If you see the film, you'll have some credibility.  Otherwise, you are simply accepting other people's lies and slander at face value.  Oh, that's right, you're a Bush supporter, so you are completely used to doing that anyways.

either fair or accurate. As long as it slams Bush. That seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.

Frankly for me, there is enough above the surface to warrant not voting for the guy but to say it's okay to lie as long as the cause is right is down right dangerous.

Gee, maybe instead of calling everyone names, it might be more productive if you actually watched the film. Then you could effectively criticize it.

Or is informed criticism only the province of NDtBF?

-- Modified on 6/26/2004 4:47:42 PM

I don't hear these complaints when conservatives preach to the choir.  It's about time the left "got religion" too.

/Zin

energizing them.  And that may have a substantial impact on the election.

unless describing a selfproclaimed liberal as a leftwinger is namecalling.

Thank you 2sense.

I would still hold that if Moore is playing fast and loose with the truth he is no more or less of a liar than Bush who he comdemns, now I can say THAT without paying $8 into Moore's PAC can't I???????


-- Modified on 6/26/2004 7:29:01 PM

All you want is to drive up box office revenue to say "See how many peole agree"! Moore's not getting any of my money. This is the same reason the left wants GWB to apologize so bad, so they have a clip for the campaign. You guys are so transparent it's almost silly, no wonder GWB keeps kicking your ass

If the message was really effective, the DNC should be able to get it out without people havint to pay for it. Why do you think Gideons give away bibles?

BTW, if Moore so loves the DNC, then why doesn't he contribute this piece of work for the cause? Answer, because he is the capitalist pig he always bitches about. There's your hypocrit.

opinions from others.

Of it being all right to lie if the cause is right.  Witness the ENTIRE Iraq campaign.

Frankly, I personally didn't see ANY misrepresentation of actual fact in Moore's movie.  But there is no question that he used cinematography tricks to make various Bush admin people look foolish for no purpose but ridicule.  And I wish that he didn't, because, frankly, it discredits the ACTUAL message in Moore's film, which happens to be generally accurate and valid.

But, in all candor, there was not a snowball's chance in hell that the Right wing would not have smeared Moore even if his film was SCRUPULOUSLY honest and even-handed.  And, BTW, while it is most certainly NOT even-handed, it is also NOT dishonest in it's content - just like a biased political commentary one might hear CNN Crossfire, or read in an editorial - Those are all completely valid without being even-handed.  We know this for a fact, because the attacks began WELL ahead of the actual film, down to the major effort to censor it well before anyone knew what was actually in it.  That, BTW, is a simple disregard for the 1st Amendment.

And, incidentally, I view this as no different from a Bush or Kerry campaign Ad.  Everyone knows that they are biased, and in many cases, they are downright dishonest (especially much of Bush's recent Ads that ran a couple of months ago).  But, plain and simple, EVEN if they are dishonest, and most assuredly, many of Bush's ads WERE, the fact is, they are protected speech under our Constitution, and it is up to the other side to convincingly rebut the arguments being made.  

""And, incidentally, I view this as no different from a Bush or Kerry campaign Ad.  Everyone knows that they are biased, and in many cases, they are downright dishonest"""

I'll at least give you credit for being honest enough to openly state how slanted the view is here but frankly, I really don't have time to go and see BS when I smell it coming over the fence.

I get so sick of this shit sometimes. That's why I don't listen to Limbaugh anymore and close my ears when (what's that blonde's name???) speaks. ANd I'm conservative! Carville/Clinton/Moore/Limbaugh/(blonde chick)/ and you!

Partisans are running this counrty into the ground!!!





-- Modified on 6/26/2004 9:45:49 PM

you voice here as well.

Remember, only first hand observations only.....otherwise, you'd be ill-informed, right?

too?

END OF MESSAGE

Both are Constitutionally protected examples of free speech, both are paid to deliver their opinionated views.  You are more than welcome to choose not to view either one.  But if I need to live in a world where Rush Limbaugh's right to spout his views on the radio is protected, so must others endure Michael Moore's right to deliver his viewpoint in film.

END OF MESSAGE

You may criticize the MAN all you want.  But you have no legitimate basis to criticize the specific work he has delivered in Fahrenheit 9/11 unless you actually see what he has produced.

The fact is, ALL great accomplishments of humanity are created by flawed humans.  Fahrenheit 9/11 is no exception.  

Van Gogh was a paranoid schitzophrenic, who made some of the greatest paintings in the history of humanity.  Could you legitimately dismiss his paintings without seeing them, by simply saying he was nuts?  Or that the museum they hang in charges admission?

Beethoven was a loner who was deaf, but he created the greatest works of symphonic music ever.  Could you legitimately dismiss his 9th Symphony as being without merit, without ever having heard it, simply because a deaf man wrote it?  Or that one needs to buy a ticket to attend the symphony?

Pete Rose is an inveterate gambler, who was banned from baseball for gambling.  But can you honestly claim that he was not one of the greatest hitters and toughest competitors in the history of the sport, and that his achievements on the field are invalid because he was an asshole?  Or that the ballclubs charged people to attend the games in which he competed?

By no means am I contending that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a work at those sublime levels of achievement.  But what I AM contending is that attacks on the man himself do NOT in any way diminish the work he has produced, and nobody is qualified to criticize the work itself, unless they have actually seen it, and can judge it for themselves.



-- Modified on 6/27/2004 1:10:53 PM

Thank you for stating your feelings and no personal attacks, I wish more were like that...

I believe you will find that I have not really said anything about the work itself except that it is a hatchet job. Moore himself has said it is his personal attack on the Bush Presidency, therfore I stand by this statement. I have also said that I am willing to make assumptions about this work based on his past works, not the man himself (although I have issues there too). I believe this to also be sound practice.

Due to the fact that he does have a track record of previous works, his patterns of handling fact can be seen and naturally assumptions can be made as to his MO. Like I've said before, if the message is so great, why not get the message out without charging. Oh yeah, Moore is a greedy capitalist just like General Motors. This hypocricy alone is enough to trash his credibility and therefore his works.

cut from the same cloth.

Bush and Cheney are traitors, with respect to having sold out U.S. Security interests to the Saudis for Oil money.  Moore's film makes a very compelling case to that affect, which I have not yet heard anyone on the Conservative Right even try to refute.  Therefore, a "Traitormonger" would be someone who supports the traitors, i.e Bush and Cheney.  Michael Moore is simply trying (apparently, with success) to reveal the story that the Bush Administration has tried to keep hidden with respect to who and what actually drives the direction of this Administration.

And most assuredly, the right wing HAS tried on several occassions to prevent this movie from being shown.  Perhaps you personally have not, but there is no question that folks whom you support HAVE tried to censor this movie and prevent the American public from seeing it.

""Bush and Cheney are traitors""

SO NOW WHO IS CALLING WHO TRAITORS???????

""Perhaps you personally have not, but there is no question that folks whom you support HAVE tried to censor this movie and prevent the American public from seeing it.""

"Perhaps" I've not???? Perhaps????

""no question that folks whom you support HAVE"""

Who do I support???? You have'nt a clue what your talking about....I think you're just filled with Kerry Campaign babble...

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

It is alleged by Michael Moore, and I also believe, that Bush and Cheney got us into the Iraq war for the purpose of monetary gain for themselves, and their political supporters.  These political supporters include the Saudi royal family.  Further, the allegation, which I ALSO believe, is that this specific war has lessened United States national security, by enhancing the recruitment efforts of Al Qaida in the Arab world, and by disengaging a significant percentage of our military might from the task of defeating Al Qaida in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.  I believe that there is a preponderance of evidence that supports this charge.  If, in fact, Bush & Cheney have made decisions that compromised United States national security for mere financial benefit of themselves and their supporters, what would YOU call that?  I personally would call that TREASON, and the people who did it, TRAITORS.  As I said, it's my view that a preponderance of evidence supports this charge.  And I have not heard anyone specifically try to refute it with real evidence, only with character assasination of the individual levelling the charge (Moore).  The charge that Bush and Cheney are traitors is based on their falsifying the case for waging war on Iraq, for purposes contrary to U.S. National Security.  It is not personal.   I would like to hear these charges addressed on the merits.

what is said about other posters would be a good idea.  We can start with not making so many assumptions about them.

Saying, "well, based on your posts, it was reasonable for me to assume this and that about you" is not a good enough excuse for making assumptions about people.

I once knew a woman who liked to spread malicious rumors about other people.  When confronted with the fact that her assumptions about the person she was talking about were false, she usually replied by saying "Well, I just naturally assumed..."

It's just not a good enough excuse.  Let other people tell you what they think, and try to not make assumptions about what they think.

I did make comments about people BillKile has supported elsewhere on the boards, i.e. Cheney and Bush.  I called them traitors, which in turn makes their supporters traitormongers.  But BillKile used that term about me first, for supporting Michael Moore.  In my reply, I was simply pointing out that whomever is a traitormonger is completely dependent upon whom one considers to be the traitor.  And I consider Moore a Patriot, and Bush and Cheney traitors.  Obviously, BillKile has a different view, and he expressed exactly that view with me first.  And I responded.  But my charge was explicitly directed at Bush and at Cheney, and by extension, their supporters.  If he individually took that personally, I don't see where in my posts it came from - it was a general characterization of anyone who would support a traitor, which he leveled at me, and I gave right back.

You seem to be uncomfortable with the discourse here, and I understand that.  But we who oppose the current administration have endured the ongoing innuendo that opposition to the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, and gutting of the Bill of Rights, makes one a traitor - most especially from Dick Cheney himself.  We are certainly simply responding in kind.  If you'd like to see a different level of discourse, I might suggest that you vote out of office it's greatest proponent: Mr. "Fuck Yourself" You Traitor, Dick Cheney.  Once he's gone, we will be happy to start at a more civil level.  But not before he's gone.

-- Modified on 6/29/2004 7:19:34 PM

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Because I personally have no problem saying both were wrong, and neither should ever be elected President again.  I'm sure we can agree on that!

And BTW, the fact is, Clinton sold ACCESS in small bits with the Lincoln Bedroom.  It was corrupt, but it was small scale corruption.  He did not sell a fundamental National Security interest, as Bush did with the Saudis.  Bush's selling of influence to the Saudis ACTUALLY contributed to 9/11.

For example, WHY were 15 of the 19 Hijackers Saudis?  Moore tells us why in the film.  It's because the SAUDIS had no problem getting U.S. Visas.  EVEN THE SAUDIS IN AL QAIDA!!!!!!

Yemenis, and Sudanese, and Syrians, and Iranian Al Qaida operative all had a MUCH tougher time getting U.S. Visas.  But, because the Saudis got special treatment from our government, their visa applications got fast tracked.  This policy dates back to the FIRST Bush Administration, and it survived all the elevated threat levels of during the first 8 months of the Bush Administration.

-- Modified on 6/30/2004 4:27:11 PM

And when did they get those visas and where was GWB?

He was in Texas. Clinton was in the Whitehouse and Mr. Droopy was in the Senate.

Fact of the matter is the Clinton Admin spread our ass cheeks wider then Jade Marcella........