-
-
michael moorer looks alot like barney rubble, coincidence ? i think not. -
Re: Michael Moore Distorting the truth
Originally posted by Budlite74
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
http://www.christianitytoday.com/mov...enheit911.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=39012
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
http://moorewatch.com/
http://www.mooreexposed.com/f911.html
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/MichaelMoore/
Anyone can do a search to find pro or anti- Moore film reviews. It's just a waste of time. Those websites that you've listed are jokes. They're hardly unbiased reviews and leave much to be desired in the way of confusing fact with opinion. Let's look at who's writing these reviews and let's just see if they are not biased:
Move Americaforward.org is run by Howard Kaloogian. Who is he might you ask? from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia :
"Howard Kaloogian is the currently listed registrant of moveamericaforward.org. This is a website that used to describe itself as non-partisan, but was traced to Russo March & Rogers, a well known GOP PR firm. They used to be the registrant, but this was changed within a day or so of the publication of that fact." Kaloogian is a former Republican California State Assemblyman (1994-2000). Now there's an unbiased opinion. Oh yeah, I should also point out that Kaloogian led the charge in trying to get Moore's movie banned from all US theaters before it was even shown. He didn't even see the movie yet he still tried his best to prevent it from being shown in theaters and led a charge in his group and the staunchest conservatives to write letters to movie theater owners demanding that they don't show Farenheit:9/11. They even went as far as to post the PRIVATE addresses of the movie theater owners who planned on showing it. Yup, Kaloogian tried remove the CHOICE of moviegoers- in effect attempting to censor a movie from public view. That's pretty democratic now, isn't it? Or maybe the word we really wanted was facist?
www.christianitytoday.com is a far-right christian coalition type organization- Bush's strongest support base. Here is an excerpt from their website in the "about us" section describing their aims:
"Obviously, the electronic media are neither all good nor all bad. It is easy to veer toward either admiration or condemnation of these media and thereby avoid having to exercise discernment. As a people saved and set apart, marked by the Holy Spirit, the church must ask what will make 21st-century Christians culturally distinct. With those marks of distinction in mind, the church must openly engage the entertainment media with confidence. Christianity Today Movies is just one means of accomplishing that end."
Well, their obviously not Bush biased...<cough, cough>...I suggest that you do some advanced research on the aims of the Christian Coalition. You would be very surprised at what you might find. They definitely have some very disturning ideals, to say the least. One of which, is the return of the Israeli homeland as a precursor to the second coming of Christ.....um, yeah...OK.
Let's take a look at www.worldnetdaily.com- oh wait....it's all about Howard Kaloogian again...well, I guess that fucks up their credibility now doesn't it?
What about Farenheit_Fact.Blogspot.com? From the site:
"Fahrenheit Fact is a joint presentation between Curtis Schweitzer, blogger of a_sdf and Grant Libby, blogger of RecoveringCynic."
Well, I looked up Curtis Schweitzer and guess what I found out? He might not exactly be unbiased. Why not, you might ask? Well this is displayed proudly on his
website:
Now imagine that....Oh, I almost forgot; Christopher Hitchens' magazine, The Nation is quoted as a source for rebuffing arguements presented by Moore :rolleyes:
Let's check out http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/. It seems that it was written by the one and only Christopher Hitchens. A British transplant to the US. Prior to the Bush Administration, he was the editor of the conservative magazine The Nation. When Bush got into office, Christopher decided he was then a staunch neoconservative (far-right) supporter. Why the sudden change? Because like his friend Dennis Miller, he realized that being a neocon supporter paid better than being a centrist or a conservative supporter. Hmmm. Again, like Miller, he tries to show us how well educated he is by using a formidible assortment of $1. words. He talks a lot but says absolutely nothing of credible statements. I read the entire review. It was tough, not because of the rhetoric, but more because his outrage overshadowed any definitive points. I think where his review is the softest is on all the direct connections to the bin Laden business interests in the US with the Bush/Cheney or the Bush/Cheney/Baath leadership ties. He seems to dodge around that with a lot of chatter and argue with an endless barrage of juxtaposed logic. I find it interesting that he was somewhat of a Bush basher when he thought that McCain was going to win the Republican nomination. Perhaps he is trying to kiss Bush ass to make up for this miscalculation.
So far we've looked at several reviews about Farenheit:9/11 and haven't yet seen one single unbiased view. In other words, every one of the reviewers had an undeniable attachment to the GOP. Suprised? Not really. Let's see what this last bastion of movie critiques on Michael Moore's film has to say. Will they be the lone unbiased opinion? Hmmm...
Mooreexposed.com is not exactly unbiased, as you may possibly have guessed. In fact, the website is dedicated to the destruction of Michael Moore. In fact, most of the website and some of its links all seem to pimp out their latest book- "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" available now 30% off at Amazon Books for a paltry $16.07. You could probably buy it with the money you received from your Bush Tax Cut!
About the Authors:
After ten years of service as an attorney with the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C., David T. Hardy returned to Tucson, Arizona, where he has handled everything from death penalty appeals to First Amendment cases. He is the creator of Mooreexposed.com. It is also of note that Mr. Hardy has aserious axe to grind with Michael Moore, as Hardy is very involved with the National Rifle Association and the second amendment right to bear arms movements. In his movie Bowling For Columbine, Moore had seriously injured the credibility of NRA President Charleton Heston, and that of his organization. Bigtime axe to grind...
The other author and website contributor is a young man by the name of Jason Clarke. Jason has been a volunteer and intern with Senator John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, as well as a college newspaper columnist, reporter, and editor, and a radio on-air personality. He has also published poetry, essasys, articles, and short stories. He created a website www.moorelies.com and is an active spokesperson for GOP causes. It isn't suprising that these two would bash the Moore movie when it appears that they have a financial interest in promoting anti-Moore rhetoric to their audience to help promote their book sales.
Well, I guess that your review sources all washed out :( The movie is only seen as a threat to those who would prefer to keep the American public from asking legitimate questions about the current leadership of our nation. Discussion is a healthy thing and for the most part, Americans are pretty smart. They can figure out a movie when they see it. It's the people who would quash open debate that are a real threat to American society. Those are the people (like Kaloogian) who think that they have some right to decide what is and isn't appropriate for the rest of America to see in a movie theater. What's their next trick going to be- burning books? I'm surprised that you didn't try to find something from William Kristol's Weekly Standard or his Project For A New American Century. :rolleyes:Comment
-
Here we go again.Comment
-
50% of the country doesn't like Bush. 50% love him. That's a big divide.
100% of the people here like bodybuilding.
Why don't we talk about something we all like?Comment
-
lol...I see nothing good coming out of this postComment
-
the lefty web sites will praise him...the righty web sites will bash him....the educated masses see him for what he is........nothing like taking partial truths and displaying/editing them for fact for your own financial gain..Comment
-
*yawn*Comment
-
Exactly, so why does anyone even have to post their reviews abouty the film regardless of political leanings. The purpose of film was meant to spark discussion about the politics and leadership of this great nation. That much has happened. If some good comes of it then so much better. We can agree to disagree, right?
OK, let's change gears here...
Who would be a better bodybuilder, Dubya (Alfred B. Newman) or John Kerry (Herman Munster)? :DComment
-
:)Originally posted by jaypee
50% of the country doesn't like Bush. 50% love him. That's a big divide.
100% of the people here like bodybuilding.
Why don't we talk about something we all like?Comment
-
Tou gotta love PI's dedication to clarity and fairness. Ok now I'll be quiet.Comment
-
The guy is an ASSHOLE and a posterboy for what you can look like by not going to the gym or watching what you eat.
Eat Big Lift Big Be BigComment
-
its alfred E. neuman..but anyway i think bush would be a better BB'er, he already jogs alot (and not like clinton to McD's) and is genrally known as health conscious...Originally posted by Primal Instinct
Exactly, so why does anyone even have to post their reviews abouty the film regardless of political leanings. The purpose of film was meant to spark discussion about the politics and leadership of this great nation. That much has happened. If some good comes of it then so much better. We can agree to disagree, right?
OK, let's change gears here...
Who would be a better bodybuilder, Dubya (Alfred B. Newman) or John Kerry (Herman Munster)? :DComment
Tweet
Comment