Big,fat Michael Moore

[rollwave]

is registered to vote in 2 states. LMAO. What a gluttton. But is that really surprising of Democratic voters. After all, it is a time-honored tradition dating back to Kennedy and LBJ. Voter fraud, multiple voting, and dead people voting is commonplace among Democrats. The WallStreet Journal proved how easy it is to make up a fictitious voter and register to vote through the mail. Also, dead people are not taken off the voting rolls for months. Dems control most of the political machines in the big cities thus allowing for these abuses. How else can anyone explain a Democrat winning an election? Who in their right mind would vote to have their taxes increased? They didn't need to cheat in 1992, they had Ross Perot, without whom the Dems would have lost every presidential election since 1976 . :lol:

[muchspl2]

ha ha a Republican :lol:

[vidcc]

I can't type for the pain in my sides laughing :teehee: :teehee: :teehee:



http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/andreas.diepold/Karikaturen/beafraid.jpg

[cpt_azad]

Originally posted by rollwave@28 June 2004 - 22:37
is registered to vote in 2 states. LMAO. What a gluttton. But is that really surprising of Democratic voters. After all, it is a time-honored tradition dating back to Kennedy and LBJ. Voter fraud, multiple voting, and dead people voting is commonplace among Democrats. The WallStreet Journal proved how easy it is to make up a fictitious voter and register to vote through the mail. Also, dead people are not taken off the voting rolls for months. Dems control most of the political machines in the big cities thus allowing for these abuses. How else can anyone explain a Democrat winning an election? Who in their right mind would vote to have their taxes increased? They didn't need to cheat in 1992, they had Ross Perot, without whom the Dems would have lost every presidential election since 1976 . :lol:
lmao :lol: wat a dumb person (and a republican at that) <--- coincidence? i think not lol :lol: jp jp, still funny though

[Tikibonbon]

What do you expect from a member of the National Rifle Association?

[clocker]

Rollwave,
Sources please.

[leftism]

Also, dead people are not taken off the voting rolls for months

Don&#39;t be disheartened.

Black Democrat voting Floridians are taken off the voting rolls for no good reason.

Yet you reckon "Dems control most of the political machines"? Even though Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida? Even though the chairwoman of Bush&#39;s campaign was in charge of the vote count?

A veritable paradox indeed...

[BigBank_Hank]

This isn’t my thread but the post did state The Wall Street Journal was the source.

[leftism]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank
This isn’t my thread but the post did state The Wall Street Journal was the source.

The post stated that The Wall Street Journal "proved how easy it is to make up a fictitious voter and register to vote through the mail".

It doesnt say that The Wall Street Journal is the source of the "Moore is registered to vote in 2 states" story.

[Skweeky]

Has he moved house recently?

If he has, he will be registered to vote in 2 places...like everyone else that moves house is...until the register of voters is updated.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Skweeky@29 June 2004 - 19:49
Has he moved house recently?

If he has, he will be registered to vote in 2 places...like everyone else that moves house is...until the register of voters is updated.
Last time he voted in New York was 2001.

He registered in Michigan in April, and co-incidentally his Driving License has been changed to Michigan around the same time....he&#39;s never voted there.

He spends equal time between New York and Michigan....however Michigan is a "Swing" State (13th I think?) and New York is a safe Democrat State.

If its anything like UK, the "Register of Voters" only gets updated once a year...or before an election, so if you cancel your registration it could sit there for months before the Register is updated.... I dont know the US (or NY State) system.

To me, it looks like he&#39;s making Michigan his "main residence"....not surprising, he really wants Bush out and his vote means more there, plus thats where he comes from.



If i got the State politics wrong, im sure i&#39;ll be corrected ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by rollwave@29 June 2004 - 06:37
is registered to vote in 2 states. LMAO. What a gluttton. But is that really surprising of Democratic voters. After all, it is a time-honored tradition dating back to Kennedy and LBJ. Voter fraud, multiple voting, and dead people voting is commonplace among Democrats. The WallStreet Journal proved how easy it is to make up a fictitious voter and register to vote through the mail. Also, dead people are not taken off the voting rolls for months. Dems control most of the political machines in the big cities thus allowing for these abuses. How else can anyone explain a Democrat winning an election? Who in their right mind would vote to have their taxes increased? They didn&#39;t need to cheat in 1992, they had Ross Perot, without whom the Dems would have lost every presidential election since 1976 . :lol:
:o

That will explain the enormous turnout for elections......





:blink:




No wait a minute ... it will explain why there is any turnout at all. It just the same half dozen people voting all day. :lol:

[hungrylilboy]

going off topic a bit but i got some junk mail this morning, titled "micheal moor assinated"....opened to find an advert for herbal sex aids... :D

whatever people think of him or his films, just goes to show how well known he is if spammers feel that people will open email with his name on it

[clocker]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 June 2004 - 14:02

No wait a minute ... it will explain why there is any turnout at all. It just the same half dozen people voting all day. :lol:
Righto.
Say what you will, you must grant this...those damn Democrats are energetic.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by hungrylilboy@29 June 2004 - 14:02
going off topic a bit but i got some junk mail this morning, titled "micheal moor assinated"....opened to find an advert for herbal sex aids... :D

whatever people think of him or his films, just goes to show how well known he is if spammers feel that people will open email with his name on it
You open junk mail??????????? :eek: :nono:

[j2k4]

The way I heard it was that while he takes pains to claim his "independent" status as a voter (he says he&#39;s not a Democrat), he is a registered Democrat in both states.

Apparently facts, in Mr. Moore&#39;s capable hands, are maleable things, indeed. ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 June 2004 - 19:03


Apparently facts, in Mr. Moore&#39;s capable hands, are maleable things, indeed. ;)
As "facts" in yours are increasingly nebulous.
From whom did this damaging bit of evidence originate?

This isn&#39;t yet another Al Franken rip-off is it?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+29 June 2004 - 21:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 29 June 2004 - 21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 June 2004 - 19:03


Apparently facts, in Mr. Moore&#39;s capable hands, are maleable things, indeed. ;)
As "facts" in yours are increasingly nebulous.
From whom did this damaging bit of evidence originate?

This isn&#39;t yet another Al Franken rip-off is it?[/b][/quote]
No way-

It was recounted by the award-winning and unassailable ace of FOXNEWS, Mr. Brit Hume. ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 June 2004 - 20:05
the award-winning and unassailable ace of FOXNEWS, Mr. Brit Hume. ;)
Isn&#39;t that an anagram for Al Franken?






Damn...this quest for my wayward fifth star is wearing me out&#33;

:P

[Rat Faced]

Having just finished "Stupid White Men", where he has some choice words against the Democrats and Clinton/Gore in particular....(he appears to think Nadar is the only Candidate that actually would do what he claimed...)

I suspect that Mr Moore wouldnt actually vote Democrat unless it was a Swing State...and this merely to keep the greater of 2 evils out of office.

His Michigan registration doesnt have anything as to his politics BTW... The Smoking Gun has copies of both registrations (The New York One was in 1992, The Michigan one April past)



j2k4,

You&#39;d be proud of the slagging off he gave Clinton/Gore ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2004 - 13:48
j2k4,

You&#39;d be proud of the slagging off he gave Clinton/Gore ;)
...which no doubt required the totality of whatever redemptive qualities Mr. Moore possesses. ;)

[Rat Faced]

HE Defended Bush on some things...

Not because he agreed with what had been done, but because Bush was merely continuing Clintons policies in these areas, and was getting the Blame unfairly...



I think he&#39;s a little bit of an anarchist, our Mr Moore.... definatly not a Democrat, way too far to the Left for that.

I feel he may be happier in Europe than the USA

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2004 - 16:00


I feel he may be happier in Europe than the USA
I expect you are correct, however, the money is in the U.S.; also, I believe Moore is addicted to the dissenters here, and there would necessarily be less of that in Europe, at least to start.

Actually, I think Europeans would tire of him in relatively short order. ;)

[Biggles]

I caught a snippet on the radio which seemed to be suggesting that his movie is doing well. He may be more than happy in the US - especially if he feels his message is going over well.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@30 June 2004 - 17:08
I caught a snippet on the radio which seemed to be suggesting that his movie is doing well. He may be more than happy in the US - especially if he feels his message is going over well.
His movie is doing very well, and critiques of same are also garnering interest, so I guess the great public debate is, after a fashion, underway.

He personally is aided by a not-so-extraordinary talent for finding himself amongst those who are normally disposed to agree with his views, and avoiding dissenters.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 June 2004 - 19:03


He personally is aided by a not-so-extraordinary talent for finding himself amongst those who are normally disposed to agree with his views, and avoiding dissenters.
Much like Dick Cheney.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+30 June 2004 - 21:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 30 June 2004 - 21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 June 2004 - 19:03


He personally is aided by a not-so-extraordinary talent for finding himself amongst those who are normally disposed to agree with his views, and avoiding dissenters.
Much like Dick Cheney. [/b][/quote]
Just so-

Debate is a tremendously wearing endeavor, is it not?

Poor Richard has a tired ticker, too. ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+1 July 2004 - 03:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 1 July 2004 - 03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@30 June 2004 - 21:06
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@30 June 2004 - 19:03


He personally is aided by a not-so-extraordinary talent for finding himself amongst those who are normally disposed to agree with his views, and avoiding dissenters.
Much like Dick Cheney.
Just so-

Debate is a tremendously wearing endeavor, is it not?

Poor Richard has a tired ticker, too. ;) [/b][/quote]
Which is somewhat worrisome given that he would appear to be running mate for the second term. Whilst he may be a tad tricky he is at least cognisant of what is going on. :helpsmile:

[j2k4]

As an aside, I heard today some speculation that Bill Clinton (as the de facto head of the Democratic Party) is preparing to put the kibosh on John Kerry&#39;s emerging prospect veep, John Edwards (I have forecast Edwards as Kerry&#39;s choice, and also what follows, as the only possible exception), offering instead Hillary as Kerry&#39;s partner; Clinton believes (correctly, in my mind) that Edwards&#39; candidacy would forestall Hillary&#39;s chances in &#39;08, and perhaps beyond.

So-

The Dems are left with a BIG decision: Who&#39;s gonna run the show?

The candidate, or the ex-pres?

Herewith, another prognostication:

Kerry goes with Edwards, Kerry loses.

Kerry goes with Hillary, and loses big.

And just think-it&#39;s all up to ole&#39; Bill&#33;

Now, that&#39;s some funny shit.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

EDIT: Almost forgot:

Part of the same discussion was this little tid-bit:

Cheney steps aside for Condi Rice as Veep.

God, would I love that-Condi debating Hillary?

Condi would destroy her, and that is no lie.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2004 - 13:47
As an aside, I heard today some speculation that Bill Clinton (as the de facto head of the Democratic Party) is preparing to put the kibosh on John Kerry&#39;s emerging prospect veep, John Edwards (I have forecast Edwards as Kerry&#39;s choice, and also what follows, as the only possible exception), offering instead Hillary as Kerry&#39;s partner; Clinton believes (correctly, in my mind) that Edwards&#39; candidacy would forestall Hillary&#39;s chances in &#39;08, and perhaps beyond.

So-

The Dems are left with a BIG decision: Who&#39;s gonna run the show?

The candidate, or the ex-pres?

Herewith, another prognostication:

Kerry goes with Edwards, Kerry loses.

Kerry goes with Hillary, and loses big.

And just think-it&#39;s all up to ole&#39; Bill&#33;

Now, that&#39;s some funny shit.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




Who cares who Kerry runs with....... We&#39;re more concerned who cheney runs with :lol: :lol:

Saw a cartoon on CNN but couldn&#39;t find it on the web

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by vidcc@1 July 2004 - 23:00
Who cares who Kerry runs with....... We&#39;re more concerned who cheney runs with :lol: :lol:
Ronald McDonald, perhaps? ;)

[j2k4]

What?

No reaction?

No refutation?

No speculation?

What&#39;s wrong with you people?

Don&#39;t Liberals "throw the bones" on occasion? :huh:

[DanB]

Just watched this film, hmmm that really can&#39;t be good for your country&#39;s moral :(

[j2k4]

Originally posted by danb@3 July 2004 - 17:23
Just watched this film, hmmm that really can&#39;t be good for your country&#39;s moral :(
Such things can have unintended consequences; I&#39;ve talked to more people who have seen it and are pissed off at it than pissed off by it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4+3 July 2004 - 19:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 3 July 2004 - 19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-danb@3 July 2004 - 17:23
Just watched this film, hmmm that really can&#39;t be good for your country&#39;s moral&nbsp; :(
Such things can have unintended consequences; I&#39;ve talked to more people who have seen it and are pissed off at it than pissed off by it. [/b][/quote]
Really?

I suppose where you are and who you talk to makes a big difference.

In my neighborhood ( where I am by far the youngest), reaction to the movie is overwhelmingly positive...maybe 10 to 1 really.
I was surprised at the number of folks who had seen it and expect that it will be a widely discussed topic at tomorrow&#39;s neighborhood party.

I&#39;m not sure if this is germaine, but recent polling here shows that Bush has lost a 10 point lead and now trails Kerry by 4 points.
Both candidates just made a swing through the state.

I can only assume that Nader is so far ahead of them both that they don&#39;t bother reporting his percentages.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@4 July 2004 - 01:24
In my neighborhood ( where I am by far the youngest), reaction to the movie is overwhelmingly positive...maybe 10 to 1 really.


Wow, this topic must be just slighty behind:

I pooped this week

and

Erection? Oh, do you mean building something?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@3 July 2004 - 22:24

I suppose where you are and who you talk to makes a big difference.

I can only assume that Nader is so far ahead of them both that they don&#39;t bother reporting his percentages.
I gathered these opinions using the same technique Mr. Moore uses to collect positive feedback:

Knowing where to hangout. ;)

Will Nader be on the ballot in Colorado? :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 July 2004 - 20:29

I gathered these opinions using the same technique Mr. Moore uses to collect positive feedback:

Knowing where to hangout. ;)


Ya know, it really surprises me how popular Bush is amongst prison inmates.

When you get out, you might be surprised what us "outsiders" think of the movie.

Hope your parole isn&#39;t too onerous....the job market is for shit.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+4 July 2004 - 01:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 4 July 2004 - 01:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@3 July 2004 - 20:29

I gathered these opinions using the same technique Mr. Moore uses to collect positive feedback:

Knowing where to hangout. ;)


Ya know, it really surprises me how popular Bush is amongst prison inmates.

When you get out, you might be surprised what us "outsiders" think of the movie.

Hope your parole isn&#39;t too onerous....the job market is for shit. [/b][/quote]
Bush, the death penalty advocate, is popular at prisons?

Interesting.

So those who may die because his of policies are strong supporters. He must very good then.

BTW, where is me coat?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 July 2004 - 22:29

Will Nader be on the ballot in Colorado? :huh:
This was a serious question, not a dig; I really have no idea.

[clocker]

AFAIK, no.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@3 July 2004 - 23:43
AFAIK, no.
He seems to be in a bit of a stall at the moment; I can&#39;t blame him one whit for letting the Greens go, but what&#39;s his plan to get on the ballot anywhere?

Times a&#39; wasting. :huh:

[Skweeky]

Originally posted by Skweeky@29 June 2004 - 19:49
Has he moved house recently?

If he has, he will be registered to vote in 2 places...like everyone else that moves house is...until the register of voters is updated.
Strange...

I never posted this. :huh:

Do you always reply to your own posts RF? :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Skweeky+10 July 2004 - 17:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Skweeky @ 10 July 2004 - 17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@29 June 2004 - 19:49
Has he moved house recently?

If he has, he will be registered to vote in 2 places...like everyone else that moves house is...until the register of voters is updated.
Strange...

I never posted this. :huh:

Do you always reply to your own posts RF? :lol: [/b][/quote]
Was easier than just deleting it and then posting the stuff i looked up :P

Besides, you did indirectly coz i was talking about it at the time and you said that ;)


Welcome back

:)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Skweeky+10 July 2004 - 17:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Skweeky @ 10 July 2004 - 17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@29 June 2004 - 19:49
Has he moved house recently?

If he has, he will be registered to vote in 2 places...like everyone else that moves house is...until the register of voters is updated.
Strange...

I never posted this. :huh:

Do you always reply to your own posts RF? :lol: [/b][/quote]
Hi Skweeky

Like the signature :)

[mogadishu]

funny, i havnt seen the topic starter since his first message.

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by mogadishu@12 July 2004 - 06:37
funny, i havnt seen the topic starter since his first message.
He hardly does reply after his own topics.

I just let it go though - The fact that he cannot effectively debate his own opinions make me feel sorry for the Republicans more and more :lol:

[SuperJude™]

Just a couple thoughts here.

A: A movie is just a movie, dressed up as a doc or not. Why let one man tell you how to feel?

B: I actually worked at the WTC for a couple weeks after 9-11. Funny, didn&#39;t see Mr. Moore there.

C: Obesity is the #6 killer of Americans, what kind of message is Mr. Moore sending?

-SJ™

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@12 July 2004 - 13:20
Just a couple thoughts here.

A: A movie is just a movie, dressed up as a doc or not. Why let one man tell you how to feel?

B: I actually worked at the WTC for a couple weeks after 9-11. Funny, didn&#39;t see Mr. Moore there.

C: Obesity is the #6 killer of Americans, what kind of message is Mr. Moore sending?

-SJ™
SJ, WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? :huh:

Most excellent to see you here again&#33; :D

[j2k4]

For your edification:


Connect the dots when you watch &#39;Fahrenheit&#39;

July 4, 2004

BY MARK STEYN CHICAGO SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


Excited about "Fahrenheit 9/11?" It&#39;s the Palme d&#39;Or-winning and doubtless soon to be Oscar-winning "documentary" from average blue-collar multimillionaire Michael Moore. I saw it last weekend with an audience composed wholly of informed, intelligent sophisticates.

I knew they were informed, intelligent sophisticates because they howled with laughter at every joke about what a bozo Bush is. They split their sides during the patriotic ballad -- eagles soaring, etc. -- composed and sung by John Ashcroft, the famously sinister attorney general. Moore reveals -- and if you feel that knowing the plot would spoil the movie, please skip to the next paragraph -- that Bush is a privileged simpleton under the control of war-crazed Big Oil interests who arranged to have the 2000 election stolen for him. I hadn&#39;t heard that before, had you?

Once Moore gets past his recounting of the Florida recount, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I agreed with in the movie. For example, he&#39;s very hard on the Saudis, and the unique access to the Bush family enjoyed by their oleaginous ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar. He&#39;s also very mocking of the absurdities of post-9/11 airport security, alighting on a poor mom forced to drink a beaker of her own breast milk in front of passengers before boarding in order to demonstrate the liquid wasn&#39;t anything incendiary.

As we left, the couple ahead of me said they thought Bush would have a hard job responding to these shocking revelations. I didn&#39;t like to point out they could have heard about all this stuff years ago just by reading yours truly. I mentioned the breast-milk incident in a column Aug. 10, 2002. I called for Prince Bandar to be booted back to Saudi Arabia in November 2002, and I&#39;ve been urging the dismantling of the kingdom -- Washington&#39;s out-of-control Frankensaud monster -- for almost three years now, since within a month of 9/11.

So in theory I ought to welcome Michael Moore as a comrade in arms. But the trouble with "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that you don&#39;t come away mad at the Saudis or America&#39;s useless bureaucracy, you come away mad at Bush -- or, if not mad, feeling snobbishly superior to him. And, if feeling snobbishly superior to the president isn&#39;t your bag, what&#39;s left is an incoherent bore. Moore follows his GUT, by which I mean his Grand Universal Theory: Bush is to blame for everything. Because of Bush, the Saudis secretly run U.S. policy. Because of Bush, the Taliban were in bed with Texas energy executives. Because of Bush, the Taliban got toppled. . . .

Whoa, hold up a minute, I thought he was all pals with the Taliban. The Saudis certainly were, which is why they opposed the liberation of Afghanistan.

But by now Moore&#39;s moved on to pointing out that Bush&#39;s Afghan stooge Hamid Karzai used to work for the Texas energy company panting for that big Afghan gas pipeline.

But hang on, I thought the Texan energy guys already had the Taliban in their pockets and were funded by the Saudis . . . "Connecting the dots" is all very well, but not when you&#39;ve got more dots in your picture than Seurat.

Bush has always been the issue for Moore. On Sept. 11 itself, his only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and D.C. instead of Texas or, indeed, my beloved New Hampshire: "They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him&#33; Boston, New York, D.C. and the plane&#39;s destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush&#33;"

The fellows at the controls of those planes were training for 9/11 when Clinton was president and Gore was ahead in the polls, and they&#39;d have still been in the cockpit had Ralph Nader been elected. Though Mohammed Atta took flying lessons in Florida, he apparently wasn&#39;t as worked up about its notorious hanging chads as Michael Moore. Mr. Moore is guilty of what I believe psychologists call "projection."

The "Why didn&#39;t you terrorists kill the Bush voters?" line is not reprised in the movie, but the strange preoccupations it betrays drive the entire picture. Here&#39;s the way it works: If Bush is wearing the blue boxer shorts, they&#39;re a suspicious personal gift from Crown Prince Abdullah. If Bush is wearing the red boxer shorts, it&#39;s a conspiracy to distract public attention from the blue ones he was given by Crown Prince Abdullah. If he&#39;s wearing no boxer shorts, it&#39;s because he&#39;s so dumb he can&#39;t find his underwear in the morning.

So, shortly after 9/11, Moore wrote that footage of one of the World Trade Center planes showed that it was being trailed by an F-16 -- i.e., the government could have shot it down but chose not to, so it could hit all those Al Gore voters. Imagine if, on Sept. 11, the U.S. Air Force had blown four passenger jets to kingdom come. Moore&#39;s film would be filled with poignant home movies of final Christmases and birthday parties and exploitative footage of anguished parents going to Washington to demand the truth about what happened that day and an end to the lame Bush spin about vague "threats" to public buildings.

Midway through the picture, a "peace" activist provides a perfect distillation of its argument. He recalls a conversation with an acquaintance, who observed, "bin Laden&#39;s a real ass---- for killing all those people." "Yeah," says the "pacifist", "but he&#39;ll never be as big an ass---- as Bush." That&#39;s who Michael Moore makes films for: those sophisticates who know that, no matter how many people bin Laden kills, in the ass---- hit parade he&#39;ll always come a distant second to Bush. Why, even Saddam Hussein, at his arraignment on Thursday, sounded awfully like he&#39;d just seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the Loews Baghdad Roxy: "This is all theater. . . . The real criminal is Bush."

I can understand the point of being Michael Moore: There&#39;s a lot of money in it. What&#39;s harder to figure out is the point of being a devoted follower of Michael Moore. Apparently, the sophisticated, cynical intellectual class is so naive it&#39;ll fall for any old hooey peddled by a preening opportunist burlesque act. If the Saudis were smart, they&#39;d have bought him up years ago, established his anti-Saudi credentials, and then used him to promote the defeat of their nemesis Bush.

Hmm. Maybe they don&#39;t need to. Stick him in a head-dress and he looks like King Fahd&#39;s brother.

All I&#39;m saying is connect the dots . . .

[SuperJude™]

I am awaiting the download before I make any comments about it, though I have read a bit about the movie of course.

First off, I kinda got tired of Michael Moore&#39;s schtick at the end of Bowling for Columbine once I realised how he edits things EXACTLY how he wants them. Nothing wrong with that of course, just didn&#39;t like his style, though I thought the K-mart thing was really moving.

However, living in Liberal Woodstock NY as I do, everybody hates Bush with a passion and has seen and been talking a lot about Farenheit 9-11.

My god it amazes me all the terrible things that happen right here at home and some of these people need a movie to tell them how to feel. I worry about my response to the 7 miutes of black screen during the 9-11 calls, since like I said, I never saw Michael Moore down there, while a bunch of proffesional athletes and even DeNiro managed to come. So it&#39;s weird to have somebody who was not part of a story be the story teller.

The things is this: I think ALL presidents have/had their own agendas, and we are all pawns anyway in a sense to government and business. I also DO NOT think Bush plotted 9-11, cause I hear morons in my own town saying things like "Bin Laden and Bush plotted it". Humans really will say whatever without thinking sometimes.

But is Mr. Moore the guy I want presenting all my facts? No. Some facts, maybe. Again, let me see the movie first, since it could be great or it could suck, have to see it. However It is just that, a movie dressed up as a Doc.

What I do not get is this line of thinking: Bush is a moron, but has managed to plot and scheme secretly, but (and here is the kicker) NOT so secretly that the liberal left doesn&#39;t know exactly what he is up to.

Like being liberal makes you a mind reader of conservatives. Fuckin&#39; A humans crack me up sometimes at the leaps. Here it is folks: the media HATES Bush. I have never seen a president more disrespected. It&#39;s like it is finally pay back time for Nixon or something.

LOL

Anyway, just some thoughts. I movie is a movie. There may be facts but don&#39;t kid yourself, it ain&#39;t all fact.

-SJ™

@ j2k4: Just got a better pc and broadband, so I&#39;ll be around. Besides, I am always on irc in #KLchat.

peace.

[yonki]

Originally posted by SuperJude™@12 July 2004 - 19:20
A: A movie is just a movie, dressed up as a doc or not. Why let one man tell you how to feel?
Youve said that twice and i dont know how you got to that conclusion. Jacques Cousteau made documentaries, and you wouldnt think he "told you how to feel". You say Farenheit 9/11 is a movie, how can a movie tell you how to feel?Does Titanic tell you how to feel about icebergs? <_<
Unless you think Farenheit 9/11 is going to change peoples mind on the elections. What kind of person do you think would be influenced by a doc (or a movie) when voting?Not a smart one i believe, maybe you think americans arent very smart :D

Your thought would be based on : americans are so stupid that will vote for Kerry because of F 9/11
Im not saying you are wrong there, im just saying you might be wrong :lol:

[SuperJude™]

Originally posted by yonki@13 July 2004 - 05:01
Youve said that twice and i dont know how you got to that conclusion. Jacques Cousteau made documentaries, and you wouldnt think he "told you how to feel". You say Farenheit 9/11 is a movie, how can a movie tell you how to feel?Does Titanic tell you how to feel about icebergs? <_<
Unless you think Farenheit 9/11 is going to change peoples mind on the elections. What kind of person do you think would be influenced by a doc (or a movie) when voting?Not a smart one i believe, maybe you think americans arent very smart :D

Your thought would be based on : americans are so stupid that will vote for Kerry because of F 9/11
Im not saying you are wrong there, im just saying you might be wrong :lol:
Not sure what you are getting at, that was a little rambling there.

But I shall attempt an answer. Many people do seem genuinely effected by this film, like they are being shown something of pure fact that is eye opening. Read the threads I am sure you can conclude the same thing.

Also, don&#39;t bash Americans with subtle jousts like "Your thought would be based on : americans are so stupid that will vote for Kerry because of F 9/11
Im not saying you are wrong there".

I think highly of my country and my countryman.

=SJ™

[Biggles]

I think I will stick with my original view that this movie is not out there to convert Conservatives to vote Democrat. It is simply designed to motivate existing Democrats to go out and vote.

In the last US election only 49% of the electorate voted. If MM can rally an additional 5% of the Democrats to get off their butts then Kerry will win. Not because existing Republicans are unhappy but because their sleeping voters didn&#39;t wake up.

Of course there is the possibility that nothing will alter the decline in voting and only 47% will vote this time - making it anyones&#39; guess.

As I said elsewhere, I read the book so I consider myself excused from the movie.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 July 2004 - 14:44
I think I will stick with my original view that this movie is not out there to convert Conservatives to vote Democrat. It is simply designed to motivate existing Democrats to go out and vote.

Not because existing Republicans are unhappy but because their sleeping voters didn&#39;t wake up.


Biggles-

You dare not overlook the fact events (many other than Mr. Moore&#39;s movie) will bestir Republicans to turn out in numbers at least on a par with Dems.

Many Republicans will vote because they are aware of the effect of Moore&#39;s film, which is not, after all, playing in a Democrat vacuum.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 July 2004 - 21:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 July 2004 - 21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@13 July 2004 - 14:44
I think I will stick with my original view that this movie is not out there to convert Conservatives to vote Democrat. It is simply designed to motivate existing Democrats to go out and vote.

Not because existing Republicans are unhappy but because their sleeping voters didn&#39;t wake up.


Biggles-

You dare not overlook the fact events (many other than Mr. Moore&#39;s movie) will bestir Republicans to turn out in numbers at least on a par with Dems.

Many Republicans will vote because they are aware of the effect of Moore&#39;s film, which is not, after all, playing in a Democrat vacuum. [/b][/quote]
One would think so.


On the other hand, if I were a betting man (which I am not), I would plump for the 47%.

Nevertheles, a lot could happen between now and November. A big AQ attack could see people sticking with the status quo. It may only be twelve bar blues but what you know is sometimes comforting. :)

[SuperJude™]

Here is an analogy I love.

I too wondered wtf happend in 2000, how Gore could have lost, and I don&#39;t just mean Florida (and before you start howling "they stole it" it was a Supreme Court decision), I meant like how could Bush have beat Gore in his own state.

The guy who said this was/is a Dem btw, but the gist of it is this: Pick up trucks are the #1 seller in the U.S.

What does that mean? It means that while the educated high minded left have decided they are both the brains and concience of this great country they overlook the people who drive the pick up trucks who may have other views and in 2000 that lack of foresite took a lot of people by suprise.

Who is the last presidential candidate to lose their own state? Hell even Mondale took his home state.

This is politics again, not just some movie .

BTW I am now going to sit down and watch Farenheit 911 (god bless the internet I say) and judge the movie on it&#39;s own merits, though I am judging this as a movie and not a doc., but open minded I remain. :)

-SJ™

[Rat Faced]

Welcome back SJ ;)


Theres a 1/2 hour bit in the middle you can just skip through...

You wont be missing anything.



Hell, you wont if you just skip to the end.

Its got more spin than a spinning thing... which kinda spoils the facts, coz that means you lump the facts in with the spin and get really confused.

If i was there, it wouldnt have made me vote Dem..... unless i was in one of the many places that i cant see it, coz id think there was more to it than there is :)




Maybe you should make MM the prez, he appears to have mastered the only real qualification now... ;)

[j2k4]

I must here thank Busyman for reminding me of Reason magazine, whence this came:

Moore Didn&#39;t Start the Fire

Why Fahrenheit 9/11 fails to ignite

Brian Doherty

The one time I met Michael Moore, he told me a wildly entertaining story about how, right after all the pointy-heads at Mother Jones fired him because he was portly and from the Midwest, he grabbed a bunch of union cameramen and charged in on Morton Kondracke and asked him to please recite the Patriot Act, seeing as how he&#39;d voted for it and all.

Kondracke, as Moore tells it, sheepishly admitted he didn&#39;t remember a thing about the Act, then turned aggressive. He first ordered Moore angrily out of his Cape Cod office, then shot at the documentarian, barely missing him. It seemed like his whole tale didn&#39;t hold together in some way I couldn&#39;t pin down while he recited it, but he had me laughing hysterically—especially with his very vivid use of Flint, Michigan street colloquialisms to describe how Kondracke&#39;s feckless shot parted his hair. (Sorry, I&#39;ve forgotten the precise colloquialism.)

Don&#39;t bother fact-checking his ass, or mine. I never met Michael Moore, and that story is a baroque fantasy formed from my half-memories of all the similar stories of Moore whoppers that always seem to come up when writing about him.

My mind drifted to such fantasies while watching his new hit film because Fahrenheit 9/11 itself is—and this was a genuine surprise to me—so disappointingly dull. It&#39;s only the firestorm of discourse surrounding it that has created enough ambient heat to warm this tedious farrago and make it seem palatable. As is blindingly obvious from all the fooferaw surrounding the movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 works as a chemical test whereby your preconceptions can be determined by observing what color you turn upon exposure to it. Those opposed to its thesis of course find it painfully propagandistic and based on some verifiable untruths; those sympathetic manage to smile on it indulgently even while seeing its flaws.

That said, I&#39;ll lay out the prejudices I brought into this movie, a movie I sincerely regret having found a failure. Obviously, I was never a big Moore fan. But I was prepared to view this film with charity, and to hope it would succeed in its goals, because I am sympathetic to its thesis. I agree that George Bush is a terrible president and that the war in Iraq should not have been fought. (I shamefully acknowledge that I am the only pundit whose dispassionate viewing was in any way warped by anything as petty as my predispositions, and I hope confessing to it here can in some small way atone for that sin.)

This affected, for one example, my comparative reactions to the bits of Moore&#39;s trademark meant-to-be-funny "gotcha" bits in this movie vs. ones in Bowling for Columbine. In Columbine, Moore attacks Dick Clark with cameras for the sin of having financial interests in restaurants that gave people jobs that didn&#39;t instantly solve all their family problems. That I found not only unentertaining as dark cinema comedy, but stupid, because I couldn&#39;t begin to see Moore&#39;s point—to do so requires a general animus toward capitalism that I don&#39;t have.

But I was rooting for two similar examples from Moore in Fahrenheit: reciting the Patriot Act from an ice cream truck circling Washington D.C. streets, and encouraging congressmen to get their children to enlist in the armed forces. That&#39;s because I both see, and agree, with the points behind them: that congressmen should understand the laws they impose on us, and that they should seriously consider the personal, human costs of the wars they allow presidents to wage. Still, even I found those scenes in Fahrenheit falling flat and barely eliciting a chuckle—mostly because there was nothing particularly comic or unexpected about the reactions of the people at whom Moore tried to toss his pranksterish monkeywrench. (The ice cream bit is funnier to read about than watch—even Moore seems to realize this, letting the scene end abruptly.)

The movie, as everyone in the world has already pointed out, has many journalistic problems. Beyond any actual misstatements of fact, these problems are inherent in the necessary thinness of a two-hour movie, which in verbal terms will be at best the equivalent of a mid-length magazine feature. This film, though, is trying to make a case that demands a book to detail and explain in full.

For example, it is certainly interesting that James Bath, who was in the Texas Air National Guard with Bush in the early &#39;70s, later became a financial advisor to the Bin Laden family and donated money to some of Bush&#39;s early business ventures. Interesting, but what of it? We really need to dig a little deeper to learn anything useful from that factoid—or to learn if there&#39;s anything useful to be learned from it. The mere accumulation of "links" without any deeper understanding of what those links mean is not only unilluminating, it&#39;s not even very good propaganda: There are dozens of reasons to be appalled that the Bush family, or the U.S. government, is cozy and kind and friendly with the Saudis. But except for the fact that Osama and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, this movie doesn&#39;t even hint at any of them. (Indeed, Moore evinces a particularly old-fashioned, Flint, Michigan style hard-hat leftism here, daring the doyens of diversity to attack. Some key bits in Fahrenheit ride on representations of foreigners, whether Saudi or Palauan, as sinister and/or risible merely because they look and dress funny to Middle American eyes.)

Like so many human conflicts—especially ones over group identity and tribal values, which is what the liberal v. conservative divide within the two-party context mostly is—arguments both within this movie and between it and its detractors swirl not so much around verifiable specific facts but around overarching narratives and assumptions about motives. What was Bush thinking as he was told about the Twin Tower attacks while entertaining a room full of kids? What were the real motives behind attacking Iraq? (Little noted regarding this fiercely anti-Bush foreign policy film is the fact that the words "neocon" and "Israel" are not, in my memory, uttered once, and Moore is nowhere gonzo enough to engage in any specific conspiracy theorizing, as opposed to weirdly suggestive "links.") Are the financial links between the Bush family and Saudi interests, between the Carlyle Group and weapons manufacturers, between oil companies, pipeline schemes, and the war in Afghanistan, actually dispositive about the decisions the U.S. government has made, before and after 9/11?

Well, I guess it&#39;s possible, but this movie comes nowhere close to proving it, or even shedding light down the paths one would have to walk to begin trying to prove it. I&#39;d like to be able to pay the movie the compliment of saying that even by bringing such issues to the table, Moore has done a public service—a little public choice analysis when applied to government actions, whether domestic or foreign, is always welcome and should never be dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy mongering."

But Moore&#39;s style and tone are never those that invite further investigation; they are those of the cop at a tough collar. He has caught Bush here, and there, and everywhere, Moore says; and the only question to be asked is, do we just vote him out or string him up? But if you asked the hard question: What have we caught him doing, this movie never provides a very clear answer. Being indecisive, and being rash; helping impose a police state, but not giving a lonely Oregon cop the homeland security resources he needs; starting a war in Afghanistan, and not doing it fast enough and hard enough; being in thrall to the Saudis, while simultaneously waging a war in Iraq that the Saudis decidedly did not want. (To be fair, or maybe unfair, Moore doesn&#39;t tell us that last part.)

By the time the chronological walk through Bush&#39;s presidency gets us to Iraq, this becomes a movie not so much about Bush and why he is a bad president as about war and what it can do. Cavils about "balance" and "fairness" from war supporters regarding this movie are almost all bitter jokes—I&#39;ll take seriously complaints that this movie has too many bloody corpses, smiling pre-invasion Iraqis, and weeping mothers only from those whose pro-war discourse grapples seriously with the fact that there were/are any of those.

Works of art or journalism that are dedicatedly and fairly representative of the dizzyingly broad and complicated skein of reality are to be applauded and treasured. But they aren&#39;t the only kind that deserve to exist in discourse over public policy. Boldly staking out ground is also useful. Moore&#39;s movie sells itself as two-fisted goal-oriented agitprop, so it is only fair to judge it as such. (And even as such, it fails.) But it does deliver some truths about war that too much standard discourse elides: That it makes young men enthusiastic murderers—and then can make them disillusioned, cold, empty, and haunted. That what we did in Iraq—whatever else it did—destroyed the lives, hopes, homes, and loves of many, many ordinary people who used to walk down the streets of Baghdad smiling, laughing, and playing; that it left and continues to leave many mothers of both Iraqis and American soldiers bent over in grief and crying out to God for understanding that will never come.

Whatever Moore&#39;s other failures of journalism and art, that is both a specific factual truth and a deep spiritual truth about war that it is always appropriate to bring to the table, and one that any defender of this war, or any, should neither fear addressing, nor scoff at or belittle when it is brought to the fore.

[vidcc]

i don&#39;t know why all the fuss.....they seem to like each other




http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/rr.jpg

[Alex H]

Originally posted by SuperJude
What does that mean? It means that while the educated high minded left have decided they are both the brains and concience of this great country they overlook the people who drive the pick up trucks who may have other views and in 2000 that lack of foresite took a lot of people by suprise.

Why do you guys like pick-up trucks anyway?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Alex H@18 July 2004 - 20:26

Why do you guys like pick-up trucks anyway?
Well i&#39;ve never had one but they are versatile. Many have double cabs so they can be used as a car yet have handy carrying space.

Besides..... a gun rack would look silly in a ford focus :lol: :lol: :lol:

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Alex H@19 July 2004 - 03:26
Why do you guys like pick-up trucks anyway?
Simple; so you can run over things.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 July 2004 - 12:41
For your edification:


Connect the dots when you watch &#39;Fahrenheit&#39;

July 4, 2004

BY MARK STEYN CHICAGO SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
who is this mark steyn guy? doesn&#39;t the chicago sun-times already have a real live, actual film critic to review movies for them... who also happens to be one of the most eloquent, insightful reviewers in the english-speaking world? oh yeah. ebert. just sayin&#39;. i&#39;d hit up the ebert column first.

anyway. some bits of fahrenheit approached halfway decent laughs. michael moore has always had great potential as a satirist, and he has good editing skills, but he needs to get away from the obvious subject matter. fahrenheit & columbine both pale in comparison to roger & me.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+19 July 2004 - 11:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 19 July 2004 - 11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 July 2004 - 12:41
For your edification:


Connect the dots when you watch &#39;Fahrenheit&#39;

July 4, 2004

BY MARK STEYN CHICAGO SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
who is this mark steyn guy? doesn&#39;t the chicago sun-times already have a real live, actual film critic to review movies for them... who also happens to be one of the most eloquent, insightful reviewers in the english-speaking world? oh yeah. ebert. [/b][/quote]
Oh, yeah, by all means, do Ebert, but remember, it&#39;s not a movie, it&#39;s a documentary, only it&#39;s not (for legal reasons) a documentary, but it definitely isn&#39;t a movie, so....it&#39;s Steyn, and not Ebert.

[Alex H]

a gun rack would look silly in a ford focus


Simple; so you can run over things.

Ah. That explains a lot.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Alex H@19 July 2004 - 17:33

a gun rack would look silly in a ford focus


Simple; so you can run over things.

Ah. That explains a lot.
Indeed.

Judging from statistics, many gun owners need to run over their target before taking aim.
If the damn objects were actually moving it would be ever so much more difficult to put a bullet into them.
That&#39;s why I keep a loaded F-150 right by the front door...in case of robbers ( and the occasional Jehovah&#39;s Witness).

[vidcc]

Originally posted by clocker@19 July 2004 - 18:17
[
Indeed.

Judging from statistics, many gun owners need to run over their target before taking aim.
If the damn objects were actually moving it would be ever so much more difficult to put a bullet into them.
That&#39;s why I keep a loaded F-150 right by the front door...in case of robbers ( and the occasional Jehovah&#39;s Witness).
eddie izzard on clay pigeons springs to mind :lol: :lol:

[clocker]

Why, yes he does.

PULL&#33;

[Arm]

Originally posted by Alex H+18 July 2004 - 22:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H @ 18 July 2004 - 22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SuperJude
What does that mean? It means that while the educated high minded left have decided they are both the brains and concience of this great country they overlook the people who drive the pick up trucks who may have other views and in 2000 that lack of foresite took a lot of people by suprise.

Why do you guys like pick-up trucks anyway? [/b][/quote]
Because they have alot of space. You can haul alot of crap in them. :) Plus they are alot better then SUVs.

[clocker]

That doesn&#39;t explain why 99% of the pickups that I see are empty...indeed the beds appear to have never been used.
My retired neighbor bought a new Toyota pickup and would have a heart attack if someone tossed a 4x8 sheet of plywood into it.
And what about those Cadillac/Lincoln pickups?
Most pickups are driven by posers in my opinion.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@19 July 2004 - 21:13
That doesn&#39;t explain why 99% of the pickups that I see are empty...indeed the beds appear to have never been used.
My retired neighbor bought a new Toyota pickup and would have a heart attack if someone tossed a 4x8 sheet of plywood into it.
And what about those Cadillac/Lincoln pickups?
Most pickups are driven by posers in my opinion.
Hear, hear.

I pose with mine all the time. :lol:

[100%]

M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question

O: OK

M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.

M: And, but what were they killed for?

O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction

M: But that was the reason

O: The weapons of mass destruction

M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat

O: That’s right

M: And there was no threat, was there?

O: It was a mistake

[Draco]

As an european i&#39;d have to say that michael; moore at least brings some understanding about the us to us, otherwise we wood all have gone crazy in panic of what to do with u guys, sometimes it looks (to europeans) that the us is a greater danger to us and the world than islamic fundamentalists, like in some areas of the us you are actually going back to creationism &#33;&#33; seriously???&#33;&#33;&#33;

Another thing is related to this nra-thing u guys are always crying about freedom of this and that but when something goes wrong then its the governments business (like those school-shootings) make up u&#39;r damn minds : either you put the responsibility and controll over to the government or you dont but dont goe protesting the government didnt do anytrhing then.

Sorry had to get that of the heart