The above copied text is from a statement by Michael Moore on his website. I know that his newest movie has brought out some strong feelings in people. To some people here, he is practically god. To others, he is loathed. I don't want to delve into the man's merits, that would be a thread that would continue into the next millenium. Instead, I want to talk about the tactics of this "Move America Forward" group. I have a problem with it in that it violates some sacrosanct republican values. For one, republicans for the most part value the "invisible hand of the economy" that being, the consumer! The consumer controls the economy and makes decisions as to what flies and what doesn't. In pressuring theater owners, this MAF groups is violating a key rule of the free-market that republicans espouse. It's no different than liberal democrats trying to get Rush Limbaugh off the air, which is something just as reprehensible and wrong. Second, if MAF is truly for individual freedom, they would seek to leaflet movie-goers, not the movie-showers. If they were truly a "grass-roots" movement, they would seek to influence the invisible hand of the economy directly, rather than attack the purse-strings of the movie-owners. In appealing to the monied and not the "people" is it any wonder to see who they see as being more agreeable to their aims? Who are these people? The remannt of the "cultural revolution" in Maoist China?

Questions for debate:

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

Should? If their goal is for fewer people to see it, generating controversy is not the best way to keep it under the radar. Many people who might not otherwise have been interested, are seeing conservatives in an almost rabid fury over the movie -- now it becomes a must-see. Any organization in this country has the right to pressure consumers, movie theatres, and distributers not to promote this film. Every consumer, theatre, and distributer has the right to ignore the naysayers. In this case, talking to consumers (rather than targetting theatres) wouldn't help because consumers don't like to have products judged for them in a direct way. American consumers don't like to take the word (of the big people) that some product is bad or good, they'd rather decide for themselves, or survey their neighbors (fellow little people). Especially when it's obvious that the biased critics are bothered by the product, which suggest that it might be a somewhat effective product.



No, this is an effort to keep GW's numbers from backsliding any further. He's been doing a pretty good job of losing support without anyone attacking him credibly, imagine what would happen if a credible attack came out? Actually, not even a credible attack - but an attack that has all the appearance of credibility? GW has been losing numbers with flimsy attacks, or even despite any attacks at all. A somewhat less flimsy attack by this film is obviously going to do great damage if people actually see it, and the Republicans know it. (IMO)



Americans don't like being told what to think in a direct way. We all are told what to think by the media, the commercials, our peers - but all these tactics are indirect censorship, and most American's don't notice. They notice direct censorship, though. Direct censorship is not acceptable. The Republican efforts would have been better accomplished through subtle, under the radar, indirect influence rather than direct assault.


The only possible reason anything should not be allowed to be viewed by the general public is if it undermines national security. Even then, I'm not sure that there is very much that ought to be censored.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?


They can do it anyway they like, I doubt they will have much effect as this will be played in "Art House" theatres and larger cities so the moviegoers there tend to be be a little more left leaning.


2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?

Hardly

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

They have already done it with whats his name Savage, they did not like what he said, so they railroaded him off the television. It was not the end of the world either.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

I can't think of a reason but it is no more a documentary then Der Ewige Jude or Triumph des Willens was.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

It has every right. Rephrase the question : should Moveon.org be allowed to campaign for John Kerry? Putting pressure on suppliers is a classic technique.

Looking at their website http://www.moveamericaforward.org/ I don't see anything about pressuring theaters. It does say that Moore's movie is full of lies and has a page dedicated to exposing them : * Factual inaccuracies of Moore's Film Debunked

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Is debate one-sided? Without an opposition, there is no debate.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
Every group out there thinks it is acting for someone's "own good". It happens all the time. Smoking and drunk driving are only two issues that are espoused by groups "for your own good". Should we get rid of them, too?

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?
Answering this question would delve too deeply into Moore's politics. Basically, the movie is rife with some blatant distortions and half truths (reference link above). Is a movie which is "documentary" supposed to be unbiased? I think most unsuspecting Americans might assume that.

I don't think it shouldn't be shown, but I do think the public needs to make an informed decision before it can decide whether or not this movie is worthy of spending their $8 (or whatever) on. Information is the key to a free society. Uninformed consumers are prone to making the wrong decision.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

No. Moore is free to make films, and MAF is free to try to pressure theaters into not showing thefilm.

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
It is an effort to stop a partisan film from getting a full release.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

Michael Moore swings from the side of the political aisle that I do (albeit much farther afield than I), so it is happening. Of course Disney has had more power in this than MAF. I think this is great for Moore and it would have been a good use of his growing fortune if he had been the one to launch the campaign to block his movie. No I will probably see it when I would likely not have watched it before.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

I don't know I haven't seen it. But I have yet to see a film that I thought should not be available to the general public. It's better than downloading beheading clips IMO.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

Force theaters? I would like to know their specific tactics. To ask theaters to not show the film or boycott ones that do show the film is an American right. If there are threats involved, then there is a crime being committed. The real question is WHY DON'T THEY WANT THIS FILM SHOWN? Is the truth THAT painful?

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Stifle? We ARE debating this aren't we? The Republican agenda does not include divulging the full truth. I can't imagine that EVERYTHING in the film will be an absolute fact, but I am sure that there will be some eye opening truths in it as well, and ones' own tolerance to the truth will determine what one thinks of the film. It is Micahael Moore, so view it with that perspective.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

These "pressure groups" fly in the face of freedom. I can't stand Rush L. I think he is a main reason that some american men are arrogant bastards. But you know what I do? I don't listen to him. Who am I to influence what is aired or viewed. I know the people in here that don't appreciate Moore, and they won't see the film. "For my own good"? If anyone thinks that they are doing something "For MY own good" they need to shoot themselves in the head cause that is the only good they can do for me. Who do they think they are? The perverbial Mother Hen?

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?
"Allowed to be viewed"? Did they add somethings to the Patriot Act while I was sleeping? Wouldn't surprise me. Allowed. I don't like that word one bit. It makes me think of Nazi Germany. We aren't headed in that direction are we?

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?
No group can force their will on another when it comes to the power of the consumer. Force is certainly the wrong term. Pressure is more apt, and it is their right to try and persuade the theaters from not showing the film. Though I think it is giving F 9/11 more publicity than it deserves, at least there are groups out there willing to expose Moore's half truths and fabrications.

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
I think I'm in agreement with most here, that we are debating the merits of the film here, and it's being debated in the press. MAF's tactics are no different that the left attempting to silence what they erroneously call 'hate radio'. I will disagree with Government Mule's use of wording here:


I would call it perception of the truth, instead of tolerance to the truth, as you are implying that Moore is factually correct by default.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
This already happens with the attempt to silence talk radio hosts. Demonization of the opposing point of view and labeling it 'hate radio' and 'nazi propaganda' is hardly constructive, but expected. I don't worry about too much though, as thinking people will not be gullible to bite that hook. Same with Moore supporters, if they think they are in the right,they should fight against attempts to coerce the theaters.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?
Baseless question, IMO. There is no reason the prevent people from spending their money to watch Moore in action again.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

MAF has chosen their methods, and I think they have a right to seek a boycott if that is what they desire to do. However, I highly doubt they will be very successful because the increased controversy will entice more people to see the film just to see what the buzz is about. The theaters that are currently showing the movie probably won't discontinue showing it because they are in major cities and the movie will undoubtedly be a money maker.

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?

Of course, but no different than efforts by some groups on the left to silence O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. In my opinion it is wrong no matter who is doing it.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

I would do everything that I could to fight it. Admittedly, as an individual that isn't much but you have to start somewhere. As far as this movie goes, I have taken the time to personally write letters to theaters NOT showing the movie, asking them to reconsider. I have also taken the time to write numerous letters to the FCC regarding their obscenity rally.

I have also personally convinced several friends who didn't plan to see the movie to at least watch it and decide for themselves, I'll be bringing a big group with me on Friday to see it.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

There is no reason why it shouldn't be viewed by the public, we have something in this country called the right to free speech. I suspect that this MAF group is opposing the movie for one of two reasons:
- The movie really does give the hard truth in some areas (assembled from public documents) and is dangerous to the Bush administration.
- The movie gives the illusion of credibility in some areas and would be highly believable by your average citizen, thus damaging the Bush administration.

No matter how you look at it, the movie is going to be damaging to the Bush administration and that is what this group wants to stop. Every single movie Michael Moore has ever put out has generated scores of web pages which try to debunk the "facts" he presents. I'm sure the same thing will happen with this movie.

The difference here is that for the first time the GOP is afraid of the public reaction. Moore's previous movies have been generally just as insulting and condeming of the Bush administration, but they have never reacted this way before. Bowling for Columbine had to be at least equally insulting, as did Dude Where's My Country. Even if you don't plan to see the movie, that has to give you pause.

Actually, the difference is night and day.

Conservatives encourage movie theaters not to show a movie through information.

Liberals force Rush Limbaugh off the air through government.

Instead of calling for radio stations to remove Rush off the air (which is a correct tactic in a free society), liberals try to use government to force him off (which is a tyrannical tactic).

Here are a couple of examples. First, liberals are calling for government to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio stations which would terminate much of conservative talk radio. And second, liberals are calling for government to force Rush off of the armed forces radio.

On the first example, I thought that the "fairness doctrine" had been dumped by the FCC. Either way, can you provide a link to a real news story about this (as opposed to an editorial or web blog)?

As to the second example, if Rush were a flaming liberal espousing political "truths" on a government-owned media station, would you want equal time there for your viewpoint? I certainly would, if I were you. And, if you couldn't get that equal time, wouldn't you want to get the flaming liberal off the air? Seems like a reasonable response, actually.

No, attacking the supply side is a technique that will have a greater effect. Just because its factually inaccurate doesn't mean a move-goer will be persuaded not to see it. They can prevent everyone from seeing it, though, if they simply shut down the theaters.

Theaters can cave into this kind of pressure because they think it will have long term ramifications. So, its more than just a boycott of the movie. Many will call in saying "I will never go to your theater again if you show this movie."

Politics is a tough game. People are more interested in winning than having open opinions.

Well, that type of pressure is pretty hard to exert on a radio station. Saying "I will never listen to this radio station again" is a pretty empty threat primarily because the station doesn't get its money directly from the consumer.

You'll hear many justify it because its factually incorrect, liberal, etc. What it boils down to, though, is that the movies bad for Bush and people fighting against Moore want Bush to win. Not a good enough reason, in my view, to not show the film.

In my personal handbook of should's and ought's, it is probably the more effective ploy, but it's not a nice thing to do.


Debate and dissension with the Bush administration, yes.


It would (and does) anger me. As has been brought up before, it's different with radio because listeners don't directly pay for the programming.

As a movie theatre owner, I would have to carefully consider the demographic that most frequently attends, and make a decision. Or I might just get on my high horse and say, To hell with the special interest groups, I'll show what I want. It's good to have a spine.


It should be allowed to be viewed by the general public. To fault Fahrenheit 911 for its inaccuracies for maximum political impact, one also needs to take into account the innaccuracies put forth about John Kerry in the Republican campaign commercials shown nationwide.

It's always wrong to pull things out of context in order to gain political advantage. But you know what? I don't know where Willie Horton is these days or whether he is still alive, but I remember how the Bush I for President campaign used him to discredit Michael Dukakis.

In this case, Michael Moore's portrayal of Bush and his administration is a good counterbalance for the skewed portrayals of Kerry by the Republicans in their attempts to discredit him.

What's "sauce" for the Donkey is "sauce" for the Elephant.

Wait a minute - Wasn't John Kerry the Lt. Gov under Dukakis? Maybe the Bushies can run the same Willie Horton ad again this October!

On-topic question - as it is clear that one of the motivations for this release is to affect the election, should Michael Moore be obliged to accept Republican advertising on the DVD release. Since the DVD will be advertised on TV during the McCain-Feingold period where you can't mention a candidate's name, this seems a brilliant democratic strategy. Would declining this advertising be censorship? What about movie theaters during the theatrical run - can they accept political ads on the big screen? Is MoveOn going to run their ads in cinema?

Moore isn't endorsing a candidate, I doubt McCain-Feingold would apply. News articles written in the paper which critisize Kerry or Bush are not obligated to mention the other candidate, this would be no different.

Edited to add: I highly doubt there will be a DVD version ready before the election (unless they are working feverishly on it right now).

Those look like good questions for a separate thread, carlitoswhey.

As to your question about Kerry being affected by the Willie Horton matter and the feasibility of using it, this time against Kerry; I think that years of analysis and the realization by the Democrats that it was also tapping into racist fears (and I'm sure Democrats would use that to counter any Republican attempt to re-use it), would make it a poor plan.

In addition, I am sure that similiar cases in Texas during Bush's term as governor could be dredged up in order to make him look bad, too. But that would be tit for tat and I would hope that the DNC would not consider it necessary to do that.

As far as sponsorship on a DVD for Michael Moore's film goes, who knows?

This sounds like a fascinating new portrayal of the Republican party. I can envision the political cartoon:

Karl Rove is dressed in armor, riding an elephant labeled "Move America Forward," and holding a bent lance aimed at a windmill with a marquee reading, "Now showing: Fahrenheit 911"

Questions for debate:

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

I hope that Republicans try to keep pressure on to make this movie controversial. There is something about "forbidden fruit" that is some of the best advertising in the world.

One of the most effective Democratic Presidential campaign ads going right now shows George W. Bush in a photo op on a golf course calling on all nations to help fight terrorism, and finishes with a very relaxed Dubya saying "Now watch this swing." Oh wait, that's the news broadcast that keeps looping, telling us why this movie is controversial.

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?

Does Karl Rove think that he has Republican values?

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

Left to my own devices, it costs me about $40 - 50 for tickets, popcorn, soda, etc. to see a first run movie. For that kind of money, I normally want to see the special effects that simply demand that I see it on the big screen. This movie, according to some reviews consists mostly of clips from the news. I might have planned on renting it when it got to the video stores. I think on general principles, I'll plan on being at the theater early on Friday to vote with my wallet. I'd like to see this go to the top of the money list this weekend. It would be great if Republicans would flock to the theaters as well, so they will know what they have to argue against in the lunchrooms on Monday.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

Because this is a free nation!

Look no further than the platform for the Democrat party:

http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html


We already have flaming liberals on government owned media. It's called NPR (which is also carried on AFR). Besides, the liberals I'm talking about aren't calling for Armed Forces Radio to carry Air America to balance things out, they're trying to force Rush from AFR entirely.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?
Hmm. I' inclined to think that it would backfire rather badly. For example, if I say to you "do NOT, under ANY circumstances, think of an elephant" - what animal are you thinking of? My guess is that more tha 80% of people will be thinking of large grey pachyderms, rather than some theoretical non-elephant.
As the old adage goes, all publicity is good publicity, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of the film itself and of Michael Moore himself, all this Republican huffing and puffing is doing the same job for Fahrenheit 451 as the Church did for Monty Python's Life of Brian - planting the seed that people should go see it to find out what all the fuss is about.

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Yes, but I think it will be counter productive, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
It would make me more determined to find a way to see or hear it.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?
There is no reason at all why anyone should not see this or any other movie. Provided it fits legal parameters (i.e. no person or animal was intentionally hurt to make it) then it's fair game to show it. The film's success or failure depends not on press and media controversy, but on how many popcorn eaters sit in the dark to watch it.

As I've said, I can't help but think that all the fuss the right wing is making about the film will only help to stuff Moore's wallet even more than it already will be.

As someone who is generally sympathetic to Moore's point of view, that doesn't bother me at all, but maybe someone in the Republican party should wake up and smell the proverbial coffee before they outrage themselves out of office.

All true. My tongue was planted firmly in cheek with the Willie Horton suggestion, although it is ironic. Apologies.



This was my point - McCain-Feingold would NOT apply to an advertisement for a 'documentary' but the producers would be able to show TV ads for the movie again in October, depicting Bush in a negative light. Under McCain Feingold, PACs would be precluded from doing so at this time, but a movie ad is different. Even if the release was for December, they could still advertise an upcoming release. Add to this the fact that the DMC plan on purchasing millions of dollars worth of the DVDs, and you have an ingenious way to circumvent the campaign finance law.

So is it a problem because the GOP didn't think of it first and it is being used against them?

I'll take one DVD release to the GOP's push polling tactics.

Besides, Bush is having no trouble being depicted in a negative light even without the movie release. His poll numbers are already low and the movie isn't even out yet.

I didn't say it was a problem, I said it was ingenious.

I think MAF ought to ask its grassroots support what to do. It'll be the sound of one hand clapping, the right one.



Nope. It's an effort to shut someone up. Oh wait, same thing. Okay, yep.



No, I'd be ticked off no matter if the voice being stifled was someone with whom I agreed or not. Free speech is important, even if I might think the speech is of a very low quality and level.



Why should it *not* be allowed to be viewed? I guess to save us from the overly influential Moore? Because he wants GWB to lose the election? Shoot, I don't know. This is a question for MAF. Maybe because the organizers of MAF have Repub government jobs? Defense contractors? Eh, whatever it is, it has to be self-serving (IMO )

I know the aweful left has been brought up as trying to stifle the yammerings of right-wing lapdogs, but hey, that doesn't justify anything (even if actually true).

Free speech is free speech. And that is a circular argument. Let's try again: Free speech is a right we need to protect from the likes of MAF *and* pushy liberals (should they actually appear).

Personally, I don't need to see Moore's film to figure out what to do in November. Never did. But it'll be a hoot to see on video, even if after the election. I like Moore's humor, much like many appreciate Limbaugh's humor but don't necessarily agree 100%. I've even gotten a few chuckles from the oh so wise and powerful Oz dude.

Well, I guess it wasn't a completely far-fetched notion. Another group, this one called Citizens United, a Republican-funded 527 organization, has petitioned the FEC to prevent the movie from advertising per the McCain-Feingold rules 90 days before the election. Wasn't me - honest!

Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped on July 30

not when those people resort to death threats against movie theater owners. that is terrorism. telling people that you don't like the movie and reasons why is one thing, but telling them if they show the movie you will kill them is quite another.



1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?


no, these people supposedly stand for the principles of america, one of those, perhaps the biggest one, is freedom of speech. freedom of speech means being able to express opinions and views that are not popular with you. using rush as an example, rather then try and get him kicked off the air, I try to show he is a bigoted, arrogant blowhard. I try to show that he lies and distorts the truth. I then let people decide for themselves if they still listen to him. MAF should try to do the same. some of moore's tactics are slightly underhanded from what I understand. (such as his ambush of heston) MAF should present the facts and let people decide for themselves to see this movie. instead they are using naziesque tactics. anyone that questions bush to them is un-american and a terrorist.

oh yeah, you know who else banned a movie "for the countries own good"? hitler. he banned gone with the wind because he was concerned the war scenes might make the germans not give their all to the war effort.

2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?


that is all this is. the "non-partisan, grass-roots organization" is composed of die hard republicans. Howard Kaloogian, their chairman, lead the drive to recall gray davis, is head of the defend reagan committee and was the head of the group that got the "reagans" miniseries pulled. he was also a Republican Member of the California State Assembly from 1994-2000. Melanie Morgan, Vice Chairman, has established herself as one of the leading conservative voices in the nation. When President Clinton engaged in a series of criminal acts and then tried to use his Administration to cover it up, Morgan rose up and led thousands to the streets to demand Clinton’s impeachment. and it goes on like that. (http://www.moveamericaforward.org/?Page=AboutUs)

it is not unreasonable to think these people support bush in everything he does, and that they don't like any criticism of their supreme leader. (see will stifle any and all criticism) they can't stand to have people possibly learn the truth about the bush adminstration as that WILL lead to his getting voted out of office, at least (hopefully it leads to his impeachment)

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

I would be angry as heck. I would not stand by and let it just happen.

4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?


for several reasons. (a) we live in a supposedly FREE society, where one can express opinions whether they are popular or not. ( because the media is not doing it's job. this is evidenced by the mere existence of this movie. it is the job of the media to ask the tough questions of our government. the video of bush reading about goats while he KNEW america was under attack should have been shown on every tv station for a week at least. the media should then have been calling for his impeachment for criminal negligence for not doing his job (he should have stood up, said" I'm sorry, I have an emergency I MUST deal with, I have to leave" immediately upon learning of the second plane hitting)

as for the FEC not allowing this. first, my opinion on mccain-feingold is that it should not exist. it is a violation of the first amendment. second, if the first trailer is banned from TV, I see moore making a new advertisment for the movie.

This may be a tad off topic, but I wanted to add something to unabomber's comment.

This is from a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the movie which I believe drives his point home.

From The Naples Daily News.....

I just watched Michael Moore on the Daily Show on the comedy channel. Man, the guy tells it like it is- Jon Stewart asked him "is this fair" and Michael said "no, it is not, it is me presenting the facts and then putting my opinion on what these facts mean". He also said "My God, if there are any more right wing groups that want to attack my movie, please do it, you are all on my Christmas list this year," AS Jon Stewart noticed that the more these conservatives tried to stifle his film and keep it from being seen, the more buzz this thing gets, and it will no doubt be the biggest selling and biggest money making documentary of all time, many times over, and anticipated lines at the theater!

The trailer for the movie is great- GW talking about the sacrifice needed to combat terrorism- then says "now watch me drive this one boys" from his month long vacation.

I probably would not have taken the time from my day to watch this at the theatre- instead would wait for video- now me and several of my friends are going to make a party of it. So at 8.50 a ticket for probably 20 of us, Michael Moore is able to give the finger to conservatives- life is great!


I think it was an obvious and blatant attempt to keep poeple from dissension against our republican run goverment, but it has backfired very badly.

Crusing Ram

I listened to an interview with Moore on Swedish TV the other day, and he also made it clear then that this was not really a documentary. He called it a commentary which merely represented the truth, as he saw it..

I don't much like moore, but I shall certainly see this film... when it comes out on DVD. I'm not going to make a day out tot he flicks to see a commentary by a man who's opinions are much the same as my own any way. A cinema is where I go to be entertained not lectured.


1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

They should not try anything of the sort. In a free society people have the right to make and watch any film they like. Its not for some outsiders to come along and interfere.


2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?

Yep.


3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

Nope. I would be very vocal about it. I can't say that we have such radio shows in Denmark though except for the neo nazi's, they used to have a small radio station that got shut down for making racist remarks...

If such a radio station which wasn't making racist remarks though, one run by the conservative youth party say, got shut down, then even though I'm not a conservative, I'd still protest its closure on the basis that every one has a right to promote their opinions, and every one else has the right to listen, or not to listen.


4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

Unless it were breaking some law then there is no reason at all why anyone should not see this movie.


editted to use the spell checker

CR, do you suppose the symbolism of that clip regarding golf carries a lot of emotional weight with average folks -- those who can't afford country club memberships? Can't afford to play golf? Got screwed by those who can over the past, what -- 4, 5, 6 or more years?

I think so. Shoot, I feel it. It makes me very angry. It's a rubbing of noses of hard working, honest people in the manuer of self-indulgent, money-grubbing [expletive string deleted] [expletive nouns deleted] [sailor-inspired expletive adjectives, verbs and qualifiers deleted] [sputters and spits deleted] [agonizing groans of defeat withheld] [fade to angst].

So maybe the FEC is right in restricting this image and sound from the voting public? I know Moore's work very well, and although I'd be standing and cheering in a movie theatre at times, probably, I also know that Moore's mastery of delivering the bombshells is greater than anything the right side of things have.

I can agree that TV and radio should be restricted for this particular scene, but not theatres. People pay good money to see films, and the film itself should not be restricted.

Now I expect to see a counter film from MAF depicting the virtues of golf.



And maybe the pregnant seven minutes of a Deer in the Headlamps. (Heh, I can be self-promoting too.)

You know, just as a side note, I've noticed the right wing shrillness and absolutely inane accusations along with grandious and obviously inflated claims coming out (ala Coulter). They're losing the propaganda war. It shows.

And like a prehistoric mastadon caught in the tar pits, their struggles to regain what was once held (solid ground) only makes the whole thing sink deeper.

Eh, it was bound to happen. So whack that little white ball, boys. Whack it to kingdom come. The rest of us will make darn sure our chads are fully punched.

In regards to your first statement, is it not different to appeal to the movie theater owner than the movie theater customer? The first has a heck of a lot of power over whether or not the customer can attend a showing of a given movie in the first place. If Laissez-faire theory is at all credible, the GOP would attempt to sway the feelings of the customer and let the customer(who is the "invisible hand" of the economy mind you) to get this film killed.

In regards to your second statement, does the "fairness doctrine" apply to private as well as public radio? A more comparable example of fairness would be to include Air America Radio on the AFR since it is exclusively political talk. NPR isn't "liberal" compared to the AAR by any means. I doubt it's truly even "liberal," look at the format-40% of the time, they play classical music. Mix in car talk, wait,wait don't tell me, Garrison Keillor's hokey theater-acting show, Juan Williams appearing on Fox news sunday morning, and you hardly have a flame-throwing liberal attack-dog, talk network. Morning edition? If that's liberal attack radio, you conservatives have it easy. Especially in light of a recent study that showed moderate to conservatives guests woefully outnumbering "liberal" ones(i.e.-Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc.) You have some interesting viewpoints deerjerkydave, I would encourage you to visit my thread: Is NPR truly liberal? under the debate listing of media.

1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?

Theaters are out to make money, and playing a film is not an endorsement of the message in the film. No theater in their right mind would begin to book films according to their personal beliefs, for soon they would find themselves with very little product and very few customers. I don't think boycotting a film at any level works, it only makes those against a film more vocal and those for it more determined to see it. And any phone call or letter about a film (whether for or against) shows theaters that there is some interest in a film, so pressuring theaters against screening something will always backfire.


2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?

That may be the intent, but I think it will end up stirring up more debate and only increase that ever important weekend gross fo the film.

3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?

It would make me more likely to pay attention to the program being attacked and ask why the opposition wants it shut down so bad. If the show is full of nothing but lies, why are they so worked up about it? If there is no truth to the topics being raised, why not just allow the lies to reveal themselves and let it die by itself?


4.)Why should Fahrenheit-911 not be allowed to be viewed by the general public?

No reason at all.

Is moveon.org trying to pressure businesses into not helping Bush in some way? Are they trying to ban the first amendment somehow? That's the only way that I could think that it would be a legitimate comparison.