Fahrenheit 9/11
Pages :
[1]
2
Flatrater
06-28-2004, 11:31 PM
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etlede3862759jun23,0,3697836.story?coll=ny-moviereview-headlines
Fahrenheit 9/11
In assailing the president's war, Michael Moore stokes the facts to make his point
The unmaking of the president: Scathing examination of George W. Bush's ties to the bin Laden family, the agenda behind the Iraq war, the dubious handling of 9/11 and, subtextually, November's election. Somewhat unfocused and inclined to cheap laughs, but important, no matter which side you're on. Written and directed by Michael Moore. 1:52 (vulgarity, war). Opening at Loew's Village VII, Third Avenue at 11th Street and Lincoln Plaza, Broadway and 63rd Street, Manhattan. Opening wide on Friday.
The first step to becoming a successful American populist, as the word is commonly understood, is purging your repertoire of subtlety and ambivalence and stooping enthusiastically to the masses. The second, history has told us, is hiding that instinct for demagoguery that lurks within the populist soul.
What do George W. Bush and Michael Moore have in common? More than one might think, given the furor that has erupted over Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" - which is, in many ways, a passionate, clearly articulated, if sloppily structured indictment of the president, his ties to the bin Laden family, his relentless push for war in Iraq and, as portrayed by Moore, an ineptitude bordering on the criminal.
Few would deny that Moore is a populist entertainer, not only because of the ill-fitting clothes tenting the unfit body, but because of the chummy, aw- shucks way he reduces complex questions to what seem like common-sensical conclusions.
What seems abundantly clear in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that these qualities also make him, at best, a flawed filmmaker, at worst a despotic one: One senses that Moore's seemingly fearless need to expose injustice might - were he an elected leader - just as easily become a remorseless march toward personal power. Which is relevant only because it illustrates the weakness of "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Ruthlessness - that's what one gets from Moore, who amid the humor and folksy sentiment and exposure of the suffering caused by the Iraq war, can't stop himself from making Bush and company look as foolish as possible. This is, as often as not, abetted by Bush himself, but Moore exposes a mean spirit in the manipulated editing and directing choices: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wetting his comb in his mouth while prepping for a TV interview is memorably disgusting, but ultimately the kind of thing included for derision, not substance.
And there's plenty of substance here, if not much news. Anyone who has followed the Bush exploits knows about his busted oil companies; that 42 percent of his first six months in office was spent on vacation; that his National Guard duty may have gone unfulfilled; that Halliburton has behaved scandalously in Iraq and that there was a seemingly compulsive need to invade that country despite multiple arguments against it (former terrorism adviser Richard Clarke appears prominently).
But there is the occasional revelation, too. The name of James R. Bath, a Texas Guard pal turned money man for the bin Laden family, was deleted from Bush's service record when it was released by the White House. (Moore displays an earlier copy with the name uncensored.) Moore makes a good case that the Saudis provided the bailout money for the younger Bush's failed business ventures in order to gain access to his father. And Moore lets us know, as the networks have not, that there are plenty of U.S. servicemen in Iraq (some shown sans limbs) who think the war they're fighting is a colossal hoax.
Much of what Moore includes in his unabashedly polemical film - for instance, footage of the four burnt bodies of the U.S. contractors strung up on that Iraqi bridge - is material that's hard to find for cable-viewing Americans. But while Moore is propagandizing, regarding Iraq he's hardly alone.
Although "Fahrenheit 9/11" carries the unmistakable fingerprints of Michael Moore, he doesn't appear here as much as he has in his other films (notably the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine"). This is an improvement, but sometimes an odd one: A sequence in which two Marines are followed around a mall checking out potential recruits (invariably minorities) virtually screams out for Moore's on- camera commentary.
Elsewhere, he shifts into classic Moore mode: Asking various congressmen in Washington for help with a bill that would send their kids to Iraq, Moore shows the totally uninhibited style that has made him the left's last best hope. He has a killer instinct, yes. But in "Fahrenheit 9/11," it's used to its best advantage.
Fahrenheit 9/11
In assailing the president's war, Michael Moore stokes the facts to make his point
The unmaking of the president: Scathing examination of George W. Bush's ties to the bin Laden family, the agenda behind the Iraq war, the dubious handling of 9/11 and, subtextually, November's election. Somewhat unfocused and inclined to cheap laughs, but important, no matter which side you're on. Written and directed by Michael Moore. 1:52 (vulgarity, war). Opening at Loew's Village VII, Third Avenue at 11th Street and Lincoln Plaza, Broadway and 63rd Street, Manhattan. Opening wide on Friday.
The first step to becoming a successful American populist, as the word is commonly understood, is purging your repertoire of subtlety and ambivalence and stooping enthusiastically to the masses. The second, history has told us, is hiding that instinct for demagoguery that lurks within the populist soul.
What do George W. Bush and Michael Moore have in common? More than one might think, given the furor that has erupted over Moore's new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" - which is, in many ways, a passionate, clearly articulated, if sloppily structured indictment of the president, his ties to the bin Laden family, his relentless push for war in Iraq and, as portrayed by Moore, an ineptitude bordering on the criminal.
Few would deny that Moore is a populist entertainer, not only because of the ill-fitting clothes tenting the unfit body, but because of the chummy, aw- shucks way he reduces complex questions to what seem like common-sensical conclusions.
What seems abundantly clear in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that these qualities also make him, at best, a flawed filmmaker, at worst a despotic one: One senses that Moore's seemingly fearless need to expose injustice might - were he an elected leader - just as easily become a remorseless march toward personal power. Which is relevant only because it illustrates the weakness of "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Ruthlessness - that's what one gets from Moore, who amid the humor and folksy sentiment and exposure of the suffering caused by the Iraq war, can't stop himself from making Bush and company look as foolish as possible. This is, as often as not, abetted by Bush himself, but Moore exposes a mean spirit in the manipulated editing and directing choices: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz wetting his comb in his mouth while prepping for a TV interview is memorably disgusting, but ultimately the kind of thing included for derision, not substance.
And there's plenty of substance here, if not much news. Anyone who has followed the Bush exploits knows about his busted oil companies; that 42 percent of his first six months in office was spent on vacation; that his National Guard duty may have gone unfulfilled; that Halliburton has behaved scandalously in Iraq and that there was a seemingly compulsive need to invade that country despite multiple arguments against it (former terrorism adviser Richard Clarke appears prominently).
But there is the occasional revelation, too. The name of James R. Bath, a Texas Guard pal turned money man for the bin Laden family, was deleted from Bush's service record when it was released by the White House. (Moore displays an earlier copy with the name uncensored.) Moore makes a good case that the Saudis provided the bailout money for the younger Bush's failed business ventures in order to gain access to his father. And Moore lets us know, as the networks have not, that there are plenty of U.S. servicemen in Iraq (some shown sans limbs) who think the war they're fighting is a colossal hoax.
Much of what Moore includes in his unabashedly polemical film - for instance, footage of the four burnt bodies of the U.S. contractors strung up on that Iraqi bridge - is material that's hard to find for cable-viewing Americans. But while Moore is propagandizing, regarding Iraq he's hardly alone.
Although "Fahrenheit 9/11" carries the unmistakable fingerprints of Michael Moore, he doesn't appear here as much as he has in his other films (notably the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine"). This is an improvement, but sometimes an odd one: A sequence in which two Marines are followed around a mall checking out potential recruits (invariably minorities) virtually screams out for Moore's on- camera commentary.
Elsewhere, he shifts into classic Moore mode: Asking various congressmen in Washington for help with a bill that would send their kids to Iraq, Moore shows the totally uninhibited style that has made him the left's last best hope. He has a killer instinct, yes. But in "Fahrenheit 9/11," it's used to its best advantage.
Flatrater
06-28-2004, 11:34 PM
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-usfilm273869328jun27,0,6199533.story?coll=ny-homepage-promo
At the start of "Fahrenheit 9/11," filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, "under every scenario Gore won the election."
What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.
The inclusion of Toobin's minority view and exclusion of mainstream documentation typifies the shaky case Moore builds against President George W. Bush in his two-hour film.
The movie unearths nothing new. It is a cinematic lawsuit, not a verdict, that skews and omits events for its central charge: that Bush was soft on terrorism because his family is financially tied to wealthy Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden.
Moore cites well-documented links centering around The Carlyle Group, a high-powered international investment firm. Bush himself had been an adviser to a Carlyle subsidiary before becoming Texas governor in 1995. His father became a Carlyle adviser after leaving office in 1993. The bin Ladens, a family of wealthy industrialists, were major Carlyle investors, though they and the elder Bush cut ties with Carlyle after Sept. 11.
Does that link the Bushes to terrorists? Not exactly. Osama bin Laden has been estranged from his family for a decade. Moore barely suggests otherwise, though he does try to link the incumbent president directly to the bin Ladens.
Relying on a book by former New York Observer editor Craig Unger, Moore cites the case of James R. Bath, a friend of Bush's from the Texas Air National Guard. Bath had managed the Texas investments for the Saudi BinLaden Group, run by Osama's older brother Salem, and invested money in Bush's oil company, Arbusto Energy.
Moore implies the bin Ladens wanted to curry favor with Bush while his father was CIA director. But Unger's reporting - omitted by Moore - says that Bath denies putting bin Laden money in Arbusto. A link remains unproven.
Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House "approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis" who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.
But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: "Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks."
Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration "welcomed" the official, Sayed Hashemi, "to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban."
Yet Hashemi's reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.
"We don't recognize any government in Afghanistan," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Moore finds much stronger footing when he focuses on Bush's presidency. He accurately quotes a front-page Washington Post story from August 2001 noting that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency on vacation.
Moore's statement that Bush never met with White House counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke to discuss terrorism before Sept. 11 is echoed by the commission finding that Clarke "never briefed or met with President Bush on counterterrorism."
And Moore repeats the commission's finding that the Justice Department cut FBI terrorism funding just before Sept. 11, though Moore blames Bush where the commission cites Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Yet Moore can hardly restrain himself with the commission. He juxtaposes a clip of Bush saying he has given it "extraordinary cooperation" with a clip of chairman Thomas Kean saying, "We haven't gotten the materials we needed."
It's unclear whether Kean is criticizing the White House or any of the federal agencies that were slow in providing documents. And his criticism is old: Kean has recently praised the commission's access to records as "unprecedented."
Perhaps Moore's most damning accusation concerns what Bush did the morning of Sept. 11.
Moore shows Bush sitting in a Florida elementary school classroom for seven minutes after his aide Andrew Card told him a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. "Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read 'My Pet Goat' to the children," Moore says in a voice-over, "nobody doing anything."
As a recent commission report noted, federal aviation and military authorities were overwhelmed during this time, unable to coordinate a response that might have stopped a plane from hitting the Pentagon.
When Bush left the classroom, "the focus was on the president's statement to the nation," the commission said. "No decisions were made."
At the start of "Fahrenheit 9/11," filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, "under every scenario Gore won the election."
What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election.
The inclusion of Toobin's minority view and exclusion of mainstream documentation typifies the shaky case Moore builds against President George W. Bush in his two-hour film.
The movie unearths nothing new. It is a cinematic lawsuit, not a verdict, that skews and omits events for its central charge: that Bush was soft on terrorism because his family is financially tied to wealthy Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden.
Moore cites well-documented links centering around The Carlyle Group, a high-powered international investment firm. Bush himself had been an adviser to a Carlyle subsidiary before becoming Texas governor in 1995. His father became a Carlyle adviser after leaving office in 1993. The bin Ladens, a family of wealthy industrialists, were major Carlyle investors, though they and the elder Bush cut ties with Carlyle after Sept. 11.
Does that link the Bushes to terrorists? Not exactly. Osama bin Laden has been estranged from his family for a decade. Moore barely suggests otherwise, though he does try to link the incumbent president directly to the bin Ladens.
Relying on a book by former New York Observer editor Craig Unger, Moore cites the case of James R. Bath, a friend of Bush's from the Texas Air National Guard. Bath had managed the Texas investments for the Saudi BinLaden Group, run by Osama's older brother Salem, and invested money in Bush's oil company, Arbusto Energy.
Moore implies the bin Ladens wanted to curry favor with Bush while his father was CIA director. But Unger's reporting - omitted by Moore - says that Bath denies putting bin Laden money in Arbusto. A link remains unproven.
Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House "approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis" who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.
But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: "Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks."
Moore also tries to paint Bush as sympathetic to the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan until its overthrow by U.S.-led forces shortly after Sept. 11. Moore shows a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban envoy, saying the Bush administration "welcomed" the official, Sayed Hashemi, "to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban."
Yet Hashemi's reception at the State Department was hardly welcoming. The administration rejected his claim that the Taliban had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden and affirmed its nonrecognition of the Taliban.
"We don't recognize any government in Afghanistan," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on the day of the visit.
Moore finds much stronger footing when he focuses on Bush's presidency. He accurately quotes a front-page Washington Post story from August 2001 noting that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency on vacation.
Moore's statement that Bush never met with White House counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke to discuss terrorism before Sept. 11 is echoed by the commission finding that Clarke "never briefed or met with President Bush on counterterrorism."
And Moore repeats the commission's finding that the Justice Department cut FBI terrorism funding just before Sept. 11, though Moore blames Bush where the commission cites Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Yet Moore can hardly restrain himself with the commission. He juxtaposes a clip of Bush saying he has given it "extraordinary cooperation" with a clip of chairman Thomas Kean saying, "We haven't gotten the materials we needed."
It's unclear whether Kean is criticizing the White House or any of the federal agencies that were slow in providing documents. And his criticism is old: Kean has recently praised the commission's access to records as "unprecedented."
Perhaps Moore's most damning accusation concerns what Bush did the morning of Sept. 11.
Moore shows Bush sitting in a Florida elementary school classroom for seven minutes after his aide Andrew Card told him a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. "Mr. Bush just sat there and continued to read 'My Pet Goat' to the children," Moore says in a voice-over, "nobody doing anything."
As a recent commission report noted, federal aviation and military authorities were overwhelmed during this time, unable to coordinate a response that might have stopped a plane from hitting the Pentagon.
When Bush left the classroom, "the focus was on the president's statement to the nation," the commission said. "No decisions were made."
Flatrater
06-28-2004, 11:44 PM
This one is something to read
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
MagicRat
06-28-2004, 11:54 PM
It is interesting, Flatrater, you quote Reagan in your sig. I have great respect for Reagan. I have none for GWB.
Regardless of how valid (or not ) the details of Moore's criticism of GWB is, the very fact that Moore's movie is number one at the box office, even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
I cannot think that such a hugely public, expensive and prominent movie such as Fahrenheight/911 could work with any other president. Why? Because no other President has deserved this kind of criticism.
If there is anyone to blame for the tone of this movie, its GWB himself. If he had been more measured and reasonable in his actions, there would be no money in it for Mr. Moore.
Regardless of how valid (or not ) the details of Moore's criticism of GWB is, the very fact that Moore's movie is number one at the box office, even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
I cannot think that such a hugely public, expensive and prominent movie such as Fahrenheight/911 could work with any other president. Why? Because no other President has deserved this kind of criticism.
If there is anyone to blame for the tone of this movie, its GWB himself. If he had been more measured and reasonable in his actions, there would be no money in it for Mr. Moore.
carrrnuttt
06-29-2004, 12:11 AM
It is interesting, Flatrater, you quote Reagan in your sig. I have great respect for Reagan. I have none for GWB.
Regardless of how valid (or not ) the details of Moore's criticism of GWB is, the very fact that Moore's movie is number one at the box office, even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
I cannot think that such a hugely public, expensive and prominent movie such as Fahrenheight/911 could work with any other president. Why? Because no other President has deserved this kind of criticism.
If there is anyone to blame for the tone of this movie, its GWB himself. If he had been more measured and reasonable in his actions, there would be no money in it for Mr. Moore.
I think Stone Cold Steve Austin said it best, when he said: "and...THAT's, the bottomline..."
Regardless of how valid (or not ) the details of Moore's criticism of GWB is, the very fact that Moore's movie is number one at the box office, even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
I cannot think that such a hugely public, expensive and prominent movie such as Fahrenheight/911 could work with any other president. Why? Because no other President has deserved this kind of criticism.
If there is anyone to blame for the tone of this movie, its GWB himself. If he had been more measured and reasonable in his actions, there would be no money in it for Mr. Moore.
I think Stone Cold Steve Austin said it best, when he said: "and...THAT's, the bottomline..."
TexasF355F1
06-29-2004, 12:19 AM
Haven't seen it, don't know if I will or not yet. But I did talk to my far left wing buddy who saw it. He said it was good. Even he commented on how one sided the film was though. He said it may have made the movie even more enjoyable if Moore had at least attempted to level out the playing field, but nonetheless he really enjoyed it.
Also saw on MTV interviewing three bush supporters who saw the film(probably paid to see it, not sure) but two of them seemed to enjoy the movie but did wish it would have been more fair and not make the President look unintelligent.
Also saw on MTV interviewing three bush supporters who saw the film(probably paid to see it, not sure) but two of them seemed to enjoy the movie but did wish it would have been more fair and not make the President look unintelligent.
taranaki
06-29-2004, 02:19 AM
The timing of this film is a master stroke.Legislation prevents pressure groups from purchasing advertising time in the run up to the elections..but doesn't prevent filmmakers from releasing documentaries!
tenguzero
06-29-2004, 02:28 AM
If you check out the reviews on RottenTomatoes.com, it's pretty obvious that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a favorite of many critics, one-sidedness considered. The guy knows how to make one hell of a thought provoking film, that's for sure. I plan to try and see it this Friday. I liked "Bowling for Columbine," so I figure I'll dig this too.
werwolf-23
06-29-2004, 04:17 AM
Does that link the Bushes to terrorists? Not exactly. Osama bin Laden has been estranged from his family for a decade. Moore barely suggests otherwise, though he does try to link the incumbent president directly to the bin Ladens..
:lol2: Well, I think Cheney's still trying to tie Saddam to Osama with a lot less... Well, not really with anything. :D couldn't resist...
:lol2: Well, I think Cheney's still trying to tie Saddam to Osama with a lot less... Well, not really with anything. :D couldn't resist...
DGB454
06-29-2004, 06:32 AM
Why are they calling it a documentary? Shouldn't it be called an opinion column type film?
Flatrater
06-29-2004, 06:42 AM
The timing of this film is a master stroke.Legislation prevents pressure groups from purchasing advertising time in the run up to the elections..but doesn't prevent filmmakers from releasing documentaries!
I guess we will find out in a week or so on this issue.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
I guess we will find out in a week or so on this issue.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
Flatrater
06-29-2004, 06:46 AM
even with its limited distrubution shows how massively unpopular and hated he is by millions of Americans.
Going to see the movie doesn't mean the people agree with or believe with Michael Moore. I would bet a large percentage of people are going to see what the hype is all about.
With billions of people in the world I imagine I could find millions that dislike anyone.
Going to see the movie doesn't mean the people agree with or believe with Michael Moore. I would bet a large percentage of people are going to see what the hype is all about.
With billions of people in the world I imagine I could find millions that dislike anyone.
taranaki
06-29-2004, 08:11 AM
I guess we will find out in a week or so on this issue.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
Not really,no. Moore may not be able to advertise his documentary after that ruling,but there's no way that the courts could stop it from airing in cinenas.From the looks of the article that you quoted,there may be a loney bigot who tries to prevent it,but clearly he doesn't have the faintest grasp of the constitution.
Even if advertisments for the film are banned,there's nothing to stop Moore from retooling his advertising to comply with the law and then re-advertising it.But he wouldn't need to.Any ban by the courts would be seen as the Establishment cracking down on the little guy's right to free speech,and people would go see the movie just to see what all the fuss was about.Moore has it sewn up.And the Republican party will lose swing voters as a result.
Perhaps Mr Bush would do the courtesy of letting Mrs Kerry's interior designers come in to take measurements right now?It would save a lot of time later. :smile:
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
Not really,no. Moore may not be able to advertise his documentary after that ruling,but there's no way that the courts could stop it from airing in cinenas.From the looks of the article that you quoted,there may be a loney bigot who tries to prevent it,but clearly he doesn't have the faintest grasp of the constitution.
Even if advertisments for the film are banned,there's nothing to stop Moore from retooling his advertising to comply with the law and then re-advertising it.But he wouldn't need to.Any ban by the courts would be seen as the Establishment cracking down on the little guy's right to free speech,and people would go see the movie just to see what all the fuss was about.Moore has it sewn up.And the Republican party will lose swing voters as a result.
Perhaps Mr Bush would do the courtesy of letting Mrs Kerry's interior designers come in to take measurements right now?It would save a lot of time later. :smile:
YogsVR4
06-29-2004, 10:44 AM
In reality though, only a few million people will see that movie. Of those that are going, how many are going to be Bush supporters that will be changing their minds? Even the most popular movies of all time have only a few tens of millions go see the picture. If the ratio of eligible voters stays the same (about 80%) and of those half actually vote (which has been the average) and we don't take into account the repeat movie goers, even Titanic was seen by less then 10 million actual voters. Given that Titanic made just north of 600 million and 9/11 F might make it to 50 million, its pretty clear its not going to be of much impact.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Pick
06-29-2004, 10:54 AM
What's ironic about this film is the day it is number one in the box office is the day a free Iraq is being handed over to its people with Saddam nowhere in sight. If we had gone Micheal Moore's way, there's no doubt in my mind the people of Iraq wouldn't be free today.
lazysmurff
06-29-2004, 11:33 AM
i keep reading these articles you post about michael moore, and all i see is "he's a fat slobby trouble maker" and nothing actually proving anything he says wrong. as much as these articles bitch about a lack of substance in the movie, there seems to be a lack of substance to their criticism.
and no, i dont think this movie will have a huge impact on the election. theres no reason it should. bush supporters who see it will simply cry "foul" while everyone else will say "told ya so" and then we are right back where we began.
all it did for me was make me feel even more right in voting third party
and no, i dont think this movie will have a huge impact on the election. theres no reason it should. bush supporters who see it will simply cry "foul" while everyone else will say "told ya so" and then we are right back where we began.
all it did for me was make me feel even more right in voting third party
TexasF355F1
06-29-2004, 01:29 PM
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
They were discussing this article on Ferrari Chat. The guy who found the article mentioned that the author of this article, Christopher Hitchens, is a socialist liberal. Which makes the article that much more interesting.
They were discussing this article on Ferrari Chat. The guy who found the article mentioned that the author of this article, Christopher Hitchens, is a socialist liberal. Which makes the article that much more interesting.
DGB454
06-29-2004, 03:08 PM
I read that one. Good article.
werwolf-23
06-29-2004, 04:08 PM
The thing that strikes me about it all is that nobody from BushCo has actually said "hey, that's not true!" about a single thing in the movie. This makes me very afraid. And I'm going to go see that movie the day it's in one of the local theaters.
Pick
06-29-2004, 05:03 PM
If you want to waste $7.50, be my guest. I will never let any of my money go towards that egotistical fat-ass.
carrrnuttt
06-29-2004, 05:25 PM
If you want to waste $7.50, be my guest. I will never let any of my money go towards that egotistical fat-ass.
Do you have any other type of post in these political forums, besides these emotional, primping, responses, that have no meaning politically, whatsoever?
EDIT: I'm probably not going to pay for Moore's movie either, but that's because I've read-up on his subject matter these past couple of years, and he has nothing to tell me that'll shock me that much.
Do you have any other type of post in these political forums, besides these emotional, primping, responses, that have no meaning politically, whatsoever?
EDIT: I'm probably not going to pay for Moore's movie either, but that's because I've read-up on his subject matter these past couple of years, and he has nothing to tell me that'll shock me that much.
Pick
06-29-2004, 05:30 PM
Do you have any other type of post in these political forums, besides these emotional, primping, responses, that have no meaning politically, whatsoever?
EDIT: I'm probably not going to pay for Moore's movie either, but that's because I've read-up on his subject matter these past couple of years, and he has nothing to tell me that'll shock me that much.
I'm not going to see it because I've also read up on what this movie's detail is and I already have enjoyed reading about the many fallacies in the movie. Is that good enough for you, mister "conservative" man?
EDIT: I'm probably not going to pay for Moore's movie either, but that's because I've read-up on his subject matter these past couple of years, and he has nothing to tell me that'll shock me that much.
I'm not going to see it because I've also read up on what this movie's detail is and I already have enjoyed reading about the many fallacies in the movie. Is that good enough for you, mister "conservative" man?
TexasF355F1
06-29-2004, 06:05 PM
The thing that strikes me about it all is that nobody from BushCo has actually said "hey, that's not true!" about a single thing in the movie. This makes me very afraid. And I'm going to go see that movie the day it's in one of the local theaters.
It's not that the things aren't true. It's the fact that they're taken out of context and misconstrued into something its not.
It's not that the things aren't true. It's the fact that they're taken out of context and misconstrued into something its not.
taranaki
06-29-2004, 06:15 PM
LOL.....which is badsically the argument against invading Iraq....So it's OK for Bush to 'misconstrue' intelligence for his own gain,but not for Michael Moore to do it?Maybe if Michael Moore had killed a few more women and kids as a result of his twisting the truth,the Bush supporters would like him better.....
Flatrater
06-29-2004, 07:42 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing the same shit over and over again isn't about time to find something new to say.
Everyone acts like George Bush is everywhere and everything, that he is working alone. WTF he has a cabinet, advisors, the congress to help steer him. Could it be that Bush wan't the only one to make a mistake? He was the only one to take the rash of shit being dealt his way. Do ytou reallt have any hard proof that Bush knew he was lying and not just some liberal trash web site?
Can anyone post a good review of Moore's film? I know I posted several against it. Instead of finding fault with what I posted prove me wrong! Show me!!!
Everyone acts like George Bush is everywhere and everything, that he is working alone. WTF he has a cabinet, advisors, the congress to help steer him. Could it be that Bush wan't the only one to make a mistake? He was the only one to take the rash of shit being dealt his way. Do ytou reallt have any hard proof that Bush knew he was lying and not just some liberal trash web site?
Can anyone post a good review of Moore's film? I know I posted several against it. Instead of finding fault with what I posted prove me wrong! Show me!!!
taranaki
06-29-2004, 10:08 PM
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/breakingnews/index.php?id=32
A whole swag of them,from people who have actually seen the film,not people who hate what it stands for.
And Bush carries the can for his administration's foulups.You were quick enough to blame Clinton for his administrations' poor intelligence,it would be a double standard not to expect Bush to occupy the same position of ultimate responsibility.I have seen no news of Defence advisors being sacked,despite piss poor work,so I must assume that Bush is prepared to support their inadequacies.
A whole swag of them,from people who have actually seen the film,not people who hate what it stands for.
And Bush carries the can for his administration's foulups.You were quick enough to blame Clinton for his administrations' poor intelligence,it would be a double standard not to expect Bush to occupy the same position of ultimate responsibility.I have seen no news of Defence advisors being sacked,despite piss poor work,so I must assume that Bush is prepared to support their inadequacies.
MagicRat
06-29-2004, 11:58 PM
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/breakingnews/index.php?id=32
A whole swag of them,from people who have actually seen the film,not people who hate what it stands for.
And Bush carries the can for his administration's foulups.You were quick enough to blame Clinton for his administrations' poor intelligence,it would be a double standard not to expect Bush to occupy the same position of ultimate responsibility.I have seen no news of Defence advisors being sacked,despite piss poor work,so I must assume that Bush is prepared to support their inadequacies.
:owned:
A whole swag of them,from people who have actually seen the film,not people who hate what it stands for.
And Bush carries the can for his administration's foulups.You were quick enough to blame Clinton for his administrations' poor intelligence,it would be a double standard not to expect Bush to occupy the same position of ultimate responsibility.I have seen no news of Defence advisors being sacked,despite piss poor work,so I must assume that Bush is prepared to support their inadequacies.
:owned:
DGB454
06-30-2004, 06:49 AM
The thing that strikes me about it all is that nobody from BushCo has actually said "hey, that's not true!" about a single thing in the movie. .
There are more important things to worry about than what Moore thinks about you or writes about you.
There are more important things to worry about than what Moore thinks about you or writes about you.
taranaki
06-30-2004, 07:52 AM
If that be the case,why is he one of the biggest political commentators in the world at the moment?
Results 1 - 10 of about 261,000 for "Bowling for columbine".
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for "fahrenheit 9/11". (0.21 seconds)
Compare those two figures.How many years has Bowling For Columbine been out there?Already Fahrenheit 9/11 has 5 times the coverage that its predecessor has achieved.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,530,000 for "michael moore".
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,550,000 for "John Kerry".
The man is generating as much publicity as John Kerry.Tell me please that Bush's campaign advisers don't pay any attention to him, I'd be delighted to know that they're as useless as his defence advisers.
You seriously think that Bush's campaign wouldn't throw the film back in Moore's face if they could find a single untruth in it? Seriously? Any pissant can criticize the style of his films,or his demeanor or hell,let's even mock him because he doesn't dress as smart as GW, but ........
I've yet to see anyone in the know dare stand up and call him a liar.
Results 1 - 10 of about 261,000 for "Bowling for columbine".
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for "fahrenheit 9/11". (0.21 seconds)
Compare those two figures.How many years has Bowling For Columbine been out there?Already Fahrenheit 9/11 has 5 times the coverage that its predecessor has achieved.
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,530,000 for "michael moore".
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,550,000 for "John Kerry".
The man is generating as much publicity as John Kerry.Tell me please that Bush's campaign advisers don't pay any attention to him, I'd be delighted to know that they're as useless as his defence advisers.
You seriously think that Bush's campaign wouldn't throw the film back in Moore's face if they could find a single untruth in it? Seriously? Any pissant can criticize the style of his films,or his demeanor or hell,let's even mock him because he doesn't dress as smart as GW, but ........
I've yet to see anyone in the know dare stand up and call him a liar.
DGB454
06-30-2004, 09:18 AM
So if you were president.(Yes,I'm having a hard time saying that with a straight face) You would bother to deny or even acknowledge Moore?
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.
YogsVR4
06-30-2004, 09:23 AM
have a couple
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Pick
06-30-2004, 10:32 AM
I've yet to see anyone in the know dare stand up and call him a liar.
Okay, he is a damn liar!
Okay, he is a damn liar!
DGB454
06-30-2004, 11:44 AM
The more I read about Moore the more disgusted I am with him. I grew up and worked in and around Flint nearly all my life. Some of the BS Moore slung about Flint in his first attempt at making money on propaganda was amusing at best. You shrug it off and just realize he is someone trying to make money from people wanting to escape the reality of the day. That's the way Hollywood operates so it's not a big deal. I always assumed people were smart enough to see he is just another clown in the circus trying to make us laugh. Who would have thought people would would actually believe everything he tells them? Who would have believed that the same people who keep saying "GWB is a liar and everything he says is a lie" are the same people who buy everything MM is selling? I guess I always thought those people would be the ones who were the cynics among us. Who knew?
tenguzero
06-30-2004, 12:20 PM
Michael Moore's films resonate (or resignate, as Bush would say :icon16: ) with the people. He's garnering lots of animosity and distrust toawrds the current administration because he's got a good, effective formula. That's the problem with the republican party as it stands in power right now: they do NOT -repeat- DO NOT know how to relate to the people. And the only time Bush does seem to show any ability to bring it down to the average Joe's level, and stir up emotions in him, it's when he's dressed in a damn Air Force jumpsuit, and belting out a cry for more money to be thrown at the military, or playing on people fears of WMD's that haven't been found yet (not even a TRACE) or shaking his fist in the air and threatening retribution for terrorist acts, commited by groups that we can't pin down until they come knocking at OUR front door. Moore succeeds, because he gives the people justification, vindication, and a concrete, right-in-front-of-their-face event. Slanted towards his cause? Sure. But at least he's got something TANGIBLE out there. Moore knows how to relate to and tap into the resources and media that work for the people. The GOP does NOT. And when they do, and Bush and his advisors get up in front of the people to communicate to them, all they spout is vague warnings about potential threats, claims of a "recovering economy" that I, and VAST numbers of like-minded recent graduates still have yet to see, and generally a lot of promises but no answers.
TexasF355F1
06-30-2004, 12:25 PM
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle?JSESSIONID=AioED2mTmZzuElyicUu8HcM2 FnUuqQ123tITkwqrRMbihpsx52xU!-593243196
DGB454
06-30-2004, 01:53 PM
Michael Moore's films resonate (or resignate, as Bush would say :icon16: ) with the people. He's garnering lots of animosity and distrust toawrds the current administration because he's got a good, effective formula. That's the problem with the republican party as it stands in power right now: they do NOT -repeat- DO NOT know how to relate to the people. And the only time Bush does seem to show any ability to bring it down to the average Joe's level, and stir up emotions in him, it's when he's dressed in a damn Air Force jumpsuit, and belting out a cry for more money to be thrown at the military, or playing on people fears of WMD's that haven't been found yet (not even a TRACE) or shaking his fist in the air and threatening retribution for terrorist acts, commited by groups that we can't pin down until they come knocking at OUR front door. Moore succeeds, because he gives the people justification, vindication, and a concrete, right-in-front-of-their-face event. Slanted towards his cause? Sure. But at least he's got something TANGIBLE out there. Moore knows how to relate to and tap into the resources and media that work for the people. The GOP does NOT. And when they do, and Bush and his advisors get up in front of the people to communicate to them, all they spout is vague warnings about potential threats, claims of a "recovering economy" that I, and VAST numbers of like-minded recent graduates still have yet to see, and generally a lot of promises but no answers.
So you identify with and generally believe what MM says? Or are you ("and the VAST number of like-minded recent graduates") just into his "slanted" hype because he's "got a good effective formula"?
Before you answer I just want to make clear that I am not a supporter of Bush or some of his policies.(so don't pigeon hole me) Nor am I a supporter of Kerry.(reguardless of his policies)
So you identify with and generally believe what MM says? Or are you ("and the VAST number of like-minded recent graduates") just into his "slanted" hype because he's "got a good effective formula"?
Before you answer I just want to make clear that I am not a supporter of Bush or some of his policies.(so don't pigeon hole me) Nor am I a supporter of Kerry.(reguardless of his policies)
tenguzero
06-30-2004, 05:28 PM
Nope. I'm not saying I believe all of what he says, what I'm saying, is that he has a very effective way of getting his message across, which is why people who aren't really the kind to take the time to do their own research into what is behind the spin, from BOTH sides, are more likely to relate with what MM says -- because of the way he says it.
Let's face it, America LOVES drama (look at why all these stupid "Reality" TV shows are so popular) because the portrayal of events to music, and hardship, and all other human experiences creates a bridge for them. I'm willing to bet that more people tune into "American Idol" than a presidential address, because suits and podiums and the same rhetoric over and over again, without any immediate satisfaction, are tiresome. Moore's films leave people thinking, and talking, even if they don't end up going any further than that (like to do research, for instance.) Addresses by the President and various White House staff, about the same things they've been preaching for years, don't. Unless there is some immediate benefit for the people. And right now, I'm not seeing any benefits of all this administration has been talking about, for myself OR the people close to me. Sure, it's more difficult for the president (being the leader of the country) to achieve results than it is Michael Moore, giving Moore the benefit of being on the outside looking in. But hey, nobody said running the damn United States of America was going to be easy, though I would have expected to see more of a benefit for Americans than we have up to this point.
Let's face it, America LOVES drama (look at why all these stupid "Reality" TV shows are so popular) because the portrayal of events to music, and hardship, and all other human experiences creates a bridge for them. I'm willing to bet that more people tune into "American Idol" than a presidential address, because suits and podiums and the same rhetoric over and over again, without any immediate satisfaction, are tiresome. Moore's films leave people thinking, and talking, even if they don't end up going any further than that (like to do research, for instance.) Addresses by the President and various White House staff, about the same things they've been preaching for years, don't. Unless there is some immediate benefit for the people. And right now, I'm not seeing any benefits of all this administration has been talking about, for myself OR the people close to me. Sure, it's more difficult for the president (being the leader of the country) to achieve results than it is Michael Moore, giving Moore the benefit of being on the outside looking in. But hey, nobody said running the damn United States of America was going to be easy, though I would have expected to see more of a benefit for Americans than we have up to this point.
taranaki
06-30-2004, 05:48 PM
I've yet to see anyone in the know dare stand up and call him a liar.
Okay, he is a damn liar!
Thank you Pick, but you don't qualify.
Okay, he is a damn liar!
Thank you Pick, but you don't qualify.
Pick
06-30-2004, 06:04 PM
Thank you Pick, but you don't qualify.
How am I not in the know? Have you read any of the articles that have been posted about the movie? I know I have. So,as of right now, you sir,are not in the know.:wink:
How am I not in the know? Have you read any of the articles that have been posted about the movie? I know I have. So,as of right now, you sir,are not in the know.:wink:
2strokebloke
06-30-2004, 06:07 PM
Then, why is he a liar? You read the articles, so I'm sure you know.
taranaki
06-30-2004, 06:09 PM
So if you were president.(Yes,I'm having a hard time saying that with a straight face) You would bother to deny or even acknowledge Moore?
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.
You really need to stick with the original premise that you argued...
There are more important things to worry about than what Moore thinks about you or writes about you..
The President's campain managers would be foolish to ignore the potential effect that Mr Moore could have on their campaign. If "Fahrenheit 9/11" has the capability to influence sufficent numbers of armchair liberals to actually vote instead of just sitting at home on election day,it could change the resault of the election.Both major contenders have polled in the target area,this is likely to be a very close contest,which is why there is soo much animosity and mud-slinging.
If Bush's advisers have any intelligence or facts that contradicts any of the claims that Mr Moore has made ,they'd be foolish not to use it.Otherwise Bush is just standing there wearing it,and mud sticks.
This will be a very difficult campaign for Bush's advisors to manage.When an incumbent government is strong,and popular, and making progress,it will lay out its achievements in black and white in defence of its tenure...Something along the lines of "long term unemployment down x%, budget in surplus by xmillion dollars,Crime statistics down by x percent,x% of Americans better off as a direct result of tax cuts,x% more manufacturing jobs for Americans........
But clearly, Bush has nothing in the trophy cabinet.He can only rely on the wooly patriotism of his failed Middle East intervention as an achievement.It is the opposition who normaly have to try and win by chipping away at the credibility of the incumbent.Bush's camp know that they don't have any viable achievements on which to campaign,so they have turned to the tactics of the challenger in the hopes that nobody will notice.
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.
You really need to stick with the original premise that you argued...
There are more important things to worry about than what Moore thinks about you or writes about you..
The President's campain managers would be foolish to ignore the potential effect that Mr Moore could have on their campaign. If "Fahrenheit 9/11" has the capability to influence sufficent numbers of armchair liberals to actually vote instead of just sitting at home on election day,it could change the resault of the election.Both major contenders have polled in the target area,this is likely to be a very close contest,which is why there is soo much animosity and mud-slinging.
If Bush's advisers have any intelligence or facts that contradicts any of the claims that Mr Moore has made ,they'd be foolish not to use it.Otherwise Bush is just standing there wearing it,and mud sticks.
This will be a very difficult campaign for Bush's advisors to manage.When an incumbent government is strong,and popular, and making progress,it will lay out its achievements in black and white in defence of its tenure...Something along the lines of "long term unemployment down x%, budget in surplus by xmillion dollars,Crime statistics down by x percent,x% of Americans better off as a direct result of tax cuts,x% more manufacturing jobs for Americans........
But clearly, Bush has nothing in the trophy cabinet.He can only rely on the wooly patriotism of his failed Middle East intervention as an achievement.It is the opposition who normaly have to try and win by chipping away at the credibility of the incumbent.Bush's camp know that they don't have any viable achievements on which to campaign,so they have turned to the tactics of the challenger in the hopes that nobody will notice.
taranaki
06-30-2004, 06:22 PM
How am I not in the know? Have you read any of the articles that have been posted about the movie? I know I have. So,as of right now, you sir,are not in the know.:wink:
Based on the ebvidence that I have seen in in this forum,I am assuming that you know absolutely nothing but blind prejudice.Nowhere have you ever attempet to justify the inane comments that you have posted here,and the level of your 'arguments' rarely rises above kindergarten name-calling.If you have,as claimed studied the subject[and watching the damn movie would be as good a place to start as any],then,do feel free to enlighten us with the train of thought that has led you to your absolute conviction that you know everything there is to know on the subject.
Or,you could continue to post your silly little one sentence posts without any substance,and the rest of us will continue to dismiss them as being of no consequence. :smile:
Based on the ebvidence that I have seen in in this forum,I am assuming that you know absolutely nothing but blind prejudice.Nowhere have you ever attempet to justify the inane comments that you have posted here,and the level of your 'arguments' rarely rises above kindergarten name-calling.If you have,as claimed studied the subject[and watching the damn movie would be as good a place to start as any],then,do feel free to enlighten us with the train of thought that has led you to your absolute conviction that you know everything there is to know on the subject.
Or,you could continue to post your silly little one sentence posts without any substance,and the rest of us will continue to dismiss them as being of no consequence. :smile:
Flatrater
06-30-2004, 06:43 PM
This will be a very difficult campaign for Bush's advisors to manage.When an incumbent government is strong,and popular, and making progress,it will lay out its achievements in black and white in defence of its tenure...Something along the lines of "long term unemployment down x%, budget in surplus by xmillion dollars,Crime statistics down by x percent,x% of Americans better off as a direct result of tax cuts,x% more manufacturing jobs for Americans........
Naki under the 3 years of Bush my year pay has gone up 8K US dollars, I pay less taxes now then under Clinton. Last year The government sent me a check for 1200 US dollars as a tax credit. Our local newspaper is full of job openings. SO I can say my situation has improved under Bush. Bush will always be remembered for Iraq but he did give me more of my money back.
As for Moore Bush wil never speak of him. Sometimes its better to ignore it then give some sense of Moore being right(if he was right and I am not saying that).
Naki under the 3 years of Bush my year pay has gone up 8K US dollars, I pay less taxes now then under Clinton. Last year The government sent me a check for 1200 US dollars as a tax credit. Our local newspaper is full of job openings. SO I can say my situation has improved under Bush. Bush will always be remembered for Iraq but he did give me more of my money back.
As for Moore Bush wil never speak of him. Sometimes its better to ignore it then give some sense of Moore being right(if he was right and I am not saying that).
taranaki
06-30-2004, 07:02 PM
have a couple
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle
http://www.nypress.com/17/26/news&columns/MattTaibbi.cfm
Criticising the critcs proves very little.An answer from the target of the original criticism would be far,far more telling.But the Bush camp won't answer,because they have nothing with which to make a credible denial. :grinno:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle
http://www.nypress.com/17/26/news&columns/MattTaibbi.cfm
Criticising the critcs proves very little.An answer from the target of the original criticism would be far,far more telling.But the Bush camp won't answer,because they have nothing with which to make a credible denial. :grinno:
Flatrater
06-30-2004, 10:36 PM
make a credible denial. :grinno:
Credible denial will only add to the fire making it bigger than it should be. Saying nothing will lessen the impact of Moore's lies. If Bush made a statement Moore would be sitting there saying "See I told you so, it must be true"
Credible denial will only add to the fire making it bigger than it should be. Saying nothing will lessen the impact of Moore's lies. If Bush made a statement Moore would be sitting there saying "See I told you so, it must be true"
Flatrater
06-30-2004, 11:10 PM
MagicRat
06-30-2004, 11:14 PM
So if you were president.(Yes,I'm having a hard time saying that with a straight face) You would bother to deny or even acknowledge Moore?
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.
It would be a mistake for GWB to acknowledge Moore or the movie. There are more important topics for his time.
GWB arguing with Moore in the media would be a lost cause; would lend credibility to the movie and give lots of sound bites to be used out of context, (although Bush has already supplied a wealth of those!)
You wouldn't see that as a mistake? That's like giving credibility to what he says.
It would be a mistake for GWB to acknowledge Moore or the movie. There are more important topics for his time.
GWB arguing with Moore in the media would be a lost cause; would lend credibility to the movie and give lots of sound bites to be used out of context, (although Bush has already supplied a wealth of those!)
tenguzero
06-30-2004, 11:15 PM
Naki under the 3 years of Bush my year pay has gone up 8K US dollars, I pay less taxes now then under Clinton. Last year The government sent me a check for 1200 US dollars as a tax credit. Our local newspaper is full of job openings. SO I can say my situation has improved under Bush. Bush will always be remembered for Iraq but he did give me more of my money back.
And this is how the system has worked well. But the other side of it, the side they aren't telling, is the fact that, while there are probably "new" jobs being created, they aren't jobs that are of use to anyone save for those already established. An Associate's degree, Technical Schooling, and an A+ certification, and I'm STILL staring down the barrel at having to go back to waitering or retail at 22 years old. I'm too old to be ringing register with 16 y/o's anymore! :icon16: All I see in the future for me, is a continued cycle of job rejection (because I don't have the "experience," but someone over in India apparently does,) rising tuition costs, rising interest rates on my loan payments, less incentive for companies to offer me any benefits (especially at my age and employment standing) but no more higher a pay than I was making in High School. It's cool that Bush has done well by you, but he's sure bent me over.
And this is how the system has worked well. But the other side of it, the side they aren't telling, is the fact that, while there are probably "new" jobs being created, they aren't jobs that are of use to anyone save for those already established. An Associate's degree, Technical Schooling, and an A+ certification, and I'm STILL staring down the barrel at having to go back to waitering or retail at 22 years old. I'm too old to be ringing register with 16 y/o's anymore! :icon16: All I see in the future for me, is a continued cycle of job rejection (because I don't have the "experience," but someone over in India apparently does,) rising tuition costs, rising interest rates on my loan payments, less incentive for companies to offer me any benefits (especially at my age and employment standing) but no more higher a pay than I was making in High School. It's cool that Bush has done well by you, but he's sure bent me over.
Flatrater
06-30-2004, 11:50 PM
Naki if I linked a FOx news site would you believe it or would you say its a lie? Let me know so I can post it for you!
driftu
07-01-2004, 12:12 AM
he is the president. he shouldn't worry about his PR. he should worry about putting to rest any confusion over his actions.
DGB454
07-01-2004, 06:07 AM
Well I guess I don't have to say any more teranaki.
Everyone else has said it just fine for me. No need to repeat it.
Everyone else has said it just fine for me. No need to repeat it.
DGB454
07-01-2004, 06:31 AM
And this is how the system has worked well. But the other side of it, the side they aren't telling, is the fact that, while there are probably "new" jobs being created, they aren't jobs that are of use to anyone save for those already established.An Associate's degree, Technical Schooling, and an A+ certification, and I'm STILL staring down the barrel at having to go back to waitering or retail at 22 years old. I'm too old to be ringing register with 16 y/o's anymore! :icon16: All I see in the future for me, is a continued cycle of job rejection (because I don't have the "experience,". That's the same thing I went through when starting out. You start from the bottom and work your way up. I started out washing dishes until I was able to find a job in a small factory. Now I'm a design engineer and regional Mgr. in that industry. No one will put you in upper or middle management unless you have a proven track record.
but someone over in India apparently does,) rising tuition costs, rising interest rates on my loan payments, less incentive for companies to offer me any benefits (especially at my age and employment standing) but no more higher a pay than I was making in High School. It's cool that Bush has done well by you, but he's sure bent me over.
I am disgusted about the job losses to other countries also. It's been going on for more years than Bush has been in office. Just ask Moore. (Roger and Me) The US or any other country that has a higher standard of living can't compete with places like India or Mexico when it comes to cheap labor. Kerry promises to bring more manufacturing jobs back to the US. The only way that will happen would be to 1) Pay the US workers less to do those jobs or 2) Give large govt. incentives to keep them here and keep the pay the same which means higher taxes on everyone to pay for the huge govt. payouts. or 3) Raise import taxes on overseas shipments which the rest of the world not tolerate(and for good reason). There may be other ways but I don't see any. What else does Kerry propose? Raise the minimum wage. Yeah, that will help bring jobs back.
The point is that sending jobs overseas is going to happen whether we like it or not until the pay everywhere else equals ours. Whether that means ours will lower or theirs will raise is yet to be seen. Corporations are there to make money. Not jobs.
Good luck in your search. I do seriously hope you find something you enjoy and pays well. Just be prepaired to work your way up from the bottom if necessary.
but someone over in India apparently does,) rising tuition costs, rising interest rates on my loan payments, less incentive for companies to offer me any benefits (especially at my age and employment standing) but no more higher a pay than I was making in High School. It's cool that Bush has done well by you, but he's sure bent me over.
I am disgusted about the job losses to other countries also. It's been going on for more years than Bush has been in office. Just ask Moore. (Roger and Me) The US or any other country that has a higher standard of living can't compete with places like India or Mexico when it comes to cheap labor. Kerry promises to bring more manufacturing jobs back to the US. The only way that will happen would be to 1) Pay the US workers less to do those jobs or 2) Give large govt. incentives to keep them here and keep the pay the same which means higher taxes on everyone to pay for the huge govt. payouts. or 3) Raise import taxes on overseas shipments which the rest of the world not tolerate(and for good reason). There may be other ways but I don't see any. What else does Kerry propose? Raise the minimum wage. Yeah, that will help bring jobs back.
The point is that sending jobs overseas is going to happen whether we like it or not until the pay everywhere else equals ours. Whether that means ours will lower or theirs will raise is yet to be seen. Corporations are there to make money. Not jobs.
Good luck in your search. I do seriously hope you find something you enjoy and pays well. Just be prepaired to work your way up from the bottom if necessary.
tenguzero
07-01-2004, 04:24 PM
Thanks man. It's definately not easy. Actually, I've always thought that there should be some sort of initiative to help get graduates into (in some way) the fields they want to pursue (or as close to what they want as possible.) I'm for the minimum wage increase, but I think a better idea would be to focus on helping people trying to get their foot in the door, actually get it there. If the govt. could somehow mandate placement assistance programs, perhaps with some sort of incentive to employers, then I think they've got the makings of a good method of stimulus right there. And BOTH sides win, the govt. AND the employee. Perhaps this belongs in the Kerry/min. wage thread :icon16:
It's interesting how there is so much written about "adolescent crisis," then it sort of jumps up to marriage and family concerns. But there's a GIGANTIC gap right in betweeen, namely the Twenties, where a person faces most of the hardest challenges in their life -- setting out on a solid path to allow them the ability to move to the next step. If the government would help with that, they would have more support (both financially and politically) from this huge Gen-Y group.
It's interesting how there is so much written about "adolescent crisis," then it sort of jumps up to marriage and family concerns. But there's a GIGANTIC gap right in betweeen, namely the Twenties, where a person faces most of the hardest challenges in their life -- setting out on a solid path to allow them the ability to move to the next step. If the government would help with that, they would have more support (both financially and politically) from this huge Gen-Y group.
Flatrater
07-01-2004, 07:44 PM
Thanks man. It's definately not easy. Actually, I've always thought that there should be some sort of initiative to help get graduates into (in some way) the fields they want to pursue (or as close to what they want as possible.) I'm for the minimum wage increase, but I think a better idea would be to focus on helping people trying to get their foot in the door, actually get it there. If the govt. could somehow mandate placement assistance programs, perhaps with some sort of incentive to employers, then I think they've got the makings of a good method of stimulus right there. And BOTH sides win, the govt. AND the employee. Perhaps this belongs in the Kerry/min. wage thread :icon16:
It's interesting how there is so much written about "adolescent crisis," then it sort of jumps up to marriage and family concerns. But there's a GIGANTIC gap right in betweeen, namely the Twenties, where a person faces most of the hardest challenges in their life -- setting out on a solid path to allow them the ability to move to the next step. If the government would help with that, they would have more support (both financially and politically) from this huge Gen-Y group.
I'm sorry did I read this right you want the government to find you a job?
First you want someone else to find you a job next you will want them to pay your bills do your work and so on. Do it the old fashioned way walk the pavement, knock on doors, fill out those applications. Dress right for the interview, remove the earrings. Sell yourself to the employer sitting in front of you. Its nobody's job but your own to find a job. When I went to college I applied and got accpeted at a school that offered placement assisstance not guaranteed placement. I used the service once but I have lifetime placement thru the college.
I know I can quit my job today and have a new job tommorrow making the same or more money. Its not hard but I sell myself 100% everytime. I only apply at one job the job I want and I get it everytime.
One problem I see with alot of the colege kids nowadays is that they want a job making top dollar with no experience. It takes time to climb the ladder. If you set your sights up to high no smart employer will hire you and pay you want you want. You have to earn the money, its not given to you just because you went to college.
If you can't find a job in your chosen profession than maybe you chose the wrong profession.
It's interesting how there is so much written about "adolescent crisis," then it sort of jumps up to marriage and family concerns. But there's a GIGANTIC gap right in betweeen, namely the Twenties, where a person faces most of the hardest challenges in their life -- setting out on a solid path to allow them the ability to move to the next step. If the government would help with that, they would have more support (both financially and politically) from this huge Gen-Y group.
I'm sorry did I read this right you want the government to find you a job?
First you want someone else to find you a job next you will want them to pay your bills do your work and so on. Do it the old fashioned way walk the pavement, knock on doors, fill out those applications. Dress right for the interview, remove the earrings. Sell yourself to the employer sitting in front of you. Its nobody's job but your own to find a job. When I went to college I applied and got accpeted at a school that offered placement assisstance not guaranteed placement. I used the service once but I have lifetime placement thru the college.
I know I can quit my job today and have a new job tommorrow making the same or more money. Its not hard but I sell myself 100% everytime. I only apply at one job the job I want and I get it everytime.
One problem I see with alot of the colege kids nowadays is that they want a job making top dollar with no experience. It takes time to climb the ladder. If you set your sights up to high no smart employer will hire you and pay you want you want. You have to earn the money, its not given to you just because you went to college.
If you can't find a job in your chosen profession than maybe you chose the wrong profession.
tenguzero
07-01-2004, 09:13 PM
Are you sure you're reading the posts, and not just blindly responding? If not I suggest you do. NO WHERE did I say I wanted the govt. to FIND me a job. I SAID it would be nice for them to perhaps institute some sort of aid program, to HELP new graduates in finding positions CLOSE to what they're looking for. Again, NO WHERE did I say I would expect to be assisted in finding an immediate, top dollar position right away. But I would at least HOPE that it would be a position I could actually live off of. Perhaps by offering incentives to employers for hiring graduates -- who often have little or no experience -- to help bring about a more productive generation. I don't doubt you could "get the job you want" everytime. But could you have gotten that same job if you had no experience in the field? Take a look through the job postings right now: the majority of them want EXPERIENCE. I know that often times employers post sort of a "wish list" of what they want in an employee, but with the job market the way it is right now, they don't have to settle -- it's likely they will have no problem finding someone with what they want. And don't think for a second that I don't make my damndest attempt at presenting and selling myself -- if I can even LAND the interview (all I am until they meet me, is a resume and cover letter.) I pay all my bills, one way or another, and I work the extra hours when I need to. You sir, make far too many false presumptions.
Flatrater
07-01-2004, 09:34 PM
I SAID it would be nice for them to perhaps institute some sort of aid program, to HELP new graduates in finding positions CLOSE to what they're looking for.
Perhaps by offering incentives to employers for hiring graduates -- who often have little or no experience -- to help bring about a more productive generation.
I don't doubt you could "get the job you want" everytime. But could you have gotten that same job if you had no experience in the field?
Ok I did read it right you want an agency to "help" you find a job. Then you want that agency to give your employer money for hiring you.
Ok The day I graduated college I stepped off the steps and went to work the next day in a defense contractor, worked there 3 years. Next I filled out one job app to USAIR as a mechanic. Now getting a job with the major airlines is tough. I got the job on my first try. Did that with 2 more airlines. I got tired of moving all the time so one day I walked into a car dealer knowing nothing about cars. Two days later I started working there. The last job was out of my area on knowledge yet I got the job no problems. Right now I have a dealer willing to drive a truck pick me and my family up just to work for him. I have several dealers asking for me to work for them. It's more atitude than anything else. I have my employer by the balls and I let them know they can't live without me.
Now I am also sure that in time you will find a job, starting out is tough to do but keep plugging away and it will happen.
Perhaps by offering incentives to employers for hiring graduates -- who often have little or no experience -- to help bring about a more productive generation.
I don't doubt you could "get the job you want" everytime. But could you have gotten that same job if you had no experience in the field?
Ok I did read it right you want an agency to "help" you find a job. Then you want that agency to give your employer money for hiring you.
Ok The day I graduated college I stepped off the steps and went to work the next day in a defense contractor, worked there 3 years. Next I filled out one job app to USAIR as a mechanic. Now getting a job with the major airlines is tough. I got the job on my first try. Did that with 2 more airlines. I got tired of moving all the time so one day I walked into a car dealer knowing nothing about cars. Two days later I started working there. The last job was out of my area on knowledge yet I got the job no problems. Right now I have a dealer willing to drive a truck pick me and my family up just to work for him. I have several dealers asking for me to work for them. It's more atitude than anything else. I have my employer by the balls and I let them know they can't live without me.
Now I am also sure that in time you will find a job, starting out is tough to do but keep plugging away and it will happen.
taranaki
07-01-2004, 10:18 PM
Credible denial will only add to the fire making it bigger than it should be. Saying nothing will lessen the impact of Moore's lies. If Bush made a statement Moore would be sitting there saying "See I told you so, it must be true"
And what of the voting public?If Bush issues a denial, Are you saying that they do they not trust him enough to accept it at face value?
Bush can't argue with the core facts of the film,or he would.
And what of the voting public?If Bush issues a denial, Are you saying that they do they not trust him enough to accept it at face value?
Bush can't argue with the core facts of the film,or he would.
Flatrater
07-01-2004, 10:47 PM
And what of the voting public?If Bush issues a denial, Are you saying that they do they not trust him enough to accept it at face value?
Bush can't argue with the core facts of the film,or he would.
I'm sorry Naki I don't have that kind of faith to trust the voting public to decide. Some of our voters only vote for the peoples names the reconginze and not on the issues. Some people just aren't smart enough.
BTW I found a article on Fox news the one you say sucks and is biased and that they are not credible. So if that is the case this story can't be credible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
Bush can't argue with the core facts of the film,or he would.
I'm sorry Naki I don't have that kind of faith to trust the voting public to decide. Some of our voters only vote for the peoples names the reconginze and not on the issues. Some people just aren't smart enough.
BTW I found a article on Fox news the one you say sucks and is biased and that they are not credible. So if that is the case this story can't be credible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html
Murco
07-02-2004, 11:15 AM
Bush can't argue with the core facts of the film,or he would.
Saw the movie last night, and went with an affirmed Bush-hating liberal just for some perspective...
The film seems to be helping Bush!
It is SO over-the-top, So personal an attack, SO far left-of-center even liberals are coming out of the theatre questioning the man's [Moore] sanity!
The "core facts" are taken as gospel from other far-left lunatics and his film had little credibility. Americans are never swayed by extremists from either side, and internal anger never proved a point.
The only people who seem to embrace this film are in Beijing - Having the first US film approved by the communist leaders of China must be a real validation of Moore's work.
Saw the movie last night, and went with an affirmed Bush-hating liberal just for some perspective...
The film seems to be helping Bush!
It is SO over-the-top, So personal an attack, SO far left-of-center even liberals are coming out of the theatre questioning the man's [Moore] sanity!
The "core facts" are taken as gospel from other far-left lunatics and his film had little credibility. Americans are never swayed by extremists from either side, and internal anger never proved a point.
The only people who seem to embrace this film are in Beijing - Having the first US film approved by the communist leaders of China must be a real validation of Moore's work.
tenguzero
07-02-2004, 07:38 PM
I just came back from seeing the movie 1/2 hour ago. It most definately focuses almost squarely on Bush, but there are enough inclusions (in respect to Bush's advisors) so as to keep me from giving a full thumbs-up at any hint of 100% pure anti-Bush. Obviously I feel there is a lot of blame to be focused on Bush (as he IS the representative for the administration) but that there is just as much due to his cabinet as well. Holding the anti-war views that I do, this film probably rang better with someone like myself. Now, I KNOW that Moore has his own agenda in mind (as does anyone trying to get a point across in league with their own views,) but I also know that, much like his other films, the footage does not lie. Sure, there are parts of it edited, but there is just some things in these movies you can't fake. I don't care how much slow motion filming, or sappy soundtrack you put to it, you just have to see beyond that to (for instance) the LOOK that Bush has when he's informed of the attacks in progress. Or the anguish on the part of the mother (and all the families who've lost someone.) I guess the thing that gets to me, is not so much what is IN the movie, but what the catalyst is BEHIND it. The existence of millions upon millions of people in this country (and around the world) who do NOT support the war effort in the Middle East doesn't lie. The fact that they DON'T show us (on television) the footage of raids on Iraqi homes, and large amounts of candid, off-the-cuff interviews with the men and women serving over there. Why don't they show us all these things? Why must I go online to see videos of the victims plummeting from the towers, or candid interviews with a broad spectrum of people in the middle of all the fighting, or more interviews with the people unsatisfied with the situation (because there is obviously a lot of them.) There is a LOT that the American people are kept in the dark about. Sure there may be just as many Bush-Corporation-BinLaden ties that are pure conspiracy theories, as there is truth, but there are just as many conpiracies on the far right as there are the far left (listen to conservative talk radio for instance -- you'll find more than a few.) All in all, I enjoyed the movie. I took it with a grain of salt just as I do all of Moore's other media. But there is just too many elements of unnecessary fear (amongst other things) being foistered upon the American people, that I cannot ignore the existence of such things. And I KNOW I'm not alone in this opinion.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025