WOW- Fahrenheit 9/11 Sets RECORD!!!!! - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

reeds · 06-28-2004, 09:21 AM

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Sets Documentary Record

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

LOS ANGELES - Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in a whopping $21.8 million in its first three days, becoming the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

If Sunday's estimates hold when final numbers are released Monday, "Fahrenheit 9/11" would set a record in a single weekend as the top-grossing documentary ever outside of concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theaters.

Adding the film's haul at two New York City theaters where it opened Wednesday, two days earlier than the rest of the country, boosted "Fahrenheit 9/11" to $21.96 million.

"Bowling for Columbine," Moore's 2002 Academy Award-winning documentary, previously held the documentary record with $21.6 million.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore's assault on President Bush (news - web sites)'s actions after the 2001 terrorist attacks, won the top honor at last month's Cannes Film Festival (news - web sites) and has attracted attention from both sides in the presidential campaign.

The movie has been embraced by left-wing groups, which mobilized members to see it during the opening weekend. Conservative groups sought to discourage theaters from showing it and asked the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) to examine its ads for potential violations of campaign-finance law regulating when commercials may feature a presidential candidate.

"I want to thank all the right-wing organizations out there who tried to stop the film, either from their harassment campaign that didn't work on the theater owners, or going to the FEC to get our ads removed from television, to all the things that have been said on television," Moore said. "It's only encouraged more people to go and see it."

The Wayans brothers' comedy "White Chicks," about two black FBI (news - web sites) agents who go undercover as white debutantes, opened in second place with $19.6 million for the weekend. That pushed the total for "White Chicks" to $27.1 million since opening Wednesday.

The previous weekend's No. 1 movie, "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," slipped to third place, taking in $18.5 million and pushing its 10-day total to $67.2 million. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks (news)' "The Terminal" fell from second to fourth place with $13.9 million, raising its 10-day gross to $41.8 million.

Premiering in fifth place with $13 million was the tearjerker romance "The Notebook," featuring Ryan Gosling (news), Rachel McAdams, James Garner (news) and Gena Rowlands.

Despite good reviews, the family film "Two Brothers," about tiger siblings separated in youth and reunited as opponents in the ring as grown cats, opened weakly at No. 9 with $6.2 million.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in 868 theaters, a wide release for a documentary but narrow compared to big Hollywood flicks. The film averaged $25,115 a theater, compared to $7,190 in 2,726 cinemas for "White Chicks."

Distributors Lions Gate (news - web sites) and IFC Films plan to put "Fahrenheit 9/11" into a couple of hundred more theaters this Wednesday, when competition heats up with the release of "Spider-Man 2," summer's most-anticipated movie.

Lions Gate and IFC came on board after Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax release "Fahrenheit 9/11" because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and went looking for independent distributors.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Monday.

1. "Fahrenheit 9/11," $21.8 million.

2. "White Chicks," $19.6 million.

3. "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," $18.5 million.

4. "The Terminal," $13.9 million.

5. "The Notebook," $13 million.

6. "Harry Potter (news - web sites) and the Prisoner of Azkaban," $11.4 million.

7. "Shrek 2," $10.5 million.

8. "Garfield: The Movie," $7 million.

9. "Two Brothers," $6.2 million.

10. "The Stepford Wives," $5.2 million.

u2sarajevo · 06-28-2004, 09:28 AM

I wonder how much of that 21 million is being enjoyed by Hezbollah right now....

Did you give your money to Hezbollah reeds?

madape · 06-28-2004, 09:54 AM

Dallas, TX June 28, 2004: Chuck-E-Cheese (NYSE Symbol: CEC) announced Monday that this was the company's worst weekend since the company was founded, reporting a record weekend loss of $15.5M. "Last weekend was bad, with most of our clientelle choosing alternative forms of intertainment such as the Ben Stiller film 'DodgeBall'.' said CEO Dick Frank. "We were anticipating another down weekend with the release of the Wayan's Brother film 'White Chicks'. However, we did not forsee the impact that 'Farenheit 9/11' would have on our business. The combination of the three films has left our restaurants as veritable ghost towns. I just came from our West Hollywood location. They counted only three tokens total spent all weekend on the anamatronic singing Chucky. Normally they get a couple hundred. I blame 'Farenheit' for that."

The stock price for Chuck-E-Cheese Inc. fell $2.15 from $45.12 Monday as the company advised analysts to update their earnings estimates.

Farenheit 9/11 edged out DodgeBall and White Chicks for the #1 spot at the box office this week by amassing $21.8M in it's first three days, a record for a documentary. Next week's big box-office opening will be "Spiderman 2", which is scheduled to be released Wednesday. Experts say that the film is expected to draw a more mature audience than "DodgeBall", "White Chicks", and "Farenheit 9/11". Anaylsts are predicting a rebound weekend for themed restaurants like Chuck-e-Cheese.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates a system of 470 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants in 48 states, of which 422 are owned and operated by the Company.

u2sarajevo · 06-28-2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: madape
Dallas, TX June 28, 2004: Chuck-E-Cheese (NYSE Symbol: CEC) announced Monday that this was the company's worst weekend since the company was founded, reporting a record weekend loss of $15.5M. "Last weekend was bad, with most of our clientelle choosing alternative forms of intertainment such as the Ben Stiller film 'DodgeBall'.' said CEO Dick Frank. "We were anticipating another down weekend with the release of the Wayan's Brother film 'White Chicks'. However, we did not forsee the impact that 'Farenheit 9/11' would have on our business. The combination of the three films has left our restaurants as veritable ghost towns. I just came from our West Hollywood location. They counted only three tokens total spent all weekend on the anamatronic singing Chucky. Normally they get a couple hundred. I blame 'Farenheit' for that."

The stock price for Chuck-E-Cheese Inc. fell $2.15 from $45.12 Monday as the company advised analysts to update their earnings estimates.

Farenheit 9/11 edged out DodgeBall and White Chicks for the #1 spot at the box office this week by amassing $21.8M in it's first three days, a record for a documentary. Next week's big box-office opening will be "Spiderman 2", which is scheduled to be released Wednesday. Experts say that the film is expected to draw a more mature audience than "DodgeBall", "White Chicks", and "Farenheit 9/11". Anaylsts are predicting a rebound weekend for themed restaurants like Chuck-e-Cheese.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates a system of 470 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants in 48 states, of which 422 are owned and operated by the Company.

Genius

Drbio · 06-28-2004, 11:17 AM

Absolute Genius.

reeds · 06-28-2004, 01:12 PM

"Dallas, TX June 28, 2004: Chuck-E-Cheese (NYSE Symbol: CEC) announced Monday that this was the company's worst weekend since the company was founded, reporting a record weekend loss of $15.5M. "Last weekend was bad, with most of our clientelle choosing alternative forms of intertainment such as the Ben Stiller film 'DodgeBall'.' said CEO Dick Frank. "We were anticipating another down weekend with the release of the Wayan's Brother film 'White Chicks'. However, we did not forsee the impact that 'Farenheit 9/11' would have on our business. The combination of the three films has left our restaurants as veritable ghost towns. I just came from our West Hollywood location. They counted only three tokens total spent all weekend on the anamatronic singing Chucky. Normally they get a couple hundred. I blame 'Farenheit' for that."

The stock price for Chuck-E-Cheese Inc. fell $2.15 from $45.12 Monday as the company advised analysts to update their earnings estimates.

Farenheit 9/11 edged out DodgeBall and White Chicks for the #1 spot at the box office this week by amassing $21.8M in it's first three days, a record for a documentary. Next week's big box-office opening will be "Spiderman 2", which is scheduled to be released Wednesday. Experts say that the film is expected to draw a more mature audience than "DodgeBall", "White Chicks", and "Farenheit 9/11". Anaylsts are predicting a rebound weekend for themed restaurants like Chuck-e-Cheese.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates a system of 470 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants in 48 states, of which 422 are owned and operated by the Company."

I blame Farenheit for that as well..Most democratic parents who have the caring and love for their children often take them to places such as Chunky Cheese..on the other hand, Republican Im too good for Chunky Cheese type parents wouldnt dream of degrading themselves to stoop to the level of a Chunky Cheese...So its simple really- the all-american parents took a break this weekend and treated themselves to a GREAT film........Genius

u2sarajevo · 06-28-2004, 01:18 PM

I take my kids to Chucky Cheese all the time... they love the place.

madape · 06-28-2004, 04:04 PM

"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."

.. Michael Moore. April 14th, 2004.

MavKikiNYC · 06-28-2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: madape
"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."

.. Michael Moore. April 14th, 2004.

Let us hope his next project is to go and document the great victory of those REVOLUTIONARIES, splicing in clips of their beheading of innocent American civilians and murdering American soldiers.

Michael Moore is one pathetic, fat, disgusting, megalomaniacal, mother-phucked up traitor.

May he be dealt with in kind.

dude1394 · 06-28-2004, 06:44 PM

Good stuff from Hugh Hewitt, especially the bolded part.

hugh

[quote]
I will not reprise the now well-known deceptions abundant in the movie. The best romp through that territory is Christopher Hitchens'. But I will note the one undeniable benefit of the movie's success. It provides a handy reference to the intelligence of the person who sees it. If you encounter anyone speaking in tones even remotely approaching respect for the movie, you have proof positive that the speaker is a fool, not to be trusted on any point, for he or she has given testimony as to their ignorance of basic facts and of an inability to detect even elephant-sized inconsistencies in argument and story line.

Michael Moore is the latest in a long line of entrepreneurs who have proven P.T. Barnum to have been on the money when it came to the number of suckers abroad in our land. Sure he's a Jabba-sized oaf, but give him his due. He knew how to play the left's paranoia like a fiddle, and he did.

UPDATE: Moore defenders demand examples of Moore's deceptions. Easiest part of the Michael Moore paranoid fantasy to explode: That President Bush arranged for the bin Laden family to flee the U.S. after 9/11. See this story from The Hill. Richard Clarke --hero to Moore's movie in other parts-- let the bin Ladens go. It never got to Bush. Moore didn't have time to put that in the movie.

mavsman55 · 06-28-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: reeds
"Dallas, TX June 28, 2004: Chuck-E-Cheese (NYSE Symbol: CEC) announced Monday that this was the company's worst weekend since the company was founded, reporting a record weekend loss of $15.5M. "Last weekend was bad, with most of our clientelle choosing alternative forms of intertainment such as the Ben Stiller film 'DodgeBall'.' said CEO Dick Frank. "We were anticipating another down weekend with the release of the Wayan's Brother film 'White Chicks'. However, we did not forsee the impact that 'Farenheit 9/11' would have on our business. The combination of the three films has left our restaurants as veritable ghost towns. I just came from our West Hollywood location. They counted only three tokens total spent all weekend on the anamatronic singing Chucky. Normally they get a couple hundred. I blame 'Farenheit' for that."

The stock price for Chuck-E-Cheese Inc. fell $2.15 from $45.12 Monday as the company advised analysts to update their earnings estimates.

Farenheit 9/11 edged out DodgeBall and White Chicks for the #1 spot at the box office this week by amassing $21.8M in it's first three days, a record for a documentary. Next week's big box-office opening will be "Spiderman 2", which is scheduled to be released Wednesday. Experts say that the film is expected to draw a more mature audience than "DodgeBall", "White Chicks", and "Farenheit 9/11". Anaylsts are predicting a rebound weekend for themed restaurants like Chuck-e-Cheese.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates a system of 470 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants in 48 states, of which 422 are owned and operated by the Company."

I blame Farenheit for that as well..Most democratic parents who have the caring and love for their children often take them to places such as Chunky Cheese..on the other hand, Republican Im too good for Chunky Cheese type parents wouldnt dream of degrading themselves to stoop to the level of a Chunky Cheese...So its simple really- the all-american parents took a break this weekend and treated themselves to a GREAT film........Genius

How do you derive this nonsense from reading what he posted?

reeds · 06-29-2004, 01:54 PM

" But I will note the one undeniable benefit of the movie's success. It provides a handy reference to the intelligence of the person who sees it. If you encounter anyone speaking in tones even remotely approaching respect for the movie, you have proof positive that the speaker is a fool, not to be trusted on any point, for he or she has given testimony as to their ignorance of basic facts and of an inability to detect even elephant-sized inconsistencies in argument and story line. "

Talk about lack of "intelligence"...I hope he is not saying anyone who watches the film lacks Intelligence- if that is the case, he is truly a moron..what a joke..typical right wing name calling...the truth really hurts some of you

u2sarajevo · 06-29-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: reeds
Talk about lack of "intelligence"...I hope he is not saying anyone who watches the film lacks Intelligence- if that is the case, he is truly a moron..what a joke..typical right wing name calling...the truth really hurts some of you

See if you can spot the irony in this quote by reeds....????

sturm und drang · 06-29-2004, 02:21 PM

Uh oh... the American public is awakening from its long slumber and starting to question the actions and intentions of its president...

Moore's film is certainly a pastiche of truths and lies, but what's most interesting is that the public – the general public – is starting to think for themselves. They want to know more, and they want their questions answered. Finally.

People will decide for themselves what is credible and what's not. I'm just thrilled people care. And are curious. And are questioning. And are seeking answers. Unbelievable.

reeds · 06-29-2004, 03:10 PM

"Uh oh... the American public is awakening from its long slumber and starting to question the actions and intentions of its president...

Moore's film is certainly a pastiche of truths and lies, but what's most interesting is that the public – the general public – is starting to think for themselves. They want to know more, and they want their questions answered. Finally.

People will decide for themselves what is credible and what's not. I'm just thrilled people care. And are curious. And are questioning. And are seeking answers. Unbelievable. "

PERFECT! And I beleive the republicans are afraid this country is finally waking up- finally asking for answers...its scares the crap out of them...just my thoughts...

MavKikiNYC · 06-29-2004, 04:00 PM

Two more patriotic documentarians.

U.S. Expels Two Guards at Iran's Mission to UN (Update1)
June 29 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. ordered two security guards at Iran's mission to the United Nations to leave the country after agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation saw them taking photographs of New York City landmarks and buildings, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said.

``They were asked to leave because we were very concerned about activities that weren't compatible with their stated duties,'' said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the UN.

Ereli declined to disclose the locations, saying only that the pattern of filming ``caused concerns to law enforcement,'' and the guards weren't identified. U.S. officials told Iranian representatives about their concerns in June 2002, November 2003 and again this year, and ``this was the option that we were left with,'' Ereli said. The Iranians departed after being ordered out over the weekend.

The U.S. has monitored people photographing bridges and other landmarks such as the Statue of Liberty since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The State Department lists Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and U.S. President George W. Bush said it is part of the so-called ``Axis of Evil'' that included North Korea and Iraq before the war to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Iran's mission to the UN didn't immediately return a telephone call asking for a comment. Iran ``deplored'' the expulsion of the guards, according to the state-run Iranian News Agency. An unidentified foreign ministry official said the expulsion violates international conventions on providing facilities for staffs of foreign missions at the UN, the agency reported.

madape · 06-29-2004, 04:14 PM

Millions of people lining up to watch a vile piece of Anti-American propaganda is NOT something to celebrate, especially when that peice of propaganda was created for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of an election. I just hope that Americans are smart enough to know when they are being lied to. If not, the country as a whole may follow the left in it's swirling patern of moral decay.

... the good news is that most Americans aren't as gullible as Michael Moore and the folks at Moveon.org would like to think. Sturm is right, Americans ARE capable of filtering out the filth... which is why Bush will win a Reagan-esque landslide this November.

reeds · 06-29-2004, 04:22 PM

"I just hope that Americans are smart enough to know when they are being lied to."

After watching this movie- Americans WILL learn all about the BUSH lies...the public deserves to see this before the election...too bad it didnt come out a bit later, perhaps in September...

madape · 06-29-2004, 04:27 PM

BTW - Michael Moore is lying to you when he says that Farenheit set the record for a documentary.

Actually, those records still belong to "Jackass: The Movie", which earned $22.8M on opening weekend, $75.5M overall, $96M in home-videa and is classified as a documentary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322802/

sturm und drang · 06-29-2004, 05:16 PM

Madape wrote:

"Millions of people lining up to watch a vile piece of Anti-American propaganda is NOT something to celebrate, especially when that peice of propaganda was created for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of an election."

Strong words from someone who just yesterday was claiming that the Democrats are actively trying to curb freedom of speech and hush dissenters...

Murphy3 · 06-29-2004, 06:52 PM

The movie was/is very funny/amusing. And, it's not loaded with nearly as many holes/lies as many of Moore's previous 'documentaries'. But, you can see how numerous situations and quotes are taken out of context.

As a movie, it's pretty damn funny. As a documentary, it's not.
It would be great if the film encouraged people to dig deeper into politics...encouraged more people to get involved. It would be a shame if the film itself actually influenced someone's opinion one way or the other.

Moore is a brilliant director, but isn't it time that his films were no longer classified as 'documentaries'?

mavsman55 · 06-29-2004, 07:46 PM

I'm totally bumping this thread back up when Bush gets re-elected.

madape · 06-30-2004, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Madape wrote:

"Millions of people lining up to watch a vile piece of Anti-American propaganda is NOT something to celebrate, especially when that peice of propaganda was created for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of an election."

Strong words from someone who just yesterday was claiming that the Democrats are actively trying to curb freedom of speech and hush dissenters...

I think you missed my point. I'm glad that dissenters in this country have a voice. It's really the only power we have to change government. I'm just disappointed that so many American chose to pay good money to listen to this garbage.

I think Michael Moore has poisened you into thinking that people who disapprove of this movie are in some way trying to take away his constitutionally protected right to speak his mind. No one has ever done that, that I am aware of. It's a phony controversy intended to generate interest in his movie (in other words, to make more money for Moore and his business partners). I hope you are kidding, and that you don't really beleive the right is trying to "squash" this movie before people see it. That has never been the case. It's a lie intended to make Moore money. It sounds like you've been suckered.

sturm und drang · 06-30-2004, 12:50 PM

Sorry to disappoint, Madape, but I have not been suckered. I understand the distinction between suppressing someone's right to speak out and disagreeing with what someone has to say.

I was simply pointing out that your statement in this thread was rather interesting, considering it comes from someone who extrapolated Democratic questioning of Nader's motives into suppression of Nader's right to run – and, furthermore, "perhaps the most glaring example that the Democratic party is becoming the party of the totalitarian American state."

If I applied that same rubric to you and the statement you made today, what would it say? Would you be an enemy of free speech, a la that totalitarian Democratic party?

Hyperbole works both ways.

madape · 06-30-2004, 01:20 PM

I made the aforementioned comment in a thread about a Farenheight moviegoer who dared to speak an opinion that happened to be in contrast with that of some of Michael Moore's thugs, resulting in him getting beaten up by a mob and left bleeding in the street. If that's not a supression of the man's right to speak his mind, I don't know what is.

I also mentioned that I'm quite alarmed by the systematic efforts by the Democratic party to keep Nader off of the presidential ballot. I can provide you with plenty of examples that this is NOT just a "questioning" of his right to run, but actually a concerted, organized effort to keep a popular candidate off the ballot. Take this link for example:

Democrats file anti-Nader suit

Face it. The left would like to FORCE people to vote for Kerry. They are prepared to use VIOLENCE to change your mind. They would also like to TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE for alternative candidates.

Sounds like a totalitarian party to me. How long will it be before a Democratic candidate gets 100% of the vote, like Saddam used to do?

Mavdog · 06-30-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: madape

Quote:

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Madape wrote:

"Millions of people lining up to watch a vile piece of Anti-American propaganda is NOT something to celebrate, especially when that peice of propaganda was created for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of an election."

Strong words from someone who just yesterday was claiming that the Democrats are actively trying to curb freedom of speech and hush dissenters...

I think you missed my point. I'm glad that dissenters in this country have a voice. It's really the only power we have to change government. I'm just disappointed that so many American chose to pay good money to listen to this garbage.

I think Michael Moore has poisened you into thinking that people who disapprove of this movie are in some way trying to take away his constitutionally protected right to speak his mind. No one has ever done that, that I am aware of. It's a phony controversy intended to generate interest in his movie (in other words, to make more money for Moore and his business partners). I hope you are kidding, and that you don't really beleive the right is trying to "squash" this movie before people see it. That has never been the case. It's a lie intended to make Moore money. It sounds like you've been suckered.

I'm not sure that these people want to "take away his...right to speak his mind", but then again they are trying to exert pressure on the exhibitors to not book the film. Is that not in effect trying to silence him?

move america forward

"If you don’t want to see them promoting anti-American propaganda then tell these executives so directly.
Time is short – we must act now to have our voices heard in time to make a difference.
Help us get messages from millions of Americans sent to these film industry executives. Tell others who would be equally outraged by this anti-American movie to visit http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org and join our efforts."

The effort to minimize the distribution of the film is indeed real, and IMHO aiding in Moore selling more tickets to his film.

Drbio · 06-30-2004, 02:27 PM

Quote:

The effort to minimize the distribution of the film is indeed real, and IMHO aiding in Moore selling more tickets to his film.

[img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img]

It's about 1/10,000 the effort to spread this biased crap across America.

sturm und drang · 06-30-2004, 02:46 PM

Madape wrote:

"Face it. The left would like to FORCE people to vote for Kerry. They are prepared to use VIOLENCE to change your mind. They would also like to TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE for alternative candidates. Sounds like a totalitarian party to me."

USE VIOLENCE TO CHANGE YOUR MIND?

One crazy protester at a rally – a rally, of course, that was not in any way officially supported or sanctioned by the DNC – is now indicative of Democratic party philosophy and methodology?

Wow. That's some interesting logic.

I'll tell you what a totalitarian party sounds like to me. It sounds like a party that happily sacrificies the individual rights this country was founded upon via the Patriot Act. It sounds like a party that begged and pleaded not to have to send its big-wigs in front of the 9/11 commission. It sounds like a party that is doing its damndest to avoid releasing any damaging Halliburton-related materials to the public. It sounds like a party that advocates torture.

That's what totalitarianism sounds like to me. Not some unaffiliated wack job at a movie rally, nor the questioning of the validity of some suspicious, non-registered voters on Nader's Arizona petition.

Mavdog · 06-30-2004, 07:10 PM

This debate discussed below sure doesn't resemble the nefarious charges about the democrats put forth by ape above. A party that asks for debate, to discuss the issues, facilitating open dialogue, contrasted with a demanding strict adherence to the party line, close-minded, the either your with me or on the other side mentality that we hear from the current administration. quite a difference...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nader, Dean to Debate if Ralph Should Run

WASHINGTON - Among the debate topics: Should Ralph run for president? The participants: Howard Dean (news - web sites) and a candidate who always has an opinion on the subject — independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites).

Dean, the former Democratic presidential hopeful who attracted legions of liberal followers before his bid fizzled out, will debate Nader for 90 minutes on July 9 before a studio audience.

National Public Radio's weekly program "Justice Talking" is sponsoring the debate, and correspondent Margot Adler will moderate.

Dean has been urging his supporters not to back Nader, but to stay within the Democratic fold and vote for John Kerry (news - web sites),

"I am anxious to debate Ralph Nader in order to speak about why he wants to run for president," Dean said in a statement. "This is the most important election in my lifetime and a third party candidate could make a difference — this November and for years to come."

Many Democrats blame Nader's last run for the presidency for stealing votes from Al Gore (news - web sites) in the 2000 election. Nader says Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing.

"This is an opportunity to discuss how to reinvigorate our democracy by providing voters with more choices and voices rather than our anemic two party corporate duopoly," Nader said in a statement.

Dean is currently the honorary chair of Democracy for America, a political action committee dedicated to supporting and raising money for fiscally conservative, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government.

madape · 07-01-2004, 09:16 AM

Mavdog, they aren't going to be debating issues. They are going to be debating whether Nader should run for president.

Quote:

"This is an opportunity to discuss how to reinvigorate our democracy by providing voters with more choices and voices rather than our anemic two party corporate duopoly," Nader said in a statement.

The Democratic party beleives the opposite. They do not think that providing voters with more choices and voices would reinvigorate our democracy. They plan on attacking Nader on this issue until he drops out.

As for Sturm's complaint on the patriot act - I am not steeped in the intricracies of the 1000 page document, and I'm sure that there are few who are (including you). I do know that it was intended to improve our intelligence capabilites in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. I have confidence that it is working in this regard because we have reportedly foiled a number of attempts to attack us domestically. In fact, we have not had a single attack on our homeland since 9/11. I attribute this in part to the Patriot Act. What I have not heard of is one single instance of an American's constitutional rights being taken away in our fight against terrorism. Therefore I think the act is an overwhelming success. However, if you can provide some concrete examples of how the Patriot Act infringes on my rights, I'd love to hear them. I'm always up for being enlightened. Right now, I feel as free (and safe) as I ever have.

As for Sturms' compaint on Abu Graib, I have no idea what Lyddie England's and her fuck buddy's political affiliations are. I do know that George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and all of the Republican Congress members, members of the Cabinet, etc, have explicitly condemned the abuse of prisoners. They never authorised anything like what we saw at Abu Graib. They even abolished certain interrogation procedures that are allowable under international law. Your accusation that the Republican party advocates torture is one of the most ill-informed statements I've heard you make yet. The fact that you would even think such a thing makes confirms my conclusion about the sanity of the far left.

I'm afraid that the attack at the theatre is a glimpse into the real soul of the anti-Bush movement. It scares me because it reminds me of socialist uprisings in Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, South America, Africa, etc... The left has become an engraged ball of hate which I beleive is just about willing do anything to return to power. If the party is allowed to follow it's current path of decay, I fear that we will be witness to political atmosphere in which fringe members use violence and terror-style tactics to strike back upon those who they see as oppressors. Remeber this any time you see someone calling for an America "intifada", or fantasizing about the assasination of Bush and Cheney. These types of things are already being talked about fancifully among those in the far left. How long will it be before we see Al-Qaeda style terrorist tactics from fringe Democrats? Listening to some of the rhetoric coming from these people, I say that day is closer than we all think.

God help us that these people never return to power.

dude1394 · 07-01-2004, 10:32 AM

The attacks on nader remind of the republican attacks on ross perot. It's one of the biggest reasons that I voted for him twice. I now as a bush supporter certainly hope that the democrat tactic backfires as well against them.

I agree madape, the democrat party is very unhinged and bereft of statesmen right now. As a leftist party it becomes quite easy to shift over to more legal, direct means of regaining power that they think is their right. I've felt that interestingly enough the party has been damaged by 8 years of clinton's all-politics-all-the-time method of governing. To see the left actually peferring that the iraqi people be murdered is to know that they have no moorings anymore. It's just all about politics and power.

Again the quicker a third viable party emerges the better for the country. Unfortunately it might result in another democrat being elected while it sorts itself out, but unless the democrat party changes, they are going nowhere and deservedly so.

dude1394 · 07-01-2004, 10:37 AM

Here is about the most damning critique of Moore's fantasy as I've seen. It dispels the furtive Carlyle group canard that seems to have floated out there without response. It'f from newsweek so it's certainly not a pro-bush publication. It's long but if you are interested worth the read.

More distortions from Moore

More Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET June 30, 2004

June 30 - In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests “have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy?”

But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s arithmetic—not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this “connection.” The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm’s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president’s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. “The figure is inaccurate and misleading,” said Ullman. “The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.”

In light of the extraordinary box office success of “Fahrenheit 9/11,” and its potential political impact, a rigorous analysis of the film’s assertions seems more than warranted. Indeed, Moore himself has invited the scrutiny. He has set up a Web site and “war-room” to defend the claims in the movie—and attack his critics. (The war-room’s overseers are two veteran spin-doctors from the Clinton White House: Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani.) Moore also this week contended that the media was pounding away at him “pretty hard” because “they’re embarrassed. They’ve been outed as people who did not do their job.” Among the media critiques prominently criticized was an article in Newsweek.

In response to inquiries from NEWSWEEK about the Carlyle issue, Lehane shot back this week with a volley of points: There were multiple Bush “connections” to the Carlyle Group throughout the period of the Saudi contracts to BDM, Lehane noted in an e-mail, including the fact that the firm’s principals included James Baker (Secretary of State during the first Bush administration) and Richard Darman (the first Bush’s OMB chief). Moreover, George W. Bush himself had his own Carlyle Group link: between 1990 and 1994, he served on the board of another Carlyle-owned firm, Caterair, a now defunct airline catering firm.

But unmentioned in “Fahrenheit/911,” or in the Lehane responses, is a considerable body of evidence that cuts the other way. The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined “Bush Inc.” concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm’s senior advisors is Thomas “Mack” McLarty, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.

As for the president’s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor—a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush “didn’t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn’t profit from it.” (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush’s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)

June 18: Filmmaker Michael Moore talks to Matt Lauer about this controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Most importantly, the movie fails to show any evidence that Bush White House actually has intervened in any way to promote the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company’s interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system that had been developed for the U.S. Army (during the Clinton administration)—a move that had been foreshadowed by Bush’s own statements during the 2000 campaign saying he wanted a lighter and more mobile military. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001 (and profited to the tune of $237 million). Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—in the face of stiff congressional resistance—canceled the Crusader program the following year. These developments, like much else relevant to Carlyle, goes unmentioned in Moore’s movie.

None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate questions that deserve to be asked about the influence that secretive firms like Carlyle have in Washington—not to mention the Saudis themselves (an issue that has been taken up repeatedly in our weekly Terror Watch columns.) Nor are we trying to say that “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t a powerful and effective movie that raises a host of legitimate issues about President Bush’s response to the September 11 attacks, the climate of fear engendered by the war on terror and, most importantly, about the wisdom and horrific human toll of the war in Iraq.

But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.

Consider Moore’s handling of another conspiratorial claim: the idea that oil-company interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan influenced early Bush administration policy regarding the Taliban. Moore raises the issue by stringing together two unrelated events. The first is that a delegation of Taliban leaders flew to Houston, Texas, in 1997 (”while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,” the movie helpfully points out) to meet with executives of Unocal, an oil company that was indeed interested in building a pipeline to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan.

more

Evilmav2 · 07-01-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

I'm afraid that the attack at the theatre is a glimpse into the real soul of the anti-Bush movement. It scares me because it reminds me of socialist uprisings in Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, South America, Africa, etc... The left has become an engraged ball of hate which I beleive is just about willing do anything to return to power. If the party is allowed to follow it's current path of decay, I fear that we will be witness to political atmosphere in which fringe members use violence and terror-style tactics to strike back upon those who they see as oppressors. Remeber this any time you see someone calling for an America "intifada", or fantasizing about the assasination of Bush and Cheney. These types of things are already being talked about fancifully among those in the far left. How long will it be before we see Al-Qaeda style terrorist tactics from fringe Democrats? Listening to some of the rhetoric coming from these people, I say that day is closer than we all think.

Ape, not only are responsible "voices of the left" taking to the streets in their jackboots and assaulting those who don't share their opinions, but over the last couple of years a ridiculous volume of incidences of leftist teachers and professors abusing their positions because of their political ideology have come to light.

Over the last three years, we have seen a junior high school teacher show his class a video of Nicholas Berg being beheaded while explaining to his 13 year olds that, "this happened because of Bush's illegal war in Iraq", we have seen a high school teacher award his students extra credit for attending anti-Bush rallies and writing papers explaining why it is wrong for the US to "invade" Afghanistan, and then angrily refused to give a student who writes a pro-"invasion" report credit, and seen an African studies professor spends half of her term teaching a unsanctioned and vile polemic elucidating to her freshmen the links between fascist, imperialist Americans, oil, George Bush, and international Zionism, and then proceeded to fail a good third of her class who complained that she wasn't teaching the mandated course material.

These are just a couple of examples of the kinds of poisonous, and pregnant leftist teacher proselytism that has recently come to light in the press, and that appears to be seeping into our educational system at all levels.

In this sense, the shrill voices of the left apparently not only find it acceptable to unleash their aggressive soldiers to assault and harass their intellectual foes in the streets*, but they also find it fit and judicious to attempt to boggle and influence the young of America by cramming crass and intellectually disengenous propoganda down their throats in the schools. And this dual strategy of the Democrats in combining leftist street-corner agitation and intimidation with a dedicated effort to use our educational system to teach young people that the voices of the left are right and good, and those of Republicans are bad and wrong, do represent a very alarming development in American political culture.

This is the kind of Democratic Party political methodology that an Albert Streicher or Joseph Goebbels would appreciate, not a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy...

------------------------------
*In my opinion, that movie theatre incident is not singular; I still have vivid memories of being angrily harangued on the street by a cluster of "anti-war" protesters in Boston as I waited to board the T. This happened largely because I dared to become engaged with one of their members in a discussion about the merits of putting paid to Saddam and his gang of thugs after he forced a slanderous flyer accusing Bush of genocide into my hand. On this occasion, I vividly discovered that if the shabby leftist intellectual arguments of aggressive protesters fail to persuade their targets, the dirty rabble will not stand above using shouting, profanity, and threatening numbers in attempting to enforce their points) , but they find it infinitely

sturm und drang · 07-01-2004, 03:40 PM

The rants in this thread about the Democrats being a jack-booted, belligerent and violent mob who has taken to the streets is making me laugh audibly.

Of all the extremist, paranoid partisan fantasies I've read here, this takes the proverbial cake.

Evilmav2 · 07-01-2004, 03:55 PM

The next time I get verbally accosted by a Republican, pro-Bush protester on the street will be the first.

The next time I get bothered by gangs of angry, aggressive leftists who want to press into my hand a flyer telling me how many Palestinian children George Bush has murdered this week, and explain to me the cogency of Zionist-Republican oil conspiracies in the Middle East, will be the 20th or 25th time (thankfully, Dallas doesn't serve as home to many of these street agitators, but I have encounted their dirty like on street corners ranging from Copley Square in Boston, to the Memorial Union at IU, to the campuses of Clairmont-McKenna in California).

These people are aggressive, they are organized, and they DO NOT like anyone who does not agree with their slanted, partisan, and deranged visions of world politics. I've personally become embroiled with these sorts of street people in debate on a couple of occasions (I am generally not the type to hold my tongue in responding to someone who wants to educate me in the finer point of how bad and evil America and George Bush are), and I will say that after having been shouted at by a gaggle of them on one of thoses incidences, it does not surprise me one bit that they are assaulting people now.

MavKikiNYC · 07-01-2004, 05:03 PM

Well how about that? Hussein and Michael Moore are taking the same position.

Hussein Charged in Iraqi Court; Calls Bush `Criminal,' CNN Says

July 1 (Bloomberg) -- Deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein appeared in court today and was read seven charges against him for crimes committed during his 23-year rule, Cable News Network reported, citing the network's reporter in the courtroom.

Hussein identified himself as ``president of Iraq'' and refused to sign legal documents that said he understood the proceedings, CNN reported. The charges against him included invading Kuwait, suppressing the Shiite uprising after the 1991 Gulf War and killing members of political parties and religious leaders, the network said on its Web site.

``This is all a theater, the real criminal is Bush,'' Hussein said in court, according to CNN. Hussein also said that he wanted his attorney to be present, CNN said.

Hussein and 11 of his top officials are appearing before the Iraqi Special Tribunal set up to prosecute them for crimes that included the use of chemical weapons that killed thousands of Kurds in 1988. The trials of Hussein and his key aides, who were ousted from power in April last year, probably won't begin until 2005, Iraqi officials have said.

(CNN 6-29)

Murphy3 · 07-01-2004, 06:54 PM

Has anyone actually seen Hussein and Moore in the same place at the same time? hmm?

sturm und drang · 07-01-2004, 07:36 PM

"These people," EvilMav? "These people"? Who are these people? Are they the DNC? Are these Democratic party rallies or conventions? Hmmm?

Didn't think so.

You know, the next time I see an organized "God Hates Fags" rally at a homosexual's funeral or those lovely "Abortion = murder" criminals/accosters at an abortion clinic or the euphemistically self-titled "Defenders of Marriage" protesters on the steps of the Massachusetts courthouses marrying gays... well, I'll definitely assume all these violent and infuriating protesters are all Democrats.

sturm und drang · 07-01-2004, 07:48 PM

"This is the kind of Democratic Party political methodology that an Albert Streicher or Joseph Goebbels would appreciate, not a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy..."

Comparing Julius Streicher and Goebbels to current American political parties is indeed interesting, EvilMav. Let's consider what Streicher and Goebbels oversaw as prominent NSDAP members:

- The justification of the invasion of Poland and USSR, among others, under fabricated pretenses
- The persecution of minorities unlike them (Jews, gypsies, Communists, homosexuals)
- The refusal to release government documents to the public
- Torture of political prisoners under the infamous "Nacht und Nebel" decree
- The legal limitation of marriage to certain "acceptable" parties

Well, you're right on one count: Those good ol' school brown shirt Nazis do remind me of one of our current American political parties...

Evilmav2 · 07-01-2004, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
"These people," EvilMav? "These people"? Who are these people? Are they the DNC? Are these Democratic party rallies or conventions? Hmmm?

Didn't think so.

You know, the next time I see an organized "God Hates Fags" rally at a homosexual's funeral or those lovely "Abortion = murder" criminals/accosters at an abortion clinic or the euphemistically self-titled "Defenders of Marriage" protesters on the steps of the Massachusetts courthouses marrying gays... well, I'll definitely assume all these violent and infuriating protesters are all Democrats.

Just what the hell are you talking about? Geez... What the goshdarned heck do I care what somebody's sexual orientation is? The answer is, I don't care. I have had many gay friends and aquaintances over the years (I can think of more than a couple who would laugh to read someone try to accuse me of being a homophobe the way you just did), I don't look down on anybody for doing what seems normal and natural as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (whether that is dancing around naked in your backyard, spending hours reading about basketball on an internet board, or choosing someone who is of your same sex to care about and spend your life with), and I certainly didn't say one goddamned parsed thing about gay people, or monkeys, or little green men in my earlier post.

I was talking about dirty, stinking, wannabe-1960's, my-parents-sent-me-to-school-with-my-cellphone-and-Che-Guevera-poster, countercultural types, who harass people by protesting on public thoroughfares and who react loudly, rudely, and at least in one case, violently, to anybody who would dare to disagree with their loud and belligerent public, political posturing.

I know that over the last year or two, you have gotten in many a public argument on this forum about gays, prejudice, discrimination, and the movement for same sex marriages, and I have read these debates with a passing interest. That vein of argument is generally not the sort of thing that I really get worked up about, but I have read much of the meat of these debates, and I will say that you would probably be amazed to know just how many of your own arguments concerning these matters I agree with.

I traditionally have been prone to say live and let live about that sort of thing, and I find anyone exhibiting intolerance focussed on religion or personal choice (as long as it hurts nobody else) to be both grating and un-American.

That said, I am absolutely disgusted that you broke out your big paintbrush of slurs to tar and feather me as some kind of an intolerant bigot talking about "those people" (my meaning: spoiled, dirty hippies), by making an insane leap of judgment in illogically implying that my simple phrase referred to homosexuals. As I said earlier, I didn't say one damned thing about homosexuals, I wasn't thinking one damned thing about homosexuals when I wrote my earlier posts (I was thinking about being harassed on the street by vain and derelict baby-boomers, and spoiled college kid hippies), and I take great offense at your slurring insult.