Fahrenheit 9/11

I enjoyed Roger and Me and Bowling For Columbine, so I am looking forward to this one. Although it does seem Moore is grabbing at more and more mainstream and controversial subject matter in order to sell his movies. RaM was about Detroit auto workers -- a far cry from 9/11.

And having this movie out across the nation in mainstream theaters before the election is very interesting. It's even getting decent commercial promotion. Anyway, June 25th, I'm there. Anyone else looking forward to it?


EDIT: apparently I can't spell "Fahrenheit".

I'll be there.

It's funny how people work.

Prior to Cannes, Moore didn't have a shot in hell of getting his movie distrusted or even shown at most theaters. One of my professors runs a small theater downtown, he said he had gotten scores of e-mails telling him if he got it, not to show the film or he’d be closed down.

But now that it was hailed at Cannes as the palme d’or, everyone’s raving about the movie. The best part is the majority of those that either criticized or raved about the film haven’t even seen it. Same thing happened with The Passion.

When it comes to politics and religion people become ignorant and lose their senses, getting lost in their little beliefs and then go yelling about something they really don’t know about.

Unfortunately, sometimes I’m one of these people.

But I try real hard not to let the hype get the best of me. and to give everything a chance.

I think its funny that people will take a lying, manipulative lunatic like Michael Moore seriously at all. Is there seriously surprise that the movie got the largest standing ovation in Cannes history. When it was a bunch of French and Hollywood celebrities watching it? The whole thing is a scam. Michael Moore, though, is excellent at seizing attention, and its already widely understood that Disney tried to "silence" him.

Moore loves to paint himself as an average guy who is oppressed by the Republican conspiracy but the reality is that he's a successful businessman who has grown wealthy thanks to the America he hates.

I'll be there opening night with possibly up to nine of my friends. I've been looking forward to this film for months.

Trailer here for those who may have missed it.

I'm not a fan of Moore, but I'm at least willing to give the movie a chance unlike some knee-jerk conservative Francophobes I know.

Whether you agree with him or not, he makes an entertaining film that's unlike anything else you'll see in the theatres. I doubt many of us bother to explore the whole documentary genre.

Yes, he makes entertaining films, but completely inaccurate as documentaries. The amount of spin he puts on his "information" is ridiculous. And the teenage liberals, who simply want to listen to someone who disagrees with their parents, eat it up and take his beliefs as their own, refusing to figure anything out forthemselves, because, hey, Michael Moore can do it for them! Bet they're glad to be getting some more material to work with.

Anyway, I'm downright sickened by the fact that Michael Moore now comes out and says that he had footage of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and held on to it, to put it in his movie... and didn't release it when it could have actually helped to stop the behavior in question. Proof that he cares nothing for his agenda, and is all about cashing in on his "controversial" films.

Fuck Michael Moore, and fuck the people who have their lips clamped around his dick, waiting for him to dump another load down their throats.

That said, I will see this movie. I'm curious like everyone else. But it's not likely to be changing any of my beliefs on any of the subject matter covered in the film, and I'm already burned up thinking about how I'll never hear the end of people jizzing over it at my hyper-liberal school. If you can take it as entertainment or maybe find a point or two you agree with, fine. But I'm tired of young people basing their entire political and social belief system off of Moore's.

Entertaining or not, I just hope it has more direction than Bowling for Columbine did.

edit: spelling, clarification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grave

Anyway, I'm downright sickened by the fact that Michael Moore now comes out and says that he had footage of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and held on to it, to put it in his movie... and didn't release it when it could have actually helped to stop the behavior in question. Proof that he cares nothing for his agenda, and is all about cashing in on his "controversial" films.

---

This is such a typical right-wing argument. Blame the media for the abuse!

And I got news for you, bub. Abuse at Abu Ghraib was hardly a secret, even before the pictures came out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

And I got news for you, bub. Abuse at Abu Ghraib was hardly a secret, even before the pictures came out.

---

Certainly. But the release of information and pictures to the public produced the backlash necessary to (hopefully) do something about it.

And it's not a matter of blaming the abuse on the media, that's ridiculous. But to sit on that video footage and information rather than get that information to the public as soon as possible? I just don't agree with that.

It's not an issue of holding back information because it'd be bad for the country to release... not that Moore cares much about that, I'd imagine... this is stuff the public did not know about, regardless of what the military and the government knew. Holding it back to release in his movie for dramatic effect? I don't know, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grave

Entertaining or not, I just hope it has more direction than Bowling for Columbine did.

---

That was my only major gripe with Bowling for Columbine. I wanted to enjoy it more, but about halfway through the movie lost focus to a serious degree.

I'm looking forward to F9/11 as well. No, I don't take everything Michael Moore says as gospel despite the fact that I usually agree with him. And F9/11 simply looks entertaining.

What's wrong with being a Francophobe?

After sitting in the theater to see "Bowling for Columbine," with no prior knowledge of who Michael Moore was, I will wait this one out and MAYBE see it when it reached DVD. The maybe is if my girl or some friends want to watch it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

What's wrong with being a Francophobe?

---

Ignorance and stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grave

Certainly. But the release of information and pictures to the public produced the backlash necessary to (hopefully) do something about it.

And it's not a matter of blaming the abuse on the media, that's ridiculous. But to sit on that video footage and information rather than get that information to the public as soon as possible? I just don't agree with that.

It's not an issue of holding back information because it'd be bad for the country to release... not that Moore cares much about that, I'd imagine... this is stuff the public did not know about, regardless of what the military and the government knew. Holding it back to release in his movie for dramatic effect? I don't know, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

---

Actually I believe our good friend Mr. Rumsfield pretty much begged one of the major news neworks (ABC I think) to not release the information and photos to the public fearing that it would cause an uproar in Iraq and the American hostages would be tortured or worse. I'm not saying it's okay for Moore to keep information private just to make a point, i'm just saying that alot of people had information like that and alot of people didn't want it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Javon_McCloud

Actually I believe our good friend Mr. Rumsfield pretty much begged one of the major news neworks (ABC I think) to not release the information and photos to the public fearing that it would cause an uproar in Iraq and the American hostages would be tortured or worse. I'm not saying it's okay for Moore to keep information private just to make a point, i'm just saying that alot of people had information like that and alot of people didn't want it out.

---

The whole thing makes me angry. Stuff like that is part of what made me realize that I didn't want to be a journalist after all. There are issues of national safety when withholding certain information, but that? What, did Rumsfeld think that if that information was released, the American hostages would be tortured... oh, like the Iraqi hostages were?

Stupid, stupid, stupid. The fact that it happened was bad enough, but the fact that everyone sat on it so long makes things worse.

Quote:

---

The whole thing makes me angry. Stuff like that is part of what made me realize that I didn't want to be a journalist after all. There are issues of national safety when withholding certain information, but that? What, did Rumsfeld think that if that information was released, the American hostages would be tortured... oh, like the Iraqi hostages were?

---

Uhh... do you think you can compare the decapitation of Nick Berg, the death of that Italian hostage a few weeks back, the latest snuff film that just came out showing a hostage being murdered, all of Saddam's tortures, to putting a pair of underwear on some guy's head? Sorry but it's not even close, and fuck anyone who thinks it is.

Not to mention that there is genocide going on funded and supported by the government in Sudan as we speak yet the whole world can't get over a guy standing on a box with a cloak over his body. Shit isn't Sudan on the UN Human Rights Council? Ridiculous.

Solid point, DiffX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Uhh... do you think you can compare the decapitation of Nick Berg, the death of that Italian hostage a few weeks back, the latest snuff film that just came out showing a hostage being murdered, all of Saddam's tortures, to putting a pair of underwear on some guy's head? Sorry but it's not even close, and fuck anyone who thinks it is.

Not to mention that there is genocide going on funded and supported by the government in Sudan as we speak yet the whole world can't get over a guy standing on a box with a cloak over his body. Shit isn't Sudan on the UN Human Rights Council? Ridiculous.

---

What's your point? That the US torture (and yes, it was a lot worse than putting underwear on people's heads) was justified?

sleeveboy: Im saying its not a black and white issue. It's not so easy to say "we're complaining about terrorists abusing hostages. Well we did it to POWs, nyah nyah!".

Liberals love to talk about how much Bush sucks because he's thinking in black and white, yet the same liberals will turn this into a black and white issue and say, "well we are the terrorists". Yea, Abu Ghraib was bullshit and the stuff wasn't justified but to even think that you know, putting underwear on a guy's head, having dogs bark at guys until they pissed their pants, the naked man pyramid is even close to what terrorists routinely do to citizens is ludicrous and insulting to the extreme.

One's like, tee-ball and one's the major leagues.

Im sure one can do a study of how the news has been covering this and find that they are putting upwards of 5-10 times more coverage on Abu Ghraib then all the terrorist hostage situations combined. But thats another discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I think its funny that people will take a lying, manipulative lunatic like Michael Moore seriously at all. Is there seriously surprise that the movie got the largest standing ovation in Cannes history. When it was a bunch of French and Hollywood celebrities watching it? The whole thing is a scam. Michael Moore, though, is excellent at seizing attention, and its already widely understood that Disney tried to "silence" him.

Moore loves to paint himself as an average guy who is oppressed by the Republican conspiracy but the reality is that he's a successful businessman who has grown wealthy thanks to the America he hates.

---

While I agree with you when you talk about Moore's credibility, I think the guy has some good ideas on how things are and how things should be. He shoots himself in the foot when he makes fraudulent claims (I saw the loathsome Bill O'Reilly catch him just a couple weeks ago), but his ideas are still sound.

As for "hating America"? I don't think that's the case for a second. He just wants to see a country he cares about going in a more positive direction, and is critical of the people that control it currently (his, and everyone's, right). I certainly don't think that can be called hating America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Uhh... do you think you can compare the decapitation of Nick Berg, the death of that Italian hostage a few weeks back, the latest snuff film that just came out showing a hostage being murdered, all of Saddam's tortures, to putting a pair of underwear on some guy's head? Sorry but it's not even close, and fuck anyone who thinks it is.

Not to mention that there is genocide going on funded and supported by the government in Sudan as we speak yet the whole world can't get over a guy standing on a box with a cloak over his body. Shit isn't Sudan on the UN Human Rights Council? Ridiculous.

---

I don't see who was comparing these. None of this stuff is justified, none of it is "okay." Does discussing one issue without expressing our outrage over another equally disgusting issue mean we don't care about it? No. Calm the fuck down.

Fact is, the stuff that the US troops did shouldn't have happened, period. I don't give a shit about how the severity compares to anything or how much worse terrorist torture is. We're supposed to be above that shit. It should not have been covered up as long as it was, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Moore loves to paint himself as an average guy who is oppressed by the Republican conspiracy but the reality is that he's a successful businessman who has grown wealthy thanks to the America he hates.

---

I hate hypocrites too. That's almost like a guy who's never seen a day of actual work trying to act like he's the hero of the middle class, or a guy who never saw 30 seconds of battle parachuting onto an aircraft carrier with a lot of real servicemen like he was one of them. The balls of that Michael Moore. Trying to make money, in America?

And questioning America does not equal hating it. I find it more Patriotic then people who just clap and nod and smile and let the country keep sliding down into the shitter, and I don't even like Moore all that much.

Kano: There's a difference between criticizing the government, which is obviously necessary and important and worthwhile, and, let's say, making a film that Hezbollah cant wait to help distribute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kano on the Phone

And questioning America does not equal hating it. I find it more Patriotic then people who just clap and nod and smile and let the country keep sliding down into the shitter, and I don't even like Moore all that much.

---

IAWTP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Kano: There's a difference between criticizing the government, which is obviously necessary and important and worthwhile, and, let's say, making a film that Hezbollah cant wait to help distribute.

---

It's not a snuff film with 12 year old girls in it, it's a movie criticizing Bush, which falls into a category that you yourself called "important and worthwhile". Who wants to help it off the ground has no consequence, as it stands to reason that people that hate Bush, even those not in this country would want to have the movie seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grave

And it's not a matter of blaming the abuse on the media, that's ridiculous. But to sit on that video footage and information rather than get that information to the public as soon as possible? I just don't agree with that.

---

If he'd come out with it and tried to raise public awareness, people like you and diffx would be the first to call him a liar and a scam-artist, trying to frame those 'innocent' prison guards with 'doctored' footage and 'staged' torture. Therein lies the hypocrisy of your argument, you hate him because he sat on the footage, but you'd have hated him just as much if he'd been the first to come forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

If he'd come out with it and tried to raise public awareness, people like you and diffx would be the first to call him a liar and a scam-artist, trying to frame those 'innocent' prison guards with 'doctored' footage and 'staged' torture. Therein lies the hypocrisy of your argument, you hate him because he sat on the footage, but you'd have hated him just as much if he'd been the first to come forward.

---

You know, I don't like Michael Moore, but there's a limit to how far I'll go after him. Believe that if you want, but had he done something as useful as that, I don't think I could find faunt in him for it.

I'm still going to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'm still going to give it a fair chance. If I was really so dead-set on trashing Moore's name, I wouldn't even see the movie. I don't know whether or not it'll change my opinion of Moore, but if it's better-researched, more focused, and less deceptive than Bowling for Columbine, I doubt I'll have as many complaints.

Well, this guy's releasing an anti-Moore counter documentary about the same time this Summer which will coincide with his release.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

As for Moore's movie, I ain't giving him a dime - easy enough. I'd watch it on DBS/Cable if it comes out and I'm in the mood for kicks. He is beyond loathsome; I hate him, his politics, and what he does with his "entertaining, yet informative" films. I simply won't subsidize him by going to see it which will enable him to make more. It's no different than avoiding a movie some Hollywood liberal actor is in. I don't care if it is good or not, its expressed purpose is to get Bush out of office via portraying him as the canal pal of the Saudi Royal Family among other things. But, you know, he's a fine capitalist and knows there's a good market for this (Bush-bashing books have been doing well), so more power to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

I'm not a fan of Moore, but I'm at least willing to give the movie a chance unlike some knee-jerk conservative Francophobes I know.

---

You shouldn't complain about us not willing to give this movie a chance, not unlike the carping of those that weren't willing to give Mel Gibson's movie a chance. You remember that, don't cha? Does that make you Conservative-phobic or a knee-jerk Christo-phobic liberal? Anyway, the controversy did it good and I imagine Moore wants some of that million dollar generating controversy too. When you have a group of ideologues screaming, "OMFG!!! OMG!!! Don't go see this movie!! Noooo!! PLEASE, DON'T DO IT!!! LIES, ALL LIES!!!" it can backfire as you of all people should be well aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Yea, Abu Ghraib was bullshit and the stuff wasn't justified but to even think that you know, putting underwear on a guy's head, having dogs bark at guys until they pissed their pants, the naked man pyramid is even close to what terrorists routinely do to citizens is ludicrous and insulting to the extreme.

---

The point is, our soldiers shouldn't have acted in that way. Yeah, its not as bad as mass-decapitations, but it is far worse than not torturing prisoners at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kabuki

The point is, our soldiers shouldn't have acted in that way. Yeah, its not as bad as mass-decapitations, but it is far worse than not torturing prisoners at all.

---

This is what I was trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

You shouldn't complain about us not willing to give this movie a chance, not unlike the carping of those that weren't willing to give Mel Gibson's movie a chance. You remember that, don't cha? Does that make you Conservative-phobic or a knee-jerk Christo-phobic liberal?

---

I had just as much of a problem with those who won't give The Passion a chance as I do with those who won't give Fahrenheit a chance. Too many people are closeminded about shit. I have problems with Moore, but I still think he makes good points. He just doesn't do it well. I will also see that movie that you just linked to, as I find it better to actually watch and consider opposing viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

You shouldn't complain about us not willing to give this movie a chance, not unlike the carping of those that weren't willing to give Mel Gibson's movie a chance. You remember that, don't cha? Does that make you Conservative-phobic or a knee-jerk Christo-phobic liberal? Anyway, the controversy did it good and I imagine Moore wants some of that million dollar generating controversy too. When you have a group of ideologues screaming, "OMFG!!! OMG!!! Don't go see this movie!! Noooo!! PLEASE, DON'T DO IT!!! LIES, ALL LIES!!!" it can backfire as you of all people should be well aware of.

---

Two different movies, two different issues, two different opinions.

How does that make me a hypocrite?

Edit: Timeliness is the soul of wit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

What's your point? That the US torture (and yes, it was a lot worse than putting underwear on people's heads) was justified?

---

Hell yeah. If we'd raped more women, 9/11 would never have happened.

re: the anti-Michael Moore movie:

I'd rather see someone make a documentary countering the issues and claims raised in Moore's films, rather than Moore himself. I'm well aware of the factual distortions Moore made in Roger in Me, but that doesn't take away from the importance of the issues raised in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Quote:

---

If he'd come out with it and tried to raise public awareness, people like you and diffx would be the first to call him a liar and a scam-artist, trying to frame those 'innocent' prison guards with 'doctored' footage and 'staged' torture. Therein lies the hypocrisy of your argument, you hate him because he sat on the footage, but you'd have hated him just as much if he'd been the first to come forward.

---

Fuck you for saying bullshit like that. I never once mentioned that he sucked for having sat on the footage, and I never once said he would've doctored photos. In fact Ive never accused him of doctoring photos, I merely accuse him of distorting the truth to an incredible degree and and lying to sell his goods. Which he does.

Quote:

---

It's not a snuff film with 12 year old girls in it, it's a movie criticizing Bush, which falls into a category that you yourself called "important and worthwhile". Who wants to help it off the ground has no consequence, as it stands to reason that people that hate Bush, even those not in this country would want to have the movie seen.

---

Criticizing Bush is worthwhile but the lunacy that has gripped so many on the left has made the cause of "criticizing Bush" monotonous, redundant, and functionless. I go to the library and see at least 100 books criticizing him, most with ridiculous and infantile names like "Why Bush Is Stupid And You Shouldnt Vote For Him". All one nowadays has to do to get praise and money is talk shit about Bush. And Moore proves it with this movie. As for this movie, if it is so virulently anti-Bush and so virulently anti-America that a fucking terrorist organization that has a mission to destroy America wants to help distribute it (I dont think its unreasonable to infer that they would want to distribute to, I dont know, potential recruits) then that goes so far beyond worthwhile and important that it need not be mentioned.

Its just like you go to these protests in San Francisco or LA and NYC, and you see pictures of Bush with Hitler's mustache, people saying "I Love NYC even more without the WTC", you get Berkeley professors calling for an infitada in America, shit like that... its not worthwhile and important, its harmful and counterproductive. I believe Lenin called these sorts of people "useful idiots", and Moore is probably the most useful one out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I merely accuse him of distorting the truth to an incredible degree and and lying to sell his goods. Which he does.

---

Examples, please.

sleeveboy:

On May 4th, Moore's website said this:

Quote:

---

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. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

---

The headline on his site also says, "Disney Blocks distribution of my film", which insinuates that they are suppressing it.

Then, a few days later, he admitted that Disney told him a year ago that they wouldn't be distributing it.

But by then, the story blew up, and it still resonates in people's minds (I had an argument on campus last week with someone who claims that Disney was censoring Moore by blocking his movie). So now everyone thinks Moore is some sort of freedom fighter fighting the forces of Disney tyranny when in reality... they passed on his movie a year back.

As for Moore hating America, he has made countless remarks about how stupid the population is. He's also talked about, in his books (Ive read Stupid White Men), how stupid Americans are for believing in the rags-to-riches story because it aint gonna happen (even though thats exactly what happened to him). His disdain for the American people is as large as his belly, as he clearly sees himself with the cultural elite of America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

Examples, please.

---

In Bowling for Columbine, Moore walks into a bank and ostensibly walks out later that same day with a shotgun, his prize for setting up a new account. The implication? OMGirresponsiblebankgunnuts!

What you didn't see were Moore's staffers setting up the acct and working with the bank so that Moore could walk out w/the gun after the legal waiting period.

His irresponsible cut/paste job of Chuck Heston's comments to make him look a simpleton in the same movie is well-documented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Its just like you go to these protests in San Francisco or LA and NYC, and you see pictures of Bush with Hitler's mustache, people saying "I Love NYC even more without the WTC",

---

My all-time favorite article on this subject.

NextGen :: Videogames
Atlantic Monthly :: Everything Else

I am the furthest thing from a fan of Michael Moore. However, just going by that trailer I will probably see this movie. Seriously, that is one of the best put together movie trailers of all time.

After seeing the trailer, what I really want is more singing Ashcroft.

Meach, diffx: Yeah, but those aren't really outright lies. Dishonest, yes, but not lies. Disney did refuse to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, and the bank did give him the gun. The fact that he didn't show the waiting period (how do you show a waiting period, anyway? Some time-lapse photography?) doesn't make the bank's promotion any less odd, nor does it diminish the importance of the segment to the overall point he was trying to make.

Moore frequently does this kind of shit in his movies, and it's the main reason I dislike him as a filmmaker. And I really hate the fact that he's become so lionized these days, because he's a poor standard-bearer for liberal causes. But still, that does not diminish the impact of what he is reporting/commenting upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Atlantic Monthly :: Everything Else

---

Yeah, it is a great magazine. I interned there a few summers ago and had a blast.

Quote:

---

how do you show a waiting period, anyway? Some time-lapse photography

---

No, you show it by saying, "after a five day wait" or whatever.

As for diminishing the impact, yes it does. With regards to Disney, Disney did not leave him hanging, Moore fabricated this tale of woe/evil censorship solely in an effort to get publicity before Cannes. And Moore's such a smart guy that it WORKED. It worked beautifully! Props to him but that doesn't change the fact that he lied - and yes, saying "they told me yesterday that they wont distribute it" when they told him a year ago, and then using the "fact" that they told him yesterday to construct some insane story about Disney's censorship IS lying, or at least, bending the truth so much that it breaks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Criticizing Bush is worthwhile but the lunacy that has gripped so many on the left has made the cause of "criticizing Bush" monotonous, redundant, and functionless. I go to the library and see at least 100 books criticizing him, most with ridiculous and infantile names like "Why Bush Is Stupid And You Shouldnt Vote For Him". All one nowadays has to do to get praise and money is talk shit about Bush.

---

He's one of the most hated presidents in history. There's a market, and a demand. And there's a tendancy in the news media these days to gloss over alot of important stories that might be damaging to the bush agenda, so the rest of the media (magazines, movies, books) are working over time. It's to be expected. Bush is going to get his ass kicked this election and then it'll all be life as usual again.

Whatever the case may be, I'll take Moore's lies (that hurt no one) over Bush's lies (which get people killed) any day of the week.

MEH x Infinity

Quote:

---

Then, a few days later, he admitted that Disney told him a year ago that they wouldn't be distributing it.

---

Jeb Bush was still Govenor of FL a year ago (I remember, I was campaigning against him). Where were you going with this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlas

Jeb Bush was still Govenor of FL a year ago (I remember, I was campaigning against him). Where were you going with this point?

---

He's saying that Moore lied about when Disney told him they didn't want to deal with the movie. He knew for a year but then said he found out a few days ago that Disney wasn't supporting him to draw attention to him and the movie and make Disney look bad. Like "They had all this time to make the decision and tell me but they just took out the rug from underneith me!"...when they didn't.

What's interesting is that Moore hired fact checkers that literally analyzed every word in the movie to see that it's factual as stated in this article. BTW, you have to click on the column to scroll to the next page there... retarted. Anyway, he has also hired people that do opposition reseach, to discredit anyone trying to bend or discredit the movie's facts for their own agenda. He has also personally said that he will ourtight sue anyone that tells lies about him or the movie, which he consideres a direct attack. I consider this to be fair play, since the film has been attacked extensively by right wing concervatives. BTW, watch Moore's interview with Matt Lauer on NBC at 8pm eastern today. He even says that democrats are wimps. Haha.

My own opinion: I like his films, with all the fag shit you guys watch from Hollywood and the media, his films almost look like they've been done abroad from an immigrant's perspective. Not biased by the shit on TV. I should know, I am an recent immigrant.

Can't wait to see the movie just to get an opinion for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Fuck you for saying bullshit like that. I never once mentioned that he sucked for having sat on the footage, and I never once said he would've doctored photos. In fact Ive never accused him of doctoring photos, I merely accuse him of distorting the truth to an incredible degree and and lying to sell his goods. Which he does.

---

D:

If we go by lesser of two evil's here, I'd rather the mainstream public who are undecided on this issue, find a distorted truth, where there was none at all.

There is nothing in this movie that can't already be found on websites of screaming conspiracy buff's everywhere, except in Moore's movie its kind a blended together amalgam.

The movie itself though diffusion, is for people like you, who believe the things that people accuse this administration of never happened, who believe the in Patriot act ("in a more power to them" sort of way) becasue even if its a distorted truth, those who wish to deny it simply can't to the mainstream public's face anymore after this movie.

Quote:

---

Criticizing Bush is worthwhile but the lunacy that has gripped so many on the left has made the cause of "criticizing Bush" monotonous, redundant, and functionless. I go to the library and see at least 100 books criticizing him, most with ridiculous and infantile names like "Why Bush Is Stupid And You Shouldnt Vote For Him". All one nowadays has to do to get praise and money is talk shit about Bush. And Moore proves it with this movie. As for this movie, if it is so virulently anti-Bush and so virulently anti-America that a fucking terrorist organization that has a mission to destroy America wants to help distribute it (I dont think its unreasonable to infer that they would want to distribute to, I dont know, potential recruits) then that goes so far beyond worthwhile and important that it need not be mentioned.

---

The crit comes from Bush's own actions though. Thats what none of you ever get. His own questionable actions, the things he pushes on this country that he has no right to, and the fact that when it comes right down to it, from the very BEGINNING this has been the mosty frusturatingly secretive administration ever.

Oh that and the fact that the actually is a terrible president, who will respond to big business and the needs of the military but doesn't know a goddamn thing about saving money, and taking care of domestic issues.

Quote:

---

Its just like you go to these protests in San Francisco or LA and NYC, and you see pictures of Bush with Hitler's mustache, people saying "I Love NYC even more without the WTC", you get Berkeley professors calling for an infitada in America, shit like that... its not worthwhile and important, its harmful and counterproductive. I believe Lenin called these sorts of people "useful idiots", and Moore is probably the most useful one out there.

---

This is a democracy first and foremost.

This is not a nazi threat, this is more akin (but not like) the war on drugs. The war on terror the way we are fighting it is like saying we are going to declare a physical military campaign on gravity. It ain't going anywhere. Terroists will exist as long as people can hate. We did ourselves no favors in the 80's and 90's building up to this, and we are paying the price now.

From Bush's own mouth diffusion, is the declaration that win the war on terror by living free. Not by having what you know and love be stopped by the government.

But then he goes and starts to do that. Says one thing, does another, and the truth is when it comes to Bush, the Democrats will cut him no slack for what they did to Clinton. Thats why partisan politics suck Diffusion.

You know I will say this though. If I believed Bush had anything relevent to say recently and was being drowned out by this stuff, I'd be all over it.

But everytime I've ever seen him speak, he puts his foot so far up his ass, he loses all touch with me. I do not believe Bush can do anything but dig himself deeper at this point, same with his administration.


But thats just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

it's the main reason I dislike him as a filmmaker

---

Agreed. He operates in the slum of demagoguery, along w/Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. Thank goodness for William F. Buckley and Christopher Hitchens. :sweat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

I interned (for Atlantic Monthly) a few summers ago and had a blast.

---

:eek:

To paraphrase Jack Black in The Jackal:

That so rocks. Dude, Atlantic Monthly rocks. Man, you rock. Rock!

Just watched the trailer. I'll be going to see this, though I'm going partially for pure entertainment (singing Aschcroft :) ) and also just to see his view (though it may be "distorted"). Just don't go to a movie of his and take it as a straight documentary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightWolve

You shouldn't complain about us not willing to give this movie a chance, not unlike the carping of those that weren't willing to give Mel Gibson's movie a chance. You remember that, don't cha? Does that make you Conservative-phobic or a knee-jerk Christo-phobic liberal?

---

Mel Gibson's movie made almost $400 million at the box office in the US alone. How can you compare that to F 9/11? Thats competely irrevelant and idiotic. Obviously more than just the delusional bible humpers gave the passion "a chance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinopio

Mel Gibson's movie made almost $400 million at the box office in the US alone. How can you compare that to F 9/11? Thats competely irrevelant and idiotic. Obviously more than just the delusional bible humpers gave the passion "a chance".

---

Your post is idiotic and completely irrelevant. F9/11 hasn't been released. What's there to compare about earnings? I know how much the movie made and wasn't addressing those that gave it "a chance" - no reason to. My post was a snipe directed at sleeveboy and the loud choir of carpers he joined that failed miserably and so I was rubbing it in his face. He declared Passion to be anti-Semetic from the start. Whatever the ADL/NYTimes and their ilk concluded with their analyses was the final word. Even Mel Gibson's father was thrown into the mix to support the position which made it all beyond personal.

The only comparison here was the reaction to the movies before their release. So, of course I'm happy it did so well, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I'll paste this post since it's accurate and I guess you missed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

The best part is the majority of those that either criticized or raved about the film haven’t even seen it. Same thing happened with The Passion.

When it comes to politics and religion people become ignorant and lose their senses, getting lost in their little beliefs and then go yelling about something they really don’t know about.

---

That's the comparison. Now he's all, "Well, at least I'm willing to give it a chance as opposed to knee-jerk conservative Francophobes." Go figure, Bush-hating liberals are "willing to give it a chance" and accuse someone of a "phobia" for not reciprocating. Isn't that special.

Look, for all I know The Passion is a brilliant piece of cinema.

Setting the whole anti-Semitism issue aside, I still have no interest in seeing a 2+ hour movie about Christ being flagellated.

And I still don't understand what that has to do with people saying F911 is full of lies/inaccurate/whatever without seeing it.

I think people are just tired of seeing other people take advantage of different people's ignorance. Not that everyone who will see this movie are ignorant, but...you know.

For example, those pop-up ads that have a window within the window that has that X. But that's not a real window, it's just part of the picture that is hyperlinked to the product they're selling. Those kinds of things. It's annoying ;p And so is Moore. And so am I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Agreed. He operates in the slum of demagoguery, along w/Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. Thank goodness for William F. Buckley and Christopher Hitchens. :sweat:

---

I'm convinced Michael Savage is seriously deranged. I was listening to his show on my way home one night and he was talking about how a chicken sandwich had led to him going temporarily blind. I mean, if he'd blamed it on the 'far-left' it probably wouldn't have been that shocking..but..a chicken sandwich? :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I think its funny that people will take a lying, manipulative lunatic like George W. Bush seriously at all.

Bush loves to paint himself as an average guy who is oppressed by the aetheist conspiracy but the reality is that he's a successful businessman who has grown wealthy thanks to the America he hates.

---

I know. It blows my mind as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

On May 4th, Moore's website said this:



The headline on his site also says, "Disney Blocks distribution of my film", which insinuates that they are suppressing it.

Then, a few days later, he admitted that Disney told him a year ago that they wouldn't be distributing it.

But by then, the story blew up, and it still resonates in people's minds (I had an argument on campus last week with someone who claims that Disney was censoring Moore by blocking his movie). So now everyone thinks Moore is some sort of freedom fighter fighting the forces of Disney tyranny when in reality... they passed on his movie a year back.

As for Moore hating America, he has made countless remarks about how stupid the population is. He's also talked about, in his books (Ive read Stupid White Men), how stupid Americans are for believing in the rags-to-riches story because it aint gonna happen (even though thats exactly what happened to him). His disdain for the American people is as large as his belly, as he clearly sees himself with the cultural elite of America.

---

Disney said they'd likely pass on it before it was even finished, but they were still the contractual ditributor. The decision wasn't made official until recently. Quite aside from that, what's your point? Disney said publically they didn't want to release the film because it would "influence the election", though that's never stopped them from donating to political campaigns.

Clearly, they backed out of a distribution contract to avoid any political fallout. Moore is completely well within his rights to criticize this. Did he play Disney for public effect? Well duh. Still doesn't change a thing.

Moore also states in pretty much every film/book he makes that his motivation is not that he hates America, but rather those that subvert its initial promise as a land of equality and opportunity. His contention is always that selfishness and apathy are the true enemies of American values.

Is he over the top? Occasionally ridiculous? Yes. He has to be - he's up against a mass-media status quo which is monetarily and politically wrapped up in the very establishment he's trying to draw attention to.

His critics invariably harp on the same let's-change-the-subject issues that have nothing to do with anything, and generally result from Moore's use of asynchronous juxtaposition to establish a point being over their heads. "Hey, Charlton Heston didn't say from my cold dead hands in Columbine, he just made a regular gun glorification speech! Moore's a bad, evil liar! Don't listen to anything he says!" This is a sad, dumbed-down excuse for debate which would offend me were my beliefs the target of his criticism. If you can't defend the criticism at hand, don't resort to specious attacks on credibility in the face of immutable fact.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the major issues are a matter of public record. The right wing wants to shift the focus to Moore because they can't answer his charges. Doesn't it bother you at all that you have a man representing your beliefs who is guilty of far, far worse transgressions than Moore ever could be? And more importantly, that it's he and his associates who are using you and your beliefs to accomplish their own ends and betray yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Kano: There's a difference between criticizing the government, which is obviously necessary and important and worthwhile, and, let's say, making a film that Hezbollah cant wait to help distribute.

---

Al Qaeda is also supporting John Kerry. Maybe you should just skip the election to save America.

I think we're all smart enough here to realize neither Moore nor this film are supporting Hezbollah, in the same way that criticizing Kerry doesn't make you a member of the KKK. Seriously man, that's like the right-wing equivalent of an Almaci post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

In Bowling for Columbine, Moore walks into a bank and ostensibly walks out later that same day with a shotgun, his prize for setting up a new account. The implication? OMGirresponsiblebankgunnuts!

---

No, his point was that you live in a country where you can walk in to a bank and buy a gun. It was a comment on the pervasiveness of American gun culture.

Quote:

---

What you didn't see were Moore's staffers setting up the acct and working with the bank so that Moore could walk out w/the gun after the legal waiting period.

---

Which has what to do with anything? The 5 day period is a law - it's implied. Harping on his editing is missing the forest for the trees, and is just a lazy way of dodging his whole argument.

Quote:

---

His irresponsible cut/paste job of Chuck Heston's comments to make him look a simpleton in the same movie is well-documented.

---

Moore did nothing more than show Heston's own words - it should have been clear to anyone that the "cold dead hands" comment was made from a different podium on a different stage. And quite frankly, it's completely irrelevant that he only made other inflammatory pro-gun statements in Columbine rather than that particular sentence. Moore's contention was that the NRA is a thread in the culture of violence which allowed Columbine to happen. If those are Heston's views, and his own spoken words, how can you act like Moore is somehow doing him a disservice?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Good article on Moore's new film.

StriderKyo, did you even see Bowling for Columbine? Because here's how the sequence of events goes in that section:

01. Moore shows us the Columbine event briefly, and the public outcry and grief in Colorado.
02. Moore says the NRA plans to do a convention in Denver, and talks about how they refused to cancel it.
03. Moore shows a clip of Heston saying, "Welcome" or whatever.
04. Moore says a few more things, shows people protesting the NRA, etc.
05. Moore shows the "cold dead hands" comment.

It's not like he played that clip at the end, before or after he actually interviewed Heston. He played it at that specific moment not to tell people Heston's viewpoints, but to paint the NRA as a bunch of unfeeling monstrous ogres after Columbine.

That's not a good article. He takes three paragraphs to rant before he even talks about anything in the movie.

Read the whole fucking thing before you whine about the first three paragraphs. Besides, in an, I dont know, 20-paragraph article the first three are intro. Deal with it.

The article tells you, in fact, exactly why Moore's film is so ridiculous and not worth seeing. The problems that Hitchens brings up are exactly the same problems I had with Stupid White Men: Moore will throw any fact out that he can, contrived or not, to push his point across, ignore the whole story even if the whole story will completely disprove his theory, then he'll tell a few jokes, make a few insignificant and worthless gestures, then move on to the next point. This was pretty much the same thing he did with Bowling for Columbine, as well.

This is Moore's way of thinking, his strategy. Always has been and always will be. A thinking/logical/rational person simply could not take Moore seriously, because he's a joker and a poor one at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

It's not like he played that clip at the end, before or after he actually interviewed Heston. He played it at that specific moment not to tell people Heston's viewpoints, but to paint the NRA as a bunch of unfeeling monstrous ogres after Columbine.

---

He did. The question is, in a mass media society, does distance matter? He may as well have been saying those things directly to the people of Columbine. Is the fact that he said that particular commment a week before really less offensive to those who were wounded by what happened there? Moore was establishing that the 'cold dead hands' view was how Heston really felt, and what his group's presence in Columbine truly represented. The fact that he toned his act down from the previous week doesn't change what he stood for, nor does it render non-credible everything else in the film.

I understand some want to feel Moore was somehow putting words in Heston's mouth, or making him seem insensitive, but I think Heston's actions throughout the rest of the film make that case better than Moore could.

The cold dead hands comment wasn't a week before... it was a year later, in North Carolina. Ill dig up my source for that.

Right here: http://www.sipl.addr.com/nraheston.html

Check the date: May 21, 2000

Columbine was April 20, 1999.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Whatever the case may be, I'll take Moore's lies (that hurt no one) over Bush's lies (which get people killed) any day of the week.

---

Amen.

People who still support Bush after the term of lies and horror he has brought upon this country are the same people who would continue to stick by their girlfriends after videotape of them fucking every man in town is played on the nightly news every evening for four years straight.

That said, I think I was going somewhere with this.....

Moore may twist footage to meet his agenda, but he can't "create" raw footage from thin air. Our current Administration has repeatedly lied to us, done assinine things to make virtually every country in the world hate the US, and Moore has this all well documented. Moore is just playing his part in spreading the word to those whose eyes and ears have been shut for the past four years.

Quote:

---

...make virtually every country in the world hate the US,

---

Why are people still spewing such garbage? The reason why France, Germany, and Russia hate us now is because they were getting sweet oil deals from Saddam because of the Oil-for-Food UN Scandal. Saddam, and wealthy French/German/Russian businessmen with links to the top levels of government were getting rich off that program. This probably (I never read it officially but its a reasonable assumption) allowed Saddam to continue his operations in the face of sanctions.

It's easy to say, "well the whole world hates us now" and a statement like that resonates. But it's far harder to explain why and give it the same emotional impact. And of course Bush can't stand up and say "France hates us because they were a bunch of fucking thieves who were profitting from Saddam's reign" so defenses against such canards are light. And then they become fact and then all I can do is sigh (evidence: the whole "Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat" bullshit).

Moore operates on these sort of canards. Like, getting congressmen to sign their children up for "war"? A completely stupid, meaningless, idiotic, worthless gesture.

Close, but that's not only it, Diffusionx. Read that book I was telling you about (Dangerous De-Liasons). A lot of the hate has to do with America's alleged hubris, the way it throws its weight around, its superiority complex. The tipping point for the world was America's unilateral push towards war, and the arguably spurious connection the current administration made between terrorism and Iraq (See Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, for more on Iraq's position in world terror).

This is one side of the coin, however.

Brisco I will read it, but all I can say is, France accusing America of having hubris and a superiority complex! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Brisco I will read it, but all I can say is, France accusing America of having hubris and a superiority complex! :lol:

---

That's what the American said.

How did Kennedy put it: 'A country the size of Texas with world power pretentions...'

Also:

Quote:

---

The tipping point for the world was America's unilateral push towards war

---

For the countries I named, our war with Iraq threatened their economic interests. That's really it. Unilateral or not, we threatened their economic interests in Iraq. Every other country on the planet could've been for the war and they still would have resisted.

Now, they have every right to protect them, we protect ours, but that's really why the said countries (who are, really, the biggest, most powerful in the US Hate Brigade) hate us now and it all stems from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Now, they have every right to protect them, we protect ours, but that's really why the said countries (who are, really, the biggest, most powerful in the US Hate Brigade) hate us now and it all stems from that.

---

How is this viewpoint any more sophisticated than the reverse, i.e. the US is interested in Iraq only for its oil?

Both are equally stupid (and wrong) arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

How is this viewpoint any more sophisticated than the reverse, i.e. the US is interested in Iraq only for its oil?

Both are equally stupid (and wrong) arguments.

---

I can tell you that the US is not interested in Iraqi oil because we are not in control of it. In regards to France/Germany/Russia, there have been documents found in Iraq which outline Iraq's trading partners, which include businessmen who are buddies with the highest levels of French/German/Russian government, and evidence of a massive scandal and tons of corruption regarding Oil-for-Food which even has ties to Kofi Annan's son.

So care to tell me why this argument is wrong and stupid instead of merely saying so? You're a lawyer for heaven's sake, so use some of your skills to educate this stupid fucking math student.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I can tell you that the US is not interested in Iraqi oil because we are not in control of it. In regards to France/Germany/Russia, there have been documents found in Iraq which outline Iraq's trading partners, which include businessmen who are buddies with the highest levels of French/German/Russian government, and evidence of a massive scandal and tons of corruption regarding Oil-for-Food which even has ties to Kofi Annan's son.

So care to tell me why this argument is wrong and stupid instead of merely saying so? You're a lawyer for heaven's sake, so use some of your skills to educate this stupid fucking math student.

---

Straw man. You are presupposing that France/Germany/Russia have entirely self-motivated interests in Iraq, yet you are not making the same presupposition vis a vis the US. Yes, there are people in those countries who may have benefitted from the oil-for-food program, but there are also US companies that stand to benefit from the US's new attachment to Iraq, several of which have close relations with members of the current administration. I'll give you a hint, one of them begins with an "H".

Public opinion polls in these three countries regularly show more than 3 out of 4 people against the war. Is it because three out of four people in these countries have a vested interest in the corrupt oil-for-food program, or is it because opposition to this war runs deeper than the interests of a few plutocrats? You tell me.

To assume that France/Germany/Russia's Iraq policy is ENTIRELY based on those contacts is as simplistic, stupid, and wrong as saying the reverse about the US.

I would think that even a stupid math student such as yourself would grasp that.

However, looking at the facts as they are now, Iraqis control the oil pipeline from start to finish (just like we said would happen, and exactly the thing that liberals said would not happen).

And how much is the opposition from the public thanks in part to the campaigns from Chirac, Shroeder, etc.?

And is it the only reason? No, probably not. But it is a major reason, and one that is conveniently glossed over by many. It's a huge, huge, HUGE reason, and one that needs to be addressed. Had these countries not been leeching off Hussein's teat I think the situation would have been very different. And I dont see anybody placing the blame on these nations for the suffering the Iraqi people underwent during the sanctions, was they so often did with the US (1 million dead babies and other horse manure). The seriousness and depth of this UN corruption scandal is not getting the attention it needs to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And how much is the opposition from the public thanks in part to the campaigns from Chirac, Shroeder, etc.?

---

I'm willing to bet that the high Muslim population in each country was a more significant factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And I dont see anybody placing the blame on these nations for the suffering the Iraqi people underwent during the sanctions, was they so often did with the US (1 million dead babies and other horse manure).

---

Considering that the movement to abolish the sanctions was extremely strong in France, I don't see how this argument makes any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Criticizing Bush is worthwhile but the lunacy that has gripped so many on the left has made the cause of "criticizing Bush" monotonous, redundant, and functionless. I go to the library and see at least 100 books criticizing him, most with ridiculous and infantile names like "Why Bush Is Stupid And You Shouldnt Vote For Him". All one nowadays has to do to get praise and money is talk shit about Bush. And Moore proves it with this movie. As for this movie, if it is so virulently anti-Bush and so virulently anti-America that a fucking terrorist organization that has a mission to destroy America wants to help distribute it (I dont think its unreasonable to infer that they would want to distribute to, I dont know, potential recruits) then that goes so far beyond worthwhile and important that it need not be mentioned.

---

I see more for Bush Shit out there than Fuck him stuff... you're being hipocritical, just because you can say, Bush is good, that doesn't mean another persons opinion is valued, I'm honestly against Bush, the moment I saw his face on 9/11, the fear and confused look of the most powerful man in the world... I lost all faith in him.

To be fair, Dragon, how would you have reacted to 9/11? Fuck, how did you react to 9/11?

He may be the most powerful man in the free world, but he is human.

i can't wait for a day long in the future when we can have political debates and discussions without the words liberal and conserative in the mix. This may be a fairly basic observation - but it seems to me that discussion over such topics always boils down to this basic liberal vs conservative fight that comes to BOTH SIDES (notice the emphasis) painting each other with broad strokes of a generalization paintbrush, not to mention the snide insults, and off-the-cuff knee jerk remarks that from an outsider or bystander's perspective looks like two groups of kids in a large wet sandbox throwing mud at each other.

I'll probably get flamed for that but fuck it I dont care - I hate the fact that a person can't talk about politics or social ideas in this country without THOSE TWO FUCKED WORDS APPEARING IN EVERY CONVERSATION. Fuck liberals and fuck conservatives. I'm so sick of this shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragon

I see more for Bush Shit out there than Fuck him stuff... you're being hipocritical, just because you can say, Bush is good, that doesn't mean another persons opinion is valued, I'm honestly against Bush, the moment I saw his face on 9/11, the fear and confused look of the most powerful man in the world... I lost all faith in him.

---

Are you kidding me?

01. Step into any bookstore and look on the shelves and compare how much stuff there is for vs. against. I would honestly say we're talking about a 1:50 ratio, if not even lower.

02. How am I being a hypocrite? Did I ever even say "Bush is good"? Now you're just putting words into my mouth.

Quote:

---

Considering that the movement to abolish the sanctions was extremely strong in France, I don't see how this argument makes any sense.

---

While the US had sanctions against Iraq, French/German/Russian businessmen were becoming rich and making Saddam rich on corrupt oil contracts.

Quote:

---

I'll probably get flamed for that but fuck it I dont care - I hate the fact that a person can't talk about politics or social ideas in this country without THOSE TWO FUCKED WORDS APPEARING IN EVERY CONVERSATION.

---

Those two words are loaded but they are simply descriptors for the two main political camps in the US. What would you prefer to be used? Im not gonna start saying some trash like, "antiwar" because "antiwar" implies that a "prowar" exists and that's a poor way of describing the situation. Same with "anti-Bush".

If you would like to suggest concise alternatives, by all means. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and dont post in political threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by station82o

I'll probably get flamed for that but fuck it I dont care - I hate the fact that a person can't talk about politics or social ideas in this country without THOSE TWO FUCKED WORDS APPEARING IN EVERY CONVERSATION. Fuck liberals and fuck conservatives. I'm so sick of this shit.

---

Amen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

This is Moore's way of thinking, his strategy. Always has been and always will be. A thinking/logical/rational person simply could not take Moore seriously, because he's a joker and a poor one at that.

---

He's a satarist. It's comedy. He's not a journalist, he's a humorist and a propogandist. And he's an entertaining one, that brings attention to some very legitimate issues. Why is that so hard to get?

People these days have lost their sense of humor, I swear. Hell, my grandfather was a die-hard life-long republican and staunch conservative until the day he died, and even he liked TV Nation. What the hell died inside you that makes you unable to enjoy a good biased pseudo-documentary comedy. Lighten up, dipshit, it's just a movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

To be fair, Dragon, how would you have reacted to 9/11? Fuck, how did you react to 9/11?

He may be the most powerful man in the free world, but he is human.

---

I heard on the radio today that there is a clip in Fahrenheit 9/11 that shows exactly what Bush did after he heard that the first plane hit the Trade Center. He just sat there, supposedly reading a children's book. He gets told that the second Tower was hit, and he continues to sit there, for like seven minutes or something.

How anyone can have faith in a leader that reads children's books in a time of crisis, and has absolutely no clue as to what else to do, is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

If you would like to suggest concise alternatives, by all means. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and dont post in political threads.

---

*kisses* ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kabuki

I heard on the radio today that there is a clip in Fahrenheit 9/11 that shows exactly what Bush did after he heard that the first plane hit the Trade Center. He just sat there, supposedly reading a children's book. He gets told that the second Tower was hit, and he continues to sit there, for like seven minutes or something.

How anyone can have faith in a leader that reads children's books in a time of crisis, and has absolutely no clue as to what else to do, is beyond me.

---

You're being a bit too hard on him. True, he coud have excused himself, and left because it was a fucking emergency. But, then again, the true nature of disaster wasn't known to them until a little after. I read somewhere that Bush said something to the effect of "what a terrible pilot." (Bush himself was a pilot at some point in his life.) If anything, he was keeping up appearances.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

He's a satarist. It's comedy. He's not a journalist, he's a humorist and a propogandist. And he's an entertaining one, that brings attention to some very legitimate issues. Why is that so hard to get?

People these days have lost their sense of humor, I swear. Hell, my grandfather was a die-hard life-long republican and staunch conservative until the day he died, and even he liked TV Nation. What the hell died inside you that makes you unable to enjoy a good biased pseudo-documentary comedy. Lighten up, dipshit, it's just a movie.

---

LOL. If he is kidding around and just fucking around, why should we take him seriously? Why should we listen to and consider what he has to say? If he says, "guns are bad. We should have stricter gun control" and then lists off these reasons... umm yea! He's just joking around! He's a humorist!

Moore brings up these loaded topics, he presents evidence to support his viewpoints and distorts/skews it to tremendous degree, and when someone calls him on it, he says, "well I dont know how you can attack a humorist for accuracy. I'm a comedian." He said stuff like that over and over, a Larry King interview comes to mind. So he wants to have it both ways: convince people to take his side, give his own side of the story, but not answer questions regarding the accuracy of the information he presents. That's wrong and dishonest.

And besides I'd like him more if he were funny. In Stupid White Men he told a lot of jokes, but I rarely laughed at any of them, and this was when I was still a Moore fan to some degree.

So maybe if he told some good fucking jokes I would enjoy his "biased pseudo-documentary comedy". But, you know, I dont think Moore would call Fahrenheit 9/11 that, considering he threatened to sue anyone who talks shit about it.

Quote:

---

If anything, he was keeping up appearances.

---

No shit, what's he supposed to do, run around like a nutjob and scream emergency? Even politely excusing himself and leaving would've looked bad at that moment.

<kid/teacher/school administration before the nature of the attack was known> why the fuck is the President leaving so soon?

People need to remember he was in a room full of little kids. And I doubt anybody, anybody would know what to do the instant they hear that planes crashed in the World Trade Center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

<kid/teacher/school administration before the nature of the attack was known> why the fuck is the President leaving so soon?

---

Oh, so he was reading to children at the time? God damn radio needs to tell the entire scene. They played it up like he was in his office reading Curious George (no pun intended).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kabuki

Oh, so he was reading to children at the time? God damn radio needs to tell the entire scene. They played it up like he was in his office reading Curious George (no pun intended).

---

:lol:

Yea, he was reading to children in Florida.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

While the US had sanctions against Iraq, French/German/Russian businessmen were becoming rich and making Saddam rich on corrupt oil contracts.

---

While Saddam was gassing Kurds and using bio and chemo weapons against Iran, the U.S. was aiding him and Reagan took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations.

How does this make us different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kabuki

Oh, so he was reading to children at the time? God damn radio needs to tell the entire scene. They played it up like he was in his office reading Curious George (no pun intended).

---

Yes, the biggest terrorist target in the US was in a school surrounded by children and stayed there for a half hour after being informed of the twin towers getting destroyed. Much better than reading alone in his office.

Haven't seen the movie, but saw Moore ranting on a talk show. I didn't agree with everything he said, but he did make a good point about how the media sided with the administration 100% and got public opinion behind a war that was essentially launched on trumped up charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

He's a satarist. It's comedy. He's not a journalist, he's a humorist and a propogandist. And he's an entertaining one, that brings attention to some very legitimate issues. Why is that so hard to get?

People these days have lost their sense of humor, I swear. Hell, my grandfather was a die-hard life-long republican and staunch conservative until the day he died, and even he liked TV Nation. What the hell died inside you that makes you unable to enjoy a good biased pseudo-documentary comedy. Lighten up, dipshit, it's just a movie.

---

Al Franken is a comedian as well, but when he makes a serious point, he actually backs it up with evidence, gives sources, and checks his facts. Besides, it's possible to make a documentary funny without distorting the facts... although it's not political, Penn & Teller's Bullshit is a great example of a show that makes some valid points, backs up everything it says, and still manages to be funny.

Man, I leave for a couple months and now the board has a Republican Almaci clone. What is this world coming to?

BfC was fun to watch, even though my intelligence was offended by all the contrived rubbish that was thrown in. Given that, I'll happily watch F 9/11, but will take it with a grain of salt. (although I do agree with the overall message)

I don't care for politics. I suck neither Elephant nor Donkey genitals.
I was a pager in high school. I got the opportunity to spend significant time with politicians behind the scene. The politicians I met were the biggest collection of scum I've ever seen. It’s much more then them being sell outs to the highest bidder. These people were pure evil! I will just say this if you have a young daughter keep them as far away from your State House as possible. That is so true about them never reading a bill too. It’s not because they are too busy either. Every word that comes out of their mouths is written for them by a group of at least 5 people. Please don't put your faith in these politicians. I got to know over 50 of them, out of that group 3 may have been good people, and that is being kind.

All politics aside, say what you will that trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the best I've ever seen. When Bush said that BS at the end somebody should have taken his club and whipped his monkey ass.

Ok, Here is Ebert's review - He gives it 3.5 stars and raves and raves about it. Lots of praises towards Moore as well.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...-moore24f.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

LOL. If he is kidding around and just fucking around, why should we take him seriously? Why should we listen to and consider what he has to say?

---

Well they're serious issues worthy of serious consideration, but beyond that, you shouldn't take him at face value.

Again, he wears his agenda on his sleeve. He's not out to trick you, but just to show one side of the story: His. And to do it in an entertaining manner.

Quote:

---

If he says, "guns are bad. We should have stricter gun control" and then lists off these reasons... umm yea! He's just joking around! He's a humorist!

---

Did you watch the same Bowling for Columbine as me? Because he went out of his way to deny the simplistic conclusion that the problem is with guns or gun laws, showing instead that it was a more pervasive problem with the American culture of fear. Not that I agree with him on that, but still... He went out of his way to show this.

In fact, I found the movie pretty open ended and inconclusive, really, which is unusual for Moore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And besides I'd like him more if he were funny. In Stupid White Men he told a lot of jokes, but I rarely laughed at any of them, and this was when I was still a Moore fan to some degree.

---

I never said you should like him. It's just stupid to waste so much energy trying to prove that he has a fucking agenda, when everyone on the planet knows this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

Al Franken is a comedian as well, but when he makes a serious point, he actually backs it up with evidence, gives sources, and checks his facts.

---

So does Moore. They both distort real and true facts in a manner that suits their agenda, in pretty much the same way, really.

What I want to see is Bush supporters explaining why they support him (not necessarily on these boards, I just mean in general). Enough slamming Moore, Kerry, and the Democratics as a whole. I want to know a single goddamn reason why I should have an ounce of respect for our President. I already have a list numbering in the hundreds as to why I shouldn't support him, now give me something to counterbalance that.

My 16 year old sister got 'arrested' for sneaking into this movie with her older friends. I guess she bought a ticket for something else then went in. I wonder if this would happen with any other rated R movie. Whatever, I'm just happy I don't have to pick her fat ass up from the theater.

lol...arrested!

If I was her I would get some big liberal peeps to back me saying that I was being persicuted and I have a right to know the truth about our evil evil president.

It would be fun.

Random comment: I can't believe it's rated 'R" in the states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Random comment: I can't believe it's rated 'R" in the states.

---

Lol...probably b/c Bush and many others don't want the public to see it. Here in Canada, it is only being shown is smaller theatres near universities. These 'documentaries' get eaten up like chocolate by the students there. :lol: