<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck Sims:
2 more days before the movie opens. Fahrenheit 9/11 will have an impact on the 2004 Election. The religious nut must go along with his cronies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chuck, you certainly seem obsessed with this movie. Be careful when you watch it; public masturbation is illegal in all 50 states. Wait until the show is over and just head to the bathroom to take care of business. People may be wondering why a guy is locked in the toilet whispering sonnets to Michael Moore, but at least you'll be safe.
2 more days before the movie opens. Fahrenheit 9/11 will have an impact on the 2004 Election. The religious nut must go along with his cronies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chuck, you certainly seem obsessed with this movie. Be careful when you watch it; public masturbation is illegal in all 50 states. Wait until the show is over and just head to the bathroom to take care of business. People may be wondering why a guy is locked in the toilet whispering sonnets to Michael Moore, but at least you'll be safe.
Critics Turn Up Heat on Moore
(Associated Press)
LOS ANGELES -- Michael Moore's critics are turning up the temperature with a book and documentary intended to debunk his methods as the filmmaker's "Fahrenheit 9/11" hits theaters.
Since his first movie, 1989's "Roger & Me," Moore has been accused of playing loose with the facts and presenting a distorted version of the truth. The criticism, usually in newspaper and magazine articles or on anti-Moore Web sites, has failed to click with his millions of fans, who pushed the Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine" to a $21.6 million box-office pay day and put Moore's last two books on the best-seller lists.
Moore's opposition has a higher profile this time as "Fahrenheit 9/11," his assault on President Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11 attacks, debuts nationwide Friday.
On Tuesday, David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke will publish "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man," in which the authors accuse Moore of "serial mendacity." The book is published by Regan Books, which also printed Moore's "Stupid White Men."
Hardy and Clarke take issue with such matters as the timeline of economic events Moore presents surrounding General Motors plant closings in his home turf of Flint, Mich., in "Roger & Me"; the parallels Moore draws between the Ku Klux Klan and the National Rifle Association in "Bowling for Columbine"; and Moore's refutation in his book "Dude, Where's My Country?" of potential ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden.
"He creates a false impression without ever uttering a word that is untrue," said Hardy, a former U.S. Interior Department attorney who runs the Web site mooreexposed.com. "Moore is a master of that."
Filmmaker Michael Wilson hopes to have his documentary "Michael Moore Hates America" in theaters late this summer as a rebuttal to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Wilson said he admired "Roger & Me" but found "Bowling for Columbine" troublesome.
Moore's handling of a 6-year-old girl shot to death by a classmate in Flint particularly bothered Wilson. "Bowling for Columbine" implies welfare reform was to blame, detailing how the shooter's mother had to work two jobs and take a bus to another town to work, so she could not properly tend to her children, Wilson said.
The mother had left her son at his uncle's home, which prosecutors described as a flophouse where occupants traded guns and drugs. The boy found the gun there and took it to school.
"All this stuff added up to her being a lousy mother. It had nothing to do with her having to work two jobs," Wilson said. "My mom had to work two jobs to make our lives better and guess what? I didn't shoot anybody. It felt like a slap in the face to all these people out there trying to make their lives better and live out the American dream."
Wilson, Hardy and Clarke, who say they are moderates with no political agenda against left-winger Moore, take a cue from Moore's approach, aiming to package their criticism in satiric humor. The cover of Hardy and Clarke's book has an image of Moore biting off the top of the U.S. Capitol, a caricature resembling Terry Gilliam's surreal animation for "Monty Python's Flying Circus."
The Web site for "Michael Moore Hates America" shows Wilson holding a microphone to an empty director's chair bearing Moore's name, an image reminiscent of Moore's pursuit of General Motors boss Roger Smith in "Roger & Me." Wilson said he has unsuccessfully tried to land an interview with Moore for his documentary.
Moore declined an interview for this article, although he's previously said the film is "an op-ed piece," and not a work of journalism — and his backers defended the new film.
"For all the people who are spending so much time urging censorship and boycott and going to such great lengths in what I consider a lame attempt to discredit Michael Moore, Michael must be doing something right," said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gates Films, one of the companies distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"Fahrenheit 9/11" underwent thorough factual scrutiny, said Harvey Weinstein, whose Miramax banner was prohibited by parent company Disney from releasing the movie. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, bought back the film and arranged for distribution by Lions Gate and IFC Films.
"I hired the toughest team of fact checkers I could find, lawyers and head counsel from The New Yorker," Harvey Weinstein said in an e-mail response to questions from The Associated Press. "We invited them to be tough — and they were. All journalism should be this careful."
(Associated Press)
LOS ANGELES -- Michael Moore's critics are turning up the temperature with a book and documentary intended to debunk his methods as the filmmaker's "Fahrenheit 9/11" hits theaters.
Since his first movie, 1989's "Roger & Me," Moore has been accused of playing loose with the facts and presenting a distorted version of the truth. The criticism, usually in newspaper and magazine articles or on anti-Moore Web sites, has failed to click with his millions of fans, who pushed the Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine" to a $21.6 million box-office pay day and put Moore's last two books on the best-seller lists.
Moore's opposition has a higher profile this time as "Fahrenheit 9/11," his assault on President Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11 attacks, debuts nationwide Friday.
On Tuesday, David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke will publish "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man," in which the authors accuse Moore of "serial mendacity." The book is published by Regan Books, which also printed Moore's "Stupid White Men."
Hardy and Clarke take issue with such matters as the timeline of economic events Moore presents surrounding General Motors plant closings in his home turf of Flint, Mich., in "Roger & Me"; the parallels Moore draws between the Ku Klux Klan and the National Rifle Association in "Bowling for Columbine"; and Moore's refutation in his book "Dude, Where's My Country?" of potential ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden.
"He creates a false impression without ever uttering a word that is untrue," said Hardy, a former U.S. Interior Department attorney who runs the Web site mooreexposed.com. "Moore is a master of that."
Filmmaker Michael Wilson hopes to have his documentary "Michael Moore Hates America" in theaters late this summer as a rebuttal to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Wilson said he admired "Roger & Me" but found "Bowling for Columbine" troublesome.
Moore's handling of a 6-year-old girl shot to death by a classmate in Flint particularly bothered Wilson. "Bowling for Columbine" implies welfare reform was to blame, detailing how the shooter's mother had to work two jobs and take a bus to another town to work, so she could not properly tend to her children, Wilson said.
The mother had left her son at his uncle's home, which prosecutors described as a flophouse where occupants traded guns and drugs. The boy found the gun there and took it to school.
"All this stuff added up to her being a lousy mother. It had nothing to do with her having to work two jobs," Wilson said. "My mom had to work two jobs to make our lives better and guess what? I didn't shoot anybody. It felt like a slap in the face to all these people out there trying to make their lives better and live out the American dream."
Wilson, Hardy and Clarke, who say they are moderates with no political agenda against left-winger Moore, take a cue from Moore's approach, aiming to package their criticism in satiric humor. The cover of Hardy and Clarke's book has an image of Moore biting off the top of the U.S. Capitol, a caricature resembling Terry Gilliam's surreal animation for "Monty Python's Flying Circus."
The Web site for "Michael Moore Hates America" shows Wilson holding a microphone to an empty director's chair bearing Moore's name, an image reminiscent of Moore's pursuit of General Motors boss Roger Smith in "Roger & Me." Wilson said he has unsuccessfully tried to land an interview with Moore for his documentary.
Moore declined an interview for this article, although he's previously said the film is "an op-ed piece," and not a work of journalism — and his backers defended the new film.
"For all the people who are spending so much time urging censorship and boycott and going to such great lengths in what I consider a lame attempt to discredit Michael Moore, Michael must be doing something right," said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gates Films, one of the companies distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"Fahrenheit 9/11" underwent thorough factual scrutiny, said Harvey Weinstein, whose Miramax banner was prohibited by parent company Disney from releasing the movie. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, bought back the film and arranged for distribution by Lions Gate and IFC Films.
"I hired the toughest team of fact checkers I could find, lawyers and head counsel from The New Yorker," Harvey Weinstein said in an e-mail response to questions from The Associated Press. "We invited them to be tough — and they were. All journalism should be this careful."
Your article, Phaedrus, does nothing to rebutt any purported facts in Fahrenheit. The film may well be a master of editorial manipulation, but it may well not. Chances are good that there will be bits of both. I look forward to seeing the collection of clips straight from Bush himself which "creates a false impression without ever uttering a word that is untrue" -- should be interesting indeed. I'd like to think that enough people exist who recognise propaganda, and I suspect that while viewers will be swimming in it through this film, it will be difficult to distinguish which is worse -- Bush's or Moore's.
xpanda
I have not seen Farenheit 9/11 and so am not in a position to attempt to confirm or rebut any assertion made in the film. I just thought that the article was pertinent to the thread.
I will say without feeling like I am one inch out on a limb that Michael Moore's distortions and twists in his previous films (both of which I have seen a number of times each) lend little credibility to offset my skepticism over Farenheit 9/11. I also just genuinely dislike the man -- he is a friend of oneof my ex-wives and in person has never struck me as anything but a prick. Mind you, I acknowledge that that has nothing to do with his integrity or lack thereof, but seriously, what a cocknocker this guy is to just about anyone who he feels is threatening his aura.
Phaedrus
I have not seen Farenheit 9/11 and so am not in a position to attempt to confirm or rebut any assertion made in the film. I just thought that the article was pertinent to the thread.
I will say without feeling like I am one inch out on a limb that Michael Moore's distortions and twists in his previous films (both of which I have seen a number of times each) lend little credibility to offset my skepticism over Farenheit 9/11. I also just genuinely dislike the man -- he is a friend of oneof my ex-wives and in person has never struck me as anything but a prick. Mind you, I acknowledge that that has nothing to do with his integrity or lack thereof, but seriously, what a cocknocker this guy is to just about anyone who he feels is threatening his aura.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus Yes the lawsuite test is a great test of whether the movie is factual or not. They will try to sue him at every chance they get. There is no lies in the actual movie so now they say they will sue Moore if he advertises his movie within 30 days of the election. Trust me the government is petty as hell and would sue him at any chance they have . The problem is you can't sue fact and win. So it's all true baby. Watch it and weep.
This is the silliest argument I think I've heard in a long time. Please link me to one single credible cite of any government entity threatening to sue Michael Moore if Farenheit 9/11 is advertised within 30 days of an election.
There are a lot of true statements in Bowling for Columbine as well -- but nothing else Moore presents in that film, and in my opinion nothing he could door say for as long as he lives, could ever make up for the fact that he "stealth edited" news items and political ads that were featured in the film, and did not come clean about it until he was painted into a corner (after accepting his Oscar, mind you.)
Out of curiousity, are you not fazed at all by the fact that Moore himself says that Farenheit 9/11 is an "op-ed" and not any sort of balanced journalitic effort?
Phaedrus
There are a lot of true statements in Bowling for Columbine as well -- but nothing else Moore presents in that film, and in my opinion nothing he could door say for as long as he lives, could ever make up for the fact that he "stealth edited" news items and political ads that were featured in the film, and did not come clean about it until he was painted into a corner (after accepting his Oscar, mind you.)
Out of curiousity, are you not fazed at all by the fact that Moore himself says that Farenheit 9/11 is an "op-ed" and not any sort of balanced journalitic effort?
Phaedrus
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/06/25/moore_2/
June 25, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11'' violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.
The Federal Election Commission might take months to issue a ruling on the complaint, making it unlikely the commission would act in time to affect the film's ad campaign. The two-hour documentary, which depicts President Bush as lazy and oblivious to warnings in summer 2001 that al-Qaida was poised to strike, opens nationwide on Friday.
The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11'' fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election.
Bush will be nominated by the GOP during its New York convention Aug. 30-Sept. 2. Citizens United argued that "Fahrenheit 9/11'' ads that identify Bush and are paid for with corporate money should be banned after July 31.
Moore called the complaint "a blatant attempt on the part of a right-wing, Republican-sponsored group to stop people from seeing my movie.'' He said he would fight the complaint, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus appearing with him at a news conference near the Capitol promised to help.
"It's a violation of my First Amendment rights that I cannot advertise my movie. It's a movie,'' Moore said. "I have not publicly endorsed John Kerry. I am an independent, I am not a member of the Democratic Party.''
An exemption to the law frees a wide array of media organizations from the ban on the use of corporate money for ads identifying federal candidates close to elections. Moore, an Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker, and the film might be covered by the media exemption.
Citizens United contends that "Fahrenheit 9/11'' is propaganda and doesn't qualify for the media exemption. It is among conservative groups that have tried to mobilize the public against the film, arguing that Moore's portrayal of the Bush administration is inaccurate.
The group's complaint names Moore; companies involved in the film's marketing and distribution, including Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Cablevision Systems Corp., Viacom International; and brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, executives at the film company Miramax who formed a separate company to find a way to distribute Moore's film.
The complaint also contends that because Lions Gate is foreign-owned, the ads are subject to a ban on the use of foreign money for ads identifying presidential candidates close to elections.
"Fahrenheit 9/11'' won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival. Moore and his distributors lost their appeal Tuesday to lower its rating from R to PG-13.
The FEC issued a decision Thursday on ads involving another film, but commissioners said it doesn't address Moore or ads promoting ``Fahrenheit 9/11.'' In that ruling, the FEC told an Arizona man he couldn't use corporate money to run ads promoting his documentary film and identifying Bush and congressional candidates close to the election.
David Hardy, president of the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation in Tucson, Ariz., had asked the commission for its advice on whether he could use foundation money for the ads. Hardy didn't ask the commission whether his ads would qualify for the media exemption.
________________________
I got into an argument with a bunch of Dems on another board about this yesterday. I get the impression that the rule was passed to prevent campaign donors from helping a nominee after the fundraising cutoff date. General Electric could, for example, create and place countless pro-Bush ads in lieu of direct donations.
Moore's film isn't being questioned here, only the ads. If he can make an ad that features a picture of him holding a sign saying 'See My Movie -- Fahrenheit 9/11' with no references to or images of Bush or Kerry, he's fine. At the end of the day, this debate has only served to give Moore free publicity ... ask Mel Gibson what he thinks now of the ACLUs public complaints about The Passion. (I do not believe he should receive the media exemption ... the film is not journalism as Moore himself has conceded.)
June 25, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A conservative group asked federal election officials on Thursday to investigate whether television ads for director Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11'' violate campaign finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.
The Federal Election Commission might take months to issue a ruling on the complaint, making it unlikely the commission would act in time to affect the film's ad campaign. The two-hour documentary, which depicts President Bush as lazy and oblivious to warnings in summer 2001 that al-Qaida was poised to strike, opens nationwide on Friday.
The group Citizens United contended that commercials for "Fahrenheit 9/11'' fall under federal campaign finance law. Regulations prohibit the use of corporate money to air ads identifying a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's nominating convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 election.
Bush will be nominated by the GOP during its New York convention Aug. 30-Sept. 2. Citizens United argued that "Fahrenheit 9/11'' ads that identify Bush and are paid for with corporate money should be banned after July 31.
Moore called the complaint "a blatant attempt on the part of a right-wing, Republican-sponsored group to stop people from seeing my movie.'' He said he would fight the complaint, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus appearing with him at a news conference near the Capitol promised to help.
"It's a violation of my First Amendment rights that I cannot advertise my movie. It's a movie,'' Moore said. "I have not publicly endorsed John Kerry. I am an independent, I am not a member of the Democratic Party.''
An exemption to the law frees a wide array of media organizations from the ban on the use of corporate money for ads identifying federal candidates close to elections. Moore, an Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker, and the film might be covered by the media exemption.
Citizens United contends that "Fahrenheit 9/11'' is propaganda and doesn't qualify for the media exemption. It is among conservative groups that have tried to mobilize the public against the film, arguing that Moore's portrayal of the Bush administration is inaccurate.
The group's complaint names Moore; companies involved in the film's marketing and distribution, including Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Cablevision Systems Corp., Viacom International; and brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein, executives at the film company Miramax who formed a separate company to find a way to distribute Moore's film.
The complaint also contends that because Lions Gate is foreign-owned, the ads are subject to a ban on the use of foreign money for ads identifying presidential candidates close to elections.
"Fahrenheit 9/11'' won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival. Moore and his distributors lost their appeal Tuesday to lower its rating from R to PG-13.
The FEC issued a decision Thursday on ads involving another film, but commissioners said it doesn't address Moore or ads promoting ``Fahrenheit 9/11.'' In that ruling, the FEC told an Arizona man he couldn't use corporate money to run ads promoting his documentary film and identifying Bush and congressional candidates close to the election.
David Hardy, president of the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation in Tucson, Ariz., had asked the commission for its advice on whether he could use foundation money for the ads. Hardy didn't ask the commission whether his ads would qualify for the media exemption.
________________________
I got into an argument with a bunch of Dems on another board about this yesterday. I get the impression that the rule was passed to prevent campaign donors from helping a nominee after the fundraising cutoff date. General Electric could, for example, create and place countless pro-Bush ads in lieu of direct donations.
Moore's film isn't being questioned here, only the ads. If he can make an ad that features a picture of him holding a sign saying 'See My Movie -- Fahrenheit 9/11' with no references to or images of Bush or Kerry, he's fine. At the end of the day, this debate has only served to give Moore free publicity ... ask Mel Gibson what he thinks now of the ACLUs public complaints about The Passion. (I do not believe he should receive the media exemption ... the film is not journalism as Moore himself has conceded.)
But this is vastly removed from what the carrion crawler posted, is it not? Some dipshit right-wing activist group attempting to put down some dipshit left-wing activist film maker? That's substantially different from "the government is trying to put Michael Moore down; they know he's telling the truth so they will sue him if he attempts to advertise the movie."
Phaedrus
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
But this is vastly removed from what the carrion crawler posted, is it not? Some dipshit right-wing activist group attempting to put down some dipshit left-wing activist film maker? That's substantially different from "the government is trying to put Michael Moore down; they know he's telling the truth so they will sue him if he attempts to advertise the movie."
Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That same dipshit right-wing activist group you point to made quite the hellabaloo when this bill was first proposed (according to CNN, at least.) The ironic thing is that this bill will likely serve the interests of the left more frequently than the interests of the right, if there is any validity to the assertion that Republicans draw more big business donations than Democrats.
But this is vastly removed from what the carrion crawler posted, is it not? Some dipshit right-wing activist group attempting to put down some dipshit left-wing activist film maker? That's substantially different from "the government is trying to put Michael Moore down; they know he's telling the truth so they will sue him if he attempts to advertise the movie."
Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That same dipshit right-wing activist group you point to made quite the hellabaloo when this bill was first proposed (according to CNN, at least.) The ironic thing is that this bill will likely serve the interests of the left more frequently than the interests of the right, if there is any validity to the assertion that Republicans draw more big business donations than Democrats.
posted by Benassflick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
OK Phaedrus it's time for you to put up or shut up. Post the lies in the movie. Begin posting now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What the hell are you talking about you fúcking idiot? Have you even read any of my posts?
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
OK Phaedrus it's time for you to put up or shut up. Post the lies in the movie. Begin posting now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What the hell are you talking about you fúcking idiot? Have you even read any of my posts?
Phaedrus
I just saw the movie and here is my take. Michael Moore is the lefts Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh and his ilk have had their way the last 4 years and now that Moore has turned the tables, the right doesn't like it. Can you imagine the howling that the right would be doing if President Gore was doing what Bush has done since getting 500,000 less votes than Gore? LT
Its funny fatass refused to debate the movie with anybody on the right...Bill O'Reilly has been begging him to come on his show.
Again Lisa Myers from NBC is not a freind of the right and said the movie was for you tin foil hat conspiracy types and so full manipulations of the facts that he ruined anything that may be considerd credible.
This movie will raise Bushes poll point by 10 pts..
Again Lisa Myers from NBC is not a freind of the right and said the movie was for you tin foil hat conspiracy types and so full manipulations of the facts that he ruined anything that may be considerd credible.
This movie will raise Bushes poll point by 10 pts..
