Disney's latest!

[Secretariat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5006&en=89982416bdce50c0&ex=1084334400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

[PaceAdvantage]

I say release it. Hardly anybody goes to see his films anyway. Michael Moore and Spike Lee are amazing....people keep giving these guys money to make college-level movies that nobody goes to see. How do I jump on that gravy train?

There's nothing new in this movie that I haven't already read about or heard about. The bin Laden airlift, the Saudi-Bush connection, it's all old news to me. But, I guess there are those out there who need to get their information from TV and movies, so please, I hope they release it...there is nothing to be afraid of, except potential losses for the distributor....

[Secretariat]

Thanks PA. I agree.

Information should be available even if people don't want to avail themselves of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

The information is already available.

[JustRalph]

did you ever think that Disney might not want to get sued?

Moore is famous for bullshit that nobody believes anyway........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
The information is already available.

What do you mean the information is available. Have you seen the documentary? I haven't. I've no idea what's in it.

[PaceAdvantage]

This info (Bush, bin Laden, Saudi link) is all over the internet on various conspiracy websites...take your pick....

Let Miramax find another distributor!!! Nobody is silencing Michael Moore! It's Disney that is screwing things up for this movie! They are afraid of what MIGHT happen to their tax breaks at their theme parks??? Why would they be afraid of anything? Did a couple of thugs from the White House pay a visit to Donald Duck and Goofy and tell them if they distributed this new Moore flick that they would break the beloved cartoon icons knee caps????

This is a non story. The film will see the light of day. The real reason this is any story is the following:

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

These guys don't want to share profits, because they know that the profits are likely to be SMALL.

[Secretariat]

You failed to mention that Disney is a big Repub contributor.

So know we're reduced to seeing documentaries because of political affiliations of corporations. Now that's America. Bravo..free speech. A great lesson for Iraq and our soldiers fighting over there.

[Big Bill]

Sec,

According to Neal Boortz Disney is not a big Republican contibutor. He sez:

"Does this mean that the Disney empire is conservative .. even Republican? Hardly. Remember, Disney was the number one corporate contributor to The Hildabeast when she ran for Senator in New York. These folks are most definitely aligned to the left. Mickey Mouse would call himself a "progressive." You can't say that Disney is friendly towards or supportive of the Bush administration."

Big Bill

[so.cal.fan]

Doesn't Disney have a big interest in the State of Florida?
Jeb Bush's Florida?

[Lefty]

Gee, so cal fan, you sound like Jeb owns Fl instead of just being Gov. Disney was in Fl long before Jeb was Gov.
I hardly think Disney is aligned with Repubs. They now own ABC and they certainly lean wayyyy to the left.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
I hardly think Disney is aligned with Repubs. They now own ABC and they certainly lean wayyyy to the left.

You are kidding right Lefty?

[Secretariat]

Moore and the NY Times have weighed in:

"I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

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.

Wow, what a reason.

[eclecticapper]

Here's the % split for Disney's campaign contributions for each election cycle since 1990:

1990: Dem 77% Rep 23%
1992: Dem 81% Rep 19%
1994: Dem 85% Rep 15%
1996: Dem 78% Rep 22%
1998: Dem 59% Rep 41%
2000: Dem 56% Rep 43% (don't know if the missing 1% is due to rounding or went to Nader)
2002: Dem 56% Rep 44%
2004: Dem 62% Rep 38% (so far)

This is based on contributions from individuals as well as Disney's PAC (which actually tends to split contributions 50-50 between the parties). Data courtesy of opensecrets.org (a user-friendly version of data available from the Federal Election Commission).

[Lefty]

And of course we know Moore is the bastion of truth, right? Now i am kidding, sec.

[JustRalph]

It is being reported that M.Moore knew this a year ago and is just starting to scream about this for the Canne Film festival....publicity whore?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Moore and the NY Times have weighed in:

"I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

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.

Wow, what a reason.


Hey look. At least this gives Moore some more material to make his next flick. "DISNEY DEMONS OF DEMOCRACY -- A film by Michael Moore"

[PaceAdvantage]

So, now we have hard evidence that Disney as a corporation is decidedly biased towards the Democratic Party, and we already know the Miramax powers that be are hardcore dems.

SO......what's the real issue here?

OH, I know...maybe its a PUBLICITY STUNT???? Wanna make a bet Disney decides to distribute it after all? I wouldn't be too surprised.

Any publicity is good publicity, or didn't you know that?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Moore and the NY Times have weighed in:

"I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.


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.

Wow, what a reason. I would have thought by now this loser would have the abiltiy to put out his own work instead of leeching of corporate welfare.

[so.cal.fan]

I'll bet you are right, PA......publicity stunt....they'll release it.

[hcap]

Pa There's nothing new in this movie that I haven't already read about or heard about. The bin Laden airlift, the Saudi-Bush connection, it's all old news to me. But, I guess there are those out there who need to get their information from TV and movies, so please, I hope they release it...there is nothing to be afraid of, except potential losses for the distributor....It may be old news to you and me, but to "joe public" as the preznit says, it ain't.

Most of joe public gets their massaged news from tv and radio-not the internet. Maybe the large scale POPULAR dissemination of info such as the Saudi connection with the bush family, and the visuals that may be in the movie of the bin laden airlift as we head into the 2004 election is ticking off some of the bushies.

Craig Unger, author of
"House of Saud, House of Bush"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/06/moore/index.html
(requires day pass to read full article)

"As it happens, my research for "House of Bush, House of Saud" backed up his (Michael Moore) charges. As I told him during the interview for the movie, denials from the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself notwithstanding, I had found a total of eight planes stopping in 12 American cities, picking up over 140 passengers, including more than two dozen members of the bin Laden family. I recounted the story of how two young Saudi billionaires, Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz, had journeyed to Houston in the '70s and become friendly with James Bath, a friend of George W. Bush's in the Texas Air National Guard. And I told of how the Saudis had put more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts into companies tied to the Bushes and their close associates."

Remember the overwhelming majority of the 911 hijackers were Saudi.
No Iraqis'.

[hcap]

PUBLICITY STUNT?
Probably

Besides the point.
Content of movie is the root of the story.

[ljb]

This event is moving along nicely. Sort of like when faux news tried to sue Al Franken.

[Lefty]

I would believe Michael Moore and his movie about as much as I believed the now discredited book, "October Surprise"
You guys just flat give yourselves away when you continually denigrate Fox who prob has as many liberals as conservatives. Your idea of fair and balanced is just the complete liberal view.
I bet your bile will backup and make you just sick when GW is reelected.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Not sure if I will be sick but, I will be sad if GW is ever elected President.

[cj]

Newsflash...he already has been elected. I guess you are perpetually sad. :(

[Secretariat]

CJ,

Bush has never been elected by a MAJORITY of the people (the definition of a true democracy). He was "appointed" President by the Supreme Court after a controversial ballot issue in Florida, and won on the basis of an electoral count, not on a majority of the people losing the popular vote.

Actually, if Bush or Kerry wins this fall I hope they carry a majority of the people this time, rather than it coming down to the electoral issue. Having a minority elected Pres is not good for the country no matter which party is involved.

[cj]

First off, its highly debatable whether Bush won by a "true" majority or not. I won't even pretend to know if he did or did not, and anything you say is pure speculation as well.

Secondly, the Electoral College was put in place for a reason by the Founding Fathers. I do not want want the President elected by stinking New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles every year.

[eclecticapper]

Here's a link to the FEC's webpage with the complete results. Note that since only half of the voting age population actually votes for president, the president is always a minority winner. A truly sad statistic.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by eclecticapper
Here's a link to the FEC's webpage with the complete results. Note that since only half of the voting age population actually votes for president, the president is always a minority winner. A truly sad statistic.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

Thank you eclectic for the link.

It is a shame more people don't vote, but of those who did vote the Federal Election Commission link confirms Bush was a minorty elected president.

So as you see CJ, it is not highly debatable, but in fact documented by the fina lfigures of the FEC.

Your second point on the electoral college is a good one though, although so many do not seem to care whether the Fourth Amendment is trashed lately, but that's another issue.

You may want to take a peek at this link to view the origin of the electoral college to understand its roots and rationale however.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm

[ljb]

cj,
Hope I didn't burst your bubble. GW was "selected" to be president by his daddys supreme court.

[cj]

Believe what you want, he received the most electoral votes, period. It only had to go to the Supreme Court because of some silly tactics tried by the Dems that were rightly tossed.

I'll take the decision of the Supreme Court, no matter who selected them, over those clowns in Florida.

So, you are a sad little man, eh?

PS...His father appointed two justices, same numbers as the Slickster.

[ljb]

cj,
I am indeed sad. After all I too have to suffer under the supreme courts decision. I will be even more sad if Gw should be elected president of the United States.

[Lefty]

sec, it was the Dems who went to court first. They went to the Fl state Supreme ct to steal an election. The High ct did it's job and said, no dice.
It's a moot point and "sour grapes" is the only reason to bring it up. Get over it.

I thought you'd be ecstatic and now in GW's corner now that he's proposed money for hydrogen fuel cell research.

[ljb]

Lefty said
I thought you'd be ecstatic and now in GW's corner now that he's proposed money for hydrogen fuel cell research.

Just curious Lefty, where does Bush expect to get this money?

[Secretariat]

LJB,

First, off, this thing Lefty is talking about is the typcial Bush pattern. He makes a speech on security, and then throws in some scraps for the environment or aids, etc., and it always goes down to defeat in the Repub House. Bush never gets on the bully pulpit to fight for these items. His big aids bill promise to Africa, the fuel cell push etc. will never get through the House where Delay functions as the hatchet man to prevent any thing not on the conservative agenda from getting through. (Hep promised the fuel cell thing way back in his previous State of the Union addresses, and where did that go. He is a man of slogans with no substance.

I understand the Bush campaign tactic on this and its a pretty good strategy. Appear compassionate in a speech, and then when it makes its way to the approrpiation side, it will always be "we can't afford it" in the house, and it will go down to defeat, UNLESS, its a trip to Mars, or corporate welfare.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
CJ,

Bush has never been elected by a MAJORITY of the people (the definition of a true democracy). He was "appointed" President by the Supreme Court after a controversial ballot issue in Florida, and won on the basis of an electoral count, not on a majority of the people losing the popular vote.

Actually, if Bush or Kerry wins this fall I hope they carry a majority of the people this time, rather than it coming down to the electoral issue. Having a minority elected Pres is not good for the country no matter which party is involved.


America 101....

We are NOT a democracy-we are a republic. The president is ot elected by poular vote, but by the eloctoral college. It is in the constitution. If you don' tl ike it, change it. And Bush did win the poular vote. It was Gore who underhandledly tried to thorw out legitimate votes, even those by service men and women serving our country, and by trying to manufacture votes out of illegible ones. What really surprized me wsa just many liberal democrates werre so eager to stand up and declare themselves so totally stupid that they could not figure out a punch card ballot. To my way of thinkg, THAT is the real danger in our elections-liberal morons with the right to vote. Here's a suggestion to the mentally challenged out there-use your tax rebate checks to go back to night school and try to learn someting this time.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
America 101....

We are NOT a democracy-we are a republic. The president is ot elected by poular vote, but by the eloctoral college. It is in the constitution. If you don' tl ike it, change it. And Bush did win the poular vote. It was Gore who underhandledly tried to thorw out legitimate votes, even those by service men and women serving our country, and by trying to manufacture votes out of illegible ones. What really surprized me wsa just many liberal democrates werre so eager to stand up and declare themselves so totally stupid that they could not figure out a punch card ballot. To my way of thinkg, THAT is the real danger in our elections-liberal morons with the right to vote. Here's a suggestion to the mentally challenged out there-use your tax rebate checks to go back to night school and try to learn someting this time.

Tom is right on target. Those same Dems who talk so much about supporting the troops........didn't want their votes counted in the last election..........amazing!

[Secretariat]

First ,please read the FEC final tally again which was psoted be eclectic.

Second, please read my link on the electoral college.

Third, since we are a republic and not a democracy as Tom claims, why are we so insistent in installing a democracy in Iraq than a republic?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I do not want want the President elected by stinking New York......


HEY! ;)

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat


Third, since we are a republic and not a democracy as Tom claims, why are we so insistent in installing a democracy in Iraq than a republic?

Continuous improvement.

[Lefty]

When Kerry loses they will probably try to pin it on Ralph Nader.

[ljb]

lefty,
You seem to have overlooked my question. Am i to take this as an admitance of failure on your part? Or should i just accept Secretariats answer ?
Hope this doesn't upset you, some of the rightys on this board become somewhat foulmouthed when confronted with something they don't like to here. (like for instance, the truth):D :D :D

[Lefty]

lbj, been busy. Your question of where does Bush expect to get the money for hydrogen fuel cell research. Answer, same place
Kerry expects to get his for same project shoulld we go brain dead and elect him.
Sec, loves Kerry for SAYING he's for hydrogen cars, but when Bush actually proposes to get the research done, all of a sudden, it's a bad thing. My, my, spin, spin.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, been busy. Your question of where does Bush expect to get the money for hydrogen fuel cell research. Answer, same place
Kerry expects to get his for same project shoulld we go brain dead and elect him.
Sec, loves Kerry for SAYING he's for hydrogen cars, but when Bush actually proposes to get the research done, all of a sudden, it's a bad thing. My, my, spin, spin.

Actually no Lefty, Bush proposes to get his money for his hydrogen plan by tacking onto the deficit as in his Mars project. Kerry wants to tax those making over 200,000 so we can have real renewable energy in this country.

There is a signficant difference between their two proposals Lefty if you could get beyond the rhetoric.

Take a look at where the Bush plan is headed.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15067

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1586

Things are not always black and white Lefty.

[Tom]

And just how much tax revenues do you expect to collect from those $200,000+ earners? Thet are already paying the bulk of taxes.

[ljb]

Posted by Lefty:
lbj, been busy. Your question of where does Bush expect to get the money for hydrogen fuel cell research. Answer, same place
Kerry expects to get his for same project shoulld we go brain dead and elect him.
Sec, loves Kerry for SAYING he's for hydrogen cars, but when Bush actually proposes to get the research done, all of a sudden, it's a bad thing. My, my, spin, spin.
This is a basic evasive move Lefty. You did not answer the question but tried to spin it off. And you put in a slam on Kerry also. Try to just answer the question without the spinning flim/flam nonsense.
You said "Bush actually proposes to get the research done." My question again:
Where does he propose to get the funding for this research???

[Lefty]

I did answer. From same place Kerry is gonna get it. All money for anything comes from the people, don't you know that? Only Bush won't raise taxes. Bush actually proposed this, Kerry prob. just giving "lip service" as Dems tend to do. The Dems pattern is clear: They don't really want to solve probs but just keep them around for the power game they love to play. SS is a prime ex. If the Dems had went along we could have solved a lot of the SS prob a long time ago. But Bush will get the funding for hydrogen research and that's the diff between Repubs who get things done and Dems who just talk and talk and solve nothing.

[Lefty]

I just don't understand why you libs think this is a zero sum game. If the pie isn't big enough enlatge the pie. Translation: We can grow our was out of large deficits. The 94 congress helped us do it, and we elect enough Republicans so we get a clear majority, we can do it again.

[ljb]

Leftys answer to my question.
I did answer. From same place Kerry is gonna get it. All money for anything comes from the people, don't you know that? Only Bush won't raise taxes.

Since Bush has already lead the gubmnt into the largest deficit in history, I guess this will just be another lien on our children. Damn borrow and spend Republicans anyway.

[Tom]

Ljb, once agian you have missed the point. It is getting so that if you were taking target practice, the only safe place to stand would be in front of the target!
Take notes, this will be on the test....
Democrates spend
Republicans INVEST

[Lefty]

lbj, the diff between the dems that are running for office and are in office and you, is that they know better. They raise taxes and use all these so-called issues to lure people who want something for nothing or think that the disadvantaged are truly being helped to vote for them. That's why you and others gush over them and vote for them because you fall for these social engineering issues.
Tax cuts, grow the economy and we can grow out of the deficit. It's not a Zero Sum Game.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Ljb, once agian you have missed the point. It is getting so that if you were taking target practice, the only safe place to stand would be in front of the target!
Take notes, this will be on the test....
Democrates spend
Republicans INVEST

lol...what a slogan...can you tell me how the Repubs have invested the largest deficit in history?

Thanks Tom, I needed a good laugh today.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
lol...what a slogan...can you tell me how the Repubs have invested the largest deficit in history?

Thanks Tom, I needed a good laugh today.

That's the point Sec.........you don't get it..........

Deficit spending is not always bad.........it was proven thru the Reagan Era etc. You just don't get it...............now let's not turn this thread toward economics........I don't want to have to go thru that again...........my point is that you Dem/Libs just don't understand or refuse to understand and learn from the past........kind of like that big ole war on poverty you guys started. 450Billion later.........no change? You guys will hopefully be extinct in another 50 years...........just like the Dinosaur....you fail to adapt..........:D

[Tom]

Yeah, Ralph,,,good point. How long have we been bogged down in the war on poverty? Isn't it time to bring in the UN? I mean, talk aobut going into a war with no exit strategy!!!!
We need more boots on the ground and fewer boots under the bed, if you get my drift! Or maybe more butts in the air.
When I was a dishwasher (Ameridcan Legion) my boss used to tell us "All I want to see is A**h*les and elbows!"
Sec, L, Hcap...what is the DNC plan to get us out of this endless WOP???
:confused:

[Secretariat]

The plan is simple Tom. Eliminate the problem. Get rid of Bush. We had surpluses before him.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The plan is simple Tom. Eliminate the problem. Get rid of Bush. We had surpluses before him.

you ever heard of the dot com bubble..........how about the "Reagan Economy" that was created for Clinton?

Your responses are almost cliche..........you do know that the Economy tanked in clinton's last six months right?

Bill Gates is much more responsible for the 90's economy than any other person on the planet...........just like a Dem to try and take credit for it...............oh...yeah.....Gates is a Dem.........another limo liberal..........

[Lefty]

A Surplus yes, and thanks to Bush the money got back in the hands of the people before the Dems thght of another giveaway prgm. Also, 9-11 happened and we're in a war. Takes money. But don't worry, we'll grow out of the deficits, unless too many dems elected to congress.

[Tom]

Sec, is was Demos that started the great society (LJB, er LBJ) and the WOP is still lost. Don't change the subject. Surpluses did not help.
I ask again, what is the DNC plan to win the WOP?

[Secretariat]

Amazing....Now you're saying surpluses don't help...that money is back in the hands of the people...

I can't beleive you guys call yourselves conservatives....I always thought that a balanced budget and fiscal responsiblity was the cornerstone of conservatism....Wasn't that Newt's cry in the 90's...Instead we have the largest deficit spending president of all time....and the illusion of a tax cut is paid by borrowing from future generations..not to mention that these tax cuts are more beneficial to the wealthiest individuals in our country....I see another 25 billion for Iraq which Powell was not even aware of...But what's a billion here, a billion there....

By the way homelessness was considerably down during the Clinton years...I see it's climbing again and bankrupticies are at an all time high....

So the solution is pretty simple, just remove all legistlation enacted during the bush adminstration....we will be returning to a time when the economy was booming....and Kerry has stated he'll even go one step further and let the middle class keep the tax cut....it's really not that difficult...we've gone down the wrong path fiscally...let's go back to the budget when there were surpluses....

[Tom]

Sec, your getting as good as Ljb at spinning posts. Obviously, surpluses do not help win the war on poverty-we still poverty, have spent trillions on it, and we are still losing.
So one more time, what is the DNC plan to win the WOP?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Amazing....Now you're saying surpluses don't help...that money is back in the hands of the people...
....

Bush put money back in the hands of the people through his tax cut, which you oppoesed, now you site it a good thing?
Sec, are you really Kerry posting here? Such flip floping!
:eek:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Bush put money back in the hands of the people through his tax cut, which you oppoesed, now you site it a good thing?
Sec, are you really Kerry posting here? Such flip floping!
:eek:

Tom,

Please reread my last post. I've answered your question there over and over. There's no flip flop. I'll repeat it again. Go back to the budget under Clinton when there were budget supluses and much less homelessness and more jobs, less bankruptcies, and as Kerry advocates even retain the middle class tax cut, but those over 200,000 will pay what they paid in the Clinton years.

I've never said that Bush borrowing money from future generation's kids to give to people today under the guise of a tax cut was a good thing. In fact, it lacks integrity, and undermines something our country has always tried to do, which is make it better for future generations rather than greedily borrowing money from those generations to come. Loaning money from the future and passing it off as a tax cut when it is in reality "credit with interest" that has to be paid on massive deficits is the height of irresponsibility. The idea that you can launch a War on Terror worldwide, and cut taxes for the wealthy is just downright irresponsible.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The idea that you can launch a War on Terror worldwide, and cut taxes for the wealthy is just downright irresponsible.

Ok....I am tired of hearing this crap!

I got a tax cut .......and I am not wealthy! Draw the line Sec....what do you consider wealthy? I paid less taxes this year on a percentage basis than any other in my memory...........I bet you did too...are you wealthy?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Ok....I am tired of hearing this crap!

I got a tax cut .......and I am not wealthy! Draw the line Sec....what do you consider wealthy? I paid less taxes this year on a percentage basis than any other in my memory...........I bet you did too...are you wealthy?

Please reread my post. I said that Kerry advocated and I agree that those making under 200,000 maintain thier tax cuts. But let me repeat, we cannot fight a War on Terror and still give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans by borrowing from futre generations. It is just fiscally irresponsible. Look if we borrow 500 billion from another gneration to pay for a tax cut now, it is not a tax cut but loaning on time.

[JustRalph]

Sec.....maybe you ought to answer the question.........

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Ok....I am tired of hearing this crap!

I got a tax cut .......and I am not wealthy! Draw the line Sec....what do you consider wealthy? I paid less taxes this year on a percentage basis than any other in my memory...........I bet you did too...are you wealthy?

Ditto. Sec, you are posting BS. I though you were bette rthan that. I wsa wrong. All we heard thorugh the Clinton years were the millions of homeless people. And as for the very low unemployment numbers, as one who suffered through those years, a very large number of those people were wrothless workers-totally useless. We launched 5 major programs for GM that were labor intensive, which means value added manufacturing jobs. For every one person we hired and kept, I bet we had to go through 20 slugs. Statisics are meaningless in a vacuum-there is a percent of the work force that is not employable.
And budget surlpuses-don't make me laugh. If there was so much extra money, why was the national debt not lowered? Why was SS not fixed? Why were taxes not lowered when it was obvious the govt was taking too much money out of circulation?
And how does a surplus fight poverty? If you don't lower taxes to increase disposable income, what way do you deliver it to people?
Handouts. Welfare. Money down the drain. Typical liberal idiocy.
I really thought you were better than that. *sigh*

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Ditto. Sec, you are posting BS. I though you were bette rthan that. I wsa wrong. All we heard thorugh the Clinton years were the millions of homeless people. And as for the very low unemployment numbers, as one who suffered through those years, a very large number of those people were wrothless workers-totally useless. We launched 5 major programs for GM that were labor intensive, which means value added manufacturing jobs. For every one person we hired and kept, I bet we had to go through 20 slugs. Statisics are meaningless in a vacuum-there is a percent of the work force that is not employable.
And budget surlpuses-don't make me laugh. If there was so much extra money, why was the national debt not lowered? Why was SS not fixed? Why were taxes not lowered when it was obvious the govt was taking too much money out of circulation?
And how does a surplus fight poverty? If you don't lower taxes to increase disposable income, what way do you deliver it to people?
Handouts. Welfare. Money down the drain. Typical liberal idiocy.
I really thought you were better than that. *sigh*

Tom, you just don't get it. Budget surpluses mean first off, WE ARE NOT increasing the deficit but have funds that can work toward reducing the overall national debt, and repaying money taking out of the social security trust fund. I don't get this, a balanced budget is something the Repubs wanted all through the 90's, and now they've seemed to abandon that idea instead choose to rack up huge deficits.

Now is that really the solution to poverty, give people making under 50,000 a couple of hundred from a future generation's income, and for those over 200,000, giving them thousands and thosands from a future generation's income. It's so absurd it's laughable.

Unemployment and homelessness were much lower in the clinton admin than Bush's. Statistics only seem to matter to the GOP when Rush finds them.

If you remember Gore's big issue was taking that surplus and putting it in a "lock box" for Soc Security. Instead Bush gave that surplus to his rich friends (in fact more than the surplus) in the form of tax cuts for the rich. Even worse after deficts started growing he continued robbing the till from future generations for buddies like Ken Lay or Kenny Boy as GW referred to him.

Taxes were not lowered in the Clinton years, because the dollar gets stronger and stronger the less debt we have, and the surplus showed the world we were working our way out of fiscal problems. Now, instead, the dollar has been devalued hence one of the reasons gas is so high, our dollar buys less worldwide.

You fight the war on poverty by keeping unemployment low, providing good jobs, keeping the deficit under control thereby strengthening the dollar. Now please tell me where that is welfare.

The biggest welfare act in the history of America was provided by GW Bush called the Corporate Welfare Act of GW for American Corporations allowing loopholes to be written in for outsourcing, and giving huge tax breaks to corps such as Enron. I laugh when Repubs talk about giving a couple hundred bucks a week to people struggling on the lower end, but have no qualms about giving massive corporate welfare amounts to the wealthiest people in our country. It's pretty shameful, and the amazing thing is some of them call themselves Christians.

[Tom]

Tomorrow, Sec.
I can only talk to a wall so long before I get a headache.
Got get out and get some fresh air. Maybe I can find me one of them gubbermint cheeses while I'm out! :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

That's OK Tom.

Heres' another 600 million for nothing we can add onto the deficit.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20040511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fbi_computers

[Tom]

Not to worry. We will raise taxes on the poor to cover it.:D

[Secretariat]

They've already started Tom. It's called the new Gas tax.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
The biggest welfare act in the history of America was provided by GW Bush called the Corporate Welfare Act of GW for American Corporations allowing loopholes to be written in for outsourcing, and giving huge tax breaks to corps such as Enron.


Yup, Enron sure took advantage of that good ol' boy tax break, now didn't it?

[Lefty]

Homelessness down in Clinton yrs? B.S. The media just didn't "harp" on it during the Clinton yrs. And when the last Dem convention in N.Y. was held they cleared the homeless people from around the convention area. Actually rounded them up and moved them.

[Lefty]

sec, yeah Gore talked about the lock box, but what he failed to tell the American people that a lockbox doesn't exist and that SS money is comingled into the Gen. fund and has been since the JOHNSON yrs.
Remember when you guys harped about the deficit during the Reagan yrs? Then the Repub 94 congress came along, forced Clinton to bal. the budget, forced Clinton to embrace welfare reform. The deficits you worried about were mostly eradicated.
Stay on course with the Repubs and that will happen again.
Kerry and his middle class tax cut: Clinton promised the same thing. Never happened. Won't happen with Kerry either. The DEms will say anything to get elected. The Dem party has been hijacked by the radical liberal left.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Lefty
The Dem party has been hijacked by the radical liberal left.

Ain't it the truth!

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Yup, Enron sure took advantage of that good ol' boy tax break, now didn't it?

Some Enron executives sure did. And other major campaign contributing coprorate people sure did. Wonder if they made a list during the closed door energy policy meeting that Cheney held?
Can't defend this SOB any more-he sold us out and he is an enemny of the people. Even corrupting the Supreme Court. Cheney must be impeached.

[Lefty]

The Clinton adm helped Enron and the Bush adm refused to help Enron? Cheney impeached? For what? For asking for opinions? These opinions kept secret because if they are not who'd want to offer one anymore after the liberal media took you apart?

[Tom]

They are kept secret, no one is in them to represent the average citizens, gas prices are foing sky high, and oil companies (Hmmmmm...ya think?) are making record profits.
And a supreme court justice who is a poersonal friend of Cheney is also not recusing himself from legal procedings-clearly a conflict of interest?
I guess Cheny might just be little bit dirty. I think there are far more questions about his integrity than CLinton's, so I have to be consistent-you get a hummer inthe Oval Office or you manipulate oil prices, you get impeached. Let's see if the jsutice system realy works in this country.
I think the new Axis of Evil has been identified at the congress, the supreme court, and the exectuive branch. No more free rides, no more benefits of the doubt.

[Secretariat]

Since most here won't get to see it while the world does, here'a a review:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,638819,00.html

[Lefty]

sec, you spend far too much time worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. Think for yourself.
I think, if I were on camera as much as Michael Moore i'd worry more about personal hygiene.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Since most here won't get to see it while the world does


You are right about me not seeing it---but I guarantee it will be available for viewing before the election.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Since most here won't get to see it while the world does, here'a a review:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,638819,00.html

You assume we want to see it? Not me. I have seen Moores work before and was not impressed. He is biased, loose with facts and the truth, has limited talent and generally turns out stuff of poor quality, never mind the content. His old liberal tricks of taking things out of context wear thin after a while. And what lefty said, the guy is a slob.
And agian Sec, that link was not up to your previous standards.

[Secretariat]

Well, Moore's film won the best picture award at the Cannes International Film Festival.

I wonder if it will be allowed to be aired in the United States- so much for free speech. Unbeleivable.

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Palme D'Or Award at Cannes

Saturday May 22 2:18 PM ET

"Michael Moore 's controversial anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the Palme d'Or best film award at the Cannes film festival on Saturday. "

[Tom]

Well that's the French for ya.....no taste.
BTW, are they bathing regularly over there yet?

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
[

I wonder if it will be allowed to be aired in the United States- so much for free speech. Unbeleivable.

' [/B]

What's unbelievable is that you pretend to think that it won't get shown in the US.

[hcap]

Roger Ebert May 18, 2004
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-cannes18.html

"Despite these dramatic moments, the most memorable footage for me involved President Bush on Sept. 11. The official story is that Bush was meeting with a group of pre-schoolers when he was informed of the attack on the World Trade Center and quickly left the room. Not quite right, says Moore. Bush learned of the first attack before entering the school, "decided to go ahead with his photo op," and began to read My Pet Goat to the students. Informed of the second attack, he incredibly remained with the students for another seven minutes, reading from the book, until a staff member suggested that he leave. The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting."

Some stuff on a US distributor
http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/1417.htmlhttp://thecelebritycafe.com/features/1417.html

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat

I wonder if it will be allowed to be aired in the United States- so much for free speech. Unbeleivable.


There you go with that liberish spin again. "Free" speech doesn't apply here. Since MM choose not to own the film by paying for it himself, he has to abide by the wishes of those how laid out the cash. If he has a contract, the other party is free to release what it wants to and withold what it wants to. MM could have taken control of his film but choose not to.
The speech isn't free-somene else paid for it.
He is free to buy the rights to air it if he can negotiate a deal.
But this whole thing, I am sure, is nothing more than a big publicity stunt - in other words, just another lie by the king of grunge-MM.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by hcap
Roger Ebert May 18, 2004
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-cannes18.html

"Despite these dramatic moments, the most memorable footage for me involved President Bush on Sept. 11. The official story is that Bush was meeting with a group of pre-schoolers when he was informed of the attack on the World Trade Center and quickly left the room. Not quite right, says Moore. Bush learned of the first attack before entering the school, "decided to go ahead with his photo op," and began to read My Pet Goat to the students. Informed of the second attack, he incredibly remained with the students for another seven minutes, reading from the book, until a staff member suggested that he leave. The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting."

Some stuff on a US distributor
http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/1417.htmlhttp://thecelebritycafe.com/features/1417.html


Actually, the very first reports were that a small commuter jet had crashed into the tower. Initially, many thought it was just a horrible accident. There is no reason to expect the President to act any differently after hearing of the initial incident. Is it protocol for the President of the United States to immediately cease what he is doing and go into crisis mode every time a plane crashes somewhere in the US? I don't think so....

But of course, in order to think like this, one must have some sort of common sense, and understanding of what things might have been like BEFORE WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

20/20 hindsight ALWAYS present the BEST course of action.

But of course, Michael Moore would never come up with this logical explanation of Bush's actions on that morning. It wouldn't fit with his view of how things MUST be.

And I won't even dignify your "I wonder if it will be allowed to be aired in the United States- so much for free speech. Unbeleivable." quote with a comment, except to say that we all know that it will play here. They're getting all the great publicity that they set out to get with this little ploy of "woe is me, will I ever find a distributor for my little tiny film of truth?"

This publicity stunt is right up there with the "anti-semitism" angle of "The Passion of The Christ"

[kenwoodallpromos]

I like Roger and Me. But Moore is just making a damocatic jackass out of himself. I am going to stop shaving and cutting my hair, find a basllcap too small for my head, and make a movie of Kerry's Congressional antrocity confession.

[JustRalph]

My God........! I bet Harry Truman knew about this http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm and he ignored it as a covert plan to reduce the amount of Bombers available for the War Effort? Did you see the look on his face when he heard about it? He waited 45 seconds before he reacted.....................

M.Moore is the greatest film maker of all time. He took a movie full of lies and used it to degrade the Bush Admin in front of a French Audience and the French actually liked it? WOW! What are the odds?................GET REAL!

[Lefty]

Tom asks, "are they bathing over there yet?" Well, there ya go, Moore and the French appear to have a lot in common there. The French, Moore and the film must have left an unbelievable stench.

[Secretariat]

I'm amazed with those people here who are not allowed to see the movie are such experts on it.

[Lefty]

sec, and that includes you.
I'm not an expert on the movie but i'm acquainted with Moore, far left slant and how he will lie and manipulate the facts to make his far far left points.

[PaceAdvantage]

So sec, what do you think about my explanation concerning the President's actions (or non-actions as you like to put it) right after the first plane hit the towers?

Very logical explanation, isn't it? Only a tiny dose of common sense needed to come up with that explanation, I'll have you know!

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm amazed with those people here who are not allowed to see the movie are such experts on it.

I have read several articles written about the movie. Two of those cited specific items that Moore "mis-characterized" in the film. The usual stuff for Moore

[PaceAdvantage]

Doesn't this just warm your heart?

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/archives/000834.php

[Secretariat]

I'll wait to see the movie. I figure it'll air in Canada at least so who knows, maybe I may take a trip up there this summer to fill some of my Dad's prescriptions.

[Lefty]

PA, the quote by Tarantino had me laughing and almost falling off my chair.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'll wait to see the movie. I figure it'll air in Canada at least so who knows, maybe I may take a trip up there this summer to fill some of my Dad's prescriptions.

you can stop acting like it won't be shown in the U.S.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm amazed with those people here who are not allowed to see the movie are such experts on it.

No one is not allowed to view the movie.
that is like saying no one is allowed to read my novel because I can't find a publisher.
Spin away, Sec.

[Secretariat]

No I'm not spinning. Please tell me where one will be able to see the movie in America and who this distributor is going to be?

Perhaps we don't know yet..kind of like who is going to be in charge of Iraq June 30th I guess.

[Lefty]

I have written several short stories and articles that have been published. I've also written several that were rejected. Have I been censored? Of course not and neither has the dirty, scummy looking Michael Moore. Prob is, libs don't seem to know what free speech and censorship really is.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
No I'm not spinning. Please tell me where one will be able to see the movie in America and who this distributor is going to be?

Perhaps we don't know yet..kind of like who is going to be in charge of Iraq June 30th I guess.

That is complete different from being "Not allowed" to view it.
If it is made available, EVERYONE will be "allowed" to see it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yup, that pesky choice of the word "allowed" is the difference here. I can just see it now.....the big multiplex down the street has "Fahrenheit 9/11" now showing on EIGHT SCREENS, BUT, the national guard is stationed at the TICKET BOOTH, and not allowing ANYONE to purchase tickets to this earth-shattering feat of movie making....

Yup, that's a scenario that is SURE to play out, if you are using the world "allowed".....

As LJB likes to say.....GET REAL

[Secretariat]

I stand corrected. Disney has "prohibted" me from seeing it in the United States at this point because they are afraid of Jeb Bush fallout. Gee, I feel so much better.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, you are wrong again. Disney has made a BUSINESS decision NOT to distribute this movie. HOLLYWOOD is full of DISTRIBUTORS.

It's just like ANY OTHER movie that currently has NO DISTRIBUTOR. There are probably 50-100 other movies you are not being "allowed" or are "prohibited" from seeing at the moment....

In fact, I am currently PROHIBITED from seeing a movie I'd like to see...."The Day After Tomorrow"

You know why? It doesn't open for another 5 days....

[wes]

PA, that's like the Drunk writing himself a letter. Was asked what the letter said. Don't know will not get it until tomorrow.




Looking for a Micro Wave TV. I want to watch a ball game in 5 minutes.


wes

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I stand corrected. Disney has "prohibted" me from seeing it in the United States at this point because they are afraid of Jeb Bush fallout. Gee, I feel so much better.


And your facts to back this up are.......?

[Secretariat]

http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore.html

[Lefty]

I notice it says according to Emanuel who is Moore's agent. That does not make it a fact that Disney is afraid it won't get tax breaks. And even if Disney is afraid tax breaks are in jeapardy it doesn't make it a fact that they are. We get to the crux of the matter when it says Disney afraid it will alienate many customers. That might be. I am one who would be alienated as I am by many movie stars whose movies I will no longer watch.

[PaceAdvantage]

If his movie is so marketable, let him find another distributor!! If his movie is so profitable, there is no way in hell SOMEONE in Hollywood won't jump at the chance to make some $$$$.

I don't see the problem. This is all just a big ol publicity stunt to generate BUZZ before the movie premiers here in the USA.

Just like the anti-semetic "controversy" just prior to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" release....

Don't you guys get how the world (and Hollywood) works? It's so simple when your head is clear....

[so.cal.fan]

I agree with PA

I wonder if there will be a big controversy over the DaVinci Code when they make that into a movie?

[Lefty]

socal, Yeah there's already been a controversy of sorts and a lawsuit about the Davinci Code. There's an earlier book with slighly diff name and with the same plot.

[PaceAdvantage]

Any publicity is good publicity. And since Michael Moore's films generate little revenue compared to major hollywood releases (check out Shrek 2 for example), they aren't going to spend a bundle on PROMOTING his film through CONVENTIONAL channels, such as TELEVISION advertising, because it would eat too much into the profit margins.

Thus, they create this BUZZ, which is FREE. Nothing wrong with that, but lets call it what it is.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Any publicity is good publicity. And since Michael Moore's films generate little revenue compared to major hollywood releases (check out Shrek 2 for example), they aren't going to spend a bundle on PROMOTING his film through CONVENTIONAL channels, such as TELEVISION advertising, because it would eat too much into the profit margins.

Thus, they create this BUZZ, which is FREE. Nothing wrong with that, but lets call it what it is.

Pa, are you asserting that Moore wanted Disney to drop his film, even though it won the Cannes, so he could create a free Buzz about it? I would think an American film winning the largest film festival in the world would be enough buzz.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think your average joe cares much about what film wins the Cannes film festival.

Do you not deny that the publicity BEFORE CANNES wasn't beneficial for his film, being the low budget, limited appeal movie that it is?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I don't think your average joe cares much about what film wins the Cannes film festival.

you can say that again.............

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I don't think your average joe cares much about what film wins the Cannes film festival.

Do you not deny that the publicity BEFORE CANNES wasn't beneficial for his film, being the low budget, limited appeal movie that it is?

Actually if you heard what judge Quentin Tarantino said, the publicity hurt the film's chances, and Tarantino said the film was chosen despite its politics because it was simply the BEST film. Cannes doesn't normally select political films. Perhaps you can name one recently.

Perhaps the average joe isn't much interested in a Bush political speech either.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Actually if you heard what judge Quentin Tarantino said, the publicity hurt the film's chances, and Tarantino said the film was chosen despite its politics because it was simply the BEST film. Cannes doesn't normally select political films. Perhaps you can name one recently.


Perhaps you can name any film that has won Best Film at Cannes in past years without looking it up--perhaps you have actually seen some of them. Or perhaps not.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Actually if you heard what judge Quentin Tarantino said, the publicity hurt the film's chances, and Tarantino said the film was chosen despite its politics because it was simply the BEST film. Cannes doesn't normally select political films. Perhaps you can name one recently.

Perhaps the average joe isn't much interested in a Bush political speech either.

yeah.....appointing a known Coke Fiend as the spokesman is always the way to inform the public. I have read Quentin has kicked his problem recently. But Uma did an interview a month ago and implied that he still "gets up" for certain occasions. I believe everything Quentin says, don't you?

[ljb]

Jr,
I suppose you would prefer an oxy addict as your spokesman. Oh wait a minute you already have him. :D

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
I suppose you would prefer an oxy addict as your spokesman. Oh wait a minute you already have him. :D

Good one...........

But I would have to answer yes. I would take the medically addicted like your Demo Hero...John F. Kennedy. As opposed to the Hollywood type:cool:

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore.html

I do not think you understand the meaning of the word fact.
I uspect you are confusing it with "biased bullshot written by slope-headed burned out hippies in between flash-backs."

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
I suppose you would prefer an oxy addict as your spokesman. Oh wait a minute you already have him. :D

That reminds me, whatever happened to that liberal rqadio network featuring Al Frankenstein? With all the obviously disgusted liberal voters out there waiting for the voice of truth, I would have thought they would have found more than two channels by now. Oh yes, it is sweeps month. Must be they got swept out with the rest of the trash!
LOL
hehehe
knuck, kncuk, knuck

Like Rushbo says...."with half my brain tied behind my back."

[Lefty]

libs don't do well on radio because they have no sense of humor. lbj, on here, proves it time after time.
And also, they are doom and gloomers. Who wants to constantly depressed?

[ljb]

Lefty,
As you know I have more important things to do then listen to the mouth of Oxy, could you share one of his humorous moments with us?

[Lefty]

lbj, you should take the time. You need Rush badly.
I think it was during the second Clinton run for office that Rush announced he was going to vote for Clinton. The switchboard went nuts. Then several minutes later when someone exitedly asked why he was going to vote for Clinton, Rush said he didn't say that.
He was making the point that if Clinton could change his mind every 5 min and disavow things he had said, then Rush figured he could do the same.
Then of course, the best is the Parodies. Never will forget Count Taxula (Clinton) and ALGORE (Gore as Igor)Funny stuff that you're missing not to mention what you will learn about politics.

But the 2 most important things about humor is the element of truth and knowing when to give up on a bad joke. Lbj, you need to learn both of those things.

[ljb]

So you think when Rush bullsh*ts the public it is funny. Well you must be falling on the floor laughing your ass off because Rush is all bullsh*t.:D :D :D
Are you suggesting I give up on you ?

[Lefty]

lbj, your answer is what I mean about needing Rush for guidance.
But maybe, the libs have just completely taken you over cause the non-subtantive answer you just gave is right outta the old lib playbook. You remind me of a character in the Wizard of Oz.

[ljb]

Lefty,
How long you been reading the lib playbook? You remind me of a character.

[Lefty]

lbj, I am flattered that you constantly try to copy me but get some thghts of your owm.

[ljb]

Get some thoughts of your own? This from a person that uses the lib playbook as a source, when not glued to the oxycontin Kid's radio show.

[Lefty]

lbj, you have trmemdous problems getting things straight. I was referring to lib's playbook as YOUR source. Everything you say has been said so many times by sooo many libs. When you're not doing that, you're attempting to mimic me.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Pray tell how would you know anything about "my source"? And why did you say my response is right out of the old lib playbook? Have you been studying the old lib playbook?

[Lefty]

lbj, don't need to study it, been listening to libs same old "prattle" for years. You parrot them almost perfectly.

[Tom]

I saw the film being advertised on TV today- Miramax is releasing it. Publicity stunt all the way.
Should be as educational as an Oliver Stone movie.
I bet you guys actually bought all the crap in the movie Kennedy?

[Secretariat]

I hope so Tom. Do you have a link to that?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Tom
I saw the film being advertised on TV today- Miramax is releasing it. Publicity stunt all the way.
Should be as educational as an Oliver Stone movie.
I bet you guys actually bought all the crap in the movie Kennedy?


What a shocker...you mean the film is coming out? I'm so shocked! SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED!

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! THIS FILM WILL SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN AMERIKA?? UNREAL! I DEMAND SOMETHING BE DONE ABOUT THIS HORROR! WHERE IS THE NATIONAL GUARD TO STOP THIS!

[schweitz]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
What a shocker...you mean the film is coming out? I'm so shocked! SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED SHOCKED!

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! THIS FILM WILL SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN AMERIKA?? UNREAL! I DEMAND SOMETHING BE DONE ABOUT THIS HORROR! WHERE IS THE NATIONAL GUARD TO STOP THIS!

You mean I'm going to be allowed to see it???---is this wise?;)

[Secretariat]

Still waiting for the link rather than hearsay. I hope you're right.

[Lefty]

sec, can't function without a site to guide him. He needs a link.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Still waiting for the link rather than hearsay. I hope you're right.

Why don't you just call your local DNC office and find out.

[ljb]

And of course Lefty has an original thought NOT!
Just more oxy Kid BS from Lefty.

[Lefty]

lbj, like I keep saying, no sense of humor. And your ongoing reference to Rush as the Oxy kid, just proves you're a bitter lib with no compassion; even though you guys keep saying you're brimming with the stuff.
And do you really think Rush references sec's obsession for links, on his show? Or maybe you think we confer?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Still waiting for the link rather than hearsay. I hope you're right.

I am not allowed to post the link. :D

[hcap]

If anyone is interested.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=18

[PaceAdvantage]

Does michael moore site the review from Variety? I hear it wasn't so flattering. Something along the lines of all the charges in Moore's film have not a single shred of evidence to back them up.

Another shocker.

[bill]

so far not sued for liebel or i dont think so

[PaceAdvantage]

Well then, I guess when I watched the editor-in-chief of Variety (and he ain't no Bush fan) being interviewed on CNBC Monday, I must have been hearing things.

I tried to access Variety online, but they want me to register, which like Sec, I don't do.

[bill]

are you saying he has been sued


i didnt know

[Lefty]

Bill, these guys get away with libel by saying they're doing satire. A public figure is fair game; unfortunately.

[PaceAdvantage]

No, I didn't say anything about anyone being sued. Where did you get that idea?

[bill]

aceAdvantage
Administrator



Registered: Mar 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3156


Well then, I guess when I watched the editor-in-chief of Variety (and he ain't no Bush fan) being interviewed on CNBC Monday, I must have been hearing things.

I tried to access Variety online, but they want me to register, which like Sec, I don't do.

Report this post to a moderator






i thought thats what you meant sorry

[bill]

paste must not have done rite

[hcap]

As a public service to all lemming stepforders and anti evil-doers, I direct you guys to something right up your alley, or whatever it may go up.

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/newsmax/

"STOP MICHAEL MOORE FROM PROFITTING
IN HIS ATTACKS ON AMERICA & OUR MILITARY"

Sounds like these Newsmax mavens are getting a bit nervous.

I guess if they wanna counter Moore as the election approaches, they could always run the bush interview on meet the press with Russert. They may have to strategically cut most of bushs' comments though..... I would say, oh 90- 95%. Heck, just leave "stedfast", and "stay the course" Maybe leave "war president" if their feeling lucky and brave


:p :p

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh, I heard MM found a distributor for his film. Shock of shocks!!

I almost fainted when I heard!

[hcap]

This alone will guarantee the filmn will be a success financially. I think politically a disaster for bush as it gets, my prediction, a huge audience


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0611-01.jpg

[Tom]

Looks to me like Bush is saying,"Come along, Mikey.....we have little surprise for you over at Langley."

You REALLY think anyone will be swayed by this muttonhead's film? Other than those ballot-challenged morons in Florida?
HeHeHe....Hcap...you have a good time in your littel world, don't you?
BTW.... are you Ralph Nader?

[Lefty]

The scroungy fat man in the picture has been invited on the Bill O'reilly show. Will he have guts enough to accept the invitation?
If Michael Moore smells as bad as he looks, I suggest Bill should wear nose plugs.

[hcap]

Gentlemen, all ya gotta do is go to....

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/newsmax/

"STOP MICHAEL MOORE FROM PROFITTING
IN HIS ATTACKS ON AMERICA & OUR MILITARY"

And tell them

" not to worry. Bush is a sure thing no matter what M. Moore says in his movie, and that even if the movie breaks box office records for a documentary-my prediction-none of the millions and millions of dummies who are curious enough to see it, matter anyway.

Particularly those who haven't quite made up their minds. Ya know the inconsequential SWING voters.

Probably gays and pinkos, we don't need their stinkin' votes"


And if o'reily is brave enough to suffer another trouncing, just like Al Franken did to him at the book conference (saw it on cspan),
even some faux viewers might go to the movies.

[Tom]

If you honestly believe MM is telling the truth, you need to check this out:

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/casporig.htm

[Tom]

Feel better now?:D

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice movie poster.

Now you're going to honestly tell me all this "controversy" surrounding the film finding a distributor was NOT beneficial to Michael Moore?

Bull. Total 100% Bull. This was a planned, strategized maneuver on the part of MM and the connections behind the film. Bravo to them for suckering in all the fools who really thought he might never find a distributor for his movie.....LOL

Not only did he find a distributor, but the movie release schedule never suffered...not even by a minute....


WHEW...what a scare that was!!!! :rolleyes:

[Tom]

ROTFLMAO!

NOW, Mickey is crying the blues becase his sic-flick got a more adult rating then he wanted. Imagine that? The only thing adult about the guy and he bitches about it!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Secretariat]

Hey Lefty,

Even FOX-NEWS liked 911 Fahrenheit....Are you going to see it now?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122678,00.html

[Lefty]

I have pointed out that Fox News is fair and balanced. That doesn't mean I agree with everything and everybody. I had had my fill of Moore long ago and know what a conniving liberal he is.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
I have pointed out that Fox News is fair and balanced. That doesn't mean I agree with everything and everybody. I had had my fill of Moore long ago and know what a conniving liberal he is.

Well Lefty the FOX reviewer states it shouldn't matter whether you are a Repub or Democrat. Heres' a few excerpts from the FOX reviewer:

“As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.”

“But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.”

“More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker. And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career.”

[Lefty]

I don't care what he said. Michael Moore is a man not given to truthfulness. He has a personal agenda. I know that and will listen to myself and not someone else on this matter. Moore, has never come close to being fair. He's a liberal "bombthrower"I will not see the movie I hope that's okay with you! If not, too bad!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
I don't care what he said. Michael Moore is a man not given to truthfulness. He has a personal agenda. I know that and will listen to myself and not someone else on this matter. Moore, has never come close to being fair. He's a liberal "bombthrower"I will not see the movie I hope that's okay with you! If not, too bad!

Well Lefty..I'm a little dissapointed. I always viewed you as open to new ideas, and a strong advocate of Fox News. Most people do have a personal agenda. You ask if it is okay with me if you don't see the movie? No, it's really not, but I guess that is too bad for me. I was interested in your response.

[Lefty]

sec, i.e. mr. word twister, I am a strong advocate of Fox News as being fair and balanced. This review proves how fair and balanced they are but doesn't mean I agree with everything that's said there. In fact, I can't because they are fair and balanced there are always opposing views. Funny that you, should suddenly embrace Fox News now that it suits your agenda.
I am open minded but have read the pp's on Moore long ago. He is not open minded but has an extreme leftwing agenda.
How many lies does a man have to tell before I'm not interested in what he says? Moore lost me long ago.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
How many lies does a man have to tell before I'm not interested in what he says? Moore lost me long ago.

Yeah, Bush lost me long ago too.

[Lefty]

sec, that's because you can't handle the truth.
So you go right ahead and vote for the admitted war criminal, Kerry.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, that's because you can't handle the truth.
So you go right ahead and vote for the admitted war criminal, Kerry.

I will Lefty. Boy you sound like Jack Nicolson in that movie A Few Good Men...I think Jack said that line...didn't turn out too well for him either if I remember in that flick...

[Lefty]

I do a pretty good impression too.
Things in real life often diff than the movies. Thght i'd let you know.

[Tom]

Hey Sec, maybe no one told you, but you are allowed to form your own opinions and have your own thoughts on thing-you don't have to find someone in the news or on the net to do your thinking for you.
Fox News, fair and balanced. YOU are the one proving that. You see, conservative do not all agree with everyting along party lines. We have this strange ritual that we perforn every day, something you might not fully graps right way, but we THINK!
Actual thought,s many times original. No links, no cut and paste, actual chemical-electrical reactions in our brains that look at data, oprganize it into information, relate it to other information, nad then adjust our beliefs accordingly.
Pretty dull, huh?:D

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Hey Sec, maybe no one told you, but you are allowed to form your own opinions and have your own thoughts on thing:D

Gee, thanks Tom I was unaware of that.

[Secretariat]

June 28th, 2004 7:41 pm

Statement on Disney Joining Forces with the Right Wing

Michael Moore responds to news that Disney--which refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 because it didn't want to be involved in politics during an election year--is teaming up with Move America Forward, the group that tried to keep Fahrenheit 9/11 from reaching movie theaters across America.

"Disney joining forces with the right wing kooks who have come together to attempt to censor Fahrenheit 9/11 must mean that Dumbo is now in charge of the company's strategic decisions.

First, Disney tried to stop the movie from being released and now it is aligning itself with the very people who are trying to intimidate the movie theaters from showing the movie. Even Donald Duck would tell you this makes no sense. This latest development only further disproves what Michael Eisner had claimed about 'politics' not being behind Disney's decision not to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11."

--Michael Moore

[PaceAdvantage]

You like Michael Moore quotes eh? Try these on for size:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

or, how about this one:

" I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end. "

And I see Michael Moore is getting more distribution help from an unlikely, but WELCOMED source:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
You like Michael Moore quotes eh? Try these on for size:


or, how about this one:



And I see Michael Moore is getting more distribution help from an unlikely, but WELCOMED source:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012

So instead of addressing the Disney lie, you attempt to change the subject.

OK, I'll play. First quote (that in quotes) is bascially asserting that people don't see themsevles as terrorists, or insurgents. The second one is sad. Of course Hezbollah is happy because there is some criticism of the Bush administration. Notice their offer to help promote the film. ... But it doesn't say that Moore accepted that offer did it? Of course not. Don't be absurd.

And you guys talk about spin. Now please address the Disney lie.

[PaceAdvantage]

He never denied or condemned the offer of help, now did he? He wouldn't want to miss out on any of that Middle East $$$ that he accuses Bush of profiting from, correct?

And whatever Disney does, Disney does. Doesn't affect me one bit. They are a company that relies on the popularity of their products to survive. If they do enough to piss off the general populace, they will suffer financially. It's the American way.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
And whatever Disney does, Disney does. Doesn't affect me one bit. They are a company that relies on the popularity of their products to survive. If they do enough to piss off the general populace, they will suffer financially. It's the American way.

So telling the amercian public you're not distributing the film because "Disney doenn't want to get invovled in politics" and then "going out an supporting a right wing organization that is directly opposing the film" is the American way? ... No, that is the Bush way, or the <Cheyney Expletive> way.

[Lefty]

sec, Why don't you write Disney and ask them if they lied and why.

[Lefty]

Here's a theory. After seeing the movie and seeing all the lies and slick editing and learning of the omissions and seeing pure speculation given as gospel maybe it scared them to the right.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Here's a theory. After seeing the movie and seeing all the lies and slick editing and learning of the omissions and seeing pure speculation given as gospel maybe it scared them to the right.

There ya go Lefty..now I don't have to write then and ask. I guess if 99% of its true, and 1% is debatable that would negate the whole thing huh? You are something. btw..is it showing in your area? How's the response been?

[cj]

It opens here Friday. A guy from work says he'll pay my way, so I guess I'm going to see it.

[Lefty]

Prob is sec, you have the numbers backwards. If you think it's 99% true then ok, shows Michael has successfully brainwashed you. Remember on June 20, he said the movie is his opinion and not journalism. I guess now he's trying to pretend it really is a documentary. I think the Mark Kennedy example of juggling the truth would change anyone's opinion of this movie and it's maker; if they were open minded. That segment just sets the stage for many more segments ofslick and nasty editing. Another example of the Garafalo "nicer" left. If you don't like the truth, change it; that's what Moore did.
It's showing and I have no idea of the response.

[Tom]

And Disney lying is important because........??????
Grow up, Sec. You are too big for the swings.

[JustRalph]

I posted this link in another thread........but it is Germane to this thread too.........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

[Tom]

F*A*C*T*S

Ya gotta luv'em!

A tip o the hat to Ralph for letting the light of truth shine in!

[Secretariat]

Isikoff? That's old news. Moore and Unger have already rebutted everyone of those arguments.

Bring it on.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, but did Moore sue him, like he promised to sue anyone who "told lies" about him or his movie?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Its tough when there is more than one version of the 'truth'.

[Lefty]

Richard Clarke, hero of the left, darling of the anti-Bush crowd, says F-9-11 is bologna!

[ljb]

Lefty,
Why do you surmise Richard Clarke is "the hero of the left, darling of the anti-Bush crowd"? To me he is just another government retiree who has the balls to tell the truth about Bush's failings. There are many, he is not special. He does have a right to express his opinion of the movie.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Why do you surmise Richard Clarke is "the hero of the left, darling of the anti-Bush crowd"? To me he is just another government retiree who has the balls to tell the truth about Bush's failings. There are many, he is not special. He does have a right to express his opinion of the movie.

And to expose the lies the MM is telling in the movie.

[ljb]

Tom,
Glad to see we can agree on some things. Richard Clarke exposed lies.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Richard Clarke, hero of the left, darling of the anti-Bush crowd, says F-9-11 is bologna!

As usual you are wrong Lefty. I just read an article on Clarke's comments.

Yes, Clarke disagrees with Moore's assertion that the Bin Laden family was not thoroughly questioned by the FBI before leaving the country. Moore has stated he disagrees with Clarke and said he shouldn't have approved those flights based on Moore's own interviews with other FBI agents. But you miss the point of the whole Saudi connection - WHO came up with the idea to fly the Bin Laden family out of the country - it wasn't Clarke as he stated to the 911 Commission. WHO was it? Clarke said he didn't even know. That it came from someone in the White House or Justice Department. WHO would make that kind of request? And what strikes me even more odd is WHY would Clarke give the Bin Laden family a free ride out of the country during a national emergency WITHOUT KNOWING "WHO" MADE THE REQUEST!!! Doesn't that strike you as odd?

But even more importantly since you like quoting Clarke when it suits your Moore bashing needs, are a few of Clarke's comments from last week:

Clarke Calls Iraq War 'Enormous Mistake'

June 26, 2004

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The invasion of Iraq was an "enormous mistake," costing untold lives, strengthening al-Qaida and breeding a new generation of terrorists, former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said Saturday.

"We did exactly what al Qaida said we would do -- invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country that wasn't threatening us in any way," Clarke said before giving the keynote address at the American Library Association's annual convention in Orlando. "The hatred that has been engendered by this invasion will last for generations."

Clarke, who wrote "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" earlier this year, said the United States will lose the war on terrorism if it loses the battle of ideas against extremists in the Middle East. Clarke was a counterterrorism adviser to the past three presidents

"We won the Cold War by, yes, having good strong military forces but also by competing in the battle of ideas against the Communists," Clarke later told the librarians. "We have to do that with the jihadists."

But the United States' ideological credibility has been undermined by revelations of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison and the release of documents that showed U.S. government attorneys conducted a legal analysis of what constituted torture, Clarke said.

"What happened at that prison was legally a war crime," Clarke said. "It pains me to realize now as we read these documents that American government lawyers were writing opinions about what torture was."

....

Personally, Clarke is a small player in this whole thing, and has some crediblity issues, but he has only addressed this one issue in his criticism of F911, and has not commented on the other aspects of the film.

[PaceAdvantage]

I betcha I know who came up with the idea. The BIN LADENS THEMSELVES!!!

If you were them, would you want to stay in the country? Ever heard of witness protection? Kinda like that....

Sometimes you guys are so buried in it, you can't see the damn forest.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I betcha I know who came up with the idea. The BIN LADENS THEMSELVES!!!

If you were them, would you want to stay in the country? Ever heard of witness protection? Kinda like that....

Sometimes you guys are so buried in it, you can't see the damn forest.

Well, I figure they wanted to get out of the country. But..uh...I don't think on the days following 911, Clarke was really going to be interested in a bunch of Saudis fleeing the country.

Your speculation about the bin Ladens WANTING to get out of the country - sure. However, who set it up within the government (DOJ or WH as Clarke speculated) and brought the request to Clarke. You and I generally don't get that kind of access or attention (well, maybe you do, I don't). After all NO ONE WAS SELLING tickets, and Tampa airport confirms the takeoffs before the skies were re-opened. Somebody brought that request to Clarke, he said so before the 911 commission, he just can't remember who. I find that statement unbeleivable.

When asked at the 911 commission Clarke said he didn't know. He's had years to review that. He knew he was going to be asked that question, and yet he was unable or unwilling to track that down. To beleive that he would approve the first flights out for a bunch of Saudis who, let's face it, were easily the majority of the 911 terrorists, with Bin Laden being the head of Al Queda and one was allowing his entire family to flle the country without thorough questioning. I'm not talking conspiracy, just WHO demanded these flights that Clarke doesn't want to reveal, or is unbeleivably incompetent. As to the extent of the questioning Clarke was unable to state what type of questioning occurred, so how the heck does he know what kind of questioning occurred. Something just doesn't add up here. I would imagine Clarke had to sign something, or someone would for verification purposes, but maybe in this administration there is no paper trail.



Now here's my speculation since you offered one. Someone came to Clarke that he knows and respects within the adminstration, and requested those flights. I just can't beleive no one in the FBI, CIA, DOJ, or WH knows who requested those flights. Pretty damn incompetent if they are being truthful, and pretty damn insidious if they are being deceptive. Take your pick.

[PaceAdvantage]

You don't think the bin Laden's have contacts? You don't think those contacts have contacts in Washington?

It's pretty damn obvious. If you were the relatives of Osama bin Laden, and he is being blamed for killing 3000 Americans in a terrorist act, you'd be trying every which way to get the hell out of Dodge. These aren't regular folks. These are multi-millionaires, are they not? They have contacts. And those contacts have contacts.

Why does everything have to be so complex? There ARE simple answers at times, believe it or not.

[Tom]

If my uncle walked into a mall and opened fire on innocent people, I would get my *ss out town in a damn hurry. People do not stop to think in times of high emotions. The Bin LAden's were in "immeinent" danger in this country. Guilty or inocent, it was best for ALL concerned that they not stay here. That is not a political idea-it is common sense.
Do you think that thet were susepcts and should have been detained for questioning? If you do, are you not then supporting profiling? Do you think they were involved and needed to be incarcerated? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Your liberal views seem to be putting you on the wrong side of the street.

[Lefty]

sec, so the lies the untruths, the half truths and the editing to show his convuuluted viewpoint doesn't bother you? And Michael Moore himself has said this film is only his opinion and not journalism and you don't take that in acct? Says a lot about the lemmins and parrots on the left. I am hoping to see
Moore speak at the Dem convention. He certainly won't go on O'Reilly's show. Can't even defend his own film to people who may disagree and point out his fallacies. Tch, tch.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage

Why does everything have to be so complex? There ARE simple answers at times, believe it or not.

I am in total agreement. Then it should be a "simple" thing for Richard Clarke to reveal who came to him with that flight request, and where the source emanated from? Simple. Total agreement.
So why the three year delay?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Guilty or inocent, it was best for ALL concerned that they not stay here.

Do you think that thet were susepcts and should have been detained for questioning? If you do, are you not then supporting profiling? Do you think they were involved and needed to be incarcerated? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Your liberal views seem to be putting you on the wrong side of the street.

Guilty or innocent, it was best they not stay here. Best for who? You are kidding right.

Of course I think they should have been detained for questioning. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Unbeleivable. We have hundreds of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay without access to legal representation held for years without trial and you talk about innocent until proven guilty. We have a patriot act that picks CITIZENS up off the street on a suspicion and holds them without any due process and you talk about guilty until proven innocent. HERE we have a major attack in America, and we can't detain the culprits of NON-CITIZEN'S family for questioning for a few days, but instead arrange personal jets so they can fly out of the country. THAT'Ss INSANE. Why didn't we arrange JETS to fly Timothy McVeigh's family out of the country after the Oklahoma City bombing? And why do you bring up race? That's you my friend. I'm talking about leads on the case. Maybe we could have derived information on Bin Laden's whereabouts, or as Bush liked to say back then, we'll "smoke" him out. Wow, we'll smoke him out by giving a fre pass and escorting the entire frigging family out of the country. ABSOLUTELY INSANE!

And NOBODY knows who came to Clarke with the request? As PA says, it should be "simple" to find out that information especially if there is nothing to it. Why has not one person come forward and admitted they were the one to come forward with that request? The naivete some posters here have simply in defense of their party is unbeleivable. If Bill Clinton had let the family of the culprits of the WTC out of the country within 2 days of the events you'd be screaming for his head, AND RIGHTLY SO.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, so the lies the untruths, the half truths and the editing to show his convuuluted viewpoint doesn't bother you? And Michael Moore himself has said this film is only his opinion and not journalism and you don't take that in acct? Says a lot about the lemmins and parrots on the left. I am hoping to see
Moore speak at the Dem convention. He certainly won't go on O'Reilly's show. Can't even defend his own film to people who may disagree and point out his fallacies. Tch, tch.

You haven't even seen the show Lefty, but now you're an authority because of what someone has told you about the show. That's a lemming.

We agree on one thing. I hope Moore speaks at the Dem Convention as well. I just wonder how you guys will respond when the show is nominated for an Academy Award next year. Both Ebert and Roeper gave it a thumbs up and a MUST SEE for 2004 as a possible Best Picture.

[Lefty]

Yeah, the Academy Awards really mean something when the left nominates the left. Not!

[Lefty]

Why do I have to see the movie when someone tells me what's in the movie and then tells me what was left out and what could have been intrepeted several ways but you get Moore's viepoint as gospel? And I have seen the complete footage of the Mark Kennedy incident where Kennedy talks to him, agrees to hand out his flyers and tells Moore that his(Kennedy'd)nephew is on the way to Iraq. Then I saw the footage where that scene is excised and it is made to look like Kennedy snubbed him.
And you just keep skirting around the issue that Moore said himself that this film is not a balanced piece of journalism. He said that to ABC News on June 20. Go find that, oh linkmaster!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Why do I have to see the movie when someone tells me what's in the movie and then tells me what was left out and what could have been intrepeted several ways but you get Moore's viepoint as gospel?

What "someone tells me"...here's something you can judge for yourself rather than rely on the opinion of others.....and Lefty I'm not going to search for links for you...find your own link...

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

To be fair, the film asks questions and looks for answers

For example Rice and Powell several months BEFORE 911 are interviewed and say in film clips that Saddam has no military, has not replenished his cache of weapons. Now this is before 9/11, and they BOTH SAID Saddam had NUTHIN' ... suddenly, when it was expedient for the administration, Saddam had a zillion weapons, all aimed at us. How do you explain that discrepancy?...And even more important, why is the media still not asking the questions raised by Moore in the film such as this?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Lefty,

To be fair, the film asks questions and looks for answers

For example Rice and Powell several months BEFORE 911 are interviewed and say in film clips that Saddam has no military, has not replenished his cache of weapons. Now this is before 9/11, and they BOTH SAID Saddam had NUTHIN' ... suddenly, when it was expedient for the administration, Saddam had a zillion weapons, all aimed at us. How do you explain that discrepancy?...And even more important, why is the media still not asking the questions raised by Moore in the film such as this?

He was getting hammered about the above points on a national radio show yesterday. They were talking about the clips used and how Moore edited them to look like this was all they said. Then they read the transcripts of the actual things that Rice and Powell said. They were both speaking about "non WmD's and how his "regular" army was not re-equipped etc. Made Moore look pretty stupid. They also covered a bunch more things that were out and out lies.

It's "The Weekend" with Mike McConnel"

[Tom]

JR, they made Moore look stupider than me makes himself look?
Ohmygosh!

[ljb]

Jr and Tom,
You fellows have more intelligence then to use personal attacks in an argument. Can't you just debate the issues? Oh wait a minute that would entail the truth and we all know how the truth bites rightys in the arse. :D :D :D

[Tom]

JR,
Moore is not the only one, apparently!

[ljb]

Oops maybe I was wrong about the intelligence.:D :D :D

[Lefty]

The film asks questions and you get Moore's conclusion as gospel You still ignore what Moor said himself on June 20th.
There is a link between the taliban and Iraq whether you want to admit it or not. Saddam was paying families of suicide bombers. Saddam was shooting at our planes. And lo and behold more and more it is surfacing that Africa was talking to Saddam about that uranium. As saddam makes court appearances; Bush soars in the polls.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Have you ever considered writing fiction as an avenue of income ? If not, you should because you are really good at it.

[hcap]

Letterman's Top Ten List:

"Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election
8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words
7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported
6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger
5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true
4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe
3. Where the hell was Spider-man?
2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth
1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

:rolleyes:

[Lefty]

lbj, as a matter of fact I have written fiction for pay. But I haven't written any on this board; but I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern the difference.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
He was getting hammered about the above points on a national radio show yesterday. They were talking about the clips used and how Moore edited them to look like this was all they said. Then they read the transcripts of the actual things that Rice and Powell said. They were both speaking about "non WmD's and how his "regular" army was not re-equipped etc. Made Moore look pretty stupid. They also covered a bunch more things that were out and out lies.

It's "The Weekend" with Mike McConnel"

Moore never said in the film, that is all that Powell and Rice said in those interviews. You distort and that is your fallacious interpretation, (and since you most likely have not seen the movie an erroneous one).

But you made exactly my point anyway. Powell and Rice both spoke about how the regular Iraqi army was "ill-equipped" and as the administration and Tenet would say later posed no imminent threat to the US. As Bush would tell Congress later "we never said they were an "imminent" threat. Do you honestly think Congress would have voted for those funds to commit to this war if in fact Bush had told them there was "No imminent threat." Heck, even William F. Buckley dismissed that agument. Moore's point was WHY go after Iraq who posed no "imminent" threat with an ill-equppied Iraqi army in place in the middle of the hunt for Al Queda in Afghanistan? Why before Omar and Bin Laden been captured, before the security had been put in place to make sure the drug crop was not going to be siphoning money into Al Queda, before the money trail was choked off from Al Queda did the Bush adminstration deicde to commit to a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq. If Iraqi had an "ill-equipped army" and posed "no imminent threat", WHY did we weaken our forces on the war on terror and instead decide to begin nation building? Moore asks these questions in the film. They are damn good ones!!! And you know it. That's what wories and upsets many conservatives. I can't blame them. It should.

[ljb]

From Lefty,
lbj, as a matter of fact I have written fiction for pay. But I haven't written any on this board; but I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern the difference.

And just what do you call this?
lbj, as a matter of fact I have written fiction for pay. But I haven't written any on this board; but I wouldn't expect you to be able to discern the difference.

:D

[Tom]

Sec,
Do you really believe thinking people are worried about this crockumentary?

1.. Most people will not believe it and will see it for what it is - a campagne infomercial.

2. Some people will believe it and be unable to remeber a thing about it in November, much less find their way to a polling place.

3. Some people will believe it an vote for Kerry. Not many. Not enough.

[Secretariat]

We shall see Tom...or should I say Nostradamus....