Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I have an even better idea Groj! Why don't we just add Moore and his works to the banned discussion list?

His work certainly generates massive amounts of response. [/QUOTE]Exactly!

So should we stop talking about it, or just stop talking about what is wrong with it?

[Grojlach]

Oblivion, thanks for once again proving my point as to why I object to responding to every single sentence instead of to the point in whole. You don't even read what I write, but simply repeat the same old nonsense you've been repeating all throughout this topic, missing the general point I tried to make. If you need any retortions to those points, go back and read Chewie's replies. I specifically asked people not to pick apart my entire post, and yet you did just that - sometimes not even to counter my words, but to nitpick semantics or just repeat the thing I was already responding to in the first place. Seriously, knock it off.
And I don't care whether it reflects badly on me, but I have too much of a life to pick your post apart, respond to every single "point" made while knowing that it won't make a difference either way; let's just agree to disagree. I know there's a good chance you'll even pick apart this post - well, good for you.
And may the next person using the words "conjecture" and "strawman" be struck by lightning. Seriously.

by the way, about that NRA convention date: it's there on Hardy's site; check the part regarding Kayla Robinson. Once again a provable lie on Moore's part (if Hardy is correct, that is), but I guess still not good enough for court.

[ 07-08-2004, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I don't much care about Moore the man. My point of contention is, and has always been about his work, and his defense of it. It would be a hasty generalization to assume that Moore's most rabid critics are all right wing. I note that a few of his critics are at least somewhat liberal in leaning (critics I personally know) and are hardly right wing. That he's managed to make himself into a pompous, lying asshole hardly require I think anything on the matter.

Incredibly annoying semantic nitpicking aside (I don't believe I ever claimed that Moore critics can't be liberal, but whatever), there are always exceptions to the rule. In fact, here's a positive review from a conservative.

http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dyn...renheit911.htm

Fahrenheit
9/11

As a Conservative, my advice? See it.

Review by Laura Dawn Lewis

The line stretched beyond the building as we all, having reserved our tickets on Fandango waited patiently, discussing what we were about to see. Like many, I tried to go Friday, but the film in Portland, Oregon was already sold out through Saturday.

The facts and footage in Fahrenheit 9-11, cannot be discredited. The neocons may not like the editing, which is purposeful, but editing does not make this propaganda.

Glancing at the crowd attending in Hillsboro, a conservative salt-of-the-earth company town, the companies being Intel and Agriculture. Nary a Birkenstock or bag of granola in sight, I listened to the conversations around me. I heard frustration, curiosity and anticipation. As each of us looked at the length of the line, we all realized, we were not alone in our doubts, concerns or perceptions, an empowering realization.

Behind me a Muslim family, mother, father and teenage daughter chatted quietly. The young woman graced with an enchanting smile and excited eyes debated current events with her parents. As I listened to their conversation I noted how well versed they all were in our Constitution, government process and current events, though this didn't surprise me. Most immigrants know more about our country, its policies and guidelines than college graduates. Ahead of us a few people, two more teenage girls with their father also debating, paused laughing briefly as a woman with a robotic talking head Bush passed. Beside me my own father and I discussed the issues. Those of us waiting for forty minutes outside confirmed, the movie is a family affair.

We standing in line represented republicans, democrats and independents, liberals, conservatives and moderates, not the monolithic crowd of "Bush haters" the last gasp of the neocons engendered us to be. Those waiting included conservative non-evangelical Christians like myself, Muslims, Jews, progressive Christians and no doubt atheists and agnostics. Together we embraced a commonality: we are Americans, we love our country and we want to understand what is happening. I bring this up because one of the tools implemented to dissuade attendance states conservative will not go to this movie. Not only did I and several friends fitting this description go, we found the film entertaining, factual and quite sobering. In fact, we liked it.

Revelations

I knew much of the information presented, having covered this issue and the propaganda components getting us into this mess. Though there were a few surprises.

I did not know on inauguration day, raw eggs pelted Bush's limousine. Personally I consider this disrespectful; less tantrum-oriented means for displaying dissatisfaction prove eminently more effective.

I knew Bush took a month-long vacation in August 2001. I didn't know in the first nine months of his administration he spent 40% of his time on vacation. Forty percent, who starts a new job and spends 40% on vacation? Most people work overtime to prove themselves! What was he resting up for?

I did not know the primary source of funding for GW's business enterprises came through the man also cited for being AWOL with Bush, James R. Bath. His contribution to the Bush family's wealth centers around his liaison activities with the Bushes, the Bin Ladens, and the Saudis. Moore shows the current administrations attempt to conceal this fact.

Most disturbing, I did not realize Bush knew BEFORE reading to the children the first plane had hit the first tower; why didn't he put off speaking with the children for fifteen to twenty minutes in order to look into the situation as any leader would do? He is the president. The children would have waited. Planes do not hit the key financial district every day. One would think he'd want to be briefed immediately on deaths and the ability to conduct a rescue, whether the stock market was affected; given the telecom infrastructure housed in the twin towers, such a disruption to the telecom grid could grind New York to a halt, not to mention the multiple international companies residing there. Wouldn't he want to be on the phone with other leaders to address their fears about their own people? His actions do not make sense. TOP

I did not realize the extent of corruption in the contracts to rebuild Iraq, where taxpayers pay for a million dollar job and it is subcontracted out for $50,000, giving the contractor a $950,000 profit at our expense! Meanwhile, Bush cut the $75.00 a month 'immanent danger" pay for serving soldiers and the "$150.00" per month family separation allowance for our soldiers' families here. It seems the American people support our soldiers. The Administration uses them, (though a four letter f-word seems more appropriate here).

To save further money, Bush's policies charged our wounded soldiers in Fort Stewart, Georgia $8.00 a day for food…protests reversed this but to date, the administration has cut $3 Billion from the VA Hospital budget despite the fact we are at war and casualties are nearing 12,000. Over 40,000 cash-strapped families had to buy their own body armor for their serving soldiers. Meanwhile the film points out, hired mercenaries are making $8,000-$12,000 a month in Iraq, most at US taxpayer expense, directly and indirectly.

Gore Vidal's new book Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia covers this in detail, as does our own Frontlines & Homefronts marquee expert, Col. David Hackworth, (ret).

Fahrenheit 9/11 is satire mixed with facts. It is this satire the neocon pundits take issue with in an effort to discredit it as propaganda. The satire is obvious and not veiled. For it to be propaganda, you cannot know you are being led. You know. The facts are quantifiable and verifiable. The film editing does coax the viewer to specific conclusions, however there is no attempt to hide this or cover that fact. It's persuasion, not propaganda. Weapons of Mass Destruction, freeing the Iraqi people, we're hated for our "freedom", persecuting persons against the war, minimizing the Patriot Act, (which Moore shows Congress didn’t even bother to read before ratifying, by a legislature's own admission!), misleading the American public that the majority of us were in favor of this war, when the newspapers were receiving 70% of their letters against it and purposely printed the majority of those for…these constitute propaganda. TOP

Dr. Nancy Snow's Book " Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech, and Opinion Control Since 9/11" goes into this in detail: How Op-eds and Letters to the Editor were used to bolster support and give the illusion of acceptance when the majority of Americans were against it.

The facts and footage in Fahrenheit 9/11, cannot be discredited. The neocons may not like the editing, which is purposeful, but editing does not make this propaganda. It makes it opinion. Since the facts and news footage cannot be discredited, the option left? Attack the messenger and the moviegoers, classic characterization. Try to paint those attending to be outside of the American bandwagon (fanatical), rather than people like you and me. There is a reason the neocons do not want you to see this movie. It exposes the corruption, false premise and propaganda that first divided this country and stoked the fires of fear in order to enable a war against a tactic, which can never be won. With the movie, the emperor Bush and his loyal subjects lose their clothes. And the sight of them isn't pretty.

Divided We Fall: Liberals vs Conservatives

Michael Moore is a liberal filmmaker. Obviously as a true conservative, (Neocons are not conservatives. Rather they are Trotskyites in Republican clothing), I disagree with many of his positions and had issues with his previous film " Bowling for Columbine" more on tactic than fact; but I admire his compassion for the less fortunate in our society and he makes many good points. His opinion is worth hearing and considering. TOP

What is the difference between a conservative and a liberal? Consistently I am amazed by how few people know. Our philosophies clash in solving problems like poverty, unemployment and oppression. Socialists and liberals believe the federal, and to a lesser extent the state government should solve these. Conservatives like myself believe in personal accountability and self-actualization, that government's only job is to defend our borders, preserve our collective resources and secure infrastructure, with minimal control or interference by legislative bodies. Small government, decentralized power, few laws versus big government, many laws and centralized power. Conservatives believe social programs should be administered locally either by the local government, corporate citizenship or preferably by non-profits. Liberals believe these programs are better administered by the government.

These are the basics, nothing overly drastic or evil, as we increasingly being led to believe of each other. Very few, including Moore are "Left Wing radicals" or as he's accused, Pat Buchanan, "Right Wing Radicals". Both men are not radical. They are painted as such to discredit them by those seeking to rule us rather than lead. Both are worth listening to. The division between ideologies now commanding our airways is purposeful. As long as we are fighting each other, we fail to confront our joint problems. This movie brings us back together and further points this out. This is also what makes it dangerous to the status quo and those in power. It causes Americans to think.

Conservative or liberal we share a common respect for the Constitution and an abhorrence with the neocons who advocate complete government control via imperialism, a ruling elite as in the days of serfdom, destruction of the Constitution and global domination. Currently, these are the people in power in the United States and they've done a terrific job of dividing this country into liberals and conservatives, right wing and left wing (it's always about extremes) destroying our rights and raising the fortunes of those attached to the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us of so many years ago. As long as our two sides fail to speak to each other or minimize the other's point of view, the neocons maintain power.

This movie shows the American people our need to come together and crawl out from under the thumb press of an elite, greed driven few destroying our country from within. As this is clear in the movie, it is no wonder those in power do not want you to see it

By far the most powerful segment in the movie involves a Flint Michigan family, though I've forgotten how to spell their last name. The mother, a true patriot and American encouraged her children to enter the military. Her son dies in a Blackhawk crash and as she reads his final letter, she realizes he, and now she believe his death was for nothing noble and everything corrupt. The raw anguish she experiences upon the realization of the magnitude of deception propagated on the American people, tears at your heart. Yet a heartless woman passes her in front of the White House, publicly insulting her for her pain! Such callous disregard illustrates the level of hatred now embedded within Americans needing justification, despite facts to the contrary. Hate toward our own and lack of empathy is a by-product of a nation divided. TOP

This movie changes the dynamics of separation between competing ideologies, which is why the neocons are endeavoring to discredit it and prevent conservatives from seeing it. Upon the credits rolling, the audience burst into applause. We were, liberals, moderates and conservatives, indeed united.

The Flaws

The film is not perfect. My issues surrounded the Saudi Royal Family and I caught myself rolling my eyes with the satire. To me this segment was over the top and rather deceptive. In four years of research now, the Saudis, though quite corrupt, do not play into the current Middle East crisis as we have manufactured it. They are a problem, but they are the problem of the Saudi people, not America, though the neocons are trying to convince Americans otherwise. They do hold the largest oil reserves, so the reward is high. The Royal family tends to be rather hedonistic and currently it is trying to hang onto power. They've got too many affronts to their lifestyle to worry about Iraq and the rest. Moore dislikes ostentatious displays of wealth with a disgust for those who do not take care of their own., As the Saudi people suffer while their ruling family parties, his affinity for the common man likely spurned this segment. Based upon my knowledge, nothing else makes sense.

If there is a portion of the film I could point at and say, "Yes, this looks like propaganda", the Saudi segment suffices. I have not encountered facts to substantiate Moore's hypothesis, but I could be wrong. They may be out there and I just haven't run across them. The Bush family has conducted and benefited from billions of dollars in business with the Saudis. Saudi Arabia invests a lot in this country as we theirs. The ties to the bin Laden family are unnerving, but for a family grounded in oil, this is not unusual. I thought the attention paid to this, excessive and somewhat deceptive. The Saudi segment felt like a personal vendetta. TOP

The absence of the report taking us to war with its 8,000 missing pages, a critical element forcing our involvement did not make the film. This omission I found interesting. Much of 9-11 points to involvement by a sovereignty in the Middle East, but extensive research shows this sovereignty and the reason for the 8,000 missing pages is not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan or Iraq. Unfortunately the evidence also increasingly points foreknowledge in the US.

Likewise, Moore substantiated a huge pet peeve of mine further perpetuating the urban legend: Bin Laden was behind 9-11, though no conclusive evidence exists for this.

This mantra through consistent recitation emerged as fact in the US; facts however, do not support it. The only link, the "bin Laden tape" was discredited by a number of intelligence agencies in Europe nearly 2 years ago. Al Qaeda still has not claimed responsibility for the Super Bowl of terrorism, the first and only time they have not claimed responsibility for that they were accused of. As Zinni, Clarke, Clancy and others have pointed out and the foreign press confirms, we still don't know who the hijackers were. No manifests contain the names and those that were identified, eight used fake ID's; this has been confirmed. Logic states the rest would use false papers as well. This was front-page news in Europe and the rest of the world. Furthermore, the accents are questionable heard over the radio frequencies, much like an American faking a British accent. A Brit would hear the discrepancies. An American would not. Native Arabic speakers have commented to me on several occasions, though speaking Arabic, accents are off and the inflections construed.

Obviously, an entire book is required to examine all of the inconsistencies and sources regarding 9-11 and the hijackings. The fact is, the bodies and ID's, if any, burned up, with the exception of Atta's found in pristine condition a few blocks away from the towers and the convenience of his luggage at the airport, kind of like finding that van in perfect condition in Spain, damningly convenient and fishy. TOP

The other element missing is the Israeli connections: The PNAC report, JINSA, Cheney's disclosures to Sharon in March 2002 stating our invasion of Iraq would be for Israel, Israeli corporate, military, government and Mossad activities, though to include these probably would have shelved the film as "anti-Semitic". Moore did bring Israel up at a town meeting and was immediately labeled "anti-Semitic" by a neocon, telling me the absence of Israel was a strategic decision in marketing the film. Better to get three-quarters of the truth out than have the film shelved for telling it in its entirety.

But its absence is glaring. Israel is the white elephant marching throughout the film, ignored. Congress is currently trying to pass laws (HR 4230) making it a hate crime to criticize Israel or associate it with nefarious activities, and stem educational study and debate not approved by Israel in the United States (HR 3077). Last week our congress violated numerous international laws and conventions, nullifying the United Nations with S-460, endorsing Sharon's conquest of the West Bank, something not theirs to give, while placing Americans, military, civilians and corporations in eminent danger worldwide and adding fuel to the reasons terrorism exists while insuring the US has no credibility in the Middle East. With out a doubt our congress is acting in our best interests and is in no way the proxy of a foreign government. That is satire, by the way.

Seymour Hirsh's article in June 28, 2004 issue of The New Yorker this week goes into detail of Israel's latest double-cross, training and arming the Kurds north of Iraq and destabilizing Iran to our military's detriment. Justin Raimondo takes off the blinders and delves into the consequences further. There is no way Moore could have obtained the body of research the film presents without uncovering our ally's activities, objectives and contributions. These scream from the research once the surface obfuscations are scratched. Their fingerprints are everywhere and impossible to ignore.

Going forward

Expect the shrillness of the neocons and their pundits to increase in pitch over the coming weeks, like the archangel disintegrating in a wall of flames, due to the impact of this movie. Of course one irony I found rather amusing. FOX News, in its desperation to justify attacking Iraq continues to attempt to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam by the thinnest of threads, insinuating that simply meeting, writing or speaking to each other proves collaboration therefore justifying invasion. Moore's movie kills that one. You see, our own President met with Taliban officials a few months before September 11th and toured them through a Unocal plant as Moore documents. So according to FOX News' logic, our government is a terrorist government since we met and collaborated with known terrorists on our soil. After all, with FOX's logic, our president has ties to the Taliban. Of course this from a network that consistently brings on experts from World Net Daily, a neocon publication basing its Middle East history on the Joan Peters' book, " From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine". A book discredited nearly twenty years ago world wide, including in Israel, as pure fiction, racist and propaganda. One must consider the source. TOP

Bottom line.

The main message of this film is America has a huge problem and this problem is not just the White House; it is the Senate and House as well including both Democrats and Republicans. The Senate and the House abdicated their responsibility to the American people by giving up their Constitutional mandate as the only arm of the US Government empowered to declare war. They shunned their responsibility to protect and defend the US Constitution by allowing ratification of the Patriot Act, the broadest destruction of constitutional rights ever presented without even reading it. They failed to protect the American people by holding the current office of the Presidency responsible and accountable for its actions. (The False Statement Statute Title 18, Section 1001 provides for a 5-year prison term for any government official caught lying, falsifying or concealing information from the American people while in office. Congress could prosecute our President based upon this statute, but they would also have to prosecute the majority of their members as well.) In essence, our government bodies declared war on the American people, consistently keeping us in a state of manufactured terror built on lies. Moore's film makes it clear that if Americans want the America our travel brochures and PR pretend we have, the American people are the only ones who can hold our leaders, all of them responsible. We can only do that through education and getting involved. In the end, reversing this is up to US.

If you're an American who cares about where this country is going and are disturbed by our present course, you owe it to yourself to see Fahrenheit 9/11. You may not like the opinions, the satire or tactics, but the facts speak for themselves. This is not a movie for Liberals, Bush haters or peace activists. This is not a left-wing or right wing tirade. It is a dose of the reality we do not like to admit. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a movie for Americans, all Americans who care about their country and where it is heading and want the corruption, lies and hate to end.

***********************************************

And I'm not sure if Newsweek's Isikoff's harsh criticism to Fahrenheit 9/11 had already been posted (somehow I'd be surprised if it wasn't), but you can find a point by point retortion here.

[ 07-08-2004, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Thanks for bringing some much needed perspective back to this topic, Groj. I realize my own intense dislike for Moore makes the issue of his "editing techniques" far more important in my opinion, but it's nice to see an opposing viewpoint say "Yeah, I realize he is doing this too - I just don't think it is as big a deal as you." I guess the main thing I (and perhaps others) wanted out of this thread was an acknowledgement that Moore does do some questionable editing. (...) Ach...I'm starting to repeat the arguments again and I certainly don't mean to do that. I've been told that my long-winded posts tend to "dredge up" old arguments again and I'm consciously trying to change that. As I said before, both sides have been exhaustively represented throughout both threads and few opinions have been changed either way. Still it has been a rousing discussion and one that has remained fairly civil throughout. So I take comfort in the fact that there are at least some small signs of this forum finally returning to the former days of members discussing opposing viewpoints in a civil and respectable manner.

Cerek, kudos to you for more or less understanding where I was trying to head with my post. I'm in agreement with you on your conclusion, though I'd like to add that I've been pretty much straightforward about my criticism regarding Moore's movie throughout the debates we've had on the subject over the past few months (years?). I simply tend to disagree more with Hardy's attitude than with Moore's, and that's been the main point of discussion, I suppose. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-08-2004, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Oblivion, thanks for once again proving my point as to why I object to responding to every single sentence instead of to the point in whole. You don't even read what I write, but simply repeat the same old nonsense you've been repeating all throughout this topic, missing the general point I tried to make.

I did read what you wrote, or do you not know what you wrote? To say that what I've said is nonsense would require that you in some fashion debunk what I'd said before, which, once again, has not been done.

Besides, to just slap your whole post above mine is a hell of a mess, and it is rather unreadable. It would be rather hard to respond point-for-point or even in general, as anyone reading it would be required to read both parts in whole, and then go back and forth.

If you need any retortions to those points, go back and read Chewie's replies.

Those points weren't properly refuted...

I specifically asked people not to pick apart my entire post, and yet you did just that - sometimes not even to counter my words, but to nitpick semantics or just repeat the thing I was already responding to in the first place. Seriously, knock it off.

Except you kept either confusing the issue or strawmanning. If you don't like reasoned debate in the most direct fashion possible, don't post, and even better, don't post in any fashion as I might disagree with you. If you want me to knock it off, ban me, close my account suspend me, or have someone in a position to do so admonish me for it, but don't expect your inability to respond to my debate to be sufficient in determining my debate policy. If anything, I'm spurred to keep it up.

And I don't care whether it reflects badly on me, but I have too much of a life to pick your post apart, respond to every single "point" made while knowing that it won't make a difference either way; let's just agree to disagree. I know there's a good chance you'll even pick apart this post - well, good for you.

It does reflect very badly on you that you use the "I have too much of a life" cop-out to run away while your strawmen get burned. I find it funny that you say good for you, as a couple Australians say G'day to mean "kiss my ass" or mate to mean "asshole." It takes me an average of 10 minutes to construct a reply, and that's if I do serious fact-checking... Are you saying you never have 10 minutes to spare?

And may the next person using the words "conjecture" and "strawman" be struck by lightning. Seriously.

Well, he's more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack...

by the way, about that NRA convention date: it's there on Hardy's site; check the part regarding Kayla Robinson. Once again a provable lie on Moore's part (if Hardy is correct, that is), but I guess still not good enough for court.

Yes, you're dead right about that. As Heston is a public figure (and the NRA a public organization) a direct intent of malice has to be specifically established for the legal angle of it to be truly actionable. Civil law is very fickle about that sort of thing. If you can make sure your target is a public figure, you can say "allegedly" and then anything you want, you can quote them out of context and accuse them of something based on that out of context quote. You can do exactly what Moore has done to Heston and the NRA and get away with it, and have the law protect you directly. Hardy has a great couple of links on the subject (I personally can verify all of them worked about a month ago, don't know if they still do) including just how Moore most likely came to be acquainted with that law. To demonstrate, I'll ask you a question, but it'll only have real significance in the US I suppose, as I don't know much about the whole thing involving international television.

When's the last time you saw Roger and Me on television? On the deluxe package/digital cable/satellite channels? On the On-Demand type or Pay-Per-View Channels? As a result of a lawsuit Moore lost regarding slanderous statements he'd made about a non-public figure, that film most likely never will receive such a release.

[Chewbacca]

I feel yeah Grojlach. I promise not to use the words conjecture or strawman in this thread again! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It is amazing that my opinion of BFC and Michael Moore remains the more or less the same after this thread and all the other threads on this topic. I realize it is odd that I have never quite clarified my clear and exact opinion in any of these threads, but I think my opinion of the guy and of the film has become largely irrelevant. I have grown amused by the accusations that I play the role of Moore's defender becasue I am sympathetic to his politics when I dont really know Moore's politics. I know we share the same desire to have a new President come November, but beyond that I am pretty much clueless of Moore's stance on various issues that are important to me.

True I think BFC explores a provactive and important question and true there are some parts of the film I enjoy more than others.

My central issue all along has been the attacks on the film and on Moore which are presented as undeniable irrefutable logical and rational fact, when indeed I have found most of the critisms posed this way to be speculative opinion. ( I promised not to use conjecture any more!)

Another contention I have is the attacks on BFC take away from the question invoked in the film and the attakers never seem willing to even mention this premise, much less explore it. I wonder if they are afraid of the answers a thoughtful exploration of the issue may uncover. Indeed they attack the questioner, but I think the questioner is irrelevant as the question posed stands on its own merits.

Another contention of mine, which I have already mentioned, is making statements of opinion and passing them off as concrete fact. When this point is made an inevitable response is the opinion (usually in the guise of fact of course) "Well Moore does it too". Well "so what" is my response. I'm not critisizing Moore, but Moore's critics.


I realize, after one circular argument after another that can all be boiled down to "is fact" VS "no, is not fact, is opinion", that the same uusual suspects are going to fill their roles on both sides, and if they are convinced that the opinions are indeed fact, why should I waste any more time trying to persuade anyone otherwise.

Contrary to at least one person's opinion I think I have clearly offered perspectives on many of the disputed portions of the film that show there is indeed more than one way to veiw the facts and that indeed whether or not Moore is a liar and BFC is full of deception is all in the eye of the beholder.

All in All- I have lost nothing and gained nothing. As allegedly damning and convinving all the critisms of BFC and Moore are supposed to be, and after numerous repeatings of them, I am still thoroughly unconvinced on many points of critism and my veiws of the film are largely unchanged after the fact.

I take a grain of salt whenever someone, whether it be Moore or his critics, trys to spoonfeed an opinion and expect me to absorb and repeat it as rede and rule with out question. This skepticism has served me well both while watching Moore's films and while reading the critiques of them.

Skepticism- I salute you!


Regards,

[ 07-09-2004, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: My central issue all along has been the attacks on the film and on Moore which are presented as undeniable irrefutable logical and rational fact, when indeed I have found most of the critisms posed this way to be speculative opinion. ( I promised not to use conjecture any more!)

To be perfectly honost, Chewbacca, it is your stance that the criticisms against Moore are "speculative opinion" that has led to you be characterized as his stalwart defender.

There are multiple sites listing numerous discrepencies, misrepresentations, or whatever label you prefer regarding the information presented by Moore in BfC, and especially the manner in which is was presented.

You classify all of it unilaterally as "speculative opinion" or "conjecture" and dismiss much of it due to the source. That has been your standard answer to every criticism against Moore and his film, and while it may be your opinion, I hope you can understand how that automatic response makes it appear that you are unwilling to consider any evidence regarding the actions taken by Moore. I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs, Chewbacca. I'm merely trying to point out that some of the evidence presented against Moore does qualify as more than mere "speculative opinion". You're welcome to believe that it doesn't, but that also explains why some have claimed you agree with Moore's politics and would defend him no matter what.

Originally quoted by Chewbacca: Another contention I have is the attacks on BFC take away from the question invoked in the film and the attakers never seem willing to even mention this premise, much less explore it. I wonder if they are afraid of the answers a thoughtful exploration of the issue may uncover. Indeed they attack the questioner, but I think the questioner is irrelevant as the question posed stands on its own merits.

I highlighted that particular statement because I consider that to be a rather cheap shot. By that logic, one could also question whether you are afraid to thoughtfully explore that the criticisms against Moore are correct or not. But I'm not trying to create a confrontation or get into a pissing contest. I actually agree with you and Grojlach both that Michael Moore DOES present some very thought-provoking questions about serious issues that are well worth discussing. I also agree that in BfC and F 9/11 both, the questions raised DO stand on their own merit. But that is part of why I dislike Moore so much. Because he is not willing to let the questions stand on their own merit and provoke "thoughtful exploration". Instead, he uses his "creative editing" to forcefully spoonfeed HIS opinion on the viewer . If anybody appears afraid of honost "thoughtful exploration", I would say it is Michael Moore - because he seems completely unwilling to take a chance that some viewers would give the issue "thoughtful exploration" and still disagree with his opinions and conclusions. So he presents disconnected images and information, but puts them together to imply there is a connection to them (such as claiming Heston held a big gun rally in Flint shortly after yet another shooting tragedy). This is done to indicate that the NRA and Heston have a habit of showing up right after a tragedy to shout down any protesters who might be calling for more gun control. In fact, we now know that the the "rally" Heston attended was a voter's rally and occured several months after the Flint shooting, instead of just a week or two as Moore tries to imply.

Roger Ebert echoed my own sentiments when he said that such "editing" actually weakens Moore's credibility (and thus his arguments as well) and that is very unfortunate - because these issues he addresses ARE important and should be discussed thoroughly. And the evidence, information, and data supporting Moore's view are more than strong enough to stand on their own merit without any "tampering" from Moore - but he has proven time and again he is unwilling to take that chance of just letting the facts speak for themselves.

Again, I hope that my first set of comments isn't taken as an attack on you or your viewpoint. I was just trying to offer an honost explanation of how your statements have appeared to other side at times and I hope it is taken as that and nothing else.

Cheers to you too, my friend.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Another contention I have is the attacks on BFC take away from the question invoked in the film and the attakers never seem willing to even mention this premise, much less explore it. I wonder if they are afraid of the answers a thoughtful exploration of the issue may uncover. Indeed they attack the questioner, but I think the questioner is irrelevant as the question posed stands on its own merits.

Pot Meet Kettle.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Another contention I have is the attacks on BFC take away from the question invoked in the film and the attakers never seem willing to even mention this premise, much less explore it. I wonder if they are afraid of the answers a thoughtful exploration of the issue may uncover. Indeed they attack the questioner, but I think the questioner is irrelevant as the question posed stands on its own merits.

Pot Meet Kettle. [/QUOTE]What do you mean?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: My central issue all along has been the attacks on the film and on Moore which are presented as undeniable irrefutable logical and rational fact, when indeed I have found most of the critisms posed this way to be speculative opinion. ( I promised not to use conjecture any more!)

To be perfectly honost, Chewbacca, it is your stance that the criticisms against Moore are "speculative opinion" that has led to you be characterized as his stalwart defender.

There are multiple sites listing numerous discrepencies, misrepresentations, or whatever label you prefer regarding the information presented by Moore in BfC, and especially the manner in which is was presented.

You classify all of it unilaterally as "speculative opinion" or "conjecture" and dismiss much of it due to the source. That has been your standard answer to every criticism against Moore and his film, and while it may be your opinion, I hope you can understand how that automatic response makes it appear that you are unwilling to consider any evidence regarding the actions taken by Moore. I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs, Chewbacca. I'm merely trying to point out that some of the evidence presented against Moore does qualify as more than mere "speculative opinion". You're welcome to believe that it doesn't, but that also explains why some have claimed you agree with Moore's politics and would defend him no matter what.

Originally quoted by Chewbacca: Another contention I have is the attacks on BFC take away from the question invoked in the film and the attakers never seem willing to even mention this premise, much less explore it. I wonder if they are afraid of the answers a thoughtful exploration of the issue may uncover. Indeed they attack the questioner, but I think the questioner is irrelevant as the question posed stands on its own merits.

I highlighted that particular statement because I consider that to be a rather cheap shot. By that logic, one could also question whether you are afraid to thoughtfully explore that the criticisms against Moore are correct or not. But I'm not trying to create a confrontation or get into a pissing contest. I actually agree with you and Grojlach both that Michael Moore DOES present some very thought-provoking questions about serious issues that are well worth discussing. I also agree that in BfC and F 9/11 both, the questions raised DO stand on their own merit. But that is part of why I dislike Moore so much. Because he is not willing to let the questions stand on their own merit and provoke "thoughtful exploration". Instead, he uses his "creative editing" to forcefully spoonfeed HIS opinion on the viewer . If anybody appears afraid of honost "thoughtful exploration", I would say it is Michael Moore - because he seems completely unwilling to take a chance that some viewers would give the issue "thoughtful exploration" and still disagree with his opinions and conclusions. So he presents disconnected images and information, but puts them together to imply there is a connection to them (such as claiming Heston held a big gun rally in Flint shortly after yet another shooting tragedy). This is done to indicate that the NRA and Heston have a habit of showing up right after a tragedy to shout down any protesters who might be calling for more gun control. In fact, we now know that the the "rally" Heston attended was a voter's rally and occured several months after the Flint shooting, instead of just a week or two as Moore tries to imply.

Roger Ebert echoed my own sentiments when he said that such "editing" actually weakens Moore's credibility (and thus his arguments as well) and that is very unfortunate - because these issues he addresses ARE important and should be discussed thoroughly. And the evidence, information, and data supporting Moore's view are more than strong enough to stand on their own merit without any "tampering" from Moore - but he has proven time and again he is unwilling to take that chance of just letting the facts speak for themselves.

Again, I hope that my first set of comments isn't taken as an attack on you or your viewpoint. I was just trying to offer an honost explanation of how your statements have appeared to other side at times and I hope it is taken as that and nothing else.

Cheers to you too, my friend. [/QUOTE]Cerek,

I read the critisms of the film and formed my veiwpoints on my own. Much of the film's critisms are spectulation and opinion- thats is, was and continues to be my stance. They do not convince me and and much of the factual support they claim is actually weak and unsubstantiated.


I dont care if anyone disagrees and I will be amused if anyone thinks I am a fact ignoring Moore worshiper becasue of it.


Also my alleged cheap shot was not aimed at anyone in particular- It was a rhetorical question wondering why critics of the movie never seem to want to discuss what the movie is really about.

I, on the otherhand, have discussed the critisms head-on and offered a different take on several of them. I had no problem researching or discussing them, but seeing as how the discussion about those critisms has become a circular rehash of 1/2 dozen other threads on this topic just like the one we are having now- "Its a fact" vs "No, It an opinion". I simply would rather agree to disagree than repeat the same response and make the same points over and over.

Take Care,