Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 2464
telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
Moore (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush's DUI (Score:1, Interesting)
This could have the same effect. But I have heard of people being persuaded by it. If thorough contemplation worked then attack ads wouldn't be so effective and this is movie length attack ad.
War (Score:2, Interesting)
It was the Republicans who decided to center this entire campaign around Iraq (proably to distract the sheeple from the appalling domestic issues). I think that Moore's decision is the correct one - show the populace that Bush's war is actually his weakest plank - not one on which he should be focussing...
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
Questions? Lawsuits! (Score:2, Interesting)
There are no lawsuits.
Whats the question?
Re:Not Fox (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie (Score:1, Interesting)
I think Rush put it best yesterday. To strongly paraphrase a conversation he had with a friend:
Rush: I think that the whole Clinton heart attack was strategically planned by the left in an effort to drum up sympathy and take focus off of Kerry's naysayers.
Friend: What?
Rush: I think it's one big conspiracy by the left. His heart attack was staged at an important time in the election year.
Friend: Do you honestly think they would do such a thing?
Rush: No, but now you know how we felt about Fahrenheit 9/11.
Yes, I know Rush is a self-absorbed blowhard, and I'm not a Bush lover, but I thought the movie was a little below the belt.
/independent conservative
I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore (Score:2, Interesting)
Poor Michael Moore.
Re:McCain-Feingold (Score:2, Interesting)
Moore's movie, just like Bowling for Columbine, is hardly a documentary. If you doubt this claim, visit http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ and read about all his shortcomings, fibs, misinterpretations and misdirections. Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement (especially since Moore has publically stated his support for John Kerry).
As such, there is no way a major broadcast network could aire the movie before election. As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.
On a side note, as a conservative who is most certainly voting for George W. Bush, I must say that the movie is very interesting. Watching the Marine recruiters in action certainly blew my mind. But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is. Enough armchair quarterbacking -- I'd like the man behind Canadian Bacon to just be forthcoming.
Shame on Michael Moore for stooping so low.
Bread and Circuses (Score:1, Interesting)
Propaganda of the 1980 Election (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember the Presidential election of 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running agains Jimmy Carter. (Some of us remember back this far!) It was a different world then. The US was shamed over the hostages in Iran, and many people worried about the perceived military superiority of the Soviet Union. Add to that the notion -- half-believed by some -- that the world might come to an end in the year 2000.
Now, many of you too young to remember all this might laugh in disbelief, but google the movie, The Late Great Planet Earth. [imdb.com] This movie came out in 1979, and was basically a survey of the current world-political situation illuminated by the Bible's Apocalypse, [wikipedia.org] the predictions of Nostradamus, [wikipedia.org] and so forth. This movie got a lot of attention and play before the election.
At the time I was young and impressionable (12 years old), but I remember watching the movie on television (maybe cable) with my father and brothers and being scared out of my wits.
What does this have to do with the election? It was thought by many that Reagan was the only chance for America to regain power and respect on the world stage, thereby averting the triumph of evil and the likely destruction of the planet in a nuclear holocaust. Of course, this seems kind of crazy to me now. Nobody worries about such things. (Now kids and other impressionable people worry about some kind of ecological holocaust.)
I don't know how effective this movie was in getting some people to turn out to vote and vote for Reagan, and I'm sure it wasn't meant to be propaganda for Reagan, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was somewhat effective.
Michael Moore's movie could be as much hogwash as Nostradamus. That won't matter if it makes it to TV though. It will be the kind of propaganda that will make a difference. Personally, I think it is nothing but out-of-context "truths" carefully edited to promote lies. Whoever one wishes in the White House, no honest person could wish for this kind of propaganda to become a part of the American political scene. If that happens, it would be a worse thing than having the wrong guy in the White House.
As a TV Network what would you do? (Score:1, Interesting)
or
B) Power. Risk losing a ton of money by NOT airing Moore's documentary and gain political ties.
I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns (Score:5, Interesting)
If Kerry thinks the leaders of other countries are going to be any nicer than thhe WORST that Rove and the swifties can throw at him he's nuts. Welcome to the big leagues, John.
But then I'm a Libertarian and so I KNOW my party is going to lose, so let 'em rogh each other up. There really is no hope until we shitcan the two party system and Greens, Libertarians and everyone else can have an actual reason to VOTE for someone they give a crap about.
Hurting the process? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.
It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.
Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:
Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.
And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.
So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!
No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.
Re:Hell yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's not so much bad luck as it is bad choices on the part of Wall Street. The reality: the dot-com boom created unsustainable jobs based on poor business models. For 2 straight years, the economy operated at a few hundred thousand jobs beyond full employment. You all remember it well -- being offered absurd sums to go work for a company that had no product, no customers, and no plan to change that situation. The economy was burning VC money -- and the fed wouldn't step in to fix it.
Now, in the crater of that foolishness, we have finally recovered to near full employment... and folks would like to panic and declare failure. You want to create jobs: great! You do it by being sensible with your money, and demanding the same from your employer, your vendors, and your investments. Anything else is a crap shoot.
The President doesn't move the economy -- you do.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore
because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.
Welcome to Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
American style.
I see a bit of bias here.
My brother is a fanatical Clinton- hater He has dozens of "documentaries" on the Clintons' numerous crimes, including mass murder. The only difference here is that Moore is a talented filmmaker who sticks to the facts, as opposed to a hack who just makes stuff up. The Right has trouble attracting artistic types; it's pretty obvious which side of the aisle is telling artists "You can't do that!"
BTW, the only error of fact that I've heard of being sustained was that the story was "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat".
Re:Propaganda (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be so sure just yet... Senator Graham just released a book that details a very specific occurrence dealing with the Saudi ties. Salon has a cover story today about it. [salon.com]
Illuminati manipulation (Score:1, Interesting)
I found this comment on the forum:
Just FYI only.
Michael Moore is a plant !! He is there to collect the "REACTION" of the people.
His parents are on The Committee of 300, a staunch Illuminati Group !
Re:Hell yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, its a big deal, and this is from someone who has actually served in the military, and was raised in a military family with a father that served in Korea and Vietnam. I am more than a little aware of the risks and the costs, and in my opinion, it is a small price to pay.
I say let it air (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I say let it air. The people that are so weak minded that a Moore documentary would sway them are probably not the ones headed to the polls anyway...
But it also could backfire. If you piss off enough apathetic conservative people you might drive even more conservatives to the voting booth.
Comment removed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
" But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond."
You state the (hypothetical I assume) person can't respond due to lack of money, but blame that lack of money on McCain-Feingold? McCain-Feingold in no way prevents that persons ability to respond on a similar scale. It's that persons lack of money preventing this.
But, you are right. It's not democratic, it *is* capitalistic though. What would you prefer? That the government pay for some sort of rebuttal?
That sounds downright socialistic. Why don't you go back to communist Russia you socialist pig?
(Wait...this isn't fox is it?)
If you're looking for some sort of democracy in action, look at the throngs of ill thought
responses here on
So then, vote libertarian (Score:3, Interesting)
I am almost to the point where I could consider myself a libertarian... The party is basically fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
You can read more about the libertarian presidential candidate here:
http://www.badnarik.org/
Caution - some of the position papers make far too much sense. Granted, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2004, but I think he has a hell of a good chance of increasing awareness of the party and its platform.
religion and voting (Score:5, Interesting)
This holds true for pretty much all politicians, really, but I find bush's efforts in this regard to be quite appalling. I certainly don't want to vote for Kerry (who has always been a loser) but I'm voting against bush, more than anything.
That being said, I know way too many people voting for bush just because he says he's an "evangelical christian". I usually suggest that the actions of jesus sound like scary liberal hippie communism, which draws blank stares.
Moore's critics pervert reality (Score:2, Interesting)
Moore's critics say the movie's claim that "Gore would have won Florida" is a lie.
The truth is, there are two ways to interpret the statement in the movie. The literal interpretation in F911 which doesn't call attention to the nature of the "recount" is 100% accurate. In a *statewide recount* Gore would have won the election.
Moore's critics twist this by implying that Moore meant (but did not say) "the recount requested by Gore", which only included a subset of Florida, in which Bush would have won.
What is the real issue? Bush won Florida and therefore won the Presidency. Any meaningful discussion of a "recount" involves the entire state because it was the entire state's electoral votes that were up for grabs.
However, Moore's critics insinuate that the movie "lies" by manufacturing a specific scenario, that is not represented in the movie, where Bush could have legitimately won Florida, and therefore use it to "prove" that Moore was a "liar." Unfortunately, it's 100% fabrication. The movie's statements on this issue are accurate despite the right wingers' attempt to snow-job the public into believing otherwise.
With so many right-wing resources being expended to tear apart Moore's movie, they were bound to find something. No doubt about that... They discovered that the book Bush was reading when the WTC was attacked was entitled "The Pet Goat" and not "My Pet Goat" as Moore mentioned in the film. Yes, this grevious error is a classic example of the horrendous propaganda and lies that Farhenheit 911 epitomizes!
Almost all of the F911's "lies" fall into these two categories: distortions of reality to imply the movie distorted reality, or expose's of completely irrelevent "facts" and continuity inconsistencies that have virtually nothing substantive to do with the movie's main theme or accuracy.
Right-wing propaganda such as this, told over and over, makes the public believe that Moore's movie is inaccurate when it is not. It's the same tactic that has misled millions into thinking there was a substantive connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There are more right-wing voices sprewing dubious arguments against Moore's film than there are people in the public eye calling attention to the blatant inaccuracy of such criticisms, so people "assume" Moore was distorting the truth when he wasn't.
What's important here is that people need to get wise to the massive effort that is underway to wholly discredit Moore personally, and therefore keep people from giving creedence to ANY aspect of his work. You don't hear people complain about any single aspect of the movie - you hear people merely regurgitate the opinion fed to them, that "Moore is a propagandist". They don't really know themselves.
This is completely unjust. You can't open any newspaper or watch anything on television that doesn't have some bias. This doesn't mean that one can't glean some insight or truth therein. But the conservatives' M.O. is to encourage people to completely disregard (and preferably boycott or destroy) anyone who challenges their version of reality. It is for this very reason that a thinking person should be even more interested in hearing what Moore has to say. With so much caustic counter-propaganda blowing about in the wind, common sense dictates the target of that vitriol probably has something very illuminating to share with others.
Re:Presidents don't make jobs? (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't a new idea and Bush certainly did't think of it. I believe Regan, JFK (a democrat), & others did this long ago. The results were about the same. A mild boost to help stimulate the economy. I'd bet that if Gore were president he would have done the same type of thing & Republicans would be complaining.
The president can help the economy a little, but he can screw it up majorly. Too high taxes on the extremely wealthy or taxing a certain industry is typically the worst thing to do. The very wealthy can move to another country much more easily than you or I.
Picking particular industries is typically a bad thing to do. A while ago a very high tax was introduced on luxury boats manufactured in the US. As a result people stopped buying them or bought them outside the US. The industry pretty much colapsed in the US and many manufacturing jobs were lost. The net result was that the working class, not the rich, was really hurt.
If you want to know who really controls the economy, talk to Mr. Greenspan. If he were to simply step down the economy would take a serious hit. He is definitely more influential than Bush. Every time he speaks, you get news coverage followed by a news commentary on the impact to the stock market.
As far as debt goes. Yep. We have a big one. However, remember two things.
1.) As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the debt isn't nearly as big as it has been in the past. That means we are producing more than ever before. Think of it this way, which is worse. To be in debt $1,000,000 and be producing $2,000,000 worth of goods, or be in debt $1,000 and be producing $1,000 worth of goods?
2.) The worst thing that could ever be done would be to have zero debt. Since the first days of this country, Hamilton realized that a federal debt is a good thing and healthy. The amount that debt can be debated, but this country should have some amount of debt.
Re:Michael Moore (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll match you punch [amazon.com] for punch [amazon.com].
The right says ridiculous things about the left, like Preisdent Clinton murders people [whatreallyhappened.com] who get in his way.
It's all nuts.
I wonder.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to compatre peoples' reactions with F9/11 to these other hypothetical movies, and see if they would really keep their views (Moore is a lying hack, Moore is just telling the truth) if he suddenly attacked a position they espoused (say Clinton for those who like Fahrenheit, or the EU for those who like the EU) or disliked (say Clinton for those who didn't like Fahrenheit, or the EU for those in the US).
Would be an interesting study to have everyone watch 3 or 4 F9/11-like movies on different topics, then read the responses and see if we could categorize people into groups:
Likes Moore no matter what
Dislikes Moore no matter what
Anti-Bush no matter what
Pro-Bush no matter what
Anti-Clinton no matter what
etc.
until "Views actually swing depending on material" and "Actually influenced by the film(s)".
I think it would be an intersting exam of ideaology vs. critical thinking, especially for those who views have suddenly been attacked.
OT: Pat Buchanan is not a good judge... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pat Buchannan thought the US should've made a deal with Hitler: Stay out of Western Europe and attack Russia all you want. Or at least that's what it implies here...
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbuchanan1.htm
So, since I've invoked Godwin's law, I'll STFU.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:1, Interesting)
59 Deceits (Score:2, Interesting)
David Kopel has been called into question by many, but his article illustrates there are problems with F/911.
Analysis from libertarians -- people who think Bush is a terrible President, and hate war -- has been critical of Moore. Search Lewrockwell.com for Michael Moore [google.com] and Mises.og for Michael Moore [google.com].
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:5, Interesting)
John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. To wit, his openning statement was:
---
I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.... [richmond.edu]
---
He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.
He did the right thing.
How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.
We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.
i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None of those people directly threatened the United States.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars [hevanet.com] since the end of World War II.
Want to educate yourself about U.S. goverment corruption? See the two other movies and read the 35 books reviewed in this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
This is how it has been going:
Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.
TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!
Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S. government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Interesting)
The best way to figure out whether or not Moore's truthful depictions "imply" stuff unfairly is to see it for yourself and decide whether or not those implications are warranted.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm just weird that way.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Interesting)
the anthrax killer never found
Wasn't it determined that the anthrax originated in our own (US) military biolabs? Isn't it a strange coincidence how the first person killed in the anthrax attacks was a nosy reporter who had just published an embarassing photo of Bush's daughter?
In other news, OJ continues his search for, "the real killers"..
Make the World a better place (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Is the world safer now than it was 4 years ago? NO
2. Is the US safer now than it was 4 years ago? NO
3. Is the world economy better now than it was 4 years ago? NO
4. Am I happy as I was with the US, world and my life than I was 4 years ago? NO.
I didn't vote for the guy. I voted for the guy that got the most votes and lost.
I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. - Tosk the Hunted
Re:Voters don't think (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll admit that Fox is biased, but disagree that it is deceptive. I do agree that if it were deceptive, that it could constitute propaganda due to its scope.
Farenheit 9/11 In Cuba (Score:3, Interesting)
See cached yahoo news here [64.233.167.104].
See some other cuban news source here [cubaweb.cu].
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Interesting)
As for "states rights," that term has inherited more definitions than the Founders originally envisioned. For example, it was used as a euphemism for pro-segregation during the civil rights struggle.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:3, Interesting)
They already have. 44 Chechyans have already disappeared for every 1000.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Interesting)
So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."
And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is
I'd say it's a good reason why governors have an easier time getting elected than legislators. Being in the executive branch at the state level lets you take clear stands, while someone at the state or national assembly has to become really good at compromise.
I don't think that people that call legislators "flip-floppers" are idiots. I just think it is a sad reflection on the political knowledge of the average citizen.
Of course, most who state that opinion on a public forum are idiots, or campaign workers...
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, who does Moore like? I cant imagine hes for Kerry, and he certainly didn't care for Clinton.
Now for my statement, all you losers pay attention, voting for someone because they ARE NOT BUSH is not a good way to choose a canaidate. Tell me what Kerry has done in his career as a Senator, or what he plans to do in office that makes him a good choice for the Presidency.
Well, I'm listening.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.
I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.
Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".
You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.
Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush did not attack Kerry (or McCain, AFAIK) over Vietnam. It is Kerry who, as it has been pointed out time and time again, made his four months of service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Even during the primary campaign, it was pointed out that he brought up Vietnam constantly, at every single opportunity.
The fact is that the stuff a politician brings up on the campaign trail is fair game for criticism from all interested parties. For his part, Bush has been far more interested in fighting the current war then he has been in going back and arguing over Vietnam.
Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.
- Alaska Jack
Effects of Media Consolidation - Not a Chance =( (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I would like this to happen; It won't. We know ABC and FOX are out. Perhaps CBS is a shot, but they are VERY family friendly with their mix of shows... they wouldn't want a religious right boycott. And all the cable networks are consolidated now, so there's no independent voice there either. "AOL" Time Warner's new crop of old media executives will keep it off their networks. Bravo and USA are owned by NBC. I would guess NBC is the closest shot at getting it aired. I discount ABC because Disney is the parent company, and FOX, well shit Rupert Murdoch isn't going to have any of that film on his stations.
Isn't media consolidation great? Thanks FCC.
All that being said, we'd be far better off in educating America if Bush's Brain was aired on television. That is a much more enlightening film. No offense Michael, I love your work, but Karl Rove is more dangerous than the Bush family ties to bin Laden.
Disclaimer: I have given to Kerry Edwards 2004, I have even have a sign in my yard (TEXAS) Not only that, I voted twice for Ross Perot. I remain an independent.
More Moore, not less (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.
Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.
We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.
FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.
Do likewise!
Re:Parent is correct (Score:3, Interesting)
For one thing, it wasn't a "mistake." That word implies it was some kind of accident or oversight. To the contrary, the doctoring done in to the newspaper in the movie was clearly quite deliberate.
Also, Moore has already had plenty of time to apologize for this. He hasn't done so, and for good reason -- all it would do is generate another round of media coverage about how parts of F911 were deliberately deceptive.
You'll note from the Pantagraphs coverage the part where Moore refuses to answer a very simple question: Why was the newpaper doctored? Well, think about it: Why would Moore refuse to answer that question?
- Alaska Jack
The networks wouldn't air it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, who would advertize? I guess it would be entirely political commercials. Perhaps a series of Bush ads reputing the prior segment of the movie. Who wants to sit through that?
I don't know if Moore really expects to get it aired, but you have to give him credit for his PR skills. Nothing like a piece of manufactured controvercy to drive DVD sales.
Terror? What terror? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, when I grew up, everyone figured that sooner or later we were all going to die in a nuclear war. And now I'm supposed to get all worried that someone might blow up a building that I'm in? Puh-leeze.
To my mind, the War on Terror is akin to a bunch of Ticktockmen running around yelling "Repent Harlequin!" And to about as much effect.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:3, Interesting)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
As the target audience for the President's Christian message, I find him to be incredible superficial in his faith. That he uses it to try and garner support from me, and I get emails talking about what a man of faith he is from friends of mine that swallow it sickens me. George Bush is no more a Christian than Osama Bin Laden is. If the President was truly a Christian, he'd take more of the writings of Paul the Apostle to heart and actually do what they say. Because he goes to church and says the right things, I'm supposed to support him blindly?
My ass.
Curious.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
* Implying that Fox somehow had the ability to change all the other Networks stance on who won Florida, when this was not the case at all.
I don't remember him implying that Fox News had any power to change it, just that they were in the lead in declaring Bush president.
*Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.
I'll buy that.
*Implying that Gore won the election no matter what. If the recount method Gore request had been allowed to finish, Bush would've won.
That too.
*Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months, with the implication that Bush can't do work away from the whitehouse (slashdotters should know the ease with which offlocation work can be done)
It's not an implication, it's a matter of public record. Whether or not he can do work away from the Whitehouse is a seperate issue. Now, I know when I do work at home, I'm not nearly as productive as I am at work, and I'm not the fricking President of the USA! His work probably involves, to a great degree, meeting with other people, and that's certainly something that is restricted by him not being in DC.
*Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing mentioning the potential terrorist threat.
I'm pretty sure it came out that he didn't.
*Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country.
Yeah, this is true.
*Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.
This is patently false. The movie did say they were questioned, just that it was cursory and they weren't detained for more extensive questioning.
Personally, I didn't like the movie. I get his point, but he uses a low-class argumentative style, using emotion more than reason. Personally, I thought there were lot's of ways to nail Bush using a purely rational argument. That said, I'm beginning to think purely rational arguments would exceed the attention span of most voters, so the evil of Michael Moore style arguments is necessary to counter the very effective marketing machine on the Republicans' side.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:3, Interesting)
After inheriting a recession (yes, the recession started while Clinton was still in office), then falling victim to an extremely large terrorist attack on some of our key financial centers, followed by the collapse of some of our biggest companies (who had been corrupt for years before GW Bush got there), Bush manages to make it only a recession (not a depression), and the economy is surging back. I like it!
As for national defence - have we been attacked again on our soil? There's several things that he's not doing (like border patrol) but Kerry hasn't said he'll do them either.
The minimalistic number of US casualties from the two wars we've been in show that he is either a great military leader or at least knows who to hire/listen to.
I think he's done a great job, overall. He's way too liberal for me in general, but the issues that have counted in the past 4 years he's come through on.
Re:questions have been raised (Score:4, Interesting)
To wit:
The Supreme Court of the State of Florida has the power to review the acts of the legislature of the state when those acts are an exercise of a power granted by the people of Florida via the Florida constitution.
However, the United States Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
The Supreme Court decision, while unquestionably controversial, was correct. This power of regulating federal elections was allocated solely to the elected state legislature, and is a federal, not state, matter when it comes to review.
Larry
Re:questions have been raised (Score:2, Interesting)
That would be because, at the time, Florida inexplicably had no checkbox on the felon ethnicity form for "hispanic". This has been widely reported and re-reported here in Florida since the new felon list came out a couple months ago. There were probably thousands of hispanics, but they were not listed as such. Perhaps the 50 were the ones who bothered to fill in the blank next to "Other".
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that they reserve the right to elect a republican no matter what the law says.
emotions (Score:1, Interesting)
LOL, gotta be kidding right?
Do you think Bush using fear and 9/11 as an entire platform to win an election doesnt rely on emotion?
Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
That simply isn't true. The founding fathers publicly and repeatedly stated that they thought direct democracy to be a very bad idea. I've already told you where to look if you want to confirm that, which you're welcome to do at any decent public library (or perhaps online, by now).
I repeat myself, but they said that direct democracy was nothing more than a tyranny of the majority, and no better than the tyranny enforced by a single man - a king. The Constitution specifically limited government power through the First through Fifth Amendments, and later the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to keep the majority from ever using the tool of government to oppress the minority.
All of this is public record and should have been taught to you in high school. I find it surprising that your education has been so lax and so full of misinformation. But you're perfectly capable of going to the source and correcting these deficiencies yourself, which I encourage you to do.
Max
Re:Michael Moore (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't have to look that far back. Just look at the official Bush web site a few weeks ago:
That is, an official ad, not one that was posted to an open forum and then deleted by the moderators.
link [slate.com]
Re:questions have been raised (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that Jeb Bush worked to have thousands of African Americans purged from the voter rolls prior the election by misclassifying them as felons. As reported in the New York Times [nytimes.com], he's tried to do it again in 2004 and then tried to keep the voter rolls secret.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:4, Interesting)
Senator Kerry admited that he personally committed war crimes (see the attached excerpt from an MSNBC transcript which quotes Senate hearings from 1971).
In the attached excerpt you'll see that he tries to back pedal out of that statement, but the fact is that he either did commit atrocities as he says he personally did or he lied to Congress about it. Either way the man is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
Amazing.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, holding *some* sort of a press conference would have been reasonable, but really, I'm puzzled by the idea that he might not have decided to just stand up, appologize to the class, say that he has important business to tend to, and leave. What did he do instead? What would *you* have done? Just sat there?
Moore didn't portray the event so much as he showed actual footage of it taking place. Actually, he spared the audience much of the ( extremely uncomfortable ) seven minutes.
That Moore showed it was just predictable. That you'd think Bush's reaction to news that the WTC was blown up is to sit for seven minutes is a BFD-class molehill is what's bizarre. I suppose detaining US citizens without access to a lawyer is a BFD-class molehill as well... as is shuttling the Bin Laden family out of the US while other commercial traffic is grounded... no, you're not a Bush supporter at all ;-)
I'm encouraging everyong to read this book [al-franken.com]. These are some pretty damn big molehills.
Re:bite me asshat. (Score:3, Interesting)
Mikes movie is nothing but an ad for Kerry and should be treated as such. If Kerry wins I see another Tammany Hall getting started...I just don't know who will be Boss Tweed this time around....my moneys on Hillary.
Re:2001 Anthrax Attacks Origin and Targets (Score:3, Interesting)
But honestly, you probably should have just briefly looked into this yourself. Obviously most of this is common knowledge to quite a few people, and has been for some time (I learned that it was almost definitely US military in origin probably well more than six months ago).
Re:Know thy enemy (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you aren't aware that the Bin Laden family is a major investor in the american arms companies
I guess you also aren't aware that the Bin Laden's are a major oil family, and that by helping Bush destabilize the world oil markets using the false scare tactics, and pinching off the oil supply from Iraq, Bush and his Bin Laden friends have gotten exactly what they wanted
In fact, just in July of this year, Americans sent $90BILLION more dollars to saudi arabia to buy oil than they would have with the pre-war / pre-bush prices!
You have no idea how much the Bin Ladens love you dumbass americans.
Re:Voters don't think (Score:3, Interesting)
If I may provide an anecdote: I live in the Metro Phoenix area. We are home to many corporations with large vested interests in technology and IT. American Express, Honeywell, McDonnal Douglass, General Dynamics, Intel and Motorola all have a fairly large tech presence here. Needless to say, when the bottom fell out, our community was hit harder than many. Continuous layoffs, offshoring, and for those of us who were lucky enough to keep our jobs, we were faced with cancelled bonuses and severing of many significant benefits. The tech job scene here pretty much sucked for three years. One day, in 2003, the president paid a visit to one of the local community colleges do discuss his economic "vision" of the future for the Phoenix valley. That was the day that dubbya irrevocably lost my vote. His answer to our high unemployment rate: "More hi-tech education!!" At that moment, I realized that not our president has not a fucking clue about the current plight of the American middle-class technology worker. Tell the half-dozen or so PhD's that my company alone laid off that the solution to our problem is more education. In the four years of Bush's presidency, I haven't heard him mention once the issue of good, high-skilled, good paying jobs being shipped to Bangalore (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a symptom of his greater problem; he runs away or avoids issues dealing with the economy. Anytime someone mentions it, you'll hear the same canned response: "our economy is strong, and my tax cuts are working". I called bullshit when he first said it, and I call bullshit nearly four years later as he keeps repeating it. I'd have more respect for the man if he would simply acknowledge that there are problems that need to be fixed.
Sorry if that turned into a rant, but it is getting kinda late over here :)