Have Any Conservatives Actually Seen It?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Very well, you think that Moore is "just reporting the facts" when he portrays soldiers as baby killers.

He didn't portray them as baby killers.

The movie opposes the Bush regime. It doesn't oppose the troops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moore's movie is protected speech. Those who think otherwise should move to Singapore or Iran where they don't have a First Amendment.

[KEmperor]

It's not protected speech to publish something libelous and try to pass it off as truth.  Read up on libel laws.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

_Fahrenheit 9/11_ isn't libelous. What Moore does is use interviews and hard evidence to tell a factual story. If the facts are uncomfortable for Bush's crazed followers, then that's too bad.

[KEmperor]

No, what Moore does is to cut and paste seperate interviews and speeches together to make his characters say something they never said.  That is not a factual story.

[The Duke]

_Fahrenheit 9/11_ isn't libelous. What Moore does is use interviews and hard evidence to tell a factual story. If the facts are uncomfortable for Bush's crazed followers, then that's too bad.

Moore claims Bush went into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, and yet there is no pipeline under construction, nor is one planned.  This is just one of many outright lies (albeit, probably the biggest one) in the movie.  This is not a reasoned or fact based critique of the President.  It is borderline libel.

[Akno21]

No, what Moore does is to cut and paste seperate interviews and speeches together to make his characters say something they never said.  That is not a factual story.

There are more lies in a book by Ann Coulter than there are in the Michael Moore movie.

[The Duke]

Akno, since I wrote an 8 page review dissecting Moore's movie, I think it is fair to at least ask you to give one example of where Coulter has lied.

[MarkDel]

Akno, since I wrote an 8 page review dissecting Moore's movie, I think it is fair to at least ask you to give one example of where Coulter has lied.

John,

I can tell you from past experience that if you're expecting a reasoned and logical, substantive, answer from Akno you are wasting your time.

[Huckleberry Finn]

_Fahrenheit 9/11_ isn't libelous. What Moore does is use interviews and hard evidence to tell a factual story. If the facts are uncomfortable for Bush's crazed followers, then that's too bad.

Moore claims Bush went into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, and yet there is no pipeline under construction, nor is one planned.  This is just one of many outright lies (albeit, probably the biggest one) in the movie.  This is not a reasoned or fact based critique of the President.  It is borderline libel.

Moore said that! He is total idiot!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Farenheit 9/11 took in over $20 million again this week.  I saw it yesterday at the American Film Institute....the line was at least five time longer than I've ever seen for any movie at that theater, and it seems to snake around the theater for every showing (I walk past everyday).  

Of course, my city is far above the national average number of politically-engaged liberals, so this is probably not representative.

I'll give my impressions a little bit later.

[MarkDel]

Farenheit 9/11 took in over $20 million again this week.  I saw it yesterday at the American Film Institute....the line was at least five time longer than I've ever seen for any movie at that theater, and it seems to snake around the theater for every showing (I walk past everyday).  

Of course, my city is far above the national average number of politically-engaged liberals, so this is probably not representative.

I'll give my impressions a little bit later.

Nick,

Wow, that is so funny. It's the exact opposite here. No lines, not many theaters, no buzz on the street at all. It's like it doesn't exist in Tampa.

[??????????]

Farenheit 9/11 took in over $20 million again this week.  I saw it yesterday at the American Film Institute....the line was at least five time longer than I've ever seen for any movie at that theater, and it seems to snake around the theater for every showing (I walk past everyday).  

Of course, my city is far above the national average number of politically-engaged liberals, so this is probably not representative.

I'll give my impressions a little bit later.

Nick,

Wow, that is so funny. It's the exact opposite here. No lines, not many theaters, no buzz on the street at all. It's like it doesn't exist in Tampa.

The rednecks around here would lynch Moore given the chance.

[MarkDel]

Farenheit 9/11 took in over $20 million again this week.  I saw it yesterday at the American Film Institute....the line was at least five time longer than I've ever seen for any movie at that theater, and it seems to snake around the theater for every showing (I walk past everyday).  

Of course, my city is far above the national average number of politically-engaged liberals, so this is probably not representative.

I'll give my impressions a little bit later.

Nick,

Wow, that is so funny. It's the exact opposite here. No lines, not many theaters, no buzz on the street at all. It's like it doesn't exist in Tampa.

The rednecks around here would lynch Moore given the chance.

States,

I really doubt there are any trees strong enough to lynch Moore in this neck of the woods. He's gotta go about 400 pounds, so you would need an extra strong rope and a really solid tree to get the job done. But I'm sure some of the good old boys in Polk could figure something out...LOL

[The Duke]

Here in San Diego, te theaters are crowded, but it's the same people who saw it the week it came out and they're seeing it again.  The rest are seeing it because of the hype, not because they agree with it.  It seems to be hardening existing ideas instead of changing them.

[opebo]

I saw it yesterday.. not a bad film.  Entertaining, but a bit silly, like most conspiracy theory movies.  I thought Bush comes off as endearing more than despicable.  

[Akno21]

Akno, since I wrote an 8 page review dissecting Moore's movie, I think it is fair to at least ask you to give one example of where Coulter has lied.

Yes, it is fair.
Coulter lied in her book Slander on page 68. She says that Newsweek Washington bureau chief Evan Thomas "is the son of Norman Thomas, a four-time socialist candidate for President." Actually, Thomas was the socialist candidate SIX times. But the important thing is that Evan Thomas's father was Evan Thomas Sr.

Second, she says that the New York Times did not report the death of Dale Earnhardt until two days after he died. (He died on Feb 18, 2001) However, on Feb. 19, 2001 there was a front-page article in the Times on the subject, written by Robert Lypsite. (Look it up!)

Her Connecticut driver's liscense says she was born in 1961. Her DC one says in 1963. She lied in one place or the other.

Moore may have said some bad things during his movie about Bush, but here are some quotes by Coulter

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" In a column after 9/11.

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not get to the New York Times building" Great joke. Dishonor to the many people who died in OK City.

The first page of Slander says "Instead of actual debate in about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a politcal discourse that resembles pro wrestling."

Yet she says:
"Liberals hate society"
"Liberals actually hate working class people"
"Liberals hate all religions except Islam"
"Liberals are crazy"
Adlai Stevenson was "a boob"
New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is "truly stupid"
Maine Senator Susan Collins is a "half-wit"

Yup, now that is true debating about issues.

[The Duke]

Actually, the full quote is "Liberals hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11)."  You see, liberals hated muslims before hating muslims put them on the same side as America.

Let's put aside the driver's license thing aside (when you grow up and start to like girls , too, you'll learn that a woman is never lying about her age).

You claim that it is a lie that Ann Coulter said Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas.  And you are right that she is wrong.  He is actuall the grandson of Norman Thomas.  Here is a line from Evan Thomas' official bio page from msnbc.com, "Thomas joined Newsweek from Time magazine, where he had been a correspondent, writer, and editor for nine years. The father of two daughters, Thomas is married to Oscie Thomas, a lawyer with AT&T. He grew up in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, the son of publisher Evan Thomas II, and the grandson of Socialist leader Norman Thomas."  Is this a lie by Coulter, or a typographical error?  I shall let the reader decide.

I can neither confirm nor deny the issue about the death of Dale Earnhardt, because NYT makes people pay to read their online paper (the WaPo, a superior paper, is free by the way).

Even so, I hardly think that being mistaken about whether the NYT reported on Dale Earhardt's death or whether Evan Thomas is the son or the grandson of Norman Thomas rises to the level of lying about America's reason for war in Afghanistan.

[Nym90]

Nym,

I don't think it is unfair or ad hominem to point out that Michael Moore has to resort to lies to support his conclusions, nor do I think it is needless to criticize his movie.  Its a bad movie purely from a cinematic perspective.  His imagery undercuts his conclusions rather than support them, he bounces from one non- sequitor and conspiracy theory to the next, with a near total lack of transitional scenes, and his conclusions are unserious and self contradictory.

The only portion of your criticism I was criticizing as faulty logic was your assertions that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, therefore it makes his criticism less valid. That's an ad hominem attack, because you are saying Moore is bad, therefore we shouldn't listen to him. You admitted yourself that Bush made, in your view, the wrong choice by talking to the kids rather than actually doing anything about the planes that had been hijacked for 7 minutes. Yet you say Moore would criticize him no matter what. That may be true that Moore would, but how does that make Bush's decision any better or more correct?

I guess my point is that your review is clearly biased, too. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but obviously your disdain for Moore clouded your assessment of your judgement. Hopefully if Supersoulty is going to publish your review he will at least include a rebuttal of a review from a Democrat, if he cares about fair and balanced journalism.

I know Moore is biased, and the movie is not meant to be objective, but just have enough sense to realize that your assessment of it isn't necessarily any more accurate. You made faulty logical arguments as well in other areas, such as saying that there just must be a criticism of Bush included in the scene where they are fixing their hair, when again, none was explicitly stated, thus you shouldn't assume that, but you do based on your assessment of Moore's character. Not only that, but you go on to speculate as to what the statement Moore is trying to make is (without proof that there even is a particular statement) and of course assume the worst about Moore in that, as well.

Nym90,

Here's the no bullsh*t allowed translation of your comments to John Ford in this thread concerning his review of Michael Moore's movie.

"Boy, that's an awful lot of hard facts you are asking me to digest, and you know how we Democrats feel that "truth is a relative concept" so you really aren't playing fair here. Since you seem to make a series of really good criticisms of Moore, and seem to point out a lot of facts he gets wrong (though I personally would never take the time to look them up and confirm that either you or Moore are right), my only logical way of raining on your parade is to point out the very, very few instances where you editorialize more than you should. YEAH, that'll work for me quite nicely. Instead of focusing on the substance of your argument, which is virtually impossible to defeat on a factual basis, I'll attack your agruments on the flanks by pointing out the very few instances where you show your Republican bias. And as we all know, Democrats are capable of being objective, but Republicans aren't, that's why it's OK that 85% of all people involved in the media and academia are liberal...because WE are capable of being unbiased, unlike you narrow minded, simpleton Republicans who are blinded by your hatred of decent folks like Michael Moore. Yeah, that works. I'll point out that you yourself are every bit as biased as Moore and your motives are just as bad...even if you did stick to the facts for 95% of your argument....oh shoot, I forgot to bring up Rush Limbaugh in my last post to you...I guess I'll hold that back as my secret weapon...when we liberals are about to lose an argument, it's always good to blurt out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News...that immediately puts you guys on the defensive regardless of how meritorious your argument might be."

Nym90, you have made some really strong arguments since I've been on this website, but your attempt to discredit John Ford's review of this movie was definitely not one of your better moments. Why not try this an exercise...go re-read his review and research whether or not his factual observations and criticisms of Moore are correct or not? It's easily done...

MarkDel-

You love to put words in people's mouth, don't you? Why do you assume so much about me when I meant NONE of that at all?

I meant EXACTLY what I said, word for word. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the specific validity of any of Ford's comments.

However, I was merely pointing out that he used a fallacy of standard logic, by attacking the messenger ad hominem. He said that Moore will criticize Bush no matter what...ok, that may be true. But how does that make his specific criticism any less factually correct? Ford himself even ADMITTED that he felt Bush made the wrong decision, but then he just had to insert that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, the clear implication being that that makes his criticism completely invalid, even if it may be correct.

I just don't get you sometimes Mark...you seem like a highly intelligent person, but why do you always assume things about people from just a few statements? That's a big difference between us. I assume NOTHING about a person other than what they have specifically said or done. You, on the other hand, seem to often take a few innocent comments and then determine what stereotyped category the person falls into, and then proceed to paint a full picture of that person based on that. At least, that's what I've seen from your posts.

And no, I know that Democrats are just as non-objective and partisan as Republicans. But I think both sides are equally bad in that regard. Please don't assume anything about my views unless you know that. You claimed that you had the non-bullsh**t translation of what I said, but I already had the non-bullsh**t translation posted, in the original itself. I'm straightforward and blunt about my views and comments; I mean exactly what I say, no more, no less.

I wasn't attempting to discredit the entire review. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the other 95% of the review. It might be dead right, or dead wrong, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know. I was merely pointing out ONE error in logic in his reasoning.

[The Duke]

Nym,

First of all, I didn't say Bush was wrong, I said I'd have done it differently in the Florida school.

And I didn't attack Moore ad hominem.  If I wanted to attack him that way, I'd say Moore is fat and doesn't bathe, that he has an annoying voice, that he isn't qualified to speak about politics because his training is in film not public policy.  Saying that Moore will attack Bush no matter what he does isn't ad hominem, its true.

Moore attacks Bush for being too weak on terrorism and for being too tough on terrorism.  He attacks him for taking to long to invade Afghanistan and the for invading Afghanistan at all.  He attacks Bush for being a tool of the Saudis, but when Bush does something the Saudis don't want, he attacks Bush for that instead.

[Nym90]

Ford--

For at least the 4th or 5th time, I agree. Moore isn't objective. If that was the only reason for making that statement, that you wanted to make it clear that Moore isn't objective, that's fine. It just seemed as though, since you specifically mentioned it a couple times after agreeing that he might actually have a point, it made it seem as though you were attemping to discredit the particular attack in question. I apologize if I read it wrong, but it still is an ad hominem attack to say that Moore is wrong automatically simply because he'll attack Bush no matter what. It doesn't have to be one or the other; it can be a factual statement, but still a logical fallacy.

Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't mean that the statement itself is false. It simply means that it isn't a logically compelling reason to disregard the argument in question.

[The Duke]

I didn't say he was wrong because he would criticize Bush no matter what (although he is wrong about this stuff).  I said it made is argument unserious.

[Akno21]

Actually, the full quote is "Liberals hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11)."  You see, liberals hated muslims before hating muslims put them on the same side as America.

Let's put aside the driver's license thing aside (when you grow up and start to like girls , too, you'll learn that a woman is never lying about her age).

You claim that it is a lie that Ann Coulter said Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas.  And you are right that she is wrong.  He is actuall the grandson of Norman Thomas.  Here is a line from Evan Thomas' official bio page from msnbc.com, "Thomas joined Newsweek from Time magazine, where he had been a correspondent, writer, and editor for nine years. The father of two daughters, Thomas is married to Oscie Thomas, a lawyer with AT&T. He grew up in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, the son of publisher Evan Thomas II, and the grandson of Socialist leader Norman Thomas."  Is this a lie by Coulter, or a typographical error?  I shall let the reader decide.

I can neither confirm nor deny the issue about the death of Dale Earnhardt, because NYT makes people pay to read their online paper (the WaPo, a superior paper, is free by the way).

Even so, I hardly think that being mistaken about whether the NYT reported on Dale Earhardt's death or whether Evan Thomas is the son or the grandson of Norman Thomas rises to the level of lying about America's reason for war in Afghanistan.

Moore does not claim to be making an unbiased movie. If he does, he is wrong. Coulter says on her first page that politcal discourse has become insufferable, but yet she makes the mature moves of calling liberals crazy, saying they hate all religions except Islam, etc. Yes, WaPo is a superior paper. I read it every day.

The Thomas case shows a lack of research on her part, because her point would be stronger if she said Norman Thomas ran 6 times, not 4. Is her whole point there that since Evan Thomas's father/grandfather was a socialist candidate he is somehow biased?

[migrendel]

I've seen the movie. I can say that it was very intense and powerful, and only someone with a heart of stone could not be moved by the images of dead Iraqis. It does have an anti-Bush slant, but it is a film, not a news report. I will however attest to the factual support used to buttress many of the conclusions. His earlier films were much more conjectural.

The thing that bothers me about Michael Moore is that for all his influence on the left, he isn't really a political thinker. He stages publicity stunts, which probably do a good thing by embarrassing those who deserve to be embarrassed, but he doesn't posit an actual political theory to support his positions. He has written several books, but none of them in any way attempt to address political issues using a consistent philosophical approach. What ultimately saddens me about him is that he is viewed as a leading liberal spokesman, when many more serious political thinkers just simply don't have his gift for publicity.

[7,052,770]

I saw it yesterday, and here in conservative MS, the movie sold out, and when I got in just as it was starting, there were no seats except a few at the front.  Then it got a huge applause when it was over.
Anyhow, the film was entertaining, even if not totally true.  It did raise some good points, however (failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.)
It's definitely worth seeing for everyone.

[MarkDel]

Nym,

I don't think it is unfair or ad hominem to point out that Michael Moore has to resort to lies to support his conclusions, nor do I think it is needless to criticize his movie.  Its a bad movie purely from a cinematic perspective.  His imagery undercuts his conclusions rather than support them, he bounces from one non- sequitor and conspiracy theory to the next, with a near total lack of transitional scenes, and his conclusions are unserious and self contradictory.

The only portion of your criticism I was criticizing as faulty logic was your assertions that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, therefore it makes his criticism less valid. That's an ad hominem attack, because you are saying Moore is bad, therefore we shouldn't listen to him. You admitted yourself that Bush made, in your view, the wrong choice by talking to the kids rather than actually doing anything about the planes that had been hijacked for 7 minutes. Yet you say Moore would criticize him no matter what. That may be true that Moore would, but how does that make Bush's decision any better or more correct?

I guess my point is that your review is clearly biased, too. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but obviously your disdain for Moore clouded your assessment of your judgement. Hopefully if Supersoulty is going to publish your review he will at least include a rebuttal of a review from a Democrat, if he cares about fair and balanced journalism.

I know Moore is biased, and the movie is not meant to be objective, but just have enough sense to realize that your assessment of it isn't necessarily any more accurate. You made faulty logical arguments as well in other areas, such as saying that there just must be a criticism of Bush included in the scene where they are fixing their hair, when again, none was explicitly stated, thus you shouldn't assume that, but you do based on your assessment of Moore's character. Not only that, but you go on to speculate as to what the statement Moore is trying to make is (without proof that there even is a particular statement) and of course assume the worst about Moore in that, as well.

Nym90,

Here's the no bullsh*t allowed translation of your comments to John Ford in this thread concerning his review of Michael Moore's movie.

"Boy, that's an awful lot of hard facts you are asking me to digest, and you know how we Democrats feel that "truth is a relative concept" so you really aren't playing fair here. Since you seem to make a series of really good criticisms of Moore, and seem to point out a lot of facts he gets wrong (though I personally would never take the time to look them up and confirm that either you or Moore are right), my only logical way of raining on your parade is to point out the very, very few instances where you editorialize more than you should. YEAH, that'll work for me quite nicely. Instead of focusing on the substance of your argument, which is virtually impossible to defeat on a factual basis, I'll attack your agruments on the flanks by pointing out the very few instances where you show your Republican bias. And as we all know, Democrats are capable of being objective, but Republicans aren't, that's why it's OK that 85% of all people involved in the media and academia are liberal...because WE are capable of being unbiased, unlike you narrow minded, simpleton Republicans who are blinded by your hatred of decent folks like Michael Moore. Yeah, that works. I'll point out that you yourself are every bit as biased as Moore and your motives are just as bad...even if you did stick to the facts for 95% of your argument....oh shoot, I forgot to bring up Rush Limbaugh in my last post to you...I guess I'll hold that back as my secret weapon...when we liberals are about to lose an argument, it's always good to blurt out Rush Limbaugh or Fox News...that immediately puts you guys on the defensive regardless of how meritorious your argument might be."

Nym90, you have made some really strong arguments since I've been on this website, but your attempt to discredit John Ford's review of this movie was definitely not one of your better moments. Why not try this an exercise...go re-read his review and research whether or not his factual observations and criticisms of Moore are correct or not? It's easily done...

MarkDel-

You love to put words in people's mouth, don't you? Why do you assume so much about me when I meant NONE of that at all?

I meant EXACTLY what I said, word for word. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the specific validity of any of Ford's comments.

However, I was merely pointing out that he used a fallacy of standard logic, by attacking the messenger ad hominem. He said that Moore will criticize Bush no matter what...ok, that may be true. But how does that make his specific criticism any less factually correct? Ford himself even ADMITTED that he felt Bush made the wrong decision, but then he just had to insert that Moore would criticize Bush no matter what, the clear implication being that that makes his criticism completely invalid, even if it may be correct.

I just don't get you sometimes Mark...you seem like a highly intelligent person, but why do you always assume things about people from just a few statements? That's a big difference between us. I assume NOTHING about a person other than what they have specifically said or done. You, on the other hand, seem to often take a few innocent comments and then determine what stereotyped category the person falls into, and then proceed to paint a full picture of that person based on that. At least, that's what I've seen from your posts.

And no, I know that Democrats are just as non-objective and partisan as Republicans. But I think both sides are equally bad in that regard. Please don't assume anything about my views unless you know that. You claimed that you had the non-bullsh**t translation of what I said, but I already had the non-bullsh**t translation posted, in the original itself. I'm straightforward and blunt about my views and comments; I mean exactly what I say, no more, no less.

I wasn't attempting to discredit the entire review. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on the other 95% of the review. It might be dead right, or dead wrong, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know. I was merely pointing out ONE error in logic in his reasoning.

Nym90,

Sorry...I make my living out of "reading people" and I am very, very rarely wrong in my interpretation of someone's true intent. As John Ford has pointed out, he did not make a series of ad hominem attacks on Moore, he merely pointed out the bias inherent in Moore's views to further substantiate his claims that Moore was being "loose with the facts"

You would see the distinction if...well...remember a few weeks back when they had that thread about the most partisan Democrat?