Man who chaired CA Recall tries to block Fahrenheit 911

[imported_Aelius]

Moore is nothing more than someone who outright lies, decieves and makes up BS stories to sell his film.

Has anyone researched the last documentary of this fruitcake?

Maybe someone here should be asking why this prick is being sued by people whom he interviewd for Bowling for Columbine. Perhaps its because he cut out words and made up sentences for his film. What was said in the film wasn't even anything close to what many of those people said. In other parts of the film he cut out sentences from speaches to change the context and used tons of false information.

There's a bunch of sites that pick appart that film and show each and every lie.

If someone thinks that this film is going to be anything else other than total bull needs to spend 5 minutes with Google and do some research. Its going to change your mind about this walking pussnut.

Don't get me wrong I'm against anyone forcing anyone to do something but you won't miss anything other than BS propaganda if this film isn't shown.

Have I seen it? No. Why would I say this then. This guy isn't gona change. Just look at how he acts when confronted with his BS in Bowling for Columbine.

Total windbag.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Yes, I expect that if I googled "michael Moore" And "walking Pussnut" I would find some less than flattering information, misinformation, and lies.

No one in their right mind would claim that Moore is objective, or that he doesn't milk his facts for all they're worth and more. But on the other hand he doesn't send people to die based on his little conspiracy theories, and at least there's normally a plausible connection to be made, unlike the 'clear ties' between certain dictators and certain nutbar terrorists, who stood for very different goals (fascism vs. religious state) and yet apparently worked closely with each other...

That's the thing about being a critic... you're free to explore every avenue. And when you make the hair stand up on the necks of the people you're questionning, it's usually a good clue that you're closer to the truth than they would like.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Either you tell the truth or you don't.

You can sugar coat it but if you lie once in a documentary you just lost all your marbles. You might as well go home and cry to mommy cause nobody whom bothers to check on this guy's sources is going to swallow what he is trying to ram down their throat.

The problem is not that he is tackling a tough story. The problem is that he is lying and any other documentary that is anywhere near similar is going to be partly discredited because of this looser.

This isn't a documentary with facts.

Its pure Hollywood fantasy.

If Moore actually stuck to facts and didn't make up BS and lie I would be supporting him 100%.

Fact is that he does BS and he does lie.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Have I seen it? No. Why would I say this then. This guy isn't gona change. Just look at how he acts when confronted with his BS in Bowling for Columbine.

Total windbag.

'Nuff said.

Reserve judgement until you see it.

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" ? as we saw last night ? is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

comments from Fox News no less!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Moore's films are full of suggestions and hypotheses that are less than fully founded. But he doesn't present anything as factual without a solid, usually self-incriminating quote to back it up.

Moore is a little like a scientist - it's perfectly okay to propose something in science without proving it, so long as you don't fake the data to support it, or treat it as proven when it isn't well supported. When Moore says 'it looks like there's something interesting here' he's usually right - it does look that way. Just because he may not always bark up the right tree does not mean his efforts are useless.

 

[hokiezilla]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ianbergman

An organization led by the man who chaired the recall of former Governor Gray Davis in California is spearheading a drive to prevent movie theaters from showing Michael Moore?s controversial ?Fahrenheit 911.?

Typical neo-facist, trying to trample free speech and control what other people see and think.

Based on past stories about people like this, Kaloogian's probably on the verge of being outed as a pedophile or a sex addict or something equally depraved. It seems like the more aggressively they attack others' freedoms, the more skeletons they have in their own closets.

Your rant is fallacious and littered with emotional hogwash. You can't substantiate any of it. You're going from the specific to the general, which is a logical no-no. Not all people who consider Michael Moore walking talking sac of pig excrement want to limit his speech, or the right of people to see his movie.

 

[DanJ]

FoxNews loved it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: Aelius
Either you tell the truth or you don't.

And does that apply to politicians, too; or just to filmmakers?

cumhail

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Aelius

Have I seen it? No. Why would I say this then. This guy isn't gona change. Just look at how he acts when confronted with his BS in Bowling for Columbine.

Total windbag.

'Nuff said.

Reserve judgement until you see it.

But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" ? as we saw last night ? is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

comments from Fox News no less!

Nuff said?

What's your point?

He outright lied over and over again in the last documentary and when it was being released for DVD he put back something that he was called on as being BS and he initially removed.

Are you just supporting this looser cause he is bashing Bush? Heck I bash Bush, and many others, but that doesn't mean this guy is telling the truth. A track record speaks for itself.

Its one thing if this was his first documentary like this and he hasn't been caught telling lies but you do it just once (lie) and you loose all credibility with anyone knowledgeable enough to know better.

Plus what is your point with the Fox link? This guy got a similar response for the last documentary which made him a household name. Just because sheep stand up and say "Baaaaaaa" doesn't mean anything.

Here is a quote from that link.

"Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say."

Helpless target? He cut out half the guy's comment midway to change the context of what Heston said. Easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel? That's a laugh. This guy is a complete nutjub for actually eating the BS Moore spewed the last time without doing any of his own research about it.

I'm supposed to take this guy's word for how good a job Moore did?

*laughs*

Yeah right.

I'll read about it six months from now when a couple of dozen sites have had a chance to do real jurnalism, and not some half baked infotainment column, on this "documentary". I will be interested to see what Moore gets wrong.

Perhaps he will get everything correct.

However, considering his past efforts, I won't hold my breath.

 

[DanJ]

For the haters; supposedly Moore is setting up a 24-7 factcheck office for this movie to counter claims that everything in the film isn't factually based.

Should be interesting.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: cumhail

Originally posted by: Aelius
Either you tell the truth or you don't.

And does that apply to politicians, too; or just to filmmakers?

cumhail

What's your point? I'm not talking about politicians.

A documentary can be missleading by not showing all the facts or only telling one side of the story. That's common.

What isn't common is spending half the freaking film lying and now this guy is making another documentary.

I'm just saying watch out for what he shows. He was able to fool millions of people, with his last film, whom simply didn't know better.

Of course Bush did the exact same thing.

I put both of these guys in the same basket in that regard.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Nuff said?

What's your point?

The point is you have no basis to make such conclusions on a film which you never saw. I thought that point was quite obvious.

He outright lied over and over again in the last documentary and when it was being released for DVD he put back something that he was called on as being BS and he initially removed.

Are you just supporting this looser cause he is bashing Bush? Heck I bash Bush, and many others, but that doesn't mean this guy is telling the truth. A track record speaks for itself.

Its one thing if this was his first documentary like this and he hasn't been caught telling lies but you do it just once (lie) and you loose all credibility with anyone knowledgeable enough to know better.

I'm not supporting anyone, I haven't seen the film either so I'm not going to make hasty judgements.

And so let's say some things in his first documentary were ouright lies, what does that mean? Bush has done coke before, that does mean he's doing it now in the oval office?

I'm supposed to take this guy's word for how good a job Moore did?

*laughs*

Yeah right.

You didn't seem to have a problem taking the guys' words from the various anti-Moore sites you've admittedly sought guidance from to base your hasty opinion of the film, now did you?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Only the nutcases will enjoy it, however the more intellegent democrats will dismiss his wild claims. 🙂

i think you are correct.
well, ill probably "enjoy" the film. i like most of moore's stuff.
but i think you are correct that many (intelligent) viewers will be able to witness it with an appropriate attitude and not take moore at face value. there is an obvious agenda to the film, even from the clips ive seen, as is true with all his work. but i find his films/tv shows generally pretty interesting and i will watch it.
i dont see, however, that even if what the claims about the film being against the war on terror or even being against bush should be grounds for having it stopped.
if for some reason moore made a film about what an ass i am and how i should be hated the world over, i dont think i would really feel the need to have it shut down. its a scary prospect to remove the film entirely.

we should have a little more faith in people being adult and intelligent enough to decide for themselves what to do with this movie.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Aelius

Nuff said?

What's your point?

The point is you have no basis to make such conclusions on a film which you never saw. I thought that point was quite obvious.

He outright lied over and over again in the last documentary and when it was being released for DVD he put back something that he was called on as being BS and he initially removed.

Are you just supporting this looser cause he is bashing Bush? Heck I bash Bush, and many others, but that doesn't mean this guy is telling the truth. A track record speaks for itself.

Its one thing if this was his first documentary like this and he hasn't been caught telling lies but you do it just once (lie) and you loose all credibility with anyone knowledgeable enough to know better.

I'm not supporting anyone, I haven't seen the film either so I'm not going to make hasty judgements.

And so let's say some things in his first documentary were ouright lies, what does that mean? Bush has done coke before, that does mean he's doing it now in the oval office?

I'm supposed to take this guy's word for how good a job Moore did?

*laughs*

Yeah right.

You didn't seem to have a problem taking the guys' words from the various anti-Moore sites you've admittedly sought guidance from to base your hasty opinion of the film, now did you?

Anti Moore site huh?

Take his word for it huh?

You looking over my shoulder? No. So don't comment on what you don't know. You don't know me, so don't presume to know me or what I do.

Usually politicians start throwing labels around like anti-soandso and call people dilusional or call them conspiracy nuts.

All in an affort to discredit the other person. People like that make me sick, which is thankfully mostly nationalist zealots and/or politicians so I expect that.

Did you do research? Did you even bother? After you read a site that said so and so, did you look it up and see if what they found was really true or just made up lies to discredit someone?

I guess being knowledgeable is too much effort for some people.

I personally have no problem with that what so ever. Don't get me wrong. I don't expect every person to run to the nearest search engine or library to start researching to see if what others found is true or not. It takes hours and hours and its boring.

I just don't like it when someone like that tells me they know better. Based on what? The way the wind is blowing or the color of the sky? It aint based in fact.

Like I said, again, I appreciate that someone is tackling a tough story but I spit in Moore's general direction. Not because he lied a couple of times and nobody noticed. No. Its because he did it so many times and even after he was told he was putting certain untrue things into the film and removed it, for the DVD release, he put it back in soon after just before the release.

This guy;

1. Didn't do his homework.

2. Made up stories out of cut up interview tapes. And is getting sued for it by many of those interviewed.

3. Outright lied and decived the audience to make a bigger "splash" on the screen on issues that were little more than a dud in many cases.

Now you want to grant him another chance and you are going to base your decision on what is correct by what he shows you?

I doubt you are going to spend months researching to see if what he says is true.

Some sites will do that many months from now and again I will be there to do my own little detective work to see if it matches.

We will just have to see.

I'm simply not willing to trust this guy anymore after what he did and the way he acted aftewards.

Just like I don't trust Bush and Co. and many others, but that's off topic.

This is simply about telling the truth or not. I'm assuming he is going to lie through his teeth and most people are going to buy it, just like last time. I may be wrong but I suspect I will be right.

 

[lozina]

Anti Moore site huh?

Take his word for it huh?

You looking over my shoulder? No. So don't comment on what you don't know. You don't know me, so don't presume to know me or what I do.

Usually politicians start throwing labels around like anti-soandso and call people dilusional or call them conspiracy nuts.

All in an affort to discredit the other person. People like that make me sick, which is thankfully mostly nationalist zealots and/or politicians so I expect that.

What exactly is all that whining, and what does it mean? In this same thread you have stated you visited sites which pick apart Moore's previous film in attempts to discredit it. By description, that is an anti-Moore site, so I'm terribly sorry if you're so sensitive that a harmless factual description has incited such a bizarre hallucination involving politicians and "conspriacy nuts".

And I'm glad you are taking a more reasonable approach in this post- specifying that you are "assuming he is going to lie through his teeth" instead of the hasty conclusion you made earlier that the film is all lies. That was what I was arguing against.

 

[Shelly21]

I'll watch the film and decide for myself.

Saying that people will be influenced by the films' "lies" is admitting that your own base is filled with sheeps.

 

[ianbergman]

I thought I'd add a note, here, after seeing all this debate:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,122678,00.html

Fox News publish a glowing review of the film. Now _that_ surprises me, and just reinforces my desire to see it.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: lozina

Anti Moore site huh?

Take his word for it huh?

You looking over my shoulder? No. So don't comment on what you don't know. You don't know me, so don't presume to know me or what I do.

Usually politicians start throwing labels around like anti-soandso and call people dilusional or call them conspiracy nuts.

All in an affort to discredit the other person. People like that make me sick, which is thankfully mostly nationalist zealots and/or politicians so I expect that.

What exactly is all that whining, and what does it mean? In this same thread you have stated you visited sites which pick apart Moore's previous film in attempts to discredit it. By description, that is an anti-Moore site, so I'm terribly sorry if you're so sensitive that a harmless factual description has incited such a bizarre hallucination involving politicians and "conspriacy nuts".

And I'm glad you are taking a more reasonable approach in this post- specifying that you are "assuming he is going to lie through his teeth" instead of the hasty conclusion you made earlier that the film is all lies. That was what I was arguing against.

You are still using baseless lables. I would be anti-Moore if you could NEVER change my mind about the person. I'm not some one dimensional crackpot like you would like to think.

I don't automatically give second chances to scum either. If you don't like the fact that Moore is a known liar and propaganda artist then that's your problem.

He is definately up there with Joseph Goebbels with Bowling for Columbine. I'll consider changing my mind about him AFTER this documentary has been picked appart for any inconsistency.

If he can stay honest this time around he can come off my black list.

 

[sandorski]

I've only seen BFC, at the end of it I wasn't convinced of anything, but I sure came away with a lot to think about. BFC wasn't about Conclusions, but all about raising an Issue for discussion, providing some interesting tidbits on the subject(s), and showing that the Subject(s) has been swept under the rug.

Many concluded that BFC was about Gun Control, but it wasn't. It certainly provided many reasons why Gun Control is not some Bizarre or Lunatic Idea, but it didn't advocate that position. Nor did it advocate the opposite position, it was quite Fair on the issue(IMO).

What BFC was attempting to accomplish was a change in People. It threw a common perception of Guns/Gun Rights into the Face of the Audience. It exposed a Mass Hysteria about Gun Rights, Mass Lack of Respect for what a Gun is, a Mass Lax Attitude concerning Personal Responsibility and Guns, and that a Gun though powerful was treated the same way a Big Gulp is treated(cheap, easy, expendable). BFC was a Call to Individuals to reconsider their Attitudes toward Guns and to perhaps even Reconsider whether they even Need a Gun. It was a Call to renew a Healthy Respect and stop a prevailing Myopia that helps breed situations like the Columbine tragedy.

As that, BFC was a brilliant film, whether he exaggerated certain things or not.

 

[CanOWorms]

i like how some people are making a documentary on Michael Moore and using his own tactics against him

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I've only seen BFC, at the end of it I wasn't convinced of anything, but I sure came away with a lot to think about. BFC wasn't about Conclusions, but all about raising an Issue for discussion, providing some interesting tidbits on the subject(s), and showing that the Subject(s) has been swept under the rug.

Many concluded that BFC was about Gun Control, but it wasn't. It certainly provided many reasons why Gun Control is not some Bizarre or Lunatic Idea, but it didn't advocate that position. Nor did it advocate the opposite position, it was quite Fair on the issue(IMO).

What BFC was attempting to accomplish was a change in People. It threw a common perception of Guns/Gun Rights into the Face of the Audience. It exposed a Mass Hysteria about Gun Rights, Mass Lack of Respect for what a Gun is, a Mass Lax Attitude concerning Personal Responsibility and Guns, and that a Gun though powerful was treated the same way a Big Gulp is treated(cheap, easy, expendable). BFC was a Call to Individuals to reconsider their Attitudes toward Guns and to perhaps even Reconsider whether they even Need a Gun. It was a Call to renew a Healthy Respect and stop a prevailing Myopia that helps breed situations like the Columbine tragedy.

As that, BFC was a brilliant film, whether he exaggerated certain things or not.

Right, only morons would think that film is about total gun control. Far from it. After watching it myself, the film pretty much blames our society for gun violence IMO.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: hokiezilla

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ianbergman

An organization led by the man who chaired the recall of former Governor Gray Davis in California is spearheading a drive to prevent movie theaters from showing Michael Moore?s controversial ?Fahrenheit 911.?

Typical neo-facist, trying to trample free speech and control what other people see and think.

Based on past stories about people like this, Kaloogian's probably on the verge of being outed as a pedophile or a sex addict or something equally depraved. It seems like the more aggressively they attack others' freedoms, the more skeletons they have in their own closets.

Your rant is fallacious and littered with emotional hogwash. You can't substantiate any of it. You're going from the specific to the general, which is a logical no-no. Not all people who consider Michael Moore walking talking sac of pig excrement want to limit his speech, or the right of people to see his movie.

My thoughts, exactly. Your rant is fallacious and littered with emotional hogwash. You can't substantiate any of it. Not to mention, you have reading comprehension problems if you think I'm "going from the specific to the general". You have that exactly backwards.

Good to see you're objective about Moore, however. It's a shame you base your opinions on disinformation from "walking talking sac of pig excrement" like Limbaugh and Hannity instead of more accurate sources.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Aelius
[ ... ]
Like I said, again, I appreciate that someone is tackling a tough story but I spit in Moore's general direction. Not because he lied a couple of times and nobody noticed. No. Its because he did it so many times and even after he was told he was putting certain untrue things into the film and removed it, for the DVD release, he put it back in soon after just before the release.

This guy;

1. Didn't do his homework.

2. Made up stories out of cut up interview tapes. And is getting sued for it by many of those interviewed.

3. Outright lied and decived the audience to make a bigger "splash" on the screen on issues that were little more than a dud in many cases.
[ ... ]

I did my homework. You are badly disinformed. Moore got his facts right in Bowling for Columbine with one exception. He did, in fact, correct that mistake on the DVD.

The problem with Columbine is his editing, which intermixed truthful information in deceptive ways. This is much the same as the way Bush & Co. constantly suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I do not approve of such deceptive tactics. At least Moore is up-front about his personal agenda, however, and his deception didn't get thousands of people killed.