-- Modified on 6/29/2004 3:58:51 PM
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 7:43:55 PM
Van Gogh was a paranoid schitzophrenic, who has produced some of the greatest paintings in history.
Beethoven was deaf, when he wrote the greatest piece of Orchestral music ever produced.
Pete Rose was a hard core gambler, who is banned from baseball, but he was one of the toughest competitors and best hitters ever
None of the personal flaws which Moore has, diminish the fact that he has produced a film that accurately makes a compelling case that Bush Jr. has sold out the U.S. National Interest for mere lucre to Saudi Arabia.
In fact, I think we probably have some of the Right Wing character assassins to thank for the robustness of Moore's film. I have no doubt that he was MUCH more careful to be factually accurate in THIS film than he was in his prior productions, simply because he knew that he had to be, in order to be credible. The personal attacks on him have undoubtedly strengthened his resolve to make a more rigorously accurate, and therefore better film.
If, as Moore insinuates the Saudi's have such a friendship with Bush, HOW COME THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW US TO USE OUR BASE IN SAUDI ARABIA TO PROSECUTE THE IRAQI WAR? The Saudis were against us going into Iraq, it would seem with their "close" relationship that they would have welcomed Bush's plan OR Bush would have deferred to their wishes! Funny how that FACT didn't find itself somewhere in Moores fucked up mind and film!
As stated before in an earlier post, here are a couple of more lies.
Moore claims that President Bush arranged a special flight to get the bin laden family out of America. The TRUTH is that former Terrorism Czar (and newest suck up of the left) Richard Clarke has stated that the decision was his and his alone, and the 9/11 Commission supports his claim!
Moore claims that the only reason the US invaded Afghanistan was to build a pipeline. As of today, the pipeline has still not been built, and there are no plans for building one.
And no I didn't and won't see this piece of shit. I don't need to stick my nose into an asshole to know it stinks! Moore destroyed his credibility with his other bullshit movies. Staging events and just making shit up, like his life, which is that of a spoiled rich kid. He purports to hate the rich and the motherfucker is one!
If you don't like the way Bush has handled his presidency, fine! Vote in November, but to insinuate his complicity with the attacks on America on 9/11 is something that those who suffer from the mental illness of liberalism will accept because they are just like Moore, who hates this country. All the while making a shitload of money with this kind of tripe from the lefts ditto-heads!
Factual? To say factual only further destoys your own credibilty.
mind of your own. See the film, and then use your own mind.
Moore *did not claim* that *Bush arranged a special flight*. Your credibility is zero now Bribite. You need to see the movie, listen to what it says, get your facts from a source other than your right-wing back-scratchers. Nothing you've said about this contradicts or is excluding of anything in the movie. It is in fact, irrelevant to the issue raised.
"Ditto" with your point about the pipeline, except there are plans to build such a thing.
Moore doesn't hate the rich. He hates a certain breed of rich. The sort who do get richer through manipulation and chicanery. Let's say, he has discriminating tastes about the rich. Do you deny that such people exist? Do you deny that they might not be common? I could see whay you would deny that one may inhabit the White House.
If I, a sworn atheist, saw "The Passion of Christ," then Bribite can see "Fahrenheit 9/11." Unless you're not as secure in your conservatism as I am with my atheism? If it makes you feel better, do what I did: go to see it after it makes $40 million dollars, so that your eight bucks withheld in protest means less than a flea bite on an elephant. At least I can thoughtfully tell you what was in "Passion" without sounding as idiotic as you do about "Fahrenheit" when disgorging another sycophantically plagerized quote from Limbaugh, O'reilly or Coulter.
/Zin
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 10:17:24 PM
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 11:07:38 PM
-- Modified on 6/28/2004 11:36:15 PM
That's a perfect description of Michael Moore, who I agree is a self loathing, (rich) fat fuck who produces films that manipulate the truth and accomplish chicanery on leftist lemmings!
Even liberal leftist have come away from the movie talking about how Bush was involved with the departure of the bin laden family, funny that you seemed to have missed that issue (selective memory perhaps). Everything I have heard about the movie has been raves from mouths of liberals, not Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Coulter.
The plans for an Afghan pipeline are the old Soviets, not ours! We are doing nothing to move that forward, it would move oil from Siberia, hardly an American issue. And its just the same old thing from leftist wacko's, its always the oil. Couldn't have been that al qaeda and its sponsor the Taliban had just attacked our country.
Talk about lapse of credibility, next you are going to attempt to tell us that the movie wasn't an attempt to show Bush complicit with the 9/11 act of war!
If I can get a hold of a pirated copy I might watch it, otherwise, like I said, I don't need to go to the South Pole to know its cold there! BTW, I wouldn't have suggested a confirmed atheists see the Passion of the Christ, the outcry from the anti-God crowd notwithstanding, it was produced as a movie though, not a documentary!
The specific charge is that Bush was NEGLIGENT, not complicit, due to his relationship with the Saudis, in properly defending the nation against 9/11.
Negligence is NOT the same as complicity. If you saw the damn film, you would understand the difference, and what Moore ACTUALLY alleges Bush's malfeasance was. But, as you have NOT seen it, you actually don't know what the fuck you are talking about on this subject.
Is your turning politically correct about weight now, when it serves your conservative propaganda interests? And who are you "agreeing" with about this? Not with me. Which conservative mouthpiece said this in your ear? It does sound like the kind of low blow school yard insult that any of them could come up with. Did you used to pile on when any school-yard heckler got the goods on someone? Have you ever thought of out-growing this?
So you have read on his mind and have ruled it self-loathing. How? Where did you get this "revelation," and how does it save you from the obligation of considering facts, when they are presented from any source? (OT: I am curious, is a self-loathing mind somehow worse to your personal self interest than a mind that loathes everyone else, but loves itself?)
In the entire movie, there's only one accusation that Moore makes that cannot be check independently. That was about Bush's National Guard record, where he says he got a copy in 2000 before the White House released them in 2002 with names blackened.
You didn't say before that the movie's accusation was that Bush was "involved" in the decision to release the bin Laden family. You said it was the contention that he *made* the decision. Sneaky move, Bribite. Don't think I didn't see you.
The "White House" made the decision, and the movie says no more than this. Those lefty liberal sources are lying to you, Bribite. I thought you knew better about them. 
Or perhaps you should listen more closely.
Richard Clarke who let the bin Ladens go was never reprimanded for this major breech of public trust. Why? Bush delegated this to a man he knew would make a decision that was right for Bush, and good for business. Richard Clarke has since repented, to your dismay. On the bright side, it probably preserved our relations with the Saudis at a very nervous time. Maybe that's bright?
With the precentage of the world oil that America consumes, how could not moving more oil into the world market not be an American issue? You do sound just whiny to counter arguments complaining that the lefties are always saying that its always the oil. Why wouldn't a lot of it be the oil, Bribite? The industrial economy depends upon it. The money involved is staggering. Are you contending that money never corrupts, that the power a lot of it represents over the rest of us is too "pure" to corrupt? Bush and Chenney are both oilmen. Karzai is an oilman, too. His resume is public record. Not something Moore made up. The fact that one of his earliest acts upon taking office was in signing the pipeline deal is also a matter of public record. PakNews.com reported that on December 28, 2002.
Now, none of this proves that we invaded Afghanistan for the oil. It seems, however, that Bush managed to find a confluence of his and his colleagues financial interest in the necessity of invading Afghanistan.
And next, I'll tell you the movie wasn't an attempt to show Bush complicit with the 9/11 attack. If you'll watch the movie, Bribite, it will make it clear to you that Moore agrees with you 100 percent that Bush was blindsided by 9/11, as much, or more than any of us. Do watch his reaction afterward. (A matter of public record, again.)
Why wouldn't you have suggested an Atheist see "The Last Passion of Christ"? If I never visit the South Pole, how could I know its cold? I may believe reports, with lack of other evidence, but I don't know.
/Zin
"The sort who do get richer through manipulation and chicanery. Let's say, he has discriminating tastes about the rich. Do you deny that such people exist? Do you deny that they might not be common? "
I trust you wont be voting for John Kerry in the November election then?
Maybe it just establishes that Kerry has alot going on in the sack. And you would certainly be wrong to trust that we are not voting for Kerry. But, that would surely not be the first time you were wrong, as your prior posts on this board leave a record of numerous examples of your errors.
Because the oil moguls already have enough power. And ketchup moguls aren't likely to have close business ties to the kingdom at the heart of Islam. In other words, they lack a crippling conflict of interest in the War on Terror.
/Zin
Fahrenheit 9/11 did NOT say that Bush arranged to fly the Saudis out of the U.S. It said that the Bush ADMINISTRATION arranged to fly the Saudis out. Richard Clarke was part of the Bush Administration, and he did what he did knowing the interests of the Administration in doing so.
There also WAS a Pipeline contract signed by Afghanistan, Turkistan, and Pakistan, in Dec. 2002. Major work has not yet begun on it, but planning is ongoing.
The fact is, the arguments you are relaying are themselves lies. And you keep spouting them, without any ACTUAL knowledge of what you're talking about, because you didn't see the film.
What you are doing with Moore's film is no different from me claiming that I've heard you are an imbecile, without ever having met you. And I would never presume to do that.
I couldn't agree more with you. Thanks for making my day.
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 4:18:22 PM
www.nytimes.com>editorials/op-ed>from the archive>David Brooks
It's the June 26 article entitled ALL HAIL MOORE
As I said previously. Moore has his flaws, and his viewpoint. But he also has legitimate content that has been withheld from the American public prior to Moore's release of Fahrenheit 9/11.
And that legitimate content makes a compelling case that the Bush Administration has sacrificed American National Security interests at the alter of Saudi baught political influence.
Brooks, nor anyone else on the right that I've seen so far, actually seems willing to address the specific charges Moore is making. And by refusing to address them, Brooks helps to convince me that Moore's charges are valid.
-- Modified on 6/29/2004 4:14:11 PM
film, and the Brooks article was not about the film per se. It was about Michael Moore himself, and the terrible things he said about America and Americans. Do you consider yourself one of the "dumb Americans" Moore was refering to? After all, he said Americans were dumb, so I guess both you and I, being Americans, are dumb. The NY Times is the bastion of the liberal media, yet it sees value in having David Brooks as one of its leading editorialists. Please read his article carefully and you'll see it's about Moore himself, not the movie. Do you still insist that "Brooks helps to convince me that Moore's charges are valid"? If so, then you're saying that you agree with him that America is the dumbest country on earth, which would include you too. Now, don't you think Moore went FAR over the top? If not, you should be ashamed of yourself!!!
His character is irrelevant to me, and how he exercises his free speech as a private citizen is irrelevant to me. WHY is it irrelevant to me? Simple: because I am not voting him into a public office. If he were running for office, his character, and private behavior would matter. Since he is not, it doesn't matter to me.
All I care about is that he has brought new information to light about the craven activities of the Bush Administration related to 9/11, Iraq, and the Saudis. And for that service, it wouldn't matter to me if he was an axe murderer, or a child molester. If he was a criminal, I'd throw him in jail, but I would STILL value his POSITIVE contribution in exposing the malfeasance of the Bush Administration in his film.
Perhaps you can understand THAT.
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 4:11:34 PM
that, but that IS what Brooks was writing about. But please, enough already about his film. Do you think Moore should have said what he said to those European audiences?
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 11:09:31 PM
I DO care about the evidence Michael Moore has brought out against George W. Bush selling out our national security interests to the Saudis, which in turn helped us be ill-prepared for 9/11, and which also led to attack Iraq after 9/11, rather than go after the Al Qaida with all of our resources.
The reason that I have not directly addressed your issue, is quite simply, that I could care less about your issue. It has nothing to do with getting the Bush / Cheney adminstration out of office, and that mission is the ONLY reason I am on this BB.
You are welcome to continue your mindless drivel about Brooks' editorial that claims Moore is a jerk. It's irrelevant to me, as is your unenlightened speculation about where I do or don't work.
-- Modified on 7/1/2004 5:04:16 PM
Your posts are drivel as well, and they are ENDLESS. Not only are you not selling your point of view, but it's quite apparent you couldn't sell pussy on a troop train! But if you want to continue this, so will I.
-- Modified on 7/2/2004 12:20:39 PM
focus on!
Michael Moore has as much right to exercise his 1st Amendment rights as anyone else. I agree with him that most Americans are uninformed. I would have used more civil wording, but I don't have any problem with what he said.
Yes, the fact that Brooks ONLY attacks Moore's character, and NOT the content of the film, most assuredly DOES help to convince me of the validity of the CONTENT of Moore's film.
In the aggregate, we ARE the most uninformed DEMOCRACY on earth. At no point need that address any specific individuals, and I certainly don't think it addresses myself, nor you, for that matter, since you even think to raise the issue. But it certainly DOES address the majority of the religious right, religion being the opiate of the masses that it is.
What Moore says as an individual, is his own business. And whether I agree with any of those specifics still has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
talking about Moore's film! The issue I was refering to was what Moore was saying to European audiences, which I think was totally disgusting AND WRONG! Sure, he has the right to say it, just as I have the right to say that I think Moore is a complete asshole. NONE OF THIS HAS A FUCKING THING TO DO WITH HIS FILM! You said it yourself - you would have been more civil about it - so stick to the issue. You seem to be completely FIXATED on Moore's film, whereas I'm talking about Moore's character and personality, which leaves a lot to be desired. If you agree with what he said, suffice it to say that I completely disagree with you. For the record, I think many foreigners don't have a clue about what America is about, as they only see a small, although to them intoxicating, part of our culture. Moore may be a clever filmmaker, but to me he's a loser as a person.
What I am saying is that I have no fundamental problem with anything ANY private citizen says AS a private citizen. It's his right as an American citizen to speak his mind. In this particular case I DON'T agree with it, but I don't strongly disagree with it either, and I CERTAINLY don't begrudge him his right to say it.
As I said, Moore's personal character is entirely irrelevant to me. I'm not marrying him, I'm not dining with him, and I'm not electing him to office. My ONLY concern with Moore is, was his FILM accurate and persuasive?
You are welcome to be disturbed by Moore's character. I'm personally disturbed by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush's character. But the difference is, THEY are running for elected office, to represent me personally as an American. Moore is NOT. So Bush and Cheney's character deficiencies MATTER to me. Character deficiencies that you perceive of a film-maker / private citizen do NOT matter to me.
is Moore's film. I started this thread by pointing out the article by Brooks, which dealt with Moore's comments overseas. You joined tyhe thread just to blather about his film, and when I pointed out that the article was about Moore's rantings about Americans being dumb, you continued this crap about the only thing that matters was his film. You've got a one-track mind, sdstud, and no amount of logic can make you understand that Brooks was writing about Moore, not his film. THE FILM ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE, AND HAD NO RELEVANCE TO THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION. I could care less what you think of Bush, Cheney, etc. Indeed, anyone reading this board KNOWS already, a thousand times over. You'll never convince anyone of anything, because you're pedantic and overbearing. If you don't want to discuss Moore's character, that's fine by me. You said you didn't agree with it, but that you don't strongly disagree with it either (you still remind me of Kerry with that statement). Hey guy, that's all you need say. Save all this other shit about his film and its significance, etc. for another thread! BTW, I don't begrudge his right to say it either, but that too was not the point. I could make a case that the more talking he does, the less people will pay attention to him, and perhaps grow to resent him, but that too is another issue. At any rate, I doubt that there is anything more to say on this subject, except that we are unlikely to agree on much politically, and that neither of us will ever convince the other about anything. So goes life. If Bush loses, my life will continue exactly as it is right now, and I hope the same will be true of you if he wins, although I do wonder about that.
"I DON'T agree with it, but I don't strongly disagree with it either" (sort of Kerryesque, don't you think?). OK, we disagree, at least in part. I thought that what Moore said was not only wrong in content, but crudely put as well. I thought he was a complete jerk saying these things. Think of it this way - his utterances SUBTRACT from the power of his film. I know quite a few people who feel this way, and by no means are they all conservatives. Indeed, these are those who want him to continue to verbally shoot from the hip, figuring that it will lessen his impact. I really don't know if I agree with that sentiment, but who knows, they may be right.
NY Times and you're not.
You also said that you're living in California. Long distance journalism, huh? I'd say you'd have as much chance writing for the NY Times as pigs have of flying! How could you possibly write for a paper like the Times if you can't even stick to the subject at hand (see above) without meandering off to your own pet topics? Seems to me I also remember you saying you wouldn't post on this board. You said it twice, I believe, yet here you still are. You certainly have the right to change your mind, but now I can see why Kerry is your man!
You've obviously not kept up with the technology in the world of media. It would certainly be a front page story if The New York Times did not have any journalists on the payroll who were based in California. As I said, I am working for a significant media outlet. Which one, you are welcome to conjecture, I will offer no no further clues. But you most assuredly have not proven your claim that I don't work for the Times. Next time you're on an airplane, watch out for flying pigs!
And what I said was, I did not think I would have the time to continue to devote to this board. Upon further review, I've determined that engaging in the ongoing dialogue of this board is in fact complementary to my role in the Media, and the message development I spend time on here can be incorporated into that role.
And you are wrong about why Kerry is my man. Kerry is my man because otherwise, George W. Bush would be re-elected President. And that would be an unmitigated disaster for the nation. No other reason than that. If Howard Dean were the other nominee, he'd be my man. If Wes Clarke were nominated, he'd be my man. If John Edwards were nominated, he'd be my man. If Hillary Clinton were nominated, SHE'd be my man. Just so long as George W. Bush is NOT the man in the White House for the next 4 years (unless he's willing to work as Kerry's Janitor).
-- Modified on 6/30/2004 4:20:14 PM
I don't have to prove anything. You were the one who wanted to leave the impression that you might write for the NY Times. It was obvious to me that you didn't. I know a few guys who DO write for the Times, and they would NEVER trash a fellow Timesman no matter how much they may disagree with him! I couldn't care less who you do work (write) for. For all I know, it could be the local weekly. But it ain't the NY Times!
-- Modified on 7/1/2004 5:35:56 AM
I did not wish to leave the impression that I write for the New York Times. I didn't wish to leave the impression of ANY specific media outlet as my employer. It may or may not be a moderate leaning national Newspaper like the N.Y. Times or L.A. Times or Washington Post. It might be a network news show: Ever wonder who keeps digging up all the information for all those Anti-Bush stories on 60 Minutes? It might be a radio show, on a network like Air America Radio. I might even be working for a new media play like MoveOn.org. Of course I'm not going to tell you, because you wouldn't believe it if I did, unless I proved it by identifying myself, and I can assure you, that's not going to happen.
BTW, I never trashed David Brooks personally. I merely said that one specific editorial of his was "garbage". For all you know, I might get along great with the guy as a social friend, even though I disagree with his viewpoints. He might even be an old school colleague of mine. Of course, I don't see him often, being based out here in California, while he's in New York.
But Cynic, I can assure you, I didn't take a hiatus from a career in the computer industry that paid me several hundred thousand dollars annually in base salary to write for a local weekly rag with no significant reach. Perhaps YOU'd do something that illogical, but I certainly wouldn't. If I didn't think I was in a position that had the opportunity to make a difference in the election, by influencing a significant portion of the electorate, I'd still be a VP for a computer company.
I'll narrow it down for you: I don't work for the Bush Administration's press office. I also don't work for Kerry's campaign.
I'm not going to tell you anything about me either, except to say that I'm retired (although I still give a few speeches now and then) and travel a lot. When I'm home and have some free time (you'd be amazed how busy one can be in retirement), I will sometimes play around on these boards. sdstud, you're obviously an intelligent guy, but at the same time you do provide me with entertainment. Loosen up - you'll live longer.
-- Modified on 7/2/2004 3:51:57 PM
But I must admit, I didn't realize what an important person you are! Boy, are we lucky to have you writing these interminable missives on this board. Spare me your life history.
-- Modified on 7/2/2004 7:38:25 PM
to see your response on that other topic. Actually, I was pleasantly surprised to see that your response was rather intelligent. It was nice to see you focus on another topic other than "my only purpose on this board is to get rid of Bush and Cheney." See, variety IS the spice of life!
make the statement that he re-typed below. As far as I remember he never said that he was done with this board in a way that would preclude him returning to it. I agree with his point that participating in the debates here sharpens a political message tapering that those who participate in political message development should relish.
he could stick to the subject at hand as opposed to constantly returning to the subject HE wants to talk about, which in this case was Moore's film. He would be more effective if he could do that.
YOU are the one who seems pre-occupied with other diversionary topics that are irrelevant to my SOLE purpose on this board, which is, of course, to make the strongest possible case to defeat Dick Cheney and his running mate, George W. Bush in the upcoming Presidential election.
Trivial diversions that have no relevancy to my purpose here, including whether or not Michael Moore is a jerk as a private citizen, or exactly which Media outlet I am working for are just that, diversions. They have no relevancy to me and my mission. You are welcome to prattle on about them all you wish, but they are not, and have never been, the subjects I personally am interested in addressing.
I am solely focused on my purpose on this board, making the case that the Cheney / Bush administration is dangerous to the future of our nation, and have got to go at all costs. That's the ONLY subject I've EVER been on here.
Let me quote you. "YOU are the one who seems pre-occupied with other diversionary topics that are irrelevant to my SOLE purpose on this board." Let me understand this - no-one can discuss any topic unless it is relevant to YOUR purpose and subject to your approval.
"Trivial diversions that have no relevancy to my purpose here....are not, and have never been, the subjects I personally am interested in addressing." Well, the only thing that's trivial is your conceit and very undeserved self-importance. If you don't wish to discuss a topic, DON'T RESPOND. But when you respond to someone's post by posting comments on a completely different topic, expect some feedback. Perhaps I should remind you who started this thread. If the topic didn't interest you, why do you bore us all by going on and on about something else? I must say, I've come to the conclusion that if left unchecked, your endless drivel would double the size of the internet!
It's NOT all about ME. It IS all about my mission on this board, which is to bounce Cheney and Bush from the White House.
You are more than welcome to choose your own topics for discussion. What you can't do is choose the folks who will decide to engage you in those topics. Everyone makes up their own mind on that. And I personally won't bother, if it's not an issue that is somehow relevant to regime change here in the U.S.
I'm not sure that writing for the NYTimes is that much of a distinction these days.
On the one hand, you have the discredited and rightfully vilified Jayson Blair, who was once one of their "star" reporters. On the other, you have Judith Miller, who helped beat the drum for the non-existent, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction using now discredited administration and Iraqi sources.
As indicated in the below link, the U.S. media played a major role as 'facilitators' in the George W. administration's selling of the Iraqi war.
persuasion, it is still "the paper of record." But like I said in a previous post, I have a few friends who are editors and reporters for the Times. Not surprisingly, they are very much to the liberal side, and they are all as good as they come, both professionally and personally. The Jayson Blair incident just sickened them, as they take great pride in the NY Times. In point of fact, there have been some internal problems at the Times recently (before the Blair thing exploded) that were not made public that caused some difficulty, although on a lesser scale.
I'm having dinner next Wednesday with a friend who is both an editor and a reporter for the Times, and we'll start like we usually do - by me telling him how much I like the NY Post, which I know drives him crazy!
In my post I said I tell my friend that I LIKE the NY Post, which doesn't mean that I PREFER it to other papers. At any rate, it was a joke, a fact that you seemed to have missed.
While we're on the subject of the NY Post, however, I will say that I enjoy reading Page Six!
For those who weren't certain BEFORE that the N.Y. Post was a rag, best used for starting fires, this episode surely proves it. Sometimes, waiting just a bit longer to check the accuracy of your front page headline is a really good idea. - LOL!
But I still love the Post, despite its occasional inaccuracies. However, I certainly agree that waiting to check the accuracy of ANY story is a really good idea. Hey, the NY Times has screwed up on occasion as well, although admittedly no-one does it with quite the flair as the Post!
I don't need the NYT to tell me he's a big fat slob! I can see that from here.
Good movie maker tho.
diet. But what does his being a fatass have to do with his movie making? I am with Snowman (he of the weak extremist repudiation), Moore never has and probaly never will pocket any of my movie money. But there are people who want to see his movies and they have that right and should not be called names because of exercising that right.