Moore bashing 101 take a seat

[pwaring]

I've yet to hear bad things about Moore or his movies from a single Canadian I know.

I've yet to hear anyone over here raving about how great Moore's latest movie is. Does that prove Moore is a complete ****? No, anymore than the fact that you have yet to hear of anything bad about him from Canadians proves that he is a saint.

We've had class discussions on the topic and everyone supports him.

That's because young people generally swing more towards socialism - I imagine if I asked about Moore in my university most people would also support him. That doesn't prove a thing though, because it's just a assumption made on a biased (intentionally or not) sample.

It's not just him, it's every politician... they all do it... yet you support them.

Moore twists the facts just as much as politicians do, in fact I'm surprised he hasn't stood for election anywhere. I found it rather amusing listening to him on tour presenting his interpretation of the "facts" surrounding the war.

Hell even Google is in on the propaganda.

Not necessarily, it could be that the negative Moore reviews deliberately used phrases to get at the top of Google (another "Google bomb" perchance?). You can hardly say Google is biased in favour of Bush when they "allowed" people to seed their sites with "miserable failure" pointing to the White House site. It's also a LOT easier to slam a film than it is to praise it, so doubtless there will be more negative comments out there anyway.

Regardless of what you die-hard war mongers wish to say, The War on Iraq wasn't rationalized and wasn't a war, it was a terrorist attack.

That's your opinion, but like Moore you seem to be stating it as if it were an indisputable fact. I happen to think the war was the right thing to do in order to remove Saddam from power, does that make me a "die hard war monger"?

He's an American who finally has the balls to stand up and speak out against a horrid government and for that I respect him.

He also shouts down people who don't agree with his political opinion and refuses to allow people who supported the war in Iraq to ask questions (and yes, I am speaking from first-hand experience here, although I wasn't the one who asked the question) when he goes touring over here. Unfortunately, his supposed belief in being able to stand up and say what you want about the government only applies if you agree with him. If you actually have the audacity to even think Bush isn't the most evil person on the planet then he refuses to listen to you.

For better or worse, Moore is making a lot of money out of a vendetta against the Republican party and in particular George Bush. I don't like either group, but I think Moore is a little hypocritical when he attacks Bush for not listening and then fails to do the same himself.

[RoadClosed]

I would wager Bush doesn't really give a hoop or care about the movie. He's not the one getting all pissy with it. To argue Moore is not biased on an extreme is a little silly. I respect his movies but the dude is biased. I would also take up a postition that would want to see that article in question. Many take the same position on political adds, seeking the absolute truth in those situations but ignoring facts used by a man who openly states "yeah I hope this movie influences everyone to vote against bush" duh.

It's a movie, it's commentary. Hell that post article was probably commentary, who knows. If I count up all the weekends this year I have not worked and my 2 week vacation, and holidays... OMG! I am such a slacker.

//EDIT oh and you think this is bad? Moore vs. Limbaugh - wait until Rush makes a "documentary". You can guess what would be in it? So one could also guess Moore's. I actually own all his movies up to this point. The verdict is still out on 9/11 but I don't see the point in it other than motivation to sway a vote. I'll save critical point when I see it.

[!mitationRust]

Why is it that Canada does not have freedom of press? Why because the Canadian GOV filters out what it wants Canadians to see, it's like that in france too, don't you think that's kind of childish.
40% of canadian teens think that america is evil, *sigh* that clearly means that they have alot of ignorant teens & uneducated teens, what are they teaching in history books up there are they selectively editing history illustration like communist china and korea? If they could pick up a book or two they would read how many countries we have liberated, thus saving lives. Canada,France, Germany, ect.... liberated who in terms of countries? Read a genuine history book or two the lot of you up there and the east.

[Negative]

Originally posted by !mitationRust
Why is it that Canada does not have freedom of press? Why because the Canadian GOV filters out what it wants Canadians to see, it's like that in france too, don't you think that's kind of childish.

Don't know where you get that, so let's take a look at the only official agency that reports on freedom of press: the Reporters without borders.

Scandinavian countries (Finland, Iceland, Norway) traditionally have the most freedom of press, along with the Netherlands. That's the top-4 and guess who's number 5: Canada, sir.
France is #11, the US are #17.

You can find the complete list here.

China is one-but-last, North Korea is last - at least you got that right (the fact that there is no such country as Korea must have slipped your mind).

And trust me: kids in Canada, France, Germany, etc. learn a hell of a lot more about American history than American kids learn about any other part of the world.

And you might want to look up in your history book what France did for the Independence of the US.

How's that for "genuine" history

[lostit44]

It is funny reading this Rust when I was in school here in Canada our history books were printed in the States and written by Americans so your comment about us reading genuine history books has no basis in reality. As for saving lives talk to the german people who were bombed by the Americans in WW2 or talk to the women and children who have been killed by americans in Iraq. Or better yet talk to the families of Canadians who`s sons were killed in the friendly fire bombing in Afganastan. No offence but get you head out of the sand. And before all the americans on this board jump on me for stating facts they should know that I do have family in the States. Americans are not all bad but the world sees Bush telling all kinds of half truths and they make up their own minds. You talk about Moore cutting off anyone who does not agree with him what about Bush putting americans in jail with not access to lawyers or the torture in Iraq that the americans are doing to the pows. I have not seen Moores movie nor do I plan on seeing it but Bush makes it very easy to believe it because of what he says. By the way where are the weapons of mass destuction that Mr Bush said Iraq had?

[Cybr1d]

As for saving lives talk to the german people who were bombed by the Americans in WW2

Sure i'll talk to them, as long as you're willing to talk to the 6 Million Jews that were slaughtered by the Nazis. You wanna talk to the 7+ Million Russians civilians that were killed in WW2?

or talk to the women and children who have been killed by americans in Iraq.

Sure i'll talk to them, as long as you'll talk to the families of those who were tortured during Saddam's regime was in power. Will you also talk to the women that were raped and tortured as well?

Or better yet talk to the families of Canadians who`s sons were killed in the friendly fire bombing in Afganastan.

Ah, that makes America evil. We are evil because an accident happened. OK you win, we are evil and we should all go **** ourselves now. What happened to the soldiers that pulled the trigger?

Its sad to see you desperately try to find something to hate America for....

No offence but get you head out of the sand.

Hypocrite!

And before all the americans on this board jump on me for stating facts they should know that I do have family in the States.

Is that supposed to make your comment more valid?

You talk about Moore cutting off anyone who does not agree with him what about Bush putting americans in jail with not access to lawyers or the torture in Iraq that the americans are doing to the pows.

Americans put in jail with no access to lawyers??? Where's that coming from...word of mouth?
The POW abuse case is being investigated, just like it was being investigated by the army long time before 20/20 got a hold of it. Something happened, and its being taken care of....So stop your bitching. If torturing is needed to get information out of those prisoners which could save american lives, Hell yeah torture them.

I have not seen Moores movie nor do I plan on seeing it but Bush makes it very easy to believe it because of what he says. By the way where are the weapons of mass destuction that Mr Bush said Iraq had?

How can you believe something that you haven't seen? Michael Moore is nothing but an idiot and a liar...and you'll believe him blindly?

Don't even start with the WMDs again....

[THE RADICAL]

With the exception of pwaring and Neg, everyone that's posted in here is American... and my opinion is that American opinions are biased on this subject.

Regardless of current relations, what the US did to France when they refused to join the US was ridiculous and immature... Sounds like an A+ government is running things in your country...

First-language speakers of French make up about, 23% of the population of Canada and 90% of them live in Quebec... and your saying your not a biased opinion. Aside from that you fail to mention the French behavior durring that time as well... such as them pissing on are WWII vet graves, if it were not for us they wouldn't even be a country along with the rest of the western hemisphere... but hey that's water under the bridge right???

Granted in both cases these are only the actions of a few but hey, that's another thing you fail to mention. All this freedom fry bull... do really think were all THAT IGNORANT? Thanks... but no.

BTW, I would apreciate it if you kept your comments about ones country to yourself, I find them offensive coming from someone who IMO really has no clue, all you can say is that Bush lied and the war on Iraq is not justified but you fail to back anything you say... it is the most annoying post I've ever read... the hypocrisy is just screaming.

The War on Iraq wasn't rationalized and wasn't a war, it was a terrorist attack

Getting off topic but... I suppose we should have let well enough alone there and then... when the **** hit the fan guess who would have been blamed anyway. I guess you really can't win with people who obviously hold such a bitter hatred for your country.

-- Peace

[Negative]

Saying that France wouldn't be a country without the US is exactly the same as saying that the US wouldn't be a country without France.
Both countries helped eachother out big time (France helped the US win the war for independence - actually: French support was the (only) deciding factor; the US were the deciding factor in WWII).

The only way discussions like these can be kept interesting is when people stick to facts. Reading opinions gets boring after a while. I couldn't care less about what one thinks about Moore (good or bad), but I'm definitely interested in the facts (good or bad)...

I couldn't care less about what !mitationRust thinks about Moore, but I'd be more than happy to read his comments on Moore's flick if for once they'd be based on facts. Screaming that "Moore is nothing but a liar" while basing your opinion on non-facts makes you look stupid, just like preaching about history while you get all your facts wrong does...

[pwaring]

Originally posted here by Negative
You can find the complete list here.

Hah, I'd like to know exactly how they came up with those statistics and why the UK is so far down the list. They quote the following measures:

"The index was drawn up by asking journalists, researchers and legal experts to answer 50 questions about the whole range of press freedom violations (such as murders or arrests of journalists, censorship, pressure, state monopolies in various fields, punishment of press law offences and regulation of the media)."

I've yet to hear of journalists being murdered/kidnapped by the government over here, there are no state monopolies on the press (if anyone has a monopoly it's Rupert Murdoch) and the media is generally unregulated. The only things you can't do over here are:

a) publish information still covered by the Official Secrets Act
b) publish confidential personal information (e.g. medical records)
c) publish defamatory information
d) publish anything covered by a court order
e) publish anything inticing people to commit crime (but then this is a general law, doesn't just apply to the press)

Now, I'd hardly consider those restrictions (which are generally common sense) justifying placing the UK below countries such as Ecudor, Greece and even the US. In fact, subject to the restrictions above (which only cover a small number of specific cases), the British press can say pretty much anything they want, about anyone or anything. I don't see any reason for them coming joint 21st on that list.

</rant>

[Cybr1d]

Saying that France wouldn't be a country without the US is exactly the same as saying that the US wouldn't be a country without France.
Both countries helped eachother out big time (France helped the US win the war for independence - actually: French support was the (only) deciding factor; the US were the deciding factor in WWII).

100% correct.

Indeed opinions can get very boring after a while, so here's some facts:

Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.

Moore ignores the fact that there are 102 veterans currently serving in Congress. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.

George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, “Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading.”

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, “I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,” he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.



This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: “He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan,” Moore recounted. “So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a “master of the misleading” after viewing the interview in question.

Early in this segment, Moore states that “only one” member of Congress has a child in Iraq. The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”



Moore’s conclusion is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to “sacrifice” his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty; although Beau Biden has no control over he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes.



How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is on active duty. (Fahrenheit Fact.)

http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/warsignup.htm

Why doesn't Michael Moore sign up with the military and go to Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter? Would he allow his sons and daughters (if he had any) to go to war?

Fahrenheit 911 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden “a two month head start” by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. However:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, “Why did you have to take him?” Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, “insurgents”) in Iraq…or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier’s father says the young man died and “for what?”, Moore doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.

Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, “Why did you have to take him?” Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, “insurgents”) in Iraq…or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier’s father says the young man died and “for what?”, Moore doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.

Lets watch the whole video from the Elementary School shall we? http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/06/scsb.bush.mov