Michael "Buckets o' Fun" Moore Dons Tinfoil Hat

Segnosaur said:


I don't know if you were serious about the question or not...

I guess the reason why people who are opposed to Bush often make a big deal of it is because when there is a national emergency (like a terrorist attack, war, etc... something that needs immediate attention) then all other tasks become lower priority.

However, I don't think its a big deal myself. Yes, Bush may have kept reading after the first plane hit the tower. However, its likely that at the time people weren't really aware that it was a terrorist attack (as opposed to just a bad accident). A plane running into a skyscraper, while exceptionally rare, is certainly not unprecidented. (It happend in 1945 when a plan crashed into the Empire State Building.)

There is, of course, also the possibilty that Bush wanted to project an image of calm and assurance in time of crisis, and did not want to scare the children; he might very well was informed that VP Cheney had already grounded all flights (if I remember correctly).

Some "point" against Bush that is...
 
Nasarius said:


It's the fact that he wasted that time reading the book rather than immediately doing something after learning two planes had hit the WTC. Remember, the subject of a briefing he'd had just a month ago was that al-Qaeda was planning to strike within the US.
Not exactly strong, decisive leadership.

First, it's my understanding that this happened BETWEEN planes. Big difference. Secondly, I was watching the morning news when the bulletins started, and no one... NO ONE... had any inkling that the first plane was deliberate. There was what, 20 minutes between them? Hardly time to react to a possible attack when the wheels were turning all across the eastern seaboard.

I remember watching CNN when the bulletins started; they were on the phone with a witness to the first impact. A distraught woman described the scene while CNN cameras stayed on the smoking tower. In a flash, the second plane appeared in the lower-right corner, passed behind the damaged tower and blasted through the other one.

I'll never forget what the woman on the scene said in reaction to the second impact. She hopelessly wailed that something must have gone wrong with air traffic control. Even then, she couldn't grasp it.

Bush stayed calm. Would have rather seen him stumblng full-speed to Marine One? Was he supposed to duck into a phone booth and emerge as the superhero to save the day? I think his reaction was quite respectable given what was known at that moment, and how little it would have mattered even if he had reacted differently.
 
Nasarius said:
It's the fact that he wasted that time reading the book rather than immediately doing something after learning two planes had hit the WTC.QUOTE]
Do what? What, exactly, is a president uniquely qualified to do in such an emergency? Issue an executive order prohibiting any further terrorist attacks? The firerfighters/police/etc. aren't idiots. They caan take care of themselves without the president micromanaging.

The Fool:
Have you ever watched any of Moore's work? Ranting doesn't really seem to be his style.
Here are some samples of his writing (everything in brackets is mine). Sure sounds like ranting to me. I can almost see the foam coming out of his mouth. Come on, be honest. If you came across someone on the street claiming that the president has sent men after him, and the NRA, CNN, late night talk show hosts, and Fox News are out get him, you'd think he's crazy.

When you hear the wackos on Fox News and elsewhere refer to this prize as coming from “the French,” please know that of the nine members of the Festival jury, only ONE was French. Nearly half the jury (four) were Americans and the President of the jury was an American (Quentin Tarantino). But this fact won’t stop the O’Reillys or the Lenos or the Limbaughs from attacking the French and me because, well, that’s how their simple minds function. [Apparently now the vast right wing conspiracy has managed to recruit Leno and Letterman.]

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief – and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year – then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me.

So, what do you do when the nutcases [apparently contributing editors of <u>Gun Week Magazine</u> are, by definition, “nutcases”] succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork.

Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters [i.e. people who disagree with Michael Moore] were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy.

All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. [and how does the speach make Heston look evil?]

Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it? [hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, "from my cold dead hands."]

The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.
 
Art Vandelay said:

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have.

You know, I remeber reading a section of the book "Foley is Good" (the second autobiography by wrestler Mick Foley) where he recounts an interview with one of the news shows. The show was about "backyard wrestling". Mick was shown one clip of kids "wresting" in the back yard that was rather mild, and Mick commented "Looks like fun". Next they showed more backyard wrestling, with kids doing dumb things like using cheese graters, hitting with chairs, etc. Mick did not approve of that.

When the show was aired, the news magazine edited the clips to show the "Looks like Fun" comment with the second more extreme clip. Made Mick look bad. Mick was upset and talked to his bosses, but they said there wasn't anything that can be done.

My point to the story? Despite the impression that people have that Americans will sue over just about anything, when you are dealing with large organizations (like national networks, the WWE, or the NRA), lawsuits are just not practical. They are expensive (and I doubt their lawyers will work on a contingecy basis), and its almost impossible to make things worth while. (Especially in a case where freedom of speech is at stake.)

Moore's comment about how there are no NRA lawsuits is an extremely bogus argument. In order to make such a lawsuit worth while, they would have to a) prove there was malice, b) show they were seriously harmed, c) stand to gain from the lawsuit somehow. Even if the NRA did sue and somehow won, it would'nt matter since most of the damage had already been done (since millions of people would have already seen the movie and had their opinions set by it.)
 
Thanks, Segnosaur. I hope that the absurdity of that statement will be self-evident, but I can understand your concern that people would not recognize it. You can't just sue someone because you think they're lying. If Moore lies about the NRA, the NRA might be able to sue him. But if Moore lies about guns, what standing does NRA have? Maybe gun makers would have standing, but the NRA can't sue on behalf of guns. "Your honor, Moore has defamed the character of this gun. As representatives of guns, we're suing". I don't think so. Also, it would be very difficult to "shut down" a movie: you might be able to get a monetary judgement, but injunctive relief would be much more difficult. Moore is just making an argument from ignorance: supposedly the NRA is this ominpotent force that can censor anyone that makes even the slightest misstatement of fact, so the fact that the NRA has been unable to legally prove Moore to be false means that he must be right. By that logic, Coulter's book must contain nothing must the truth.
 
Here's something else: in his book "Dude, Where's My Country?" Moore claims that the fact that Israel is not trying to wipe out the Arab countries shows that they know that they are in the wrong. I'm not making this up. Page 121, last full paragraph. This guy just doesn't care about reality.
 

Back
Top Bottom