|
Posted on 06/22/2004 10:26:28 PM PDT by JustAmy
|
Nooooo, not silly to post here, funny! I like your story!
Work....Bleach!
; )
Nooooo, not silly to post here, funny! I like your story!
Work....Bleach!
; )
Nooooo, not silly to post here, funny! I like your story!
Work....Bleach!
; )
Sorry about the TRIPLE post, hard time posting...
Several years ago, my hubby was in the Ozarks and I had to drive to meet him. At 10 p.m. I stopped in a convenience store in a small town for coffee to help keep me awake. The store was pretty busy. I was stopped by a man in his 20's to hear how he had rented a machine to refinish his floors and was fixing up his house. He was hard to break away from. Later I told a friend that I was probably one of the few women he'd met that had all her teeth. I felt bad that I had said that, that part of the country tends toward poverty.
That is a funny story! Work...Bleach! is right!!
Don't worry about it, if it's worth saying once, it's worth saying three times. Or something like that. Bleach, it sounded funnier in my head than it looks on the screen.
Blech, bleach!
Bleach, blech!
Blech, bleach!
OESY, what do I search under to find these quotes on rightwingnews.com?
I searched under "Michael Moore quotes" and "Michael Moore best quotes", and only came up with 3 quotes.
Your NY Post link was very handy. Another co-worker at my other (p.t.) job saw the movie and said the reviews were good. So I said not the review I read, it points out the lies. He said he'd like to see it. I just printed it off, but would also like to give him the list of Moore quotes from the original source.
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP! YOU'RE AWESOME!
Try this URL: Ringtwingnews.com/quotes, or as written out: http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_06_20.PHP#002166.
The list of Michael Moore quotes starts in the 8th or 9th posting down the column, and is dated June 24, 2004.
See next post below for some additional comments.
Awesome
'9/11' OMITS A FEW FINER POINTS, By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY, (June 26, 2004?)
Fahrenheit 9/11 is not intended to be objective; director Michael Moore concedes that point. But he also has said he is "presenting the truth." A look at some of the movie's controversial points:
1. President Bush's reaction to news of the Sept. 11 attacks
Moore uses video of the president as Bush learned that a second jet had hit the World Trade Center the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The president was in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., listening to second-graders read.
Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after learning of the news from his chief of staff, Andrew Card. Moore superimposes a timer on the screen to document the passage of time, then asks what was going through the president's mind. Was he, Moore wonders, regretting spending 42% of his first eight months in office on "vacation?"
Moore bases his quip on an Aug. 6, 2001, story in the Washington Post that said by the end of that month Bush would have spent 42% of his first seven months in office "at vacation spots or en route." The calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., and a month-long "working vacation" at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the "vacation" days included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The other message Moore sends is that Bush was frozen, unable to do anything until he was told what to do by his aides. The independent 9/11 commission reported that Bush told its members he felt it was important to remain calm when not much was known about the attacks. Andrew Card told ABC's Good Morning America this week that Bush showed "a moment of shock, and he did stare off maybe for just a second."
2. The decision to let some Saudis leave the USA shortly after 9/11 and alleged connections among the Bush family, Saudi royalty and Osama bin Laden's family
Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of bin Laden's family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens — even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis.
The implication: Saudis who might have had information about the attacks — or even been involved — slipped through the president's fingers.
But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
3. An alleged connection between Bush and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan
In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.
In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.
* * *
This comes from a Freeper posting, the source of some of the best “F911” reviews:
Speaking of Europeans' love for Moore, Christopher Hitchens said last week: "They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."
* * *
I don’t have the source for this observation either:
Try as he might, Moore will not get his R-rated film before the mass of American moviegoers. Instead, it will play heavily in liberal areas - places that are already likely to go strongly for Kerry. Bush voters will be few and far between.
Here's the rub: The more left-leaning the locale, the more likely that third-party candidate Ralph Nader will be a force there, too.
Indeed, as public opinion has turned against the war, support for Kerry has increased, but so has support for Nader. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Kerry besting Bush by four points. But Nader, who strongly opposed the war all along and proposes an immediate American pullout, is gaining, too. In recent months he has surged from asterisk levels to 6 percent. Almost all of those votes come out of Kerry's hide.
* * *
This is my home grown advice – based on my experience in watching the film on Sunday:
Use some political jujitsu on the antiwar film goers: When the clapping starts as the film ends, yell "GO NADER!"
I'll have to print this off tomorrow, time to go. Thank you for all your great help!
Here's a final post:
Moore's Film Is Shocking Propaganda (Good Editorial by Ed Koch!)
Newsmax ^ | 6/29/04
Posted on 06/29/2004 4:18:56 PM EDT by areafiftyone
It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger.
I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan “My country right or wrong.”
But I do believe, when seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.
Disagreeing with America’s foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.
Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States’ foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views.
On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.
David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line.
Brooks writes: “Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: ‘You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.’
"In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: ‘It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton…We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,’ he told a crowd in Berlin. ‘You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.’
"In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, ‘Should such an ignorant people lead the world?’
"In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: ‘The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.’
"But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: ‘The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.’ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.”
Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s “Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:
“One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary 'Roger & Me.' During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of 'I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.' I was aghast and responded, 'I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.' I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience.
Moore later called President Bush a “dummy,” denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Again, I couldn’t contain myself and said, “That’s what you radicals on the left always do. You don’t debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence.”
In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire.
We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender.
And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy.
How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth.
Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib.
We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies.
A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.
I am a movie critic, so I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics.
It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully.
The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.
Newsday reported some of Moore’s misstatements as follows: “At the start of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, ‘under every scenario Gore won the election.’
“What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election . . . Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House ‘approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis’ who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.
“But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: ‘Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.’”
It is clear to me from the tenor of the film’s off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.
Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction?
Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica?
Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery?
Weren’t we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?
Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not.
I think, yes.
The movie’s diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.
OMG! I have been researching link after link of Michael Moore stuff! The one I'm currently reading is 15 pages if printed out!
Just wanted you to know where I've been today.
Thank you for your help OESY!
Hey .... I can quit worrying about you. It never occurred to me that you were hanging out in last week. ;~)
Have a nice 24th! :)
Have a good day, PAL.
See you tomorrow! Leaving for the day!
Thank you for all your help. I have done a lot of reading because of all your posts. I looked at a site called "Moore exposed", and from there went to another site that explored Moore's Narcissitic Character disorder and how he is just the tip of the iceberg of an increase in this type of disorder in our society at large, which may explain some of his success.
I gave my co-worker a copy of, I think it was, the first review you sent me. I have since printed off several other things, but have not given them to him because he hasn't read the first thing I gave him yet.
Thank you for all your help, OESY!
Dear PAL--
Ahhh, don't mention it. Oooops, too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
