Source: CNN

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," his hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.

Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready in two to three years.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11," did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," is pushing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars.

The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said.

"The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," Moore said.

Don't we need a new war first?

Did Franklin D. Roosevelt not get voted in 4 times? if so what is there to stop GWbush from getting in 4 times? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

A constitutional amendment.

[ 11-11-2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color=plum>Although I should be accustomed to it, the absolute arrogance and ignorance of Michael Moore never ceases to amaze me. Since 51% of Americans didn't agree with HIS choice for President, then we are un-informed and weren't told the truth. Well at least he is still giving us credit for being able to think for ourselves (at least so far) if we DID have what he considers the "truth".

I saw a post on another forum that really hits the nail on the head as far as the liberal reaction to the election is concerned....

<font color=yellow>
The wrath of the losers is more than pique over a hotly contested election, even one contested in wartime. Bush haters feel affronted by America's failure to defer to their wisdom. Pundits, novelists, historians, movie stars, eminentoes, and glitterati of every kind told us that Bush was dumb, crooked, bigoted, bloodthirsty, incompetent, and unpopular the world over, yet 51 percent of the electorate ignored them. The election was worse than a defeat; it was a diss. All was lost, including honor.</font>

I think this paragraph - and especially the 2nd sentence - really gets to the very heart of the flood of op-ed commentaries we are seeing about Red America being ignorant, backwoods bigots that are incapable figuring out anything on their own. It reflects the arrogance and elitist attitude that Blue America views Red America with - and it also shows just how completely out of touch they are with their fellow countrymen. Yet there is no suggestion that Blue America needs to re-evaluate their values and beliefs. No, no....it is Red America that needs to be enlightened and educated so that we can overcome our inherent ignorance.

Michael Moore and the rest of his elitist Blue Buddies just don't get it. Still, it will be interesting to see how many more lies and half-truths Moore can create for this next version of his film.</font>

Or, maybe *this* sentence really gets to the very heart of it. You keep talking as if we don't admit our arrogance -- WE DO. We think you made a mistake -- we think you got it wrong. We think time will prove us right. We think that a simple majority CAN and sometimes DOES make a mistake, an error in judgment. Get over it. I spent much of my school life disagreeing with 90% or more of my classmates -- turned out that's what made me a better student than them.

Now, I'm not saying it isn't time for liberals themselves to get over it. The ranting was bound to happen for some time, and will subside. But, we can expect to see it surface again, because we DISAGREE. We're allowed to do that, and we are allowed to voice it. That's what's great about this country.

<font color=plum>Sorry, <font color=tan>T.L.</font>, but I've yet to see ANY admission of arrogance from Democratic/liberal side (with your previous post being the one possible exception). I did see one New Yorker quoted in the Times article of the now-locked thread admit that his view may "sound elitist", but he certianly made no apology for it. His attitude was "I know it sounds elitist, but that's OK, because we really ARE smarter, more educated, more street savvy than Red America and they should listen to us and learn from our wisdom.".

What I HAVE seen is an excessive amount of vitriolic insults heaped on Red America for NOT agreeing with Blue America. It's funny that the Dems complained so vigorously during the campaign about all the mud-slinging, smearing, insults and character assassination being done by the Repubs and their Swift Boat Cronies - yet they have done nothing BUT insult, name-call and smear the entirety of Red America for being so stupid as to disagree with them.

I've shrugged most of the insults off and I actually find the preponderance of them to be somewhat humorous...but the sheer volume of insults being heaped on Red America does get under my skin from time to time.

The Dems lost the election fair and square - whether they like it or not. So now is the time for THEM to accept the loss and make their OWN efforts to "reach out across the aisle" and work WITH the Administration for the good of ALL America. That doesn't mean they should rubber stamp Bush's policies - but they should definitely heed their own cries for putting thier political differences aside and working for what is best for the American public that put them in office to begin with.</font>

[ 11-13-2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

So are you saying you(liberals) are Wine sipping pinky point'n Metropolitain Pinheads vs Beer swill'n belch'n stager'n red necks? ;)

No, I'm just saying I think we were right. And willing to say it. Two paths diverged in the woods. As a country, we took one of those paths. I think it was wrong, and we will be all the worse. That's all. The caricatures are not the issue. Besides, some of us liberals like to wear flannel, spend days at a time in the woods, and drink lots of strong whiskey.

Ok fair'nuf, but since when did saying you thought you were right equate to being arrogant? I could see proud, confident, but unless I've missed something in webster's inorder to be Arrogant one must be Haughty(proud WHILE distaining others) AND Proud.

Or, maybe *this* sentence really gets to the very heart of it. You keep talking as if we don't admit our arrogance -- WE DO. We think you made a mistake -- we think you got it wrong. We think time will prove us right. We think that a simple majority CAN and sometimes DOES make a mistake, an error in judgment. Get over it. I spent much of my school life disagreeing with 90% or more of my classmates -- turned out that's what made me a better student than them.

Now, I'm not saying it isn't time for liberals themselves to get over it. The ranting was bound to happen for some time, and will subside. But, we can expect to see it surface again, because we DISAGREE. We're allowed to do that, and we are allowed to voice it. That's what's great about this country. </font>[/QUOTE]TIMBER!!!! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

Will you stop argueing like you were a bereaved Democrat?!?! Remember!! You are an elite 1 percenter!! The rest of the ignant masses are FAR beneath your stature!!!

Some day the bitchy whining of Republicans AND Democrats will be swept away and America the Phoenix shall arise from their ashes!!

Red America .... HA!!
Blue America .... HEH!!

A One Percenter craves not these things!! We need a new colour for the Map!!! Purple would be too obvious ....

I say we paint it Black.......

I heard they were going with a different title:

9/11 two

Moore Crap

LOL!! Or "Moore Money"

Moore should shoot himself for a sequel.

<font color=plum>Now THERE'S a suggestion I can support wholeheartedly. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] <font color=yellow>LOL!</font></font>

where's the "ah geez, not this **** again" graphic? :no:

Moore will be happy deep down that Bush got elected as it keeps him in a job for the next 4 years.

So are you saying you(liberals) are Wine sipping pinky point'n Metropolitain Pinheads vs Beer swill'n belch'n stager'n red necks? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]See I don't get that at all. That's the worst hoodwink put on the American people. That somehow, to be all for social policies like health care for the poor you somehow must be rich. It's wierd. Somehow America has gotten to the point where the poor vote rich. Believing the party that represents their interest more, to be eleitist richos. How the hell did that hoodwink happen?

Yorick, I've been lamenting that for ages. You're not going to like my answer -- the richo party used religion and a little "shucks, y'all" talk to get that hoodwink to happen. They adopted christianity and rural-ness as their own -- TH3Y PWN3D 7T!!

Cerek,

Bush and Cheney are far richer than Mike Moore. Bush and Cheney are "eleitist" career politicians. Moore is a filmaker. You have it the wrong way round for some reason.

I don't buy the religion thing. You've got people like Reverend Jesse Jackson in the Democrats, and pro-Abortionists like Giuliani in the Republicans.

But then maybe you're correct.

However, I don't see either party as representing Christian beliefs. On one side you've got pro-war, pro-death penalty, and lack of care for the have-not's - all anathaemas to the Christian faith and Jesus' teaching. On the other side, you've got increased abortion, and less conviction about what marriage is.

I wrote this article on my website about "the religious right": http://www.hughwilson.org/images/Left_wing_Jesus.doc

In any case, Black Christians don't necessarily vote Republican.

Further to the bewilderment at the perception that the Democrats are eleitist, let's look at where the strongholds are. Cities. Urban areas right. These urban areas are perceived as... rich? Have Americans heard of the ghetto? Have they heard of the poorer minority groups in these cities? The majority of New Yorkers struggle to get by. Yes it has more billionaires than any other city in the world, but it also seems to have more beggars.

Another hoodwink.

Cerek,

Bush and Cheney are far richer than Mike Moore. Bush and Cheney are "eleitist" career politicians. Moore is a filmaker. You have it the wrong way round for some reason.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>EVERY major politician is a multi-millionaire, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. So is Michael Moore. But I am referring to Michael Moore's elitist attitude - that HE and HIS counterparts are much more intelligent, sophisticated, street-savvy and knowledgeable over all than the poor, ignorant hicks of Red America.

That is based on the numerous comments and editorials that have confirmed this "elitist attitude" - including the locked thread here copied from the NY Times. These labels and comments are taken from direct quotes of NY citizens interviewed for that article. Some of them even admitted their attitude might sound elitist, but they didn't care. Which means they really DO think they are "better and smarter" than Red America.

That is an excessively condescending and insulting view and - in case you can't tell - it pretty well pisses me off every time I hear. The first week or so was to be expected, but it just keeps going on and on. And there is no reason to think that this whiney-ass moaning is gonna stop any time within the next 4 years.

As I posted before, the liberals just can't believe that "Red America" didn't defer to their obviously superior wisdom and major dose of reality shock seems to have struck them to the very core - so much so that they are left with no recourse but to openly and continually insult the intellect and reasoning capabilities of the those that voted to put Bush into office despite their vigorous protestations.

Like I said before - THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!

And now you even have the audacity to suggest that I'm too naive' to realize that Bush and Cheney are multi-millionaires. If you can't understand how insulting that implication is, then I don't know how to explain it to you.</font>

[ 11-19-2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

<font color = lightgreen>Although I do believe that the average American is incredibly uninformed, no matter whether they reside in a Red or Blue state, I don't think anyone was "hoodwinked" in this election. One side believes that Bush et al told lies? Newsflash--both sides lie. It all comes down to a matter of "whose lies do I believe less?" that determines one's vote.

Neither the neo-cons nor the liberals have this country's best interest at heart. Better for all of them to be forbidden from entering politics so that real progress may be made. </font>

Cerek,

Bush and Cheney are far richer than Mike Moore. Bush and Cheney are "eleitist" career politicians. Moore is a filmaker. You have it the wrong way round for some reason.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>EVERY major politician is a multi-millionaire, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. I am referring to Michael Moore's elitist attitude - that HE and HIS counterparts are much more intelligent, sophisticated, street-savvy and knowledgeable over all than the poor, ignorant hicks of Red America.

That is based on the numerous comments and editorials that have confirmed this "elitist attitude" - including the locked thread here copied from the NY Times. These labels and comments are taken from direct quotes of NY citizens interviewed for that article. Some of them even admitted their attitude might sound elitist, but they didn't care. Which means they really DO think they are "better and smarter" than Red America.

That is an excessively condescending and insulting view and - in case you can't tell - it pretty well pisses me off every time I hear. The first week or so was to be expected, but it just keeps going on and on. And there is no reason to think that this whiney-ass moaning is gonna stop any time within the next 4 years.

As I posted before, the liberals just can't believe that "Red America" didn't defer to their obviously superior wisdom and major dose of reality shock seems to have struck them to the very core - so much so that they are left with no recourse but to openly and continually insult the intellect and reasoning capabilities of the those that voted to put Bush into office despite their vigorous protestations.

Like I said before - THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Cerek, there are over 8 million night time residents of New York. Manhattan doesn't even have half of that. Brooklyn has 4 million. The largest borough, and is far from being filled with "eleitist" Manhattanites. The overwhelming majority are working class. Jersey City, Queens, Bronx, Staten. All this adds up to more people than exist in the Upper West, Upper East or Greenwhich Village.

As for Cheney and Bush... where did they go to college? Bush went to YALE. On daddy's money. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...irm.action.tm/
Cheney has a masters in Arts from University of Wyoming. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html

Where did Moore go to college?

Who had the best education money could buy? How does the son of a CIA chief turned President somehow give the impression that he's "Mr.Everyman".

It's a hoodwink Cerek. You have been hoodwinked. It's an aristocracy when the leadership gets passed from father to son, and a brother is a governor.

[ 11-19-2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Cerek, Cerek, Cerek. That may be in America, but not so the world. That is precisely what I am saying is wrong with America. There are no "everymen" but somehow, the poor are voting for the rich guys that make out like they're like them, instead of voting for the people that are looking out for their best interests.

Not really, Yorick. They're may be more ghettos in urban areas -- obviously -- but they also get more government giveaways too. I lived with many baby mamma dramas in Chicago in a very nice highrise overlooking the park and the lake. I paid $1600/mo. in rent while they got up to a $1400/mo. subsidy from the city. HUD housing and CHA housing programs rock the block in chicago.

Did those neighbors of mine vote democrat -- YOU BET! As you say, they are not "blue blood" elitists. However, they are voting for the "blue blood" elitists that they know traditionally give them more handouts. Both parties are aristocracy -- well, more accurately, burgeiose (ack -- no time to refresh my memory on spelling that word) -- and both parties have a contingent of the prolitariat they have duped or bribed into voting for them. Which is the way it's always been.

<font color=plum>I will try once again to explain that I am talking about ATTITUDE when I use the term "elitist", NOT WEALTH!!! And the article from the NY Times interviewed everyday working New Yorkers...and every one quoted said FLAT OUT that THEY were smarter, wiser, more "street savvy" and "globally aware" than Red America. In other words, THEY WERE BETTER THAN RED AMERICA. That is an "elitist attitude" and it doesn't have Happy Jack **** to do with how much money any of them make or have. It is their attitude that I am talking about.

And the real irony is that you are perpetuating that very same attitude and don't even realize it. You have implied that I didn't realize Bush and Cheney were multi-millionaires and have told me point blank that I was "hoodwinked" twice now. In other words, I wasn't "smart enough" to see through George Bush's act.

Well guess what, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>, I DID see through George Bush and his act. The only difference is that I also saw through Kerry and HIS act too (BTW, Kerry graduated from Yale just like George Bush and even belonged to the same "elite" club as Georgie Boy - but of course, you knew that already). And at the end of the day, I felt more comfortable that George Bush represented MY interests and MY VALUES better than John Kerry did.

And - amazing as it may sound - I actually managed to figure that out all by my little old self. If you were around BEFORE the election, then you surely saw some of my posts where I said I was very undecided as to who I was going to support, because I had pros and cons regarding both candidates. But when everything was said and done, I decided that Bush represented what I wanted in a President BETTER than Kerry did. The fact that you disagree with that choice is fine....but the fact that your disagreement makes you think I was "hoodwinked" is nothing short of arrogant, because it means you think that I just wasn't as "smart" or "savvy" as you were about George Bush - and that is the type of "elitist attitude" that I was talking about with Moore and his Blue America buddies.
</font>

Now, onto other issues. Like how Yorick is a fine example of how Kerry hoodwinked folks. Only difference is, he hoodwinked LESS of them.

And, let's be clear -- Kerry was a crappy candidate. Horribe voting record, horrible absenteeism, never did propose or sponsor a bill worth mentioning save for the one normalizing trade and relations with Vietnam (which was heavily supported by McCain, despite all the "traitor" and "sell-out" accusations levied at Kerry by the Repugs).

The only thing Kerry had going for him -- and it was a big plus, I must admit -- was that he was not Bush. The theory was that no matter what he did in office, even if it was just sit there for four years, it couldn't be as bad as what Bush has done or will do. I agreed with that sentiment, so I begrudgingly supported Kerry vis-a-vis Bush, even though Kerry had little merit of his own.

Of course, Badnarik was the best choice -- but only an elite few of us knew that. And we were smarter than all y'all's, so [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

So are you saying you(liberals) are Wine sipping pinky point'n Metropolitain Pinheads vs Beer swill'n belch'n stager'n red necks? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]See I don't get that at all. That's the worst hoodwink put on the American people. That somehow, to be all for social policies like health care for the poor you somehow must be rich. It's wierd. Somehow America has gotten to the point where the poor vote rich. Believing the party that represents their interest more, to be eleitist richos. How the hell did that hoodwink happen? </font>[/QUOTE]Nation's Poor Win Election for Nation's Rich.
http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4045.php

You don't have to be stupid to be hoodwinked, nor smart to do the hoodwink'in.

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] :D [img]graemlins/evilhaha.gif[/img]

ROTFLMMFGDSOBAO!!!!!! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Gotta love onions.

Which is tied to wealth. The everyday working class immigrant or black/hispanic family from Brooklyn, Bronx or whatever doesn't have the "eleitist" attitude you have described. It's tied to wealth, education and career.


As was said, intelligence is not the issue. Either in the hoodwinkee or hoodwinker.


I hope your interests included an 800 billion dollar deficit, because that's what you're now getting.

I'm entitled to an opinion centred around a party claiming to stand for Christian beliefs, and yet acting in the exact opposite of Jesus example and teaching. Just because it is said, does not make it so.

It's mind boggling.

Where does Bush mention Jesus name? Where does he invoke the authority of the Holy Spirit? Where did he turn the other cheek in either debates or foreign policy? Where is he taking care of widows and the "have nots" - described in the Bible as actually being the only "correct religion". Where is he abolishing the death penalty as Jesus did? Telling people to put down their guns as Jesus told Peter to put down his sword?

I have never heard anything out of his mouth other than vague references to "God".

He may well be a Christian for all I know. He may believe with certainty he is doing Gods will. However, his message, his actions, his policy, his language choice is far, far from representing the entire Christian faith - YET somehow a Christian bloc supports him on this basis!!!???

And the Catholic Church even came out and said voting for Kerry would be a sin because of his abortion stance.

Do we really think Bush is going to force an end to abortion?? You know I am anti-abortion. However, until a vast majority of Americans come to the same conclusion, it's not going to happen. it doesn't matter what the values of the president are on the issue. He's running the country. Balancing the budget.

Oh yeah... the 455 billion dollar deficit.

The religious right is a myth in any case. As I said, black Christians do not vote Republican by default.

Just because something is said doesn't make it so.

The "gourmet cakes" you can buy at a New York deli are not gourmet just because it says so on the wrapper.

Really pisses me off.

I was never pro Kerry.

Well, thanks for telling me why I'm a stuck-up arrogant SOB! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Question is, what about artists? Like singers? What about them, hmmm? :D

And, okay, Yorick, so you didn't support Kerry. I guess you were going to be unhappy however it worked out! So, I guess regardless of who won the election, you'd be here complaining.

Well, thanks for telling me why I'm a stuck-up arrogant SOB! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Question is, what about artists? Like singers? What about them, hmmm? :D

And, okay, Yorick, so you didn't support Kerry. I guess you were going to be unhappy however it worked out! So, I guess regardless of who won the election, you'd be here complaining. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes.

I do not believe in settling for either rotten beef, or half cooked chicken, if I wanted a mango.

I half suspect the Democrats didn't want to win. Who would want to inherit a vast debt and an unwinable war?
It would also explain the choice of a candidate who differs from a seat-filler only in terms of salary.

<font color=plum>I would like to think this attitude isn't as pervasive as it is made to sound - and I'm willing to give the "working class" citizens you mentioned the benefit of the doubt.

So I tell you what, when you get back to the Big Apple, go around and ask any citizens you choose what they think of "Red America" and the voters there and tell us what they say. Then we will see if they have the same "elitist attitude" or not. ;) </font>

<font color=plum>I would like to think this attitude isn't as pervasive as it is made to sound - and I'm willing to give the "working class" citizens you mentioned the benefit of the doubt.

So I tell you what, when you get back to the Big Apple, go around and ask any citizens you choose what they think of "Red America" and the voters there and tell us what they say. Then we will see if they have the same "elitist attitude" or not. ;) </font> </font>[/QUOTE]So you think anyone that doesn't vote republican is automatically eleitist? Even the poor black democrat voters in your own state?

Wow.

You do know that plenty of New Yorkers have come from "Red America" right? 60% of New York was not born in New York.

So, how much of that 60% emigrated from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East? And how much of that 60% finds gainful employment driving cabs while spending all day on the cell phone, ignoring the cab occupants, and in violation of the law?

Erm.... sorry, compound question. :D