Because they know from experience how powerful lies and bullshit can be, having used that to elect Dubya in the first place.
Actually if the people who are trying to prevent from seeing Moore’s film get their way, we will not all get to choose. That’s the point. They may not be violating the First Amendment, but they are definitely anti-free speech.
I think this sort of hysteria over the release of this movie, it just shows how fucking scaredy-scared the scared Republicans are scared of it and of people seeing it. It scares them! No more complicated than that.
Someone needs to tell them that the more you criticize and try to suppress a movie, the more people want to see it. I bet there are plenty of people who wouldn’t have even heard of this movie if it wasn’t for the opposition-definement directed towards it.
I really am looking forward to how our local Patriots will tirelessly nitpick, Zapruder-style, at the fringes of Fahrenheit 911, and think that the forest has been harvested because they carved their initials in one tree.
Sauce for the goose, RTA. After all, it’s not as if Democrats and liberals don’t get bent out of shape over figures on the right from time to time.
There’s similar hysteria over Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. Said hysteria can be found on these boards, using a simple search.
Does this show how “fucking scaredy-scared the scared” Democrats are? Or is it legitimate criticism of political rhetoric that goes too far, and sometimes plays loose with the facts?
Your call. I’d say it’s a bit of both, but that’s just my opinion.
There’s two answers to that.
A. If Moore is a lying hack (and I’m impressed that Brutus and Airman already saw the movie because they wouldn’t be so foolish to judge a film they haven’t seen would they?), then the proper way to combat his films is not for Moore to “shut up”, but to debunk him by offering evidence of his lies. fight an argument with an argument, not with preemptive suppression.
B. I don’t much care what side Brutus supports–what bothers me is that he evidently believes that only his side may be heard and that any dissent must be stifled. Sorry, but this is America–we don’t all march in lockstep, we don’t rever a single leader as beyond criticism, and we don’t shut down all forms of speech that the governing clique disapproves.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–Brutus’s embrace of totalitarian rule is un-American. Move to Pyongyang, you tool of dictatorship! They have everything you admire–single-party rule, absolute authority vested in a god-like leader, and draconian punishment for any who dare criticize the regime. I have a feeling Brutus would be very happy there.
But you miss the point–the Dems don’t demand that Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter should be excluded totally from being heard, including preemptive censorship for fear of something they might say.
You fight lies with truth, not with censorship and repression. Let Moore be heard, then refute him. if he’s wrong.
I suspect, however, that the Pubbies fear he might be right–the emperor might be buck naked but nobody had better report it.
Yeah, but there was a pretty big campaign to to first keep, then to get Dr. Laura’s tv show off the air a few years ago, IIRC. Not that I’m complaining, in either the case of Dr. Laura’s or Michael Moore. Private citizens have the right to boycott tv shows or movies, and ultimately it comes down to economics. I’m just saying that both sides do it.
If he can find a company willing to distribute, and theaters willing to show his drivel, more power to him.
I’m not afraid of him at all.
Bradbury himself leeched the titles for many of his works from other sources, including Shakespeare. No one has ownership over a title, unless you trademark it (like Star Trek ™). Unless Bradbury trademarked Farenheight 451 and renamed all his stories whose names come from another source, he has no legal or moral claim to the title.
Strange how you can replace the word “Moore” in the above sentence with the words “Bush Administration” and it works even better!
I’m curious as to how you know that F911 is “drivel.” have you seen it? Could you provide an example of something Moore says in the movie that isn’t true? Could you provide an example of something Moore says in any of his movies that isn’t true?
Sheesh, if this was a union picketting because it was a non-union film or PETA boycotting because animals were injured or killed in the making of it, I bet most of the opposition to the opposition of the film would be fine with it. It’s not like people are pulling anti-abortion bombing and blockading tactics.
I’ve posted this charge three times now, in Moore threads. Nobody’s answered it yet. And, for the record, I trust Fred Barnes more than Michael Moore here. Barnes doesn’t have a reputation for stretching the truth. Moore does.
So all you have to support your theory is a situation in which we have only the word of the two participants to go on, and for which there is no way of independently verifying either of their stories? Not particularly convincing.
Your argument about Moore having a reputation for stretching the truth is actually circular, because he gets that reputation from people like Fred Barnes. So, you have an unsubstantiated accusation against Moore, and yet you’re using that same accusation (and others like it) as your “evidence” that Moore has a reputation for stretching the truth. Very poor form.
Before reading this thread, I had no inkling whatsoever in watching Mr. Moore’s film. Now that I’ve finished all these erudite comments, I’ve decided that I still have no inkling whatsoever in watching Mr. Moore’s film. I’ve got better things to do with my free time.
I’ve got to chuckle to the folks who have their undies in a bundle over the movie. Don’t they have enough to do in their lives?
I also believe that attempting to censor or ban a film, or book, is one of the surest ways to ensure its success.
Well, in the interest of fair and unbiased reporting, I have to admit that I’ve no inkling whatsoever in watching Gibson’s Passion of the Christ either.
Now I’m reminded of that Dilbert cartoon with Alice and her boss:
Boss: Alice, I heard you were talking to my supervisor today. I want to know what you told her; since I report directly to her, it’s important not to send her any mixed messages about what’s happening here.
Alice: I just told her the truth.
Boss: AARRRRRRGGGH! MIXED MESSAGES!
My personal interpretation was “knee-jerk followed by a more thoughtful statement of position.” One of the great things about democracy is that it works so freaking slowly that everyone has a chance to think beyond the initial reaction before casting the final votes. This doesn’t mean one shouldn’t examine the beliefs which lead to knee-jerk reactions which end up recanted later. Every opportunity for personal growth should be taken if possible. Still I find it difficult to justify putting someone on the spot to justify knee-jerks. Pointing them out and encouraging analysis of why the knee jerked like that is probably sufficient in most cases.
Enjoy,
Steven
There is no such thing as bad publicity. THis kind of thing stirs up heated debate and interest in films. There have already been numerous calls in this thread fot Moore’s critics to go see the film so they can actually know what they are talking about…
I think Michael Moore payed the PR firm. Kinda like saying The Film the GOVERNMENT doesn’t WANT you to see!!!
I’d make an effort to stop George Lucas from ever making a movie again if I could. Surely we can all agree on that.
And you’ll still sound like a babbling fool. This entire affair is a matter of private citizens. Gov’t does not factor in, even though in true Moore fashion, you keep lying about me supporting ‘totalitarian rule’.
And ‘Pubbies’? You really have turned into some sort of 'Reeder or Rjung-junior, just mouthing off with little snippets that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sad.