Republicans: Send Michael Moore to Jail

[RedHot25]

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 couldn't agree more.

I agree with Lanny...I just don't get on how people can talk so specifically about the film, criticize or agree with it or whatever, without having seen it in its entirety.

That just befuddles the befuddle out of me!

Watch the movie - and then decide!

[Cowperson]

I just don't get on how people can talk so specifically about the film, criticize or agree with it or whatever, without having seen it in its entirety.

In the case of Farenheit 9/11 you can certainly argue facts to a certain point since the points raised in the film are well-documented in excrutiating detail. As an example, there is little argument Richard Clarke, not exactly a Bush favourite, disputes the way Michael Moore portrays the Saudi flights after 9/11.

In arguments about it this summer where it had advanced to a certain point, I simply said: "I haven't seen it, so that's all I can say" And walked away. In fact, Mike F and I were going at it and neither of us had seen it and agreed we couldn't continue past the point we had reached.

In this thread, I haven't said anything about the film one way or the other. I've offered the opinions of others who have, countering a point Lanny made that no one had disputed the facts of the film.

I also said I wouldn't be seeing the parody of Farenheit 9/11. I'm an equal opportunity ignorer for this type of thing.

If it shows up on the Movie Channel, I'll probably catch it. I think they had Bowling for Columbine on a while ago.

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally posted by RedHot25+Oct 7 2004, 11:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RedHot25 @ Oct 7 2004, 11:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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 couldn't agree more.

I agree with Lanny...I just don't get on how people can talk so specifically about the film, criticize or agree with it or whatever, without having seen it in its entirety.

That just befuddles the befuddle out of me!

Watch the movie - and then decide! [/b][/quote]
How can I criticise it without ever seeing it? Well I certainly can't comment on specifics...BUT...

Mr. Moore has made other movies I have seen and I know how he twisted truths and made up facts in those.

Like a book authored by a Neo-Nazi on Nazi Germany hardly needs to be read to be considered....slanted

Fat-boy Moore's films on George Bush hardly needs to be seen to be considered slanted. And considering his other 'made-upamentaries' I have little doubt that it is fulll of :doo:

[Lurch]

Like a book authored by a Neo-Nazi on Nazi Germany hardly needs to be read to be considered....slanted

Wouldn't this apply to anything written about North Americans by North Americans? Or are only 'bad guys' going to have a slant?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by HOZ@Oct 8 2004, 06:54 AM
How can I criticise it without ever seeing it? Well I certainly can't comment on specifics...BUT...

Mr. Moore has made other movies I have seen and I know how he twisted truths and made up facts in those.

Like a book authored by a Neo-Nazi on Nazi Germany hardly needs to be read to be considered....slanted

Fat-boy Moore's films on George Bush hardly needs to be seen to be considered slanted. And considering his other 'made-upamentaries' I have little doubt that it is fulll of :doo:

Brilliant!!! You completely support the point I was making. You have not seen it yet you lend your "expertise" to the fray anyways. And you base your "expertise" because you saw other films and found they didn't agree with your politics, so you're going to lump this one in with the others as well.

Its funny, but my wife dragged me to see F911 kicking and screaming. I can't remember what it was that I wanted to see, but I was saying to her that I didn't think I could stand another Michael Moore film, after seeing him go way across the line of good tatse in Bowling for Columbine". I felt this would be yet another opportunity for Moore to be exploitive and use his ambushing ways to paint another unfair picture. I said I did not want to waste my money on a movie like that and if she wanted to see it she would have to wait for video. She pulled the old woman tricks on me (I admit it, I'm p*ssy whipped) and I gave in. I am happy I did. The movie was not at all what I expected. It was well done and was not "typical" Michael Moore. Its message was strong and left wing, but that was expected. As I have said before, it made me think, so it was effective as a documentary.

I'm not a Moore fan, but I respect the work he does. This is his best movie because he lets the suject matter do his bidding and keeps himself off camera. It is powerful and says a lot that should make you think. I ask everyone to see it and then pass judgment.

BTW... HOZ, the "fat-boy" comment has been one leveled by Republicans everywhere and is a sign that they don't have the ammunition nore the brains to argue the subject matter in question. I didn't realize that weight was related to intelligence or talent, but for Republicans I guess it is so. Funny how Rush Limbaugh, a tub of goo in his own right, is considered a Republican icon and one of the smartest men in America. Ironic don't you think?

[troutman]

I bought the DVD for "Fahrenheit 9/11" this week and saw it for the first time. I thought "Bowling for Columbine" was the better movie, and that is what we are talking about; these are movies, not documentaries. Op-ed pieces.

Extensive list of movie reviews (good and bad):

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/fahrenheit911/

Moore's own "LINE BY LINE FACTUAL BACKUP FOR 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11":

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

My amateur movie review:

I was not so troubled by Bush reading "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes during the 9/11 attacks as others are. It is not clear how much Bush really knew at that moment. Other things about Bush bother me a lot more than this.

The election results in Florida were not addressed for long enough in my opinion. The scene where black voters from Florida appear in Washington to object to being disenfranchised is heart-breaking, but little context is provided.

Moore is very under-stated when it comes to the events of 9/11. There is basically just a black screen with only the sound to convey the panic.

Moore's confrontational stunts do not impress me much. For example, trying to enlist Congressmen to send their children to Iraq, or renting an ice-cream truck so he could read the Patriot Act out loud over a loud speaker.

The Bush family business dealings, the terror alerts and the Patriot Act really left me with a lot of questions, but all this really looks bad on Bush whatever your political leanings.

Of course there are heart-breaking scenes of the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. Could this have been avoided? There is nothing in the film about what Saddam was doing to the people of Iraq.

[Faid1]

Now I was under the assumption a very large percentage of Canadians, given the choice would vote Kerry over Bush. In fact, I don't know a single person who believes the Iraq war was justified or that Bush is a competent leader (and if I did, I would probably sever ties with them).

So, is it just me or are there alot of Bush supporters on this board, or are they simply more loud mouthed?

[CaptainCrunch]

I posted a review that I did on F/911 a few month ago on this board. Now I've stated it before and I'll state it again that Moore is a excellent film maker, and he's technically brilliant, but his spin on data, and his reprehensible treatment of the subjects of his films turn me off.

When he basically alluded to Heston being a racist in Bowling for Columbine and tried to hammer this point home with some creative editing he made me sick.

what made me sicker yet were his comments at a british speaking engagement after 9/11 where he called the airline passengers cowards, and stated that "If the plane was full of brothers (meaning blacks) the aircraft would have never crashed into the towers or the pentagon".

His spin on the pipeline negotiations in Afghanistan where he accused Bush of basically offering money to the Taliban to build a pipeline across afghanistan before the 9/11 tragedy was a lie considering it was Clinton and his people that talked to Taliban officials in the States, where Bush was pushing for a pipeline that avoided Afghanistan and went under the Caspian sea.

The screwed up dates of the Bin Laden exit flights

When I watched the movie (didn't pay for it) I sat there taking notes throught the whole thing so I could get the raw data from the net, news papers and such. the notes are still sitting at home in a box somewhere.

Its a stupid habit of mine, that I just don't believe what I see until I can verify it from another source.

Calling Michael Moore a lier might be a little strong, because he loosely basis his reality on facts that he can manipulate or edit, or bluster paste. But he is like the master propoganda filmakers of the thirties and fourties.

Personally I find him to be less than a stellar human being, and an opportunist. I might watch his movies as long as there's a way to not put money in his pocket, but I'll be damned if any of my hard earned cash goes to them, I'd rather win a game of chess against a wookie.

[CaptainCrunch]

My amateur movie review:

I was not so troubled by Bush reading "My Pet Goat" for seven minutes during the 9/11 attacks as others are. It is not clear how much Bush really knew at that moment. Other things about Bush bother me a lot more than this.

I learned that the first rule of leadership is to never let your people see you run, or panic, no matter what the situation is if your people see you not reacting and being calm about it, they'll take heart and fight all that much harder for you. I have no problems with how Bush reacted, he was getting bits of pieces of information at a time, it wouldn't have done him or the American people any good to see a swearing president being dragged off of camera by the Secret Service


Moore is very under-stated when it comes to the events of 9/11. There is basically just a black screen with only the sound to convey the panic.

Agreed, Moore as I've said before is a excellent film maker, and he knows how to gauge the tempo and moods of his films

Moore's confrontational stunts do not impress me much. For example, trying to enlist Congressmen to send their children to Iraq, or renting an ice-cream truck so he could read the Patriot Act out loud over a loud speaker.

The editing out of one congressman who he confronted who did have relatives in the gulf shows how far that Moore will go to hammer his point across, if he was any kind of fair or balanced film maker he would have included that as well. As far as his confrontational style, he showed himself to me to be a coward. He goes after Charlton Heston in bowling for Columbine because he knew that it would be easy to make an old man who's suffering for Alzheimers look foolish. I would have had more respect if he actually went after the real powers in the NRA and took them.

The Bush family business dealings, the terror alerts and the Patriot Act really left me with a lot of questions, but all this really looks bad on Bush whatever your political leanings.

Sure but as various sources have pointed out the Bush business dealings were not as evil or conspiracy oriented as Moore lead us to believe. If your going to look at Moores side, you have to be willing to do a little research to see how the other side respond.

Of course there are heart-breaking scenes of the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. Could this have been avoided? There is nothing in the film about what Saddam was doing to the people of Iraq.

In fact if I remember that movie right he had scenes of Iraqi children flying kites in a happy little park scene, aluding to the fact that Saddam Hussein was not oppressing his people. A pretty nifty spin. I'm betting he would have made a great movie showing that Hitler was not such a bad guy, and the Jewish prisoners were well taken care of in thier 5 star camps.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

A couple of comments...

I learned that the first rule of leadership is to never let your people see you run, or panic, no matter what the situation is if your people see you not reacting and being calm about it, they'll take heart and fight all that much harder for you. I have no problems with how Bush reacted, he was getting bits of pieces of information at a time, it wouldn't have done him or the American people any good to see a swearing president being dragged off of camera by the Secret Service.

Actually, in today's world seven minutes is a lot of time. During those seven minutes F-18's can cover 193 miles at full burn. Given that the missles they normally carry have an additional range of 20-50 miles, traveling, on average, at over 58 miles a minute, every second counted. I have a problem with this line of reasoning because commanders were waiting for executive orders of actions and especially when only the President has the authority to authorize the attack on a civilian aircraft.

Sure but as various sources have pointed out the Bush business dealings were not as evil or conspiracy oriented as Moore lead us to believe. If your going to look at Moores side, you have to be willing to do a little research to see how the other side respond.

Doing a little research? Try reading "House of Bush, House of Saud". Pretty damning stuff there alone, and that doesn't even look into the Bush dealings with the world's most dangerous terrorist. Having pointed that out, I don't think that Bush can be faulted for his dealings with the bin Ladens. Bush is a idiot and wouldn't have known a thing about them at the time, nor have done the due dilligence to find out who he was getting into be with. Heck, even when elected Bush admitted that he knew nothing of foreign policy and not a helluva lot about anything outside the United States.

[Bertuzzied]

Say what you will about Moore but how can you defend Bush with his Saudi ties and his hesistation to testify for the 9-11 commission. He definately has something to hide.

[CaptainCrunch]

A couple of comments...

I learned that the first rule of leadership is to never let your people see you run, or panic, no matter what the situation is if your people see you not reacting and being calm about it, they'll take heart and fight all that much harder for you. I have no problems with how Bush reacted, he was getting bits of pieces of information at a time, it wouldn't have done him or the American people any good to see a swearing president being dragged off of camera by the Secret Service.

Actually, in today's world seven minutes is a lot of time. During those seven minutes F-18's can cover 193 miles at full burn. Given that the missles they normally carry have an additional range of 20-50 miles, traveling, on average, at over 58 miles a minute, every second counted. I have a problem with this line of reasoning because commanders were waiting for executive orders of actions and especially when only the President has the authority to authorize the attack on a civilian aircraft.

Do we know what information Bush had in his hand during that 7 minute pause. did they factually tell him that it was a terrorist attack and that the other planes were off course, or did they tell him that there had been an incident.

Its so easy to monday morning quarterback, and say that he should have ordered the strikes on civilian planes. Were the planes over civilian populated areas? OR was there a danger that shooting a sidewinder into the tale or a 747 that might or might not have been terrorist control.

We had a incident in Alaska a while ago, where the trasponder on the plane was switch to alert, if Bush had decided to shoot that one down and it turned out later that it was pilot error what would we be saying now.

Sure but as various sources have pointed out the Bush business dealings were not as evil or conspiracy oriented as Moore lead us to believe. If your going to look at Moores side, you have to be willing to do a little research to see how the other side respond.

Doing a little research? Try reading "House of Bush, House of Saud". Pretty damning stuff there alone, and that doesn't even look into the Bush dealings with the world's most dangerous terrorist. Having pointed that out, I don't think that Bush can be faulted for his dealings with the bin Ladens. Bush is a idiot and wouldn't have known a thing about them at the time, nor have done the due dilligence to find out who he was getting into be with. Heck, even when elected Bush admitted that he knew nothing of foreign policy and not a helluva lot about anything outside the United States.


Great my whole argument really had nothing to do with Bush, I have no problem saying that Bush has mishandled a great many things. My whole argument is that people are so willing and wanting to believe every evil conspiracy theory (and thats not a shot at you Lanny) that they are willing to accept Moore's theories wholeheartedly.

For every article and book that I've seen linking Bush to the Saudi interests or Bin Laden interests there are articles and books that debunk that theory, but because Moore is such a good film maker, and because the story is so intriging if its true we're willing to swallow it hook line and sinker.

I've got some links and stuff that aren't linked to crazy right wing groups or organizations, and some interviews and stuff that debunk what Moore's saying, but the common argument around here, is its not true because I'm such a right wing phenom thats not willing to believe anything that points to my political disposition.

Moore's arguments are effective because thier sensational, movies like his and others are paying to the argument that PT Barnum made a hundred years ago. If you dress it up and make it flashy thiers a sucker born every minute.

I won't be home til Tuesday, I accepted a business opportunity in Toronto and I'm going to be flying out there tonight to look at it further, however if this thread is still active I'll post some counterpoints to F/911.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 8 2004, 05:35 PM
Say what you will about Moore but how can you defend Bush with his Saudi ties and his hesistation to testify for the 9-11 commission. He definately has something to hide.

Where did I defend any of Bush's ties or his performance with the 9/22 commission?

On the Bush ties again, for every one of Moore's points there have been counterpoints.

And I'm curious about the Bush ties to the Saudi's, they are an considered a friendly government, and they currently have no U.S. sanctions against them. Its like the whole Bin Laden scenario, Osama's been shunned by his family, and there are how many Bin Laden's? Are we supposed to take them down to a FBI holding cell and hard core torture and interrogate them all. At the time of the 9/11 crisis there was no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden's family to Osama Bin Laden's actions. Do we not have to take a look at thier civil rights. Are we not obligated to ensure thier security on U.S. soil?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Oct 8 2004, 05:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Oct 8 2004, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bertuzzied@Oct 8 2004, 05:35 PM
Say what you will about Moore but how can you defend Bush with his Saudi ties and his hesistation to testify for the 9-11 commission. He definately has something to hide.

Where did I defend any of Bush's ties or his performance with the 9/22 commission?

On the Bush ties again, for every one of Moore's points there have been counterpoints.

And I'm curious about the Bush ties to the Saudi's, they are an considered a friendly government, and they currently have no U.S. sanctions against them. Its like the whole Bin Laden scenario, Osama's been shunned by his family, and there are how many Bin Laden's? Are we supposed to take them down to a FBI holding cell and hard core torture and interrogate them all. At the time of the 9/11 crisis there was no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden's family to Osama Bin Laden's actions. Do we not have to take a look at thier civil rights. Are we not obligated to ensure thier security on U.S. soil? [/b][/quote]
I didn't say you specifically was defending saudi-bush ties. I'm just saying bush lovers often overlook or discount that relationship.

once again i would like someone to defend Bush's stance with the 9-11 commission. anyone?

[Cowperson]

once again i would like someone to defend Bush's stance with the 9-11 commission. anyone?

You ask, we deliver. I'm not endorsing this but you said you wanted the counter-argument so here it is:

Peter Wallison, former White House counsel in the Reagan administration, said he believes the administration wanted the session kept private in order to make sure that a precedent was not set about executives testifying to congressional entities.

"It's important for this commission to get information from the president and vice president. The commission could not have done its work without getting information from them," Wallison said. But, he added, "This is very, very unusual for a president to meet with an organization established by Congress in an investigative mode. In order to make sure that it's not a regular thing for presidents and vice presidents to do, it was important to set ground rules."

White House spokesman McLellan said this:

"It is extraordinary for the president to sit down with a legislatively-created commission, but the circumstances [of Sept. 11] were extraordinary," McClellan said after the session ended.

The offical 9/11 commission statement released after meeting with Bush/Cheney in private:

"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid. The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report. We thank the president and the vice president for their continued cooperation with the commission," the statement read.

Again, not endorsing it, simply presenting it . . . since you asked.

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 8 2004, 06:23 PM
once again i would like someone to defend Bush's stance with the 9-11 commission. anyone?

You ask, we deliver. I'm not endorsing this but you said you wanted the counter-argument so here it is:

Peter Wallison, former White House counsel in the Reagan administration, said he believes the administration wanted the session kept private in order to make sure that a precedent was not set about executives testifying to congressional entities.

"It's important for this commission to get information from the president and vice president. The commission could not have done its work without getting information from them," Wallison said. But, he added, "This is very, very unusual for a president to meet with an organization established by Congress in an investigative mode. In order to make sure that it's not a regular thing for presidents and vice presidents to do, it was important to set ground rules."

White House spokesman McLellan said this:

"It is extraordinary for the president to sit down with a legislatively-created commission, but the circumstances [of Sept. 11] were extraordinary," McClellan said after the session ended.

The offical 9/11 commission statement released after meeting with Bush/Cheney in private:

"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid. The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report. We thank the president and the vice president for their continued cooperation with the commission," the statement read.

Again, not endorsing it, simply presenting it . . . since you asked.

Cowperson

Great! thanx cow. Just wanted to know what the republicans views were on this. Beats me having to google it! hehe

[Lanny_MacDonald]

And the Republicans learned that if something is recorded it can be supeaoned or "liberated" for use in impeaching the President. They won't get fooled again, or something along those lines.