Posted on 07/01/2004 9:27:32 AM PDT by pookie18
And a lack of basic FR courtesy, as well. Sad.
I would like to see the media investigate the Lila Lipscomb story. It sounds too good to be true, that Moore just happened to get this woman on tape before her son was killed in Iraq. And especially that the son's last letter just happened to be against the war. It's very fishy sounding, IMHO.
Of those monumental flops, the only one that I sat through and enjoyed (and still do) is The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
(Canadian Bacon was brutally bad.)
Michael Moore doesn't make movies or documentaries...he makes cartoons. The left is embracing a cartoon. I'll stand behind the validity of anyone who re-airs 48 hours (uncut)of any news channel from 9/11/01 to 9/13/01. Any news channel. This would be devastating to Moore AND the DNC and they know it!
BTTT
Agreed, it was wonderful (in both senses of the word) -- as are all of Terry Gilliam's films.
Yeah, sometimes a movie's a flop for other reasons. I've heard "Baron" was pretty good. Some people appear to have been amused by "Bacon", even some who are not Moore-worshippers. But when something is a total flop, there's something really wrong with it. There are lots of stories of movies that didn't do well when first released but aged well. Classics like Gone with the Wind, the Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane and cult films do well after some time.
Nope, try again. But why don't you share with us *your* impression of what message you think Moore was trying to impart when he started the ads for his movie with the Bush golfing clip? Why include it so prominently? Be specific.
You may not be able to see that without being misled, but most of us understand that not everything relating to the war on terror is directly tied to 9-11.
You make me dizzy when you spin like that.
Strange how similar your argument is to the liberal argument claiming that the Adminstration misled the public into thinking Iraq was behind 9-11.
Strange how you draw conclusions about my argument without actually understanding my argument. And in order for it to actually be "similar", I'd have to be trying to conflate an honest *mistake* by Moore into an intentional lie, which is what the liberals are doing. So is it your contention that Moore made a *mistake* when he used that clip? Or are you just flinging random crap at the wall to see what might stick?
What was Moore trying to do by putting the clip in his ads? The obvious answer is to put a funny clip in his ad. The clip was funny when it was first shown years ago, long before this movie. The President has his stern face on and is making serious comment about terrorism - the global war on terror - then segues into "Now watch this drive."
The whole "misleading" argument is premised on the idea that Moore tries to make people think that the President is talking about some specific "terrorist killers" that are different from the ones he is really talking about. And I just don't see anything in either Moore's ads or the President's comment that shows any intent to make it that restrictive.
There are so many valid criticisms of Moore that it is a wonder people will grab so tight to crap like this.
It's very misleading! The president may say he doesn't "draw distinctions" between terrorists, but, of course, he does draw distinctions and in fact he's paid to draw distinctions between terror acts against us and similar acts directed against non-Americans. I'd be mighty angry with him if he didn't understand the distinctions.
Are you suggesting that Israelis should rate the same attention from the President as Americans get? Don't they have their own gov't for that function?
Moore deliberately left the impression that Bush was making a statement about activity in Iraq or Afghanistan against American soldiers, or terror activity somewhere else in the world against American citizens. The viewer would never have concluded that Bush was talking about a Palestinian attack in Israel.
Ah, a Moore apologist, perhaps? You won't be able to refute this refutation. It is a testament to the President that he answers questions from reporters even when he is out playing golf, which is something most people don't have to do, or won't do. This president deserves some time away from the job, and if he likes to spend it golfing, he should be able to. If I were him, I would have told the reporter to screw off.
Now I have seen pictures of Mr. Clinton playing golf, when he was president, but they always showed him walking by. I guess the events of the day in his time weren't important enough to interrupt the president's golf game.
So a reporter walks up to the president on his day off, interrupts his leisure activities, and answers a question about a specific event. This is the point at which the distinction is being made between one group of terrorists and the others. This is where it is misleading. And media people are good at this. It is the modern day equivalent of a doctored photograph. Take a snippet and another snippet and play them back to back, and then imply an association between them, so as to foster an opinion.
I hope you've seen the movie and can enlighten us on what he did to leave that impression - because I can't imagine how one could draw that impression from a couple of seconds in the trailer.
My point is the same - in that clip, the President wasn't drawing the distinctions we all know he makes in private. He was talking about the global war on terror. He wasn't talking about Sharon "showing restraint" or the Palis gaining control over the killers. He was talking about ALL NATIONS doing whatever they can to stop terrorists. That is plainly what he was talking about.
I'm still waiting for all those who will claim that THEY see through this artifice but that Moore will be fooling others to follow-up with their rant about Hollywood elitism.
He was asked a specific question, he gave a general answer. Too bad you were misled. It looked obvious to me, long before Moore ever used that clip.
He was playing golf. It was his day off. He was interrupted. He was being polite. He is a nice guy. Not like Moore.
I know this may be difficult, but the fact that he was playing golf is what makes the clip usable. That is not the issue.
The issue is that many here claim that Moore "lied" because he used a clip of comments that were not specifically directed to the 9-11 attacks - and that he somehow implied that they were. I agree with the first part of that, but the only thing anyone has offered for the second is that "9-11" is in the title of the movie. You got anything more than that?
I'm sure you have had a time in your life when you were playing golf and some jerk rushed up to you and stuck a camera in your face and asked you a question right before you were about to swing. What did you do?
Again, what is your point? The issue is not whether the President said what he said, or whether he should have said it. The issue is whether Moore was misleading by using it. Were you misled? How?
Moore's intent was to convince the viewer that fratboy Bush doesn't take terror seriously ("now watch me hit this drive"), but of course if a non-American is the victim of terror, and Bush is simply making the kind of boilerplate denunciation of terror that he is called upon to make almost daily, it is entirely understandable for him to transition quickly from the denunciation back to his golf game. Not all matters are equally grave.
This is such an obvious case of misleading I'm amazed at anyone who can't see it.
Your post contradicts itself. You claim the President made a boilerplate denunciation of terror but that it was intended to reference a single isolated act of terror. If it was intended to reference an isolated act - rather than the broader war on terror - perhaps you will answer the question everyone else on this thread has avoided - what exactly was the President asking "all nations" to do?
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.