|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 13, 2004 16:44:04 GMT -5
Mr. Shooter, I find everyone on this board has been refreshingly respectful of each other's opinions. You came away with a somewhat different perspective on a few things than other people did, but everyone who disagreed with you presented their disagreements both civilly and intelligently with their own viewpoints and without berating you for yours. We're all entitled to our opinions. This is a fine example of constructive debate and dialogue. Roland, we've had a long history here of spirited yet civil debate. And, as the lone conservative Yankee fan on a board populated with non-conservative non-Yankee fans, I'm often the only one making the case for the other side. But you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. The best part about this board is that, after all of the serious discussion and powerful debate has ended, we somehow manage to bring it back to center with friendly banter and good humor. That's remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 13, 2004 16:47:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 14, 2004 22:18:42 GMT -5
Roland, we've had a long history here of spirited yet civil debate. And, as the lone conservative Yankee fan on a board populated with non-conservative non-Yankee fans, I'm often the only one making the case for the other side. But you know what? I wouldn't have it any other way. The best part about this board is that, after all of the serious discussion and powerful debate has ended, we somehow manage to bring it back to center with friendly banter and good humor. That's remarkable. The fact that even you're against him Shooter says something. Haven't met a Texan of an ex military guy who likes him either, and even the bible thumping secratery at school who thinks the end times are coming soon thinks it's "time for Bush to go."
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Jul 14, 2004 22:35:22 GMT -5
Eh- we're not really into mudslingin' around here...mud wrestling- maybe. ;D Now there's a highly interesting thought. Red mudwrestling! ;D So you're proud of me? ;D See I told you I know real English! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 15, 2004 20:07:54 GMT -5
The fact that even you're against him Shooter says something. Haven't met a Texan of an ex military guy who likes him either, and even the bible thumping secratery at school who thinks the end times are coming soon thinks it's "time for Bush to go." Roughneck, I was a tepid supporter of Bush back in 2000. McCain was my guy (it saddened me that so many in my own party deep-sixed John after it became clear that he was a free thinker). After 4 years of rudderless "leadership" under Bush, and after a needless war, I'm now an angry American, party be damned.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jul 15, 2004 22:21:08 GMT -5
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Brings News to Theaters By Frazier Moore
NEW YORK (AP) - Time was, you had to go to the movies to see the news. Then came television, which brought newsreels right into your home.
Now, in this election year a half-century later, people in huge numbers have found that getting news about the war in Iraq and the politics behind it makes a trip to the multiplex well worth the bother.
Who could have forecast such a relapse? Could be, neither fans nor detractors of Michael Moore, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11'' has uprooted couch potatoes by the carload since premiering three weeks ago.
Moore, of course, knows how to make a splash. Last year a billion viewers saw him accept his "Bowling for Columbine'' best-documentary Academy Award by denouncing the war of a "fictitious president ... Shame on you, Mr. Bush!''
But then he elaborated on that theme with "Fahrenheit 9/11,'' and the public response has been greater than anyone could have imagined, setting off shock waves even beyond its record-busting $80 million box office. His is a film that is firing up the public, both pro and con - even people who haven't seen it.
And it's done something else. In the way the film frames the presidency of George W. Bush ("Was it all just a dream?'' Moore muses over images of Al Gore celebrating his short-lived win) "Fahrenheit 9/11'' has managed to upstage mainstream TV journalism.
Along with his previous documentaries, a feature-film satire and political best sellers, Moore has engaged in made-for-TV journalism - his version of it, anyway. He headed up the prankishly muckraking "Awful Truth'' on Bravo, and, before that, masterminded "TV Nation'' for NBC, which billed the 1994-95 series as an "investigative comedic magazine show.''
Stories on "TV Nation'' included a report about Avon ladies selling makeup to natives in the Amazon wilderness and an effort by Moore to broker peace in Bosnia by getting the ambassadors of Serbia and Croatia to serenade each other with the "Barney'' song.
Needless to say, "TV Nation'' wasn't hatched at NBC News (where flagship newsmagazine "Dateline NBC'' had been rocked by scandal a year earlier after rigging a fiery truck crash for its expose on fire risk in GM pickup trucks).
Odds are Moore could never fit the TV news mold. For instance, it's hard to picture him pinch-hitting for Stone Phillips as anchor of "Dateline NBC.'' Moore is somewhat of a niche personality.
Granted, a signature personal style hasn't hurt veteran swashbuckler Geraldo Rivera of Fox News Channel, or John Stossel, the libertarian pamphleteer of ABC News.
But bulky, bluejeans-clad Moore is a committed outsider with a scruffy look and a liberal agenda. Long ago he staked his claim as a reporter-provocateur well apart from the manicured journalistic mainstream.
All the more surprising, then, that the TV-news establishment, issuing free content around the clock, could be eclipsed by an independent film that costs good money to see, and, until just weeks ago, hadn't even landed a theatrical distributor.
So what does "Fahrenheit 9/11'' give its audience that newscasts thus far don't?
For starters: the video footage of recuperating U.S. soldiers, Iraqi casualties, President Bush in that classroom paralyzed for seven minutes after learning of the terrorist attacks. This is video you have likely seen nowhere else, and you emerge from the theater wondering, "Why the heck not?''
"Fahrenheit 9/11,'' which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival in May, tackles grand themes with humor, fury and naked partisanship that insists upon a response from the viewer.
And it provides a bracing alternative to the claims for objectivity that reign at TV news outlets (including, naturally, the "fair-and-balanced''-boasting Fox News Channel, whose lack of objectivity is probably its greatest asset). These Big Media news providers have served as Bush administration facilitators ever since his disputed election, declares Moore, a little guy whose message is unmistakably his own.
Moore has been in the public eye since his first theatrical film, "Roger & Me,'' became an out-of-nowhere hit in 1989.
In the meantime, the companies that owned ABC, CBS and CNN have been swallowed up by even larger conglomerates. NBC News and its cable-news outlet MSNBC, launched in 1996, remain under the wing of mammoth General Electric, while Fox News Channel was created in 1996 by global media giant News Corp.
Unshaken by this media upheaval, Moore remains a known quantity, a media force who charts his own path. Maybe that's another reason so many people have left their easy chairs to go see his new film. And why even people who don't go can't leave it alone.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 17, 2004 19:25:20 GMT -5
That's precisely why, love him or hate him, we need people like Michael Moore. It's no longer an issue of liberals vs. conservatives because when I saw the movie, there were quite a few Bush supporters in the audience. Most didn't walk out cursing it as liberal propaganda trash. While it may not have changed their minds on everything, there was enough there to give them reason to ponder what was presented. The American media has lost it's objectivity when it comes to the government and we are only hearing one side, and it's the government's spin. Even the outlets that do start out questioning motives and actions inevitably wind up backing down and render themselves toothless and impotent.
I form my own opinions after looking at all sides of an issue. I no longer depend soley on American media for my information and I read newspapers and watch TV channels from around the world to get differing viewpoints and information that goes unreported in this country. I found it appalling that at the outset of the war the Pentagon and this administration announced they weren't going to bother keeping track of Iraqi casualties, as if somehow they are less than human beings and therefore inconsequential. I also find there's something seriously wrong when a newscaster chose to read the names of each soldier killed in this war up to that point, that it set off a storm of rabid opposition. I often wonder how things would be today if we had reporters of the caliber of the Watergate era Woodward and Bernstein team unleashed on this administration.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jul 19, 2004 23:26:23 GMT -5
Bravo...well said Roland.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeyandaprayer on Jul 20, 2004 10:24:18 GMT -5
That's precisely why, love him or hate him, we need people like Michael Moore. It's no longer an issue of liberals vs. conservatives because when I saw the movie, there were quite a few Bush supporters in the audience. Most didn't walk out cursing it as liberal propaganda trash. While it may not have changed their minds on everything, there was enough there to give them reason to ponder what was presented. The American media has lost it's objectivity when it comes to the government and we are only hearing one side, and it's the government's spin. Even the outlets that do start out questioning motives and actions inevitably wind up backing down and render themselves toothless and impotent. I form my own opinions after looking at all sides of an issue. I no longer depend soley on American media for my information and I read newspapers and watch TV channels from around the world to get differing viewpoints and information that goes unreported in this country. I found it appalling that at the outset of the war the Pentagon and this administration announced they weren't going to bother keeping track of Iraqi casualties, as if somehow they are less than human beings and therefore inconsequential. I also find there's something seriously wrong when a newscaster chose to read the names of each soldier killed in this war up to that point, that it set off a storm of rabid opposition. I often wonder how things would be today if we had reporters of the caliber of the Watergate era Woodward and Bernstein team unleashed on this administration. That was actually the benefit of the movie--it didn't provide answers, it provided us with the questions--something that used to be the media's job. I left the theatre curious so I stopped by the next door Barnes and Nobel. Apparently I was not the only one as I picked up the last copy of Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud." The very execellently written Against All Enemies was also missing from the stacks. Both books had huge stacks on the tables a month earlier--both had sold out. I talked to the salesperson and she said that she could always tell when a showing of the movie let out because there was a run on the Current Events section of the store. The sad thing is, the more I read, the angrier I get. The press is and should be a 4th branch of the government. They should be there to ballance the other three branches. They were all over, and rightly so, the Chinese Diplomats in the Lincoln Bedroom scandal. Where was this coverage for the Saudi Prince in the White House Dining Room while his and Bin Ladens relatives were being secreted out of the country? I am not saying that anything sleazy actually happened, but we as the citizens who ellected this government have the right to the knowledge that helps us question it. (I honestly never thought I would miss the days when I knew way too much about my president). And I don't think it is because the press is too conservative (although bush is quite noted for his punitative treatement of questioning reporters), I think it is because they are too lazy. I got up this morning and turned on BBC America and got a 5 minute report on how the combination of flooding and warfare in Africa is culminating in one of the biggest human tragedies going on in the world right now. I get to work and log onto Yahoo and the top NEWS story is about how Brittany Speares is pissed that there are stories circulating about her drinking. NEWS STORY. Why should I give a $))(Q@&()@#&% about how much Brit drinks or what she thinks about how much she drinks--at best that is entertainment news and not good at that. The sad irony is that the movie will probably get more press than most of the events the movie talks about.
|
|
|
Post by Travelinman on Jul 20, 2004 19:45:54 GMT -5
After 4 years of rudderless "leadership" under Bush, and after a needless war, I'm now an angry American, party be damned. Personally I have been of the opinion since high school, that political parties are going to be the downfall of this country. When you have citizens that vote solely along party lines, and politicians that do the same, this does not give us the best representatives, or the best policies.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 20, 2004 23:59:23 GMT -5
That was actually the benefit of the movie--it didn't provide answers, it provided us with the questions--something that used to be the media's job. I left the theatre curious so I stopped by the next door Barnes and Nobel. Apparently I was not the only one as I picked up the last copy of Craig Unger's "House of Bush, House of Saud." The very execellently written Against All Enemies was also missing from the stacks. Both books had huge stacks on the tables a month earlier--both had sold out. I talked to the salesperson and she said that she could always tell when a showing of the movie let out because there was a run on the Current Events section of the store. The sad thing is, the more I read, the angrier I get. The press is and should be a 4th branch of the government. They should be there to ballance the other three branches. They were all over, and rightly so, the Chinese Diplomats in the Lincoln Bedroom scandal. Where was this coverage for the Saudi Prince in the White House Dining Room while his and Bin Ladens relatives were being secreted out of the country? I am not saying that anything sleazy actually happened, but we as the citizens who ellected this government have the right to the knowledge that helps us question it. (I honestly never thought I would miss the days when I knew way too much about my president). And I don't think it is because the press is too conservative (although bush is quite noted for his punitative treatement of questioning reporters), I think it is because they are too lazy. I got up this morning and turned on BBC America and got a 5 minute report on how the combination of flooding and warfare in Africa is culminating in one of the biggest human tragedies going on in the world right now. I get to work and log onto Yahoo and the top NEWS story is about how Brittany Speares is pissed that there are stories circulating about her drinking. NEWS STORY. Why should I give a $))(Q@&()@#&% about how much Brit drinks or what she thinks about how much she drinks--at best that is entertainment news and not good at that. The sad irony is that the movie will probably get more press than most of the events the movie talks about. The media should be acting in the capacity of policing. But I'm not convinced that the reporters or the majority of editors are lazy. This is the most secretive administration in this country's history. There have been many instances of newspapers and other media outlets that have made attempts at getting information, only to be thwarted by the courts. Cheney's energy policy is a prime example. So are his meetings with Enron executives before the scandal broke. And the no-bid contracts and the outing of the CIA operative. The entire scenario with sneaking the Saudi's out of this country stinks to the high heavens and I for one do believe there's some very sleazy motives behind it. At the other extreme, look at what's being uncovered regarding Murdoch and the NY Post since their major league gaffe. Employees say he's been forcing feeding what the paper could and could not print. Somehow I doubt Murdoch is the only media mogul pushing his own personal agenda.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeyandaprayer on Jul 21, 2004 8:38:44 GMT -5
The problem is that other people have found the information (Craig Unger, Molly Ivins).
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 21, 2004 10:38:55 GMT -5
Personally I have been of the opinion since high school, that political parties are going to be the downfall of this country. When you have citizens that vote solely along party lines, and politicians that do the same, this does not give us the best representatives, or the best policies. TM, I signed on to the Republican Party many moons ago because I agreed with many (if not all) tenets of the party's platform. That being said, I remain a "free agent" when it comes to voting, so I'm not adverse to the notion that the major political parties, as presently constituted, are really for the birds. The problem is, too many Americans blindly walk in lock-step with their party leaders, buying into the party line even when common sense would dictate otherwise. The amazing thing is, most Americans like to think of themselves as "rugged individualists" - that is, people who would rather eat glass than have someone tell them how to think, act, etc. Apparently, however, when it comes to politics, rugged individualism gives way to indifference and laziness - we inexplicably allow the party to make up our minds. Like you, TM, I can't abide this; I may agree with my party on many points, and I may prefer to see members of my party in positions of authority, but at the end of the day I reserve the right to vote the best PERSON into office, regardless of his or her political stripes.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 21, 2004 22:09:39 GMT -5
The problem is that other people have found the information (Craig Unger, Molly Ivins). I'm afraid I'm not following. What information do they have? Hard copy or connect the dots analyses? Are they beat or investigative reporters? To the best of my knowledge, Molly Ivins is an editorialist. A good one, but an editoralist all the same. Do they have an inside source similar to Woodward and Bernstein's informant Deep Throat who is feeding them documents and other hard evidence? If so, why haven't they brought it before Congress to start investigative and possible impeachment proceedings?
|
|
|
Post by SanAntonioMike on Jul 21, 2004 22:23:16 GMT -5
I haven't had a chance to see the movie yet largely because we rarely go to the theatres these days and almost always end up renting the DVD when it comes out (cheaper for a family) -- but since my mind was made up long before it was made, it's not urgent I go and give my money to Mr. Moore. He's obviously got plenty. I'm a long-time Texas Democrat from a family of Texas Democrats, sadly in the position of still trying to figure out how an oilman with the business savvy of a grapefruit managed to defeat Ann Richards, much less Al Gore.
|
|