Guest BROWNer Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 check this shit: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...ay.asp?aid=4972 "Organzing to Oppose Michael Moore's Film, ''Fahrenheit 9/11''" Posted by Jon Alvarez Saturday, November 08, 2003 Patriots: We at PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood) are beginning to organize a concerted effort to protest/boycott the Michael Moore 9/11 conspiracy film, ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' due out in theatres next year. We feel this film will be nothing more than an insult to the memories of the victims of 9/11 and is a political attack piece aimed at President Bush. This is over the top and tramples on sacred ground. If you are interested in being involved, we are looking to set up networks in all 50 states, to spread the word, recruit other supporters, etc. We want to make the outcry vs. CBS look like a picnic compared to this. Our guess is that Moore will plan on a 9/11/2004 release date, two months prior to the election and on the anniversary of 9/11. This guy is a shameless self-promoter who is attempting to defile an event that is sacred to many of us...and we should not sit quietly and take it. If interested, let me know, especially which state you are in. We need your help to spread the word to others who may want to be involved; groups, individuals, etc. We are currently working with other like-minded groups and are even talking with patriots of grassfire.net to centralize a petition drive thru them. Why have five boycott sites and 10 different petitions dedicated to this next year when the hoopla over all of this starts? Let's coordinate, be prepared, and just have one big effort... If we learned anything from the CBS fiasco, it's that we can make a difference. Ultimately, our goal is to have this tank at the box office and to convince theatre owners that it is not in their financial interests to book this film. If we boycott all movie theatres during the time they carry this vile film, thus hurting their bottom line, we can have a huge impact on whether or not they carry this film. God Bless America! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in case you weren't aware, the film aims to mass expose the conspiracy of silence surrounding the bush/binladen/saudi royal family connections, most of which are factual, numerous, and highly problematic considering the relentless efforts by the white house to mute the independant commisions mandate to fully investigate what happened on 9/11. keep in mind that this commission wasn't even going to be set up, victims families had to threaten the white house legally before they would approve such a commission. furthermore, this persons(i mean 'patriot') complete lack of perspective becomes extra special when one looks at the current state of the commission and its (lack of) findings. yay. another dose of cynical fucking garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 I like that they are making the assumption that he will release it on 9/11. That would be pretty tasteless, and i'm not too sure if Michael Moore would do something like that, he isn't the NRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 i like how dude has wrapped himself in the flag and desires to destroy a fellow americans constitutional rights. how fucking sweet ass is that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 I'm sure Moore is salivating at the thought of great outcry re: his film. It will only provide free press for the man, ensuring more people will want to watch the film to see what all the fuss is about. For a similar experience, see Franken and Fox re: use of "Fair and Balanced." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 haha, yes, franken is the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyuzo Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 moore is a fuckin moron to begin with, who gives a fuck what he has to say after that last little piece of shit he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 ^ fucking sweet!!! way to articulate-and-delineate!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DISCO BRYSO Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 franken, moore and the pundits of that ilk are confusing.. I met michael moore during the wto protests when he showed up and made some, slightly funny, joke about how he and the "head" of the the organization share the same name..in my opinion just another annoying susan sarandon, danny glover-type message. it's strange how simplistic his beliefs are, but even stranger that if you asked people who watch his films probably 9 out of 10 of them couldn't aptly identify them. I think why the right-wing has such a hard time dealing with these two is understandable. it's similar to a gang war. two sides consistently retaliating with more outrageous claims and attacks until it is impossible for either side to remember why they're fighting in the first place. it's obvious that they are angry and upset that we are growing more conservative, but I've never heard them once suggest anything concrete that would produce a more beneficial outcome. frankly, I dislike corporate welfare as much as any of you liberal, open-minded, freeloading, hippies. but the fact remains that the American globilization machine has already trampled the simple purpose behind such acts of civil disobedience as protest, free-speech, etc. that's not to say we shouldn't be actively disputing the false claims of the right, but I doubt that the methods employed by franken and moore will get them anywhere with people who are in opposition to their viewpoints. they are not politicians, and I doubt they ever will be, so how do they expect to change politics without falling into the same historical traps as the right-wing has? dissemination of one opinion is simply that, one opinion. I think it would be more impressive if either of them just chilled out for a moment and attacked the right-wing in a way that isn't typically anti-america, anti-war, anti-consumerist, anti-establishment. I mean isn't this all getting a bit too predictable? in seattle we had a guy run for city council who decided to "protest" against campaign financing by, simply, not raising any money. it was a respectable viewpoint, but, in the end, he lost by 50%+ of the vote. why? because no matter how much anti-politician media there is out there the guy in the nicer suit with the well-manicured speaking voice who can remain calm in the face of his opposition will always win. prediction: Bush wins in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseguy Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 flee america, claim political asylum in mexico or canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyuzo Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pores Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 like his books, like his films...hope he finishes the film. if bush becomes president in 2004, im moving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rectum Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 the BBC is a financially weak, government funded TV company whose main aim is to put shit on the air that is beneficial to society rather then make profit. I heard from someone who works for BBC that when Michael Moore was asked to do a small-time project with then he demanded that they put him up in the london's Ritz hotel. They thought this was a bit bad-natured but agreed..... then he decided that they had to pay for his whole family to fly over and stay with him (indluding some extended family not just his wife/kids!) . After the fortnight or so was up the BBC found that he had billed something ridiculous like $10K on roomservice and shit like that .....they couldnt beleive it.... Michael Moore sold out.!!! he is a fake dog, boycot that shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_dowmagik Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Originally posted by Rectum Michael Moore sold out.!!! he is a fake dog, boycot that shit i think his "message" stand out more than the messager himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekro Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Originally posted by BROWNer This guy is a shameless self-promoter who is attempting to defile an event that is sacred to many of us...and we should not sit quietly and take it. Yeah september eleventh is sacred to them since it allowed bush to pass the PATRIOT act and take all our rights away, then institute authoritarian right-wing rule on the lot of us. All that shit aside, saying that 911 is sacred is just fucking creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Originally posted by wiseguy flee america, claim political asylum in mexico or canada. believe me, the thoughts crossed my mind.... but more along the lines of sweden or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grasshoppa Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Originally posted by DISCO BRYSO franken, moore and the pundits of that ilk are confusing.. I met michael moore during the wto protests when he showed up and made some, slightly funny, joke about how he and the "head" of the the organization share the same name..in my opinion just another annoying susan sarandon, danny glover-type message. it's strange how simplistic his beliefs are, but even stranger that if you asked people who watch his films probably 9 out of 10 of them couldn't aptly identify them. I think why the right-wing has such a hard time dealing with these two is understandable. it's similar to a gang war. two sides consistently retaliating with more outrageous claims and attacks until it is impossible for either side to remember why they're fighting in the first place. it's obvious that they are angry and upset that we are growing more conservative, but I've never heard them once suggest anything concrete that would produce a more beneficial outcome. frankly, I dislike corporate welfare as much as any of you liberal, open-minded, freeloading, hippies. but the fact remains that the American globilization machine has already trampled the simple purpose behind such acts of civil disobedience as protest, free-speech, etc. that's not to say we shouldn't be actively disputing the false claims of the right, but I doubt that the methods employed by franken and moore will get them anywhere with people who are in opposition to their viewpoints. they are not politicians, and I doubt they ever will be, so how do they expect to change politics without falling into the same historical traps as the right-wing has? dissemination of one opinion is simply that, one opinion. I think it would be more impressive if either of them just chilled out for a moment and attacked the right-wing in a way that isn't typically anti-america, anti-war, anti-consumerist, anti-establishment. I mean isn't this all getting a bit too predictable? in seattle we had a guy run for city council who decided to "protest" against campaign financing by, simply, not raising any money. it was a respectable viewpoint, but, in the end, he lost by 50%+ of the vote. why? because no matter how much anti-politician media there is out there the guy in the nicer suit with the well-manicured speaking voice who can remain calm in the face of his opposition will always win. prediction: Bush wins in 2004. good fucking post! http://www.12ozprophet.com/ubb/icons/icon26.gif'> http://www.12ozprophet.com/ubb/icons/icon26.gif'> http://www.12ozprophet.com/ubb/icons/icon26.gif'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferris Bueller Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 "We feel this film will be nothing more than an insult to the memories of the victims of 9/11" WHAT!!?!?! The fucking MEDIA's involvment with 9/11 is a DIRECT insult to those victims, their family, and the American people. So far, for the past two years, all I've seen is them loop it over and over on news channels on the anniversary dates just to get better ratings. I know that's their motive, so should you. It's a fucking CASH COW to them, just like the whole Jessica Lynch shenanigans. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old*824 Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 ill go see the movie, but i just watched bowling for columbine. no where near as good as i thought it was going to be. personally, i know i could have done a much better job with a few freinds. he brought up some points, but they were not well supported and really only stated the obvious. hardly groundbreaking and effective as it could have been. and i dont doubt that he bilked bbc. and thats some bullshit. cause bbc is a real resource these days. shit, he shoulda paid them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rectum Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 not only that but his books are full of inconsistenices but some statements and even statistics are completely false hes a pure entertainer, simple as that, theres nothing wrong with it but thats all he is...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æ° Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Examples... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old*824 Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 bowling for columbine.... it should of been far more in depth and less glitzy. if he would of done a bbc style doc on it, far more in depth issues would of been documented. that and the fact that the population of candada and europe is maybe what the us is so that kind of nulls the whole death ratio point. basically he just stated the the truth but did a poor job of articulation on its roots and underlying causes. the gun deaths in the us are mostly innercity and drug related. that was not documented or investigated indepthly in his film. i have been meaning to get around to reading his books though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æ° Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 See, that's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 michael moore is 60% movie maker and 40% percent documentarian, unfortunately, the need for unbiased fact is lost somewhere in that extra 20% it takes to 'make a movie'... He might as well grow a mustache and call himself Geraldo... It's not that he makes invalid points, it's that he uses invalid facts and scenarios to support his points, and that undermines the whole project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old*824 Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 exactly. and he looks like the owl on the tootsie roll commercial. i mean damn, im no genius, wait yes i prolly am but.....why the fuck cant i get a investor, cause ill drop real knowledge with a docu... nahmsayendough.....i make a documentry on the history of malt liqour and the effects it has had on urban america thats better than bowling for columbine. and his new one, i mean ill see it but.....im pretty sure his conspiracy theory on 911 is gonna be the wrong one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcia_vega Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 i have a lot of respect for micheal moore. at least he's trying to do something to make a difference and open people's eyes. and even if it was more of a movie than a documentary, that's the only way to reach a lot of people these days. the truth isn't enough. most of our brains are too fried from a constant flood of media to process anything unless it's set to music, distilled into a sound bite, has some sexy woman or man, or some kind of crazy special effects. tv, not religion, is the real opiate of the masses. i like that michael moore brought that up, even though i guess it's ironic that he did it in a movie. bowling for columbine makes people think when they watch it. whether they believe in what he's saying or think he's full of shit, at least it gets some mental reflection out of most people who watch it. that's more than i can say for 90% of movies that are made. they just make you want to either get laid or break something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 you've dialled the truth behind 911 huh old?:tongue: i'm no moore lover..i find him annoying, but you guys have some odd points of contention that i personally haven't seen the worth in mulling over.. no doubt he is 100% movie maker. the guy makes entertainment. he is not a journalist. big deal, he chilled at the ritz and threw a hissy fit. i get the feeling that in bowling you guys expected him to hold your hand through every detail, and when he didn't you attack his lack of moral size and nitpick. if some of the details misled you, then i feel sorry that you had trouble making the leap. there were a couple of things i really disliked about it as well, but upon reflection, blaming him is a bit lame. just becuz something is 'documentary' style doesn't necessarily mean someone is giving you carte blanche to THE ultimate truth. you can't expect a voluminous expose in 1.5hours. disco, i see what you're saying, but i don't think its worth much in the face of what these, and loads of other people are actively delineating. the problem when somebody makes 'typical' criticisms, is a group invariably takes offense and it gets the 'anti' tag. how would you defend against that? if somebody calls you an anti-semite, what do you say? no i'm not? if he can't 'attack' the establishment, or the war, or whatever with communication media, how would you reckon he do it? how would you address something without typically addressing it head on? so he backs the general...which is problematic in its own right, but what else? you're taking some liberties in there as well. its a nice piece of rhetoric though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26SidedCube Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Somehow I knew everyone on 12oz could've made a better movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrafKix Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Originally posted by Smart [ It's not that he makes invalid points, it's that he uses invalid facts and scenarios to support his points, and that undermines the whole project. [/b] Yes. he shouldnt be taken seriously. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottnickels Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 9/11 deserves all the attention it can get.. sure, moore is biased, but i'm glad. the liberal left needs more people like him, who don't give a fuck about reviews or popular opinion, and are at least facing a sort of examination of american principles and 'values' columbine was long overdue. why weren't those questions being asked by people inpower? why those kids had the desire, the means, the unrestricted access.. why nothing has changed since. and now i hope this at least draws more attention to a topic slowly fading from the public's memory..9/11 who could deny that the event and subsequent 'investigation' raised exponentially more questions than answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l0rdka0s Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 the man knows what hes doing and as far as those losers go, hes exercising the divine right of freedom of speech. IF HES NOT THREATENNG NATIONAL SECURITY LEAVE HIM THE FUCK ALONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.