Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

Originally posted by pritchke: I have a friend who hates Moore with a Passion. He wants to watch the film though but does not want to pay Moore any money. So what does he do? Buys a ticket for Shrek II and goes and watches Moores film.

You have just given me a great Idea Pritchke. Thanks Dude!


[ 06-30-2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Oblivion437]

Also, Moore is a proven liar in the Goebbelsian tradition of lying. You tell just enough of the truth so that what comes out is a lie, but you're immune to factual cross-checking, and to say, it was "unethical and downright crooked to omit essential parts of a speech to lend a false impression" sounds fairly weak in comparison to "you made, from top to bottom a statement that was wholly false."

Moore has never responded to the most serious criticisms levelled against BfC, but he did dig himself in very deep admitting that the subtitle of the Willie Horton/Revolving doors splice was his, and his mistake in saying "kills again" in a subtitle that was never in either ad, and essentially concedes everything Spinsanity said on that note.

I think it overly trite when people who don't think the same way as others are named as people who don't love their country, or as an-American. It's like the number one dismissive pigeon hole - what do we do twith this guy - we don't like him and we don't like his ideas - how about we tell everybody he doesn't love the country - that will work.

I don't criticize the strength of his patriotism. He's a very American American, making a shameless buck in any way he can (charging the Columbine massacre victims admission to the preview puts a new patina sheen on the word shameless) even exploiting the deaths of innocent people and selling the image of America that closet self-haters have wanted to have on their plates to bite on for years...

I don't give a damn what Moore thinks of America, he's a no-good spindoctor and deceiver, and his opinions are worth as much to me as what I leave in the toilet.

On the other hand, at least we have a book now, to read and enjoy, while eating Monterey Jack and drinking a couple cans of Vanilla Coke.

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

I'm so buying that...

[Aerich]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Also, Moore is a proven liar in the Goebbelsian tradition of lying. You tell just enough of the truth so that what comes out is a lie, but you're immune to factual cross-checking, and to say, it was "unethical and downright crooked to omit essential parts of a speech to lend a false impression" sounds fairly weak in comparison to "you made, from top to bottom a statement that was wholly false." quote: I think it overly trite when people who don't think the same way as others are named as people who don't love their country, or as an-American. It's like the number one dismissive pigeon hole - what do we do twith this guy - we don't like him and we don't like his ideas - how about we tell everybody he doesn't love the country - that will work.

I don't criticize the strength of his patriotism. He's a very American American, making a shameless buck in any way he can (charging the Columbine massacre victims admission to the preview puts a new patina sheen on the word shameless) even exploiting the deaths of innocent people and selling the image of America that closet self-haters have wanted to have on their plates to bite on for years...

[/QUOTE]Just about every political figure lies in "the Goebbelsian tradition of lying." It's true that Moore has been caught out in a few fibs, but that is to be expected of someone with an aggressive political viewpoint. However, the practice of shading or skewing the truth was in place long before Goebbels. As I believe I've mentioned in a post somewhere else, I think the custom of relating things that one doesn't like to Hitler or Nazism is not constructive.

Also, the value of Moore's work goes beyond the "shameless buck" that his detractors assume is his only motive. Biased as they may be, his "documentaries" stimulate discussions about what the truth is. As for selling a negative image of America, it's important for people to have confidence in their country and to be able to sift through what they are told. If a person's faith in their leaders and their country can be shaken by two hours in a movie theatre, maybe it's best they think a little more about the foundations of their trust. And if the closet self-haters latch on to this movie as everything they feared, so what? If they weren't smart enough to find about or develop similar ideas before, what kind of threat are they?

Regarding Moore charging admission to the "Columbine massacre victims", that would be quite a trick, even for him. [img]smile.gif[/img] I take your meaning, though, that he charged people who were at or injured in the shooting. Do you have supporting evidence of that? Did he know that those individuals would be present at that particular showing of his film?

In short, Moore already has enough faults to criticize; he doesn't have to be characterized as a heartless, traitorous money-grubber in order to be discredited, if that's what you want to do.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: I notice in there he said he made the movie because he "loves this country". If he loved this country, why would he have to Skew the facts and invent lies to promote it? I don't buy his story line any more than I believe he is from a poor working family in the Nations Auto capital. He has his motivations and reasons for doing things, but it doesnt appear to have anything to do with love of country. Just for giggles heres a counterpoint. http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

Just who the hell do you think you are to question another American's patriotism?[/QUOTE]Chewbacca, you seriously need to chill out. You can state a question without being rude. Remember this please.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ziroc: Chewbacca, you seriously need to chill out. You can state a question without being rude. Remember this please.

My apologies.

I hope I didnt hurt Magik's feelings.

My opening sentence in that post- "who the hell do you think you are?" wasn't meant to be rude, but I see how it can be taken that way. I didn't think Magik would take it as being negative but rather as just a strong expression.

I thought questioning a person's motivations with regards to love of country, and the like, to be deserving of a reply with at least one strong expression.

Anyway, It would serve me (and the rest of the forum) best to simply ignore any future comments of this nature as I find them...um... *things best left unsaid*. The only response I can imagine at this point is like the one I made, which begins with the question "Who the hell do you think you are?" This is can be taken as rude and inflammatory so is better left unsaid in the future. I will edit it out of my post, though it seems Magik has already replied to it in a quote, so he would have to edit as well if this sort of action needs to be taken.

Since it is clear and apparent that asking someone 'who the hell they think they are' is considered rude, I wont do it anymore. I promise.

Upon reflection, I can see now how it is counter-productive in useful discussion to ask such a question considering how easy it is to debunk such a crazy statement like:

He has his motivations and reasons for doing things, but it doesnt appear to have anything to do with love of country.

Heck- one simply has to go see Moore's most recent film or look around Moore's website to render a statement like the one quoted above completely mute, unsupported by facts, null, and void. No need to ask anyone "who the hell do they think they are?" at all. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, I digress...

Again, my apologies.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Also, Moore is a proven liar in the Goebbelsian tradition of lying. You tell just enough of the truth so that what comes out is a lie, but you're immune to factual cross-checking, and to say, it was "unethical and downright crooked to omit essential parts of a speech to lend a false impression" sounds fairly weak in comparison to "you made, from top to bottom a statement that was wholly false."

Godwin's law aside... Moore's critics are equally guilty of the same by ommitting parts of his works when making critisms.

Again it is the nature of the 'opinion beast' to show the parts of a story that support the given veiwpoint being made. This is neither unethical or dishonest. At least Moore actually has facts and cites sources to back up his opinions. Unlike many of his critics in the links you have posted who's allegations are really a bunch of conjecture and unsupported assertions.

Moore has never responded to the most serious criticisms levelled against BfC,

"Serious" according to whom? These "serious" critisms according to your opinion could be shallow, contensious and unfounded conjecture according to another's opinion. Perhaps Moore considers many of these so-called serious critisms are actually lame cheap shots not even worth replying to. So, like the "serious" critisms themselves, Moore's lack of response to them is hardly a damning smoking gun, though you are free to claim as such.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: Chewbacca, you seriously need to chill out. You can state a question without being rude. Remember this please.

My apologies.

I hope I didnt hurt Magik's feelings.

My opening sentence in that post- "who the hell do you think you are?" wasn't meant to be rude, but I see how it can be taken that way. I didn't think Magik would take it as being negative but rather as just a strong expression.

I thought questioning a person's motivations with regards to love of country, and the like, to be deserving of a reply with at least one strong expression.

Anyway, It would serve me (and the rest of the forum) best to simply ignore any future comments of this nature as I find them...um... *things best left unsaid*. The only response I can imagine at this point is like the one I made, which begins with the question "Who the hell do you think you are?" This is can be taken as rude and inflammatory so is better left unsaid in the future. I will edit it out of my post, though it seems Magik has already replied to it in a quote, so he would have to edit as well if this sort of action needs to be taken.

Since it is clear and apparent that asking someone 'who the hell they think they are' is considered rude, I wont do it anymore. I promise.

Upon reflection, I can see now how it is counter-productive in useful discussion to ask such a question considering how easy it is to debunk such a crazy statement like:

He has his motivations and reasons for doing things, but it doesnt appear to have anything to do with love of country.

Heck- one simply has to go see Moore's most recent film or look around Moore's website to render a statement like the one quoted above completely mute, unsupported by facts, null, and void. No need to ask anyone "who the hell do they think they are?" at all. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, I digress...

Again, my apologies. [/QUOTE]A simple "I won't do it again" would have sufficed. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Upon reflection, I can see now how it is counter-productive in useful discussion to ask such a question considering how easy it is to debunk such a crazy statement like: quote: He has his motivations and reasons for doing things, but it doesnt appear to have anything to do with love of country.

Umm I think you are confused. How is it in ANY way considered "crazy" to say someone has motivations? that seems to be a universal truth, not insanity. Only insane people do things without motivation. The second part of the statement is mere opinion wich we are all free to have, this happens to be mine, Hope you can get over your disaproval of me having an opinion.


Heck- one simply has to go see Moore's most recent film or look around Moore's website to render a statement like the one quoted above completely mute, unsupported by facts, null, and void. No need to ask anyone "who the hell do they think they are?" at all. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, I digress...


If you go to Moores website, or watch any of his film works , you will see that he in FACT has agenda's and motivations and they are clearly aimed at denigrating current US policy...and are also aimed at character assassination. He uses a blend of half truth and out right lies to mae his arguments. Basicly it seems like he really believes the end justifys the means...its ok to lie, or cheat as long as he achieves his political agenda. He is hardly Mute and his website hardly renders any one else mute.

Again, my apologies.


So whats your opinion of Mayor Koch calling Mikey a liar? A staunch Democrat who actually agrees with the majority of conservatives...must make you wonder just a little bit? or do you really believe that Mike told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in BfC, Roger and Me and F9/11? Or is Koch's opinion mute too?

As for the apology, it seems to ring a little hollow. (thats an opinion not a statement of fact)


[/QUOTE]

[Grojlach]

Only loosely related, though I didn't deem it worthy enough for a new topic. Good for a chuckle.

O'Reilly's 'No-Spin' Control Prompts Guest to Cry Foul

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 30, 2004; Page C03


When he appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News Channel show last week, Georgetown law professor David Cole was impressed that the hard-charging host played, as part of his opening commentary, "a balanced sound bite" from the chairman of the 9/11 commission.


Cole was less impressed when an aggravated O'Reilly stopped the taping of "The O'Reilly Factor" and killed the sound bite. And when Cole brought up the incident during his interview, he says, O'Reilly "exploded," called him an SOB and declared he would never be invited back.

O'Reilly says a left-wing academic is using a minor staff mistake to try to discredit the program. "We're trying to be fair," he says. "We're trying to give the other point of view so people can see who has the stronger argument. It's really depressing that the discourse has sunk to this level."

The heated words -- which were edited out of the program seen by viewers -- involved O'Reilly's criticism of the New York Times and its coverage of the controversy over whether there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

In kicking off what he called "no-spin coverage" of the issue, O'Reilly began the show by saying that "the Times and other newspapers have been under heavy fire for their misleading headlines, basically saying there was no link" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

As Cole listened from Washington, the program played a clip of commission chairman Thomas Kean saying: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda."

O'Reilly complained that this was the wrong sound bite. In retaping the commentary, he paraphrased one of Kean's points but not the other: "Governor Thomas Kean says definitely there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. And he's the 9/11 investigative chief, but that's not enough for the Times."

"I was sort of astonished he would do it so brazenly in front of guests," says Cole, an activist attorney who has challenged the USA Patriot Act in court.

O'Reilly calls "totally absurd" the suggestion that he cut the sound bite "because it didn't fit my thesis." A producer had simply selected a clip that wasn't right for the segment, he says.

But Cole says: "Here he is castigating the New York Times for misleading its readers, and he was misleading his viewers. I wish the show had been live because I'd love for his viewers to see what he was up to."

What viewers saw was a lively debate among O'Reilly, Cole and Mark Jacobson, an Ohio State instructor who helped shape the Pentagon's policy on Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The only clue that there was a blowup at the end of the interview -- when Cole was asked to leave -- is that O'Reilly didn't thank his guests, ending the segment instead with a closing comment.

"We make mistakes because we bring in people who are trying to cause trouble," he says of Cole. "I thought he was a rational person."

Cole was just getting started. He discussed the matter on the Air America radio show of the commentator's most vocal critic, Al Franken. He also submitted an op-ed piece about the incident to several news organizations, including The Washington Post, and still hopes it will be published.

O'Reilly sees this as part of "a pretty well organized campaign" on the left to monitor his television and radio shows. He cited an appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" last week by John Podesta, former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, who now heads a liberal think tank called the Center for American Progress.

Podesta complained that "you compare Bill Moyers to Mao Zedong. You say that's a joke. You compare Al Franken to Joseph Goebbels, you know, the Nazi propagandist."

"That was Michael Moore, by the way," said O'Reilly, adding that such comments were often satirical. "I said that Michael Moore is a propagandist and so is Joseph Goebbels. And then I explained what propaganda is."

"It's a two-way street here, buddy," Podesta said at one point. "You do this all the time as well, you label people, you smear people."

O'Reilly also cites what he calls a false claim by Moore, in publicizing his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," that O'Reilly had "banned" him after a contentious interview. The host insists that is not the case and typical of his liberal detractors.

"They're trying to say that we're liars," says O'Reilly. "If you can't beat 'em, slime 'em."

Source: Washington Post (have to register online first)

Yep the right is responsible of all those labels out there.

Duck
Dodge
Dip
Dive and
Dodge.