Those numbers are ridiculously amazing for a documentary. If you want to compare to normal blockbuster movies, you can, but even the fact that you can compare it to Blockbuster movie sales is quite a comment in itself. Remember, the following week it was kicked out of the number one spot by Spiderman II. This wasn't Spiderman, but it received an amazing amount of viewership for a documentary. Try comparing the numbers to normal documentary box office numbers. That may explain a bit more why and how important and influential the movie was in this past year's election. What made it less effective, was The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth theatrical stunt of lies that countered the energy created by Michael Moore. That was Kerry's fault for not attacking Bush more for being behind those attacks, or for not attacking Bush for his lack of military service in comparison.

The numbers were large for a documentary (if that's what they call this type of propaganda these days). However, making large numbers in New York and California did not have the desired effect on the election since they would have voted for Kerry anyway. Moore wanted to impact or at least he suggestd he wanted to impact the pro-Bush and swing voters. He obviously did not succeed.

The Moore movie did kick ass box office. It was a major commercial and professional coup for Michael Moore. He made a mint and got really famous.

It's just silly to think that this meant he was going to influence the election. $100 million in tickets represents what, 10 or 15 million US ticket sales? That obviously represents a strong showing from the pinko base, but it takes a lot more than that to get elected president.

I'm sure Moore changed a few minds in his favor in swing states (and he probably turned off a few voters in swing states as well).

But, his side still lost. And he's very rich and famous now, though he was hardly impoverished or unknown before.

So, Moore won, while the Dems lost.

Frankly, I find the entire idea of a 'conspiracy' on either side to be specious. Each side is going to do whatever they think they can get away with to get the upper hand in the national dialogue, and if one side seems more 'moral' at the moment, it's just because they can't figure out how to cheat.

Well it was quite obvious that Moore's desire for money outweighed his desire to change the Presidency as he quickly pushed out the DVD version of his movie and as I mentioned he is hard at work on a sequel set for a 2007 release, Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2. This is pure arrogance and greed and I hope the American public does not fall for his very transparent ulterior motives.

What's next? Fahrenheit 9/11 Part X, President Bush vs. Jason vs. John Kerry featuring a very Hitchcockian cameo by Moore himself as Blahblah the Hutt?

Not to mention that the movie made 75% of its total box office gross(U.S.) within the first three weeks of its release.

As it crept into August and grew closer to the election, it should have increased not decreased in gross.

As mentioned, its impact on the election was minimal though the final product was a very creative cornocopia of cleverly interwoven clips, mostly taken out of context.

Everyone is entitled to think how they want. My motto is seeing is believing and when you see it and your heart screams with truths then it is as real as the sun shines. Yes indeed Michael made some money. Does anyone see the real point? The opposed America and what we do with our power. We as people all over the world believe in supply and demand. This is a subject that is being taught to our American Third graders (ages 7, 8 maybe 9).
The issues here is true as truth can ring. What I received from Michael research movie is: President Busch is the best d business man in the world. Possible of doing bad and dirty business and in a position to write all the laws to protect his business and never see a day of punishment on earth. If all your buddies make the laws and break the laws and make trillions of dollars doing so then what in the heck we as American want to complain about. Let's just sit back and how Church people say "sale our everything to the devil". Why not someone has to get rich don't they. Money is power in this world. Who so controls it has the power to run it. So when who ever has the master plan to collectively work together in controlling the money so be it. We all have to die one day or another. So what if you led a million men & women to die to make it rich. No one ever said you make a million dollars honestly. So power to the resources that brings the dollars. Now day's people and their feelings do not matter. Heck we don't even care about the quality of their lives. Why care about what blood is shed. HECK all the Busch's and their parting buddies has the most to gain. So why not stay in the game of love of money war. They way I see it WAR is the best business ever. You have the power to starve the people so do it because you also control the only stock that feeds them. Give them promises of no starvation. So they will pay anything to buy your food. You profit both ways. You have indeed put yourself in a WIN WIN business. This is not a democracy it's a big business. This is not a War of justice and Freedom. It's a war of control STOCKS BIG BIG BIG BUSINESS. What are we mad about because people are dying and you're not getting any of the money or because you were fooled, lied to and gave your soul away for the cry of justice and freedom and posterity. When actually you sold your soul to the devil. MONEY is the root of all evil. Now let's see how GOD is removed from America when that's what this land was found on. All money In God we trust. Well what God do you want to trust? MONEY. (Trust Funds) buy some today. Invest your LIFE savings into it BECAUSE YOUR CAN SALE YOUR SOUL ANY WHERE.

mind to think...I'll play along and dare to ask you to come up with specifics on who made money off the war, how did they do it, and what resources you received this information from?

And trust me, I do not think I will hear back from you and even if you do respond I doubt it will be with reliable sources.

anything yet, mind to think?

Ok, I'll keep waiting...

I don't think the authors of these books are giving Bush enough credit for his failures. It was Bush, not Michael Moore, who stated that we will get Bin Laden "dead or alive" and later announced that he was no longer concerned about him. It was Bush, not Al Franken, who "forgot" to mention that he also received contradictory evidence that disclaimed Saddam's weapons assertion. It was Bush, not Bill Maier, who accepts all the credit and non of the blame. It was Bush, not Howard Stern, that imposed tax breaks in the middle of a freakin' war. The only thing the "liberal media" is guilty of, is reporting Bush's failures. Just like the Wall Street Journal felt it necessary to report Clinton's.

First of all ayana, don't be so naive to believe that the media did not take pleasure in attempting to discredit the President before during and after the election.

As mentioned basically everywhere, President Bush received wrong information and made a decision based on said information believing it to be correct.
This same type of information was reviews by many other people including the leaders of Russia, England, France and Germany who all agreed that there was WMD's and that something should be done.

The President is still looking for Bin Laden and please note that a good majority of his terrorist group has been captured.

Regarding the credit, he should get a huge portion of the credit for the positive transformation that has taken place over the Middle East.

You cannot deny that the media horde led by Dan Rather, Michael Moore, the NY Times, CBS news, ABC news, Al Franken and Howard Stern made it a personal vendetta in attempting to sway the election and FAILED. They failed because the majority of Americans wanted and trusted President Bush and did not trust Kerry.

Ayana,

One more thing...It should be noted that Kerry (in public) desperately tried to stay away from these extreme liberal media personalities. I am sure that Stern could have gained him more votes but overall he would have scared away other swing voters.
He especially tried to stay away from anything to do with Michael Moore.

Even Kerry's wife scared away possible votes with her extreme liberal mentality.

Richard,

I'm sure that the GOP took pleasure in the whole Bill/Monica situation, so what's your point?
And whether or not other countries agreed with intelligence findings, it does not erase the fact that Bush received intelligence that contradicted the WMDs theory. When Clinton received his daily briefings each morning he marked them up with questions and comments. In a war of this magnitude, ANY intelligence that came across his desk should have been investigated whether he liked the result or not.
And Richard, you can't deny that Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sinclair broadcasting, and the Wall Street Journal also made it a personal vendetta against Kerry as well as redefined the term "liberal"

Richard,

Too bad Bush doesn't stay away from the extreme right. It would be nice if our fearless leader was for the rights of all people, not just who he panders to.

I agree with the Bill/Monica situation but do you feel it is okay to trust a President who is cheating on his own wife in the White House?

If President Bush or any President has to question the intelligence to the nth degree each time he receives it, what is the point in gathering intelligence?

Please do not bring up Clinton and anything regarding terrorism, an idea he didn't believe existed since he ignored it after the first World Trade Center bombing until he decided to drop a few bombs to provide a distraction from said Bill/Monica situation.

Kerry was not the President of the United States, he was running and fair game. We should all have some respect for our President. What sort of message do you want to send out to the world, terrorists included.

Richard,

If a president can keep us in good standings with the rest of the globe (which is why we're a powerhouse) and give us a record high surplus, I'll be his personal Heidi Fleiss. But to really answer your question, I have less faith in a president who invades a country based on the investigations of a known drunk. And it's obvious that Bush wanted a war. Period! I do not trust a president who uses war as a first resort.

Am I to understand than you think a president should go to war with whatever intelligence he's presented? Richard, we're talking about human lives here. I thought the Republican's mantra was to always "err on the side of life". A president's job is to protect our lives, any means necessary. That includes protecting our boarders and airplanes. We are still as vulnerable as before 9/11. That's truly irresponsible and makes the "War on Terror" efforts completely vain.

And Richard you are wrong as far as Clinton ignoring terrorism. When Bush first got into office, Clinton warned him how serious a threat Al-Qaeda was, it was Bush who ignored the advice.

I think it's amusing that suddenly conservatives are strong advocates of supporting our president when they gave absolutely no support or respect to Clinton. What message does the Republican party send out, "Do as we say, not as we do"

Even though we disagree, I appreciate you not calling me names or assuming that because I'm liberal that I belong to some devil worshipping cult.

Ayana

There is no name calling here, we are both passionate adults and believe in what we individually believe, but ultimately we both believe that we want to live in a safe, economically sound country.

The President relies as all Presidents do on their intelligence, it is not his fault that it was faulty even though it eventually led to the pro-democracy fire roaring through the Middle East. Even though it led to a toppling of a murderer of thousands of his own people who had been warned many many times to cease his actions.

And unlike you, I believe that we are safer than we were before 9/11 and smarter though we still have a way to go. Especially regarding our virtually unprotected borders.

I voted for Bush both times and believe in what he says and believe in most of his actions.

Like I said, there should be no name calling but you should stop drinking that kool-aid that the liberal media pours for you.

Your assertion that the majority of Americans wanted and trusted Bush is very shaky. You are discounting a lot of factors that went into the equation of his reelection (sitting president in the middle of wartime going up against a weak Democratic candidate). Poll numbers before and since imply that the American people aren't happy with the direction that the country is headed, particularly domestically speaking. On a more level playing field, I think Bush wouldn't have been reelected.

With regards to respect, I can't speak for anyone else, but everyone in my life has to earn my respect. You don't gain it simply because you wear the title of President of the United States or any other one for that matter.

Lastly, I will have no knocking of Jon Stewart. He is the funniest man on television. Does he have a bias like every American? Certainly, but he dishes it out to both sides of the aisle. Bush seems to do more daft things that provide Stewart with oceans of material. Late night would be a sad place without the humor of the Daily Show.

By virtue of the fact that we had the greatest turnout of voters during this election and the majority of those wanted President Bush, that is how I make my assertion with FACTS.

The President should commend a certain amount of respect.

Jon Stewart...wasn't he not so funny on MTV once upon a time ago? He comes across more arrogant and pompous than funny. I prefer Conan O'Brien.

Then we disagree again Richard. Though it may not have been his fault that the intelligence was faulty, it became his fault when he presented a case to the American people as though there were no disputes in the information he presented to us and to Congress. Not only that, he immediately rushed into war, while criticizing those who were actually
right in the end the entire time. Has anyone been held accountable? Has Bush acknowledged that he stood before the American people with only the intelligence that presented a case for war? No! A true Christian admits he's faults, not shy away from them.

I'm glad you feel safer Richard. I'm a New Yorker. I watched the Twin Towers collapse. I look out my window every morning staring into the empty space that once was the home of the WTC. I turn on the news and listen to Bin Laden and Zarqawi make threats to harm us again. I think they have been underestimated in the past and I for one, will never underestimate them again. I think Al-Qaeda is betting on our belief that Bush has really made us safer. But in reality, what's stopping them from coming over here to attacking us again? Fear of Bush? LOL. Puleeze. Because we haven't been attacked since 2001? Weak case considering it took Al-Qaeda 8 years to attack us again after the first attempt. This war has caused more enemies than it's eliminated. We kill one terrorist, and there's 9 year olds with an uzi in his hand ready to take his place. They don't fear death, we do. So who really has the upper hand? What threats are we really holding over their heads? If spreading Middle eastern democracy will stop terrorism, that remains to be seen.

But you didn't address my point about a non-equal playing field. There are too many other factors involved for you to make a sweeping assertions like that.

The president is an elected representative of the people...that's it. A title doesn't garner you respect, your actions do. I haven't seen anything Bush has done as a leader to gain my respect.

Can't say I never caught Stewart on MTV. All I know is that he is friggin' hillarious now and Conan can't hold a candle to him.

Oh and Richard, I think it's the bible toting scripture quoting Christian hypocrites on the right who need to stop sipping the kool-aid. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to their buffet style bible study methods of honoring the word of Christ. And I have even less respect for a president, who has given them control of the White House.

Hi Mark,

I totally agree. Giving Bush credit for beating Kerry is a joke. My neighbor, Butt-Crack Joe, would have given Kerry a run for his money.

Ayana, I am a fellow New Yorker too! I know of and have seen the destruction caused by the terrorists. In fact my area was hit the hardest with regard to the lost firefighters that day.

The idea of spreading freedom throughout the Middle East is to remove the possible uzi from the 9-years old hands and yes it does remain to be seen. We cannot nor will not see those results until 5-10 years from now. For now, we take it day by day.

Since there were no attacks since that day, we should support and give credit to our President since we cannot go by anything other than faith (since we ourselves are not privy to information or thwarted plans of terrorists).

Do you actually want leaders of the Middle East or even Bin Laden or other terrorist leaders to hear that the United States was wrong? What kind of message is that? I do stress again that I feel he did nothing wrong than follow through on intelligence he was given.

If he was given intelligence that the Brooklyn Bridge would be blown up tomorrow, is he to believe in it (intelligence) and act? Or by your standards, he should quantify it and beat it to death before he acts.

Richard,

And spreading democracy in the Middle East stops terrorist how? What are they going to do, yell "put down that bomb, my finger's purple"? Do you know what caused the 9/11 attacks? Interference. We trepassed on sacred holy ground during the Gulf War. If interference caused 9/11, how does interference stop further attacks? How does going after Saddam and his regime stop the entire Al-Qaeda network? What is the Iraqi government going to threat them with, the death penalty? Go right ahead, they'll be beaming in their prison cells thinking of all the virgins soon to come while more terrorist are being trained. All they have to do for recruitment is use our arrognant moral superiority as rationale.

And Richard, evacuating the Brooklyn Bridge is a hella out a lot difference from 1500 soldiers losing their lives while chasing fathom weapons? Changing the rationale from imminent threat to spreading democracy sounds reasonable for kool-aid sippers. If memory service me correct, nobody gave a d*mn about liberating Iraq when we first went in because Faux News was too busy repeatedly showing images of Iraqis dancing in the street after our attacks. This sentiment for the Iraqi people is a little false to me.

Ayana

Try to be reasonable and realize that by offering a chance of freedom and democracy in Iraq theoretically stops future terrorists from breeding. So again, stop being so naive.

Now you say that anyone could have beaten Kerry, so who did you vote for? So you threw away your vote on someone you knew had zero chance of winning?

Finally, whether it be WMD in Iraq, the Brooklyn Bridge or the Moon, the President has to believe in his intelligence. Do you feel comfortable if he "cherry picked" what intelligence to act one and what intelligence to ignore?

Richard, there's clearly not much point in talking to Ayana. She seems to think that democracy is a bad thing and that we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 for 'treading on holy ground'. Those aren't the beliefs of a rational person - you're wasting your time.

Dave

Thank you for speaking for me Dave and putting words in my mouth. I can't complain, at least you didn't resort to the tasteless Republican tactics of attacking me because we disagree. Or perhaps you're saving the "devil worshipping" comments for later. Since there's "not much point" talking to me, PLEASE do not feel obligated to do so. Or perhaps you can find a more comfortable forum where everyone agrees with you.
Thanks

P.S. Impeccable debating skills, by the way.....

Ayana, I quoted you, I didn't put words in your mouth. Based on your last post you're an irrational ideologue and my advice to Richard not to waste time talking to you was entirely sound.

There's no point in engaging you in any kind of debate when the basis for your entire view of the subject is untennable. It's not that we disagree, it's that you are totally out of touch with reality so there's no common ground on which to even start disagreeing.

Dave

A God that punishes, is in contention with what is actually written in the New Covenant.

God does not take us to the wood shed. He may have in the old testament, but the New Testament differs, and speaks to that difference many times.

If you did a bit of study in NT sciptures, the writings would reveal that

"it is Satan who seeks, kills and destroys"

So much for your "religious thought"

Speak religion, only if you know religion.

By the way.... Religion is not faith, nor is it belief. It's a practice, there is a difference.

Ayana, the day you are directly affected by terriosm, is the day you will change your mind.

Personnally, I thought going extreme isolationist, included removal of those of Arab extraction would have been a better course of action. But it's not the American way is it?

Put the WMD's behind you, they aren't in Iraq, perhaps Syria, or Iran.... maybe we'll get lucky and see a few over here. Or, perhaps Israel with have an extreme event. I would guess that they'll be showing up, whenever the pressure is off. Right now the terroists are hunkered down, and are saying they're prayers. Because as we all know.

There are no atheists in foxholes. But you knew that.

Ayana,
Did I read is correctly when you stated
"If a president can keep us in good standings with the rest of the globe (which is why we're a powerhouse) and give us a record high surplus, I'll be his personal Heidi Fleiss"

Well, I did keep a good global standing... and, well I was wondering if you would consider posting a picture somewhere, where I could view it?

Do you have any cardiac theropy certifications?

WJC

I never mentioned my faith so I'm not exactly sure why this became a discussion. Also, I was directly affected by terrorism. I watched both towers collapse knowing that my best friend and uncle probably didn't escape. They didn't.

Bill,

A good "pimp" never reveals her true identity. LOL

Right Dave,

I made all that up huh? The intelligence failures, Bin Laden's assertation to why we were attacked. Did I make up the national debt, health care, and proverty issue as well? We disagree Dave, there's no need to encourage Richard not to debate with me because YOU don't agree with what I say. We were having a civilized debate expressing our views. Perhaps you would have felt better if Richard expressed what a waste of time I was. And I'm sorry that I'm not repeating Sean Hannity's talking points or sound just like every Republican in this country.

Ayana,
I never said you had any faith. But you did talk about religion, while, perhaps being devoid of that.

I can not understand how atheists can enter into discussions of faith, when they have none... but their religion is non-belief.... hmmm, do they believe in non-belief... perhaps I will go back to my study and ponder...

I guess you can have religion (the religion of not believing), and you can have belief, in not believing... but you can't have faith in God if you don't believe, and religion might be a cover up for something other than what is really is... hmmm.

If you wish to talk about God, don't, unless you have God in your heart... it's pointless to do otherwise. Seek the paraclete, receive the endument and then you will have reference.

"I watched both towers collapse knowing that my best friend and uncle probably didn't escape. They didn't."

Prove it.... for all we know it's an urban legend, a story or ruse, to give you some kind of internet validity.

If you are unable or unwilling to proved it (however), leave it out of the discussion.

Hmmmm.. You all are mean spirited. Except for the Zen master up there.... the paraclete, good use of the Greek, my man.

My cousin was workin at the WTC in '93 (was it?) when the bombing occurred.

Keith was no fool, he wised up and got a job someplace else... good move. He's alive today because of it.

Does that mean that everyone who worked at the WTC were dumb? Because of the 93 (or was it '91) bombing?

Or, were they capitalist pigs, who only cared about screwing the poor and making lots of money and starring in hollywood movies and singing in depraved rock bands, and selling their products worldwide to take over the world... ahhhh....Jihad... Jihad, let us keel the blue eyed satan and make offspring with their women and haveour way with their young boys so we will not fornucate and recieve the damnation....

Is that terrorist mentality? Now there's somebody who has no business owning firearms.... may be, that is why I might go get some firearms, in case they take over the WORLD.....(_|_) MOON SHOT Anaya!!!! and it ain't your plumber neighbor from NYC either!

I don't agree with a strategic defensive posture....

I believe in a strategic offensive posterior!


..... (_|_)... Gotcha' again Aynan (how the f&#^ do you spell your name again?)....

Peaches

>>I made all that up huh? The intelligence failures, Bin Laden's assertation to why we were attacked. Did I make up the national debt, health care, and proverty issue as well?<<

Not one of these things was mentioned in the earlier discussion. I can't comment on your intentions, only on what you actually write.

Dave

Dave

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep in mind for future use. I get sucked into these rants until I do not even remember what the argument was.

Michael Moore is a hero.. Wether ur a lefty or a righty he is a awesome guy!

You said:
Michael Moore has always seemed to come off as an arrogant and pompous opportunist and still does as I eagerly await (not really) his latest crock-umentary in 2007, Fahrenheit 9/11 ½ (and before you think I am crazy, this is not a joke). Moore is going to the well yet again to raid the American public's pockets for more American cash. Since of course he loves to hate this country so much it only seems fair and reasonable that he attempts to go back to the scene of his crime and rob your piggybanks.

I SAY:


Michael Moore has shown he is a leader, and he is speaking out. He is doing what every American should do.

Also, I think Ryan Eashoo is right, he is a hero.

Yuck, I cannot stand Michael Moore. I refuse to watch his films. His tactics border on harassment and stalking. He has nothing to do with why I didn't vote for Bush.

michael moore is a hero

Just for your info. Moore actually pushed the release date of the movie before the election, so people could see this film to make a choice before voting. He even had to give up an academy award nomination to do this just for the election.

"grave robber" by making money off of the deceased victims from this most horrible attack on our American soil


The only "grave robber" is bush, politicizing 9-11 for political gain and being on vacation and out of it, thereby allowing us to be attacked in the first place on 9-11.

at least bill clinton stopped all attacks by al qaeda even though he was ridiculed by the "no blood for monica" troop hating republicans when he tried to kill osama.