Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on June 25, 2004, 12:05:11 PM
-
Have any of you found the recent brouhaha over Fahrenheit 9/11 to be disturbing? I know I do.
Don't misunderstand. Michael Moore can produce anything he wants to in order to air his political views. He's a citizen of the good ole USofA, after all. Freedom of the press, speech, and all that.
I think what frightens me about all this is that Moore is the most outspoken proponent of a Hollywood elitest mind-set that is increasingly disdainful of mainstream American concepts such as fair play, objectivity, and rational debate.
You've all heard the type of high-octane, vitriolic hyperbole he uses when he talks about Bush. This is the language of fanaticism. I believe few of us, conservative or moderate or liberal, would deny that he often plays fast and loose with the facts. Many of the Congressmen he interviewed for this movie are livid about the way he has edited statements they made.
In the past, Hollywood actors have expressed their political viewpoints with dignity and grace, for the most part. The stern courage of actors of the caliber of Katherine Hepburn who traveled to Washington to testify before the HUAC inspired many to stand up against the evils of the McCarthy era.
Unfortunately, that era appears to have come to an end. Hepburn has been replaced by Moore, and it has not been an even trade. He is the point man for a new Hollywood elite, testing the waters of public opinion to see how strong the reaction will be to a new brand of political activism.
Think of what his "documentary" means. For the first time in the history of American cinema, a director has made a film with the express purpose of scuttling the reelection of a sitting president. He has done it with the verbal and financial support of the political opponents of that president, both domestic and foreign.
If this film succeeds in its purpose of influencing this years election, what moore can we expect from Hollywood. Make no mistake about it, Hollywood is watching the public reaction to this film with bated breath. If Moore gets away with this, what will Tinsel Town's finest attempt in the future?
After all, they do not think they are bound by the same rules of fairness that apply to the newspapers or television news. You see, they realize that it is hard for the opposition to argue with a "blockbuster documentary."
What I'm arguing for here is a return to sanity. Even those of you who are adamantly opposed to Bush should have reservations about supporting a film whose director has used methods apparently so devoid of any ethical restraints.
All Moore will accomplish is to drive another wedge between Americans of differing political persuasions, all for his own "noble" purposes. The animosities are already too great...that fire too hot.
The ends do not justify the means. We...all of us...should send a clear message to Moore...and those thinking of following his example...we do not approve of your methods.
Your thoughts?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Well said.
OTOH, I don't believe Moore's agenda is such a new thing. Before movies, books were definitely written by very influencial authors with political agendas. Upton Sinclair comes to mind, and maybe John Steinbeck.
-
Thanks for the comments MT.
It isn't his agenda I object to so much as it is his methods. I don't think your reference to John Steinbeck is an apt one in this debate.
I knew John Steinbeck...and Moore is no John Steinbeck. ;)
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Its a movie, anyone who is influenced by it could have a full frontal lobotamy with a spoon and no one would notice any difference.
The only reason its so popular right now, before its even in the theaters, is because of those groups so adamantly opposing it. Trying to prevent theaters from showing his movie, best way to get people interested in seeing it and to advertise it.
If this movie influences the election year, it isn't because of Moore... its because of those people who made it look so bad that everyone else became curious about why its so horrible.
I won't see it, don't care too... its a movie full of opinions, no thanks. I see movies for entertainment.
-SW
-
I think that most of all, Hollywood in general, and some of the more active "stars" in particular, are exceptionally deluded in their belief that they are such a considerable factor on the political system.
I could care less about Moore and his agenda, although I do feel the term docummentary has become entirely to broad, and in fact, he's never actually made one that I'm aware of.
However, I do know a lot of well educated people, even in my family, who feel it their purpose to pass along everything those Hollywood "stars" say and pass it off as intellectually meaningful.
-
Moore's style caters to the "10 second sound byte crowd" that do not bother to investigate allegations on their own.
The same people who send money to a Nigerian Ambassador because they got an e-mail offering them millions, will fall victim to unscupulous people like Moore.
On the other hand, the conservatives are working to combat the Moore film with a film festival of their own.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000552469 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000552469)
-
Don't blame the movie, blame the people for allowing mass media to influence them so much.
Movies don't vote...people do.
-
Think of what his "documentary" means. For the first time in the history of American cinema, a director has made a film with the express purpose of scuttling the reelection of a sitting president. He has done it with the verbal and financial support of the political opponents of that president, both domestic and foreign.
And thanks to John McCain there are restrictions on how much money political groups can spend in the months prior to an election. So windbags like Moore get to make money influencing elections but groups like the NRA or AARP can only sit and watch.
Hollywood isn't dangerous, fools like John McCain are.
ra
-
Hollywood influence on politics? As in The Governator? :D
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Hollywood influence on politics? As in The Governator? :D
Daniel
coupla decades behind Cyrano...
(http://www.scripting.com/images/2001/12/03/reagan.gif)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well said.
OTOH, I don't believe Moore's agenda is such a new thing. Before movies, books were definitely written by very influencial authors with political agendas. Upton Sinclair comes to mind, and maybe John Steinbeck.
I agree. Yellow journalism has been around for as long as well, journalists. Moore has just brought it into mainstream with a newer media. Whether you like his films or not, have to give him credit for being smart enough to make money off of them.
Besides, I think Geoff Tate put it best when he said "The rich control the government, the media the law." :D
-
You feel way better that Halibuton and Enron bought a presidency then you do about Moore comunicating the reality of Bushes policies to the public. You have the absolute worst president in the history of your country. Starting wars based on lies, stealing the election with election fraud. And your worried that micheal moore might be wrecking your country.
Just how brain dead can people be?
That is sad.
Moore will end up dead. Look at the hate on this board alone.
-
I think you'll see moore-ons latest in BlockBuster right around the end of October, PPV sat/cable if he can swing
trying last minute mush mind melding with their base
more than dangerous, its criminal
right up there with the unions throwing dues to the jackarse party regardless what the payer of those fees thinks
-
You feel way better that Halibuton and Enron bought a presidency
Any proof besides the continuous leftist drone?
then you do about Moore comunicating the reality of Bushes policies to the public.
Reality? Moore uses lies regularly in ALL of his work.
You have the absolute worst president in the history of your country.
Yeah, and he just published a huge book too.
Starting wars based on lies,
Name one.
stealing the election with election fraud.
How?
Just how brain dead can people be?
Let us know.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Have any of you found the recent brouhaha over Fahrenheit 9/11 to be disturbing? I know I do.
About as disturbing as O'rielly or Limbaugh, but I don't listen to them either.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
You feel way better that Halibuton and Enron bought a presidency then you do about Moore comunicating the reality of Bushes policies to the public. You have the absolute worst president in the history of your country. Starting wars based on lies, stealing the election with election fraud. And your worried that micheal moore might be wrecking your country.
Just how brain dead can people be?
That is sad.
Moore will end up dead. Look at the hate on this board alone.
That is YOUR opinion.
You DO NOT live here.
You tell us how brain dead people can be, you seem to have cornered the market.
No one is going to kill that fat, ignorant, arrogant slob. He wouldn't even make a good martyr. He's safe, we don't kill those we don't agree with. Perhaps you have us confused with SADDAM HUSSIEN and his fallen regime in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
You feel way better that Halibuton and Enron bought a presidency then you do about Moore comunicating the reality of Bushes policies to the public.
Enron gave $682,000 to the demos in 2000
You have the absolute worst president in the history of your country.
James Buchanan sucked pretty bad, he was worse.
Starting wars based on lies, stealing the election with election fraud.
election fraud in 2000 in Florida was not found. Not one recount done officially or by independant media has been in favor of Gore.
And your worried that micheal moore might be wrecking your country.
Just how brain dead can people be?
That is sad.
Moore will end up dead.
everyone ends up dead.
Look at the hate on this board alone.
Don't you hate Bush? You are not helping lower the level of hatred
Get some new rhetoric Pongo your diatribe is getting old.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Get some new rhetoric Pongo your diatribe is getting old.
He can't. Every once in a while, he even admits he knows nothing of what he speaks (witness his replies in the thread about al-Sadr).
What you see is the best he's got. The ravings of a mad man, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Funny to see him preach about hate, when his hate for Bush has him so blind he can't offer a decent arguement and he has to admit he knows nothing of which he speaks.
Be prepared, there will be more mindless drivel preprogrammed by the liberal source of your choice to come. Bet on it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
we don't kill those we don't agree with.
Are you serious?
I missed that class in school where we were taught that JFK, MLK, Abe Lincoln, et. al., were all suicides :rolleyes:
Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Reagan, Sonny Bono ( :rofl ) Arnold, all republicans...I know of no democrats in office that were former actors or performers.
-
Moore will end up dead?
You betcha. If his life were a "Clue" game, the perp would be
"Michael Moore, in the dining room, with the fork."
It'll be ruled a suicide.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Are you serious?
I missed that class in school where we were taught that JFK, MLK, Abe Lincoln, et. al., were all suicides :rolleyes:
Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Reagan, Sonny Bono ( :rofl ) Arnold, all republicans...I know of no democrats in office that were former actors or performers.
Red, your posts are often most entertaining. :D
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Reagan, Sonny Bono ( :rofl ) Arnold, all republicans...
How could you leave Fred Grandy off of that list!
Gopher deserves better from you.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Toad
Moore will end up dead?
You betcha. If his life were a "Clue" game, the perp would be
"Michael Moore, in the dining room, with the fork."
It'll be ruled a suicide.
:lol :aok
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Are you serious?
I missed that class in school where we were taught that JFK, MLK, Abe Lincoln, et. al., were all suicides :rolleyes:
Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Reagan, Sonny Bono ( :rofl ) Arnold, all republicans...I know of no democrats in office that were former actors or performers.
Sonny Bono was a Republican???? hehehehe...
-
Oh forgot to add.....One really doesn't see much of the old cry "Landslide Bush" these days does one?
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
How could you leave Fred Grandy off of that list!
Gopher deserves better from you.
-Sik
Sorry...totally forgot about him ...but I WAS talking about actors....:lol
Torque, glad you're entertained...this BBs rather entertaining in its own right...good to not take too much of this seriously...
-
I don't think it's so much "Hollyweird's Influence on Politics" as it is "DNC Using Hollyweird as Propaganda Ministry".
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Sonny Bono was a Republican???? hehehehe...
Yet another dirty little secret of the GOP :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well said.
OTOH, I don't believe Moore's agenda is such a new thing. Before movies, books were definitely written by very influencial authors with political agendas. Upton Sinclair comes to mind, and maybe John Steinbeck.
Ironically, Sinclair's 1934 defeat in the California governor's election was partially due to advertisements shown in movie houses:
Quick google:
Perhaps the most effective anti-Sinclair campaign was that of movie mogul Louis B. Mayer who, wrote Weaver, "turned his Culver City studio into the unofficial headquarters of the film industry’s organized campaign of vilification and misrepresentation." The effort included "fake newsreel interviews with bewhiskered actors voicing their enthusiasm for EPIC in Russian accents. The most effective footage focussed on Central Casting hobos huddled on the borders of California, waiting to live off the bounty of its taxpayers once Sinclair got elected."
Also....
To scuttle Upton Sinclair, they first of all threatened to move at least four studios to Florida. Next Mayer distributed blank checks to his employees. All the cheques were made out to himself. Employees were effectively being intimidated to donate money to a slush fund to defeat Sinclair. Columbia's Harry Cohn used other tactics but also threatened his staff using their job security. Warner Brothers studio simply assessed each staff member a $3 contribution. The half million dollars generated that way was increased to nearly 10 million, an unprecedented amount with which to launch a political campaign for Governor. The money was used to pay for newspaper ads, radio ads, billboard advertising, phony anti-Sinclair smear groups, and a massive leaflet campaign.
All this direct participation by Hollywood was nothing when compared to their most devastating piece of underhanded trickery and deceit that ended up setting the standards for all future election campaigns, ...national or otherwise.
MGM studio, under Irving Thalberg's direction produced a contrived campaign propaganda film that was edited down to 6 minutes and added to Randolph Hearst's Newsreels which normally ran twice per week in all theaters. Louis B. Mayer went so far as to threaten to withhold the feature films if the political trailers were not shown as well.
-
I think most people have believed this one will be a very close call right from the very beginning. I know I have.
New Polls Show Tight US Presidential Race (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=91C0EA97-5018-471C-949CB0C8C9FBDEE6)
25 June
A new poll by Gallup, CNN and USA Today has the president leading Senator Kerry by 48 to 47 percent. Three weeks ago, Senator Kerry had a six-point lead in the same poll.
Or if you prefer:
Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Election 2004
Date Bush Kerry
Today 46 45
June 24 47 45
June 23 44 47
June 22 44 47
June 21 44 47
June 20 46 46
June 19 45 46
June 18 46 45
June 17 46 45
June 16 46 45
June 15 46 46
June 14 46 47
June 13 47 45
June 12 47 44
June 11 47 44
June 10 45 45
June 9 44 46
June 8 45 45
June 7 45 45
June 6 46 45
June 5 45 45
June 4 44 45
June 3 44 44
June 2 44 45
June 1 46 44
Earlier Results for
RR Premium Members
Dates are release dates
Surveys conducted on preceding three nights
RasmussenReports.com
In a "normal" environment, this one would be very close. In today's environment, there's too many wild cards. Another major terrorist strike against the US? Success/defeat with the new Iraqi government? Bin Laden caught/escapes again?
So many things that are in the "abnormal" category for a Presidential race.
-
I'll say it just like I did before. Bush in a landslide.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
After all, they do not think they are bound by the same rules of fairness that apply to the newspapers or television news. You see, they realize that it is hard for the opposition to argue
What rules of fairness? That went out a long time ago, around the time Rush popped up.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'll say it just like I did before. Bush in a landslide.
I think the correct phrase is "Bush in a (frozen) mudslide."
:D
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Ironically, Sinclair's 1934 defeat in the California governor's election was partially due to advertisements shown in movie houses:
Quick google:
Perhaps the most effective anti-Sinclair campaign was that of movie mogul Louis B. Mayer who, wrote Weaver, "turned his Culver City studio into the unofficial headquarters of the film industry’s organized campaign of vilification and misrepresentation." The effort included "fake newsreel interviews with bewhiskered actors voicing their enthusiasm for EPIC in Russian accents. The most effective footage focussed on Central Casting hobos huddled on the borders of California, waiting to live off the bounty of its taxpayers once Sinclair got elected."
Also....
To scuttle Upton Sinclair, they first of all threatened to move at least four studios to Florida. Next Mayer distributed blank checks to his employees. All the cheques were made out to himself. Employees were effectively being intimidated to donate money to a slush fund to defeat Sinclair. Columbia's Harry Cohn used other tactics but also threatened his staff using their job security. Warner Brothers studio simply assessed each staff member a $3 contribution. The half million dollars generated that way was increased to nearly 10 million, an unprecedented amount with which to launch a political campaign for Governor. The money was used to pay for newspaper ads, radio ads, billboard advertising, phony anti-Sinclair smear groups, and a massive leaflet campaign.
All this direct participation by Hollywood was nothing when compared to their most devastating piece of underhanded trickery and deceit that ended up setting the standards for all future election campaigns, ...national or otherwise.
MGM studio, under Irving Thalberg's direction produced a contrived campaign propaganda film that was edited down to 6 minutes and added to Randolph Hearst's Newsreels which normally ran twice per week in all theaters. Louis B. Mayer went so far as to threaten to withhold the feature films if the political trailers were not shown as well.
Ahh yes. My old brain said to me "Sinclair....propaganda....pol itics....bzzzzt". Thanks for the reminder.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Oh forgot to add.....One really doesn't see much of the old cry "Landslide Bush" these days does one?
do a search on my posts....
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Are you serious?
I missed that class in school where we were taught that JFK, MLK, Abe Lincoln, et. al., were all suicides :rolleyes:
Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Reagan, Sonny Bono ( :rofl ) Arnold, all republicans...I know of no democrats in office that were former actors or performers.
(http://www.netscope.net/tazewell-co-fair/cooter.jpg)
Ben "Cooter" Jones
Democrat - Georgia
(former Representative so I guess you're OK, but Sonny, both Freds and Clint are former politicians too. )
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.netscope.net/tazewell-co-fair/cooter.jpg)
Ben "Cooter" Jones
Democrat - Georgia
(former Representative so I guess you're OK, but Sonny, both Freds and Clint are former politicians too. )
Crrrrrrrrrrrr-AAAAAAAAA---zee Cooter Comin at ya, come on...
Yes I wasnt tallying current vs former, only making a point regarding hollywood and political affiliation. I knew there would be several I missed, from both parties...
To which, I challenge those thad still hold onto the Bush in a landslide theory
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20040625/ap_on_el_pr/nader_convention
I guess that old story about being afraid of the lion if the lion's afraid of you rings true in this instance.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Think of what his "documentary" means. For the first time in the history of American cinema, a director has made a film with the express purpose of scuttling the reelection of a sitting president. He has done it with the verbal and financial support of the political opponents of that president, both domestic and foreign.
Democracy in action. Beautiful.
-
Bring back the House of Un-American Activities Committe!
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Moore will end up dead. Look at the hate on this board alone.
But most funny is fact, that people whitch deny him didnt saw his documentary and they dont even want to see it.
Im wondering how do they make decisions like that.
If fact, that some trolll cry that movie is anti american is enough for them to deny it is kinda funny fact..
-
Originally posted by Eagler
do a search on my posts....
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aren't all landslides typically downhill, no?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
do a search on my posts....
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I'd like to play High Stakes Poker with you!
-
Originally posted by Torque
Aren't all landslides typically downhill, no?
did you figure that out all by yourself or did you have to look it up
-
bowling for Columbine was on a few weeks ago. My wife and I tried to watch it but in our eyes it was so skewed it was not fun to watch. In our opinions his movies shouldnt be called documentries.
Document, hence the word means that of documented proof?
I wonder if he has links to his proofs for his new movie. does any of the pro moore people know of any?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
You've all heard the type of high-octane, vitriolic hyperbole he uses when he talks about Bush. This is the language of fanaticism. I believe few of us, conservative or moderate or liberal, would deny that he often plays fast and loose with the facts. Many of the Congressmen he interviewed for this movie are livid about the way he has edited statements they made.
Like Sixpence said...change the names a bit and use the same adjectives for Rush, O'Rielly, Coulter (<-the worst of the bunch for playing fast and loose with facts and quotes to create pure propoganda); not to mention the Karl Rove misinformation service. These folks spew everyday. Moore pops out 1-2 movies in 5 years and the shrill whines of neo-cons would make you think the sky is falling.
-
crowMAW,
I respectfully disagree. There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore. These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.
One CANNOT debate with a "documentary." The number of Moore's interviewees who have expressed outrage over how their statements have been edited and doctored calls into question his methods. I strongly suspect that the edited statements which contradict Moore's beliefs no longer exist. These people's statements have, according to them, have been altered out of context to cast them in a bad light.
There is a definition for this type of act...it's called character assassination. "Tail-Gunner" Joe used the same methods to ferret out "Communists" in the government back in the 1950's. He destroyed the reputations of many innocent people and never displayed a hint of conscience. Joe had HIS supporters too, who believed that the ends justified the means.
Moore's is a political campaign. If this were a Democratic or Republican effort their activities would be regulated by federal campaign laws. PAC's can no longer air political ads for a period of two months prior to an election (That is blatantly unconstitutional, by any definition of the term.). Moore acknowledges no rules but his own. Look at the timing of the release of this "documentary;" it will be in theaters in time to give Kerry a boost as the Democrats meet for their national convention. It will also, undoubtedly, become available on dvd just in time for the November elections.
Unless he's sued for libel, which could take months or years to go to court, what chance do his victims have of stopping him from having an impact on the election? Even if a libel suit were successful it would take an inordinately stiff financial judgement to make a serious dent in the profits he's going to make from this scurrilous "documentary."
Don't you see...if Moore gets away with this, he will open a Pandora's box. How many other citizens will conduct "investigations" or publish private "interviews" for the purposes of character assassination late in a campaign year, when their victims have little time to deal with them?
Make no mistake about it...Moore does not want a debate of his "facts." If he did, this would not be a "documentary" which is available for consumption only.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
I saw the movie. It is a rebuttal to the administration's well-known and well-covered arguments for the Iraq war. It makes some points, misses on others. It isn't at all objective. No equal time is given to pro-war arguments within it. So what?
The pro-war arguments are all well known. They are espoused by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc... and show up on the nightly news and in the papers. They are discussed by the right-leaning pundits in the various media outlets. The most bass-ackward inbred Alabamian (sorry Hblair!) can judge the conflicting input from two different sources and form their own opinion as to what they believe to be true or not.
If the movie is tripe filled with lies, get the lawyers out and sue for slander. Otherwise, I'd say the public should be given more credit at being able to make up their own minds.
-
If Bush wasn't such an idiot and make such bad decisions like the invasion if Iraq he woudn't have so much to say. And the topic of Hollywood's influence wouldn't exist.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
If Bush wasn't such an idiot and make such bad decisions like the invasion if Iraq he woudn't have so much to say. And the topic of Hollywood's influence wouldn't exist.
...-Gixer
Spoken like a true clueless nonresident.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
crowMAW,
I respectfully disagree. There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore. These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.
So you honestly believe that if someone called and proved them wrong or had a valid point they did not agree with that it would make it on the air? I have listened to Limbaugh a few times, and it doesn't work that way, they have an agenda, and they get paid too much money to let that agenda get challenged. It is the same, they are there to sway the way people think. They just work opposite ends of the spectrum.
-
I wonder if there was this much uproar when John Wayne did a pure political propaganda piece for Republicans?
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6301942655.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Plot Summary for
Big Jim McLain (1952)
U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee investigators Jim McLain and Mal Baxter attempt to break up a ring of Communist Party troublemakers in Hawaii (ignoring somewhat, as do their superiors in the Congress, that membership in the Communist Party was, at the time, legal in the U.S.)
Critical response to the film was divided by coast. Eastern reviewers found it oversimplified and irresponsible. One, according to Randy Roberts and James S. Olsen in their book "John Wayne: American," wondered "how many loyal Americans may actually have converted to communism out of embarrassment that their country could produce" such films as "Big Jim McLain."
On the West Coast, however, the film was lavished with praise by film industry publications. Audiences seemed to agree, perhaps enthralled enough with Wayne's presence to overlook the film's sketchy storyline and the lead weight of its politics. "Big Jim McLain" became the most successful film of its anti-Communist genre, grossing $3 million.
As the film winds up, the Commies have once again gotten off on the Fifth, a privilege, McLain laments, intended for "honest, decent citizens." Still, he is optimistic about the future, so long as there are big ships, soldiers and girls like Nancy.
That Wayne's character, Jim McLain, shared initials with Sen. Joseph McCarthy is considered no coincidence. Wayne has said he believed the film helped the election of the Senator for his second term in 1952. And though it's hard to believe that anyone would swallow the sentiment of a film like this one, laughable now in its heavy-handedness, it is chilling to consider how many lives were destroyed by the shrill propaganda of films like "Big Jim McLain," when Cold War hysteria suspended America's disbelief on and off the screen.
-
Did John Wayne market that as a documentary?
-
Moore's piece is no longer being marketed as a documentary if the papers are right.
It's now billed as an "op-ed piece" by his distributors.
BTW, where's all the Euro's who said MM was going to be denied his "free speech" on this film?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I respectfully disagree. There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore. These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.
One CANNOT debate with a "documentary."
-snip-
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
Buahahahahahahahahah... hehehehe LOLOLOLOLO.........
-
Has Hollywood's Influence on Politics Become Dangerous?
No more than AM radio influence on politics.
Here’s something strange; I dislike Bill O'Reilly’s FOX News TV show! However, I take time to tune in his radio program.
Now this, in the late 80’s I was lobbying the local radio station to air Rush Limbaugh. Back then (the late 80’s) it was a fun program. He was a new fresh voice making fun of government. Now, he takes himself too seriously. It’s not fun anymore, just attack and attack (with the agenda that was bought and paid for).
Rush was poisoned with fame and money.
That’s just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Spoken like a true clueless nonresident.
Clueless?
For someone who fails to open his mind to any point of view or argument other then his own opinion. Defends even the most defenceless of decisions that even the current administration or the president himself have since dropped and distance themselves from, rather then admit they were wrong. And fails to have even the slightest opinion of his own on any subject other then regurgitating the same senseless arguments, ramblings and lies of the administration. Say’s that I’m clueless?
True I am a non resident, well done there. :aok
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
There is a difference between O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et. al, and Moore. These people have their own tv or radio broadcasts where one can call them up or hold interviews and debate their views with them, agree or disagree with them or tell them that they're full of, well, you know, to their faces.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but their shows are hardly open mic opportunities. And even if a coherent rebuttle were allowed on these shows, O'Rielly and Rush have the last word or can clip the caller short.
And what about Coulter? How do you have a debate against a newspaper column or book?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Moore's piece is no longer being marketed as a documentary if the papers are right.....
yep it's a crock-umentary :)
-
MT and crowMAW,
No local radio stations carry Limbaugh's program...never heard it. So I do not know what format he uses...simply assumed he answered calls from listeners and/or had guests.
I know for a FACT that O'Reilly has guests on his show who debate the issues with him. Yeah, he shouts quite a bit and he does have the last word...but dem...it IS his show after all. Not wild about him myself...but he does "debate" the issues.
As for Anne Coulter...if you noticed...I didn't mention her at all.
I stand by my original statement...it's impossible to debate a propaganda film posing as a documentary. Are you familiar with the fact that the U.S. government banned Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will from being shown in the U.S. during the 1930s? Roosevelt's administration knew that it would be difficult to block the impact images of a prosperous Nazi Germany would have on the Depression racked people of the United States.
My point here is that Moore has released his film at a point in time deliberately chosen to make it difficult for his targets to prepare legal challenges to his statements or to lessen the impact on public opinion. So far those on these bbs who have seen it have been almost unanimous in stating that the film may be entertaining but it is anything but objective.
I hope he can prove his allegations, because he is more than likely going to have to prove them in court.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
No local radio stations carry Limbaugh's program...never heard it. So I do not know what format he uses...simply assumed he answered calls from listeners and/or had guests.
I know for a FACT that O'Reilly has guests on his show who debate the issues with him. Yeah, he shouts quite a bit and he does have the last word...but dem...it IS his show after all. Not wild about him myself...but he does "debate" the issues.
Rush started out railing against anything in government that did not make sense...it didn't matter if it was Republican or Democrat. I listened to his show regularly back then. It was like any other radio talk show: 90% host speaking, occasional pre-screened caller comments. Later he became an attack jock, but the show format was pretty much the same. The callers are pre-screened and any guests are chosen by the show. It is not open mic. The host does 90% of the talking.
O'Reilly does have guests...guests he chooses. And like you say, it is his show, so he runs the "debate".
Neither allow a truly balanced discourse any more than a documentary...and their shows are on every day.
Originally posted by Shuckins
As for Anne Coulter...if you noticed...I didn't mention her at all.
Yup, I noticed...that is why I brought her back in. If you want a "fair and balanced" discussion, then you cannot simply leave out glaring contradictory examples as you choose.
Originally posted by Shuckins
I stand by my original statement...it's impossible to debate a propaganda film posing as a documentary.
*snipped comment about banning to ask a question later*
My point here is that Moore has released his film at a point in time deliberately chosen to make it difficult for his targets to prepare legal challenges to his statements or to lessen the impact on public opinion. So far those on these bbs who have seen it have been almost unanimous in stating that the film may be entertaining but it is anything but objective.
I absolutely agree with you here. It is not objective. It was made specifically to criticize Bush. It may be libelous...Bush will have to sue to find out and like someone else mentioned that could end up letting a lot of skeletons out of the closet. It would probably become Bush's Whitewater Investigation.
But your argument itself seems one sided. What should happen to the non-objective radio/tv shows and books/columns published by conservatives? Are you saying they should be banned along with Moore's film? They will be spewing their propaganda right up until the election...which you pointed out, that PACs can't even do. So, if you want fair and balanced, then most of Fox programming has to shut down, O'Reilly has to go on hiatus along with Rush and Coulter can't publish. Let me tell you that I'd be first in line to argue for Coulter's right to publish so long as it means that Moore can publish too.
Originally posted by Shuckins
Are you familiar with the fact that the U.S. government banned Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will from being shown in the U.S. during the 1930s? Roosevelt's administration knew that it would be difficult to block the impact images of a prosperous Nazi Germany would have on the Depression racked people of the United States.
Interesting. I know that Germany banned it after WWII for many years (although I think there has been some relaxing of that ban). I would be interested in learning more about the US ban if you can point me to some info on it. I'm surprised that a judge didn't slap an injunction on the ban since it is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
But I am concerned about the message you are sending with this example. Are you saying that if an Administration does not agree with the message of a movie/tv show or book/newspaper and believes that it is pure propaganda, then it should have the authority to ban it? Do you really want us going down that slippery slope?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Clueless?
For someone who fails to open his mind to any point of view or argument other then his own opinion. Defends even the most defenceless of decisions that even the current administration or the president himself have since dropped and distance themselves from, rather then admit they were wrong. And fails to have even the slightest opinion of his own on any subject other then regurgitating the same senseless arguments, ramblings and lies of the administration. Say’s that I’m clueless?
True I am a non resident, well done there. :aok
...-Gixer
Yep, clueless. Don't fret too much though, there are many residents here that are just about as clueless.
-
My youngest son went to see Moore's latest drivel Friday night with his fiancee and her parents. The scenes where the young marines are interviewed followed by the embittered travails of the Iraqi woman over a lost child made my son's fiancee very angry at the US soldiers. Is this sort of irresponsible distortion by Moore/Hollywood dangerous? Damn right it is.
-
Anger is a choice.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Anger is a choice.
So is everything else except death and taxes. Care to elaborate?
-
Michael Moore didn't make your son angry. Maybe your son is dangerous. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Michael Moore didn't make your son angry. Maybe your son is dangerous. ;)
My son saw through it and did not get angry, except maybe at Moore for distorting the truth. It was his fiancee that became angry at US troops.
He did say that he was the only one in the theatre that laughed (and he laughed loudly) when Bush told Moore to "get a real job".
-
No offense intended Iron, but your son's fiance seems very impressionable and perhaps a little slow in that she chooses to believe what she hears and sees but not research it any further.
It isn't the movie's fault that she chose not to get real information on the situation.
I have a friend, he always tells me things he "hears"... and passes them off as truth. I rebuttal with "Not sure, don't think so though". Nine times out of ten I can tell that the information is BS before I look it up, but I do it anyway just to be sure.
The only thing dangerous is the inability for people to question what they hear and are told, and then go and actually find out the information for themselves. Its out there, all over the place - its very naive to accept whats being fed to you as truth.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKIron
He did say that he was the only one in the theatre that laughed (and he laughed loudly) when Bush told Moore to "get a real job".
Well, hell... I'd laugh at that myself. The irony is pretty rich. :)
-
She's only 19 but hardly slow, full academic scholarship. Not unlike so many other very impressionable young people. Don't fool yourself, we are all influenced by hollywood.
-
Maybe... I guess I just don't watch enough movies.
-SW
-
This movie had been hyped up for awhile before it's release. Everyone that goes to see it, knows the opinion they are going to see.
BTW.... all the campaign ads on TV are paid for. People don't PAY to see them. BUT people are PAYING to see this movie. It's something a lot of people want to see. When I looked up times it was showing, I noticed how many of the local theatres, that always have the hot new release, didn't have this one. I saw it this morning at 10:45 am and the theature has almost filled. On a sunday at around the time church was going on. Finally proof that MM is the devil... !!!! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mosgood
"...I noticed how many of the local theatres, that always have the hot new release, didn't have this one.
#1 Fahrenheit 9/11... $21,800,000... 868 theaters
#2 White Chicks... $19,600,000... 2726 theaters
#3 Dodgeball...$18,500,000... 3020 theaters
-
Originally posted by Nash
#1 Fahrenheit 9/11... $21,800,000... 868 theaters
#2 White Chicks... $19,600,000... 2726 theaters
#3 Dodgeball...$18,500,000... 3020 theaters
ya... made more money in less theaters.
Wonder why people are paying to see a political ad....... hmmm