Discussion:
No Fahrenheit 9/11 for Fairbanks
(too old to reply)
Gerald Newton
2004-06-27 23:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.

If you would like to send an email, FAX, or make a phone call to Regal you
can do so at the following contact information:

***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemedia.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com
***@regalcinemas.com

Regal Entertainment Group
9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 200
Centennial, CO 80112
Phone: 303-792-3600
Fax: 303-792-8221

and their other corporate office:

Regal Entertainment Group
7132 Regal Lane
Knoxville, TN 37918
Phone: 865-925-9685
Fax: 865-925-9877
Fax: 865-922-3188
unknown
2004-06-28 00:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
===================

Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they want. You
probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in their theaters
either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
John P. Mullen
2004-06-28 03:51:06 UTC
Permalink
And, private companies do respond to their customer's wishes.

Or, at least, if you don't complain, they wont respond for sure.

John Mullen
Post by unknown
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16
at
Post by Gerald Newton
301 E. 36th Ave.
===================
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they want. You
probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in their theaters
either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Melissa
2004-06-28 04:24:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't be
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like this,
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an editorial/political
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.

What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they can
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds about
the content.

All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to act
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a product.

- --
Melissa
unknown
2004-06-28 12:18:06 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't be
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like this,
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an editorial/political
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.
What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they can
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds about
the content.
All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to act
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a product.
- --
Melissa
==================

Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP! CENSORSHIP !
Melissa
2004-06-28 18:52:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:18:06 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP!
CENSORSHIP !
I'll mention a little concept possibly worth pondering: choice.

I may happen to agree with Michael Moore's politics in general, and I
couldn't care less about Howard Stern. I really don't like the
policies of the current US regime, but I also have my problems with
all sorts of politicians and political ideologies...including
"mainstream" Democrats. Our starkly artificial two party system all
too often brings one rather disappointing image to my mind; that of
two wings of the same dead chicken.

All that said, I still feel that I'd rather have the choice to hear
and see *all* of these people and their various points of view, then
make up my own mind on various issues...rather than feel that
someone, from one "side" or another, is trying to "protect" me from
this choice. Call it what you will - censorship or "father knows
best" political spinning - but its affect is the same...an
intentional attempt to limit *my* choices in order to influence my
point of view, and I resent that.

As I mentioned in my previous post...it's too often a fear of letting
people make up their own minds about something that drives some
people to want to limit other people's options. Regardless of how
righteous someone considers themselves and their particular views to
be, they will instantly loose my respect when they try to limit my
choices just to further their own cause.

I expect people to be biased...myself included. I do not, however,
restrict myself to only associate with people and ideas that "fit" my
own...even when it comes to being respectful to and friendly with
people who hold very different views from my own on various issues. I
just want the choice to make up my own mind.

Michael Moore is definitely not trying to be "balanced" with his
film, but at the same time, he's not stupid enough to think that he
can shield my eyes and mind from other sources of information and
other viewpoints...and he's not trying to. That's all I ask of him,
and all I ask of "the other side" as well. As far as I'm concerned,
anyone who's afraid to allow me that choice is someone I feel I can't
trust. If anyone feels they are truly "right" about something, they
shouldn't be afraid to let me hear from those who they think are
"wrong".

- --
Melissa
Dennis P. Harris
2004-06-29 07:50:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:18:06 -0400 in alt.culture.alaska,
"Another Michael Moron Crockumentary Full of Lies & BS" <I Scam
Post by unknown
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP! CENSORSHIP !
it's obvious keebler doesn't live here and have GCI cable.
Dana
2004-07-04 14:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't be
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like this,
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an editorial/political
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.
What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they can
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds about
the content.
All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to act
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a product.
- --
Melissa
==================
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP! CENSORSHIP !
GCI has it on cable.
Lsmfd5243
2004-07-05 02:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't be
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like this,
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an editorial/political
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.
What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they can
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds about
the content.
All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to act
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a product.
- --
Melissa
==================
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP! CENSORSHIP !
GCI has it on cable.
=================

Not his daily Radio show ! GASP! Censors !
Dana
2004-07-05 16:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't be
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like this,
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an editorial/political
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.
What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they can
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds about
the content.
All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to act
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a product.
- --
Melissa
==================
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP!
CENSORSHIP
Post by unknown
!
Post by Dana
GCI has it on cable.
=================
Not his daily Radio show ! GASP! Censors !
I thgought he was yanked off the air for something he did???
Lsmfd5243
2004-07-06 03:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie they
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno in
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't
be
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like this,
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an
editorial/political
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.
What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they
can
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds about
the content.
All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to act
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a
product.
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
- --
Melissa
==================
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP!
CENSORSHIP
Post by unknown
!
Post by Dana
GCI has it on cable.
=================
Not his daily Radio show ! GASP! Censors !
I thgought he was yanked off the air for something he did???
===============

No . a few radio stations stopped airing his show after racist statements
about black women were made on one days show. Nothing was censored. Stern
is still on the air on other stations. Like some news[papers carry some
editorials by certain writers and not others , it is their choice and not
censorship.
Dana
2004-07-07 00:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melissa
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:04:36 -0400, I Scam stupid people from
their
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
Private Corporations have the right to pay for whatever movie
they
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
want. You probably are mad that they dont show hard core porno
in
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
their theaters either. Guess you call that censorship as well.
Of course you're correct that a corporate decision like that can't
be
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
properly called "censorship"; since a private corporation isn't
obliged to be politically unbiased. In the case of a film like
this,
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
however, it could very reasonably be seen as an
editorial/political
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
decision. Considering how much money is being made by cinemas that
are showing it, I very much doubt that it was a decision borne of
financial concerns.
What I find most striking about this situation is that it seems to
show a degree of political fear on the part of those who wish to
suppress such a film. If the owners of the the cinema really don't
have anything to fear from public opinion with regards to the
political issues, I don't see any reason for them to do what they
can
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
to prevent people from seeing it and making up their own minds
about
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
the content.
All the same, the owners of a company have just as much right to
act
Post by Melissa
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
upon their own political convictions as Michael Moore does to act
upon his. It remains unfortunate though, that residents of the
Fairbanks area are so inconvenienced by the political whims of a
company that seems to be the only local "provider" of such a
product.
Post by unknown
Post by Dana
Post by unknown
- --
Melissa
==================
Does anyone carry the Howard Stern Show in Alaska? No! GASP!
CENSORSHIP
Post by unknown
!
Post by Dana
GCI has it on cable.
=================
Not his daily Radio show ! GASP! Censors !
I thgought he was yanked off the air for something he did???
===============
No . a few radio stations stopped airing his show after racist statements
about black women were made on one days show. Nothing was censored. Stern
is still on the air on other stations. Like some news[papers carry some
editorials by certain writers and not others , it is their choice and not
censorship.
Just curious, I thought I had heard something to that effect, thanks for the
info.
I

unknown
2004-06-28 02:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
=================

Don't worry, it will be in the 99 cent bins at Hollywood Video Stores in a
few weeks.
somebody in fairbanks
2004-06-28 06:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Not to worry. The Blue Loon's page says it's coming soon!
http://www.theblueloon.com/movies.html
The Hateful Donut
2004-06-28 06:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
I saw it Friday night here in Anchorage, sandwiched in a row between school
board members and Theresa Obermeyer. Lucky me.

Great movie, btw. And they're planning on showing it on 2 or 3x as many
screens nationwide for next weekend.

I'd bet that it shows in Fairbanks.
unknown
2004-06-28 12:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Hateful Donut
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16
at
Post by Gerald Newton
301 E. 36th Ave.
I saw it Friday night here in Anchorage, sandwiched in a row between school
board members and Theresa Obermeyer. Lucky me.
Great movie, btw. And they're planning on showing it on 2 or 3x as many
screens nationwide for next weekend.
I'd bet that it shows in Fairbanks.
================
Did Micahel Moron inform the audience that it was Clinton appointee
Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke that personally allowed the Bin Laden family
to flee the US ?
Why would Moron want to do that. That ruines his myth that Bush
singlehandedly allowed it.
Just like his Bowling movie, 9-11 is full of lies that he is making $$ off
of suckers that pay hiom for it.
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 16:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Did Micahel Moron inform the audience that it was Clinton appointee
Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke that personally allowed the Bin Laden family
to flee the US ?
Dude, that's pretty ignorant to think that Richard Clarke would have the
authority to allow something like that after a terrorist attack. If the
nation buttoned down, a decision to allow that would have to come from
way on high, not from Clarke. There's no proof to this rumor.
Post by unknown
Why would Moron want to do that. That ruines his myth that Bush
singlehandedly allowed it.
You're not backing this up with proof. Would you care to?
Post by unknown
Just like his Bowling movie, 9-11 is full of lies that he is making $$ off
of suckers that pay hiom for it.
So, why don't you prove it? Or shut up.
unknown
2004-06-28 16:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew M. Gray
Post by unknown
Did Micahel Moron inform the audience that it was Clinton appointee
Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke that personally allowed the Bin Laden family
to flee the US ?
Dude, that's pretty ignorant to think that Richard Clarke would have the
authority to allow something like that after a terrorist attack. If the
nation buttoned down, a decision to allow that would have to come from
way on high, not from Clarke. There's no proof to this rumor.
===================

It was all over the news . Dont you get cable up in your AK shack?

Thursday, April 1, 2004 2:56 p.m. EST

Clarke: I Let bin Laden Family Go

Don't look now, but Clinton terrorism czar Richard Clarke has inadvertently
let the White House off the hook on the most potentially explosive charge
related to 9/11 - allegations that President Bush let Osama bin Laden's
family escape from the U.S. in the days after the attacks on the World Trade
Center and Pentagon.

Clarke says nothing about this episode in his book and with good reason,
since the truth fits neither his Bush-bashing agenda nor his carefully
constructed image as a tougher-than-nails terrorism fighter.

It turns out that it was Clarke himself who gave the green light for Osama
bin Laden's relatives to fly home to Riyadh beginning on Sept. 14, just
three days after U.S. skies were closed to all air traffic.

The subject of the bin Ladens' escape came up briefly during Clarke's
testimony before the 9/11 Commission last week, where he tried to finesse
his role in blowing what many still believe was the best chance to get
information on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and his family's financial
network.

Clarke told the Commission that an individual - whose identity he doesn't
recall - relayed a request for the bin Laden fly-out from the Saudi Embassy
to his White House Situation Room Crisis Management Team.

He says that he refused to grant approval until the FBI signed off.

In his testimony the closest Clarke came to admitting responsibility was
when he told the Commission:

"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we
ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions that we were
making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on
the video conference," Clarke explained, before hinting at his own
responsibility.

"I was making - or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 in the days
immediately after," he told the Commission.

But in the next breath Clarke tried to shift responsibility away from
himself, suggesting instead that blame for the blunder should go perhaps to
White House Chief of Staff Andy Card or Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal
to me," the terrorism whistleblower lamented to the Commission. "Since you
press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the
Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's office. But I don't
know."

In an interview with Vanity Fair last October, however, Clarke was more
forthright about his role in the decision to let the bin Ladens go.

"My role was to say it can't happen until the FBI approves it," he told VF
writer Craig Unger. "And so the FBI was asked - we had a live connection to
the FBI - and we asked the FBI to make sure that they were satisfied that
everybody getting on that plane was someone that it was O.K. to leave."

Then Clarke confessed, "And [the FBI] came back and said, yes it was fine
with them. So we said fine, let it happen."

The charge that President Bush was to blame for the bin Ladens' escape had
already become a cause celebre in left-wing circles, with radical filmmaker
Michael Moore among those complaining that the terrorist's kin were allowed
to fly the coop at a time when all U.S. flights were still grounded.

In fact, as noted by Unger in his VF piece, U.S. skies had been re-opened to
air traffic by the time the bin Ladens were allowed to leave on Sept. 14,
leaving yet another Democrat urban legend in tatters.



http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx



http://www.slantpoint.com/mt-arx/001245.html



http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=relations&Number=211&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 17:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
It was all over the news . Dont you get cable up in your AK shack?
I do, but I missed that one apparently, as there's a lot of things going
on in my life with dying family members lately. I'll ignore your
childish attack on my intellect, since that's the only way you can prove
your supposed moral and intellectual superiority. So, you linked to
sites "by and for" the Republican controlled Congress, a right wing-nut
publication, and a forum with mere opinions??? That doesn't tell me much
other than what YOU want to hear.
Post by unknown
He says that he refused to grant approval until the FBI signed off.
"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we
ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions that we were
making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on
the video conference," Clarke explained, before hinting at his own
responsibility.
Notice the part about deciding after consulting *with* the FBI? The
intelligence arm that failed us by hindering and covering up the fact
that they didn't investigate or were forced to stop investigating the
9/11 terrorists? Interesting. So it's ok if Bush gets bad intelligence
from the CIA and sends of our troops to be needlessly killed, but if
Clarke along with the FBI does something questionable, it's wrong? Ahem.
It's wrong on both counts. Bad decision making is just that. Doesn't
matter if it's Clarke or Bush, Republican or Democrat.

So, I'm not defending Clarke here, but this got a big twist on it thanks
to Bush and Co. Notice how Bush is never wrong, it's everyone else that
is? It's time for the bullshit to stop.

And you're still dodging the big one here. Can you prove the "lies"
Michael Moore is making (all of which are all based in complete fact and
provable in the "news"?)

Andrew
unknown
2004-06-28 17:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew M. Gray
Post by unknown
It was all over the news . Dont you get cable up in your AK shack?
I do, but I missed that one apparently, as there's a lot of things going
on in my life with dying family members lately. I'll ignore your
childish attack on my intellect, since that's the only way you can prove
your supposed moral and intellectual superiority. So, you linked to
sites "by and for" the Republican controlled Congress, a right wing-nut
publication, and a forum with mere opinions??? That doesn't tell me much
other than what YOU want to hear.
Post by unknown
He says that he refused to grant approval until the FBI signed off.
"I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we
ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions that we were
making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on
the video conference," Clarke explained, before hinting at his own
responsibility.
Notice the part about deciding after consulting *with* the FBI? The
intelligence arm that failed us by hindering and covering up the fact
that they didn't investigate or were forced to stop investigating the
9/11 terrorists? Interesting. So it's ok if Bush gets bad intelligence
from the CIA and sends of our troops to be needlessly killed, but if
Clarke along with the FBI does something questionable, it's wrong? Ahem.
It's wrong on both counts. Bad decision making is just that. Doesn't
matter if it's Clarke or Bush, Republican or Democrat.
So, I'm not defending Clarke here, but this got a big twist on it thanks
to Bush and Co. Notice how Bush is never wrong, it's everyone else that
is? It's time for the bullshit to stop.
And you're still dodging the big one here. Can you prove the "lies"
Michael Moore is making (all of which are all based in complete fact and
provable in the "news"?)
Andrew
=======================
Here you go. Complete obliteration of Moore's lies, one by one.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 May 2004


Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the
plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship,
the film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had
no intention of distributing it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/001475.php

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/246/
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 17:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Here you go. Complete obliteration of Moore's lies, one by one.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
No, I'm talking about Fahrenheit 9/11, not Bowling for Columbine. Can
you think for yourself, or do you have to post right wing websites that
do the thinking for you?
unknown
2004-06-28 18:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew M. Gray
Post by unknown
Here you go. Complete obliteration of Moore's lies, one by one.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
No, I'm talking about Fahrenheit 9/11, not Bowling for Columbine. Can
you think for yourself, or do you have to post right wing websites that
do the thinking for you?
============
So was i . you cant rerad links i see. Does your mommy still wipe your ass
too?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 19:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
So was i . you cant rerad links i see. Does your mommy still wipe your ass
too?
Awww, how cute, you pulled out another insult because you can't think
for yourself or back up your crap with any facts.

There is no F9/11 section yet. The stuff up is about Bowling for
Columbine. What's this then, at the top of the page?

"-And yes, a Fahrenheit 911 section will be on the site soon..."

It's rather convenient for you to hide behind a fictitious name spewing
your crap. Don't allude to growing up when you haven't do so yourself.

Andrew
unknown
2004-06-28 19:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
So was i . you cant read links i see. Does your mommy still wipe your
ass
Post by unknown
too?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Awww, how cute, you pulled out another insult because you can't think
for yourself or back up your crap with any facts.
There is no F9/11 section yet. The stuff up is about Bowling for
Columbine. What's this then, at the top of the page?
==================
Lair. Do you really like making such an ass of yourself??


http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT


One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American
left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn,
mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many
times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and
semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be
our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the
comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the
second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that
I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally
beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America
network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There,
one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over
wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media
presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit
9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a
possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic
standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni
Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote
those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece
of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise
above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile
crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise
in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is
also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a
demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society,
I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival.
In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden
should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the
American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at
least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we
knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that
Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty
and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a
dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I
understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about
Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if
convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle
Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in
the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline
across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and
thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely
risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine
from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to
all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's
direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these
discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run
U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they
do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed
Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right:
They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the
time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to
send any at all-the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002-or we sent too
few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or
escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore
is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in"
the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we
discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a
joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest
military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is
preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least
a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't
think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do
with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar-an insurance against
warlordism and a condition of nation-building-is nearing completion with
infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan
secular left-like the parties of the Iraqi secular left-are strongly in
favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore
chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the
distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of
the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of
the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about
this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the
groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which
Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike.
In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the
film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain
of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's
former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he
alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This
might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that-as you
might expect-Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical
hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that,
in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is
taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So,
that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all
mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only
sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by
wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is
accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way?
Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?)
But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with
Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so
briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A
meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this
prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf
course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then
asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you
catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he
often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton
had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More
interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the
infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole
minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say
that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance,
and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such
thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a
month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a
man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be
saying what they already say-that he knew the attack was coming, was using
it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup.
This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that
also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least
Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in
their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many
other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact,
Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions,
however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N.
resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting
choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling
in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then-wham!
From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching
the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various
Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But
these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera
would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic.
You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not
even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore
at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight
answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent"
side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year
record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned
once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only,
and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to
the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this-his pro-American moment-was the worst Moore could possibly say of
Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications.
Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even
threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as
ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was
for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the
most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by
the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe
house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam
boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel.
(Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.)
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After
that same invasion was repelled-Saddam having killed quite a few Americans
and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to
kill many more-the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former
President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should
take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not
resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired
chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered
the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.)
Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled
the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of
the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the
bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a
guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime
was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New
York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger
revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic
incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one
was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was
after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved
from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal
design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times
reported-and the David Kay report had established-that Saddam had been
secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of
secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North
Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf.
(This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the
coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you
can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so
many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly
believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look
again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to
happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others
would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having
ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of
another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From
being accused of overlooking too many warnings-not exactly an original
point-the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many.
(Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken
seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd
encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who
can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police
departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any
stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we
know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations.
Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation
at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not
forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister
influence of Big Tobacco.) So-he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport
officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is
having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again-simply not
serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the
Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to
switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and
the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of
vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then
how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to
stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in
Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's
recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the
liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary
points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory."
Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle
East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare
not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be
a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not
take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience
member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial
isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush
for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From
Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures,
such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of
Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the
presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to
point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army,
and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in
Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this
time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and
march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for
almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S.
Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army
that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the
film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to
garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those
who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well,
where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from?
Does he favor a draft-the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he
think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he
think-as he seems to suggest-that parents can "send" their children, as he
stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned
Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in
their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack)
riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a
waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like
taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or
flies or gets a cheer.

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one
of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview,
he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would
have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and
women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on
those planes-we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that
Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed
the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring
down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward
either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real,
impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than
actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident
fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being
brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not
recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon
it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is
everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might
face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that
he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking
staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue,
Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I
gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop
the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one
form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this
terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience
strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the
conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that
"fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers-get a
life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid
response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show.
Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a
movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's
kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah,
well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget
made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill
Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more
polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know,
thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of
view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out
absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw
in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one
bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance
to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter
and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them
and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote
somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (.), I swear on
my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full,
would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this
pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael
Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up
the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for
minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved
mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who
thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for
Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore
concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The
words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a
hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The
clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that
there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and
the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore
had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying,
and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are
simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow
their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual
pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of
western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda
usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if
one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one
finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are
directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States .

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word
of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already
way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also
incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric
celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big
man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been
cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan
would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of
Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic
crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for
WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce
a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of
the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock
the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist
attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985
attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected
sentence.)


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood,
Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in
paperback.

Photograph of Michael Moore by Pascal Guyot/Agence France-Presse. Stills
from Fahrenheit 9/11 © 2004 Lions Gate Films. All Rights Reserved.Photograph
of Michael Moore on the Slate home page by Eric Gaillard/Reuters.
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 19:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Lair. Do you really like making such an ass of yourself??
Ohh, Chris Hitchens, now I'm convinced. An op-ed piece like that with an
agenda should not be taken as fact, it's mere opinion. I said what I did
because you linked to the first site and said it uncovered his lies one
by one. Then I said that I meant F9/11 and you said so do you, but I was
talking about that first site. Now you're trying to backpedal. And yes,
I may be a "lair", but I'm no liar. Who are you, and why are you hiding?
Is the hospital looking for you?
unknown
2004-06-28 20:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew M. Gray
Post by unknown
Lair. Do you really like making such an ass of yourself??
Ohh, Chris Hitchens, now I'm convinced. An op-ed piece like that with an
agenda should not be taken as fact, it's mere opinion. I said what I did
because you linked to the first site and said it uncovered his lies one
by one. Then I said that I meant F9/11 and you said so do you, but I was
talking about that first site. Now you're trying to backpedal. And yes,
I may be a "lair", but I'm no liar. Who are you, and why are you hiding?
Is the hospital looking for you?
===========
Then you will have no probelm refuting the cite by cite examples he gave
describing all of Moore's lies then will you. Come on, it must be so easy
for you to do. List them all and back up your claims with cites like
Hitchens did . Come on, are you chicken or just unable to do so?
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 21:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Then you will have no probelm refuting the cite by cite examples he gave
describing all of Moore's lies then will you. Come on, it must be so easy
for you to do. List them all and back up your claims with cites like
Hitchens did . Come on, are you chicken or just unable to do so?
Neither. But I will say that I'm done with this, since you 100% don't
understand the difference between facts and opinions. Bye bye!
unknown
2004-06-28 21:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew M. Gray
Post by unknown
Then you will have no probelm refuting the cite by cite examples he gave
describing all of Moore's lies then will you. Come on, it must be so easy
for you to do. List them all and back up your claims with cites like
Hitchens did . Come on, are you chicken or just unable to do so?
Neither. But I will say that I'm done with this, since you 100% don't
understand the difference between facts and opinions. Bye bye!
===========
Thats it, run and hide when the facts are against you. Bawwwwk bawwwk bawwk
!


Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation


By Ed Koch

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Monday, June 28, 2004

It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are
at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its
strength and making its enemies stronger. I am not a supporter of the
xenophobic slogan "My country right or wrong." But I do believe, when
seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the
country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.

Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it,
responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First
Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse
and rightly so.

Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the
incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of
his views. On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film
"Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in
the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know
instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the
obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time
of war.





David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected
some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries
which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line. Brooks writes:

"Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human
existence: 'You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which
is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.' In
Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern
world: 'It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies,
Israel, Halliburton.We, the United States of America, are culpable in
committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a
clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active
participants...Don't be like us,' he told a crowd in Berlin. 'You've got to
stand up, right? You've got to be brave.' In an open letter to the German
people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, 'Should such an ignorant people lead the
world?'

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that
country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: 'The
motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq
in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other
countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will
make Americans rich.' But venality doesn't come up when he writes about
those who are killing Americans in Iraq: 'The Iraqis who have risen up
against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.'
They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and
they will win.' Until then, few social observers had made the connection
between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere."

Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question
Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my
commentary at that time follows:

"One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the
award-winning documentary "Roger & Me." During the warm-up before the studio
audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are
making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you
will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror." I was aghast
and responded, "I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when
we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act
of terror." I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring
as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long
before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from
other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments
he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair
of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience. Moore later
called President Bush a "dummy," denigrating him for having threatened Iraq
with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations
resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Again, I couldn't contain myself and said, "That's what you radicals on the
left always do. You don't debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You
did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600
speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence."

In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military
personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the
German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire. We currently are fighting the battle
against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy
Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from
suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into
surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy. How should we
respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we
should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in
military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. We should
continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we
ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities
to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies. A
good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times
as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

I am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." The movie is a
well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics.
It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The
most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political
debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

Newsday reported some of Moore's misstatements as follows: "At the start of
'Fahrenheit 9/11,' filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst
Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after
the 2000 presidential vote, 'under every scenario Gore won the election.'

"What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news
organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN
found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a
statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic
counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the
election.Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly
after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House 'approved planes to pick up
the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis' who, fearing reprisals, were flown
out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore
interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first
questioned the bin Ladens.

"But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the
attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: 'Nobody
was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview
in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any
involvement in those attacks'" It is clear to me from the tenor of the film'
s off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.
Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the
Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction? Would he agree that we should
have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs
in Srebrenica? Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a
million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are
murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into
slavery? Weren't we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations
Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and
that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them,
which they refused to do?

Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of
Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own
citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes.

The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair,
will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and
reinforce the opinions on both sides.



Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a
partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 17:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the
plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship,
the film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had
no intention of distributing it.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/001475.php
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/246/
At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner (who is a Bush campaign
contributor), the Walt Disney Company prohibited its Miramax division
from distributing "Fahrenheit 911." The company enjoys a cozy
relationship with President Bush's brother, Jeb. As governor of Florida,
Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That
fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Eisner told
reporters he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is "such
a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides."

That doesn't seem fishy now, does it?
Andrew M. Gray
2004-06-28 17:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
It was all over the news . Dont you get cable up in your AK shack?
Thursday, April 1, 2004 2:56 p.m. EST
How about this, straight out of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he
approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with
complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the
FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former
Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate
Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

Hmmm. Complete review? State Department? FBI? White House? Oh, that's
right, it's all Clarke's fault, I forgot.
Dennis P. Harris
2004-06-29 07:52:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:13:03 -0800 in alt.culture.alaska, "Andrew
Post by Andrew M. Gray
So, why don't you prove it? Or shut up.
the keebler elf spews lies all the time, just a right wingnut
sock puppet. his posting become obvious even when he keeps
spoofing new "names". just killfile his spoofs and most of his
off topic threads and you'll enjoy ACA much more.
Peggy
2004-06-28 12:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
Might it just be that Regal isn't showing it in any of their theaters?
Century 16 in Anchorage isn't a Regal theater.
Whine Moantoya
2004-06-28 13:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16
at
Post by Gerald Newton
301 E. 36th Ave.
Might it just be that Regal isn't showing it in any of their theaters?
Century 16 in Anchorage isn't a Regal theater.
==================
They are not showing " Debbie Does Dallas" either ! Damn CENSORS !
Gerald Newton
2004-06-29 01:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whine Moantoya
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they
have
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16
at
Post by Gerald Newton
301 E. 36th Ave.
Might it just be that Regal isn't showing it in any of their theaters?
Century 16 in Anchorage isn't a Regal theater.
==================
They are not showing " Debbie Does Dallas" either ! Damn CENSORS !
"Debbie Does Dallas" and more are shown everyday in a Fairbank's alternative
theatre, but not Fahrenheit 9/11..
unknown
2004-06-29 03:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerald Newton
Post by Whine Moantoya
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations
No.
Post by Gerald Newton
1
Post by Whine Moantoya
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they
have
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema
theatre
Post by Whine Moantoya
Post by Peggy
Post by Gerald Newton
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at
Century
Post by Gerald Newton
16
Post by Whine Moantoya
Post by Peggy
at
Post by Gerald Newton
301 E. 36th Ave.
Might it just be that Regal isn't showing it in any of their theaters?
Century 16 in Anchorage isn't a Regal theater.
==================
They are not showing " Debbie Does Dallas" either ! Damn CENSORS !
"Debbie Does Dallas" and more are shown everyday in a Fairbank's alternative
theatre, but not Fahrenheit 9/11..
============
Open your own theater and show what you want . Whatever you decide not to
show will be called censorship by someone.
kevin
2004-06-28 21:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
This is Usenet just download it. That way you can watch the movie and
see what it's about, but not put any money in Michael Moores pocket.
unknown
2004-06-28 21:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevin
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
This is Usenet just download it. That way you can watch the movie and
see what it's about, but not put any money in Michael Moores pocket.
================

Don't bother. Another Famous NY liberal just slammed the Crockumentary .



Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation

By Ed Koch
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, June 28, 2004
It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are
at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its
strength and making its enemies stronger. I am not a supporter of the
xenophobic slogan "My country right or wrong." But I do believe, when
seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the
country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.

Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it,
responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First
Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse
and rightly so.

Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the
incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of
his views. On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film
"Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in
the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know
instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the
obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time
of war.


David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected
some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries
which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line. Brooks writes:

"Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of
human existence: 'You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine,
which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.'
In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern
world: 'It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies,
Israel, Halliburton.We, the United States of America, are culpable in
committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a
clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active
participants...Don't be like us,' he told a crowd in Berlin. 'You've got to
stand up, right? You've got to be brave.' In an open letter to the German
people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, 'Should such an ignorant people lead the
world?'

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that
country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: 'The
motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq
in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other
countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will
make Americans rich.' But venality doesn't come up when he writes about
those who are killing Americans in Iraq: 'The Iraqis who have risen up
against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.'
They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and
they will win.' Until then, few social observers had made the connection
between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere."

Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.
A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question
Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my
commentary at that time follows:

"One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the
award-winning documentary "Roger & Me." During the warm-up before the studio
audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are
making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you
will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror." I was aghast
and responded, "I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when
we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act
of terror." I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring
as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long
before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from
other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments
he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair
of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience. Moore later
called President Bush a "dummy," denigrating him for having threatened Iraq
with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations
resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.
Again, I couldn't contain myself and said, "That's what you radicals on the
left always do. You don't debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You
did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600
speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence."

In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military
personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the
German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire. We currently are fighting the battle
against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy
Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from
suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into
surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy. How should we
respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we
should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in
military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. We should
continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we
ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities
to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies. A
good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times
as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

I am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." The movie is a
well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics.
It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The
most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political
debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

Newsday reported some of Moore's misstatements as follows: "At the start of
'Fahrenheit 9/11,' filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst
Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after
the 2000 presidential vote, 'under every scenario Gore won the election.'

"What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news
organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN
found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a
statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic
counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the
election.Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly
after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House 'approved planes to pick up
the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis' who, fearing reprisals, were flown
out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore
interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first
questioned the bin Ladens.

"But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the
attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: 'Nobody
was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview
in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any
involvement in those attacks'" It is clear to me from the tenor of the film'
s off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.
Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the
Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction? Would he agree that we should
have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs
in Srebrenica? Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a
million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are
murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into
slavery? Weren't we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations
Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and
that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them,
which they refused to do?

Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of
Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own
citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes.

The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair,
will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and
reinforce the opinions on both sides.


Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a
partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
Melissa
2004-06-29 00:15:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:34:04 -0400, I Scam stupid people from their
Post by unknown
Don't bother. Another Famous NY liberal just slammed the
Crockumentary.
So...like you, with regards to whichever "famous conservatives" you
most likely admire and follow blindly, should we "liberals" simply
consider as gospel every word uttered by any well known "liberal"? Do
you really see the world in such simple, "no need to think for
oneself" terms?

I lived in NYC during the time that Ed Koch was mayor (through David
Dinkins' and the beginning of Rudy Giuliani's reign as well), and
even though I didn't agree with him on every little point of opinion
or policy, I liked him as a mayor (I also liked Dinkins quite well).
Ed Koch is a smart, interesting, entertaining, and openly opinionated
*individual*...just as entitled to form his own personal opinions as
anyone else. Even when I didn't agree with him on this or that issue,
I found his personal style to be refreshing. Still though, he's "just
another human being" with his own opinions on this or that. Even as a
NYC "liberal", I don't ever remember taking any solemn - or even not
so solemn - oath to blindly follow the lead of "exalted liberal
leaders" - including Mayor Koch - in order to form my own
opinions...just because we shared some semi-arbitrary label of
"liberal".

I have no interest in getting into a name calling, insult trading
match with you, so take what I'm about to say as you will...but
please don't bother to try and engage me on such a low level as
you've shown yourself prone to do in previous messages...

So far in this thread, you've employed two methods of "making your
point". First, to simply fling meaningless insults. Secondly, to
quote others. My question is this: Are you incapable of coming up
with your very own thoughts to defend your very own position? If not,
then there's very little reason to discuss anything with you. I'm
sure that most people reading these messages are at least as good at
googling for articles as you are, so why do we need your help? If you
really have something meaningful to say, you won't need to depend on
citing the words of others...or simply resort to flinging insults (I
had quite enough of that in grammar school playgrounds).

- --
Melissa
Jim Booth
2004-06-29 15:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by kevin
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they have
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16 at
301 E. 36th Ave.
This is Usenet just download it. That way you can watch the movie and
see what it's about, but not put any money in Michael Moores pocket.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and the station was saying to buy a
ticket to one show and then when inside to go to Fahrenheit 9/11. That was
money will not go into Michael Moore's pocket. *That* just isn't right.

JIM
kevin
2004-06-30 03:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Booth
Post by kevin
Post by Gerald Newton
Regal Cinemas has decided to not show Fahrenheit 9/11, the nations No. 1
movie right now for whatever reason. This is not the first time they
have
Post by kevin
Post by Gerald Newton
censored our movies for us. Since we only have one Regal Cinema theatre
Fairbanksans will have to go to Anchorage to see this film at Century 16
at
Post by kevin
Post by Gerald Newton
301 E. 36th Ave.
This is Usenet just download it. That way you can watch the movie and
see what it's about, but not put any money in Michael Moores pocket.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and the station was saying to buy a
ticket to one show and then when inside to go to Fahrenheit 9/11. That was
money will not go into Michael Moore's pocket. *That* just isn't right.
JIM
They said they wouldn't show it in the main theater here in
Juneau.(reason below)

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a small documentary film. Even though it is
getting a lot of press it is still a small release. We are not a big
enough market to be able to get a print in the near future. With the
short window between theatrical release and video release, by the time
we would be able to get it, it will probably be out on video. Also
with the amount of major studio product coming out this summer and the
number of screens we have available, we would not have room for it
until September or October."
bookburn
2004-06-30 05:13:08 UTC
Permalink
"kevin" <***@spam.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
|
| They said they wouldn't show it in the main theater here in
| Juneau.(reason below)
|
| "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a small documentary film. Even though it is
| getting a lot of press it is still a small release. We are not a big
| enough market to be able to get a print in the near future. With the
| short window between theatrical release and video release, by the
time
| we would be able to get it, it will probably be out on video. Also
| with the amount of major studio product coming out this summer and
the
| number of screens we have available, we would not have room for it
| until September or October."

It sounds a bit suspicious, as if the waffling might be due to
politics, but I suspect the market for the flick in Fairbanks, and a
lot of places, really is like that. It's a documentary, out of the
mainstream, and probably will only run for a short time, then be out
on DVD for $8. My guess is that the politics of US media is not
encouraging about serious discussion of points raised in the film, any
more than the movie about Christ's Passion, so it's not even going to
get reviewed much. On the other hand, social commentary may keep it
before the public consciousness for a long time. Thing is, too, that
the guy has made a couple provocative movies and might now get the
backing to do lots more. bb
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...