Now this is absurd...Ban Fahrenheit 9/11??

[cinder]

Then there's the whole Bush thing on the gyroscope thingy............




Now THAT would be a Moore movie worth making! Presidential blunders, like an America's Funniest Video thing.

[club33az]

OCNATIVE, love the avatars. Ramones rock, baby!!!

[ocnative1964]

^^^^ Thank You very much... too bad the avatars dont have sound, like a mini rocumentry.... how fun... Michael???

the Ramones are one of the best bands I ever saw live... a couple times... up close Ive got some snap shots somewhere....

[Misterio]

USC has changed... this election is showing it too. USC dumped it's conservative image years ago, and everybody knows it. I wouldn't surprise if USC ends up like another Berkeley in 10-15 years.

Interesting how everyone knows USC has changed, seeing as how I just graduated there last year, and I was unfamiliar with this development. In comparison to other schools with which I am familiar, most notably UCLA, USC is BY FAR the more conservative institution, and is not even in the same league as Berkeley. While college students in general are more liberal than the general population, USC still has a reputation for being conservative. As you are only 16, I do not expect you to have an insider's perspective, but schools' images take a long time to develop and do not make so dramatic a shift as to become another UC Berkeley within such a short time, particularly when a strong business program is one of its major hallmarks (the other being film), which is traditionally associated with a pro-business and hence more conservative viewpoint. Berkeley has a tradition of student protests and civil disobedience which have contributed to its earning its reputation for liberal thought--USC, lacking this same stimulus, is very unlikely to move in this direction. Using a short-term political thought like a single election may not be representative of the student populace as a whole and should not be used to color the entire university.

[MattO]

I don't want to see it because I disagree with everything Michael Moore has every said and stood for. I think that he is an ignorant moron. I couldn't stand his propoganda film, Bowling for Columbine. It was a piece of liberal propoganda crap. And this new one will most likely infuriate me just as much. However, due to the fact that I believe in seeing everything for myself prior to making a judgement I will reluctantly watch it. I just would like to borrow the DVD from somebody because I do not want to contribute in any way to the mentally insane Michael Moore fund. UGH!

I would like to add that I do not believe in censorship. If morons want to make moronic movies they should have the freedom to do so.

Did you ever see Roger and Me?

[MattO]

How dare you insult the President?!?! I don't care if you don't agree with him, but don't insult him. I would never insult the President, regardless of their political stance or how much I disagree with them. I can't believe that some people have such disrespect for the President.

Thank Dick Nixon for that.

[MattO]

I highly doubt that that the government would push to censor it. See, only the left ever has such grandiose theories of conspiracy thinking such things like
"the government is trying to censor Michael Moore's film! They are afraid of Michael Moore!!"
Give me a break.

Yeah...governments in this country have never censored works of art. Uh huh...

[MattO]

I would honestly like to believe that any president or governing body within the United States would allow freedom of speech to exist, but I'm not so sure that is happening. Just as a potential example, not to go off topic (that much!), I have a simple case. When the Enron scandal was happening, CNN did a quick little segment during one of its newscasts. The segment said that perhaps the Bush administration should have looked into Enron more closely as many taxes evasions had been made and it was becoming more clear that something unusual was occuring within the company. Only days later, after the segment came out, an audit was ordered on CNN that cost millions of dollars. Now this case could be mere coincidence, and I truly hope it was, but if it wasn't, how horrible is it that a news channel, movie or even citizen can't express their guaranteed right of the freedom of their speech. If a movie company, such as Miramax, fears the backlash of government sentiments and therefore would not release the film, we have a true problem within our country. The government may not be directly and blatantly censoring the movie but through cause and effect, it just might be (but hopefully not!). All of this info is predicated among facts discussed during a recent political behavior debate. Any movie should be allowed out whether it is against our president or against Michael Moore. Everyone deserves for their opinions to be heard, its just really up to those who choose whether or not they want to listen. I don't know, its just something to think about...

Look at what the FCC is doing to Howard Stern, an ardent anti-Bush voice.

[Instidude]

Look at what the FCC is doing to Howard Stern, an ardent anti-Bush voice.

Tie that into the fact that Clear Channel dropped him, a large media corporation that donates primarilt to the GOP coffers, and you see why people begin to think of "conspiracy" when it comes to government.

It's not just one side either, you can apply the "conspiracy" idea to both sides of the aisle.

[Sir_Cliff]

I watched him on Letterman (who is not too fond of the Bush Whitehouse after they accused him of creating the image of the bored kid during one of the president's speeches - which was not the case), and also on This Week on Sunday. More than anything, he is trying to bring to light some facts that have been conveniently glossed over by many because of fear of being called "unpatriotic", where actually questioning your elected officials is about the most patriotic thing to do.

This is the oddest aspect of American politics in the Bush era for me, and I think most other people outside America, to understand. Isn't it a natural part of democracy to criticise the government and their policies? Aren't people worried that the Republicans are trying to make themselves synonomous with "America" so that if you're anti-Bush administration you're anti-American? Bill O'Reilly was even suggesting the other night that people criticising the War in Iraq were dangerous! God, talking about "Changing the tone in Washington"!

I also find it odd that people are suggesting that Moore is an uneducated fool simply because they don't like his message, while people like Rush Limbaugh are fine, reasonable people. We've even seen someone going on to praise Bush's public speaking abilities while criticising Kerry for being somehow too good and thus "French-like"! I think people are having difficulty seeing beyond the fact that just because you agree with a particular point of view it doesn't mean that those who put forward one you don't agree with are idiots.

Whether you like them or not, Bowling For Columbine and this coming film have both received overwhelming positive reviews, the former an Academy Award and the latter the Palm D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. That doesn't make them inherently brilliant, but it does mean that he has proven himself to have at least some intellectual merit.

Also, please, all this talk of disrespect for the President.. Was Clinton treated with respect when in office? There was a conservative group that went so far as to buy advertising during his recent 60 Minutes interview to air anti-Clinton ads and he's not even the bloody president anymore! I agree with whoever it was earlier who said they respect the office, but you don't have to respect the person holding it.