Disney blocks next Michael Moore film

[Sutebi]

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of what Michael Moore says, but it has been proven that he flat out lies. In his book, Stupid White Men, he mentioned an interview he had with Fred Barnes. Before this "interview," Barnes had apparently spoken about the sorry state of public education in America.  Barnes said, "These kids don't even know what the Iliad and the Odyssey are!" Well, apparently, Mr. Moore called up Barnes and asked Barnes if he knew what these books were, and Moore said that Barnes whined for a bit then said, "fine, you got me. I don't know what they are."

Fred Barnes said this interview never happened. He did not even know he was mentioned in the book till a friend of his, who was reviewing the book for the New Republic, asked him if it was true. Barnes told him that not a word of it was.

So we know that Moore does indeed lie, and at times he does not fact check so his information is faulty, but what about his new movie?

I do not claim to be an expert on the film, but from what I know about it, it is the same old same old Anti-Bush conspiracy theory. Moore said that the movie broke new ground and showed off amazing new facts and evidence, but from what I've heard from critics (almost all of which liked Bowling for Columbine) is that the movie is nothing new.

In reference to Disney "blocking" Moore's film, Moore also alters this. The tax breaks rumor was actually started by Moore's agent, who was quoted in the New York Times saying that. Eisner told ABC news at the beginning of the year that they did not want to be involved in a political film during an election year.

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

[juncmodule]

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders?

Yeah, you're right. Hitler was innocent.

[MrColossal]

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

...um... wanna try that again?

prisoners of war were KILLED, the ones who weren't were treated terribly and are supposed to be protected under the Geneva Convention

if the soldiers say they were being ordered to do it then it's their fault as much as it is the commander's.

[juncmodule]

To repeat my quote from a few posts earlier:

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the intersting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why the say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

-President George W. Bush

My point is leaders are supposed to take responsibility. Our government, no...Americans, do not take responsibility for the actions of it's army, it's represenatives to the world.

I feel guilty about what happened to those people. I am an American, and Americans did horrible things, I should share the guilt, as should ALL Americans. Especially our number one citizen.

later,
-junc

[DGMacphee]

Sutebi:

A few points to make (and apologies to Evenwolf for my "nitpicking").

Fred Barnes said this interview never happened. He did not even know he was mentioned in the book till a friend of his, who was reviewing the book for the New Republic, asked him if it was true. Barnes told him that not a word of it was.

So, Michael Moore lies, but Republican politicians don't?

Moore quoted one famous Republican president, so I'll quote another.

"I AM NOT A CROOK!"

But while we're talking about politicians, let's throw in a Democrat too:

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONTIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!"

I like the way you automatically assume Moore is a liar, when for all you know Barnes could be a liar.

I mean, as I've shown, politicians from both sides don't have a good track record at telling the truth.

I do not claim to be an expert on the film, but from what I know about it, it is the same old same old Anti-Bush conspiracy theory. Moore said that the movie broke new ground and showed off amazing new facts and evidence, but from what I've heard from critics (almost all of which liked Bowling for Columbine) is that the movie is nothing new.

The same critics still say it's an important film to see, though. A majority on Rotten Tomatoes give it positive reviews. And let's not forget that Palme D'or he won recently, awarded to him by a jury lead by one of America's top filmmakers.

In reference to Disney "blocking" Moore's film, Moore also alters this. The tax breaks rumor was actually started by Moore's agent, who was quoted in the New York Times saying that. Eisner told ABC news at the beginning of the year that they did not want to be involved in a political film during an election year.

You're probably the last person on Earth to trust Eisner's opinion over any one else's.

Seriously, it may have started as a rumour, but it's a rumour grounded in fact. Disney does get tax breaks in Florida for their Disney World park. It seems a little suspicious to me. And I once heard a critic say in relation to Moore's style of filmmaking (and I'm adlibing) "If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then why beat around the bush -- it's duck!"

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

In addition to Eric and junc's comments, the was a news story about a report from the pentagon about training methods for soldiers, including training them in the art of torture.

If not Bush, then at least Rumsfeld should be accountable.

[Barcik]

In other words, Barcik, F911 is Michael Moore's truth, based upon his observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

And Bush's words are his truth, based upon his own observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders?

Even though he probably never knew about this (ignore all the stupid tabloid scoops), even if the soldiers did this without any orders from above, any commander is directly responsible for the actions of his soldiers. He should have known and prevented it.

[DGMacphee]

And Bush's words are his truth, based upon his own observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

No, his words are the truth of elite corperations and politcal puppet masters (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) that got him there in the first place, based on their observations, relationships with the world, and the content of their consciousnesses.

And their truth is that average American should remain apathetic, docile, not think for themselves and do what they tell them to do.

Now, if you were American, Barcik, is that the truth you would want?

[Barcik]

If I were an American, I wouldn't want Bush's truth, or Moore's truth. I would want my own.



This is getting too philosophical. MORE BOTS!!!! 

[DGMacphee]

It is a subject that requires a lot of thought, but it shows that no one can provide a "whole picture", as I said.

[Scummbuddy]

How can you say that the Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the abuse? He wasn't there, nor did he see it happen. And there was no cover-up. There will be no cover-up. What these sick soldiers did is what they decided to do. And why should the president have known about it. Their direct superiors are to blame, not the president, so far up the line of command. And of course he wouldn't be told, those superiors were hoping that no one would know, and they probably got a kick out of it too.

The Red Cross did warn about these tortures, and need I remind you, that its not only the US soldiers that are guilty of these crimes. When I first heard of these crimes, I felt so sick. I was so mad at us. Here we are trying to do great things, and this really seems like they are trying to make things worse for our side. It's almost as bad as some of our troops throwing gernades into our officer tents, like that one psycho did. I'm sure when the cameras were off him being detained, his 'fellow' soldiers beat the crap out of him. Yes, it is a time of war, and things are different. But we are trying to set a standard for how people are treated, and they went and made us look terrible.

What the hell were they thinking? "Hey, I have a fun idea for 'torture'! Let's have group sex in front of them!" What the hell?!?


Okay, I will admit that I have some problems with what they feed them. But at least we are feeding them well.

and to the hitler comment, its completly different. Hitler commanded that the other groups be destroyed, and the germans below his command didn't really go with it, but feared for thier lives, but here, bush didnt command that our POWs of Iraq be mistreated, it was the lower soldiers.

[DGMacphee]

How can you say that the Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the abuse?

Something called "accountability".

[juncmodule]

and to the hitler comment...

No. No it's not. Bush is the Commander in Chief, he IS the superior officer.

Okay, I will admit that I have some problems with what they feed them. But at least we are feeding them well.

What the F**K is wrong with you!? That's not funny. It is a violation of their religion. Those men, if they are truly faithful to Allah, are not going to paradise(in least in their minds, which is all that matters).

I think today's key word is indeed: "accountability" as DG points out.

[Andail]

What the hell were they thinking? "Hey, I have a fun idea for 'torture'! Let's have group sex in front of them!" What the hell?!?

Okay, I will admit that I have some problems with what they feed them. But at least we are feeding them well.

If you had watched any kind of non-censored news coverage, you'd seen far worse forms of torture than american soldiers "having group sex in front of them".

Also, it's interesting that the only aspect of the humiliation/abuse affair that seems to upset you is that it gives a bad image of the americans. Have you ever considered how the iraqis suffered from that abuse? Or are they not included in your sphere of sympathy?

[Nacho]

Who is Michael Moore?

[Scummbuddy]

Junc, I understand the violation of thier religon.Ã,  I really do, and thats something I pride the U.S. with, is that we have the freedom of our religon. I wish we could care for them, and feed them what they want. Most of all, I wish people would stop being so fucking stupid and stop fighting over the dumbest things in the world.
But then I could go on to say that, "well they are prisoners, and this is WAR, not prissy-day-camp-for-people-we-picked-up on the side of the road." They were ordered to fire upon us, or they wanted to. I am so not in favor of the methods of torture, but its not like we've had it easy when we've been POW's in other countries. We're not out to rule the world.

I'm not looking to not be friends with anyone on the board, nor am i implying that this is were this is heading, i just am trying to get a couple points of view out for discussion.


about your response to the hitler thing, i said thier direct superior officer. So, you want Bush to be looking over every single officer in the whole US military to make sure they are doing what they are. No, he didn't hire those officers, they came to us, and we threw a gun in their hand. Im mad that the marines took my 2 pot head friends. I didnt' want them out there screwing things up, which they ended up doing, but thank god, in our own country. But thats an unrelated different story. but the fact that they were taken, just because they were willing. I had hoped that it would make them clean, but no, they didnt stop their drugs.

Hell, I just came back to this thread to see more funny robot drawings, and i happened to post.

[Nacho]

What the F**K is wrong with you!? That's not funny. It is a violation of their religion. Those men, if they are truly faithful to Allah, are not going to paradise(in least in their minds, which is all that matters).

So, in the minds of this guys, they may have problems for being forced to eat something, but not to blast 20 or 30 people in a Bus? Curious...

Junc, this is not a thought directed to you, or the the muslims beliefs... It is just another show of how much I hate some of the "rules of three" of the zealots believers...Ã, 

[juncmodule]

I'm not looking to not be friends with anyone on the board

Silly monkey, I may disagree with you, but I still LOVE you

You did piss me off though...

Regarding "this is WAR", we are supposed to be a world power. This is supposed to be a "third world country" or at least it was considered one ten years ago. We should be setting the example, regardless of how we are treated. It isn't elementary school. No eye for an eye. That's childish crap. I don't know if the Geneva convention covers feeding pork specifically to Muslims. I do think it covers "FORCE FEEDING" which is what happened here. That's the problem. I wouldn't doubt that some Muslims would starve to death before eating pork. It's not that pork was the only thing to feed them, I'm sure the bastards went out of their way to find pork.

We're not out to rule the world.

I am truly and honestly beginning to wonder if everyone in the government is with you on that one.

I don't know anything about the situation with your friends, but if they were in the US Military and something happened to them, or they were doing drugs or whatever, then George W Bush failed your friends and you. He is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he ACCEPTED the responsibilty, he is reponsible by his own choice. I'm not just pulling that out of my ass. He just IS responsible for America and it's Military. From the highest ranking general to the greenest private.

Did you read my quote a few posts back? Doesn't it frighten you that the leader of our country doesn't think he "needs to explain" things to people!? It just scream Dictator to me. I am seriously concerned about the future of this country. This statement went by and nothing happened. It's just absurd.

Back in 1958, Sherman Adams, a former governor of New Hampshire serving as President Dwight Eisenhower's chief of staff, was forced to resign after it was reported that he received a gift from business interests. The "smoking gun" was a pricey vicuña overcoat.

Forced to resign over a coat? Yet our president talks like a mad man and we just say..."so."

eh.



Sorry, I'm not good at funny robots... :'(

later,
-junc

EDIT:

So, in the minds of this guys, they may have problems for being forced to eat something, but not to blast 20 or 30 people in a Bus? Curious...

Yes. Not just in my mind. By blowing up 20 or 30 people in a bus some militant Muslims believe that they in fact secure their place in paradise by dying to protect Allah. I don't agree with it or think it's sane, but that's the belief as I understand it.

Keep in mind though, this is SOME militant muslims. ALL Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

[Sutebi]

See, I agree with you on that one about accountability. The whole 9/11 hearings have always annoyed me, because it's all about "It's not my fault, it's his! No, maybe hers! Yeah, hers! But, uh, his too! BUT NOT MINE!" It's a waste of time, and I agree that not enough people take responsibilities for their actions, but saying that Bush and his administration are culpable for the actions of a sick group of soldiers and perhaps their immediate leaders is just silly.

Now, you guys are saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was horrible and entering this war was also horrible. But what happened at Abu Ghraib is NOTHING compared to what Saddam Hussein and his men did to Arab Sunnis among others. The Arab Shiites and Sunni Kurds, who make up 80% of Iraq's population, were not appalled by this behavior in the prison because Hussein had done far worse before. Plus, they actually have met other U.S. soldiers and they know that the soldiers are not sexual deviants, or rapists like most of Saddam's soldiers.

I'm sure you're thinking now, "But how can you say Saddam is to blame for what his troops did and not blame Bush for what his did?" Well, Bush (nor any in his administration) did not order these individuals to do those things in Abu Ghraib. Saddam ordered his troops to use rape in order to destroy males and tribal pride. Saddam did order his troops to do wicked things. So really, by entering this war and taking Saddam out of power, the U.S. did a very good thing.

On another note, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who pretty much controls the religious mind of the population, has yet to say that America ha made Iraq less moral or ruined their faith.

Junc, these men obviously do not care to stay "true" to their faith, because they kill others. Their idea of "jihad" is to offensively spread the power of the Muslim nation. The true meaning of "jihad" is not a holy war, but rather a struggle. This struggle is not physical, but mental. It is an internal struggle of faith, and an external struggle to help other beings understand the teachings of Islam. So these men in the prison are not "true" believers of the faith, no matter how much they claim to be. They are extremists.

[juncmodule]

You assume to know a lot, but have you ever considered that maybe you don't know the whole story?

So these men in the prison are not "true" believers of the faith

So you personally know these men? How can you assume to know what a human's faith is!?

these men obviously do not care to stay "true" to their faith, because they kill others

By dying for their faith they secure a place in paradise. It's just a simple fact of their faith, not my opinion. Perhaps you are talking about what you believe Islam is. That's nice, but if these men believe that they earn their way into paradise by killing Americans, then they are staying true to the faith that "they" believe in, not "you".

Well, Bush (nor any in his administration) did not order these individuals to do those things in Abu Ghraib

While I agree, that this is probably the case, how do you KNOW that!?

Comparing what Saddam did to what we did just doesn't make any sense. We violated the world laws. We must be held accountable. You can't justify what we did with what Saddam did. That's just sick.

Also, I DO think Saddam is accountable. I don't know what or if he ordered anything to happen and I don't care. What I do care about is that it happened under his power, therefore he is responsible. The result of that is that we removed him from power, I agree that this is a good thing.

The highest ranking officer is accountable for the actions of his troops. That would be George Bush. People have been brainwashed into thinking that this is not his role. Also, keep in mind, I DO believe that the soldiers are responsible and should go to prison, I just think Bush should accept responsibility as well. It's just the right thing to do.

later,
-junc

[MrColossal]

Well, Bush (nor any in his administration) did not order these individuals to do those things in Abu Ghraib.

How are you so sure that no one ordered them to do it? Because they say they were ordered to do it is it obviously them lying? Which one of the soldiers gave over her underwear to humiliate the prisoners? which one brought the leashes? how come there are reports of the same exact method of torture that came from Afghanistan a year ago? Is it in a rule book somewhere that leashes and women's underwear and forced sex are ways of getting information?

Junc, these men obviously do not care to stay "true" to their faith, because they kill others.

and what about the 70 year old woman who was made to act like a donkey? And what about all the people detained who turns out weren't terrorists? "Whoops! Sorry, our mistake!" no wait, this administration doesn't say sorry "Serves you right for looking all alike!" So if you arrest some terrorists and some normal people, torture them both, find out who's the real terrorist and who's just some dude then it's all ok? The torture was worth it? "This is war, such is life!" I bet the prisoners who were beaten to death are sure glad it wasn't Saddam who arrested him, otherwise he would have had them killed!

And can you prove that the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds shrugged their shoulders and said "Hey, better than what Saddam would have done, so we're ok!"