Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

Still, though, is anybody surprised Disney decided to block releasing something of merit? I mean, it's just as well anyway, it would have conflicted with their releases of Bedknobs and Broomsticks part 6, and Aladdin 9.

This is unfortunately true. His films are entertaining as hell, but you really need to do your own fact-checking after seeing them.

GO MICHAEL MOORE!

and this disney decision just shows the US is turning into a fascist country- all the while of course talking about how much freedom we have..

There's a huge fucking difference between not being perfect and being a problem.

Michael Moore is NOTED for his factual distortions in his documentaries and while his overall beliefs are similar to mine, he has been called out a number of times on his excessive spin-doctoring by both conservatives AND liberals.

That doesn't mean others don't do it either, but he shows little scrutiny or care when doing it liberally in his films. Many of my liberal friends cannot stand him whatsoever.

Don't knock the man, he's spreading your ideas, who cares about facts, fuck em, let him say whatever he wants!

I don't want someone who represents my beliefs to be Jesus, however when he is DOING WHAT HE DOES THAT IS GENERATING ENERGY FOR MY BELIEFS I'd like him not to do it in a way that is so manipulative it it may as well have been done by someone working for Fox News.

It's shifty tactics like that that annoy me. I'd rather read MoveOn.org anyday. No, no political group is generally free from some bias but there's a huge difference between that and intentionally misrepresenting facts.

ps, Seanbaby.com rules.

Yeah, this is kind of what I thought, too. And frankly, it usually makes his movies MORE entertaining. Though *Columbine* was totally confused in some ways, obviously. Still, does anybody know examples of actual Factual Errors Per Se' in his movies? I'm not saying there aren't any; I just can't think of any, off hand, if there are some...

anywho, here's one I could find:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

That site has a few of the problems I mentioned above, though, some of the criticisms of Moore are mere differences in opinion rather than proof of him distorting truths.

His passing off of the media's role in crime and crime coverage is just silly, for anybody who's studied crime as portrayed in the media.

The point is that your energies would be much better spent criticizing those with whom you more deeply disagree. You don't appear -- in any way -- smarter or more sophisiticated by critiquing those on your own side. Facts are wonderful, but they're pretty slippery things. Many, many people with far greater visibility are flogging them in ways that Mr. Moore could barely dream.

Plus this whole Disney thing could hardly be called a surprise.

Think you're questioning one of the great unspoken tenets of ILM here, Ev -- 500 posts by dinner?

Just because somebody agrees with our overall sentiments does not mean we should not hold them responsible for how they conduct themselves in the media. And you're being rather presumptuous in assuming that both of us spend more time criticizing our own than opposing thought.

People like Michael Moore do a lot to damage our movement. Our movement isn't targeting those who already share these beliefs, it's targeting those who may be on-the-fence or who may not be well-informed of some important information out there due to the rather conservative media.

Now, when you get someone like Michael Moore out there who makes a bad name for us, that potentially drives our target audience away due to their perception that he represents all of us. If we didn't tend to that, how would we be doing our job?

It's almost as if you're telling us to embrace our biases and not make any effort to clean up house within. How can we tell someone else their house isn't clean if ours isn't either?

Say, how 'bout that Lion King soundtrack?

You seem to think I spend 23 hours of a 24 hour day criticizing Michael Moore and the remaining one taking on conservative thought. The only reason he was brought up in this thread was because he was mentioned. Otherwise, he's generally an afterthought in my day.

If anything, I think admitting awareness of fault in one of your own at least paints your side as much more honest and less divisive, plus at least gives you a chance to allow your party to distance themselves from those who give it a bad name.

David and Uh:
The point is that your energies would be much better spent criticizing those with whom you more deeply disagree. You don't appear -- in any way -- smarter or more sophisiticated by critiquing those on your own side.

Because that's why I feel this way, to look smart and sophisticated, not because that's how I actually feel. I apologize, I'll be blindly partisan at all times from this point on, and make sure it's only republicans I disagree with, that way I can ACTUALLY be smart and sophisticated in stead of just posing as such. Thnx!

If you turn a critical eye towards your own argument, you can come up with a better argument. If Moore makes a salient point during one of his films or articles, I would do well to make sure it's sound before using it myself. Otherwise I end up repeating what may be garbage and stand the chance of skewing it myself, which is detrimental to my views in the end.

um, and missy elliot sucks! (there, still on topic.)

"I'm sure the film is hyperbolic, anti-Bush .."

Is there such a thing as hyperbole when it comes to criticizing Pres. Bush? Seems like the truth is hyperbole with this administration.

I'm on the motherfucker.

Not all of his criticisms are warranted, but Moore is hardly the liberal mouthpiece.

What kind of hypocrite would I be if I bashed right-wingers for doing that, but said it was ok that Michael Moore did it because he's a lefty and I agree with his opinion? That is just dumb.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Being narrowminded and kneejerk as a liberal doesn't make you more virtuous than the narrowminded kneejerk conservative just cuz you think your opinions are the right ones.

(I wasn't necessarily indicting anybody with that comment so keep your keyboards at bay.)

For the record, Bush is a cockmunching piece of shit President, but that doesn't mean someone criticizing a Liberal means we've suddenly abandoned our cause.

I could argue that Moore has arguably turned just as large amount of people off to the left's argument as he has onto it. Obviously a lot of the information being argued is a difference of opinion and some people would disagree with his slant anyway, but that doesn't mean fudging information is ok, either.

The evidence against the Bush administration and recent governments is damning enough to stand on its own as it is, without manipulation.

The right-wing media can go suck one, though, if they think knocking down Michael Moore is any victory. Let's see who there is on their side that could be easily taken down--Dubya, Cheney, Ashcroft, Limbaugh, I could go on.....

Again, where? I really wish someone would cite some specifics...

The problem is many of them are written by complete idiots. I'd rather watch a Moore movie than ever go back to www.moorewatch.com again.

"al Queda busted up? Check."

Al Qaeda is a US-made mickey mouse term for loosely connected terror cells. Therefore, such a statement is very hard to quantify. They don't have nametags and monthly meetings. And they recruit new people daily.

"Taliban ousted? Check."

And replaced with the Northern Alliance, who are warlords. Great job.

"Saddam toppled? Check."

So what? The country is in worse shape than ever right now. He was a sick fuck, but the place was at least "functioning". Stringent US sanctions upon Iraq for 12 years, consistent bombing in no-fly zones, and an unnecessary war have done greater harm to the country than Saddam has recently.

"Terrorism significantly reduced in the past year? Check."

Hahahaha, I was unaware that terrorism could be measured in statistic form.

Well, that hardly qualifies as "tricking people by leaving out convenient information or misappropriating information about other things," either. (I'm not saying he DOESN'T do that. And I agree, his messages can be extremely muddled. But I doubt they'd be any more entertaining, or any more useful, or any more convincing, if he was pretending to be completely "objective" or whatever, either....though maybe that's not what people are suggesting; i honestly can't tell.)

Also, I didn't say it did. Moore is too smart to come out and lie, he just twists things in a way that I find devious.

I see what you're saying, but it's too easy to just let that slide by in the midst of his argument without thinking, "hey, wasn't there some *reason* why we did that?" i think he wanted me to respond with something along the lines of "yep, america is just a bully culture". maybe it is, but helping out a race of people being indiscriminately slaughtered is not the best example i can come up with. he did that far better with his "what a wonderful world" sequence. it just really bothered me. apparently, no one else.

>>Counterintuitively for a liberal, he wants to argue that gun control is not a significant factor in America's high rate of gun deaths compared to other countries, and to do so, he travels to Canada, which he claims is similar to the U.S. in every way except its attitude towards self-reliance. He dismisses typical liberal concerns about poverty creating crime, noting that, "Liberals contend [gun violence is a result of] all the poverty we have here. But the unemployment rate in Canada is twice what we have here." By every measure of international comparison, though, Canada's poverty rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., thanks to the generous social insurance programs that he repeatedly praises in the film.<<

actually asserting the wars had something to do with a decrease in terrorism. Gee, maybe a sharp blow to the noggin on 9/11 had something to do with that? Any decrease is probably short-lived, anyway.

What has happened to integrity? Why can't the followers of the one true lord 'sup from his example, and be pure, honest & good like the rest of us....

oh yeah, um, good point! see, i told you i have no long-term movie memory, even when it's THE ONLY MOVIE I'VE EVER BEEN IN IN MY LIFE, *and* my appearance in it is totally misleading. How the hell could I forget??? But no, it didn't really "bug" me; I just thought it was totally dumb and underhanded and full of shit, but hey, when the hell ELSE am i gonna show up on the silver screen, you know? And besides, everybody knows that it was RAMMSTEIN who caused Columbine, right? (He should have interviewed THEM for the movie -- they're hilarious!)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901