Tim Blair

If Moore and AP are performing up to their usual standards, you shouldn't have to choose.

It's like asking two pathological liars if they are telling the truth. What a choice!

You know one day, people are going to look at the awards to Moore, and view it as the nadir of the motion picture industry.
When 'Bowling for Columbine' got an award as a documentary.
And when the propaganda film 'Fahrenheit 911' got a Palm D'Or.

A bit like the days when the head of Interpol was top Nazi Reinhard 'The Hangman' Heydrich.

When the Associalism Press and Mikey Moore's accounts differ, you can be sure that the issue is just being (warning: n-word) "nuanced" for different audiences. Could there be any doubt that Mikey intends to win the Oscar Mayer wiener to go along with his Palm Door prize, as well as inflict his mockumentary on the rest of us in TV land?

fiction films do not have the same restriction

at least he's finally admitting what we knew all along.

Is Moore lying or is the AP report quoting him inaccurately?

You have to ask if Michael Moore is lying? Is water wet?

If the Academy Award nominations took place before the elections I'd have bet good money that F-911 would get a Best Picture nomination by film industry libs. But since they don't happen until after Bush is re-elected Moore's film will be considered a failure and dumped as a no longer useful propaganda piece by a depressed Hollywood elite.

I thought it was already ineligible since it was shown on Cuban TV a few months ago, but I'm guess I was wrong since it was a "pirate - wink wink nudge nudge" copy.

Moore said he and his producing partner, Harvey Weinstein, agreed "Fahrenheit 9/11" would stand a better chance if they focused solely on the top Oscar.

Only an egomaniac surrounded by sycophants could possibly believe this. F9/11 would have been a shoe-in for best documentary, regardless of its less-than-factual basis. Compared to other best film nominees, though, it will look very weak, and many Academy members will be reluctant to vote for it.

Assuming Michael Moore IS lying (no stretch), couldn't the AP report ALSO be quoting him inaccurately? And if so, couldn't we now be CLOSER to the truth than if we had heard the words from Mike's own cavernous maw?

I'm gonna end this post before I open a rift in the truth-lie continuum and black becomes white.

I have informed our distributors of my decision.

What did Hezbollah have to say?

Is Moore insane, stupid or deluded? He's not going to win Best Picture.

The Academy isn't that dumb. Sure, the "documentary" award can be defaced purely for politics, but Best Picture actually has some standing.

Yeah, but when he loses, he'll get some more publicity as he whines about the conspiracy against him. It's Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Heh, Spiderman 2 should kick his ass again. Is it too much to hope?

Is Moore insane, stupid or deluded?

Do I have to choose just one?

Treacher's got a point about the conspiracy angle. The Oscars are held in Schwarzenegger's California, and Eisner could convince the Academy to use butterfly ballots...

Eisner could convince the Academy to use butterfly ballots...

Spiderman 2: Selected... not elected!

Actually, we in the Zionist cabal had Adam Sandler's latest movie in mind, Mr. George. He supports W, as far as we can tell.

(I learned how to spell my name from The Common Good and Margo. Sorry!)

C'Mon, does anyone really think F911 can beat Without a Paddle?

But hey, the Academy Awards are after Election Day, aren't they? This could be funny to watch...

I can see a lot of people driving around with "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Return of the King" bumper stickers...

"Is Moore insane, stupid or deluded?"

Yes to all 3.

He's aided in his insanely stupid delusions by like-minded people currently running the Democratic Party. As someone who actually LIKES having more than one political party, I find this troubling.

Moore should be the poster child for a campaign to keep politicians and 'artists' as far apart as possible. He's one reason why it's never bothered me at all that the RNC lacks the 'star power' of the DNC.

Once you have identified an horse's ass you don't have to pay to find that fertilizer comes out.

POWER OR GLORY?

Like I’ve said before, folks like Graydon Carter & Michael Moore want ALL FOUR, want to be crème de la crème, culturally stratospheric, the very neon of the joint.

\ \ \ \ \ \/ / / / / / /
\ power · || · glory · /
› = = = = || = = = = = ‹
/ wealth· || ·guruhood \
/ / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \

just without having to be politically, economically, culturally, or intellectually responsible.

Absolutely lovely, ForNow!

I thought there was an establishment conspiracy against this putz? And yet now he picks and chooses which Academy Awards he's prepared to win.

Oh to be oppressed!

Michael Moore is a fat fuck

ahem....

I beg your pardon for using such language, but I'm just fulfilling Marty's mission.

Oh dear. Just indulging in a spot of google-bombing, but the link didn't come through. Here's the url for that quote:

http://www.gravett.org/TRP/index.php?p=43

Whatever you otherwise think about the movie, at least someone is talking about Saudi Arabia and the relationship with the USA.

Last I heard, a whole bunch of 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and every Friday there's some pretty inflammatory stuff being preached in Saudi mosques. But somehow Saudi Arabia just does not make the headlines as a hotbed of terrorism. Funny that...

Okay, we've got one vote for the bombing and invasion of Saudi Arabia by coalition forces. Any more?

I thought this was about democracy in the Middle East, no?

Bongo, translated: "Your comeback to my trolling makes me uncomfortable! Therefore I shall call everyone's attention to that bright, shiny object over there!"

Back on topic, it is not an either/or choice, Tim.

I can readily believe that the AP inaccurately quoted a Michael Moore lie.

"But somehow Saudi Arabia just does not make the headlines as a hotbed of terrorism."

The Saudi connection to the terrorists is not a state secret. It's been mentioned by all the major news outlets in the US numerous times. One reason it gets mentioned, apart from the obvious, is that Pres. Bush has so far *seemed* to give them a pass.

The truth is, unless we wage all-out war like we waged in WWII, we can't take on the Saudis quite yet. There would be too many bad consequences for the rest of the world because of the Saudi oil. The world's economy could take a nose dive if we were to deal with the Saudis as they should be dealt with.

I think we'll get to the Saudis, all in good time. When we have the oil fields in Iraq safely producing would be a time to think about war with the Saudis. For now, we keep an eye on the Saudis, and use them as much as we can.

"I thought this was about democracy in the Middle East, no?"

This is a side benefit. The real 'this is all about' is destroying the terrorists in whatever country they inhabit and whatever country supports them.

Democracy will help ensure the terrorists don't take root again. It's no guarantee, of course. Democracies have historically been the one form of government that have NOT been fertile ground for terrorists. It's in our own self interests to see that democracies are encouraged in the ME.

However, bottom line is we are fighting in the ME to kill the terrorists, and their supporters, before they kill more of us. In the process, we are freeing the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan from the oppressive governments they lived with for decades.

One of my regrets is that we don't have enough soldiers to take on every country that harbors the terrorists at this time. I'd like to help out the Sudanese, for example. We could eliminate the terrorists there AND free the Sudanese people at the same time.