Fahrenheit 911 - (for actual viewers of the film)

[Secretariat]

Just saw the film...Pretty amazing...Lots of stuff I didn't know..and Bush plays a much bigger role than I imagined.....

Gripping emotion at times...some of the interviews..like the 911 widow, and the woman from Flint were overwhelming....

See it...don't be told what its about...see it....

[Suff]

it was a let down. He twisted to much

[Suff]

he pitches a vacation.,,,, but in the rear yo0u can see Tony blair.......at camp david. Thats a legit pow wow... he caught himslef in a twistted fact ..sorta woulda coulda ,,tooo bIASED



BUT I WAS HALF IN THE WRAPPER ANY HOW

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Just saw the film...Pretty amazing...Lots of stuff I didn't know..and Bush plays a much bigger role than I imagined.....

Gripping emotion at times...some of the interviews..like the 911 widow, and the woman from Flint were overwhelming....

See it...don't be told what its about...see it....


Why would you assume anything in it was a fact? How does it trace back to reality?

[bettheoverlay]

Saw it last night and I didn't really like it, a propagandist preaching to the choir, although thankfully Moore himself is largely off screen.

The part that haunts me is the complete version of the Bush schoolroom response to the 9/11 news. Kinda scary that a President would act like that with the Twin Towers burning. He seems to go completely blank sometimes, like with the long muteness at his last press conference.

I dislike all politicians, but the film does make clear that this is a Right Wing highly Nationalistic President who is very defensive and divisive. Makes me yearn for Reagan who had charm, good looks, could make terrific speeches and had a closet moderate lurking inside.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Just saw the film...Pretty amazing...Lots of stuff I didn't know..and Bush plays a much bigger role than I imagined.....

Gripping emotion at times...some of the interviews..like the 911 widow, and the woman from Flint were overwhelming....

See it...don't be told what its about...see it....

From the Boston Globe (by Ty Burr) review about your woman from Flint:

There comes a point in any Michael Moore movie, though, where the filmmaker crosses the line from populism into shamelessness. In "Bowling for Columbine," it was when he left the photo of a shooting victim on then NRA president Charlton Heston's doorstep. In "Fahrenheit 9/11," that moment comes when Moore goes back to his hometown of Flint, Mich., and focuses on Lila Lipscomb, a lower-middle-class mother of a US soldier in Iraq.

Already the movie's treatment of the war has blown hot and cold. Moore gets the comedy of Army recruiters trolling shopping mall parking lots for fresh meat, and the tragedy of the Bush administration's proposed cuts in military pay and benefits. Footage of atrocities and abuses similar to those at Abu Ghraib prison are here and terrible to see. At the same time, one tiny sentence about Saddam Hussein's crimes against his own people might have gone a long way to silence Moore's critics.

With the death of Lipscomb's son in Iraq, Moore himself turns exploiter. Her grief, of course, is genuine. So is our response to it. But when Moore prompts her to read her son's final letter out loud, and she cries helplessly as she does so, it becomes clear that the filmmaker's intrusiveness knows no bounds, and that he would sacrifice the dignity of even his beloved Flintians for political theater.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
From the Boston Globe (by Ty Burr) review about your woman from Flint:

I disagree with that reviewer. That was THE most powerful moment of the film for a lot of reasons. It showed what was on a soldier's mind in his last communication to his mother. Yes, it was deeply personal, and the woman gave her permission to include it because it mattered to her. Yes, it was hard to watch because it was personal, but it was the crux about the cost and personal involvement that war entails. You can be told about the word "sacrifice" by a bunch of politicians who have no "personal" involvement" in the war, BUT when you see the faces and familes of people who are directly affected by that war, it brings home WHAT the cost of war is.

For those who saw the movie you'd realize how much time Moore spends in letting that woman tell about her support of Desert Storm, her distasteful for war protesters, and her support for the war.

I wish Moore had used the whole real time Bush had sat in that class room while the trade centers burned. He didn't mercifully to Bush, and he didn't abuse the site of those towers burning as Mr. Bush has for political purposes. I wish Moore had gone more into PNAC, but he didn't. I wish he'd done a lot more, but he focused on the human toll of Americans, and a nation now gripped by the psychology of fear, and Bush's background of continua failures, and pre-occupation with vacation- 45% of the time on vancation before 911- I did not realize he was almost on vacation as much as he was on the job. I must say one thing, he swings a mean golf club.

I think it was a masterpiece as the Cannes committee justifcalby rewarded the film best i nthe world. The film is selling out nationwide despite beng limited to 848 theaters because of theater owner fear. It played in one theater in my town and has sold out every performance, and lines go around the blocks while the main theaters in town have empty parking lots.

But now with The Carlyle Group buying out Loews Theater Chains, this kind of film will be available less and less as The Carlyle Group will start restricting our ability to see other viewpoints. Welcome to America.

I think it will be nominated for an Academy Award, and may win, but I beleive as most reviewers contend, the film needs to be seen by everyone. Like it or not. See it, and think about it. You'll learn something. It sticks with you.

[JustRalph]

Sec........

You are so sucked in I am almost embarrassed for you..........

are you sure you are an adult who thinks independently or do you have a chip implanted on your body that you hook into the DNC mainframe on a daily basis.

Moore has exploited many people for one reason only....to further the fattening of his wallet. And to further his agenda. end of story. You are a trooper in both of his missions.

[Tom]

Bu coincidence, I watch alittle bit of Bowling for Columbine this mornig. MY TV remote fell on the flor and I was too lazy to roll out of bed an grab....for about 5 minutes of MM, then I lept for the sucker!

But there was this whole scene about a welfare mother in Flint Mi who was FORCED to take a job in Auburn Hills to pay off her degt to the taxpayers. this poor abused woman actually had to get on a bus (and let someone else drive her to work) whcih was a 40 minute ride! Yikes! then , she was forced to work allday and ride home (again, on a bus wtih a drvier) another un-Godly 40 miles.
Oh, the humanity of it. To what depths will these evil republicans sink? Imagine, a person has to get out of bed in the morning, travel to out of town, work all day, and travel back home!
The savages! Where is the Senate investigation of this, this. this. JOB!
Egads! I need to lay down.
:eek:

[ljb]

I have not seen the film yet and was not going to comment on this thread until I did. But I must respond to JR's note.
JR,
It appears you have not seen the movie either, would you please go to the movie prior to posting a note that essentially shoots the messenger? Also your personal attacks on Sec do nothing to forward your argument. If you have nothing to say, do so!

[ljb]

Tom,
Off Topic. When you fell out of bed did you break anything? Or did you land on your head? ;)

[Secretariat]

Apparently, a few people elsewhere have seen the film despite efforts to restirct its viewing...

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/weekendboxofficer.html

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
I have not seen the film yet and was not going to comment on this thread until I did. But I must respond to JR's note.
JR,
It appears you have not seen the movie either, would you please go to the movie prior to posting a note that essentially shoots the messenger? Also your personal attacks on Sec do nothing to forward your argument. If you have nothing to say, do so!

When the messenger is MM, yes, shoot him.
Head shot. Head shot.
And then take a photo of him and leave it at Charelton Heston's doorstep.
hehehe

[ljb]

Tom,
It is starting to look like Michael Moore will go down in history as a true patriot who helped save America from the control of the radical right and their sanctimonious policys. Praise the Lord!

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom,
It is starting to look like Michael Moore will go down in history as a true patriot who helped save America from the control of the radical right and their sanctimonious policys. Praise the Lord!

You meant allah didn't you?

[GameTheory]

Why do we have to see the movie when Moore has such a history of lying about practically anything? When in his last film he repeatedly cut together events that never happened (like Heston's speech that never occured, that Moore cut together from several speeches). Moore has been caught in HUNDREDS of easily verifiable lies in his films, books, and interviews. He lies about stuff that isn't even relevant -- I think he is truly pathological. He has zero credibility and zero integrity. The left embracing a known and obvious fraud doesn't exactly help their case...

[Tom]

Lemmings.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Why do we have to see the movie when Moore has such a history of lying about practically anything? When in his last film he repeatedly cut together events that never happened (like Heston's speech that never occured, that Moore cut together from several speeches). Moore has been caught in HUNDREDS of easily verifiable lies in his films, books, and interviews. He lies about stuff that isn't even relevant -- I think he is truly pathological. He has zero credibility and zero integrity. The left embracing a known and obvious fraud doesn't exactly help their case...

This is America. You don't have to see the film. It would be nice if groups didn't attempt to restrict other people the opportunity to see the film though. And basically I started the thread to get comments of people who actually saw the film. So far there's been more posts from people who have not seen the film. Interesting.

[Tom]

I saw the film.
I saw it when it was called Bowling for Columbine.
And I saw it when it was called Roger and Me.
It is the same film.
And please, feel free to see it as often as you want to. MM needs the money. Which is really what the whole thing is about anyway. That, Sec, is what hypocrite means.

[Secretariat]

Thank you Tom. What part of "did you see the film" is difficult for you? I realize you enjoy participating in a thread where the thread says (actual viewers) and you have nothing to contribute, but to stay on topic, I think the starter fo the thread wanted actual viewers of the film's comments - not hearsay.

Maybe you could use some of the big tax refund check you got to put out for a discount matinee ticket, or maybe the show isn't playing in your area. There are many places where it is not playing.

[PaceAdvantage]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I agree with MM that the media and those in power are keeping America in a constant state of unneccessary fear. That's about the only thing I agreed with him about 100%

I will see F 9/11, also when it gets to cable. No way I'm going to pay $10 or however much it costs these days to see this kind of movie in the theaters. The only thing I would pay to see in a theater is a movie that truly deserves the big screen (like a LOTR or Terminator 3, which I unfortunately missed). I'm certainly not going to the theater to see a pseudo-documentary filled with stuff I already know about.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
...I'm certainly not going to the theater to see a pseudo-documentary filled with stuff I already know about.

Really, can you tell me then what Moore said then in the movie about Fox's prediction for Bush in the Florida primary in 2000?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Really, can you tell me then what Moore said then in the movie about Fox's prediction for Bush in the Florida primary in 2000?

Moore said? A documentary is supposed to be an impartial description of events. Why should I care what the narrator has to say? He's isn't SUPPOSED TO BE INJECTING HIS OPINION ANYWAY. Unless of course it ISN'T A DOCUMENTARY, which is IS NOT as we all know.

Dictionary definition of documentary:

"Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter"

So, it doesn't matter what Moore says. It's the facts that matter. Unless of course it isn't a documentary....which it isn't, right Sec.

[Secretariat]

As a matter of fact, Moore functions as the narrator of the film. Even documentaries have narrators such as Ken Burns on The Civil War documentary. And what Moore says about the question I asked you wasn't an opinion of Moores, just information with the person involved on who first revealed that Florida was predicted to go for Bush. No one has disputed this information.

So maybe you don't know all the facts that appeared in the movie.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, this just goes to prove further what I've said all along. This whole anti-Bush movement stems from the fact that you guys still can't accept you lost the election back in 2000. This is all payback time.

Let's hope the American public isn't so gullible.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
As a matter of fact, Moore functions as the narrator of the film. Even documentaries have narrators such as Ken Burns on The Civil War documentary. And what Moore says about the question I asked you wasn't an opinion of Moores, just information with the person involved on who first revealed that Florida was predicted to go for Bush. No one has disputed this information.

So maybe you don't know all the facts that appeared in the movie.

It doesn't matter who the narrator is. You still don't get it, do you?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
It doesn't matter who the narrator is. You still don't get it, do you?

Well, I'm glad at least Dale Earnhardt Jr. has at least an open mind to seeing the film. Good for you Dale.

"Verbatim from Chris Myers (Fox Sports announcer) on today's race at Pomona pre-race program..

"You think you know Dale Earnhardt Jr.? He advised his crew to go see the Michael Moore movie Farenheit 911. He said hey, it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see... and it just shows you that Dale Earnhardt Jr. can reach far beyond the steering wheel."

[sq764]

I am curious about the movie, just so I can comment here, BUT.. I do not want to support that fat tub of shit either..

decisions, decisions..

[cryptic1]

The difference between a documentary and a propaganda
film is objectivity. If only one side of the story is told, with
subjective editing, it becomes propaganda. Moore started his
career on one side of the line and has now crossed over. He
is substituting his subjective view of the world in lieu of an
objective analysis of both sides of the issues.
Frankly I have no interest in seeing Moore's take on things, as
he's made that abundantly clear what he was trying to do. He
has been clearly stating to the media his intention to take down
Bush, objectivity be damned.

cryptic1

[PaceAdvantage]

Exactly cryptic. Exactly. At least SOME in the media who have reviewed the film have the wherewithall to tell the reader that this is NOT a documentary.

I will see it. I just won't pay $10 to see it.

[Secretariat]

Moore answered most of your points much more succinctly and to the point than I.

At least take a look at that. It's free.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, I'm glad at least Dale Earnhardt Jr. has at least an open mind to seeing the film. Good for you Dale.

"Verbatim from Chris Myers (Fox Sports announcer) on today's race at Pomona pre-race program..

"You think you know Dale Earnhardt Jr.? He advised his crew to go see the Michael Moore movie Farenheit 911. He said hey, it'll be a good bonding experience no matter what your political belief. It's a good thing as an American to go see... and it just shows you that Dale Earnhardt Jr. can reach far beyond the steering wheel."


Now you are using a race car driver as an autority? Oy vay!
Now there is a group known for it's political insight and cunning intelligence. Yikes! He drives a car around in circles real fast.
Not a bad guy, I am sure, but as your authority?
Sec, did you ever read any of your posts before you hit Submitt?

[sq764]

Sec, per your link.. It's an opinion piece based on fact...

Uh... As Denzell Washington says in "Philadelphia" - "Explain this to me like I was a 2 year old"

[PaceAdvantage]

I went to that link Sec, and forgive me, but I must point out the following from that NY Times piece:

LOS ANGELES -- Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the highest-grossing documentary of all time

Isn't "anti-Bush" and "Documentary" an oxymoron?

The movie, mocking President Bush and criticizing his decision to go to war in Iraq

Again, a movie that mocks and criticizes in NOT a DOCUMENTARY!

...was No. 1 at the box office, beating out the popular comedies "White Chicks" and "DodgeBall," which were playing on almost triple the number of screens.

"White Chicks" and "DodgeBall" are popular movies???!!! LMAO

BTW, as an aside, what do you think would be the response if a bunch of white actors dressed up in black face and made a comedy called "Black Chicks" I betcha the left would be outraged.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Isn't "anti-Bush" and "Documentary" an oxymoron?


You obviously don't understand what a documentary is. It documents. All the words Bush says in the film are his own. In fact Bush probably speaks more in the film than anyone. Do you think Moore wrote a script for Bush to say the words he does? He doesn't need to.

Are you saying that if someone did a documentary on say .... Stalin ... it could not include ugly things that Stalin said or did?

You seem to think that a formula has been written somewhere on what exactly constitutes a "dcumentary". Well, actually there is great debate about what is a documentary.

Here's one take:

http://www.documentorseminars.com/pages/main_whatis_doc.html

If you want something more generic, here's a legal interp:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d069.htm

But I guess the standard would be the Academy Award Rule 12 on what defines a documentary:

RULE TWELVE

SPECIAL RULES FOR THE DOCUMENTARY AWARD

I. DEFINITION

1. A documentary film is defined as a non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on factual content and not on fiction.

.....

Now obviously Bowling for Columbine met that criteria by the Academy. And if you see Fahrenheit 911 you'll see that it will also meet the Academy's definition and be nominated. If a critic or two disagree, so be it. It simply gets to the heart of the matter - which is - the movie is damn good - the definition of what constitutes a documentary is interpretive whether you use an academic source, a legal source, or the Academy Award source.

I hope this helps.

[GameTheory]

By most standards it would be considered a documentary, in the fact that it is supposedly "non-fiction" (even if it is filled with falsehoods). But Moore himself will tell you it is neither fair or unbiased -- he makes no attempt to be either and doesn't even pretend that he is. My problem with him is all the "facts" he makes up out of thin air (I'm talking his whole body of work now) and the deliberate way he misleads his audience with his editing in his film work. (Hint: if there is a CUT, the pieces of footage were shot at different times, and possibly in different places! How he gets away with stuff that would get him flunked out of Documentary Filmmaking 101 without too many people calling him on it also irks me.)

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
By most standards it would be considered a documentary, in the fact that it is supposedly "non-fiction" (even if it is filled with falsehoods). ...

Please elaborate on the falsehoods. I posted a link to Moore's comments about that claim in a previous post but here is some more info you can read on his response to that assertion.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/

[ljb]

Sec,
Fire away but always remember, the fanatics controlling the republican party hate facts.

[Lefty]

sec, you said something like it was sad that certain groups want to keep people from seeing this film. But I guess it's okay when certain groups(LEFTISTS)want to hound Dr. Laura off the air. Ok, certain groups used to show up and hound highschools and Universities that invited Clarence Thomas to speak that they had to disinvite him.
Guess, yrs ago when certain groups boycotted the orange juice growers for daring to use Rush as a spokesman, that was ok too.
Guess when Jesse Jackson arranges boycotts against various companies until they finally yield to his extortion guess that's okay.
Guess during the Clinton yrs when the Christan Right had their tax exempt status taken away because they dare put out voting guides that was okay, yet the labor unions and Naacp can pretty well back the Dems and keep their status.

Parts of the film have many possible interpretations but we get Moore's interpretation. The part where Bush learns about 9-11
and sits stunned for several minutes.... Moore put his own spin on it, but as Hitchings says, if he'd leapt into action he would be called a cowboy again. Sitting stunned is exactly the kind of thing i'd expect from anyone being hit with unexpected news like that, it was mine as well. When I heard about 9-11 the world had suddenly changed for the worst and I sat stunned about 10 min. It's a completely normal reaction and Moore seeks to make something sinister out of it.
You can take any set of actions, film them and by clever editing and surmise make any statement you desire.
Michael Moore sickens me.

[Steve 'StatMan']

If I recall parts of the recent 9/11 investigation, one of the many problems was communications, and secure channels. I suspect Bush may not have been able to communicate with Washington in the immediate minutes after the incidents until proper communication had been established. I'm also sure that those on his staff with him would not have any more knowledge to provide. So what could the Pres. do? At best, maybe move to the Teacher's Lounge and hope they had a TV there so he could catch CNN? But the more important links to whom he needed to talk to were being established! It is easy for everyone in hindsight to know what happened, but NOBODY knew that these terrible, history altering incidents, were going to happen at that, or any given moment. So a very distorted situation gets shown, despite the 'truth' of the film.

By the way, in the age of more primitive communications, how long did it take FDR to communicate with anyone after it was learned that Pearl Harbor was attacked?! Film of that? Heck, they wouldn't film FDR from the waist down! Only filmed him already standing or already sitting. The public was never shown footage of him and the struggle to stand up or sit down.

Even if FDR had the luxury of being in Washingon DC at the time, don't you think it may have taken at least 7 minutes!

It certainly could take at least 7 minutes to arrange a conference call among all the people a President must speak with at a time like that!

Michael Moore, as a great but certainly not perfect American Dick Chaney once said "F*** Yourself"! And, I may add, not the Public!

[Steve 'StatMan']

Any Administraion would have tons of people working to arrange the conference calls and people that the President would need to talk to, (Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cabinet, etc.) The President wouldn't have to order it!!! So what could or should do for the first 7 minutes while all that is being arranged? And yet this, of all things, is caught on film. And now being paraded like nothing was actually being done! What can a President actually say without being properly briefed from all the proper National Security people?!

[ljb]

Just got back from the movie. $5.75 senior rate here abouts.
I would reccommend the movie. Enlightening, I personally knew a lot of the stuff in film but was not aware of close ties between Bush family and Saudi 's ruling family. Also now understand better how so many Americans were duped into support for invasion of Iraq.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Sec,
Fire away but always remember, the fanatics controlling the republican party hate facts.

Here's a fact for to chew on. The TOTAL number of people who went to see the crockumentary this weekend is roughly equivalent to the number of people who listen to Rush in any given 15 minute time period. And no popcorn.

[Tom]

Hey Sec,
Why don't you post a link to Moron's comments overseas about the terrorsits in Iraq when he calls them the "minutemen" of Iraq and they are right to kill US soldiers?
Good read by a treasonist.

[Tom]

Hey Ljb,
Are the nubmers in yet on how many people saw the crockumentary in Hasbala-sponsered theaters, or is that opening next weekend?

[Lefty]

more people saw legally blonde 2 than this propaganda in the opening week.
lbj, while you were watching and hanging on Moore's every word and picture, it's been all over the news about how Saddam really was negotiating with Africa for uranium. Who's duping whom?
And John "bad form" Kerry did not offer any congrats to Bush or the international community for turning over Iraq to the Iraquis but saw fit to bash Bush while the Pres. was overseas.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Harry Potter would totally blow this away.

Of course, MM and the distributors are probably going to make a good buck on it anyway. After all, didn't have actors to pay, instead just film public figures and trash them to suit your needs.

Where does all the profits from this film supposedly go?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Steve'StatMan'BTW
Harry Potter would totally blow this away.



Yeah..just imagine if Moore's film was rated PG and had all those kids watching. F911 might even beat Harry Potter on a per theater basis. It's playing to packed houses everywhere.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Steve'StatMan'BTW


Where does all the profits from this film supposedly go?


Big Macs.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
Big Macs.

Tom..........you still got it...............

[Lefty]

For sure the money won't be buying soap and water nor razor blades.

[ljb]

Very interesting, the rightys can not respond to the movie so they just make jokes and shoot the messenger. You guys must be hurting like (Cheney expletive). :D :D :D
Michael Moore will go down in history as the great saviour of American rights! Praise the Lord !

[Lefty]

lbj, how about this. Remember the scene with Mark Kennedy? Well you didn't see the part where Mark Kennedy said he'd help hand out Moore's flyers to Congress. He also told Moore he had a nephew going to IRaq. How about that for selective editing?

[Secretariat]

Lefty, you really are frightened by this movie aren't you?

[Lefty]

sec, i'm not frightened by the movie, i'm disgusted by a movie that poses as a documentary when it's propaganda and the man supports his own opinions through selective editing and omission.

[Secretariat]

Here's an article from a southern military town on the movie.

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/story.php?Template=local&Story=6429101

[Lefty]

sec, instead of more links you tell me why it's okay for Moore to frame the footage to show only his pov. The Mark Kennedy omission is a good case in point.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, instead of more links you tell me why it's okay for Moore to frame the footage to show only his pov. The Mark Kennedy omission is a good case in point.

To be honest Lefty, I have no idea of what you're even talking about, but every filmmaker makes decisions on what stays and what doesn't. Why don't you write to Michael Moore and ask him?

mike@michaelmoore.com

[JustRalph]

Moore Caught in another lie......

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html
One Man, Two Registrations
Michael Moore simultaneously on voter rolls in New York, Michigan
JUNE 28--Prior to last week's Washington, D.C. premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore denied that the new documentary represents his de facto endorsement of John Kerry. "I am an Independent," the filmmaker told reporters. "I'm not a member of the Democratic party."

Which is not exactly correct.

New York City Board of Elections records show that Moore, 50, registered to vote in Gotham in 1992, checking off "Democratic" as his party affiliation (below you'll find a copy of his original registration form). He listed his address as the swanky Upper West Side building where he owns a multimillion dollar condominium (Moore's office is on West 57th Street). The filmmaker's New York registration remains active, though he has not voted since an October 2001 Democratic runoff election.

Now here's the good part: Moore is simultaneously registered to vote in Michigan, where registrants aren't even given the option of party affiliation (so he's not an Independent there either). According to Antrim County records, Moore registered last April from his lakefront spread in northern Michigan, where he reportedly splits his time, but has yet to vote in Michigan. He transferred his drivers license to Michigan from New York around the same time, though Moore has a Volkswagen Beetle registered from his Manhattan home.

We're sure this is some kind of innocent mix-up, that Moore forgot to cancel his New York registration before signing up in Michigan. Though, as a New York City voter, TSG can tell you it's hard not to realize you are registered, since a voter's mailbox is regularly bombarded with candidate mail, official voter guides, and Board of Election notices about upcoming elections and reminders about the location of your polling place.

On his web site, Moore asks visitors to take his "Pledge of Democratic Allegiance," which calls for them to register ten new voters this summer and spend one October weekend in a swing state. "The important thing is, if you live in a place like New York or Texas, you gotta head over to Pennsylvania or New Mexico," writes Moore, who provides a list of 18 states, ranked in order of importance, that could go either blue or red. He places Michigan thirteenth on that list.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0628041moore1.gif

[Lefty]

sec, i'm asking you. I thght you saw the film? Remember the segment when he asks Mark Kennedy to help him pass out his flyers to congress urging said members to enlist their own kids. Kennedy agrees to help him and even tells Moore that his nephew is going to Iraq. Well, you don't see that part as it's cut out and Moore acts like he's been snubbed by Kennedy. You can really endorse this film with tricks and deception like that?
And when he shows Bush reading to the children and 9-11 happens he doesn't give the principals viewpoint that Bush acted apprpiately.
On June 20th, ABC News, Moore said about the film "It's my opinion about the last four yrs of the Bush Adm, and that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
Seems he is now. And you call this a must see flick?

[Tom]

Registered twice?
I think that might be illegal.
Oh, I hope he did in NY for the second...would love to attend his trial here and maybe get to be in a crowd shot in the next crockumentary.
Dems have a new strategy this year......vote early and often, only hope they have to win one. hehehe.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, i'm asking you. I thght you saw the film? Remember the segment when he asks Mark Kennedy to help him pass out his flyers to congress urging said members to enlist their own kids. Kennedy agrees to help him and even tells Moore that his nephew is going to Iraq. Well, you don't see that part as it's cut out and Moore acts like he's been snubbed by Kennedy. You can really endorse this film with tricks and deception like that?
And when he shows Bush reading to the children and 9-11 happens he doesn't give the principals viewpoint that Bush acted apprpiately.
On June 20th, ABC News, Moore said about the film "It's my opinion about the last four yrs of the Bush Adm, and that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
Seems he is now. And you call this a must see flick?

Sorry Lefty, I did not know that congressman's name, most of them were running away when Moore was trying to pass out the flyer. You'll have to email Moore and ask him why he didn't include it, or ask him why only one representative, and assuming your example is correct (one kid's nephew) from our leaders who voted to go to war are doing the actual fighting over there.

As to what an elemetary school principal said in regards Bush's actions to our national security during a time of emergency is laughable. Gimme a break Lefty. An elementary school principal. Watch the movie and make yor own judgment.

Moore's called the film a "satirical documentary", and that's exactly what it is. I hope you do see it Lefty. It is hard to understand the film out of context. Frankly most of the stuff posted here by the non-viewers doesn't really address what the core of the film is about, but focuses on a blink of an eye clip. THe film is about the costs of war, disenfranchisement, political rhetoric, the amazing faith of the American people, and yes, about the failures of the Mr. Bush.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You keep harping on one incident in the movie. It is obvious you have not seen the movie. If you wish to have a well versed opinion of the movie go see it. Then perhaps we could have a more meaningful discussion. In my opinion Bush looked like a deer caught in the headlights while reading to the students. He had no one to tell him what to do so he just sat there in a fog. This scene alone showed us what a brilliant/decisive leader he really is (NOT).

[ponyplayer]

Former NY Mayor Edward Koch...a Democrat also:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_2.html

Hope the link works....IMHO Here's a guy who understands the situation and understands what's at stake.

[Lefty]

Ok, sec, I thght you were somewhat open minded since you said you voted for Dole but guess not. I don't have to write Moore I know why he left it out. It didn't support his agenda. If the movie opened with the statement that he made to Abc News on June 20, then it would be more honest. First you repeat the left's assertion that this is a must see movie and now it's supposed to be satirical. If you want a good satirical movie go see Dr. Strangelove...
Lbj, If a man lies and edits and glosses over 1 important incident then he's shot his credibility. You are a lemming but I expected a little more ftom sec. I won't make that mistake again.
Besides there are many more Moore non-truths in the movie. But did you guys question any?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Ok, sec, I thght you were somewhat open minded since you said you voted for Dole but guess not. I don't have to write Moore I know why he left it out. It didn't support his agenda. If the movie opened with the statement that he made to Abc News on June 20, then it would be more honest. First you repeat the left's assertion that this is a must see movie and now it's supposed to be satirical. If you want a good satirical movie go see Dr. Strangelove...


Yes Dr. S is a great movie...I don't understand your connection with Dole. Dole was a good man. A vet and fair. Personally, I have agreed with others here that Clinton benefited from an economy helped along by a technology boom. I've also stated I was dissapointed in his resolve to push through Healthcare, and was offended by the Lewinsky incident. That said I am not going to support Bozo in office who is the biggest joke since Nixon. Your posts seem to support any far right Republican issue. Who's got the open mind?

[Lefty]

not you, sec. Yes, I support the right because they don't sink to the levels that the left does. I agree with tax cuts and defending this country from any any all enemies. I blve the private sector can do most anything better than the govt. I abhor socialisim in any guise and context. So yep, lefty is a righty.

[chickenhead]

Lefty, just curious, I always here Republicans talking about tax cuts, are you for tax cuts or a smaller budget? Seems to me the smaller budget is more important....

[ljb]

Chickenhead,
If you take the time to go back and read some of Lefty's posts you will find he is for tax cuts and the deficit be dammed. Let the kids worry about the bills, he wants his 30 shekels now!!!

[Lefty]

Chick, fact is that even with the Clinton Recession and 9-11 putting us in a big economic bind the tax cuts brght us out. Right now the budget inflated mostly because of the war but can be brght back to reality when the econmy keeps improving, just like the 94 congress brght things back to reality.

lbj, trble with you is You think it's a zero sum game. We can have both, but i know you don't blve it, may not even want it. The Dems use taxes as a weapon to punish the successful and give to the ones that won't help themselves. They use taxes to wield power and to stay in power. Maybe someday you'll realize that.

[chickenhead]

thanks Lefty, I honestly wasn't try to bait you, just curious.

Deciding for myself what I think the correct level of taxes/budget/debt at any given time for the fed government is a tough thing...I think in general our budgets are too big.

Big budgets are a bipartisan thing, both parties like to feed at the trough regardless of what they might say. Perot gave some life to the idea of smaller budgets...but he is long gone...

[Lefty]

chick, I know you weren't. I agree, budgets too big, part of the prob is how much money goes to social issues and most of that money is "eaten" by the bureauacracy and so little goes to help anyone.

[Tom]

WE have seen evidence of WMD in Iraq, we know SH used them in the past. Now, what about this mythologival pileline in Afghanistan that was the only reason we invaded them?
Anyone besides M Moron ever seen this?

[JustRalph]

From Newsweek and MSNBC...........

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

More Distortions From Michael Moore

Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET June 30, 2004June 30 - In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy?”

But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm’s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. “The figure is inaccurate and misleading,” said Ullman. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.”

In light of the extraordinary box office success of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and its potential political impact, a rigorous analysis of the film’s assertions seems more than warranted. Indeed, Moore himself has invited the scrutiny. He has set up a Web site and “war-room” to defend the claims in the movie—and attack his critics. (The war-room’s overseers are two veteran spin-doctors from the Clinton White House: Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani.) Moore also this week contended that the media was pounding away at him “pretty hard” because “they’re embarrassed. They’ve been outed as people who did not do their job.” Among the media critiques prominently criticized was an article in Newsweek.

In response to inquiries from NEWSWEEK about the Carlyle issue, Lehane shot back this week with a volley of points: There were multiple Bush “connections” to the Carlyle Group throughout the period of the Saudi contracts to BDM, Lehane noted in an e-mail, including the fact that the firm’s principals included James Baker (Secretary of State during the first Bush administration) and Richard Darman (the first Bush’s OMB chief). Moreover, George W. Bush himself had his own Carlyle Group link: between 1990 and 1994, he served on the board of another Carlyle-owned firm, Carterair, a now defunct airline catering firm.

But unmentioned in “Fahrenheit/911,” or in the Lehane responses, is a considerable body of evidence that cuts the other way. The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined “Bush Inc.” concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.

As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Carterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush “didn’t invest in the [Carterair] deal and he didn’t profit from it.” (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)

Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army ( during the Clinton administration)—a move that had been foreshadowed by Bush’s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—in the face of stiff congressional resistance—canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Moore’s movie.

None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washington—not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bush’s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.

But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.

Consider Moore’s handling of another conspiratorial claim: the idea that oil-company interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan influenced early Bush administration policy regarding the Taliban. Moore raises the issue by stringing together two unrelated events. The first is that a delegation of Taliban leaders flew to Houston, Texas, in 1997 (”while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,” the movie helpfully points out) to meet with executives of Unocal, an oil company that was indeed interested in building a pipeline to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.

TERROR WATCH Current Column | Archives
• Terror Watch: The World’s Most Dangerous Terrorist
Who is Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi? And why are so many governments scared to death of him?
• Terror Watch: 9/11 and Al Qaeda’s Allies
The 9/11 commission’s findings about Osama bin Laden’s foreign allies could have significant implications for U.S. diplomacy as well as the race for the White House


The second is that another Taliban emissary visited Washington in March, 2001 and got an audience at the State Department, leaving Moore to speculate that the Bush administration had gone soft on the protectors of Osama bin Laden because it was interested in promoting a pipeline deal. "Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies?" Moore asks at one point.

This, as conspiracy theories go, is more than a stretch. Unocal’s interest in building the Afghan pipeline is well documented. Indeed, according to “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to Sept. 10., 2001,” the critically acclaimed book by Washington Post managing editor Steve Coll, Unocal executives met repeatedly with Clinton administration officials throughout the late 1999s in an effort to promote the project—in part by getting the U.S. government to take a more conciliatory approach to the Taliban. “It was an easy time for an American oil executive to find an audience in the Clinton White House,” Coll writes on page 307 of his book. “At the White House, [Unocal lobbyist Marty Miller] met regularly with Sheila Heslin, the director of energy issues at the National Security Council, whose suite next to the West Wing coursed with visitors from American oil firms. Miller found Heslin…very supportive of Unocal’s agenda in Afghanistan.”

Coll never suggests that the Clintonites’ interest in the Unocal project was because of the corrupting influence of big oil. Clinton National Security Council advisor “Berger, Heslin and their White House colleagues saw themselves engaged in a hardheaded synthesis of American commercial interests and national security goals,” he writes. “They wanted to use the profit-making motives of American oil companies to thwart one of the country’s most determined enemies, Iran, and to contain the longer-term ambitions of a restless Russia.”

Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington. (Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force report in May, 2001, makes no reference to it.) There is no evidence that the Taliban envoy who visited Washington in March, 2001-and met with State Department and National Security Council officials—ever brought up the pipeline. Nor is there any evidence anybody in the Bush administration raised it with him. The envoy brought a letter to Bush offering negotiations to resolve the issue of what should be done with bin Laden. (A few weeks earlier, Taliban leader Mullah Omar had floated the idea of convening a tribunal of Islamic religious scholars to review the evidence against the Al Qaeda leader.) The Taliban offer was promptly shot down. “We have not seen from the Taliban a proposal that would meet the requirements of the U.N. resolution to hand over Osama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at the time.

The use of innuendo is rife through other critical passages of “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie makes much of the president’s relationship with James R. Bath, a former member of his Texas Air National Guard who, like Bush, was suspended from flying at one point for failure to take a physical. The movie suggests that the White House blacked out a reference to Bath’s missed physical from his National Guard records not because of legal concerns over the Privacy Act but because it was trying to conceal the Bath connection—a presumed embarrassment because the Houston businessman had once been the U.S. money manager for the bin Laden family. After being hired by the bin Ladens to manager their money in Texas, Bath “in turn,” the movie says, “invested in George W. Bush.”

The investment in question is real: In the late 1970’s, Bath put up $50,000 into Bush’s Arbusto Energy, (one of a string of failed oil ventures by the president), giving Bath a 5 percent interest in the company. The implication seems to be that, years later, because of this link, Bush was somehow not as zealous about his determination to bin Laden.

Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie—which relied heavily on Unger’s book—fails to note the author’s conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything. The “Bush-Bin Laden ‘relationships’ were indirect—two degrees of separation, perhaps—and at times have been overstated,” Unger writes in his book. While critics have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto through Bath, Unger notes that “no hard evidence has ever been found to back up that charge” and Bath himself has adamantly denied it. “One hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were mine,” says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Unger’s book. “It was a purely personal investment.”

The innuendo is greatest, of course, in Moore’s dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks. Much has already been written about these flights, especially the film’s implication that figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screening—a notion that has been essentially rejected by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them “detailed questions." “Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,” the commission stated. New information about a flight from Tampa, Florida late on Sept. 13 seems mostly a red herring: The flight didn’t take any Saudis out of the United States. It was a domestic flight to Lexington, Kentucky that took place after the Tampa airport had already reopened.(You can read Unger’s letter to Newsweek on this point, as well as our reply, by clicking here.)

It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers. But the film’s basic point—that the flights represented perhaps the supreme example of the Saudi government’s influence in the Bush White House-is almost impossible to defend. Why? Because while the film claims—correctly—that the “White House” approved the flights, it fails to note who exactly in the White House did so. It wasn’t the president, or the vice president or anybody else supposedly corrupted by Saudi oil money. It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight—conditioned on FBI clearance.

“I thought the flights were correct,” Clarke told ABC News last week. “The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.” Like much else relevant to the issues Moore raises, Clarke’s reasons for approving the flights—and his thoughts on them today—won’t be found in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” nor in any of the ample material now being churned out by the film-maker’s “war room” to defend his provocative, if flawed, movie.

[Buckeye]

Moore just wants to know who's responsible for 911.
True or not?

Doubtful at best,

The President is responsible for 911?

Great film.

I have complete confidence the electorate will decide this.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Congratulations you have just achieved the highest honor of any Bush supporter. You not only denied any blame for the mess we are in you also used the old "there you go again" blame Clinton. This qualifies you to recieve the buckpasser of the week award. If you could just come up with $200,000 to give the radicals controlling the Republican party you could be a Pioneer.
Ah yes the good old days of Clinton, Peace and Prosperity I remember it well.

[Lefty]

Moore doesn't believe that Bin Ladin responsible for 9-11?
ex Mayor Koch says Moore in the film expresses the opinion that we make too much of 9-11. If that's true i can't blve you ot anyone could call this a great film? Do you know about the omissions such as the Mark Kennedy omission? Did you know on June 20, Moore told Abc News this was just his opinion and not journalism?

[Tom]

The "moore" I look into the meathead, the "moore" I am convinced he is guilty of and is planning more acts of treason and should be arrested, tried, and then hanged by head fat neck until he is dead. I will of course throw a party.
That anyone who sees this film comes away believeing it is a sad commentary on the level of education in this country. But then, it follows that this is a DNC master plan.

[Buckeye]

Lefty,
Great film.
Did I forget to add a few of these? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Lefty]

Buckeye, were my questions too hard?

[Buckeye]

Lefty, I apologize for not making it clear that I was speaking sarcastically. Poor attempt on my part. Many innocent people died on 911 and it's not possible to overstate. In a way, we all died that day.

[Lefty]

Buckeye, right and Michael Moore is unclear on who is responsible? After all the lies, half-truths, omissions and slick editing has been exposed to only show Mile's opinion how can you or anyonne endorse this film?

[ljb]

Rightys,
There you go again! Attack the messenger since you can't win the debate on facts.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Rightys,
There you go again! Attack the messenger since you can't win the debate on facts.

You sit around worrying about debates, dear boy. Menwhile, the rightys as you call us have liberted two nations, freed millions of people, reduced the threat of terrorism in three, maybe four nations, and restored svereignty to a people oppressed by evil an evil dioctator for over years.
Talk is cheap. You can win all the debates you want....just stay out out the way of the movers and shakers out there DOING instead of talking.
Cheer up, you will get a chance to replace Bush soon enough...in four years, three months.:D

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Buckeye, right and Michael Moore is unclear on who is responsible? After all the lies, half-truths, omissions and slick editing has been exposed to only show Mile's opinion how can you or anyonne endorse this film?

Lefty, do you realize that every news story shown is edited for content. Did you ever notice that each netwrok has their own slant or POV on the stories they tell? You're always talking about FOX as the fair and balanced network, but I can give you an omission they chose not to include on a report one night. Reported as follows: Women demonstrated by marching in Fallujah denouncing the violence and demanding a cease fire.

That was it. No mention that the woman were also demonstrating the presence of Americans in Iraq. That's selective editing.

Every speech by Bush or Kerry is trimmed and framed with language to deliver their POV. Even a documentary by Ken Burns shows the part of war that he wants to emphasize. I know people who were upset with some of his omissions about Gettysburg.

Moore has said one of the reasons he made the film is because he beleives journalists are not getting to the real story. You've said that as often in these threads. That CBS, ABC or whatever is selectively telling the truth or propagandizing the war. Well, guess what Moore agrees with you. His research just ascertains that "truth" is different than waht you perceive as reported by FOX.

[JustRalph]

From today's Washington Post.........Richard Cohen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19320-2004Jun30.html

Here is a snippet.........and this guy is a Dem.......

"Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission. "

There are people out there who are starting to think that Moore's little movie might actually end up helping Bush. Interesting........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
...
[b]There are people out there who are starting to think that Moore's little movie might actually end up helping Bush. Interesting........

JR, I wanted to read the article but it forced one to register. I'll try to check it out later.

As to your above quote. I mean if its going to help out Bush let's get those right wing groups protesting the film currently and writing letters to the theaters complaining to show it in more theaters. I mean if its going to help Bush then every Republican should be encouraging more and more distribution of Moore's film.

[Lefty]

lbj, as i've told you before, the Clinton peace and prosperity all an illusion. While he was in office, Bin Ladin planned 9-11 although Clinton had the chance to arrest him 3 times and a chance to kill him 3 times; 6 missed opprtunities. Then we had stocks selling way over value cause co.'s like Enron werte cooking the books but were cght after Bush took the Pres.
I expect you could be easily fooled by a 10 yr old kid with a magic kit.

[Lefty]

sec, i'm for that: distribute the movie far and wide then let thinking people poke holes in every lie and edited scene. I want to see him on the podium with Kerry.

[Dan Montilion]

What happened to Oliver Stone? He appears to have gained weight, has grown facial hair that resembles a beard and has taken to wearing sweat coated baseball caps. Beyond that he seems very angry.

Dan ( Celsius 101 ) Montilion

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
JR, I wanted to read the article but it forced one to register. I'll try to check it out later.

As to your above quote. I mean if its going to help out Bush let's get those right wing groups protesting the film currently and writing letters to the theaters complaining to show it in more theaters. I mean if its going to help Bush then every Republican should be encouraging more and more distribution of Moore's film.

Didn't make me register....(maybe a cookie) here you go....with PA's indulgence?

Baloney, Moore or Less

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, July 1, 2004; Page A23

I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. One of my notes says "John Ellis," who is a cousin of George W. Bush and the fellow who called the election for Fox News that dark and infamous night when the presidency -- or so the myth goes -- was stolen from Al Gore, delivering the nation to Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Saudi Arabia, and plunging it into war. A better synopsis of the movie you're not likely to read.

Ellis appears early in the film, which is not only appropriate but inevitable. He is the personification of the Moore method, which combines guilt by association with the stunning revelation of a stunning fact that has already been revealed countless times before. If, for instance, you did a Lexis-Nexis database search for "John Ellis" and "election," you would be told: "This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 1,000 documents." The Ellis story is no secret.

But more than that, what does it mean? Ellis is a Bush cousin, Moore tells us. A close cousin? We are not told. A cousin from the side of the family that did not get invited to Aunt Rivka's wedding? Could be. A cousin who has not forgiven his relative for a slight at a family gathering -- the cheap gift, the tardy entrance, the seat next to a deaf uncle? No info. And even if Ellis loved Bush truly and passionately, as a cousin should, how did he manage to change the election results? To quote the King of Siam, is a puzzlement.

I go on about Moore and Ellis because the stunning box-office success of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush.

The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done. The danger of that is twofold: It can send fence-sitters moving, either out of revulsion or sympathy, the other way, and it leads to an easy and facile dismissal of arguments critical of Bush. During the Vietnam War, it seemed to me that some people supported Richard Nixon not because they thought he was right but because they loathed the war protesters. Beware history repeating itself.

Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission.

The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.

Some of that old feeling returned while watching Moore's assault on the documentary form. It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.

For them, I recommend "Spider-Man 2."

[ljb]

From Tom,
You sit around worrying about debates, dear boy. Menwhile, the rightys as you call us have liberted two nations, freed millions of people, reduced the threat of terrorism in three, maybe four nations, and restored svereignty to a people oppressed by evil an evil dioctator for over years.
Tom,
If you believe any of that blather, I have some WMDs in Iraq i would like to sell you. :D

[Secretariat]

JR, thanks for posting the article.

A few comments on it where I think the reader

First, on the John Ellis mention. Moore begins the film with Bush’s appointment in office, and discussing the controversy surrounding the Florida election. This goes on for about 5 minutes at most. He mentions Ellis because all three major news networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) projected Gore as the winner of Florida, and they had not been wrong in any projections regarding Florida in their history before. Suddenly FOX projects Bush AFTER those projections, and the person who calls it for FOX is a Bush cousin. Coincidence or Conspiracy? Moore doesn’t say. He presents you with that information and lets you come to your own conclusions. The writer here Cohen mentions the fact that the Ellis story is no secret. Well that may be so to Mr. Cohen but many people in this country are unaware that a Bush cousin was the FOX analyst who called the Florida election for Bush.

Moore doesn’t paint Bush as a cartoon. Bush is a cartoon. Moore doen’t put those words in Bush’s mouth. Bush says and does them. They reveal a side of Mr. Bush OFF CAMERA which is quite revealing. If it is a joke to Mr. Cohen, it is so because Mr. Bush does illogical things and behaves in odd ways. I agree “It is no joke.” That is the sad thing about it. I laughed but shook my head saying “My God what has the country done. Is this really who is in charge?” Laughing in the face of pressing social and political issues is what satire is all about. I don’t think Moore is alienating people on the fence as Cohen states. In fact he tries to show people in his film who were Bush supporters and have henced realized the dangers inherent from this man’s policies.

Cohen takes the smiling Iraqi image out of context as well. Moore was referring to the news coverage parroting the talk of Pentagon “surgical strikes” giving the illusion that no one was being harmed except select targets, yet one sees massive Iraqi civilvian casualties. And yes, one sees them. The film was not set up to illustrate the horrors of Hussein or the disagreements at the UN, but to address why would we suddenly invade Iraq when we knew Bin Laden was the 911 mastermind and was still free. Why was a Unocal employee made the President of Afghansitan and a pipeline contract signed shortly after the invasion and before the capture of Bin Laden or the security of the drug trafficking occurring out of Afghanistan was addressed. Personally, I wish Moore had dealt some more with Sibel Edmonds and the gagging of people who had information to contribute to the process, or the stone walling of the 911 commission but there are so many things he could have included. Take your pick.

Your reviewer came in with strong preconceptions and I understand him not wanting to give those up, but viewers are realizing they’ve been duped by a bunch of oil hungry businessmen. If you look at my posts going way back I have always asserted “my belief” that the Iraq war was for oil, and the excuse of liberation and democracy of the Iraqi people is the pleasant excuse the admin now emphasizes to achieve their aim after the WMD one didn’t pan out too well.

I do agree on one point. I felt sorry for Bush at times in the movie. He seemed so lost in a world that was way beyond him. An incompetent frat boy whose hubris makes one feel for his inadequacy in the job.

Probably Spider Man 2 is a good selection for those seeking escapism. Reality is a tough thing to look at.

[Lefty]

lbj, Tom posted facts, pure and simple. I guess if you don't like the facts you just ignore them and make a silly remark. Michael Moore may have an assistant's job waiting for you.

[JustRalph]

Michael Moore gets another award..........

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5271085/site/newsweek/

from MSNBC

[ljb]

Way to go Ralph,
That Moore is impressive isn't he!

[ljb]

Lefty,
Maybe you would be interested in some WMDs I have for sale in Iraq? :D :D :D
(some people will believe anything)

[cj]

I finally saw the movie last night. The good news is I didn't have to pay for it. Some guys at work made a bootleg copy and we watched it.

I kept quiet, wanting to hear what others watching thought. It was a pretty good mix of liberals and conservatives among the Americans, and most of the foreigners are somewhat anti-Bush.

Most found the movie to be comedy. They simply weren't able to take the movie seriously. I thought it was total garbage. There was nothing particularly revealing, just a lot of fact twisting and camera tricks. Any second year film student could have done at least as well.

I would be ashamed if I actually paid €8 to see this crap!

p.s. ljb, can I send you a $1 so you can buy yourself a new joke? That WMD one is sooooo lame, especially after you used it for the 8th time!

[Tom]

CJ, glad to hear MM was ripped off. Better watch out, he might do movie on you next.

[Buckeye]

Now I am speaking sarcastically again for the dense.

[ljb]

cj,
Tell me it ain't so. A member of our governments forces watching bootleged movies. for shame, for shame.
If you want to send someone a dollar send it too the American Cancer Society, thank you.
What joke ?

[Big Bill]

The fact that any American believes any part of this anti-American, anti-Bush propaganda piece just proves that Michael Moore was at least partly right when he told Britain's Mirror newspaper that Americans "are possibly the dumbest people on the planet."

Big Bill

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Big Bill
The fact that any American believes any part of this anti-American, anti-Bush propaganda piece just proves that Michael Moore was at least partly right when he told Britain's Mirror newspaper that Americans "are possibly the dumbest people on the planet."Big Bill

The Scientific name is Liberalus Dipshitis KerryVoteris UnAmericanus

[Lefty]

lbj, isn't it sweet irony to watch a bootleg ver. of the film when Michael Moore himself has said he doesn't believe in copyright laws?
Plus send me that $1 and I will write you a new joke.

[ljb]

From Big BilThe fact that any American believes any part of this anti-American, anti-Bush propaganda piece just proves that Michael Moore was at least partly right when he told Britain's Mirror newspaper that Americans "are possibly the dumbest people on the planet."

They did, and some still do, believe Bush when he said all those lies about Iraq.

[ljb]

From Lefty,
lbj, isn't it sweet irony to watch a bootleg ver. of the film when Michael Moore himself has said he doesn't believe in copyright laws?
Plus send me that $1 and I will write you a new joke.

I did not watch a bootleg version. If you want the dollar I suggested cj send to the American Cancer Society, talk to him.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, Michael Moore has no problem with people watching a bootleg version, as long as it isn't done for profit. He said so himself.

[Secretariat]

I'm just glad CJ saw it. The movie will work on him subliminally.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm just glad CJ saw it. The movie will work on him subliminally.


No, he uses his brain frequently-he will be immune to that liberal head-full-of-mush syndrome. :D

Just seeing the commercials of MM has given me nightmares! He looks just like a "before" guy in the Joe Wieder Ads.

[cj]

Originally posted by ljb
cj,
Tell me it ain't so. A member of our governments forces watching bootleged movies. for shame, for shame.
If you want to send someone a dollar send it too the American Cancer Society, thank you.
What joke ?

It shows how little you know. He has advocated the downloading of his movie. Its the only bootleg movie I've ever watched in my life. I'm still upset over the lost two hours of my life, but at least it didn't cost me any money.

[cj]

To quote Pauly of The Sopranos, Michael Moore could be an ad for a weight loss program. You know, before, and way before.

[GameTheory]

Did you hear what he said?

[Lefty]

lbj, shows how you will stick to the untruths by still saying Bush lied about Iraq when we can go back and find every top level Dem has said the same things. We have Saddam. We have proved the Taliban Iraq connection. Iraq has their own govt. now.
Funny how you and others will cling to your own lies and misconceptions.
The economy is rolling and still the Dems desperately try to spin it the other way. Shows they want to win and truth and America be damned.

[Secretariat]

And so the Repubs go..now its about demonizing Moore because of his weight. Like Rush is a Slim Fast candidate....who cares? Repubs seem to like chastizing about weight and sex and stuff like that...god, how trivial...I guess when you have no policies worth mentioning, it is to be expected....

[Suff]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
.

Most found the movie to be comedy.


Your a bit biased I'd say. I saw it. And thier is no way the film could be confused as a comedy.... How? Where?


I tell you.... for a group of people that endure Folks like Limbaugh... who implicated murder and Rape and every other sin against Democrats.... it shows how "thin skinned" republicans are.

MM has an agenda... so? He made a film...Anyone who watchs the Cable news shows did'nt learn anything new....

its simply his take on things... Open market.


I'd take MM any day over that Drug addict, doctor shopping, rehab hopping, wife dumping Rush Limbaugh...

and hows about DON KING,,, the convicted murderer, boxing promoter... you see him waving those American Flags and Campaigning to re-elect GWB.... hilarous....

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Suff
I tell you.... for a group of people that endure Folks like Limbaugh... who implicated murder and Rape and every other sin against Democrats .... it shows how "thin skinned" republicans are.

You are going to have to explain that one. I believe you meant imply or implied, either way I get your point. There is no way in hell you can ever present facts that show Rush Limbaugh urged anybody to "Murder and Rape" Democrats. I don't know Mike...............? Not sure where your going.............but that one is way over the top.

Oh yeah.....BTW........ I agree that Don King is a piece of excrement.

[Suff]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustRalph
[B]You are going to have to explain that one.


Vince Fosters Suicide? He went on and on attemting to implicate wrong doing by the clintons..

and when I brought up Limbaughs Divorce...someone on the right simply said,,, she's just another women cashing in..


But Limbaugh al but accused Clinton of Rape when any women crawled out of a hole and implicated him...

You certainly concede... Limbaugh has an agenda and he twists things for its convienence...

so I just don't get why Michael Moore is vilified.. He's a democrat with an agenda.,...

[cj]

Originally posted by Suff
Your a bit biased I'd say. I saw it. And thier is no way the film could be confused as a comedy.... How? Where?


I tell you.... for a group of people that endure Folks like Limbaugh... who implicated murder and Rape and every other sin against Democrats.... it shows how "thin skinned" republicans are.

MM has an agenda... so? He made a film...Anyone who watchs the Cable news shows did'nt learn anything new....

its simply his take on things... Open market.


I'd take MM any day over that Drug addict, doctor shopping, rehab hopping, wife dumping Rush Limbaugh...

and hows about DON KING,,, the convicted murderer, boxing promoter... you see him waving those American Flags and Campaigning to re-elect GWB.... hilarous....

You quote me, and then go on about Rush? The only time you've heard me mention Rush here is to say I don't like him and don't listen to him. Barking up the wrong tree....

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
And so the Repubs go..now its about demonizing Moore because of his weight. Like Rush is a Slim Fast candidate....who cares? Repubs seem to like chastizing about weight and sex and stuff like that...god, how trivial...I guess when you have no policies worth mentioning, it is to be expected....

OK. leave the weight issue aside.
I say the POS is a liar and a traitor, he has absolutely no integrity.
That to the point for you libs?

[Suff]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
You quote me,
..

only because I love you!! Lol

hey I was rambling there,,, noithing personal. I think this...

The movie is a non-factor.... But here's what is happening..

The polls show a tie,, right? But 16 percent undecided..

well history shows that over 60 % of undecided vote against incumbents,,,, and further... most undecided vote democrat when they enter the booth... Also,,, I think that in many parts of america it is hard to "admit" you'll vote for kerry,,,
But when the curtain closes many republicans will be voting for kerry,,,


my point is, that if the election were held today... Kerry would win by 12% or more,,

but.. with the VP Pick and the two conventions to go,,as well 4 months.....anything can happen

[ljb]

Personally, I enjoy watching the rightys on board resort to name calling and profanities (Cheney wannabes?).
It just clarifies the fact that the Neocons have them between iraq and a hard place. ;)
But seriously fellows it is still not to late to get on the draft McCain bandwagon. Do it now, take your party back from the fanatics that have taken over!!!

[Tom]

No, no....it is the DNC that has been flirting with McCain. The RNC has a guy already that has done such a good job around the world, we are very happy to extend his contract. Maybe in his second term he will get around to dealing with trolls.:eek:

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by ljb
Personally, I enjoy watching the rightys on board resort to name calling and profanities (Cheney wannabes?).


And Kerry wannabes too. Don't forget that NASTY Rolling Stone article....read by children no less!!

[ljb]

Tom,
I wasn't addressing the note to the Neocons. The note was for the Republicans that want to wrest control from the fanatics who have taken it over. You should probably just ignore the note.
PA,
Is rolling stone a childrens magazine?

[PaceAdvantage]

I didn't say it was a childrens magazine. I said it is READ by children.

Would you consider a 13 or 14 or even a 15 year old a child? I certainly would, especially if they were MY children.

Do 13, 14 and 15 year olds read Rolling Stone? They sure do.

But, forget about all that for a second. Are you saying it is more appropriate for Kerry to utter foul language that will be WIDELY read by people of all ages, than it is for Dick Cheney to use the SAME language when engaged in a private conversation with a fellow ADULT???

Just who is the hypocrite now?

[Lefty]

hmm, you libs getting your knickers in a twist cause some of us referred to Moore;'s weight. What short memories you have. I remember when Rush was at 300 pounds his wght was a topic of conversation by libs all the time. Franken even wrote a book titled "Rush Limbaugh is A Big Fat Liar.
And when the 94 congress was voted in you libs got your jollies by making fun of Knute's name. So don't go all thin skinned now.

[Lefty]

lbj, your constant inanities are just plain tiresome.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I didn't say it was a childrens magazine. I said it is READ by children.

Would you consider a 13 or 14 or even a 15 year old a child? I certainly would, especially if they were MY children.

Do 13, 14 and 15 year olds read Rolling Stone? They sure do.

But, forget about all that for a second. Are you saying it is more appropriate for Kerry to utter foul language that will be WIDELY read by people of all ages, than it is for Dick Cheney to use the SAME language when engaged in a private conversation with a fellow ADULT???

Just who is the hypocrite now?

PA --

A bit of a weird point about Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone publishes the f-word all the time, Kerry or no Kerry, so it wasn't as if people were going to be suddenly shocked it was in there. That Kerry said it PUBLICLY that is important, not what magazine it was in. If it had been in a different magazine, maybe they would not have printed the word.


My general thoughts --

The VP's remark was PRIVATE, and happened to be overheard. (Same thing happened to Bush four years ago when he muttered to someone that so-and-so reporter was a "major league a-hole" and happened to be overheard. The fact that it was a private comment, and that even the other reporters all agreed that so-and-so WAS in fact an a-hole seemed to be lost on the anti-Bush folks.) This idea that there is no difference between public & private behavior unfortunately is very common these days. And it is hard to debate because for those who hold this misguided idea, they can't even understand the point. It isn't even a matter of disagreement -- they can't UNDERSTAND it. They just have never been exposed to the idea before. And you get conversations like the one we're having here:

"You understand that one guy said something to a single other individual in all expectation that it was a private communication between the two of them, right?"

"Yeah, sure."

"And you understand that the other guy dropped the f-bomb in full knowledge that it would be printed in a national magazine read by many ANONYMOUS people, right? That the magazine is available for anyone to pick up and read?"

"Yeah, sure."

"Do you see the difference?"

"The difference between what?"


IT IS NOT THE ACT ITSELF THAT IS AT ISSUE. It is the idea that public behavior by our potential president should be dignified, you know? That appropriateness matters. (Many people these days have no concept of appropriate -- that the context of an action actually matters.) He can say the f-word all he f'ing wants to behind closed doors and no one would care (or should).

Let's take a more extreme example. Dick Cheney is in the bathroom relieving himself and a reporter busts in and discovers him there using the urinal. "CHENEY URINATES" the headlines scream the next day. John Kerry is on stage at a campaign rally, and in a surprise move whips out Kerry Jr. and pisses on the stage. "KERRY URINATES" the headlines scream the next day.

Now then, in this scenario, both guys took a leak, and both got "caught". But one of them deserves criticism for it, and the other doesn't. Can you guess why? Because one act was done in private (or attempted in private, anyway) and one in public. Get it?

[ljb]

PA,
Well excuse me! I have never seen a Rolling Stones magazine. Question was a question not an accusation. Yes I consider teenagers children.
Lefty, I don't care what you say about Moore. I was just pointing out how you and others resort to name calling and such when confronted with a real issue. As for Newt and the 94th congress, weren't they booted out after their contract with America was proven to be nothing more then a right wing fanatic attempt at controlling America? Oh and you may try some green tea and a nap for you tiredness.

Game Theory,
Is the senate floor considered public or private? The point of hipocracy stems from the administraitions claims of talking to God for advice etc. and having their number two man utter such profanities in public. Can you imagine what attrocities he must perform in private?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by GameTheory
PA --

A bit of a weird point about Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone publishes the f-word all the time, Kerry or no Kerry, so it wasn't as if people were going to be suddenly shocked it was in there. That Kerry said it PUBLICLY that is important, not what magazine it was in. If it had been in a different magazine, maybe they would not have printed the word.


I fully understand this, being a former reading of Rolling Stone myself. However, if we are going to accuse Mr. Cheney of being such a foul mouthed "no-family-values" kind of guy while at the same time praising John Kerry, well, that's not fair.

John Kerry should have KNOWN the audience he was talking to when he gave that interview, and perhaps REFRAINED from using the F word, don't you think?

At least Dick Cheney KNEW there were no children around when he let loose. And they want to make this an issue?

Hypocrites.

[Lefty]

lbj, Newt was booted out because of a lie. The 94 Congress was such fanaticsthat they brght us Welfare Reform and a balanced budget. They also brght us a vote on everything they said they would including term limits and 80% of Repubs voted for it but couldn't get enough Dem votes to carry. As for me, I haven't come close to getting even on the name calling that's come my way, but that's okay.
But, again, you totally missed the point. It did not surprise me.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by ljb
Is the senate floor considered public or private? The point of hipocracy stems from the administraitions claims of talking to God for advice etc. and having their number two man utter such profanities in public. Can you imagine what attrocities he must perform in private? The senate floor is both public and private. If someone says something to the guy next to him, that's private. If someone says something at the podium into the microphone or in a loud voice for everyone to hear, that's public.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I fully understand this, being a former reading of Rolling Stone myself. However, if we are going to accuse Mr. Cheney of being such a foul mouthed "no-family-values" kind of guy while at the same time praising John Kerry, well, that's not fair.

John Kerry should have KNOWN the audience he was talking to when he gave that interview, and perhaps REFRAINED from using the F word, don't you think?

At least Dick Cheney KNEW there were no children around when he let loose. And they want to make this an issue?

Hypocrites. I agree, and I know you get it, which is what my general comments addressed. My point is he shouldn't have said it even if he was doing the interview for Hustler magazine, where he could presume no children would be reading it. He shouldn't have said it because it was PUBLIC period, not because of the magazine demographics.

I don't know much about the Cheney situation, maybe they both ought to be criticized. But if it was something private that was just overheard, he shouldn't...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
PA,
Is the senate floor considered public or private? The point of hipocracy stems from the administraitions claims of talking to God for advice etc. and having their number two man utter such profanities in public. Can you imagine what attrocities he must perform in private?

LJB,

Actually, there is no rule against obscene language by a vice president on the Senate floor. The senators were present for a group picture and not in session, so Rule 19 of the Senate rules -- which prohibits vulgar statements "unbecoming a senator" -- does not apply, according to a Senate official. Even if the Senate were in session, the vice president, though constitutionally the president of the Senate, is an executive branch official and therefore free to use whatever language he likes. (the Washington Post, via Wonkette)

So it has nothing to do with this Private or Public argument psoters wer making. If he had been a US Senator on the floor and used a profantiy while the Seante was in session he would have been guilty of violating Rule 19.

As it was, it was just a group photo session for senators with some family members and children present. That is permissible. As Cheney said afterward, "I expressed myself rather forcefully, and felt better after I had done it," Cheney told Neil Cavuto of Fox News. So the moral is: when you want to say <Cheney Expletive> when you're visiting the Washington Monument or strolling through the Lincoln Memorial or even walking through Capitol Hill, indulge yourself. It is permissible, and you are within your rights. You'll feel better after you've done it. It is ironic though this took place shortly after US Senator Jeff Sessions complained about the permissive use of profanity by the FCC.

[cj]

I don't recall anywhere here saying what Cheney did was right. Now, what are your thoughts on Kerry's use of the word in Rolling Stone?

[Lefty]

The point is: Have you ever used the F word in anger? Sure, most of us have.
Would you sit down and use the F word in an interview? Most wouldn't.
And that, is the difference!

[delayjf]

Sec,

Sorry, been out of town a bit, but I was curious as to your critic of Ken Burns and Gettysburg. I was not aware there was a controversy.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
lbj, your constant inanities are just plain tiresome.

That's all he has to offer.

[Tom]

A great man once asked,
" ....Now, what are your thoughts on Kerry's use of the word in Rolling Stone?"

Sec......ball's in your court. We great men hee are awaitnign your repy!
(lol, and of course, lol)

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by delayjf
Sec,

Sorry, been out of town a bit, but I was curious as to your critic of Ken Burns and Gettysburg. I was not aware there was a controversy.

Yes, here's a sample that was even posted on a conservative Free Republic site (Freepers) from Newshouse News:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/753111/posts

It is an interesting read about Ken Burns in light of the Michael Moore criticism here. Moore however has rebuked just about every point made here by posters on his website so it's kind of silly to keep cutting and pasting. Go to Moore's own site and read his responses to criticism

www.michaelmoore.com

According to Ken Burns he used Point of View and historians say he had some factual errors. Gee, according to some here, maybe Burn's Civil War isn't really a documentary. Give me a break.

Moore's satiric documentary is a masterpiece. The research is detailed, and Lefty you should go to Moore's site because he has a long reply to your Mark Kennedy example with the exact transcript justifying his position.

What bothers me is so many focus on the small items in the movie, seeking for some small error. The focus of the film is the theme.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
A great man once asked,
" ....Now, what are your thoughts on Kerry's use of the word in Rolling Stone?"

Sec......ball's in your court. We great men hee are awaitnign your repy!
(lol, and of course, lol)

I don't think Kerry should have used the language anymore than Cheney. Here's the hypocrisy though.

The White House "criticizes" Kerry for using it, but has nothing to say about Cheney when he does it. In fact Cheney says it basically made him feel better. So which is it from the right guys? I suppose when the Vice President (Cheny Expletive> swears on the Senate floor it is fine, Leahy had it coming to him. But when Kerry loses his cool in an interview about Bush's policies in Iraq it is horrible.

By the way Kerry did not criticize Cheney for that language, I did. They both were wrong and lacked statesmanship in their responses after the fact. But the White House after going out on the edge to criticize Kerry now look like a bunch of hypocrites (which they are) when they stayed silent on Cheyney's profanity.

Here's the context of Kerry's which was to criticize Bush on his incompetence on the war in Iraq. Interestingly, Cheney's was in response to Halliburton. Interesting.


White House criticizes Kerry's profanity

By JENNIFER C. KERR The Associated Press 12/7/2003, 3:01 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — John Kerry used profane language to assess President Bush's Iraq policy, and Bush's chief of staff said Sunday the Democratic presidential candidate was out of line.

The Massachusetts senator uttered a profanity in an interview in the latest Rolling Stone magazine to express his dismay over Bush's handling of Iraq.

When asked in the interview about the success of rival candidate Howard Dean, whose anti-war message has resounded with supporters, Kerry responded: "When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, `I'm against everything?' Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."

The expletive drew a rebuke from White House, which suggested an apology might be in order.

"That's beneath John Kerry," the president's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"I'm very disappointed that he would use that kind of language," Card said. "I'm hoping that he's apologizing at least to himself, because that's not the John Kerry that I know."

The Kerry campaign said the Massachusetts senator had no regrets.

"John Kerry saw combat up close, and he doesn't mince words when it comes to politicians who put ideological recklessness ahead of American troops," said spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "I think the American people would rather Card and the rest of the White House staff spend more time on fixing Bush's flawed policy in Iraq than on Sen. Kerry's language."

On the 62nd anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Kerry laid a wreath in remembrance at the Navy base in Coronado, Calif., where he trained before shipping out to Vietnam, where he was wounded and was awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star with combat V. Kerry, a swift boat commander in the war, was joined by his daughter, Vanessa, and two crew mates who served with him in Southeast Asia.

[cj]

Sec,

All I was interested in was your opinion. I see I was right, you were out searching Google and the DNC site so you could spin. Nice try...well, actually pretty weak, but at least you stuck to your character.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Sec,

All I was interested in was your opinion. I see I was right, you were out searching Google and the DNC site so you could spin. Nice try...well, actually pretty weak, but at least you stuck to your character.

Well I was responding to one fellow who aked to show me where criticism occurred on Ken Burns doc, and I put up a Republican site (that probabyl was pretty weak). And on the other I pasted the context of Kerry's profanity..again, probably pretty weak to knwo the context of things..better to just impulsively repeat the doggerel of the sLimbaugh pack.

[ljb]

Lefty said,

lbj, Newt was booted out because of a lie. The 94 Congress was such fanaticsthat they brght us Welfare Reform and a balanced budget.

I don't remember what lie did Newt tell to get himselve booted out?
Oh yes I remember welfare reform and a balanced budget under Clinton's leadership. Clinton eliminated an entitlement while Bush has just added an entitlement (medicare). Sorta makes you wonder what happened to the real Republicans doesn't it.

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Sec,

All I was interested in was your opinion. I see I was right, you were out searching Google and the DNC site so you could spin. Nice try...well, actually pretty weak, but at least you stuck to your character.

No one told him what his opinion was. :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
No one told him what his opinion was. :rolleyes:

? .... Are you taking lessons from Lefty?

[Lefty]

lbj, you should leave the spin to the others, you are not so good at it. Bill Clinton vetoed welfare reform at least 3 times before Newt and the boys had the votes to override his veto. Even then, Clinton told Jesse Jackson and other dems not to worry that he would fix it. When it worked well, he just took credit for it.
He kept promising to bal the budget but had no intention of doing it. Robt. Reisch on a morning talk show even said that balancing the budget would be a bad thing. Knute and the boys, once again gathered the votes. Again, Clinton took credit. These are the facts, lbj.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty said,

lbj, Newt was booted out because of a lie. The 94 Congress was such fanaticsthat they brght us Welfare Reform and a balanced budget.

I don't remember what lie did Newt tell to get himselve booted out?
Oh yes I remember welfare reform and a balanced budget under Clinton's leadership. Clinton eliminated an entitlement while Bush has just added an entitlement (medicare). Sorta makes you wonder what happened to the real Republicans doesn't it.

Clinton Vetoed Welfare Reform twice before Bob Dole threatened to make it a Campaign issue........Dick Morris Talked Clinton into signing it..............can you say.........Kicking and screaming.....!

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Clinton Vetoed Welfare Reform twice before Bob Dole threatened to make it a Campaign issue........Dick Morris Talked Clinton into signing it..............can you say.........Kicking and screaming.....!

No, but I CAN say sinnin' and grinnin'
or Zippin' and runnin'

[Secretariat]

I'm not much of a Clinton fan, but not sure what this has to do with actual viewers of F911...

[Lefty]

sec, concentrate and try to follow along. It came back to Clinton cause lbj said the Repubs a bunch of fanatics. Then I responded the he responded etc...

[JustRalph]

http://www.newsfly.org/news/moorecensor.htm

not sure he did anything wrong here......just an interesting note.

Not sure if anybody has posted this site yet.........but it is a good read........

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

This is one of my favorite Moore-isms from his Columbine Film.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/clark.htm

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/images/spirflg.jpg

[ljb]

Ok I will fess up I did post a note suggesting the Republicans attempt to gain control of their party back from the neo-cons. But I did it after viewing Moore's award winning new film. We should go back to disscussing the merits of the film here. I liked the part where they showed Bush getting his PDB titled "Osama determined to attack U.S." and he responded with indifference. What part(s) did you like ?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ljb
We should go back to disscussing the merits of the film here. I liked the part where they showed Bush getting his PDB titled "Osama determined to attack U.S." and he responded with indifference. What part(s) did you like ?

Touche....Actually I found most of the movie disturbing rather than funny moments. I did laugh at a couple of Bush's idiotic moments like giving a serious interview on terrorisim on the golf course and then turning on a dime and saying now watch this drive.

I think the part that affected me the most though was the soldiers in Iraq, and the woman (Lila Lipscomb?) who was the mother of that soldier and the reading of his letter, and her approach to the White House. Anyone not affected by that is just totally insensitive. I was blown away by the depth of the Bush-Saudi connections. I knew it was bad but not as in bed as that. Of course Bush's inaction in the moment of national crisis, his continual vacations, and his actual demeanor off camera as opposed to what he shows to the american people also weighed heavily. And the sound of those planes. There is so much more. Just thinking about makes me want to see it again because I know I missed a lot. Looking forward to buying it. I imagine the DVD extras will go into things he couldn't put in the film or the Repubs would want it rated X.

[JustRalph]

You guys gotta stop emailing each other prior to posting........this time it looks way too obvious...............

[Lefty]

and sec and lbj keep ignoring the fact that Moore has said that the film is hie own opinion and not balanced journalism. Funny how you guys just keep ignoring this fact. Ahhh, not really, all you libs have a selective memory gene.

[chickenhead]

can't we all just get along?

Why can't everyone admit that Moore and people like what's his name Franken are the mirror images of Limbaugh and Savage and O'Reilly and whoever else you want to throw in.....they are all primarily entertainers....they all lie sometimes, they all tell the truth sometimes, they all exaggerate sometimes, they all hit the nail on the head sometimes....IMO none of these people should be considered as NEWS sources or FACT sources....they are just opinions, and sometimes they move the facts around to line up with their opinions. Same as the politicians really.

Watching F911 is not much different than watching C-Span or Hannity and Combs. It's ALL propaganda.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
and sec and lbj keep ignoring the fact that Moore has said that the film is hie own opinion and not balanced journalism. Funny how you guys just keep ignoring this fact. Ahhh, not really, all you libs have a selective memory gene.

Since Ken Burns has been referred to as a someone who most here would not challenge as a legitimate maker of documentary films, here are some of his viewpoints which coincide with Moore’s regarding documentaries and journalism.

Ken Burns, “I am not a journalist. I'm a filmmaker. I'm an artist. I've chosen to work in history the way someone might choose to work in still lifes or landscapes….Rather than say all history is a fiction I prefer to say all history is a manipulation… I think we need to ‘disenthrall’ ourselves, as Abraham Lincoln would say, of the notion that there’s ANY objectivity in documentary or in journalism for that matter. Only then can we start to ask what is the ‘higher truth’ that is being exposed by the filmmaker. Only then can you ask what kind of poetic licence – or untruth – is being engaged in order to serve a larger truth.”

Ken Burns on Iraq –

“.. whether the current dispute with Iraq is an attempt to satisfy the thirst of politicians that happen to be oil men, or whether it is in fact an attempt to distract attention from the more shadowy Al Qaeda who are more difficult to pin and say ‘see we won’, or whether its an attempt in a Churchillian sense to stop some one before he acts is hard to say.

I do have a problem with this willingness to shift the focus to iraq with no proof, no-one will provide me with proof. John Kennedy sent Adlai Stevenson to the UN with photographs of the silos in Cuba and I am now waiting for my government to provide me with proof before I extend to them my unequivocal support for military action.”

Does that satisfy you Lefty.

[Lefty]

sec, if you and the rest of your "fellows" doesn't get why we went into Iraq then you will never get it and I suspect you wouldn't admit it if you did.

chick, in no way do I equate liars like Moore and Franken to Limbaugh and Hannity, especially Limbaugh. Though he is a rightwinger, he does stick to the truth. That's why the left hates him and never have been able to bring him down.

[GameTheory]

Subjectivity and dishonesty are not the same thing. Objectivity and honesty are not the same thing.

We should expect subjectivity because that is all humans are capable of offering, but we should demand honesty because it is a choice. Michael Moore is subjective and dishonest. Ken Burns is subjective and honest.

Obviously all relative terms, of course. No one is 100% honest even when they try to be, but Moore doesn't try at all.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, if you and the rest of your "fellows" doesn't get why we went into Iraq then you will never get it and I suspect you wouldn't admit it if you did.

chick, in no way do I equate liars like Moore and Franken to Limbaugh and Hannity, especially Limbaugh. Though he is a rightwinger, he does stick to the truth. That's why the left hates him and never have been able to bring him down.

Lefty, I do know why we went into Iraq..that's the problem.

I'm sorry I'm still laughing about the Limbaugh statement.

[Valuist]

I tried to be objective about it. I did like Roger and Me, but never saw "Bowling". By the end of all the conspiracy theories I thought Moore's credibility was highly questionable.

[Lefty]

sec, Kerry knows why we went into Iraq too, that's why he voted for it.

[delayjf]

With reguard to the Bush / Arab link. Justralphs post of Isikoffs and Hosenball's Newsweek article blows holes into the forward assault of Michael Moores assertions, like Union canons did to Pickett's Charge. Isikoff and Hosenball are hardly right wing pundits. Christopher Hitchens, again not a right wing pundit, also has a lot to say as to the truefullness of Moores movie.


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


Moore's use of a grieving widow to denounce the war is not only dispecable, but idiotic. Would he now advocate that we base our foriegn policy and nation security so as to avoid any potiental grief by service members families. What if President Lincoln had listened to grieving mothers during the Civil War. Interviews with a minute minority of disgruntled solders is another laugh. There were disgruntled solders in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW II etc. None of this is new nor does it pertain to the issue of our national security or the War on terror.

I suppose Moore could "technically" claim that he's presenting fact when he claims that George H Bush was a key advisor for the Carlyle group and that the Carlyle Goup recieved 1.4 billion from the Saudi's. But what he doesn't mentioned is that most of that money was paid to a subsiderary of the Carlye group in the early 90s and H. Bush didn't work for the Carlyle group until 98, after the Carlye group had sold the subsiderary. Once one examines all the facts, Moores movie looks more and more like what it actually is, propaganda. Hitler would have loved him.

[Secretariat]

Read Moore’s rebuttal to Isikoff:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/index.php?id=36

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/index_poll.php

[Lefty]

Also after he became Pres ole W. cancellled a big weapons project the Carlyle group had the contract for.

[ljb]

Lefty,
There you go again. Fahrenheit 911 - (for actual viewers of the film)
Focus Lefty, focus!

[blind squirrel]

very interesting...this thread was started for people
who had seen the film and 80% of the comments are
from people who didn't see or wouldn't see the film.

i saw the film,but i must admit i brought my own RAISONETTES".

i'm no "LEFTY"sorry "LEFTY",voted for BUSH,voted for DEMS......The classic
swing voter.

Does MOORE play fast and loose with facts?yes.
this is one mans vision of the BUSH years.

people have talked about the humor in the movie,i didn't
find it that funny,i thought it was disturbing how we went
from having the worlds support to being perceived as a
"COWBOY" riding in to town to straighten this s*#@ out.

this approach will not work in 2004.

the most moving part of the movie was the lady from FLINT
who lost her soon in IRAQ.did MOORE go for the heart here?

absolutely.

but so would any filmmaker,it's a movie.a mother
crying over losing her son can be powerful.

as for the BUSH connection to the BIN LADEN family,i thought
was tenuous......BUSH family and the SAUDIS,looks
like they did their best to schmooze them,nothing illegal.

i will say it's worth the price of the film to see PAUL WOLFIWITZ
spit on his comb and then comb his hair...

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
You guys gotta stop emailing each other prior to posting........this time it looks way too obvious...............


Using the computer bank at the DNC?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Subjectivity and dishonesty are not the same thing. Objectivity and honesty are not the same thing.

We should expect subjectivity because that is all humans are capable of offering, but we should demand honesty because it is a choice. Michael Moore is subjective and dishonest. Ken Burns is subjective and honest.

Obviously all relative terms, of course. No one is 100% honest even when they try to be, but Moore doesn't try at all.

You state Moore is actually dishonest in the film. Where exactly? I am curious. The film is almost two hours long and there is a LOT of information.

[Lefty]

lbj, I have seen countless descriptions of the film. I have read lots of reviews. Think I got a grasp on it. Q to you: If Bush is in bed with Carlyle why did he cancel a big weapons contract of theirs?
This will call for some individual thght. Hope you're up to it.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I'll have to read the reviews and see the descriptions before I can answer your question. :D

[Lefty]

lbj, your answer was about what I expected. The question was too hard for you.

[Derek2U]

It's a GREAT movie --- aside from politics too. At NYU in a finance
course we dissected the Carlyle Group & Bush 41 was involved.
After all, you can't expect anyone just to deny his connections.
But the Bush-Saudi-Halliburton-IraqInvasion is kinda in "our face." 9/11 is brilliant even if you keep ur brain in the sand and
refuse to THINK. Yet, if you honestly do THINK & still say its all
associations & nada more then I guess that's ok also. It's that
kinda movie. PS: If u saw the movie wasn't that scene where
MM asked congressmen to "sign up" their kids for duty in Iraq
funny. Like Sure, where do I sign NOW?

[Tom]

Hard to keep an open mind when Howdy Doody is the narrator.
No offense to wooden puppets intended. :D

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Secretariat
You state Moore is actually dishonest in the film. Where exactly? I am curious. The film is almost two hours long and there is a LOT of information. Actually, I stated that Moore is just plain dishonest. I haven't seen this film and I'm not going to. He was dishonest in Roger & Me (which I saw) and Bowling for Columbine (which I saw) and he is dishonest in his books and he is dishonest in his interviews and he was dishonest on his old TV show "TV Nation". I can't think of time he ever opened his mouth and said anything resembling truth. He is a walking talking lie. (He's also just plain lazy -- I think he will take any rumor that suits his agenda and present it as fact -- has he ever checked a fact and found out something wasn't true and so didn't use it? Doubtful.) Now you may say, "Ok, you didn't see the film so shut up" but I know his track record and that is enough for me.

If you told me the opening to the movie was Michael Moore confessing that he has lied and made up stuff in all his previous work and public statements, then maybe that would make me curious about this new film. But why see something by someone who already has a body of work that I can judge when ALL of it is cheap, dishonest propaganda? Why anyone would give a known and exposed liar any attention now is beyond me. Take Bowling for Columbine -- he's got a number of scenes in there cut together to make them look like they happened a certain way that they didn't in reality, most notably cutting together several Charlton Heston speeches to make it look like a single speech that Heston never gave. And anyone can check and easily verify that Moore did this -- basically just had Heston to say whatever he wanted him to say through the magic of editing (it is badly done, actually). What else do you need to know about Moore? If a guy is willing to do that, he can't be trusted, period. He is making fools of everyone who is supporting this film -- don't you know how stupid it makes you look to support this obvious and exposed fraud? It doesn't matter what you're politics are -- if Charles Manson came out against Bush and in support of Kerry, would you then say nice things about Charles Manson?

[Lefty]

derek, yup there was such a scene where Moore asked Congressmen to sign =up their children and Moore was dishonest in that scene. Mark Kennedy stopped and agreed to hand out Moore's flyers and told him his nephew was on his way to Iraq. Moore edited that part out.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Derek2U
It's a GREAT movie --- aside from politics too. At NYU in a finance
course we dissected the Carlyle Group & Bush 41 was involved.
After all, you can't expect anyone just to deny his connections.
But the Bush-Saudi-Halliburton-IraqInvasion is kinda in "our face." 9/11 is brilliant even if you keep ur brain in the sand and
refuse to THINK. Yet, if you honestly do THINK & still say its all
associations & nada more then I guess that's ok also. It's that
kinda movie. PS: If u saw the movie wasn't that scene where
MM asked congressmen to "sign up" their kids for duty in Iraq
funny. Like Sure, where do I sign NOW?

Derek, you are wrong as usual. Bush 41 didn't join the Carlyle Group until 2 months after the time frame that Moore complained about. There are several former Clinton cabinet members who work for Carlyle also..........it is a lie...........

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
derek, yup there was such a scene where Moore asked Congressmen to sign =up their children and Moore was dishonest in that scene. Mark Kennedy stopped and agreed to hand out Moore's flyers and told him his nephew was on his way to Iraq. Moore edited that part out.

GT, you basically are saying then you know of no lies in the film.

Lefty,

Why do you keep bringing this up when (a) you haven't seen the film and (b) the office of Kennedy says Moore's is accurate.

"ABC News This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy's staff agrees that Moore's Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading."

In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I'm trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq."

But, from the transcript, here's the rest:
MOORE: Is there any way you could help me with that?
KENNEDY: How would I help you?
MOORE: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
KENNEDY: I'd be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

Here's Moore's website. His primary focus is on the wisdom of the war on Iraq in the film.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=20

[Lefty]

sec, your acct of what Kennedy said is accurate and it is accurate that Moore left it out. It didn't fit his agenda which completely is in keeping with the fact that this is a propaganda piece pure and simple in an election yr. I guess the half-truths, selective editing and just plain lies doesn't bother you libs. That's why if anything, this film will cause a backlash.
I am hopling that Moore will be invited to the Democtats convention.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Secretariat
GT, you basically are saying then you know of no lies in the film.
Nor do I know of any truth in the film.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, your acct of what Kennedy said is accurate and it is accurate that Moore left it out. It didn't fit his agenda which completely is in keeping with the fact that this is a propaganda piece pure and simple in an election yr. I guess the half-truths, selective editing and just plain lies doesn't bother you libs. That's why if anything, this film will cause a backlash.
I am hopling that Moore will be invited to the Democtats convention.

Lefty, it didn't fit the point he was trying to make about Congressional members children fighting in IRAQ which was his question to Kennedy.

I wish personally he had kept it in because it then would have been only one member of Congress who has a family member fighting in Iraq, and one other who has a nephew who fought in Afghanistan. THe same point is MADE that Congressional leaders and the White House are setting policy, but their familes are immune from the actual costs of the war. THey talk about sacrifice, but what sacrifice are thier familes making - practically none. This is the point Moore was making. You are focusing on a what wealthy party members want you to docus on and not dealing with the issue Moore is raising which is making sure our troops are not just from those of lower wealth and midd wealth areas, but encompass all members of our society. Why can yuo not see that? You still have not posted all these lies you talk about.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Nor do I know of any truth in the film.

So in a thread which says (actual viewers of the film) you have made up your mind without actually seeing the film.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Secretariat
So in a thread which says (actual viewers of the film) you have made up your mind without actually seeing the film. Why do you bait me with these comments when you ignore my responses? If you want to discuss something, then discuss it. I have made up my mind without seeing the film, and I explained why in detail. And all you can say is, "You haven't seen the film."

I feel I don't have have to, since previous to the film all Moore has ever done is tell lies. If you don't think this is a good justification for assuming this film will just be more typical dishonest and misleading Moore, then please attack my reasons with an argument of your own. The guy is an established fraud and liar. Given that, please explain why I should trust ANYTHING he says or does.

[ljb]

Game Theory,
Have you applied to join Lefty's organization of the close minded? If not you should do so immediately he is offering signing bonuses right now.
Lefty loves to pontificate on various events just based on what Rush says about them. You may fit right in based on your predijuiced attitude towards Moore and his films.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by ljb
Game Theory,
Have you applied to join Lefty's organization of the close minded? If not you should do so immediately he is offering signing bonuses right now.
Lefty loves to pontificate on various events just based on what Rush says about them. You may fit right in based on your predijuiced attitude towards Moore and his films. Prejudiced towards this latest one, yes. I've seen the others. This argument is idiotic -- why can't I make a judgement when I have plenty of evidence?

Let's say:

I tell you lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Then I tell you another lie, and you catch me.

Now then, I about to say something to you, and you stop me and say, "Don't bother, I know you just going to tell me a lie." Are you being closed-minded and prejudiced toward me now? If so, are you justified in doing so?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Why do you bait me with these comments when you ignore my responses? If you want to discuss something, then discuss it. I have made up my mind without seeing the film, and I explained why in detail. And all you can say is, "You haven't seen the film."


I'm not trying to bait you. I am stating what the title of the thread is - (for actual viewers of the film). I started the thread to discuss the movie with people who actually saw the film, but more people seem to want to participate who have no intention of ever seeing the film.

[ljb]

Am I to take it from your note that Moore told you a lie? If so, what lie did he tell you? And don't say he said there are WMDs in Iraq. That foul mouthed VP has the copyright on that lie!

[Lefty]

lbj, if you would read these posts a little more carefully you would see that GT has illustrated the lies from Moore's other films. Lbj, and unlike you, I listen to all points of view. That's why I watch Fox, you get every point of view. Recent hire at Fox: Lanny Davis.
oh, and lbj, you tapdanced all over my question about Bush and the Carlyle Group. If he's in "bed" with them why did he cancel a big weapons contract to them?

sec, the lies have been listed by others. You can't avoid them if you read all the reviews of the film. For you to put any credence in this film, even after Moore says it's his opinion and not journalism shows how willing you are to follow the left down the road to socialism. Hope you don't mind if I don't follow.

[delayjf]

Sec,

Your thread prove my point. In the Movie Moore says the "White House" approved the saudi flights. The implication is that W himself approved the flights. But in fact, it was Richard Clarke alone who authorized the flights. That's what Clarke has said under oath and that's what is in the 9/11 commission report.
You don't really think Clarke is going to take a spear for Bush do you?

[chickenhead]

watched Moore's spokesman "debate" Christopher Hutchins on Scarborough last night.......any of you Moore fans want people to take Moore seriously? Write him and tell him to fire this guy, he is a moron and makes himself and Moore look like buffoons.

Watched Moore on Charlie Rose last night, he was not nearly as unlikable as his spokesman.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm not trying to bait you. I am stating what the title of the thread is - (for actual viewers of the film). I started the thread to discuss the movie with people who actually saw the film, but more people seem to want to participate who have no intention of ever seeing the film. So? If you want to control where the conversation goes, get your own message board and you can delete all the posts that don't say the things you like...

[Lefty]

chick, guess Moore didn't have the guts to debate Hitchens himself and interesting that he shows up on a show where he knows he's gonna get the softballs. That speaks volumes in itself. Wished I had tuned in Scarborough last night but was watching the Dodger Game.

[chickenhead]

it really wasn't much to watch, essentially Moore's guy obstructed the whole thing and talked over Hitchens when he did want to talk....they finally had to shut his mike off.

I don't think Charlie necessarily throws softballs, but he does let people make their case at length, that is when he's not cutting them off with his long rambling questions.

[ljb]

Lefty,
I don't remember reading gts posting a specific lie attributed to Moore. I know nothing about your statement regarding the Carlyle Group. Unlike you, I refrain from posting opinions i have no knowledge on.

[Lefty]

lbj, then why don't you go back an read his posts in his thread. You always post with little or no knowledge or just the parts that agree with your agenda. You never seem to be up for a debate on the things you can't find a leftist answer for.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Sorry I am too busy to search the threads for something that may or may not be there. The rest of your note is just hogwash and requires no answer.

[Lefty]

yeah, you're a true lib with that great big selective memory. As for Hogwash, I bow to your expertise in that area.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Sorry I am too busy to search the threads for something that may or may not be there. The rest of your note is just hogwash and requires no answer.

Too busy doing what? Certainly not constructing thoughtful arguments. All you have to do is scroll up the page to find my post. If you want to know in detail about all of Moore's lies, there are at least 3 websites devoted to the subject. If you don't have time to find out some basic facts, then maybe you shouldn't take the time to argue about them either...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by GameTheory
So? If you want to control where the conversation goes, get your own message board and you can delete all the posts that don't say the things you like...

lol..no, I'll just ignore those who prefer to remain ignorant of the content of the film

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, the lies have been listed by others. You can't avoid them if you read all the reviews of the film. For you to put any credence in this film, even after Moore says it's his opinion and not journalism shows how willing you are to follow the left down the road to socialism. Hope you don't mind if I don't follow.

Socialism again huh Lefty? Man you make Joe McCarthy look like a liberal.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by delayjf
Sec,

Your thread prove my point. In the Movie Moore says the "White House" approved the saudi flights. The implication is that W himself approved the flights. But in fact, it was Richard Clarke alone who authorized the flights. That's what Clarke has said under oath and that's what is in the 9/11 commission report.
You don't really think Clarke is going to take a spear for Bush do you?

Read the beginning of this link.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/clarke.lkl/

Clarke worked for the White House. He was the former anti-terror chief. Your implication is your own interp although I can understand your interpretation because of "the buck stops here" attitude most Presidents have adopted. I assume this President chooses not to accetp that reponsibility.

However the film talks more about who requested the flights? Who initiated this request to fly members of the Bin Laden family out of the country in the days following 911 without thorough questioning? How could a request get up to Clarke like that? Who initiated it? According to Clarke in 911 testimony, the request came from the highest levels in the Justice Department and the White House?

[Lefty]

sec, and you don't think income redistribution via the tax system is socialism? I do, and calling me M'Carthy doesn't bother me.
And all that's been written about the film and what's in the film certainly doesn't require seeing the film.
It's Moore's Opinion and not journalism. He said so himself so that's not a documentary that's propaganda. Election yr Propaganda...

[chickenhead]

Are you for a flat tax Lefty?

[Lefty]

chick, yes I am.

[chickenhead]

I would be interested in a flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. I still think you would need a lowest rung that doesn't pay anything, and a graduated step up to the flat portion, but if you could get 70 or 80% paying the same rate, I think that would be great.

I would like to see our tax code depoliticized. I would like to see an easy to understand tax code that does not change. No more tax cuts. No more tax hikes.

[Lefty]

chick, hear, hear!. A little offtopic but Steve Forbes' plan does all that.

[ljb]

From GT
If you don't have time to find out some basic facts, then maybe you shouldn't take the time to argue about them either...

Uh, did you see the movie?

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by ljb
From GT
If you don't have time to find out some basic facts, then maybe you shouldn't take the time to argue about them either...

Uh, did you see the movie? Please see my earlier posts on the subject. Oh wait, you don't have time.

[ljb]

GT,
You are right. I will not have time to browse through the thread to read posts by someone who has not seen the movie and makes comments on it based on biased opinions of others. Get Real GT.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by ljb
GT,
You are right. I will not have time to browse through the thread to read posts by someone who has not seen the movie and makes comments on it based on biased opinions of others. Get Real GT. You do not know what comments I made or what my opinion is based on. Since you will not put forth the effort to even discover what my opinion is, please stop posting about it. Get real yourself.

[chickenhead]

so far as I can tell only three people on this board have seen the movie, and they have all said their peace about it. LJB and Sec liked it, Suff didn't.

I do plan on watching it at some point, but I don't see any point in paying through the nose to go see it at the theatre, definately a video rental type movie.

[Secretariat]

Chicken,

CJ saw it as well, but it wasn't his cup of tea. Haven't heard from Hcap. I would imagine he has seen it by now.

I'm still hoping Lefty goes.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
lol..no, I'll just ignore those who prefer to remain ignorant of the content of the film


'splain this to me....here is my logic:

>I saw MM's two previous films-both were full of lies (that have been proven as lies)
>MM produced this new film
>This new film will contain lies as well.

So, if I did go see the film, why would I believe anything in it?
MM has been proven to be a a liar in the past. What gives him credidibiltiy now? What source of credibility is contained within the film?

[Secretariat]

I had to post this. Went to see the film again. It is even better the second time. You realize as you are watching it how the right wing media types are actually misquoting things Moore said in the film. And it was even more powerful. What a film.

[PaceAdvantage]

Even if everything in Moore's film is 100% on the money, I still say Bush is a better bet than Kerry....at least for me. Your mileage may vary.

[ljb]

PA,
You have my sympathy.

[cj]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I had to post this. Went to see the film again. It is even better the second time. You realize as you are watching it how the right wing media types are actually misquoting things Moore said in the film. And it was even more powerful. What a film.

Wow, you are dumber than I originally thought.

[ljb]

cj,
signing in here. Just in case you didn't catch me. You work for the government right?

[cj]

As I told you before, I work protecting you.

I'm glad you took that $1 and bought a new joke. The WMD one was getting old. Now the <insert Kerry f-bomb> is getting a bit stale, but at least you changed, good job.

[ljb]

cj,
Kinda reminds me of that old joke.
Someone knocks on your door. You answer it and a man says. Hello I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
I'll be leaving for a while now. Course you probably already know that, you work for the government right?;)

[cj]

...and yet you say you support us with golf tournaments. I'd put that driver of yours somewhere, but it wouldn't be in your bag.

http://www.pacefigures.com/images/libs.gif

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I had to post this. Went to see the film again. It is even better the second time. You realize as you are watching it how the right wing media types are actually misquoting things Moore said in the film. And it was even more powerful. What a film.

I am reminded of the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."

CJ......tell these guys to spead out!

Ljb..."Shut up, porcuipine!"

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
...and yet you say you support us with golf tournaments. I'd put that driver of yours somewhere, but it wouldn't be in your bag.

http://www.pacefigures.com/images/libs.gif

Classic CJ. Very nice!

[Tom]

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
...and yet you say you support us with golf tournaments. I'd put that driver of yours somewhere, but it wouldn't be in your bag.

http://www.pacefigures.com/images/libs.gif


Is Amazin playing the part of Shemp?

[cj]

Who is Amazin? :D

[ljb]

From cj,
...and yet you say you support us with golf tournaments. I'd put that driver of yours somewhere, but it wouldn't be in your bag.


Is that how you protect me?
Oh by the way the golf outing went well. We collected quite a few items I hope you appreciate our efforts, we appreciate yours.

[cj]

Not particularly, I wouldn't want anything from you.

[ljb]

Well then if you should recieve a package , give it to someone who appreciates our support. Thank you.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
I am reminded of the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."

CJ......tell these guys to spead out!

Ljb..."Shut up, porcuipine!"

Yes Tom..Bush makes an attempt at that saying as well in the film.

[cj]

Originally posted by ljb
Well then if you should recieve a package , give it to someone who appreciates our support. Thank you.

Anyone in the military who read your posts would definitely not want your support and would piss all over your package.

[Lefty]

cj, amazin another lib that used to post here. Imagine lbj as a twin only a little more literate.
oops, I think you had tongue firmly planted in the old cheek.