| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Whateverafter" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2004 08:14:52 PM |
| Object: |
Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a respectful
thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all again.
.
|
|
| User: "Jamal Chapultapec" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
27 Jun 2004 08:35:58 PM |
|
|
(Whateverafter) wrote in
news:20040627211452.16791.00000610@mb-m20.aol.com:
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have
been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a
respectful thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all
again.
I meant to see it. But instead I spent the whole weekend masturbating while
thinking about drowning little girls.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "alvintchase" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
28 Jun 2004 12:12:23 PM |
|
|
(Whateverafter) wrote in message news:<20040627211452.16791.00000610@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a respectful
thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all again.
Not yet...I can't wait to see it though!!!I really hope it helps Kerry....
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
29 Jun 2004 11:27:24 AM |
|
|
On 28 Jun 2004 10:12:23 -0700, (alvintchase) wrote:
whateverafter@aol.com (Whateverafter) wrote in message news:<20040627211452.16791.00000610@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a respectful
thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all again.
Not yet...I can't wait to see it though!!!I really hope it helps Kerry....
That is what it is designed to do. Though Moore denies that. Moore even
claims he isn't a Democrat - yet his last voter registration in New York
does in fact list him as a Democrat.
--
REBEL, n. A proponent of a new misrule who has failed to establish it.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "epicphart" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
29 Jun 2004 12:04:50 PM |
|
|
CyberDroog wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 10:12:23 -0700, (alvintchase) wrote:
whateverafter@aol.com (Whateverafter) wrote in message news:<20040627211452.16791.00000610@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a respectful
thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all again.
Not yet...I can't wait to see it though!!!I really hope it helps Kerry....
That is what it is designed to do. Though Moore denies that. Moore even
claims he isn't a Democrat
where in the hell did you get this idea ^^^^???? LoL
- yet his last voter registration in New York
does in fact list him as a Democrat.
--
REBEL, n. A proponent of a new misrule who has failed to establish it.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
29 Jun 2004 05:13:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:04:50 -0600, epicphart <nahhhYouDontWantIt@nahh.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 10:12:23 -0700, (alvintchase) wrote:
whateverafter@aol.com (Whateverafter) wrote in message news:<20040627211452.16791.00000610@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a respectful
thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all again.
Not yet...I can't wait to see it though!!!I really hope it helps Kerry....
That is what it is designed to do. Though Moore denies that. Moore even
claims he isn't a Democrat
where in the hell did you get this idea ^^^^???? LoL
From Michael Moore... Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an
independent.
- yet his last voter registration in New York
does in fact list him as a Democrat.
Just to reiterate...
--
DISOBEDIENCE, n. The silver lining to the cloud of servitude.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "epicphart" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
29 Jun 2004 10:05:44 PM |
|
|
CyberDroog wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:04:50 -0600, epicphart <nahhhYouDontWantIt@nahh.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
On 28 Jun 2004 10:12:23 -0700, (alvintchase) wrote:
whateverafter@aol.com (Whateverafter) wrote in message news:<20040627211452.16791.00000610@mb-m20.aol.com>...
Anyone else see it? I thought he left out a lot that could have been
shown. In bringing up what happened on that day 9/11, he did a respectful
thing by having the screen black instead of shwoing it all again.
Not yet...I can't wait to see it though!!!I really hope it helps Kerry....
That is what it is designed to do. Though Moore denies that. Moore even
claims he isn't a Democrat
where in the hell did you get this idea ^^^^???? LoL
From Michael Moore... Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an
independent.
- yet his last voter registration in New York
does in fact list him as a Democrat.
Just to reiterate...
--
DISOBEDIENCE, n. The silver lining to the cloud of servitude.
- Ambrose Bierce
wow, and i though for sure he was endorsing wes clark....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 12:35:08 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an independent.
The Democrats certainly don't appeal to Moore. Too far
to the right, and too much big money. The only big money
which does not make Moore angry is the big money
in his own bank account. That big money, however, is
so precious to him that he doesn't even invest it for
funding his own movies.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 09:40:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:35:08 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an independent.
The Democrats certainly don't appeal to Moore. Too far
to the right, and too much big money. The only big money
which does not make Moore angry is the big money
in his own bank account. That big money, however, is
so precious to him that he doesn't even invest it for
funding his own movies.
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
Bank account? Moore supports a 70% tax rate for the rich. I just assumed
that he was voluntarily donating that much to the government. Silly me.
--
The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully
attacked, but to be ineptly defended.
- Fredric Bastiat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 02:09:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:40:08 +0000, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
snip
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
Is it a requirement that one declare an allegiance when registering to
vote? Anyway, there is some tactical sense in making a false declaration
- and no come-back, with a secret ballot.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 09:21:10 PM |
|
|
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.30.19.08.58.495116@ID-107770.user.uni-berlin.de...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:40:08 +0000, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
snip
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
Is it a requirement that one declare an allegiance when registering to
vote? Anyway, there is some tactical sense in making a false declaration
- and no come-back, with a secret ballot.
Some states have 'closed' primaries. Democrat registered voters only are
allowed to vote in Democrat primaries.
Some states have 'open' primaries. All voters can ask for any primary
ballot, but only one.
Some states have mixed primaries. Independent or 'none' registered voters
can choose, but R's and D's have to stay in their own party.
There is no federal primary.
There is no requirement that you register in line with your party
membership.
Before I was covered under the Hatch Act I was a registered democrat voter,
and card carrying republican. Both lists are public domain (or were at the
time).
Many local elections are one-party elections. There is no republican who
wants to be mayor of Baltimore, nor is there one who could win, no matter
what. If you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you must register as a
democrat.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 09:39:39 PM |
|
|
Many local elections are one-party elections. There is no republican who
wants to be mayor of Baltimore, nor is there one who could win, no matter
what. If you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you must register as a
democrat.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
says who ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
01 Jul 2004 03:49:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:21:10 -0400, "Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net>
wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.30.19.08.58.495116@ID-107770.user.uni-berlin.de...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:40:08 +0000, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
snip
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
Is it a requirement that one declare an allegiance when registering to
vote? Anyway, there is some tactical sense in making a false
declaration - and no come-back, with a secret ballot.
Some states have 'closed' primaries. Democrat registered voters only are
allowed to vote in Democrat primaries. Some states have 'open' primaries.
All voters can ask for any primary ballot, but only one.
Some states have mixed primaries. Independent or 'none' registered voters
can choose, but R's and D's have to stay in their own party. There is no
federal primary.
That sounds really weird to me. Can't US political parties arrange their
own systems for choosing candidates, open to 'members only'? That seems
to work 'over here'.
There is no requirement that you register in line with your party
membership.
Before I was covered under the Hatch Act I was a registered democrat
voter, and card carrying republican. Both lists are public domain (or
were at the time).
It shouldn't be anyone's business but yours, what your party alliegence
or preference might be. That's part of what a secret ballot is all about.
Many local elections are one-party elections. There is no republican who
wants to be mayor of Baltimore, nor is there one who could win, no matter
what. If you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you must register as a
democrat.
Does the Mayor of Baltimore have any power, or is the title mostly
ceremonial? Most mayors in England are chosen from amongst themselves by
the elected Councillors (there are many local variations) but the job
carries no real power or authority, and usually lasts only one year.
The very few English mayors who do have real power (a very recent
innovation; the only one I can think of off hand being the Mayor of
London) are directly elected by the citizens. (I think Wales is similar
to England, in this; they do things differently in Northern Ireland and
Scotland).
No-one in the UK is required to declare a party alliegence, or lack of
one, in order to vote in public elections. Of course, only party members
[1] are involved in choosing party candidates, but that's a private affair.
[1] Our parties each have their own peculiar ways of choosing candidates
and 'leaders'.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hap Arnold" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
01 Jul 2004 08:49:06 PM |
|
|
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.01.20.48.57.252716@ID-107770.user.uni-berlin.de...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:21:10 -0400, "Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net>
wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.30.19.08.58.495116@ID-107770.user.uni-berlin.de...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:40:08 +0000, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
snip
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as
a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
Is it a requirement that one declare an allegiance when registering to
vote? Anyway, there is some tactical sense in making a false
declaration - and no come-back, with a secret ballot.
Some states have 'closed' primaries. Democrat registered voters only
are
allowed to vote in Democrat primaries. Some states have 'open'
primaries.
All voters can ask for any primary ballot, but only one.
Some states have mixed primaries. Independent or 'none' registered
voters
can choose, but R's and D's have to stay in their own party. There is no
federal primary.
That sounds really weird to me. Can't US political parties arrange their
own systems for choosing candidates, open to 'members only'? That seems
to work 'over here'.
It all depends on the state.
Some states allow the parties to choose their leadership and candidates any
way they want. Most states have a primary election because that is what the
voters want. Again the decision to allow open or closed primaries is
usually a matter a state party decision. Some states operate under a
'consent decree' from the US Dept of Justice which limits their ability to
change these things. States that were accused of using the candidate
selection process to deny blacks entry on the ballot as major party
candidates- usually Dixie states- have 'voluntarily and without admission of
past wrong doing' agreed to have open primaries so that black voters are not
left voting in meaningless primaries while the 'old democrats' have the real
primary on the 'dixiecrat' ballot - to use an example from the 1950's.
Virginia is 'members' only, but it isn't private. The party makes the
government pay for it.
There is no requirement that you register in line with your party
membership.
Before I was covered under the Hatch Act I was a registered democrat
voter, and card carrying republican. Both lists are public domain (or
were at the time).
It shouldn't be anyone's business but yours, what your party alliegence
or preference might be. That's part of what a secret ballot is all about.
Many local elections are one-party elections. There is no republican
who
wants to be mayor of Baltimore, nor is there one who could win, no
matter
what. If you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you must register as
a
democrat.
Does the Mayor of Baltimore have any power, or is the title mostly
ceremonial? Most mayors in England are chosen from amongst themselves by
the elected Councillors (there are many local variations) but the job
carries no real power or authority, and usually lasts only one year.
The very few English mayors who do have real power (a very recent
innovation; the only one I can think of off hand being the Mayor of
London) are directly elected by the citizens. (I think Wales is similar
to England, in this; they do things differently in Northern Ireland and
Scotland).
No-one in the UK is required to declare a party alliegence, or lack of
one, in order to vote in public elections. Of course, only party members
[1] are involved in choosing party candidates, but that's a private
affair.
[1] Our parties each have their own peculiar ways of choosing candidates
and 'leaders'.
Mayors are different in every city.
Some cities don't have mayors at all-- they have city managers.
Some mayors are mostly ceremonial, some are presiding members of the city
council, some are chief executives.
Daly I in Chicago was chief of the civil service but didn't have any
legislative function except to break ties in council. The mayor didn't have
any power, the power rested in the 50 alderman (one from each ward).
However, Daley was the head of the Regular Democratic Party Organization
(tm). The 'machine' was the organ that selected candidates for each ward.
So if you didn't do what the mayor wanted in council then your oppenent next
year had a lot of money and a lot of workers to turn out the vote... oh and
in the mean time all your snow plows were scheduled for maintenence during
winter and your garbage trucks were repaired in summer while the other 49
wards did theirs the other way. I lived in ward 5. Ward 5 never voted for
the machine candidate. We had the oldest plows, the worst garbage trucks,
the most pot-holes, the busiest fire house (siren always on), the smallest
patrol division, etc.
If you do a google search on "weak mayor", "strong mayor", and "city
manager" you should get an outline of the city government options in the
states.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
02 Jul 2004 03:38:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:49:06 -0400, "Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net>
wrote:
snip
If you do a google search on "weak mayor", "strong mayor", and "city
manager" you should get an outline of the city government options in the
states.
I think I dislike our ways a little less. Our city governments tend to be
impartial in their corruption and incompetence.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
02 Jul 2004 04:53:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:38:05 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:49:06 -0400, "Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net>
wrote:
snip
If you do a google search on "weak mayor", "strong mayor", and "city
manager" you should get an outline of the city government options in the
states.
I think I dislike our ways a little less. Our city governments tend to be
impartial in their corruption and incompetence.
Google: worst president ever
--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
03 Jul 2004 04:43:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:53:37 -0500, "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:38:05 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:49:06 -0400, "Hap Arnold" <hap.arnold@cox.net>
wrote:
snip
If you do a google search on "weak mayor", "strong mayor", and "city
manager" you should get an outline of the city government options in the
states.
I think I dislike our ways a little less. Our city governments tend to be
impartial in their corruption and incompetence.
Google: worst president ever
There was a president called Google? Where of? <G>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 06:16:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:09:05 +0100, Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:40:08 +0000, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
snip
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
Is it a requirement that one declare an allegiance when registering to
vote? Anyway, there is some tactical sense in making a false declaration
- and no come-back, with a secret ballot.
It is up to the states to decide how they register voters. We don't
declare party allegiance in Wisconsin.
--
The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by
the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the
government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be
enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this
country is closely connected with this.
- Albert Einstein, My First Impression of the U.S.A., 1921
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 01:55:38 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:35:08 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an independent.
The Democrats certainly don't appeal to Moore. Too far
to the right, and too much big money. The only big money
which does not make Moore angry is the big money
in his own bank account. That big money, however, is
so precious to him that he doesn't even invest it for
funding his own movies.
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
In 2000, Moore supported Nader's campaign. Nader was running
for the Green. Will you now claim that Moore is both a Democrat
and a Green?
BTW, how is the legal situation in NY? If a voter wanted to
vote in the democratic primaries, would he have to register
as a democrat, or could he register as an independent, and
then vote in the democratic primaries?
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 03:02:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:55:38 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:35:08 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an independent.
The Democrats certainly don't appeal to Moore. Too far
to the right, and too much big money. The only big money
which does not make Moore angry is the big money
in his own bank account. That big money, however, is
so precious to him that he doesn't even invest it for
funding his own movies.
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
In 2000, Moore supported Nader's campaign. Nader was running
for the Green. Will you now claim that Moore is both a Democrat
and a Green?
I was stating a simple fact. The last time Moore registered to vote, he
registered as a Democrat.
How can I tell you what he is when apparently he doesn't even know?
BTW, how is the legal situation in NY? If a voter wanted to
vote in the democratic primaries, would he have to register
as a democrat, or could he register as an independent, and
then vote in the democratic primaries?
You got me. We'll also have to check Michigan. Moore is registered in
that state also.
--
EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 03:05:58 PM |
|
|
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:uu66e0lgkl6klc0g00e39trreb1icm635b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:55:38 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:35:08 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an independent.
The Democrats certainly don't appeal to Moore. Too far
to the right, and too much big money. The only big money
which does not make Moore angry is the big money
in his own bank account. That big money, however, is
so precious to him that he doesn't even invest it for
funding his own movies.
The last time Moore registered to vote in New York, he registered as a
Democrat. That is a simple fact. Democrat. Not Republican, not
Independent.
In 2000, Moore supported Nader's campaign. Nader was running
for the Green. Will you now claim that Moore is both a Democrat
and a Green?
I was stating a simple fact. The last time Moore registered to vote, he
registered as a Democrat.
How can I tell you what he is when apparently he doesn't even know?
BTW, how is the legal situation in NY? If a voter wanted to
vote in the democratic primaries, would he have to register
as a democrat, or could he register as an independent, and
then vote in the democratic primaries?
You got me. We'll also have to check Michigan. Moore is registered in
that state also.
--
EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding.
- Ambrose Bierce
this is getting soooo good now ,
i mean we're even down to not only how he might vote ,
but where he's registered to do so
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Indigo Moon Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 12:54:38 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Thomas Dehn <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Moore claims he is not a Democrat, but an independent.
The Democrats certainly don't appeal to Moore. Too far
to the right, and too much big money. The only big money
which does not make Moore angry is the big money
in his own bank account. That big money, however, is
so precious to him that he doesn't even invest it for
funding his own movies.
Where does he get the funding for his movies? Big studios?
--
A Voice in the Wilderness:
http://avoice.netfirms.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 01:48:08 AM |
|
|
Indigo Moon Man wrote:
Where does he get the funding for his movies? Big studios?
Roger & Me was independent. When he worked in Canada he put money in and so
did a lot of small producers. He probably put the first million into
Farenheit 911 too, Disney/Miramax only put in 5 and some and it was listed
at 7 just before it printed.
He's only made five films. One didn't sell enough and two are borderline.
And besides, no one should be expected to use their pay to pay for their
job anyway. These films are made by production companies. Self-produced
auteur films have the look of Roger & Me or Sherman's March, there is no
way around that low production value. Slick motion picture takes a lot of
money. A filmmaker like Moore hasn't yet made enough to finance seven
million dollar documentaries out-of-pocket. No bank would back him and no
one would bond the production, he just isn't big enough yet to do that sort
of thing on his own.
Maybe now he will be though. A lot of people all over the world will watch
this film. There will be tons of sales. And the Palme D'Or kind of
validates him.
Up until this film though, Michael Moore probably made more money from
speaking engagements than he did from writing or motion picture.
--
<http://www.buddhanet.net/><http://www.gadenrelief.org/><http://www.bpf.org>
<http://dharmanet.org><http://icrc.org><http://icbl.org><http://www.msf.org>
<http://bushmeat.net><http://ecohimal.org><http://rawa.org><http://seva.org>
<http://whalewatch.org><http://peacebrigades.org><http://act.greenpeace.org>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 01:56:16 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Bev Thornton" <bevthornton@email.com> wrote:
He's only made five films. One didn't sell enough and two
are borderline. And besides, no one should be expected
to use their pay to pay for their job anyway.
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda.
He is making the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11
from his own wealth, which he could have easily done,
he "cooperated" with Disney, even though he must have known
for sure that Disney would never distribute the movie in an
election year. That whole affair with Disney not distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing
ploy Moore had already planned more than a year ago.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 05:10:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:56:16 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"Bev Thornton" <bevthornton@email.com> wrote:
He's only made five films. One didn't sell enough and two are
borderline. And besides, no one should be expected to use their pay to
pay for their job anyway.
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda. He is making
the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11 from his own
wealth, which he could have easily done, he "cooperated" with Disney, even
though he must have known for sure that Disney would never distribute the
movie in an election year. That whole affair with Disney not distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing ploy Moore had
already planned more than a year ago.
Now who's just making ***** up?
--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
02 Jul 2004 12:54:47 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:56:16 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote:
He's only made five films. One didn't sell enough and two are
borderline. And besides, no one should be expected to use their pay to
pay for their job anyway.
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda. He is making
the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11 from his own
wealth, which he could have easily done, he "cooperated" with Disney, even
though he must have known for sure that Disney would never distribute the
movie in an election year. That whole affair with Disney not distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing ploy Moore had
already planned more than a year ago.
Now who's just making ***** up?
Maybe you don't remember the "dispute" about distributing
"Bowling for Columbine" which Moore had with Disney?
I don't consider Moore to be so stupid not to know
that there definitely would be a controversy about
"Fahrenheit", especially as a similar "controversy" about "Stupid White
Men" pushed sales for that book through the roof.
Thus, by plain logic, the controversy must have
been part of his plans.
And never mind that Disney claim that
"We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in
May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax"
Are you saying that Disney are lying?
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zippo Raid" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
02 Jul 2004 04:07:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 07:54:47 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:56:16 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote:
He's only made five films. One didn't sell enough and two are
borderline. And besides, no one should be expected to use their pay to
pay for their job anyway.
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda. He is making
the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11 from his own
wealth, which he could have easily done, he "cooperated" with Disney, even
though he must have known for sure that Disney would never distribute the
movie in an election year. That whole affair with Disney not distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing ploy Moore had
already planned more than a year ago.
Now who's just making ***** up?
Maybe you don't remember the "dispute" about distributing
"Bowling for Columbine" which Moore had with Disney?
I don't consider Moore to be so stupid not to know
that there definitely would be a controversy about
"Fahrenheit", especially as a similar "controversy" about "Stupid White
Men" pushed sales for that book through the roof.
Thus, by plain logic, the controversy must have
been part of his plans.
And never mind that Disney claim that
"We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in
May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax"
Are you saying that Disney are lying?
Thomas
Moore's right you are a *****.
--
Road Kill
-
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
02 Jul 2004 04:09:20 PM |
|
|
"Zippo Raid" <road.kill@your.house.com> wrote in message
news:1ijbe0dlr8h4ge84tt0lo1kv3uicl5ekes@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 07:54:47 +0200, "Thomas Dehn"
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:56:16 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote:
He's only made five films. One didn't sell enough and two are
borderline. And besides, no one should be expected to use their pay
to
pay for their job anyway.
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda. He is
making
the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11 from his own
wealth, which he could have easily done, he "cooperated" with Disney,
even
though he must have known for sure that Disney would never distribute
the
movie in an election year. That whole affair with Disney not
distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing ploy Moore
had
already planned more than a year ago.
Now who's just making ***** up?
Maybe you don't remember the "dispute" about distributing
"Bowling for Columbine" which Moore had with Disney?
I don't consider Moore to be so stupid not to know
that there definitely would be a controversy about
"Fahrenheit", especially as a similar "controversy" about "Stupid White
Men" pushed sales for that book through the roof.
Thus, by plain logic, the controversy must have
been part of his plans.
And never mind that Disney claim that
"We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in
May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax"
Are you saying that Disney are lying?
Thomas
Moore's right you are a *****.
--
Road Kill
mmmmm help people
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
30 Jun 2004 06:14:50 PM |
|
|
Thomas Dehn wrote:
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda.
He is making the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11
from his own wealth, which he could have easily done,
he "cooperated" with Disney, even though he must have known
for sure that Disney would never distribute the movie in an
election year. That whole affair with Disney not distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing
ploy Moore had already planned more than a year ago.
That's not the buzz in the industry over here and this is where he did work
for most of his career so far. Over here the rumour is that he did try to
self-finance Farenheit 911 but couldn't get it on his own and couldn't get
it bonded, which sounds about right. Apparently he was involved in another
feature around the same time, not one of his. At one point, a few months
before the Disney/Miramax deal, the rumour was that the project was shelved
because Moore couldn't afford the archival footage he wanted and had to
spend all his time hunting financing.
And when he is hired by a production company, even if it is his own
production company, directing the film is his job and he is paid by the
day. That pay is his pocket money, not his capital or return on investment.
In documentary and even low-budget features, quite often that pay is just
equity, no money at all, just paper.
If you do see him making big bucks off the box office, then that comes from
his capital investment in the film production, whether cash or work where
the pay was turned back into the production through a loan or share.
And if it was anybody's marketing ploy, it was Disney's, not his. Miramax
was supposed to be distributing it on schedule with the rest of the world,
Disney didn't need to block that. However, it is very unlikely that it is a
marketing ploy, the film industry is about putting asses in seats and
nothing more and time is money from the moment the cash hits the production
account to when it comes back at the box office. Stalling release only
increases costs and fouls distribution.
--
<http://www.buddhanet.net/><http://www.gadenrelief.org/><http://www.bpf.org>
<http://dharmanet.org><http://icrc.org><http://icbl.org><http://www.msf.org>
<http://bushmeat.net><http://ecohimal.org><http://rawa.org><http://seva.org>
<http://whalewatch.org><http://peacebrigades.org><http://act.greenpeace.org>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
01 Jul 2004 02:04:03 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Bev Thornton" <bevthornton@email.com> wrote:
Thomas Dehn wrote:
Making movies is not Moore's job, its his political agenda.
He is making the big bucks there. Instead of funding Fahrenheit 9/11
from his own wealth, which he could have easily done,
he "cooperated" with Disney, even though he must have known
for sure that Disney would never distribute the movie in an
election year. That whole affair with Disney not distributing
Fahrenheit 9/11 was nothing more than an obvious marketing
ploy Moore had already planned more than a year ago.
That's not the buzz in the industry over here and this is where he did work
for most of his career so far. Over here the rumour is that he did try to
self-finance Farenheit 911 but couldn't get it on his own and couldn't get
it bonded, which sounds about right.
That does not make any sense. The man certainly is worth at least
$5 million, and probably more than 10. Just the sales of
"Stupid White Men" in Germany alone, at $15 each, of which
Moore would get somewhere between $1 and $2 per copy,
amount to close to 2 million for Moore. But "Downsize This"
and "Dude, where's my country" also were bestsellers in Germany,
too, and in the UK the initial print run for the latter was a million copies,
while "Stupid White Men" sold close to a million in the UK.
You don't even need to take into consideration whatever revenue
share Moore got from "Bowling for Columbine", which rolled in about
$100 million at box offices worldwide - not counting video sales
and TV royalties. The man is a bestseller as a writer.
As for "Bowling", it does not really make a difference whether his
share is in his left pocket (his bank account) or his right pocket
(his production company).
Nope, that man has earned a lot of money over the last few years.
If he claims that he can't find money to fund one of his
projects, he is lying.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bev Thornton" |
|
| Title: Re: Just saw "Farenheit 9/11" |
01 Jul 2004 02:50:49 PM |
|
|
Thomas Dehn wrote:
That does not make any sense. The man certainly is worth at least
$5 million, and probably more than 10. Just the sales of
"Stupid White Men" in Germany alone, at $15 each, of which
Moore would get somewhere between $1 and $2 per copy,
amount to close to 2 million for Moore. But "Downsize This"
and "Dude, where's my country" also were bestsellers in Germany,
too, and in the UK the initial print run for the latter was a million
copies, while "Stupid White Men" sold close to a million in the UK.
You don't even need to take into consideration whatever revenue
share Moore got from "Bowling for Columbine", which rolled in about
$100 million at box offices worldwide - not counting video sales
and TV royalties. The man is a bestseller as a writer.
And has an office with researchers, secretaries amd the whole show to pay.
What he gets on the box office is only related to his actual monetery
investment in any film. Almost no one ever gets 'royalties.' They are just
some contractual nonsense that always disappears in the accounting.
He probably makes more doing speaking engagements than film, and maybe more
on books than speaking engagements. I don't know. The writers I do know
though, they don't make much on publication, but none have ever had
bestsellers.
As for "Bowling", it does not really make a difference whether his
share is in his left pocket (his bank account) or his right pocket
(his production company).
It does at tax time. and at the bank.
Nope, that man has earned a lot of money over the last few years.
If he claims that he can't find money to fund one of his
projects, he is lying.
He doesn't claim that. He just doesn't have enough money and enough success
in film to self-finance something like Farenheit 911. With film, he's only
running 50/50 on turning a profit, he would have to go all cash to finance
it, which no one in their right mind ever does in film, and still wouldn't
be able to get a production bond. He needs businessmen behind him to do
that. Maybe not after this though. Farenheit 911 will make money and the
production was in trouble once and the distribution once and he got it out
anyway and won the Palme D'Or. that will make a lot of difference for him
at the banks and with the insurance companies.
--
<http://www.buddhanet.net/><http://www.gadenrelief.org/><http://www.bpf.org>
<http://dharmanet.org><http://icrc.org><http://icbl.org><http://www.msf.org>
<http://bushmeat.net><http://ecohimal.org><http://rawa.org><http://seva.org>
<http://whalewatch.org><http://peacebrigades.org><http://act.greenpeace.org>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
