05-07-2004, 09:48 AM | #42 (permalink) | |
Banned from being Banned
Location: Donkey
|
Quote:
Ah well, such is politics. There's always an extreme with everything, hehe. <i>Fans of Manson's work or not - looks at quotes and writings by the Columbine boys compared to Manson's lyrics - appears as though they shared a writer.</i> That's a very ignorant and closed minded view, IMO. I'd love to see exactly WHAT writings they had appeared similiar to Manson's lyrics. His lyrics are purely political wrapped in religious dabblings, nothing more. Sounds no different than a closed minded Christian who thinks Marilyn Manson is bad because he ripped a bible up on stage. (the other stuff is definitely interesting, but that one section in particular was rather absurd)
__________________
I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 05-07-2004 at 09:57 AM.. |
|
05-07-2004, 10:00 AM | #43 (permalink) | ||
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
You make it sound like that is an extremist site with no merit, which can safely be ignored, and you do it without any substance and without even addressing the points of the article you hold up. Did you even READ that friggin' article? At the heart of it: Quote:
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 05-07-2004 at 10:06 AM.. |
||
05-07-2004, 10:26 AM | #44 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
You see, that is the difference between you and me, Lebell... Where you see him scapegoating LM, the USA and the NRA I saw him point out some ironies and leaving the conclusions to be drawn by the viewer...
(for the record I didn't like the way he ended the film with Chuck... that was tastless, but I won't discount the rest of the film beause of that...) IMO what these anti-Moore sentiments all come down to is that no one likes to wear the emperor's new clothes
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
05-07-2004, 10:53 AM | #45 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
Charlatan, I am BIG on facts and the way Moore twisted and distorted them in BOC for his own political agenda has forever turned me against him. From LM Waterton making "WMDs" to the inscription on the B52 to the clever editing to make it look like Heston said something he didn't say, Michael Moore is a fucking LIAR and the latest BS involving Disney and censorship and what Mikey really knew a year ago is just more proof of the fact. I generally like your posts, but how you can continue to defend him, especially in light of the latest revelation, is beyond my understanding.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
|
05-07-2004, 11:14 AM | #46 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
It isn't about Moore... it's about what isn't getting said in America (and by that I mean North American).
Perhaps he does fudge things to make the story work... perhaps he doesn't. I'm not interested in defending or attacking him on this. What is sad is that a lot of what he investigates are increasingly valid topics to which not enough people pay attention. Guns are a problem (OK the people who use the guns are a problem)... Corporate theivery and corruption are a problem... There are some very important questions about Bush and 9/11, etc that need asking... Moore has an agenda of attacking the Corporate power structures and the Republicans that support that structure... You may not agree with his methods but you have to give him props for sticking to his guns and continuing to fight what he (and many who share his beliefs) believes to be the good fight.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
05-07-2004, 04:19 PM | #47 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
I have seen all of Moore's movies and for the most part, they are pretty good.
The only part of BFC that I didn't like was the end when he harassed Charlie Heston. Charlie is a confused old man suffering from Alzheimers. He shouldn't have done that. For me, the biggest prick in BFC was Dick Clark. Now he looked like more of an asshole than Heston even came close to. Still for me, Roger and Me remains Moore's best work to date. It's funny though that he never really found himself within the sights of the neo-cons in the USA until he did BFC and took on America's fascination with guns. (Even moore was a life long member of the NRA.) I look forward to his new movie and I am sure that there are going to be some thorny issues raised. Not the least of which will be how on 912 the only planes allowed in the air were carrying Saudi nationals out of the USA back home, and just what was said in those blacked out pages of the 911 report. The bottom line is that 15 of 19 911 terrorists were Saudis, yet nothing happens to Saudi Arabia or the House of Saud. It's really quite unreal to watch. |
05-07-2004, 04:26 PM | #48 (permalink) | |
Muffled
Location: Camazotz
|
Quote:
__________________
it's quiet in here |
|
05-07-2004, 04:29 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
Quote:
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
|
05-07-2004, 11:31 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
05-07-2004, 11:43 PM | #51 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
Lemme begin by saying that everyone out there in the realm of politics is out for self-promotion and as thus Moore is just like any other activist or anyone involved in politics
I find all the bickering over a guy who is playing politics and making money to be a bit of a waste of time - he's doing what he wants, he's making money, he's getting people to argue thus drawing attention to his aims... if you hate him that much, then don't do what he wants you to... |
05-09-2004, 02:54 AM | #52 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the Disney situation, his description of events can be found here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php |
||
05-09-2004, 07:56 AM | #53 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: Texas - The state that all other states wish they could be
|
If what he has shown has been proven debunk, why would we trust what he says about it?
"What? i've had my lawyers and 'fact-checkers' go through all of my stuff. Now they're really going to believe me." I don't know how Michael Moore saying something is true makes it true. |
05-09-2004, 08:43 AM | #54 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: San Jose, CA
|
Quote:
Interestingly enough, I found the following story off mediachannel.org, a site linked-to by Michael Moore's site. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=518901 Quote:
|
||
05-09-2004, 08:47 AM | #55 (permalink) |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
moore's main problem with integrity isn't that he presents many facts that aren't true to some extent... it's that he presents those facts in a way that manipulates the truth.
i think it's quite a stretch to say that BFC was lie-free because no one bothered to drop a law-suit on him. that sounds like a self-important blowhard thing to say. if you've seen BFC, most of the people he picks are are bank/store managers, unsuspecting common people and a senile old man. with the exception of that particular senile old man, hardly the sort of people who would have the resources or desire to fight moore on a technicality.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 05-09-2004 at 08:50 AM.. |
05-09-2004, 08:56 AM | #56 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: San Jose, CA
|
Quote:
Also, the topic of his movie Roger & Me had a few dollars to spare as well. I do believe that Moore fact-checked his movie with lawyers to make sure he was on the safe side of the law. That doesn't mean he didn't manipulate the facts. Actually, I think libel law is one area of law that isn't riddled by frivolous lawsuits, which is a good thing. I think things like political ads and michael moore documentaries and rush limbaugh, no matter how manipulative, should be given a pretty wide latitude to say what they want. People should make up their own minds, not let lawyers do it for them. Anyway, I agree with your larger point but disagree with you on that detail. |
|
05-09-2004, 09:03 AM | #57 (permalink) | |
Banned
Location: Texas - The state that all other states wish they could be
|
Quote:
|
|
05-09-2004, 05:34 PM | #58 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by hammer4all; 05-09-2004 at 05:37 PM.. |
||
05-09-2004, 05:54 PM | #59 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: Texas - The state that all other states wish they could be
|
A lot of it has been proven flat out to be lies.
The publicity stunt is the fact that he initially said that he was just told it when he was told over a year go. Anyways, it's not censorship. Why should Disney distribute it if they don't want to? You're definitely twisting the meaning of "censorship". If the government was threatening Disney that if they distributed it they'd be attacked economically, then yes, that would be censorship. Disney making the decision to not distribute the movie is their choice and is not censorship. |
05-09-2004, 06:15 PM | #60 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
BINGO--using your definition. |
||
05-10-2004, 08:01 AM | #62 (permalink) | |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Michael Eisner wrote this letter to the NY Times in response to their editorial slamming Disney for not distributing Moore's new movie:
Link to letter on NY Times website Quote:
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 05-10-2004 at 08:04 AM.. |
|
05-10-2004, 08:42 AM | #63 (permalink) | |
Banned from being Banned
Location: Donkey
|
Quote:
The top movie a few weeks ago was...? Kill Bill! Did Eisner not make claims that Disney ONLY releases family films? That he did. Is Disney contradicting themselves? Indeed. The only thing I can't verify based on Moore's response to Disney's claims that this news is over a year old is the fact that they released his movie The Big One: http://imdb.com/title/tt0124295/. Did they or did they not release it? I've never seen the movie, but is it a partisan political movie? I'm thinking yes. ...so what again isn't believable, or are you just referring to him in general? Just curious, because I thought his reponse (found here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php) was pretty well stated.. except his little complaint about Disney naming their ride "Tower of Terror" (which was up long before 9/11 ever happened).. reminds me of those freaks who wanted Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers renamed because it reminded them of 9/11
__________________
I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 05-10-2004 at 08:48 AM.. |
|
05-10-2004, 10:26 AM | #64 (permalink) | |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
Quote:
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
|
05-10-2004, 02:24 PM | #65 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: San Jose, CA
|
I think from reviewing this thread that people are confused.
Disney is not preventing the film from being distributed. They are merely backing out as the distributor of the film. No one is claiming that there was a contract in place binding them to do so. Disney will still make a bundle off the film as an investor. So what's the big deal? There was no contract. Someone will pick up the distribution and make a bundle, especially now that the film is controversial. No free-speech rights were harmed. No puppies were killed. Freedom of Speech does not mean that I have to listen. |
05-10-2004, 02:43 PM | #66 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
|
|
05-10-2004, 02:55 PM | #67 (permalink) |
eat more fruit
Location: Seattle
|
Meh, I won't pay money to see this film, but if I can download it for free somewhere I'll probably wtach it.
__________________
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche |
05-10-2004, 06:22 PM | #68 (permalink) |
Upright
|
Which is more likely? A publicity stunt? In Hollywood!? Or Moore being 'silenced' by a vast conspiracy? We'll ignore, for the time being, the NYT's charge of 'censorship.' Last time I checked, there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to have your film distributed by Disney.
This whole 'scandal' has emerged right before the Cannes Film Festival due to some comments by Michael Moore's agent/publicist. Doesn't that cast some doubt on the motivation behind the claims? Does the cornerstone company of the $21 billion Florida tourism industry receive tax breaks? Sure, of course. Is Jeb Bush the governor of Florida? Yes. Well there you go, that obviously proves that Bush and Eisner are in bed together. Classic Moore -- open-ended implications based on circumstantial evidence. Why don't I believe that Eisner is intimidated by the Bushes? I don't know, maybe it's because he's donated money to John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Patrck Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Fritz Hollings, Bob Kerrey, Jean Carnahan, Dick Gephardt, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Bradley, Frank Lautenberg, and Barbara Mikulski. (www.opensecrets.org). Shall we dissect Weinstein's donation portfolio? How would it make any sense for Disney to finance Moore's movie through its subsidiary Miramax if they had no intention of releasing it? They knew exactly what Moore was making and chose to finance it. Why won't Disney release it? Because they don't want to politicize the flagship brand. The film is sure to ignite a firestorm of front-page controversy that they don't want to be in the middle of because they don't want to alienate half of their potential customers. |
05-11-2004, 01:16 PM | #69 (permalink) |
Insane
|
A "vast conspiracy" is not necessary here to silence Moore. Simple conflicts of interest will do. When Disney's reasons for not distributing the film fall apart, it is only rational to look for other motives. Today, Democracy Now! dedicated a whole show into looking at the Disney-Saudi and Bush-Saudi relationships (which have been well documented btw). However, if you have already read the FAIR press release I quoted above, no new information was explored between Disney and the Saudi royal family.
http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040511 |
05-11-2004, 03:45 PM | #70 (permalink) | |
Upright
|
Quote:
We can sit here and play endless rhetorical frisbee with examples of right-wing and left-wing associations, but guilt by association ultimately falls short of conclusive. Do they employ John Stossel? Sure, they also employ George Stephanopoulos. Incidentally, Stossel is more accurately described as a libertarian than a conservative. Do they have Saudi investors? Sure, they also have Jewish investors, Democrat investors, Republican investors, Christian investors,.... We can concoct any guilt by association theory we want. Eisner donates money to Democrats. What's that prove? Nothing. If Eisner didn't want Michael Moore to make a movie, he wouldn't have helped finance it in the first place. The decision not to distribute allows Disney/Miramax to make lots of money from the sale of the distribution rights, generate lots of publicity, yet still maintain enough insulation to protect the Disney brand. It's called hedging your portfolio. |
|
05-11-2004, 06:08 PM | #71 (permalink) |
Insane
|
Look, there is a clear double standard here: It's perfectly alright for Disney to run 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by 3 hours of Sean Hannity, but as soon as we're talking about something left-wing that's "bad business." The fact that you would attribute lift-wing to Stephanopoulos just shows what progressives like me are up against. Btw, I didn't mention this last time, but your own link shows that Eisner and Disney donate about as much to Republicans as they do Democrats. So I wish you would stop implying that the money only flows one direction.
|
05-11-2004, 06:58 PM | #72 (permalink) |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
hammer4all, i completely disagree with you about there being a double standard... so i'll only follow this logic in order to try to get some common ground with you.
but, if there is a double standard... who cares? any corporation is entirely within its rights to publish what they choose to publish. moore isn't entitled to any distribution as it pertains to his legal rights. companies are free to choose to invest in distributing his work or free to choose to decline the opportunity. because disney chooses some opportunities over moore says much more of the nature of mr. moore's work than it does about the scruples of disney/miramax. and to me, the choice that Disney has made to publish/promote conservative programs and withdraw from liberal ones (a choice you are saying they're making, not i) is a SINGLE standard... not a double one.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
05-11-2004, 07:11 PM | #73 (permalink) | |
Upright
|
Quote:
Or, go listen to Air America or Democracy Now and buy absolutely everything they advertise. In time, they'll make enough money to finance and distribute any movie you desire. Moore is bad business because the Christian right is effective at organizing boycotts, e.g. the Dixie Chicks. A boycott of Disney's film, television, entertainment, and amusement industries is far more costly than the potential profits from Moore's movie. Eisner, who is fresh off a bitter internal power struggle and a hostile takeover attempt by Comcast, is understandably risk averse. The rewards of backing Moore simply don't outweigh the potential risks. Risk vs. rewards, basic finance. I pointed out Stephanopoulos because he is a former member of Democratic administration, which some would assume makes Disney guilty of liberal bias by association. Personally, I don't, which is the primary tenet of my argument. Whether he is progressive enough for you is immaterial to the discussion. However, the fact that you and FAIR call Stossel a conservative shows you what libertarians are up against. My link to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity (as opposed to your link to the partisan FAIR), shows that Eisner has a preference towards donating to Democrats, particularly when it comes to Senators and Presidential candidates. Like any responsible investor, he donates some money to Republicans in order to hedge his influence portfolio. Harvey Weinstein donates exclusively to Democrats. The point of my argument is that Disney's decision not to distribute Moore's film is likely economic, not ideological. Disney isn't blocking distribution, it's simply choosing not to distribute it themselves. Moore has seized the opportunity to publicize his movie (right before Cannes) and launch a bidding war for its distribution. It's a far simpler explanation which doesn't require Arab investors or tax breaks, just a realization that Disney likes money and Moore likes publicity. |
|
05-11-2004, 11:49 PM | #74 (permalink) |
Insane
|
Well I think you're partly right, but there is more it. Corporate media conglomerates tend to have lots of right-wing personalities not only because of money, but because they are less likely to upset advertisers and/or the general status quo. Conservatives tend to be much more corporate friendly then progressives. It's much too complicated for me to explain here, but if you're interested, I highly recommend this documentary.
Democracy Now! is not like any other news organization. They are independent--they don't advertise or accept donations from corporations or governments. The program is entirely funded by listeners so they are much freer to report on whatever they want. |
05-12-2004, 07:02 AM | #75 (permalink) | |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Quote:
Someone else will distribute the thing... While there is a case to argue they have a double standard, this isn't a case of censorship. |
|
05-12-2004, 04:25 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
is awesome!
|
Quote:
BTW Moore's first film "Roger & Me" is considered a classic of the documentary genre. It's a groundbreaking example of guerilla film making. A less competant director might have portrayed the sheriff, driving around evicting people all day as evil or amoral, instead of as an okay guy doing his job as Moore does. The "pets or meat" segment is simutaneously hilarious, sad, and disgusting. Must see. |
|
05-12-2004, 04:37 PM | #77 (permalink) |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
locobot,
keep in mind the post you are referring to was strictly on a hypothetical level because i disagreed with the premise's on which the previous posts had being laid. that being said... certainly moore has a right to promote his movie. why do so many draw the line from disapproval of a statement to the opinion that the statement shouldn't be allowed? the problem with moore in these instances is that it appears that he has manufactured or manipulated the situation in a way that is untrue. publicly accusing the disney company of censorship with the motivation of keeping political ties is a very serious thing to say. if those accusations aren't proven (and they haven't been, and i doubt they will), then moore has gone from promotion to libel. there is a difference, a very distinct (and legal) difference.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
05-13-2004, 06:11 PM | #79 (permalink) |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
li·bel:
1. a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b: The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court. looked it up for good measure, that's exactly what i mean. moore brought up accusations that are damaging to disney's reputation. if you prefer the word slander, then i'll go with that also.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
05-13-2004, 06:31 PM | #80 (permalink) |
is awesome!
|
Nice dictionary definition. Libel as pertaining to law is dependant on someone saying something they know to be false. Under your definition Disney is also guilty of libel. If Disney's motives aren't political than what Irateplatypus do you suppose they are? Did Eisner have a bad day? Did the seven dwarfs nix it based on a bad chicken bone throw? We know Moore's films are profitable so that's not it. Any insight here Irateplatypus? Or are you, like the anti-Bowling For Columbine sites posted above, unable to argue with Moore's message, attacking the messanger?
|
Tags |
911, disney, fahrenheit, squash |
|
|