Fahrenheit 9/11 responses

Subject: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:46 PM

Looks like I have made the mistake of saying things like--Have you seen the film yet. At some tennis games and social events.   Bad move.

I am amazed at the virulent response by people=-=-=and---they have not even seen it.

Upon trying to discuss, merely, the technical (editing) aspects it change nothing. Virulent antipathy.

So---the point of the post.   Watch where you ask about this film since you may alienate friends---I, for one, don't give a damn. I think the numbers and the interest speak for themselves re: Dubya and this documentary. Yes, it was over the top in some things---not many though.

What I do not understand is the hatred by those have not even seen it. Some of the comments are too obscene to even repeat by some of the "blathering motormouths" I have, sadly,met.   One woman==a teacher no less told me that her son wants to make a documentary in opposition---had she seen it (NO) is her son a film-maker (NO). Do they pre-judge (YES). Is the prodigy talented as a film-maker (WHO KNOWS) SInce he is in Freshman year at College and knows nothing about editing and film making I think I can answer the query.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:48 PM

My apologies. This should have been on the "below the line" topics. I still do not know how to do that. I need education.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:00 PM

Poor Bill. Funny - I had exactly the same reaction in reverse when I said I would not go to see The Passion Of The Christ. Apparently, without that ticket stub no one is getting into heaven. And as you have so eloquently stated: I for one don't give a damn.

The Democrats in Maine are holding a fund raising on Sunday AM. They have reserved the entire theater for a showing of Fahrenheit 911. I imagine there will be anti -film people protesting but who knows? I am going just to be sure a seat is filled.
SINS

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:09 PM

No doubt Moore's film is biased; he has been open about that. I give him credit for that. I will watch it with an open mind, knowing that it is one man's perspective - one man whose stated purpose for making the film was to oust Bush from the Oval Office in '04. I hope he succeeds.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:17 PM

It hasn't come to Juneau, Alaska, yet but is scheduled to arrive tomorrow night and be on for several weeks. We have only two commercial theaters and they are owned by the same family.

A friend was in Whitehorse, YT, last week and saw it while she was there. She's going to see it again, with me.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:52 PM

OPen minds are wonderful. Exactly correct---Moore said right up front what the film was intended to do. Is he accurate in his film--sure---up to a point. Does he get his--and I underline--HIS--message across. Sure.   

Only 2 parts of the film--to me---might be questionable. His narration at the 7 min. (I think it was 7) showing Bush with the kids in the FL school and the attack on WTC ongoing.   Could be two interpretations there.   

Other than that I am amazed at some of the footage he acquired that needed no narration---Marine Recruiters in poor neighborhboods---soldiers pro and con re: Iraq---and, finally, his beautiful off camera narration at the end of the film. And, never forget the great shots of Dubya making his speech to a rich group ---his own words,. You have to see that.

So--how do I move this to the below the line thread????


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:09 PM

As a piece of art I think it was a great film. As propaganda, well Moore is the wrong man to make propaganda. Because of his reputation no one will see it who has not already made up their mind. Bill H. you can tell the teacher's son not to bother. If he wants to see the Anti Moore propaganda film tell him to watch any 100 minutes of Fox News channel.

Yeah a lot of people are dissing the movie without having seen it. Just think of that as a good way of finding out who is a bigot.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:02 AM

There is a filmmaker currently working on a film called--I shit you not--Michael Moore Hates America.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:50 AM

Let's face it folks, a lot of people are emotionally invested in defending their beliefs. It really is much like religion-How many people do you know who are able to open their minds to new or contradictory ideas? You end up rattling their foundations, and most people (not all, thankfully) will despise those who say they are wrong and have been mistaken in their beliefs.

This is even more intense when facts can be proven, such as in the Moore film, and several lawyers have poured over this to make sure of it.

So what is left? Knee-jerk reaction. Hatred not based on anything but that someone is not WITH them, therefore must be against them.

Moore is entitled to his opinions, and they are scattered through the film. But far more important are the indisputable facts. That's what is really sticking in the craw of those who are unable to open their minds to what has been happening right under their noses.
How many people do you know who can say "I was wrong in believing in this Administration"? From the interviews of those people who are taking the chance to having their eyes opened by going to see this film...it looks like some CAN.

But beware those who can't or won't. They will fight tooth and nail against you.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 06:36 AM

I think that is what is wrong with the institutionalised 2 party system (funny - it's not unlike 2 flavours of the one Big Brother Party!) - you get the Right View, and the Further Right view :-)

In countries where more than 2 political parties (including minority parties) flourish, those who are closed minded get mainly ignored.

Robin

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: mooman
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 06:41 AM

I am certainly looking forward to seeing the film this weekend here in Belgium. Friends who have seen it have told me it is very good and I thought BFC was a good film. It got a round of applause here at the end in the cinema.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:20 AM

"Yeah a lot of people are dissing the movie without having seen it. Just think of that as a good way of finding out who is a bigot."

What's equally interesting is the number of people who reject any review or critique of the film that isn't favorable without reading it. Several of these reviews I've seen aren't reflexive rejections of the movie; they're thoughtful analyses by people who've seen the film and thought about it. I'm surprised to see some significant people who've taken the time to review the film being written off with lines like "well, they've proven they're not liberal anymore" as if a critique of the film is to be valued only if it's by someone with the right (er, left?) credentials, someone who automatically loses those credentials if they are critial of the movie. Never mind the validity of the points being made.

I understand that you can like or even love a movie that critics hate. I understand that it's a movie that mixes fact with Moore's peculiar view of the world that isn't always supported by facts and sometimes resembles propaganda more than art. A propa-docu-comedy? If the movie makes the pretense of being a serious discussion of events, why show such disrespect for someone who offers a serious discussion of its flaws, often without reading them? How is that different from rejecting the movie without seeing it? There's a moral high ground here? Who's the bigot?

I see that the Paris newspaper Le Monde's review of the movie was pretty scathing, too, btw.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:21 AM

I used to listen to Limbaugh occasionally, just to see what the right wing extremists were saying. What I believed I found was a lot of ridicule and scorn and very few facts. The scorn made it feel to me like they just didn't have much else other than that. As an independent voter, I'll listen to anything that makes sense, and attempts to use people's feelings and provoke knee-jerk reactions just turned me off.

I don't think Moore does that, although knee-jerk reactions will possibly result from the facts presented and the questions asked, by those who don't want to have reasons to think. (I have a feeling that Bush could pull a Saddam, have irritating people executed, and a few folks out there would say "But he's our President! I support him - he must have had his reasons!"

I would love to hear the other side in an intelligent debate. I don't think the 'other side' will see the movie, and if they do, they won't talk about points Moore raised but "He's a weenie, he hates America, yada, yada."

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:55 AM

"I would love to hear the other side in an intelligent debate."

You're on. They won't necessarily change your mind or make you like the movie any less, but they do discuss some of the ways Moore twists to make a point.

Unfairenheit 9/11 - Christopher Hitchens

More Distortions From Michael Moore

Under the Hot Lights

Sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to Le Monde to get their review, but there is this quote:

"The daily newspaper Le Monde wrote: "To affirm...that it was crowned (in Cannes) for its cinemagraphic qualities is either proof of incompetence, a pure lie or a cynical joke."

Le Monde said the film more closely resembles propaganda, and it carried a separate article to separate "truths" from "errors" in the film."

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:06 AM

Strick, I hope you weren't talking about my response to the Hitchens review in another thread. What I said could have been CONSTRUED to mean I thought the review of the film proved he wasn't liberal anymore. In fact I think he proved that long ago, and the review has nothing to do with that. In my response, I was parodying a line in which Hitchens dismissed Moore in a similarly disrespectful way.

THIS is what I have objected to in reviews that try to show that Moore is "lying and distorting" They always lie and/or distort themselves in order to do it. Moore showed a montage of images to dramatize the fact that Bush has spent more time on vacation than any other President. "In one of those images, Tony Blair appears! Obviously, Bush cannot have been on vacation if he was meeting with a head of state, blah, blah, bluster, bluster!" cries Hitchens.

But he does not and cannot dispute the FACT that Bush spends more time on vacation than any president in living memory. So who is the bigger distorter of the facts? Moore, who may have inserted one image in which Bush was not on vacation, or Hitchens, who claims that this somehow invalidates the point?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:19 AM

Nerd, I don't remember seeing you're post. I was responding to someone else I know.

"'In one of those images, Tony Blair appears! Obviously, Bush cannot have been on vacation if he was meeting with a head of state, blah, blah, bluster, bluster!' cries Hitchens."

I see your point, but it is true that since Eisenhower had Camp David built, it and the various other presidential second homes have been used for working vacations. It's not just Blair, it's Putin, Vicente Fox, members of the Cabinet, House and Senate including Ted Kennedy, a regular string of people. You often accomplish more when you're not tied to the White House. Can you at least see what Hitchens is trying to get at? With all those people coming and going and with the ranch having one of the world's most sophisticated communications and e-conferencing facilities, do you really thing a President could be off duty or out of touch (not cheap shots, now!)? Does one disputable point in his article make it completely invalid anymore than the criticism of Moore's film make it invalid?

For what it's worth, down here Dubya has a repuation for being incredibly charming and persuasive one on one. I know it's hard to believe. It's in the more public settings he's clumsy. When you're at the ranch, watch out. You're on his native turf. How do you think he got Kennedy to co-sponsor that education bill?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:21 AM

Here's a gem of an assertion from the "more distortions from Michael Moore" article. Defending Bush's close dealings with Osama's family, the authors point out:

"...the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism..."

Oh, really, boys?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:24 AM

You think that Bush visiting Blair is NOT a holiday?
Perhaps not a holiday - more like throwing your pet lap dog a stick to fetch, down at the park!
Quack!!
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: MAG
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:30 AM

I saw it this past weekend.

I would have liked Moore to put footage of Bush blasting "Washington Insiders" next to that damning footage of him bragging about getting jobs with oil companies based on his access to his father.

Facts are stubborn things.

Bush uses the appearance of stumbling to further his "Just Folks" image.

He is a dangerous demagogue. It I end up on Poindexter's list for saying so, I will be in very good company.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:33 AM

Sorry, need to get that cookie fixed.

"...the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism..."

Oh, really, boys?

So everyone in that large, extended family is guity by association with Osama? There are no black sheep in your family? He's got, what 50 brothers and sisters according to the New Yorker? To quote PBS's Frontline: "The relationship between the bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family is quite exceptional in that it not simply one of business ties: it is also a relationship of trust, of friendship and of shared secrets. This is particularly the case with regard to the group's present-day leaders and the Soudairi clan." The rest of the family is in big with the Royal Family Osama wants to replace with a Islamic state. He wants to take away what made them rich and powerful. They all agree with him and are therefore linked to terrorism?

And the articles rather question the use of the phrase "close dealings" with the Bin Laden family, don't they? What is this, guilt by secondary association?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:36 AM

GUEST,

the problem with Hitchens' article is not so much its facts. In many cases he has no facts to speak of. In others he simply contradicts Moore, giving no better evidence than Moore does. In other cases he twists Moore's words and then attacks his own twisted version of what Moore "said."

What put me off was his venal, vituperative tone which is to my ears MUCH more scathing and disrespectful than Moore's:

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

I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible.

etc, etc.

Hitchens has long thought that because he is an excellent writer he has license to launch vicious ad hominem attacks, usually against people on the political left. I grant that, to a thinking person, they are more eloquent and amusing than Rush Limbaugh's similar attacks, but they are not much more valuable.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM

Strick:

No, I didn't say that everyone in the family is guilty by association. I just said it was patently absurd to say that the family was not linked to terrorism. The most notorious terrorist in the world is a member of the family. That is a link. It is a link that deserves close investigation, and it did not receive close investigation. This was clearly one of Moore's points in the movie.

Secondly, the film presents evidence that Osama was NOT in fact completely estranged from the family, as the usual media echo-chamber tells us. He has had infrequent but friendly contact with several family members since becoming the most wanted terrorist in the world. Therefore there is good reason to suspect the family might know something useful.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:56 AM

Also, Strick, can you not see that you are distorting, just as you accuse others of doing? You begin your post by claiming I said something I never even implied, that everyone in the family was guilty by association. That's just what many of these film reviews do, set a straw man version of Moore and then knock it down. Can't you respond to what I DID say, rather than some made-up fantasy that no-one said?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 11:22 AM

Here's an example from "Under the Hot Lights"

The movie claims that in the days after 9/11, when airspace was shut down, the White House approved special charter flights so that prominent Saudis—including members of the bin Laden family—could leave the country. [...] Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel. The report confirms that six chartered airplanes flew 142 mostly Saudi nationals out of the country, including one carrying members of the bin Laden family. But the flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened.

This is not what the film claimed. It claimed that they were on one of the first planes out AFTER airspace was reopened, just what Isikoff says above.

Isikoff is also being disingenuous. By carefully wording the above distortion of what Moore said, he also ignores the fact that these Saudis were allowed special DOMESTIC charter flights while the rest of us were grounded, in order to assemble for these six flights out. So to sum up, Isikoff makes it sound as if there is a big difference between what actually happened and what he claims Moore said, when

(1) the difference is smaller than he makes it out to be

and

(2) Moore didn't say it anyway.

THIS is why these reactions frustrate me. It's not because I think every single statement by Moore is true. I don't. It's that these writers generally have to resort to the exact crimes they claim Moore commits--in order to even make the claim!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 11:26 AM

"You begin your post by claiming I said something I never even implied..."

No, I just questioned the obvious implication of what you wrote which as as blythe in its scope as the point you quoted. You know what they meant, too, right? They say part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with (after challenging the perported depth of those connects) has never been associated with terrorism. You blew that a little out of context to make your point? Their point is that it's questionable suggest that since one or more members of a large family are terrorist, anyone associating with the family in general is associating with terrorists. There's no strawman. That's clearly what they and others think Moore tried to do.

Besides I'm not accusing anyone of distortions, only questioning certain people who rejected the reviews without reading them, exactly the way they claim others reject Moore's movie without seeing it.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:50 PM

See, Strick, there you go again.

They say part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with (after challenging the perported depth of those connects) has never been associated with terrorism.

This is NOT what they say. They say that the family, which runs a big construction company, has no ties to terrorism. Actually, let's quote them:

Leaving aside the fact that the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms, has never been linked to terrorism, the movie—which relied heavily on Unger's book—fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything.

See? They say nothing about "that part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with." They say "the bin Laden family, which runs one of Saudi Arabia's biggest construction firms." And since Osama is the son of the founder of the construction firm in question, and ran a subsidiary himself until sometime after he went to Afghanistan, it's kind of hard to say he is not from that "part" of the family.

So the family the Bushes are linked to is Osama's immediate family, which I think qualifies as a "link" to terrorism. In fact George HW Bush was in a Carlyle Group meeting with Osama's brother on September 11th. It would be hard to argue that Bush's father and Osama's brother are different "parts" of the family, distant from W and Osama.

By the way, I did misread your original post. I didn't realize you were talking about people who reject the reviews without reading them. I am obviously not one of these :-)

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 01:02 PM

Splitting hairs mighty fine there, Nerd. Please show that the part of the family that is involved with this alleged connection is involved in terrorism.

What's important is this: "...fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything." The article and others point out Moore's deliberately putting unrelated, poorly detailed facts together to give an audience the impression they're related when he has no basis the connection. Suggesting the presumption of guilt by inuendo and association is a favorite tactic of Moore's.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 01:13 PM

Strick, I don't have to show anything beyond what I did show, which was that the authors of that rebuttal made a ludicrous statement. YOU were the one that invented all these "parts" that the family is supposedly broken into. The people I was rebutting did not mention any parts.

What they DO mention is the construction company that bin Laden's father founded and that bin Laden himself worked for. That in itself constitutes a link. Are my father and my most recent employer NOT considered "linked" to me, by any reasonable standard? Jeez, you say I'M splitting hairs.

By the way, Unger has come out as strongly disagreeing with Isikoff's opinions on the film, so their claim that his book supports their position is weak.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:15 PM

Here is Unger's response to Isikoff's point that in Unger's opinon the (the one YOU claim is "what is important"):

7) In the same article, Isikoff tries to pit me against Michael Moore by asserting that my book, unlike the movie, concludes that the role of James Bath, a Texas businessman who represented Saudis and was close to George W. Bush, was not terribly significant. Isikoff writes,"The movie—which relied heavily on Unger's book—fails to note the author's conclusion about what to make of the supposed Bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus: that it may not mean anything."

Isikoff is wrong again. It is true that no conclusive evidence has yet answered the specific question of whether or not bin Laden money actually went from the bin Ladens to Bath and then into George W. Bush's first oil company, Arbusto. But beyond that unresolved issue, the bin Laden-Bath-Bush nexus is crucial to the birth of the Bush-Saudi relationship. Even if bin Laden money did not go into Arbusto, Bath introduced Salem bin Laden and his good friend Khalid bin Mahfouz to Texas. A host of contacts between them and the House of Bush ensued. Bin Mahfouz shared financial interests with James Baker. His associates bailed out Harken Energy, where George W. Bush made his first fortune. Money from both the bin Ladens and the bin Mahfouzes ended up in Carlyle. This relationship is what House of Bush is about.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:43 PM

The problem with Hitchens, as Nerd points out, is that he exercises considerable glibness and talent in the service of extreme reality-distortion. His arguments are ad-hominem in the extreme, do not speak of or to facts, and are vicious in tone. It is a great shame that some one who can be articulate is doing so at such a far remove from simple truth-telling.

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Strick
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:46 PM

The problem with Moore is that he exercises considerable glibness and talent in the service of extreme reality-distortion. His arguments are ad-hominem in the extreme, do not speak of or to facts, and are vicious in tone. It is a great shame that some one who can be articulate is doing so at such a far remove from simple truth-telling.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:54 PM

By the way, you can read Unger's point-by-point rebuttal of Isikoff's many diatribes against the film here

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:11 PM

Well, Strick, Hitchens is far more eloquent than Moore will ever be. And, having seen the film AND read Hitchens' review, I happen to think that Hitchens is far more vicious in tone, although this is a value judgement. But where in the movie does Moore say anything vicious about Bush?

But beyond that, I love it when people who disagree with me try to point out that "your argument is just as bad as my argument." It's like, as I said on the recent WMD thread, "I know you are, but what am I?" So, okay, you may think Moore lies and distorts. You make think he makes illogical statements ike ad hominem attacks, and you can rightly castigate him for that if you can provide evidence. But if you really think this is bad, then why would you use an accusation of Moore to defend someone else who DOES THE SAME?

In other words, should we believe a review of the film that relies on lies and distortions to argue that Moore lies and distorts?

Why do they need so many lies and distortions, by the way, to make this argument? Because, as the NY times has argued, Moore's facts check out.

NY Times: After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:20 PM

Michael Moore is a talented film maker who has created a new category of movies- "fictional documentaries".    I loved Roger and Me for its entertainment qualities.   I did not see Colunbine or Fahrenheit and have no intention of doing so.   I have have read numerous review that disect both movies.   I have also read Michael Moores response to the critisism.    When pointed out that the parents of the Colunmbine kids made sattelites and not bombs, Moore responded that they may be making bombs in the future.   Lame excuse for getting his facts wrong.

You have every right in the world to defend Michael Moore.   Howevery, you lose every shred of credibility when you defend Moore on the basis of facts.   Moore has an agenda and plays very loose with facts.   When Wesley Clark refused to distance himself from Moore, the american public rejected him.   The same will be true for Kerry if he makes the same mistake.

Moore is the poster child for the extreme left.   As such, they will support his movie.   In recent polls, liberals represent less than 20% of the country.   (either 13% or 17%- I don't remember)   Farenheit may do 100 million box office- not bad. Far less than Spider Man did in the first weekend.   And far less than the 20 million people who listen to Limbaugh every day.

I hope that every one of you goes out and touts Moore as the Democratic poster boy.   Please tie yourself to Moore's coat tails.   Kerry/Edwards (the kid/Moore   perfect together.   If your getting a photo op try to include Barbara Streisand and OJ in the picture. Other than France, I can't think of anyone America despises more.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:30 PM

Larry K,

it is you who lose all credibility when you admit that you haven't seen the film. As I've pointed out, the reviews you've seen that "dissect" his films often lie not only about what happened, but also about what Moore said happened. You are in no position to judge at all unless you take the time to see the films.

Oh, and Wes Clark was rejected by Democrats, not "the American Public." He was rejected because with or without Moore, he came across as an empty suit.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 03:48 PM

Sorry to depress Bush fans even further but Hitchens thought Ian Duncan Smith was a pretty good idea.........

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:00 PM

Moore has an agenda and plays very loose with facts

He has had his statements of fact triplechecked. It is clear but unfortunate that you have not resorted tosimilar rigor in your own assertions, sir.

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: MAG
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 08:51 PM

C'mon members; you're down to talking with unnamed dust kicker-uppers here.Including that last post which pretends to be on your side but is just another flame.

Save your breath for those seriously interested in an examination of the facts.

With you, M.A.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 08:56 PM

"In recent polls, liberals represent less than 20% of the country.   (either 13% or 17%- I don't remember)"

Interesting.

Would you please tell me how "liberal" was defined in these polls?

clint

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:57 PM

It'sa gonna make Mr. Moore a mighty rich man! He is gonna join the class of US citizens he abhors. Capitalists.

Perhaps for another view of Mr. Moore and his film, you might want to check in on some of the websites that debunk his "facts" in the movie. You could start with: moorelies.com

DougR

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:17 PM

--that shot of bush saying "This is an impressive crowd, the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base;" is that a lie? Didn't look faked to me.

How about that one with the "Mission Accomplished" sign?

And that one where the Black Caucus couldn't get a Senator to support them?

And the one where the congresman explains that they don't read the bills they vote on?

And the sequence where Moore asks members of congress to encourage their children to join the military?

They all look pretty factual. And those are some of the ones that tell me something.

You have to learn to separate fact from opinion for yourself. I don't agree with all Moore's opinions & insinuations, but I can't argue with those filmclips & what they tell me.

clint

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:25 PM

Actually, moorelies.com is about lies they believe Moore told outside the film. But a lot of them, it seems to me, are misunderstandings. Like Pete Townshend said that Moore claimed he wouldn't let him use a song for political reasons, then changed his mind, but Moore didn't use it anyway. Townshend says he never changed his mind.

But even Townshend admits this negotiation was between his people and Moore's people, not between him and Moore personally. So did Moore lie, was he misinformed by an employee who bungled a negotiation, or did he make a mistake? Or was Townshend lying himself to save face?

I don't know, and neither do the folks at moorelies. It's just a random blog of people looking over every statement Moore has ever made and finding any one where he was mistaken, and saying "ooh! he lied about his pants size/hug with Tom Daschle/handshake with Jon Stewart!" Biggo Dealo, DougR!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:29 PM

Interesting detail on the Newsweek rebuttal:

"The same article also erroneously reports that the Saudi evacuation "flights didn't begin until Sept. 14—after airspace reopened." As House of Bush, House of Saud notes, however, the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. Isikoff knew this. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. Earlier, Jean Heller, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, took the time to follow up on my reporting(see article below). She called Grossi, and in her subsequent article wrote, "Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate."

Rather than try to refute or corroborate my reporting, however, Isikoff omitted it entirely. The facts interfered with his argument.

It is worth noting that Jean Heller was also able to obtain verification of the September 13 flight from other sources as well. Heller reports that the flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FAA and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place."

The above is by the author of House of Saud, House of Bush".

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 11:20 AM

Yes, Amos, and he also points out that the three other private planes that tried to violate the sept. 13th no-fly were forced down, so the Saudi one had obviously been discussed and cleared at the highest levels.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 03:05 PM

"In recent polls, liberals represent less than 20% of the country.   (either 13% or 17%- I don't remember)"

I think I'd buy that, Clint. I'd think the percentage of conservatives would be about the same, but sometimes I'm afraid the percentage of conservatives could be up to thirty or thirty-five percent. The rest of the people might be called "pragmatic."
I think the world could use more pragmatists and fewer ideologues.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Ed.
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 03:36 PM

I think the world could use more pragmatists and fewer ideologues

You're a wise man, Joe.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 03:57 PM

GUEST Larry K said, in part:

Moore has an agenda and plays very loose with facts.

That's not one statement, it's two.

Yes, assuredly Moore has an agenda, and he announces it frankly. You or anyone else is quite entitled to dislike or disagree with the agenda.

As to facts, Moore is extremely careful with the facts he presents. He has a fairly large fact-checker section in his organization. He acknowledges that anyone can argue with his selection and interpretation of the facts, which are his own, but the facts he presents are very well documented indeed.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 04:46 PM

One a recent 60 Minutes, Michael Moore made a pretty telling remark. They showed a clip from Bowling for Columbine, in which Moore asked Charlton Heston (head of the NRA) why it is that even though people in other countries own lots of guns, there are more murders per person and per gun in United States. Heston responded that that's because there is more "ethnic diversity" in the United States. The interviewer told Moore that many people say of him that he tries to embarrass people on camera. Moore responded that he didn't tell Heston to say what he said. "I put people on camera with their consent and they embarrass themselves!"

On that clip of Bush in the classroom on 9/11/2001, when he was told about the attack on the World Trade Center, no one (Moore wasn't there when that clip was filmed) directed Bush to look scared, bewildered, shifty-eyed, and completely at a loss as to what to do. He did that all by himself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 05:12 PM

the class of US citizens he abhors. Capitalists.


Well he is joining the class of successful artists, or p'raps "very" successful artists. But I doubt he will become any more of a capitalist than he was before. Besides, I think you wil,l find that if he hates anything it is not capitalists per se but oppressive people, whether high or low. There is no beauty in parasitism, no matter who executes it.

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 10 Jul 04 - 05:25 PM

I wasn't doubting the statistics on liberals; I was just wondering what the criteria were. Curiosity, truly.

If they asked about conservatives in the same poll I'd like to see how they define them too. Or whatever. Godless hippie freaks? Fascists?

Defining your terms is important. I don't know how I'd define "liberal" or "conservative" as nouns; & I try to avoid using them that way.

clint