Well... here 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is. by Quicksand

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Well... here 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is.

POSTED BY: QUICKSAND
UPDATED: Thursday, March 30, 2006 07:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 23170
PAGE 2 of 3

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry Jasonzz, I edited my post to be more inclusive.

I didn't ask for contrasting viewpoints. I get them all the time on TV.

And, in answer to Baker's reviewer's points- I don't feel I was "taken in" by MM's film. There were more points to make than he even touched on. I found these facts on industry (eg Unocal, Carlyle Group etc.) websites and books. The kind of negative review that he(?) posted would only throw someone who DOESN'T know the facts. It's the kind of chaff that's meant to distract people from the big ugly facts that are sitting in the middle of their livingrooms.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:16 AM

*stears clear of all the argumentation*

Personally, I loved this movie. It got applause and laughs and cheering when i saw it in the local theatre. Then again, I live in that crazy liberal-filled Vermont-land, so I imagine I might be lucky in that respect.

As for the whole political, bring-down-Bush thing: I hate Bush for many pesonal reasons (his attempts to outlaw gay marraige being a big one), therefore I liked the fact that the movie exposed all this bullshit that the Bush administration has been getting people to buy into (which IS fact, however you may disagree with the movie's views, you cannot dispute the fact that this is FACTUAL information). Unfortunatly, I have to say that I think the people who most need to see this movie (aka, people who are still blind to the corruption in our government and may very well vote for Bush because of that) aren't the ones who are GOING to see it. Sad, but probably true.

So, there's my two cents. The end!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:21 AM

Here's something else that's funny...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
MacBaker- not only are YOU spouting propaganda, you're a coward as well.

I'm a coward for posting an opposing view, but somehow you're NOT a coward for hiding safely in your home or office and spouting off insults via cyber space? You are pathetic, and the true example of a coward! I provide a view that doesn't agree with your own, and it frightens you! I don't agree with Moore's left wing popaganda, any more than I agree with Debbie Schlussel's right wing response to it, but neither opinion frightens me, so who's the coward? LMAO!

I have clearly said repeatedly that the opposing view I posted is not my personal opinion, so I'm not hiding behind anything. I did feel it was impostant to hear both sides, but that seems to scare those of you that don't want anyone to believe that Mr. Moore's movie is anything but what it claims to be.

Yes, many reviews have been positive, but even those reviews point out the flaws in facts and the dangers in his message.

Examples:

Ty Burr of the Boston Globe (who gives the movie a B rating) has this to sat at the end of the review:

"One last thought: "Fahrenheit 9/11" is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary. To do so abuses the word and shames the good and balanced work done by filmmakers as storied as D.A. Pennebaker and Barbara Kopple, as current as Jehane Noujaim of "Control Room," and as hard-working and unheralded as Carma Hinton of Brookline's Long Bow Group."

David Levine of filmcritic.com (who gives the movie a A- rating) has this to say about the movie:

"Moore freely admits Fahrenheit is one-sided, and that’s his choice. Yet it’s hard to pin the blame on Bush for everything that happened in the years that have followed. Like Dan Quayle, Bush is simply an easy target, and Moore’s penchant for stretching the truth and selectively editing stories to meet his agenda. And while hindsight is 20/20, the fact remains that nothing in the past can be changed. Moore’s objective is to build enough support to prevent Bush from being re-elected. Fair enough, but he should prepare for an even bigger backlash than he got for Columbine."

Lou Lumenick of the New Tork Post (who gave the movie a B- rating) give's this warning at the end of his review:

"The weakest section is the opening, in which Moore revisits the now wearisome accusations that Dubya "stole" the election from Al Gore with help from a right-leaning Supreme Court.

Moore conveniently doesn't mention that in the last election, he was backing Ralph Nader - whose candidacy many believe effectively handed the White House to Bush - or that in "Dude, Where's My Country?" Moore states the next president should be ... Oprah Winfrey!"

James Berardinelli of ReelViews (Who gave the movie a B- rating) has these comments:

"The real problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't that it attacks the current Republican administration (which could be seen as a public service), but that it does so clumsily and with poor focus. Moore does much of his preaching with a paucity of facts, relying on circumstantial evidence and insinuation to make his points. And too little of his information is fresh. As flawed as Bowling for Columbine might have been, it was challenging and thought-provoking. It provided opportunities for debates and dialogue about gun control and school violence. Fahrenheit 9/11 offers little more than a repetitive, two-hour attack on Bush. It's not compelling; in fact, there are times when it's not especially interesting. I went into this movie expecting to be engaged. I left it bemoaning the fact that I had spent $11.50 on parking."

William Arnold of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (who gave the movie a B- rating) has this to say:

"It's far from a documentary masterpiece, and its scatter-gun collection of circumstantial evidence is not half as incendiary an indictment of the New World Order as many of the other muckraking films that have played the festival circuit in recent years."

These are all positive reviews, but they call his overall message into question and question many of his "so called" facts.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:51 AM

Moore, Moore links.

If you do any research into the facts behind Mr. Moore's work, you can't help but take anything he says skeptically. Don't trust me, or him, read for yourself. I could post Moore, but just read and do more research on the stuff you don't agree with and you will find that Mr. Moore is great at half-truths and fabrication. IMHO

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/index.htm
http://moorewatch.com/
http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscmoore.htm
http://weekendpundit.blogmosis.com/lastweekend/025294.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html/
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233/
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=2&kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=2524
83
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127u
jhuf.asp
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 10:26 AM

Most people who like Moore's latest work fall into some of these categories:

1. already believe the message behind the movie. And will vehemently defend Moore as the "messenger" with reckless disregard for the deceptive tactic that is used by MM.

2. completely uninformed/ill-informed and fell for the carny tricks that MM uses to mis-represent the half-truths.

3. Thinks it's entertaining either knowing that it's the crackpot's "truth" or with complete nonchalance/irrelevance to what it is.

You won't convince #1, they are believers to their own cause and won't be 'suaded. #2's are too lazy to go and read and understand even if you drag them there by the leash. Well, #3 is just too happy to set the disposable income free whether it's "White Chicks" or "F-9/11".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Most people who like Moore's latest work fall into some of these categories:

1. already believe the message behind the movie. And will vehemently defend Moore as the "messenger" with reckless disregard for the deceptive tactic that is used by MM.

2. completely uninformed/ill-informed and fell for the carny tricks that MM uses to mis-represent the half-truths.

3. Thinks it's entertaining either knowing that it's the crackpot's "truth" or with complete nonchalance/irrelevance to what it is.

You won't convince #1, they are believers to their own cause and won't be 'suaded. #2's are too lazy to go and read and understand even if you drag them there by the leash. Well, #3 is just too happy to set the disposable income free whether it's "White Chicks" or "F-9/11".

Oh lord, I swore I wouldn't get into any political debates... I hate politics... but I need to ask, just for the sake of knowing: The general message behind the movie is that Bush needs to be out of power. Are you saying you disagree with that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Melee:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Most people who like Moore's latest work fall into some of these categories:

1. already believe the message behind the movie. And will vehemently defend Moore as the "messenger" with reckless disregard for the deceptive tactic that is used by MM.

2. completely uninformed/ill-informed and fell for the carny tricks that MM uses to mis-represent the half-truths.

3. Thinks it's entertaining either knowing that it's the crackpot's "truth" or with complete nonchalance/irrelevance to what it is.

You won't convince #1, they are believers to their own cause and won't be 'suaded. #2's are too lazy to go and read and understand even if you drag them there by the leash. Well, #3 is just too happy to set the disposable income free whether it's "White Chicks" or "F-9/11".

Oh lord, I swore I wouldn't get into any political debates... I hate politics... but I need to ask, just for the sake of knowing: The general message behind the movie is that Bush needs to be out of power. Are you saying you disagree with that?

What MM's message and politics or viewpoints is persuading has nothing to do with any of what I am saying. Let me pose a question to you. I gathered that you agree with MM's politics of this movie and that you would like have him out of the whitehouse. What if MM advocated killing him and having him done in for all? (I am not arguing legality, I am arguing moralistic viewpoint of assasination and killing in general) Would you agree with that? Same end goal, same politics viewpoint. Different method to deliver the message. I am arguing that MM's method of delivery, of distorting facts is wrong and unworthy of your attention. I am saying is that you all are buying into the same type of sensationalistic crap that is on with "Temptation Island". Yikes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 12:51 PM

Like I said, I refuse to get into political debates, so I'm not going to write out a big long and indignant response to that as I am tempted to do. All I will say, is that I definatly do not buy into sensationalism. That is your opinion and you can keep it, I don't care. I was just trying to understand the situation, and I have done that. The end.

*goes and hides under a table with Mr. Fluff from all this political crap*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:15 PM

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Here's yet another user commentary...

User Comments:

Michael Daly (fanstp43@aol.com)

Date: 23 June 2004
Summary: Moore Collapses On His Own Hatreds

Michael Moore has concocted a film whose intent is, in Moore's words, "to bring down a President." Moore's film - whose title has earned criticism from writer Ray Bradbury for its tacky parody of his famous story - is a typically labored and scattershot series of attacks on its subject - here President George W. Bush and the US war on Islamo-Arab terrorism.

Moore tries to prove that Prewsident Bush was somehow culpable in Islamo-Arab attacks on the US in September 2001 because of the Bid Laden family's relation ship with the Bushes through the Carlyle Group. But this relationship is completely convoluted and once you sort through Moore's attack you find that the relationship was at most tangenital and utterly irrelevant to anything; it's somewhat like blaming Harvard for Pearl Harbor because Isoroku Yamamoto graduated from Harvard.

Moore pushes this alleged Bush-Bin Laden connection by citing flights that took members of that family out of the US after September 2001, and only by his convoluted paranoia can Moore believe they are evidence that the US somehow staged attacks on its own soil. Moore (as is his want) leaves out facts that destroy his paranoia, namely that no respectable investigation has found any kind of sinister motive behind these flights.

But as writer Christopher Hitchens has put it, a film that is based on a lie can only sustain itself by piling up smaller lies with ever-more contradictory claims. Moore balmes Bush for spending too much time on vacation before the 2001 attacks, but Moore's own footage shows these "vacations" were anything but - in one shot Bush is seen "vacationing" with Tony Blair, prime minister of Great Britain; such summitting is inherently serious work, not goofing off. More again uses his own paranoia as evidence of malicious motive by the Bush Administration.

More goes beyond paranoia into outright propagandizing for the enemy with his grotesquely fawning view of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Moore wants us to believe Iraq never backed any terrorist force, let alone the 2001 attackers, never mind Hussein's own boasts about his backing of international terrorists including Al Qaida, never mind the written documentation unearthed in Iraq after his overthrow (consistently ignored in major media) showing Iraqi involvement with Al Qaida and other international terrorist groups.

It continues with shots of Iraqi palaces and military bases under attack - Moore wants us to believe that these structures were civilian enclaves when they in fact were military and secret police bases. Iraq's 30-plus year record of slaughter, internal and international, is glosses over completely.

Moore tries to have it every way that attacks the US and ultimately collapses on his own contradictions. Either Saudi Arabia runs US policy or it doesn't - here Moore never bothers to wonder why Saudi Areabia would want to overthrow a Taliban regime in Afghanistan to which the Saudi government had close ties; Moore also never wonders about how a democratic Iraq means an economic rival to Saudi Arabia's near-monopoly on Middle Eastern oil exports and yet Saudi Arabia backs, however imperfectly, US efforts toward that goal.

It all means that Michael Moore has done it again - vented his spleen for no rational reason beyond anti-American bigotry. One has to wonder when people will grow tired of such, for Moore has taken the documentary and made it nothing but a vehicle woprthy of Leni Riefenstahl.

Wow...

What movie did YOU see? I just went to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night, and you've completely twisted around the meaning of the film.

The film NEVER states that Bush is somehow culpable for 9/11 because of the Carlyle connection, it stated that he didn't do enough to prevent the attacks before they occured - mostly due to the fact he spent more time on vacation in his first months in office than any president in US history - and that his staff ignored repeated warnings of impending Al Qaeda attacks on US soil. The Carlyle and Halliburton connections are linked to AFTER 9/11, where Bush allowed his former business partners to profit from the war in Iraq. Incidentally, I have a friend in the Army over there, and the general consensus of the soldiers he's spoken to is that Bush is out of his mind. These people are not, and never were, a threat to our country, only to themselves. At least, they weren't before...they're pretty pissed off NOW.

Bush's business connections with the Saudi's had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11...it was never implied that they were. What was stated is that the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country after September 13th with little or no FBI scrutiny, and that even though Saudi's were at the HEART of the conspiracy, very little was done with regard to questioning Saudi's or the Saudi government. Instead, Bush pushed for a way to attack Iraq and blame Saddam for 9/11, a charge which has repeatedly proven false. Even Bush himself has admitted ON CAMERA that Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11...this has also played out to be true in the 9/11 commission findings. The WMD problem is also briefly addressed, since we basically control that country, yet we haven't found anything substantial there with regard to WMD's...the reason we supposedly went to war over there in the first place.

Isn't it interesting, however, how MANY companies have gotten contracts to complete the "rebuilding" of Iraq that are owned in full or in part by members of Bush's cabinet, Bush's family, or his former business partners?

Whitewater, anyone?

There's a scene in the movie that your rant reminds me of, one in which a grieving mother listens to an Iraqi woman protesting the slaughter of Iraqi children and US soldiers in the war. An uninformed bigot of a woman steps up and declares the whole scene is a sham, staged for the camera. She shuts up real quick when the grieving mother states emphatically that her son not only died in Iraq, but in Carbala on April 2nd. The uninformed woman (dubbed "bitch" by a large percentage of the audience) walks away muttering effectively that a lot of people have died in Iraq.

Yeah, a lot of people have.

Wake up and smell the crude, dude.

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSunWorshipper:

...

There's a scene in the movie that your rant reminds me of, one in which a grieving mother listens to an Iraqi woman protesting the slaughter of Iraqi children and US soldiers in the war. An uninformed bigot of a woman steps up and declares the whole scene is a sham, staged for the camera. She shuts up real quick when the grieving mother states emphatically that her son not only died in Iraq, but in Carbala on April 2nd. The uninformed woman (dubbed "bitch" by a large percentage of the audience) walks away muttering effectively that a lot of people have died in Iraq.

Yeah, a lot of people have.

Wake up and smell the crude, dude.

- T

huh? I think this rant, while interesting, belongs in another thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:25 PM

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

Oh, and has it occured to ANY of you Bushites that both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were either put in power and/or supported by the CIA?

OH, OH...and that REAGAN AND BUSH helped support them there IN THE FIRST PLACE?!! Also, Reagan abandoned Osama's freedom fighters in Afghanistan after the Soviets were pushed out, then Bush, Sr. abandoned the Iraqi insurgents when they rose against Saddam during the Gulf War, and were later slaughtered for their trouble

...and everybody wonders why the Iraqi's and Osama hate our guts. Liberators, my a$$.

Does that strike ANYBODY as funny? 'Cuz it doesn't seem all that funny to me.

Most of the people on this board bashing the movie probably haven't even seen it, but all sound like the crowd that bashed the protesters when the war began: "Oh, they must hate freedom. Why do they hate freedom?"

Orwell had it right, he just predicted it a little early, is all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:27 PM

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSunWorshipper:

...

There's a scene in the movie that your rant reminds me of, one in which a grieving mother listens to an Iraqi woman protesting the slaughter of Iraqi children and US soldiers in the war. An uninformed bigot of a woman steps up and declares the whole scene is a sham, staged for the camera. She shuts up real quick when the grieving mother states emphatically that her son not only died in Iraq, but in Carbala on April 2nd. The uninformed woman (dubbed "bitch" by a large percentage of the audience) walks away muttering effectively that a lot of people have died in Iraq.

Yeah, a lot of people have.

Wake up and smell the crude, dude.

- T

huh? I think this rant, while interesting, belongs in another thread.

...why? This thread is about Fahrenheit 9/11, yes?

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:28 PM

Jason, I think you are going to pop a blood vessel if you keep posting.

Usually you are polite and eloquent, but you've become a snarling and snapping madman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Melee:
Like I said, I refuse to get into political debates, so I'm not going to write out a big long and indignant response to that as I am tempted to do. All I will say, is that I definatly do not buy into sensationalism. That is your opinion and you can keep it, I don't care. I was just trying to understand the situation, and I have done that. The end.

*goes and hides under a table with Mr. Fluff from all this political crap*

ok, well, thanks for the understanding. I don't buy into any of MM's sensationalistic crap either. Whatever the undercarrying message is, he could have done it better with more integrity - if he had wanted to come out and enter it as documentary and put it together as a documentary and in a documentary style. Yeah, stuff like this isn't really worth the type of long diatribe necessary, but hey, if you've got to set the record straight and you have to describe it blow-by-blow - maybe that's what you've got to do. I am glad that you agreed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Melee:
Oh lord, I swore I wouldn't get into any political debates... I hate politics... but I need to ask, just for the sake of knowing: The general message behind the movie is that Bush needs to be out of power. Are you saying you disagree with that?

I don't disagree with that that all. Personally, I am totally against the current administration's move into IRAQ. We should have worked harder with the UN, before making such a move. Even the majority of UN members agreed that Saddam needed to be removed from power, but it was felt that other methods should have been tried, before resulting in a full scale attack. By making such a move without UN support, we made ourselves the target for everyone (including terrorists, and liberals like Michael Moore) that believes the US is a big bully forcing their will on everyone else. Maybe we are, but the majority of UN members agreed with us, they just didn't agree with our administration's choice of how to deal with the problem by using military force. I'm not sure 10 more years of UN inspections and fly overs would have changed anything, but going in without UN supoort wasn't right either.

My question is, do any of you actually believe that Kerry will get into office and end the war on terror, and pull out our troops? Do you believe that if he did, this would somehow fix everything, and those mean ole' missunderstood terrorists would now leave us alone?

If you think he will, you are mistaken! Kerry knows we have to stay and see this through. To abandon Iraq or Afganistan at this point would do more to destabilize these regions than staying, to insure that these new democracies have a chance to stand up and survive on their own. If we suddenly pulled out, and let the first power hungry war lord to take over, we'd be even more hated than we are today. Kerry will have to do the same thing the Bush administration is trying to do. He will have to get UN support to help provide assistance to these area's with UN peacekeepers and aid. Nation building is never easy, and our track record so far (The Shaw of Iran anyone?) isn't very good, which is why it's so important to have UN support.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:37 PM

My question is where does Michael Moore, a Canadian, get the idea that he's allowed to make a "film" like this? It would be like a US director making a "documentary" blaming Winston Churchill for the German raids on England during WWII. It's just silly.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:50 PM

Um, Michael Moore, isn't canadian... he's from Flint, Michigan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:56 PM

First off, I saw the movie.

About this whole: is it tripe, is it a "mockumentary", is it a work of art argument -

People write political books all the time. Dozens of high-profile political books have come out within the last year, even. Their goals are the same as Michael Moore's, whether it's Anne Coulter or Al Franken. They want to persuade people politically. They do it in print. Moore's expertise is in film, so he does it in film. It is a political commentary. He uses tons of facts, then he interprets them. Political writers do the same thing. He also leaves out tons of facts. Political writers do that too.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

ok, well, thanks for the understanding. I don't buy into any of MM's sensationalistic crap either. Whatever the undercarrying message is, he could have done it better with more integrity - if he had wanted to come out and enter it as documentary and put it together as a documentary and in a documentary style. Yeah, stuff like this isn't really worth the type of long diatribe necessary, but hey, if you've got to set the record straight and you have to describe it blow-by-blow - maybe that's what you've got to do. I am glad that you agreed.

I think you misunderstand, I don't see Fahrenheit 9/11 as sensationalistic crap. Over-hyped maybe, but it had some valid points and for the most part I agreed with it. I'm just saying that I don't "buy into" anything. I may like a movie, but it's not going to make me suddenly change my opinions. Fahrenheit 9/11 just happened to be along the lines of what my beliefs already were.

And to answer another question that was just posed. No, electing Kerry isn't going to suddenly make everything all better. Not at all. Personally, I was rooting for Howard Dean and the only reason I'm voting for Kerry is because he's not Bush, and I truly hate Bush (for a lot of things, many completely unrelated to Iraq).

NO! NO! *slaps hand* No more! I swear this is the end of my involvement in this discussion *mumbles something about politics and mongoose food and wanders away*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 2:01 PM

He is an *honorary* Canadian though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 2:12 PM

Given that there are politcal writers what do the same thing, I don't like them either. And if Moore's from Michigan, then my information was wrong. Either way. I'm not big on propaganda. I don't like uppity people from ANY political group in my face telling me to think like them.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 2:45 PM

BLUESUNWORSHIPPER

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSunWorshipper:

...

There's a scene in the movie that your rant reminds me of, one in which a grieving mother listens to an Iraqi woman protesting the slaughter of Iraqi children and US soldiers in the war. An uninformed bigot of a woman steps up and declares the whole scene is a sham, staged for the camera. She shuts up real quick when the grieving mother states emphatically that her son not only died in Iraq, but in Carbala on April 2nd. The uninformed woman (dubbed "bitch" by a large percentage of the audience) walks away muttering effectively that a lot of people have died in Iraq.

Yeah, a lot of people have.

Wake up and smell the crude, dude.

- T

huh? I think this rant, while interesting, belongs in another thread.

Dude,

Apologies, I missed that you had pulled this article off of...what, IMDB? It got cut off on my screen. I was replying to what the writer of the article said. Sorry, it was such a lengthy argument I thought you had posted it, rather than pasting from another site. Again, apologies.

That is, unless you believe that tripe...in which case, shame on you. You be stinky poo person! Nyaah!!

Yeah, that's me trying to be articulate.

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:27 PM

I just don't like docu-fiction and that's about all Moore knows how to do. I’m not to keen on Moore’s personality either; political ideology aside, Moore is the man that liberals repeatedly mistake Rush Limbaugh for being.

“fakenheit” Ha, that’s funny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 4:56 PM

I felt sick the day we attacked Iraq. The country was in a fever to spread Freedom, destroy Evil, and take revenge for 9/11.

The Bush administration fed us loads of crap before we attacked Iraq. They sold us the war, treated it like pure business marketing. Terrorism, Good vs. Evil, Imminent Danger, FREEDOM! Then most Americans started jumping up and down like trained monkeys.

Michael Moore comes around and makes a movie that says, "Wake up and take a look around!"

And lots of monkeys got angry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I felt sick the day we attacked Iraq. The country was in a fever to spread Freedom, destroy Evil, and take revenge for 9/11.

The Bush administration fed us loads of crap before we attacked Iraq. They sold us the war, treated it like pure business marketing. Terrorism, Good vs. Evil, Imminent Danger, FREEDOM! Then most Americans started jumping up and down like trained monkeys.

Michael Moore comes around and makes a movie that says, "Wake up and take a look around!"

And lots of monkeys got angry.

Nicely put Tash (and on a totally unrelated subject: yay for being one of the only people I still recognize around here!).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I felt sick the day we attacked Iraq. The country was in a fever to spread Freedom, destroy Evil, and take revenge for 9/11.

The Bush administration fed us loads of crap before we attacked Iraq. They sold us the war, treated it like pure business marketing. Terrorism, Good vs. Evil, Imminent Danger, FREEDOM! Then most Americans started jumping up and down like trained monkeys.

Michael Moore comes around and makes a movie that says, "Wake up and take a look around!"

And lots of monkeys got angry.

For some reason, you think that all informed Bush-beaters have to like Michael Moore too. Why is that? You don't have to like or dislike what MM has to say - in order to dislike his style and his delivery method (or he as a person or the way he treats people)

You have really fell into MM's brainwashing if you think that everyone like that *has* to by default fall in line into the drumbeat; instead of looking at it for ourselves. Reading the facts and determining and finding our own opinion. You would like it very much that we *not* do that, but instead just hum to the same mantra as you. Just like your dirty little Monkeys. Well, forget that.

Don't make the mistake about monkeys. Angry monkeys throw feces, they can't debate or argue with you. Angry monkeys are irrelevant and beside the point. Calling people who don't like your viewpoint names is childlish and only shows that you can't argue based on viewpoint or substance. It shows that You are easily manipulated into feeling emotional and frequently at a lost for words - but then again, that's the average audience that MM wants, people who will react easily to his emotional drumbeats, people who sees the bright pretty pictures all ordered nice and neat to be spoon fed to you. Well, you don't have my arguments there if you are really refering to the typical MM F-9/11 fans as Angry feces throwing monkeys. But I'd rather just think that at least people who participate here are a cut above that. At least we can all make ourselves available for our opinions and can be verbose about it without resorting to name calling.

And BTW, if you have all the answers as to the mess we have on our hands, speak up man. And just getting rid of Bush and bringing the troops home by itself ain't going to do it. Maybe you can tell us how you will solve the mid-east crisis, the North Korea crisis, the South American mess. Please turn on the spout of knowledge. Oh wait, I feel it now... Oh pooh, that's no fountain of knowledge, that's just you peeing over everyone you feel are beneath you. How apt, just like the monkey that you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Calling people who don't like your viewpoint names is childlish and only shows that you can't argue based on viewpoint or substance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Hi Suck-a-Tash:

You were saying?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 8:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Calling people who don't like your viewpoint names is childlish and only shows that you can't argue based on viewpoint or substance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Hi Suck-a-Tash:

You were saying?

How about you quote me and yourself in context for once?

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=5935&m=75260#75131

It helps to actually do that when you are having a conversation, but then again, maybe you are just flinging feces again. Come back when you can actually hold more than a couple of things in your head at the same time. A coherent argument requires that you be able to hold more than one ideas in your head and evaluating them.

[Suck-a-Tash holding two coconuts in his hands]

no, no, look at those things. Good golly, those things are not your head. Oh forget it, you don't get the difference anyways.

[Suck-a-Tash holding two coconuts rattling it next to his head making thinking sounds]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz.. as usual, you're spouting second-hand opinions. You find the few (very few) negative ones and post them here. And you call Mike Moore a propagandist? And you do this with outrage???

Wait! Wait! I know! You're just trying to "balance the picture!"

Heh? My opinions are my own. Other people's opinions are theirs. Every review, even positives ones, are a double-slap. Almost without exception, each reviewer states the same refute that MM's "documentary" is a mockery to the profession of documentary makers. MM is uses the same propaganda style as the Nazi's do.

I am not trying to balance the picture. Now you are confusing other's arguments. You need to go back and read my posts again. I am pointing out the despicable methods that MM uses to revise the facts, to skew them. He has found a swayable audience with a need to hate, an existing target and build a false picture around it. Ha, all to incite your emotions and all the while picking your pockets. All he wants to do is use you and swindle you out of your money. Have you asked him what he will do with all of that money? Will it go to his $1.25M New York penthouse? or will it go towards another house?

I am telling you, for once, to not be some one else's sheep. You've traded one master for another one is all that you've done. Think for yourselves and see what sort of carny tricks he has pulled over your eyes. If you keep sending MM the message that this sort of irresponsible entertainment is okay to keep perpetuating, think about what's next. There will be more of the same kind of crap, not just in the political arena, there will be more of it everywhere. heh? Is this the kind of crap you want everywhere?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

MacBaker, Jasonzz, Crevanreaver- GO SEE THE FILM. I don't want to hear your "second-hand" opinions!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:01 PM

And he's a sore loser at that too.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56524,00.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 28, 2004 9:07 PM

*raises hand* Um, ah, not to be rude or anything, and I could be wrong... but wasn't this thread supposed to be a discussion of the movie? When did it turn into an argument about Michael Moore's personal integrity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:45 AM

Jason, you are not making any sense. Can you please calm down and take a deep breath?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Melee:
*raises hand* Um, ah, not to be rude or anything, and I could be wrong... but wasn't this thread supposed to be a discussion of the movie? When did it turn into an argument about Michael Moore's personal integrity?

Well, the movie is really about MM's opinion, personal viewpoint, and revision and re-interpretation of factual footages and imageries (and doing so make it a lie) So, it would be valid to talk about the methods he used present and past. It would be legitimate to reveal them as well as to compare and contrast them. A critical review often discusses the director's motivation thru his personal lives and all of his works.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

Jason, you are not making any sense. Can you please calm down and take a deep breath?

Read the post again, read it 30 times if you have to. Get them into those coconuts of yours. Then respond correctly and appropriately.

Stop with the "you sound brainwashed, you sound agitated, you sound crazy" bullcrap. The red herring detractors are not working. Speak to the issue, give some good examples for feedback. Provide some supporting statements. Sheesh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:28 AM

Just to clear up some technical errors:

Quote:

We even considered a hybrid like the Toyota Prius, until we read reports that landfills full of worn out fuel cells will do more damage to the environment, than an equal number of efficient traditional gas powered cars.

The Toyota Prius and all other Hybrids do NOT use fuel cells. They use both a combustion engine which charges a battery (a normal battery!) which feeds an electric engine which takes over whenever it can. Normal Batteries do contain toxins, but it's possible to dispose of the liquid without any harm to the environment, mostly you just reuse it. The plastic casing would obviously end up on a scrapheap, but honestly, when you consider that all the rest of the car is there as well, it's not like it makes any difference.

Fuel Cells use Oxygen an Hydrogen in seperate compartments with a membrane in between to generate electricity. To dispose of a Hydrogen, simply light it. You might remember this one from school:

2H + O -> H2O

(Sorry can't index the two...)
(Also you might not want to light the plastic)
(And be sure to stand back a few metres, when you light Hydrogen it has a slight tendency to ... explode)

Coward

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:08 AM

Um...slight tendancy, Coward? (Note: that is his proper name, and note my missing eyebrows

)

As I have posted elsewhere, no one is denying MM's skill at movie-making. He is extremely proficient, with an excellent head for it. Also, no one is denying that he has an agenda against
Bush. The main gripe is that he takes the facts, and puts them out of order. And many have caught him stretching the truth for the sake of artistry or political principle (many of the reviews of F911 I have read, tho very positive, have stated that very thing). What JasonZZZ and others take offense, if I may say J, is while his intentions may be good, he is using the wrong methods for his purposes. MM might be better served for using unblemished, and by that I mean unchanged and unedited, footage. He uses the truth, but moves it around to suit his needs. And, by doing that, he makes it a deception. By using such tactics, he makes it hard to believe his POV. As I have stated elsewhere, I'll wait til a friend rents this (I have several willing to pony up for this sort of thing, why should I?)

Also, I'll ask it here too. I have heard some ppl call MM "brave" for putting this movie out, how exactly is that? This is completely in character for him, so his reputation isn't at stake, and commando's aren't going to smash in the door to his million-dollar home and give him monster noogies (nor anything worse), so how's this "brave?" I can see bold, just not brave. I'm honestly asking. No sarcasm here, just confusion.

Jayne: "See, Vera? You get dressed up, you get taken someplace fun!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:20 AM

Yes, post 9/11 America is so horrible. We're in a "fever to spread Freedom, destroy Evil, and take revenge for 9/11"...wait a second...spread Freedom, destroy Evil, revenge for 9/11? Pardon my viewpoint, but those all sound like good things to me. But maybe a closer examination will reveal the error of my thinking. Lets look at your points:

1) Spreading Freedom

Since when are free societies bad? I realize that when you allow people to make up their own minds they might do things like, oh, I don't know, elect people you don't agree with to government positions, but the will of the people is respected. Free societies are also much less likely to fall into despotism. Of course, greedy, rich, elitist, lying-types of people, aka "Liberals", think that everyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, and that they should be in charge of all decisions. This, of course, runs counter to the concept of freedom. I contend that it's better to live in a free society than one that isn't, mainly on the basis that I have a say on what goes on, and I'm not constantly afraid of having the door beat in by government agents and being executed for telling the truth. So I think that spreading freedom and liberating other nations from tyranny is by and large a good thing for the people in those countries. It's also a good thing for us, because there are more viewpoints in a free society. Less likely that the population will be seduced by propaganda. I think that spreading freedom is a good thing for all parties, especially, in a case like Iraq, where everyone except the Baathists wanted freedom. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe all of the Iraqis have been lying to us, and in the next couple of days, they'll turn Iraq back over to Saddam. But I don't think so.

2) Destroying Evil

On the basis of my life experience, I'm gonna jump out on a limb right now and say that evil is bad. I feel pretty confident in that analysis. Now, there's the question of whether evil should be opposed. I contend that since evil is bad, and bad things can't be good, then it's good to go against bad things. Be anti-bad, so to speak. Then there's just the question of defining evil. I would contend that a ruthless madman desperately seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction, who has killed hundreds of thousands innocent civilians, used said Weapons of Mass Destruction against both foreign enemies and domestic dissenters, started wars with neighboring nations, and has a branch of his government specifically devoted to spreading lies about his enemies and the state of the nation to mislead his own people, is probably an evil man. Once again, I could be wrong. Hmmm...misleading the people by spreading lies. Sounds an awful lot like Michael Moore.

3) Taking Revenge for 9/11

This might be considered a bad thing, unless you realize that the people we were taking revenge on were the people that attacked us (Unless you believe the Europeans and Arabs, many of whom still contend that Jews attacked us on 9/11, with the full backing of the Bush Administration) were in fact evil, freedom hating people. While there is evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, it's never been substantiated or confirmed 100 percent. Several things have been confirmed however:

1) Al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack (Unless you're French or Arabic, in which case replace Al-Qaeda with "money-grubbing Jews")

2) Al-Qaeda's primary base of operations was in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime that supported Al-Qaeda was destroyed by Coalition Military Forces, lead by America.

3) There was a working relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (Anyone who denies this is simply an idiot. There are mountains of evidence supporting this claim. Go look it up, I'm not repeating it)

4) Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who was a threat to the Middle East. According to American, British, French, German, Russian, and Chinese intelligence, he possessed and was actively seeking more Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was well known that he had used them in the past during a war with Iran and to put down a Kurdish uprising. The United Nations agreed that Saddam most likely had WMD's, and ordered him to turn them over. After the Weapons Inspectors in Iraq determined that Saddam had not complied, American and Coalition forces liberated the country.

5) Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was not a free country.

I don't expect anyone would disagree with those points, except number 3, to which I would respond take your gorram head out of the sand and look at the facts instead of the latest Micheal Moore mockumentary (all of the central points of which have been disproven by numerous journalists. Anyone who believes Moore is, to quote Succatash, a "trained monkey") There was an operational relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that may have included planning for the 9/11 attack.

Succatash also states that "The Bush administration fed us loads of crap before we attacked Iraq." If I may be so bold to ask, what crap did the Bush Administration feed us? Unless you're talking about the WMD situation. In that case, every modern nation in the world was wrong. Bush did, indeed, feed the American people bad intelligence, but that's not his fault. It was the same intelligence information that every other world leader had, that every UN member had. The debate in the UN was never over WMD's, all of the nations involved agreed that he probably did have them. If it's something else that you're referring to though, perhaps you can enlighten me? Demonstrate that the Bush administration "fed us crap" using actual facts, not bullshit propaganda that you get from Liberal Talking Points memos written by assholes like Moore and Al Franken.

I'm so goddamn pissed at the left in this country. The blatant disregard for the truth by people like Moore is just sickening. And stupid little parrots who want to join the elitist left just echo it over and over and over and over again, as if by saying "Bush lied", "Bush lied", repeatedly would somehow make it true.

My judgement is that America has made, by and large the right calls in the War on Terror. Perhaps we could be harder on the Saudi's, we probably should (although it was very difficult economically, well, not anymore. Now we can trade more with Iraq and get tougher on the Saudi's). I think that the supreme hope in liberating Iraq is that other Arab's will stop listening to the state-funded propaganda pouring out of the media, take a look around, and say "What a shithole. We shouldn't be blaming America for all of the problems in the world, maybe we're the reason we live in repressive societies that treat us like shit" They'll look at Iraq and say, "Hmmm...that looks pretty good. Maybe we should try that." That's the hope anyway.

We'll, this turned into a fun little rant. I think I had a purpose at the beginning, but I lost it somewhere after the first paragraph or two. Instead, It's just a general rant against rich, greedy, manipulative, arrogant, ignorant, racist, blame-America-first minded, lying liberal assholes (is there any other kind?). People who are so blinded by the propaganda of the DemoKKKratic party that they wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them on the ass.

To hell with the left.

--ADR

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...

The issue is about a movie you haven't even seen. You are ignorant until you see it. All of your mean and nasty comments make you look stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
The issue is about a movie you haven't even seen. You are ignorant until you see it. All of your mean and nasty comments make you look stupid.

And your comments calling other people Monkeys and dumb, and stupid and not mean, nasty and stupid.

The issue is about MM's dubious and propagandish tactics. There are some things that you absolutely do not need first hand experience (especially when there are plenty enough of base experience - re: all of the other MM films; and lack of evidence and critical review pointing out major differences in tactics and handling) I don't have to smoke crack to know that it's going to wreck havoc on my biochemistry, I don't have to get drunk and kill people to know that it will maim and harm people. Again, get to the point and discuss the issues. Stop sidelining and throw out red-herrings.

Give it a rest with the bullshit come backs and let's talk about how MM's tactics and deception is your new Monkey's master.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:13 AM

To gtman8503:

I take exception with many of the things you said in your post. Including but not limiting to your reference to liberals as greedy, rich, elitists. Are there some who are like that? Undoubtedly, but the same could be said of any political leaning.

And as for your generalizations about other countries and cultures (in particular, Arabs, French, and other Europeans), shame on you. Yes, there are a few radicals from those cultures/countries that claim that 9/11 was a Jewish plot supported by Bush. But you know what? Those people are by far in the minority, and the vast majority of other people in their cultures/countries think they're idiots.

And as for your outright dismissal of those holding political views other than your own (I believe your phrase was, "to hell with the left"), I feel sorry for you. Acceptance of opposing viewpoints is what this country is founded on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

MacBaker- my apologies. I posted before I read all of your posts. That was one of the reasons why I edited it. Unfortunately, Jasonzz was on at the same time I was and beat me to the punch!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
The issue is about a movie you haven't even seen. You are ignorant until you see it. All of your mean and nasty comments make you look stupid.

And your comments calling other people Monkeys and dumb, and stupid and not mean, nasty and stupid.

The issue is about MM's dubious and propagandish tactics. There are some things that you absolutely do not need first hand experience (especially when there are plenty enough of base experience - re: all of the other MM films; and lack of evidence and critical review pointing out major differences in tactics and handling) I don't have to smoke crack to know that it's going to wreck havoc on my biochemistry, I don't have to get drunk and kill people to know that it will maim and harm people. Again, get to the point and discuss the issues. Stop sidelining and throw out red-herrings.

Give it a rest with the bullshit come backs and let's talk about how MM's tactics and deception is your new Monkey's master.

I'm sorry, but as long as you haven't actually seen the film, all you're doing is repeating what others have told you. By definition. You can't have formed an opinion of yor own about a movie you haven't seen. This is similar in style to Moore's other films, but since it is not on the same subject, it is not the same film. Therefore, until you have seen it, you are the one mimicking others.

So, if you are determined to keep the argument going, please go see the movie. Then you have fodder for your debate and you can name-call all you want. It will have some legitimacy. Until then, your opinion is irrelevant because you do not have all the facts.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TomSmeagol:
To gtman8503:

I take exception with many of the things you said in your post. Including but not limiting to your reference to liberals as greedy, rich, elitists. Are there some who are like that? Undoubtedly, but the same could be said of any political leaning.

And as for your generalizations about other countries and cultures (in particular, Arabs, French, and other Europeans), shame on you. Yes, there are a few radicals from those cultures/countries that claim that 9/11 was a Jewish plot supported by Bush. But you know what? Those people are by far in the minority, and the vast majority of other people in their cultures/countries think they're idiots.

And as for your outright dismissal of those holding political views other than your own (I believe your phrase was, "to hell with the left"), I feel sorry for you. Acceptance of opposing viewpoints is what this country is founded on.

Really? Now I am interested in reading about viewpoints from (Arabs, French, and other Europeans in particular) moderates in those areas who doesn't blame the Israeli Jews for all of the problems in the Palestinian areas. I am not joking, I would really like to see what the other end of the arguments are. Somehow, this country's opinions and policies are driven by the need to eradicate the Palestinians and taking their land from them.

I really am not being facetious. I really would like to learn more about this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Really? Now I am interested in reading about viewpoints from (Arabs, French, and other Europeans in particular) moderates in those areas who doesn't blame the Israeli Jews for all of the problems in the Palestinian areas. I am not joking, I would really like to see what the other end of the arguments are. Somehow, this country's opinions and policies are driven by the need to eradicate the Palestinians and taking their land from them.

I really am not being facetious. I really would like to learn more about this.

Well, you could just go to websites of various newspapers and news channels of those countries. Or go to some political message boards that have a large international representation.

And I'm not sure I agree with you that our opinions and policies are "driven by the need to eradicate the Palestinians and taking their land from them." Polls show that most Americans support an independent Palestinian state--there's just a lot of disagreement about the best way to implement it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
The issue is about a movie you haven't even seen. You are ignorant until you see it. All of your mean and nasty comments make you look stupid.

And your comments calling other people Monkeys and dumb, and stupid and not mean, nasty and stupid.

The issue is about MM's dubious and propagandish tactics. There are some things that you absolutely do not need first hand experience (especially when there are plenty enough of base experience - re: all of the other MM films; and lack of evidence and critical review pointing out major differences in tactics and handling) I don't have to smoke crack to know that it's going to wreck havoc on my biochemistry, I don't have to get drunk and kill people to know that it will maim and harm people. Again, get to the point and discuss the issues. Stop sidelining and throw out red-herrings.

Give it a rest with the bullshit come backs and let's talk about how MM's tactics and deception is your new Monkey's master.

I'm sorry, but as long as you haven't actually seen the film, all you're doing is repeating what others have told you. By definition. You can't have formed an opinion of yor own about a movie you haven't seen. This is similar in style to Moore's other films, but since it is not on the same subject, it is not the same film. Therefore, until you have seen it, you are the one mimicking others.

So, if you are determined to keep the argument going, please go see the movie. Then you have fodder for your debate and you can name-call all you want. It will have some legitimacy. Until then, your opinion is irrelevant because you do not have all the facts.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

So, you support MADD, the death penalty(or repealing), or the rights to abortion/ right to life, euthanasia, deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as who should be in the White House or not. This all from first hand personal experience. Please provide evidence to these things so that I might be edu-me-cated. Golly Gee, mister!

I can read about other's experience and reviews and make my own opinion and assessment. If I didn't have enough information, I would have gone and asked more questions and talked to even more people who have seen it. As it is, at least here, there are a lot of finger pointing and name calling on top of legitimate discussions. If we can lower the noise level of this stuff and go back to some legitimate discussions.

Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TomSmeagol:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Really? Now I am interested in reading about viewpoints from (Arabs, French, and other Europeans in particular) moderates in those areas who doesn't blame the Israeli Jews for all of the problems in the Palestinian areas. I am not joking, I would really like to see what the other end of the arguments are. Somehow, this country's opinions and policies are driven by the need to eradicate the Palestinians and taking their land from them.

I really am not being facetious. I really would like to learn more about this.

Well, you could just go to websites of various newspapers and news channels of those countries. Or go to some political message boards that have a large international representation.

And I'm not sure I agree with you that our opinions and policies are "driven by the need to eradicate the Palestinians and taking their land from them." Polls show that most Americans support an independent Palestinian state--there's just a lot of disagreement about the best way to implement it.

Sorry, I meant the administration's policies seem to be driven by that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
So, you support MADD, the death penalty(or repealing), or the rights to abortion/ right to life, euthanasia, deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as who should be in the White House or not. This all from first hand personal experience. Please provide evidence to these things so that I might be edu-me-cated. Golly Gee, mister!

I can read about other's experience and reviews and make my own opinion and assessment. If I didn't have enough information, I would have gone and asked more questions and talked to even more people who have seen it. As it is, at least here, there are a lot of finger pointing and name calling on top of legitimate discussions. If we can lower the noise level of this stuff and go back to some legitimate discussions.

So you would presume to discuss The Matrix, Grapes of Wrath, Siddhartha, or The Hero with a Thousand Faces without watching the movies or reading the books? Is that how you got through high school English? Art is different from strict political information.

I would never presume to discuss MADD, the death penalty(or repealing), or the rights to abortion/ right to life, euthanasia, deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as who should be in the White House or not without learning something about those subjects. I would not presume to discuss a film, TV show, or a book without reading or watching them.

You can read the bad reviews of Firefly and decide it must suck. Or you can watch it and judge for yourself. So I beg to differ with you. If you want your opinion about a work of art to be relevant, you must actually take a look at it. And whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, Moore's work is a form of art. And as long as you haven't seen it, you really haven't a clue about its legitimacy.

You can keep putting this off a a "distraction," but from where I sit, this is the core of the argument. You can't argue a subject you don't know. Dont' believe me? Try having an argument some time with a Biblical scholar if you've never read the Bible.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
So, you support MADD, the death penalty(or repealing), or the rights to abortion/ right to life, euthanasia, deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as who should be in the White House or not. This all from first hand personal experience. Please provide evidence to these things so that I might be edu-me-cated. Golly Gee, mister!

I can read about other's experience and reviews and make my own opinion and assessment. If I didn't have enough information, I would have gone and asked more questions and talked to even more people who have seen it. As it is, at least here, there are a lot of finger pointing and name calling on top of legitimate discussions. If we can lower the noise level of this stuff and go back to some legitimate discussions.

So you would presume to discuss The Matrix, Grapes of Wrath, Siddhartha, or The Hero with a Thousand Faces without watching the movies or reading the books? Is that how you got through high school English? Art is different from strict political information.

I would never presume to discuss MADD, the death penalty(or repealing), or the rights to abortion/ right to life, euthanasia, deployment to Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as who should be in the White House or not without learning something about those subjects. I would not presume to discuss a film, TV show, or a book without reading or watching them.

So, we have a difference of opinion, so let's talk about it. Instead of bury the subject in red herring. This particular sideline is going no where quick. I have stated my opinion on this sideline and you have yours, unless if there is new information that you would like to bring up. That's it for me...

Now, back to the thread topic at hand:

MM's deception and underhanded tactics in mis-representation of the true images and information.

Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:

You can read the bad reviews of Firefly and decide it must suck. Or you can watch it and judge for yourself. So I beg to differ with you. If you want your opinion about a work of art to be relevant, you must actually take a look at it. And whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, Moore's work it a form of art. And as long as you haven't seen it, you really haven't a clue about its legitimacy.

You can keep putting this off a a "distraction," but from where I sit, this is the core of the argument. You can't argue a subject you don't know. Dont' believe me? Try having an argument some time with a Biblical scholar if you've never read the Bible.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:41 AM

Listening to the opinions of people who haven't even watched the film has become tiresome.

The film is out there now. Go see it. THEN let's discuss. Steal a ticket... sneak in... watch the inevitable bootleg copy that will soon be posted on the 'net.... I don't care!

But please just realize that opining about something you haven't experienced yourself is a sign of laziness.

Thanks and have a great day!

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 22:13 - 7498 posts

The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:17 - 3 posts

Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 19:05 - 1 posts

Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts

human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts

Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts

The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts

The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts

Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts

MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL