Michael Moore?

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:23 am

citygriz - I have no axe to grind with Moore. I've only stated my opinion of Michael Moore and his films based on the previous movies he's made that I have seen, and based on his own words. Why can't I have an opinion about Moore and his films based on that? Why do I have to see F-9-1-1 first?

I'm sure F-9-1-1 is entertaining. His films are very entertaining, in my opinion. I just hesitate when anyone holds up any multi-media product as pure "fact." Further, even though an event is factual, doesn't a reasonable person also have to judge the facts in full context? Moore, certainly has never given us any reason to believe that he presents all his "facts" in full context...by his own admission.

Anyway - Like I said before, if a person thinks about the issues that Moore presents in his films, then that's a good thing.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:48 pm

Well, My company has left and I have seen the movie. It is worth the ten bucks to take it in if you havn't yet. Moore is a talented filmmaker, but I already knew that from columbine. To his credit he has publicly claimed that this is his opinion and peopel can take it for what it's worth. Unlike columbine where he states its truthfullness one day and dismeisses it as mere entertainment the next.

As for the movie, it didnt really tell me anything I didn't alredy know. (thats not me trying to be cocky, its just the truth) I do wish he would get over the whole florida election mess. It was a mess and everbody knows it. It's not the first time the president has lost the popular vote and won the election nor will it be the last. In fact I would say the Hays v. Tilden election was even more controversial though that could be debated as well. Thats the nature of the electoral college though it has its problems, but on a whole it has worked for over 200 years.

The movie passes Bush off as someone who simply wanted to attack Iraq. Well, maybe, but keep in mind many of the plans for this was came from the Clinton administration and thier plan to do the same thing. The movie in a subtle (sp?) way also dispalys Saddam as something of a victim of being picked on by a bully named Bush. Saddam is hardly a victum in this ordeal. The man was a Terrible human with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Pol PoT, and so on.

About the scene where bush finds out about the attacks while at the school: If you havnt heard yet, Bush sits there, essentially in shock for about 7 minutes, and reads witht the students. Here is my beef with Moore in this situation. Its kind of a lose lose for the president. If he hops up and eaves in a rush, as opposed to staying at the school for an extra seven minutes, I would put money on the fact that Moore would take this and turn Bush into a irrational person who is even more gungho to fightback. Even Congress, who Moore uses alot to defend his arguements against the White House, declared that the president Handled the situation in an appropriate manor.

The Relationship between Bush and the Bin Ladens:

Well I came out of this part of the how feeling like kevin Bacon and that I was within six degrees of president bush myslef. Moore glosses over the fact that Every president in the last 30 years has been friends with the Saudi Government and the Bin Laden Company. There is one talking head who mentions it for all of about 2 seconds toward the end of his arguement on this point and then it is on to saudi buisness in the US. There is a need for an "friend"(and I use that term loosely) in the middle east other than isreal. The Middle east doesnt hate us because we want their oil, they hate us because we help isreal. ( I am well aware that that is an oversimplification so there is no need to point that out to me). The saudi government is that "friend." The problem is the rest of the middle east hates that fact as well. The movie states that Osama half brother was in afganistan to attend the wedding of osama's son prior to 911. Thats true he was, and the movie makes the case that this person who was in the US at the time of 911 whoudl know where osama would be hanging out. Well maybe he would know, but it certainly wouldnt be because of the wedding he went to. Why? because Osama wasnt at the wedding. (that info is taken from various readings, although I cant remember where.) He wants to know who aprooved the flights out of the country for the saudi's. It was Richard Clarke. the same man that Moore uses so often to defend his arguement. I will say this though, I have heard some say that the government couldn interview them becasue it was against their constitutional rights. Well, the constitution only protects citizens of the united states, it doesnt apply to aliens.

On to the Buissiness interests of the Saudis in the United States. The movie states that Saudi interests in the states are huge. which they certainly are. They are invested in a major defense contractor. What more mosly passes over are some of the other things they are invested in. He mentions citibank. This is the genious of the saudi's. They invest in the amercan consumer! Even when the economy is bad people spend insane amounts of money, that money somes from banks and what do large banks make most of thier money of off? Credit Cards. I have read that the average american has like 6 cc's. Hell if I had the money thats what I would invest in too. My point is, what are they going to invest in in Saudi Arabia. other than oil their economy sucks. Ours aint great, but is certainly isnt based on oil. When foriegn people want to make money, they invest in one main place. the United States. Saudi Arabia is hardly alone in its investments in America.

Halliburton:

I said this before but Ill say it again I guess. Halliburton and its subsidiaries get contracts because they are good at what they do. they are The foremost petroleum services company in probably the entire world. They are such a hugh company that in almost any scenario they are going to be the person contracted to do the work needed, and if not, they are probably going to be subcontracted to do something.

In the movie there was some footage of prisoner abuse. This is something that really disturbed me. If Moore had this footage for so long (which he has said he did in an intervierw with nbc) why did he not go public with it sooner? Prisoner abuse shouldnt be accepted and I dont think is for the most part. Moore claims he held it becasue he wanted it to be seen with "our spin." Well if Making fun of the soldiers participating in the abuse is his spin, I dont think he is any better than fox news. It is a serious situation any way you llok at it and I dont think it is one that should be made light of.

I also loved how Moore was "shocked to learn that members of congress had not read the patriot act." Well Duh! If he truely was shocked, then he is far more niave about politics than he is letting on. I am sure it was said to try to identify with an audience member that might be niave to this fact but really! Some bills in congress are thousands upon thousands of pages. They dont read them, they have staffers write up a synopsis of the main points. As for the act itself. I have no problem if the government wants to look at my computer or the books i read or the calls I make. I dont have anything to hide. I know I'm not a terrorist and I have no fear that I am going to be branded as one.

As I said earlier, Moore is a brilliant filmmaker. However he has a problem with staging publicity stuns all th time. He did it in bowling with dick clark and Heston, and he does it here getting in an Ice cream truck and reading the patriot act, or in asking members of congress to have their children enlist. ( how many legislators have children the ages of 18-25? I really dont know the answer to that question and I am just curious. I cant imagine very many of them though, at least not in terms of the whole) I feel he cheapens himslef when he pulls stunts like that. He does have a talent, but why go out of your way to cheapen yourself?

Unrelated to the movie this is what I want to know. Why hasnt Moore come out and publically endorse John Kerry. The answer is simple. Its a death wish for the democratic party. I know this is another oversimplification but bear with me: There are three things that can break this dead heat election open. 1) Bush could choose to run with Colin Powell and thus get probably atleast 50% of the black vote. (probably not going ot happen 2) Kerry could choose to Run with Hillary and thus draw the female vote. 3) Moore could endorse Kerry and send moderate democrates flocking to bush. I know its more complicated than that, but I highly dount you will see Moore endorse anyone in this election.

All this being said, I thank god every day that I live in the United States and not somewhere else. We have it good. Also, anything like this movie that encourages public debate is a good thing in this country. In some countries public debate is not a good thing, for instance the old Iraq, but in the United States we are free to disent, and that my friends is a beautiful thing.

OK. well there you have it. there may be some typos in this, and if they reflect anything of substance please let me know, but this is to damn long for me to back and proofread.

P.S. I just want to make it clear one last time that I am not some dyed in the wool republican. I am a Moderate democrat and While I agree things are a mess with world events right now, I dont think that Al Gore could have prevented 911 either.
Last edited by geogfather on Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:57 am

Hooray! One of you has finally seen the movie!

Geofather: You've asked Moore to be scrupulous about his facts, and I've asked that you be scrupulous about the same facts in your rebuttal. So:

1. You really saw "nothing new" in this film? That snaps credulity like a plastic spoon! Did you know, as an example, that James R. Bath was one of the names blacked out when the White House released documents about Bush's national guard service? Did you know of the friendship between Bath and Bush? Did you know of Bath's ties to the Bin Ladens? Did you know about all the Saudi money that Bath directed into the Bush oil companies? Did you know that the Saudi ambassasdor, Prince Bandhar, has a five-person Secret Service detail assigned to him? (If you knew all this, please cite your sources, because I watch a lot of news, and read a lot of books, and I didn't know any of this.)

2. You say Bush was in a "lose-lose" situation as he sat in the classroom reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids. C'mon! Nobody but nobody but NOBODY would have criticized him for cancelling the photo-op altogether (remember, he knew about the first plane before he entered the classroom), and not even Michael Moore would have criticized him for immediately getting up after learning of the second plane and telling the kids, "Sorry, something important has come up. I must leave." To say Bush was in a "lose-lose" situation is absolutely the lamest rebuttal possible for a situation that has no credible rebuttal, and the image of him sitting there for seven minutes with a stupefied look on his face while the nation is under terrorist attack is for Bush undeniably the most damaging part of this film.

3. You say Osama Bin Laden was not at the wedding held in Afghanistan for his son the summer before 9/11. Please cite you sources for this. The film certainly leaves the impression Bin Laden was at that wedding (shows you a picture of Bin Laden in what appears to be the wedding ceremony), and asserts that several of the Bin Laden relatives who were later flown out of the United States were also at that wedding. If this is false, you must cite sources, not vague recollections of having read this somewhere!

4. You say all Presidents for the past 30 years have been "friends" with the Saudis, and I can't aruge that point. But did Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagen, Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford have the web of business relationships with the Saudis--through Arbusto and the rest of the Bush oil companies, or through the Carlyle Group--that the Bush family has had with the Saudis?

5. And you say Richard Clarke made the decision to fly the Saudis out of the country. Yes, he made the "official" decision, there is no denying that, so that (as transpired) the blame could be placed on him. But I saw his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, and I saw him say that when that memo crossed his desk, he sent it up and that approval came from "the highest levels of government." Asked what that meant, he said, "The White House and the F.B.I. "

I'm willing to listened to credible rebuttal of this film, and to know where Moore has fudged it. But at this point, I frankly find your rebutal far lamer than anything I saw in this movie.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:17 pm

thecitygriz wrote:Hooray! One of you has finally seen the movie!

Geofather: You've asked Moore to be scrupulous about his facts, and I've asked that you be scrupulous about the same facts in your rebuttal. So:

1. You really saw "nothing new" in this film? That snaps credulity like a plastic spoon! Did you know, as an example, that James R. Bath was one of the names blacked out when the White House released documents about Bush's national guard service? Did you know of the friendship between Bath and Bush? Did you know of Bath's ties to the Bin Ladens? Did you know about all the Saudi money that Bath directed into the Bush oil companies? Did you know that the Saudi ambassasdor, Prince Bandhar, has a five-person Secret Service detail assigned to him? (If you knew all this, please cite your sources, because I watch a lot of news, and read a lot of books, and I didn't know any of this.)

2. You say Bush was in a "lose-lose" situation as he sat in the classroom reading "My Pet Goat" to the kids. C'mon! Nobody but nobody but NOBODY would have criticized him for cancelling the photo-op altogether (remember, he knew about the first plane before he entered the classroom), and not even Michael Moore would have criticized him for immediately getting up after learning of the second plane and telling the kids, "Sorry, something important has come up. I must leave." To say Bush was in a "lose-lose" situation is absolutely the lamest rebuttal possible for a situation that has no credible rebuttal, and the image of him sitting there for seven minutes with a stupefied look on his face while the nation is under terrorist attack is for Bush undeniably the most damaging part of this film.

3. You say Osama Bin Laden was not at the wedding held in Afghanistan for his son the summer before 9/11. Please cite you sources for this. The film certainly leaves the impression Bin Laden was at that wedding (shows you a picture of Bin Laden in what appears to be the wedding ceremony), and asserts that several of the Bin Laden relatives who were later flown out of the United States were also at that wedding. If this is false, you must cite sources, not vague recollections of having read this somewhere!

4. You say all Presidents for the past 30 years have been "friends" with the Saudis, and I can't aruge that point. But did Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagen, Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford have the web of business relationships with the Saudis--through Arbusto and the rest of the Bush oil companies, or through the Carlyle Group--that the Bush family has had with the Saudis?

5. And you say Richard Clarke made the decision to fly the Saudis out of the country. Yes, he made the "official" decision, there is no denying that, so that (as transpired) the blame could be placed on him. But I saw his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, and I saw him say that when that memo crossed his desk, he sent it up and that approval came from "the highest levels of government." Asked what that meant, he said, "The White House and the F.B.I. "

I'm willing to listened to credible rebuttal of this film, and to know where Moore has fudged it. But at this point, I frankly find your rebutal far lamer than anything I saw in this movie.


You are right, saying nothing new was a bit to much. What I souold have said was that nothign was realy surprising. As for Bath, The Movie states he directed Saudi money into Bush's oil company: I am sure he did, but look at any large oil company and you will see an investment from saudi interests somewhere within the company. Bath was Hired by the Bin Laden company as something f a financial planner. Given Saudi wealth and their investmens in the United States I would say he succeeded. Is Bath A terrorist? No. Is He a buisiness man. Yes. Was I aware of the Bush and Bath connection. No not really, but I guess I just dont see it as nearly as big a deal as Moore or Yourself. As for the Mr. Ambasador having a secret servce detail: I didnt know the details of it all, like the fact it was a five man team and the like, but the secret service is legally authorized to protect foriegn heads of state as well as ambassadors and other dignitaries, so it shouldnt really be news that the ambassador for saudi arabia has some security.

as for number 2: Once agian I should have reworded the comment. He was in a lose lose as far as an attaack by Moore would be concerned. Then general public would look at it differently. You are right, no one would have blamed him for canceling all together, but he didn't cancel it all togethel and thats maybe where he screwed up. You know as well as I do that if he jumped up and headed out Moore would have painted Bush in a negative light. That is what Moore does! He probably should have cancelled the entire thing and never showed up at the school. Keep in mind for yourself though that at the time of the first plane hitting the tower no one knew it was a terrorist act. That news was discovered when it was found out that more plains had been hijacked and were on thier way. You are right, that probably is the most damaging part of the movie, but only becasue the rest of the movie doesnt really provide a strong arguement. And in any case, what could the president have done to stop the attacks now that they were occuring. Please tell me.

3. I proabably read it somewhere from some nutso republican or something I dont know. (said with sarcasm) Do I personally know if Bin Laden was at a wedding in the summer of 2001. No. I do know he was at one i december or january of 2001, toasting the bombing of the USS cole. (That is where the footage comes from) Bin Laden has about 50 kids so It shouldnt surprise someone that not all of the 50 have disowned him, and that the possibility is there that more than one of them probably got married at some point in 2001, especially since bin ladin himself has many wives.

4. All the presidents int he last 30 years have been friends with the saudis. That is what I said thats what im sticking to. Bush was in the Big time oil bussiness so as I stated earlier, he was going to have connections to the Saudi's by default. To imply that the saudi's somehhow knew that Bush was going to run for president and protect the Saudi's before his dad became even the VP is crazy. Arbusto's saudi investment came in 1979! I really dont care that there was a $50,000 dolar investment of saudi money in that company. 50 grand is small potatoes. The Bin Laden family then invested in Harken energy when it fell on hard times, to the tune of 17% of the company. I would hope so! As a publically traded company I could buy 17% of the company if I had the money! If I was the Saudi Arabie, that is one of the best moves you could make, because You can control the price of oil and inturn the profit of Harken energy. Its a smart move on thier part.

5. Clarke gave approval, for the plains to leave, no matter where he "sent" it to. the word came from him. and he admits it. It came from him with consultaion from the white house and FBI.

Moore has fudged this movie to trash the president, now I dont think Bush is doing a great job either, but I dont think anyone could do a great job in this country right now. Not atleast any of the current condidtates. I still find it Ironic that moore is so adament on getting the president beat for reelection, yet wont endorse Kerry! something of a hypocracy.

I'm leaving town for a while, but I will try to keep updated on this site. no promises though.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:04 pm




User avatar
CatfaninGA
Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Sandy Springs, GA

Post by CatfaninGA » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:04 am

I can't believe people are wasting good money on this ass-hat.


Image

User avatar
jagur1
Member # Retired
Posts: 2015
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:53 pm
Location: Billings

Post by jagur1 » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:56 pm

BAC: Have you seen, "Some Kind of Monster" yet? Billings will not have it for weeks. It's killing me to see how Lars comes across. I've had the pleasure of being aroung him twice in my life and he was a jerk both times. The other band members on the other hand were great guys. (No I'm not a 80's metal head either)


Never mistake activity for accomplishment.

I'm sick of the man because the man is a thief.

Four

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:17 pm

jagur: I think it opens this Thursday at a theater here. I need to check on that again. I'm getting excited just thinking about it.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Fri Jul 09, 2004 8:49 am

Wow, I get back on here after a few days to see what My boy City has said and am shocked by the silence! Where are ya man? I know you have been on the grizboard so I know you are still alive and kickin.



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:03 am

Oh, welcome back father. With you gone, BAC saving his movie-pennies for a down payment on a condo in the over-heated Bay Area residential market, and only the sub-moronic Georgia Cat here, this place was like an echo chamber! I did review the "59 Deceits"--agree with some, know of one they didn't mention, find several r-e-a-l flimsy--but think for a fact-packed movie lasting almost 120 minutes, the exercise amounts to looking for dog turds on the Champs Elysee. (God knows, what a service the National Review could have done the country if they'd vetted the Bush administration's deceits with the same fervor they went after Michael Moore!) Meanwhile, the movie rolls on, generating debate, tears (both for audiences and the Bush Administration) and mega box-office receipts. When asked if he'd seen it, the Chairman of the G.O.P., Mr. Ed (I've forgotten his last name) said, however dubiously, "No, my family and I went to see Shrek 2!" But when Frank Luntz, the G.O.P. pollster was asked the same question, he said, "I've seen it three times. This film has the power to do real damage to Bush, especially to his credibility. The White House must respond to it." Ah, well, sleeping dogs do lie, no?



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Sat Jul 10, 2004 12:23 pm

Hey there, I am actually stil on vacation so My computer access is subject to finding one at any giev town. (its kind of one of those vacations were you just get in your car and drive in some general direction until you decide to stop. Back in NE Montana for now, probably head over to portland befroe I head back to vegas, but who nows. Anyways, yeah it was pretty quiet. I figured that was why you didnt respond as there wasnt really anything of substance since we last posted. (thats not meant to offend anyone, but it was just quiet thats all)

I agree with you about the 59 deciets article. Some of them were pretty weak and didnt really deal with the heart of the issues presented. It was a good article though, thats for sure. And yeah, I dont think the Bush administration is perfect by any sense of the word, and I dont agree with alot of what is done, but I dont think that it is as bad as Moore would have us believe. Every administration is going to have its problems. The Vietnam Wart mader this counrty more acutely aware to the problems of war so any president who gets involved in a war that is even the slightest bit iffy, there is gonna be alot of dissent and questioning of authority. Which is certainly good. THose who say it is unpatriotic to question our leaders are flat out wrong. Well, I am gonna get going for the day. See ya.



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:11 am

Last edited by thecitygriz on Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:18 am, edited 2 times in total.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:54 am

If President Bush's re-election campaign can be "seriously damaged" by a simple movie, then his re-election is probably already in serious doubt.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:48 pm

I still haven't seen the movie, but I will, eventually....

One thought I had the other day after hearing the 10,000th self-declared liberal person say "The facts in the movie might be suspect, and his methods are cleary more entertainment than journalism, but it makes people think, so it's good for everybody to see the film based on that alone."

That's a fair statement, as I think our general population really is a little light in the critical thinking area. However, what I don't fully understand is why these same 10,000 people don't say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh or any of Michael Moore's other "opposite but equals?" If the facts aren't as important as the thinking that it stimulates, why isn't there a massive drive and media crush around here to encourage people to listen to Savage or Rush for a couple hours a week? If, for no other reason, than to force people to think?

That said, I don't actually believe that those shows stimulate much thinking, either, but the veiled insincerity of the typical Moore apologist just struck me on the way to work this morning. He's a lot of people's guilty pleasure, so it seems.

And, to placate citygriz, I still have yet to opine on the 911 film itself as I have not yet seen it. All I can do is comment on those who are commenting on it. I'm nothing but a no good second hand commenter.



velochat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Bozeman

Post by velochat » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:51 pm

I saw the film on opening weekend. It was a lot of fun, sold out and the crowd cheered at the end. Not your typical Carmike Campus Cinemas experience on a Sunday evening.

Michael is certainly not un-biased. I heard there were maybe a couple of points that could be questioned, but it's certainly at least as truthful and un-biased as Fox News. Somebody needed to counterbalance the Bush propaganda machine.

Wolfowitz is one strange bird.



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:05 pm

yo, velochat--hooray! i wuz wonderin' if one single soul in the mighty bobcat nation would see this my way. bac, my man, whereyaat? or are you trying to win the prize for the 20th million person to see this film?



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7177
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by iaafan » Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:31 pm

I saw 9/11 and thought it was one of the best shows I've ever seen. The way Moore and Co. mixed the sound, footage and his narration together was masterful. It was also extremely, extremely refreshing in this world of Conservative dominated television media. The country needs more of this stuff as the media seems to be shutting us out. I follow the news, but never saw all those congressmen/women going up to protest the vote. Why? I never knew about Bush's pilot buddy, why?

Everytime I hear Michael Moore speak he has something that we weren't being told. Just give us the information -- all of it -- and let us decipher it and make opinions on it and decide how we want to vote. I'm sick of people trying to mislead me into thinking there way and want a media that will do that for me. I don't need Limbaugh/O'Reilly to read me half the news and twist things around. I just need the news -- straight up.

Fox News is so staged and predictable I can now guess what the likes of Bill O'Reilly are going to say next. They are so scripted and control the conversation it's scary. They had a journalist from Canada on there last night and BO wouldn't let him touch on all the good things the Canooks think of the US. He just kept it on the result of some poll that said 64% of kids in Canada are getting freaked out by the US. But do you blame them?

The Liberals get two hours, while the Conservatives get 24/7 from Fox; 24/7 from MSNBC (GE). It's absolute B.S.
They sit there and call he U.S. the greatest nation - it is when we follow the constitution - but that is just an intimidation tool to keep people from pointing out the bad things going on in the US and being done by the US.
I think everyone loves this country and wants our soldiers to come home, wants a president to make the correct decisions, food for our hungry, clean air and rivers and land, etc., but many sell out to the guy saying he'll lower taxes. When do we get to the point that we say, "hey, the money's not worth it anymore." and "take our money, if that's what you need to make us safe, to be diplomatic, research and gain intel on other countries."
I don't hate republicans or conservatives, but I feel hated by them and for what? Because I want a safe, clean, diplomatic country and because I'm willing to give up some money and make some sacrifices to get it.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:52 pm

iaafan wrote:I saw 9/11 and thought it was one of the best shows I've ever seen. The way Moore and Co. mixed the sound, footage and his narration together was masterful. It was also extremely, extremely refreshing in this world of Conservative dominated television media. The country needs more of this stuff as the media seems to be shutting us out. I follow the news, but never saw all those congressmen/women going up to protest the vote. Why? I never knew about Bush's pilot buddy, why?

Everytime I hear Michael Moore speak he has something that we weren't being told. Just give us the information -- all of it -- and let us decipher it and make opinions on it and decide how we want to vote. I'm sick of people trying to mislead me into thinking there way and want a media that will do that for me. I don't need Limbaugh/O'Reilly to read me half the news and twist things around. I just need the news -- straight up.

Fox News is so staged and predictable I can now guess what the likes of Bill O'Reilly are going to say next. They are so scripted and control the conversation it's scary. They had a journalist from Canada on there last night and BO wouldn't let him touch on all the good things the Canooks think of the US. He just kept it on the result of some poll that said 64% of kids in Canada are getting freaked out by the US. But do you blame them?

The Liberals get two hours, while the Conservatives get 24/7 from Fox; 24/7 from MSNBC (GE). It's absolute B.S.
They sit there and call he U.S. the greatest nation - it is when we follow the constitution - but that is just an intimidation tool to keep people from pointing out the bad things going on in the US and being done by the US.
I think everyone loves this country and wants our soldiers to come home, wants a president to make the correct decisions, food for our hungry, clean air and rivers and land, etc., but many sell out to the guy saying he'll lower taxes. When do we get to the point that we say, "hey, the money's not worth it anymore." and "take our money, if that's what you need to make us safe, to be diplomatic, research and gain intel on other countries."
I don't hate republicans or conservatives, but I feel hated by them and for what? Because I want a safe, clean, diplomatic country and because I'm willing to give up some money and make some sacrifices to get it.
Do you actually think that Moore doesnt twist things arround and give you half the story just as Fox or Rush does? More himself told the media that it is an op/ed piece in that he slanted it. Im not saying it isnt a good movie, or that its not entertaining, but lets not go so far as to say that the Moore's words are 100% accurate. He leaves out a lot of facts, Im not going ot go into those again, because I have listed many of them in previous posts, so if you want to see them read those posts. I for one dont want a troops to come home yet. I do one day to be sure, but if you know anything about Iraq, than you know it is a terrible idea to have a massive pulout of coalition forces. I'm not neccesarily happy we are there, but we are and we cant bail now.

I voted for Bush, and will do so again at this point, although Kerry is starting to show me something (edwards is a political stud and if he were the nominee he would get my vote) But I certainly didnt sell out to him. I knew exactly what I was doing in voting for him and it had nothing to do with taxes. I do not want to think about a world with Al Gore as president. Good thing I dont have to I guess. Anyways, I'm done now.



velochat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am
Location: Bozeman

Post by velochat » Fri Aug 06, 2004 11:37 am

I agree that we just can't pull out of Iraq tomorrow. You broke it, it's yours, as they say. The invasion was a mistake all the same and things do not look good. I hate that my country is feared rather than respected.



iaafan
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7177
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Post by iaafan » Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:32 pm

Sure Moore puts a spin on things, or at least enhances them. But he had a two-hour show plus air time on Leno and other places that amounts to what? 10 hours. Faux is on 24/7; MSNBCGE 24/7. Scarborough, Matthews, O'Reilly, completely overwhelm their counterparts in visual media. But they have a job to do, it's really the execs that do this. I think people want the news delivered in an unobjective fashion and when it's not the network should say so. Like a warning label...."yeah, this is tasty food, but it's loaded with cholesterol and fat."



Post Reply