American satirist Michael Moore has stormed out of Britain after a bust up with the London theatre hosting his one-man show. The Bowling For Columbine moviemaker performed Michael Moore - Live! to packed audiences for two months before Christmas at The Roundhouse in Camden, North London. But on the penultimate night he reportedly flew into a rage, verbally attacked everyone associated with the theatre because he thought he wasn't being paid enough. During the performance he complained he was making just $750 a night. A member of the stage crew says, "He completely lost the plot. He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the £5-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all conmen and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." Staff retaliated by refusing to work the following night, which led to the show being held up for an hour. Eventually he made a groveling apology to staff and the angry audience finally took to their seats. A source reports that Moore then packed his bags and flew to New York the next day without saying thank you or goodbye to anyone.
Yet another reason for me to dislike this blow-hard.
Bet ya for a million bucks, Bowling for.. isn't gonna even get an Oscar Nomination for documentary (I think it deserves it most definately, also 9/11 by those French dudes and Lost In La Mancha, those freaked me out too) :lol: - well ya can't beat them... those hypocritic fucks....ughh -hhhhCharlton Hestonhhhh - ughh.....
It's the time of year. Believe me, now is not the time to be in Britain and feeling not stressed and depressed.
A friend of a friend saw the Moore show and was freaked out cause he had the audience chucking their credit cards at him in evangelical fervour. I had assumed it was an ideological thing, but p'raps not, reading this.
I think he's ok. Loved Bowling. Simplistic but necessarily so.
Who knows the circumstances of this little episode? Let's not judge the guy before he has a chance to defend himself. I'm curious about it though... maybe he'll post something on his website.
Let's factor in a few things: He's probably been under a lot of pressure with his book and his movie, his mother died, and now he does theater? Probably not a good idea in the first place, but that might have something to do with it.
I leave for Britain next Tuesday to study for the semester. Am I in trouble? Never been to Europe before...
Depends whether you're studying within a budgie radius.
No. We're all cuddly and warm really. Just don't expect anyone to start a conversation with you.
Hell ya! I dont blame Moore for storming out!
Over there they call french fries, "Chips!!!!!"
"CHIPS?!?!?!?!"
THE COMPLETE INSANITY!!!!!!!
I wonder if this complicates his good relationship with the BBC...
Here's a really good clip about Michael Moore's criticisms of the media
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=02-Nov-2002&segNum=9&mediaPref=RM
I like Bowling for Columbine, but it seems like Moore just wants America to see how witty he is. Half the movie is him saying clever things. I like what he has to say, but a lot of the time I don't like the way he presents it. "Just give me the information, Janet! I want the information!"
That quote didn't really fit.
'Stupid White Men' honored
"Stupid White Men," Michael Moore's irreverent diatribe against President Bush and the conservative movement, was named Book of the Year at the British Book Awards.
The British Book Awards are nominated and judged by a panel of 400 publishers, wholesalers and booksellers, together with a telephone vote from the public. The awards, announced Monday night, usually reflect popular public taste rather than the views of the critics.
Organizer Merric Davidson said that Moore's book was boosted by a strong telephone vote, particularly a "very strong antiwar vote both from insiders in the book business and the public."
Michael Moore Developing HBO Series
Michael Moore, Oscar-nominated for his documentary feature Bowling for Columbine, is in talks with HBO to develop a nonfiction series, says The Hollywood Reporter.
The project is only in the early talking stages, but it would include some of the satirical and socially conscious material the liberal-leaning filmmaker tackled in his earlier TV newsmagazine-style series The Awful Truth and TV Nation.
Moore is riding high in Hollywood these days on the strong buzz and Oscar nod for "Columbine," which pulled off a surprise win for best original screenplay Saturday at the 55th annual Writers Guild Awards.
Moore Sets Up Scholarship for Rebels
Filmmaker and Michigan native Michael Moore has established a scholarship for students who defy the administration at California State University, San Marcos the same school that canceled his talk last year.
The Michael Moore Freedom of Speech Scholarship will award two $2,500 annual scholarships to Cal State San Marcos students "who have done the most to fight for issues of student rights by standing up to the administration," according to a news release issued Wednesday.
The first scholarships will be awarded in the 2005-2006 academic year. Winners will be announced in June.
Cal State San Marcos President Karen Hynes revoked Moore's invitation to speak on campus last fall because she said the school was prohibited from spending state money on partisan political activity. Hynes said she did not believe there would be enough time to find a speaker whose opinions could balance Moore's liberal views.
A call to Hynes' office was referred to Cal State San Marcos spokesman Rick Moore, who has no relation to the filmmaker and said he did not wish to discuss the merits of the scholarship that encourages students to stand up to administrators.
"Mr. Moore has the right to do whatever he wishes to do and we're glad to see another scholarship available to students who go to our school," he said.
In October 2004, the "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker spoke to 10,000 people off campus at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, where he announced his plans to start what he called a "hellraiser" scholarship.
that's cute and all, but a lil' bit tacky?
Michael Moore Organizes Film Festival
Director Michael Moore is bringing a film festival to this tourist town in his native Michigan that will feature free outdoor showings of classic movies on an inflatable screen.
Among the films being considered: "Jaws," "Rebel Without a Cause" and "Casablanca."
But no "Fahrenheit 9/11" or any of the other opinionated movies the liberal activist has made, such as "Bowling for Columbine."
The Traverse City Film Festival Committee, with Moore as chairman, received permission from city commissioners Monday to use a park on Lake Michigan's Grand Traverse Bay for viewings, scheduled for July 28-31.
Moore assured the commissioners that the festival, consisting of about 30 movies, will be nonpartisan and dedicated solely to promoting art and culture.
G- and PG-rated films will be shown on a 49-foot-by 24-foot inflatable screen by the waterfront. Indoor selections around town, for which admission will be charged, will range from classics to independent and foreign productions.
Moore, a Flint native whose documentary "Roger and Me" chronicled his hometown's economic collapse during auto industry downsizing in the 1980s, divides his time between New York City and rural Antrim County near Traverse City.
The festival's $150,000 budget will be covered by ticket sales and donations.
Moore said he hopes it eventually will become a leading annual film festival and send a message that Americans crave well-made pictures.
Quote from: MacGuffinMoore said he hopes it eventually will become a leading annual film festival and send a message that Americans crave well-made pictures.
..uhm
Lots and lots of people go see shitty movies but I have a hard time believing we all don't want well made films.
Judge Urged to Dismiss Suit Against Moore
A lawyer for Michael Moore urged a federal judge Friday to dismiss a libel lawsuit against the documentary filmmaker filed by the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols.
Moore attorney Herschel Fink argued during a hearing that James Nichols' claims "range from the frivolous to the silly," and that Moore only reported the truth and his constitutionally protected opinion in the 2002 film "Bowling for Columbine."
James Nichols' attorney, Kenneth McIntyre, argued that Moore "offered half-truths or total untruths" to accuse his client of being an accomplice in the April 1995 bombing that killed 168 people.
Terry Nichols is serving two life sentences without parole for his role in the bombing. Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for masterminding the attack.
Among the items in question in Nichols' lawsuit are Moore's use of the term "practice bombs" in the movie to refer to explosives the Nichols brothers and McVeigh made on a farm prior to the Oklahoma City bombing.
James Nichols also claims that Moore incorrectly stated he had been arrested in connection with the bombing. McIntyre said Moore knew James Nichols was only held as a material witness and that later charges against him were not connected with the bombing and eventually were dropped.
McIntyre also took issue with a phrase in the film that alleges federal agents couldn't get "the goods" on James Nichols, so they dropped the charges against him. He said viewers would think Nichols was involved but somehow got out of it.
Fink called Nichols' complaint "the perfect storm of libel suits."
He said Moore's reports are based on documents from court and other sources and items from reliable news outlets. He also argued that Moore's statements are protected because James Nichols, who has written a book, given speeches and appeared in several media interviews, is a public figure.
"When you see a Michael Moore film, you know it's opinion," Fink said. "And it's protected."
Neither Moore nor James Nichols were at the hearing; Judge Paul D. Borman said he will issue a decision after he reviews the case.
The filmmaker was in Traverse City, where tickets went on sale Friday for his inaugural Traverse City Film Festival. Moore, a Flint native who now lives in northern Michigan, announced the lineup for the July 27-31 festival 31 films in total, including classics and independently produced films.
Michael Moore Film Fest Draws Competition
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - A film festival being organized by left-wing director Michael Moore has some right-wing competition.
A local activist and a conservative group from Texas said Wednesday they were putting together an alternative to the Traverse City Film Festival, which Moore and residents of this Lake Michigan community are organizing.
"People are fed up and tired with the extreme left-wing radical fringe — America haters, family haters, Christian haters," said Genie Aldrich, a resident of nearby Suttons Bay and founder of the Traverse Bay Freedom Film Festival. She tried unsuccessfully last month to dissuade the city commission from letting Moore's group show films in a municipal waterfront park.
"I like it when Republicans take ideas of mine," said Moore, a Flint, Mich. native who has residences in neighboring Antrim County and New York City. "I have a few more where those came from, if they'd like to sit down and talk."
Aldrich said the alternative festival would feature a dozen movies, including favorites such as "Top Gun" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The others will be independent, politically oriented productions. Among them: "In the Face of Evil," a tribute to Ronald Reagan; "Confronting Iraq," a defense of the war in Iraq sponsored by the conservative group Accuracy in Media; and "Michael Moore Hates America."
The Freedom Festival is scheduled for July 29-30 — overlapping with Moore's festival, which will run from July 27-31.
Moore and fellow members of the larger festival's organizing committee have billed their program as nonpartisan and motivated only by appreciation for artistically superior filmmaking. None of Moore's films, such as the anti-war "Fahrenheit 9/11," are being shown.
The lineup includes 31 movies, among them classics such as "Jaws" and "Casablanca," and recently produced independents including "Broken Flowers," winner of the grand prize at this year's Cannes Film Festival.
"These are highly acclaimed films," Moore said. "Theirs are works of political propaganda."
Judge Dismisses Libel Claim Against Moore
A federal judge Thursday threw out a libel and defamation lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore by the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols.
U.S. District Court Judge Paul D. Borman ruled that statements Moore made about James Nichols in the 2002 "Bowling for Columbine" documentary were "factual and substantially true."
James Nichols claimed in the suit that the statements could be misinterpreted by viewers to inaccurately link him to the bombing. He also claimed the film invaded his privacy and inflicted emotional distress.
Borman rejected the claims in 25-page page ruling granting Moore's request for summary judgment a ruling without going to trial. Moore's attorney Herschel P. Fink called the decision a "home run."
"The thing that is most pleasing to Mr. Moore is that the judge agreed with our argument that ... the statements were not false and that they were accurately reported," Fink said.
A message seeking comment left with Nichols' lawyer wasn't immediately returned.
Borman said Nichols, a Sanilac County farmer, is considered a public figure for the purposes of the lawsuit, because he "voluntarily injected himself into the public controversy surrounding the bombing" by such steps as granting interviews and helping write a book.
Terry Nichols is serving two life sentences without parole for his role in the April 1995 bombing that killed 168 people. Timothy McVeigh was executed in 2001 for masterminding the attack.
James Nichols' farm was raided two days after the bombing, after his brother and McVeigh were identified as suspects. James Nichols was arrested that day and held for 32 days, then released for lack of evidence. Charges against him were later dropped.
McVeigh had listed James Nichols' home as his address on some forms and said when he was arrested that Nichols was his next of kin.
Among statements in the film that James Nichols took issue with were those alleging that federal prosecutors formally linked the Nichols brothers to McVeigh, that the brothers made "practice bombs" before Oklahoma City, that both were arrested in connection to the bombing and that they both were charged with conspiring to make and possess small bombs. Also at issue was a statement that the feds "didn't have the goods on James," so charges were dropped.
Moore, an outspoken liberal activist, is known for such films as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Roger and Me." "Bowling for Columbine," a scathing look at the gun culture in America, won the Oscar for best documentary of 2002.
Michael Moore Checks In at Fat Farm
Maverick film-maker Michael Moore has enrolled on a crash course at a $3,800-a-week celebrity fat farm in a bid to loose weight. The Fahrenheit 9/11 director has booked into the Pritikin Longevity Center And Spa in Aventura, Florida, where he is learning to cook healthy meals and will undergo "life re-education", according to PageSix.com. Moore is reportedly aiming to loose 12 pounds during the first three weeks.
$3,800 a week, holy shit.
He should just get his stomach tied. He's the perfect canidate for it.
Quote from: macageMichael Moore Checks In at Fat Farm
Maverick film-maker Michael Moore has enrolled on a crash course at a $3,800-a-week celebrity fat farm in a bid to loose weight. The Fahrenheit 9/11 director has booked into the Pritikin Longevity Center And Spa in Aventura, Florida, where he is learning to cook healthy meals and will undergo "life re-education", according to PageSix.com. Moore is reportedly aiming to loose 12 pounds during the first three weeks.
hahha awesome, i live near there, maybe i'll see him jogging or something
Quote from: Ravi$3,800 a week, holy shit.
hey, it's what he was spending on food.
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: Ravi$3,800 a week, holy shit.
hey, it's what he was spending on food.
muhahahaha
Nobody really cares about Michael Moore now I think. He's burned a lot of bridges and just rambles on about stuff and doesn't do anything to help. He's become more of a joke now than a guy who makes important speeches. I'm sure his next Fahrenheit movie will be just more rambling (as if he hasn't done that enough) and I bet it won't make near as much money as his other films did. He's a very artistic filmmaker but at times he's so full of crap.
Quote from: HedwigQuote from: macageMichael Moore Checks In at Fat Farm
Maverick film-maker Michael Moore has enrolled on a crash course at a $3,800-a-week celebrity fat farm in a bid to loose weight. The Fahrenheit 9/11 director has booked into the Pritikin Longevity Center And Spa in Aventura, Florida, where he is learning to cook healthy meals and will undergo "life re-education", according to PageSix.com. Moore is reportedly aiming to loose 12 pounds during the first three weeks.
hahha awesome, i live near there, maybe i'll see him jogging or something
I can't even begin to imagine how much money you could sell a photo of that for. Shots of fat people running almost always look terrible, and magazines pay tons to see celebs looking terrible. Go Paparazzo on him! Now!
Moore To Capture Katrina on Film?[/u]
Controversial film-maker Michael Moore is planning to make a hard-hitting documentary based on Us President George W. Bush's handling of the Hurricane Katrina rescue operation. Moore grabbed international acclaim with his scathing 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11, which studied Bush's handling of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Oscar winner is now "seriously considering" documenting the catastrophe in America's Gulf Coast region. He tells the New York Daily News, "There is much to be said and done about the man-made annihilation of New Orleans, caused not by a hurricane but by the very specific decisions made by the Bush administration in the past four and a half years. Do not listen to anyone who says we can discuss all this later. No, we can't. Our country is in an immediate state of vulnerability. More hurricanes, wars, and other disasters are on the way, and a lazy bunch of self-satisfied lunatics are still running the show."
and, once again, he'll make millions by using an unspeakably tragic event as an excuse to take cheap shots at the president
Quote from: ewardand, once again, he'll make millions by using an unspeakably tragic event as an excuse to take cheap shots at the president
How else is he going to fund his trips to the upscale fat farm?
Quote from: ewardand, once again, he'll make millions by using an unspeakably tragic event as an excuse to take cheap shots at the president
Unless he donates all the proceeds of his film to the relief effort or re-building. He didn't do that for 9-11 though, did he? Hmm. Can't blame
somebody for putting this story out there though. Bush is trying his hardest to make himself visible as a champion for a disaster that didn't need to affect people the way it did. Everytime democrats bring up an investigation you see Bush talk about his own independent investigation.
*shrug*
I'll go see it. If nothing else it gets *a* story out there, even if it has spin.
Where the Hell is Michael Moore?
It's probably not too much of a stretch to suggest that, at some point over the past five years, everyone on both ends of the political spectrum has fervently wished that Michael Moore would PLEASE shut up, if only for a few minutes. The problem, though, now that he has, is that his opponents have nothing to do, and just might be forced out of business.
Theoretically busy working on Sicko, his forthcoming expose of the health care industry, Moore seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Apart from signing the letter of protest that went out last week asking the Smithsonian Institution to reconsider its agreement with Showtime, the man has been uncharacteristically quiet -- according to Variety, the New York Times struck out recently when it tried to write a story about what Moore is up to, because they couldn't find him. Additionally, Sicko, initially scheduled for a September open, isn't listed on the Weinstein Company's current release calendar. Hmm. Wherever he is, the people at moorewatch.com are start to wish he'd start saying stuff they disagree with again, because with no Moore watching to be done, no one is visiting the site, and they're in danger of going under. I bet they never imaged they'd one day be wishing for (ready?) even more Moore.
Michael Moore Announces Filmfest
Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, who engineered a film festival last summer in this northern Michigan resort town, announced Friday that he will present the second-annual Traverse City Film Festival.
To take place July 31 to Aug. 6, the festival will be two days longer than its predecessor and feature about twice as many films nearly 50 in total.
Organizers are still picking the lineup, which will be announced next month. It will include prize winners from some of the world's top festivals this year, a tribute to Stanley Kubrick, and classic favorites that will again be shown free of charge each night.
Moore, a Flint, Mich. native known for his darkly humorous, politically tinged films such as "Roger & Me" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," has made Traverse City something of an adopted hometown. He has a house in neighboring Antrim County.
He founded the film festival with local author Doug Stanton and photographer John Robert Williams, saying they wanted to encourage top-quality films and give movie buffs an alternative to standard cineplex offerings.
"People are desperate to go see a good movie," said Moore.
The 52-year-old director is currently working on a documentary called "Sicko" about the U.S. health care system expected to be released next year.
On the Net: http://www.traversecityfilmfestival.org
Michael Moore says gets lots of Republican hugs
TRAVERSE CITY, Michigan (Reuters) - Michael Moore -- gadfly filmmaker, liberal activist and political lightning rod -- says he finds himself being hugged by a lot of Republicans these days.
On the streets of Traverse City, where Moore is working on last-minute preparations for a bigger-and-better sequel to the film festival he launched last year in his home state, the Oscar-winning director says he is approached all the time by conservatives ready to make peace.
"If you were to hang out with me here it won't be five or 10 minutes before you see a Republican hug me. That is almost as entertaining as some of the films," Moore said in an interview.
Moore has not budged from the central claim of his 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- that the Bush administration misled the American public about the reasons for war in Iraq -- but he says that more people have come around to his view.
"That's the shift that I'm seeing in the past year or so in the country, and as it relates to me," he said.
Some in solidly Republican northern Michigan and elsewhere now believe that they made a "colossal mistake" in initially supporting the war in Iraq, Moore said, and they have let him know it in chance encounters on the streets of Traverse City, a resort town where he has relocated from New York.
Used to traveling with security and encountering a barrage of hostility, Moore said he finds people now more accepting, even to the point Republicans are spontaneously hugging him.
"Look up the definition of liberal. We hug trees. We hug each other. We hug people of the same sex and want to marry each other," Moore said. "It's the other side that we need to get to hold their arms out a little bit and coochey-coo."
The success of the second annual Traverse City Film Festival, which runs from Monday to Sunday, has also won over some of Moore's political foes -- or at least sidelined them.
This year's slate features 68 films selected by Moore. Festival organizers expect over 75,000 to attend. That would mark a 50-percent gain over the inaugural event, which drew some of the controversy that has become the 52-year-old director's calling card.
In 2005, critics attempted to upstage the Traverse City film festival with a parallel event nearby intended to hammer the message that Moore was out of touch with the mainstream. Moore said the effort failed to draw crowds and fizzled.
AT WORK ON 'SICKO'
Moore says he intends the festival to be "nonpartisan," even as it takes on charged topics with films like "The Road to Guantanamo." Moore calls that film about three British men jailed without charges in the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a look at "a disgraceful moment in our history we're still living through."
Moore is mostly done shooting his own film "Sicko." The movie examines America's health care system and Moore describes it as "a comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth." The film is due out in 2007.
For now, he seems pleased with the outbreak of relative goodwill toward him after a depressing period when he thought he might not be able to work again in Hollywood.
Moore was booed and escorted from the Kodak Theater by security when he used his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for documentary "Bowling for Columbine" to lash out at President George W. Bush.
"I remember going back to my hotel room that night, where they had all the pundits on post-Oscar and they were all like, 'That's the end of Michael Moore. That's the last we'll see of him.' By the end of the night, I believed it," he said.
"I thought, No one is going to want to work with me in this town. I just ruined their big party.' We're all supposed to ignore that the war is going on and just have a party. Well, now here we three years later and it's not just me. It's a few other people saying that we weren't told the truth."
I'm glad he's back in Michigan. Every major figure who grew up in Michigan (besides Detroit) always leaves the state and never returns. Most people don't realize Madonna grew up here. Moby, in an interview years ago, guessed she grew up in Florida. He was expected to make such a bad guess. She has no desire to indicate this state as her original home. Even Charlton Heston, who grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, makes no attempt to identify himself with the state. He should though. He grew up in one of the most conservative parts of the state.
Yes, Michael Moore is going to get hugs from conservatives. This state is very conservative. Besides the few major University towns and Detroit, this state is a very old blue collar state. Current trends point it to a Republican identity. Michigan is near the bottom of the list for states growing in population or even attracting major companies. Red states like Wyoming and Montana have been feeling this exclusion for years and learned to pride themselves on what they already had. With car development now shifting out of the state and even out of the country - Michigan is finding it also has to look back to find what it can be proud of. Thus Michigan is starting to become a state of values and people here do feel the exclusion from Liberals who separate themselves from any Midwest empathy.
I love Michigan! I love living in the Upper Peninsula. Only in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan can you find no major highways or interstates or even freeways. Even in states like N. Dakota and Idaho there at least exists interstates for westward travel. To go to the Upper Peninsula you have to go well out of your way from all the major cities. It makes for truly simple living. Traffic is never a headache because our largest city is barely above 20,000 people. It may not even be that big. There are also weird situations. Growing up, I lived only 2 blocks from Lake Michigan and now I live around a mile away from Lake Superior so I've felt like I've always lived on the coast. I can go from wilderness to a farm community to a small city and then to a nice beach all in well under 20 miles.
Moore: More choice words
Source: Los Angeles Times
An emboldened Michael Moore used last week's primary defeat of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) to dispense advice to Democratic politicians who voted to support the war in Iraq.
"To every Democratic senator and congressman who continues to back Bush's war, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered," the documentary filmmaker wrote in a letter posted on his website michaelmoore.com. "Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power."
He warned Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic [presidential] primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope."
He noted that Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, "just a few miles" from Clinton's home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
"Did you hear the noise?" he asked Clinton in the posting. "Can you read the writing on the wall?"
He closed the piece by telling Republicans that he was sorry to leave them out of the letter.
"It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November."
The letter prompted Internet wags to come out in force. One blogger wrote: "Democrats who have even an ounce of rationality or intelligence left would be wise to jump ship. Their party has been taken over by those who are so far left, they aren't even on any reasonable person's page anymore."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, August 9th, 2006
It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore
Friends,
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.
Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.
I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?
To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.
If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.
Michael Moore Brings (Bits of) Two Films to Toronto
Source: Cinematical
According to a documentary blog (http://blog.tiffg.ca/blog/default.aspx?id=20&t=Michael-Moore-back-at-TIFF) on the Toronto International Film Festival website, Michael Moore will be at the Festival, offering tastes of not one but two new films. Who knew he was even working on two projects? The first, which we've been hearing about for ages (indeed, it was originally scheduled for a September 2006 release), is Sicko, Moore's exposé on the American healthcare system. According to the people at TIFF, the Sicko promotion will be in the form of a "teaser". In addition to something from Sicko, however, Moore will also be screening some footage from a work-in-progress he's calling The Great 04 Slacker Uprising, a film described as "a scrappy road trip movie following his two months of daily campaigning against George W. Bush in the 2004 election." Hmm. Could this be the film that was being called Fahrenheit 9/11½, or is that something else entirely?
Michael Moore Defends Cruise, Slags Gibson
Sympathy seems to be turning back toward Tom Cruise. In Premiere, Oscar hopeful Forest Whitaker says that it's fine for Cruise to be a Scientologist if he wants to. And in Toronto last week, Michael Moore also defended the movie star: "It's time to stop picking on Tom Cruise," he said during an interview at the Elgin Theatre with Larry Charles. "What is the man's crime? That he jumped on Oprah's couch? He's a little crazy. He's an actor! You can't be an actor unless you are a little different than an accountant and you get excited and depressed. His religion is his own. He's not firing rockets into Israel."
At which point Moore segued to the subject of Mel Gibson, revealing for the first time that Gibson cost Moore his chance to be a Time Man of the Year. "I got a call right after the '04 election," Moore said, "from an editor from Time Magazine. He said, 'Time Magazine has picked you and Mel Gibson to be Time's Person of the Year to put on the cover, Right and Left, Mel and Mike. The only thing you have to do is pose for a picture with each other. And do an interview together.' I said 'OK.' They call Mel up, he agrees. They set the date and time in LA. I'm to fly there. He's flying from Australia. Something happens when he gets home. Maybe he went to church for guidance and God spoke to him and said, 'No way you're doing a cover with Michael Moore.'" (laughter) "Next thing, Mel calls up and says, 'I'm not doing it. I've thought it over and it is not the right thing to do.' So they put Bush on the cover."
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 18, 2006, 11:46:47 PM
In Premiere, Oscar hopeful Forest Whitaker says that it's fine for Cruise to be a Scientologist if he wants to.
WHAT? He... he can?
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 18, 2006, 11:46:47 PM
His religion is his own. He's not firing rockets into Israel."
This has been an enlightening article for me.
Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...a letter from Michael Moore
Friends,
Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.
There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.
The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.
A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"
The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.
So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn't much you can do 'til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.
The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!
The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.
This is what we demand:
1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.
2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.
3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.
In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.
But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.
Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.
We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
TWC pumps more Michael Moore
Company selling 'Uprising' to foreign buyers
Source: Variety
The Weinstein Co. can't get enough of Michael Moore.
As the company launches the documentary filmmaker's health-care expose "Sicko" in the Cannes competition today, it is also starting to sell a new title, "Michael Moore's Uprising," to foreign buyers.
Directed by Moore, the concert film, which is in post-production, is in two parts. "Live in London" documents Moore's fall 2002 London one-man stage show, "The Average Everyday Evildoers," which was sold out for its entire five-week run at the Roundhouse Theatre in Camden. Filmed after the release of "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Live Across America" covers Moore's 62-city college fall 2004 tour to drum up the youth vote for the presidential election.
"It's not only an incredible record of our time," said Harvey Weinstein, "but it is unbelievably hilarious."
The filmmaker has long tried to figure out how to assemble the material. Now that many of his global fans own the "Fahrenheit 9/11" DVD, Moore and the Weinsteins decided this film could function as a companion piece.
"Live in London" helped to inform Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," he said. Moore performed against four 20-foot photo backdrops of a topless Saddam Hussein swimming in a river, the 14-year-old Osama Bin Laden wearing bellbottoms, a mod Tony Blair and a prep-school Prexy Bush posing with cheerleaders. Moore sang satiric songs to each of the Evildoers, and invited smart Americans and dumb Brits to compete in "Stump the Yank." All but two nights, the Brit won the contest.
For Moore's 2004 "Soccer Uprising Tour," he covered 62 college arenas in 42 days, from the Key Arena in Seattle and the Pit in Albuquerque, to the Del Mar race track in San Diego and U. of Florida's basketball stadium, playing to 8,000 to 14,000 people. Moore invited various guests to perform onstage, including Eddie Vedder, Tom Morello, Roseanne Barr, Joan Baez, the Goo Goo Dolls and Viggo Mortensen.
The Weinstein Co. plans a limited specialized run in the U.S. and a robust homevideo push with their Genius label. Weinstein Intl. prexy Glen Basner said there will be some theatrical interest in the film in certain territories, with more interest on the ancillary side.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" earned $222 million worldwide, about evenly split between domestic and international. Moore plays well both at home and abroad because "his movies are funny, entertaining and smart," Basner said. "He boils it down to the human element."
QuoteThe one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves.
did he forget about what happened immediately after the first iraq war, or the resistence that's been happening for the past 30 years, or all the people that Hussein were gassing in the first place?
I understand that he's appealing to the middle americans, but this was crass.
Michael Moore's Next Film To Take On Homophobia?
Source: SlashFilm
Michael Moore has tackled Downsizing, School Shootings, the culture of fear, The Iraq War, President Bush, and most recently - the American healthcare system. What's next for the controversial documentary filmmaker? Homophobia. That's right, Moore has revealed that homophobia and the anti-gay Christian right movement might be the topic of his next documentary.
The following is taken from a conversation Moore had with The Advocate:
"I think it's a very ripe subject for someone like me to make a movie about. Simply because we are not there yet and it remains one of the last open wounds on our soul that we are not willing to fix yet," Moore told The Advocate. "There is nowhere in the four Gospels where Jesus uses the word homosexual.' The right wing has appropriated this guy ... and they have used him to attack gays and lesbians, when he never said a single word against people who are homosexual. Anyone who professes to be a Christian and does that is certainly not following the teachings of Jesus Christ."
CHRiSTO GAYO
Fahrenheit Gay/11
Roger & Me
boning four colonholes
rogering me
The Big One
Seriously though, this is a worthy subject for a documentary. I hope he follows through with it.
Moore: Docus need more exposure
Source: Hollywood Reporter
PARK CITY -- Michael Moore is mad as hell about documentaries and foreign films being crowded out of theaters, and he's not going to take it anymore.
"My new year's resolution is to sit down with the heads of exhibition chains and have them devote one screen in their multiplexes to nonfiction and foreign films," Moore said. He said he's spoken with fellow docu directors to join him in the initiative, including board members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' documentary branch, though it is unclear if AMPAS would be officially involved.
The director of four of the 12 top-grossing docus of all time -- "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Roger & Me," the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" and the just-announced Oscar nominee "Sicko" -- wants to use his influence with exhibitors to make this happen. "If not me, then who?" he said. "I'm the one who got through the door."
Moore's motivation is the declining boxoffice performance of indie films last year, in which many were taken out of theaters before they had a chance to grow word-of-mouth business. He said it's an extension of his work promoting fellow indie filmmakers at his annual Traverse City Film Festival.
"People want to see documentaries, but there's a disconnect between that desire and the exhibitors out there," added Moore, who has been planning the initiative for several months. "We're not asking for charity," he said.
"This could be on the 15th screen of a multiplex that would otherwise have the sixth showing of the new "Harry Potter" movie. Some of these films make $200 or $300 per screen."
Moore said he's also spoken with marketers and publicists around the country who have agreed to donate their time to publicizing the campaign. He hopes to break these films out of "the art house ghetto" by having them play in suburban theaters throughout Middle America where they aren't often shown.
The director said it's possible that the initiative may begin with exhibitors devoting one night a week (likely the traditionally weak Monday) to these films instead of one screen per multiplex. Moore plans to announce details of the initiative at a news conference timed around the Oscars, with at least one exhibitor involved.
Michael Moore making '9/11' sequel
Documentary to be released in 2009
Source: Variety
Michael Moore is making a sequel to "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Paramount Vantage and Overture Films, who will shop the project to international buyers when the Cannes Film Festival and market get under way today.
The two companies are co-financing and co-producing the untitled documentary, which will be released in 2009. Overture will distribute the film domestically, while Vantage will handle international.
Moore may be leaving the Weinstein Co. -- where he made his last two films, including "Fahrenheit" -- but Overture and Vantage are no strangers to the filmmaker. Overture CEO Chris McGurk and COO Danny Rosett were both at MGM and United Artists, home of Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."
Moore also knows Vantage topper Nick Meyer, former president of Lionsgate's international arm. Lionsgate teamed with Bob and Harvey Weinstein and distributed Fahrenheit after Disney refused to let Miramax to do so. Lionsgate again teamed with the Weinstein's to distribute Moore's last docu, "Sicko."
Also, Moore is no stranger to the Croisette. "Fahrenheit," a scathing indictment of George W. Bush's war on terrorism and a hit at the worldwide box office, won the coveted Palm d'Or in 2004. "Bowling for Columbine" also played at Cannes, while "Sicko" premed here last year.
It's possible that his new docu could play at Cannes next year, if it isn't released earlier in the Spring. He's already at work on the docu.
"Clearly, we have a movie of global appeal here. Michael Moore is a very talented filmmaker, and this is a branded property," Meyer said.
Sequel will pick up where "Fahrenheit" left off. In the time since, President Bush's popularity has plummeted, while the Iraq war continues and the economy falters.
"It's a vote of confidence on Michael's part, and a great partnership for all of us," Rosett said. "There is a voracious appetite for this kind of commentary."
All in all, Moore has made three of the top five grossing documentaries of all time. "Fahrenheit" is the highest grossing docu ever domestically, earning $119.1 million. It grossed another $100 million at the international box office.
Moore's decision not to make his next film with the Weinstein Co. comes after "Sicko" failed to ignite the box office. Film, which took on the U.S. health care system, grossed $24.5 million domestically and $11.2 million internationally. Topically, the film didn't resonate with overseas auds.
Landing the "Fahrenheit" sequel is a high-profile score for Overture and Vantage, and a likely blow for the Weinstein Co.
Deal strengthens the already established relationship between Vantage and Overture. Last year, the two entered into an exclusive international distribution deal that gives Overture access to Vantage's international sales division, as well as the distrib arm of Paramount Pictures Intl.
Vantage will likely keep distribution rights to certain overseas territories, after selling off the rest.
I thought that was way under way already and to be released before elections... weird
Cannes '08: Michael Moore's new movie: 'Dangerous'
Source: Los Angeles Times
The tentative title for Michael Moore's next documentary is "While America Slept." It's not a movie about Ambien.
Returning to the Cannes Film Festival, where the riled-up filmmaker launched "Sicko" a year ago and won the festival's top honor for 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore outlined on Friday the broad ideas for his next film, which he says should be released in 2009.
While short on specifics — "I can't obviously tell you what I'm really up to, because I want to be able to finish," Moore says, adding that early details about "Sicko" gave health care companies an advantage — the filmmaker promises that his next movie will be "dangerous."
Moore was quick to say that the film is not a sequel to "Fahrenheit," Moore's broadside against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rather, the new movie will offer a withering look at America's global conduct and reputation. "We have a big, big mess, and I don't know if it can be cleaned up. The toxicity of the spill is just that great," Moore says. "Since I made 'Fahrenheit,' our standing in the world had depleted to an even worse state."
Even though he says the new film "isn't about Bush," the president is clearly a central target.
"He and his cronies and his supporters literally got away with murder," Moore says. But it is also obvious that the country's citizens share some of the blame, he says, which explains the proposed title being considered by distributors Paramount Vantage and Overture Films.
"I am going to take a look at the empire we've created and ask the question, 'How did we get here?'"
Moore says Hollywood's fictional Iraq films came out too late, and that is why most of them failed. Because "Fahrenheit" was early and debuted when the war still had support, he says, it was a hit. "I think the moviegoing public wants a sense of danger," Moore says. "They want something where they are on the edge of their seats."
He says his new film is intended to make people squirm, and will ask the question, "Are we at the points where the Romans were?" We'll have to wait a year to hear his answer.
Michael Moore to tackle economy
Next doc to have an end-of-the-empire tone, sources say
Source: Hollywood Reporter
When Paramount Vantage and Overture announced Michael Moore's long-gestating follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11" in May, executives stressed the film's foreign-policy scope. "This is going to tackle what's going on in the world and America's place in it," Paramount Vantage chief Nick Meyer said.
But as the political winds shifted in the months before the election -- and gusted after it -- Moore subtly began reorienting his movie. Instead of foreign policy, the film's focus now is more on the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy.
The untitled movie will contain an end-of-the-empire tone, say those familiar with the project, and Moore no doubt hopes that this will give it a more general feel that will untether it from a specific political moment.
But some political and entertainment experts wonder how much Moore's incredulousness and occasional pessimism about the state of U.S. policy, which served the filmmaker well during the George W. Bush years, will play in the current hopeful climate brought on President-elect Barack Obama.
"If Moore offers a prescription for how to improve things, he may indeed find an audience that at this moment is eager for change," said Craig Minassian, an entertainment consultant and former Bill Clinton aide. "But it's going to be hard for him. What this election shows is what's right with America, and sometimes what Michael Moore does is highlight what's wrong with America."
In the meantime, a focus on the collapsing markets brings its own risk, Minassian said. "The problem with the financial crisis is that it's changing so quickly. I'm not sure how relevant is going to be in six months, and I'm not sure if people want to hear it; my sense is they already have a pretty good idea of a lot of the people who are to blame for it."
A Democratic election would remove some of the factors that put Moore in vogue both in the U.S. and abroad during the Bush years -- and pushed his three theatrical movies during that time to more than $300 million in worldwide boxoffice.
It's worth noting that Moore famously shoots a lot of footage and makes many critical decisions later in the production process, so the tone could still shift; it's tricky to know what any Moore movie will ultimately look like before he completes the film.
Overture and Vantage declined comment.
Still, Moore is feverishly shooting, and the movie is expected to come out as early as this spring, with Vantage and Overture hoping to capitalize on the current high levels of political awareness.
Moore has also said that in some ways he sees the movie less as a sequel to the Middle East-themed "Fahrenheit 9/11" than as a bookend to "Roger & Me," the director's breakthrough nearly two decades ago. That movie featured the U.S. economy and the auto industry at its center, and that, if nothing else, could again prove a timely theme.
Michael Moore Wants Your Wall Street Horror Stories
by Peter Martin; Cinematical
Has the economy gotten you down? Are you subsisting on day-old bread and processed cheese slices? (Oh wait, we're supposed to be talking about you, not me.) Are you righteously angry about what Wall Street has done -- and do you have inside information to prove it? Well, America, Michael Moore feels your pain, and he'd like to share it -- by putting you on camera so you can help him expose "the greatest crime story ever told."
As we reported In November, Moore decided to change the focus of his next project from "what's going on in the world and America's place in it" to "the global financial crisis and the U.S. economy." Anne Thompson at Variety points to his web site, where Mike has posted a plea for "a few brave people who work on Wall Street or in the financial industry to come forward and share with me what they know."
Moore says that participants can decide to what extent they want to be involved. I'm assuming that means they can decide whether they wish to be on camera or not, and then whether they want to be identified on camera if they sit for an interview. Alternatively, I suppose they could provide Moore with 'inside information' without appearing in the film.
Moore is nothing if not a master of hyperbole, though it's interesting to observe how the tone changes in his message. At first he says: "I am humbly asking you for a moment of courage, to be a hero and help me expose the biggest swindle in American history."
Two paragraphs later, he is more strident: "The important thing here is for you to step up as an American and do your duty of shedding some light on this financial collapse. A few good people have already come forward, which leads me to believe there are many more of you out there who know what's going on."
In other words, 'I know you know what you know, and you better come forward or you're not doing your duty as an American.' Oh, boy, I bet that approach works. If you are so inclined, Moore provides an e-mail address where you can share as much confidential information as you wish.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=245
Michael Moore Goes Off on Twitter About Osama bin Laden Being 'Executed'
He'll discuss his views on "Piers Morgan Tonight" Thursday.
Source: THR
Michael Moore thinks Osama bin Laden's death at the hands of U.S. Navy Seals is a conspiracy. In more than 40 Tweets over the past several days, the controversial filmmaker made his case in 140 characters or less. A few are excerpted below: "What's so wrong w/ just saying the truth? "We executed him." Fine. I'm guessing most would applaud u. So I like trials! Call me an American!" he wrote. "I'm not opposed 2 dumping him in the sea, I agree no monument 4 a mass murderer, I just don't need the added BS of "according 2 Mulism law." he wrote. "Yes, and to repeat, whenever I've gone 2 the funeral of a Muslim friend in Detroit, we all hop in a chopper & drop the body in Lake Erie." Added Moore, "OBL was said 2 have $30 mil net worth. But we didn't start profiling rich people. No, we gave them their own fast trak line at the airport! "OBL was about as true a Muslim as Timothy McVeigh was a Catholic. But no headline ever read "Catholic Blows Up Fed Bldg in Oklahoma City." "How come no headline ever read "Multi-Millionaire Murders 3,000"? It would have been correct. No, best to focus on OBL being a "Muslim,'" he added. "As long as he wasn't conducting terror, OBL alive served a purpose. Someone should just fess up: The war industry needs fear to make $$," said Moore. Moore will discuss his views in a live interview on Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday. Bin Laden was killed Sunday in a mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Wow, we're setting the bar a little low to call something a conspiracy theory, aren't we? Saying Bin Laden was politically useful as a looming threat hardly qualifies... it's common sense...
yeah I had no doubt that he was executed as well. they wouldn't only send two helicopters if they expected any type of resistance or firefight. they also couldn't possibly have arrested him; that would've been a diplomatic (and pre-election) headache for the obama admin as they sought to try him in American courts, trying to wrestle him out of the hands of the Afghans and the Pakastanis. He had to be put down there and then.
That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.
Quote from: pete on May 05, 2011, 03:50:08 PM
That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.
That's a lazy and dull comparison that overlooks all sorts of moral complexities, and it's also an erroneous use of m.o. The particulars of the two executions are vastly different, and the particulars are what establish the m.o.
Aside from semantics, the essence of what you're saying is true, but these problems are relative to their times. The US was a lot sneakier and insidious with many Central America operations. I appreciate Obama's attempts at transparency because as the world press likes to mention the only account of the scene comes from us (Americans), and Obama has stripped away some of the attempts to camouflage the ordeal. If he doesn't use the word execution, at least he paints the picture.
Were it a more controversial target for execution, I'm sure there might be more camouflaging...
That's very true, good point, and why the essence of pete's post is true - America has someone they don't like, they find a way to kill the person, but also why this one is different.
man, sundown all over, if you wanted to eventually agree with me and have a discussion, why did you have to start with the lazy and dull condescension? it makes me unable to appreciate your corrections and it also makes me have to work a little harder by not wanting to throw some half-heartedly snide insults back at you, such as: I'm sorry I'm not armchair-military-buff enough for your liking. and yes, I understand military buffs usually occupy the armchair already, and I'll admit it and save you the trouble by saying yes, the essence of what I'm saying is true. now please tell me about the inaccuracies of them military video games.
ps just to make it confusing, I actually liked your comments and maybe if it was 2003 I would've appreciated your pre-internet 2.0-style, socially awkward obsession with some idiot's second language.
Quote from: sundown all over on May 05, 2011, 04:23:57 PM
Quote from: pete on May 05, 2011, 03:50:08 PM
That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.
That's a lazy and dull comparison that overlooks all sorts of moral complexities, and it's also an erroneous use of m.o. The particulars of the two executions are vastly different, and the particulars are what establish the m.o.
Aside from semantics, the essence of what you're saying is true, but these problems are relative to their times. The US was a lot sneakier and insidious with many Central America operations. I appreciate Obama's attempts at transparency because as the world press likes to mention the only account of the scene comes from us (Americans), and Obama has stripped away some of the attempts to camouflage the ordeal. If he doesn't use the word execution, at least he paints the picture.
Quote from: pete on May 05, 2011, 04:43:20 PM
man, sundown all over, if you wanted to eventually agree with me and have a discussion, why did you have to start with the lazy and dull condescension? it makes me unable to appreciate your corrections and it also makes me have to work a little harder by not wanting to throw some half-heartedly snide insults back at you, such as: I'm sorry I'm not armchair-military-buff enough for your liking. and yes, I understand military buffs usually occupy the armchair already, and I'll admit it and save you the trouble by saying yes, the essence of what I'm saying is true. now please tell me about the inaccuracies of them military video games.
ps just to make it confusing, I actually liked your comments and maybe if it was 2003 I would've appreciated your pre-internet 2.0-style, socially awkward obsession with some idiot's second language.
Quote from: sundown all over on May 05, 2011, 04:23:57 PM
Quote from: pete on May 05, 2011, 03:50:08 PM
That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.
That's a lazy and dull comparison that overlooks all sorts of moral complexities, and it's also an erroneous use of m.o. The particulars of the two executions are vastly different, and the particulars are what establish the m.o.
Aside from semantics, the essence of what you're saying is true, but these problems are relative to their times. The US was a lot sneakier and insidious with many Central America operations. I appreciate Obama's attempts at transparency because as the world press likes to mention the only account of the scene comes from us (Americans), and Obama has stripped away some of the attempts to camouflage the ordeal. If he doesn't use the word execution, at least he paints the picture.
To clarify, I wasn't being intentionally condescending, as in I didn't consider myself speaking to you from some high area and you were in some low area. I engaged you on what to me was an equal level. There are just some kinks I have to work out concerning my engagements with the personalities of the Xixax members. So really I was being kinky with you. But really, no offense intended, and it was just about the topic (as in I don't think you are dull or lazy, I just thought the comparison was).
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 05, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
"How come no headline ever read "Multi-Millionaire Murders 3,000"? It would have been correct. No, best to focus on OBL being a "Muslim,'
Hahaha so that's Michael Moore logic for you. I don't have to explain how this sophism is ridiculous.
Quote from: MacGuffin on May 05, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
"What's so wrong w/ just saying the truth? "We executed him." Fine. I'm guessing most would applaud u. So I like trials! Call me an American!" he wrote.
That part is quite right though.
Quote from: pete on May 05, 2011, 03:50:08 PM
yeah I had no doubt that he was executed as well. they wouldn't only send two helicopters if they expected any type of resistance or firefight. they also couldn't possibly have arrested him; that would've been a diplomatic (and pre-election) headache for the obama admin as they sought to try him in American courts, trying to wrestle him out of the hands of the Afghans and the Pakastanis. He had to be put down there and then.
That was many of America's previous M.O., such as the execution of previous most wanted terrorist Pablo Escobar.
Well I for one disagree and not just about the semantics part of it ha.
You think they couldn't have arrested him because it would be a pre-election headache? Holy fuck I hope if I'm accused of a crime someday it won't be before an election or they'll just shoot me in the face and dump me in a lake. The rule of law doesn't take into account pre-elections or having to do complicated things (wrestle him our of Pakistan). Imagine the local courtrooms if this respect of the rule of law was everywhere:
''You honor, we COULD prove the accused is guilty, but it would be a headache to gather evidence. I propose we shoot him in the face there and then.''
YES it is tempting when we are SURE the guy did it but it's hard to find evidence. Yes I have been very mad in my life about seeing guilty people walk away because of lack evidence. But damn, the hardest and the right thing to do are often one and the same, as they say in sports movies.
nobody's denying that he was executed-- top brass and the whitehouse have said that it was a kill-or-capture mission. that means that the only way he could have gotten out of it alive is by immediately dropping to the ground and trying to surrender. if that was the case and they shot him in spite of that, i wouldn't feel good about that... but i believe that nothing like that happened. what do you want? obama to get behind a podium and say "we're murderers. all of us-- we're just as bad as bin laden because we killed him without asking permission." he wasn't innocent by any stretch of the imagination. and if he was-- he either was the biggest idiot or the most megalomaniacal suicidal jerkoff on the face of the planet and probably should have been shot anyway if you ask me.
he had no respect for america or the american legal system, nor do his followers. a trial wouldn't have satisfied anybody's concerns about fairness. in fact i believe any kind of public trial would merely be a propaganda platform for him and for the US government. (i myself have only a little respect for america's usual version of rule of law, but i'm not remotely dangerous in the way that he was. as much as i'd hate to be steamrolled by the legal system or shot in the face and dumped in the lake, the reality is that it's not going to happen to me or anyone else who isn't doing some really terrible things.) also, what would the point be of trying him in a court? he wasn't a criminal, he was a military enemy. he was also a known extremely dangerous man with both a rifle and a pistol within reach at the time of his death. granted they could have shot him in the leg and taken him alive-- but i think this sends a better message to the kind of people we're dealing with. he got everything he was owed by getting it quick and in the face.
it's not like we took out a shoplifter here... it's osama bin laden for christ's sake.
There's so much to disagree with there, I'm not even sure where to start.
Quote from: Reinhold on May 06, 2011, 08:27:35 AMhe had no respect for america or the american legal system, nor do his followers.
By this logic, should we apply a "do you respect the legal system?" test to every criminal, and if they fail, shoot them in the street? So yeah, that's a completely irrelevant point.
Quote from: Reinhold on May 06, 2011, 08:27:35 AMhe wasn't a criminal, he was a military enemy.
I'm honestly surprised you (or anyone, for that matter) are still buying Bush's endless state of war garbage, nearly ten years after it started. If you consider terrorists military enemies, we are in an endless state of war. How are terrorists not criminals? Terrorist attacks are complex events, and there are usually many people involved. As such, how do you propose seeking justice, if not through evidence-gathering? That is, after all, what we do with crimes, even horrible ones, and that is how we find criminals, even terrorists, with police/FBI/etc. and courts.
all i meant by the no respect for american legal system thing is that no matter how thoroughly or thoughtfully he were to be tried-- the whole thing would be viewed as a farce by people who don't already think the guy deserves the full extent of punishment. there's literally nothing we can do to get people aligned with bin laden to view him as guilty. he's responsible but correct in their view, so holding a trial is moot. i'll concede that his feelings about the american legal system are irrelevant and that it would be utterly ridiculous to just shoot everyone who doesn't like the way things are done.
as for the other point-- the dude has a standing army! al qaeda leadership commands, trains, finances, distributes propaganda for, and otherwise facilitates a global network of people with the stated goal of destroying the united states and everything it stands for, killing innocent civilians, and leveling our cities. bin laden was also a criminal guilty of terrible crimes, but he was first and foremost a military enemy in my view. i understand that he's not part of a nation state's military, but al qaeda is likely more capable of and more interested in engaging the united states military than some countries are.
i don't like bush's cowboy-up mentality-- pretty much all i do believe about his post 9/11 rhetoric is that these people are determined to kill us-- not because bush says so but because they say so. i'd shoot a guy in my own home if he posed an imminent threat to me, and i'd shoot him in his own home if i/the authorities couldn't otherwise intervene before he were in mine. it doesn't bother me that the united states government thinks that way. if these guys had a different line-- something along the lines of "leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" that would be fine with me. I hate most of what they stand for but i don't have the right to influence what they do in their own countries or homes if it doesn't involve harming people (me/us).
i'm not celebrating his death... it's just that i don't see other viable options for dealing with a guy like this. i'd rather see rule of law prevail in a general sense-- but i think it would be a huge mistake to hold a secret trial and an equally damaging mistake to make a show trial. i don't like that we made him a martyr, i don't like that his body was dumped-- but considering that the alternatives are letting him live out his life on taxpayers' dime or going marcellus wallace on his ass, i think the best thing to do is shoot him in the head and deny his followers a shrine site.
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 06:56:31 AM
Well I for one disagree and not just about the semantics part of it ha.
You think they couldn't have arrested him because it would be a pre-election headache? Holy fuck I hope if I'm accused of a crime someday it won't be before an election or they'll just shoot me in the face and dump me in a lake. The rule of law doesn't take into account pre-elections or having to do complicated things (wrestle him our of Pakistan). Imagine the local courtrooms if this respect of the rule of law was everywhere:
''You honor, we COULD prove the accused is guilty, but it would be a headache to gather evidence. I propose we shoot him in the face there and then.''
YES it is tempting when we are SURE the guy did it but it's hard to find evidence. Yes I have been very mad in my life about seeing guilty people walk away because of lack evidence. But damn, the hardest and the right thing to do are often one and the same, as they say in sports movies.
you're talking about the rule of law caring or not caring as if it was the one that called and planned for the operation. I can use your quote thing to make you sound ridiculous too, check it out.
"mr. rule of law, how do you want this kinda illegal operation on sovereign soil carried out?"
"capture him so I can have a trial in a vacuum devoid of any legal or political ramifications, none that pas could see anyways."
"but sir in the past--"
"HOW DARE YOU BRING UP HISTORY BEFORE THE RULE OF LAW?!"
I disagree about the illegality of the operation if it was meant for capture. I'm not a lawyer or any kind of expert but I reckon Pakistan is an ally to the US in the war on terror officially. Sure, there is a lot of intrigue going on. But they could never openly resist the capture and transport of Bin Laden to the US. Unless a trip to the stone age is something that interest them.
So basically you take Bin Laden alive, transfer him in a top security facility and call Pakistan-dude and tell him what's going on.
At worst he would have been tried in Pakistan.
There's no denying that capture was a possible choice. The debate is more : what is the reason why it was not the choice that was taken. Some say it's practical reasons like pete and reinhold. Maybe it is so, maybe capture proved too dangerous and would stir too much shit. But surely it was still the right thing to do in my opinion.
Also, imagine all the crazy shit that trial would've let out!
Quote from: Reinhold on May 06, 2011, 11:18:21 AMall i meant by the no respect for american legal system thing is that no matter how thoroughly or thoughtfully he were to be tried-- the whole thing would be viewed as a farce by people who don't already think the guy deserves the full extent of punishment. there's literally nothing we can do to get people aligned with bin laden to view him as guilty. he's responsible but correct in their view, so holding a trial is moot.
I think this is an even weaker argument. The purpose of trying him is not to put on a show for his supporters or to try to persuade them (should we even care?); it's to discover the some kind of truth and to seek justice.
Quote from: Reinhold on May 06, 2011, 11:18:21 AMas for the other point-- the dude has a standing army!
To call a loosely connected and increasingly decentralized terrorist network "a standing army" is a reckless exaggeration. And everything you're saying is still completely in sync with the Bush paradigm and implies that we should be in a perpetual state of war against anyone we think might harm us. How you don't recognize the insanity of that is baffling.
Quote from: Reinhold on May 06, 2011, 11:18:21 AMa global network of people with the stated goal of destroying the united states and everything it stands for, killing innocent civilians, and leveling our cities.
Take a look at what we actually know, and you'll find out that the "he won't stop until he's leveled all our cities!" talk is completely wrong. Bin Laden's goals concerning the United States were very specific.
In his writings, Bin Laden takes credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. He says his goals were to (1) turn them into a self-destructive national security state and (2) force them to bankrupt themselves with endless military spending. He expressly and explicitly had the same goals for the United States, and we've done pretty well on our end to see that those goals are met, especially #2. He also had a third goal for the United States, and in a way his most personal goal--to shut down the U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, his homeland. Bush did just that in 2003 (http://archives.dawn.com/2003/08/28/top5.htm).
You can't leave Osama Bin Laden alive. Not even if he was naked and laying face first on the ground surrendering. You have to kill him. It's a disaster if he's caught alive.
He's the only one I would say that about.
That makes no sense to me! Wouldn't you bust a nut seeing the guy in shackles, shamed and publicly humiliated?
I'm certainly not mourning Bin Laden's death, and I don't think executing him was a significant moral crime, and I do get the practical reasoning. I would have rather tried him, but in some ways that is a moot point (as much as I agree with it), because it was never going to happen.
I was actually more upset by the semi-related things Reinhold was talking about, and his reasoning.
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 01:59:18 PM
That makes no sense to me! Wouldn't you bust a nut seeing the guy in shackles, shamed and publicly humiliated?
No, not at all. I can put my bleeding heart and liberal ideals aside when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, he's the only one I could do this for.
The cons of him being caught alive far outweigh the pros.
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 02:18:04 PM
No, not at all. I can put my bleeding heart and liberal ideals aside when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, he's the only one I could do this for.
I think the general sentiment opposed to this is that if one strongly believes in upholding laws when given the option you always put a man on trial, because terrorists win when your judicial system is broken down and actions are made based on emotion. Because really that's what the other side is doing, so it is sinking to their level. When you have strong beliefs, you must apply them in all circumstances because an emotionally invested judge/jury/executioner is not a sober minded one. This is why laws were invented. So why make an exception to your philosophy stefen?
on that note, who knows what happened in that compound. I believe it's equally plausible killing bin ladin was in their minds as much as it's likely capture was their intent. if bin ladin did pull out his gun, then they did what was necessary. I guess we're left trusting what they've said, because we'll never know.
I'm not saying I don't want a trial; I'm saying the people in charge don't necessarily want a trial.
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 12:32:56 PM
I disagree about the illegality of the operation if it was meant for capture. I'm not a lawyer or any kind of expert but I reckon Pakistan is an ally to the US in the war on terror officially. Sure, there is a lot of intrigue going on. But they could never openly resist the capture and transport of Bin Laden to the US. Unless a trip to the stone age is something that interest them.
So basically you take Bin Laden alive, transfer him in a top security facility and call Pakistan-dude and tell him what's going on.
At worst he would have been tried in Pakistan.
There's no denying that capture was a possible choice. The debate is more : what is the reason why it was not the choice that was taken. Some say it's practical reasons like pete and reinhold. Maybe it is so, maybe capture proved too dangerous and would stir too much shit. But surely it was still the right thing to do in my opinion.
Also, imagine all the crazy shit that trial would've let out!
Quote from: socketlevel on May 06, 2011, 02:33:31 PMI think the general sentiment opposed to this is that if one strongly believes in upholding laws when given the option you always put a man on trial, because terrorists win when your judicial system is broken down and actions are made based on emotion. Because really that's what the other side is doing, so it is sinking to their level. When you have strong beliefs, you must apply them in all circumstances because an emotionally invested judge/jury/executioner is not a sober minded one. This is why laws were invented. So why make an exception to your philosophy stefen?
Yeah, this is still a really good point. It's sort of like freedom of speech.
"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all."
- Chomsky
Also, I think part of the reason we tend to think in these terms--that
of course we should make an exception with Bin Laden--is that he's been turned into a complete cartoon villain, mostly by the Bush administration.
Why continue to play along?Just to complicate this further, I'm not sure we actually want to go down this rabbit hole, but there is very little evidence actually connecting Bin Laden with 9/11. No one, including the FBI (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/07/25/no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-11), has been able to find or provide any real evidence. In interviews he has denied responsibility, in some tapes he has also denied responsibility, and in some other tapes he takes or implies responsibility. Throw in the fact that the authenticity of nearly all the tapes is very much in doubt (not the interviews, but the tapes), and you don't have any actually reliable evidence.
Do you remember what was happening in the media on the day of 9/11/2001? A narrative emerged almost instantly within just a few hours, with no evidence and no basis in reality whatsoever, that Osama Bin Laden was probably responsible for the attack. "Probably" soon became "very likely," which eventually became "definitely."
Depending on your point of view, a trial would have cleared up the doubts about Bin Laden's complicity, or revealed the truth.
exactly, and there is no wrong reason to go down that rabbit hole. The truth is paramount, regardless how unappealing.
It's funny when i was writing that post i thought of chompsky and how he says in the manufacturing concent documentary that one of the only thing he regrets is trying to get that neo nazi to remove one of his statements from his book. I can't remember the specifics but my memory tells me it was a holocaust denial book, and regardless how stupid that is, freedom of speech is paramount. Chompsky's quote was about freedom of speech and it was not taken out of context. I was really proud of chompsky coming to that realization, you make statements regarding freedom not for your own side, but for everyone's point of view.
I agree with all of that. And I do like rabbit holes... just wasn't sure we wanted to go down one in this thread.
Time to weigh in with my own irrelevant opinion... I don't believe in capital punishment. The scenes of frat boys celebrating Osama's death makes me really uncomfortable. Someone pointed out it was reminiscent of the al Qaeda supports celebrating after 9/11. Nuff said. But I do think there really wasn't any alternative to just going in there and executing him like they did. First of all, let's abandon all this eye for an eye justice talk. I guess that's what Reinhold means by him being a military enemy. The threat that he posed, in addition to his previous actions, justifies in some sense the need for him to be eliminated as a threat. For his death to be cited as "justice" in any sort of legal or moral sense doesn't really make sense. But what happened is for the best, I believe. Imagine there was any trial. Where would that happen? Imagine the media circus, it would be a ridiculous parody of a trial no matter what your perspective was. And then what? I agree with JB that Bin Laden did become in effect a cartoon villain, but the collective perception crossed that line and was never going to came back. I don't think anyone is arguing that his "threat" or whatever being removed is a bad thing, just the circumstances surrounding it. While on a philosophical level the event contradicts my sense of what is right, I think what happened was probably for the best. Let's just draw a line under it and start worrying about Pakistan having a Libya-style uprising. They have nukes, after all.
^excellent post, Sleepless. I agree.
You make a lot of really good points, jb. Even as I'm writing some of this stuff I'm thinking "c'mon Andrew, this is mostly based on emotion..." it is very complicated. As walrus can tell you I used to be a completely mindless republican and I guess some of that lingers though I'm left of ghandi on a lot of topics.
The trial thing, though... What good could have come of it? I see it only as a propaganda platform for both sides-- truth being the least likely thing to emerge. There's no way he'd plead not guilty or dignify the court with a guilty plea. He'd inevitably wind up just as dead, but with a huge media circus beforehand that would echo indefinitely in in extremist circles on all sides. Given my views of him (clearly guilty as sin) and al qaeda (army), I have a hard time seeing what's unjust about just shooting him. That is justice for a man whose existence itself is a threat... I feel that the sooner he's dead, the sooner justice is served. I haven't looked into the question of bin laden's involvement though-- I bought the media line. I also (and I'm sure I'll be lambasted for this) trust Obama. I really don't think we were misled about this guy or his intent to kill as many Americans as he can. That's where I'm coming from.
I'm not sure the threat of a media circus justifies violating our principles, if those are our principles.
But really, had there been a trial, I don't think an O.J. Simpson style affair would have been in the cards. Had he been tried in this country, it probably would have been a closed military tribunal, if this (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-04/us/guantanamo.tribunals_1_civilian-trials-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-military-commission?_s=PM:US) is any indication.
Also...
Aren't infamous evildoers supposed to have an escape route, like some secret door they can slip through? It's just odd, and pretty stupid on Bin Laden's part, that he put himself in a position where he could be cornered in a room. Also strange that he stayed in the same place for so long...
Bin Laden basically just turned the United States into Brad Pitt at the end of Seven.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 06, 2011, 05:54:29 PM
Aren't infamous evildoers supposed to have an escape route, like some secret door they can slip through? It's just odd, and pretty stupid on Bin Laden's part, that he put himself in a position where he could be cornered in a room. Also strange that he stayed in the same place for so long...
by the time fugitives are caught, they're usually pretty down and out and sloppy, with most of their resources gone and most of their allies taken down.
Good point, and I'm sure they had a perimeter set up, so it's not like he could have gone running down the street.
Unless he had constructed a network of underground tunnels...
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 06, 2011, 07:01:26 PM
Unless he had constructed a network of underground tunnels...
Or something...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fih0.redbubble.net%2Fwork.6719186.2.flat%2C550x550%2C075%2Cf.new-kind-of-transportation-flying-bicycle.jpg&hash=9b7981c175ece9172b2129c710c3c96af035baea)
Perfect!
Or...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpleatedjeans.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fmary-poppins-flying-thumb-250x311.jpg&hash=3221e4a009eca5db74063af7636796385dde633a)
Quote from: socketlevel on May 06, 2011, 02:33:31 PM
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 02:18:04 PM
No, not at all. I can put my bleeding heart and liberal ideals aside when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, he's the only one I could do this for.
I think the general sentiment opposed to this is that if one strongly believes in upholding laws when given the option you always put a man on trial, because terrorists win when your judicial system is broken down and actions are made based on emotion. Because really that's what the other side is doing, so it is sinking to their level. When you have strong beliefs, you must apply them in all circumstances because an emotionally invested judge/jury/executioner is not a sober minded one. This is why laws were invented. So why make an exception to your philosophy stefen?
Sorry, missed this.
Yeah, upholding laws is important, but I think in rare extreme cases, i.e. ONLY THIS ONE, laws can be broken.
Take that guy alive and all that happens is his court cases get drawn out for years. He's always in the news and always being brought up and he's always in the public consciousness. Just not worth it. Give him one between the eyes and fuggedaboutit.
Laws mean little when it comes to dangerous dangerous people that are screwing up this world we all live in. The only problem is with most dangerous men, there's always some objectivity to how dangerous they are. Sympathizers, etc. But in rare cases, ala Osama and, I don't know, I guess Hitler, there isn't any doubt these are vile awful people who, as long as they're living, this world is worse off. I was even happy Saddam was caught alive. That dude was just some dumb dolt. Nobody took him seriously, but with Osama and Hitler, yeah, take them out. Not worth letting human beings like that live.
It really does speak to the cartoon villain status of Bin Laden that someone (Stefen in this case, sorry) can compare him to Hitler without being laughed out of the room.
Why would you laugh me out the room for that? I simply stated they're both awful human beings. What's so wrong about that?
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 08:06:44 PM
Why would you laugh me out the room for that? I simply stated they're both awful human beings. What's so wrong about that?
I think it's absurd to put them in the same category. Bin Laden didn't begin to approach the crimes of Hitler, in scope or scale, and the threat Hitler posed was so much larger that it's not even worth comparing.
If your category is "awful human beings," your list of exceptions to moral conduct just grew a little beyond two.
And even if your category is number of civillians killed, this list is still going to require several pages.
Point is, where do you stop?
E: Including the original post:
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 08:00:53 PMBut in rare cases, ala Osama and, I don't know, I guess Hitler, there isn't any doubt these are vile awful people who, as long as they're living, this world is worse off. I was even happy Saddam was caught alive. That dude was just some dumb dolt. Nobody took him seriously, but with Osama and Hitler, yeah, take them out. Not worth letting human beings like that live.
Nope. Just Hitler and OBL. Those are the only two people I can support just killing instead of trying to try in a court of law. Couldn't really justify it for anyone else. Maybe a couple filmmakers if I debated it really hard.
Again... Your criteria for putting OBL on this list are what?
just stop.
Bin Laden is an evil type of man, just like Hitler and about 10 000 other people a year who get trials. The guy who rapes and kills little 5 year old girls for fun is WAY MORE evil than Bin Laden can ever be.
I'm a total neo-con, but I understand that 9/11 was an act of war. Not an act directed at being evil for evil sakes (unlike the killer rapists).
My point is that if PURE evil people get trials, then anyone should get them. I do know that he is guilty and I do know that the ultimate outcome is his execution, but you just can't make exceptions. Where does it end? If you open that pandora's box, who's gonna close it.
((((((side point: Stefen, your OBL/Hitler list is silly! Pol Pot, Mao, and so many more have killed sooooooo much more people. If you open a list, it's gonna be LONG))))))
this was necessary...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscrapetv.com%2FNews%2FNews%2520Pages%2FEntertainment%2FImages%2Festelle-getty-stop-or-my-mom-will-shoot.jpg&hash=b14beb0ede725a3d78f0448d4249bd867e2c2603)
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 09:15:17 PM
Bin Laden is an evil type of man, just like Hitler and about 10 000 other people a year who get trials.
Hitler got a trial?
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 09:15:17 PMI'm a total neo-con, but...
In this thread: I agree with a neo-con.
*high five*
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 06, 2011, 09:58:32 PM
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 09:15:17 PMI'm a total neo-con, but...
In this thread: I agree with a neo-con.
*high five*
haha as long as we don't go into taxation territory we should be fine :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: pete on May 06, 2011, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: Pas on May 06, 2011, 09:15:17 PM
Bin Laden is an evil type of man, just like Hitler and about 10 000 other people a year who get trials.
Hitler got a trial?
He commited suicide. But for all his friends, have you heard of Nuremberg?
so Bin Laden was executed, but his friends are tried the same way, and you were making a specific reference to Hitler by the way. have you read your own quote?
Quote from: pete on May 07, 2011, 04:02:38 AM
so Bin Laden was executed, but his friends are tried the same way, and you were making a specific reference to Hitler by the way. have you read your own quote?
i was making a reference to hitler per stefen's post.
If you think I don't know Hitler killed himself than you are an imbecile.
Thread killed.
pete you misread his sentence..
he wasn't saying hitler was one of the 10 thousand evil people WHO GET TRIALS.. he was just grouping him with the evil people part of the sentence. i didn't misread it your way but i can see the ambiguous aspect. never the less i think it's pretty easy to see the alternative (the way he meant it) and assume he meant it the way that makes sense.
sorry to ruin pas' "thread killed" statement but i am kind of amazed how after so much smart discussions little things like ambiguous sentence structure can derail lucidity. and maybe it's worth noting that this fatal linguistic incident took place between two people for whom english is a second language (a handicap referenced already by pete in a previous misunderstanding) and with this post being dragged out now by another ESL speaker.
anyway, JB.. you also failed to understand Stefen on a very basic and obvious level: he simply ignored the point you made, and which pas subsequently expanded, because he's just not putting as much thought into it as you are. that's all it is. you should have realised that after he completely ignored you and then you could have concluded logically as so: "well it appears you are not putting as much thought into it as i am which is not to say your opinion is invalid but that you have a less refined idea of what constitutes evil.. "
i think stefen obviously understands the difference between OBL and Hitler in that they share almost no characteristics in common other than their boundless hatred/fear, both projected and received, but that for stefen the ultimate litmus test for judging what occurred is emotional and not rational. that's a totally valid method by which to judge things and is absolutely the level at which some POLITICAL decisions are made.
i don't think trying to be logical and rational insulates you from basic human flaws such as the need to compromise on a personal opinon. because it is not acceptable in our world to NOT have an opinion and be completely impartial.. apart from being paradoxical it is mostly impractical. a truly objective position would let every thing be, while the wills of the world swirl around them through flimsy and tyrannical torrents.
i prescribe to everyone the following week-long regimen: one dose of the FMJ sniper sequence to be taken visually and aurally once a day for six days, followed by one FULL dose of EWS to be taken just once on the final day.
I realized Stefen was coming at it from an emotional angle, and I was mostly just trying to point that out without actually saying it.
I think that
is a valid personal perspective, but only insofar as it remains personal. The problem, as I saw it, is that it was prescriptive:
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 08:00:53 PMYeah, upholding laws is important, but I think in rare extreme cases, i.e. ONLY THIS ONE, laws can be broken.
A totally valid emotional position, and one I completely understand, given the pop culture positions of Hitler and Bin Laden. But when you start advocating this as policy, it becomes a problem, because it sends us down a path that should be avoided.
Also, this is not about stark rationality at the expense of everything else. There are many reasons besides rationality and logic to be against vigilantism and extrajudicial killings.
Quote from: Pubrick on May 07, 2011, 10:13:23 AMfor stefen the ultimate litmus test for judging what occurred is emotional and not rational. that's a totally valid method by which to judge things and is absolutely the level at which some POLITICAL decisions are made.
Right, but that's often a problem, don't you think?
I actually do think it's valid to use emotions to make decisions. In fact I think the best decisions I've made have been based on instinct or emotion.
But it really depends
which emotions you're using. If you're using hatred or fear (especially true in this case?) to make decisions, that is probably not a good thing.
You said that some political decisions are made on this level, but I would actually turn that on its head... More often, politics exploits the emotions of the public as a way to carry out decisions.
Quote from: Pubrick on May 07, 2011, 10:13:23 AMi think stefen obviously understands the difference between OBL and Hitler in that they share almost no characteristics in common other than their boundless hatred/fear, both projected and received, but that for stefen the ultimate litmus test for judging what occurred is emotional and not rational.
Yeah, pretty much. I don't think OBL is even close to as bad as Hitler, but he's hanging out on the same planet, and the only person I could think of in comparison, especially with how he was pretty much running a whole terrorist organization from his flop house. They brainwash people into doing very bad things. You have them alive and they're just going to continue to brain wash people, only in front of a court of law, which may be even more empowering. Who knows? It's not worth the risk in my opinion, which comes directly from personal emotions and not from spending all my free time listening to left or right leaning podcasts and reading Mike Moores Twitter.
It's not that important to me, really. OBL's execution is old news already. The news I care about now is Cannes 2011, can Pacquiao finish Shane Mosley this weekend? Is Tyler, The Creators new album too grim or am I just getting old? Even being up 3-0, will the Dallas Mavericks still choke against the LA Lakers?
Quote from: Pubrick on May 07, 2011, 10:13:23 AMi prescribe to everyone the following week-long regimen: one dose of the FMJ sniper sequence to be taken visually and aurally once a day for six days, followed by one FULL dose of EWS to be taken just once on the final day.
The sniper part doesn't come in the second half does it? Cause I heard the second half of this movie is boring. 8) :waving:
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 08:00:53 PM
Quote from: socketlevel on May 06, 2011, 02:33:31 PM
Quote from: Stefen on May 06, 2011, 02:18:04 PM
No, not at all. I can put my bleeding heart and liberal ideals aside when it comes to Osama Bin Laden. Like I said, he's the only one I could do this for.
I think the general sentiment opposed to this is that if one strongly believes in upholding laws when given the option you always put a man on trial, because terrorists win when your judicial system is broken down and actions are made based on emotion. Because really that's what the other side is doing, so it is sinking to their level. When you have strong beliefs, you must apply them in all circumstances because an emotionally invested judge/jury/executioner is not a sober minded one. This is why laws were invented. So why make an exception to your philosophy stefen?
Sorry, missed this.
Yeah, upholding laws is important, but I think in rare extreme cases, i.e. ONLY THIS ONE, laws can be broken.
Take that guy alive and all that happens is his court cases get drawn out for years. He's always in the news and always being brought up and he's always in the public consciousness. Just not worth it. Give him one between the eyes and fuggedaboutit.
Laws mean little when it comes to dangerous dangerous people that are screwing up this world we all live in. The only problem is with most dangerous men, there's always some objectivity to how dangerous they are. Sympathizers, etc. But in rare cases, ala Osama and, I don't know, I guess Hitler, there isn't any doubt these are vile awful people who, as long as they're living, this world is worse off. I was even happy Saddam was caught alive. That dude was just some dumb dolt. Nobody took him seriously, but with Osama and Hitler, yeah, take them out. Not worth letting human beings like that live.
years or not, it's what's right. sadam's trial didn't take too long either if that's any indication of the length, not that it should matter.
if a fair trial takes a long time, it's well worth it.
I think the whole thing about OBL getting a trial or not is not a decision based on fairness or justice, but rather one with concern about what he symbolizes. There'd be riots from his followers, there'd be toothless teabaggers clamoring to get on TV and wave their pitchforks, Sarah Palin would call the whole exercise "redynent"... No one wants to see that.
It's a big fucking mess, of course it is. People from around the world, from across the many political spectrums are debating the issues surrounding his death, surrounding the covert operation, surrounding the celebrations which followed, surrounding the burial at sea, etc... The way it went down was the closest thing possible to a quick and clean summation of the whole deal. Practically, it was for the best.