For those of you that hate openly Christian President Bush along with capitalism and are easily manipulated by Michael Moore's pablum--you'll love Fahrenheit 9/11--the rest of us are smart enough to recognize it for the pornography that it is.

For those of you who are unaware about what Mr. Moore thinks about America and capitalism and wonder what his motive are--

Keep in mind that in referring to the United States and her form Government and economic system self proclaimed Socialist Michael Moore said in his in his 1998 movie The Big One,

"one evil empire down--one to go." --MM


Patriotic Sportsmen for Bush '04


-----------------------------------------------------------


"Kiss my a$$--I'm an American."--Ted Nugent '99

He will most likely not keep any of his evil capitalistic profits for himself

Neocons. So damn predictable.

Apologize, excuse, spin, wheeeeeeeee ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by goharley:


"Neocons. So damn predictable.

Apologize, excuse, spin, wheeeeeeeee ..." --GH
------------------------------------------------------------


Isn't there anything on the Lifetime Network you could be watching?


.

Harley I wasn't going to comment on this idiotic thing until your last post.....so predictable....What? Of course! and You are too. I bet you applauded the Michael Moore movie before even hearing about it since you could "predict" that it would bash Bush and bash America and bash capitalism and laud terrorism and celebrate killing of Americans....etc etc....This has nothing to do with Neocons...helllooooo.... Michael Moore is a hero to some like you and a fool to some like me. He is self absorbed and gives himself way too much credit. He is right up there with Al Franken on my list of entertainers who are not entertaining at all. They are both their own biggest fans.

Just goes to show that it is the view of the world that we have. To your crowd Michael Moore is an icon. To me Michael Moore is a representative of everything that is wrong with the left in our country...everything that is ugly and wrong. Michael Moore and his followers seem to me to be one of the causes for the spread of terrorism. He encourages it. He wants the America that the majority of its inhabitants want and cherish to come crashing down in flames. Out of the ashes he and his followers seem to want a system that many hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died to overcome and overthrow. That view of the world is repulsive to me as is Michael Moore.

I can honestly say I cannot find a way to understand those who advocate garbage propaganda like this as I cannot find it in my heart to understand the philosophy of the left. Predictable? of course....Right? I think so.

Amazing. :rolleyes:

I make a couple of off-handed posts and now I'm a huge Moore fan.

I borrowed the "predictable" line from your archives, GP2.

I've never seen a Moore film. Didn't even know who he was until he won that Academy Award. I doubt I'll even go see this flick. I don't make enough to go to theaters anyway. Videos are in my price range.

Why are you guys getting so emotionally involved about this guy? He's simply an American exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. And he's making money doing it - entrepeneurship. Isn't that what Reagan advocated? Since he's producing a product, selling it to the public, and increasing cash flow throughout the economy, I wonder how he does feel about capitalism?

So what if he attempts to bash Bush. The intelligent and informed can separate the fact and fiction. I mean, it's not like the ditto-heads are going to be watching it.

GP,

I'd rate Michael Moore by his actions rather than by anything he says. It appears that he's found a way to editorialize his opinion at a profit to himself. That doesn't look to me like someone who hates capitalism. I don't doubt that he hates Bush, but looking at his movie success, I doubt he hates capitalism; it's making him rich.

You disagree with his opinions, but it looks like he's behaving according to your values. He develops a product and markets it to willing buyers, and makes a profit for himself. Isn't that what you do? Isn't that what you would have all those welfare leeches do? Or is it only OK if you approve of the product they make and market?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo and GH - so you like the idea of "the ends justifies the means"?

Making a profit is no crime for sure. But there is something to the 'how' you make that money in my book. I think that is the part about mm we don't care for.

MM is like Jerry Springer. He has an audience, he makes money, and to some, could be considered 'successful'. But they are nothing but classless dirt bags....

I'll watch it and draw my own conclusions. I've had the same suspicions that the movie supposedly tries to create so we'll see where it goes. Since I trust Richard Clarke fairly implicitly I'll be researchiong his comments to juxtapose against those points the movie tries to make.

But, since I enforce a self-imposed boycott of movie theatres....I'll wait til it hits the DVD market.

"I'll wait til it hits the DVD market."

Shouldn't be a long wait...

Gee, grandpa...........looks like you and MM have the same relationship with the truth.

I would get it on DVD if I could figure out how to wipe my butt with it! Do you think Blockbuster would be offended when I returned it?

Phreak,

No. Absolutely, I don't believe the ends justify the means. I don't agree with the means a lot of people use to make money, but if it's legal there's not much I can do about it except not buy the product. I don't like the way Enron made money, or several other major Republican contributors, for example.

I have no idea whether Moore is a dirtbag or not. I don't have enough information to inform that opinion. And the information I glean from this forum doesn't meet the threshold test for reliability.

It appears Moore thinks Bush is the dirtbag, and he'll probably make a lot of money with his editorial film. I have a low opinion of Bush, and I'm not going to make a dime from my opinion.

The only Moore movie I've seen was the Bowling for Columbine on video. That wasn't a documentary, either. It was editorial. But nonetheless, I thought it was interesting, and a couple parts were really entertaining, and then there were the school shootings. He didn't really tie it all together, in my opinion, but he offered food for thought. If that was his intention, he was successful. I'll probably go see this movie, since Bush bashing can be so very entertaining - and I expect to see and hear truths, half-truths, and outright lies.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

If Moore gets people to the polls, regardless of their party affiliation, then he will likely have done more than all this poop-flinging we do here on this BB.

I always find criticism of a movie before it's released kinda funny..........they were calling The Passion of the Christ anti-semitic before it was released..........and by "they" I don't mean movie critics that had seen advanced screenings, I'm talking the self-appointed critics who hadn't.

Funny stuff, that.

Well GH I am a Moore fan! Seen all his movies and read most of his books.
Funny that his films get awards and are critically acclaimed isn't it.
Moore stands behind everything he says, films and writes.
What is also funny is that the same people who religiously follow Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and others are so offended by what Moore does.
I will definately be attending his movie! Most people that bash Moore have never seen any of his work. They take their opinion from what others tell them
I've taken the time to at least read and listen to what the righties have to say before slamming them.

I honestly don't know anything about Moore other than what I've read by critics, and I haven't seen any of this movies.

However, my impression is that he's the opposite end of the spectrum from Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, et al.

If for no other reason the nation needs him for a sense of balance against the far radical right ditto-heads mentioned above.

Good point, Stew, about his work receiving awards and acclaim. I haven't noticed those mentioned above on any awards stage. I wonder how many times Moore's been through re-hab and divorce?

Here is the most current news on the movie. For Bush supporters things don't look good and for the rest of the world there is a new dawn.
June 20th, 2004 2:00 pm
The New York Times: Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?


By PHILIP SHENON / The New York Times


Michael Moore is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie's indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he ? or any other documentary filmmaker ? has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

"Outrageously false," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, last month when told about the film's assertion of a sinister connection between Mr. Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden. The former president George H. W. Bush was quoted in The New York Daily News calling Mr. Moore a "slime ball" and describing the documentary as "a vicious personal attack on our son."

So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?

Mr. Moore and his distributors have refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release this Friday; his production team said that as of last Wednesday, there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing ? for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

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).

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie ? such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends ? in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

"I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Mr. Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment."

Mr. Moore may also have to defend his portrayal of Mr. Bush's presidency as sinking prior to Sept. 11, citing an inability to win support for his legislation. But he fails to mention that in May, Congress agreed to Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. Mr. Moore said that his review of news coverage before Sept. 11 shows that, with or without the tax cut, the Bush presidency was floundering before the terrorist attacks. Mr. Moore said, "I've read what other people wrote and said at the time, and he was definitely on the ropes."

Mr. Moore usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

As proof of its scrupulousness, the Moore team cites adjustments it made to the film's portrayal of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The film is brutal to Mr. Ashcroft, depicting him as a glassy-eyed architect of efforts to shred the Constitution, who became Attorney General only after he proved himself so unpopular in his home state of Missouri that he lost a Senate race to a former Democratic governor who died in a plane crash a month before election day. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Mr. Moore deadpans in the film, a line that drew belly laughs at recent preview screenings. (In reality, voters knew they were in effect casting ballots for the governor's widow).

An earlier version of the film, however, included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore's fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer.

"We have gone through every single word of this film ? literally every word ? and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

Micahel Moore director of
Fahrenheit 9/11
More Photos...
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops North American Box Office
Sunday June 27 11:30 AM PST

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Michael Moore's red-hot documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" earned more in its first three days of release across North America than his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" did in its entire run, the film's distributors said on Sunday.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at President Bush (news - web sites), and the war in Iraq (news - web sites), opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.

The film opened in two theaters in New York on Wednesday to help build even more media buzz before expanding to a relatively modest 868 theaters two days later. (In contrast, most of the other movies in the top five were playing in more than 2,500 theaters each.)

Including the sales from the head start in New York, the film's total stands at $21.96 million. Moore's previous movie, "Bowling for Columbine," grossed about $21.5 million during its nine-month run, during which it peaked at about 250 theaters, according to Moore.

"This is a testament to Michael Moore. His voice resonates across the country in what I think we can all now fairly describe as America's movie," said Tom Ortenberg, the president of distribution at Lions Gate (news - web sites) Films, which backed the movie.

He said in a conference call that the film played strongly in both Democrat and Republican states, even drawing sell-out crowds in Republican strongholds like Nassau County, New York and Fayetteville, N.C., home of Fort Bragg.

Lions Gate, a unit of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., partnered on the film's distribution with IFC Films, a unit of Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Rainbow Media Holdings LLC, and Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bon Weinstein. The Weinsteins bought the movie's rights with their own money after Miramax parent Walt Disney Co. refused to let them release it under the Miramax banner.

The movie cost about $6 million to make, according to Moore. Additionally, the distributors spent less than $10 million -- a relatively modest sum -- to market the movie, said Ortenberg.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...26/103545.shtml

Saturday, June 26, 2004 10:24 a.m. EDT

Moore: Americans are 'The Dumbest People on the Planet'

Americans currently flocking to see Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 9/11" might be surprised to learn how little respect the Democratic Party's leading propaganda-meister has for them.

''They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper recently, referring to his fellow citizens as a whole.

And that's not all Moore had to say about his brother Yanks across the pond. ''We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.'' Turns out, when the Democratic Party's all-but-official filmmaker is speaking at home, he has nice things to say about at least some of his fellow citizens. But according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, when Moore travels abroad it's not just the Bush administration he trashes - but the American people en-masse.

Here's a few more bon mots from the Kerry campaign's leading celluloid supporter, as cited by Mr. Brooks on Saturday:

''That's why we're smiling all the time,'' Moore told a rapturous throng in Munich. ''You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down.''

To a crowd in Cambridge, Moore intoned: ''You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.''

Here's Moore's reaction to the 9/11 attacks, offered while the rubble at Ground Zero was still smoldering: ''We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.''

As for the terrorists currently killing American soldiers in Iraq, Moore compares them to Revolutionary war heroes who fought off British oppression:

''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''