http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I have not seen this movie, however I disagree with many of Moore's views, and the writer of this, Christopher Hitchens, seems to own him up and down the article.

------------------
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

considering how much he twisted facts or flatly lied in bowling for columbine, it doesn't surprise me to see people finding serious faults and flaws in this film.

------------------
Current Maps | Inclusion | Restless Endeavor

There is a thin line between insanity and stupidity. I am that line.

Weren't there 2 other Michael Moore related threads closed because of the main one?

------------------
I can't think of anything to put here right now.

I dont know. Are you asking a question that you already know the answer to?

------------------
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

This article's been posted twice before, and, as was mentioned then, it's not very credible. Few good points are made, the author resorts to petty insults every other paragraph, and provides little backup for his arguments. A good article trying to prove or disprove something should always be objective - and this one clearly isn't. You just get the impression that it's written by some enraged moore-hater out to get his revenge or something.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

There may be some insults tossed around, but I'd expect no less from Moore. Also, there are some good points in there. I take it with a grain of salt, but that doesn't make it any different than anything Moore puts out there

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Personally, I think moore is doing exactly what he wanted to do. He is stirring up debates, making people ask questions, think about the way our government and how our elected leaders are doing buisness, regardless of whether or not you agree with him.

------------------
"Just remember -- No matter how bad things get, Northern Minnesota will always be there"
-- Garrison Keeler

Hmm....sounds like Moore......BAZING!!!!


------------------
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"

The difference being moore doesn't use childish name calling and doesn't pretend to be objective.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Not really any direct refutations of what Moore presents, if anything the article is just critical of how Moore presents his ideas. I think I can tell in a movie when the full context is not presented, I don't need a 2 page article to explain it to me.

Yes.

I think I even recall him saying something similar to that effect when he was on the Daily Show.

------------------
Put me in the hospital for nerves and then they had to commit me,
You told them all I was crazy,
They cut off my legs now I'm an amputee, God damn you.
============
Frogblast the Vent-Core!

The only problem with that is you have to believe he's sincere.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

... It has hardly been pointed out that the article lacks credibility - exactly which of its points aren't backed up? The one about Moore arguing for several contradictory goals in the same movie? That even Bush's critics think Moore's claims are bull****? That he's willing to portray Saddam Hussein in a slightly-less-than-murderous light if it will make George Bush look slightly worse? What George Orwell said about Moore's ilk? Do I need to go on, or are you another one of those people who are willing to ignore Moore's blatant lies because you agree with his general ideas?

I wouldn't exactly call it slighty-less-than-murderous.
I'm still trying to figure out how Moore can get off saying Saddam did absolutely nothing to America or its citizens.


------------------
"She turned me into a newt!"
Pause
"Well I got better..."

www.mooreexposed.com has way more credibility than that article.

The fact that there's been five threads started because of this film shows how useful Moore is.

He is making you question things.

Yes, your conclusion could be that you dislike Bush and his agenda, or you could have reinforced your support for Bush, but either way you have had to think about it. It's a lot better to have people and films like that then for just everyone to keep quiet about it.

Making us question things? Like his own credibility? I don't think that's what he was going for.

------------------
"If there's one thing I've learned it's this - you just can't shake hands with a fist" - David Allen Coe

I keep wondering what Moore plans to do once Bush is out of office. It seems he's devoted so much of his work and life in recent years to trying to destroy him, that once he's no longer an issue.. what then?

I feel he has somewhat over-stepped himself with this movie. Not having seen it, but the whole impetus and point behind it. Don't get me wrong, i /like/ Moore, but that doesn't mean i'm drivelingly sycophantic and believe everything he says and does. I agree with Mort, in that he makes people ask a lot of questions, even if those are just why the hell did he make another movie sort of things. Yes, he's an *** , nobody is denying that at all, but i tend to like that actually, i obviously don't see eye to eye with him on everything, but at least he's not so worried about being political correct and diplomatic that he just never says anything at all or whatever.

It seems the whole point of this movie, is almost a sort of political chest-butting and mutual high-fiving, the people who already hate Bush or whatever will feel much more affirmed and smug or whatever, however the people who support Bush or at least aren't vitriolicly against him seem by and large to think the claims and so forth are absurd, and it isn't going to convince them of anything. I would be /very/ interested to see polls about how many fewer people are planning to vote for Bush after this movie has been diseminated for a while.

Moreover, i find the principle distasteful and retroactive, namely trying to chop the president's legs out from under him while he is still in office. I do not agree with all of Bush' methods policies actions words, whatever, however i do think it is very plain that he is trying /really/ hard, whether that to be to secure peace or make the world a better place or whatever ulteriour motive you want to assign, i think it would be a great dis-service to claim he's utterly evil selfish corrupt whatever. Now some things he obviously needs to damn well work on, like health care and such.

And, no matter how hardcore you are against him, i don't find it unbelievable that somehow, amidst all his apparent bungling bufoonary incoherency or whatever, he might [accidentally?] wind up doing some good and improvement and so forth.

I also do not believe it to be utterly contradictory to support the president and disagree with his actions and such. And then to try to destroy his public image, ruin people's opinions of him [thuogh that may not take much, with some things], and chops his legs off, only to point at how many people disagree with him or how few people support his presidency, i find a bit repugnant and foolish. He has a job to do, don't damn well cripple and sabotage his ability to do it, disagree with him, suggest alternatives, that sort of thing, damn straight, but don't cut him off at the knee then complain about how poor a job he does.

I am not entirely certain what Moore is hoping for, he may expound on it in his movie, i do not know. Is it simply that he's trying to swing votes away from Bush [considering all the numbers i see are like 48/52% 51/49% and so on for Bush/Kerry prospective voters], or does he somehow think that it's going to come to a head and Bush will be impeached?? That would seem like a pretty poor idea in my mind, and probably Moore's mind as well, given that it would leave Cheney in office, and it's not as though there is that much longer of Bush' term left.

Sometimes i half-wonder if he's trying to incite some sort of popular uprising and people will storm the Oval Office and guillotine him.. and then just for good measure throw chunks of ice and vegetables at him and his cabinet and later his limousine as they did during the presidential procession last election..

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"If all those usefull inventions that are lyable to abuse, should therefore be concealed, there is not any Art or Science, which might be lawfully profest."
-John Wilkins, Mercury, or the Secret and Swift messenger, shewing how a man may with privacy and speed Communicate his thoughts to a Friend at any distance (London, 1641)
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Like a whole bunch of sheep that follow the shepherd to the wolves.

What everyone seems to do is assume. Moore seems to have gotten his information from publicly available documents about public people. This means anyone can go and find out for themselves if Moore is lieing (sp?), exagerating, or telling the truth as he has found it.

Fact - Saudi citizens and members of the Bin-Laden family we're given safe passage out of the US via airplane after the WTC attack.
Fact - Most hi-jackers were Saudi.
Fact - None of the Saudi's were detained for questioning in the US.
Fact - Bush and his family have many ties, both financial and political, with the Saudi's.

As for the rest? Does it even matter after knowing the afore mentioned facts? Do even the staunchest of Bush supporters follow him faithfully without question anymore? Do even the most laise faire citizens allow things to happen around them without questioning anymore?

Now, as for the information Bush has/had to do what he has done his entire term.
Ask him. He'll tell you he can't tell you. It's a matter of national security. You'll just have to trust him without question.

No thanks. I don't even do that with my own fairly benign political leaders.

------------------
Pissed off?

Refresh my memory... what did Saddam do to us?



------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

Fact- Bush didn't give them a trip out of the Country it was some dude Clark, or or something. I forget.

EDIT: Richard Clark

[This message has been edited by Obi_Kwiet (edited June 28, 2004).]

Generally if you start a statement with 'Fact-' it's a good idea not to follow it with 'some dude', 'or something' and 'I forget'.

------------------
"The moral of the story? No means no, especially when it comes to the English language. It's not into the kinky stuff you want it to do, and therefore you should not force it." - Darko

Richard Clark. Happy? It says so in his own book.

Ecstatic, thank you.

------------------
"The moral of the story? No means no, especially when it comes to the English language. It's not into the kinky stuff you want it to do, and therefore you should not force it." - Darko

Your welcome. *Hides is shame that I have no idea how to spell welcome*

[This message has been edited by Obi_Kwiet (edited June 28, 2004).]

It's his article and he can say pretty much anything he wants and it is taken as fact because there is no one to immediately rebute him. ANYTHING could look credible if it isn't questioning then and there.

The latter may be true but Moore has a habit of calling Bush "Slimeball"

After 9/11 Saddam wouldn't dare step on out toes in any regard, either overtly or covertly. Before is a different matter.

No, people don't care what the other side says whither it is complete crap or completely true. It's wrong no matter what to them. When partisianship comes into play, it makes it impossible to question your own views.

See what I mean Mort? No matter what is said, the other side is always wrong. -_-

The bin Laden family wasn't detained as in the sense of going to jail, but they were questioned before they were allowed to leave.

------------------
Massassi: We don't debate. We *****.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 28, 2004).]

That was supposed to be obviously ironic.

------------------
Pissed off?

Either the irony is lost on me or the irony is you enjoy undermining yourself. I do appreciate your level headedness though. There is a difference between people who don't like Bush and Bush bashers. The former should be listened to(this would be you Evad), the latter should be punched. Bashing anyone for anything is unacceptable behavior and only illustrates the shallowness of a person.

------------------
Massassi: We don't debate. We *****.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 28, 2004).]

Yet he was willing to come out and say that 9-11 was just the beginning? Pretty bold for a guy that wouldn't dare step on our toes.

------------------
"Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

[This message has been edited by KOP_Snake (edited June 28, 2004).]

I'm not a fan of Bush at all, but what I find disturbing is how the people who tell you Moore is good because he makes you question things don't themselves seem to question Moore's methods of making you question things. Some of them will admit that one of his methods is truth-skewing, but they'll imply that it's all good because this skewing of truths will lead to people questioning the people Moore attempts to make look bad.

Why not question the methods used to make you question things? Shouldn't questioning something be a result of your own thinking instead of someone who claims to do the thinking for you? Evad, Mort?

It was a clever step anyway, I liked bowling for columbine, it had cartoons and crazy people.

I could see the new film being full of furious ranting people (the way its being recieved, I would think so).

The only problem i'm seeing is that pretty much all media does the same as moore, why is this guy getting all the coverage about making a pursuasive video when its been around for years.

------------------
Drugs & Stupidity, Tons of it.

I love sentences that start with 'Fact' in that they're almost exclusively not facts. There's a very good advert like this.


Also, the point I was making was that Moore could be the spark in your head that makes you think "hmmm".
Moore personally is irrelevant. The actual 'facts' he brings up are irrelevant. His methods are irrelevant.
That spark starts you to think, and you could conclude, as many here have, that Bush was right and so Moore is wrong. But that process of thinking things through and reinforcing is very important, and far better than if Moore simply didn't say anything and everyone was left happy and complacent in their place. People like Moore stir up things, and whether you like it or not, they are the people that cause changes. Those that sit happily on their traditional values and question nothing achieve nothing.

I *hated* Bowling for Columbine - if I'd been the parent of one of the children killed, I would like to see Moore soundly beaten for using the subject as a big ego trip: I had to force myself to watch it.

Depite the fact he was "arguing" in favour of gun control, he made such a hash of it, I could see myself wanting to swap sides and shout in favour of legalising pistols in Britain again... (joking, but you see my point - he undermined himself *that* badly IMO)

I won't be watching Farenheit, so I won't comment on it.

/Thinks Moore is a tool.

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

Yes, you are certainly correct. I am not, however, convinced that making us question things at the cost of the truth in his documentaries is a justifiable trade-off. We need debate, this is true, but we need a platform of concrete facts to work from.

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film

Now, how many documentary awards has Moore won? And graciously accepted? And then later used to sell his film? Right, right, he doesn't pretend to be objective at all... Except for, you know, when he contradicts himself 5 times in a single interview by using the word 'documentary' and then later saying "Well, you know, the movie's just showing my opinion, which may or may not be right".

... And have you ever actually seen one of his movies?? I can't imagine how you could have, and still retained the ability to say with a straight face that he doesn't resort to petty name-calling. Aside from the skewed presentation of 'facts', petty mud-slinging is the basis of any of his films - Reviewers note this almost constantly, but they put it in a positive light, saying 'It's very thought-provoking, and also, funny!'. Because God knows, the sign of a good documentary is that it's *hilarious*

Only if you're actually using his film and his film only as your source. Check over at the 5 page thread and you'll see that we've meandered way off the point of Moore personally and started discussing the war itself and whether it was justified. That is exactly what this film achieves. I don't know whether Moore intended that, and I don't care, because that isn't important.
Moore draws to a link between Bush and the bin Laden family. This link isn't really especially interesting, but there is a far more subtle and possibly significant link between an American equity firm Carlyle. See
rtsp://streams2.omroep.nl/tv/vpro/tegenlicht/sb.20030516.rm
Actually, the bin Laden connection isn't the most interesting part here.

I don't think Moore discusses this, but I wouldn't have found this were it not for him.

The "meandering from the truth" does just that, as Mort just said. Agree or disagree with Moore, his views and his methods, it brings a hot topic to the front burner.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Im confused as to why Moore dresses like he got his clothing from Goodwill when his movie got like $22 million

------------------
nil nip nada zip zero naught lip zil

Maybe because he doesn't feel the need to show off his manhood and pimp his wealth by buying multi-million dollar suits and putting stupid spinny chrome rims on his car tires?

Edit: i should ammend that second part, that's most often for people who /don't/ have money but want everyone to think that they do.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"If all those usefull inventions that are lyable to abuse, should therefore be concealed, there is not any Art or Science, which might be lawfully profest."
-John Wilkins, Mercury, or the Secret and Swift messenger, shewing how a man may with privacy and speed Communicate his thoughts to a Friend at any distance (London, 1641)
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

[This message has been edited by Dormouse (edited June 29, 2004).]

I'm just amused at the fact that most of the people putting down the movie haven't seen it and do not plan to see it. Isn't hypocrisy wonderful?

------------------
Juztyn
Taking credit for: Canyon Stream, Higher Ground, The Space Between, Death's Dome (mlp3), bits of JKRPG, and the entire Showcase forum, damnit!... Visit SWGalaxies.net for the latest Star Wars: Galaxies information!