ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Moore's Film is SHOCKING PROPAGANDA

  1. #1
    Moore's Film Is Shocking Propaganda
    Edward I. Koch
    Tuesday, June 29, 2004


    It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger.

    I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan "My country right or wrong."

    But I do believe, when seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.


    Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.


    Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views.

    On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.

    David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line.


    Brooks writes: "Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.'

    "In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton...We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,' he told a crowd in Berlin. You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.'

    "In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, Should such an ignorant people lead the world?'

    "In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.'

    "But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow " and they will win.' Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere."

    Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.

    A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

    "One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary 'Roger & Me.' During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of 'I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.' I was aghast and responded, 'I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.' I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."


    Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience.

    Moore later called President Bush a "dummy," denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.

    Again, I couldn't contain myself and said, "That's what you radicals on the left always do. You don't debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence."


    In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire.

    We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender.

    And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy.

    How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth.

    Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib.

    We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies.

    A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

    I am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics.

    It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully.

    The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

    Newsday reported some of Moore's misstatements as follows: "At the start of Fahrenheit 9/11,' filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, under every scenario Gore won the election.'

    "What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election . . . Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis' who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.


    "But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.'"


    It is clear to me from the tenor of the film's off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.

    Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction?

    Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica?

    Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery?

    Weren't we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?


    Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not.

    I think, yes.

    The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.

  2. #2
    Moore's Film Is Shocking Propaganda
    Edward I. Koch
    Tuesday, June 29, 2004


    It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger.

    I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan "My country right or wrong."

    But I do believe, when seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.


    Disagreeing with America's foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.


    Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States' foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views.

    On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11," crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.

    David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line.


    Brooks writes: "Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.'

    "In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton...We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,' he told a crowd in Berlin. You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.'

    "In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, Should such an ignorant people lead the world?'

    "In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.'

    "But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow " and they will win.' Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere."

    Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.

    A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

    "One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary 'Roger & Me.' During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of 'I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.' I was aghast and responded, 'I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.' I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."


    Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience.

    Moore later called President Bush a "dummy," denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.

    Again, I couldn't contain myself and said, "That's what you radicals on the left always do. You don't debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence."


    In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire.

    We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender.

    And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy.

    How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth.

    Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib.

    We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies.

    A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

    I am a movie critic, so I went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11." The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics.

    It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully.

    The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

    Newsday reported some of Moore's misstatements as follows: "At the start of Fahrenheit 9/11,' filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, under every scenario Gore won the election.'

    "What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election . . . Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis' who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.


    "But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.'"


    It is clear to me from the tenor of the film's off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.

    Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction?

    Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica?

    Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery?

    Weren't we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?


    Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not.

    I think, yes.

    The movie's diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.

  3. #3
    From Newsmax:
    Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'


    A just released book takes on Michael Moore as never before. Its title screams: "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man."

    And surprisingly, this book has been published by the same publisher who gave us Michael Moore's own runaway bestseller "Stupid White Men."

    Apparently, more than a few people want to take revenge on Michael Moore and the timing couldn't be better with the release this week of his "documentary" attack piece on George Bush - Fahrenheit 9/11.

    Moore is so terrified by his detractors he claims that he has already hired a cabal of lawyers. He says he will sue Bush supporters who he thinks may be preparing to slander him.

    Moore's hypocrisy is obvious. Slate editor Jack Shafer says "Moore's hysterical, empty threats" to sue critics of his latest schlockumentary shows that he "appears to believe in free speech only for himself."

    One possible target for Moore's lawyers may be the publisher of his own book.

    Moore's one time publisher, ReganBooks, is out with a disturbing yet comical book that dismantles every cog of that propaganda machine marketed as Michael Moore.

    David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke's "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" begins by unearthing his phony roots and goes right up to his latest "documentary." Check out NewsMax's Free Offer for this book -- Click Here


    Meet the Flint-drone: Everybody knows Moore is a blue-collar guy from Flint, Mich., right? That's how he always sells himself.

    In reality, he was born and raised in the wealthy, lily-white town of Davison, Mich, the authors reveal. No wonder the clown prince of self-loathing developed such a complex about hating rich, stupid white males.


    In a letter to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times last year, Moore still listed his town as Flint. In fact, despite his proclamations that "capitalism is a sin" and "an evil system," he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan.


    Does not play well with others: Moore can't get along even with his fellow travelers.

    Hardy and Clarke disclose how the radical magazine Mother Jones fired the "arbitrary" and "suspicious" Moore; how he started his feud with his replacement, David Talbot, who later founded Salon; how Ralph Nader's organization fired Moore; how he attacked Pauline Kael, Harlan Jacobson and other prominent critics who exposed the deceits of his schlockumentaries; how he lost a lawsuit for betraying fellow lefty activist Larry Stecco in "Roger & Me," etc.


    Nor can the elitist Moore tolerate those lowly working classes and students he claims to represent.

    "Big Fat Stupid White Man" gives details of how he abused the staff during a speaking engagement at London's Roundhouse Theater; how he castigated a student who dared question his hefty speaking fee; how he attacked a young documentary maker who had the nerve to give him a taste of the "Roger & Me" treatment, and so forth.

    And don't forget his amusingly shrill denunciation of those awful blue-collar crewmen who, unlike his fellow multimillionaires in Hollywood's left, booed him during his tirade at the Oscars.

    The book presents one example after another, alternating between frightening and hilarious, to make a brilliant case for Moore having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


    Then there's his feud with his former publisher, HarperCollins subsidiary ReganBooks, which gave us his best seller "Stupid White Men" and now brings us "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man."

    ReganBooks, he claims, tried "to censor me and the things I wanted to say. They insisted I rewrite up to 50 percent of the book and that I remove sections that they found offensive to our leader, Mr. Bush." The company plotted "to 'pulp' and recycle all 50,000 copies of my book that were gathering dust in a warehouse," he insists.

    However, ReganBooks issued a statement to NewsMax.com contradicting these allegations:

    "Originally scheduled for release on September 11, 2001, the book was delayed by mutual agreement between author and publisher after the events of that day. Despite erroneous reports that have appeared in the press, the publisher never attempted to censor the book on partisan grounds, though the publisher and author did discuss replacing the original version of the book with an updated version to address the post-9/11 world. Ultimately, the decision was made to release the book in its original form, and it went on to become a huge success for both the publisher and the author. ReganBooks has since declined to exercise its option to publish another book by Mr. Moore."


    After all, Moore and other members of the left-wing thought police can't bear a commitment to diversity of ideas.

    Judith Regan, president and publisher of ReganBooks, noted that her company had produced books by Howard Stern and Moore as well as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

    "As publishers, we have an obligation to publish a wide range of ideas, opinions, and perspectives," she said in a statement issued to NewsMax. "Our job is to publish voices on the left, on the right, and everywhere in between to provide a broad range of opinion."

    "We agree with Michael Moore that free expression is one of our most important human rights," Regan said, "and publishing widely and freely is the only way to honor that tradition."


    Unfortunately, Moore fights his critics' right to free expression, as Slate's Shafer noted and as Hardy and Clarke document at length.


    Howlers in 'Columbine': Some of the distortions and falsehoods that plague the movie "Bowling for Columbine" are already well known, but Hardy and Clarke add details and reveal new whoppers.


    Moore claims that National Rifle Association taunted the Denver area and the nation by holding "a large pro-gun rally" only days after the killings at Columbine High School.
    In reality, the annual meeting had been planned well in advance, was required by law, could not have been changed in time to another city, and was stripped of all rallies and ceremony in deference to the community.


    The movie depicts Charlton Heston as making his famous "cold, dead hands speech" in Denver.
    In reality, the remarks came a year later in Charlotte, N.C., and Moore spliced bits of footage from that and another speech for maximum distortion. "It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things," Hardy and Clarke write.


    The fantasy film claims that Heston exploited a school shooting in Mount Morris, Mich., by staging another "big pro-gun rally" in October 2002.
    In reality, Heston's appearance came eight months after the shooting, at a get-out-the-vote event in nearby Flint. Others campaigning in the area around that time included Al Gore, George W. Bush ... and Moore himself, touting Ralph Nader.

    The authors conclude: "Bowling for Columbine has less documentary value than the average Bugs Bunny cartoon. You see Heston giving a speech but it's doctored. You see history but unconnected facts are given a particular Moorewellian spin. You hear that a factory is making weapons of mass destruction actually, it's building satellite launch platforms. You're led to believe that a rally was a response to a shooting, but it turns out it was eight months later, in anticipation of an election. You watch a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, but in reality it was an ad Moore himself assembled."


    'Stupid' is as stupid does: Hardy and Clarke dissect "Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where's My Country?" along with the latter's celluloid ugly stepchild, Fahrenheit 9/11, to delve into the heart of Moore's pathology. A few highlights:


    Moore harps on his portrayal of America as a "nation of idiots" (i.e., people who disagree with him) and illiterates.
    In reality, the "statistics" he offers indicating widespread illiteracy include two sizeable groups: immigrants who are often fluent in other languages but not English, and the blind and visually impaired.


    Moore, who after all graduated from high school, delights in ridiculing his countrymen's poor grasp of geography. "The dumbest Brit here is smarter than the smartest American," he snickers to an audience in London.
    But Moore chooses not to add an important fact: young adults worldwide performed badly on the National Geographic survey he so selectively cites.


    He claims that Florida wrongly disenfranchised thousands of pro-Democrat criminals in the 2000 election. "Thirty-one percent of all black men in Florida" are felons, in his paranoid fantasy world. (No wonder this limousine liberal travels in such exclusive circles.)
    In reality, the Miami Herald showed that Democrat-run counties violated state law and let the overwhelmingly Democrat felons vote illegally more than 2,000 votes, most of which went to Gore.


    Most importantly, "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" refutes Moore's wild attempts to implicate the president in 9/11. Every American should read these chapters. They are too detailed to summarize here, but one example will demonstrate this book's importance.

    Moore claims President Bush invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban so he could get an oil pipeline built. You've probably heard others parrot this allegation. A master of propaganda knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start to believe it.


    In reality, Bush had supported Enron's plan to run pipes under the Caspian Sea and avoid Afghanistan. "Clinton was the one backing the rival Unocal plan to put them through Afghanistan," Hardy and Clarke observe.

    Inspiration to terrorists: Moore's favorite claim: "THERE ... IS ... NO ... TERRORIST ... THREAT!" If so, why do terrorists take succor from him?

    The most ****ing indictment of Moore in "Big Fat Stupid White Man": the salute offered by Imam Samudra, leader of the Muslim terrorist bombers who murdered 202 people, mostly Australians and other tourists, two years ago at Paddy's nightclub in Bali.

    "I saw lots of whiteys dancing and lots of whiteys drinking there," Samudra told Indonesian police. The authors note, "It was 'Kill Whitey' (to quote a chapter heading in Stupid White Men) with a vengeance."


    Samudra's attorney Qaidar Faisal concluded his defense by praising the Taliban and quoting from "anti-western texts" including Moore's "Stupid White Men."


    Despite all the appalling revelations in "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man," it's hard to finish the book without feeling pity for this man.

    Had he used his talents to make actual documentaries and write books devoid of distortion and mendacity, he could have offered a useful critique of the Bush administration's flaws.

    Instead, fueled by a narcissism that springs from hatred of self and others, he mangles reality to dupe the uninformed, delight the blame-America-first crowd and even inspire terrorists.

    He concentrates his venom on one politician and one party but damages a nation.

    "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" marks a confident step in undoing his damage.

    More on Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11

    It's clear that Michael Moore has gone off the deep end when even Democrats compare him to the Nazis' master of propaganda:

    "Hollywood agent and Kerry supporter Tom Baer told me, 'Kerry should flee Moore's movie. It's Goebbels all over again." This quotation comes not from Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh but from a column in the Washington Post by Tina Brown, a queen of the liberal media establishment.

    Christopher Hitchens, a contributor to such partisan publications as New Left Review and The Nation, writes for Slate: "Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery."

    Andrew Sullivan, a former editor at the liberal New Republic: "Moore is beneath contempt."

  4. #4
    So, what's your point? And what does this have to do with IMMIGRATION?
    Sweet Madame Belu

  5. #5
    Jerry Springer Schmoe F*u*c*k o*f*f you b*i*t*c*h

    99 % of your replies have nothing to do with immigration.

  6. #6

  7. #7
    MY POINT:

    He can DISH IT OUT, but he CAN'T TAKE IT!

    Also, notice how he uses his fake name "jojo" to back himself up. How utterly pathetic!
    Sweet Madame Belu

  8. #8
    Schmoe: Back to your conspiracy theories - hey???

  9. #9
    b*i*t*c*h - don't change topic I am not kjv

    Jerry Springer Schmoe F*u*c*k o*f*f you b*i*t*c*h

    99 % of your replies have nothing to do with immigration.

  10. #10
    You are just another far right wing trying to make your point. Unfortunately, we are more concerned with immigration issues than the cause you are defending. Therefore, I will suggest you this: Shap up or Ship out.

Similar Threads

  1. shocking
    By marble in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2011, 12:23 PM
  2. "SHOCKING REVELATION"
    By jean2005 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2006, 12:47 PM
  3. Brit landed US film role - what now?
    By britboy in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-10-2005, 09:03 AM
  4. Shocking news about my I751
    By Kookla in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-03-2004, 01:10 PM
  5. Russian film student permitted to work in film???
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-17-2002, 08:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: