Support NeoGAF

[SteveMeister]

What's wrong with Moore's speech at the awards? Everyone thought that was so sick, I don't understand.

It was irrelevant and inappropriate. He won the Oscar for his movie, he should have said his thanks and moved on. Instead he used the opportunity to make a political statement totally unrelated to the award, the movie he won it for, and the ceremony itself.

Nothing wrong with making political statements, but it's generally best not to make an ass out of yourself by making them in an inappropriate venue. But then, that's Moore for you. He was on TV in front of millions & took advantage of the opportunity. In fact, a cynic might even see his outburst as a form of early hype for his NEXT movie...

 

[3rdman]

It is all just "one side of the story" which makes it feel ...well like you should be skeptical about the film. It is full of half-truths.

Such as the implied idea Gore won in Florida, but Bush's buddy fixed the balloting vote. The recount's with Gore winning favored Gore, recounting where he is stronger or making judgement calls on iffy punch holes.

Such as showing Bush as spending too much time on vacation when Clinton's first year or so was nothing but parties and vacations itself. Spending a lot of time at Camp David is almost tradition now.

Or the whole Bush-in-the-classroom bit. Moore swung it as our leader being clueless and indecisive. If Bush just got right up in the middle of class urgently, thus alarming the students you might see Moore portay Bush as someone who was jsut sjumping at the chance for an excuse for war. Which actually would fit better with the rest of the movie.

You got to realize that politics makes you act dumb, get upset and unreasonable. Just look at how Santo has made an ass fo himself in this thread. If you take the movie with a grain of salt then that's good. If it makes you seek out the other side to better understand then that's also good.

Something iffy did go on in Florida (The captial of Iffy). But even if that did end legitametly, it was Gore that had more national votes overall and therefore the majority of population was indeed behind him. But really thats another issue.

Showing Bush on vacation wasn't an overt bash by Moore...it was deserved. No president before Bush took more time off from his office than he did. In fact, his last vacation prior to 9/11 lasted a whole 30 days! (Between Aug. 3 and Sept. 3, 2001) The last president to take that much time off was Richard Nixon. But that was mearly his last vacation prior to the attacks on the WTC. During his first 8 months "Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport—a total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/

Lastly, as for the Bush in the classroom bit...I think all of you are kinda missing the point. Could Bush had done anything? Well, with 20/20 hindsight we can probably safely say no. But, unless he's got Mrs. Cleo on a cellphone, I don't see how he could've known. But even that is not the point. What disturbed me about seeing Georgie boy reading "My Pet Goat" while my country was being attacked was that he was reading "My Pet Goat" instead of doing something...anything. Let me ask you something...What did YOU do when you heard about the attacks? I know that I ran to a TV set. Our President didn't even do that. What he did was sit and read a childrens book when he could have done the most human of things and ask, "What happened?" I won't pretend to know what was going on in his mind...perhaps he was trying to simply remain calm "for the sake of the children." But I urge that you really think about the question I've posed...What would you have done if you were President and a Secret Service agent tells you we're under attack?

 

[Vennt]

What would you have done if you were President and a Secret Service agent tells you we're under attack?

I would have taken 90 seconds to collect my thoughts, and then asked the nearest secret service agent what action my reptilian puppet-master aliens required of me.



Freeburn.

 

[xsarien]

OMG he should've jumped up in the air and started holding the children in front of him as a shield.

This is what I'm talking about, you pause anywhere in your favourite movie and chances are you'll catch an actor with a stupid expression - Moore thinks if he can get enough pics of the president looking dumb then people will think the president is dumb. That's the kind of crap that undermines anything valid he might have had to say about the state of things.

My gut's telling me two things:
1) You haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11. If you did, you would know that the sequence in the Florida school isn't a montage of photos with various facial expressions, it's video straight from a teacher's camcorder. There's even a clock placed in the corner of the screen, courtesy of Moore just so you can keep track of how much time has passed since the President was told, how much time he spends fiddling around looking like he was just called on to hand in homework he didn't do, up until the sequence ends. Am I saying he should've sped out of there, leaving a Bush-shaped hole in the wall? No. But, for what its worth, even Clinton managed to take time out from a blowjob to talk to his military people when they needed him on the line.

2) You managed to look everywhere but John Kerry's website, which is pretty clear in that his approach to Iraq doesn't include pulling out, but, for example, repairing the international relations the Bush administration's massive, collective ego has managed to burn down (among other things.)

 

[Santo]

My gut's telling me two things:
1) You haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11. If you did, you would know that the sequence in the Florida school isn't a montage of photos with various facial expressions, it's video straight from a teacher's camcorder. There's even a clock placed in the corner of the screen, courtesy of Moore just so you can keep track of how much time has passed since the President was told, how much time he spends fiddling around looking like he was just called on to hand in homework he didn't do, up until the sequence ends. Am I saying he should've sped out of there, leaving a Bush-shaped hole in the wall? No. But, for what its worth, even Clinton managed to take time out from a blowjob to talk to his military people when they needed him on the line.

2) You managed to look everywhere but John Kerry's website, which is pretty clear in that his approach to Iraq doesn't include pulling out, but, for example, repairing the international relations the Bush administration's massive, collective ego has managed to burn down (among other things.)

xsarien = my new favorite member.

 

[fart]

oh shove it cyan. he was doing what i would have done - fantasizing about having a goat for a pet. perfectly responsible for a president.

oh man, that would be so cool.

 

[fart]

dude i know!!! it's a pet AND a household appliance. whitehouse trash bill drops by 50%, and you know what that means.. TAX CUTS!!! small government big people WHOOO!!!!

 

[Fjord]

If you can't see that Moore is quite misleading in certain parts of his movies then I'm sorry but you're an idiot.

 

[xsarien]

If you can't see that Moore is quite misleading in certain parts of his movies then I'm sorry but you're an idiot.

And where is he misleading people in F9/11? I mean, obviously you've seen it and all...

 

[FnordChan]

I think we're missing the key point here - not only do we all want a pet goat of our very own, but I for one would like to actually read "The Pet Goat". Here's a sample. Read along with the President, everyone!

“The girl had a pet goat. She liked to go running with her pet goat. She played with her goat in her house. She played with her goat in her yard. But the goat did something that made the girl's dad mad. The goat ate things. He ate cans and he ate cakes. He ate cakes and he ate cats. One day her dad said, that goat must go. He ate too many things. The girl said, that if you let the goat stay with us, I will see that he stops eating all those things. Her dad said he will try it. So the goat stayed and the girl made him stop eating cans and cakes and cats and cakes. But one day a car robber went into the girls house. He saw a big red car in the house and said, I will steal that car. He ran to the car and started to open the door. The girl and the goat were playing in the back yard. They did not see the car robber."

What a cliffhanger! Guess I'll have to go track down my own copy for the rest of the saga.

FnordChan

 

[Socreges]

Lastly, as for the Bush in the classroom bit...I think all of you are kinda missing the point. Could Bush had done anything? Well, with 20/20 hindsight we can probably safely say no. But, unless he's got Mrs. Cleo on a cellphone, I don't see how he could've known. But even that is not the point. What disturbed me about seeing Georgie boy reading "My Pet Goat" while my country was being attacked was that he was reading "My Pet Goat" instead of doing something...anything. Let me ask you something...What did YOU do when you heard about the attacks? I know that I ran to a TV set. Our President didn't even do that. What he did was sit and read a childrens book when he could have done the most human of things and ask, "What happened?" I won't pretend to know what was going on in his mind...perhaps he was trying to simply remain calm "for the sake of the children." But I urge that you really think about the question I've posed...What would you have done if you were President and a Secret Service agent tells you we're under attack?

I think we can put that argument to rest now. Thank for putting it so succinctly.

 

[The Bookerman]

I saw it yesterday. Found it to be very direct, amusing, sad, and entertaining. Yet I am skeptical.

Moore presents a lot of facts in such a way as to insinuate conspiracies. Such as all the links between Bush and the Saudis.

Where is this "fiction"? Lies? Outright manipulations?

I understand that the movie just came out, but considering so many people are so quick to write the movie off, I'd like to know why exactly.

What he says about bush is true. I've read at least 2 books(which came out at least a year or two before Moore's movie) which speak on The Bush Family's ties with Saudi's royal family and Bin Ladens. Did you know The Bin Laden family funded Dubya's first commercial endevors. What Moore says is true.

 

[human5892]

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not pissed at Moore for Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't SEEN it. I honestly haven't read much about what inaccuracies or falsehoods or whatever are in the movie. But I DID read about all the stuff he did in BFC. I DID see his outburst at the Academy Awards, and I've read interviews with him and others. THAT is the basis of my opinion of Moore, and why I won't see any of his movies INCLUDING F911. F911 could be the most factual, award winning and influential movie ever, and I still wouldn't have any interest in supporting Moore by watching his movies.

This never fails to irritate me. People read about a few "falsehoods" in BFC (which ones were they, BTW? The gun-buying from the bank? The "chopped up" Charlton Heston speech? Because these things were verified long ago), and they assume that EVERYTHING Michael Moore says and does is complete BS.

IMO, if you haven't seen Fahrenheit 911, then I sure as hell don't know what the fuck you're doing in a thread about it. This movie is not about Bowling For Columbine or Michael Moore, who doesn't even appear on screen for more than a minute or two of the entire two hour film. It's about showing bona-fide clips and facts that make it clear that the Bush administration, as Ricky Ricardo might have said, has some 'splainin' to do. YES, some are arranged for entertainment value, and YES, a few things are emotionally charged and maniuplated to get a rise out of people. But even if you removed Moore's narration and just viewed the clips silently as they rolled, it's easy to see that something is very, very wrong.

Whoever said it first is right: the fact that the thread has had to focus on a lousy god damned seven minutes of the entire two hour movie -- without disproving the movie's point, incidentally, only offering damage control of it -- is a testament to how well it holds up. For those of you who haven't seen it, do so and then try again. For those who have and are still unconvinced, please, point me to some credible sources where the main points of the film are refuted. Because so far, nobody's done anything close to that.

 

[AirBrian]

What he says about bush is true. I've read at least 2 books(which came out at least a year or two before Moore's movie) which speak on The Bush Family's ties with Saudi's royal family and Bin Ladens. Did you know The Bin Laden family funded Dubya's first commercial endevors. What Moore says is true.

Of course it's true. Just about everyone who is in the oil business has dealings with the Bin Laden family.

And did you know it was the U.S. who supplied Iraq with chemical weapons (and funding to develop) in the 80s?

 

[mjq jazz bar]

Why was Bath's name covered up?

 

[Fjord]

And where is he misleading people in F9/11? I mean, obviously you've seen it and all...

I have seen it, here's just one example.

edit:
Hmm when I tried to visit that site again it tried to make me login, so I'll summarize. In the movie there is a scene where Moore is harassing congressmen to send their sons to war if they support it. One of the congressmen gives Moore a dirty look and the shot is cut there. What Moore cut is the congressman replying that he has a nephew in Afghanistan, his son is considering joining the navy and that he has two other nephews who have served in the armed forces.

 

[human5892]

I have seen it, here's just one example.

How is that an example? Michael Moore was asking for Congressmen to send their children to Iraq, not their nephews to Afghanistan.

I will concede that not including that response in the film was a bit misleading on Moore's part, but it's still hardly blatant fact manipulation; the point Moore was trying to make still stands.

 

[xsarien]

I have seen it, here's just one example.

edit:
Hmm when I tried to visit that site again it tried to make me login, so I'll summarize. In the movie there is a scene where Moore is harassing congressmen to send their sons to war if they support it. One of the congressmen gives Moore a dirty look and the shot is cut there. What Moore cut is the congressman replying that he has a nephew in Afghanistan, his son is considering joining the navy and that he has two other nephews who have served in the armed forces.

Then you weren't paying attention.

In it, Moore is shown asking Kennedy to help him get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the military and fight in Iraq.

Iraq, not Afghanistan, certainly not nephews, but actual sons and daughters of Congressmen.

 

[Fjord]

Oh I'm sorry, Moore was being completely straight foward there. How could I have been so blind, our government is a bunch of Saudi puppets. BRB going to make a "Bush = Hitler" shirt.

 

[human5892]

Oh I'm sorry, Moore was being completely straight foward there. How could I have been so blind, our government is a bunch of Saudi puppets. BRB going to make a "Bush = Hitler" shirt.

So you found one example in the film of misleading, it was more or less refuted, and now you've reverted to making sarcastic remarks without adding anything else meaningful to the discussion. Is that about accurate? Because if so, +1 Michael Moore.

As I said a few posts up: For those who have [seen the movie] and are still unconvinced, please, point me to some credible sources where the main points of the film are refuted. Because so far, nobody's done anything close to that.

 

[xsarien]

Oh I'm sorry, Moore was being completely straight foward there. How could I have been so blind, our government is a bunch of Saudi puppets. BRB going to make a "Bush = Hitler" shirt.

Actually, he was. He stated several times through the segment that he was there to recruit sons and daughters of congressmen to serve in Iraq.

Not nephews and 2nd cousins to get shipped off to Afghanistan.

 

[dark10x]

And why should we be FOR Moore? Is he the only person telling the truth? I don't think so. I hate the guy -- I think he's an asshole who has been conclusively shown to bend the facts to stir up controversy and make his "point". After BFC, he himself even said that he is an entertainer, and that is his motivation. For me, the guy has no credibility. And even though I happen to agree that Bush is a bad president, I'm not going to change my opinion of Moore and I'm CERTAINLY not going to support him by paying to see his movies.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

I absolutely HATE the man. I couldn't care less about his actual viewpoint, I simply find him to be an absolutely nasty individual.

I would like to see this thread locked simply because I feel that any talk AT ALL regarding Moore or his films is simly giving him what he wants...and he doesn't deserve it.

I would also like to make it clear that I don't necessarily disagree with his points or claim them to be inaccurate.

 

[Fjord]

Listen the fact is they had sons and nephews in the armed forces, they would be aware of this when they declared war on Iraq. "Afghanistan doesn't count" is bullshit.

I pointed out one of many misleading parts of the movie and then gave up on the conversation because you two are obviously incredibly anti bush if you think Michael Moore was being fair in that segment.

Here's a decent site for facts on the movie:
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

The facts aren't the problem with Moore though, he's just incredibly misleading. Ok take the Saudi jets, he tries as hard as he can to make it sound like they were the only ones allowed to fly by hoping that people won't realize "They were allowed to fly after September 13th" means nothing. Not that there is even a problem with getting the Saudis out after Sept 11. They are not "Osama's Family", they are the royalty of a powerful government with strong economic ties to the US that could easily become the target of reprisals from angry Americans, creating an international incident.

 

[xsarien]

Listen the fact is they had sons and nephews in the armed forces, they would be aware of this when they declared war on Iraq. "Afghanistan doesn't count" is bullshit.

I pointed out one of many misleading parts of the movie

No, it'd be misleading if Moore didn't spell out his intentions in the piece. Several times. Into the microphone, and to his subjects.

 

[Fjord]

Using only the half of the conversation that supports his viewpoint isn't misleading? Forget whatever the hell they were even talking about.

 

[xsarien]

Using only the half of the conversation that supports his viewpoint isn't misleading? Forget whatever the hell they were even talking about.

His answer wasn't relevant to the question asked. "I have a nephew in Afghanistan," in reply to "Will you send your own children over to Iraq?" is like saying "I like cookies, especially chooclate chip," when asked if you'd like a slice of apple pie.

 

[6.8]

If the answer wasn't relevent, why use it in the first place?

 

[karasu]

because it was funny.

 

[xsarien]

Here's the thing, xsarien. Moore's intent was to show that these senators/representatives were hypocrites. They voted to send other peoples children to war, but wouldn't send their own. It's true that he asked about Iraq, but a response involving Afghanistan wouldn't be irrelevant to Moore's point. We were at war in Afghanistan too, remember? If the guy said that he had a nephew in Afghanistan, and his son was considering joining the navy, that's quite relevant.

And it wasn't his son in Afghanistan, and "considering joining the Navy" is both a nebulous answer, and on top of that, could also easily be bullshit.

 

[6.8]

Does he have a son?

 

[karasu]

This wasn't about Afghanistan. It's about Iraq, and that's a completely different animal.

 

[fart]

i'd hesitate to say that it's that simple, since no one has seen the footage. still, unless it's a huge load of bullshit, he should probably have left the footage in. anyways, moore is the one with the tape, so it's in his court now.

 

[karasu]

so he cut one guy out of how many asked? I don't see the big deal.

 

[Azih]

Moore didn't cut what the guy said because it was irrelevant.

The counter is that that portion of the movie was purely for comedy effect and the reaction from the dude before he got the answer was hillarious (it's described as a 'double take').

 

[fart]

you have to admit, it's pretty funny.

 

[FightyF]

Fjord's arguement is the biggest strike against this documentary thus far...and it's pretty weak.

Page 4...still no answer to Socreges' original question.

 

[Spectral Glider]

I guess soldiers are now able to decide for themselves (or parhaps their parents can) where they get shipped to fight.

Let me ask you something...What did YOU do when you heard about the attacks? I know that I ran to a TV set.

Oh, so if Bush ran to the nearest TV you would have felt better? Why didn't you rush to your family, your relatives or friends? Or at least try to call them on the phone.....where was your immediate "man the battlestations"-like response? Maybe you should have run to the store for supllies, I mean your nation was under attack! Or, in seven minutes, the least you could have done was make out your last will and testament. Instead, you parked yourself in front of a TV, oh, the shame of it all!!!! Thank god you weren't the president!

It just kind of amuses me that some people are so riled up over appearances for 7 minutes. Perhaps we all should demand that Arnold be able to run for pres, that way he could have peered into the camera and snapped off a fancy one-liner, lit up a cigar and then off to kick some ass. We'll leave the little part out that there was nobody's ass to kick except our own.

I just don't see how him just sitting there could fail to bother you, unless you're just saying it doesn't because you support Bush no matter what.

I'm not a registered republican, nor did I vote for Bush and I will not vote for him in the upcoming election. But his sitting in a classroom for those 7 minutes DOESN'T BOTHER ME IN THE LEAST.

 

[fart]

Does he have a son?

yah he does

 

[fart]

I guess soldiers are now able to decide for themselves (or parhaps their parents can) where they get shipped to fight.



Oh, so if Bush ran to the nearest TV you would have felt better? Why didn't you rush to your family, your relatives or friends? Or at least try to call them on the phone.....where was your immediate "man the battlestations"-like response? Maybe you should have run to the store for supllies, I mean your nation was under attack! Or, in seven minutes, the least you could have done was make out your last will and testament. Instead, you parked yourself in front of a TV, oh, the shame of it all!!!! Thank god you weren't the president!

It just kind of amuses me that some people are so riled up over appearances for 7 minutes. Perhaps we all should demand that Arnold be able to run for pres, that way he could have peered into the camera and snapped off a fancy one-liner, lit up a cigar and then off to kick some ass. We'll leave the little part out that there was nobody's ass to kick except our own.



I'm not a registered republican, nor did I vote for Bush and I will not vote for him in the upcoming election. But his sitting in a classroom for those 7 minutes DOESN'T BOTHER ME IN THE LEAST.

i believe the standing orders at the time were for everyone in the US to stay at home (duck and cover lololol) to avoid creating new mass targets. that is, everyone except for specific emergency personnel like, i don't know, the president of the country?

if it doesn't bother you you're certainly entitled to that feeling, but it's absolutely ridiculous for you to completely ignore other people's wholly rational responses to the situation.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

Why was Bath's name covered up?

?????????/

 

[Spectral Glider]

but it's absolutely ridiculous for you to completely ignore other people's wholly rational responses to the situation.

If I ignored them, I don't think I would have felt the urge to respond at all. And I think there could be a good debate about what would be considered rational in a situation such as 9/11. So many things to be angry at the man about and here this 7 minute issue seems to generate the biggest response, at least in regards to this thread. You might not think it's strange, but I sure do. If Bush stayed for another 20 or 30 minutes or got up, left and had the secret service escort him to the nearest mall for an Orange Julius....then yeah, I'd be upset.

 

[fart]

you're right. i meant to refer to their reasoning w/rt to what you were ignoring.

if you need to have it broken down, we seem to be saying that a rational (and competent) response on bush's part would have been to attempt to apprise himself of the situation as a means of determining a course of action. we also claim that the children's book went nowhere near accomplishing such a goal. this seems reasonable to me. i don't quite understand why it's not reasonable to you.

 

[StoOgE]

Here is my point on the president sitting still for 7 minutes. In hindsight, no he could not have done anything. However, we did not know that there were only going to be 4 planes taken at that point. For all we knew there were more planes, more attacks coming. We had no idea what was happening until later that day, and even then certain aspects were unclear.. for all he knew we were still under attack, and those 7 mintutes COULD have made a difference. His making a decision quicker could have been the difference between a plane hitting another target and that plane being taken down by the airforce. Just because those 7 minutes did not mean the difference between stopping the attacks or not does not excuse his dear in headlights response.

I just got back from seeing this movie, and is one of the best films I have ever seen. When the mother of the dead soldier is on the whitehouse lawn crying.. that was might be the most emotional thing I have ever seen on film.

 

[Spectral Glider]

you're right. i meant to refer to their reasoning w/rt to what you were ignoring.

if you need to have it broken down, we seem to be saying that a rational (and competent) response on bush's part would have been to attempt to apprise himself of the situation as a means of determining a course of action. we also claim that the children's book went nowhere near accomplishing such a goal. this seems reasonable to me. i don't quite understand why it's not reasonable to you.

I'm not saying I'd have a problem with him getting up sooner or that it would be unreasonable....I'm saying I don't have much of a problem with him doing it 7 minutes later. As I say, there are many areas with which to attack the man and bring him down, this one just seems like grasping to me.

 

[fart]

the other reason we're discussing it is that it's the first charge pressed against moore in the thread (if you go back to the beginning) malakhov claimed that moore was lying about the 7 minutes, and then that it didn't matter.

it's good that many of us can agree that there are forums full of charges against the bush administration because i believe evidence shows that to be the truth, but this is only one thread and the topic is such that we try to address claims of lies or inaccuracy one by one. this has been a particularly sticky point (first whether it happened, and then whether it was characteristic of weakness or not) so a large portion of the thread is dedicated to it. the reason is probably as cyan stated. what's at issue is bush's character and as thinking, judging people we tend to focus on more intimate characteristics of people rather than their brute actions (although brute actions are what most concretely incriminate bush and his presidency).

 

[ghostface]

Ok, so far, the only criticism that anti-Moore folks have been able to conjure up are as follows:

1. "Bush could not have done anything to stop the attacks, so its ok that he just sat there. And it was only for a few minutes anyway."

Going by that logic, Bush could very have sat there for an hour, maybe two, and it still would not have made a difference. Would that have been normal for a President to do? In any case, most people are defending Bush because in retrospect, it was too late to do anything to stop the attacks. While this is true, all Bush was told was that his country was under attack. *ANY* one of us, after hearing this news, would have paniqed/called someone/hid under a desk/turn on the news/etc, but would not have just fucking SAT THERE.

2. "Moore cut teh Congressman before he finished his sentence. That bastard."

Yes Moore cut the guy short, and maybe he shouldn't have. But he cut him for comedic purposes (and it got quite a laugh from the audience both times I went to see the movie, so it worked pretty well), as his point was already made: Only one child of a Congressman was sent to Iraq, and that still remains true. Any other arguments from Moore detractors stem from assumptions, as Moore never spoke of Afghanistan, or of nephews or nieces.

And no one (i.e, anti-Moore folk) has given any credit to Moore for actually mentioning the one congressman that has a son in Iraq.

3. "Moore says the FBI never interviewed the Saudis. But they did. HE LIED. BURN HIM"

Simply not true. Moore's point is that the Saudis, who included the family members of the guy who the U.S said was behind the attacks, were not questioned enough.
Here's a quote from the movie:

Moore: So a little interview, check the passport, what else?

So exactly where is Moore lying?

4. "The part about Gore being the real winner of the election is bullshit. moore only mentions recounts that are favorable to Gore"

The fact that a few of the recounts (or ways of recounting) actually show that your actual President may be illegitimate doesn't ring any bells for anyone? Yes, lets bash Moore for not mentioning all ballot recounts, but lets not even bring up issues of conflcit of interest when the candidate for Presidency in 2000 had a family and close friends in very importants aspects of the election.

Yes, let's use these "counter-points" to dismiss F911's many good, fact-supported points and the movie as a whole, and lets dismiss Moore's personal opinion because we do not agree with them.

And I invite the people who make these "counter-points" to visit this link, which was already posted in this thread. I'd like to see different arguments brought forth.
And Fjord, why do I still (even after you said you did) have the feeling that you haven't seen the movie yet?

 

[mjq jazz bar]

?????????/

??????????????

 

[fart]

i'd like to add the evidence of illegal DISENFRANCHISEMENT WHICH IS A HUGE FUCKING DEAL HELLO to item 4

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/main.htm




??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????//////questionquestionquestion

 

[Spectral Glider]

Why do people care so much about this issue? I'll tell you why I care: it's a microcosm of his whole presidency. He doesn't know what the hell's going on, he doesn't know what to do when bad things happen, and he depends on others to make his decisions for him (not to mention he looks really, really dumb on camera).

If I had been in his place, I probably would have frozen there too. But I'm not the president. If that's how Bush reacts in a crisis, he should never have become president.

Not to sound too glib, but honestly, we kinda knew that about him long before 9/11. I dunno, maybe that's why this 7 minute issue doesn't bother me. Maybe it's a, "I'm not surprised" thing.

Still, I really don't think a great many other presidents, even the most intelligent ones, would be able to do much more than ask, "What do we know and what can we do?" Which, I know, prolly just brings us back to the "do something for appearances sake" argument.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

Who else is reading Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man?