moore, Give me moore
May 22, 2004 3:34 PM   Subscribe

Festival de Cannes update: The new Michael Moore movie received a 18 minutes long standing ovation , a couple of days ago, which was already meaningful to him and his film crew. Tonight Moore also received the prestigious Palme D'Or prize, making sure the film will receive an adequate distribution in the United States. His speech was quite powerful, beginning with him visibly stunned, looking at Quentin Tarantino (who was in tears) in disbelief, saying “What have you done? I’m completely overwhelmed by this. Merci”.
posted by Sijeka (69 comments total)
 
Widespread acclaim by the French will not win him any converts.
posted by ColdChef at 4:06 PM on May 22, 2004


Yes, acclaim at Cannes will get him nowhere fast. That poor sonnuvabitch.
posted by chunking express at 4:10 PM on May 22, 2004


Better a hero in Cannes than DC. Vive La France!
posted by lometogo at 4:15 PM on May 22, 2004


"Widespread acclaim by the French "

heh. damn cheese-eating French jurors -- famous French director Quentin Tarantino and famous French actress Tilda Swinton obviously caved in to their nation's obvious anti-Americanism.
seriously, I'm surprised Tarantino didn't give the prize to Wong Kar-wai, a director he's always loved. or even to Park Chan Wook's revenge flick. I'm happy for Maggie Chung, a great actress I am also desperately in love with.
posted by matteo at 4:18 PM on May 22, 2004


I'm going to see it. I can't wait. I'm just saying that the people that SHOULD see it won't see it because it won an audience in France. I'm just sayin'.
posted by ColdChef at 4:21 PM on May 22, 2004


Having said that, though: I hope I am really, really wrong.
posted by ColdChef at 4:22 PM on May 22, 2004


Well, the last Woody Allen movie showed Allen in the last scene yelling "THANK GOD FOR THE FRENCH". So, eh...
posted by Sijeka at 4:23 PM on May 22, 2004


If nothing else, it will be entertaining to listen to the Vulcans try to paint Moore as a Hollywood elitist. "He even knows how to say thank you in French!"
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:42 PM on May 22, 2004


I really need to point this out: the fact that GWBush is bad does not make Michael Moore good automatically, as a rule. Sadly, people are not noticing this.
posted by falameufilho at 5:43 PM on May 22, 2004


Fala: I doubt that very much. I think most people who aren't reflexively anti-Moore are quite aware of the slippery rhetorical tricks he uses, sometimes amusingly, sometimes not, to make his points.

I'm having a hard time imagining Q in tears. I am definitley piqued to curiosity.
posted by mwhybark at 5:53 PM on May 22, 2004


Aiming for the non sequitur prize, Sijeka?
posted by signal at 5:56 PM on May 22, 2004


i see moore as the polar opposite of fox news. it's all blatant propaganda, but moore's propaganda doesn't make me feel sick to my stomach and is entertaining to boot.
posted by joedan at 6:20 PM on May 22, 2004


Two movies awarded with top prizes two years in a row with basically the same speech, that's BIG. The movie community is not just liking but praising this intense connection between art and social-political engagement. Apparently, the current world scenario is punching too hard in our stomachs to give awards to other kind of movies.

But even with this curiously strongly-minted importance, Michael Moore isn't that good, I agree (p.s.: I didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11 yet). I don't know in what sense Bernardo (falameufilho) is saying, because I believe Moore is extremely necessary for all of us, but his work is kind of journalistically incorrect (I know, he's in the art shelf and not at the newsstand, but still), I mean, it is documentary with rude partiality. This is also dangerous. Even if we feel well informed and thank him for seeing what's in the movie - that REALLY need to be shown and seen. At the end we have a defective work about essential facts. Not actually doubting, but paradoxical.
posted by nandop at 7:10 PM on May 22, 2004


I wish nandop would comment more. Well put.
posted by stonerose at 8:01 PM on May 22, 2004


The fact that MM makes entertaining political films at a time when voting levels in countries like the US & UK are so low should be celebrated.

nandop: Look at the people he is competing against in the US. O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Crumb etc. On radio & TV they are doing as bad if not worse on a daily basis. He has decided to play the game. Unlike them he is going after those that have the most control & power.

If Bush & his crew want to lie about the job they do & why they do it they're not really on firm ground against a filmmaker like MM who will tell it how he sees it.

I think if more people outside N America knew about the media situation there they'd be astounded. I know I am.
posted by i_cola at 8:27 PM on May 22, 2004


If the Right only had Rush Limbaugh would they spend a whole lot of their time trying to chop him down? If you've got a problem with Michael Moore go make a better documentary than his...
posted by meech at 9:01 PM on May 22, 2004


I'm surprised Tarantino didn't give the prize to Wong Kar-wai, a director he's always loved.

Tarantino was the president of the jury, not the jury itself.

i see moore as the polar opposite of fox news. it's all blatant propaganda, but moore's propaganda doesn't make me feel sick to my stomach and is entertaining to boot.

As a Brit who goes to the US regularly, I'd have to give a different opinion. I enjoy Moore's FUD, but I find Fox News pretty hilarious to watch. The way it proclaims objectivity and non-bias, and then has a round table debate with 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat equals great comedy moments in news.
posted by wackybrit at 9:07 PM on May 22, 2004


I've heard Fahrenheit is highly relevant to headlines but doesn't have the timeless quality that Columbine did. It lacks depth. Have not seen it yet so can't comment personally but when this whole Iraq thing is done I suspect he will better be remembered for Columbine (which in any case did win an Oscar), unless the film where to play a direct role in changing public perception like some famous photographs from Vietnam then it might have historical relevance.
posted by stbalbach at 9:13 PM on May 22, 2004


Tarantino was the president of the jury, not the jury itself.

Yeah, but the vote was unanimous.

The fact that this film has won a prize at this particular French film festival certainly does mean something about its viewership in the states. It means that it is now definitely going to get decent distribution here. And it wouldn't surprise me if that was the real reason that the partially American panel of judges voted for it.

Bowling For Columbine bugged the hell out of me, but I quite liked Roger & Me. Maybe he's made his second good movie.
posted by bingo at 9:15 PM on May 22, 2004


wackybrit: I just love those The Day Today graphics.
posted by i_cola at 9:18 PM on May 22, 2004


I suspect this is a pretty ok/mediocre film, and the win was a largely political act. Fuck the French.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:21 PM on May 22, 2004


There is no truth. There is only spin. I no longer care for the liberal spin. I never cared for the conservative spin. I wish there was just truth. If Moore really wanted people to see his movie for reasons other than monetary, he'd digitize it and post it to the Web, allowing free downloads of it. Hell, people will actually download footage of terrorists beheading an American. They'll download and watch anything if you don't charge.

This isn't about Moore's truth or Bush's truth. It's about whether or not theaters will be able to charge more for Moore's latest film, since it was so difficult for them to get it to the general public. I no longer care if it's the liberals who are right or the conservatives. It doesn't matter. The whole thing just makes me want to repeatedly throw up.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:21 PM on May 22, 2004


when Lance Armstrong wins his next Tour De France...Fuck the French
posted by larry_darrell at 9:24 PM on May 22, 2004


ParisParamus - there's something about you that strikes me as suspiciously French ... you doth protest too much ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:38 PM on May 22, 2004


Are we still supposed to be hating the french? I thought that went out of style with freedom fries.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:48 PM on May 22, 2004


Since when did USians care about style?!?
posted by i_cola at 9:53 PM on May 22, 2004


I thought it was the Danish who protested too much.
posted by bingo at 10:54 PM on May 22, 2004


Zachs: Disney declined to distribute the film because the guy in charge of the corp. said the company didn't want to release such a political film in an election year. Doesn't that piss you off? Shouldn't it?
posted by raysmj at 10:55 PM on May 22, 2004


From the stuff I've heard about F9/11 on reliable media here, there's not actually much disputed stuff in it (i.e. stuff not already published in broadsheets etc.).

As much as Moore propagandises, I think that in this 24hr news age, it's actually pretty important for someone to put all the shit together so you can just take in a whiff for a while. The cumulative news, put in context.
posted by boneybaloney at 10:57 PM on May 22, 2004


> I suspect this is a pretty ok/mediocre film, and the win was a largely
> political act.

Maybe, probably.

> Fuck the French.

Thank the French. They said it before and they're saying it again. Bush's got to go. Anything legal goes. Period.

Remember, the French tried to tell you about today's Iraq over two years ago. It probably didn't get packaged right, but the concerns were. Now, as the French people say, America is left only with its eyes to cry.
posted by NewBornHippy at 11:09 PM on May 22, 2004


Michael Moore now joins Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff as being a star in Europe. Good for him. Now can we forget about him too? Please?
posted by dagny at 11:29 PM on May 22, 2004


Interesting how people are qualifying, "I haven't seen the movie but I've heard...". Such statements only reflect the writers predisposition and say little on the film itself. As to "it's all spin..." It has always been all spin, everything we do has "spin" on it, spin is just another word for politics and we are by nature political creatures. There is an element of truth and an element of BS to everything, proportions may vary. So once I have seen the movie I can interpret that % for that movie as it applies to me.
From his other movies I think Moore has interesting, relevant things to say and serves as an example to the outside world that not all American's are lined up behind the current politics. He may make some Americans feel uncomfortable, but perhaps that is not a bad thing.
posted by edgeways at 11:37 PM on May 22, 2004



Michael Moore now joins Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff as being a star in Europe. Good for him. Now can we forget about him too? Please?


Care to lay a bet as to the financial success of F9/11 in the US? It seems you think it won't do well. How much will you wager to that effect?
posted by Space Coyote at 12:09 AM on May 23, 2004


"Fuck the French."

Why is it, PP, that you feel compelled to regularly resort to hate speech, sweepingly offensive generalizations, and slurs?

What do the French have to do with this anyway, other than playing host to a film festival where a panel made up primarily of non-French people gave Michael Moore an award?

How would you feel about someone who said either of the following :

"I can't believe the Oscars gave another award to Lord of The Rings! Fuck the Americans."

"I can't believe they coddled a lying, groping, Kurt Waldheim-lovin' idiot. They even let him dedicate a museum to tolerance. Fuck the Israelis."

So, yes... let's all follow your example and deride whole groups of people. After all, we might as well do it, since, well... we can. Hey, it can be fun, especially when it serves our political beliefs. Let's smear those we dislike with the biggest brush we can find... and really, why stop at countries? Let's smear entire religions too!

If individuals lump enough people together as somehow less than human, it makes it a lot easier for them to justify stacking up their bodies later, right? History has heard the words before. Dirty, filthy French. Dirty, filthy Arabs. Dirty, filthy Jews. History has shown us where such words lead, too.

And just think, it only takes a single fool to start saying such hateful words. Add in some other fools who will parrot them, and, of course, a lot of good people who do nothing, and it might even amount to something someday!

You see, PP, this is why so many on MeFi think that you are generally hateful and repugnant. We've come to rely on you for statements such as this. Why, when given a chance to sink to the lowest common denominator, do you so rarely fail to disappoint us?

Personally, I don't believe it is appropriate of me to tell whole countries or whole religions to fuck off. After all, there are so many specific targets of my anger who are far more worthy of such attention.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:50 AM on May 23, 2004


I still can't believe people here take FreedomParamus seriously.

anyway:
"Tarantino was the president of the jury, not the jury itself."
yeah, just like Polanski awarding the Palme d'Or to that most Polanskian film, Barton Fink. Bertolucci and Wild At Heart. Wenders giving the top prize to Soderbergh. Cronenberg saying fuck-you to Hollywood and making Rosetta win. Eastwood gave the prize to Pulp Fiction. meaning that presidents of the Jury are very, very influential and their vote counts more than the other members -- they're not jurors like all the others. also, as already pointed out, this year it was a unanimous vote.

nobody in the jury (Americans, French, Brits, etc) liked Bush much, apparently. simple as that. abroad, he clearly is the most unpopular US president since Lyndon Johnson.
this year's Palme d'Or -- it's probably about sending a message, just like Jimmy Carter's Nobel as Bush was attaqing Iraq -- you can't get clearer than that, if you mean to spread a message. also, consider that movie people (like those in the jury) reflexively help films deemed controversial that have problems with distributors -- they fear unenployment, too.
posted by matteo at 2:49 AM on May 23, 2004


I suspect this is a pretty ok/mediocre film

Yes, I hear that the Palm D'Or was nearly won by Gigli last year. They're famous for handing those things out like candy.
posted by stevis at 3:09 AM on May 23, 2004


Yes, I hear that the Palm D'Or was nearly won by Gigli last year.

Ha! Let the smear campaigns begin!


This is why I love MM so much, he twists right-wing panties in knots....!

$Cha-ching$
posted by sic at 3:27 AM on May 23, 2004


Stevis: Haha, genius comment.

Seriously now, I think people need to stop with the french bashing. This whole thing is tiring and tired and has absolutely no point in this particular debate. Or, only because Cannes happens to be in France and it's symbolic. Other than that, get off our backs, we are not the only country to think Bush Republicans are not playing a fair political game (if such a thing exists anyway).
posted by Sijeka at 4:37 AM on May 23, 2004


Zachsmind: If Moore really wanted people to see his movie for reasons other than monetary, he'd digitize it and post it to the Web, allowing free downloads of it. Hell, people will actually download footage of terrorists beheading an American. They'll download and watch anything if you don't charge.

Sorry, no, that's bullshit. As noble an act as that might be, he will reach a larger audience in theaters. People are willing to download a snuff film because a) it's pretty small, and b) it's a snuff film. How often do you get the chance to see someone get their head chopped off, and then listen to them talk about what you watched on the news?

For a studio to properly release a movie to be downloaded, it would have to be in the size of 1.5 gigs or so. (At least, that is the size I've noticed to have near-excellent quality.) Anything less than that is pretty crappy. How many people have an internet connection that can take a 1.5 gig download?
posted by graventy at 6:16 AM on May 23, 2004


If Moore really wanted people to see his movie for reasons other than monetary, he'd digitize it and post it to the Web, allowing free downloads of it.

Zachsmind you ask for a very high standard of behaviour - you must be constantly disappointed by people. How else would Moore get money to live? Support his family? Or how would he finance his next film [either from the profits or by showing a profit and attracting investors].
posted by meech at 6:27 AM on May 23, 2004


If Moore really wanted people to see his movie for reasons other than monetary, he'd digitize it and post it to the Web, allowing free downloads of it.

I repeat: Complete ridiculous absurd strawman bullshit.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:34 AM on May 23, 2004


I still can't believe people here take FreedomParamus seriously.

I still can't believe people here even read his comments, much less take them seriously.

I've gleaned much more enjoyment from MeFi once I learned to look at the poster before reading the comments.

I may still read comments from some of the more notorious/nefarious characters, but knowing beforehand who posted it keeps the blood pressure/throbbing forehead vein ratio within acceptable limits.

There are people here who exist solely to cause consternation and blustering, and find great humor in it I am sure.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:05 AM on May 23, 2004


For anyone interested: a boatload of reviews.
posted by cratchit at 8:01 AM on May 23, 2004


Are we still supposed to be hating the french? I thought that went out of style with freedom fries.

Freedom fries, hell. I saw a vending machine dispensing Freedom Ticklers in a gas-station bathroom on I-10 this past week. I shit you not.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:34 AM on May 23, 2004


If the Right only had Rush Limbaugh would they spend a whole lot of their time trying to chop him down?

since when does the left have to do things because that's what the right would do? you're logic is borked.

since coming to mefi i've been a lot more aware of american politics. when clinton was in power i was amazed at the cheap way the right attacked him personally, rather than his politics. i never for a moment expected that the same would happen in reverse - it's been something of an eye-opener.

maybe i should have been preprared by, ironically, michael moore. i was a big fan of tv nation, for a while (it used to be late night on channel 4, iirc). then i realised that he spent a lot more time humiliating secretaries and clerks than exposing their employers.

no wonder no-one votes when neither side has a shred of moral courage. do i vote for the people who are jerks or the people who are jerks? hmmm. why bother...?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:40 AM on May 23, 2004


arrgh. your. not you're. i hate that.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:51 AM on May 23, 2004


RaysMJ said: "Zachs: Disney declined to distribute the film because the guy in charge of the corp. said the company didn't want to release such a political film in an election year. Doesn't that piss you off? Shouldn't it?"

Corporate oligarchies have controlled this country for decades. I'm beyond being pissed off. I bothered being pissed off years ago, and everybody acted like I was insane. They laughed at my paranoia while they stood there simmering in their own juices like lobsters with the temp of the water slowly increasing. I finally gave up being pissed off and fighting the inevitable. I'm now wearing speedos and enjoying the sauna. I find the petty bickering entertaining.

Edgeways: "It has always been all spin, everything we do has "spin" on it, spin is just another word for politics and we are by nature political creatures."

See what I mean? Please by all means continue believing that we as lobsters require the water to slowly get hotter. This is a natural way of things and any lobster who disagrees has no idea what it means to be a lobster. Simmer simmer. Here's your speedo.

Graventy "Sorry, no, that's bullshit. As noble an act as that might be, he will reach a larger audience in theaters."

Precisely. He can reach a larger audience in theaters where he can make more money. There's no cost effectiveness in giving the film away either offline or online. He also can't afford to waste millions of dollars in regular advertising like other films, so he looks for an angle to capitalize on for purposes of publicity. He has done this with previous films too. There's a level where he sincerely does it cuz he believes it to be the right thing but at the same time he knows that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if he wants to make millions of dollars on what is basically a documentary you wouldn't see PBS broadcast, then he's gonna have to raise a stink. And we're falling for the publicity campaign. Turn the temperature a little higher and get in yer speedo.

Meech: " Zachsmind you ask for a very high standard of behaviour - you must be constantly disappointed by people. How else would Moore get money to live? Support his family? Or how would he finance his next film [either from the profits or by showing a profit and attracting investors]."

Welcome to the lobster sauna. Where's your speedo? Going stark naked in the pot is so passe.

XQUZYPHYR : "...strawman bullshit"

Woah. You're already cooked! Get'm out of here and feed him to the compassionate conservatives! This guy's done and ready for the lemon and tartar sauce! Serve him with rice pilaf! The conservatives are bullshit. The liberals are bullshit. It's all a big stinking hot load of bullshit. If you watch this movie and vote against Bush you're buying into one spin machine. If you're voting for Bush and actually believe war is an answer to problems you're buying into a different spin machine. You're still being a bunch of puppets on strings no matter what way you look at it.

So just enjoy the sauna and wait for your turn to get eaten.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:50 AM on May 23, 2004


> Fuck the French.

If you say so. Dibs on Julie Delpy.
posted by jonmc at 11:04 AM on May 23, 2004


Wow, ZachsMind, you're just too cool for all of us, aren't you. I wish I could keep it real like you. Man, it's great that you can pass off everything everyone pointed out to counter your point as bullshit, but still, on behalf of all us puppets on strings, thanks for caring so much about this to write half a page on how it's all bullshit you don't care about.

Does anyone actually have something to say now?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:49 AM on May 23, 2004


everybody acted like I was insane.

one wonders why
posted by matteo at 11:51 AM on May 23, 2004


To paraphrase ZachsMind:
"That's right," said the other dwarfs. "No more aslan, no more kings, no more silly stories about other worlds. The dwarfs are for the dwarfs."

Not that I necessarily disagree with him, but scepticism always saddens me.
posted by Fezboy! at 11:58 AM on May 23, 2004


ZachsMind: so you are insulated and don't give a shit? That's fine, everyone has their coping mechanisms. I would argue that knowing everything is political/has spin and not doing anything because you only want the "truth" is a cop out. We are unable to judge the absolute truth on all subjects all the time despite what some say... Are the Ten Commandments the truth, how about the sanctity of marriage, or the necessity of tax cuts? It is all part of an ongoing culture war, if you wait for the truth you (to rehash your analogy) will end up at the bottom of the lobster pot. (btw it is a slightly flawed analogy as to cook lobster you plunge them in boiling water. I don't know (quite possibly it is true) if they can ignore slightly increasing temperatures. That does work for frogs tho')
posted by edgeways at 12:18 PM on May 23, 2004


Remember, the French tried to tell you about today's Iraq over two years ago. It probably didn't get packaged right, but the concerns were. Now, as the French people say, America is left only with its eyes to cry.

Last I checked, their concerns had quite a bit to do with their investments in Iraq.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:50 PM on May 23, 2004


Last I checked, their concerns had quite a bit to do with their investments in Iraq.
posted by matteo at 12:59 PM on May 23, 2004


An interesting, and not exactly sycophantic, article in today's Observer, by Andrew Anthony, meeting Moore in Cannes: Michael and Me.
posted by Blue Stone at 1:04 PM on May 23, 2004


Of course their concerns had to do with their investments. War is a racket, and the French racket was working without war. The American racket needed a war to get going.
posted by cell divide at 1:06 PM on May 23, 2004


Zachsmind,

Why write about how apathetic you are? There's no reason to care about what you think because you gave up. No side is complete bullshit. What your are saying certainly is.
posted by john at 1:37 PM on May 23, 2004


Here's your red herring back matteo, I think it got away from you for a second there.

cell divide -- I'm not saying anyone's clean here. I'm saying that the French can no more be relied on for credibility and objectivity than anyone else, unlike the earlier comment suggested.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:22 PM on May 23, 2004


Gosh folks . . . is this the best we can do as an online community? Tone done the disonance and try discussion. E.g., how do you think most people in the U.S. will react to learning about the ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families?
posted by ahimsakid at 5:55 PM on May 23, 2004


Well, I'm going to take to the streets with my handguns.
posted by rocketman at 6:54 PM on May 23, 2004


how do you think most people in the U.S. will react to learning about the ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families?

When I tell people, they just shrug. Bush is made of teflon.

Picture me ranting and raving, "HIS FAMILY HAD NAZI TIES! NAZIS!" And people just kind of glazing over.

Like I said, I don't think this film is going to win converts, but I hope I'm wrong.
posted by ColdChef at 8:12 PM on May 23, 2004


When I tell people, they just shrug.

This may be, however, just because I'm annoying in person and no one likes to hear the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind. (See? Annoying.)
posted by ColdChef at 8:15 PM on May 23, 2004


Wait. Wait. I have an idea.

We could see the movie, then discuss it.
posted by ewkpates at 7:46 AM on May 24, 2004


Here's your red herring back

no, this is a red herring. yours, it was a different fish -- fish in a barrel, as usual.
but sorry for blowing up that little lame argument of yours.
it happens a lot, lately
posted by matteo at 7:59 AM on May 24, 2004


Where is it written that documentaries have to be impartial?
posted by archimago at 9:21 AM on May 24, 2004


no, this is a red herring. yours, it was a different fish -- fish in a barrel, as usual.
but sorry for blowing up that little lame argument of yours.


Wait, wait... you "blew up" a comment about French bias by linking to past American follies? Hey, that's very similar to how you "blew up" some of my other comments by linking to completely irrelevant past posts, then vanished mysteriously when called on it.


it happens a lot, lately

Whoa, that is a lot, that's... one?
posted by Krrrlson at 9:26 AM on May 24, 2004


Last I checked, their concerns had quite a bit to do with their investments in Iraq.

i don't have any investments in iraq.

i spoke out b4 the invasion of iraq and i said it was a horrible idea, a truly disastrous idea.

nobody listened to me, even though i had hundreds of thousands of people speaking with me.

their intentions may not have been 100% selfless, but france, germany, and belgium spoke for me when my country ignored me.

vive la france!
posted by mrgrimm at 12:34 PM on May 24, 2004


a lot of people seem to be saying "this is probably a shitty film and it just won on politics". the grapevine i listen to does seem to be saying that the political element was an important one, but so what?

if this film is anything like moore's previous ones, it'll be a well put together, fun to watch, interesting, thought provoking, somewhat biased movie. it probably isn't worthy of the palme d'or purely on its artistic merits, but again, so what? are movies only to be judged on artistic merit? is the message irrelevant?

i say, if we're in a highly politicized atmosphere, then a political film's content can be equally important. the jury obviously agrees and decided that the information moore was presenting was as/more important the the storylines, cinematography, etc. of the other entrants. even if those entrants had better storylines, cinematography etc.
posted by christy at 1:19 PM on May 24, 2004


their intentions may not have been 100% selfless, but france, germany, and belgium spoke for me when my country ignored me. vive la france!

So when an allegedly corrupt agenda (i.e. European politicians) supports your opinion, it's vive this and vive that, but when an allegedly corrupt agenda (i.e. U.S. neocon thieves after Iraqi oil) causes a bloodthirsty dictator to stop murdering his citizens, it's beyond reprehensible?

Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:01 PM on May 24, 2004


« Older Blunt Talk By General Anthony Zinni   |   shrek 2 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments