Bradbury's pissed
Ejucaided Redneck
By PAUL CHAVEZ
Associated Press Writer
June 19, 2004, 5:08 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES -- Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker
Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction
novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary
"Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.
"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press
on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't
have done it."
Full AP Story: http://tinyurl.com/2pta5
--
All the noise in my head.
I clamp it to the page
so it will be still.
-- Barbara Kingsolver
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Chapter 1 of "Home Call," a novel to be released July 1st
Links to and about "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
Latest Herald-Leader Column: http://tinyurl.com/2amz7
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
John Kulczycki
up in conflict.
William Penrose
<rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press
>on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't
>have done it."
So, all of a sudden, you can copyright a title?
Bill Penrose
The Last Real Marlboro Man
"Nazism was 'National Socialism.' National Socialism is not
fascism." - Wayne Lutz, on Educating the aging 60's Radical Relic
on the misuse of the word "Facist."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Have I mentioned that the Palestinians are animals? The
politicians and diplomats will say the things that they must say,
but the terror will never stop - not until the Palestinian animals
have been exterminated like the filthy vermin that they are."
- Wayne Lutz, on terrorists who deliberately murder babies,
written on the day of one of the worst such cowardly attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Who?" - Wayne Lutz, on Canada
- Wayne !
John Kulczycki
what that meant.
Snide & Snarky
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Well, he was going to call it Celsius 9/11 but Americans wouldn't know
>what that meant.
Canada! We're #1 in being just north of the United States!
- Snide & Snarky
pandora
"John Kulczycki" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:40D5A8E6...@sympatico.ca...
> You know I was wondering how long it would take before that title came
> up in conflict.
I thought that one couldn't copyright a title? And it isn't *exactly* the
same in the first place.
Marg
John Kulczycki
Snide & Snarky
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>The depth of your shallowness bemuses me.
Oh, come on, sailor. Loosen up that sphincter and have a little fun.
Snarky and I know how to keep boys like you warm under the Northern
Lights.
- Snide & Snarky
John Kulczycki
Snide & Snarky wrote:
And how would you do that?
Stan (the Man)
I don't want to talk out of school, so let's just say it involves
pickling cukes, plain non-fat yogurt and a gag.
I can say no more.
--
Stan
Thomas Armagost
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> [chomp]
I think that Ray Bradbury just wants Michael Moore to behave like a
civilized human being. Give it up, Ray. It'll never happen.
That said, I'm sure Bradbury is aware that you can't copyright the
title of a work.
The very thought of trademarking the phrase "Fahrenheit 451" sickens
me. Even if Bradbury did trademark that particular phrase, Moore
could be protected because the title of his film is satiric
parody--it could be interpreted as speech protected by the U.S.
Constitution.
--
blog <http://www.well.com/user/silly/> si...@well.com
"Don't forget to register to vote" - Frank Zappa
Kurt Ullman
<si...@well.com> wrote:
>The very thought of trademarking the phrase "Fahrenheit 451" sickens
>me. Even if Bradbury did trademark that particular phrase, Moore
>could be protected because the title of his film is satiric
>parody--it could be interpreted as speech protected by the U.S.
>Constitution.
>
Maybe. However, MM has said on numerous occassions that he chose the title
because of it close association with F451. Commercial speech is more closely
regulatted than non-commercial and it might be an interesting case.
--
Perhaps the biggest news was that Canada *had* electricity.
Who knew? -Ceri Jones on abt-c
BertieWooster
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:2bABc.12998$Wr....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink
.net...
> In article <silly-E59BAC....@corp.supernews.com>, Thomas
Armagost
> <si...@well.com> wrote:
>
> >The very thought of trademarking the phrase "Fahrenheit 451" sickens
> >me. Even if Bradbury did trademark that particular phrase, Moore
> >could be protected because the title of his film is satiric
> >parody--it could be interpreted as speech protected by the U.S.
> >Constitution.
> >
> Maybe. However, MM has said on numerous occassions that he chose the
title
> because of it close association with F451. Commercial speech is more
closely
> regulatted than non-commercial and it might be an interesting case.
I think it would be a dangerous precedent to allow Bradbury to 'copyright' a
title without actually being allowed to copyright it. There's a lot of
titles that have progressed from being titles to expressions. Imagine if
Joseph Heller had been able to copyright 'Catch 22', or 'Orwellian'...
As I understand it Ray Bradbury is more annoyed that it's Michael Moore
using the title rather than just anyone using the title.
Kurt Ullman
>
>I think it would be a dangerous precedent to allow Bradbury to 'copyright' a
>title without actually being allowed to copyright it. There's a lot of
>titles that have progressed from being titles to expressions. Imagine if
>Joseph Heller had been able to copyright 'Catch 22', or 'Orwellian'...
suggested he might have trademarked it. I was commenting on the possibility if
he had TM'ed and probably cut too much.
>As I understand it Ray Bradbury is more annoyed that it's Michael Moore
>using the title rather than just anyone using the title.
>
Bill Oliver
William Penrose <wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote:
>
>So, all of a sudden, you can copyright a title?
>
Bradbury said it wasn't right, not that it was illegal.
billo
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>Bradbury said it wasn't right, not that it was illegal.
That is a distinction that is too subtle for most liberals.
Liberals also think that pointing out the lies in a "movie" like
Moore's is the same thing as attempted "censorship."
(They're not used to being challenged. It is a New Age.)
"I once tried to figure out which of our resident canuckleheads (i.e., McC or
Klszczski) was dumber; and just when I'd aboot reached a tentative conclusion
that incredibly dull bitch Ing posted and shot my calculations all to hell. Now
I just assume that each canucklehead is stupider than the next, kind of like a
mobius strip, but made out of bacon." - fundoc
Robert McClelland
"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@lutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message
news:dnppd05o4ar4s16pc...@4ax.com...
>
> Liberals also think that pointing out the lies in a "movie" like
> Moore's is the same thing as attempted "censorship."
Lies such as?
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
Ray Haddad
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@lutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message
>news:dnppd05o4ar4s16pc...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Liberals also think that pointing out the lies in a "movie" like
>> Moore's is the same thing as attempted "censorship."
>
>Lies such as?
Things that are untrue or never happened. Misleading images pasted together to
give a clearly incorrect picture of reality.
Simple things like that. The movie is entirely composed of that sort of thing.
Ray
I have met the enemy, the gods of SPAM, and I have triumphed.
Rick
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> >Lies such as?
>
> Things that are untrue or never happened. Misleading images pasted together to
> give a clearly incorrect picture of reality.
>
> Simple things like that. The movie is entirely composed of that sort of thing.
And you know this because you've seen the movie how many times now,
Ray? Why don't you give us a specific breakdown of these lies, y'know,
based on your studious viewings of the movie? Good boy.
--
Rick
Ray Haddad
How many times have you seen this so called truth? Come on, now. That's a good
Moore kisser.
Rick
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:30:14 GMT, Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <v14qd0pcsvotaibfl...@4ax.com>, Ray Haddad
> ><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> >Lies such as?
> >>
> >> Things that are untrue or never happened. Misleading images pasted
> >> together to
> >> give a clearly incorrect picture of reality.
> >>
> >> Simple things like that. The movie is entirely composed of that sort of
> >> thing.
> >
> >And you know this because you've seen the movie how many times now,
> >Ray? Why don't you give us a specific breakdown of these lies, y'know,
> >based on your studious viewings of the movie? Good boy.
>
> How many times have you seen this so called truth? Come on, now. That's a good
> Moore kisser.
I haven't commented one way or the other on the lies/truths of
F911--how could I, I haven't seen it yet. Mebbe it's all lies--I'll let
you know AFTER I've seen it, 'k?
--
Rick
PJ
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:52:23 -0400, "Robert McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@lutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message
>>news:dnppd05o4ar4s16pc...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Liberals also think that pointing out the lies in a "movie" like
>>>Moore's is the same thing as attempted "censorship."
>>
>>Lies such as?
>
>
> Things that are untrue or never happened. Misleading images pasted together to
> give a clearly incorrect picture of reality.
>
> Simple things like that. The movie is entirely composed of that sort of thing.
Have you seen it, Ray? I'm going tomorrow. I've seen the trailer
and read arguments on both sides, but I don't think I'll make up
my mind about what it's composed of until I actually see it for
myself.
So -- you've seen it?
PJ
PJ
Wendy Chatley Green
:Have you seen it, Ray? I'm going tomorrow. I've seen the trailer
:and read arguments on both sides, but I don't think I'll make up
:my mind about what it's composed of until I actually see it for
:myself.
And, if you don't know what actually happened, how can you
tell if the movie is factual or not? Persuasion is emotional, not
logical.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
PJ
Very true, Wendy. But what I was responding to was Ray's comment
that *the movie is entirely composed of that sort of thing.* I
think that you'd actually have to see it before making a
statement about its composition. To me, that would be the same as
if I were criticizing Rush Limbaugh's program without listening
to his program. I'd be relying solely on what someone else said,
rather than what I'd witnessed for myself.
PJ
Robert McClelland
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:v14qd0pcsvotaibfl...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:52:23 -0400, "Robert McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Last Real Marlboro Man" <lu...@lutz.kicks-ass.org> wrote in message
> >news:dnppd05o4ar4s16pc...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Liberals also think that pointing out the lies in a "movie" like
> >> Moore's is the same thing as attempted "censorship."
> >
> >Lies such as?
>
> Things that are untrue or never happened. Misleading images pasted
together to
> give a clearly incorrect picture of reality.
>
> Simple things like that. The movie is entirely composed of that sort of
thing.
In other words you're saying he's a liar because he lies and his film is
full of lies because he's a liar. Bravo, Ray. Only a magician could contort
logic in such a fashion. You must have learned do to that from twisting
balloons into animals while working kiddie parties.
Kurt Ullman
wrote:
But Rush hasn't spent a whole bunch of time and effort telling anyone who
listen that the movie is entirely made up of that sort of thing. He announced
yesterday that he wants the DVD out no later than September because he
made the film "to make sure George Bush is not re-elected this fall">
_Direct quote for the AP piece in today's Indy Star.
>
>PJ
>
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
PJ
> In article <UzfDc.112870$eu.67430@attbi_s02>, PJ <autho...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Wendy Chatley Green wrote:
>>>For some inexplicable reasons, PJ <autho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>:Have you seen it, Ray? I'm going tomorrow. I've seen the trailer
>>>:and read arguments on both sides, but I don't think I'll make up
>>>:my mind about what it's composed of until I actually see it for
>>>:myself.
>>>
>>> And, if you don't know what actually happened, how can you
>>>tell if the movie is factual or not? Persuasion is emotional, not
>>>logical.
>>
>>Very true, Wendy. But what I was responding to was Ray's comment
>>that *the movie is entirely composed of that sort of thing.* I
>>think that you'd actually have to see it before making a
>>statement about its composition. To me, that would be the same as
>>if I were criticizing Rush Limbaugh's program without listening
>>to his program. I'd be relying solely on what someone else said,
>>rather than what I'd witnessed for myself.
> But Rush hasn't spent a whole bunch of time and effort telling anyone who
> listen that the movie is entirely made up of that sort of thing.
Did Moore really do that? Seriously? I've read the stuff on his
Web site, and several articles reviewing the movie, but I haven't
heard him admit to "Things that are untrue or never happened.
Misleading images pasted together to give a clearly incorrect
picture of reality. The movie is entirely composed of that sort
of thing," which is what Ray said. If there's an article or
something where he admits to that, I'd like to read it so shoot
it my way.
> He announced yesterday that he wants the DVD out no later than
> September because he made the film "to make sure George Bush
> is not re-elected this fall" _Direct quote for the AP piece in today's
> Indy Star.
I wouldn't doubt that. He doesn't exactly keep his feelings about
Bush to himself. You'd almost think he were a politician!
I'm certainly not endorsing the movie. If it is, in fact, nothing
but made-up lies, then I hope Moore gets slammed for it.
Just bought my tickets for tomorrow's show, so I guess I'll know
more after I see it.
PJ
gekko
misc.writing I see little PJ <autho...@hotmail.com> saying:
> I wouldn't doubt that. He doesn't exactly keep his feelings about
> Bush to himself. You'd almost think he were a politician!
Nonsense. Were he a politician, he'd keep his feelings secret, and
blather on about his *faux* feelings.
Well, unless he were Cheney, in which case he *might* occasionally slip
and reveal his *true* feelings.
--
gekko
Ideologue: noun. Someone who disagrees with the writer on an issue and
is insufficiently apologetic about it. -- Bill Oliver (misc.writing)
Bill Oliver
Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>And you know this because you've seen the movie how many times now,
>Ray? Why don't you give us a specific breakdown of these lies, y'know,
>based on your studious viewings of the movie? Good boy.
>
Oh please.
Michael Moore lied off the block with this one. He lied about his
relationship with Disney in order parade as a false martyr. The lies
in this movie are listed in reviews already posted.
The problem is not that this propaganda piece is a quiltwork of lies.
The problem is that you don't care and you will pretend it's the truth
because there is no such thing as truth or lie to a liberal, only
useful and not useful.
billo
Rick
<bi...@radix.net> wrote:
Oh please, my nerves. You're tripping over your paranoid dogma.
--
Rick
Alan Hope
>The problem is not that this propaganda piece is a quiltwork of lies.
>The problem is that you don't care and you will pretend it's the truth
>because there is no such thing as truth or lie to a liberal, only
>useful and not useful.
Those damn liberals and their propaganda about Salman Pak, WMDs, the
Iraq-9/11 connection. Doesn't matter whether it's true, so long as
it's useful.
Disgraceful. You were one of those dastardly libs droning on about
Salman Pak, weren't you? Do you remember that?
--
AH
Robert McClelland
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:10drofv...@corp.supernews.com...
Do you have an example of one of these lies that are in the film?
Zero
"Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
message news:TMmDc.49598$Nz.25...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote:
> > Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >And you know this because you've seen the movie how many times
> > > now, Ray? Why don't you give us a specific breakdown of these lies,
> > > y'know, based on your studious viewings of the movie? Good boy.
> >
> > Oh please.
> >
> > Michael Moore lied off the block with this one. He lied about his
> > relationship with Disney in order parade as a false martyr. The lies
> > in this movie are listed in reviews already posted.
> >
> > The problem is not that this propaganda piece is a quiltwork of lies.
> > The problem is that you don't care and you will pretend it's the truth
> > because there is no such thing as truth or lie to a liberal, only
> > useful and not useful.
>
> Do you have an example of one of these lies that are in the film?
obvously, in a word: "no."
case closed.
Billo, you may leave the witness stand, yet ahain.
thanks so much for your usual duhfully biased test-i-money.
anyway, don't lose heart Robert. give it a few weeks and all
the "lies" you ever wanted about the film will be manufactured
to order.
no doubt there's probably some irrelevant minutia that can
be dredged up to discredit the gist of the truth of the film.
it just takes lotsa time, and lotsa money, and lotsa obsessive
energy to find same.
is Ken Starr busy?
anyway, i can't reaaly comment objectively on the film yet,
because i haven't seen it yet.
it's sold out in every one of the theatres its playing in.
(as few as were "allowed" to show it, that is.)
so... let's see how the "free marketplace" *really* works, huh?
-$Zero... ImagineSomethingYouHaven'tThoughtOfYet...
Introducing:
Unicornian Mathematics, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/3do56
Bill Oliver
There are a zillion. One that immediately comes to mind without even
searching the URLs is the claim that Bush approved flights out of the
US for the Bin Laden family to fly out immediately 9/11 without being
them being vetted or interviewed. This is a lie on two counts. It is
a lie that Bush gave approval (approval was given by Richard Clarke
without asking Bush) and it is a lie that they were not vetted or
interviewed. The claim that Bush spend 42% of his first two years on
vacation is a lie. Michael Moore's claim that the CIA trained Bin
Laden is a lie. Michael Moore claimed that the Saddam regime never
threatened or killed an American; this is a lie.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
There is, in fact, nothing about Michael Moore that he does not
lie about in the name of self-promotion. He lies about where
he lives to provide a false sense of being one of the hoi-polloi.
He lies about the financing of the film in order to falsely
play the martyr. He fabricates interviews from whole cloth
( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)
in order to lie about others.
And you don't care, because you choose the lie.
billo
Ejucaided Redneck
> There are a zillion. One that immediately comes to mind without even
> searching the URLs is the claim that Bush approved flights out of the
> US for the Bin Laden family to fly out immediately 9/11 without being
> them being vetted or interviewed. This is a lie on two counts. It is
> a lie that Bush gave approval (approval was given by Richard Clarke
> without asking Bush) and it is a lie that they were not vetted or
> interviewed.
"TIA now verifies flight of Saudis," St. Petersburg Times, 6/9/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1681859&l=42267.
> Michael Moore's claim that the CIA trained Bin Laden is a lie.
I saw the film yesterday and don't recall this statement. You sure it's
in the film? There is some talk about the CIA arming bin Laden, when he
was one of our boys gallantly trying to drive the Russians out of
Afghanistan.
>Michael Moore claimed that the Saddam regime never threatened or
> killed an American; this is a lie.
What I recall from the film is the regime never "murdered" an American.
--
Nobody can help it if Ronald Reagan
was a pretty boy with a crinkly grin
and the brains of a boot.
-- Archer, in his blog
--
http://www.bobsloansampler.com:
Chapter 1 of "Home Call," a novel to be released July 1st
Links to and about "Bearskin to Holly Fork: Stories From Appalachia,"
Latest Herald-Leader Column: http://tinyurl.com/2amz7
Fiction, poetry, essays, MP3s, radio & TV interviews
Bill Oliver
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>
>> There are a zillion. One that immediately comes to mind without even
>> searching the URLs is the claim that Bush approved flights out of the
>> US for the Bin Laden family to fly out immediately 9/11 without being
>> them being vetted or interviewed. This is a lie on two counts. It is
>> a lie that Bush gave approval (approval was given by Richard Clarke
>> without asking Bush) and it is a lie that they were not vetted or
>> interviewed.
>
>"TIA now verifies flight of Saudis," St. Petersburg Times, 6/9/04,
>http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1681859&l=42267.
>
The question was not whether or not the Saudis flied, but
the circumstances of the flight. The claim was that Bush
ordered the flight without vetting or interview. That
is a lie on two counts.
billo
Ejucaided Redneck
> The question was not whether or not the Saudis flied, but
> the circumstances of the flight. The claim was that Bush
> ordered the flight without vetting or interview. That
> is a lie on two counts.
I don't recall that a charge that Shrub ordered the flight, but rather a
report that it happened.
--
We cannot let terriers and rogue
nations hold this nation hostile or
hold our allies hostile."
-- Shrub, Aug. 21, 2000
Ray Haddad
On local SBS (sort of like PBS on steroids) they aired segments of it long
before all the current hoopla. Michael Moore had a program on that station and
it was of local interest.
I have not seen the entire movie but I have seen nearly 20 minutes and sill have
it on tape (I think).
Then, naturally enough, when the Cannes Film Festival was reported on the same
channel, it was aired again.
Rick
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> On local SBS (sort of like PBS on steroids) they aired segments of it long
> before all the current hoopla. Michael Moore had a program on that station and
> it was of local interest.
>
> I have not seen the entire movie but I have seen nearly 20 minutes and sill
> have
> it on tape (I think).
>
> Then, naturally enough, when the Cannes Film Festival was reported on the same
> channel, it was aired again.
In other words, you haven't seen it yet.
--
Rick
Robert McClelland
> In article <TMmDc.49598$Nz.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> There are a zillion. One that immediately comes to mind without even
> searching the URLs is the claim that Bush approved flights out of the
> US for the Bin Laden family to fly out immediately 9/11 without being
> them being vetted or interviewed. This is a lie on two counts. It is
> a lie that Bush gave approval (approval was given by Richard Clarke
> without asking Bush) and it is a lie that they were not vetted or
> interviewed.
The only lie here, Billo, is yours. I suggest you see the movie for yourself
instead of relying on right whinge retards to pass on bogus info to you.
What Fahrenheit 9/11 Says About the Saudi Flights Out of the Country After
September 11
WHAT THE FILM SAYS:
Sen. Byron Dorgan: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of
our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others
from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Narration: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the
bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly
two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin ladens out of the
U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the
bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes
reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before
they were allowed to leave.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/index.php
Robert McClelland
> lie about in the name of self-promotion. He lies about where
> he lives to provide a false sense of being one of the hoi-polloi.
> He lies about the financing of the film in order to falsely
> play the martyr. He fabricates interviews from whole cloth
> (
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)
> in order to lie about others.
Why do you automatically assume this guy is telling the truth and Moore is
lying? Do you even consider the possibility that this guy has an agenda?
>
> And you don't care, because you choose the lie.
I want you right whingers to back up your accusations with facts for once.
Plus, it's you who believes Moore is a liar while I have not made any claims
that he isn't.
Ray Haddad
Yes. I have.
Zero
[...snip predictable obsessive desperation to discredit the overall
truth...]
> And you don't care, because you choose the lie.
whoa.
i've never seen a more apt description of oneself directed at others.
anyway, as is his SOP:
Billo "proves" that if there is no paper trail,
one can claim *everything* is a lie.
and/or that
paper trails = truth.
like... yikes.
but thankfully...
what is True is True.
what is True is beyond selective spin.
and always will be.
-$Zero... ImagineSomethingYouHaven'tThoughtOfYet...
[articulating the greatest, most
important commandment of all]
"Love God!
(and your neighbors...)"
-- Jesus
[Matthew 22:35-40, Luke 10:25-28,
Mark 12:29-31, Deuteronomy 6:5-9,
Exodus 20:1-7, etc.]
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:10ds6ap...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <TMmDc.49598$Nz.25...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>>
>> There is, in fact, nothing about Michael Moore that he does not
>> lie about in the name of self-promotion. He lies about where
>> he lives to provide a false sense of being one of the hoi-polloi.
>> He lies about the financing of the film in order to falsely
>> play the martyr. He fabricates interviews from whole cloth
>> (
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)
>> in order to lie about others.
>
>Why do you automatically assume this guy is telling the truth and Moore is
>lying? Do you even consider the possibility that this guy has an agenda?
>
Because Moore has such a long and established history of lying. Why
do you assume that a person who is a compulsive liar is, in this
particular instance, telling the truth, as opposed to embracing the
hope that someone who has a history truth must be, in this particular
instance, lying?
But go ahead and embrace the lie, Robert. It's what you do.
billo
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes
>reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before
>they were allowed to leave.
>http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/index.php
>
The Moore camp's stories change as their lies are uncovered. It's
like Michael Moore's claim about his arrangement with Disney. That
he later admitted it was a false claim does not mean he didn't lie
initially.
Here's a clue, Robert. Changing your story after being caught in
a lie is not the same as telling the truth. That's something you
and Moore can't seem to comprehend.
billo
Wendy Chatley Green
:This assertion is also incorrect. In fact, the film claims that
:42% of Bush's first eight months in office were spent on
:vacation. This statistic or may not be correct, but it was taken
:from the Washington Post.
On vacation = not doing any work or
on vacation = not at the White House?
In this day of instantaneous communication with so many people working
off-site, having the president (or any one else) away from the office
even 42% of the time isn't that big a deal.
Robert McClelland
What lies, billo? So far we've clearly established that the only lies are
your misrepresentations of what is in Moore's work.
Robert McClelland
Their story doesn't change, your accusations do. Even when the truth of what
is in the film is rubbed in your face you cling to belief that Moore made
claims that he didn't.
Zero
message news:m9qtd0t94pd21k3og...@4ax.com...
>Paul Harwood <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote:
>
> :This assertion is also incorrect. In fact, the film claims that
> :42% of Bush's first eight months in office were spent on
> :vacation. This statistic or may not be correct, but it was taken
> :from the Washington Post.
Gawd. here comes Wendicons, selectively defending behavior [X], yet again.
today's installment?
X = irresponsible slacker presidents.
> On vacation = not doing any work or
>
> on vacation = not at the White House?
>
> In this day of instantaneous communication with so many people
> working off-site, having the president (or any one else) away from
> the office even 42% of the time isn't that big a deal.
not that big a deal? yikes.
be sure to tell that to the families and friends of those
3000+ needlessly killed on 9/11.
for a guy who campaigned heavily on increasing the military
budget, Bushole sure was asleep at the wheel, no?
or maybe not.
anyway, he certainly delivered on his campaign "promise."
increased military spending (while on vacation).
what a swell guy.
...
a uniter, not a divider. yep. indeed.
a "compassionate" conservative.
whoa.
-$Zero... ImagineSomethingYouHaven'tThoughtOfYet...
Ejucaided Redneck
One of the more amusing –and telling-- moments in F9/11 comes when
Shrub, on his extended vacation, points out the advantages of
instantaneous communication. Then, asked what he'll be actually working
on "at the ranch," he stumbles and mumbles around looking for an answer,
which he does not have.
The film effetively and convincingly depicts our court-appointed
Preident like object as an affable , clueless buffoon.
--
I'd rather be fat than pick
the cheese off a pizza.
-- "Galaine," a genuine southern lady,
writing about the Atkins diet.
Kurt Ullman
>The film effetively and convincingly depicts our court-appointed
>Preident like object as an affable , clueless buffoon.
>
You misspelt duly elected.
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
Alan Hope
>The Moore camp's stories change as their lies are uncovered. It's
>like Michael Moore's claim about his arrangement with Disney. That
>he later admitted it was a false claim does not mean he didn't lie
>initially.
>Here's a clue, Robert. Changing your story after being caught in
>a lie is not the same as telling the truth. That's something you
>and Moore can't seem to comprehend.
So what's your story now about Salman Pak, and the terrorist training
facilities there, and the Iraqi major? Are you admitting those claims
were false? Does that mean you lied, or were you simply mistaken?
--
AH
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Their story doesn't change, your accusations do. Even when the truth of what
>is in the film is rubbed in your face you cling to belief that Moore made
>claims that he didn't.
>
Bullshit.
http://www.thehill.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx
billo
Bill Oliver
No, the claims were not false. In fact, the proof of the ties between
Saddam and Al Qaeda are better documented today than they were before,
with the recent finding by the UN and the revelations by the Russians.
The only thing that has happened is that you and your friends have
lied about what the 9/11 commission found.
billo
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>What lies, billo? So far we've clearly established that the only lies are
>your misrepresentations of what is in Moore's work.
>
OK, since you ignore everything else to pretend that when Moore
says "White House" Moore he doesn't mean Bush, let's stick to one
single lie before we move to the next.
How do you explain away Moore's false claims about his
relationship with Disney?
After you try to swim your way out of that, we'll move on
to the next, one by one.
billo
Bill Oliver
Ejucaided Redneck <rls...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Bill Oliver wrote:
>
>> The question was not whether or not the Saudis flied, but
>> the circumstances of the flight. The claim was that Bush
>> ordered the flight without vetting or interview. That
>> is a lie on two counts.
>
>I don't recall that a charge that Shrub ordered the flight, but rather a
>report that it happened.
>
You and Robert need to get your stories straight.
billo
Alan Hope
>In article <sm0ud01q5rjsfa3jp...@4ax.com>,
>Alan Hope <alan...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>Bill Oliver goes:
>>>The Moore camp's stories change as their lies are uncovered. It's
>>>like Michael Moore's claim about his arrangement with Disney. That
>>>he later admitted it was a false claim does not mean he didn't lie
>>>initially.
>>>Here's a clue, Robert. Changing your story after being caught in
>>>a lie is not the same as telling the truth. That's something you
>>>and Moore can't seem to comprehend.
>>So what's your story now about Salman Pak, and the terrorist training
>>facilities there, and the Iraqi major? Are you admitting those claims
>>were false? Does that mean you lied, or were you simply mistaken?
>No, the claims were not false. In fact, the proof of the ties between
>Saddam and Al Qaeda are better documented today than they were before,
>with the recent finding by the UN and the revelations by the Russians.
That's not what I asked. Where are the terrorist training camps? You
specifically said Salman Pak was one. You cited evidence given by a
defected former colonel, whose name was Sabah Khalifa Khodada al-Lami.
Where's the evidence?
>The only thing that has happened is that you and your friends have
>lied about what the 9/11 commission found.
Lied like Chalabi? Lied like Khidhir Hamza who said Saddam was within
a year of producing a nuclear bomb? That's the scientist who defected
in 1994, you'll remember.
You're on very difficult ground to talk about anyone else lying in
this matter, billo. Your government lied and lied and lied, and you
bought it like a chump, and copied the lies for yourself. Do you now
repudiate what you then claimed?
--
AH
Bill Oliver
Paul Harwood <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:48:25 -0000, Bill Oliver said in
>misc.writing:
>
><Lies in Fahrenheit 9/11?>
>
>>There are a zillion. One that immediately comes to mind without even
>>searching the URLs is the claim that Bush approved flights out of the
>>US for the Bin Laden family to fly out immediately 9/11 without being
>>them being vetted or interviewed.
>
>assertion being made.
>
>Just checked. Your assertion about the film is incorrect. In
>fact, the film claims that the White House, not Bush, approved
>the flights, and is quite clear that they were interviewed,
>albeit briefly, prior to departure. The omission, according to
>the film, was that they were not retained in the US under
>subpoena for a more thorough and detailed investigation.
>
>>This is a lie on two counts. It is
>>a lie that Bush gave approval (approval was given by Richard Clarke
>>without asking Bush) and it is a lie that they were not vetted or
>>interviewed.
>
>
Ah, I see. So by "White House," Moore did not mean Bush. Heh.
I guess it all depends on what "is" is, doesn't it? And it is
not stated that they were vetted. Quite the opposite.
>>The claim that Bush spend 42% of his first two years on
>>vacation is a lie.
>
>This assertion is also incorrect. In fact, the film claims that
>42% of Bush's first eight months in office were spent on
>vacation. This statistic or may not be correct, but it was taken
>from the Washington Post.
>
Sorry, then the lie is that he spent 42% of his first eight
months on vacation. It is a lie.
>I don't recall this claim being made in the movie.
>
>>Michael Moore claimed that the Saddam regime never
>>threatened or killed an American; this is a lie.
>
>I do recall something about this, but I think there was more to
>the claim. I think the claim added "on American soil", but I'm
>not sure. Time to see the movie again!
>
Uh huh.
>>He lies about where
>>he lives to provide a false sense of being one of the hoi-polloi.
>
>Not aware of this. I'd be interested in reading your source.
>
It's his Playboy interview.
>>He lies about the financing of the film in order to falsely
>>play the martyr.
>
>You're talking here about Disney pulling out as distributor? If
>so, I believe it was not Moore but Miramax who leaked the story
>to the Post.
>
God, you guys will say anything to protect the lies. Moore not
only made the claim, but tried to blame *it* on Jeb Bush:
see: http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-05-05-disney-moore_x.htm
Moore blasted the decision Wednesday, accusing the studio of dumping
the film out of fear that the documentary will anger Bush's brother,
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and endanger tax breaks the company receives
in Florida.
The only thing worse than Moore lies are his devout apologists pretend
he doesn't say what he says.
>>He fabricates interviews from whole cloth
>>( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)
>>in order to lie about others.
>
>Interesting stuff. I wonder what the complete story is.
>
>Or do you assume that Barnes is telling the pure and unvarnished
>truth, while Moore tells nothing but lies?
>
Oh, I am sure that Moore tells the truth now and then; there's
just no way to tell which is which. On one hand, Moore has
many, many documented self-serving lies. Barnes does not. You
want to choose to believe the compulsive liar and say that the
many people who say they have not been interviewed or have been
misrepresented are all liars,go for it. It's your choice.
>>And you don't care, because you choose the lie.
>
>No need to get personal here ...
>
Hey, you are the one choosing to be the apologist for lies. If
you don't like lies, stop trying to cover for them.
billo
Robert McClelland
> In article <FPBDc.1555$207....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Their story doesn't change, your accusations do. Even when the truth of
what
> >is in the film is rubbed in your face you cling to belief that Moore made
> >claims that he didn't.
> >
>
> Bullshit.
Bullshit is right, billo. Show me where Moore claims that Bush is
responsible for setting up or ordering the Saudis to be hustled out of the
US. You can't, because it's not true. Face it billo, you can't catch Moore
in a lie so you lie about what he said and then claim he lied.
>
>
> http://www.thehill.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx
Robert McClelland
> In article <NNBDc.1552$207....@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >What lies, billo? So far we've clearly established that the only lies are
> >your misrepresentations of what is in Moore's work.
> >
>
> OK, since you ignore everything else to pretend that when Moore
> says "White House" Moore he doesn't mean Bush, let's stick to one
> single lie before we move to the next.
>
> How do you explain away Moore's false claims about his
> relationship with Disney?
First you'll have to tell me what you think Moore is claiming about his
relationship with Disney and why that is a lie.
Robert McClelland
Sorry billo, but we do have our stories straight. You claimed that Moore
claims Bush ordered the Saudis to be hustled out of the US. ER and I both
say that no such claim was made in the film.
Robert McClelland
>
> Hey, you are the one choosing to be the apologist for lies. If
> you don't like lies, stop trying to cover for them.
Nobody is apologising for you and your lies, billo.
Bill Oliver
Alan Hope <alan...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>>>>Here's a clue, Robert. Changing your story after being caught in
>>>>a lie is not the same as telling the truth. That's something you
>>>>and Moore can't seem to comprehend.
>
>>>So what's your story now about Salman Pak, and the terrorist training
>>>facilities there, and the Iraqi major? Are you admitting those claims
>>>were false? Does that mean you lied, or were you simply mistaken?
>
>>No, the claims were not false. In fact, the proof of the ties between
>>Saddam and Al Qaeda are better documented today than they were before,
>>with the recent finding by the UN and the revelations by the Russians.
>
>That's not what I asked. Where are the terrorist training camps? You
>specifically said Salman Pak was one. You cited evidence given by a
>defected former colonel, whose name was Sabah Khalifa Khodada al-Lami.
>Where's the evidence?
>
OK, since we agree, then about the close ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda,
and you are *only* asking about the terrorist training facility
at Salman Pak, then the answer is still "No, the claims are not
false."
Not only is the proof of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda better documented
than ever before, but there have been more witnesses than Al Lami that
have discussed the training that went on there.
>>The only thing that has happened is that you and your friends have
>>lied about what the 9/11 commission found.
>
>Lied like Chalabi? Lied like Khidhir Hamza who said Saddam was within
>a year of producing a nuclear bomb? That's the scientist who defected
>in 1994, you'll remember.
>
>You're on very difficult ground to talk about anyone else lying in
>this matter, billo. Your government lied and lied and lied, and you
>bought it like a chump, and copied the lies for yourself. Do you now
>repudiate what you then claimed?
>
No, my government didn't lie and lie. My government used the intelligence
it had. And, in fact, while like all intelligence, it was not perfect,
it is being proven more true than false. The ties between Saddam and
Al Qaeda, so bitterly called "lies" by the blame-America-firsters are
better documented today than ever before. The chemical and biological
weapons programs are not only better documented, but their dispersal
to other parts of the Middle East is documented by the UN. The nuclear
program you pretend didn't exist is also showing up. See:
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13416-2004Apr14¬Found=true
And, after the Putin's disclosure, the blame-America-first claims
that Saddam was not targeting the US are also once again shown to
be false:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/21/001.html
billo
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>First you'll have to tell me what you think Moore is claiming about his
>relationship with Disney and why that is a lie.
>
Heh. Gave up already, have you?
Michael Moore claimed that he was unaware that Disney would
not distribute his film, and when it was announced claimed
that he only found out about it then and was shocked, just
shocked at the attempt at censorship. He then blamed it on
Jeb Bush.
Later, when Disney provided documents that showed that they
had discussed this with Moore over a year ago, Moore admitted
that he had lied.
see: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901
billo
billo
doyle
news:ho4ud0tncnkir347q...@4ax.com...
> I think the most telling part of the film was Bush, sitting in
> that Florida classroom for seven minutes after the second tower
> had been hit, having been informed that the US was under attack,
> and clearly not having a clue what the hell to do.
BUSH AT WAR (Bob Woodward) and FIGHTING BACK (Bill Sammon) both provide a
completely different perspective, Paul. But what the heck. MM "said" it so
it must be true, right?
Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would have been that
he'd panicked.
--
Donna
-----------
Robert McClelland
> In article <9qEDc.1650$207.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >First you'll have to tell me what you think Moore is claiming about his
> >relationship with Disney and why that is a lie.
> >
>
>
> Heh. Gave up already, have you?
>
> Michael Moore claimed that he was unaware that Disney would
> not distribute his film, and when it was announced claimed
> that he only found out about it then and was shocked, just
> shocked at the attempt at censorship. He then blamed it on
> Jeb Bush.
>
> Later, when Disney provided documents that showed that they
> had discussed this with Moore over a year ago, Moore admitted
> that he had lied.
Nice try again, billo, but what Moore actually claimed was this.
Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has
officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my
new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New
York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney
receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the
Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-05-04
Moore says that it became official, not that he'd never heard of it. Plus,
it was the NY Times that made the claim that it was in part because of Jeb
Bush.
So once again you are misrepresenting what Moore claimed in order to accuse
him of lying.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:19:38 -0400, doyle said in misc.writing:
> >But what the heck. MM "said" it so it must be true, right?
>
> No, this isn't something that Moore said. It's something he
> showed. Bush was caught on videotape by a teacher who was in the
> classroom when Bush received word that America was under attack,
> and Moore has included the tape in his film. Minutes tick by, and
> there's Bush, this blank look on his face, shifting his weight
> from time to time, kind of looking like he really wished someone
> would tell him what to do.
Don't know if it's still there, but once upon a time the Memory Hole
(http://www.memoryhle.org) had the whole seven minute video on line.
--
So let's sing of old Buddha
And the wonders of Zen
We'll meet in Nirvana,
Yes we'll be there then.
-- Mark Graham ("Zen Gospel Singing")
Alan Hope
>In article <2g4ud09ii1j9pppl0...@4ax.com>,
>Alan Hope <alan...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>>>>Here's a clue, Robert. Changing your story after being caught in
>>>>>a lie is not the same as telling the truth. That's something you
>>>>>and Moore can't seem to comprehend.
>>>>So what's your story now about Salman Pak, and the terrorist training
>>>>facilities there, and the Iraqi major? Are you admitting those claims
>>>>were false? Does that mean you lied, or were you simply mistaken?
>>>No, the claims were not false. In fact, the proof of the ties between
>>>Saddam and Al Qaeda are better documented today than they were before,
>>>with the recent finding by the UN and the revelations by the Russians.
>>That's not what I asked. Where are the terrorist training camps? You
>>specifically said Salman Pak was one. You cited evidence given by a
>>defected former colonel, whose name was Sabah Khalifa Khodada al-Lami.
>>Where's the evidence?
>OK, since we agree, then about the close ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda,
>and you are *only* asking about the terrorist training facility
>at Salman Pak, then the answer is still "No, the claims are not
>false."
Where's the evidence?
>Not only is the proof of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda better documented
>than ever before, but there have been more witnesses than Al Lami that
>have discussed the training that went on there.
Discussed? What about "proved"? Where's the evidence?
>>>The only thing that has happened is that you and your friends have
>>>lied about what the 9/11 commission found.
>>Lied like Chalabi? Lied like Khidhir Hamza who said Saddam was within
>>a year of producing a nuclear bomb? That's the scientist who defected
>>in 1994, you'll remember.
>>You're on very difficult ground to talk about anyone else lying in
>>this matter, billo. Your government lied and lied and lied, and you
>>bought it like a chump, and copied the lies for yourself. Do you now
>>repudiate what you then claimed?
>No, my government didn't lie and lie. My government used the intelligence
>it had. And, in fact, while like all intelligence, it was not perfect,
>it is being proven more true than false. The ties between Saddam and
>Al Qaeda, so bitterly called "lies" by the blame-America-firsters are
>better documented today than ever before.
Such as?
>The chemical and biological
>weapons programs are not only better documented, but their dispersal
>to other parts of the Middle East is documented by the UN. The nuclear
>program you pretend didn't exist is also showing up. See:
>www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13416-2004Apr14¬Found=true
In the Washington Post? Sorry, I asked for evidence, not gossip.
>And, after the Putin's disclosure, the blame-America-first claims
>that Saddam was not targeting the US are also once again shown to
>be false:
>http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/21/001.html
I made no reference to that. Where's the evidence for the claims *you*
made?
None in this post, that I can see. Perhaps you're planning a
mini-series, with a denouement somewhere down the line?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Paul Harwood" <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote in message
>news:ho4ud0tncnkir347q...@4ax.com...
>> I think the most telling part of the film was Bush, sitting in
>> that Florida classroom for seven minutes after the second tower
>> had been hit, having been informed that the US was under attack,
>> and clearly not having a clue what the hell to do.
>BUSH AT WAR (Bob Woodward) and FIGHTING BACK (Bill Sammon) both provide a
>completely different perspective, Paul. But what the heck. MM "said" it so
>it must be true, right?
Moore has nothing to do with it. Here -- http://tinyurl.com/fobx -- is
a timeline of that morning in Sarasota based on reports more
contemporaneous than the spin later fed to Woodward and Sammon. Bush
most likely knew of the first attack before even going into the
school, and certainly before going into the classroom. Hence his
garbled account of watching it on TV in the corridor (he didn't: there
was no TV and no footage). Andrew Card came in to tell him of the
*second* attack at 0905-0907. Bush stayed put. America is under
attack, but he stayed for another reading drill, then made some
"remarks" at 0930.
>Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would have been that
>he'd panicked.
The panic came later, when he scuttled all over the country before
getting back to his post.
How come Cheney was bustled into a bunker the minute events became
clear, but Bush was allowed to go on sitting in a classroom full of
kids at a pre-announced location? Weren't they worried about America
being under attack?
--
AH
doyle
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 15:19:38 -0400, doyle said in misc.writing:
>
> >news:ho4ud0tncnkir347q...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> I think the most telling part of the film was Bush, sitting in
> >> that Florida classroom for seven minutes after the second tower
> >> had been hit, having been informed that the US was under attack,
> >> and clearly not having a clue what the hell to do.
> >
> >BUSH AT WAR (Bob Woodward) and FIGHTING BACK (Bill Sammon) both provide a
> >completely different perspective, Paul.
>
Do. Both cover approximately the same period, yet are done differently.
Woodward is more the reporter while Sammon goes into more personal detail.
Considered together, both authors working independently, each can be used as
authentication in what the other has written.
> >But what the heck. MM "said" it so it must be true, right?
>
> No, this isn't something that Moore said.
Note the quotation thingies?
> It's something he
> showed. Bush was caught on videotape by a teacher who was in the
> classroom when Bush received word that America was under attack,
> and Moore has included the tape in his film. Minutes tick by, and
> there's Bush, this blank look on his face, shifting his weight
> from time to time, kind of looking like he really wished someone
> would tell him what to do.
I don't remember which and quite possibly and probably it could be both of
the books, Bush was absorbing the information Card had relayed and reacting
on several levels. One was the realization that he was commander of a
nation now at war; the other, that with all eyes on him his actions would
relay a message for others (including the children in the classroom) to
follow of either panic or calm.
> >Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would have been
that
> >he'd panicked.
>
> I don't know about you, but, were I to be informed that, oh, say,
> my child was under attack, I'd drop whatever I was doing and try
> to find out what was going on. Sitting there for seven minutes
> would be out of the question.
Different strokes for different folks, Paul. I go into . . . lockdown,
taking care of business with the outward appearance of calm organization
even if what's going on inside me is the complete opposite. I'm sorting
through stuff, setting priorities and tossing aside extraneous things, in
order to focus.
Afterwards, when everything's taken care of, I come completely unglued. But
that's just me.
Except for that time a neighbor's Pitbull went after Da Kid. No outward
calm, no thought. Guess I teleported because I had been in one place, and
the next thing I knew I was standing between my son and that %&*(&^ dog --
hoe poised like a Samurai's sword -- screaming all kinds of nasty things at
it.
--
Donna
---------
ing
> "Paul Harwood" <pa...@wrevel.com> wrote in message
> news:ho4ud0tncnkir347q...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>I think the most telling part of the film was Bush, sitting in
>>that Florida classroom for seven minutes after the second tower
>>had been hit, having been informed that the US was under attack,
>>and clearly not having a clue what the hell to do.
>
>
> BUSH AT WAR (Bob Woodward) and FIGHTING BACK (Bill Sammon) both provide a
> completely different perspective, Paul. But what the heck. MM "said" it so
> it must be true, right?
Am not familiar with the Sammon book, but bought
and read "Bush at War" when it came out.
Excerpt from first page of Chapter 2 -
Bush at War, by Bob Woodward:
"President Bush was reading to second
graders at the Emma E. Booker Elementary
School in Sarasota, Florida when Rove brought
him the news that a plane had hit the North
Tower of the World Trade Center. At first it
seemed it might be an accident, pilot error
or maybe, Bush thought, the pilot had had a
heart attack. [.....]
"Andrew H. Card Jr., 55, Bush's chief of staff
and a former WH aide to Reagan and Bush senior,
soon interrupted the president and whispered
directly into his right ear, 'a second plane
hit the second tower. America is under attack'.
"A photo of that moment is etched for history.
The President's hands are folded formally in
his lap, his head turned to hear Card's words.
His face has a distant sober look, almost
frozen, edging on bewilderment. Bush remembers
exactly what he was thinking: 'They had
declared war on us, and I made up; my mind at
that moment that we were going to war'".
[end excerpt]
So, if by a "completely different perspective" you
mean that Woodward doesn't address, at all, the
7-minute time lapse between Bush hearing the news
and his moving off his chair, then you'd be correct.
I've read the book closely -- if there's a second
reference to how Bush received the news that
morning, and the time lapse that followed, I
missed it. If there is one, could you point it out?
> Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would have been that
> he'd panicked.
No, I don't think so. Americans have a right to
expect their leader to excuse himself from what
he's doing, pretty much immediately, on hearing
the words "America is under attack" from his chief
of staff.
Besides, the video footage is powerful as hell.
It speaks for itself. The pres just sits there.
ing
Kurt Ullman
<ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Excerpt from first page of Chapter 2 -
>Bush at War, by Bob Woodward:
>
>"President Bush was reading to second
>graders at the Emma E. Booker Elementary
>School in Sarasota, Florida when Rove brought
>him the news that a plane had hit the North
>Tower of the World Trade Center. At first it
>seemed it might be an accident, pilot error
>or maybe, Bush thought, the pilot had had a
>heart attack. [.....]
>
>So, if by a "completely different perspective" you
>mean that Woodward doesn't address, at all, the
>7-minute time lapse between Bush hearing the news
>and his moving off his chair, then you'd be correct.
>
Of course he addressed it. THe part about it might being an error,
etc. until Rove came in for the second time. If I followed your thought
correctly, always a concern after about the third erply in a thread.
>> Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would have been that
>> he'd panicked.
>
>Besides, the video footage is powerful as hell.
>It speaks for itself. The pres just sits there.
>
When? Before or after Rove's second appearance.
Up until, there wasn't much for him to since it could have been accident, etc.
--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes
pandora
> misc.writing:
>
> >One of the more amusing -and telling-- moments in F9/11 comes when
> >Shrub, on his extended vacation, points out the advantages of
> >instantaneous communication. Then, asked what he'll be actually working
> >on "at the ranch," he stumbles and mumbles around looking for an answer,
> >which he does not have.
>
> I agree, it was hilarious. I think it went something along the
> following lines:
>
> Reporter <to Bush, in his cowboy clothes>: Mr. President, how do
> you respond to the charge that you spend too much time on
> vacation?
>
> Bush <with that sly grin and twinkle>: In the era of the FAX
> machine, and, uh, e-mail, and stuff, lots of work can be done
> outside of Washington. So and so <female political advisor whose
> name I've forgotten> is dropping by this afternoon and we're
> going to get some stuff done.
>
> Reporter: What will you be working on?
>
> Bush <flustered>: Oh, she'll be bringing ... uh ... some folders.
> And things. Important things. We're doing important things.
> You'll read all about it.
>
> >The film effetively and convincingly depicts our court-appointed
> >Preident like object as an affable , clueless buffoon.
>
> I think the most telling part of the film was Bush, sitting in
> that Florida classroom for seven minutes after the second tower
> had been hit, having been informed that the US was under attack,
> and clearly not having a clue what the hell to do.
>
Marg
> --
> Paul Harwood
pandora
"doyle" <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:I1FDc.531$O3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Really? Lots of people don't know the difference between reacting and
panicking? I'm just shocked!
Marg
> --
> Donna
> -----------
>
>
Marc L.
news:NNBDc.1552$207....@news20.bellglobal.com:
> What lies, billo? So far we've clearly established that the only
> lies are your misrepresentations of what is in Moore's work.
>
Don't ask, Billo seems the kind that believes if you repeat the
same lie enough times it becomes the truth.
--
Marc
http://www.marcmywords.com
- Natural laws have no pity.
doyle
news:7VGDc.2840$Ax1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
I mentioned two books, Ing, one of which you've said you haven't read. And
in a subsequent reply to Paul's post, this one you are replying to, I
mentioned how each is different but compliments the other in providing a
more complete picture.
I suggest you read the other one, too.
> > Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would have been
that
> > he'd panicked.
>
> No, I don't think so.
Of course you don't.
> Americans have a right to
> expect their leader to excuse himself from what
> he's doing, pretty much immediately, on hearing
> the words "America is under attack" from his chief
> of staff.
>
> Besides, the video footage is powerful as hell.
> It speaks for itself. The pres just sits there.
Unlike you, Ing, I don't single-source or accept as fact information simply
because it agrees with my existing views. Alma taught me better than that a
LONG time ago.
--
Donna
-----------
Marc L.
> I don't know about you, but, were I to be informed that, oh, say,
> my child was under attack, I'd drop whatever I was doing and try
> to find out what was going on. Sitting there for seven minutes
> would be out of the question.
>
Big difference here though. I remember sitting in front of my TV
stunned once I realized what occured. At first I thought I had turned
the tv on a disaster movie. So stunned, that I could do nothing but
sit there watching.
When you hear that your child suffers from an attack, you know
how to respond. This, very different.
--
Marc
http://www.marcmywords.com
- Say it with flowers... Give her a triffid.
Marc L.
@corp.supernews.com:
> Ah, I see. So by "White House," Moore did not mean Bush.
Hypocrite, you yourself point out that the White House did it,
not Bush. So why does it have to be Bush that Moore meant when he
wrote "White House?" I know, because you like making him look bad.
--
Marc
http://www.marcmywords.com
- From the Department of Redundancy Department
Marc L.
>>Ah, I see. So by "White House," Moore did not mean Bush. Heh.
>
> I assume he meant "White House".
>
> Do you not differentiate between the President and his staff?
> Just curious.
>
Not only does he, but he did in the post that you just responded
to.
--
Marc
http://www.marcmywords.com
- Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In article <260620040330023378%ric...@nyc.rr.com>,
>Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>And you know this because you've seen the movie how many times now,
>>Ray? Why don't you give us a specific breakdown of these lies, y'know,
>>based on your studious viewings of the movie? Good boy.
>>
>
>Oh please.
>
>Michael Moore lied off the block with this one. He lied about his
>relationship with Disney in order parade as a false martyr. The lies
>in this movie are listed in reviews already posted.
>
>The problem is not that this propaganda piece is a quiltwork of lies.
>The problem is that you don't care and you will pretend it's the truth
>because there is no such thing as truth or lie to a liberal, only
>useful and not useful.
>
I'm a bit late to this argument, Billo. I hope you'll forgive me. It's
using this newsreader. Means I miss threads of interest sometimes.
Now, I'd like to know what lies Moore has been telling. To allow me to
easily spot them, I've created a whole new thread.
I've often indulged you in this group, Bill, so I'm asking you to
indulge me this one time. Post specifics in this thread. Lies Moore
has told in his film. Actual lies, mind, not just things you don't
agree with.
It's open to your fellow right-wing liars, too. Remember, though,
Kkklutz, you must spell yours correctly or it will be binned. I'm
afraid I won't make an exception even for this thread.
Now, if I see some lies, I will prove you wrong by stating that I
disapprove of the lying fat fuck. (Unless the lies are posted by the
haddad, of course.)
But if I don't, I will be letting you know what a fucking hypocrite
you are.
Zen
Dr Zen
wrote:
>In article <D6rDc.53020$Nz.26...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes
>>reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before
>>they were allowed to leave.
>>http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/index.php
>>
>
>
>The Moore camp's stories change as their lies are uncovered.
Is this Clarke guy not in the White House then?
If what Robert quotes is correct, the film claims the White House
approved it, not Bush.
So, I'm seeing one lie, so far: yours, about what the film said or
didn't say.
>It's
>like Michael Moore's claim about his arrangement with Disney. That
>he later admitted it was a false claim does not mean he didn't lie
>initially.
>
We are not discussing what Moore did or didn't say about Disney.
We are discussing *his film*. Lies in his film.
>Here's a clue, Robert. Changing your story after being caught in
>a lie is not the same as telling the truth. That's something you
>and Moore can't seem to comprehend.
All of your "lies" so far seem to be misrepresentations of what Moore
actually said in the film. Can you post some actual lies to the
"Fahrenheit lies" thread please?
Zen
doyle
news:deudnefWeJx...@scnresearch.com...
Indeed.
--
Donna
--------
pandora
"doyle" <doylecru...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
Are you suggesting that his non-reaction was so that people wouldn't think
he was panicking?
Marg
> --
> Donna
> --------
>
>
Zero
news:3oHDc.3237$lh4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Excerpt from first page of Chapter 2 -
> >Bush at War, by Bob Woodward:
> >
> >"President Bush was reading to second
> >graders at the Emma E. Booker Elementary
> >School in Sarasota, Florida when Rove brought
> >him the news that a plane had hit the North
> >Tower of the World Trade Center. At first it
> >seemed it might be an accident, pilot error
> >or maybe, Bush thought, the pilot had had a
> >heart attack. [.....]
> >
>
> >So, if by a "completely different perspective" you
> >mean that Woodward doesn't address, at all, the
> >7-minute time lapse between Bush hearing the news
> >and his moving off his chair, then you'd be correct.
>
> Of course he addressed it. THe part about it might being an error,
> etc. until Rove came in for the second time. If I followed your thought
> correctly, always a concern after about the third erply in a thread.
>
> >> Of course, if Bush had reacted immediately the argument would
> >> have been tha he'd panicked.
>
> >Besides, the video footage is powerful as hell.
> >It speaks for itself. The pres just sits there.
>
> When? Before or after Rove's second appearance.
after.
7+ minutes worth.
> Up until, there wasn't much for him to
> since it could have been accident, etc.
Gawd.
anyway, i just saw the movie.
the theatre was packed to the edges.
there were Peace entrepreneurs selling buttons etc.,
to the people in long lines waiting to buy tickets.
the movie was pretty good, although it dragged in places.
at the end, after Bushole's final blunderous speech
(characteristicly flubbing up the famous fool-me-twice
quote), the crowd ROARED with applause.
i've never seen that much applause at a movie.
the meaning was clear.
and then, as the ultimate bonus, the credits played
over a great Neil Young song.
it was definitely a think piece.
probably requiring too much thought for most people, though.
hence the film's greatest failing.
-$Zero... ImagineSomethingYouHaven'tThoughtOfYet...
Introducing:
Unicornian Mathematics, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/3do56
Ray Haddad
>i've never seen that much applause at a movie.
Just like when the Clinton White House got blown up on ID4.
Ray
I have met the enemy, the gods of SPAM, and I have triumphed.
Robert McClelland
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:mo4vd05bgjh822imo...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 22:18:48 -0400, "Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >i've never seen that much applause at a movie.
>
> Just like when the Clinton White House got blown up on ID4.
It's good to know that you recognize the president portrayed in ID4 was a
Democrat. I concur. He was a take charge guy, not a guy who would sit around
for half an hour reading a book about goats while his country was under
attack. He defeated his enemy by attacking them, not by attacking Mars. I
could go on but what's the point since we're in agreement on this.
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
Thomas Armagost
"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The pres just sits there.
>
> 7+ minutes worth.
>
> the movie was pretty good, although it dragged in places.
Yes, I know, I've quoted out-of-context. I just thought it was
funny.
--
blog <http://www.well.com/user/silly/> si...@well.com
"Don't forget to register to vote" - Frank Zappa
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:01:21 -0000, bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver)
wrote:
>Not only is the proof of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda better documented
>than ever before
You've said this twice now in this thread. But... most recently I've
heard more evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were nowhere near as
buddy-buddy as you seem to claim, and that there was probably no
collaboration at all between them regarding 9-11.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-28-04.html
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~