Anti-kerry Film Sparks Dnc Response

[atabuy]

Kind of like Karl Rove's anti-Kerry campaign.
Convicted of MISDEMEANORS at that! Not even in Texas does jaywalking cause one to lose the right to vote, but in Florida it did.
That's kind of the point of excluding them, isn't it?
Estimated by whom?
Wrong. What I have 'defended' here is the fact that Michael Moore's movie has stood for itself and that he has done a good job documenting the facts he used while those who purport to 'debunk' it have not met the same standard. He doesn't need me to defend the truth of his movie.

Unlike most of those who condemn Moore's movie without even seeing it, I am more than willing to watch 'another "true" movie' as long as the 'truth' contained therein stands up to scrutiny.
Exactly where did this come from?
As a veteran of combat in Vietnam, I had seen enough REAL US heroes by age 20 to last me a lifetime.

http://www.thewall-usa.com/index.html
"False"? Not according to the US Navy. Or John McCain, a decorated American hero, former POW and REAL Republican.
Again, where did this come from? You're making some fairly 'liberal' assumptions here.
After the right taught them how a negative campaign works. Remember Willie Horton?
Nor do I, although you would apparently prefer it if I did, judging by the tone of your post. As for biased media (FOX NEWS) and false documentaries (Swift Boat Veterans for Bush), I don't think anyone gets to claim the high ground there.

[post="190492"][/post]​

I have a question. If this information are lies, why isn't Bush suing Moore for slander.
I mean you could not get better press than taking Moore to court and proving how vicious he was and what a nice guy Bush is.

 

[KCFlyer]

Honestly, no. And it's because it claims to be a documentary... but documentaries by definition are supposed to be made without bias and commentary. This is obviously not that kind of movie.
what he did when he made this film. And that's why I wouldn't spend a dime to see it.

[post="190699"][/post]​

Thank you for your honesty....but how can you claim it's all lies without seeing it, relying only on the writing of someone else who may be just as much or MORE biased in his version than Moore was?

 

[NWA/AMT]

Did you read the link earlier in this thread (59 Deceits in Farenheit 9/11)? Just incase you didn't, here it is in pdf format

[post="190699"][/post]​

Actually I did. I sat down and went through them point by point. For the most part the article you link to consists of "No he didn't" without supporting documentation or reference.

I suppose, if you'll allow me to rephrase, that Farenheit 9/11 is more of a stretch of the truth, and not necessarily false information.

It is an interpretation of the facts, nothing more and nothing less.

But you talk all the time about selecting certain information that only helps your case and doesn't hurt it.... well that is exactly what he did when he made this film.

Indeed, one of the things I DON'T like about Michael Moore is that he does not attempt to present a balanced view; but as he points out, the Bush administration doesn't allow him to use the White House pressroom and that is his choice. As he has said repeatedly, nothing prevents a Bush supporter from making a similar film.

And that's why I wouldn't spend a dime to see it.

No one asked you to, although I think you would find it interesting. However, to veer back toward the topic, a Democratic supporter showing Fahrenheit 911 on over 60 broadcast stations that he owned would certainly elicit a negative response from the Republicans, don't you think?

 

[NWA/AMT]

I have a question. If this information are lies, why isn't Bush suing Moore for slander.

[post="190701"][/post]​

I understand what you mean, but it is generally accepted that for public figures, specifically including politicians, the standards for a statement to qualify as slander are much higher, or lower as the case may be.

 

[delldude]

Indeed, one of the things I DON'T like about Michael Moore is that he does not attempt to present a balanced view;

then why do you savor the kool-aid??

 

[USAir757]

Thank you for your honesty....but how can you claim it's all lies without seeing it, relying only on the writing of someone else who may be just as much or MORE biased in his version than Moore was?

Good point. If you're thinking that I listened to other people's take on the film before making my decision not to go see it, then you are right. I don't believe in slandering and portraying our president as a devious and haphazard leader, especially during war time. I would not support this movie even if it was with Reagan, Clinton, or either of the Bushes, simply for that reason. Yes, it's an interpretation of the facts, and it should most definitely be represented as such. And, IMHO, it has done more to divide this nation than it did to unify it, and that is something that isn't in our nation's best interests during a war which will likely shape and format this country for the next era.

No one asked you to, although I think you would find it interesting. However, to veer back toward the topic, a Democratic supporter showing Fahrenheit 911 on over 60 broadcast stations that he owned would certainly elicit a negative response from the Republicans, don't you think?

Point taken. And with the polarizing nature of the political environment these days, broadcasting the Kerry piece would be quite a bold, if not damaging, move on their part. But so long as it is represented correctly as what it is, and as long as we have people like Michael Moore exercising their freedom of speech, then there's no foul on the play.

(I think that may be the first time somebody has used the words "Michael Moore" and "exercise" in the same sentence) 😉

 

[NWA/AMT]

then why do you savor the kool-aid??

[post="190733"][/post]​

Take your Ritalin, Beavis.

 

[Fly]

And, IMHO, it has done more to divide this nation than it did to unify it, and that is something that isn't in our nation's best interests during a war which will likely shape and format this country for the next era.

[post="190750"][/post]​

Really? I believe Bush did that all by himself. I would vote for ANYBODY to get him out of office. He's the terrorist

 

[NWA/AMT]

I don't believe in slandering and portraying our president as a devious and haphazard leader, especially during war time.

[post="190750"][/post]​

While I may not agree with the harsh tone of his statement, I have to agree with Teddy Roosevelt, who said:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

It is an important part of our system that the actions of the President be questioned, and never more important than in wartime.

And, IMHO, it has done more to divide this nation than it did to unify it, and that is something that isn't in our nation's best interests during a war which will likely shape and format this country for the next era.

I feel the same way about the Iraq war and the fact that it has distracted us from the real enemy, Al Qaeda. That has done what you describe far more than any movie.

But so long as it is represented correctly as what it is, and as long as we have people like Michael Moore exercising their freedom of speech, then there's no foul on the play

Michael Moore doesn't have 60 TV stations to air his movie and if he did the Republicans would be in court trying to prevent his showing it. Several months ago the Republicans were condemning the fact that he was even releasing his movie on DVD prior to the election yet they seem to feel that airing an anti-Kerry film on broadcast TV is OK.

 

[FredF]

I feel the same way about the Iraq war and the fact that it has distracted us from the real enemy, Al Qaeda. That has done what you describe far more than any movie.

[post="190818"][/post]​

Except for the fact that the war in iraq IS and integral part of the war against terror.

And it is not the war that has had the dividing effect, is has been the politicizing of the war by those that seek to gain from portraying it as the wrong war at the wrong time yet voted to authrize it and would vote the same way again today knowing what they now know.

 

[Fly]

The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror. That war is over in Afganistan with 1/10th of the troops. The war for "my daddy" is the one with 90% of the troops sitting around like pigeons just waiting to get blown up.

I sort of see your point about Iraq and terrorism.....because we are there, we are causing young Iraqi children to want to grow up to become terrorists and kill us too. Bush is BAD for this country....HE is breeding terrorists.

 

[USAir757]

It is an important part of our system that the actions of the President be questioned, and never more important than in wartime.

Questioned? Absolutely. But box office films written with the intention of damaging if not destroying the reputation of our president? No American should support that kind of publication. Especially since it withholds vital information to the whole picture.

I feel the same way about the Iraq war and the fact that it has distracted us from the real enemy, Al Qaeda. That has done what you describe far more than any movie.

The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror. That war is over in Afganistan with 1/10th of the troops. The war for "my daddy" is the one with 90% of the troops sitting around like pigeons just waiting to get blown up.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. They funded terrorism. They harbored terrorists. We are fighting a WAR ON TERRORISM. How are they not the enemy?

 

[Fly]

Because we only went to war because of 9/11. Therefore, we should never have abonded the hunt for Bin Laden so that Bush Jr could appease his Daddy. If you want to find a breeding ground of terrorists, go to Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we there? Oh yea, because Bush isn't angry about this war.....he wanted it.

 

[USAir757]

If you want to find a breeding ground of terrorists, go to Saudi Arabia.

Whoa, one war at a time there fella. And their government officially denounces terrorism, which is certainly more than the former Iraqi government could claim.

 

[FredF]

There are a group of fanatics that want to return to the old ways of sadam in power so that they have another safe harbor to contuct thier acts of terrorism. They are scared that a free iraq, an Iraq government will prevent them from being able to hide, and train, and be supported by iraq. That is what is causing them to show more and more agression toward the actions being taken to continue to free iraq and continue them on their course to freedom.

Iraq is precisely the war on terror.

You could not be more wrong. We hear, yes you have to look for it and actually liten, to stories of the children of iraq thanking soldiers. Thanking americans for their freedom. Schools are propsering in Iraq, women are prospering in Iraq, businesses are prospering in iraq.

For the fist time, they have the ability to decide thier own fate, not left to live and die at the had of Sadam and his children.

This is about making the world a safer place. This is about hunting down terrorists and those that support them and provide safe haven to them. This is about protecting america from those nations that would seek to attack us.

Iraq is precisely the war on terror.