Fahreneit 9/11 Redux

[thebullet]

Regarding the long shot of Bush in the classroom doing nothing after learning of the second trade center bombing: My wife mentioned this to me on 9/11/01. And the movie seemed to confirm it. It looked like Bush simply didn’t know what to do. He was waiting for someone to tell him what to do or to think or to say. Cheney wasn’t around and he couldn’t make a decision on his own. At least, that is what the shot looked like to me. As I said, my wife called that shot 3 years ago.

I thought the movie was flawed. The first half of the movie spent too much time with such things as Bush mugging for the camera while he was waiting to make the announcement about going to war. But people, doesn’t it concern you that our President would be so cavalier about declaring war; that he could be so nonchalant about it? Did Franklin Roosevelt make wise-cracks to the Congress before he went on the radio to declare “a day that will live in infamy”?

The second half of the flick, which closely followed the family of a soldier who died in Iraq, was moving and effective. And yes, when the movie ended, it got a standing ovation at the theatre I was in. Of course, I live in Pennsylvania, and everyone knows we are just a bunch of commie pinkos anyway. I’m sure that out in real America they booed the show – didn’t they?

 

[shereads]

Re: Minor Point

First off, let me state again for the record that I think this Michael Moore idolatry is sickening and leading to schisms of relationships that have hitherto been well kept.

Luc, where do you get the idea that anyone in this thread idolizes Moore? Because we defend the credibility and value of his work?

Now, my point. The Trans-Afghani pipeline that Moore has so poorly tried to prove is real.

So you agree that Moore was right to expose the oil pipeline and Bush's support of the Taliban when he was governor? Or you agree that it should be exposed but differently?

So the man isn't Fellini. That's a grave disappointment to the six Americans who would have bought tickets to see "Federico Fellini Presents Farenheit 9/11."

You might think Moore is not an effective filmmaker or sufficiently liberal to merit the label, but you can bet your pitchfork that without him most people would still not know that GWB hosted the Taliban in Texas and got all kissy with their behinds when he thought it might help the family business. I'll bet there are people in this very thread who actually believed GWB when he expressed his disgust for the Taliban. In fact, some of them still believe it, and will continue to believe it even if you show them pictures of Bush linedancing with the Taliban, Bush challenging the Taliban to ride the mechanical bull at Billy Bob's, and Bush pimping Laura to the Taliban. They'll be mad as hell that you made them look, though, and you'd better have at least as much courage as Moore if you're going to take on the linedancing issue.

 

[shereads]

But people, doesn’t it concern you that our President would be so cavalier about declaring war; that he could be so nonchalant about it?

If people aren't particularly upset by the way he got us into the war - claiming "proof" of a 9/11 link to Saddam based on litte more than the word of a convicted con artist; punishing anyone in his administration who dared speak truth to power; diverting resources from Afghanistan when there might have been a real chance to bring Bin Laden to justice; manipulating our fear and anger over 9/11, sprinking speeches with the phrase "mushroom cloud" and later denying that he had ever implied a nuclear threat - then what makes you think they care that he had some fun making goofy faces before he put on his "wartime president" persona for the cameras?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Re: Minor Point

Luc, where do you get the idea that anyone in this thread idolizes Moore? Because we defend the credibility and value of his work?So you agree that Moore was right to expose the oil pipeline and Bush's support of the Taliban when he was governor? Or you agree that it should be exposed but differently?

So the man isn't Fellini. That's a grave disappointment to the six Americans who would have bought tickets to see "Federico Fellini Presents Farenheit 9/11."

You might think Moore is not an effective filmmaker or sufficiently liberal to merit the label, but you can bet your pitchfork that without him most people would still not know that GWB hosted the Taliban in Texas and got all kissy with their behinds when he thought it might help the family business. I'll bet there are people in this very thread who actually believed GWB when he expressed his disgust for the Taliban. In fact, some of them still believe it, and will continue to believe it even if you show them pictures of Bush linedancing with the Taliban, Bush challenging the Taliban to ride the mechanical bull at Billy Bob's, and Bush pimping Laura to the Taliban. They'll be mad as hell that you made them look, though, and you'd better have at least as much courage as Moore if you're going to take on the linedancing issue.

Well, personally, I'm talking about attacks like these on every person who says something even slightly disparaging against the filmmaker comedian. The way you and Pure have blasted Colly and cloudy (two people you have been most civil and kind to in previous posts who did nothing more than state very civil remarks).

Now, moving on, he uses facts and he gets these facts to the big audiences, which is commendable. As a popular liberal figure he's needed, albeit only to counter the inanities of Limbaugh and friends. However, I stand by my point that his work is shite. Allow me to clarify. Yes, he has facts, but does he bring these home or does he resort to disjointed emo manipulation? No, he does not. The facts that he gives to the masses are not new. Devoted men of much more candor and strength of conviction have delivered these points before and actually backed them up with reams of evidence, etc. Moore does not do this, instead just working to bring to America these facts that they could otherwise get if they showed an ounce of intellectual curiosity and actually gave a damn about learning the real story behind news headlines. Moore is a tool to bring synthesized liberal soundbites to the lazy masses. He's nothing more. For real insight, you need a Woodward, a Rall, a Tomorrow.

No shit, he aint Fellini. His documentaries are poorly made, show little genius, and often suffer from "oh, come on" moments.

As far as your last paragraph, see my first two paragraphs. He's a bleeding conduit and he aint very good at it, but thankfully he's simple enough and uses enough random emo manipulation to sway the moron vote slightly leftward and that's what it's all about, isn't it?

 

[shereads]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

Would you agree that it isn't fair to force soldiers who've already served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan to return for a second or third tour of duty, when there are so many supporters of the war who haven't had a turn yet?

Don't take no for an answer! Demand your turn. Otherwise, you could regret this lost opportunity. Years from now, when you're running for office, demanding that America support our troops, and doing photo ops in military uniform, people might think you're a hypocrite. Most of them will still vote for you - provided that your opponent actually served in Iraq but later became a protester - but they'll secretly think you're an ass.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Minor Point

Well, personally, I'm talking about attacks like these on every person who says something even slightly disparaging against the filmmaker comedian. The way you and Pure have blasted Colly and cloudy (two people you have been most civil and kind to in previous posts who did nothing more than state very civil remarks).

Now, moving on, he uses facts and he gets these facts to the big audiences, which is commendable. As a popular liberal figure he's needed, albeit only to counter the inanities of Limbaugh and friends. However, I stand by my point that his work is shite. Allow me to clarify. Yes, he has facts, but does he bring these home or does he resort to disjointed emo manipulation? No, he does not. The facts that he gives to the masses are not new. Devoted men of much more candor and strength of conviction have delivered these points before and actually backed them up with reams of evidence, etc. Moore does not do this, instead just working to bring to America these facts that they could otherwise get if they showed an ounce of intellectual curiosity and actually gave a damn about learning the real story behind news headlines. Moore is a tool to bring synthesized liberal soundbites to the lazy masses. He's nothing more. For real insight, you need a Woodward, a Rall, a Tomorrow.

I don't doubt that your credentials as a film reviewer are substantial, Cannes and Sundance notwithstanding, but if you've noticed, nobody here has claimed that Moore is an artistic genius.

Personally, I thought "Roger & Me" was a sweet and deeply touching little movie. I'm sure it would have been a better film in the hands of an artiste of true vision. But surprisingly, the glamorous topic of unemployed auto workers in Flint, Michigan, somehow escaped the notice of the creative elite. In their absence, a local guy who didn't like seeing his community destroyed by greed, decided to tell the story.

Tomorrow, whoever he or she is, probably had the idea first but failed to curry favor with liberal Hollywood. Without their support, Moore wouldn 't have been able to dazzle audiences with those spectacular CGI effects that made "Roger & Me" a cult hit.

You probably thought that was a real family getting evicted from a real house.

Edited to add: I haven't blasted anyone, to my knowledge, but this is about a lot more than the artistic merits of a movie. People went blind four years ago and fucked up my country. Now they're going to do it some more. Pardon me if I didn't cut the crusts off the little tea sandwiches.

 

[thebullet]

Re: Michael Moore's credentials as a filmmaker

Whatever your opinion, the fact is that Moore is the most successful documentary filmmaker in history. He is the Steven Spielburg of documentaries. Farenheith 9/11 has currently grossed $93,000,000. Nothing else in documentary history even comes close.

So he must be doing something right.

 

[shereads]

Re: Michael Moore's credentials as a filmmaker

Whatever your opinion, the fact is that Moore is the most successful documentary filmmaker in history. He is the Steven Spielburg of documentaries. Farenheith 9/11 has currently grossed $93,000,000. Nothing else in documentary history even comes close.

So he must be doing something right.

He just put some berries near the cave entrance, at a moment when some of the bears were finally ready to emerge from hibernation.

These berries, like the truth, are bitter and hard to swallow. Which still doesn't explain why the man who served them is being blamed for the way they taste.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Minor Point

I don't doubt that your credentials as a film reviewer are substantial, Cannes and Sundance notwithstanding, but if you've noticed, nobody here has claimed that Moore is an artistic genius.

Personally, I thought "Roger & Me" was a sweet and deeply touching little movie. I'm sure it would have been a better film in the hands of an artiste of true vision. But surprisingly, the glamorous topic of unemployed auto workers in Flint, Michigan, somehow escaped the notice of the creative elite. In their absence, a local guy who didn't like seeing his community destroyed by greed, decided to tell the story.

Tomorrow, whoever he or she is, probably had the idea first but failed to curry favor with liberal Hollywood. Without their support, Moore wouldn 't have been able to dazzle audiences with those spectacular CGI effects that made "Roger & Me" a cult hit.

You probably thought that was a real family getting evicted from a real house.

Edited to add: I haven't blasted anyone, to my knowledge, but this is about a lot more than the artistic merits of a movie. People went blind four years ago and fucked up my country. Now they're going to do it some more. Pardon me if I didn't cut the crusts off the little tea sandwiches.

It wouldn't be me to disparage someone else's sarcasm, so instead I'll commend it.

Moving on. Did I say that everything he does is FUCKING CGI? Hell no. Did I say that what he presents isn't real life and is a pack of liberal hollywood lies? Hell no. Did I say that the topics he tackles haven't been ignored by film media? Hell no.

What have I said then? I've said that Moore is a talentless hack. I stand by that point. As you say his artistic merit is somewhat below Kevin Smith. His points have been presented with far better support in the mysterious world of print and text where few Americans dare tread because of what I like to call "Being an illiterate moron" syndrome. So I stand by what I said, Moore is not God, he's just a liberal who has become popular enough that the masses have been forced to pay attention to him and his points. Just like Limbaugh or O' Reily on the other side of the coin.

Listen, you blasted Colly right off the thread dripping venom and all that stereotypical mumbo jumbo when she was being extraordinarily civil. You then blasted cloudy for defending her and now me for defending both of them. Listen, I don't want to be offensive and get on your bad list or anything, but you need to watch your vitriol. Do you have a right to be angry at the neocons and relgious fundamentalists that have hijacked the Republican Party and country? Hell yes. Do you have a right to scream bloody murder at everyone else because of it? Hell no. Colleen is a very kind and logical voice of conservatism and a damn nice lady to boot and your misfired vitriol is making her consider fleeing this holy forum. That's not being a nice person. That's being an asshole, a bitch, a troll, an Amicus. Be angry at the hijacking, you have that right. But watch where your venom drips or else you are no better than the thems of the world.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Minor Point

I don't doubt that your credentials as a film reviewer are substantial, Cannes and Sundance notwithstanding, but if you've noticed, nobody here has claimed that Moore is an artistic genius.

Personally, I thought "Roger & Me" was a sweet and deeply touching little movie. I'm sure it would have been a better film in the hands of an artiste of true vision. But surprisingly, the glamorous topic of unemployed auto workers in Flint, Michigan, somehow escaped the notice of the creative elite. In their absence, a local guy who didn't like seeing his community destroyed by greed, decided to tell the story.

Tomorrow, whoever he or she is, probably had the idea first but failed to curry favor with liberal Hollywood. Without their support, Moore wouldn 't have been able to dazzle audiences with those spectacular CGI effects that made "Roger & Me" a cult hit.

You probably thought that was a real family getting evicted from a real house.

Edited to add: I haven't blasted anyone, to my knowledge, but this is about a lot more than the artistic merits of a movie. People went blind four years ago and fucked up my country. Now they're going to do it some more. Pardon me if I didn't cut the crusts off the little tea sandwiches.

Haven't blasted anyone? You have become what you most despise. Mean, vicious, striking out so blindly in your hatred you can no longer tell freind from foe and are not even concerend that there may be a distinction. Your words hurt deeply and cause wounds, wounds that hurt all the more because I thought you were my friend.

Moore's work is malicious. In his own words it's a personal attack on the Bush family. But you can't hear that, nor accept it, to give even an inch is unthinkable. Even when those words come straight from his own mouth.

You defend your attack on me by bringing up the multitude of evils of the Bush administration, not seeing that I didn't do any of those things. You have divided the world into us and them, and anyone who dosen't think exactly as you do is a them. And like the worst of both sides any words that don't mimic yours are cause for vitriol to be spilled.

You have won your point. I can't even post here to say thank you for a percieved kindness. Be happy in your victory and enjoy the warmth of your hatred. It has cost you one freind and may cost you many more before the election is over and you can look back at what you have said and done and wonder who that person was.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Since your box is full

Since I can't PM you about it, let me beseech you not to let sher get to you. Stay away from the poly threads if they're getting to you, but don't flee the forum itself.

- <on his knees with a>

P.S. Sorry for the embarrassing post, but I couldn't really get a hold of you <idea raises and is beat back into subconscious>. Sorry, anyway, there are those of us who genuinely appreciate your comments and opinions and believe you to be an excellent representative of conservative and libertarian thought. Also, you are a nice woman overall.

All right, I'm done thoroughly embarrassing Colleen and hope she'll forgive me for it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Since your box is full

Since I can't PM you about it, let me beseech you not to let sher get to you. Stay away from the poly threads if they're getting to you, but don't flee the forum itself.

- <on his knees with a>

P.S. Sorry for the embarrassing post, but I couldn't really get a hold of you <idea raises and is beat back into subconscious>. Sorry, anyway, there are those of us who genuinely appreciate your comments and opinions and believe you to be an excellent representative of conservative and libertarian thought. Also, you are a nice woman overall.

All right, I'm done thoroughly embarrassing Colleen and hope she'll forgive me for it.

Thank you Luc. I already abandoned the political threads, as they have become so viciously personal and partisanly unobjective that all they were doing was getting me down.

This situation is my own fault, I should have just dug up the old thread & sent Dita a thank you. I already knew my opinion was unwelcome, I just didn't realize I am so personally disliked now that even an attempt to say something nice lines me up for the firing squad.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Karen AM said,

Moore is a hate monger, so far as I can tell, just like Franken and Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh.

This is utterly inaccurate. I might add it's based on NOT seeing the film. Coulter and Limbaugh lie and name-call and accusing of traiter-dom all the time.



His message is accurate, to the best of my ability to check such things;

Maybe I misread you in terms of the rest of the sentence. BUT if you mean, he's accurate, then he's not simply a 'hatemonger.'

As I pointed out to Colly, the man's mood is irrelevant. It's as if I say, "Karen, you're wrong about Limbaugh being on TV" and you reply, "But pure, you hate me."

Perhaps you mean, "His message may be accurately summarized as follows, so far as I know:"

Bush is crooked and the Iraq war a waste meant only to enrich the powerful who are close to the White House, and it is illegal (has anyone checked to see if the UN resolutons that Saddam violated contained provisions for an invasion as a response?).

Well, that might pass as a kindergarten summary, but you made it at that level. The thesis that war only enriches a powerful few, is an old marxist/anarchist one (among others) and is generally true. The *quality* (of arguement) issue is in proving the details, as the Marine general did in his article I posted a while back. HOW much did these and these companies make? WHY these and these companies? (in this case, oil).

I might point out that the last of your post shows a clear inconsistency.

And when things fall apart, which they are beginning to do and which they will do much more quickly if Bush is elected (or manages to get reappointed), this country is going to suffer like it hasn't suffered since the Great Depression or even the Civil War. All that Kerry and Edwards would be able to do is damage control.


IF, as you--as a good liberal, afaik-- believe, the country will fall apart "MORE QUICKLY" if Bush is elected, then clearly "hate monger" Moore, in saying, "Vote Bush out." is doing a public service. By your own argument.

----
PS. No one is saying Moore is essential. In fact there is little new in the movie, other than weaving and juxtaposing. So, if you don't see the movie, I trust you'll read Unger, and Woodward, Plan of Attack, and the memoirs of some of Bush's former colleagues; likely you have much of the info, in any case.

Count me in on those abandoning this thread. I haven't followed the thing between Sher and Colly (I like and respect the both of you too much to want to get into that), but if I'm going to be selectively misquoted and insulted in a response that doesn't even address the central point of my post, then clearly this thread has descended into nothing more than a rant contest to see who can generate the most clever slurs, even (or perhaps especially?) against those who can't stand Bush and his gang of hoods.

If that's the effect Michael Moore has, then he's going to alienate a lot more people than he convinces, and this movie will go down in history as the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush and the Neocons.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Minor Point

Haven't blasted anyone? You have become what you most despise. Mean, vicious, striking out so blindly in your hatred you can no longer tell freind from foe and are not even concerend that there may be a distinction.

No, that's not what I most despise. I most despise hypocrisy.

Your words hurt deeply and cause wounds, wounds that hurt all the more because I thought you were my friend.

Moore's work is malicious. In his own words it's a personal attack on the Bush family. But you can't hear that, nor accept it, to give even an inch is unthinkable. Even when those words come straight from his own mouth.

You defend your attack on me by bringing up the multitude of evils of the Bush administration, not seeing that I didn't do any of those things. You have divided the world into us and them, and anyone who dosen't think exactly as you do is a them. And like the worst of both sides any words that don't mimic yours are cause for vitriol to be spilled.

You have won your point. I can't even post here to say thank you for a percieved kindness. Be happy in your victory and enjoy the warmth of your hatred. It has cost you one freind and may cost you many more before the election is over and you can look back at what you have said and done and wonder who that person was.

-Colly

Colly, you're not entirely innocent of attacking people, including me, with insults of a more personal nature than anything I've posted here. Your post in response to a perfectly polite one by Pure, was sarcastic, and while you were thanking everyone for whatever it was, you managed to drop a few "bait" words like "bleeding-heart liberals" and "leaving this thread to the fan club." If that was intended to be gracious and non-combative, my dog is the prime minister of Canada.

I usually end up being the one who attempts a truce. But frankly, having been subjected to worse rants than this one, for less reason, and subjected to the creation of entire threads to condemn something I expressed in this forum, I can confidently say that I'm not the one who turned the topic of politics into "us versus them."

That was done before I even got warmed up. It's been made clear repeatedly that only traitors protest during wartime, and that real Americans must either support the war or keep quiet about it, and hope for the best. I'm not about to do that, so I can't imagine it was destined to be an abiding friendship.

The stakes being what they are this November, this is not a topic that's going to spare people's feelings. I've been at least as careful of yours, if not on this particular occasion, as you've been of mine.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Minor Point

No, that's not what I most despise. I most despise hypocrisy.

Colly, you're not entirely innocent of attacking people, including me, with insults of a more personal nature than anything I've posted here. Your post in response to a perfectly polite one by Pure, was sarcastic, and while you were thanking everyone for whatever it was, you managed to drop a few "bait" words like "bleeding-heart liberals" and "leaving this thread to the fan club." If that intended to be gracious and non-combative, my dog is the prime minister of Canada.

I usually end up being the one who attempts a truce. But frankly, having been subjected to worse rants than this one, for less reason, and subjected to the creation of entire threads to condemn something I expressed in this forum, I can confidently say that I'm not the one who turned the topic of politics into "us versus them." That was done before I even got warmed up. It's been made clear repeatedly that the only traitors protest during wartime, and that real Americans must either support the war or keep quiet about it, and hope for the best. I'm not about to do that, so I can't imagine it was destined to be an abiding friendship.

The stakes being what they are this November, this is not a topic that's going to spare people's feelings. I've been at least as careful of yours, if not on this particular occasion, as you've been of mine.

Whoa. Halt the horses. Amicus....Colly....Amicus...Colly. See how they are not the same person? Now, let the red fall just slightly out of your eyes and let's continue.

Her "slights" against you as you see them are minor to such a point that they are nearly invisible. Full-on rants like this against those with the olive branch are inexcusable. They are the tactics of the RealGuyUSAians and Amicuses of the world. Just because such tactics have been used by others against you does not excuse you to use those tactics yourself. It only makes you like the enemy.

Now, stop attacking the poor dyke, and stop doing that annoying Orwellian rewriting history trick that Amicus and the right love so much and get some damn liberal honor. You fight the right-wingers, the destroyer of you and yours. Not powerless New York dykes who merely happen to disagree with you.

I respect you in many threads sher, but in this particular one, your anger at the evil barons of the Fundamentalist Right has been used too indiscriminately. You are acting like the wild wolf when he has three spears in him and snaps at any soul who tries to remove them or comfort him. It's okay to be angry, but right now you are too angry. You're bezerkering, attacking friend and foe alike over a political point that doesn't matter.

Colly (I might be wrong, but I believe she said this) actually stated she was not voting for Bush and supposedly that's the main thing you should care about. The fact that she does not like Michael Moore is irrelevant. And her being treated poorly by liberals might push her into reconsidering how much a threat Bush is to the values she holds dear. Think a little before acting here and let us pull out those spears.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Minor Point

Whoa. Halt the horses. Amicus....Colly....Amicus...Colly. See how they are not the same person? Now, let the red fall just slightly out of your eyes and let's continue.

Her "slights" against you as you see them are minor to such a point that they are nearly invisible. Full-on rants like this against those with the olive branch are inexcusable. They are the tactics of the RealGuyUSAians and Amicuses of the world. Just because such tactics have been used by others against you does not excuse you to use those tactics yourself. It only makes you like the enemy.

Now, stop attacking the poor dyke, and stop doing that annoying Orwellian rewriting history trick that Amicus and the right love so much and get some damn liberal honor. You fight the right-wingers, the destroyer of you and yours. Not powerless New York dykes who merely happen to disagree with you.

I respect you in many threads sher, but in this particular one, your anger at the evil barons of the Fundamentalist Right has been used too indiscriminately. You are acting like the wild wolf when he has three spears in him and snaps at any soul who tries to remove them or comfort him. It's okay to be angry, but right now you are too angry. You're bezerkering, attacking friend and foe alike over a political point that doesn't matter.

Colly (I might be wrong, but I believe she said this) actually stated she was not voting for Bush and supposedly that's the main thing you should care about. The fact that she does not like Michael Moore is irrelevant. And her being treated poorly by liberals might push her into reconsidering how much a threat Bush is to the values she holds dear. Think a little before acting here and let us pull out those spears.

I'm thinking before I say this:

1) You don't know the history. If you did, you might feel a little silly right now.

2) There are people here who voted to fuck up the world, and should have known better, and aren't even sorry. I was against the damned war, and yet I feel guiltier then they do about the so-called collateral damage in Iraq. This isn't an argument about a goddamn movie, Luc.

 

[thebullet]

Shereads wrote:

He just put some berries near the cave entrance, at a moment when some of the bears were finally ready to emerge from hibernation.

These berries, like the truth, are bitter and hard to swallow. Which still doesn't explain why the man who served them is being blamed for the way they taste.

Not to digress from the issue, but Shereads I've been reading your posts throughout this string. You are a hell of a writer. Why don't you have stories posted? Or have I missed them?

BTW, it is unfortunate the degree of acrimony this issue and any issue related to the way the country is being run raises. In my lifetime I've never witnessed a more devisive presidency - including LBJ and Dick Nixon. Given the amount of support that this administration garnered because of 9/11, it is amazing to me how passionate his opposition has become.

To the Bush supporters: doesn't this mean anything to you? Where have you been for the last 3 years? Bush after 9/11 enjoyed the highest approval rating of any President, yet in just a few short years he has pissed it all away. Please take off your blinders and look at what he has been doing to our country. It's time you understand that the problem isn't the 'bleeding heart liberals'. The problem is your president and his administration.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Pure, for your information I am neither Republican or Democrat. I'm Independent. If I appear every so many days that's because I work alot as a nurse and don't care to get into the arguments here when I get some hours off. I spend it on voice with my fiance.

From what I see right now, is friends arguing about politics and putting each other down. That shouldn't be. I originally spoke in the post and got attacked by the those who do not believe the way many do. I now see others saying the same thing I feel and they're attacked by their friends.

This is uncalled for. Folks, politics is a personal belief. The amazing thing about the net is we can all discuss things intelligently. There is no reason to get upset at each other for their political beliefs.

Let's all get along and be open to all options. If this thread is to stay open, then let's be open to each other's opinions.

 

[doormouse]

doormouse runs naked through the room

Oh shit, wrong thread... sowwy

 

[Pure]

Hi Karen,

You say I didn't address the central point of your post, which ran to hundreds of words.

I certainly addressed some main ones, however, and you have no reply. Presumably you have nothing to back up your opinions as quoted. In particular.

Moore is a hate monger, so far as I can tell, just like Franken and Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh. His message is accurate, to the best of my ability to check such things; Bush is crooked and the Iraq war a waste meant only to enrich the powerful who are close to the White House, and it is illegal (has anyone checked to see if the UN resolutons that Saddam violated contained provisions for an invasion as a response?). But the fact that Moore is successful just as Limbaugh is successful tells me that the American political consciousness is sick indeed.

This is badly misconceived, and Moore in F-11 isn't like Limbaugh, since he assembles facts, and present a collage of them to establish a reasonable interpretation; as you haven't seen the film, and I have, you have little to go on, except Moore's being quoted as saying he hates Bush. But that's irrelevant to the truth of the films claims. I challenge you to see the film, and listen to Limbaugh for an equivalent time.

I do see you have perhaps a main point about how 'sick' America is; its people corrupt and are corrupted by the media; and in your last para, you say, 'we're screwed,' suggesting falling apart. I don't choose to debate those general views. Maybe they are true, but kinda vague.

But the fact that Moore is successful just as Limbaugh is successful tells me that the American political consciousness is sick indeed.

This is a facile distortion, and a better case can be made that Moore's film, in criticism of a President, is a sign of a bit of residual health in the system, and that thousands of viewers are waking up (which suggests we aren't all quite so sick, hopelessly so, as you suggest.)

In the future, to be sure your main thesis is identified, make it a bit clearer. Your fine thoughts just come piling out, at times.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I want to be clear that when I say Moore takes low blows, I do not mean that he is lying or misrepresenting. I haven't seen anything in the film that leads me to believe that. On the contrary. everything I've learned and read elsewhere supports all his claims, and for those who claim he only tells his part of the story, I would very much like to hear what parts he's leaving out. If there's another version of things that explains away Moore's charges, I for one would like to hear it.

No, his personal attacks come out in the way he uses film clips of Bush to make him look foolish. You can make anyone look foolish on film (anyone who's ever had a driver's license picture knows that), and I wish he'd avoided it.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Lucifer said to sher,

Now, stop attacking the poor dyke [Colleen], and stop doing that annoying Orwellian rewriting history trick that Amicus and the right love so much and get some damn liberal honor. You fight the right-wingers, the destroyer of you and yours. Not powerless New York dykes who merely happen to disagree with you.

I respect you in many threads sher, but in this particular one, your anger at the evil barons of the Fundamentalist Right has been used too indiscriminately. You are acting like the wild wolf when he has three spears in him and snaps at any soul who tries to remove them or comfort him. It's okay to be angry, but right now you are too angry. You're bezerkering, attacking friend and foe alike over a political point that doesn't matter.

I find this unfair to sher. And who is 'poor' Colleen, our pistol packing friend? I'm unsure why you think her 'powerless', and you commit the basic mistake of implying that victims are dragged into threads; that posters can somehow 'latch onto' people like wild dogs. Bosh.

The alleged victim, here, has kept visiting; no one broadcasts this thread into her bedroom. She's been a voluntary presence at numerous political threads, giving as good as she gets. If one dislikes spatter, one can stay away from cockfights.

Your second mistake is to single out sher as 'snapping', 'beserking' etc. Many here, including me, you, Colly, and other have gotten passionate, and sometimes harsh.

*Most of us, however, have continued to address substantive points of other debaters.* I don't find sher more insulting etc. than others, or, when a little more intense, *its still the same basic stuff.* Feeling, passion.

As with the Moore critiques focusing on Moore's 'hatred', the Sher critiques focus on passion, and it's entirely unfair, given the harsh words and snide remarks of many others, sometimes to her.

Which brings me to my last point, Lucifer. As I pointed out to Colly, the feelings of persons do not directly bear on the truth of their points. If Bush's family is in bed with the house of Saud, that's a claim independent of how Moore feels about Bush. It is totally irrelevant to reply to that claim "Well you just hate Bush."

Likewise, to character's sher's posts as 'angry' and 'attacks' is quite irrelevant. Pay attention to the claims. If her claim that the Bill of Rights is trampled (due process), address that, not her anger. You of course escalated to 'beserking', but that's a flight of hyperbole. Everyone is aware of the high content, and, where appropriate, referencing of her posts, more than most.

All the well meaning 'social advice' simply distracts from the substance. Her harshness with 'friends' is not really your concern. If I read her rightly, she'd rather get the truth out and ruffle feathers, than 'stroke' persons making unfounded claims.
Perhaps 'friends' that require the stroking, flattery, kiss icons, etc., are not so much friends after all.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Okay Pure, let me just run down what I saw when I came into this thread.

You and sher were uncharacteristicly bashing Colly over what was essentially a thank you note for letting her know what the Moore movie was about so she didn't have to watch it herself because personally she believes Moore's style to be propaganda.

Now propoganda as a bad conotation but can actually carry a good message. It is merely a style. There is a difference between style and substance and that particular style she dislikes. Fair enough. You two attacked her because you, in my opinion, appear to be equating disliking Moore and his movie to disliking the points that he made. For instance, I think Moore has no talent, his movie is mostly shite with a few good moments, and that he delivered his points to haphazardly to be convincing. However, I do believe in his point about the oil pipeline and the corruption in the War in Iraq and the Halliburton ties and that Bush can't make a decision without Cheney's written consent and that he's a heartless asshole (he once laughed and mocked a condemned criminal's final plea). I believe these points that Moore makes, not because of Moore's brilliance, but because better men than he have made that case before and made it convincingly. As you can see I dislike Moore, but not his points. They are not one and the same.

As far as Colly as the pistol-packer and whatnot, I say eh. I say eh emphatically. I say eh, because frankly I don't have the hangup most do against cconservatism. I believe that a person's ability to make his case logically matters more than his ideological heritage. The reason I side myself extremely left is because the extreme left to me is a very logical group with many good points that fit in with my nihilistic opinions of most of humanity. I believe Coulter, the rabid dog of the neocons, is very good at presenting her case. I disagree with her because the attitudes that form her basic points I do not subscribe to. However, many of her points when taken from that viewpoint are well-made. Colly is no Coulter. She's a libertarian and barely a conservative. She is as disgusted with Bush and the neocons as all of you are but she isn't a liberal. And as much as you two want her to come into the good ol' fold completely and utterly, she won't. She'll try and be civil, as civil as one can be on a political thread but damnitt, she won't be wearing the "I Moore" shirt anytime soon.

Anyway, Colly I respect because she uses facts and overall her conservative points are logical and well-reasoned instead of the usual "you don't like killing babies, therefore you are a commie traitor who needs to go to Gitmo" rants from the right.

As far as sher goes, sher is angry. I don't say it like it's a bad thing. Hell, I'm fucking furious at Bush and the neocons. I read works by people that are fucking furious at the neocons and Bush. As I've said, I aint no conservative, I've paid my commie pinko dues. However the target of wrath is what is important. If sher is angry at neocons and their like, does it make sense for her to take it out on moderates? I mean I respect her and delight in her finding these lost stories and bringing them to our attention and her views for the most part I agree with, but... Getting fucked by our elected officials after they lie to us to get elected seems to be a natural state in today's American politics. To blame Colly personally for the state of America today seems to be pointless. Did she live in Florida? No, so SHUT UP about her being responsible for Bush being elected.

To sum up. sher's style and anger: love it and agree with it. Her aim: don't agree with. Moore: talentless fuckjob. Moore's points: Almost 100% agree with. disliking Moore and liking Bush: separate concepts. Political threads: evil divisive little things. Killer Android Penguins: Ditto. Pants: Fuck em.

Perhaps I'm just being the dumbass walking on the battleground and yelling "what's all this then?" but maybe I just feel like there's times for vitriol and times to hold off. Or is this old demon out of touch with the ways of the masses?

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

I want to be clear that when I say Moore takes low blows, I do not mean that he is lying or misrepresenting. I haven't seen anything in the film that leads me to believe that. On the contrary. everything I've learned and read elsewhere supports all his claims, and for those who claim he only tells his part of the story, I would very much like to hear what parts he's leaving out. If there's another version of things that explains away Moore's charges, I for one would like to hear it.

No, his personal attacks come out in the way he uses film clips of Bush to make him look foolish. You can make anyone look foolish on film (anyone who's ever had a driver's license picture knows that), and I wish he'd avoided it.

---dr.M.

Doc, in all seriousness, how is the film not lying or misrepresenting when Moore picks and chooses his clips? As a physician I'm sure you know how the ER is. We could each take a film a shift and cut and edit what we want. God, we could make America feel insecure for the emergency services available. In my opinion, Moore did that with this film.

I was standing there dumbfounded when I saw the jets hitting the WTC. Most of us were. Friends were calling me and they were speechless. So was Bush. Yet Moore, in the film plays on that. As you say, this was a personal attack. Nothing more or nothing less. It was not a documentary as I define one. Documentaries give all truth available at the moment. Moore left out much. The intelligence reports, which we all know are flawed by now. The past documents from the previous administration. Which even Clinton warned Bush about Bin Laden. Saddams search for yellow cake uranium. Which we now know happened in Niger, for the purpose of nuclear bombs.

I'll give Bush credit for one thing. He kept his mouth shut to protect the intelligence commumity and is suffering from the feedback. Now, with each day we're learning of documents from the various intelligence agencies such as Russia and Britain that Bush was told by them what was about to happen. Even Putin gave Bush a personal warning about Iraq after 9/11.

This film is nothing but a personal attack and no matter how I look at it I can't see it any other way. In my opinion, Moore was not much of a filmaker before and now he's lost what little credibility he had. He made this a personal attack and lost himself in his personal vendetta.

As authors I think we can all learn from this. Get the facts straight when writing, do the proper research and never make it personal.

Just my opinion.
LDW

 

[Pure]

Lord says,

Moore picks and chooses his clips

Well, tarnation (slaps forehead)!! That's it.

What method do you recommend? Do you like the Warhol 7 hour film of the sleeping man?