The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are fledgling representative ones. Democracy is not an instant gratification phonomenon. It requires deliberation, negotiation and the finalization of a constitution. Both countries are engaged in this process.

The three pages of discussion to the contrary offer no proof - just hystrionics.


Here you go (all former communist/socialist states):

Bulgaria - parliamentary republic
Czech Republic - parliamentary republic
Estonia - parliamentary democracy
Hungary - republic
Latvia - unicameral democracy
Lithuania - parliamentary republic
Poland - bicameral republic
Romania - parliamentary republic
Slovakia - parliamentary republic
Slovenia - parliamentary republic

As many here can attest....I have no problem with the many views held by members at TFP, and in fact the reason I frequent this board is to learn from these opinions. Perhaps it is the WAY in which said opinions are articulated that has pushed me to lurker status. As it is, the snide and sarcastic remarks are something I can do without.
Fortunately, as in the past, this will be quelled before long, at which point I will of course return to full participation.

Whatever. I find your behavior to be rather passive-aggressive and incredibly transparent. You are trying to make your distaste for my posts into a board issue with your "it's a pity" comments.

On a board with over 30,000 members, there are plenty of like-minded individuals with whom to engage. Fixating on me with your "pity" is rather pointless given the size and variety of the community.

You're the one who started this thread with a lot of baseless claims. You have yet to back up shit. On the other hand we show you that he is going to donate millions of dollars and all you can say is that numbers can be fudged. We show you that he's encouraging people to download the movie (much to the dismay of the distributer). We show you plenty of other cases that show he's not in it just for a payday but according to you it's just histrionics. It's far more likely that you are the one guilty of being histronic.

You haven't seen the movie but somehow you "know" what Moore is about because of some interviews you've seen and columns by people who don't like him.

And it would be great if wonderwench and tecoyah took their bickering to PMs or, even better, stopped altogether. Personal attacks need to end or this thread will vanish...come to think of it, that'd be okay.

I don't want to see the thread vanish, but yes the personal attacks do need to cease.

Agreed....my apologies

not a problem

It might be interesting to read what Moore's fans here do in fact think his agenda in making this film is.....

Let's see...this is what I said about 60 posts ago:

And that's just my post.

What do you think his real aganda is? Illuminati conspiracy? Alliance with the Chinese to disparage America? Making money in the fantastically profitable left-wing advocacy field?

Then why not call his film what it is:

Political commentary?

Aarrrggghhh! Because it's a documentary, maybe?!

Ok, I feel better.

Geez, I don't mean to get bent out of shape, but how many times can you repeat that the flick isn't a documentary? It's a damn political commentary documentary. The two are not exclusive.

To influence as many people as possible, with an interpretation of the events, that is slanted by the film makers own position. I am not a fan, but I do appreciate what he is attempting to accomplish, and respect the effort.

I can live with political commumentary.

I think we need to revise the way documentaries are defined - similar to the distinctions made between news reporting and editorials.

*Hopefully I'm detecting a trend. My posts are now subject to a level of scrutiny never before realized. In fact, I'm glad I have an admin moderating me.*

I think people need to remove their heads from their asses and realize it's a moot point at best whether it's a "documentary" or not. Assigning an absolute definition will still not change what it is.

No matter how factually accurate, every documentary has a slant. Every documentary is produced to facilitate this slant. For example: A documentary about WWII made in America will have a different slant than one made in Germany, or Japan- this does not mean they're not all technically accurate. They're just slanted to accomodate the message.

Perhaps more people should rely on real information sources rather than MOVIES. Documentary or not, it's still a MOVIE.

EDIT:
This is irrelevent. Net profit is net profit. They are giving away 60% of what is left when all the bills are paid, which are numerous and very costly. You have to pay the bills before you give money away. Nobody with any savvy gives away money before they know what they will make in net profit.

Hmmm....I believe that quite a few posts have been made in the Lies thread which do successfully challenge the facts.

many have tried, all have failed. That is another thread though. The truth is though that since you haven't seen the movie, you don't know the facts in the movie. One article in particular was completely incorrect.

It is not irrelevant. Hollywood is rife with lawsuits because of the accounting tricks which reduce the net.

Let's address the lies in the lies thread.

This thread is about the conflict between Moore's personal advantage and his stated politics.

I am still wondering how his support of Nader is going to affect Kerry - and how it may ensure Bush's re-election.

*why the hell am I so angry?*

Michael Moore is not supporting Nader this time and has publically apologized to Al Gore for his Nader support 4 years ago.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that Moore actually helps the conservative cause by being such an extreme blowhard - his distortions energize the base and alienate moderate undecided voters.

I don't see conservative groups trying to bring him down. In fact, many commentators are encouraging people to see the film in order to understand how biased it is.

Some conservative groups have pressured theaters not to run the film. I believe that they were successful in one or two areas. This sounds like some conservatives are "trying to bring him down" to me.

*I must learn to play better with others*

kutulu - COOL IT!!!

one more of those types of attacks and you will be the proud recipient of an official warning...and in the interest of sensibilities, please clean up the visual and verbal language in your avatar and sig...

Moore has publically stated that in the 2000 election, that if you lived in a swing state, a state in which it was close, that you should vote for Gore. He supported Nader only in states which Gore was the favorite.
This year he is encouraging everyone to vote against Bush..and if you live in a state where Kerry is the likely favorite, to travel to a state in which Bush has a chance to win, and vote there.

And other chains / theatres have jumped on the opportunity to make big bucks. I don't see that a few protests have hurt the box office.

We will see if this strategy works in November. Moderate Americans, by whom this election will be decided, generally do not respond well to hate-filled messages and negative campaigning. They want to know for what they are voting - not what they are voting against.

Kerry is going to have a tough time on the national security front given his voting record and Edward's complete inexperience in foreign policy. I doubt that Nader will cooperate with the Moore strategy, btw. He has his own ego to feed.

Michael Moore is a cross between someone with a Jesus complex and a money-grubbin evangelist...he's popular because of his clown persona...Insane Clown Posse for the masses.

I never said that it hurt the film. I was refuting your claim that no conservatives were "trying to bring him down."

Moore was on the Charlie Rose Show (interview show) on July 1 2004.
He was asked why he made the movie. Moore replied, "To get Bush out of Office."

Now, even if F911 was perfect, that there was no argument as to the validity of his facts or the way he chose to present them, you've got to ask yourself:
-Is this where I want to learn about whats going on in the world?
-Do I want to get my information from someone as controversial as Michael Moore?
-Are movies supposed to help decide democratic Presidential elections?

Whether its the news on TV, on the internet, in the newspapers, magazines, books, wherever, its always nice to know the slant (and everyone has one) of the author.

I wouldn't think that Michael Moore's slant is very well hidden. Whatever the case, I seriously doubt that this movie will play any significant role in the outcome of the election. Of course, every artist/journalist/citizen has the write to express themselves politically however they so chose, election year or no election year.

If that's the case then Bush is in trouble. He has run far more negative campaign ads than Kerry

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...n-ad-index.htm


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...analysis_x.htm

Interesting Kutulu...it looks quite certain that if what Wonderwench said is true, Bush will be gone...yay

I don't know. You can't generalize a group that large. You also have to factor in that most people in the country are pretty dumb and take a lot of what's heard at face value. I hate misleading ads the most.

Mr Moore loves his country and wants to see it ran better than it is now.... for that I commend him.

Of course he wants to get paid... don't we all....