TheAgitator.com
Best Reason Yet to Vote for Kerry Against Bush
Wednesday, July 7th, 2004
Standing in front of the box office and perusing the titles, [Russell] Simmons suggested that everybody catch the 7:15 showing of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”Kid Rock balked.
“I don’t want to see that, it’s all propaganda,” the rock star said – sparking a prolonged political debate right there on the sidewalk.
“Russell, don’t you understand, everything we got in this country, we got from fighting,” Kid Rock argued, according to Simmons’ account. “It’s just a movie. … I’d rather go to the bar across the street.”
Kid Rock refused to see the movie, and said goodbye. The others bought tickets and went into the theater.
A couple of hours later, Simmons returned to his parked car. On his windshield was a scribbled note:
“Vote Bush. Bush Rocks,” apparently written by Kid Rock himself.
Bawitdaba. Terrorism. Da bang a dang diggy. National security. Diggy diggy. Nine-eleven, nine-eleven. Said the boogie. Kerry’s a flip-flopper. Said up jump the boogie. Terrorism.
I’m not sure what you’re implying here? “Kid Rock’s a moron so don’t vote for Bush”? Since most entertainers are liberals, I’m sure we can find you someone who is a moron who likes Kerry. And you of all people know Michael Moore’s movie is bullshit.
Amen to James D. I know very little about Kid Rock and his music (and I strongly suspect I wouldn’t like him or it if I did), but I give him credit for refusing to see the disingenuous slug’s most recent excrement.
Radley,
When you’re right–you’re right! This truly is the very best reason you have ever come up with to vote against Bush. CONGRATULATIONS!
but I give him credit for refusing to see the disingenuous slug’s most recent excrement.
Credit, for what? Why does he deserve credit for being willfully ignorant? If he hasn’t seen the movie, then how does he know that it’s “propeganda”?
I would give him “credit” if he went to see it, and then came out and refuted parts of it in a logical, rational, coherent manner. But refusing to see it based on what you’ve heard, saying you’d rather go across the street and get drunk, then leaving a note on Russell Simmon’s car like it was high school (SLAYER ROOLZ!), well…I’m sorry, but I like to give credit where credit is due, and this ain’t one of those times. Willful ignorance is deserving of scorn, not praise.
If it’s such propeganda, then Kid Crock shouldn’t have any problem going to see it, then refuting it, piece by piece, in a rational fashion.
But then, I also disagree with Radley. Of all the reasons to vote for NotBush, this falls pretty low on the list.
Furthermore, this little tidbit tells me that Kid Crock ain’t exactly a political scientist:
“Russell, don’t you understand, everything we got in this country, we got from fighting,” Kid Rock argued
Um, so, Crock, how does that (dubious) claim refute the entirety of f9/11? I’m not saying that the flick is a masterpiece or anything, but if you’re going to debate the merits of the film, you might want to go a bit deeper than THAT. Are you saying that, since we supposedly got “everything we got in this country” from “fighting”, then, that justifies any decision to wage war on anyone at anytime, and any lies or exaggerations or trumped-up cherry-picked intel that may be necessary to convince the people that you’re right?
I’ve heard some acceptable justifications for the war, and while I may not have agreed with them, I still was able to take them seriously. But saying that anyone who criticises Bush is wrong because “everything we got, we got from fighting”, well, I can’t even imagine how ANYONE with a maturity level past 7th grade could take that seriously, much less be convinced by it.
I can’t think of too many entertainers with conservative views. Ted Nugent comes to mind, and he’s as big a fucking retard as Kid Rock.
Scott,
Interestingly enough, there are quite a few celebs with LIBERTARIAN views. Look here, and you’ll see names like Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey, Dave Barry, Kurt Russell, even JJ. But, yeah, I can’t think of too many that are die-hard GOP-ers.
Radley, I’m not saying I agree with you at all about your stance on Bush but I have to give you your “props”. To have a group of people as intelligent as the ones that frequent your blog, and take time to comment- to have them debate the validity of Kid Rock’s political musings, well THAT my friend takes real talent.
Although I will admidt it’s nice to hear a *Star* on the other side of the fence.
I think Radley meant for this post to be tongue-in-cheek and that its more about poking fun at Kid Rock than trying to make some real point about voting against Bush. Have a sense of humor people.
Evan — all I had to see was the pre-release interviews with Moore, and the various reviews, to determine that I was not going to reward this combination of prejudice and capitalism with my money.
OTOH, while I don’t totally agree with the sentiment, the Kid’s statement about “everything we got, we got from fighting” does have validity in one way:
Relying on diplomacy, without the credibile (read: willng to use) threat of force behind it, has never removed a dictator.
Well, Rich, if you can’t shell out the $6 for a matinee, then you shouldn’t comment on it, regardless of how many interviews you saw with Moore. I saw it. Some parts are bullshit, but others are very important and powerful and necessary. The entire diatribe about Bush’s connections to the Saudi’s got old real quick, and achieved nothing. But the cold reality of a mother reading her dead soldier son’s last letter, and realizing that this war was for naught, that cannot be as easily dismissed as “prejudice”.
If you haven’t seen it, and refuse to, then just say I’m not gonna see it. But don’t try to get into a political debate over it, without actually going to see it first. That, as I said, is willful ignorance.
Like what Kid Rock thinks about matters.
Evan,
If you spent money to see that movie, then you are a friggin’ scumbag.
If you snuck in without paying, rock on.
Evan, I haven’t seen it, and won’t. I have, however, seen Bowling for Columbine, which gave me enough of an idea of Moore’s idea of ‘documentary’ to know that F9/11 will be, to quote an excellent Amazon.com reviewer, “100% rectum”. Moore’s schtick is to throw wild coincidences at you so fast that you’ll come to the conclusion he wants without him having to say it. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, one is made to assume that the NRA has some relationship to the KKK, and the Charlton Heston is a direct descendent of Satan.
Anyway, back to my point, one needn’t have seen F9/11 to say that Moore is full of shit and, by association, his movie is full of shit too.
Oh, and exploiting the emotions of a grieving mother is heartless. Period.
evan,
Scenario:
I see a “documentary” about pigs. in the “documentary” the pigs are flying. flying like eagles all over the place, with great big eagle wings.
now i dont know about you, but i dont have to see that “documentary” and then assess whether or not pigs can fly.
i just know they cant.
The Nuge rules.
I downloaded it off the net and feel no guilt whatsoever. It’s still a sickeningly bad movie. Start here for a list of all the bullshit in the movie:
http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/archives/002017.html
Billy-Jay:
If some personal attack is the best you can do, well, it speaks for itself.
–
Jeb:
I too watched BFC, and I too thought it was a load of shit. I also saw F9/11, and large parts of it were, as you mentioned, pointing out coincidences and never making a point. Like, as I said, the whole Suadi Royalty connection. It just didn’t work. But the later part of the movie, about the war, like showing Marine recruiters passing by the new mall and going to the “other” mall in order to hit the lower-class folks and convince them to become cannon-fodder for Bush’s war…well…you can’t easily dismiss that as “throwing in wild coincidences”. There’s alot of the movie that is stupid, but there’s alot that isn’t. Dismissing it all with a wave of your hand (a la ‘Moore is full of shit, therefore, the movie is full of shit’) is just plain ignorant and unintelligent.
–
Michael:
A claim stating that pigs can fly is an outright falsehood. Moore is not as direct, and the movie itself is not just one big claim. There are silly coincidences and goof-shots of higher-ups. There are long, drawn-out sequences showing a mother grieving…which, while they are powerful, they are milked for way, way to much and way too long. But there are also important, truthful parts in the movie.
The problem here is that alot of people want to just dismiss the whole movie as bullshit, and alot of other people want to praise it as 100% wonderful truth. In all actuality, it’s somewhere in the middle of all that. It doesn’t say that pigs can fly, but it doesn’t give you the whole straight truth either. All in all, to me, it was decidedly unfulfilling. The part about the war, as I said, was good. The part of Bush and his supposed allegiance to the Saudis was not.
But one things is for sure: the ignorant folks who say, “Moore is a big fat idiot, and so his movie is wrong” are not doing themselves any favors in the credibility department. If they’d like to see the flick and then rationally argue it’s many parts, then fine. But…I saw BFC, and I thought Moore was a big fucking idiot afterwards. But I saw this movie anyway, and I still think he’s an idiot, but he had some good things to say. His economics will always be bullshit, his partisanship will also be bullshit. But, calling the administration on their bullshit, and giving them hell for their sins, that’s not a bad thing.
I only got about halfway throught that list JamesD, and it is the same bull I’ve been reading from most conservatives about this movie. I have seen the movie, and virtually every criticism I read is really about how Moore characterizes the facts, not their accuracy. Well no shit, EVERYONE KNOWS MICHAEL MOORE HAS AN AGENDA!
Moore has SAID this movie is an op-ed piece, and the conclusions he makes are his, but that anything he states as a fact is. If it’s not, he’s basically ASKED people on the right to sue for libel (slander? I always forget which is in print). So far, nobody has taken him up on it.
Evan:
You continue to claim, as do many ill-informed Americans (liberals), that this battle in Iraq is for naught. I believe that the removal of an enemy is a good thing. If you have been paying attention, you will learn that Iraqis are supportive of the replacement of Saddam, and are working to rid their country of foreign terrorists and insurgence. It is now starting to be shown that many of the militants in Iraq are of foreign origin, supported by Syria, or more apparent, Iran.
We invaded Iraq as part of the WOT in order to have a military presence on the borders of Iran. Iraq was an easy country to defeat militarily, and also politically expeident to the rest of the world. It will provide us a good place to create permenant bases in the ME outside the “Holy Land” of Saudi Arabia. We will be fighting the terrorists for years to come, and need such forward bases.
Iraq was a key stragetic opperation in the overall war on terror.
evan,
my point was that one can draw conclusions based on empircal evidence.
1. i saw his other movies. notice i say movies and not documentaries.
2. i know the bank scene in BFC was a complete falsehood, therefore moore has a credibility issue.
3. i spoke to several people (friends, family, co-workers) both liberal and conservative and was able to ascertain the movies content.
4. i read several reviews of the movie both good and bad.
5. i read comments on the internet.
6. i have read and seen moore’s comments on various political issues.
based on all this, i know that i dont want to see the movie cuz its bullshit. which you even confirmed in your post.
also, if moore and the media would call it what it is, a movie or satire, and not a documetary i might have been more likely to check it out.
Richard, you obviously didn’t really pay attention to the list. It’s not just Moore’s interpretation of facts … there are many outright lies in his movie. I didn’t feel like listing them here so that’s why I linked to that page. This is just one list that happens to have links to other sources. You can find other lists just as easily. It’s called Google. There are lists like this for every movie Moore makes.
If you won’t read through the list, start naming some of the more egregious ‘facts’ and I’m sure we can easily shoot them down.
Any movie that is released in theatres I automatically decide when I will see it: in the theatre, on DVD, on premium movie channels, on network TV or not at all. Why would I pay Michael Moore cash money to watch this film, when I can just wait a year and see it for free on HBO? My vote will not be changed by it, so timliness isn’t an issue.
I’m not waiting because I can’t stand to watch propaganda. I’ve become rather immune to leftist rhetoric in my media. I’m waiting because I don’t like Michael Moore’s style or tone. I had to turn off BFC because it was so disjointed and boring, so why would I expect better from 9/11?
Richard,
What public figure is going to bring a libel/slander suit against a filmmaker? I guess no one has been stupid enough to waste time and money trying to do so. Learn a little something about the basics of libel/slander laws.
Why WOULDN’T the White House sue? If Moore is lying about our president, he should stand up to Moore as strongly as possible, not have his spokesman say things like “We don’t need to see the movie to know it’s full of lies”.
http://www.theonion.com/infograph/index.php?issue=4027
Funny info-graphic by our friends at The Onion
By the way, I am in no way a liberal or a lefty, and disagree with Moore often. I just get annoyed by comments by people who have not seen what they’re talking about, or don’t seem to know the difference between “lying” and editorializing.
Well I have seen the movie BTW (a couple hours of my life I wish I could get back). But I think you have the libel thing all wrong. The way I’ve read it is that Moore has a team of lawyers ready to pounce on anyone who says something bad about HIM?
I don’t need to go spend my money on F911 any more than I need to spend it on a Marilyn Manson concert … in both cases, what is already available in the public domain is evidence enough that I’d be spending my money on garbage.
James, Moore has said he has his lawyers ready to defend attacks on the movie, not him personally. He has also claimed that he had no less than 15 fact-checkers go through the movie with a fine-toothed comb, and lawyers as well, to be absolutely sure that anything in the movie that is presented as “fact” was indeed true.
I would think that if the movie is so full of “lies”, Bush supporters would be EAGER to sue the evil Michael Moore, friend of Al-Queda and Saddam, Hater of America. After all, he’s a traitor that will cost American soldiers lives, right?
(must remove tounge from cheek)
Definitions for Richard:
Documentary –
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Editorial -
1. An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.
2. A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network.
moore and the media need to call it what it is then. an editorial is practicaly the exact opposite of a documentary.
Cat- Slander definition
“The United States of America require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made statement with “malice”, meaning either believing it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was. There are four categories of statement, however, that are defamatory per se, which means they are so inherently derogatory that a plaintiff need prove only that they were made: Those are statements accusing a person of:
1)having committed a crime
2)having a loathsome disease
3)being unchaste (in many jurisdictions this still applies only to females)
4)being bad at their trade or business”
Based on the criticisms of the movie I have seen, people on the right firmly belive it falls into the slander definition, especially from category 4.
Above definition copied from
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Slander%20and%20libel
Michael, you’re acting like the Moore haters, splitting hairs. Did anyone really think Moore was going to present a balanced look at things? Has he ever? As I pointed out earlier, Moore himself SAID, “This is an op-ed piece.” Nobody’s trying to trick you!
And I know the difference between documentary and editorial, thanks.
“If you have been paying attention, you will learn that Iraqis are supportive of the replacement of Saddam, and are working to rid their country of foreign terrorists and insurgence.”
In case you hadn’t been paying attention, the interim govt. was also thinking of giving amnesty to those that killed our troop because they were only “fighting occupation”. These people are going to give back as little to us as they possible can, and are already starting to prove it. Many Iraqi’s are thankful for the fact that Saddam is gone, but that hasn’t changed how much they like us.
“We will be fighting the terrorists for years to come, and need such forward bases.
Iraq was a key stragetic opperation in the overall war on terror.”
Such forward bases are probably the biggest contributor to even NEEDING a WOT. They hate us because they don’t want us there, so why not build a few more so we can pretect ourselves from our own pig-headed actions?
Moore may be an idiot, but to cast off and ignore facts because you don’t like him it just stupid. I have not seen it, and I’m not sure I even will, but the truth is the truth, no matter who is telling it.
richard,
the media portrays the movie as the highest grossing “documentary” ever.
to some people words mean things.
Michael,
Then get pissed at the media, Moore has always been up-front about what he was doing with this movie.
i am not pissed at anyone. i am just glad i know the truth :)
“You’ll find that the truths we cling to often depend on your point of view.”
-OWK
There is an old saying, Beauty is only skin deep. But if your ugly, Your ugly all the way through. Michael Moore is the ugliest man on the planet.
Who cares what allayall think about my political views.
I’z screwin Pam Anderson BIATCH!!!!!!!!
KR
Evan Williams:
You’re implying that in order to have a reasonable debate about the merit of F9/11 I must in fact PAY to go SEE the movie–a non-small portion of which goes in fact, to Michael Moore.
It’s as if Michael Moore were standing at the entrance to a public debate demanding $6 to participate.
And all those who agree with Michael Moore argue that YOU MUST PAY HIM in order to comment, and WITHOUT PAYING HIM you are ignorant, and your opinion is worth nothing.
If anything is more egotistical and bigoted than demanding that I pay TRIBUTE TO HIM to DEBUNK his HORSESHIT, I’d give YOU my $6 so you can shove it up your ass.
I am not paying Michael Moore so you believe me when I tell you his is an ASS with a capital A and his “documentary” is BULLSHIT with a capital B.
Richard:
“James, Moore has said he has his lawyers ready to defend attacks on the movie, not him personally. He has also claimed that he had no less than 15 fact-checkers go through the movie with a fine-toothed comb, and lawyers as well, to be absolutely sure that anything in the movie that is presented as “fact” was indeed true.”
Righty-o. I’m sure that Moore’s fact checkers as super human and did a perfect job–didn’t ever bring in their personal bias, and were fair and balanced, handled all facts with white gloves and only touched the edges for fear of tainting them with bias.
What-fucking-ever. You so readily believe that Moore’s facts are so true, but you’re equally willing to immediately believe that everything out of Bush’s mouth is an utter falsehood, despite the fact that he has (or should have) the nation’s finest team of intelligence officers, administration officials, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, as well as his entire cabinet giving him their best efforts?
Why are people so willing to characterize Bush’s administration’s missteps as malice, but fail to concede even FALLIBITY in Moore?
Moore probably fucked up more things by ACCIDENT than I can name. Couple that with his unabashed biased agenda, and what credibility does he have left?
If Bush lies so much and in so many directions that nobody can even figure out WHY, isn’t it reasonable to consider that someone with motivation could do a better job?
Man, this is great! I brought all the rabid Moore-haters out of the woodwork! Like it was really difficult. Say one slightly positive thing about even a portion of the movie, and WHAMMO! They fly in like a swarm of bees. Meanwhile, the only reason Michael Moore is making so many millions of dollars is because of the supposed “controversy” surrounding the movie, egged on by folks like you.
evan,
lol, the reason he is making millions is cuz of people like you.
you and all the other bush-haters are the ones that paid the 6 bucks to see it, not me.
plus, we can say the same thing about you:
Man, this is great! I brought all the rabid Bush-haters out of the woodwork! Like it was really difficult. Say one slightly positive thing about even a portion of his administration, and WHAMMO! They fly in like a swarm of bees.
Richard –
You came up with the definition of slander. My point was that the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove slander or libel, and case law has shown us that it is nearly impossible for public officials to sue for either. See New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), Associated Press v. Walker (1967) and Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974).
The press is protected when covering public officials, and since F9/11 is considered journalistic, the administration would have the burden to prove malice, which would be an effort in futility, considering the history of such cases.
You gotta love the “vague counterargument” gambit.
You know, saying “there are problems with this!” and never ever saying what any of them are. Anyone else notice this happening a lot in Michael Moore debates?
Taak, do a little research or look at the list I linked to. It’s quite easy to find the falsehood in Moore’s movies.
“A” is making millions of dollars from people paying money to see “X”.
“B” pays “A” money to see “X”.
“C” does not pay “A” money to see “X”
“C” is responsible for “A” making the miilions of dollars.
if this is a logical argument i will write in michael moore for president.
James, I was looking at that “list” you linked to. I thought I’d go through a few of the items while I have a minute or two:
1)He goes to Washington, allegedly in an attempt to entice Members of Congress to enlist their own children into the armed services. At one point, you can hear him call out to Delawareâ??s lone representative, Mike Castle, as Castle walks past.
Hereâ??s a tipâ??if you want a Congressman to enlist his children in the Marines, you might first want to make sure he has some.
First of all, Moore did not lie, he did not even state that Castle had children. He simply went out and asked a bunch of Congressman if they’d sign their kids up. All Castle had to do was say “I don’t have kids”, and Moore would look pretty stupid. This is a weak attack.
2)Two months ago, Moore posted a statement on his website calling the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists ‘minutemen’ and expressing implied hope for their victory. In his new movie, Moore tries to make the viewers believe that he expresses sympathy for our troops, and says more troops should be sent there to reinforce them. Which of Moore’s two views does he really follow?
First of all, if you were to read that statement, there is no “hope” for the victory of the mujahadeen. It reads more like a warning to president Bush. While we may call them “insurgents”, they are, in the eyes of themselves and many others, minutemen. This attack is a stretch.
3)Moore spends much time on Bin Laden family members flying out of the US when the rest of America was grounded, right after 9-11. Showing a clip of Khalil Bin Laden at the airport, a chyron on the screen cleverly reads “days after 9-11.” But, how many days? In fact, while some Bin Ladens did get to fly out early, most of the Bin Laden family flew out of America, after the rest of America could already fly.
Again, a weak attack. What does this prove? Was Moore telling anything other than the truth? Did Bin Laden family members fly before most Americans could? Yes.
Moore says the FBI was not allowed to interview them, but in fact, the FBI was allowed to interview them and chose not to. That is disturbing, but itâ??s not what Moore “reported”.
If you watched the movie, he did not say that the FBI was “not allowed”. In fact, he had a lengthy discussion with a congressman about it, and they came to an understanding that they WERE allowed, but they simply screened them like they would any other American. This attack is a simple falsehood.
Moore claims the Saudi embassy was the only one in DC protected by the US Secret Service. Au contraire. The Secret Service Uniformed Division is tasked to protect any embassy in the DC embassy district which asks for or needs its protection.
Moore never makes this claim.
Oy, the rest is just silly minutia and nuances. I don’t have the time to go through them all. Some make sense. I personally dislike Michael Moore, and I’m not really in the business of defending his every statement. But please, let’s get real, here. The film, as Moore admits, is an op-ed piece. If anyone expects Michael Moore, of all people, to be fair and balanced, well, those same people probably think that Fox News Channel is also fair and balanced. Har Har. Just as Fox News leaves things out and “misleads” via nuanced omissions and minutia, so does Michael Moore. The sad part is that people actually go through his flick with a fine-toothed comb and bitch and moan about how he’s not fair and balanced. Hell, OF COURSE he isn’t. And if you expect him to be, then you’re a fool. I knew what to expect going into the film, and I took everything with a huge grain of salt.
Susbequently, I could make a similar list for President Bush and his junta, including the Fox News Channel. But then, why? I don’t expect Bush or his cronies to be fair and balanced, nor do I expect Moore to be. And it makes me laugh when people are so aghast at his supposed “misleadings”. If you want to see the king, go to http://www.misleader.org. We’re all being misled, by both sides. That big list of attacks that you linked to, it was also misleading, unfair, and biased. It’s all about PERSPECTIVE. And if you’re smart, you’ll open your eyes and see that you’re being misled on both sides of the aisle.
Oh, and Michael, I’m not a “Bush-Hater”, just so you know. I disagree with a great many things that he has done, and I think he has been a detriment to this country, but I do not hate him. Please don’t lump me in with all those screwballs who bitch and moan about his gramattical errors. Ugh. They’re as bad as the people who complain about Moore’s weight problem.
the problem with moore is the media hypes him as documentarian (not sure if thats a word) when he is not.
mis-informed people see this and believe it.
last night i watched prime time thursday. they did a piece on how unclean hotel rooms are. in there investigation they found dried urine, fecal matter, and semen. they said they found them on the floor, walls, and bed spread. then they said “and you wouldnt believe some of the other places where we found the stains”. right at that moment the clip shows the prime time live producers swabbing the telephone, cups, and tv remote. they couldnt come out and say they found it on those surfaces because i am sure they didnt. but the vague statement along with the clip implies they did.
this is bad journalism and alot of americans draw conclusions this way. its exactly what moore does. nothing is wrong with calling prime time or moore on these tactics.
i wish just more americans were informed or educated enough to figure it out on there on.
Wrong Michael!
When in a hotel room, I always piss on the telephone and wipe my ass with the remote! It is a set up for my new documentary…
“Raiders of the Lost Motel 6″
Has a title like that already been used? No matter.
When the movie “JFK” came out, it laid out the director’s version of the assasination. Now, his theory was not new. The information had been circulated for some time. The movie was just the first feature film to to portray what previously had been just a “conspiracy theory”.
So, without seeing the movie “JFK” you could easily debate whether or not you agreed with the theories it discussed. You could easily learn about those particular theories elsewhere. If someone chose to call you ignorant because you didn’t fork over the price of a ticket, that was a cop-out.
I will not pay to see Moore’s movie. Not necessarily because of the movie itself but because I have visited Moore’s website (to read first hand his letters and opinions) and found that I do not respect the man. I don’t hate him, I just don’t respect him. I find him to be an America-hater no matter how he chooses to spin it. Not based on this film but on his own words from his own website. I find him to be an opportunist (which is pretty American I will grant you) but he hates opportunism. I find him to be a consumate capitalist, though he denounces capitalism for socialism.
These inconsistancies leave me with no desire to financially support the man with my seven bucks. But there is enough information out there about the premises he sets forth in this movie that I feel could, without operating in ignorance, agree or disagree with them. Seeing a movie that has been this talked about is simply not a prerequisite to joining the debate.
if KR’s comments suggest good reasoning to not vote for bush, I have a better comment from paul neman that suggest even better reason to not vote for kerry.
“I think that tax cuts for worried, wealthy thugs like me are borderline criminal,” and the notion they produce trickle-down benefits for the poor is “rubbish.” – Paul Newman
“Taak, do a little research or look at the list I linked to. It’s quite easy to find the falsehood in Moore’s movies.”
No, this doesn’t count. Telling me to go “find the arguments myself” is still the same thing as I was talking about. Why aren’t you willing to list any specific problem?
Is it because most of the arguments at that link are so flimsy (As Evan pointed out) that it makes it stronger just to make reference to them without actually saying any of them aloud?
Take no. 18: “In the film, a former FBI official is angry that the bin Laden family wasn’t ‘properly’ interviewed before leaving the country on September 13. However, the FBI did in fact interview at least 30 of the family before they left that day. ”
Notice how the two don’t actually contradict each other? Moore says they weren’t interviewed properly; In fact, many of them were interviewed! The claim was they were given non-standard, abbrieviated interviews, which does not mean that they were not interviewed at all.
My favorites are the ones where they find someone paraphrasing what Moore said, and expressing outrage that the paraphrase sounds sinister.
“And all those who agree with Michael Moore argue that YOU MUST PAY HIM in order to comment, and WITHOUT PAYING HIM you are ignorant, and your opinion is worth nothing.”
Actually Moore has said he doesn’t care if people pirate the film so long as they don’t make money off of doing so. [1].
“Man, this is great! I brought all the rabid Bush-haters out of the woodwork! Like it was really difficult. Say one slightly positive thing about even a portion of his administration, and WHAMMO! They fly in like a swarm of bees.”
Where has there been any Bush-bashing on this thread? The only thing I see is people arguing against Moore, and other saying that those arguments are wildly overstated (and not even defending Moore that strongly, per se).
A: Apocalypse Now sucked!!
B: What makes you say that?
A: Um, someone told me. Also, I didn’t like Coppola’s other movies.
B: Did you see Coppola’s other movies?
A: No.