Us presidential election 2004

[walker 0]

Hi all and @ Avon

As I said in this post: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=585

Quote[/b] ]Censorship

Any film that whole bunches of people dont want you to watch must be important; otherwise they would not be spending millions trying to prevent it from being shown. Americans do not allow your country slip quietly into a dark night of soviet style censorship.

Avon what do you fear from the film?

Wasting my money. There are plenty of films I don't go to for this reason.

Of course, in dictatorships, they force all comrades to view their propaganda movies. It's part of the indoctrination. Is this the next step for those of us resisting your brainwashing, Walker?

No, of course not. Not any more than my disinterest in a film that's loaded with nonsense is censorship.

Hi Avon

Then dont watch it avon but going round trying to say others should not watch it and denegrating a director who has won an Oscar and Palm dor for best documentry leads people to be sceptical of your critical faculties.

That you have not even seen the film yet feel able to be able to pronounce on it makes me ask where you picked up such telepathic abilities?

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Then dont watch it avon but going round trying to say others should not watch it and denegrating a director who has won an Oscar and Palm dor for best documentry leads people to be sceptical of your critical faculties.

Now it sounds like you're advocating denial of freedom of speach, Walker.

Good going!

[walker 0]

Then dont watch it avon but going round trying to say others should not watch it and denegrating a director who has won an Oscar and Palm dor for best documentry leads people to be sceptical of your critical faculties.

Now it sounds like you're advocating denial of freedom of speach, Walker.

Good going!

Hi Avon

No Avon you are free to say what you will within the forums rules as am I but censoring peoples minds by telling them they may not watch a film is not conducive to freedom of speach.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Then dont watch it avon but going round trying to say others should not watch it and denegrating a director who has won an Oscar and Palm dor for best documentry leads people to be sceptical of your critical faculties.

Now it sounds like you're advocating denial of freedom of speach, Walker.

Good going!

Hi Avon

No Avon you are free to say what you will within the forums rules as am I but censoring peoples minds by telling them they may not watch a film is not conducive to freedom of speach.

Where did I say that someone is not allowed to view this film?

Now you're twisting words, Walker.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ] So overall the critics have been positive to the movie.

Hooray for Hollywood!

Hollywood? Critics don't work for Hollywood. And the Slate review that you posted is by the way listed as one of the 25 negative reviews.

[SpongeBob 0]

5) What are you afraid they will gain?

2 words; Pediculus humanus   And my local independent cinema isn't showing it, something about the excessive cost to fumigate the theater after its run.

Its too expensive to watch this movie. For zero dollars I can  listen to a senile homeless man talk about how in 19-dickety-two he chased a Kaiser for dickety-six miles 'cause that rascal had stolen the word "twenty." Now that's good entertainment value.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ] So overall the critics have been positive to the movie.

Hooray for Hollywood!

Hollywood? Critics don't work for Hollywood.

Wake up!

Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Conspire to Limit What Films We Can See

Quote[/b] ]Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

"Consider what might happen if Roger Ebert couldn't find a single movie to recommend on one of his weekly shows," Rosenbaum asks provocatively in this freewheeling critique of the American movie industry. Arguing that American moviegoers are consistently denied the right to make up their own minds about what movies to see, and even how to think about them, he reveals the powerful influence market researchers, production studios, advertisers, film critics and publishing concerns ("the media-industrial complex") have on how films are made, marketed, released and reviewed. Citing such diverse examples as George Lucas's draconian exhibition contracts for The Phantom Menace (which bound theaters to a lengthy run regardless of audience size), distributors' offers of free film junkets to bribe critics and the use of canned reviews and industry-sanctioned lists of "the 100 Best American Films" written by "professional blurb writers," Rosenbaum drives home his point that there is far more commerce than art in American film. Occasionally, his arguments are overheated (the fact that film festivals are often popularity contests is no surprise), but for the most part they are well-supported and potent, and successfully address broader questions of consumer culture and capitalism. Rosenbaum's journalistic style makes this animated treatise accessible to film buffs who want to know more about how movies get made, while his sound arguments make it a good bet for academic readers as well. (Nov.)

Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

James Naremore, author of Acting in the Cinema

"Jonathan Rosenbaum is...one of the best writers on film of any kind in the history of the medium."

Book Description

Questioning the assumptions that govern our culture, this book focuses on one medium-the movies. In particular, it examines how movies are packaged, distributed, and promoted, exposing industry secrets such as how Miramax often buys distribution rights to movies it then fails to distribute, presumably to make sure its competitors don't get them. The book shows, for the first time, how the corporate ownership of movie theaters defies antitrust laws and precedents stretching back over 50 years. While the average American can usually find a book or record that has not been endorsed by the mainstream media, when it comes to movies, consumers are powerless against what Rosenbaum calls "the media-industrial complex."

See all editorial reviews...

Quote[/b] ] And the Slate review that you posted is by the way listed as one of the 25 negative reviews.

So? Who cares! What? Whether I must waste my time, spend good money and see this movie is determined by a majority of media critics?

Will I be hauled before a judge if I resist?

[denoir 0]

No. I don't give a damn if you watch the movie or not. You did however post a negative review of the movie to show that it was bad. I only pointed out to you that the majority of the reviews were positive.

You can't have it both ways. Either reviews by various critics from around the world arn't reliable and then you shouldn't be posting one as well, or they are and my argument stands that most of the reviewers found it to be good.

Quote[/b] ]Will I be hauled before a judge if I resist?

Only if people that share your political opinions come to power.

[walker 0]

Hi all and @ SpongeBob

2 words; Pediculus humanus And my local independent cinema isn't showing it, something about the excessive cost to fumigate the theater after its run.

As I already said in reply to such;

Quote[/b] ]When you can not beat an argument resorting to personal insults against those who you argue against does not win you the argument. It just makes you look like a sore looser.

or to put it another way.

Insults are not aguments, they are you running up the white flag.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

No. I don't give a damn if you watch the movie or not. You did however post a negative review of the movie to show that it was bad. I only pointed out to you that the majority of the reviews were positive.

You can't have it both ways. Either reviews by various critics from around the world arn't reliable and then you shouldn't be posting one as well, or they are and my argument stands that most of the reviewers found it to be good.

There's a third way. I'm entitled to my own opinion, even when it doesn't fit the majority you go along with.

Furthermore, I'm not saying one critic is more or less reliable than another. But you people are getting very cranky when a "minority" opinion gets posted here. Sorry to spoil your supper.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Will I be hauled before a judge if I resist?

Only if people that share your political opinions come to power.

Once again showing that slurring will make you more popular. You've learned from Moore very fast.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I did not see any factual criticism in that review (btw Slate: hardocore right-wing ezine). The reviewer seems to be engaged in a personal attack against Moore, but doesn't even attempt to falsify the claims that Moore makes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

Food for you...

Quote[/b] ]

Michael Moore's (search) "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke records this weekend, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film — but there are holes in the controversial film's story.

For instance, in one often-showed clip, Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office — but that estimation included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation.

The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar Richard Clarke (search), he alone approved the Saudi flights.

In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed.

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company.

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998.

Moore's words are not the gospel.... Its like Ann Coulter getting to movie about Bush.....some truth but a lot of BS....

[denoir 0]

Furthermore, I'm not saying one critic is more or less reliable than another. But you people are getting very cranky when a "minority" opinion gets posted here. Sorry to spoil your supper.

Not cranky, just pointing out that it is a minority opinion.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Will I be hauled before a judge if I resist?

Only if people that share your political opinions come to power.

Once again showing that slurring will make you more popular. You've learned from Moore very fast.

No need for Moore sarcasms, I've got you posting here. Provides more than enough material. You argued that guaranteeing people judicial rights was "not a setback just to Bush - it's a setback to the entire country."

So as you stated you are for removing the legal protection of people that you or Ashcroft or whatever suspect of being undersirable.

[walker 0]

Hi all

With box office records being broken left right and center; many cinema owners, who were fooled by the fake citizen pressure of the TBA NeoConMen's anti Fahrenheit 9/11 surragates, are regretting not being in the start of what, as well as an award winning factual documentry, is a real money spinner.

Quote[/b] ]The film is believed to have earned $21.8 million on its opening weekend, a record for a documentary. Even more significantly, it managed to become the nation's No. 1 movie attraction, despite playing on only 868 screens, about a third what a big blockbuster would have.

My use of Bold

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10772-2004Jun27.html

Quote[/b] ]"This is one of the events of the summer," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, an independent company that tracks box office returns. He said he was particularly impressed with the per-theater average of $25,115: "I'm amazed at those numbers. That type of per-theater average is usually reserved for a blockbuster."

My use of Bold

There is even talk of this year being the year of the documentary in film and that Fahrenheit 9/11 could be the worlds first documentary blockbuster.

Quote[/b] ]Studio executives and box office analysts are asking themselves that question after Michael Moore's documentary stunned Hollywood with a $23.9 million take last weekend.

That number is more than $2 million higher than distributor Lions Gate Films predicted Sunday, prompting speculation that the movie could be the first to earn the title "blockbuster documentary."

"I'm going to say this guardedly, but this has the potential to be the first $100 million documentary," says Paul Dergarabedian of box office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

My use of Bold

http://www.usatoday.com/life....n_x.htm

I think those cinema owners who were fooled are kicking themselves and the news that a further 100 cinemas have decided to show the film shows they know which way the wind blows.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]I did not see any factual criticism in that review (btw Slate: hardocore right-wing ezine). The reviewer seems to be engaged in a personal attack against Moore, but doesn't even attempt to falsify the claims that Moore makes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124079,00.html

Food for you...

Quote[/b] ]

Michael Moore's (search) "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke records this weekend, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film — but there are holes in the controversial film's story.

For instance, in one often-showed clip, Moore claims that President Bush was on vacation 42 percent of the time during his first several months in office — but that estimation included weekends at Camp David, a common practice for presidents. Without those days figured in, Bush actually spent 13 percent of his time on vacation.

The movie also criticizes Bush for staying inside a Florida classroom full of kids for a full seven minutes after he learned that the country was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

However, the vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission has said that Bush did the right thing. "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom," said Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.

In "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) Moore also claims that the White House approved plans for planes to pick up relatives of Usama Bin Laden right after the attacks. But according to terrorism czar Richard Clarke (search), he alone approved the Saudi flights.

In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed.

Finally, Moore shows prominent members of the Taliban visiting Texas, implying that they were invited by then-Governor Bush. The Taliban delegation, however, was invited to Houston by UNOCAL (search), a California energy company.

Moore also doesn't mention that the visit was made with the permission of the Clinton administration, which twice met with Taliban members — in 1997 and 1998.

Moore's words are not the gospel....

Again, there are no mention of any factual errors there. Only that Moore implied some things and omitted some things.

Did Moore make omissions? Sure. Is he biased? Of course.

He presents a political argument. It's not a documentary. He has not called it a documentary but an op/ed piece. Which it is.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]With box office records being broken left right and center; many cinema owners, who were fooled by the fake citizen pressure of the TBA NeoConMen's anti Fahrenheit 9/11 surragates, are regretting not being in the start of what, as well as an award winning factual documentry, is real money spinner.

Factual doc.....you telling a joke....half-truths but filled with BS...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, there are no mention of any factual errors there. Only that Moore implied some things and omitted some things.

Did Moore make omissions? Sure. Is he biased? Of course.

He presents a political argument. It's not a documentary. He has not called it a documentary but an op/ed piece. Which it is.

You missed....

Quote[/b] ]

In addition, Moore says that the departing Saudis were not properly processed by the FBI when leaving the country. That too is contradicted by the Sept. 11 commission, which said the Saudis were properly interviewed.

[denoir 0]

He interviewed the head FBI agent on the taskforce whose taski it was to interrogate the bin Ladens who said that they were let go against his will and the will of his superiors.

Let me guess, you havn't seen the movie?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Am I the only one who's actually seen the movie?

[denoir 0]

@ June 29 2004,19:28)]Am I the only one who's actually seen the movie?

Anybody seen Fahrenheit 911 yet?

I saw it two days ago and I can really recommend it to both political side.

[SpongeBob 0]

He interviewed the head FBI agent on the taskforce whose taski it was to interrogate the bin Ladens who said that they were let go against his will and the will of his superiors.

Let me guess, you havn't seen the movie?

Yes, that plane that left the US days after 911 was full of AQ members.

Mr. Clarke said himself to the 911 commission "[...]that there was no one who left on that flight that the FBI now wants to interview"

"And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the Bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or raised their suspisions. And I believe that the FBI had good information and good sources of information about what the bin Laden family were doing."

Page 140-143 9-11 Commission Hearings

[denoir 0]

That's what Clarke said. That is not what the FBI agent interviewed said. Moore interviewed the FBI guy who said that questioning the family of a suspect is SOP.

So what did Moore do wrong according to you?

And have you seen the movie? I hate to argue with somebody who's source of information is a one-page review of the movie.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Anybody seen Fahrenheit 911 yet?

I saw it two days ago and I can really recommend it to both political side.

No, see, we all already know I'm an idiot

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Für die Deutschen!

OFFENER BRIEF DER IRANISCHEN SCHRIFTSTELLERIN FAHIMEH FARSAIE AN GEORGE BUSH

Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten, George W. Bush,

Sie feiern nun majestätisch Ihren militärischen Triumph gegen den Irak mit Ihren Verbündeten und Unterstützern. Ihr Erfolg ist gleichzeitig der heiß begehrte Sieg der US-amerikanischen Rüstungsindustrie. Denn sie wird in diesem Jahr, nach Berechnungen des US-Außenministeriums, wunderbringende Rüstungsgüter im Wert von 14 Milliarden Dollar verkaufen können. Mit ruhigem Gewissen freut sie sich auf die Wiederherstellung der mehr als 9000 Bomben, die in den Kriegstagen über dem Irak abgeworfen wurden. Ich komme aus einem Land, das vermutlich in absehbarer Zeit eventuell eine Menge von Ihren perfekten Bomben abbekommen wird. Ich stamme nämlich aus einem der Länder der sogenannten »Axis of Evil«, aus dem Iran. Ich bin persische Schriftstellerin und dennoch oder gerade deshalb bewundere ich Sie.

Ich muss aber zugeben, dass ich erst kurz vor diesem Frühlingsanfang die wunderbar verwirrende Bewunderung in mir spürte, als Sie für den seit Ihrer Amtseinführung geplanten Irak-Angriff im Namen der Freiheit warben. Vor diesem unerwarteten Sinneswandel war ich besessen von einem erstaunlich reizvollen Hass gegen Amerika und seine Außenpolitik. Gegen diesen merklich zügellosen Abscheu war ich fast machtlos. Er nahm mich als naive Jugendliche ein und vermehrte sich unwillkürlich in mir. Als Sie in Ihrem historischen Auftritt, den ich im Fernsehen verfolgte, mit erhobenem Zeigefinger die Welt wissen ließen, dass die US-Truppen bald die Gefahr Saddams »auslöschen werde«, verlöschte in mir ebenfalls jene quälende Abscheu und stattdessen erblühte augenblicklich eine einleuchtende Bewunderung. Ich schaute mir jene eindrucksvolle Szene, in deren Hintergrund das prächtige amerikanische Sternenbanner feierlich flatterte, an und fühlte mich von meinem unzüchtigen Hass befreit.

Zugegebenermaßen habe ich mich kaum in all diesen Jahren mit den Ursachen jener Abneigung gegen die Supermacht USA gründlich beschäftigt. Erst in dem erleuchtenden Moment der Bewunderung habe ich mich gefragt, was mich als junge, erfolgreiche Juristin und Schriftstellerin im Iran, die sich immer für die Demokratie und Gerechtigkeit einsetzte, dazu bewegte, den »Vorkämpfer der freien Welt«, als Feind zu betrachten und dagegen zu kämpfen? Und dazu auch noch bewaffnet?

Dafür musste ich zuerst mit mir selbst ringen und einige meiner elementaren Prinzipien opfern; Pazifismus etwa, Glaube an Gewaltlosigkeit, Antimilitarismus. Es war kurz nach dem Sturz des Schah im Jahre 1979. Da tobte der Iran-Irak Krieg: eine Zeit des Grauens, der Lebensmittelknappheit, des nächtlichen Bombardements durch Saddams Militär, das uns mit amerikanischer Unterstützung »Freiheit« schenken wollte.

In dieser Zeit stand ich morgens immer gegen fünf Uhr auf. Zuerst machte ich meine damals achtmonatige Tochter fertig, dann musste ich stundenlang Schlange stehen, um für mein Kind Milch zu bekommen und danach bin ich zur nächsten Moschee, um den Umgang mit Waffen zu lernen. Die Gefahr, dass Saddam mit amerikanischer Hilfe mein Land erobern konnte, war nicht gering. Daher habe ich mich einer von der islamischen Regierung angebotenen militärischen Ausbildung für die Bevölkerung angeschlossen, um uns verteidigen zu können.

In der Moschee meines Viertels waren wir circa 20 Frauen, gehüllt in lange Mäntel und Kopftücher. Wir wälzten uns auf den persischen Teppichen, lernten militärische Übungen, Schießen und Abwehrtechniken. Meine Tochter saß gemütlich in ihrem Babystuhl - den schleppte ich jeden Tag mit -, nuckelte an ihrer Milchflasche und lächelte uns unwissend an.

An diese nun mir absolut lächerlich erscheinende Szene habe ich mich sofort erinnert, als Sie im Fernsehen als Weltverbesserer auftraten. Dabei musste ich an den CIA-Putsch im Jahr 1953 denken, durch den Mossadegh, der demokratisch gewählte Premierminister Irans, »ausgelöscht« wurde. Stattdessen unterstützte Ihr ebenfalls demokratisch gewählter Kollege, Ex-Präsident Nixon das Schah-Regime, das im folgenden Vierteljahrhundert als ein zentraler Stützpfeiler der US-Strategie im Nahen Osten fungierte. Aus Dankbarkeit Ihrem Land gegenüber für die Rückgabe der Macht an ihn, ließ der Schah das amerikanische Militär und die CIA Stützpunkte auf iranischem Boden unterhalten, von denen aus sie die benachbarte UdSSR ausspionierten. Ihr Ex-Präsident setzte dann die Armee des Schahs gegen nationale Befreiungskämpfe in der Golfregion ein und sie brachte unzählig unschuldige Menschen um. Um alles unter Kontrolle zu haben, bildeten dann die amerikanischen Berater die verhasste Geheimpolizei des Schahs - SAVAK - aus, die die Verschleppungen, den Mord und die Folter Tausender Perser auf dem Gewissen hat. Von den Gräueltaten der SAVAK war auch ich betroffen. Wegen der Veröffentlichung einer kritischen Erzählung musste ich monatelang im berüchtigten Ghassr-Gefängnis sitzen. »Schicksal,« sagt meine Tochter, die inzwischen so jung ist wie ich damals war: »Du lebst ja nur in der Vergangenheit. Blick nach vorne!«

Ich blicke nach vorne und sehe Sie im Fernsehen in der Rolle eines charmanten Weltrichters, der mit edlen Worten seinen »in der Geschichte zivilisierter Nationen nahezu beispiellosen« Krieg ankündigt. Dass Sie mit weicher Stimme über die gnadenlose Ausübung der technisch hoch ausgerüsteten US-Militärgewalt gegen Iraker redeten, versetzte mich in gewaltiges Staunen. Das Wort »Krieg« benutzten Sie kaum. Statt dessen sprachen Sie mit ihrem anmutigen Blick, für den die Amerikaner Sie lieben, von »Frieden« und »Freiheit«. Mit rhetorischen Salven faszinierten Sie mich und die Mehrheit Ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung. Da war es für mich und die meisten Amerikaner irrelevant, dass Sie die fairen Ansichten der Weltgemeinschaft ignorierten und das internationale Recht brachen.

Ich bewundere Sie, weil Sie mit einer beneidenswerten Kühnheit, geschickten Fakten-Schminkereien und vorsätzlicher Täuschung einem Teil der Welt und dem amerikanischen Volk vormachten, dass Ihr Krieg ein gerechter Krieg sei. Denn, laut Aussagen des Regierungssprechers Scott McClellan existierten alle Quellen, auf die Sie sich bezogen, um den Angriff gegen den Irak zu rechtfertigen, nicht: so die angeblichen Berichte der Internationalen Atom-Energie-Behörde (IAEA) von 1991 und 2002, die Artikel aus der London Times und New York Times, die angeblichen Beweise der CIA-Informanten, die Satellitenbilder und so weiter.

Nun feiern Sie Ihren militärischen Sieg, und fast die ganze Welt freut sich ungemein, während Sie nebenbei mit den anderen Mächten um die Verteilung der »Kriegsbeute« schachern. Als meine Tochter diese mitbekommen hat, fragte sie mich enttäuscht: »Was denn? Bist du gegen oder für den Krieg? Willst du, dass noch mehr unschuldige Menschen sterben?«

Genau deshalb bewundere ich Sie: Mit ihrer militärischen und politischen Überlegenheit drängen Sie die Menschheit in eine Lage, in der sie den Teufel nur mit dem Beelzebub austreiben kann. Das gilt auch für Ihr nächstes Ziel, den Iran. Ist das nicht bewundernswert?

Hochachtungsvoll Fahimeh Farsaie

Fahimeh Farsaie, Autorin und freie Journalistin, geboren 1952 in Teheran, lebt in Köln.

[theavonlady 2]

Für die Deutschen!

/avon scambles to find her enigma decoder

edit:

Quote[/b] ]FORUM RULES

3. Rules of Format

§7)Write in English

In the English part of the board please write in English and in the Czech write in Czech. Try avoiding writing in any other language since the majority of the members most likely won't understand.

[denoir 0]

Ugh, während ich spreche Deutsch (nicht besonders gut!), dieser text is ein bistchen zu lang für mich zu lesen.  

For us non-germans:

Voters' views: Iraq [bBC]

Quite interesting interviews with a bunch of Americans stating their view on how the Iraq war will affect the elections.