Shrek and Spiderman are tops in 2004

Has anyone seen the movie Big Bad Love?

Remember the film, "March of the Wooden Soldiers" with Laurel and Hardy? Well, the guy who plays Mr. Barnaby is also the guy who plays General Crawford in the old original "Outer Limits" episode, "The Chameleon" - Check him out!:

http://community-2.webtv.net/x-radar/GeneralBarnaby/

The creators & a clip about that cartoon has been on many of the morning TV shows - I seen about it on the Today show earlier in the week - but only now had time to go view it.

The is the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time. Excellent and completely fair and (un)balanced. lol! Well worth the download wait. It should win an Oscar for best funny short!!!

BBW that is tooo fricking hilarious!!! Poor Clinton gets in trubba again!

Well to get back to the Movies topic, and also at the same time stay political.

Has anyone seen the "This Land" Cartoon which stars both Bush & Kerry?

You can view it here - It is somewhat big, but VERY FUNNY! (Note: It takes jabs at both Bush & Kerry in a very funny way!)

I agree that we are still our parent's children (that never changes) but we are not "children" anymore. But Moore's question in the film is dishonest.

It's like this: Your "child" breaks the law. He is sent before a judge in an "adult" court, and found guilty and then sent to "adult" prison.

Michael Moore takes to the streets in protest and complains "BBW's child is sitting in prison!" "Since when do we send our "children" to prison!!"
"Shame on America. Shame, Shame. Now we've sunk so low as to put our CHILDREN in prision!!!!"

Bystander: "But Michael, the kid's 35 years old.

Michael Moore: "He's still someone's child!!!"

Maybe he should have been sent to juvenile detention?

Well I could respond to most of that, but we are getting more and more off the subject that has been covered in other places like Unsensored Debate. (Plus I still have not had a chance to view all the link you provided below - but I do plan on as soon as I get enough free time.)

The one thing I do want to disagree with is that my parents will always have 3 children, no matter how old we get. Just because a child turn a legal age (adult) does not mean they are still not someone's children. I think they point you are trying to make is by using the world child, it paints a picture of a 9 year old, and of course we all know that 9 year olds are not being sent over to the war. But I'm not 29 years old, and I'm still the child of my parents.

"Actually Lawmakers by agree to go to war actually do send everyone elses children to war."

No. This is not factual. They send soldiers. Adults. If the above statement is true then it's equally true to say Lawmakers send babies into war. My mom considered me her baby and still does. It's an inaccurate statement and therefore false.

"Moore makes the point that only 1 Congressmen had a child (adult child) over in the "war zone". Is this correct or not? I'm not sure."

If Moore makes this point he is wrong. The link I provided earlier lists several. But wait, so what? There is no valid connection between a Lawmaker having an adult "child" in the military and making the decision to go into Iraq. We can only speculate.

"Well that is because if the main stream media reports bad things about Bush, or makes the current administration unhappy - they as Media people will be shut out"

You need to get out more BBW. The mainstream media bashes Bush all the time. I'll find some examples but you are out to lunch on this one.

"Bush looks good. If American start to see that War has a bad side, which (IN MY OPINION) Strongly out weighs the good side, then Bush starts to look bad."

I agree. But if America doesn't see the good that goes on in many places in Iraq, they also get a distorted view.

nuff of that ... ;)

I wish I had time to watch "The Factor" last night.

Actually Lawmakers by agree to go to war actually do send everyone elses children to war.

So me as a parent, if my son were to signup (if he was old enough), I would not actually send him off to war. But if I was a person who helped make this war possible, then it would be me who would be sending this solders to war. Are they actually children, or corse not - but they are someones children. And if I remember the film correctly, not sure if it is true or if I'm remembering correctly - but Moore makes the point that only 1 Congressmen had a child (adult child) over in the "war zone". Is this correct or not? I'm not sure. I think there are others in the military, but only 1 was actually out in the war zone. (But I'm not really sure about this - I would have to do more research.)

"Why is Moore's movie a side of things you won't see in the (main stream) Media?" Well that is because if the main stream media reports bad things about Bush, or makes the current administration unhappy - they as Media people will be shut out. They will not be invited to special events, special news confeces, etc... For example, when Bush made that surprise trip to Iraq on Thanksgiving (Nov 25th), he took along key media people. And who did he not take along. Anyone who was shut out of the loop. So occasionaly you will see some negative news stories on the news, but it is usually just a passing blurb..... where the news will focus on the "happy Iraqi's dancing in the street", and ignore all the familys, houses, children whos lives have been destroyed. Why? Because if American keep thinking we are going a good thing in Iraq, Bush looks good. If American start to see that War has a bad side, which (IN MY OPINION) Strongly out weighs the good side, then Bush starts to look bad.

don't get confused. :)

Michael Moore did say that Bush lied and he repeated it on "The Factor" last night.

Just one more example of how Moore twists things. In the film, he asks some Lawmakers if they will sign up their children to serve in Iraq. Moore is going for embarassment here and putting Lawmakers on the spot. He is out to make it look like Lawmakers are ready to commit the children of others to war, but not their own.

However, this fails for several reasons. First, there are no "children" in the war, they are soldiers. Second, NO PARENT sends their "child" to this war or even signs them up for military service. The "adult" signed up, (volunteered willingly) for the US Armed Services. They are NOT children, they are adults and they are soldiers. Period. Here again Moore plays with words. I'm 52 and my mom still thinks of me as her "baby." Of course I'm an adult. I've been an adult and NOT a baby NOR a child for many years. I hope you get the point. Finally, Moore fails to mention the Congressmen that do have "children" currently serving in Iraq. Why ignore this fact? It doens't support his point.

And just a side note: Why is Moore's movie a side of things you won't see in the Media? Mainly because it's a distortion of the true picture. Don't you have a problem with that? I do.

I'm getting confused now. :-)

Like I said back in my original post, I don't remember Michael Moore saying that Bush lied about WMD, just that Bush mislead America. If Moore did say Bush lied, well then I would disagree with Moore on that point - Since Bush (and administration) were very carefull on what they said.

[This is the biggest problem with the movie. Michael Moore ignores the facts and redefines terms in order to promote his personal view of things. So what you ask? The problem is that many people will see this film and believe it is all true. That is a tragedy. The real villain is guys like Michael Moore who resort to whatever it takes, word twisting, equivocating, omission of crucial facts, to promote their personal ideology.] I actually agree with you 100% - and I always try to tell everyone who has/will see it that it is just one sided. BUT in my opinion, and I believe Michael Moores opion (plus probable many others) - this is the same that Bush (and administration) has done to get the things done that they wanted to get done also - like a war with Iraq. And it is a tragedy that so many people will just believe what Bush & Administration is leading them towards - even if Bush is very careful on what is said. The one thing I disagree with is that is the real villain is guys like Bush. Michael Moore is just trying to "expose" what he has done. And it's like 3rd graders. It's OK for Bush to mislead the public, but how dare Moore try to do the same!

[I’m not arguing here that Bush didn’t lie or intend to deceive. That is not the point I’m trying to make. My argument centers around the film Fahrenheit 9/11. I’m asserting that there is ample evidence within the film itself, that Michael Moore twists facts, presents information dishonestly, completely ignores information he obtains that doesn’t support the points he wants to make in the film (and in fact counter his points).] ---------- Yes, Michael Moore has even said he made a movie to show the side that you normally don't see in the main stream press. He admited that right up front. It would be a pretty boring movie if you see all the things you have also watched on the news for the past 3 months.

“[When you make this statement: "Just like when Bush was deceiving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know." are you willing to agree that if your statement is proven false that you "lied" to me when you said it?]”

You really didn’t answer this question BBW. The reason it’s important is because according to Moore, you’d be guilty of lying. So I’ll assume you’d say no to this question (which is my answer) and I’ll go further and say neither did you mislead others by saying the statement above. You simply made a statement that was false but, since it wasn’t made with intent to deceive, it wasn’t a lie. (I’m speaking hypothetically)

Secondly BBW, you never did answer my final question. You simply returned a question back. I’ll answer for you to save time but I wish you had taken the time to respond directly to the question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

“Question is: "Did BBW lie when he said that AD is an art teacher in an elementary school?"”

I believe you’d say NO to this. All the facts you had pointed to AD being a teacher. Someone lied and it wasn’t AD’s friends. They had every reason to believe that AD was really an art teacher in an elementary school. Who lied? AD lied of course.

So, even though you were passing information that wasn’t true, you had every reason to believe it was true. All evidence pointed in that direction. This is a very basic idea I’m presenting. Anyone disagreeing would have to explain why they disagree. This is not a matter of opinion. Something is either a lie or it isn’t. Simple.

Michael Moore redefines what a lie is. According to Moore, Bush “lied” to the American people when he said Saddam had WMD. That of course is not a true statement so Moore is the liar. The 911 Commission has stated that NO ONE LIED. All intelligence agencies had reliable evidence that WMD’s existed in Iraq. Iraq has an aggressive military history that included using WMD’s. There is clear evidence for this and NO ONE disputes this fact.

Stick to the single subject of WMD’s BBW. If all the intelligence agencies (Russia, Britain, US) said there were WMD’s, if history records not only their existence but their use by Iraq, and if for the past ten years Saddam defied all attempts to verify the destruction of WMD’s, what other conclusion is possible to make?

So Michael Moore deliberately misleads the world with his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 (on this point at least), when he says Bush lied. On this point, Moore is wrong. Bush was wrong (so far yes), and as we now know there were some serious problems with US intelligence. You can say whatever you want about WMD’s, but you can’t say Bush lied. The facts don’t support it. Say he was wrong, say he acted hastily, say his decision didn’t show proper restraint, but you can’t say he lied. That statement would be false. It simply is not supported by the known facts.

This is the biggest problem with the movie. Michael Moore ignores the facts and redefines terms in order to promote his personal view of things. So what you ask? The problem is that many people will see this film and believe it is all true. That is a tragedy. The real villain is guys like Michael Moore who resort to whatever it takes, word twisting, equivocating, omission of crucial facts, to promote their personal ideology.

In order for a statement to be a “lie” it must accurately meet the legal definition of what constitutes a lie. Just because you or I call something a lie, doesn’t make it so.

A lie is:
*A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood
*Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
*To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

I’m not arguing here that Bush didn’t lie or intend to deceive. That is not the point I’m trying to make. My argument centers around the film Fahrenheit 9/11. I’m asserting that there is ample evidence within the film itself, that Michael Moore twists facts, presents information dishonestly, completely ignores information he obtains that doesn’t support the points he wants to make in the film (and in fact counter his points).

Based on Moore’s own use of the term “lie” it’s accurate to say that Moore is guilty of lying not only to the American public, but to the entire world. According to Moore’s own definition, if even ONE of the “facts” he presents turns out not to be true (and there are plenty that have been shown to be false) then Moore lied.

Unbreakable wasn't supposed to be a real thriller, I don't think.

I think unbreakable was kinda slow. I wasnt crazy about it either.

6th sense, and signs - I like both of those movies.

I have unbreakable, but I did not really like that one. It looked and sounded good, but for some reason I did not like it.

He did the 6th sense, unbreakable, and signs. I thought those were all good movies.

The Village Trailer Might be a good one.

I'm not sure which films he did in the past (without going and doing a quick search), but the previews I have seen for The Village looks like it could be pretty good. (Have not heard any review or anything yet - just the preview on TV.)

I do enjoy his movies, and want to see The Village when it comes out. Did you see the documentary that was done on him on the Sci-Fi channel? Sci-fi usually isn't my cup of tea, but when I saw the ads for this, I was curious. So, I watched it, and it was very interesting.

No pumpkin bread. Many dead because of 20 year history of using pumpkin bread. Attempts to let inspectors search the kitchen are constantly thwarted. Aftermath reveals reciepies for pumpkin bread, and staff of pumpkin bread experts. All proof the guy just wasn't interested in pumpkin bread.

You guys sure do get fired up for a debate, don't you...Ha ha. Anyways, I hate to change the subject, but does anyone else enjoy any of M. Night Shaymalan's work? His newest (The Village) is coming out in 2 days.

["But when the Bush Administration manipulated data, that is dishonest also." Of course. But we are talking about the film Fahrenheit 911 and should stick to that. "] --------- Well one of the main reasons the film was even made was to point out the bad decisions that the Bush Administration had made. So we sort of have to look at both the film, and why the film was made to get the full picture. Moore has said his main goal of the film was to give the side of the story that the Bush Administration, and the main stream press does NOT give. (so basicly us citizans need to take a little of this side, a little of that side - and hopefully somewhere in the middle we can figure out the truth since anyone involved has probable manipulated the talk to help their cause the most.) (I see Moores film as a way to try to off-set the manipulation from the other side.)

Do I think Bush lied? No. Do I think Bush purposly misled America. Yes. Bush was very carefull with his words, his speechs. He would one minute be talking about 9/11, and terrorist. Then in the next breath he would be talking about Saddam. Even though he was carefull on what he said, I believe he manipluated what he said to get what he wanted. (Also note when I say "Bush", most of the time I mean "The Bush Administration" as a whole, not just the 1 person)

WMD - I believe the Bush Administration had data of both - that is data that said there were WMD in Iraq, and data that said there were no WMD in Iraq. So Bush, who wanted a war with Iraq took the information that best suited his need. Did he actually lie? I don't like to say that, but I do believe he knownly misled all Americans.

[When you make this statement: "Just like when Bush was deceiving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know." are you willing to agree that if your statement is proven false that you "lied" to me when you said it?] -------Most of what I say, and basicly anyone else on a message board is opinions. But in my opinion, I'm 100% sure that Bush (BUSH ADMINISTRATION) left out data and fact that hurt their goal - which if you read through the Uncensored Debate board, you can read back on much about that.

[Last statement - AD a teacher or dishwasher] - now lets say I take it a step further. Lets say I have 1 person tell me you are a teacher, and another person that tells me you are a dishwasher. Would I mislead people if I just ignored the data about you being a dishwasher, and told people what I wanted to believe - that you are a teacher?

Independent voters see the difference between documentary and propoganda. This movie changes the minds of no one. Independents will get their facts from the report, not this movie.

Sarasota second-graders

or Bush made a decision to stay so as not to alarm the little children knowing that what was being done about the current crisis would not change if he were to get up and leave at that moment. He was aware that there were people in command of the situation. And while he was very calmly finishing up, behind the scenes the people in authority were taking all the appropriate actions to gather information and deal with the crisis as then situation called for. He knew, probably, that information would be slowly coming in, as it did. What action could he have taken in those seven minutes that would have made a difference? No matter what he did however, people would criticize him for it. The problem with Moore's presentation is that he twists events to look like his interpretation of those events as fact. Was Bush confused? How would you or anyone know for sure? To say yes or no is only a guess. What Bush says about those moments is more important than what a Michael Moore might say. Moore has to guess too.

"But when the Bush Administration manipulated data, that is dishonest also."

Of course. But we are talking about the film Fahrenheit 911 and should stick to that. There is no need to bring in what Bush did or didn't do in comparison to what Moore did. That is digression. The bigger truth here is when ANYONE manipulates events to make them look a certain way, the action is dishonest and it applies equally across the board.

Let me ask you a question. If I asked you, do you 'think' Bush lied about WMD, and you said "yes," and I ask, "Why do you believe that?" "On what basis do you assert that Bush lied?" If you were to say "Because he told the American people something that wasn't true." Then your basis for a lie is when something is told that is not true, that is a lie.

Now if I ask you, "But did Bush know these things weren't true or did he actually believe there were WMD as he was being told by many agencies both foreign and domestic?" If you said, "It doesn't matter. Either way it wasn't true so he lied."

Then....look at this scenario:

When you make this statement: "Just like when Bush was deceiving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know." are you willing to agree that if your statement is proven false that you "lied" to me when you said it?

And..........

Let's say you have a discussion with your wife about Brainking. She asks who this AD guy is. You tell her what you know of me. You say that he is a teacher and teaches Art in an elementary school. She asks how you know this and you say, "He told me." Also, let's say, you asked Radiant, Endgame, and a few of my other friends like CindyInTN and Usurper. They ALL tell you, "Yes, AD is an art teacher in an elementary school." Let's say further that I have links on my profile for my personal websites which include the school webpage I claim to have designed (and indeed is has my real name crediting me for the work).

Then dozens of people ask you, BBW, about AD and you tell everyone that asks that AD is an art teacher. Finally, after so many PM's asking about AD, you post to "General Chat" and announce to one and all that AD is and art teacher in an elementary school.

A year later, it is found out that AD is a dishwasher in a greasy-spoon restaurant. He lives with his sister and her husband and as he never went past the 8th grade he can't get a very good job. He uses her computer whenever he's not at work. The "real name" he gave is one he only pretended. The websites do belong to an art teacher, but they are NOT AD's.

Question is: "Did BBW lie when he said that AD is an art teacher in an elementary school?"

just want you to qualify that one BBW so I know that to which you are referring.

Well I have not had a chance to read all the links in the previous post, but as soon as I have some more time - I will for sure take the time to read through them. But going from memory, here are my replies to the few snippets that you provided in the post.

* "The Bin Laden family did not get to fly out the next day as Moore reported" - Now I heard this "argument" before I seen the film, and when I watched it - I did not find ANYWHERE where it said that they left the next day. I believe it said like on day 2 or 3, many (all) of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave as soon as possible. I also think I remember it saying that the FBI did interview the family members it thought it should - but the point that I got from Moore was even if they did not think the family members had anything to do with it, Moore was making the point that they should not have been allowed to leave since they probable did have more information then they got.

* "Moore ignores facts that he doesn't want in his fiml" - Yea, that is true. Moore even admits that he tried to make a film with the information that you normally don't see in the main stream media. Just like when Bush was deciving America, Bush left out the information he did not want the public to know. This is sad, but common - and it's usually the best way to get what you want.

* "... reading story to some Sarasota second-graders..." - I don't know how this is not a fact. Moore wanted to make the point that Bush stayed there an additional 7 minutes. That is a fact. Was Bush confused? Probable - along with almost 100% of America. This was something that caugt basicly everyone off guard, and if Bush wasn't confused and ready for this attack - well then that probable would scare me even more!

* "*Moore claims that Saddam never harmed or threatened any American" - Again, I don't remember seeing this in the film, but it might be in there - I don't remeber. I was thinking that something to the effect that Saddam was not a THREAT to America was in there, but I don't remember the above. Again, haven't seen the film for awhile, so I could be wrong. (Will have to watch it again before I can comment any more.)

"Moore clearly manipulates events in his film to make his points. That is dishonest." - I agree 100%. But when the Bush Administration manipulated data, that is dishonest also. What goes around, comes around I guess. :-)

Opinions are truth are separate issues. I may have the opinion Michael Moore is a genius, but that opinion is just one man's idea about a particular thing. Truth, on the other hand, is a verifiable fact, (not always, for something might be truth but we just can't know it) and is independent of any person's opinion.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not a documentary. It is a propaganda piece. It's a cut and paste of events put together in such a way as to promote Moore's one-sided-view.

A few snippets that Moore got wrong:

*The Bin Laden family did not get to fly out the next day as Moore reported. True that some flew early, but most flew out after all American could fly again as well. The FBI was NOT prevented from interviewing the Bin Laden family.

*Moore ignores facts that he doesn’t want in his film. When interviewing, he cleverly manipulates the events to put lawmakers in a bad light. Lawmakers to star in Moore film

*In the film Bush is shown reading a story to some Sarasota second-graders when news of the 911 plane attacks reaches him. Moore sarcastically highlights the fact that Bush stayed an additional 7 minutes while he calmly finishes reading the story to the students. Moore implies that the President seems confused and indecisive. But, Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission insists that Bush did the right thing by projecting calm. People should know that when you see only one side of a situation without hearing the complete story, you are likely being manipulated.

*Moore claims that Saddam never harmed or threatened any American. Last year, the Pentagon recorded 366 violations or provocations by the Iraqis in the two no-fly zones -- 221 in the south and 145 in the north

you can read more here

(especially see the bottom for more links)


As yet another innocent person has their head severed by Islamic "extremists," Moore apparently glosses over the fact that democracy, in general – and America, specifically – is under attack. I am innately aware that Michael Moore is first and foremost a provocateur, and he thrives on controversy.

Am I saying Moore doesn’t have a point? No

But when making that point, it would be nice if he’d keep his facts straight and present them honestly. Moore clearly manipulates events in his film to make his points. That is dishonest. Moore was clearly wrong on many points he tried to make in the film. I believe he does this deliberately to promote his ideology.

Moore will be on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor tonight. It ought to be interesting.

I don't have a lot of time to talk about this now, but hopefully tonight I will have more time.

AD - What parts do you think are "Flat out wrong"?

Personally I believe there are many opinions in the movie which are either right or wrong depending on what opinion you have, but I also have not done much research into everything that is mentioned in the movie.

I like the movie, but I also know that is is COMPLETELY one sided, and even Moore will agree with that.

So I believe some things were left out, but I as of right now I don't know of anything in the movie which is flat our wrong - but would love to hear what parts you think are, plus any link or information on why you think that way would be great.

Hum... starting to sound like a debate board. But hopefully we can stick to the Movies topic of Michael Moores movie, and not get into too much how bush has destoried America. (or not destroied America depending on your view.) :-)

that's an answer? ok no point in continuing

Do you think everything in 911 was completely factual?"

1. yes
2. no

That wasn't my question. I didn't ask if you thought Michael Moore collected "facts." I asked if you thought they were factual. It's one thing to collect data, another to prove that data to be factual.

So the question is: "You think everything in 911 was completely factual?"

I'll make it simple for you SF:

1. yes
2. no

Which is it? 1 or 2

You think everything in 911 was completely factual?

Michael Moore's 911 plays loose with the facts. It will be interesting how he handles himself in his interview tomorrow on Fox. He's a smart guy, so let's see how he handles the parts in the movie where he was flat out wrong.

boring......you can read the highlights in the paper or read it on the net. Then networks will cover the highlights too. So why torture oneself by sitting through the whole thing and risking permanant brain damage? ;)

Anyone here(in america) watching the DNC(democratic natoinal convention)? As a Bush follower and not a Clinton fan, It was all riff-raff to me. All they did was put own the President. Did anyone here enjoy it?

Well, it was about as true as farenheit 911. Some historical facts played as motifs, but other than that, yeah, Bush may as well have played batman...

I haven't seen 911 (and don't plan too).

My kids watch a lot of movies. They are continually asking me..."Is it real". I know LOTS of adults that are that way. There are too many people in this world that are sponges (believe everything they hear/see). There are also too many people in this world that live behind brick walls. No matter the logic or proof, they will not change their mind.

With that said, I don't think someone that does not want to see the movie is "Close-Minded". Almost everyone believes there is an agenda behind the movie. I prefer to get my information from un-biased sources (does anyone know of one?).

I belong to a religion that receives a lot of persecution. I have seen/read a lot of the "Anti" literature put out there against my religion. The most effective ones are the ones that present the facts (while ignoring some others) in such a way that it gives a different meaning. I have learned that you can always present facts to back up your opinion.

So, should I watch this movie to learn what really happened...I think NO! It might be filled with facts, but that doesn't mean it is accurate. It also doesn't mean it is wrong either. It WILL probably give a lot of interesting ideas and maybe even some facts that most people don't know about. But, if someone wants to really know, they need to research it on their own. Don't just take one persons opinion. Especially if presented in movie format. When someone has a different view from mine, I like to discuss it with them. You can't do that with a movie.

I know myself well enough to not be afraid to listen, openly, to other points of view. I am quite open minded, but intelligent enough not to be swayed by emotion. Mostly I don't want to see the movie because it isn't the type of movie I like watching.

This is true.

Yes but that assumes his "argument" is true. That remains to be seen.

The point is that Michael Moore's argument is the one that would never have been heard in the traditional media. AND, the information needs to get out before the election. Haha! Out, WAY out!