Ray Bradbury Hompage    raybradburyboard.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Imported Forums  Hop To Forums  Resources    Michael Moore is a modern day Benedict Arnold
Page 1 2 

Moderators: philnic, philnic
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Michael Moore is a modern day Benedict Arnold
 Login/Join
 
posted
http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/moore.htm

This man HATES America. Calling us stupid, idiotic. And NO, he is absolutly not kidding, the way he said it sounded like he was mad at America. This man can be hated by both democrats and republicans. Sorry, Michael Moore is not intellegent, he is not a great man, and outragiously annoying.

Whoever supports Michael Moore is someone who supports non-patriotism, terrorism. Did you hear how he said we lost the war on terror? He is trying to weaken us, to make ourselves look bad of guilt being an American. Guilt is a horrible admition, it weakens the mind and soul. Michael Moore will continue his rampage speaking out guilt of being an American or white, to all his supporters, weakening every American of their pride and patriotism like the Roman Empire had witnessed.

We must NEVER lose our patriotism, and there is nothing to be guilty about being an American.

[This message has been edited by Acamas (edited 07-17-2004).]
 
Posts: 1 | Registered: 17 July 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hey, that's an insult to Benedict Arnold, who is said to have gotten sort of a bad rap.
 
Posts: 2694 | Location: Dayton, Washington, USA | Registered: 03 December 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
In Kenneth Robert's historical novel, "Rabble in Arms", he positions Benedict Arnold in a pretty positive light. The Arnold in this novel is a Revolutionary War hero who disagreed with how they were beginning to set up the new government -- he was sure it wouldn't work. He was acting as he did to support the establishment of a government that would make the sacrifices of the Revolutionary War worthwhile. I don't remember the details, but I do remember thoroughly enjoying the novel.
 
Posts: 1964 | Location: McKinney, Texas | Registered: 11 May 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I'm reminded of the old Pete Seeger song...

"And we were
Waist deep in the big muddy,
The big fool says to push on..."

Michael Moore is no gentleman, I'll give his critics that much. He's the rhetorical equivalent of a dirty-fighting street punk.

He's exactly what America needs at this moment in history. Telling some very unpleasant truths is a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. I could wish that a more coherent and visionary artist than Moore had stepped up to the plate, but so far nobody has. We're stuck for the time being with this modern-day equivalent of hack writer Harriet Beecher Stowe. When a society pays insufficient attention to its Orwells, Huxleys, and, indeed, Bradburys, this is what you get.

Keep those images in mind, the ones right-wing America doesn't want to see, or allow to be seen. Burning bodies. Burning homes. Legless, armless people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught in the crossfire. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. The same military-industrial complex that Eisenhower (a Republican, BTW, and surely no traitor) warned us to beware of.
All this is so a handful of big corporations with political ties to the Bush family and the house of Saud can improve their standing in the stock portfolios of the wealthy. And of course, the contracts are already in place to make sure any future profits from Iraqi oil go into the same kitty.

For this they will lie, cheat, steal, bully, harass, strong-arm, and trash every human right enshrined in the Constitution. Once again: Burning bodies. Maimed children. The birthplace of Western civilization turned into a garbage dump. Images every Arab knows by heart, images that are true and real despite whatever misleading or truthfully-leading political spin Al Jazeera or Osama bin Laden may put on them. Images that speak for themselves.

These are the images the puppetmasters of the right wing don't want you to see, or think about. To keep you from seeing them, they mounted a nearly-successful campaign to keep the film from ever being shown in America... rather closely analogous to burning books, and rather OBVIOUSLY so.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is indeed the temperature at which freedom burns. Moore didn't steal Bradbury's title. He borrowed it, put it to good use, and in paying tribute to Ray, he gave it back in better condition than he found it.
 
Posts: 14 | Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA | Registered: 30 June 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Petronius Arbiter II,

Well, there�s at least one point we can agree on: Michael Moore is no gentleman. But since he�s all the Left appears to have at the moment, I guess he�ll have to do. I�m curious; who do you think could have done the job that you believe needs doing? Anyone of the caliber you�re hoping for to save this country by dispensing some hard truths may have already looked at Moore�s arguments (That this war, and others, I�d guess, are conducted solely to line the pockets of corporations. Seems like an awful lot of work to go through that would net less revenue than if you traded straight with these countries) and found them lacking, not just his style.

I haven�t seen the movie for reasons I�ve stated elsewhere but I�m aware that the images you refer to are in the movie and, hence, are undeniable. Not having witnessed war first had, I�d say they�re images similar to those found in any war. Perhaps even in a war that you might feel was perfectly justified. So, yes, we can agree, war is an unpleasant business. Something to be avoided, if possible. But sometimes unpleasant business, such as the truth that you think needs to be brought to public light, has to be done.

But these images aren�t being kept from the American public. F-9/11 is proof enough that they aren�t. And even these images aren�t exclusive to Moore. My understanding is that much of the footage you�ve mentioned (except, of course, the footage featuring Moore himself) is raw footage from other news sources. That is, Moore is not the original source, despite his boasts that he had a reported embedded with our forces. My point is these images, as well as others, were and are available to the various media outlets. Whether they choose to run them or not is entirely up to them. (Since I believe the media is inherently hostile to Bush and his cause, I think they would clamor to present these images. Yet they haven�t. Or they have and they�ve already left the collective public�s mind. I wonder why that�s so? Oh, that�s right: the media is controlled, or bullied, by the government. That�s why so many uncomplimentary stories about Bush and his Administration still manage to make it to the public.)

Let�s not fool ourselves that anything is this country is being suppressed. It isn�t. You can find out anything you�d like. And, yes, a fringe, far-right movement made a pitiable attempt to not have the movie played in theatres but that�s hardly censorship. Tell me: what ox-goring would you object to? What�s really important to you? Now, imagine a movie that put it in the worst possible light. What would you do? Someone as enlightened as you would likely allow the movie to play to let the marketplace of ideas make up its mind. Or you might try to prevent the movie from being shown. I doubt you�d see your actions were censorship. You�d see it as exercising youre right to free speech. That�s nothing like book burning. Nothing at all. Ask someone who lived through it, say like in Nazi Germany, and I�m sure they�d tell you exactly what book burning is like.

Of course we disagree about exactly what Moore did with Bradbury�s title. I say he stole it for his own purposes, relying on our cultural memory to do much of the heavy lifting for his ideas. From what I understand is in the movie, Moore failed to make the connection to F-451. So not only did he use Bradbury�s title without his permission (Yeah, yeah, it was in Moore�s legal rights to do so), he managed to associate his dishonest movie with a great work of art. It wasn�t enough to make himself look bad; Moore may have managed to make Bradbury, who did not want to be associated with this film, to look bad as well.

Best,

Pete
 
Posts: 547 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 30 April 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The theory that the entire Iraq war was a result of a handful of corporations trying to line thier pockets is just silly to me. As pointed out, there are better ways to make a wad of money. Whether "these corporate hawks" are evil or not is perhaps debateable; that they are certainly not stupid seems less debateable. I have yet to see any proof that these corporations (a) started the war, (b) directly influenced it's direction, (c) have specifically profited from the oil revenues they supposedly control.
 
Posts: 1964 | Location: McKinney, Texas | Registered: 11 May 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Petronius, Thanks. Enlightenment is a long and tough process, and there need be bloodbaths before people realize things. Which is why, for example, Germany is so partial against war - it witnessed two wars in a span of 20 years that left its people decimated. Now they are the first to block wars. I guess america hasn't had its war yet, and wasn't punished hard enough to realize just how terrible the concept is. A part of me wants it all to go to hell - to have war and carnage of unscalled proportions just to have the remaining people live in the world in peace - but that is a defeated part which gave up on humans. Whenever I find some others who are simply aware of what is going on I fell a bit better. I'm feeling a bit better now.

Cheers, Translator


Lem Reader
 
Posts: 626 | Location: Maple, Ontario, Canada | Registered: 23 February 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Who is this "right wing" some keep referring to? Is there some secret club? It's a bit like the "vast right wing conspiracy" that was concocted a few years back. Who ARE these guys?

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 07-21-2004).]
 
Posts: 1964 | Location: McKinney, Texas | Registered: 11 May 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
The Right Wing - the right side of a V formation made by flying ducks.

Cheers, Translator


Lem Reader
 
Posts: 626 | Location: Maple, Ontario, Canada | Registered: 23 February 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
At least with geese each takes a turn at leading the v-formation. Now, those ducks, I just don't know? Maybe they are all just quacks?

[This message has been edited by patrask (edited 07-22-2004).]
 
Posts: 257 | Location: Laguna Hills, CA USA | Registered: 02 January 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Say, Patrask, wanna go duckhunting?

Cheers, Translator


Lem Reader
 
Posts: 626 | Location: Maple, Ontario, Canada | Registered: 23 February 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
"He's exactly what America needs at this moment in history. Telling some very unpleasant truths is a dirty job"

He's not telling the truth about anything... I wouldn't even dignify him by saying he's merely stretching the truth. He is taking the truth as if it were glass and attempting to bend it. Unfortunately, as most know, when you attempt to bend glass it shatters as his sense of ethics and moral reasoning must have years ago.


<A HREF="http://bradthegreat.blogspot.com/<br /><br /><br />Yo," TARGET=_blank>http://bradthegreat.blogspot.com/<br /><br /><br />Yo,</A> check out my site... It's Bitchin
 
Posts: 99 | Location: LaPorte, Indiana, United States of America | Registered: 23 July 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
What exactly is Moore lying about? Everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a matter of public record. I don't think it's a flawless movie by any stretch of the imagination but the facts he presents are things you can check out for yourself. If even half of what he said was true (and unfortunately the ratio is much higher) than the Administration in office needs to be held accountable. Don't run from the truth. It doesn't belong to Michael Moore. I don't understand how pterran can say that the media has a bias against Bush and in the same post also talk about the fact that everything Michael Moore used in his movie is can be obtained by anyone but just hasn't been. Well, if the media has a bias against Bush AND there's no suppression, then they're doing a pretty lousy job of expressing their bias. And questioning the government at any time is a cornerstone of democracy and when we stop questioning or decide that we can't question we're headed towards something quite different. When I read Acamas saying "we must never lose our patriotism" I wonder what he means. This country was built on civil disobedience and on questioning the power structure. This right is a fundamental principle of our nation. Questioning the government IS patriotism as redefined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Do you think we're winning the war on terror? We were attacked by a terrorist group that was based in Afghanistan, most of the men who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia and there is more and more evidence that Iran has a long standing relationship with al-Quaeda and yet we went to war with Iraq! We did this inspite of the fact that there was never any evidence supporting the idea that Iraq was a) supporting al-Quaeda or b) had developed into a significant threat to us at in the decade or more since we last kicked their ass. Saddam Hussein has not been responsible for one single American death on American soil. And I don't like the bastard but there are lots of people I don't like. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Sudan, several others all have horrendous human rights records. We don't invade them. Iraq was a small weak country with a big mouth fourteen years ago. And they paid for it. They were a small weak country three years ago and it's a mess now. Why are we there? A few of you say that the conspiracy of oil corporations sounds too far fetched. Well, okay then why are we there? If you say because Iraq was a threat well that's been disproven soundly by the world not just Democrats. If you say it's because "we're liberating the Iraqi people" well that's crap. We didn't invade South Africa when apartheid was in effect. We did business with them. We didnt invade China after the Tiannemen uprising (for democracy!). In fact a year later Bush Sr. granted China favord nations status so we could do business with them. Our nation has supported (through weapons or money or both) Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the Shah--the list goes on and on--and they were all bad, bad people and have been all along. When we were training Saddam's soldiers to fight and selling him weapons do you think he was a nice guy then and lost his way? It's easy to say Moore's lying but neither the Bush family, nor Halliburton, nor Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Saudi Arabia--NO ONE--has say, sued Moore for libel or slander. If you think Moore is wrong please tell me why. Nothing I saw in that movie was news to me. I've read it other places. And I mean, come on! "Whoever supports Michael Moore supports non-patriotism and terrorism"??? Are you for real? I support you too, Acamas, and your right to your opinion and your RESPONSIBILITY to find out what is really happening over there and put a stop to it if it's wrong. That's OUR responsibility. I AM a patriot and I love being an American but that doesn't mean I don't question our policies. It means that I do. Being in a democracy means that we have to. It is our responsibility as Americans. Don't take my word for it, ask Thomas Jefferson.

[This message has been edited by Beirut Wedding (edited 07-26-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Beirut Wedding (edited 07-26-2004).]
 
Posts: 35 | Location: Portland, OR, USA | Registered: 23 July 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Beirut Wedding,

Thanks for mentioning me in your post.

To clarify my point, yes, the media, generally speaking, have a bias against Bush. No big thing. I don�t understand why you have a hard time admitting to it. You�ll feel better if you do. Trust me on this.

Yet, even with this bias, the media make decisions every day about what news they�ll use and what they won�t. Much of what you and Moore purport to be hard truths has already been presented to the public. Either they�ve ignored it or they�ve already made a judgment on it and have dealt with it. Other material Moore uses is raw feed or discarded material, not deemed newsworthy. Now, fault the media if you�d like but you�d think with their bias they�d use that material to make Bush look even worse than they have. I�ll let you decide why they haven�t.

My main point is that the information Moore presents has not been suppressed by the government at all. And while the absence of lawsuits for slander and libel is hardly proof of truth, I will agree that some of what Moore presents cannot be disputed. (Yes, President Bush waited for 7 minutes before responding. Gee.) But through the use of edits and context and misleading innuendo, Moore presents his version of the truth. (By the way, his opening salvo, about most post-election recounts proved Gore won the election IS false.) It�s his movie, after all, and he can do what he wants. What I object to are his followers declaring his movie as gospel truth. It isn�t.

(I've posted links to these sites before but I'm too much of a doofus to guarantee they'll work: http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
and http://www.moorelies.com/. You'll likely find the first site to be a bit more balanced since it links to sites that are pro-Moore as well.)

As for your other arguments, Translator and I hashed this out under the thread of Ruled Paper. You might conclude Translator gave me a good spanking but check it out and decide for yourself. I guess what I'm saying is, to quote my friend, Mr. Dark, asked and answered.

Best,

Pete


[This message has been edited by pterran (edited 07-26-2004).]
 
Posts: 547 | Location: Oklahoma City, OK | Registered: 30 April 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
(Yes, President Bush waited for 7 minutes before responding. Gee.)

Ahh, that was another thing I wanted to coment on. So what if he waited 7 minutes. If the rumors are true then cheney is running the whitehouse anyway and things were already happening. BTW.. Are you ignorant enough to believe that things won't be up and happening in the whitehouse until the president makes a decison? He appoints people to help him deal with situations such as this and do you honestly believe that it would have been a good idea for him to say, "Well, I imagine that's all of it, get me up in a plane as soon as you can." And did it ever occur to you that during those 7 minutes he was comptemplating(sp?) what to do?


I have to admit that he was careful about staying away from numbers and such after he got blasted for loading Bowling For Columbine with lies. This movie was mainly a comedy and it flopped. It was not funny at all. Isn't that what he said it was supposed to be? a comedy? Well, he mainly just loaded it with unfounded conspiracy theories and lard.

[This message has been edited by John Galt (edited 07-26-2004).]


<A HREF="http://bradthegreat.blogspot.com/<br /><br /><br />Yo," TARGET=_blank>http://bradthegreat.blogspot.com/<br /><br /><br />Yo,</A> check out my site... It's Bitchin
 
Posts: 99 | Location: LaPorte, Indiana, United States of America | Registered: 23 July 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Ray Bradbury Hompage    raybradburyboard.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Imported Forums  Hop To Forums  Resources    Michael Moore is a modern day Benedict Arnold