| Sam |
i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
Sam
|
|
|
| Levelwave© |
Sam wrote:
> i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
I thought it was second-rate bushleague material... ie bull**** propaganda.
~john
|
|
|
| Mpoconnor7 |
I guess no NG is immune from this movie.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"I actually thought about voting for John Kerry before I decided to vote
against him."
|
|
|
| Thomas |
second rate would be a compliment.
busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
more bull**** or more propaganda.
Hard to fight the tears??
As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of your countrymen died on
September 11?
"Levelwave©" <~last_exit@utc.edu> wrote in message
news:2rmcf9F1bf3r4U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Sam wrote:
>
> > i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> > cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> > civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> > the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> > on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
>
> I thought it was second-rate bushleague material... ie bull****
propaganda.
>
> ~john
|
|
|
| Thomas |
Sorry...
Roast poblano peppers over the grill until the skin is charred. Let "steam"
in closed paper bag for about 15 mins. Remove skin and seeds. Grill steak
medium rare and julienne peppers on top of steak. Glorious.
"Levelwave©" <~last_exit@utc.edu> wrote in message
news:2rmcf9F1bf3r4U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Sam wrote:
>
> > i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> > cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> > civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> > the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> > on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
>
> I thought it was second-rate bushleague material... ie bull****
propaganda.
>
> ~john
|
|
|
| jmcquown |
Thomas wrote:
> second rate would be a compliment.
> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if
> it's more bull**** or more propaganda.
> Hard to fight the tears??
> As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of your countrymen died
> on September 11?
Or 295 co-workers, 30 of whom you knew and worked with personally. I
haven't seen the film and don't plan to.
Jill
> "Levelwave©" <~last_exit@utc.edu> wrote in message
> news:2rmcf9F1bf3r4U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>>> i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
>>> cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
>>> civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops
>>> on the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of
>>> stuff on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>>
>>
>> I thought it was second-rate bushleague material... ie bull****
>> propaganda.
>>
>> ~john
|
|
|
| CJB |
previously in rfc, "jmcquown" <jmcquown@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Thomas wrote:
>> second rate would be a compliment.
>> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if
>> it's more bull**** or more propaganda.
>> Hard to fight the tears??
>> As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of your countrymen died
>> on September 11?
>
> Or 295 co-workers, 30 of whom you knew and worked with personally. I
> haven't seen the film and don't plan to.
>
> Jill
Or an NYPD cousin and a wonderful friend at Cantor Fitzgerald...
Not going to see it.
-Claudia
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Thomas wrote:
> second rate would be a compliment.
> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
> more bull**** or more propaganda.
> Hard to fight the tears?? As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of
> your countrymen died on September 11?
The connection being......?
No connection between Saddam and 9/11. No WMDs in Iraq. No threat to the US to
justify invading Iraq.
|
|
|
| Dog3 |
got1tiel@yahoo.com (Sam)
news:436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com:
> i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
> Sam
>
Anything to do with 9/11 is out of my realm. I don't want to see it or
anticipate it. My family, finances etc. have been completely hurt by it.
I want nothing more to do with it but remember it.
Michael
--
"I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full house
and four people died.
-Steven Wright
|
|
|
| Kswck |
"CJB" <me@me.blah> wrote in message
news:Xns956FE4143E29Ememecom@24.168.128.74...
> previously in rfc, "jmcquown" <jmcquown@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Thomas wrote:
>>> second rate would be a compliment.
>>> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if
>>> it's more bull**** or more propaganda.
>>> Hard to fight the tears??
>>> As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of your countrymen died
>>> on September 11?
>>
>> Or 295 co-workers, 30 of whom you knew and worked with personally. I
>> haven't seen the film and don't plan to.
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> Or an NYPD cousin and a wonderful friend at Cantor Fitzgerald...
>
> Not going to see it.
>
> -Claudia
Or the firefighter husband of the girl that sits 20 feet from me at work.
|
|
|
| Jack Schidt® |
"Sam" <got1tiel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com...
>i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
> Sam
IMO it's a well made film, regardless of whether one agrees with the content
or not. Most folks I know had formed opinions about bush before the film
was released. Most of my conservative friends had formed an opinion (or
were told what it was by THEIR propaganda machine) before seeing the film.
OB food: I picked up a great book of tapas recipes at the bookstore across
the street from the theater where I saw the film.
Jack Kino
"I actually thought about voting for George Bush before I decided to vote
against him."
|
|
|
| Stark |
In article <Xns956FE4143E29Ememecom@24.168.128.74>, CJB <me@me.blah>
wrote:
> previously in rfc, "jmcquown" <jmcquown@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Thomas wrote:
> >> second rate would be a compliment.
> >> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if
> >> it's more bull**** or more propaganda.
> >> Hard to fight the tears??
> >> As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of your countrymen died
> >> on September 11?
> >
> > Or 295 co-workers, 30 of whom you knew and worked with personally. I
> > haven't seen the film and don't plan to.
> >
> > Jill
>
>
> Or an NYPD cousin and a wonderful friend at Cantor Fitzgerald...
>
> Not going to see it.
>
> -Claudia
Or any of the thousands who died in Korea or Western Europe in WWII and
WWI.
|
|
|
| Stark |
In article <20040925193632.25562.00001241@mb-m29.aol.com>, Mpoconnor7
<mpoconnor7@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
> I guess no NG is immune from this movie.
>
> Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
>
> "I actually thought about voting for John Kerry before I decided to vote
> against him."
B r a i n f a r t !
|
|
|
| WardNA |
>second rate would be a compliment.
>busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
>more bull**** or more propaganda.
Wherever there's a calamity, there will be hyenas.
Neil
|
|
|
| Shirley Hicks |
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:24:29 GMT, Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote:
>In article <Xns956FE4143E29Ememecom@24.168.128.74>, CJB <me@me.blah>
>wrote:
>
>> previously in rfc, "jmcquown" <jmcquown@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Thomas wrote:
>> >> second rate would be a compliment.
>> >> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if
>> >> it's more bull**** or more propaganda.
>> >> Hard to fight the tears??
>> >> As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of your countrymen died
>> >> on September 11?
>> >
>> > Or 295 co-workers, 30 of whom you knew and worked with personally. I
>> > haven't seen the film and don't plan to.
>> >
>> > Jill
>>
>>
>> Or an NYPD cousin and a wonderful friend at Cantor Fitzgerald...
>>
>> Not going to see it.
>>
>> -Claudia
>
>Or any of the thousands who died in Korea or Western Europe in WWII and
>WWI.
Folks, the film dosen't make mockery of those deaths. (i saw it on
opening night in Toronto. Both parties were out in force, reminding
any resident Americans that it's Really Important to register and vote
this year. What I also found interesting were how both parties' teams
were identifying who might be an American. Something in the walk, the
vowel pronunciations. I was asked, my companion was not. We were both
canadians. I have, however, spent time 'stateside.) The airplanes
crashing into the World Trade Towers are not shown. What you hear is
the sounds, and that really drives home what a horrible thing it was.
What MM does do in the documentary, is raise questions about how this
war has been reported in the mainstream media, the Bush famly's
connections to the Saudi royal family, the administration's handling
of the past three year's events Fox's news coverage (or lack of it),
CNN's lack of coverage since the Ted Turner handed over the helm and
how it has been affecting public opinion. He shows footage of some
equally gruesome things that are happening to Iraqi civilians and
gives voice to their opinions. The film gives voice to a woman who has
two children in the American forces, and how she only started to
question the war, when her son, who was killed in Iraq, started
writing how questioning what they were there for himself. It also
follows her to Washington, as she tries to get answers.
To this Canadian, very little of what was shown is new. (The Iraqi war
footage was) What was striking was the picture painted when it was all
gathered in one place.
And that is one of a adminstration, a white house that is engaging in
some very big lies or some extremely dillusional behaviour, and so
far, from outside your borders, seem to be getting away with it.
Gets the neighbours a bit concerned, it does.
I'd encourage you to see it, if only to see what is not reaching you
via the mainstream news media. If you don't go see it because you
don't want to give MM your money, see a bootleg copy, borrow it from
the library or at least make a point of checking out foreign english
language news media for alternative versions of the stories, and for
coverage that is not making it to the mainstream media in your
country. (FWIW, the difference in the tone of news coverage, even from
private broadcasters, is really, really noticeable once you cross over
the border.)
Yes, it really challenges some republican view of How Things Are.
But that is very much the point. MM is playing the court jester here,
saying some unpalatable truths that were not being voiced outloud
prior to the documentary's release.
Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor
|
|
|
| Peter Aitken |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41562868.E28419AD@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Thomas wrote:
>
> > second rate would be a compliment.
> > busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
> > more bull**** or more propaganda.
> > Hard to fight the tears?? As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000
of
> > your countrymen died on September 11?
>
> The connection being......?
> No connection between Saddam and 9/11. No WMDs in Iraq. No threat to the
US to
> justify invading Iraq.
>
Is anyone shedding any tears for the tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani
noncombatant civilians who have been killed by US forces? How about the many
Iraqis killed by the fanatical Muslim resistance in Iraq, a group that is
motivated and allowed to operate because of the unjustified US invasion, and
who the incompetent Bush administration seems unable to deal with? How about
the 1000+ American troops dead and thousands wounded, many crippled for
life, fighting in a war that has made none of us any safer and shows no sign
of achieving the objective of democracy in Iraq? Even if you support Bush's
policies, it is beyond me how anyone could vote for such a blithering
incompetent.
--
Peter Aitken
Remove the crap from my email address before using.
|
|
|
| Andy Katz |
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:24:40 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Thomas wrote:
>
>> second rate would be a compliment.
>> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
>> more bull**** or more propaganda.
>> Hard to fight the tears?? As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of
>> your countrymen died on September 11?
>
>The connection being......?
>No connection between Saddam and 9/11. No WMDs in Iraq. No threat to the US to
>justify invading Iraq.
9/11: Arabs kill Americans
Iraq: Americans kill Arabs.
That's the connection. That's what all this "My best bud died in the
WTC so shaddup & God bless George!" pious horse**** is all about.
No one wants to come and say "I just want to frag some 'rabs, dude!"
Andy Katz
**************************************************
*************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.
Paghat, the Rat Girl
|
|
|
| x-archive:no |
Political propaganda disguised as facts. No matter the politics, it
should bother people when a film with a blantant agenda and disregard
for the truth is classifed as a documentary.
"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political,
social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative
manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews
accompanied by narration."
On 25 Sep 2004 16:07:16 -0700, got1tiel@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote:
>i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
>cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
>civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
>the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
>on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
>Sam
|
|
|
| Peter Aitken |
"x-archive:no" <x-archive-NO@none.com> wrote in message
news:elael0d50oaci07kvi650a3uaho23thqme@4ax.com...
> Political propaganda disguised as facts. No matter the politics, it
> should bother people when a film with a blantant agenda and disregard
> for the truth is classifed as a documentary.
>
> "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political,
> social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative
> manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews
> accompanied by narration."
>
No one ever claimed that Moore's film was not propaganda - it was from the
very first designed to be an anti-Bush film. But being propaganda does not
mean that something is automatically false. And that's why the film has so
many Bush supporters up in arms - because it *does* contain so much truth.
Moore got a few things wrong, but a significant majority of the things
presented in the film are verifiably true. You can check it out yourself if
you have the interest and an open mind - but there;s the rub - very few Bush
supporters have an open mind. They want the facts to support their opinion,
hence their demonizing of the film - it's a terribly inconvenient dose of
reality that threatens their beliefs.
By the way, your definition of "documentary" fits Moore's film perfectly
well. It is informative certainly, factual (mostly), and consists of news
film and narration. No mention of a documentary having to be balanced.
--
Peter Aitken
Remove the crap from my email address before using.
|
|
|
| Michel Boucher |
"x-archive:no" <x-archive-NO@none.com> wrote in
news:elael0d50oaci07kvi650a3uaho23thqme@4ax.com:
> Political propaganda disguised as facts. No matter the politics,
> it should bother people when a film with a blantant agenda and
> disregard for the truth is classifed as a documentary.
>
> "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting
> political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and
> informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or
> interviews accompanied by narration."
How is this any different from political speeches by George Bush or
flatulent tomes from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?
At least it's what called giving equal time to the other side.
--
"It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated
comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for
a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle."
Supply Side Jesus
|
|
|
| Jim |
>"Jack Schidt®" wrote:
> Most of my conservative friends had formed an opinion (or
>were told what it was by THEIR propaganda machine) before seeing the film.
Ahem. Are you implying here Jack, that conservatives swallow what is spoon fed
to them by their " propaganda machine ", whereas liberals are independant and
free thinkers? We both know thats a load of horse****.The liberals have their
own "propaganda machine", and the faithful swallow the propaganda hook, line,
and sinker. There are many sheep on both sides, I prefer not to be one of them.
Jim
--
It is better to be a live lamb than a dead lion. I prefer to be a live lion.
|
|
|
| sf |
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:32:38 -0400, Shirley Hicks
<for.arts.sake@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> To this Canadian, very little of what was shown is new.
Also to this Californian.
> (The Iraqi war footage was)
Even that wasn't new.
> What was striking was the picture painted when it was all
> gathered in one place.
>
True.
> And that is one of a adminstration, a white house that is engaging in
> some very big lies or some extremely dillusional behaviour, and so
> far, from outside your borders, seem to be getting away with it.
>
True.
> Gets the neighbours a bit concerned, it does.
>
<snip>
>
> Yes, it really challenges some republican view of How Things Are.
> But that is very much the point. MM is playing the court jester here,
> saying some unpalatable truths that were not being voiced outloud
> prior to the documentary's release.
>
It's required viewing for all people who plan to vote - no
matter what their party affiliation is.
sf
Practice safe eating - always use condiments
|
|
|
| Puester |
sf wrote:
>
> It's required viewing for all people who plan to vote - no
> matter what their party affiliation is.
>
> sf
Would that it were so.
gloria p
|
|
|
| sf |
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:25:08 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
<paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote:
> You can check it out yourself if
> you have the interest and an open mind - but there;s the rub - very few Bush
> supporters have an open mind. They want the facts to support their opinion,
> hence their demonizing of the film - it's a terribly inconvenient dose of
> reality that threatens their beliefs.
I don't think the film is designed to sway Bush supporters.
What it's designed to do is raise BIG questions in the mind
of the "undecided voter". He wants eligible voters to stop
being complacent...
You know the saying:
Winners make things happen.
Losers let things happen.
The US electorate is turning us into a nation of losers who
allow our elected officials run roughshod over us and bully
other countries.
sf
Practice safe eating - always use condiments
|
|
|
| Jack Schidt® |
"Jim" <jinym@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20040926225449.18151.00003771@mb-m03.aol.com...
> >"Jack Schidt®" wrote:
>
>
>> Most of my conservative friends had formed an opinion (or
>>were told what it was by THEIR propaganda machine) before seeing the film.
>
> Ahem. Are you implying here Jack, that conservatives swallow what is spoon
> fed
> to them by their " propaganda machine ", whereas liberals are independant
> and
> free thinkers?
Nope, I merely highlighted the fact that there is right-leaning propaganda,
in response to others implying that all propaganda is on the left.
We both know thats a load of horse****.The liberals have their
> own "propaganda machine", and the faithful swallow the propaganda hook,
> line,
> and sinker. There are many sheep on both sides, I prefer not to be one of
> them.
>
Everybody has propaganda going right now. It is, however, hard to beat the
stuff coming out of the white house these days, glossing over the dire
situation in Iraq.
Jack Baloney
|
|
|
| Stark |
In article <8d1el09blobbva5rkbkb17hnajmc33t8go@4ax.com>, Andy Katz
<amkatz@earthnospamlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:24:40 -0400, Dave Smith
> <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Thomas wrote:
> >
> >> second rate would be a compliment.
> >> busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
> >> more bull**** or more propaganda.
> >> Hard to fight the tears?? As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000 of
> >> your countrymen died on September 11?
> >
> >The connection being......?
> >No connection between Saddam and 9/11. No WMDs in Iraq. No threat to the US
> >to
> >justify invading Iraq.
>
> 9/11: Arabs kill Americans
>
> Iraq: Americans kill Arabs.
>
> That's the connection. That's what all this "My best bud died in the
> WTC so shaddup & God bless George!" pious horse**** is all about.
>
> No one wants to come and say "I just want to frag some 'rabs, dude!"
>
> Andy Katz
Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't volunteer
for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and Mexico would
suddenly become very Republican.
|
|
|
| Michel Boucher |
Darrell Daniels <ddaniel1@san.rr.com> wrote in
news:qiN5d.20719$OB2.10566@twister.socal.rr.com:
> Puester wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>>It's required viewing for all people who plan to vote - no
>>>matter what their party affiliation is.
>>>
>>>sf
>
> Well, if it required viewing, in the interest of fairness then add
> these two:
> http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11/
>
> http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/trailer_sm.html
Except that Michael Moore is not running for office.
--
"It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated
comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for
a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle."
Supply Side Jesus
|
|
|
| Michel Boucher |
Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote in
news:270920040619378622%sraven@att.net:
> Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
> fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't
> volunteer for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and
> Mexico would suddenly become very Republican.
Bite your tongue! Canada? Republican? Are you out of your freaking
mind? Why would we adopt the political structure of another nation?
We have enough right-wing loonies here.
--
"It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated
comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for
a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle."
Supply Side Jesus
|
|
|
| Dog3 |
Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>
news:Xns9571507424F87mortimertherat@130.133.1.4:
> Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote in
> news:270920040619378622%sraven@att.net:
>
>> Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
>> fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't
>> volunteer for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and
>> Mexico would suddenly become very Republican.
>
> Bite your tongue! Canada? Republican? Are you out of your freaking
> mind? Why would we adopt the political structure of another nation?
> We have enough right-wing loonies here.
>
So says my father that lives in West Van. Although he is boffing my mother
again according to the nosey gossips in my home town. I've seen him several
times this year. Apparently his Mercedes is in her garage more often than
her Blazer (sp).
Michael
--
"I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full house
and four people died.
-Steven Wright
|
|
|
| Andy Katz |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:20:01 GMT, Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote:
>Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
>fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't volunteer
>for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and Mexico would
>suddenly become very Republican.
With a few honorable exceptions, that's absolutely true.
Andy Katz
**************************************************
*************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.
Paghat, the Rat Girl
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Jack Schidt®" <jack-schidt@snot.net> wrote in message
news:wgz5d.621$Rf1.459@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sam" <got1tiel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com...
> >i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> > cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> > civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> > the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> > on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
> >
> > Sam
>
> IMO it's a well made film, regardless of whether one agrees with the
content
> or not. Most folks I know had formed opinions about bush before the film
> was released. Most of my conservative friends had formed an opinion (or
> were told what it was by THEIR propaganda machine) before seeing the film.
>
> OB food: I picked up a great book of tapas recipes at the bookstore
across
> the street from the theater where I saw the film.
>
> Jack Kino
My problem with it is that Michael More is an opportunist, lying bully. He
doesn't give a damn about the people he exploits, and he edits without
morals. He uses bits and pieces of film out of context, and adds film bits
that weren't even filmed at the time of what they're being shown with. For
example, in another film of his that was highly overrated, Bowling for
Columbine, he made it look as if he was yelling a supposedly provocative
question (I won't repeat it since it never happened) to Charlton Heston, who
supposedly refused to answer. It never happened. He filmed it later, alone.
Added clips of Heston walking away from the interview. In F 9/11, he took a
letter to the editor and edited it to look like a headline to "prove" that
Gore won the election in Florida. He's a fraud, at best.
kimberly
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Shirley Hicks" <for.arts.sake@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:c4ndl092g77d8hdaufpmkl9mtu24mptceh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:24:29 GMT, Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Yes, it really challenges some republican view of How Things Are.
> But that is very much the point. MM is playing the court jester here,
> saying some unpalatable truths that were not being voiced outloud
> prior to the documentary's release.
>
> Shirley Hicks
> Toronto, Ontario
The problem is, Michael Moore's version of "unpalatable truths" is often
twisted, taken out of context, or outright lies.
kimberly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
> - Garrison Keillor
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Sam" <got1tiel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com...
> i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
> Sam
Well you can comfort yourself with the fact that it's propaganda, and that
Michael Moore is a liar and an opportunist who isn't even smart enough to
hide his lies well.
And before anyone makes assumptions about my politics, let me say that
politics have nothing to do with my opinions of Michael Moore.
kimberly
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UsG5d.8213$zA3.1793521@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "x-archive:no" <x-archive-NO@none.com> wrote in message
> news:elael0d50oaci07kvi650a3uaho23thqme@4ax.com...
>
<SNIP> You can check it out yourself if
> you have the interest and an open mind - but there;s the rub - very few
Bush
> supporters have an open mind. They want the facts to support their
opinion,
> hence their demonizing of the film - it's a terribly inconvenient dose of
> reality that threatens their beliefs.
You don't have to be a Bush supporter to see this film for what it is, just
another case of MM using a little fact with alot of B.S. to make his case.
He is a proven liar. I find it amusing that you assume that this film is a
"dose of reality" when it's proven to contain false information, and take
plenty more info out of context to make it look like what he wants it to
look like. Anyone who doesn't like MM or his movie is "demonizing" the film?
Hardly. Some people are intelligent enough to get the facts instead of just
blindly swallowing whatever MM puts out there on the table.
kimberly
>
> By the way, your definition of "documentary" fits Moore's film perfectly
> well. It is informative certainly, factual (mostly), and consists of news
> film and narration. No mention of a documentary having to be balanced.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
> Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>
>
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"sf" <nobody@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n71fl05qgnvv6pb827qtlvj80fvbmb3ckj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:25:08 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > You can check it out yourself if
> > you have the interest and an open mind - but there;s the rub - very few
Bush
> > supporters have an open mind. They want the facts to support their
opinion,
> > hence their demonizing of the film - it's a terribly inconvenient dose
of
> > reality that threatens their beliefs.
>
> I don't think the film is designed to sway Bush supporters.
> What it's designed to do is raise BIG questions in the mind
> of the "undecided voter". He wants eligible voters to stop
> being complacent...
>
> You know the saying:
> Winners make things happen.
> Losers let things happen.
>
> The US electorate is turning us into a nation of losers who
> allow our elected officials run roughshod over us and bully
> other countries.
>
>
> sf
Moore does not care about people. He cares about making movies that make him
wealthy. He's not an activist, he's a liar. He could care less who votes or
for whom. He saw an opportunity and took it. It has nothing to do with
anything other than making some money and pushing his opinions. He lies,
twists the truth, artfully edits, and plain does whatever it takes to
"prove" his opinions, when in fact, much of it is simply B.S. What's worse,
he takes advantage of true victims by claiming to align himself with them,
when in fact his only interest in them is using them for his own promotion.
It's disgusting.
kimberly
|
|
|
| Greg Zywicki |
got1tiel@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com>...
> i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>
> Sam
Either many of you are way behind, or you're recycling to get ready
for the election.
There are lots of good, important questions to be raised about
everything since September 11. Fat lying traitor pig Moore isn't the
one to do it. But don't take my word for it. Google for analysis of
this movie , as well as his "documentary" techniques (Moore analysis
is a cottage industry), but don't miss this article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Hitchens is as anti-bush as they come, so you can trust his assesment
to be non-partisan. There is a personal tone to his critique. I
chalk this up to the "hate-me" pheremones that Moore produces from all
that dancing he does on US servicemens' caskets.
Vote however you like, but don't base it on the one "news source" less
reliable than Dan Rather.
Greg Zywicki
|
|
|
| Shirley Hicks |
On 27 Sep 2004 11:54:33 GMT, Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>
wrote:
>Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote in
>news:270920040619378622%sraven@att.net:
>
>> Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
>> fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't
>> volunteer for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and
>> Mexico would suddenly become very Republican.
>
>Bite your tongue! Canada? Republican? Are you out of your freaking
>mind? Why would we adopt the political structure of another nation?
>We have enough right-wing loonies here.
Yeah, why adopt the equivalent of the Win 1.99 version of democracy
when we've got a Linux v3.0?
It's just..... politcally different up here. And getting increasingly
so, thank you veddy much.
Shirley Hicks
P.S. Our supreme court had two new appointees added to the bench,
bring the roster back up to a full house. Both women, yee-hah!
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/feature...ment/index.html
Process of making the appointments is evolving, we do look south of
the border every once in a while.
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor
|
|
|
| Shirley Hicks |
On 27 Sep 2004 11:54:33 GMT, Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>
wrote:
>Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote in
>news:270920040619378622%sraven@att.net:
>
>> Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
>> fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't
>> volunteer for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and
>> Mexico would suddenly become very Republican.
<chuckle>
No, it'd be more like, "Goddam, gotta clean up Big Bro's mess -
again!" while muttering under one's breath about how one would like
to cheerfully abandon him, leave him out there for the vultures to
pick over, except for the fact that he's a useful, brilliant sort of
genius, as long as the hand and leg shackles are kept on, and
supervision to keep him working at the task at hand.
Why should we fight someone else's war, especially when they decided
go ahead and make the mess when their friends were telling them it was
a Really Bad Idea? We're a middle power, don't have a very large
military force and we have to Play Well With Others in order to get
what we, as a nation, want. We have a real stake in seeing effective
international law developed and enforced. We don't have the might to
go it alone, and keeps any imperial ambitions safely harnessed within
our national borders. I'm sure the rest of the world is thanking us.
If we were asked nicely (the collective multilateral we), and
listened, to, the advice will be given. It's up to your
government to figure out what they're going to do with it.
So far, the boys and girls at the top were apparently ignoring the
best in-house advice as well.
One can't learn when your ears are full of cotton puffs.
TB
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor
|
|
|
| Shirley Hicks |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 GMT, Andy Katz
<amkatz@earthnospamlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:20:01 GMT, Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote:
>
>>Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
>>fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't volunteer
>>for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and Mexico would
>>suddenly become very Republican.
>
>With a few honorable exceptions, that's absolutely true.
>
>Andy Katz
On what basis do you make that statement, Andy?
Are you a citizen of either of country?
Visited much? Know the culture?
Curious,
Shirley Hicks
Toronto, Ontario
"A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
- Garrison Keillor
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Nexis wrote:
> My problem with it is that Michael More is an opportunist, lying bully.
It's not like he fabricated phony evidence about WMDs or allowed week evidence
of the same to justify invading a foreign country, and awarded lucrative
contracts to his VP's former company. That, IMO, is a better example of a
person who is an opportunist, a liar and a bully.
> He doesn't give a damn about the people he exploits, and he edits without
> morals.
It's not like he is sending soldiers half way around the world to fight a war
based on false allegations and fabricated evidence. That would be a better
example of not giving a damn about the people he exploits.
> He uses bits and pieces of film out of context, and adds film bits
> that weren't even filmed at the time of what they're being shown with.
I remember a US presentation at the UN that showed surveillance pictures of
trucks and that had artists renderings of what could be involved in a mobile
biological warfare vehicle. I am still trying to figure how anyone with half a
brain could accept that as being proof that those trucks were anything other
than trucks.
> For
> example, in another film of his that was highly overrated, Bowling for
> Columbine, he made it look as if he was yelling a supposedly provocative
> question (I won't repeat it since it never happened) to Charlton Heston, who
> supposedly refused to answer. It never happened.
And you were there to know that?
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Nexis wrote:
> Well you can comfort yourself with the fact that it's propaganda, and that
> Michael Moore is a liar and an opportunist who isn't even smart enough to
> hide his lies well.
Let's just be happy that if Michael Moore is a liar, that he doesn't have the
authority to send troops to war in order for his friends to profit.
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Nexis wrote:
>
> Moore does not care about people. He cares about making movies that make him
> wealthy. He's not an activist, he's a liar.
You say that as if you actually believe it. I just hope that you don't expect
too many people to agree with you. If you have seen Moore's movies, interviews
with him or read his books, it should be quite clear that he is quite interested
in the welfare of working people. He has done a lot of work to show how
corporate America is ripping off the average Joe and how corrupt the system is.
> He could care less who votes or for whom. He saw an opportunity and took it.
> It has nothing to do with anything other than making some money and pushing
> his opinions. He lies, twists the truth, artfully edits, and plain does
> whatever it takes to "prove" his opinions, when in fact, much of it is simply
> B.S. What's worse,
> he takes advantage of true victims by claiming to align himself with them,
> when in fact his only interest in them is using them for his own promotion.
> It's disgusting.
What is truly disgusting is the way people twist his motives based on their
reaction to having to face the truth that he tries to show.
|
|
|
| Peter Aitken |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yMV5d.244597$4o.143391@fed1read01...
>
> "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:UsG5d.8213$zA3.1793521@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > "x-archive:no" <x-archive-NO@none.com> wrote in message
> > news:elael0d50oaci07kvi650a3uaho23thqme@4ax.com...
> >
>
>
> <SNIP> You can check it out yourself if
> > you have the interest and an open mind - but there;s the rub - very few
> Bush
> > supporters have an open mind. They want the facts to support their
> opinion,
> > hence their demonizing of the film - it's a terribly inconvenient dose
of
> > reality that threatens their beliefs.
>
> You don't have to be a Bush supporter to see this film for what it is,
just
> another case of MM using a little fact with alot of B.S. to make his case.
> He is a proven liar. I find it amusing that you assume that this film is a
> "dose of reality" when it's proven to contain false information, and take
> plenty more info out of context to make it look like what he wants it to
> look like. Anyone who doesn't like MM or his movie is "demonizing" the
film?
> Hardly. Some people are intelligent enough to get the facts instead of
just
> blindly swallowing whatever MM puts out there on the table.
>
> kimberly
>
>
>
Boy, do *you* ever have issues! You make an awful lot of noise without so
much as a single fact to back it up. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence
and the willingness to do a little research will soon prove that your
opinion of Moore are so much BS. One can only imagine where you got your
"facts" - Fox news maybe?
|
|
|
| Mr. Wizard |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41583EB9.FB0D4331@sympatico.ca...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> > Well you can comfort yourself with the fact that it's propaganda, and
that
> > Michael Moore is a liar and an opportunist who isn't even smart enough
to
> > hide his lies well.
>
> Let's just be happy that if Michael Moore is a liar, that he doesn't have
the
> authority to send troops to war in order for his friends to profit.
>
Dave,
The tin-foil hat you wanted is no longer in production.
If another style will satisfy you please contact us ASAP.
We currently have your hat size as three(3).
Please contact us at: http://www.infowars.com/
We appreciate your patronage.
OB food. Peel potato, add sauce.
|
|
|
| Mr. Wizard |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41583FD6.48BE59EA@sympatico.ca...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> >
> > Moore does not care about people. He cares about making movies that make
him
> > wealthy. He's not an activist, he's a liar.
>
> You say that as if you actually believe it. I just hope that you don't
expect
> too many people to agree with you. If you have seen Moore's movies,
interviews
> with him or read his books, it should be quite clear that he is quite
interested
> in the welfare of working people. He has done a lot of work to show how
> corporate America is ripping off the average Joe and how corrupt the
system is.
>
>
>
> > He could care less who votes or for whom. He saw an opportunity and took
it.
> > It has nothing to do with anything other than making some money and
pushing
> > his opinions. He lies, twists the truth, artfully edits, and plain does
> > whatever it takes to "prove" his opinions, when in fact, much of it is
simply
> > B.S. What's worse,
> > he takes advantage of true victims by claiming to align himself with
them,
> > when in fact his only interest in them is using them for his own
promotion.
> > It's disgusting.
>
> What is truly disgusting is the way people twist his motives based on
their
> reaction to having to face the truth that he tries to show.
>
Dave,
The tin-foil hat you wanted is no longer in production.
If another style will satisfy you please contact us ASAP.
We currently have your hat size as three(3).
Please contact us at: http://www.infowars.com/
We appreciate your patronage.
OB food. Peel potato, add sauce.
|
|
|
| Mr. Wizard |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41562868.E28419AD@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Thomas wrote:
>
> > second rate would be a compliment.
> > busll**** propaganda would be completely accurate...hard to know if it's
> > more bull**** or more propaganda.
> > Hard to fight the tears?? As hard as it was to fight the tears as 3000
of
> > your countrymen died on September 11?
>
> The connection being......?
> No connection between Saddam and 9/11. No WMDs in Iraq. No threat to the
US to
> justify invading Iraq.
>
Dave,
The tin-foil hat you wanted is no longer in production.
If another style will satisfy you please contact us ASAP.
We currently have your hat size as three(3).
Please contact us at: http://www.infowars.com/
We appreciate your patronage.
OB food. Peel potato, add sauce.
|
|
|
| Mr. Wizard |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41583E56.FB26DB4A@sympatico.ca...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> > My problem with it is that Michael More is an opportunist, lying bully.
>
> It's not like he fabricated phony evidence about WMDs or allowed week
evidence
> of the same to justify invading a foreign country, and awarded lucrative
> contracts to his VP's former company. That, IMO, is a better example of a
> person who is an opportunist, a liar and a bully.
>
>
>
> > He doesn't give a damn about the people he exploits, and he edits
without
> > morals.
>
> It's not like he is sending soldiers half way around the world to fight a
war
> based on false allegations and fabricated evidence. That would be a
better
> example of not giving a damn about the people he exploits.
>
> > He uses bits and pieces of film out of context, and adds film bits
> > that weren't even filmed at the time of what they're being shown with.
>
> I remember a US presentation at the UN that showed surveillance pictures
of
> trucks and that had artists renderings of what could be involved in a
mobile
> biological warfare vehicle. I am still trying to figure how anyone with
half a
> brain could accept that as being proof that those trucks were anything
other
> than trucks.
>
> > For
> > example, in another film of his that was highly overrated, Bowling for
> > Columbine, he made it look as if he was yelling a supposedly provocative
> > question (I won't repeat it since it never happened) to Charlton Heston,
who
> > supposedly refused to answer. It never happened.
>
> And you were there to know that?
>
Dave,
The tin-foil hat you wanted is no longer in production.
If another style will satisfy you please contact us ASAP.
We currently have your hat size as three(3).
Please contact us at: http://www.infowars.com/
We appreciate your patronage.
OB food. Peel potato, add sauce.
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
"Mr. Wizard" wrote:
>
> > Let's just be happy that if Michael Moore is a liar, that he doesn't have
> the
> > authority to send troops to war in order for his friends to profit.
> >
> Dave,
> The tin-foil hat you wanted is no longer in production.
> If another style will satisfy you please contact us ASAP.
> We currently have your hat size as three(3).
Should be easy for you to remember, being the same as your IQ :-)
|
|
|
| Sam |
what a fascinating discussion.
thanks for the good reading.i am off to eat.
Sam
Clinton, he had a head, got some head and moved the country ahead.
Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9570C1F61465Bmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>...
> "x-archive:no" <x-archive-NO@none.com> wrote in
> news:elael0d50oaci07kvi650a3uaho23thqme@4ax.com:
>
> > Political propaganda disguised as facts. No matter the politics,
> > it should bother people when a film with a blantant agenda and
> > disregard for the truth is classifed as a documentary.
> >
> > "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting
> > political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and
> > informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or
> > interviews accompanied by narration."
>
> How is this any different from political speeches by George Bush or
> flatulent tomes from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?
>
> At least it's what called giving equal time to the other side.
|
|
|
| Virginia Tadrzynski |
"Jack Schidt®" <jack-schidt@snot.net> wrote in message
news:wgz5d.621$Rf1.459@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sam" <got1tiel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com...
> >i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
> > cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
> > civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
> > the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
> > on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
> >
> > Sam
>
> IMO it's a well made film, regardless of whether one agrees with the
content
> or not. Most folks I know had formed opinions about bush before the film
> was released. Most of my conservative friends had formed an opinion (or
> were told what it was by THEIR propaganda machine) before seeing the film.
>
> OB food: I picked up a great book of tapas recipes at the bookstore
across
> the street from the theater where I saw the film.
>
> Jack Kino
>
>If MM were donating his profits to the RNC this movie would suddenly become
gospel.
-Ginny
|
|
|
| Michel Boucher |
Shirley Hicks <for.arts.sake@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:21dgl0pl0fkga3aec68ejlp05ti2n17stq@4ax.com:
> Yeah, why adopt the equivalent of the Win 1.99 version of
> democracy when we've got a Linux v3.0?
>
> It's just..... politcally different up here. And getting
> increasingly so, thank you veddy much.
Thanks must be extended to the loony bin party in the heffalump down
south, not to mention our very own US butt kisser :-)
> P.S. Our supreme court had two new appointees added to the bench,
> bring the roster back up to a full house. Both women, yee-hah!
> http://www.mapleleafweb.com/feature...-court/appointm
> ent/index.html Process of making the appointments is evolving, we
> do look south of the border every once in a while.
However, the strictures of our legal system impose that three judges
be from Québec, in order to be able to cobble together a majority
decision on any issue regarding the Code Civil.
> "A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment."
> - Garrison Keillor
A conservative is a communist who hasn't yet worked it out--with a
pencil.
- Me
--
"It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated
comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for
a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle."
Supply Side Jesus
|
|
|
| Michel Boucher |
Shirley Hicks <for.arts.sake@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:9fdgl0lid7cit7ih325bqqtrv6u5gckn2t@4ax.com:
> One can't learn when your ears are full of cotton puffs.
So, who do you favour as our next GG? I personally think it should be
Roméo Dallaire.
--
"It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated
comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for
a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle."
Supply Side Jesus
|
|
|
| Michel Boucher |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in
news:VzV5d.244470$4o.178606@fed1read01:
> In F 9/11, he took a letter to the editor and edited it
> to look like a headline to "prove" that Gore won the election in
> Florida. He's a fraud, at best.
He's a filmmaker, not a journalist. The point of his work is to
encourage you to ask questions. What you're doing is getting all wound
around in the picayune details as though they had any importance.
You're like the critic who complains that such and such a thing was the
wrong colour so the whole work must be without value, whereas that
could be an effect the artist was striving for. Try to see it
globally. What is it saying and why is it trying to say that? Could
there be a reason why these points are important? Could there be a
reason why you should be asking yourself some questions at this
juncture? Hmmm?
--
"It is easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated
comfortably on the back of a camel, than it is for
a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle."
Supply Side Jesus
|
|
|
| Gabby |
"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9571B535EBF34mortimertherat@130.133.1.4...
> Shirley Hicks <for.arts.sake@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:9fdgl0lid7cit7ih325bqqtrv6u5gckn2t@4ax.com:
>
> > One can't learn when your ears are full of cotton puffs.
>
> So, who do you favour as our next GG? I personally think it should be
> Roméo Dallaire.
He certainly would make a good one but I'm not sure that he would consider
himself up to the task right now.
Gabby
|
|
|
| Terry Pulliam Burd |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:48:27 GMT, sf <nobody@comcast.net> arranged
random neurons, so they looked like this:
>I don't think the film is designed to sway Bush supporters.
>What it's designed to do is raise BIG questions in the mind
>of the "undecided voter". He wants eligible voters to stop
>being complacent...
ITA. My stepdaughter and her boyfriend (both apolitical in the way
only a southern Californian can be) saw Fahrenheit 9/11 the evening
before we had dinner with them. They were both really lathered up. The
stepdaughter was asking Current Events 101 questions that really
disturbed me. She had no idea about the Bush family's cozy
relationship with the House of Saud going back 3 generations, for
instance. I'm not saying that the movie doesn't present a
mono-political view, but it raises questions that the White House is
furiously trying to paint over.
OB: I plan to serve chili and cornbread for the debate on Thursday.
Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA
"Regime Change Begins At Home."
To reply, remove replace "spaminator" with "cox"
|
|
|
| Andy Katz |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:59:07 -0400, Shirley Hicks
<for.arts.sake@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:09:43 GMT, Andy Katz
><amkatz@earthnospamlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:20:01 GMT, Stark <sraven@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Probably true, but they're just yammering, not fragging or being
>>>fragged. I just don't see why all these super-patriots don't volunteer
>>>for duty. Males and females. I suspect that Canada and Mexico would
>>>suddenly become very Republican.
>>
>>With a few honorable exceptions, that's absolutely true.
>>
>>Andy Katz
>
>On what basis do you make that statement, Andy?
I interpreted it to mean that should a true universal conscription law
come into place, many of those who beat their chests the hardest would
suddenly discover a yen either for spicier food or colder climes.
>Are you a citizen of either of country?
Oh, sure, I'm a citizen of them all.
>Visited much? Know the culture?
Of Mexico? Sure, some.
Canada, on the other hand, doesn't have one, so there isn't much to
know.
Andy Katz
**************************************************
*************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.
Paghat, the Rat Girl
|
|
|
| Andy Katz |
On 27 Sep 2004 08:15:12 -0700, gregzywicki@cs.com (Greg Zywicki)
wrote:
>Either many of you are way behind, or you're recycling to get ready
>for the election.
>
>There are lots of good, important questions to be raised about
>everything since September 11. Fat lying traitor pig Moore isn't the
>one to do it
Exactly what makes Moore a traitor?
>. But don't take my word for it. Google for analysis of
>this movie , as well as his "documentary" techniques (Moore analysis
>is a cottage industry), but don't miss this article:
I've read critiques of the film. The film isn't perfect, by any means,
and I certainly agree that the Heston piece of Columbine exhibits
Moore's worse methods. But most of the anti-9/11 screed I've read is
trivial or irrelevent (eg. Moore was wrong to criticize Bush for not
acting when the planes struch because the 9/11 Commission concluded
that Bush was correct not to panic--F911 never argued that Bush should
have panicked).
>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
>
>Hitchens is as anti-bush as they come, so you can trust his assesment
>to be non-partisan.
Non-partisan, I don't know. But ever since Hitch was outed as a snitch
during Monica-Gate he's been virtually incoherent. Witness below:
**************************************************
***********************************
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about
Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if
convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the
Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign
investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas
pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested
interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to
Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members
to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was
purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I
divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated
ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which
Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions,
that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either
the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming
economic interest), or they do not.
**************************************************
******************************
Whaaa?
Either Hitch is a fool or he thinks his readers are. It's not a
question of either the Saudis *run* US police or they don't.
Bull****.
The Saudis, like every interest foreign and domestic, seek to
*influence* US policy. Do they succeed? Of course they do. Please
don't insult my intelligence or your own by arguing that they don't.
The debate is to what degree and to what degree of propriety.
Hitch knows that. He's created an artificial dichotomy, a strawman,
and I'm not buying. Nor should you.
At no time does F911 assert that the lives lost in Afghanistan were
wasted. Dedicating a film to them that's critical of the
administration does not imply that they were wasted. Moore is actually
pro-Afghan intervention and points out the disparity of the
administration's deployments.
Hitch goes on to insist that Moore supported Saddam ... a canard so
tired and cliched that even the authentic whackjobs such as Coulter
and Podhoretz aren't still repeating. Even Hitch's inventive is
second-hand.
Look, Greg, hate Moore all you like. But Hitch is using you in a way
that's more cynical that MM at his worst. He knows you're not going to
see F911. He banks on the fact that many people don't realize he
wrecked his credibility with the progressive left some years back and
like David Horowitz, now finds his butter on the right side of the
bread.
>There is a personal tone to his critique. I
>chalk this up to the "hate-me" pheremones that Moore produces from all
>that dancing he does on US servicemens' caskets.
In your world the guy who shows us what's happening is more to blame
than the ones who are actually calling the shots, making it happen ...
and the right has the unmitigated gall to criticize the left for
"feel-goodism"?
Those of you who invoke those killed on 9/11 or in Afghanistan or Iraq
to stifle criticism of the adminstration's yahoo adventurism are truly
the ones dancing on the caskets.
>Vote however you like, but don't base it on the one "news source" less
>reliable than Dan Rather.
Oh, please. Spare us the faux attempt at statemanship. Calling Moore a
liar or a fat ignoramus or an obnoxious dweeb is one thing ... calling
him a "traitor" is quite another and demonstrates that you're as much
a shill for the administration as Hitch the Snitch.
Andy Katz
**************************************************
*************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.
Paghat, the Rat Girl
|
|
|
| Jack Schidt® |
"Mr. Wizard" <spacedog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TuY5d.1723$zc1.1136@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
> Dave,
> The tin-foil hat you wanted is no longer in production.
> If another style will satisfy you please contact us ASAP.
> We currently have your hat size as three(3).
> Please contact us at: http://www.infowars.com/
> We appreciate your patronage.
That's it?
>
> OB food. Peel potato, add sauce.
That's it?
Jack Incomplete
|
|
|
| Jack Schidt® |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yMV5d.244597$4o.143391@fed1read01...
>
> "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:UsG5d.8213$zA3.1793521@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> "x-archive:no" <x-archive-NO@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:elael0d50oaci07kvi650a3uaho23thqme@4ax.com...
>>
>
>
> <SNIP> You can check it out yourself if
>> you have the interest and an open mind - but there;s the rub - very few
> Bush
>> supporters have an open mind. They want the facts to support their
> opinion,
>> hence their demonizing of the film - it's a terribly inconvenient dose of
>> reality that threatens their beliefs.
>
> You don't have to be a Bush supporter to see this film for what it is,
> just
> another case of MM using a little fact with alot of B.S. to make his case.
> He is a proven liar. I find it amusing that you assume that this film is a
> "dose of reality" when it's proven to contain false information, and take
> plenty more info out of context to make it look like what he wants it to
> look like. Anyone who doesn't like MM or his movie is "demonizing" the
> film?
> Hardly. Some people are intelligent enough to get the facts instead of
> just
> blindly swallowing whatever MM puts out there on the table.
>
> kimberly
>
>
So if'n you ain't a bush supporter, who are you voting for in November?
Jack Query
|
|
|
| Jack Schidt® |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:VzV5d.244470$4o.178606@fed1read01...
>
> "Jack Schidt®" <jack-schidt@snot.net> wrote in message
> news:wgz5d.621$Rf1.459@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Sam" <got1tiel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:436b25d4.0409251507.7d71ec3f@posting.google.com...
>> >i just saw this and thought why did i have to go to see this at the
>> > cinema? its sort of TV material...war documentary...uncensored
>> > civilian & military wounded & cadavres...uncut interviews of troops on
>> > the field...then I realized why... they never aired this sort of stuff
>> > on TV before. in some parts its hard to fight the tears.
>> >
>> > Sam
>>
>> IMO it's a well made film, regardless of whether one agrees with the
> content
>> or not. Most folks I know had formed opinions about bush before the film
>> was released. Most of my conservative friends had formed an opinion (or
>> were told what it was by THEIR propaganda machine) before seeing the
>> film.
>>
>> OB food: I picked up a great book of tapas recipes at the bookstore
> across
>> the street from the theater where I saw the film.
>>
>> Jack Kino
>
> My problem with it is that Michael More is an opportunist, lying bully. He
> doesn't give a damn about the people he exploits, and he edits without
> morals. He uses bits and pieces of film out of context, and adds film bits
> that weren't even filmed at the time of what they're being shown with. For
> example, in another film of his that was highly overrated, Bowling for
> Columbine, he made it look as if he was yelling a supposedly provocative
> question (I won't repeat it since it never happened) to Charlton Heston,
> who
> supposedly refused to answer. It never happened. He filmed it later,
> alone.
> Added clips of Heston walking away from the interview. In F 9/11, he took
> a
> letter to the editor and edited it to look like a headline to "prove" that
> Gore won the election in Florida. He's a fraud, at best.
>
> kimberly
>
>
And, after seeing the evidence for going to war in Iraq, this pisses you
off...
Jack Goff
|
|
|
| Jack Schidt® |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tPV5d.244628$4o.143636@fed1read01...
>
> Moore does not care about people (that's republican). He cares about
> making movies that make him
> wealthy (that's republican. as rush limbaugh said "why punish success?")
> . He's not an activist, he's a liar. (So's the president) He could care
> less who votes or
> for whom (that's NOT republican) . He saw an opportunity and took
> it.(normal human behavior) It has nothing to do with
> anything other than making some money and pushing his opinions (VERY
> republican - making money isn't wrong) . He lies,
> twists the truth, artfully edits, and plain does whatever it takes to
> "prove" his opinions, when in fact, much of it is simply B.S.(I-R-A-Q)
> What's worse,
> he takes advantage of true victims by claiming to align himself with them,
> when in fact his only interest in them is using them for his own
> promotion. (Holding the convention in NYC, the site of the WTC
> catastrophe)
> It's disgusting. (YES!!)
>
> kimberly
>
Jack Re-enter
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41583E56.FB26DB4A@sympatico.ca...
> Nexis wrote:
>
> > My problem with it is that Michael More is an opportunist, lying bully.
>
> It's not like he fabricated phony evidence about WMDs or allowed week
evidence
> of the same to justify invading a foreign country, and awarded lucrative
> contracts to his VP's former company. That, IMO, is a better example of a
> person who is an opportunist, a liar and a bully.
No he fabricated phony evidence to make his allegations seem legitimate.
He's falsified newspaper articles, interviews, etc to twist the facts to his
side of the argument. He's taken things out of context and claimed they were
completely different events than they actually were.
He took advantage of true victims to further his career. He's done, in other
words, all of the things he claims to condemn.
>
>
> > He doesn't give a damn about the people he exploits, and he edits
without
> > morals.
>
> It's not like he is sending soldiers half way around the world to fight a
war
> based on false allegations and fabricated evidence. That would be a
better
> example of not giving a damn about the people he exploits.
So, as long as he isn't sending them halfway around the world, it's ok? That
makes it all good, for him to use people and hurt people and completely
slander people? Wow, you have a strange, and very limited viewpoint.
>
> > He uses bits and pieces of film out of context, and adds film bits
> > that weren't even filmed at the time of what they're being shown with.
>
> I remember a US presentation at the UN that showed surveillance pictures
of
> trucks and that had artists renderings of what could be involved in a
mobile
> biological warfare vehicle. I am still trying to figure how anyone with
half a
> brain could accept that as being proof that those trucks were anything
other
> than trucks.
What does that have to do with what I said? It certainly does nothing to
negate the B.S. being spread as "facts" by a con artist.
>
> > For
> > example, in another film of his that was highly overrated, Bowling for
> > Columbine, he made it look as if he was yelling a supposedly provocative
> > question (I won't repeat it since it never happened) to Charlton Heston,
who
> > supposedly refused to answer. It never happened.
>
> And you were there to know that?
I didn't have to be. I can tell time. Try it yourself sometime.
kimberly
>
>
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9571B68641DABmortimertherat@130.133.1.4...
> "Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in
> news:VzV5d.244470$4o.178606@fed1read01:
>
> > In F 9/11, he took a letter to the editor and edited it
> > to look like a headline to "prove" that Gore won the election in
> > Florida. He's a fraud, at best.
>
> He's a filmmaker, not a journalist. The point of his work is to
> encourage you to ask questions. What you're doing is getting all wound
> around in the picayune details as though they had any importance.
> You're like the critic who complains that such and | | | |
