  Later this week, I'll address some comments by certain people about me....you know who you are. Here's excerpts from an Interesting Thread at the arkansasrockers.com messageboard.
Irrelavent posts were taken out: that guy 309 Posts Posted - 06/27/2004 : 11:19:33 PM Fahrenheit 911 playing in 1/4 of the theatres that the other top 5 movies played in this weekend. Per screen this was one of the biggest opening weekends in history. NickdelaFresh 45 Posts Posted - 06/28/2004 : 2:15:43 PM Since I´ve been in Buenos Aires, which has been about 5 weeks, I´ve probably gotten more questions about Michael Moore than anything else. People here generally aren´t too fond of the US and tend to have a very high opinion of him. That wouldn´t really bother me, except that the man rarely checks his facts.
In fact, CNN ran a story yesterday on this exact subject. I hope I wasn´t the only person in this city watching that program. For the people that speak english here, I send them to this website http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html I don´t dislike Moore for his views, which I often agree with, but rather for his practice of presenting lies as truth.
I find it rather sad that someone would use fiction to make Bush look bad when it´s quite clear that using the truth is not only easier, but much more effective as well. This post just cost me 40 centavos. Here´s a story about a person that Michael Moore could learn a lot from: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/206424p-178119c.html bemuse 667 Posts Posted - 06/28/2004 : 3:15:16 PM moore has said himself that he is NOT a documentary film maker.
his movies are his opinion, and sometimes sheer propaganda. i for one am glad to have someone from a more liberal side slinging the propaganda instead of it just being fox news. i ignored the parts of the film i felt were a little too skewed but listen to the facts (yes there are several) and question what is going on. shermer IL 165 Posts Posted - 06/29/2004 : 03:33:26 AM quote:Originally posted by NickdelaFresh That wouldn´t really bother me, except that the man rarely checks his facts.
In fact, CNN ran a story yesterday on this exact subject. I hope I wasn´t the only person in this city watching that program. For the people that speak english here, I send them to this website http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html I don´t dislike Moore for his views, which I often agree with, but rather for his practice of presenting lies as truth.
I find it rather sad that someone would use fiction to make Bush look bad when it´s quite clear that using the truth is not only easier, but much more effective as well. This post just cost me 40 centavos.
Here´s a story about a person that Michael Moore could learn a lot from: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/206424p-178119c.html moore's facts are not in question. it's his analysis of them that can be debated. he uses the best fact checkers in the world including the finest from The New Yorker. Most people that have a problem with his facts are those that come up with an idea that they believe moore is trying to convey and often is never even mentioned.
In his four highly controversial books there has not been a single lawsuit. This man knows his facts. from 911 the right only wishes to discuss the bin laden's being flown out of the u.s. they seem to think that moore makes a claim that they were allowed to fly during the 2 day grounding period. i saw the movie. he never makes that claim. his point was, "why weren't they questioned? " "why fly them out after a terrorist strike, when ossama is the #1 terrorist in the world?
" the screen clearly shows 9/13 on the day of their flights. not once does moore say they were allowed to fly prior to 9/13. this movie has it's fact correct. although there is little that is new. everything outside of the censored military records is fairly easy info to obtain...and very easy to prove. that may be why moore fails in this movie. he wanted only things that were easily proved. i've seen most everything moore has done and i've been a fan since his days with Mother Jones going back almost 20 years.
However, this movie was by far his worst effort. It's unfortuante that more people will see this than all of his otherworks combined. shermer IL 165 Posts Posted - 06/29/2004 : 04:11:30 AM if you want shotty fact checking go see bill o'rielly.
the man claims to have won 2 peabodys. only he didn't. not one. Example 1: In an April 27 radio debate with a Canadian journalist, you threatened to lead a boycott of Canadian goods if Canada didn't deport two American military deserters, saying that a previous O'Reilly-led boycott of French goods cost that country billions in lost export business. You cited the Paris Business Review as your source for those losses. In fact, Media Matters found no evidence that a Paris Business Review even exists, and France's export business with the U.S. actually increased during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Example 2: In discrediting philanthropist and John Kerry supporter George Soros, you distorted his account of his feelings about his father's death, deliberately misquo ting him from a 1995 New Yorker article to make it appear that he had callous disregard for his father's life. Example 3: On May 4, in announcing his acquisition of a cable TV channel, Al Gore said: "This is not going to be a liberal network or a Democratic network or a political network in any way, shape or form.
" On "The O'Reilly Factor" that night, you said: "Al Gore has announced that he is starting up a new cable channel exclusively devoted to liberal stuff. We wish Mr. Gore good luck. And he'll need it. " that guy 309 Posts Posted - 06/29/2004 : 1:23:50 PM i disagree with your opinion on how good this film is, but you've got the right idea about the attacks on moore's conveyance about 9/13. here's straight from the horses mouth info. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Press Attacks Fahrenheit 9/11: Can Newsweek's Michael Isikoff be Believed? by Craig Unger In "Under the Hot Lights," Michael Isikoff (link) attacks Fahrenheit 9/11 by asserting that "Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. " The article then goes on to say that this assertion is false. Unfortunately for Isikoff, I make no such statement in the movie.
I do report--accurately-- that the bin Ladens and other Saudis were whisked out of the country without being subjected to a serious investigation. But that sequence ends with Michael Moore summing up my account of the bin Laden evacuation. "So a little interview, check the passport, what else? " he asks. "Nothing," I respond. It would be one thing if Isikoff had simply made an honest error; but clearly that is not the case.
When Isikoff called me for his article, I specifically told him that the evacuation process involved brief interviews of the bin Ladens which fell far short of the kind of intense criminal investigation that should have gotten underway after the murder of nearly 3,000 people. Instead, he attributes claims to me that are simply not in the movie. Isikoff also wrongly asserts that the Saudi "flights didn't begin until September 14--after airspace reopened. " In fact, as I report in House of Bush, House of Saud, the first flight took place on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place.
I even gave Isikoff the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. According to the St. Petersburg Times(see below), the September 13 flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FBI and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place. Commercial planes began flying again that day, but private aviation was still prohibited-- and three planes that violated it were forced down by American military aircraft.
I explained this to Isikoff, and wrote about it in my book. But Newsweek's response below ignores the fact that these restrictions were still operative. If the evacuation of the Saudis was entirely legitimate, as Newsweek contends, why would the Saudis bother to seek special authorization for it from a crisis-stricken White House-- an undisputed fact that has been corroborated by the Saudis and Richard Clarke?
The central undeniable fact is that in the aftermath of this great crime, material witnesses were authorized by the White House to leave the country. But Isikoff left that out--and much more. In dismissing the Bush-Saudi ties, he even omits the fact that more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and Cheney have been key figures-- all of which is itemized in my book.
tildoh 568 Posts Posted - 06/29/2004 : 8:39:17 PM quote:Originally posted by shermer IL On "The O'Reilly Factor" that night, you said: "Al Gore has announced that he is starting up a new cable channel exclusively devoted to liberal stuff.
We wish Mr. Gore good luck. And he'll need it.
" isn't that what cnn is for? that guy 309 Posts Posted - 06/30/2004 : 12:09:18 AM since cnn was sold to aol, it has become very right wing.
could be that colin powell sits on aol's board of trustees. msnbc is far more balanced than either cnn or faux news. chris mathews and the countdown are solid programs. that guy 309 Posts Posted - 06/30/2004 : 4:20:23 PM Moore: Bush Voters Saw 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Moore: Anti-Bush Documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Ranked No. 1 in Each State That Voted for President The Associated Press LOS ANGELES June 29, 2004 — Michael Moore, in an interview to be broadcast Tuesday night, said that his scathing anti-President Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" ranked No.
1 in each state that voted for Bush in the 2000 election. "After seeing all the numbers, all the exit polls and surveys they do of people coming to see it, it was clear to me that a lot of people in this country want some questions answered and are unhappy about what's going on," Moore told PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley. 
