Republicans: Send Michael Moore to Jail

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 6 2004, 10:09 PM
Documentaries are supposed to be based on fact, no one person's perception of the "truth".

There's the rub. Who makes up history? The victors. Who decides what is fact? The same group. A great example is the war of 1812. Americans and Canadians have very different versions of what happened. Perceptions make individual reality.

I think Michael Moore is a brilliant film maker. He shoots his films in the documentary style, but they are not honest documentaries. Hell, there aren't any more honest documentaries any more. Every film maker has their perception of reality and that becomes evident in the production of their movie. Michael Moore is no different. Yes, his films are controversial. Yes, his films are over the top. Yes, his films make you mad. But that is what make them so great. That is what makes you think after seeing them. That is what makes him brilliant. F911, Bowling and Roger and Me are all great films that everyone should see, no matter what your political standing may be. Just to spurn discussion and broaden your horizons.

On a side note in regards to F911, no one has challenged the content of the film, because it is factual. Moore has openly challenged anyone to find non-truths in his research and no one has stepped to the plate. That says a lot. Individually the content segments are not too harsh. They are well conceived and based on facts. What is intriguing about the movie is how it cmes together. It is pieced together to form a damning picture of the President and his administration. The sum of its parts are greater than the parts itself. This is what makes it such a great film and what makes it such a flashpoint for discussion.

[Looger]

the documentary is MEANT to be a slanted thing.

the discovery channel, the history channel, A&E, etc. have changed what a lot of people think the word means, but the lost art of old-school documentaries seems to be mounting a comeback after an absence of 20 years or so.

impartial documentary is an oxymoron. you're shooting 40 degrees by 30 degrees, pointing at exactly what the filmmaker wants you to see. he is going to use that slanted view to make a point to you.

[Cowperson]

You say this:

He shoots his films in the documentary style, but they are not honest documentaries.

And then add this:

On a side note in regards to F911, no one has challenged the content of the film, because it is factual.

That's a little contradictory isn't it? We can agree he's an entertainer.

Moore has openly challenged anyone to find non-truths in his research and no one has stepped to the plate.

It is mind-boggling to suggest no one has challenged the content of Farenheit 9/11, the attached being the most obvious but by no means alone:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Another rebuttal from investigative reporters at Newsweek.

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

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 09:33 PM
You say this:

He shoots his films in the documentary style, but they are not honest documentaries.

And then add this:

On a side note in regards to F911, no one has challenged the content of the film, because it is factual.

That's a little contradictory isn't it? We can agree he's an entertainer.

Moore has openly challenged anyone to find non-truths in his research and no one has stepped to the plate.

It is mind-boggling to suggest no one has challenged the content of Farenheit 9/11, the attached being the most obvious but by no means alone:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Another rebuttal from guest columnists at Newsweek.

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

Cowperson

I should mention that I have not seen the movie. And if I do, I will not pay for it.

I completely and utterly agree with what Cowperson said.

Read the 56 Deciets of Farenheit-911. (Link provided by Cowperson).
The author states what is said in the movie by Moore, then gives the actual account. He then gives a response by Moore and his team of lawyers.
I find it rather humerous that Moore requires a team of lawyers, to support his ulta leftist claims. If there was any truth to what Moore claims in his movies, he would not require a team of lawyers to back it up. The facts would speak for him.

If you read at the bottom of the entire article, it says in there that Hezbollah is funding the move to be shown in Lebanon and Syria. This is through Moore's Middle Eastern distributor, Front Row. Castro is showing the film to his countrymen. He is also asked about these reports, and is ask to respond.

Second, Moore was personally questioned about the terrorist connection at a Washington, D.C., press conference. He at first denied the terrorist connection, but was then confronted with the direct quote from his distributor. He stonewalled and refused to answer. So the man who spends so much time getting in other people’s faces with tough questions is unwilling to explain why he is accepting aid from Hezbollah.

Here is another example:
A lady who's child went to and died in Iraq, confronted Mrs. Bush in New Jersey. She was spouting off, pretty much word for word what Moore states in the move.
She was asking why out of all the families in congress, only 2 have family members serving in Iraq. And asking, if Congress supports the war, then why don't more children enlist.

Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."

If you just look at actual numbers, yes, there are hardly any congressional children in the war in Iraq. If you look at the ratio, congressional families are 23% more likely to have a family member serving in Iraq as compared the nation average.
Just comparing straight numbers is grossly inaccurate. You are comparing 535 families to over 250 million (minus the 535 that are already counted) families.

The same author also discounts Moore's other movie, Bowling for Columbine.
There is a link to it at the bottom of the that page.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 7 2004, 03:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 7 2004, 03:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal@Oct 6 2004, 10:09 PM
Documentaries are supposed to be based on fact, no one person's perception of the "truth".

There's the rub. Who makes up history? The victors. Who decides what is fact? The same group. A great example is the war of 1812. Americans and Canadians have very different versions of what happened. Perceptions make individual reality.

[/b][/quote]
Ok....we won...WTF is their problem then?

As for the rest of your rubbish...Moore's junk is as factual as any Nazi propaganda. One bit of truth stretched beyond it's limits and lies said 30000 times until it it believed to be a facts.

Yes...Iraq was Narnia before the Americans invaded....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 7 2004, 01:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 7 2004, 01:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 6 2004, 09:33 PM
You say this:

He shoots his films in the documentary style, but they are not honest documentaries.

And then add this:

On a side note in regards to F911, no one has challenged the content of the film, because it is factual.#

That's a little contradictory isn't it? We can agree he's an entertainer.

Moore has openly challenged anyone to find non-truths in his research and no one has stepped to the plate.#

It is mind-boggling to suggest no one has challenged the content of Farenheit 9/11, the attached being the most obvious but by no means alone:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Another rebuttal from guest columnists at Newsweek.

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

Cowperson

I should mention that I have not seen the movie. And if I do, I will not pay for it.

I completely and utterly agree with what Cowperson said.

Read the 56 Deciets of Farenheit-911. (Link provided by Cowperson).
The author states what is said in the movie by Moore, then gives the actual account. He then gives a response by Moore and his team of lawyers.
I find it rather humerous that Moore requires a team of lawyers, to support his ulta leftist claims. If there was any truth to what Moore claims in his movies, he would not require a team of lawyers to back it up. The facts would speak for him.

If you read at the bottom of the entire article, it says in there that Hezbollah is funding the move to be shown in Lebanon and Syria. This is through Moore's Middle Eastern distributor, Front Row. Castro is showing the film to his countrymen. He is also asked about these reports, and is ask to respond.

Second, Moore was personally questioned about the terrorist connection at a Washington, D.C., press conference. He at first denied the terrorist connection, but was then confronted with the direct quote from his distributor. He stonewalled and refused to answer. So the man who spends so much time getting in other people’s faces with tough questions is unwilling to explain why he is accepting aid from Hezbollah.

Here is another example:
A lady who's child went to and died in Iraq, confronted Mrs. Bush in New Jersey. She was spouting off, pretty much word for word what Moore states in the move.
She was asking why out of all the families in congress, only 2 have family members serving in Iraq. And asking, if Congress supports the war, then why don't more children enlist.

Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."

If you just look at actual numbers, yes, there are hardly any congressional children in the war in Iraq. If you look at the ratio, congressional families are 23% more likely to have a family member serving in Iraq as compared the nation average.
Just comparing straight numbers is grossly inaccurate. You are comparing 535 families to over 250 million (minus the 535 that are already counted) families.

The same author also discounts Moore's other movie, Bowling for Columbine.
There is a link to it at the bottom of the that page. [/b][/quote]
In a lot of instances, it seems that author uses the same tricks as Moore.

The part about Michael Kennedy, off the top of my head. The segment in the movie (I haven't seen it either) is about children of politicians serving in Iraq. Kennedy has two nephews, neither of them serving in Iraq. The author goes on to say "you see, you see! he has two nephews in the military"! So what? He doesn't have any children serving in Iraq. That was the point.

Also Arsenal, there are not 250million families in the United States.

Bla bla bla Democrats and Republicans all voted for the war. This segment should have been an attack on both sides, but apparently it wasn't.

Arsenal also said this: The author states what is said in the movie by Moore, then gives the actual account. He then gives a response by Moore and his team of lawyers.
I find it rather humerous that Moore requires a team of lawyers, to support his ulta leftist claims.

This guy has an agenda as well, you know. Just because he said it doesn't it mean it's the actual account any more than what Moore has to say.

Nice Moore-ism with about lawyers and nice language with "ultra-leftist", as if having lawyers automatically makes what he has to say wrong.

And finally, he seems to be claiming that firing on a military airplane is attempted murder of Americans. Does that work both ways?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

How ironic that you should bring up Dave Kopel. He was on Sean Hannity's syndicated radio show yesterday, in support of Farenhype 911. Let me just say this about Dave Kopel and the Independence Institute. They're both extreme right wing mouthpieces supported by the same wackos that support orgainzations like The Heritage Foundation and The Bradley Group (both neo-con incubators).

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_re...ecipientID=2121

Now that's nothing worse than Michael Moore, who is an extreme left wing mouthpiece. And of course these folks are going to present a very different story, based on the same facts (its funny how two sides of the political spectrum can look at some innocent and see two faces of evil). Yes, there were some very interesting twists of the facts in F911, but they were based on factual information and presented accordingly, with a politicized twist. You know, the same way FoxNews does things. Right or wrong, that's the way it works on both sides of the spectrum. Its doesn't change the fact that the information was indeed BASED on FACTS. Moore just twists them extremely effectively to make his point, one that ironically is being supported by what is coming out in the wash during the past few weeks. Is Moore's film a statement of the truth? Nope. No one said it is. No documentary or film shot in the documentary style ever does. The view point of the director always comes into play. There is always an agenda behind a film like this. That what motivates the director to make the film.

Like F911, Kopel's logic has some real leaps as well. All you have to do is look at his 59 "talking points" (most of these have been used on FoxNews btw). Here's the ones that jump out.


1. The Gore victory party isn't celebrating a Florida win. It was held before the polls even closed.

No kidding. All election day "victory" parties start before the polls close. He really went out on a limb here and did some serious investigative reporting.

2. The election call.

Another twist of the facts here, as presented. Kopel refers to the Florida call, which was made earlier in the evening than the election call itself. CBS did retract the Florida call, but made the same call later that evening on the State. It went back and forth in Florida. Fox was the first to call the Presidental winner, which is the issue, not who won the State. Watch the left hand while Kopel picks your pocket with the right (pardon the pun).

3. The consortium of newspapers.

What consortium of newspapers. I lived in Florida and don't remember a damn thing from any of the local newspapers. Would this consortium be the same 175 newspapers that did not have a single decenting voice in the call for war in Iraq? More information is required in this regard as it is vague. It is likely fact based (that a consortium of newspapers did a study) but where were those papers and who was behind the investigation?

4. Disqualified voters.

This is a fabrication. The evidence was presented to the Senate and is in the record as well as broadcast on C-span.

8. Bush and the Presidental briefing.

If he really wants to go down this road, then fine. Frankly it would be better to say that Bush didn't read the briefing so he can please ignorance. If he is admitting that Bush DID read the briefing then Bush is guilty of negligence in his actions while serving his office and should be immediately impeached. If Bush read the briefing, and ignored it as he would have had to, then he allowed an attack on American soil and is really an accomplice. In that case, Bush is guilty fo treason. What ever way Kopel wants to call this is fine. He just has to understand that while he is trying to debunk F911 that it also exposes other factors, especially in a black and white issue of reading or not reading a briefing.

10. Briefing content.

This is contradicted by Richard Clarke's book. No one outside of the administration knows for certain what the briefing said, but at the time Clarke was part of that team who developed the briefings, so I think he has some good insight into this subject matter. He says that on the date in question the President was briefed on the potential for al Qeada making an attack using planes. So Kopel is correct that the briefing did not say "Osama bin Laden was going to attack", but he is incorrect in saying that the briefing was not delivered. Kopel is doing exactly what he accuses Moore of doing to support his case. Twist the facts and wiggle out on a technicality. The problem is that what he is doing is worse because he trying to raise doubt as to the content of said brief.

11, 12, 13. Saudis air travel and Richard Clarke.

Again, what is he refering to? Moore refers to the bin Laden family flying out on the 13th, under the flight ban, which is true and could have been permitted only by the President, since it was he who imposed the flight ban of commercial traffic. Richard Clarke also contradicts this information in his book and questions why the bin Ladens were allowed to fly. I higly doubt that Clarke would go back on what was published in his own book.

14. Saudi detainment.

Yes, Saudis were detained, but not the ones that were most important (the bin Ladens), and not ones that had relations with the Bush family. Watch your wallet, Kopel is waving that left hand again!

15 thru 24. Investment of Saudi money.

Lots of hand waiving from each side of the fence on this one. Both are right and both are wrong. There has been more than enough written and exposed by numerous people to substantiate the claims that the Bush's and the Saudis have very close relations and that the bin Ladens are investors in past companies owned and operated by George W. Bush. I can't believe that Kopel is trying to debate otherwise.

27 thru 33. Bush and the Taliban.

I'm going to have to watch the movie again, but I do believe he was building a case against the Bush administration by this point and had indicated that Cheney and company were closer to this than Bush himself. I think that another viewing is needed to fully understand the context from both sides. It is a documented fact that the Taliban did meet with State Department officials in 2001, so I'm not sure what the issue is or whois saying what?

34. Commission report.

The paper trail is very long and very comprehensive. This issue is not debatable IMO. Watch your wallet again.

36. FBI knowing about flight schools.

This is incorrect and verified through many sources including the Philippine government who turned the information over to the FBI. More waiving of hands.

38. The 800 number.

So an 877 number is not an "800" number? Good lord, what a freakin' stretch of logic!!!

39. Iraq and terrorists.

Moore is wrong. But then again so is Kopel. Hussein supported terrorists focused against Israelis, and Americans have died in attacks against Israelis. Can we be sure which attackers got rewards from Hussein? Nope. But he still supported them and that makes Moore wrong. Kopel is wrong in a couple of major issues. Abu Nidal was not the bomb maker for the '93 WTC bombing. That was Ramzi Yousef who was captured in 1996. Nidal was nothing but the driver. Hussein did NOT shelter Nidal when he fled to Iraq. He imprisoned Nidal and was fearful that he was marked for assassination by al Qeada.

41. Iraqi threats.

Good lord, he says it himself when he says that Hussein called on "Arabs" to attack. He was calling on his Arab neighbors to attack America because he couldn't. Rhetoric from a man desperate to be seen as a leader of Arabs everywhere.

42 & 43. Iraq - al Qeada connection.

There isn't one, hasn't been one and won't be one. Even the administration themselves admits this fact now.

44 thru 46. Iraqi images.

Life may not have been great in Iraq prior to the invasion, but the people had a life. There is no doubt that is was not great, but it beats the alternative of living through another un-needed war and the terrorism that is common place in Iraq now.

47. The Coalition.

No issue according to Kopel, just that HE doesn't like it.

48. American media.

I guess Kopel's not refering to the 175 Rupert Murdock owned papers that did not have a single decenting voice against the war?

49. Ameican soldiers making fun of a man under a sheet.

Abu Gahrib ring a bell? Don't worry, they were only making fun of those people too!

50 thru 52. Military and vetrans cuts.

What's to argue? The Bush admin did do these things and are still be taken to task for doing so. Sheesh!

53 thru 56. Congressional families and support in Iraq.

This is a long standing problem and NO ONE should defend it. The poor are sent to die and the rich get to stay in America and play National Guard.

57. Moore's hometown.

WTF? And someone who lives in Midnapore is not a Calgarian? Watch your wallet again folks.

58. Moore's support of the troops.

Kopel is lying through his teeth here. Just because someone doesn't believe in his narrow view of what supporting the troops is does not mean that they are not supporting the troops. Just the opposite. It takes a helluva lot more to stand up and voice your opinion about an unjust war and make your country think about bringing the troops home to where they should be than it does to mindlessly SAY you support the troops because you are Americans. I'd like to know what Kopel has done to support the troops in any way other than provide lip service? The guys is a worm for these comments.

Frankly both men are probably guilty of stretching the truth. Who is more wrong? Depends on your side of the political spectrum I guess. Personally I don't like Mr. Moore's politics, but I do respect his skills as a film maker. He really made me think and made me read a lot more on the subject and become a lot more infomred because I wanted to know the truth. This is what Moore's films are all about, what all doumentaries are all about. For that reason I give Moore more credit than most people would. Its takes a helluva lot more to create something than to tear it down.

[arsenal]

Your right, there are not 250 million families in the US. It is closer to 62.5 million.
This is assuming that a family consists of 1 father, 1 mother and 2 children.

If you read down a little futher, he uses Moore's methodology to come to the number that congressional families are 23% more likely to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.

In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.

Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Nice Moore-ism with about lawyers and nice language with "ultra-leftist", as if having lawyers automatically makes what he has to say wrong.[/b]

Upon further reflection, no, hireing a team of lawyers does not automatically make what Moore says as wrong. People hire lawyers to defend themselves all the time.
The majority of the time, this is done a court of law.
I stand by my "ultra-leftist" statement. Or perhaps hyper-leftist is better. To claim Moore is anything but this, is wrong.

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos

This guy has an agenda as well, you know. Just because he said it doesn't it mean it's the actual account any more than what Moore has to say.[/quote]
Your right. He does have an agenda. And yes, he does put his spin on. What he does do, in nearly all cases, is provide the transcript of what was said, wish some context. This gives the reader the opportunity to see both sides of what was said, and come to their own conclusions.

Also, I do not agree with what he says with firing on military planes as attempted murder. Military personal join the military, knowing that they loose their life in battle. I consider this an occupational hazard.

[Cowperson]

Its takes a helluva lot more to create something than to tear it down.

Well, no one would deny he created something!!

Thanks for agreeing the facts as presented by Moore were challenged from many quarters.

The interesting thing about the Moore film was that it appeared to have little impact on the race, the Bush numbers actually rising a bit upon release of the film then the race forgetting about it as the conventions impacted numbers and finally the debates, which appear to have had the largest, most decisive impact.

Moore made lots of money but the people paying him to see the movie appeared to be those already converted to the message.

A Pew Research Poll in July found the audience was 57% Democrat, 33% independent and 9% Republican. In a survey of "registered" voters in July, a narrower focus than the Pew poll, the LA Times found the audience was 78% Democrat, 9% independent and 6% Republicans. Seventy-nine per cent in the Times poll said the movie wouldn't change their vote, 18% said it made it more likely to vote against Bush and 3% said it was more likely they would vote for him.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Come on Cow, there is a difference between challenging them and coming up with an actual defense that holds water. Kopel did an absolute brutal job. He brought about four or five points that actually made you sit back and think about potential "lies". The other 55 items are really poor attempts to twist the facts his way, which he accused Moore of doing originally.

No one has been able to come forward with a viable argument against the story lines in F911 and been able to prove other wise. In fact, Moore's story lines have been the subject of other best selling books that substantiate his claims and go into some great detail. I don't like Moore's tactics, I think he's over the top way too often (ruined bowling for Columbine by going over the top), and I think he pursues his agenda too agressively instead of letting his work speak for him.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 7 2004, 08:38 PM
Come on Cow, there is a difference between challenging them and coming up with an actual defense that holds water. Kopel did an absolute brutal job. He brought about four or five points that actually made you sit back and think about potential "lies". The other 55 items are really poor attempts to twist the facts his way, which he accused Moore of doing originally.

No one has been able to come forward with a viable argument against the story lines in F911 and been able to prove other wise. In fact, Moore's story lines have been the subject of other best selling books that substantiate his claims and go into some great detail. I don't like Moore's tactics, I think he's over the top way too often (ruined bowling for Columbine by going over the top), and I think he pursues his agenda too agressively instead of letting his work speak for him.

Come on Cow, there is a difference between challenging them and coming up with an actual defense that holds water. Kopel did an absolute brutal job.

In your opinion.

Let's face it, you could dance around the "facts" all day. Been there, done that at length on this forum and frankly, we should spare everyone the tedium.

You stated Moore's work was never factually challenged to which I replied: "That's crazy."

Another less than rave review:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

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

I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 and won't. In fairness to myself, I won't be seeing the parody of it that came out last week either. I get to about one movie a year and rent maybe three and they better be in black and white or have Wookies in them or my eyes glaze over.

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

would you watch it if i sent you a copy? hehe

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 7 2004, 09:48 PM
would you watch it if i sent you a copy? hehe

Does yours have Wookies in it?

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 7 2004, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 7 2004, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bertuzzied@Oct 7 2004, 09:48 PM
would you watch it if i sent you a copy? hehe

Does yours have Wookies in it?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I'll superimpose chewbacca into every scene that has bush in it. Chewy prob makes more sense than bush. hehe

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied+Oct 7 2004, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bertuzzied @ Oct 7 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Does yours have Wookies in it?

Cowperson

I'll superimpose chewbacca into every scene that has bush in it. Chewy prob makes more sense than bush. hehe [/b][/quote]
Would Chewbacca be the caddy in the scene where Bush has a golf club?

Would Chewbacca be the school teacher in the scene where Bush is in school?

Would Chewbacca be the Senator running away when Moore is approaching him?

Would Chewbacca be a Saudi Prince?

Would it be in black and white and look like its from the 1940's?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well Cow, that's part of this film that p*sses me off. People that haven't see it judging it. You've got Republicans that are whining about it and they haven't even seen it. The ones that have seen it have gone on with closed minds and a lot have left half way through it, passing judgment before the whole film comes to a point. Undecideds have seen it and have been surprised by the impact the film has. See it and judge it fairly. Not seeing it and making comments on it does not do it or yourself justice.

[calf]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 7 2004, 04:22 PM
Undecideds have seen it and have been surprised by the impact the film has. See it and judge it fairly.

Kinda off topic, but I would say I was an undecided (if I was voting), and when I left the theatre, I left undecided. The movie was, IMHO, unconvincing...Moore preaching to the choir if you would.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 7 2004, 10:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 7 2004, 10:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I'll superimpose chewbacca into every scene that has bush in it. Chewy prob makes more sense than bush. hehe

Would Chewbacca be the caddy in the scene where Bush has a golf club?

Would Chewbacca be the school teacher in the scene where Bush is in school?

Would Chewbacca be the Senator running away when Moore is approaching him?

Would Chewbacca be a Saudi Prince?

Would it be in black and white and look like its from the 1940's?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
1. I can show the Falcon flying by as he's swinging. "We will fight and kick terrorists all over the world... Now watch this drive."

2. I'll change the title of the book to "My Pet Wookie"

3. The senator would be running away from chewy but after he turns the corner there will be 10 bush stormtroopers there and then chewy will haul ass out of there. (that scene with Han Solo still cracks me up.

4. No edit for the Saudi prince as Bantar Bush is just as hairy as Chewy.

5. ???? I don't understand the black and white reference?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by calf@Oct 7 2004, 10:25 PM

Kinda off topic, but I would say I was an undecided (if I was voting), and when I left the theatre, I left undecided. The movie was, IMHO, unconvincing...Moore preaching to the choir if you would.

Wow, I'm surpised. Of the undecidedes that I have talked politics with those that have seen the movie have said what an impact it had, one way or the other. It has been a very polarizing film down here (obviously).

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 7 2004, 10:22 PM
Well Cow, that's part of this film that p*sses me off. People that haven't see it judging it. You've got Republicans that are whining about it and they haven't even seen it. The ones that have seen it have gone on with closed minds and a lot have left half way through it, passing judgment before the whole film comes to a point. Undecideds have seen it and have been surprised by the impact the film has. See it and judge it fairly. Not seeing it and making comments on it does not do it or yourself justice.

I was merely pointing out that others have commented at length on this film, something you said hadn't occurred.

In fact, the last critic I posted encourages my attendance as well:

Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

That guy kills me.

5. ???? I don't understand the black and white reference?

I'm a big fan of old movies and serials.

Cowperson