Farenheit 9/11: Who's seeing it?

[Dementor]

Just wondering who's planning on seeing this film and why.

[ekim]

Yeah, I plan on seeing it, because I dislike Bush, and I want to see his take on the Bush administration and its actions. I dont expect everything to be 100% accurate, because it can never be, but I do expect to agree with the message. We'll see.

On a side note, how can someone be a danger to free thought?

[Mastgrr]

One person voted that Michael Moore is danger to free thought. Wow. Appearantly we've got a dictator roaming these boards who don't like it when other people have other opinions.

[windwalker]

Michael Moore is an *******, and an idiot, but a good filmmaker nonetheless. I'll see it of course, and it will probably be good. But that doesnt change the fact that Moore is an *******/idiot. I'll just call him an assiot.

[windwalker]

Whoa that's wierd. Just as I posted that last message a commercial for the movie came on. Just thought I should share that. Oh yeah, and the word they had to censor in the above post was assho.le.

[WiglyWorm]

it is dangerous and counter productive to portray fiction as fact. no matter how much you hate bush and want to see him lambasted/ousted from the presidencey a fictional story full of mis-quotes out of context information and heavy handed editing to make people say exactley what you want them to say as opposed to what they did say that pushes itself off as a documentery/factual story is irresponsible, to say the least.


.......
we are talking about the guy who made bowling for colombine right? I don't worship celebrities, in fact i hate celebrity worship.. when last samurai came out i had to ask who tom cruise was again... so don't expect me to conciously make an effort to retain these trivial facts in my head.. if we're talking about someone else just desregard this post.

[Drakeon]

Yes its the same guy who made Bowling for Columbine.

Wouldn't see this movie if ya payed me too (well maybe I would.. I'd just walk out of the theatre when you weren't looking >_>)

[Semidi]

I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry, but I dispise Moore and all that he stands for.

If I wanted fake new I'd watch the Daily show with John Stewart, but the sad thing is Moore show his views as fact. What Moore doesn't say infront of American who he says that the majority agree with him is that he wants everyone paying 80% or more of there wages in taxes. This guy isn't a Democrat, Liberal, or Far left wing he's a Socialist through and through.

The day America moves to Socialism I'm buying Sibiria and making a new country!

-waits for the next true Republican President-

[Bhs Crew]

I really hate Moore, but a friend of mine wants to see it. Also I will be unable to partake in the discussions about the film if I don't see it. Damn.

[ScytheNoire]

who the heck would think that Moore is a danger to free thought?

probably the same person who thinks that the RIAA suing people is going to increase record sales (which it hasn't), that the DMCA is good for us (it anti-technology), and that Bush didn't start this war over personal gain (he and friends have made a fortune over the oil).

[niteshade6]

I could really care less what his political views regarding socialism are, it doesn't make anything he says any more or less true. However in general I do find him to be sort of unreasonable, even though I usualy agree with what he is saying.

I'm pretty sure all the facts are accurate though, it's just his spin on them which may be questionable.

[Nojin]

I'll watch it, not at the theaters though. I LOVE the commercial though...
I speak to all the leaders of the world, we have to catch these terrorist killers...

Now watch me make this drive!

(Well, something like that. :p )

[SaroDarksbane]

Pay $8.00 to watch Michael Moore lie his *** off? No thanks. If I wanted lies, well, he opens up his mouth enough off the set, I think.

Although, even for someone like me who despises Moore, those commercials are quite catchy.

The "Now watch me make this drive!" has me laughing everytime. ^_^

[Essex]

as strange as it is for me, I've never really watched Moore's stuff. I generally agree with him when i see him in public but I don't really go out to watch his movies. However if I can find a place near me in small town hellish TN I'll go watch it. Maybe Nashville has a theater showing it.. I hope.

I do wonder what people would say about him if he wasn't fat. What if Moore was a really attractive slim man who looked more like a soccer player than a soccer ball. Because most of the things I see posted about him (not here but in other forums) are things like "that fatass, lardass, ect."

Also just curious because again I haven't watched his stuff but exactly what lies are you guys talking about? could you provide an example? Plus how can you say **** about this film if you haven't seen it yet? Are you just taking the word of the people from the right who have seen it? Do you really want to do that? I'm not going to say its good/bad or the other because I've yet to see it.

Plus that ad shouldn't be funny it should be troubling as it is to me.

another thing everyone says that this board is liberal but I count seven out of 13 posts (before mine) that were anti-moore. Hmm funny if this board was as liberal as everyone says wouldn't that be like 10 people for moore?

[TheDagdaMor145]

i am, at this point, undecided. but whether i go and see it or not will probably have to do with what my wife wants to do. she has been getting into documentaries more since bowling for columbine (which she liked), but she knows that moore does not put forth a balanced view on everything.

anyhow, the reason i am undecided is that i know how i feel about all these things already. and i know what moore's opinion on these things is. so why do i need to pay a bunch of money to see it?

also, i would note that i have never seen anything by micheal moore. so i cannot speak to him being a liar or an *******. however, from what i have read of him he tries his best to pass his opinions off as facts. so just as long as you accept that the documentary is designed to be one side of a larger debate, then it is ok.

another reason i might go to see it is that many film critics are saying that whether you love or hate the message, it is good film making and directing. and directing is something that has always fascinated me.

[SaroDarksbane]

Also just curious because again I haven't watched his stuff but exactly what lies are you guys talking about? could you provide an example? Plus how can you say **** about this film if you haven't seen it yet? Are you just taking the word of the people from the right who have seen it? Do you really want to do that? I'm not going to say its good/bad or the other because I've yet to see it.
Moore has a history of making up things (editing video to make it look like people said/did things they didn't), distorting the truth, and just generally spewing manipulative propaganda. You can start here (www.bowlingfortruth.com) if you want some good info.

(Heck, just a couple days ago he was telling people how the last time he was on the O'Reilly Factor, he "tore O'Reilly to ribbons" and was banned from ever appearing again. Then O'Reilly showed the interview in question and there wasn't even any debate. It was kind of a "This is Michael Moore, here's what he stands for" segment. Very light-hearted. Very funny. But here's Moore telling everyone he crushed O'Reilly in a non-existent argument. I swear, Moore is a pathological liar or something; You can't trust anything that comes out of his mouth.)
another thing everyone says that this board is liberal but I count seven out of 13 posts (before mine) that were anti-moore. Hmm funny if this board was as liberal as everyone says wouldn't that be like 10 people for moore?
What you're essentially asking is, either:

1. The liberal people on this board don't support a known liar, or
2. This board doesn't have a liberal slant.

Most people here are looking for the truth, no matter their political affiliation or beliefs.

[ScytheNoire]

Pay $8.00 to watch Michael Moore lie his *** off? No thanks.

you don't have to actually pay to see it, you can download it for free off the internet.
sharing is fun!

and i also have a video quote by Michael Moore stating that he thinks fire sharing is a good thing and should remain legal. so no worries there, it's on camera, Moore supports it!
Share his crap all you want, he wants us to!

[Eiger]

Sure, I'll see it. Anything that thumps Georgie W is bound to be great fun!

[niteshade6]

The anti-Moore website is funny. I'm sure there is some truth to it, but I find it at least as suspect as Moore himself. Despire what the writer says, there is clearly a MAJOR right wing bias and much of it looks fishy. It almost makes Moore look reasonable and balanced in comparison.

Personaly I think most of what Moore is guilty of is making people look much more evil and stupid then they really are. Which is still bad. I'm sure he could have interviewed Mother Teresa and made her look like Hitler. However most of the facts he presents in his new movie are both true and a matter of public record. And that's what I'm really going to see, I can form my own opinions on them. And I'm going because his movies to be amusing. But that's probably just because I often agree with him. If I disagreed with him, I'd probably find him much less amusing. Sort of like how people who agree with Rush Limbaugh often find him amusing even if they think he's stupid, while people who disagree don't see the humor as much.

[niteshade6]

I went to check on movie times here in Manhattan and they are sold out for about the next 7 showings. I haven't seen that since LoTR. Although I guess I shouldn't be so surprised that it would be popular here. Most people here REALLY hate Bush.

[Booms]

Haha, that anti-Moore site is worse than anything that he does in his films.

[Mastgrr]

The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is an opionionated piece, but it's 100% factually correct. Moore and his staff has fine-combed the movie and made sure that everything is COMPLETELY correct. I really don't think that it is 100% correct though since it's human to make mistakes, so I wouldn't be suprised if Newsmax or any other of those right wing 'Goebbels' outlets say that Michael Moore was wrong with like one number and make it in to a huge story questioning his credentials.

I also find it ironic that people think that Michael Moore is propaganda but bow down to Hanity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage and Coulter.

[memememe173]

Yes, because it'll be entertaining and tought provoking

[SaroDarksbane]

The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is an opionionated piece, but it's 100% factually correct. Moore and his staff has fine-combed the movie and made sure that everything is COMPLETELY correct.
So you've seen it and checked all the evidence? Or are you taking his word for it. ("Michael Moore says it's true this time. Really! Honest! So it must be!"). Or did he have a team of harvard students like Franken, who still managed to lie his *** off?
I also find it ironic that people think that Michael Moore is propaganda but bow down to Hanity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage and Coulter.
Hannity sucks, Limbaugh sucks, Savage sucks, Coulter sucks.

The only person on that list I happen to like is O'Reilly, and I have yet to see anyone make a case against him (and no Franken's lies and half-truths don't count).

And for those of you who are bashing the anti-Moore site, please provide some examples. I've always got an open mind. =)

[niteshade6]

So you've seen it and checked all the evidence? Or are you taking his word for it. ("Michael Moore says it's true this time. Really! Honest! So it must be!"). Or did he have a team of harvard students like Franken, who still managed to lie his *** off?

Well the Bush Administration doesn't deny any of it, except that I believe they have given some minor corrections to things. Pretty much everything I've read on it indicates that none of the facts are wrong. A better question would be why you think it's a lie.

As for the website you gave a link to, you have to admit it provides just as much spin and sensationalism as they accuse Moore of. And it very clearly has a major right wing bias given that its bashes Moore and Franken, but doesn't bash any of the equaly bad right wing people. If they had sections on Limbaugh and Coulter as well, I might be inclined to think he was as unbiased as he claims to be.

[SaroDarksbane]

Well the Bush Administration doesn't deny any of it, except that I believe they have given some minor corrections to things. Pretty much everything I've read on it indicates that none of the facts are wrong. A better question would be why you think it's a lie.
Past examples of his work. When someone lies, and lies, and lies to you, at some point you have to stop taking their word that the next one is "going to be truth, honest!".
As for the website you gave a link to, you have to admit it provides just as much spin and sensationalism as they accuse Moore of. And it very clearly has a major right wing bias given that its bashes Moore and Franken, but doesn't bash any of the equaly bad right wing people. If they had sections on Limbaugh and Coulter as well, I might be inclined to think he was as unbiased as he claims to be.
Examples? And read the FAQ too. ^_^

[Benjamin_Blackheart]

Wait wait wait! If the movie is 100% accurate, then why in the trailer does it say...

Farenhiet - The tempreture in which water reaches the boiling point.


Isn't farenhiet a system of measurement like celsius and kalvin? If the trailer is any indication on how accurate the movie is, oh god are we in trouble.

[Semidi]

Is the movie a pun off the book Farenhiet 451 by Ray Bradbury? (I think I spelled his last name wrong it's been awile)

[Drakeon]

The only thing it applies to is the title, the rest has nothing to do with the book as far as I know.

[Semidi]

O'Reilly had a segment that's pretty good about moores film maybe it's on his web site.

O'Reilly's also and Independant not a conservative.

[Antonidas]

i dont want to see it because it looks stupid,i dont know what its about besides the 9/11 and people need to get over 9/11.

[Essex]

I went to check on movie times here in Manhattan and they are sold out for about the next 7 showings. I haven't seen that since LoTR. Although I guess I shouldn't be so surprised that it would be popular here. Most people here REALLY hate Bush.
yeah NYC tends to be very liberal... hell its *** hippy sex land and yet for some odd reason the RNC is having their convention there... hmm... what could have happened in New York that Bush is trying to use to get elected...

what horrible tragadey could possibly have convinced the RNC to go there... hmmmm... maybe its the saddness that is the New York Knick adminstartion but I doubt it.

Andonais or whatever I can't spell that name lol... its not really about 9/11 its about Bush and his ties to Saudi Arabia, and his general incompetence.

Plus is O'Riley still saying he's an independent? Other than admiting wrong on the WMD thing has he done anything slightly moderate?

[windwalker]

Yeah, it is a pun off of Farenheight 451. Micheal Moore admits it and says he has great respect for Ray Bradbury.

However, Ray Bradbury (who is 83 now) is all pissed off at Moore for using that title, and asked him to change it. For about six months Moore's office kept telling Bradbury he would get back to him, but he never did.

And to anyone who thinks that the title ISN'T a pun on the book...
Farenheight 451 is "the temperature at which books burn"
Farenheight 9/11 is "the temperature at which freedom burns"

[Booms]

Just came back from the theatre.

EVERYONE should see this movie, Bush supporter or not.

[billobob]

O'Reilly had a segment that's pretty good about moores film maybe it's on his web site.

O'Reilly's also and Independant not a conservative.

He may be an independent, but he is also definitely a conservative, although he's more of the neo-con type than a traditional conservative, which seem to be becoming an extinct species in America.

[Sage the Mage]

Know what would make a great movie? Michael Moore vs Mel Gibson.
Each movie, you have to see right? What better than a deathrace between the two?

The problem with the movie is that Moore wants it to bring down Bush, but simply because its Moore I think maybe 0.0001% of all conservatives would see it.

What would we call Moore if he wasn't fat? *******!

[SaroDarksbane]

He may be an independent, but he is also definitely a conservative, although he's more of the neo-con type than a traditional conservative, which seem to be becoming an extinct species in America.
Actually, if you match him up with all the issues, he's ever so slightly to the left. :)

[ronin]

Im a canadian so I probably have no business posting on this topic, while I was watching CNN yesterday morning they where having a short interview with Michael Moore and he said, "What I love about America is that we are given freedom of speech, thats what seperates us from most of the world". What I love about directors like MM is that he trys to do the right thing and tell us whats really going on. When you watch the movie your gonna be asking yourself why didnt Bush tell us these things? I like directors who make movies or should I say documentaries that make you think. So my answer is Yes I will be seeing this movie.

[Essex]

Actually, if you match him up with all the issues, he's ever so slightly to the left. :)
could you please provide some sort of proof of that statement, a link perhaps? Or just a list with his views maybe

[Mastgrr]

HUGE MICHAEL MOORE LIE FOUND ALREADY!!!!!!

Appearantly Michael Moore's website says, and I quote, "It is six in the morning..." Now, why are they saying that it is six in the morning when infact it is not? IT'S 5:41 AM!!!!! (Michael Moore is a fat liar. He's fat. Unpatriotic and a fat liar. He's obese and not only obese, but fat. Did I mention he's fat? Fatty fat fat...) When will this obese liar stop spewing out leftist communist propaganda and destroy our core american values? He's not only un-american, but treasonous to our country. He must be executed (which fortunetly enough is not llong away because he will soon die of obesity). I hope he eats crap and die like all other liberal haters in this country.

SEEE IT FOR YOURSELF!!!

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/breakingnews/index.php?id=32

[Drakeon]

More Sarcasm/Overreacting please?

[Danny5]

Is the movie a pun off the book Farenhiet 451 by Ray Bradbury?

Poor Bradbury. Having a lying fatass mooch off his creation.

I'm planning on seeing the movie tonight. Moore is a good film maker and one of the best editors I've seen. However, he's also one of the best liars/decievers I've ever seen. I thoroughly enjoyed 'Bowling for Columbine', even if he was shoving my face in a pile of **** the entire time.

I expect nothing less from this movie. Just going for the entertainment of it all.

And I swear to god, if those Hollywood retards consider it a documentary again, I'm going teach them what a real documentary is.. after I knock their heads in with a bat.

[Cale The Dark]

who the heck would think that Moore is a danger to free thought?

probably the same person who thinks that the RIAA suing people is going to increase record sales (which it hasn't), that the DMCA is good for us (it anti-technology), and that Bush didn't start this war over personal gain (he and friends have made a fortune over the oil).


What an enlightened opinion. Of course Bush and his buddies are making all the money on the oil in the middle of the night, when they magically fix the blown to hell oil pipes and start pumping into pushes secret invisible cargo plane for shipping. Wow, simply amazing.

Now, I hate Michael Moore because he manufactures things he presents as fact and twists situations to his own view...blatantly so. Just like that thing where he was trying to get the congressmen to send their family to Iraq and the one guy said he has a nephew in Afganistan...Moore edited that piece to an unrecognizable fragment of course. Despite my great disdain for Moore, I can't see as how he is an enemy of free thought. He is just an enemy to the impressionable who take what he says at face value without looking elsewhere. Even when Michael Moore does have a good point (some of the things he has on Bush are true and alarming), he ruins it with his methods! He has no credibility at all.

[Cale The Dark]

another thing everyone says that this board is liberal but I count seven out of 13 posts (before mine) that were anti-moore. Hmm funny if this board was as liberal as everyone says wouldn't that be like 10 people for moore?

Even some of the more liberals can't stand the manipulative bastard.

[Cale The Dark]

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

This is a good article bashing Moore...apparantly he hates liers too.

[Semidi]

Nice article! Now I wish I saw moore's movie than crappy Harry Potter.

[SaroDarksbane]

could you please provide some sort of proof of that statement, a link perhaps? Or just a list with his views maybe
Certainly:

Here are some traditionally left views:

• Supports raising automobile fuel efficiency standards

• Supports action due to his belief in global warming

• Supports campaign finance reform

• Supports de-criminalizing marijuana

• Supports *** adoption

• Supports civil unions

• Supports *** marriage if voted on by the people

• Supports gun control

• Opposes the death penalty

• Opposes additional regulation of pornography

• Opposes moral judgments based on religious teachings.

• Opposes government regulation of private sexual acts between consenting adults

• Opposes the criminalization of most forms of abortion (partial-birth abortion being the exception), though personally finds the practice offensive

• Lists Robert F. Kennedy as his favorite politician

• Believes that corporation owned media influences reporting.


And here are some traditionally right views:

• Supports cutting taxes across the board and eliminating the inheritance tax

• Supports use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific experiments

• Supports harsher prosecution for hard drug offenders

• Supports U.S. military action against the Taliban and Afghanistan and Iraq (though he later apologized for using faulty reasoning in his analysis after no weapons of mass destruction were found almost a year after the invasion).

• Opposes strict separation of church and state and secularization

• Opposes illegal immigration (e.g., proposes placing United States National Guard on the U.S. border with Mexico)

• Opposes partial-birth abortion

• Believes that most news media has a liberal bias [5]

(since approximately October 18, 2003, previous view was "... the issue of the liberal media. Bogus. Rush Limbaugh has the most powerful radio program in the country and the Fox News Channel is the highest rated cable news network — at least in primetime." March 29, 2001 [6]. He changed his opinion on it after being repeatedly and unfairly attacked from the left in major news outlets in print, online and television.

[Echod16]

I don't really care about his views or the facts he shows in the movie enough to see it, if i want to know...i'll look it up

never heard of moore until the movie

[Danny5]

Just got back a few hours ago from seeing it. Good movie.

If everyone in the country saw this movie, Bush would never get re-elected. As would most of the senators. Of course, I'm not terribly pro-Bush, or pro-Kerry. So whatever. It was a good movie, great editing.

[Benjamin_Blackheart]

Wrong, if everyone saw this movie and looked up the facts themselves, they would find taht moore is full of **** and twists the truths around. I mean, in an interview where Bush says he wants all terriosts killed, and then says, "Watch this drive", what relevance does that have on anything. I mean, they did an interview with him PLAYING GOLF!!! Are presidents not allowed to play golf? And still, nobody has answered my question that in the trailer it did indeed say in the beginning, if you find the right one...

Feirnheit - The tempreture at which water boils

And, still to my knowledge, Feirenheit is the American measurement of tempreture.

If this is how Micheal Moore presents the rest of his movie, then I don't really want to see the facts so obviously twisted to make Bush the bad guy. He is an idiot, but not a bad person and is trying to do what's best for the country, or what he thinks is the best for our country.

[Essex]

Wrong, if everyone saw this movie and looked up the facts themselves, they would find taht moore is full of **** and twists the truths around. I mean, in an interview where Bush says he wants all terriosts killed, and then says, "Watch this drive", what relevance does that have on anything. I mean, they did an interview with him PLAYING GOLF!!!

maybe its the fact that he's playing golf shortly after the 9/11 attacks or that this president has been on vacation more than any other president before him?

Plus how on earth can you take anything he says seriously if, there our president is nobel regal, talking about horrible murders by terroists and then not five seconds after he's done giving his "soundbyte" (something to make the nightly news and make him look good) becomes focused on what is truely important on him his damn golf game?

Do you really think that FDR would have been playing golf (provided he could stand) after Pearl Harbor? Hell I doubt Regan would have taken a single day off until he found Osama bin laden (and I freaking hate Regan) but here's what bush does... brags about his golf game.

[Essex]

wow i just saw the box office for this weekend and on only 868 screens 9/11 made 21 million dollars. That's a damn high per-screen average. Maybe I won't have to go to nashville to see this after all cause I see them expanding the screens rather quickly after this.

[Mastgrr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

Leftists are liberal on social issues (support peoples/social freedom) while rightists are liberal on economic issues (support business/economic freedom)

Leftists are conservative on economic issues (control business/economics) while rightists are conservative on social issues (control people/social issues).

Rightists want to control people of what they can do (abortions, smoke pot, sex), leftists want the freedom for every person to choose themselves. Smoke pot is a shady issue here since even in the most liberal society there can everybody might have a conservative opinion, for example here in Sweden many who are communist still want to keep the king. Same thing here with strict drug usage. It used to be with alcohol consumption (movements in the early 20th's century as showned with the US constitutional amendments), but that's disappeared now.

Leftists want religious freedom so everybody can believe in whatever religion they want, rightists want to force you to believe in their religion of choice (prohibit gays to marry, merge Church and State, etc).

This is obviously a rough explanation, but I think it's quite accurate.

There are some things though which are MAY seem to be in conflict of each other when it comes to this, for example the issue of making/showing commercials directed at children under a certain age. In Sweden that is banned since studies have showned that children up to a specific age do not have a sufficiently developed mind for critical thought, thus showing commercials to them feeds them information they can't be critical of and is up to abuse by toy companies. So banning commercials directed at children isn't anti-social, it's anti-economical thus leftist.

I'm liberal because:

Companies have no moral boundries and thus need regulation to keep them in check.
I'm not rich.
I'm not powerful.
I believe in personal freedom.
I'd rather pay more in taxes to make all Americans safer than get a tax cut.

I am capitalist, so I believe in economic freedom and business. Just like rightists also believe in individual freedom and free speech.

[Bhs Crew]

Do you really think that FDR would have been playing golf (provided he could stand) after Pearl Harbor?
Of course not. He'd be too busy jailing Japanese-American people, executing German defectors in secret military trails, and trying to pack the supreme court.


maybe its the fact that he's playing golf shortly after the 9/11 attacks or that this president has been on vacation more than any other president before him?
Frankly I'm a big fan of Bush being on Vacation. The more time he spends on vacation the less time he has to DO things between now and when he is no longer president. If he'd spent 100% of his time on vacation I'd probably have a much better opinion of him. His actions have done far more damage then his inaction.

[Essex]

Of course not. He'd be too busy jailing Japanese-American people, executing German defectors in secret military trails, and trying to pack the supreme court.


Frankly I'm a big fan of Bush being on Vacation. The more time he spends on vacation the less time he has to DO things between now and when he is no longer president. If he'd spent 100% of his time on vacation I'd probably have a much better opinion of him. His actions have done far more damage then his inaction.
LOL good point... i wish bush was always on vacation too... hopefully he'll be on an extended vacation come november.

I didn't mean to say that FDR is perfect but it was the closest thing to 9/11 there was.

[Bhs Crew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

Leftists are liberal on social issues (support peoples freedom) while rightists are liberal on economic issues (support business freedom)

Leftists are conservative on economic issues (control business) while rightists are conservative on social issues (control people).

Rightists want to control people of what they can do (abortions, smoke pot, sex), leftists want the freedom for every person to choose themselves. Smoke pot is a shady issue here since even in the most liberal society there can everybody might have a conservative opinion, for example here in Sweden many who are communist still want to keep the king. Same thing here with strict drug usage. It used to be with alcohol consumption (movements in the early 20th's century as showned with the US constitutional amendments), but that's disappeared now.

Leftists want religious freedom so everybody can believe in whatever religion they want, rightists want to force you to believe in their religion of choice (prohibit gays to marry, merge Church and State, etc).

This is obviously a rough explanation, but I think it's quite accurate.

There are some things though which are MAY seem to be in conflict of each other when it comes to this, for example the issue of making/showing commercials directed at children under a certain age. In Sweden that is banned since studies have showned that children up to a specific age do not have a sufficiently developed mind for critical thought, thus showing commercials to them feeds them information they can't be critical of and is up to abuse by toy companies. So banning commercials directed at children isn't anti-social, it's anti-economical thus leftist.

Well I don't really have time to memorize all of that.

I guess I'll just have to make opinions of people based off of their actual positions rather then trying to find an easy catigory to stick them in.

It's a good thing that these catigories exist though, otherwise we wouldn't be able to quickly decide who to vote for based on what political label they have. The whole system could collapse.

Essex- I just enjoy reminding people of the flaws of various presidents. Otherwise we might actually start believing the myths created about these people. No one is perfect and it's nice to remember that the presidents of old often weren't much better then the presidents of today.

[Lilly.m]

I want to see it because I think Bush is one of the worst human beings on the planet and I like Michael Moore. I didn't really like Bowling For Columbine though.

[Drakeon]

I want to see it because I think Bush is one of the worst human beings on the planet and I like Michael Moore. I didn't really like Bowling For Columbine though.


I think you need to look at more of the middle eastern leaders (or most any third world country leaders, like all of Africa) if you think Bush is "one of the worst human beings on the planet".

[Lilly.m]

Tone of voice doesn't come across very well on the net :( I don't *really* think he's one of the worst men on the planet, I just don't care for him one bit ^_^

[Xaf]

I tried to see it tonight but it was sold out. Too many bush hating hippies in my town.

[Mastgrr]

I tried to see it tonight but it was sold out. Too many bush hating hippies in my town.
Then most of the people around the world are hippies.

[SaroDarksbane]

Then most of the people around the world are hippies.
That's why nuclear war is regrettably our only option. :D

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hmm.. I'll be going to see this tuesday. A friend of mine is dragging me by the heels, and I've finally given in. From what I've seen, it looks to be a fanatically skewed representation of an artist's viewpoint on the issues at stake, presented in a such a manner that promote them as truth - we shall see. I'll have to program my phone so it rings the second we're out of the theater to prevent the inevitable political clash heh.. All I hear all day is "bush this.. bush that.. :p" *shudder*

[Essex]

Hmm.. I'll be going to see this tuesday. A friend of mine is dragging me by the heels, and I've finally given in. From what I've seen, it looks to be a fanatically skewed representation of an artist's viewpoint on the issues at stake, presented in a such a manner that promote them as truth - we shall see. I'll have to program my phone so it rings the second we're out of the theater to prevent the inevitable political clash heh.. All I hear all day is "bush this.. bush that.. :p" *shudder*
Moore has always said its baised, that he's partisan, that its his view points when he looked at the facts, I don't know why people are always complaining about truth, its the truth in his eyes, there are many versions of the truth and this is just one of them.

[Adamwsat]

I'm not seeing it because of how they ripped off the name from Farenheit 451, a classical book that if they average american ever hears about, which probablky wont happen, they will think it is a rip off of this movie. Also by patronising it I am giving hollywood the impression that this type of behavior is acceptable. :rant: :rant: :rant:

This movie will never even be able to compare to Farenheit 451, read this book and you'll be much happier afterwards :yep:

[Essex]

what was farenheit 451 about anyway just curious :)

[Grumpy Joe]

Nope. An M. Moore documentary is barely a step up from those In Search of... (Bigfoot, Noah's Ark, Martians) documentaries.

[SaroDarksbane]

Moore has always said its baised, that he's partisan, that its his view points when he looked at the facts, I don't know why people are always complaining about truth, its the truth in his eyes, there are many versions of the truth and this is just one of them.
1. It isn't the truth in his eyes. When you edit video to make people say and do things they didn't actually do, you know you're not telling the truth (See bowling for Columbine).

2. I'd like to see you prove that there are "many versions of the truth". :)

[Essex]

There are many versions, only one might be right, but there are versions.

Iraq for instance. Bush's version of the truth saw WMD's, somewhere they saw a connection with Al-queada, ect. My version of the truth saw Bush aiming for Iraq ever since he got into the white house, a war that while not driven by Oil was probably influenced, and a stubborn president who would not wait for the international community to join with him.

Now which is right? I don't know, but i have my own version of things.

[Mastgrr]

I remember when Bush starting to say that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and a threat to America, I was going "What? When did Saddam do that? Isn't it bin Ladin we're going after?"

Then, because of the patriotic **** that the Bush Administration carried on with thanks to that the media functioned as a megaphone for their agendas, I was also turned on like much of America and became "for" the war.

I feel like I've been used by this administration. They used my support for the country as a tool. I was for my country because I believed in my country, only for it to sooner turn out that they were blatantly cherrypicking evidence to serve their purpose. This is one of the many reasons why I am voting against Bush (among other reasons such that he's a plutocrat, wants to merge Church and State, etc).

[Havard]

Just out of curiousity, Mastgrr, which church does he want to merge exactly? I hardly doubt that Ari Fleischer would have been the spokesman for a Christian government.

[Semidi]

Essex the book is about a "futeristic" world where books are against the law, and Firemen, since houses are inflamable, now burn books instead of read them. Know one cares about anything and there is no deeper meaning of life. So people listen to music and watch TV all day, and alot of people kill themselfs.

Go read it it's not to long.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Essex - Saro's got a point there.. In regard to the showing of the film, which I'll be seeing later this evening, it gets a certain word out. Tell you one thing, if less than 2% of the population could think properly, we'd be much better off. However, you know the line "out of sight, out of mind".

Mastgrr - any regime will use your support as a tool. That's called "serving your country". Havard is right in pointing out the church and state thing, I don't know where that came from :scratch:.

[Essex]

oh i agree if more than 2% could think neither of the political parties in the US would exisit now because they both work for the rich and only the rich.

I do think that Bush is intent on bluring the line of church and state because so many of his choices are based on religion, stem cells being the most obvious of them all. Ari Flisher could eaisly work for him as it's a Judeo-Christian postion he's pushing, once he got his religious state then bush could finally go about his final resoultion...

but I will note that Ari no longer works for Bush, I'd be very intersted to know how many people who work closely with bush aren't christian now that Ari is gone.

oh and I read a thing today Fahrenhiet actually made 24 million at the boxoffice after tallies came out monday.

Bradyburies book sounds interesting but i'm far too busy with my own to go out and read someone elses lol

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I do think that Bush is intent on bluring the line of church and state because so many of his choices are based on religion, stem cells being the most obvious of them all.

Really? Why don't I see that as obvious? Since when did one have to be religious to discover what's at stake in the stem cell issue? I thought science was an objective discipline... unless those scientists and doctors were being intellectually dishonest because of "religious pressure" :cheesy:

[Havard]

It's not much of an argument to say the embryo is going to die anyway. What kind of principle is that? Prisoners on death row are going to die anyway, the homeless are going to die anyway, prisoners in **** death camps were going to die anyway. Why not start disemboweling prisoners for these elusive "cures"?

It is simply asserted that scientists need to experiment on human embryos if they are ever going to find a cure for Alzheimer's, cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's and so on. Yeah, maybe, but no one has demonstrated that it's true. Liberals are sobbing and groaning that we don't know if SDI will work. We just shot a missile out of the sky, what's their proof?

Incidentally, whatever happened to all the conjectural cures waiting to be discovered in the rain forest? Somebody found a guava root that tasted good in tea once, and that's the last the rain forest has offered up. The pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. has been combing the rain forest for a decade looking for some useful weed. The results so far? Nothing.

Why not have the government give me a lot of money so I can sit around and think. Who knows what I might come up with? I'm clever. It's possible. Give money to me, or condemn the world to disease and pestilence!

[Danny5]

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/trailer_sm.html

Yay, some competition. This sure as hell better get interesting.

Can anyone guess what Moore's stance on small businesses is?

Moore seemed to embrace capitalistic Darwinism. "If the small businesses suck they'll be driven out of business," he said. "If they got a good restaurant, people will go there and eat. You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the right-wing groups. They were the Republicans in the town, they were in the Kiwanas, the Chamber of Commerce - people that kept the town all white. The small hardware salesman, the small clothing store salespersons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. **** all these small businesses - **** 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. **** 'em all. That's how I feel."

Hmm.. Funny.. That sounds just a tad contrary to his stance on giant business conglomerates.

[Booms]

It's not much of an argument to say the embryo is going to die anyway. What kind of principle is that? Prisoners on death row are going to die anyway, the homeless are going to die anyway, prisoners in **** death camps were going to die anyway. Why not start disemboweling prisoners for these elusive "cures"?

It is simply asserted that scientists need to experiment on human embryos if they are ever going to find a cure for Alzheimer's, cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's and so on. Yeah, maybe, but no one has demonstrated that it's true. Liberals are sobbing and groaning that we don't know if SDI will work. We just shot a missile out of the sky, what's their proof?

Incidentally, whatever happened to all the conjectural cures waiting to be discovered in the rain forest? Somebody found a guava root that tasted good in tea once, and that's the last the rain forest has offered up. The pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. has been combing the rain forest for a decade looking for some useful weed. The results so far? Nothing.

Why not have the government give me a lot of money so I can sit around and think. Who knows what I might come up with? I'm clever. It's possible. Give money to me, or condemn the world to disease and pestilence!

Oooohhhh, I think I get it now.

When we think that we may find cures to many diseases by working on stem cells, we shouldn't because the cell could have been a person. So while working with stem cells is bad, wiping out hundreds of species of plants and animals for money (logging) is perfectly okay.

The stem cell is just an embryo! Do you feel bad whenever you eat eggs for breakfast. The embryo was never alive. We can't try to cure the living because that would be mean destroying non-living human cell in the process?

Its things like this which make me dislike conservatives.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Its things like this which make me dislike conservatives.

No, ignorance is what encourages you to dislike conservatives. We touched on embryonic issues 2 months back. Embryos are living beings, human beings in fact in an earlier state of develipment, just like you or I are in later stages of development. Snuffing out life as a solution is not the answer nature provides us with. What you should be investigating is the "miracle" of life itself, and what that means. That will open your horizons to more speculative issues. If "conservatives" are less numerous these days, its because people have stopped investigating life. As socrates put it, "unexamined lives are not worth living". Why save a life if it's meaningless? You will die regardless. Find the truth of our existence here so your life won't be wasted by simply creating your own truths.

[Semidi]

Moore hates small buisness because they are self reliant and they are not reliant on the goverments intervention.

This stem cell thing reminds me of an arguement I had with a friend over if clones had souls...

[Booms]

No, ignorance is what encourages you to dislike conservatives. We touched on embryonic issues 2 months back.

I guess I must have missed that discussion.

Embryos are living beings, human beings in fact in an earlier state of develipment, just like you or I are in later stages of development.

I made a poor word choice in my post. The embryo is alive, but alive in the sense of a single-celled organism (or an organism made up of only a few cells). But at this stage of "life" you have to decide if the cell is either just a cell or a human being. The cell is at too early of a stage to be considered human. So yes, it is living, but it is merely a cell, not a human.

Snuffing out life as a solution is not the answer nature provides us with. What you should be investigating is the "miracle" of life itself, and what that means. That will open your horizons to more speculative issues. If "conservatives" are less numerous these days, its because people have stopped investigating life. As socrates put it, "unexamined lives are not worth living". Why save a life if it's meaningless? You will die regardless. Find the truth of our existence here so your life won't be wasted by simply creating your own truths.

The dieing person is in the present, the person that could grow from the embryo is only a possibility, an idea. If we can save living people now by destroying a cell we are making the right decision.

[Essex]

oh god damnit not this again. I'm sorry I shouldn't have brought it up what was I thinking. the only reason I brought it up is because Bush's religion clearly influenced his choice to go against Stem-cells I wasn't arguing which was right or wrong just saying that's why he made that choice.

I think boom did a good job with the rainforest/Embryos thing and what havard said, however I would argue that that magical weed might have been found if so much wasn't already destoryed.

I wish I was an Embryos so that conservatives/whatever you want to call them, would love and care about me so much.

As it stands they don't like me (not talking about anyone here) they want to give the people richer than me tax cuts, they want to stop research into cures for disease that I may very well have one day, they want to stop me from marrying, then they want to change my oreination, then make sure I only have sex that could make a baby... which leads to their precious precious Embryos...

i tell ya if embryos could vote clearly they'd go republican.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Booms - Any way you look at it, you sever the lifeline for a developing human being. If that enbryo was you years ago, and it was "offed", you would not be here. The argument was weak. Never kill to make ends meet.

[niteshade6]

Going to the source and reading the small business article, it looks like Moore is attacking specific small businesses in his town, not all of them in general. Of course the anti moore site is trying to spin things and make them look different then they are. They probably think Moore is deceptive so it's ok for them to be too.

[Essex]

hell i'd agree with Moore in that statement if it was my town he was talking too, they are all white owned and all very anti-change and progress because they know if my tiny town actually got some commerce no one would go too their lame *** stores.

[Danny5]

I'm pretty sure Moore wasn't just talking about his town. But rather, he was applying what he experienced in his town to every other smaller town in the United States. Which, in my opinion, just won't work.

And since when are companies like Jamba Juice, McDonalds, and the rest of the fast food industry not considered massive businesses of death™?

But whatever, as I've said before, Moore will slant everything to further his view. The other side will do the same thing. Why? Because they're all a bunch of douchebags(Yes, I realize I am so very eloquent). **** the democrats. And **** the republicans.

[niteshade6]

Yeah I'm sure there are alot of towns where the small businesses are just like he described.

I guess I can't feel too sorry for Moore for the deception being used to attack him, he'd probably do the same thing to somebody else if he had the chance. Much like I can't feel too sorry for Bush when Moore uses deception to attack him (assuming More does, but I'm sure he must spin things at least a little).

Danny-Moore is clearly talking about his town. He even sites specific people and businesses from his home town. And before that he implies he likes small businesses because she knows that they are unlikely to suck.

[ratbert]

Yo!

I don't have the stamina for debating so I'll just throw my oppinion out there:
In my book, Moore is a genuin hero and I believe future americans will speak his name with pride. He has his flaws (throw the first rock, you who don't) but he has great courage and a good heart and he sure ain't stupid (no matter how fat he is).

[Havard]

Its things like this which make me dislike conservatives.

If you happen to dislike conservative ideology, that's your prerogative, but I hope you don't think less of your detractors simply because they came to other conclusions.

The embryo is alive, but alive in the sense of a single-celled organism (or an organism made up of only a few cells). But at this stage of "life" you have to decide if the cell is either just a cell or a human being. The cell is at too early of a stage to be considered human. So yes, it is living, but it is merely a cell, not a human.

But is a man in a permanent vegetative state a human? Either you believe that he will never be more than organic matter, or you believe that there is something special about his unconscious flesh. And since an embryo has the eventual capability of developing a rational thought, the vegetative man is even less worthy than the embryo, if sentience is our standard. And if our standard isn't thought, then what is it?

The dieing person is in the present, the person that could grow from the embryo is only a possibility, an idea. If we can save living people now by destroying a cell we are making the right decision.

Either we have the right to destroy the cells or we don't. Justifying an evil by it's consequences does not change the nature of the evil.

[Danny5]

Hmm, here are some nice links.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ <- F911 Review with, get this, facts to back it up

Promising book: http://www.moorelies.com/

And as always, the Truth behind Bowling for Columbine: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Mastgrr]

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ <- F911 Review with, get this, facts to back it up
"A team of fact checkers has gone through every assertion made in the film, verifying its accuracy and identifying the source materials to back it up. 'We want the word out,' Moore said this week. 'Any attempt to libel me will be met with force.'" (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/) quote from the Guardian. (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1248276,00.html)
Promising book: http://www.moorelies.com/
Have no url about the book
And as always, the Truth behind Bowling for Columbine: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
An open letter to David Hardy by Erik Möller. (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607)
Another analysis of Hardy's paper by Tim Dudley (http://www.bigsugar.wrestling-fan.com/truthaboutbowling.html)

[SaroDarksbane]

"A team of fact checkers has gone through every assertion made in the film, verifying its accuracy and identifying the source materials to back it up. 'We want the word out,' Moore said this week. 'Any attempt to libel me will be met with force.'"
[/brain]
Oh, well, that changes everything. If Moore says it's the truth, that's good enough for me.
[brain]

If Michael Moore walked into my house and told me it was raining, I'd get up and go check just to be sure (Of course, when it turns out the sun is shining and there isn't a cloud in the sky, Moore would say "Well, it's raining somewhere.")

I can't think of a person on this earth I trust less than Michael Moore, and a liar telling people that they aren't a liar is frankly less than convincing.

[the_guse]

If you happen to dislike conservative ideology, that's your prerogative, but I hope you don't think less of your detractors simply because they came to other conclusions.



But is a man in a permanent vegetative state a human? Either you believe that he will never be more than organic matter, or you believe that there is something special about his unconscious flesh. And since an embryo has the eventual capability of developing a rational thought, the vegetative man is even less worthy than the embryo, if sentience is our standard. And if our standard isn't thought, then what is it?



Either we have the right to destroy the cells or we don't. Justifying an evil by it's consequences does not change the nature of the evil.

I used to agree with you Harvard on the stem cell debate, untill i read this article:
http://www.discover.com/issues/may-04/cover/
Considering that there are no longer a set # of eggs a feamale can have or produce, but rather can produce an unlimited # of them (age willing), and we all know males can produce an unlimited of spearm--well not me, the idea that each is a human in the making is absurd.
--the only problem i have with the research is, the government will (and is) funding some of it. if there is any good that comes out of it, the government wont see a penny back on it's investment.

[Dizn]

it is dangerous and counter productive to portray fiction as fact. no matter how much you hate bush and want to see him lambasted/ousted from the presidencey a fictional story full of mis-quotes out of context information and heavy handed editing to make people say exactley what you want them to say as opposed to what they did say that pushes itself off as a documentery/factual story is irresponsible, to say the least.


.......
we are talking about the guy who made bowling for colombine right? I don't worship celebrities, in fact i hate celebrity worship.. when last samurai came out i had to ask who tom cruise was again... so don't expect me to conciously make an effort to retain these trivial facts in my head.. if we're talking about someone else just desregard this post.

Go to his site he references everything he uses in the movie.

[Mastgrr]

I can't think of a person on this earth I trust less than Michael Moore, and a liar telling people that they aren't a liar is frankly less than convincing.
Well, it's you against a whole team of fact checking professionals.

[Eiger]

The interesting thing about this movie is its popularity. Being the highest grossing film last weekend (a first for a documentary- though Moore refers to it as an opinion piece similar to an op-ed column) is one thing. But the real kicker is that it's attracting a lot of independent/swing voters in the midwest states which are crucial to Bush's re-election. And people are loving it. Even some Republicans are having vote changing experiences. Not good for Georgie!

[Essex]

but why oh why did it come out in june? why not in September or October?

[Havard]

Probably because that would be painfully obvious... :bonk:

[Essex]

as if its not already? the dvd is coming out in september I know that much.

[Havard]

What I said stands... if the movie came out in September it would be called a political stunt, and thus enjoy even less legitimacy than it already doesn't. :uhhuh:

[Eiger]

as if its not already? the dvd is coming out in september I know that much.
Really? That's the very best news I'll get this week. Simply awesome!

[Essex]

yeah i thought that rocked pretty hard too though I'd have aimed for October :)

[Havard]

I'm confused... I realize that there are some concerning issues raised by Moore in F911, but with all of Moore's proven lies and underhanded manipulations, why do you gleefully anticipate his DVD?

[Essex]

anything that might beat bush is gleefully anticipated on my end... why is my avatar not moving anymore...

[Eiger]

I'm confused... I realize that there are some concerning issues raised by Moore in F911, but with all of Moore's proven lies and underhanded manipulations, why do you gleefully anticipate his DVD?
Because people are exiting that movie questioning Bush's motives and becoming less likely to vote for him. :surprise: How could we not love that? Rock n Roll! :drool:

[Havard]

Because people are exiting that movie questioning Bush's motives and becoming less likely to vote for him. :surprise: How could we not love that? Rock n Roll! :drool:

We are different in more than politics, then. I can understand supporting honest dectraction from Bush policy, but Moore is not honest.

anything that might beat bush is gleefully anticipated on my end...

So you are for the promotion of lies? That is scary.

[Essex]

have you seen the movie havard? he does not tell lies, does he edit the truth to make it more towards what he wants yes, but usually his facts are accurate.

honestly as many lies as bush has told and how big a bastard he is in my eyes then yes lies wouldn't hurt a bit to stop his re-election, fire with fire and all.

[Havard]

I have seen news reports about the movie and about Moore. Watching the movie to ascertain it's veracity is silly. Would you listen to Rush Limbaugh to figure out if he is telling the truth?

The fact is, Moore obtained footage of prisoner abuse before the Abu Ghraib sacandal even erupted. Rather than alerting the proper authorities such as the UN, the Red Cross, or Human Rights watchdogs, he held this footage secret EVEN AFTER the Abu Ghraib scandal, because he placed his own political and commercial benefit above the human rights needs of others. He is a despicable human being, IMO.

[Eiger]

We are different in more than politics, then. I can understand supporting honest dectraction from Bush policy, but Moore is not honest.



So you are for the promotion of lies? That is scary.
Now you're making some hefty accusations. Have you seen the movie? In which part is he lying? Please do provide some backup - otherwise it's you who's being dishonest.

[Eiger]

I have seen news reports about the movie and about Moore. Watching the movie to ascertain it's veracity is silly. Would you listen to Rush Limbaugh to figure out if he is telling the truth?

The fact is, Moore obtained footage of prisoner abuse before the Abu Ghraib sacandal even erupted. Rather than alerting the proper authorities such as the UN, the Red Cross, or Human Rights watchdogs, he held this footage secret EVEN AFTER the Abu Ghraib scandal, because he placed his own political and commercial benefit above the human rights needs of others. He is a despicable human being, IMO.
Watching the movie to ascertain its veracity before making accusations is not silly - it's responsible. I have listened to Rush to see if he's telling the truth, in fact, and have found him one-sided at the least.

Regarding the footage - that doesn't mean he's lying.... When did Moore get the footage? The military and administration were notified of abuses well before the scandal broke out as well. Are you spinning the facts to support your argument? Sounds just like what you accuse Moore of doing....

[Havard]

Watching the movie to ascertain its veracity before making accusations is not silly - it's responsible. I have listened to Rush to see if he's telling the truth, in fact, and have found him one-sided at the least.


Oh, I may indeed watch the film, my point was that I will not solely base my trust in Moore's word for things.

Regarding the footage - that doesn't mean he's lying.... When did Moore get the footage? The military and administration were notified of abuses well before the scandal broke out as well. Are you spinning the facts to support your argument? Sounds just like what you accuse Moore of doing....

No spinning here, Mr. O'Reilly :lol:

He didn't know who was aware of the abuse, and he had an obligation to report it. Assuming the military knew and did nothing, then he had an obligation to report it to the Red Cross or human rights watchdog groups... he knew for months and did nothing.

Here's one link to the story, btw:

http://www.nbc11.com/news/3416889/detail.html

[Essex]

the military knew of it in Janurary, CBS news had the footage for some time before releasing it I believe.

[Eiger]

From Havard's link: "I had it months before the story broke on '60 Minutes,' and I really struggled with what to do with it," Moore told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought I'd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision."

So I'm wondering when 60 Minutes broke the story - anyone remember? I don't. I thought 60 Minutes was a couple months after the military was aware of the situation though.

[Eiger]

He didn't know who was aware of the abuse, and he had an obligation to report it. Assuming the military knew and did nothing, then he had an obligation to report it to the Red Cross or human rights watchdog groups... he knew for months and did nothing.

I believe that's an assumption that Moore didn't know who was aware. The military did launch an investigation as soon as they knew - so that assumption is out the window. It's not clear from your link whether Moore knew that others knew or not.

[Essex]

60 mins ran it in may i believe.

[Eiger]

60 Minutes ran the prison story on April 29th. http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=13cd06a8d44c63ea

This means that since the military found out in January, that CBS aired it 3-4 months following the military's knowing about it.

So even if Moore sat on it for a few months before the story broke on 60 Minutes - he may not have had it before the military and administration knew. That's all the evidence we've got. So unless someone comes up with the actual date that Moore obtained the footage, this little side accusation is kaput.

Any other known issues with the movie? Particular "lies" that we should discuss?

[Essex]

damn two days off...

[Lilly.m]

I remember when Bush starting to say that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and a threat to America, I was going "What? When did Saddam do that? Isn't it bin Ladin we're going after?"

Then, because of the patriotic **** that the Bush Administration carried on with thanks to that the media functioned as a megaphone for their agendas, I was also turned on like much of America and became "for" the war.

I feel like I've been used by this administration. They used my support for the country as a tool. I was for my country because I believed in my country, only for it to sooner turn out that they were blatantly cherrypicking evidence to serve their purpose. This is one of the many reasons why I am voting against Bush (among other reasons such that he's a plutocrat, wants to merge Church and State, etc).


It wasn't just the Bush administration...for a long time, patriotism has slowly changed to mean buying plastic flags to put on your car and agreeing with the government on all fronts and such.

I hear all the time people telling those who disagree with the war or other such things: "Don't like it? Move out of the country." They feel that they're being patriotic, but that's about as unamerican a statement as can be made. I suppose I'm kind of 'out there', but I think the government should only exist for 2 reasons: enforce the constitution, and protect the people from outside (or inside) force. Not telling me I have to wear a seat belt, or have to paint my house a certain color, or when to mow my yard, or taking 1/3 of my paycheck. :rant:

[Mastgrr]

Remember, many of the commentators on the right praised this. Michael Savage said it was good ("we should shove dynamites up their butts"). He has six million listeners per week. And especially Rush Limbaugh who called it "a brilliant manuever" and that it was "pretty effective". Limbaughs show is broadcasted on ARM Forces radio (only political talkshow on there I believe) and can very well be listened to by Iraqis who can be very offended by his comments. He has twenty million listeners per week.

These are the radio shows that the same people listen to who claim that Michael Moore is a liar and claim that Michael Moore is a propagandist.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a tribute to the troops. Moore's purpose with this movie is to show that our brave young men and women are fighting for a LIE over there. They're dying for a LIE made by this Bush Administration.

While I'm on the subject of right wing pundits, here's some really great stuff on Bill O'Lie-ly for you guys (link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300001))
From the June 24 edition of the Air America Radio program The O'Franken Factor:

COLE: Well this was the first time I agreed to do O'Reilly, he called me and asked me to talk about the Guantanamo detainees story in The New York Times. So I show up at the Washington studio and I'm listening to him tape his introduction, his sort of daily rant. It's about The New York Times and how they're always misleading us and mischaracterizing things and especially mischaracterizing the fact that there is a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and so then he says here's what Governor Kean had to say about it this weekend.

FRANKEN: The chairman of the committee.

COLE: Right -- the chairman of the 9-11 Commission, and he plays Kean's quote in which he says something like: "There is -- we have found no evidence whatsoever that there is any link between Saddam Hussein and any attacks on the United States including 9-11, however we have found some contacts between the two." And, you know, originally I think, well maybe what Al Franken said about Bill O'Reilly is false, because here he is, he's playing a balanced quote. But he immediately interrupts and says, "We can't have that quote, we've got to redo this whole thing." And two minutes later, he re-records the whole thing, and this time, when he gets to the Kean part, he doesn't play the soundbite, and instead he says, "And Governor Kean over the weekend, head of the 9-11 Commission, said there's definitely a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

FRANKEN: Uh-huh.

COLE: So then we get into my thing, which is discussing this New York Times article, and he repeatedly mischaracterizes the article and said that it said that the Guantanamo detainees were innocent, harmless, that they should ... that it questioned why they were being held. And I kept saying, "No, in fact, the Times article doesn't say that. You're saying that they're misleading the readers -- you're misleading the viewers by mischaracterizing the Times article." He says, "No I'm not, no I'm not." The usual kind of, you know, highfalutin ... uh, debating.

FRANKEN: Bloviating.

COLE: Right. So then I said, you know, why not push it a little bit further, so I said, "It seems to me, Bill, that it's the pot calling the kettle black, because I sat here not five minutes ago and heard you re-record the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9-11 Commission saying that there is no evidence whatsoever of any link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11." He goes ... um, I'm not sure what to call it ...

FRANKEN: Berserk.

COLE: Yeah, berserk, that's a good word. And basically calls me an SOB repeatedly and tells me there's no way this is gonna get aired, and ...

FRANKEN: Now did he call you an SOB, or did he spell out son-of-a ...

COLE: No no, he said, "SOB."

FRANKEN: Oh ok.

COLE: He didn't need to spell it out.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

COLE: And then he said I would never, ever be invited to be on the show again. Which, at that point that I wasn't sure whether to take that as a threat or a promise.

FRANKEN: But he went berserk.

COLE: Yeah. And now, of course ...

FRANKEN: And this airs later?

COLE: Yeah and he cuts it, as he had promised, he cut it right before I accused him of basically doing exactly what he was accusing The New York Times of doing.

FRANKEN: So in other words, what he does -- this is a perfect example of what he does -- because he pre-tapes his show. So if anyone goes on the show and actually beats him up.

COLE: Catches him, right.

FRANKEN: Or catches him, he cuts it out.

COLE: Yeah. Absolutely.

FRANKEN: Isn't that amazing.

COLE: Yeah. Now the most, I thought the most. Yeah, right. The most outrageous thing he did I thought though, you know, is that in referring to this Iraq-Al Qaeda connection he said, "The Factor established the connection last week."


The Fox News Channel:
Fair and Balanced.

[Havard]

60 Minutes ran the prison story on April 29th. http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=13cd06a8d44c63ea

This means that since the military found out in January, that CBS aired it 3-4 months following the military's knowing about it.

So even if Moore sat on it for a few months before the story broke on 60 Minutes - he may not have had it before the military and administration knew. That's all the evidence we've got. So unless someone comes up with the actual date that Moore obtained the footage, this little side accusation is kaput.


First off, he had an obligation to, but didn't report it to any authority. If he did report it to the military and they sat on it, you can be rest assured Michael Moore would not keep this whopper a secret. That is exactly the kind of thing he lives to report, why in heaven's name would he fail to mention it, especially after being interviewed? In the link I posted, he admits not reporting it may have been a mistake. Why would he admit to doing something wrong if he didn't do anything wrong? He knew about human rights violations and sat on it. What other explanation can you offer?

This is the same Michael Moore who said "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen (http://entertainment.excite.com/celebgossip/pgsix/id/04_25_2004_9.html), and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." He's rooting for them to win, which means fighting and killing my friends and relatives fighting over in Iraq, but I guess they're just a stupid bunch of conservatives that deserve to die, right?

Or how about when he said that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20030116.shtml), they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women? What an an amazing prick. The deaths of the people on the planes are not a joke, and the brave men like Todd Beamer deserves a better memorial than that. A friend's dad (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93garciabiop8.asp) (Andrew Garcia, from Portola Valley, CA) died on that plane, and you can be rest assured my friend ain't too happy about Mikey's f***ed up bull**** assinine crap.

Any other known issues with the movie? Particular "lies" that we should discuss?

Sure why don't you start with this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723) "little side accusation." Enjoy.

[Eiger]

1) First off, he had an obligation to, but didn't report it to any authority. If he did report it to the military and they sat on it, you can be rest assured Michael Moore would not keep this whopper a secret. That is exactly the kind of thing he lives to report, why in heaven's name would he fail to mention it, especially after being interviewed? In the link I posted, he admits not reporting it may have been a mistake. Why would he admit to doing something wrong if he didn't do anything wrong? He knew about human rights violations and sat on it. What other explanation can you offer?

2) This is the same Michael Moore who said "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen (http://entertainment.excite.com/celebgossip/pgsix/id/04_25_2004_9.html), and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." He's rooting for them to win, which means fighting and killing my friends and relatives fighting over in Iraq, but I guess they're just a stupid bunch of conservatives that deserve to die, right?

3) Or how about when he said that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20030116.shtml), they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women? What an an amazing prick. The deaths of the people on the planes are not a joke, and the brave men like Todd Beamer deserves a better memorial than that. A friend's dad (http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93garciabiop8.asp) (Andrew Garcia, from Portola Valley, CA) died on that plane, and you can be rest assured my friend ain't too happy about Mikey's f***ed up bull**** assinine crap.



4) Sure why don't you start with this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723) "little side accusation." Enjoy.
1) I'd say that's still conjecture. We don't know when he got it and whether or not the military already knew and whether he knew or not. We can read in quite a few things, but until there's better info, which you don't have, we don't know. And really that doesn't have much to do with any "lies" in the movie.

2) I'd say he's speaking from the Iraqui point of view in that one. I don't see anything there that he's rooting for them to win. Just showing that from the Iraqui perspective they see themselves as in the same role that our minutemen were in and that the insurgents are determined. Not much doubt about their determination I'd say.

3) No doubt, that's pretty stupid.

4) Didn't see anything in that dissertation, but then I only read about half of it at most.

[Mastgrr]

Michael Moore said that he had no trust for the American media when he got the footage, which was one of the reasons he didn't release it. He said that the American media was one-sided and acted like a megaphone for the White House. I strongly agree with him. American media has gotten alot of critisism from foreign media of the lead up to the war for extreme bias on the issue.

[Havard]

Michael Moore said that he had no trust for the American media when he got the footage, which was one of the reasons he didn't release it. He said that the American media was one-sided and acted like a megaphone for the White House. I strongly agree with him. American media has gotten alot of critisism from foreign media of the lead up to the war for extreme bias on the issue.

Yeah, the media loves to kiss Bush's butt. :scratch:

Where in heaven's name did you get this idea?

[Havard]

4) Didn't see anything in that dissertation, but then I only read about half of it at most.

Please check it out if you get the chance, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Eiger]

Yeah, the media loves to kiss Bush's butt. :scratch:

Where in heaven's name did you get this idea?
Data, lots of data. See some of my previous "what liberal media posts" on how differently the media has treated Bush vs. Clinton and Gore. It's really quite remarkable.

[Eiger]

Please check it out if you get the chance, I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Nah, I got bored of it. Sorry. If you want to summarize that'd be fine. But that was one loooooong piece.

[Havard]

Data, lots of data. See some of my previous "what liberal media posts" on how differently the media has treated Bush vs. Clinton and Gore. It's really quite remarkable.

We've been through this before. You have your data, I have mine. But you can't deny that the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, or any of their lesser followers are hesistant to print news that the White House doesn't approve of. Check these out, btw:

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040512.asp

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040415.asp

[Danny5]

These are the radio shows that the same people listen to who claim that Michael Moore is a liar and claim that Michael Moore is a propagandist.

Yes, but I don't listen to Radio shows, and I consider the Daily Show to be the most political thing I watch. Not to mention, as I've stated above, both parties are made up of ****ing bastards.

Honestly man. Just go back and re-watch Bowling for Columbine and F911 a few times. Look for rather obvious editing. Makes you wonder exactly what those people said and meant when their statements weren't taken completely out of context, eh?

I have the same problem with the 'news', and most 'news' channels. CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox, Al Jazeera, etc. Especially when they smartly interject random comments from 'experts' edited in from older interviews. God only knows how much they enjoy spinning reality.

And yes, Moore has a marvelous team of fact checkers. But I have one too. One is named Pavlov, another is Rumple Puss, and the last is Jon-Jon. They're about as good at checking facts as the Canadian spider monkey's Moore has employed. Albeit, I'll give the monkeys the opposable thumb advantage.

The problem doesn't exist in what Moore says in his films. He takes care to make sure those are facts. The problem lies in what he shows and directly infers ideas to the audience. Then the audience takes these as concrete facts. Why? Because they're willing to believe anything thrown at them, especially if it makes someone they dislike look bad.

This will probably be my last post, so you might not want to expect a reply. I'm getting tired of seeing people trying to defend someone solely because of their devotion to destroying the stupid president's chances of re-election. It's getting really ****ing annoying, and I just don't want to hurt my brain by reading anymore of it.

[Antonidas]

now that i know more about it i want to see because earlier i said no

[Feoh]

'ooohh come on folks, im not american but even Í like moore, he is witty, has a good point about Bush being an arse and that Georgie porgie stole the election from that stiff that was Clintons vice pres. altough i find moore's rasism a bit disturbing, not against blacks or anything like it but against white's.... or well more like pink than white but youll get my drift. anyhow id prefer someone like moore on the presidency then bush or kerry, the money grubbing little wee folk.

you just have to admit it, politicians are even worse then Gnomes on speed


Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore —
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“ ’Tis some visiter,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door —
Only this and nothing more.” :spy:

[A.Hein]

Hehe, I agree with you, Feoh.

A.Hein

[Essex]

i'm liking feoh you get to read some Poe after every post :)

[Eiger]

We've been through this before. You have your data, I have mine. But you can't deny that the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, or any of their lesser followers are hesistant to print news that the White House doesn't approve of. Check these out, btw:

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040512.asp

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040415.aspYup, the LA Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post have liberal leanings. The NY Times is moderate. The vast majority of other daily metro newspapers throughout the country lean conservative though. Newspapers are the most conservative medium by far.

Your first link - come on, every one knows that the US media doesn't cover international news worth a darn. So that one's pretty bogus.

Second link - yes Bush has gotten tagged lately, no surprise there. And unavoidable by even the most conservative of media, because he's been screwing up badly.

Not at all convincing compared to media coverage from 1992 to 2001.

[Danny5]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/MichaelMoore/images/bok.gif

Edit: I found another one that's pretty good.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/MichaelMoore/images/ramirez.gif

[Booms]

Cartoonist: "Hey, I have an idea! I'm being payed to bash Michael Moore, but I have nothing bad to actually say about him, so I'll say he's fat! That'll teach them darn liberals a lesson."

[Essex]

plus has he threatened to sue anyone trashing the movie, he said he would deal with people who said the facts weren't right and then prove they were... but i never heard sue

[Danny5]

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

Funny how that works.

[Booms]

Moore is saying that if people tell lies about his movie he's gonna take them to court. If I made a documentary-type movie, which was true, and then people said I was lieing I would be pretty pissed. And with the purpose of the movie in mind (getting Bush out of office), its important that people know that he is telling the truth.

[Eiger]

If people libeled me, I'd sue for sure. Can't blame him for that.

[Bhs Crew]

Moore is saying that if people tell lies about his movie he's gonna take them to court. If I made a documentary-type movie, which was true, and then people said I was lieing I would be pretty pissed. And with the purpose of the movie in mind (getting Bush out of office), its important that people know that he is telling the truth.
The problem is that in the past Moore has put things in his movies that weren't true. Now he makes a new movie and says, "Everything in this movie is true." The problem is he's said that before and it's been a lie, so it's a little hard to believe him.

I haven't looked into F-9/11 fully so I can't say yet whether everything in that movie is true, but based on history I have to assume that some of it is made up or at least taken out of context to show something that didn't happen.

[Booms]

IMO Moore can't be faulted for saying, "if you libel me I'll sue," because that is a reasonable thing to say. And it isn't unreasonable of Moore to expect people to say that he lies in his movies, so the statement is unwarranted.

If it turns out he did lie, he sues the accuser and then loses, then its another story entirely. But at the moment I don't find anything wrong with Moore saying what he said.

[Mastgrr]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/MichaelMoore/images/bok.gif
A fat joke? Wow. It's quite immature. Though I shouldn't complain that much since my favorite little Goebbels propagandist Rush Limbaugh used to be fat as a pig (and by pig I don't mean overweight, I mean monstrously obese. And by monstrously obese I don't mean chunky, I mean a gargantually swollen blimp), I'm a bit overweight and the fact that a third of all Americans are too.

I like how polarized our country is. We're the worldst most powerful democracy, probably even the most active democracy -- and we're using obesity and comparing people to Hitler as arguments.

Godwin's Law, proverb
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving ****s or Hitler approaches one."

Most powerful democracy. Also perhaps the most immature.

[Mastgrr]

Yup, the LA Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post have liberal leanings. The NY Times is moderate. The vast majority of other daily metro newspapers throughout the country lean conservative though. Newspapers are the most conservative medium by far.
Don't forget Rupert Murdoch's (a person who has praised the totalitarian regime in China) News Corp media outlet. It's one of the six large media companies who own the world media, and EVERY SINGLE newspaper and television channel that News Corp run has a conservative slant.

I read in an interview with Rupert Murdoch on wether he was for regulation of the media industry. He never answered the question, he dodged it all the time. Looks to me that his goal is to own all media and transform the world in to a Microsoft-like monopoly and create a totalitarian regime like situation we have in China.

[Havard]

Fox News, the cable channel, has a conservative slant. But the regular Fox channel does not. Why do you think the two subsidiaries butt heads all the time? It's not a company softball rivalry.

[Mastgrr]

Fox News, the cable channel, has a conservative slant. But the regular Fox channel does not. Why do you think the two subsidiaries butt heads all the time? It's not a company softball rivalry.
I'm sorry. I should've described things more in detail. You see, Rupert Murdoch is, and says that himself, a conservative. The thing here is that his outlets are conservative because conservative politicians are the first ones that help him further his power. He doesn't have a conservative bias per say, but more of a pro-money and pro-power bias. If conservatives give him what he needs (which usually means deregulation of markets, less taxes, corporate protection and corporate welfare), he's happy to aid them through his media.

This pretty similar to one of George Orwells stories, of dangers when the media is in power of to few hands. He's using his media as his lapdog to further his power, Fox News is just a tool for his purpose. He's one of the most powerful men on earth when it comes to power, not money.

This just in, cool graphic on Bush's approval rating:
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

Maybe it's time to reschedule the October-suprise?

[Danny5]

http://www.flirble.org/mirror/Michael_Moore_about_filesharing.avi

Then read this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/07/01/fahrenheit.piracy.reut/index.html

The distributor doesn't sound too thrilled. :P

[Spensdawg]

In regards to certain people or organizations being conservative/liberal, I feel that far too many people/issues are lumped into these categories. In this country we tend to judge people based on what camp they are in, and in my experience people will usually dismiss a persons argument out-of-hand if they are not in the same camp. To bottleneck yourself and call yourself a liberal or a conservative and align yourself with an issue based on that association is not a good way to form opinions.

If I had to choose a side at this point I would call myself a liberal. I used to consider myself a liberal proudly, and until recently was almost unable to see the point of view of a conservative argument. But if you really think about it there are a myriad of issues out there and to fall neatly into a conservative of liberal category has to be very rare.

As far as Bill O'reily goes; I'd like to think that I hate him based on his ridiculous opinions, smug demeanor, and border-line abusive debating qualities rather than whether or not he is a conservative.

But hey, guess what? I'm not a fan of Michael Moore's either. Whether or not the points he's arguing are true (which I do agree with by and large) or not is not what angers me about him: he seems to be willing to say or do anything to prove his point, whether or not the way he does so involves lying. He is using a similar method of transmitting arguments dishonestly to his public to that of the methods his enemies use. It is this sort of journalism that leads me to believe that he has not thought rationally about the other side's argument. I will still, however, watch Michael Moore's movie the same way I watch the O'reilly factor. I will try to watch both as objectively as possible and try not to hold their past wrongdoings against them. Their views give me insight to what I can assume their loyal fans are thinking and I can better interpret their points of view.

In my ideal world people will dislike others based on how stupid and irresponsible they are and not their political affiliation.

[Mastgrr]

http://www.flirble.org/mirror/Michael_Moore_about_filesharing.avi

Then read this: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/07/01/fahrenheit.piracy.reut/index.html

The distributor doesn't sound too thrilled. :P
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/02/news/newsmakers/fahrenheit_charities/

Michael Moore is fat. He's in it for the money.

[Eiger]

Good comments Spensdawg. I grew up in Cincinnati, Ohio a conservative town to say the least and have lived in conservative areas throughout the west. I've always had a ton of conservative friends and have always argued with them about politics. Naturally, they've been reasonable people or they wouldn't be my friends, hehe. But really, we've always been able to find much common ground though we differ on some issues - usually preferring a different means to reach a common objective.

Though in recent years I've been meeting more "staunch" conservatives. One guy on a bike ride in Wisconsin actually described himself that way. I nearly fell off the bike laughing (to myself of course, wanting to be polite). But we became good buddies and largely able to respect each others' positions. No minds were changed though as he was pretty set and not too open to opposing points of view. That's the only thing that really concerns me is that there's increasing polarity as far right positions become more accepted by the mainstream, it's harder and harder to find moderate conservatives and harder to find liberals (outside Seattle anyway and not including these boards) - though that seems to be changing. I think a tide change is on the horizon.

[Bhs Crew]

In regards to certain people or organizations being conservative/liberal, I feel that far too many people/issues are lumped into these categories. In this country we tend to judge people based on what camp they are in, and in my experience people will usually dismiss a persons argument out-of-hand if they are not in the same camp. To bottleneck yourself and call yourself a liberal or a conservative and align yourself with an issue based on that association is not a good way to form opinions.

If I had to choose a side at this point I would call myself a liberal. I used to consider myself a liberal proudly, and until recently was almost unable to see the point of view of a conservative argument. But if you really think about it there are a myriad of issues out there and to fall neatly into a conservative of liberal category has to be very rare.

As far as Bill O'reily goes; I'd like to think that I hate him based on his ridiculous opinions, smug demeanor, and border-line abusive debating qualities rather than whether or not he is a conservative.

But hey, guess what? I'm not a fan of Michael Moore's either. Whether or not the points he's arguing are true (which I do agree with by and large) or not is not what angers me about him: he seems to be willing to say or do anything to prove his point, whether or not the way he does so involves lying. He is using a similar method of transmitting arguments dishonestly to his public to that of the methods his enemies use. It is this sort of journalism that leads me to believe that he has not thought rationally about the other side's argument. I will still, however, watch Michael Moore's movie the same way I watch the O'reilly factor. I will try to watch both as objectively as possible and try not to hold their past wrongdoings against them. Their views give me insight to what I can assume their loyal fans are thinking and I can better interpret their points of view.

In my ideal world people will dislike others based on how stupid and irresponsible they are and not their political affiliation.
Couldn't agree more. Nice post.

[bobxii]

Yes, precisely. Judge people by their choices - that is our permission to do so.