Farenheit 9/11 1/2

[RkFast]

Moore can blow it out his ass...

 

BULLET Head.

[billsfanone]

If he cared so much for the little guy, he wouldn't eat so much and save some food for the needy.

[Mickey]

I am just so tired of hearing "michael moore gets under you skin, so he most be winning" or similar arguments.

 

He obviously is not winning, just look at the past election for proof.

 

What Michael Moore has found is a niche market for his pseudo documentaries, which makes him a lot of money.

 

There is small, but dedicate crowd of Bush haters who will lap up anything he sells. But the real sad part is, most of these folks who support his movies and pay $50 to hear him speak really don't know all of his views, partly because he only states them while he is out of the country.

 

Here is partial list of his quotes:

 

"The passengers on the hijacked planes were cowards and did not fight back, because the were mostly white"

(Wonder what Mrs, Todd Beamer would think if she heard that)

"F**k small business. They are the rednecks that keep the nooses around small towns"

"Let all the mexicans who want to move here come on over. There is plenty of room in Kansas"

(Uh, don't you think you would want to check with the farmers in that state before you bring them all over)

"The dumbest Canadian is smarter than the smartest America"

( I don't know were to start with that one).

So just keep in mind, when people get pissed of at Moore for getting $30,000 a night and a private jet ride to speak at a college (and giving no money to charity), or when he makes money off selling a CD called "Music from and inspired by Fahrenheit 9/11", there is more to the anger than just his dislike of Bush.

 

PS. Since Osma came out and admitted to doing the terrorist acts of 9/11, doesn't that shoot down his theory that is was planned by Bush?

113486[/snapback]

Moore's efforts were focused on the young. Take a look at how that demographic voted and tell me again how he failed. The overall results can't be blamed on Michael Moore who is, after all, just one man. Wars, economies, religious passions etc, etc, these were issues far more important to voters than Michael Moore. He did set out to get the youth vote for Kerry and he did just that. It wasn't enough to swing the election but that doesn't mean it was a failure. Most of those new democrats he created will stay democrats for a long time. Their impact is only going to get bigger. Time is on their side.

 

By the way, my Dad is a die hard republican and he watched Moore's movies and thought that there was enough truth in them to make them worthwhile though he wasn't particularly swayed by the bs and there was plenty of that.

 

Some of those remarks are being taken out of context. Like the one about Canadians. He was making a point that Canadians know more about what is going on in America than Americans know about what is going on in Canada. His point being that we are focused too much on ourselves and not enough on even our closest neighbors. He didn't really mean that Canadians are somehow inherently more intelligent than Americans. He emphasized the point by making the tongue in cheek, overstated comment you reference.

 

I wasn't aware that Moore seriously thinks that Bush planned 9/11. What he did say was that the Bushies had close relationships with the Saudis including the bin Ladin family. He also pointed out that Saudis, including bin ladins relatives were allowed to leave the US right after 9/11. These issues have been discussed a zillion times. Nothing new here.

[Buftex]

HERE YOU GO DEMOCRATS...here is your chance to seperate yourself from him! Don't let him further destroy your party!

112752[/snapback]

 

 

Hey, I am sure Democrats everywhere appreciate your concern for the well-being of their party. Tell your fellow Repubicans to seperate themselves from lunatics like Jerry Falwell, while your at it. I know, you have a "mandate" and all. Just because an election was lost, why is it that the Republican party thinks that the people on the losing end should abandon their principles, just so they can be invited to the evangelical revival meeting in the sky?

[BillsNYC]

Some of those remarks are being taken out of context. 

113518[/snapback]

 

Wow...how much Irony in that statement!

[RkFast]

Hey, I am sure Democrats everywhere appreciate your concern for the well-being of their party. Tell your fellow Repubicans to seperate themselves from lunatics like Jerry Falwell, while your at it. I know, you have a "mandate" and all. Just because an election was lost, why is it that the Republican party thinks that the people on the losing end should abandon their principles, just so they can be invited to the evangelical revival meeting in the sky?

 

Was Falwell guest of honor at the RNC Convention?

[BillsNYC]

Hey, I am sure Democrats everywhere appreciate your concern for the well-being of their party.  Tell your fellow Repubicans to seperate themselves from lunatics like Jerry Falwell, while your at it.  I know, you have a "mandate" and all.  Just because an election was lost, why is it that the Republican party thinks that the people on the losing end should abandon their principles, just so they can be invited to the evangelical revival meeting in the sky?

113530[/snapback]

 

Republicans don't seat Jerry Falwell next to previous presidents at the Rebublican Convention.

 

And Republicans don't put Jerry Falwell in the spotlight.

[SilverNRed]

Moore's efforts were focused on the young.  Take a look at how that demographic voted and tell me again how he failed.  The overall results can't be blamed on Michael Moore who is, after all, just one man.  Wars, economies, religious passions etc, etc, these were issues far more important to voters than Michael Moore.  He did set out to get the youth vote for Kerry and he did just that.  It wasn't enough to swing the election but that doesn't mean it was a failure.  Most of those new democrats he created will stay democrats for a long time.  Their impact is only going to get bigger.  Time is on their side.

113518[/snapback]

 

Get real. Young people almost always vote that way. What's the old saying - "If you aren't liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you aren't conservative when you're older, you don't have a brain." So Moore focused his efforts on people who already agreed with his half-baked ideas? Nice work.

 

Michael Moore is a failure. He was a rising star on the left a couple years back when Bowling for Columbine came out. But now everything he makes will be closely scrutinized as it is released and thus discredited before it can have an affect on anyone but the most dense members of our society.

 

He's a discredited propagandist, and his 15 minutes are just about up. He's a running joke at this point - the film version of Kitty Kelly.

[Alaska Darin]

Moore's efforts were focused on the young.  Take a look at how that demographic voted and tell me again how he failed. 

113518[/snapback]

Further proof that young and stupid is no way to go through life.

[SilverNRed]

Further proof that young and stupid is no way to go through life.

113628[/snapback]

 

No one stays young and most don't stay stupid. At least not "Michael Moore" stupid.

[DC Tom]

No one stays young and most don't stay stupid.  At least not "Michael Moore" stupid.

113668[/snapback]

 

Michael Moore did.

 

Just saw F9/11 the other night. What a thoroughly awful piece of masturbatory trash. The film equivalent of reading one of T-Bone's "Look at me" posts.

[VABills]

Michael Moore did.

 

Just saw F9/11 the other night.  What a thoroughly awful piece of masturbatory trash.  The film equivalent of reading one of T-Bone's "Look at me" posts.

113676[/snapback]

 

Actually to be fair to t-bone he usually doesn't post look at me posts. That would be BF and stevestojan. T-bone usually talks about ng being his B word at work and how the dead sox and Patriots are better than the spankees and Bills.

[DC Tom]

T-bone usually talks about ng being his B word at work and how the dead sox and Patriots are better than the spankees and Bills.

113684[/snapback]

 

How are those NOT "Look at me" posts?

[Buftex]

Republicans don't seat Jerry Falwell next to previous presidents at the Rebublican Convention.

 

And Republicans don't put Jerry Falwell in the spotlight.

113554[/snapback]

 

No, they are much more under the table than that. They say one thing on television, when all of America may be watching, and quite another on the campaign trail. Karl Rove, you know the "arhicitect" of the "mandate" admitted as much on "Meet the Press" last week. There was a time when campaigning in churches on Sundays was frowned upon (that ickey "seperation of church and state" that the Republican party cleverly works around), but was instrumental in securing president Bush a second term. I honestly don't know what Falwells' role was at the RNC (not even sure he had one), but he was a very vocal and visable supporter of Bush during the campaign. John Kerry never embraced Moore, or "Farhenheit 9/11" publicly, and in fact did not endorse the film, and claimed to never have seen it. As disingenuous as that might have been (and Bush was just as disingenous throughout the campaign), the Bush campaign made no attempt to distance themselves from the evangelicals, and in fact encouraged them, by appealing to their extremely conservative values. In 2000, these same people were concerned that Bush was not socially conservative enough.

[pdh1]

 

By the way, my Dad is a die hard republican and he watched Moore's movies and thought that there was enough truth in them to make them worthwhile though he wasn't particularly swayed by the bs and there was plenty of that. 

 

113518[/snapback]

 

While, my dad used to wanna buy some stuff that would come on Info-mercials on Sunday morning T.V., that doesn't mean they were good products.

 

Face it, Fatty Moore hurt the Dems more that he helped, as did the Hollywood Limo riding liberals.

Do we really care what George Clooney or "International Weapons Expert" Sean Penn think?

 

Nope. Polls show it was a turn off for most voters. And most people see thru Moore garbage as well. Nobody's thought proccess was changed by his "Mocumentary" or what ever you call it.

[ExiledInIllinois]

No, they are much more under the table than that.  They say one thing on television, when all of America may be watching, and quite another on the campaign trail.  Karl Rove, you know the "arhicitect" of the "mandate" admitted as much on "Meet the Press" last week.  There was a time when campaigning in churches on Sundays was frowned upon (that ickey "seperation of church and state" that the Republican party cleverly works around), but was instrumental in securing president Bush a second term.  I honestly don't know what Falwells' role was at the RNC (not even sure he had one), but he was a very vocal and visable supporter of Bush during the campaign.  John Kerry never embraced Moore, or "Farhenheit 9/11" publicly, and in fact did not endorse the film, and claimed to never have seen it.  As disingenuous as that might have been (and Bush was just as disingenous throughout the campaign), the Bush campaign made no attempt to distance themselves from the evangelicals, and in fact encouraged them, by appealing to their extremely conservative values.  In 2000, these same people were concerned that Bush was not socially conservative enough.

113743[/snapback]

 

Ya, I can't figure that out.

 

The evangels hate war with a passion... The must hate gays at home even more...

 

 

I still think they brokered a deal with the devil...

[Pete]

I sent Michael Moore an email thanking him for making his propaganda films because they helped ensure President Bush got reelected and that the Republicans control the house and the senate. I hope Stupid Fat Man writes back. Before you liberal types complain about my Stupid Fat Man comment please complain about the title Stupid White Men. Whats good for the goose....

[Buftex]

I sent Michael Moore an email thanking him for making his propaganda films because they helped ensure President Bush got reelected and that the Republicans control the house and the senate.  I hope Stupid Fat Man writes back.  Before you liberal types complain about my Stupid Fat Man comment please complain about the title Stupid White Men.  Whats good for the goose....

113938[/snapback]

 

 

 

Good for you Pete! Maybe he will send you an autographed picture...

[Dan III]

No, they are much more under the table than that.  They say one thing on television, when all of America may be watching, and quite another on the campaign trail.  Karl Rove, you know the "arhicitect" of the "mandate" admitted as much on "Meet the Press" last week.  There was a time when campaigning in churches on Sundays was frowned upon (that ickey "seperation of church and state" that the Republican party cleverly works around), but was instrumental in securing president Bush a second term.  I honestly don't know what Falwells' role was at the RNC (not even sure he had one), but he was a very vocal and visable supporter of Bush during the campaign.  John Kerry never embraced Moore, or "Farhenheit 9/11" publicly, and in fact did not endorse the film, and claimed to never have seen it.  As disingenuous as that might have been (and Bush was just as disingenous throughout the campaign), the Bush campaign made no attempt to distance themselves from the evangelicals, and in fact encouraged them, by appealing to their extremely conservative values.  In 2000, these same people were concerned that Bush was not socially conservative enough.

113743[/snapback]

I'm not understanding your point..

 

Bush never publicly embraced Falwell and he is still the bad guy.

 

Kerry had Moore at the convention but since Kerry never publicly embraced Moore, Kerry is the good guy.

[Buftex]

I'm not understanding your point..

 

Bush never publicly embraced Falwell and he is still the bad guy.

 

Kerry had Moore at the convention but since Kerry never publicly embraced Moore, Kerry is the good guy.

113953[/snapback]

 

 

I wasn't saying that Bush or Kerry was a good or bad guy. I was making the point (not sucessfully I guess) that the Republican campaign was very covert in making their sales pitch to the evangelicals. Rove has been bragging about it, and has fully acknowledged that the evangelicals played a huge part in delivering their "mandate". Jerry Falwell was on every news network over the last 8 or 9 months drooling over Bush...and Bush, in turn, on the campaign trail, pandered to the religious sect. He did not do this when in the national spotlight. Bush was pandering big time. That is all politics. The fact is, Moore represents a a faction of the Democratic party. The DNC didn't try to hide that fact. Just like they couldn't bring Mary Cheney up on stage, for fear of alienating their evanglelical base, they couldn't bring Falwell up, for fear it would cause problems for the less socialy conservative faction of the Republican party.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

He was seated next to ex-United States Democratic president Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention! He was given more press than any other Kerry OR Bush supporter. Like it or not, he DOES represent your party.

 

There's a great cartoon and it showed the democratic donkey lying in bed with Michael Moore and he says "How did I get here?" the title was "Farenheit 9am"

112798[/snapback]

 

He can be seated there, but he doesn't represent my views.

 

Why didn't they sit Rosie O'Donnell next to Carter? That would have made more sense!!

 

Retards... no WONDER Howard wants the DNC position!

[BillsNYC]

No, they are much more under the table than that.  They say one thing on television, when all of America may be watching, and quite another on the campaign trail.  Karl Rove, you know the "arhicitect" of the "mandate" admitted as much on "Meet the Press" last week.  There was a time when campaigning in churches on Sundays was frowned upon (that ickey "seperation of church and state" that the Republican party cleverly works around), but was instrumental in securing president Bush a second term.  I honestly don't know what Falwells' role was at the RNC (not even sure he had one), but he was a very vocal and visable supporter of Bush during the campaign.  John Kerry never embraced Moore, or "Farhenheit 9/11" publicly, and in fact did not endorse the film, and claimed to never have seen it.  As disingenuous as that might have been (and Bush was just as disingenous throughout the campaign), the Bush campaign made no attempt to distance themselves from the evangelicals, and in fact encouraged them, by appealing to their extremely conservative values.  In 2000, these same people were concerned that Bush was not socially conservative enough.

113743[/snapback]

 

What I'm saying is that by placing Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, the democrats sent the message to the American people that they support Michael Moore, and John Kerry supports Michael Moore. He was not seated there by chance or because it was a better view. They put him in the spotlight to say "We support this guy and what he says"

[Alaska Darin]

What I'm saying is that by placing Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, the democrats sent the message to the American people that they support Michael Moore, and John Kerry supports Michael Moore. He was not seated there by chance or because it was a better view. They put him in the spotlight to say "We support this guy and what he says"

114215[/snapback]

Or maybe that was the seat that had the best chance of withstanding the load for the entire show.

[Buftex]

What I'm saying is that by placing Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, the democrats sent the message to the American people that they support Michael Moore, and John Kerry supports Michael Moore. He was not seated there by chance or because it was a better view. They put him in the spotlight to say "We support this guy and what he says"

114215[/snapback]

 

 

You are likely correct. And what I am saying, for the third time, is that what the RNC did in plain sight, was different than what they did when there weren't cameras everywhere. Karl Rove has said that the evangelical right was delivered Bush his "mandate". While the RNC pandedred to this group on the campaign trail, they made an effort to keep them out of sight at their convention. The Democratic party is truly, for better or worse, a party of inclusion. There are numerous factions in the Democratic party. They tried to represent them all.

 

The Republican party, it appears, made a great effort to appear as a bit more moderate than it really is, at its' core. Within 4 days of the end of the election, both the president, and his boss...err, Karl Rove again promised that they would pus forward to get their constitutional ban on gay marriage. Very few, Republican or Democrat, find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life, yet the president forges on. Most feel that it is an issue that should be left up to the individual states. The president, it appears, is pandering to the evangelicals. Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country. There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits.

[BillsNYC]

  Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country.  There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits.

114581[/snapback]

 

He is?

[Arondale]

You are likely correct.  And what I am saying, for the third time, is that what the RNC did in plain sight, was different than what they did when there weren't cameras everywhere.  Karl Rove has said that the evangelical right was delivered Bush his "mandate".  While the RNC pandedred to this group on the campaign trail, they made an effort to keep them out of sight at their convention.  The Democratic party is truly, for better or worse, a party of inclusion.  There are numerous factions in the Democratic party. They tried to represent them all.

 

The Republican party, it appears, made a great effort to appear as a bit more moderate than it really is, at its' core.  Within 4 days of the end of the election, both the president, and his boss...err, Karl Rove again promised that they would pus forward to get their constitutional ban on gay marriage.  Very few, Republican or Democrat, find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life, yet the president forges on. Most feel that it is an issue that should be left up to the individual states.  The president, it appears, is pandering to the evangelicals.  Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country.  There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits.

114581[/snapback]

 

 

You can't compare Michael Moore to the "evangelical right" as a whole. They kept people like Falwell out of sight because he is on the extreme end and does not represent the base of evangelical Christians like myself. GW never hid the base of evangelical Christians, as he himself has never been afraid to quote scripture and mention God. Evangelical Christians like Frist and Santorum have not been hidden - those men are much more representative of evangelical Christians than Falwell. Using your theory, you would equate Bill Frist to Michael Moore, which is ridiculous.

 

I would also disagree with your views on gay marriage. If you read the particulars of why GW is seeking the constitutional ammendment, he is doing so because the courts are currently not allowing states to decide the matter. States are passing gay marriage ammendments and then having the courts strike it down. GW is correct in saying that if the activist courts are not going to allow the states to decide the matter, then the only course of action is to go to the Constitution. John Kerry and GW believed the same thing, that it should be left up to the states - but John Kerry refused to recognize that the courts were taking that right away from the states. GW recognized that and realizes the only step to combat that is to ammend the Constitution.

 

How is it "pandering to the evangelicals" when over 40 states now have passed gay marriage laws? How can you say "very few . . . find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life" when over 40 states have passed these laws? Don't you think the supporters in those 40+ states are angry their vote is being nullified by activist judges? The majority of the American people, not just evangelical Christians, want marriage defended and yet a few unelected officials are witholding their right. This is not about pandering to one group, it is about giving the majority a necessary solution.

 

Just to verify GW's stance on the issue, here is a link to one of his radio addresses that clearly explains it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...7/20040710.html.

[ATBNG]

You are likely correct.  And what I am saying, for the third time, is that what the RNC did in plain sight, was different than what they did when there weren't cameras everywhere.  Karl Rove has said that the evangelical right was delivered Bush his "mandate".  While the RNC pandedred to this group on the campaign trail, they made an effort to keep them out of sight at their convention.  The Democratic party is truly, for better or worse, a party of inclusion.  There are numerous factions in the Democratic party. They tried to represent them all.

 

The Democrats are not a party of inclusion. Look at what they've done on abortion. There was a steady contingent of pro-life democrats just 15 years ago. Now they are treated like pariahs. Bob Casey (the Democratic governor of an eternal swing state - Pennsylvania) had to speak at the RNC because he was pro-life.

 

What the Democratic party tries to do is to appeal to its voters through grouping - you are this race or sex or sexual preference or economic status, and so we will clearly be better for you in that context because we will do this for your group (and thus elevate you). If you identify yourself as an individual that places his/her group statuses secondary, I suspect you're more likely to vote Republican. Even though this administration has been atrocious on spending, there still is a better fighting chance backing the Repubs than the Dems if you feel the federal and total tax burden is far too excessive.

 

The Dems need to stop assuming they have the intellectual high ground and start fighting for it again. I'm never buying that they are progressive though. They continually want to raise taxes and spending and increase the amount of involvement and particpation that government has in controlling people's economic decisions and redistributing wealth. Just what are they progressing towards?????

[gomper]

God bless such a great American!!!

[Rich in Ohio]

Juat another way for this big fat slob bastard to take more money from the sick and twisted luney left. What is wrong with that?

[RkFast]

Now that he has their vote, he is pushing their agenda onto all of us... and in the process will only serve to further divide this country.  There is something fundamentally wrong with this, no matter what side of the political spectrum one sits.

 

Wait.......Dont ALL Presidents do this? Dont ALL Presidents have an "agenda" or "vision" for the country that we elect him to implement? Why is Bush "dividing the Country" when he does it?

 

Oh yeah...."Bush Bad....FLIGHTSUIT!!!!!"

[Gene Frenkle]

Further proof that young and stupid is no way to go through life.

113628[/snapback]

Yes, it's much better to be old and bitter.

[Alaska Darin]

Yes, it's much better to be old and bitter.

118173[/snapback]

Your point? I'm neither old, nor bitter.

[Gene Frenkle]

Your point?  I'm neither old, nor bitter.

118245[/snapback]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. You're only as old (and/or bitter) as you feel!

[Alaska Darin]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.  You're only as old (and/or bitter) as you feel!

118923[/snapback]

Or as other's perceive, I guess.