Moore's Movie Slammed

It wasn't necessary for my final point. Logically it wasn't necessary. You misunderstood my question. It was mean to be ironic, rather than literal.

I didn't say you were European. I said you had the European disease!

Think man!

The guy speaking on the tape? OMG... You are more confused than I thought...

I don't know anything about Hitchens, but I did enjoy the slamming of Massive Moore, just as you anti-Bush people enjoy any slamming of Bush.

His *character* is logically irrelevant to the quality of his argument, you know.

Sigh.

You don't understand the significance of the quotation marks?

There's the problem with brainwashed right wingers, they don't know or care what the source is for anything, as long as it says what they want to hear they take it seriously. Of course if it says something they don't want to hear, no matter how factual, it's propaganda. This is why you guys always end up looking to stupid when you talk to anyone besides other head bobbing sheep.

Why do you think it is that everyone ion the planet besides about 30% of the USA knows the only propaganda coming from the States is shit like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News? EVERYONE else must be wrong, maybe Fox really is fair and balanced.

What facts does he present that are untrue? I've seen a lot of right wing crying about him being a liar and a terrorist but I have yet to see one person back it up with anything but more tears.

With "this guy" he quite obviously referred to Christopher Hitchens, the guy who wrote the article referred to in the first post. The piece he quotes is from that article - that would be the article *you* made a post about.

The guy speaking on the tape ("Going out of his way to defend Bush on that 5 sec. piece of tape with desperate arguments") is not on the tape and speaking, he's speaking on the subject of the tape. In other words, "the guy speaking on the tape" is the writer of the article talking about that 5 sec. piece of tape. Get it?

Rich,

I was just saying my enjoyment of Hitchen's article had at least as much foundation -- probably more -- as your enjoyment of Bush-bashing articles.

Lefties always argue from emotion Rich. Right-wingers are far more likely to back up their opinions with rational arguments (barring the Religious Right). Look at how often Lefties feel the need to resort to insults.

As for myself, I definitely don't fit the profile of a Republican. But better Bush than a Liberal (Socialist). Hardcore Agnostic Capitalism for me.

The Left has no logical argument to back up it's insistence that there is anything wrong with the use of military force, for example. It's an argument based on feeling only.

I have always thought of Liberals/Democrats as head-bobbing sheep.

But they bob their heads to emotion rather than rational thought.

Bush bashing? Are you fucking crazy? By that I suppose you're talking about every mainstream article about Bush in the past 6 months that have repeatedly proved his dishonestly and incompetence.


My God you're ass backwards. Democrats have a problems with war? I think they kicked serious ass during WWII, among others. Just because people are smart enough to see when a war is bullshit and is going to make the country less safe, doesn't make them against the concept of fighting. You don't hear anyone complaining about Bush when he's going after Bin Laden... that is, until he stopped going after Bin Laden and started going for profits.

You obviously don't know what *proof* is -- please take a class in basic logic. You Libs open your mouth and swallow whatever the media shoves down it--without questioning.

There was no reason to believe that Saddam did NOT have WMD. He used them on his own people, and was refusing to cooperate with inspectors, on their own admission.

As long as Militant Islam (the version of Muslim that interprets the Koran in a militant way) exists they are going to want to attack America. It doesn't matter how many different ways you Dems would try to kiss their asses, they would want you dead because you're an infidel.

The only thing they respect is force. They still believe the beheadings will work because we turned and ran in Somalia (a decision by the Clinton administration).

I enjoyed what one of the fathers of one of the dead Rangers said to Clinton at the funeral *you are not fit to be our commander in chief*

The further you go on the Left the more they embrace a pacificist ideology that war is simply wrong. You didn't realize this?

This baseless allegation has been conclusively refuted over and over. But would you recognize a refutation?

No one has refuted Hitchen's article, and all of the endorsements lifted from an advertisement for Moore's movie can have their *praise* reduced to *it made me feel good because it helped confirm my hatred of Bush*.

In going back among the threads I ran across one sarcastically making fun of Bush for claiming that our war does not incite terrorism.

Here is what incites terrorism:

1) The divisiveness in America, which the terrorists can readily see, merely gives them courage, and thus resuts in more American deaths. They would like to influence want takes place in elections here, just as they did in Spain.

The Democrats WANT the effort in Iraq to fail, since it will make Bush look bad. Each casualty on either side makes Bush look bad, and so the Democrats EFFECTIVELY profit from each American death. Partisan politics at its worst.

2) Michael Moore's movie gives the terrorists courage, and results in more American deaths.

Michael Moore's movie is being funded by Hezbollah, or they have at least expressed support and approval and offered to advertise for it
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1155566/posts

A terrorist in the Bali bombing quoted from one of Michael Moore's books to justify his act
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true

The terrorists probably love this board, or any board with plenty of anti-Bush pro-Mendacious Moore rhetoric. It confirms they are right in resisting any efforts they see as coming from Bush.

It's a vicious circle of self-defeatism, since we look at the war and see escalating violence, then blame Bush, which then gives the terrorists more courage to launch more violence, because they see it is accomplishing their goal of defeating Bush.

Very sad.

Including posting on GFY

Opinions are like assholes... we all have them.

I ahve NEVER listened to a critic... I have totally enjoyed movies that got shitty reviews and hated ones that got great reviews. It's all a matter of what it does for you and if YOU enjoy it or not.

Did you stop to think that the people in spain never agreed with the war to begin with and when the bombinb happened they said "We told you so" and ousted the current administration?

Originally posted by BustIt
The Democrats WANT the effort in Iraq to fail, since it will make Bush look bad. Each casualty on either side makes Bush look bad, and so the Democrats EFFECTIVELY profit from each American death. Partisan politics at its worst.

Bush looks bad enough as it is... Sure failing in iraq will make them look even worse than they already do but when you look as bad as they already do i dont think it will matter much.

The truth shall set you free. Everyone has the right to know the TRUTH about what it is their leader is doing... Woud you like to see every thing bush has done classified so that no one knew anything? So that people would assume all is well and blindly follow their leader? The more information which is made public the greater the chances of a voter making an informed decission as to who they're voting for.

Didnt american fund/train Bin Laden? Nuff said.

Well, yeah that's what it is is a piece of entertainment.

Even Ebert says that's all it is.--that the premises can be easily defeated.

I disagree with any efforts to get it banned, since I believe that simply makes people more curious.

Banning books for example has always increased sales of the book.

Well, any premise can easily be defeated...

but you cannot put out a movie about a person and tell lies.. if he is... then bush has one hell of a lawsuit against him... don't you think?

Common.... why would the bush administration be trying SO HARD to get this movie shut down if there was NO TRUTH behind it?

Yes, and I admired PM Zapatero for having the courage to stand up for what was right, in spite of the public oppositing. The fact is he drastically improved Spain's economy, more than doubling the number of jobs.

And yet they vote him out just because the terrorist fucks bomb a train right before the election.

Effectively a terrorist organizatin DECIDED a country's election.

Appeasement. Kiss their ass and maybe they'll us alone.

Last time I checked there was an election on. Maybe it has something to do with that. If they feel this slanted lop-sided propaganda piece might affect their chances of getting re-elected I can definitely see them taking some steps to limit the dammage it can do.

Only fair... the media has been slanting toward bush and his lies for the last 4 years.




Note on the title of this thread.....

And so what if this movie got slammed... it was the BIGGEST box office of any independant film to date....

Can't be too bad... I personally think it is getting slammed to keep people away... not gonna work here... I cannot wait till 4:20 whe I get to go see it

It's all in the packaging. The process of editing by itself creates an entirely different story. -- taking scenes out of context.

For example, the simple process of CHOOSING what scenes go where is a process of CREATING a different story.

He CHOOSES scenes that promote his thesis, and OMITS scenes and facts that would make it questionable - and there are plenty of those to omit.

EG., NO MENTION is made of Saddam's atrocities. Those are conveniently omitted form what I have read.

I know a conservative GROUP is trying to get it banned, but I think they are misguided.

As far as the Bush admin trying to get it banned, I haven't read that specifically, but the FEC is concerned that it effectively violates campaing finance law. ??

True... I totally agree with that... but the media and the bush administration has been doing that too... so... I think it is only fair to hear from the other side now.

Okay.

Democrats against Kerry:
http://miller.senate.gov/cissues.htm

Moore film appeals to terrorists
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1155566/posts

Moore's Personality Disorder
http://www.hardylaw.net/mental.html

***I'll pose a final question:

Assume, arguendo, that all Moore says and writes, that what his followers reflect, is accurate.

Now formulate a statement as to why the killing of thousands of civilians at the World Trade Center was fundamentally evil.

Not a terribly easy thing to do, is it?

(If you try to squeak by with total pacifism -- all killing is evil, period -- the next assignment is to formulate a war crimes indictment of Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, and explain their moral equivalence to the death camp operators.).***

We did not go into Afghanistan as a response to 911: the plans (and many of the troops involved) had been in place since the previous July. We did not go into Afghanistan because the Taliban was a repressive regime: we had been negotiating with them for an oil pipeline until April 2001. They broke off the negotiations.

We did not go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone, nor because he was an evil dictator. We went in the first time because although Kuwait was horizontal drilling into Iraq's oilfields, we prop up the non-democratic regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia so that they will help keep oil prices low. We went into Iraq the second time as part of an ongoing 70 year old policy to destabilize the middle east. That policy produced arab nationalism and moslem extremism, powerful enough forces now such that dabbling in the internal politics of these countries (eg supporting both sides in the Iran-Iraq war) no longer works.

We have no intention of allowing democratic government in Iraq, because that would put the Shi'ites in power and they would ally themselves with Iran. That is absolutely the last thing we would want to see happen.

To date there is no proof the Osama Bin Laden was behind 911 or that Al Quaeda exists. Bin Laden did running a terrorist training camp. People who passed through that camp were involved in terrorist activities prior to 911. But until post 911 there was no suggestion that this training camp was any different to others of its kind: people pass through and then return to wherever they came from, as members of whatever (local) terrorist group sponsored them or that they subsequently joined.

"Al Quaeda" was a name coined by the media in early 2002, but it has never been used by any group to refer to themselves. In the summer of 2002 the CIA estimated that fewer than 200 people had passed through Bin Laden's camp, yet for 2½ years every hint of terrorist activity has been laid at their door.

Someone flew those planes into the World Trade Center. They may have been arab terrorists, even though the act was a world away from any terrorist action to date, in terms of scale, scope and organization. And despite the fact that several of the alleged terrorists supposedly on board the planes have turned up alive.

Perhaps Bin Laden does run an organization and not just another mid-east training camp. Maybe he was behind 911. The Taliban was certainly a repressive regime and Saddam Hussein was a monster who was a threat to his own people and his near neighbors.

But there are a million miles between the few clear facts and the neatly package story that the US public has been soaking up via the mainstream media for nearly 3 years. The legends put out by the White House are still being passed along almost without question, even though many errors, exaggerations and omissions have been exposed. And there is overt manipulation of public opinion, for example with constant talk of "insurgents", even though we are offered no proof that those involved are not locals. Recent events in Saudi were all cheerfully blamed on Al Quaeda (again without proof) and not a mention was made of the strong probability that these were just the latest in a long string of anti-royalist actions.

Michael Moore has stated clearly that F911 is a one-sided film. It cannot be any more so than the crap we get from CNN, Fox and the rest. And at least it will provide some small balance.

Wow.

What do you think of the French conspiracy theory? The best-seller? Muyssen was his name or something. That no planes at all crashed into the WTC towers?

You're the biggest waste of space since Pathfinder. People discussing alternate political views causes terrorism? Welcome to my ignore list you ignorant bastard.

Rich,

You're just ticked because I indirectly pointed out your near illiteracy and complete lack of reasoning ability.

Or maybe you are fat, and didn't like that image I just posted.

I suspect I'll be in distinguished company on that ignore list.

Yeah the New York Times, the Chicago Sun Times and Time magazine, to name a few, aren't real publications either. What reviews are you waiting for, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh?

Who said I was waiting for a review?

Come on, the New York Times makes headlines even on Liberal publications for its far left bias.

It's barely deserves to be placed above the National Enquirer for objectivity.

Here's a blog devoted to the errors and etc in Moore's soon to open to gullible crowds everywhere movie:

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

Actually, now more than ever people who wouldn't have went to see it, now want to see it just for the plain reason so many people don't want anyone to see it. There was a flippling line out side of the gateway a block long, just to get in to see it, so michael moore should thank the idiots who think their opinions matter, his movie is probably getting so much advertising for free because of you.

Biggest box office sales of any independant movie ever in two days. Yeah, they are totally helping him with their trying to stop it and their coverage. 4:20pm I will be seeing it too.

What, I don't care if anyone sees it. Even Hitchens recommends that you see it.

It shows you how low the Dems will stoop during an election year.

Jayeff do you really believe what you just wrote there?

and the republicans are different how?

not one bush ad is not a SLAM against kerry.

neither party is better than the other.. they both SUCK!!!!!

The Kerry ads started well before the Bush ads, and were almost un-precedented in the *personalness* of their attacks.

Both parties are flawed in many ways, but I have to pick one over the other.

The Democratic party is far more inclined to Socialism than the Republican is, and I have personal distaste for Socialism.

That's good reasoning FudPuck.

It is both...but you may want to have a modicum of compassion for him...or not...as he hears voices in his head...that tells him he is brilliant...has 3 degrees...and owns 3 of the largest casinos on the net...when his claim to fame is in fact a small AVS site. He is almost amusing though...being blinded with his ultral liberal views.

I'm thinkin that the whole deal is... He, as do many Americans, want some answers to some serious questions..

Moore's so called "documentaries" are meant to entertain and earn him money...no more than that. He is a satirist that has found his niche. I find his films and writings amusing and entertaining...but he is not about truth...the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The so called "serious questions" he may have posed in this film have all been answered...some...just do not like the answers.

"So-called" is correct.

This thread still running?

Have ya ever stepped back 50 paces and analysed the postings here? It shows a load of shit about battering the current "enemy of the day" and a great polarisation, based on the political views of folks within the US.

I'm amazed some people find this much contraversy in Moore.

This appears to come from some great sensibilities to do with anything in politics in the US (allowing for election year hysteria).

I can think of several movies which are highly critical of governments in other countries. Governments and "leaders" are not sacred and generally these movies were then shown on television asap after the release - can't see any rush to see this happening to Moore's movie in the US, - only "obstacle courses" to avoid others viewing it.

Much as it may seem strange, I gotta agree with theking *g*, - Moore is a satarist and entertainer who is touching these "finer sensibilites" and pressing the right buttons and sure getting a reaction.

This is somewhat like an interview Bush gave to Irish TV when he made such ridiculous claims - ie.. most of Europe was/is behind us in the war in Iraq - when in fact, not only Europe, but the rest of the world was opposed to it. Bush was "ruffled" when challenged on this. There is a basic inhibition in some to accept black is black and not a darker shade of grey. Moore is simply doing the same thing - challenging. There is nothing wrong with that - some shit needs challenging.

Fuck.

What part of "Bush wants your pornographer asses holding tin cans begging for change" don't you Bush supporters understand?

Exactly the reason for this thread!

That there is no proof? Yes. There hasn't even been much in the way of circumstantial evidence.

Does this mean I think Bin Laden/Al Quaeda was not responsible? It means I have no more idea as to who was responsible for 911 than does anyone else on this board. Much of the supposed evidence is dubious at best and unless there is a lot that we are not being told (which seems unlikely given the rearguard PR action being fought by the White House), there isn't enough even to think about starting a prosecution.

Yet those claims were the reason, so the public were told, for invading Afghanistan. We have lost American lives there and we are still pumping billions of dollars into staying, with no end in sight. That's a heck of a commitment for something you couldn't even bring to a grand jury.

I don't buy into the wild conspiracy theories going around, because there is even less evidence to support any of them. But it does bother me that arab terrorism suddenly went from hastily planned, small scale operations - truck bombs, suicide bombers, etc - to something which tooks months to put into effect, involved large numbers of people (by the normal scale of these things), plus careful planning and tight coordination: all at a level never seen before or since.

It's not impossible that it really was like that. I just don't like assumptions when so much is at stake.

Osama on video tape was not enough proof for you? He said on tape that they did not expect the towers to collapse...among other things he said...about the attack.