'Fahrenheit' has elder Bush boiling . . .

[DealMonkey]

Not sure if this is pure gossip or what.

NY Daily News

'Fahrenheit' has elder Bush boiling

The 41st President of the United States has stepped up to defend his son, the 43rd President of the United States, against "slimeball" filmmaker Michael Moore.

"I have total disdain for Moore," George H.W. Bush told us when we saw him at the T.J. Martell Foundation Awards gala, where he was honored along with Stevie Wonder and Dr. Daniel Vasella the other night.

"41" has heard enough about "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore's documentary indictment of President Bush, to know "it's a vicious attack on our son.

"It's a free country, so he's free to say whatever he wants," the former Oval Officer went on. "But I don't appreciate it. I don't like it.

"[My son] served with honor, and to get knocked down by this guy, " he huffed. "But you got to put up with it. That's what I'd say to [my son]."

We asked what he thought of Moore's use of the comment Barbara Bush made at the start of the Iraq war: "Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths? ... Why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch [my son] suffer."

Said her furious husband: "For him to take on Barbara is just beyond the pale. She's a decent, wonderful person, and to have to answer anything about what that slimeball says is just too much."

Informed of Bush's tirade, Moore told us he had "fond memories" of "41" asking for a print of his movie "Roger & Me" to show at Camp David in the winter of 1990.

Moore, whose film explores the financial ties between the Bush family and the Saudis, said, "I appreciate all reviews of my films from the Bush family. And if they love the film this much, without having seen it, I can't wait for the reviews when they actually see it. I'd be more than happy to set up a White House screening."

Recalling the Bushes' nickname for Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar, he added, "I hope they invite Bandar Bush!"

 

[Bleep]

He must have a pirated copy of the film, otherwise he cannot possibly know what is in the movie. Maybe he has been listening to Faux news.

Bleep

 

[Infohawk]

The elder Bush should debate Moore if he has a problem with his movie. He could make his own case for being so close to the Saudis. If he has an argument, insulting Moore doesn't do much.

 

[etech]

Moore wants all the publicity he can get, good or bad. That's obvious. The more publicity the more sheeple will go see his fantasy and the more dollars in Moore's fat pockets.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I agree.

and i agree with bush sr: more is a sack of intelectual dishonesty.

 

[Infohawk]

etech and LordMagnusKain, like elder Bush, your attacks on Moore's character and motives aren't productive. Why don't you challenge Moore's ideas and facts instead of challenging his personality? It's also odd you're coming out against his movie when you haven't seen it. If you have problems with his past movies' arguments, make them. As it stands, it could be that Moore is money-hungry and slimey, but that everything he says could be true.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech and LordMagnusKain, like elder Bush, your attacks on Moore's character and motives aren't productive. Why don't you challenge Moore's ideas and facts instead of challenging his personality? It's also odd you're coming out against his movie when you haven't seen it. If you have problems with his past movies' arguments, make them. As it stands, it could be that Moore is money-hungry and slimey, but that everything he says could be true.

Many of his so-called facts in past movies have already been debunked. I see no reason to believe he has changed his style.

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech and LordMagnusKain, like elder Bush, your attacks on Moore's character and motives aren't productive. Why don't you challenge Moore's ideas and facts instead of challenging his personality? It's also odd you're coming out against his movie when you haven't seen it. If you have problems with his past movies' arguments, make them. As it stands, it could be that Moore is money-hungry and slimey, but that everything he says could be true.

You've obviously forgotten that anything that contradicts their beliefs is wrong

"[My son] served with honor, and to get knocked down by this guy, " he huffed. "But you got to put up with it. That's what I'd say to [my son]."

He's joking right?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech and LordMagnusKain, like elder Bush, your attacks on Moore's character and motives aren't productive. Why don't you challenge Moore's ideas and facts instead of challenging his personality? It's also odd you're coming out against his movie when you haven't seen it. If you have problems with his past movies' arguments, make them. As it stands, it could be that Moore is money-hungry and slimey, but that everything he says could be true.

Many of his so-called facts in past movies have already been debunked. I see no reason to believe he has changed his style.

"Many of his so-called facts in past movies have already been debunked."
Where's your evidence that that's the case?

(Even IF his past movies had errors, that doesn't mean all the ideas in his new movies will have errors. The only way to attack a man's ideas is to attack the ideas, not his character, motives, or even his past ideas. )

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: Infohawk
etech and LordMagnusKain, like elder Bush, your attacks on Moore's character and motives aren't productive. Why don't you challenge Moore's ideas and facts instead of challenging his personality? It's also odd you're coming out against his movie when you haven't seen it. If you have problems with his past movies' arguments, make them. As it stands, it could be that Moore is money-hungry and slimey, but that everything he says could be true.

You've obviously forgotten that anything that contradicts their beliefs is wrong

"[My son] served with honor, and to get knocked down by this guy, " he huffed. "But you got to put up with it. That's what I'd say to [my son]."

He's joking right?

no, there are intellectually honest arguments on just about any side of any issue.

But:
Moore makes none of them in any of the wonderful print and film media he's created that I?ve been privy to.

edit:

Even IF his past movies had errors, that doesn't mean all the ideas in his new movies will have errors. The only way to attack a man's ideas is to attack the ideas, not his character, motives, or even his past ideas.

didn't attack the movie, just indicated that i agree with bush Sr.'s view of the man's body of work... and as such his integrity as a film maker.

Do you really need to read the next Limbaugh book to know that your going to think Rush is full of it?

Truth about the movie

 

[etech]

Infohawk, I find it hard to believe that you have not been exposed to the errors Moore has made in his previous films. I don't see the need to take the time to educate you if you really are that uninformed. Try google, they are easily found.

You are correct, just because he has presented partial quotes and distorted the truth in the past does not mean he will do it in this next movies. Perhaps you'll vote for George Bush in the next election. Anything is possible.

So tell me, why did Moore go after Barbra Bush in his new film? Do you think that was the right and correct thing for him to do. How many dollars did that make for him?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: etech
Infohawk, I find it hard to believe that you have not been exposed to the errors Moore has made in his previous films. I don't see the need to take the time to educate you if you really are that uninformed. Try google, they are easily found.

You are correct, just because he has presented partial quotes and distorted the truth in the past does not mean he will do it in this next movies. Perhaps you'll vote for George Bush in the next election. Anything is possible.

So tell me, why did Moore go after Barbra Bush in his new film? Do you think that was the right and correct thing for him to do. How many dollars did that make for him?

I'm not going to attack or defend the movie because I haven't seen it. Have you? When you say he attacks Barbara Bush I have no idea if that's true because I haven't seen the movie. That said I think it's important to know what the first family is like when we are electing them. If they are connected with shady people, I want to know about it. If Barbara Bush is "attacked" by having it pointed out that she is friends with certain people (I'm guessing here because I haven't seen the movie) then I want to know because she is the president's mother and the family connections are relevant.

"Infohawk, I find it hard to believe that you have not been exposed to the errors Moore has made in his previous films. I don't see the need to take the time to educate you if you really are that uninformed. Try google, they are easily found."
If you challenge someone's ideas, it's up to you to disprove them. I'm can't do your research. If they are so easy to find, please paste something in this thread. Of course, neither of us should bother because this thread is about Farenheit and Bush Sr's reaction, not his other movies.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: etech
Infohawk, I find it hard to believe that you have not been exposed to the errors Moore has made in his previous films. I don't see the need to take the time to educate you if you really are that uninformed. Try google, they are easily found.

You are correct, just because he has presented partial quotes and distorted the truth in the past does not mean he will do it in this next movies. Perhaps you'll vote for George Bush in the next election. Anything is possible.

So tell me, why did Moore go after Barbra Bush in his new film? Do you think that was the right and correct thing for him to do. How many dollars did that make for him?

I'm not going to attack or defend the movie because I haven't seen it. Have you? When you say he attacks Barbara Bush I have no idea if that's true because I haven't seen the movie. That said I think it's important to know what the first family is like when we are electing them. If they are connected with shady people, I want to know about it. If Barbara Bush is "attacked" by having it pointed out that she is friends with certain people (I'm guessing here because I haven't seen the movie) then I want to know because she is the president's mother and the family connections are relevant.

"Infohawk, I find it hard to believe that you have not been exposed to the errors Moore has made in his previous films. I don't see the need to take the time to educate you if you really are that uninformed. Try google, they are easily found."
If you challenge someone's ideas, it's up to you to disprove them. I'm can't do your research. If they are so easy to find, please paste something in this thread. Of course, neither of us should bother because this thread is about Farenheit and Bush Sr's reaction, not his other movies.

You defended Moore and his upstanding reputation and are willing to believe anything he puts on film.

I have done my research and am not.

Now run along like a good little liberal sheeple and pay for your ticket and feed Moores pockets.

 

[kylebisme]

it is amazing how some people get so riled up in denial over Moore. they go on tirades about him, full of ad-hominem, but constantly fail to address the facts. the best you ever get from them is links to websites with a bunch of erroneous information that attempts to be incriminating. i suppose it was only a matter of time before Bush Sr. joined the crowd.

 

[Infohawk]

You defended Moore and his upstanding reputation and are willing to believe anything he puts on film.

I have done my research and am not.

Now run along like a good little liberal sheeple and pay for your ticket and feed Moores pockets.

I didn't defend Moore. I simply pointed out that your attacks on his ideas weren't reasonable. Never did I say he has an upstanding reputation. When did I say I'm willing to believe anything he puts on film.

"I have done my research and am not."
I don't understand this sentense. I think you forgot to finish it. If you did research, share it so we can see if it's valid.

You are building strawmen arguments. This is an example of fallacious reasoning. A strawman argument is where you create a weak argument and then pretend the person debating you takes on that argument. Then, when you undermine the argument, you claim victory. The problem is that I didn't take on your strawmen arguments. I haven't seen Moore's new movie. I don't know Moore. I'm not going to judge him or accept your allegations unless you provide proof.

 

[Stunt]

I agree that moore is a little extreme and has motives he speaks openly about. But i admire his ability to expose facts and i really like to see him trying to inform americans of the things they may not know...like the 9/11 and iraq connection, or lack of. I'm looking forward to the movie but will only see it to take it with a grain of salt and to see how credible he is as a documentarian (bowling for columbine was well done) as i have only seen one.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Stunt
moore is a little extreme and has motives-------------------
i admire his ability to expose facts---------------------------

LMAO :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:thumbsup:

 

[dannybin1742]

etech needs to sit down away form his computer and read one of moores books, i'd suggest, dude where's my country, and then he needs to read neocon author ann coulter or sean hannity's book and see the difference in credibility. the ammount of research that goes into his books is unprecedented, and his meticulous use of footnotes make moore's books good reads even if you don't agree with what he says, he does have lots of valid points backed up by read quotes and figures that can be lookedup.

the last two authors i lsited do not annote their bibliographies like moore does, nore do they put in any relavant credible material

i'll believe oneil, woodward, and clarke before i trust anyone in this administration, that includes that tool powell, i've lost so much respect for him

 

[Stunt]

"moore is a little extreme and has motives
i admire his ability to expose facts"

What is so funny about this, motives and facts are different things. Moore has the ability to expose facts such as the ability of the binladens to fly around the US during the grounding of planes, the tight relationship of the bushes and bin ladens and the pressure the generals in the military were putting on the GOP NOT to go to iraq.
These were semi-known before, but he investigated it futher and made it more well known (especially with the movie).

What he draws from these FACTS, he creates conclusions which tend to be a little EXTREME with ulterior MOTIVES to be anti-conservative. BUT that doesnt take away from his superb investigating and publicizing.

You have problems with that?, or are you going to nit pick everything i say on these forums, and make me explain every litttle thing?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
it is amazing how some people get so riled up in denial over Moore. they go on tirades about him, full of ad-hominem, but constantly fail to address the facts.

Yes it is quite entertaining to see the reaction of people to Moore, many prejudiced reactions really, as the usual criticism against Moore always finds it necessary to take a stab at his weight problem. Not only that, the passion displayed by some people against his latest film which they haven't even seen yet is particularly disturbing. I for one will reserve judgement on his latest documentary until I actually watch it, but it is comforting to know some people are out there trying to tell a different side of the story.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
etech needs to sit down away form his computer and read one of moores books, i'd suggest, dude where's my country, and then he needs to read neocon author ann coulter or sean hannity's book and see the difference in credibility. the ammount of research that goes into his books is unprecedented, and his meticulous use of footnotes make moore's books good reads even if you don't agree with what he says, he does have lots of valid points backed up by read quotes and figures that can be lookedup.

the last two authors i lsited do not annote their bibliographies like moore does, nore do they put in any relavant credible material

i'll believe oneil, woodward, and clarke before i trust anyone in this administration, that includes that tool powell, i've lost so much respect for him

Michael Moore and Me

 

[Stunt]

The movie is based on "dude where's my country" and his interviews over the last year are pretty explicit what he is going to portray in the movie. I think republicans like GB were always worried about it but are only recognizing it since its popularity/exposure/good reviews.

Content is not going to be a surprise. I see no problem with people taking aim before seeing the movie. It is not the most informed opinion, but with research can be very valid.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"moore is a little extreme and has motives
i admire his ability to expose facts"

What is so funny about this, motives and facts are different things. Moore has the ability to expose facts such as the ability of the binladens to fly around the US during the grounding of planes, the tight relationship of the bushes and bin ladens and the pressure the generals in the military were putting on the GOP NOT to go to iraq.
These were semi-known before, but he investigated it futher and made it more well known (especially with the movie).

What he draws from these FACTS, he creates conclusions which tend to be a little EXTREME with ulterior MOTIVES to be anti-conservative. BUT that doesnt take away from his superb investigating and publicizing.

You have problems with that?, or are you going to nit pick everything i say on these forums, and make me explain every litttle thing?

The sad thing is that Ozone probably won't read your post. There was nothing inconsistent or funny about your previous post. We can only assume Ozone thinks you can't have a complex view of someone. In his mind, it's probably black and white, love or hate. I hope he reads your post and learns from it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"moore is a little extreme and has motives
i admire his ability to expose facts"

What is so funny about this, motives and facts are different things. Moore has the ability to expose facts such as the ability of the binladens to fly around the US during the grounding of planes, the tight relationship of the bushes and bin ladens and the pressure the generals in the military were putting on the GOP NOT to go to iraq.
These were semi-known before, but he investigated it futher and made it more well known (especially with the movie).

What he draws from these FACTS, he creates conclusions which tend to be a little EXTREME with ulterior MOTIVES to be anti-conservative. BUT that doesnt take away from his superb investigating and publicizing.

You have problems with that?, or are you going to nit pick everything i say on these forums, and make me explain every litttle thing?

People find it funny because he sometimes makes up his own facts and even rearranges the chronological order of things to make his points. He may have something to say, but he doesn't do it honestly.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKainDo you really need to read the next Limbaugh book to know that your going to think Rush is full of it?

Truth about the movie

Coming from a pretty far-left pro-gun control viewpoint, I have to admit I find the information in that link pretty eye opening. I would have to agree that by all appearances, making an analogy between Limbaugh and Moore as distorters of fact and context for the sake of politics is a fair comparison.

I still agree with much of Moore's politics and disagree with Limbaugh's politics, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that both are slimy in their (effective to receptive audiences) tactics.

Makes me wonder, does either ideological side have any chance of success in the national stage in this day and age if they don't allow their respective attack dogs to engage in oversimplified smear campaigns, strengthening the resolve of their less independent thinking followers and swaying the views of some simple minded swing voters? In our short attention span society, I'm afraid the answer is probably that the mud slinging (truthful, distorted, and the plain false varieties) from both sides is here to stay.

Thanks for the link. Doesn't change my views on gun control (didn't see Columbine so Moore didn't change my views on the topic either), but I do have to say I have a little more respect for Heston (for his early Civil Rights movement participation).

I'll probably skip seeing Fahrenheit as well - I have to say much of the publicity so far seems manufactured to me, and I really don't need a sensational anti-Bush movie to help me decide how to vote in November.

I saw "Day After Tomorrow" in a LA theatre this past weekend, laughed at it for the fiction it was, but also greatly enjoyed the audience recognition of the Bush/Cheney archetypes there - huge reaction at the line where the president asks the VP "what do you think we should do?", and downright applause at a "you didn't care about the science when we could have done something" jab. Still, I think "Day After" is on slightly better ground than Moore's movies as it in no way was trying to pass itself off as a documentary or an acurate representation of climate change scenarios.