Forums > Social Discussion > Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 vs Disney
Login/Join to ParticipateDIAMOND Member
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
****NEWSFLASH**** ****NEWSFLASH****
announced yesterday:
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11 Micheal Moores latest film.
https://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php
Its shortlisted for Cannes in a week or two. I'm looking forward to seeing this one.
It discusses the Bush/Bin Laden family ties.
In other news, yesterday Bush went on arabic TV to discuss the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners by US troops - and did NOT apologise.
The white House issued a "bush really is sorry, he just forgot to mention it" statement this morning a bit too late.
EDITED_BY: GlĂĽss (1083855439)
****NEWSFLASH**** ****NEWSFLASH****
announced yesterday:
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11 Micheal Moores latest film.
https://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php
Its shortlisted for Cannes in a week or two. I'm looking forward to seeing this one.
It discusses the Bush/Bin Laden family ties.
In other news, yesterday Bush went on arabic TV to discuss the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners by US troops - and did NOT apologise.
The white House issued a "bush really is sorry, he just forgot to mention it" statement this morning a bit too late.
EDITED_BY: GlĂĽss (1083855439)
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
i would like to see that too!
i would like to see that too!
Clubbles Jugs
1,687 posts
Location: Manchester
1,687 posts
Location: Manchester
Posted:
Yes I'm looking forward to Farenheit 911 too. I read on the BBC website that Disney (and in turn Miramax) were against any 'adult' films being released under their name. But then Pulp Fiction was released under Miramax/Disney and look how successful that was.
Yes I'm looking forward to Farenheit 911 too. I read on the BBC website that Disney (and in turn Miramax) were against any 'adult' films being released under their name. But then Pulp Fiction was released under Miramax/Disney and look how successful that was.
ah wah wah wah a wah wah
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
disney
bush
idiots the lot of them!
Mike will get his way I'm sure, I can't wait to see it released he's an investigative genius!
disney bush idiots the lot of them!Mike will get his way I'm sure, I can't wait to see it released he's an investigative genius!
Let's relight this forum 
GOLD Member
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posted:
there are obviously greater powers at play here, it is election year in the states after all. could his film contain information that could really damage bush's chances at re-election? probably. and the problem this time is that his film/docu will reach a wider audience than the last time, given his oscar win and recognition.
various disney names have been listed throughout the years on 'bilderberg group' guest lists.....
there are obviously greater powers at play here, it is election year in the states after all. could his film contain information that could really damage bush's chances at re-election? probably. and the problem this time is that his film/docu will reach a wider audience than the last time, given his oscar win and recognition.
various disney names have been listed throughout the years on 'bilderberg group' guest lists.....
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely 
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
according to mm's email newsletter thingy, miramax have been really suppourtive of the film (they did produce it after all), it's just disney - they've prohibited miramax from distributing it.
it also said:
Quote:
I read on the BBC website that Disney (and in turn Miramax) were against any 'adult' films being released under their name.
according to mm's email newsletter thingy, miramax have been really suppourtive of the film (they did produce it after all), it's just disney - they've prohibited miramax from distributing it.
it also said:
Quote:
According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
I interview, Moore say :
I interview, Moore say :
Quote:
"At some point the question has to be asked, `Should
this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots
regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Micheal Moore,
that is really all I have to say about him. Everyone knows that Bush has screwed up and done some really stupid things, but in my opinion Moore is the paperatzi of the political world. His "investigative" skills are borderline invasion of privacy at times. I personally don't care what a private company does or doesn't do with the crapola that he produces and calls it a movie.
Ohh and to settle the Miramax/Disney adult movie thing, I enter in to evidence the push-up bra wearing pocahantis, the scantly clad little mirmade and the entire weed, dick and fart jokes that Miramax made with the comic genious Kevin Smith (no sarchasim I really like all the View Askew movies, they are just definatly not for kids). 
Micheal Moore,
that is really all I have to say about him. Everyone knows that Bush has screwed up and done some really stupid things, but in my opinion Moore is the paperatzi of the political world. His "investigative" skills are borderline invasion of privacy at times. I personally don't care what a private company does or doesn't do with the crapola that he produces and calls it a movie. Ohh and to settle the Miramax/Disney adult movie thing, I enter in to evidence the push-up bra wearing pocahantis, the scantly clad little mirmade and the entire weed, dick and fart jokes that Miramax made with the comic genious Kevin Smith (no sarchasim I really like all the View Askew movies, they are just definatly not for kids). member
33 posts
Location: Stoke-on-Trent (England)
33 posts
Location: Stoke-on-Trent (England)
Posted:
Havin read a fair few of MM's book, he begins to get annoyin after a while. But if its the only way the general public get to hear bout the governments wrongs then fair nuff.
But yeh, he does seem like paparazzi (spelling???) at times.
Havin read a fair few of MM's book, he begins to get annoyin after a while. But if its the only way the general public get to hear bout the governments wrongs then fair nuff.
But yeh, he does seem like paparazzi (spelling???) at times.
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
also, in who framed roger rabbit - jessica rabbit flashes when she crosses her legs, and she's got no knickers on!!
also, in who framed roger rabbit - jessica rabbit flashes when she crosses her legs, and she's got no knickers on!!
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
member
15 posts
15 posts
Posted:
I agree with Hobbitboy, MM does rant on about things and then slightly miss the point, but he does bring a lot of attention to issues which most of the mainstream media in the US flatly ignore.
Does anyone know if he has the right to take the film to another distributor? Or can Disney stop it from ever being released? I haven't been able to establish this from what I've read so far, and is a very important poin for anyone who brings up the 'free speech' argument.
Either way, it's a lot of publicity for what should be a very interesting film.
I agree with Hobbitboy, MM does rant on about things and then slightly miss the point, but he does bring a lot of attention to issues which most of the mainstream media in the US flatly ignore.
Does anyone know if he has the right to take the film to another distributor? Or can Disney stop it from ever being released? I haven't been able to establish this from what I've read so far, and is a very important poin for anyone who brings up the 'free speech' argument.
Either way, it's a lot of publicity for what should be a very interesting film.
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
I borderline despise moore. He misrepresents a lot of things, and he also seems to blow with the wind, do a search for some conservative-right wing sites bashing more and see the quotes (as biased as these pages are, the quotes are factual and even in context it still makes him look horrible)
where he flops around like a fish in a sushi kitchen. But he does make good points aswell, and he brings a lot of issues to the mainstream which wouldn't be there otherwise. He has a lot of talent and I just wish he would use it better.
As far as the disney thing goes, I think it serves him right. What did he expect when he goes in bed with disney? It's pretty much in the open that they have done things like this in the past. There are other people who can get his films distrubuted that don't have nearly as much to lose as disney, he of all people should have known better. Atleast if his piercing journalistic skills are half of what they seem to be.
I borderline despise moore. He misrepresents a lot of things, and he also seems to blow with the wind, do a search for some conservative-right wing sites bashing more and see the quotes (as biased as these pages are, the quotes are factual and even in context it still makes him look horrible)
where he flops around like a fish in a sushi kitchen. But he does make good points aswell, and he brings a lot of issues to the mainstream which wouldn't be there otherwise. He has a lot of talent and I just wish he would use it better.
As far as the disney thing goes, I think it serves him right. What did he expect when he goes in bed with disney? It's pretty much in the open that they have done things like this in the past. There are other people who can get his films distrubuted that don't have nearly as much to lose as disney, he of all people should have known better. Atleast if his piercing journalistic skills are half of what they seem to be.
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
What you have to realize is that we are in the middle of yet another major anti-growth spurt as far as our personal liberties are concerned.
For example, Howard Stern criticizes Bush, the NEXT DAY, he was suspended and his network fined $900,000. His show was no more 'offensive' than any show he's done in the last 20 years...
A movie criticizing Bush cannot be released, not because of graphic violence or subject matter or nudity or even hateful idealism. It's because it critcizes Bush. What does that tell us?
People refer to censorship tactics like this as 'Orwellian' in the media, often with a slightly sarcastic undertone. But George Orwell's greatest fears are fast becoming a reality. Personal liberty is fading fast. Government wants to know more about us, and wants us to know less about them. I hate to bash Bush again, (well, not really) but he's such a great example...He recently had to testify before the 9/11 Commission in D.C. just like everyone else involved. Unlike everyone else, his testimony was unrecorded, behind closed doors, and he was not alone, he had his lap dog next to him the whole time as backup. He's either very secretive or very incompetant. We don't have access to his full military records, his full medical records, criminal transgressions, personal finances....all we've got are his grade school attendance records.
Now, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and I know the Patriot Act doesn't really make us one iota safer, but I know when there's too much government. And that's exactly what we have.
What you have to realize is that we are in the middle of yet another major anti-growth spurt as far as our personal liberties are concerned.
For example, Howard Stern criticizes Bush, the NEXT DAY, he was suspended and his network fined $900,000. His show was no more 'offensive' than any show he's done in the last 20 years...
A movie criticizing Bush cannot be released, not because of graphic violence or subject matter or nudity or even hateful idealism. It's because it critcizes Bush. What does that tell us?
People refer to censorship tactics like this as 'Orwellian' in the media, often with a slightly sarcastic undertone. But George Orwell's greatest fears are fast becoming a reality. Personal liberty is fading fast. Government wants to know more about us, and wants us to know less about them. I hate to bash Bush again, (well, not really) but he's such a great example...He recently had to testify before the 9/11 Commission in D.C. just like everyone else involved. Unlike everyone else, his testimony was unrecorded, behind closed doors, and he was not alone, he had his lap dog next to him the whole time as backup. He's either very secretive or very incompetant. We don't have access to his full military records, his full medical records, criminal transgressions, personal finances....all we've got are his grade school attendance records.
Now, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and I know the Patriot Act doesn't really make us one iota safer, but I know when there's too much government. And that's exactly what we have.
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I agree with robotface. While I agree with Moore's politics, I'd hate to have him do a movie on me. He can make anyone look like a monster.
I agree with robotface. While I agree with Moore's politics, I'd hate to have him do a movie on me. He can make anyone look like a monster.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
I agree our civil leberties are under siege, but I don't see this as a particullary good example. Disney will always pull stunts like this and they always have when it served them well enough to do so. This kind of dirty politics aren't new, and they date back throughout history. It's the nature of having a private media. The alternative is a state controlled media, which I don't see as being any better. You can pretty much assume that 8 times out of 10 big companies will always do what serves them best, and 8 times out of 10 big politicians will always do what serves them best. Bush is doing this, and so would any other president with their presidency at stake. Rather they sit on the right, left, center, up or down. It's not bush which is evil in this case, it's the heart of men.
And like I said, Moore could have his film published easily if he used a bit of common sense and gone to LA to have it produced and distributed. It's his own fault. Unfortunatly I think moore is a bit greedy, and disney probably offered him a pretty nice deal. Which doesn't jive very well with his crusade agaisn't greed.
I agree our civil leberties are under siege, but I don't see this as a particullary good example. Disney will always pull stunts like this and they always have when it served them well enough to do so. This kind of dirty politics aren't new, and they date back throughout history. It's the nature of having a private media. The alternative is a state controlled media, which I don't see as being any better. You can pretty much assume that 8 times out of 10 big companies will always do what serves them best, and 8 times out of 10 big politicians will always do what serves them best. Bush is doing this, and so would any other president with their presidency at stake. Rather they sit on the right, left, center, up or down. It's not bush which is evil in this case, it's the heart of men.
And like I said, Moore could have his film published easily if he used a bit of common sense and gone to LA to have it produced and distributed. It's his own fault. Unfortunatly I think moore is a bit greedy, and disney probably offered him a pretty nice deal. Which doesn't jive very well with his crusade agaisn't greed.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
From what I've heard on the news, Moore can find other distributors. And apparently, they're knocking down his door for the privelage of distributing. It might take a bit longer, but I'm sure this movie will come out. I'm sure it's a win-win for disney and Moore. Moore gets publicity and Disney dodges controversy.
The real question is: Why would Disney be stupid enough to let the project even start?! Did they think Moore would be making the Little Mermaid 2?
From what I've heard on the news, Moore can find other distributors. And apparently, they're knocking down his door for the privelage of distributing. It might take a bit longer, but I'm sure this movie will come out. I'm sure it's a win-win for disney and Moore. Moore gets publicity and Disney dodges controversy.
The real question is: Why would Disney be stupid enough to let the project even start?! Did they think Moore would be making the Little Mermaid 2?
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Of course not, its all ready been made... duh
Of course not, its all ready been made... duh
member
190 posts
190 posts
Posted:
Good point, I guess they are both stupid, unless this is some crazy masterplan by moore to win publicity. I tend to avoid subscribing to masterplans though. Unless they are really funny.
Quote:
The real question is: Why would Disney be stupid enough to let the project even start?! Did they think Moore would be making the Little Mermaid 2?
Good point, I guess they are both stupid, unless this is some crazy masterplan by moore to win publicity. I tend to avoid subscribing to masterplans though. Unless they are really funny.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Prometheus, Howerd Stern was suspended because someone used the N word on his show. Not because he bashed Bush.
Bush's testimony was also not under oath, so why bother recording it? It was informal at best. Also if the 9/11 commishion was happy with what was said, why record it. It isnt like it could be used as evidence for or against him now is it?
While granted some historian at Georgia (Tech I believe not sure though) is upset that not recording the testimony prevents it from being enterd into a log for the important phase that our country is going through, it really doesn't matter, because a lot of stuff isnt recorded.
Is Bush's past public domaine? I would like to think that everyone including the president, no matter who they are can keep their past as secretive or open as they would want. I am no angel but since when do you (being anyone) have the right to know about me? And visa versa.
Prometheus, Howerd Stern was suspended because someone used the N word on his show. Not because he bashed Bush.
Bush's testimony was also not under oath, so why bother recording it? It was informal at best. Also if the 9/11 commishion was happy with what was said, why record it. It isnt like it could be used as evidence for or against him now is it?
While granted some historian at Georgia (Tech I believe not sure though) is upset that not recording the testimony prevents it from being enterd into a log for the important phase that our country is going through, it really doesn't matter, because a lot of stuff isnt recorded.
Is Bush's past public domaine? I would like to think that everyone including the president, no matter who they are can keep their past as secretive or open as they would want. I am no angel but since when do you (being anyone) have the right to know about me? And visa versa.
member
33 posts
Location: Stoke-on-Trent (England)
33 posts
Location: Stoke-on-Trent (England)
Posted:
For other good "political"/social books, other than Mr Moore
No Logo - Naomi Klein
Fast Food NAtion- David Schloesser (suthin like that)
Globilisation & its discontents - cant remember its author.....
my mind goes blank after those 3. & i cant b bothered walk up stairs look @ my book case.
For other good "political"/social books, other than Mr Moore
No Logo - Naomi Klein
Fast Food NAtion- David Schloesser (suthin like that)
Globilisation & its discontents - cant remember its author.....
my mind goes blank after those 3. & i cant b bothered walk up stairs look @ my book case.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
The sad part that I can't get past is how ignorant of this kind of thing people seem to be. Most people either are either unaware or don't care.
This [censored] is really hitting home with me recently. The most amazing thing to me is that "bad" people have so successfully made "good" people out to look bad. I use quotes because I mean in the typical sense of the word in the form of personal qualities as purveyed by most religions.
IE
"Bad" being - greed, wealth (camel, eye of needle), arrogance. Profit before all else.
"Good" being - compasion, charity. People who stand up for those we're screwing over. Protest against the wrongs of the world for profit.
Somehow the average person looks at the "bad" as being good. Bush really thinks he's on God's side. People who protest are vilanised....stupid hippys get a job. The good people working for the side of love and equality are belittled.
I think that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he was good, not that he didn't exist.
Sorry I tangented a bit and I'm not trying to call Moore an angel, I'm just an angry young man who doesn't know what to do.
Quote:
You can pretty much assume that 8 times out of 10 big companies will always do what serves them best, and 8 times out of 10 big politicians will always do what serves them best. Bush is doing this, and so would any other president with their presidency at stake
The sad part that I can't get past is how ignorant of this kind of thing people seem to be. Most people either are either unaware or don't care.
This [censored] is really hitting home with me recently. The most amazing thing to me is that "bad" people have so successfully made "good" people out to look bad. I use quotes because I mean in the typical sense of the word in the form of personal qualities as purveyed by most religions.
IE
"Bad" being - greed, wealth (camel, eye of needle), arrogance. Profit before all else.
"Good" being - compasion, charity. People who stand up for those we're screwing over. Protest against the wrongs of the world for profit.
Somehow the average person looks at the "bad" as being good. Bush really thinks he's on God's side. People who protest are vilanised....stupid hippys get a job. The good people working for the side of love and equality are belittled.
I think that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he was good, not that he didn't exist.
Sorry I tangented a bit and I'm not trying to call Moore an angel, I'm just an angry young man who doesn't know what to do.
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
382 posts
Location: In Ger Land, India
enthusiast
382 posts
Location: In Ger Land, India
Posted:
Hmmmm
So in an interview with CNN, Michael Moore admitted
"Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."
This does not justify Disneys decision, but it shows Mr Moore knows how to use publicity.
Maybe he's taking a 'if you can't beat them join them' approach, but it seems a bit fishy to me
Hmmmm
So in an interview with CNN, Michael Moore admitted
"Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."
This does not justify Disneys decision, but it shows Mr Moore knows how to use publicity.
Maybe he's taking a 'if you can't beat them join them' approach, but it seems a bit fishy to me
Some things you have to see to believe, but
Some things you have to believe in to see.
GOLD Member
still can't believe it's not butter
6,978 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
still can't believe it's not butter
6,978 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
any publicity is good publicity - this film will be impeded but it not be stopped.
any publicity is good publicity - this film will be impeded but it not be stopped.
Laugh Often, Smile Much, Post lolcats Always
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
Burzaruka, Stern has used that word a number of times and escaped fines. More often than not, its his guests using it. He was fined the day after a tirade about Bush and his politics.
And as far as Bush goes, if anyone's testimony about 9/11 mattered, I should hope the President would be on the list, somewhere in the top 5. He should have been under oath, like everyone else, questioned publically, like everyone else, and held accountable for his actions (or inaction), just like everyone else. There's nothing informal about these 'commissions' either. Otherwise, everyone whould show up in a t-shirt & jeans. These are serious sessions, and if you've been called into one, there's no room for levity or casual attitudes.
I'm all for personal privacy, but the whole point of social order is that you have to sompromise, otherwise you have an anarchy. For instance, we don't sell guns to convicted criminals. We don't give loans to people who never pay back their bills. We don't let child-molesters run daycare centers. A certain amount of information about any given person's past should be available for public scrutiny to preserve the safety and well-being of others. BUt if that's not good enough reason, consider this: The government has access to EVRYTHING about my personal life. They can track who I call on the phone, what books I take out of the library, what internet sites I vist, where I shop and what I buy, and because Americans panic easily, we now have the Patriot Act, which not only is absurdly names, but allows police and government agencies to physically invade my home, car, whatever, all without probable cause. Why can't we have access to something as trivial as a service record? I agree that it's an unimportant document, but if he's willing to keep irrelvant hings hidden, what else can we assume?
Burzaruka, Stern has used that word a number of times and escaped fines. More often than not, its his guests using it. He was fined the day after a tirade about Bush and his politics.
And as far as Bush goes, if anyone's testimony about 9/11 mattered, I should hope the President would be on the list, somewhere in the top 5. He should have been under oath, like everyone else, questioned publically, like everyone else, and held accountable for his actions (or inaction), just like everyone else. There's nothing informal about these 'commissions' either. Otherwise, everyone whould show up in a t-shirt & jeans. These are serious sessions, and if you've been called into one, there's no room for levity or casual attitudes.
I'm all for personal privacy, but the whole point of social order is that you have to sompromise, otherwise you have an anarchy. For instance, we don't sell guns to convicted criminals. We don't give loans to people who never pay back their bills. We don't let child-molesters run daycare centers. A certain amount of information about any given person's past should be available for public scrutiny to preserve the safety and well-being of others. BUt if that's not good enough reason, consider this: The government has access to EVRYTHING about my personal life. They can track who I call on the phone, what books I take out of the library, what internet sites I vist, where I shop and what I buy, and because Americans panic easily, we now have the Patriot Act, which not only is absurdly names, but allows police and government agencies to physically invade my home, car, whatever, all without probable cause. Why can't we have access to something as trivial as a service record? I agree that it's an unimportant document, but if he's willing to keep irrelvant hings hidden, what else can we assume?
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
Diamond In The Rough
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
459 posts
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posted:
Burzaruka, Stern has used that word a number of times and escaped fines. More often than not, its his guests using it. He was fined the day after a tirade about Bush and his politics.
And as far as Bush goes, if anyone's testimony about 9/11 mattered, I should hope the President would be on the list, somewhere in the top 5. He should have been under oath, like everyone else, questioned publically, like everyone else, and held accountable for his actions (or inaction), just like everyone else. There's nothing informal about these 'commissions' either. Otherwise, everyone whould show up in a t-shirt & jeans. These are serious sessions, and if you've been called into one, there's no room for levity or casual attitudes.
I'm all for personal privacy, but the whole point of social order is that you have to sompromise, otherwise you have an anarchy. For instance, we don't sell guns to convicted criminals. We don't give loans to people who never pay back their bills. We don't let child-molesters run daycare centers. A certain amount of information about any given person's past should be available for public scrutiny to preserve the safety and well-being of others. BUt if that's not good enough reason, consider this: The government has access to EVRYTHING about my personal life. They can track who I call on the phone, what books I take out of the library, what internet sites I visit, where I shop and what I buy, and because Americans panic easily, we now have the Patriot Act, which not only is absurdly names, but allows police and government agencies to physically invade my home, car, whatever, all without probable cause. Why can't we have access to something as trivial as a service record? I agree that it's an unimportant document, but if he's willing to keep irrelvant hings hidden, what else can we assume?
Burzaruka, Stern has used that word a number of times and escaped fines. More often than not, its his guests using it. He was fined the day after a tirade about Bush and his politics.
And as far as Bush goes, if anyone's testimony about 9/11 mattered, I should hope the President would be on the list, somewhere in the top 5. He should have been under oath, like everyone else, questioned publically, like everyone else, and held accountable for his actions (or inaction), just like everyone else. There's nothing informal about these 'commissions' either. Otherwise, everyone whould show up in a t-shirt & jeans. These are serious sessions, and if you've been called into one, there's no room for levity or casual attitudes.
I'm all for personal privacy, but the whole point of social order is that you have to sompromise, otherwise you have an anarchy. For instance, we don't sell guns to convicted criminals. We don't give loans to people who never pay back their bills. We don't let child-molesters run daycare centers. A certain amount of information about any given person's past should be available for public scrutiny to preserve the safety and well-being of others. BUt if that's not good enough reason, consider this: The government has access to EVRYTHING about my personal life. They can track who I call on the phone, what books I take out of the library, what internet sites I visit, where I shop and what I buy, and because Americans panic easily, we now have the Patriot Act, which not only is absurdly names, but allows police and government agencies to physically invade my home, car, whatever, all without probable cause. Why can't we have access to something as trivial as a service record? I agree that it's an unimportant document, but if he's willing to keep irrelvant hings hidden, what else can we assume?
Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.
Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
So you are saying that Stern has used "n!gger" quite a few times and has recieved no back lash from it?
I can't agree with you, espeically since I heard it out of his own mouth why he was getting kicked off the air in an interview. So, believe what you will about the Howard Stern issue, I have said the truth.
About Bush, this was an informal hearing, hence no oath, no recording, no media. When you meet the president, you do not wear a t-shirt and geans, formality of the issues discussed has nothing to do with the formality of a dress code.
A service record is confidential, you dont have access to it for the same reason I dont have access to your SSN and your medical records. If he didn't serve in the military like clinton, then he wouldnt have any records to begin with so what is the big deal about not having them?
If it is irrelivent like you say, then what is the point of putting it in the public view? Perhaps you should only put the important stuff out for everyone to see instead of wasting their time with unimportant things.
So you are saying that Stern has used "n!gger" quite a few times and has recieved no back lash from it?
I can't agree with you, espeically since I heard it out of his own mouth why he was getting kicked off the air in an interview. So, believe what you will about the Howard Stern issue, I have said the truth.
About Bush, this was an informal hearing, hence no oath, no recording, no media. When you meet the president, you do not wear a t-shirt and geans, formality of the issues discussed has nothing to do with the formality of a dress code.
A service record is confidential, you dont have access to it for the same reason I dont have access to your SSN and your medical records. If he didn't serve in the military like clinton, then he wouldnt have any records to begin with so what is the big deal about not having them?
If it is irrelivent like you say, then what is the point of putting it in the public view? Perhaps you should only put the important stuff out for everyone to see instead of wasting their time with unimportant things.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Actually, when I met Clinton, I was wearing sandals, shorts, and a T-shirt...
And my greeting? "Hey, Mr. President!"
He said, "Hey!"
(Right, we now return you to the topic of discussion)
Quote:
About Bush, this was an informal hearing, hence no oath, no recording, no media. When you meet the president, you do not wear a t-shirt and geans,
Actually, when I met Clinton, I was wearing sandals, shorts, and a T-shirt...
And my greeting? "Hey, Mr. President!"
He said, "Hey!"
(Right, we now return you to the topic of discussion)
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Okay, you were at a proper meeting with him? Sat down at a table and talked for a few hours? Or was it a campaine of white house tour that you just happend to be at and meet the president?
Either way you probably wernt at a meeting, you just met for a brief moment.
Semantics... thats all it is, semantics.
Okay, you were at a proper meeting with him? Sat down at a table and talked for a few hours? Or was it a campaine of white house tour that you just happend to be at and meet the president?
Either way you probably wernt at a meeting, you just met for a brief moment.
Semantics... thats all it is, semantics.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
when my father met George Bush Sr., they were both in jeans! ok, so they both had button up shirts on, but there were no ties involved. Ok, ok, so it was a BBQ on the white house lawn, and I think everyone was told to wear jeans...
As for MM, he makes a poignient movie, but mostly by gross exaggeration and sometimes outright decpetion. But what he does present usually has enough truth to make an interesting point.
And it is disney's right to not distribute anything they are ultimately responsible for. Hate 'em if you will, but they aren't doing anything wrong by the terms that society has agreed upon.
I am really hoping I'll get to see the movie in question though. I almost thought about going to France just to see it's premier at the film festival there, until it occured to me that it would be hopelessly sold out long before I could ever hope to get a ticket.
when my father met George Bush Sr., they were both in jeans! ok, so they both had button up shirts on, but there were no ties involved. Ok, ok, so it was a BBQ on the white house lawn, and I think everyone was told to wear jeans...
As for MM, he makes a poignient movie, but mostly by gross exaggeration and sometimes outright decpetion. But what he does present usually has enough truth to make an interesting point.
And it is disney's right to not distribute anything they are ultimately responsible for. Hate 'em if you will, but they aren't doing anything wrong by the terms that society has agreed upon.
I am really hoping I'll get to see the movie in question though. I almost thought about going to France just to see it's premier at the film festival there, until it occured to me that it would be hopelessly sold out long before I could ever hope to get a ticket.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Well, Yesterday I heard that Micheal Moore had one the Palme D'or, one of the highest awards for a film maker.
https://www.michaelmoore.com/
Also, i heard that Miramax are attempting to buy back the rights to the film from Disney.
Lets hope as many people get to see this one as possible.
Well, Yesterday I heard that Micheal Moore had one the Palme D'or, one of the highest awards for a film maker.
https://www.michaelmoore.com/
Also, i heard that Miramax are attempting to buy back the rights to the film from Disney.
Lets hope as many people get to see this one as possible.
GOLD Member
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posted:
that doesn't surprise me one bit. he was briefly interviewed in cannes the night the film was first screened, and there was talk of him getting a 15 minute standing ovation. reporters claimed afterwards that the ovation was closer to 25 mins. there was talk all week it was gonna get the palm d'or. fair play to you mike! can't wait to see it !!
that doesn't surprise me one bit. he was briefly interviewed in cannes the night the film was first screened, and there was talk of him getting a 15 minute standing ovation. reporters claimed afterwards that the ovation was closer to 25 mins. there was talk all week it was gonna get the palm d'or. fair play to you mike! can't wait to see it !!
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com