*DAMN R6 Forum

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/24/film.moore.reut/index.html


Hope it hits US theater soon, cant wait to see that documentary.

wasn't that blocked from airing by like NBC or something since it critisized the goverment?

They probably regard him as being a Threat to inland security and as an anti terrorist measure  cannot allow it to be shown! ;)

*cough* someone say freedom of speach? Yeah thats fine as long as we agree with what your sayiing!


- Amazing. i never realised Boweling for Colombine was the most successfull Documentry in the US!!

All of Michael Moore's films are total fiction.  If you think otherwise, then you are just as fucked up in the head as he is.

By the way, the U.S. Government will let this movie be aired.  Destroying Freedom of Speech is something the Europeans are much better at than we are.

Thats right GS....

Americans don't own guns do they. The colombine shooting never happend.... You don't have a organisation called the national rifle association.... the list goes on....

Facts that havent been related by US media arent necessarily fictional.

I have no problem with Moore until people start calling his films documentaries, because they are anything but that. It's heavily politicized entertainment, nothing more. He presents a very narrow perspective of the problem, then omits views and arguements that don't fit into his analysis......if this guy is a documentary film-maker, then Rush Limbo is a serious journalist.

Michael Moore does horribly twist opinions and facts to suit his needs. I recall reading an interview with someone who was interviewed on that particular documentary. The man had been shot 4 times during a robbery of his store, and Moore cut up the interview to make it seem like he was speaking out against guns. In actuality, the man is an avid gun owner. Anyways, I could go on, but still. I'm a big big democrat, except when it comes to gun control. It wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that the media gets all of it's facts wrong, and makes it sound like you can buy all sorts of horrible weapons legally. People who speak out against guns say things like "Oh, you don't need to hunt with an AK-47!" Well, that's very true, and that's why automatic weapons and high capacity magazines have already been banned in the U.S. years ago, except for certain license holders. Yet, the media makes it seem like they haven't been banned, and they're readily available for purchase. They're calling for more weapons to be banned but the ones they say they want to ban are already illegal. It annoys me and doesn't make any sense.  >:( And I"m done ranting now. lol.

Michael Moore is such an idiot...I guess people don't remember this jackass calling 9/11 "occasional, horrible incidents" in the context that they were not terrorist attacks. Also in that 2003 interview on the Today show he throws this piece of garbage out: "How many people died because of terrorism last year? None."

If this idiot hadn't gone off the deep end and cut any and all interviews up to meet his ideas, then he might be seen as somewhat credible. But since he has thrown all of his credibility out of the window, he should be seen as nothing more than the left's response to Rush Limbaugh. There was a time when he made more objective pieces, a la Roger and Me, but those days are long gone.

There is a reason why he has had several libel suits against him, consider that before some of you leftists heap all sorts of praise on him like those idiots in France at the Cannes festival.

Here is an example of what Michael Moore does (to a degree).

This is something BFG said: "9/11 woot. another good looking video. There isn't any footage that i didn't see that I didn't like. American little fuckers got what they deserve."

Note that he really didn't say it in this context nor did he say all of these things at the same time. Nonetheless, he said it at one point of time or another and in Michael Moore's eyes, that is fair game.

still if he did that at a point (its commonly used in the media), you make it sound like the whole documentary is like this. It is not.

The interesting point is, wheter you like Moore or not, you cant stay neutral to his work. And just for that, he's doing a good job.

You're right, only the stuff perceived to be the most damning is like what I had just done above. As for the media commonly doing stuff like this, are you out of your fucking mind? If mainstream media did what Michael Moore did, there would be an endless parade of libel suits due to misrepresenting people and twisting words into opinions that weren't genuinely their's. Twisting of words like this only happens occasionally, and generally only happens when the person doing the twisting has alterior motives like Moore does.

I don't know how the media in France such as TV-5 operate, but America doesn't operate the way you think it does.

Actually I saw it happen just recently.  CNN was doing a report on middle eastern opinions after, I believe, the wheel chair bound leader of Hamas was assassinated.  They showed a large group of Palestinians chanting at his funeral "allah uakbar" (sp?).  The reporter then went on to say they were chanting "eye for an eye".  However if you knew anything about Islam you would know they were saying "god is great".  It seemed that they were trying to make people even more paranoid about terrorism than they already are.  I was disgusted by this blatent insult to real journalism and I no longer watch CNN

growing concerns about Bush's foreign policy, and by americans...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/bush.criticism/index.html

LOL!! thats because terrorism is the most subjective thing ever invented the world. Think about it. The the iraq's (or at least a few, so i don't make a generalization) think that we are terrorists. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. remember that. Remeber the revolutionary war? how do you think we won? Yeah, thats right with terrorist actions... surprise attacks and the whole miguilla. i happens everywhere. If bush was so against terrorism he would nuke himself. Thats turth.

As for micheal moore, the guy makes great films about whatever the fuck he wants. They aren't fiction... and if you think that all the facts that he presents are fake, then you have a large problem with trusting the government way tooo much. The fact of the matter is, Micheal Moore makes compeling movies about his beliefes. The films he has made have been labeled as documentaries. Accept it. Nobody thought Pablo Picasso was an artist at first, and then look at what happend.

As for that shit about him chopping interviews up to make it mean what he wants.... Welcome to life. Everyone has some kind of agenda. The media does it all over the place. We are lied to all the time. Our government is a prime example of this. Do you think everything you hear from them is the whole truth?? that all the facts about sadam, and terrorist threats and shit are the whole truth? no fucking way. Everyone does it, democrates too. No one is free. Even you and I do it, just on a smaller scale. I hate to inform you, but the world is not a wonderful truthful place were everyone cares and wears a big smile.

Moore - cut an interview to fit his agenda of removing bush from office

Bush - went to war with iraq to fit his agenda of...of...oh he doesn't have a legitimate agenda aka war on terrorism.

GS this is such a "Go with the flow" point of view. GS there was a girl at this school in Arizona who wrote a poem for a poetry slam thing... Her poem consisted of Anti-bush words and questioned our government's policies. About 2 weeks later the principal of the school was asked to leave and the girl was expelled from the school....Tell me if they would do this in Europe?
Ill see if i can get a link to this.. but this frankly disgusts me. I hate the fact that i was born in such a country were the people are pumped with propaganda. as soon as i can make enough money to support myself i will move out of this "home of the free" and go to europe were i can get my free speach restricted. Im done with this shit.

GS, i will be taking you up on that offer when i get out of college, so be ready in about 4 1/2 years with a one way to ticket to amsterdam.

lol....at least you picked someplace cool like Amsterdam!  I know some of the people on this forum would want to go live in their Socialist Mecca called FRANCE!

France has been under right winged gouvernment for the last 9 years

Chirac has been President in France for 9 years and his party is center-right. There have been both 'socialist' and center-right governments in power since. Right winged would be more like Front National.....

extreme right is Le Pen's front national.

After listening to BFG's arguements I must say he is my new best friend (not imposing that I have no friends outside of Gameranger) but I love his comment on the U.S. having no guns and no Columbine shooting and no NRA . . . . Really, what's the point in owning guns in public places, if nobody carried a gun then nobody would need a gun to protect themselves. This oh so complex theory seems to work incredibly well in many countries of Europe (even their policemen don't carry guns) So all you gun-slinging conservative "people" out their please explain to me why we have the NRA and why must we be able to carry guns everywhere (obviously not for protection)? If George Bush was so hell-bent on creating a safer America (not only from terrorism) why doesn't he make more strict gun-laws instead of passing more and more handgun laws?

One of the things that really shocked me when I looking into gun deaths was that their isn't much to back up the claim that gun ownership leads to more gun deaths.

The availablity, in my opinion, leads to more gun deaths. But the fact remains that owning a gun is less dangerous - by the numbers - than driving. It's not like you're making yourself safer, it's just that you're not holding the proverbial gun to your head by owning one.

Which really pissed me off to find out. It was like when your AR-15 jams on the last .22. No more boom boom.

yes but countries with strict gun laws do have lower murder rates

I think that's a tertiary reason why they have lower murder rates.

I think Moore got it right when he stated in Blowing for Colombine that the reason why the US has such a high murder rate is because we are kept in a perpetual state of fear and ignorance.

He used the example of Canada, which has a high rate of gun ownership but an incredibly low level of crime. He went door to door - walking right in - and ppl didn't react the way Americans would have. And I'm Canadian (born US, claimed citizenship at 17 in Canada, possess three citizenships), by the way, and yah, Canadians are fucking laid back. I routinely shock the hell outa my family - to them I'm the right winger. I enjoy mocking their socialist country and it's tiny army as much as any American, but I do declare, they have one pleasant little country.

Oh, sorry I wasn't really talking about Bowling for Columbine (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif) I was just talking about gun laws in general.

But then would we not have to outlaw knives.. sence they can be used to hurt peeps... (and are much easier to use to kill peeps)... So everyone would be carring around knives wich can be conseald easier and are just as deadly... I know from my expeirance in doind security work and bouncing... gun are my least worrie... you are more likely to get cut and/or stabbed and killed then shot and killed. So if they make guns illegal.. the main public will not carrie guns.. and the guys robbing you will have one they gut illigaly.. I would rather have something to fight back with then nothing at all. They allowed peeps around here to get concealed handgun carry permits around here.. anf gun violence actualy went down where i live.

Civic, Fancy a new room mate?

I didn't know this doesn't apply to all states, but the death rate has risen greatly since the state of Minnesota has passed the handgun law. (Minneapolis alone has had almost twice as many deaths by handguns since the law was passed)

i thought it would be a good idea to sum-up all the good things Double-U did to get international public attention

1- he got elected, i dont need to remind you how.

2- he and the people under his command disregards reports from the intelligence community refering to a terrorist threat against the US, wich leads to 9/11

3- he invads Afghanistan, wich was probably a good move, but the situation over there is still mitigated

4- he invads Irak, without UN approval.
 because Irak is linked to Al-Quaeda ? The commission for 9/11 concluded there is no such link.
Second reason for the invasion, WMD. Still unaccounted for.

Ben Laden still on the run...

Btw, Cheney's Halliburton is feeling the heat because of probable "deals" the government accorded to his ex company.

5- he denies the effect of the US on global warming, and thus does not sign the treaty.

6- he denies prosecution of  US citizens by an International court.

7- he almost suffocated eating a pretzel, and felt riding a bicycle.


Now feel free to add something, i probably missed some stuff.

He's a near-fascist corporatist Rightist Fundamentalist warmonger with a serious case of the Oedipal complex (bah, spelling).

And he went AWOL during his military service.

Now moron number 2 is finally opening his eyes !

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html

i think it might be looking up for the world after the 04 presidential elections.... it is a good sign that blair has popped up with a lttle somthing. and i would like to remind Lee.Harvey that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun then a knife, and it is also way less personal to kill someone with a gun ( which also makes is easier.)

http://www.jointhebushwhackers.com/

lol

did any of you guys notice anything weird in Bush's opponent name ?
 John Kerry has a middle name, and it starts with an "F" ...

I say we got good kharma @ work here.

We're rocking the JFK, dude.

john fuckin' kerry

john fuckin'-awesome kerry
john fantastic kerry
john frequently-wonderful kerry
john frankly-great kerry
john ...

     John Fuckin'-not-Bush Kerry.

john fart kerry
teeheheheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Baby eater is hungry ...

(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/bushscowl2.jpg)

John-the-most-palatable-alternative-to-bush-Kerry

what a picture ! i'm gonna have bad dreams tonight, for sure !

Well, if this offer is still on the table . . . and as I like Moore's films and I hate Bush and almost all republicans . . . I was in Sweden these past couple weeks and I would love to move there, so if you're willing Ghost ;D

has taken 250 or so vacation days, surpassed only by his father, who took 543(over a year!!)

http://www.counterbias.com/017.html

aww somebowdy needs a vacation!

Old Data, New Credibility Issues

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; Page A01

The White House's failure to make it clear that the dramatic terrorism alert Sunday was based largely on information that predated the Sept. 11 attacks is a case study in the difficulty of managing such warnings for an administration whose credibility is a central issue in a difficult presidential campaign.

At one level, experts yesterday credited the Department of Homeland Security for narrowly targeting the warning to selected buildings in three cities, rather than raising the threat level across the nation. But they said the effort was seriously undercut by the revelation that much of the surveillance of those buildings took place three to four years ago.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge speaks in New York, joined by Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, left, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (Mary Altaffer -- AP)


_____More From The Post_____
? Seriousness of Threat Defended Despite Dated Intelligence (The Washington Post, Aug 4, 2004)
? Security Might Get Tighter Yet, Officials Say (The Washington Post, Aug 4, 2004)
? U.S. Capitol Police Focused on Terror (The Washington Post, Aug 4, 2004)
? Some Sluggishness Detected In New District Alert System (The Washington Post, Aug 4, 2004)
      
Search Story Archive by Keyword:
 
Advanced Search
      

___ Guide ___
Personal Preparedness Guide
Dirty bombs, anthrax and smallpox: an informative guide to understanding the threat and protecting you and your family.


_____Message Boards_____
   ? Post Your Comments
   
      
_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
? News Headlines
? News Alert

"Their efforts to focus attention on specific areas and targets is good," said William H. Webster, a former FBI and CIA director who is vice chairman of the Homeland Security Department's Advisory Council. "But they obviously have a ways to go," he said, adding that "it opens the door for people to be suspicious and cynical."

Webster said the administration is trying to avoid appearing as if it is "crying wolf," and he felt the news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was "studied and not designed to raise panic levels." He also noted that terrorist acts often take years of planning, so a "three-year spread doesn't mean the intentions have changed; it just means nothing has happened."

Still, Webster said, it is unclear when -- or whether -- the threat level for these buildings could be lowered, given that the surveillance that prompted the alert was old. In an odd coincidence, another high-profile New York landmark -- the Statue of Liberty -- reopened yesterday for the first time since the 2001 attacks, despite the increased vigilance in the nearby financial center.

Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry -- who received a briefing on the intelligence behind the warning from Ridge -- has not faulted the administration for its handling of the situation, and his campaign declined yesterday to make an official available to comment. Other Democrats have not been shy, however, with former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean strongly suggesting political motives behind the announcement. "I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Dean said Sunday.

Moreover, the administration's credibility on intelligence matters has been undermined by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- a fact that Kerry has repeatedly noted on the stump. In his nomination acceptance speech last week, Kerry declared: "Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. . . . As president, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence."

Jesse L. Jackson, echoing that theme, said he was suspicious of the timing of the alert, just days after the Democratic convention. "We've been told to be on alert" before, he said yesterday, referring to Iraq and the unsuccessful search for banned weapons there. "That did not prove to be true."

Administration officials defended the decision to make the announcement, saying that the information, even if old, was too specific to ignore. "What we know about al Qaeda is that they case things and they do their homework well in advance and then update it before an attack," White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend said on NBC's "Today."

One piece of information on one building, which intelligence officials would not name, appears to have been updated in a computer file as recently as January 2004. But officials could not say whether that data resulted from active surveillance by al Qaeda or came from publicly available information.

To some extent, the disclosure that the federal government only now learned that three years ago al Qaeda was checking out these buildings underscores the limited nature of the intelligence in the government's hands -- and how little the administration knows about al Qaeda's activities.

Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland, found it curious that the administration withheld the dated nature of the information at the time of the original announcement and disclosed it only after President Bush made a Rose Garden appearance Monday to discuss reforms of the intelligence community recommended by the Sept. 11 commission.

When Bush held his news conference, reporters knew only that the administration had recently uncovered this information. Bush "would have faced more difficult questions" if reporters had known how much of the information had been obtained three years after the surveillance, Greenberger said.

Greenberger added that the alert "has left a lot of anger in its wake" among local officials, who had to use resources and money that might have been held in reserve if the age of the intelligence had been clear from the beginning. He said the administration's credibility may be hurt the next time it issues a warning.

"It is going to wear the welcome mat away," Greenberger said.

Bruce Hoffman, Washington director of Rand Corp., noted that the government understands the where -- economic targets -- and the why of al Qaeda attacks. "But very rarely will we know the when" of an attack, he said, adding that "we may not know as much as we think" about al Qaeda's operations.

Hoffman said that the Sept. 11 attacks took six years of planning and the East African embassy attacks took five years and that one reason no more attacks have occurred on U.S. soil may be that al Qaeda is still in mid-operational cycle. He said that the administration had little choice but to release the information and that it could still throw al Qaeda off balance.

"I've always found if you are straightforward and honest with people and give them the facts, it is a lot easier for them to deal with," said James Lee Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Bill Clinton and now head of a crisis consulting firm. "They should have said, 'This is the information we found, but it is old.' That is what I would have done."

Uniter.


Um... just don't let the people see me ... and put a wall up in front of me ... cause I'm big on being seperate from the people ... even those that support me.

(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040804/i/r2887925495.jpg)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

well he finally did admit it !

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08kristof.html

my favorite quote:

"
Mr. Bush insists that after moving to Alabama in 1972, he served out his obligation at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery (although he says he doesn't remember what he did there)"

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio/obgyn.phtml (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio/obgyn.phtml)