Palme d'Or at Cannes!

26.05.04, 05:50
Has anyone seen Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
(...)
"Just as hatred of Bush can mobilise Democrats, so loathing of Moore may
motivate Republicans. Moore-bashing has become something of a cottage
industry, with websites such as Moorewatch.com - who "watch Michael Moore's
every move" - posting regular diatribes against the film-maker. At times, the
criticisms get personal. Speaking of Europeans' love for Moore, Christopher
Hitchens said last week: "They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy,
stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as
their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those
qualities."

On CNN last week, rightwing pundit Tucker Carlson said: "Michael Moore
alleges the following things: that President Bush is responsible for the
terrorist attacks of September 11; that Bush's family is connected to Osama
bin Laden in some important, sinister way; and that Bush intentionally caused
the deaths of thousands of people in the war with Iraq simply to enrich his
friends in the oil industry." Referring to the former Clinton and Gore
advisers on the Miramax team, he asked: "What happens when the lunatic fringe
and the mainstream of the Democratic party become indistinguishable?"

It was not clear whether Tucker had seen the film or not, but Pikser points
out that Republicans don't have to have seen it in order to misrepresent
it. "They're very good at that. Just as many liberals didn't see the need to
actually watch Mel Gibson's The Passion in order to know that it was anti-
semitic, so Republicans don't need to see Moore's film to hate it, or him,
and use it accordingly."

For the time being, conservatives' attentions are elsewhere - focusing on the
calamitous situation in Iraq and Bush's equally calamitous plunge in the
polls. Several were asked to comment for this article, but none responded.
But for liberals, Moore's forthcoming film is one more reason to imagine
what, until a few months ago, they thought was unimaginable - that Bush could
lose.(...)"

film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1224711,00.html

    • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! IP: *.nyc.rr.com 13.07.04, 20:12
      I missed this post totally. My appologies.
      It's a delightfull text. Moderately conservative Carlson is described as
      rightwing pundit and far-leftwinger Katha Pollitt is a liberal columnist.

      On top of it the poll cited by Guardian is misleading. Nobody takes polls taken
      among the registered voters seriously.

      I'm throwing two links to Hitchens' columns. Worth reading.
      slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
      www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=14378134&method=full&siteid=50143
      • chickenshorts Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! 14.07.04, 10:41
        Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):


        > I'm throwing two links to Hitchens' columns.

        Poor wacko, you must be desperate... Hitchens? He is now a major embarrassment,
        at best, a minor liability at worst - on both sides. A booze soden 'idealist'
        who once 'saw' Stalin "a great man" and when that exposed him an idiot, he
        tried Lenin... He outserved his usefulness for the left and the right. The end
        of Hitchens! No Hitchens clever and incisive journalism does cut any ice any
        more!

        (I thought you should know the basics, wacko)


        > Worth reading.

        Is it? I doubt it but...

        "SCIENTISTS have a contemptuous expression for a theory they know is sheer
        junk - they say it is "Not Even Wrong"."

        Oh, no, I can't... Sorry! And in the Mirror!...

        • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! IP: *.nyc.rr.com 14.07.04, 20:46
          I'm sorry I even brought it up.
          • chickenshorts Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! 15.07.04, 00:19
            Well, don't be.

            Have you seen the film? Is it a serious threat to your idol's chances for re-
            election? What do you reckon?...
            • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! IP: *.nyc.rr.com 15.07.04, 05:56
              chickenshorts napisał:
              Is it a serious threat to your idol's chances for reelection?

              The movie preaches to already converted.
              In my humble opinion Moore is going to cost Kerry the election.
              He and Whoopi Goldberg and looney Hollywood are doing a good deed for Bush, not
              knowing it. I must say Hollywood went totally bananas with a lot of venom.
              I value descent and legitimate discussion but what's going on is way beyond
              that. It's like listening to ranting kooks.
              www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
              PS. Whoopi Goldberg has just lost her lucrative contract with slim-fast
              news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&u=/nm/20040714/en_nm/people_goldberg_dc_3&printer=1
              • chickenshorts Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! 15.07.04, 12:16

                From your 'Deceits' rubbish:

                "First, notwithstanding the specific falsehoods, isn't the film as a whole
                filled with many important truths?", the 'author' asks.

                Only to say:

                "Not really."...And then goes on with his pathetic 'analysis'.

                Not really? REALLY? ...is that your idea of 'legitimate discussion'?

                The one important truth (amongst many) that stares you in the face is that
                blank... stare, that rabbit-in-headlights expression when Mr President of the
                US of America learns about the first plane hitting the tower... A clock in the
                corner of the screen ticking... tick-tack... and the most powerful President
                goes on reading 'My Pet goat', not knowing what to do, like a village idiot,
                totally lost without his advisers...

                The funny thing is that the whole world saw that when it happened... but
                somehow all have managed to forget what a REAL jerk that president is! And
                M.Moore simply reminds us... Great film.


                • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! IP: *.nyc.rr.com 15.07.04, 16:31
                  You are the converted, aren't you.
                  In the little world tou live in Bush is an idiot and Moore'a film proves it.
                  There you go.
                  There is life outside The Guardian. Thanks God.

                  "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the
                  classroom," said Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a
                  former Democratic congressman from Indiana.
                  deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595071129,00.html
                  But Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal at Emma E. Booker Elementary School,
                  says Bush handled himself properly.
                  "I don't think anyone could have handled it better," Tose'-Rigell told the
                  Sarasota Herald-Tribune in a story published Wednesday. "What would it have
                  served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"
                  The president bit his lip and clenched his jaw," she said. "I didn't know what
                  happened, whether it was something with his wife or children or something with
                  the nation. I remember praying that God would watch over our school and protect
                  our children."
                  She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but
                  Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult
                  day."
                  www.naplesnews.com/npdn/florida/article/0,2071,NPDN_14910_2985640,00.html
                  • chickenshorts Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! 15.07.04, 19:49
                    Wacko, your dogged loyalty to that missionary liar and your... erm...
                    obduracy and total lack of critical thinking are verging on insane.

                    Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

                    > You are the converted, aren't you.

                    Converted to what, for pity's sake?


                    > In the little world tou live in Bush is an idiot and Moore'a film proves it.
                    > There you go.
                    > There is life outside The Guardian. Thanks God.

                    Yeah! Slightly off this particular topic but basically on the subject. (And
                    don't tell me he is a liar because you've done that already.)

                    "The Senate report, despite missing crucial information, still helps crack the
                    code about Bush and his apostles. Bush is revealed as having a blithe disregard
                    for anything that might interfere with his articles of absolute belief
                    • cynik5 Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! 15.07.04, 19:55
                      chickenshorts napisał:

                      > Wacko, your dogged loyalty to that missionary liar and your... erm...
                      > obduracy and total lack of critical thinking are verging on insane.
                      >
                      > Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):
                      >
                      > > You are the converted, aren't you.
                      >
                      > Converted to what, for pity's sake?
                      >
                      >
                      > > In the little world tou live in Bush is an idiot and Moore'a film proves
                      > it.
                      > > There you go.
                      > > There is life outside The Guardian. Thanks God.
                      >
                      > Yeah! Slightly off this particular topic but basically on the subject. (And
                      > don't tell me he is a liar because you've done that already.)
                      >
                      > "The Senate report, despite missing crucial information, still helps crack
                      the
                      > code about Bush and his apostles. Bush is revealed as having a blithe
                      disregard
                      >
                      > for anything that might interfere with his articles of absolute belief
                      • chickenshorts Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! 15.07.04, 20:11
                        cynik5 napisała:


                        > MY BELOWED PRESIDENT is definitely NOT a liar.

                        He most definitely IS a liar. His speech reeks of falsehood...

                        > TO lie one needs to know the truth.

                        Well, he surely knows that the world is not a safer place after his forays into
                        it... yet he blatantly maintains it is.

                        > QED

                        Right.
                        • Gość: wacko jacko Political season............... IP: *.nyc.rr.com 15.07.04, 21:01
                          chickenshorts napisał:
                          > Well, he surely knows that the world is not a safer place after his forays into
                          > it... yet he blatantly maintains it is.

                          I can't believe you wrote it. It's a campaign speech.
                          Is the world without Saddam and Taliban a safer place? You bet it is.
                          Is the world still a danderous place? Yes it is.

                          Chickenshorts stop being naive. Your hatred blinds you.
                          Unfortunately there is no honest political discussion on the left.
                          All we hear are unsubstantiated accusations one by one being disproved.
                          Democrats are in the tailspin and they don't know how to hit Bush where it
                          hurts. Instead they are telling us about two Americas, one rich and the other on
                          poor. They are still in a classwarfare mode knowing it does not work anymore.
                          The voters are smartewr than that.
                        • Gość: syd Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! IP: *.155.114.74.Dial1.Baltimore1.Level3.net 17.07.04, 05:36
                          "....when Mr President of the
                          US of America learns about the first plane hitting the tower... A clock in the
                          corner of the screen ticking... tick-tack... and the most powerful President
                          goes on reading 'My Pet goat', not knowing what to do, like a village idiot,
                          totally lost without his advisers"


                          When I was told a plane hit the WTC, I did not think much of it, nor did the
                          people around me. Even after the second plane hit, the towers did not fall.
                          The police and firemen went into the buildings trying to save people, and
                          hundreds of them died. Even they didn't realize the towers would fall and take
                          the toll that they did. The president was composed and after he learned the
                          scope of what happened spoke to the nation. I don't see cowardice in this.
                    • Gość: wacko jacko Re: Palme d'Or at Cannes! IP: *.nyc.rr.com 15.07.04, 20:40
                      Mighty God. How can one dismiss Hitchens and cite Blumenthal?
                      Are you for real? It's an obvious political hatchet job. Give me a break, please!
                      Read the Senate Intelligence Committee report. It's available on line.
                      Curiously enough it does not prove Blumenthal's point.
                      Blumenthal conveniently omits yellow cake and amb. Wilson's revelations.
                      He fails to note the source of Powell's mobile lab presentation.
                      Blumenthal's lies are transparent but that's the only way he can "prove"
                      Bush lied.
                      You are the converted and you know it.




                      • chickenshorts Re: Political season... 16.07.04, 13:16

                        Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

                        > chickenshorts napisał:
                        > > Well, he surely knows that the world is not a safer place after his foray
                        > s into
                        > > it... yet he blatantly maintains it is.

                        > I can't believe you wrote it. It's a campaign speech.
                        > Is the world without Saddam and Taliban a safer place? You bet it is.
                        > Is the world still a danderous place? Yes it is.
                        > Chickenshorts stop being naive. Your hatred blinds you.
                        > Unfortunately there is no honest political discussion on the left.
                        > All we hear are unsubstantiated accusations one by one being disproved.
                        > Democrats are in the tailspin and they don't know how to hit Bush where it
                        > hurts. Instead they are telling us about two Americas, one rich and the other
                        o
                        > n
                        > poor. They are still in a classwarfare mode knowing it does not work anymore.
                        > The voters are smartewr than that.

                        Now, what a lot of nonsense you've just spouted. You are clinging to irrelevant
                        details that no one gives a damn about.
                        Do you recall the ugly but eloquent Rice informing the 'smart' of your
                        persuasion that:"We are in control and shaping a positive future for the Middle
                        East." and not blinking once?
                        What do you call that? A show entitled "Never mind the reality!" or "Never mind
                        the truth"?

                        Tell that to a Palestinian, a Jew in Israel and while at it, don't forget to
                        reassure the relatives of the victims in Spain.

                        How smart is 'smart' where you reside?


                        > Mighty God. How can one dismiss Hitchens and cite Blumenthal?
                        > Are you for real?

                        Yes. Sad really as he (Hitch) used to be an inspiration and 'a point' of
                        aspiration for me once, a modern Orwell... but... well, I realised that, unlike
                        Orwell, he is without convictions and could use that inteligence and learning
                        for any cause or powers that be... A showman pandering to the powerful.

                        Anyway, what has he written worth reading for the last two years? Zilch!

                        Don't know anything about Blumenthal so it's easier... 'to hear what I like to
                        hear'
                        • chickenshorts Re: Political season...+ 16.07.04, 17:30
                          Just found this:

                          (...)"Let us look at the scene as coolly as we can. Contrary to the prime
                          minister's assertion, the world is a more dangerous place because of the Anglo-
                          American invasion of Iraq. As the House of Commons intelligence committee
                          reported this month, there are more recruits to terrorism in the Muslim world.
                          The United States tries to use its support for democracy as a weapon against
                          terrorism, but in Arab countries only the much-criticised undemocratic elites
                          support American policy. Arabs who rely on Arab TV see the United States as the
                          country that not only supports Israel, but copies Israel in killing Arabs and
                          razing Arab homes without even the Israeli justification of self-defence.

                          Britain is regarded with less anger, but with disappointment and some pity.
                          Arabs understand our chosen role of supporting the Untied States in public in
                          return for private influence. What is lacking this time is any result from that
                          private influence. In particular we seem further away than ever from a fruitful
                          negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.

                          The prime minister puts more weight now on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a
                          benefit for the Iraqi people. Given the collapse of his main argument for war,
                          this is understandable. When Paul Bremer first went to Iraq as proconsul, he
                          visited the mass graves of Iraqis killed by Saddam. This was a legitimate way
                          of reminding everyone of the cruelties of that regime. It was less legitimate
                          to visit the same site again just before he left.

                          It would have been better to visit the graves say outside Falluja of Iraqis
                          killed during his period of office, and show some regret. We do not know how
                          many thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion and of our
                          failure afterwards to provide the security required of an occupying power. We
                          delivered Iraq from tyranny, and introduced it to insurgency and terrorism.
                          That is not an easy equation."(...)

                          Douglas Hurd is a former Foreign Secretary in Thacher's cabinet, hardly what
                          you'd call a lefty, is he?

                          politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1262659,00.html
                          • Gość: wacko jacko Dream on chickenshorts, dream on n/t IP: *.nyc.rr.com 17.07.04, 00:05
                            • Gość: Mia Re: Dream on chickenshorts, dream on n/t IP: *.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl 17.07.04, 00:23
                              Like a caged hamster, Senator John Kerry is restless on the road. He pokes at
                              the perimeter of the campaign bubble that envelops him, constantly trying to
                              break out for a walk around the block, a restaurant dinner....’

                              Why couldn’t he have been a caged tiger? Isn’t that what she’s getting at? A
                              noble beast, restless and prowling? A caged hamster’s never struck me as being
                              that interested in poking the perimeter. He’s happy on his little hamster
                              wheel, going round and round and getting nowhere, occasionally pausing to chew
                              his nuts. But he’s not constantly trying to break out, unless he happens to be
                              at a Hollywood fundraiser and a certain male movie star asks him back to his
                              pad for a nightcap. Perhaps Ms Wilgoren thought the tiger was too haughty and
                              aristocratic, and that the rodent imagery would humanise Kerry. Or perhaps,
                              like Sinatra, the Senator has his very own Hamster Pack of buddies for when he
                              breaks out of the bubble and gets to that restaurant.

                              Bush, meanwhile, is like some indestructible lab rat. They keep tossing some
                              lethal new poison in there every week and he digests it all and keeps on going.
                              The economy’s a bust! Iraq’s a quagmire! There are no WMD! But Bush just
                              ploughs through it all, and in the end the dynamic of the race seems barely
                              affected.

                              Some readers think I’m being a little fainthearted this campaign season, noting
                              that I predicted a Bush victory months ago but seem to have gone a little quiet
                              on the subject. Well, I still think Bush will win. As I said before and after
                              the 2000 election, the Democrats’ biggest problem is their lack of appeal to
                              white rural males. That’s why Al Gore isn’t President. He lost hitherto Dem
                              states like West Virginia, Bill Clinton’s Arkansas and his own Tennessee. Do
                              you reckon a Botoxicated Brahmin from Massachusetts with some pretty-boy
                              ambulance-chaser is going to reverse Gore’s fortunes? I don’t. The Michael
                              Moorification of the Democratic party boosts their numbers where they don’t
                              need any more support — Boston, New York, plus Berkeley and a few other crazy
                              college towns. But it doesn’t do anything for them in states where they could
                              use a bump.

                              So I’d say West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee are staying in the Bush
                              column. The 2000 census brought about, yet again, a further draining of
                              electoral muscle from the Democrat north-east to the Republican south and west.
                              This means that even if Bush won only the states he won last time round,
                              instead of a squeaker, he’d beat Kerry by 278 electoral college votes to 260. I
                              think it will be a little bigger than that. With the exception of Florida, the
                              Bush bloc of states is pretty much secure. The battlegrounds this year are all
                              Gore states — Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
                              Washington, Wisconsin. At the minimum I’d look to Bush to peel away a couple of
                              those from Kerry — most likely some twosome out of Iowa, New Mexico and
                              Wisconsin — and hold on to Florida. That would give Bush 290–295 electoral
                              college votes over Kerry’s 243–248. If the Massachusetts senator is on TV too
                              often and his insufferable pomposity becomes impossible to hide, the President
                              may pick up three or four more states — plus, under the Pine Tree State’s goofy
                              split-take rules, half of Maine’s electoral votes, too.

                              That’s my reading of the electoral college. But the other reason I’d bet on
                              Bush is more basic: he tends not to lose. In 2002 Michael Moore gloated that
                              the midterms would be the shot heard round the world — a massive repudiation of
                              the moron warmonger — and instead the President had a great night of
                              significant incremental gains in the Senate and House. If he’s a moron, he’s
                              the luckiest moron who ever lived. A few months ago the Democrats were jeering
                              about ‘the Bush recession’. Then the recession ended. So they started jeering
                              about ‘the jobless recovery’. Then the jobs kicked in. So now they’re moaning
                              that the jobs ‘don’t pay enough’. Get the feeling this whole economy thing just
                              isn’t going anywhere for them?

                              It’s the same with Iraq. If you’d wanted to, you could have landed some serious
                              blows on the administration. There are aspects of post-war reconstruction that
                              were not handled well, and some military decisions that were questionable. But
                              by insisting that Iraq was on the brink of civil war, and the Shiites were on
                              the verge of a mass uprising, and Bush ‘lied’ over the uranium-from-Niger
                              story, and one lousy jailhouse was entitled to 99 per cent of the Iraq coverage
                              for weeks on end, the Democratic party and their chums in the mainstream media
                              ruled themselves out of making any credible contribution to the debate.

                              There was an almost touchingly bewildered piece in the Boston Globe this
                              week: ‘Media coverage of President Bush has been largely unflattering this
                              campaign season, but there’s little indication the bad press has affected the
                              country’s view of him, according to a survey being released today.... Despite
                              months of tough coverage, the Pew poll found that “the strongest associations
                              people have with President Bush are positive”. The Bush characteristics most
                              frequently cited by the public are that he is tough and won’t back down (53 per
                              cent) and that he is strong and decisive (48 per cent), although 44 per cent
                              did describe him as stubborn. Conversely, only 18 per cent selected Kerry as
                              the candidate who most epitomises strength and decisiveness, and only 15 per
                              cent saw him as the one who is tougher and more tenacious....

                              ‘The only theme that more of the public saw as best describing Kerry rather
                              than Bush was that he was a flip-flopper.’

                              Why did ‘months of tough coverage’ have such little impact on Bush? Because of
                              blowhards like bigshot Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV. Last week, in his
                              additional remarks to the Senate intelligence committee report, Senator
                              Rockefeller accused the administration of being ‘fundamentally misleading’ in
                              basing its case against Iraq ‘on the argument that we knew with certainty that
                              Iraq possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons, was
                              aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that an established relationship
                              between Baghdad and al-Qa’eda would allow for the transfer of these weapons for
                              use against the United States.’

                              That was all ‘fundamentally misleading’, says Rockefeller, today. Here’s what
                              Senator Rockefeller said in October 2002:

                              ‘There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to
                              develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
                              five years.... Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities
                              pose a very real threat to America, now.... And he could make those weapons
                              available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and
                              those groups could bring those weapons into the US and unleash a devastating
                              attack against our citizens....’

                              What a sad hack. Virtually every Democratic heavyweight from Al Gore down has
                              the same kind of amnesia, accusing Bush of ‘lies’ and ‘deception’ for saying
                              exactly the same things they were saying. My view of Iraq and the war on terror
                              hasn’t changed since 2002. Nor has Bush’s, or Cheney’s or Condi’s. But
                              Democrats have stood their own arguments on their heads so often that they now
                              stand for nothing.

                              That’s Kerry’s and Edwards’s problem. Ask
                              • chickenshorts Re: Dream on chickenshorts, dream on n/t 17.07.04, 01:10
                                Gość portalu: Mia napisał(a):

                                ...'Some readers think I’m being a little fainthearted'...

                                ... and some (me) think you are faintminded. But never mind that!

                                What's your opinion? Have you got one?


                                • Gość: wacko jacko You've missed it by a mile IP: *.nyc.rr.com 17.07.04, 03:26
                                  Read it again and ask yourself why Kerry is being described as restless,
                                  relentless and Bush is like lab rat, poisonous?
                                  I have pointed it to you before but you keep missing it.
                                  It's a semi-satirical piece.
                                  Your leftist Guardian does not help you understand american politics and you
                                  refuse to get the information from another sources.

Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja