I just read their appeal was denied and Moore is encouraging minors to sneak in and see it anyway.
Yep, dead babies being thrown on a pile of bodies and a beheading, just the thing for tender young eyes to see…in Moore’s view.
By the way, there’s an excellent article and exposition on Moore and his film on Slate’s website. I don’t know the coding thing so I’ll just post the URL:
Apparently he has also vowed to sue anybody that might voice an unfavourable opinion of him of his docu-soap. How could anybody say a bad word about Moore??? I’m sure he’s kind to old ladies and never kicked his mother…
No, he vowed to sue anyone who slanders or libels him or his movie. All the people claimin g his movies delebirately lied better have their facts straight. I still have to find what organisations these are theat are “linked to Hezbollah”, and aren’t Hezbollah themselves.
I am somewhat amazed that this debate has gone on for so long.
Dewey Cheatum Undhow posted a link, waaaay back on page one of this thread, that makes it pretty clear that Moore will distort the truth when it suits his purposes. I would encourage folks to read that information. It contrasts Moore’s account of police intervention at a meeting/book signing of his with the observations of a Moore fan who was at the event. Suffice it to say, Moore’s account was considerably slanted when compared to the fan’s view of the events.
Does this make him a liar? In my opinion, yes. In his account (which Moore subsequently removed from his Web site), he used inflammatory and highly charged language to describe what was apparently a fairly innocuous request by the police. He deliberately distorted the facts to support his viewpoint. To me, that’s lying.
Moore’s tactics are no different than those of the Bush administration or Rush Limbaugh. It’s interesting, though, to see how the battle lines are drawn when a liar who agrees with one’s own political ideology is being roasted.
No, you haven’t made a point, you fucking madman. Stop and read what you are reading. You are defending Moore’s decision to not go public with proof of abuse at AG, months before it was revealed to the public. You give a nod to his decision, on the stupid and incorrect belief that a journalist would sit on a breaking story for several fucking months, so they could pimp it in a movie.
Gimme a cite where a journalist sat on a hot exclusive story for months. And if Moore is sooo concerned about what was going on, why didn’t he do something about it (the number of options to him were numerous) when it would have made a difference?
Moore is a hypocrite, and you are a fucking tool for mindlessly defending him.
No. What I said was a journalist may sit on the story until they have the most appropriate and most effective outlet to achieve maximum effect and impact. Moore applied the same logic, and given that he was already making a film, wasn’t the film the obvious outlet?
He has himself stated that he was in a catch-22: go public, and be criticised for hyping his own film, or stay quiet and put himself in a potentially problematic moral position. Or do you really think that, had he gone public early, he wouldn’t have been criticised? Hell, bowlingfortruth would probably feature an interview with an Iraqi who was held prisoner and wasn’t abused therefore no abuse really took place and Moore used distorting camera angles and blah blah…
Since Moore might have been criticised, an experience he is completely unused to, he should have sat on the rather timely story for months. Right. Gotcha. Afterall, if he believed that inappropriate behavior was going on at AG, and he has a tape in his hot little hands that purports to prove that, he should wait. For months. Yep.
I reiterate: Moore is a moron, and you are tool for defending him, especially for defending him on this matter.
If you don’t mind, I’m going to suggest a different twist to your catch-22
go public, be criticised for hyping his own film, and help end the torture and sexual abuse of prisoners or stay quiet, keep the footage for his own film, and allow the torture and abuse to continue for months until his film comes out.
Don’t seem much like a catch-22 to me, if one gives a crap about ending torture, that is. Take out the whole “ending torture” bit, and it becomes quite the dilemma.
End the specific torture in question? Or try to achieve his stated aim, helping to bring down the Bush admin, and contribute to the end of all the ongoing mostly-unreported abuses and torture in Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and wherever gets invaded next?
Do you think Moore’s observation would have ended the torture? The Red Cross had made several official complaints, which should have ended the torture. What was the timing of Moore’s acquisition of the video and the first of the several official internal investigations, which also should have ended the torture? It wasn’t that Moore had personally and singularly found something out.
I am glad to see, however, conservatives coming out in favor of releasing the video tape and photographic evidence, rather than castigating those who have done so as unpatriotic and as placing our troops in harm’s way.
Here’s the funny thing about all you folks nipping away at Moore’s fat, bulbous heels…
[list=a]
[li]There’s a very good chance F9/11 will become the highest grossing documentary of all time.[/li][li]There’s a very good chance F9/11 will influence some people to vote Bush out.[/li][li]There’s a very good chance idiots bitching about it, people like Lib, Rune, Starving, Brutus, etc., are actually increasing the likehood of (a) and (b).[/li][/list]The irony is delightful. And Moore will be laughing all the way to the bank.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Photographic proof of abuse and torture gets attention, as we’ve found out. This attention could have been brought earlier and potentially brought about an earlier end to it.
The red cross can jump up and down without people worrying about it, put a few pictures in the papers and on TV, you get some action.
Damnation, what an idiot you are. Did you actually read the opinion piece the weird communist you cited linked from the Daily Times? It doesn’t say that Al-Qaeda endorsed Bush. It is an analysis of whether, in the writer’s opinion, the terrorists will be happier if Kerry wins or Bush wins. It’s not a statement of any kind from Al-Qaeda.
Obviously we’d have to make sure that that site is trustworthy, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: Spinsanity was in error when it agreed with Forbes. Still, the main issue is whether Moore is a liar and you have conspicuously failed to acknowledge all the other points made about him. I’ll name some of them so they aren’t ignored this time around:
Amusingly, Moore seems to have the same problems he accuses his critics of:
I would also like to point out that I bent over backwards to cite an impartial site; I discounted any site with even of a right-wing view. Nevertheless, it seems you are relentless in your quest to salvage Moore’s name–you point out one inaccuracy you found and disregard the rest. Pathetic.