Could the Moore 9/11 film tilt the results of the US election?

You mean prior to the liberation/invasion iraqis really were peace-loving kite-flying happy shoe-shopping model citizens living in a veritable eden-oasis in the desert?

Wow.

Okay, so maybe the sky ISN'T blue.

Your only burden is to do and think what you are told by the right wing. It's not much of a burden. That's what makes being a right winger popular with some people - there is no requirement for independent thought. Do what you are told, think what you are told, vote for who you are told.

As long as you believe everything Rush and Fox tell you, you have no "burden".

Thinking for yourself is not for everyone.

Moore never says in the movie that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator - you are quoting your neo-con name calling leader, not Michael Moore.

Do you believe that they didn't have kites in Iraq before we attacked them?

Do you dispute the fact that people in Iraq had happy and sad times in their life before we attacked?

No, you don't.

You don't dispute anything in the movie, you just copy and paste some right winger complaining about the music in the movie.

And Dig, that was sarcasm.

Anyone who thinks that they can be a "Conservative" and an adult webmaster is a complete moron.

In case you haven't heard, the Supreme Court will be ruling in a few hours on COPA which if upheld, will put most US adult webmasters out of business. Who do you think brought this matter to the Supreme Court ? The Bush Administration of course.

They certainly didn't have to. The 2 lower appellate courts struck down the law. The Bushies CHOSE to pursue it. They certainly didn't have to.

The Attorney General decided to push this. The guy who covers up topless statues of Miss Liberty because of his fanatical religious beliefs. A good Conservtive.

Conservatives go to church every week.
They think it's GREAT that Bush makes decisions based on his religious beliefs.

They put "Moral Values" (as THEY define them) way ahead of our rights of privacy or free speech. When is the last time you heard a "Liberal" calling for Internet censorship ?

Thank God for guys like Michael Moore.
And all you so-called Right Wing, Conservative adult webmasters ought to take 5 mins and educate yourselves about the Conservative movement. Censorship and pornography are NOT compatible.
Wake the fuck up.

Libs only follow their emotion Fiction (appropriate nick). It's actually the right wing that is more likely to follow hardcore logic.

Why should I spend time typing when you MIGHT be able to put forth the small amount of energy required to read those very good and objective articles.

It's the Libs who are sheep.

You guys are still bitter about the 2000 election.

Moore is your leader Fiction.

Moore doesn't once mention Saddam's atrocities. Saddam is a great guy to Moore.

What bullshit.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Just tell me which colour you want me to call the sky, k?

Are you really trying to tell me that Moore's movie ISN'T bias and slanted and that he conveniently DIDN'T leave out a lot of other information that would have given balance and credibility to his piece?

Really?

Wait for it. I can just hear him typing his answer.

*clickey click, tappety tap*


"follow your leader"
"You are sheep"
"Moore good, Bush bad"
"If you don't agree with me you are an idiot"


Here it comes. It's coming.

Wait for it.....

It won't pass. and that is Bush's drawback.

BUT-you are wrong about Conservative necessarily being religious.

I happen to be an atheist, with a strong aversion to Socialism and religion.

But Socialism frightens me a lot more than a little religious bs.

Bush voted to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes.

Usually it is Democrats who want to regulate. Remember Tipper and the flap about record warnings?

For the record I am not quite a republican, not quite a democrat as far as US politics go. I support some of the positions of both parties, and in my view anyone who sides 100% with one or the other and "tows the party line no matter what" is just begging to get on my idiot list.


My entire point of view here is about this film, period. I'm not here to get into political debates with anyone, I'm here to find out what you thought of the movie and if, in your opinion, it might affect the outcome of the election.

Hee Hee

I don't believe it will. As someone said earlier people have pretty much already decided who they are going to vote for, and the anti-Kerry crowd (unliked their opposition ) can think critically enough to see the movie (if they have time to waste) and still take it with a big bag of salt.

I think their issues are mainly with Bush himself and a few individuals within his administration, such as AssKroft, not the entire party per se. I mean really, can there not be a Republican leader who isn't like Bush in the ways mentioned above?

Has there ever been a *good* Republican president in history? Be honest with yourselves.



No, if your problem is with Bush then quit labelling all conservatives and get on with voting the guy out of office.

And people ARE going to challenge the credibility of Moore's film, deal with it.

Andy Rooney had a good piece one time wondering why it is that all Presidents are *hated,* - why can't we just disagree/

He said he personally disagreed with Bush, but on a personal level he found him engaging.

I have always wondered why politics and religion were so similar in that respect: people could not discuss them without becoming emotional and/or insulting.

Same with Rush-- I disagreed with him on many things but managed to enjoy his sense of humor.

Bow to your God...

Rush is a good speaker, and I can appreciate his talent in that area. What flies out of his mouth though is another matter.

With due respect man, I think it's impossible to seperate the religious aspect from Conservatism these days. The leaders - The President and the AG - are both rapid evangelical Christians. The Religious Right is by FAR the biggest constituancy in the Republican party and they have to be pandered to in order to keep them happy. And religion and porn just don't mix.
It would be nice to pick and choose the aspects of Conservatism
that you like and ignore the others, but that is just unrealistic.

Check out http://www.capmag.com/

Very critical of Bush, and Kerry as well, but still prefers Bush to Kerry.

Very atheistic though. Based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Moore is definitly out to beat his point of view into your head by twisting some facts, but come on...nobody can really disagree that Bush is not the person that should be running our country. The man is a jackass, period. And if Moore has to exagerate some facts to further his cause, fuck it! I'm with him if it gonna help get this fucktard down the road. Fuck bush. I just wish I lived in a state that my vote actually counted. But if he does some how pull off another upset, at least it won't be my fault

Seems a bit on the conservative side.

Actually, COPA first hit the radar in 1998, under Clinton's watch. It was preceeded in (I believe) 1997 by the CDA (Communications Decency Act) - which, believe it or not, was even WORSE than COPA.

Though I am now registered as an independent, I have almost always voted democratic, and I fucking loved Bill Clinton as president. However, some really bad legislation got passed under his watch.

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to grudgingly concede that Ronald Reagan (I prefer to call him Ronnie Ray-gun) was probably a good president. I hate some of the shit that went down under his watch; but the truth is, I can say that about pretty much any president. Reagan had an excellent presence - he was always calm and collected and projected a sense of confidence. That's something a truly good leader needs to be able to do.

I was a wannabe punk when Reagan was in office, and thus was required to hate him - and I am still livid about many things that went down when he was in power - but I must admit, I was sad to hear of his passing. He had an almost grandfatherly presence that acted as a salve for the bad shit that was going on during his administration. I know a lot of the world viewed him as very fake and plastic, but I'm willing to bet that would be preferred over the faux bad-boy posturing we're getting from Dubya.

CD, I must respectfully disagree with you on this. (I've just spent about a half hour arguing my point with my partner - largely without success - so this post may be excessively wordy...apologies in advance.)

If Moore had set out to make an educational film, then I would agree that all the relevant facts should be given equal attention. But Moore set out to make a "documentary", Hollywood style. And Hollywood's definition of "documentary" is not the same as, say, that of PBS, or The Discovery Channel (not that there's a huge difference - but at this point I'm talking Film Academy definition.). As I see it, "documentary" is little more than a categorization for the Oscars. Moore's films aren't fictional, even if they aren't fully factual. Thus, the "documentary" label - despite the slant.

As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. It's just a classification; not an endorsement. I don't believe that Moore's film is an objective documentary any more than I believe "Survivor" portrays actual reality.

Moore has created a literary work. While it may be intended to inform, its primary purpose is to entertain. There is a very important rule in literature: Do NOT dilute the theme. If you want to write a story that says, say, Love Conquers All, you don't toss in a paragraph about how that one time, love didn't conquer all. It dilutes the theme, and that's a big no-no.

What you're asking Moore to do is what we (at least, we Americans) should be asking the nightly news to do - present ALL the facts, without judgment. Let us make up our own minds. That's not happening these days. (Yes, kids, once upon a time, the news was relatively unbiased. How I miss Uncle Walter!)

Moore is admittedly biased, and is a master propagandist. (And I don't consider "propaganda" to be a bad word.) I say, let him spin his craft, and more power to him. I am looking forward to seeing the film and drawing my own conclusions. I know I will be emotionally manipulated (that's part of the entertainment - see Spielberg) and that's okay.

I agree with you completely, and thank you for saying it, that most people are NOT sheep. (But then, I tend to hang with quality people.) But my take on this is - we've already SEEN the other side of the picture, day after day.

Better shut up now - I'm sure I'll have more to say once I've actually seen the film. ;)

And that is the main reason why his film is being criticized.


Ben Mulroney of the Winnipeg Sun said it pretty well the other day in his editorial....


"Take the movie for what it is --- a captivating, sometimes funny,
sometimes ghastly look at U.S. politices and foreign policy since
September 11, 2001, seen through the most liberal of lenses.

This is a "Michael-mentary", pure and simple.

Swallow it whole and you are bound to choke, so watch it for
more than one reason. Watch it because you like subversive
cinema. Watch it because you like to root for the underdog
Watch it because you want to be challenged. And watch it for a
hundred other little reasons.

But if you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 because you think it will reveal
the truth about 9/11, be prepared to leave the theatre feeling
unsatisfied."



I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Nice quote. In fact, I like it better the more I read it. Have a link? (Yeah, I could Google, but it's almost 5 am and I gotta sleep SOMETIME.)

"Michael-mentary"...is a very good description. As to if it will effect the vote...who knows...but I suspect the vote is going to be another very close call...so a few votes one way or another could call the race.

It was an editorial in the Winnipeg sun from Monday June 21st.

The Sun's site is here: http://www.winnipegsun.com/



TheKing --- That's what I'm thinking. Even if a paltry few hundred thousand votes were swayed to Moore's way of thinking, well, elections have been won and lost on fewer votes. I'm sure some will see the movie and eat it up with a spoon and digest it as gospel.