in power [] trust nobody especially me.
> only when it's bunny -- woger 'lardy' wabbit
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL ! Brilliant :)
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:56:53 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:09:58 +0000 (UTC),
>>libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:19:16 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
>>>>
>>>>you are of course a politician.....
>>>>you seem to be whining that anyone could demand ethical standards of a
>>>> politician
>>>>
>>>>no sale.
>>>
>>>Does this cohere with your position on Bush over-selling Hussein/AQ
>>>links?
>>
>>inasmuch as that can be shown....of course it would......
>>
>>i am not in a position to examine bush's alleged conscience....
>> only to watch and record a selection of his acts in the world....
>
>Why be selective.? Why not watch and record *all* his acts.?
1)because i have a limited span of time...#
2)i have no interest in following him to the john...
>That would provide you with a more balanced view of him.
and still it would be limited....
any person must select from a blizzard of (even the) available data...
>You could include his govt's attempts to finance instability and
>overthrow in Venezuela or his tightening of sanctions against Cuba
>for no obvious beneficial reason.
depends on where you're sitting and what calculations you make.....
there are claims that in venezuela, mugabe politics are threatened or
underway....
in cuba the answer is simple...hold open elections.....castro's fief
attempted to export socialism and harboured missiles....where is
the basis for co-operation?
why not squeeze him further.....
castro is obviously not as bad as madsam....and a few others....
why not keep him in his cage and weak and wait for the reaper?
you don't seem to have any concept of prioritization....
the conflict with fundamentalism and foolishness is not just limited
to your current favourite socialist dictatorships
abelard
of the broken wing <YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed: ...stuff i can't remember....didn't look closely enuf....
you'll be happy to know the number will probably go to 800,000
at the end of this month....and the site is somewhere over 40% up on
the same month last year....
yesterday it was up 131% on the equivalent day last year!!
and that's not the highest this month.....
your constant and regular interest is most gratifying....
or should that be...eat your heart out buzzy!
abelard
typed:
>On 26 Jun 2004 19:34:09 -0700, Billw...@aol.com (Bill Willis) wrote:
j&c's comparison with riefenstahl is more apposite....
though i doubt the photography will be in the same class...
everything i've seen of his reeks of shamateurism...
but perhaps that also is part of the pose, as doubtless
'professionals' sell themselves for that job...
BC
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:36:41 +0100, "ivan" <Ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Meaning that it's damn good anti-Bush propaganda and is 'doing the business'.
> >> It gets a thumbs up from me.
> >> Don't you love it when politicians whine about 'cheap tricks'.
> >>
> >We didn't have to be there, Saddam posed absolutely no direct 'military'
> >threat to the West whatsoever, whilst no one can deny that Iraq wasn't a
> >small sore in the scheme of Western 'economic' interests in Middle Eastern
> >affairs, since the occupation it has now been turned into a gaping wound.
>
> Not merely western economic interests
This is a cute thread. Lots of sophist commentary
that failed to even try to address basic issues.
You can nitpick Moore's presentation of evidence
all you want, but you can't call him a liar: there
is more genuine investigative journalism about
Bush and the American congress in general in his
2 hour flick than was shown by the total sum of US
mainstream media the past 3 years. Every award,
every bit of over the top praise of Moore and his
film is extremely well deserved. Think of the task
he chose and the obstacles he faced. He wanted to
help topple an American president, one who's
heading the most corrupt, duplicitous administration
in decades, and Moore's weapon of choice was to
simply dig up and present irrefutably damning video
and official documents in a way that presents the
true dark picture of Bush and his people. And to do
so, he had to step all over the toes of the established
press who should have been doing this all along, but
weren't.
The end result is that not only did Moore show up
Bush as an insouciant doofus in league with almost
comically sinister villains, he also showed up the
American press as being craven, phony, and lazy,
serving more as profitable divisions of large
corporations than as instruments of a free press.
It's no wonder that some of the harshest, if most
idiotic, criticisms come from liberal sources rather
than the usual suspects, like the one time psuedo-
radical Christopher Hitchens -- they've seen their
flimsy authority as the opposition voice completely
usurped by some fat, shaggy guy wearing a baseball
cap. They only talked the talk while sipping their
wines and non-fat lattes; Moore, instead, gulped
down his beer and then went out and did something.
He is to be applauded.
-BC
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:13:24 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> <di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Could you name 1 politician with impeccable ethical standards?
>>
>>They tend to be old style socialists.
>
>
> LOL! Like whom?
Tony Benn, for one.
Denis Skinner.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Mike Mitchell
>......... Americans still believe in fair play and it is hard to miss
>that Michael Moore is playing a most dirty game.
Too bad you picked the losing side!
MM
Mike Mitchell
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>Is this just an attempt by Blair to claw back some personal cred.?
Could be fear that his, Blair's, position in the Book of Infamy might
be too near the top unless he starts rowing back right now. Be assured
that something is happening, as we couldn't get a peep out of the AG
about the so-called legality of the "war", yet now he can't stop
talking!
MM
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>>
>>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>>
>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>
>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
>>3) Domestic economy
>
>Er, you forgot one: Taking the world into an illegal war.
Not proven
--
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Chris X on 9/11 "They deserved it"
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>>
>>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>>
>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>
>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>
>unconvinced on that score....considerably so....
Disbanding the army, not enough troops to protect basic functions of
state, too little money too late, reduced water, electricity etc
Hence Bremer replacing the earlier fellow
It was a cock up, IMO
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>> >If Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
>> >respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
>> >and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
>> >luck to them. The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>
>> Agreed
>
>I address my reply to Mike Mitchell to you as well. As a matter of
>fact the extremes to which Moore apparently went to discredit the Bush
>administration is likely to backlash and provide sympathy and support
>for Bush. Americans still believe in fair play and it is hard to miss
>that Michael Moore is playing a most dirty game.
Agreed
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<di...@neopax.com> wrote:
>>>>Could you name 1 politician with impeccable ethical standards?
>>>
>>>They tend to be old style socialists.
>>
>>
>> LOL! Like whom?
>
>Tony Benn, for one.
Tony Benn - champion of the workers who wrecked, almost
single-handedly, the UK economy?
>Denis Skinner.
Fewer objections, but then he never got close enough to
decision-making to have to compromise.
The purity of a monk
Mike Mitchell
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:06:36 +0100, Mike Mitchell
><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>>>
>>>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>>>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>>>
>>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>>
>>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>>>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
>>>3) Domestic economy
>>
>>Er, you forgot one: Taking the world into an illegal war.
>
>Not proven
So, you explain how it was legal, then! Oh, because the Bushies said
so...
Yeah, right!
MM
Mike Mitchell
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>It was a cock up, IMO
Because the neo-cons were full of their own self-delusion - and still
are.
MM
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
hummingbird wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2004 11:33:44 -0700, bcon...@yahoo.com (BC)
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>
> Well said that man. An excellant post.
>
>
>>He is to be applauded.
>
>
> Indeed but instead, all the Bushies are crawling out of the woodwork
> to criticise...
The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:58:33 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>>>
>>>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>>>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>>>
>>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>>
>>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>>
>>unconvinced on that score....considerably so....
>
>Disbanding the army, not enough troops to protect basic functions of
>state, too little money too late, reduced water, electricity etc
>
>Hence Bremer replacing the earlier fellow
>
>It was a cock up, IMO
armies are always sloppy in peace time.....just sit around polishing
and painting things....
i'm not over concerned with that stuff.....
they got the job done with the number of troops allocated despite
the armchair critics usual false prognostications.....
they got the job done fast and efficiently.....
they are now admitting they didn't expect the degree of backlash
hassle....
maybe it's hindsight but i think they probably should have considered
the possibility of tactical withdrawal and pre-preparation for a
guerrilla campaign...
because of the dithering idiots at the un the whole thing was
too pre-signalled to allow such a tactic....
i am content that they are meeting each challenge as it turns up...
that they are allocating serious resources to rebuild.....
i think you have to reach to make out bush has handled the main
action badly.....
fine to rake over the ashes and learn from difficulties but when
can you ever remember such a large operation carried out so
effectively at such low cost.....
abelard
<di...@neopax.com>
typed:
>The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
my guess is mostly preaching to the brainded acolytes....
a few of the thicker soft heads may be moved to swallow the tripe....
the brighter ones will be resentful and be more likely not only to
come out for bush....but work for him as well.....
i'd much rather the debate was not lowered by the likes of moron moore....
the debate is far too complex for the emotive can rattling.....
moron mostly is stopping sensible debate where he has any effect at all...
that is a deeply irresponsible behaviour....but hey, it's the american way
...hype anything for cash....
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the
intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever
lost public office thereby." mencken....
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:06:36 +0100, Mike Mitchell
><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
>>>>
>>>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>>>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>>>
>>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>>
>>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>>>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
>>>3) Domestic economy
>>
>>Er, you forgot one: Taking the world into an illegal war.
>
>Not proven
he knows that....and doesn't care...
regards..
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:07:46 +0100, Mike Mitchell
><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>I wonder what Blair's replacement line will be after he dumps
>the "trust me, I'm a nice sort of guy".
shut up....get into line....do as you're fucking well told...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:32:04 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> <di...@neopax.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
>
>
> my guess is mostly preaching to the brainded acolytes....
> a few of the thicker soft heads may be moved to swallow the tripe....
>
> the brighter ones will be resentful and be more likely not only to
> come out for bush....but work for him as well.....
>
> i'd much rather the debate was not lowered by the likes of moron moore....
> the debate is far too complex for the emotive can rattling.....
LOL! FFS it's *not* a debate!
It's politics!
abelard
<di...@neopax.com>
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:32:04 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>> <di...@neopax.com>
>>>The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
>>
>>
>> my guess is mostly preaching to the brainded acolytes....
>> a few of the thicker soft heads may be moved to swallow the tripe....
>>
>> the brighter ones will be resentful and be more likely not only to
>> come out for bush....but work for him as well.....
>>
>> i'd much rather the debate was not lowered by the likes of moron moore....
>> the debate is far too complex for the emotive can rattling.....
>
>LOL! FFS it's *not* a debate!
>It's politics!
not my pov...
i think you are taking a too short sighted view of the world....
you should know that over a longer time frame moron will lose....
people like him do not change the world...they merely slow progress.
J&KCopeland
"hummingbird" <YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:igpud051tfhmc8e9n...@4ax.com...
> >hummingbird wrote:
> >> On 27 Jun 2004 11:33:44 -0700, bcon...@yahoo.com (BC)
> >> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >>
> >The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
>
Most commentators believe that the film will have very little effect, (other
that to make MM even richer). He's "preaching to the choir".
The I-Hate-George-Bush crowd will cheer for it, and the
I-Don't-Hate-George-Bush crowd with either ignore it or disbelieve
everything in it.
James...
J&KCopeland
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:45:38 GMT, "J&KCopeland" <jckc...@kc.rr.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> Footnote:- as I write, BBC World Service are debating this film and
> pointing out that when Bush was informed of the first attack on 9/11,
> he was in a school classroom in Florida and he just carried on reading
> the book out for SEVEN MINUTES, not 10 seconds but 7 minutes.
>
> Can you believe it.? Moore's film shows the full footage.
So what?
James..
Bill Willis
> On 26 Jun 2004 19:34:09 -0700, Billw...@aol.com (Bill Willis) wrote:
>
> >Mike Mitchell <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<gg7rd0lrujvjrhmk3...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:26:56 +0100, steven x brown
> >> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_06_24.html#007356
> >> >
> >> >Watching Michael Moore
> >>
> >> Whatever. The world is now a more dangerous place since Bush came to
> >> office, and it will become a lot safer after he goes in November. If
> >> Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
> >> respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
> >> and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
> >
> >The world is a more dangerous place since Bush came to office but not
> >because of Bush rather in spite of him. The world is more dangerous
> >because of the rise of Islamic fanatacism and the pusilanimous
> >behavior of leading European politicians who are scared silly of
> >confronting the poison that is apt to destroy them.
> >
> >Do you say good luck to Michael Moore even if he is nothing more than
> >a scoundrel who knowingly and deliberately misstates and manipulates
> >the truth? I know you criticize Bush and Blair for making a false
> >case for the war. In some respects you are correct on this point but
> >does that lead you to support someone else making an entirely bogus
> >case in order to as you say "hasten his demise"?
>
> Michael Moore's case is not bogus. It is as real as air. Bush will
> become infamous for being the worst president ever as the one who
> exacerbated the threat of world terrorism. Michael Moore will be
> remembered as the guy who helped remove this despot.
Michael Moore is already well known in America for his other bogus
films and his contemptable style of film making. In fact the George
Bush campaign has already used excerpts from Michael Moore's film in
their ads. Obviously the Republicans are not afraid that the film
will do their cause any harm. Indeed quite the opposite. If Bush is
defeated in November it will be in spite of and not because of Michael
Moore's not very subtle hatchet job.
Bill
>
> MM
Bill Willis
> On 27 Jun 2004 08:11:22 -0700, Billw...@aol.com (Bill Willis) wrote:
>
> >> >If Michael Moore - along with dozens of the highest ranking and most
> >> >respected ex-diplomats and generals, plus countless other politicians
> >> >and pundits around the world - can hasten Bush's demise, then good
> >> >luck to them. The Bushies are a living nightmare for us all.
> >>
> >> Agreed
> >
> >I address my reply to Mike Mitchell to you as well. As a matter of
> >fact the extremes to which Moore apparently went to discredit the Bush
> >administration is likely to backlash and provide sympathy and support
> >for Bush. Americans still believe in fair play and it is hard to miss
> >that Michael Moore is playing a most dirty game.
>
> Agreed
You are a most agreeable fellow. I;m sure you agree with this as well.
Bill
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:26:05 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:25:50 +0100, hummingbird
>><YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:07:46 +0100, Mike Mitchell
>>><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:14:19 +0100, hummingbird
>>>><YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is this just an attempt by Blair to claw back some personal cred.?
>>>>
>>>>Could be fear that his, Blair's, position in the Book of Infamy might
>>>>be too near the top unless he starts rowing back right now. Be assured
>>>>that something is happening, as we couldn't get a peep out of the AG
>>>>about the so-called legality of the "war", yet now he can't stop
>>>>talking!
>>>
>>>I wonder what Blair's replacement line will be after he dumps
>>>the "trust me, I'm a nice sort of guy".
>>
>>shut up....get into line....do as you're fucking well told...
>
>Quite likely so. Now just remind me why you support him.?
what do you mean by 'support' him?
offer sommat better.....
much of the problem in the uk is idiots expecting governments to be
the solution....most of the time they are the problem.
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:50:51 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:44:56 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>><di...@neopax.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>abelard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:32:04 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>>>> <di...@neopax.com>
>>
>>>>>The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> my guess is mostly preaching to the brainded acolytes....
>>>> a few of the thicker soft heads may be moved to swallow the tripe....
>>>>
>>>> the brighter ones will be resentful and be more likely not only to
>>>> come out for bush....but work for him as well.....
>>>>
>>>> i'd much rather the debate was not lowered by the likes of moron moore....
>>>> the debate is far too complex for the emotive can rattling.....
>>>
>>>LOL! FFS it's *not* a debate!
>>>It's politics!
>>
>>not my pov...
>>i think you are taking a too short sighted view of the world....
>>you should know that over a longer time frame moron will lose....
>>
>>people like him do not change the world...they merely slow progress.
>
>Utter poppycock lardy and you know it.
i know very well it is so....
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:23:44 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:32:04 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>><di...@neopax.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>The interesting question really being - what effect is he having?
>>
>>my guess is mostly preaching to the brainded acolytes....
>
>I thought you were only into facts, not mindreading or guessing.
patience ab....there is a fundamental difference between a generalisation
and an individual....if you could once learn and understand that
difference your mind might function just a little better...
>>a few of the thicker soft heads may be moved to swallow the tripe....
>>
>>the brighter ones will be resentful and be more likely not only to
>> come out for bush....but work for him as well.....
>>
>>i'd much rather the debate was not lowered by the likes of moron moore....
>>the debate is far too complex for the emotive can rattling.....
>
>Is that why you don't understand it and rattle your can a lot instead.
>I'm beginning to see a pattern here lardy.
>
>>moron mostly is stopping sensible debate where he has any effect at all...
>
>Has it occurred to you that those really guilty of stifling debate are
>the people in the WH. Probably not.
they are not without guilt....but they live in a society with
irresponsible intellectual minnows like moron....and an irresponsible
media....
not surprising when media workers are so narrow and off balance
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc
it is very difficult to forward public debate with so many shallow people
shouting rubbish like moron and yourself....
the problem is how to maintain freedom and educate at the same time.
>>that is a deeply irresponsible behaviour....but hey, it's the american way
>> ...hype anything for cash....
>>
>>"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the
>>intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever
>>lost public office thereby." mencken....
>
>"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". TJ Watson.
i don't know if that was watson but i am familiar with the saying....
but you did claim you worked for them....
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>I am optimistic this film will play 'a part' in reducing Bush's vote.
>Whether it gets him out of office, I cannot say. That depends
>on whether American voters do their duty and vote against him.
> (That should not be taken as my support for Kerry.)
that is because you are an idiot.
>Footnote:- as I write, BBC World Service are debating this film and
>pointing out that when Bush was informed of the first attack on 9/11,
>he was in a school classroom in Florida and he just carried on reading
>the book out for SEVEN MINUTES, not 10 seconds but 7 minutes.
>
>Can you believe it.? Moore's film shows the full footage.
you are indeed an idiot....you would become less of an idiot
if you got out and gained real experience....
eg working with hospital or police services...
i have rarely heard anyone talk as much tripe as you manage....
you are challenging pratt at times for the greatest separation between
your self image and reality.
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>>>
>>>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>>>>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
>>>>3) Domestic economy
>>>
>>>Er, you forgot one: Taking the world into an illegal war.
>>
>>Not proven
>
>So, you explain how it was legal, then! Oh, because the Bushies said
>so...
Why not just think about what 'not proven' means?
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>>>>>no....you are the living nightmare...and every other person who
>>>>> has sold their soul in service of their emotional desires....
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, he has lost it. But Bush should go. His failings
>>>>
>>>>1) Failure to prepare for post-war Iraq
>>>>2) Keeping Rummy after the torture scandal
>>>>3) Domestic economy
>>>
>>>Er, you forgot one: Taking the world into an illegal war.
>>
>>Not proven
>
>he knows that....and doesn't care...
Agreed
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>i am content that they are meeting each challenge as it turns up...
> that they are allocating serious resources to rebuild.....
Mostly this is true, though Congressional money is slow to arrive...
they're doing OK because oil prices are high
>i think you have to reach to make out bush has handled the main
> action badly.....
I think that they won the war extraordinarily well. They have handled
the peace less well
> fine to rake over the ashes and learn from difficulties but when
> can you ever remember such a large operation carried out so
> effectively at such low cost.....
When have we ever tried something comparable?
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>> >I address my reply to Mike Mitchell to you as well. As a matter of
>> >fact the extremes to which Moore apparently went to discredit the Bush
>> >administration is likely to backlash and provide sympathy and support
>> >for Bush. Americans still believe in fair play and it is hard to miss
>> >that Michael Moore is playing a most dirty game.
>>
>> Agreed
>
>You are a most agreeable fellow. I;m sure you agree with this as well.
Indeed :)
Diversity Isn't A Codeword
> On 27 Jun 2004 03:34:47 -0700, vote...@yahoo.com (Diversity Isn't A
> Codeword) wrote:
>
> >Moore is just a fat lefty git who sold out to the democrats and can't
> >handle that he backed losers last election. This is just another
> >making scheme for the
> >amoral lardass. Don't forget he blames Bush and America for absolutely
> >everything, even the 911 hijackers who murdered a stewardesss were
> >totally
> >blameless in the git's opinion.
>
> Huh, that all sounds like you're just pissed because we antis have
> been proved right!
no, just bored by your continual bitching and story changing at every
turn. You lefties have and will continue to be proven wrong at every
point in history. Your MIGHTS(your fave word) IF's and BUT's just keep
coming no matter what happens. In Iraq you've been wrong about
absolutely everything, from the USA losing the war(it was over in a
very short time) to Saddam never being toppled or captured(he was on
both counts).
What I think is hilarious is that you will still vote lefty Tony in
again.
ivan
"Diversity Isn't A Codeword" <vote...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:74770603.04062...@posting.google.com...
"I leave Iraq confident in the future and confident in the ability of the
government to meet the challenges of the future, sorry about the rush, but
there's a plane waiting... Byeeee!"
Mike Mitchell
>Michael Moore is already well known in America for his other bogus
>films and his contemptable style of film making. In fact the George
>Bush campaign has already used excerpts from Michael Moore's film in
>their ads. Obviously the Republicans are not afraid that the film
>will do their cause any harm. Indeed quite the opposite. If Bush is
>defeated in November it will be in spite of and not because of Michael
>Moore's not very subtle hatchet job.
Right now, Bill, hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to movie
theaters all over America - and coming out, vowing to vote *not* for
Bush. Read your papers, check your media. Even diehard Republicans are
reluctantly having to admit that Moore's film is his pièce de
résistance.
Don't believe me? I've seen headlines like: "Moore film breaks debut
records". His film has become the first documentary to top the US box
office chart in its opening weekend.
Here are a few extracts from the dozens of responses received by the
BBC:
"this is an excellent film because it causes folks to think", Denver
"Do not let propagandists label this film propaganda.", NY
"F9/11 is a masterpiece.", Arlington
"Everyone should watch this movie", Toronto
"you owe it to democracy to see this film", Poughkeepsie
"If the rest of the world can see Bush's record and his lies to the
world community then hopefully America will be able to as well come
election day, or God help us all.", Seattle
"It was a very good movie!", Kent, WA
"Have to admit that the movie is actually well made.", Texas
"We've lost our country.", Walnut Creek, CA
"I saw the first showing of the film available to me and was blown
away by the power of it.", Lafayette, CA
"Bush could say the sky was green and you guys [i.e. pro-Bushies]
would back him.", Bob, America
"Mr Moore's documentary is a must see for every American", Washington
DC
"All I can say is this is a powerful film.", Ohio
"Awesome film! It's time to bring the real criminals to justice.",
Irvine, CA
See here if you still have those Republican-made rose-tinted specs
on! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3839041.stm
MM
Mike Mitchell
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>Indeed but instead, all the Bushies are crawling out of the woodwork
>to criticise...
At least when they crawl out we can play Whack-a-Mole!
MM
Mike Mitchell
>Most commentators believe that the film will have very little effect, (other
>that to make MM even richer
I wish!
MM
Mike Mitchell
wrote:
Duh, so what took him so long to react?!! What was he hoping for? The
ground to swallow him up?
MM
abelard
libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com
typed:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:16:31 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>i am content that they are meeting each challenge as it turns up...
>> that they are allocating serious resources to rebuild.....
>
>Mostly this is true, though Congressional money is slow to arrive...
>they're doing OK because oil prices are high
we have a window...i fear for the planet if it is not used....
>>i think you have to reach to make out bush has handled the main
>> action badly.....
>
>I think that they won the war extraordinarily well. They have handled
>the peace less well
lack of experience? when have we done this with so backward
and irrational a society before?
i think they are doing the right thing...and are learning fast....
i do not believe in going into new situations with pre-conceptions....
you get you face slapped....but you learn faster....that means less
long term costs....though probably increased short term costs...
there is a point where caution is egregious....
the $64,000 question for me....'is whose interests does bush serve'...
so far kerry is not coming across as impressive.....
>> fine to rake over the ashes and learn from difficulties but when
>> can you ever remember such a large operation carried out so
>> effectively at such low cost.....
>
>When have we ever tried something comparable?
see above...
regards....
abelard
fred_eg_bowinatuck
> >> Taking the world into an illegal war.
>
> >Not proven
>
> So, you explain how it was legal, then!
I see no proof either way, no UN or court decision anywhere!
Lots of talking heads pretending greater moral stance.