If I were speaking to a group of undecided voters from the Republican side, I would categorically address Moore's talking points and ask the voters if Moore's "shock jock" style is really what they want.

That would be intellectually dishonest though - unless they were under the mistaken belief that Moore was the Democrat's candidate then his views and techniques are as relevent as a leftwinger attacking Ann Coulter's arguments in an attempt to discredit Bush. It's petty and, at least in my eyes, highly unethical. If asked about them then sure you should address it, but really it's more important to critique what Bush and Kerry think (if of course these beliefs are ever actually released).

Yes I admit the same thing happens in Australia, and we have the same kind of disinformation campaigns as Moore and others create, but I think it's important to seperate the "nastier" elements in politics from the people who, for the moment at least, are on the same side. If we don't think it's important enough to be fairhanded then we deserve people like Moore.

Thats because more never accuses anything. He just throws things out there to imply everything. Heres this point, this point and this point. then lets the viewer make the connection. Even though each of those points are either taken out of context, different periods in time, or outright theoretical conjecture.

The difference though is that Ann Coulter is not nearly as well known as Moore, and Coulter is not embraced by mainstream Republicans the way Moore is embraced by Democrats.

Gerry, your problem is that you just keep your hands in front of your eyes.  People like me have answered these questions over and over and over..

And because you apparently choose not to look around, you don't see the answers.  There's websites such as Moorewatch.com that disect the film line by line.

For instance, NOBODY left the country by air before the airspace opened. Moore lied.  The bin laden family chartered an airplane and left when the airspace was opened just like everyone else.  This has been widely reported in countless places.  I can't believe you would claim that the right hasn't "answered" these.

Similarly, the FBI did interview those Saudi's prior to leaving.   The one who made the final decision to let them leave was Moore's buddy, Richard Clarke.

The whole film is propaganda designed for the weak minded.

It's not in the theaters because Ann Coulter is EXTREMELY negative. Her comments suggesting the Democrats are really "The French Party", comments that plainly state she believes you can divide party lines by the type of car people drive or the type of food they eat (I'm not kidding, go back and read her stuff online!) is why you will never see a movie by her.

Are you suggesting that [...] Those involved in higher education tend to sway democrat

A recent study (referenced here ) indicates that in the professorial population, democrats outnumber republicans by about 10 to 1.

To answer your question,Yes I believe his strident mewling will aggravate enough undecided voters to "stay the course" as it were. I cannot speak of politics to one of my sisters because of her blind acceptance of that type of liberal screed. As for Anne Coulter, what can I say but that her book Treason was a poorly written screeching that was like nails on a chalkboard to me. I think her lack of "fame" is better for the Republican party than if she were famous like mm.

I've never read someones writting so obviously misguided and venomous.

You've obviously never read any of Moore's books, have you?

I mostly just read stuff here on JU without replying to anything but I thought I would post on your thread because I found it interesting. As such,.. I don't know how to make myself non-anonymous. I assume I have to create an account or something but does it really matter that much to you to have some other user name that may as well be just as anonymous? Does it make it feel better to have a 'name' to direct your opinion to? You can call Me Jason.

I don't feel I was intentionally confrontational at all. If you have an issue with me asking you questions regarding your post then I have to assume you must have only wanted to present your point of view rather then discuss it. Fair enough, thats what many bloggers want and there is nothign wrong with it. However, since you have chosen to respond back to me, I can only assume you really do want to converse on some level.

So let's talk about what I said exactly.
Did I ever say the majority of American's saw the movie? All I said was that I just went to the movie and was surprised by the large number of people in the theater so late after it released. People re-watching or not, I was surprised. I didn't think it would last that long at all. I also stated that I knew Moore wanted it out on video sooner but that it was held in theaters to make some more money. See this article here --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5511730/ and particularly this quote near the bottom "Moore said he had hoped to have “Fahrenheit 9/11” out on DVD before the November election, but that the film could continue to play in theaters through year’s end and into 2005." I saw a better artical pointing this out awhile back but I don't remember where it was. My apologizies.

I'm not sure how you interpret my original posting to say I think MOST American's have watched it or to even suggest that meant that to say they or I am pro-Moore because of it. Please point me to where I did. PLEASE. I actually walked out thinking the movie was 1)interesting 2) funny 3) very politically slanted to the left 4) obviously took some things out of context. 5) should be taken with a grain of salt.

Despite how I feel about it, how many Americas watch it or are swayed one way or another by it, you have to recognize that a number of sources rate it as the most successful documentary ever. That's just what the news reports, not what "I" am reporting. If you really want, I'll dig up the links but I'm sure you can find it for yourself if you really wanted.

Moving on to some of your questions:
-----Is there some reason why an attack on Michael Moore affects you personally?
What did I say that came across as taking it personally? Was it my comments about Ann Coulter? Please, quote me, pull it directly from my post and show me where I was taking things personally? I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I can't help but wonder if your so galvanized against leftist comments that you too easily lash out against anything that "might" be percieved as criticism.

---Do we not have the same right and responsibility to investigate the credibility of Moore's arguments as we do to investigate the allegations against Bush?
Absolutely. And I have the right to do the same about your allegations as well. But to the point: your original post was op-ed. There are no factual representations nor any refrences to other factual representations. Things are not fact because you say so. You must provide refrences or some other factual evidence. Without it, your piece is op-ed. That's not a problem by any means. I only asked you for clarification on the opinions you did give and for pointers to examples of your claims against Moore. How is this being so vitriolic and extremely confrontative? Are your readers not permited to challenge your assertions?

----Do you not grant the president of the United States the same right to being "innocent until proven guilty" that is being afforded Scott Peterson at this very moment?
What single thing did I say Bush did wrongly? What single comment about validity or justification of representations in the movie did I put in my reply? I never said a thing! I never said Moore was right. I never said Bush was wrong. The only thing remotely 'leftist' I said was against Ann Coulter. How in the name of God does that show support for Moore or any other leftist thinking? Please, explain it to me. Or maybe you can explain it to me where else in my reply I showed my leftist Moore loving tendency.

Regarding Moore as the saviour. I have never read any of his comments that would suggest it. I really don't care about his writtings enough to go and read them. Interesting or not, I see him as being very politically biased and I just don't have enough interest to go out and spend time reading his stuff. As such, I don't support or refute his writtings because I have no idea what they are. When I asked for pointers to where he said things like this, it's because I really want to know, not because I am suggesting they don't exist. I wish you would have pointed to some of the writtings online you refer to because it's difficult to measure the weight of your argument without it. (that in mind, I'll post some of my favourite Ann Coulter stuff I found below).

I think a person anywhere in the world can be very smart but "people" collectively do stupid things. Thats not an American thing, thats not a French thing. I think its just a human thing. People often do stupid stuff in groups, including myself. I can think of more then one embarrasing memory from my days. Does it make me seem aloof or arrogant because of my belief or view on this? I wonder if you think so because that seems like what your saying about Moore. It's one thing to say "people" can be stupid and do stupid things. It's another to so "those people do stupid things unlike me". Again, I have not read Moore saying this but would be interested to see where he did. It certainly puts him in a negative light if does indeed draw a clear distinction between himself and the stupid people. However, I still assert that pointing out stupidity doesn't necessarily mean you are saying you are better then them, especially when those comments are made about societies.

I would hope you have the interest to reply to each of my questions and not just the ones you pick and choose based on where you feel capable of answering strongly from your position. However, based on your earlier comments, I'll just have to sit and wait to see if simply just delete my whole post, although, I hope you actually reply.



------My Ann Coulter favs-----
From her DNC speach
"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling. "

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter.

You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com
What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations.

Have you seen the film?
If you haven't, you can't speak about it.
& you said a small minority saw the film? It's the highest grossing documentary EVER! Over $150 million in the US alone. THat's a BLOCKBUSTER in the entertainment business.

Gideo MacLeish- AN *OBVIOUS* Bush supporter. You're claiming that his film was disproved line by line on MooreWatch.com What you forgot to say was that the 9/11 Commission Report Disproves what moorewatch.com says & generally agrees with Moore's accusations. Have you seen the film? If you haven't, you can't speak about it. & you said a small minority saw the film? It's the highest grossing documentary EVER! Over $150 million in the US alone. THat's a BLOCKBUSTER in the entertainment business.

You don't know jack from shit, Gideon is a Libertarian (like myself now) he hate's both Bush and Kerry. Check out moorelies.com Anonymous boy.
Half-truths and fast editing shall never equal the truth, and Fahrenhype 9/11 is being done as a rebuttal to Mikey's movie, which I will see both on Oct. 5th.

Anyways WHY in the HELL did you start up an old dead issue, damn can't you see the dates.

I shall shake the tree of supposed truth and may some day decide to become a truth teller in documentaries, but OH WAIT PEOPLE DON'T REALLY LIKE THE TRUTH.

Like Heart Disease is the NUMBER ONE cause of death in America, and you not pleading to Mikey to eat right and exercise, bringing his weight to a healthy level (I know he would still be chunky because he has a husky build) is just like you signing his death warrant.

Save the man, than save those who are dieing right now in the US, than save those who are dieing elsewhere, than save the planet, or try to do all at once and fail miserably.

This topic was dead and it should have stayed that way, if you wanted to make a point you should have started a new article PERIOD.

-GX

Damn right Texas Wahine!