Well... here 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is.
POSTED BY: Quicksand
UPDATED: Thursday, March 30, 2006 17:02
VIEWED: 28670
PAGE 1 of 2
That subject line was supposed to be a play on a Firefly quote. Oh, well, I'll try harder next time.
Since the subject line on this movie is so popular/hated here (79 responses so far), I thought I'd throw another log on the fire, cuz I'm not sure who I'm supposed to see about this.
At Yahoo!Movies.com, the following is the summary for "Fahrenheit 9/11"
Quote:
Documentary
1 hr. 56 min. Michael Moore's latest documentary traces why the U.S. has become a target for hatred and terrorism. It will also depict alleged dealings between two generations of the Bush and bin Laden clans that led to George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden becoming mortal enemies.
Now, here's the thing: the above is NOT EVEN REMOTELY what the movie is about. The film, if you haven't seen it and can allow me to talk about it without accusing me of hating America... is about Bush's ties with the Bin Laden family, and how he used the 9/11 terrorist attacks to push his own agenda. Mortal enemies? HARDLY.
Liberal media, my rosey red a**.
XOXO
___\_o_/___
--------------- (Qs)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
O'course the media's not liberal. That's what the conservatives bitch constantly, but the media, is rather, corporate.
Good movie, depressing as hell. Will definitely polarize people; no one on the fence about this flick. What I expected, I guess. Just makes me depressed about the state of corporate greed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, but the words "Documentary" and "Michael Moore" should never been used together. He's an embarrassment to REAL documentary filmmakers! His films resemble documentaries as much as reality shows resemble reality!
To quote Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong!" I'm sure many here are fans of his propaganda machine, but I'm not!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And from the Boston Globe:
Movie Details
Fahrenheit 9/11
Moore's anti-Bush outrage fuels his riveting 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
By Ty Burr, Globe Staff
Boston Globe
Published: 06/23/2004
...
it should come with a label: "Chew before Swallowing." There are no new smoking guns here. Instead, Moore gives us the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium of previously reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances delivered in the director's patented tone of vaudevillian social outrage. And it works for much of the film; indeed, the first two-thirds of "Fahrenheit" are chunky with damning information and imagery.
....
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.
Moore, by contrast, is a maker of agit-entertainment, of cinematic essays whose express purpose is to convince. That's fine as long as he's respecting his audience. But when he pushes the camera into Lipscomb's weeping face and keeps it there, he's saying that he doesn't trust you to think for yourself. And that is when he becomes his enemy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
I'm sure many here are fans of his propaganda machine, but I'm not!
Actually, he's quite forward with such things. I just saw him on the Daily Show (Jon interviewed him) and he said that his movies have two things in them.
1) fact (it's all public record after all so check it out for yourself if you like)
2) his opinion
Now, I don't know about you, but, I find it quite easy to tell when he is stating his opinion and when he is stating a fact. Those who can't (not saying you're one of them) have more problems then they know ie can't tell the difference between fact and fiction.
Propaganda machine my eye.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooookay! If his films aren't Documentarys, and they aren't Propaganda films, then what exactly are they?
Facts and "public record" are not exclusive to each other. The headlines "Dewey Wins!" are a part of public record, but last time I checked, Truman actually won that election.
Read the reviews above, they expose the "propaganda" style fact twisting that Michael Moore is infamous for. He's like P.T. Barnam. He's a showman, but he's no docmentary filmmaker. IMHO
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are all kinds of documentaries, and in most cases, they are going to be subjective -- that's their nature. I could do a documentary about shopping at big, trendy malls, and if I loved doing that, my documentary would be full of happy shoppers all having fun, the rich diversity of the food court, and all the wonderful things you could buy at a mall that would make you and your family full of joy. If I didn't like these malls, my documentary would be full of parking lot fender benders, strollers running over your toes, and the horrors of rampant consumerism that drives us to buy useless trash. Now, which documentary would be a true documentary? Both of them. It's all about perspective.
Instead of trying to subvert the point with such a wide brush stroke that you do yourself disservice, why not argue the facts? If you don't like what Michael Moore is saying, that's your right. But don't say that his work is propaganda just because you don't agree with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry Tink, but I'm not the only one calling his tripe propaganda.
Here's another review on "public record".
FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction
By Debbie Schlussel
June 25, 2004
Mark Twain, once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
But Twain lived in the 19th Century. In the 21st Century, there are lies, damn lies, and Michael Moore "documentaries."
Like Twain, Moore wants to be the great social commentator of our era. But, "Fahrenheit 9-11" (F911), his latest propaganda film, shows why he will forever remain in "wanna-be" status.
It’s typical Moore: lies, half-truths, far-left wackos and kooks as experts, snarky cheap shots, and just plain nonsense.
F911 starts out by recounting the tired liberal-left canard about George W. Bush "stealing" the 2000 Presidential Election. Gee, we haven’t heard that one before. And for those who actually read the paper and peruse bookstores, there’s little else new in this waste of celluloid.
Moore shows endless shots of Bush and administration officials being made up for TV appearances, montages of Bush golfing and on vacation, a shot of Bush with his dog – all accompanied by the sarcastic vocal commentary of Michael Moore. (You didn’t expect the self-important, schlubby Moore to spare us and stay off-screen, did you?)
In Moore’s world, liberal politicians never get made up or hair coiffed for TV appearances. In Moore’s world, Bill Clinton never golfed, never vacationed for months on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, never had a dog named "Buddy" – all while Slick Willie had the opportunity (several times) to have Osama Bin Laden handed over to him, but declined.
But that’s Moore’s world. He has learned the Costas Gavras (the famous Socialist-Communist director who produced Anti-American films) technique well. Bush and other administration "villains"--so cast by Moore--are shot from down below, to make them look even more evil.
Moore spends much time on Bin Laden family members flying out of the US when the rest of America was grounded, right after 9-11. Showing a clip of Khalil Bin Laden at the airport, a chyron on the screen cleverly reads "days after 9-11." But, how many days? In fact, while some Bin Ladens did get to fly out early, most of the Bin Laden family flew out of America, after the rest of America could already fly. Moore says the FBI was not allowed to interview them, but in fact, the FBI was allowed to interview them and chose not to. That is disturbing, but it’s not what Moore "reported".
The close relationship between the Bush family, including the current President, and the Saudi Royal Family is troubling. But it’s nothing new, and Moore offers no alternative. The Saudi Royals are, no doubt, despicable. They foster and fund madrasas, mosques, and clerics who preach the death of the West, Christians, and Jews. They hold telethons to fund the "martyrs" and allowed Al-Qaeda to grow. Women can’t drive, and non-Muslims are the equivalent of slaves. Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar is slimy and dishonest.
But the precarious Saudi Royal Family is better than the alternative--the Saudi masses who hate us even more and who love Osama Bin Laden.
If Crown Prince Abdullah is deposed by its extremist population, Bin Laden is the most popular replacement. Given the large Saudi investment in our economy (upon which Moore touches) and large holdings in our banking system, a change in Saudi leadership could result in the collapse of our economy. $2 a gallon oil? That would be a pleasant memory from the past, and only rich phonies like Michael Moore would be able to afford to drive. The Saudis are the largest producers of oil, and the radical Saudi population would see to it that we go back to the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if there weren’t a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side."
10 Britney spears wouldn't equal the IQ of any one of those stars ( I mean, Susan Saradon, a Brain dead bimbo?)
"That is why it’s important for Bush to remain on good terms with the sleazy country that is the home to public beheadings and 15 of the 19 hijackers. Leftists from Moore’s "Amen" crowd won’t let us drill for oil in Alaska, so we can get away from dependence upon the Saudis. Not a peep about that in F911."
Excuse me while I gauge my eyeballs out
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LJSquared:
Excuse me while I gauge my eyeballs out
Just wondering what measurement you got, when you "gauged" your eyeballs?
Those are the only points that got to you? Britiney and the Saudis?
BTW: That questionable relationship with the Saudi's is something our government has cultivated and worked on for decades. Before G.W. Bush, the Clintons, Bush senior, the Reagans, and the Carters all wined and dined the Saudi Royals. This isn't anything new, and do you know why? Because everytime gas prices go up, every mindless twit in this country blames the government! We don't want to know what it costs to keep oil prices down as long as we can all drive our big SUVs and sports cars!!!! We have the cheapest gas in the world, but we all bitch if it goes up 20 cents, and we drive the biggest gas guzzlers! Hypocrites! Maybe you should GOUGE your eyes out!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FYI, the wife and I both drive 4 cylinder cars, car pool whenever possible, and laugh at those fools driving gas guzzling barges.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
macbaker,
Give me a break. How long have you been waiting to pounce on someone with that load of crap? Tink is absolutely right, and Tink's comment was not partisan at all. But, you took it as opportunity to ram your extremist politics down our collective throats.
It's propaganda when it comes from the left, but god forbid I call Debbie's piece propaganda. It starts with the usual attack/comparison of Bill Clinton. For all the effort that these typical right wing diatribes put into smearing Clinton, they are always heavily biased with little or no substance. I love how she opens up her essay with the response of a 6 year old, "Clinton took vacations too." Vacations aren't the issue. The issue is the amount of vacation time that Bush took when we *really* needed him to be president and not shirking his responsibility.
The minute that this movie was released, the right wing fanatics started blogging on any and every forum on the web to discredit any opinion that differed from their own. If Michael Moore is such a crack pot, what are you/they so afraid of? This country was founded on free speech and debate, but that seems to be something that the right cannot tolerate from anyone with an opposing or different view. If I disagree with Ann Coulter (and I often do), does that mean that I should stop calling her a columnist/pundit and start calling her a propaganda machine? No, because, for good or bad, she has a right to her opinions. I could write for a week continuously about the nonsense that woman spews. But to dismiss anyone completely is to kill free debate -- something this polarized country desparately needs right now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you're not going to see the movie because of negative reviews, that's fine. That's the purpose of reading reviews in the first place. But I think it's silly to cut and paste these long quotes from other people into a thread. Link to them. Summarize them. All you're really doing is passing along second hand information. I'm more interested in what fireflyfans thought of the movie, not reviewers who fireflyfans happened to read. It looks suspiciously like trying to drown discourse through a huge data dump. Which I have no problem with if it's your own data dump.
[editted to add: This in no way applies to Firefly related material. I love all the re-posting and clipping and cutting and pasting that goes on here since this is my first stop for any and all things Firefly]
Eh. So that rant out of the way 
. I went to the matinee to see the movie not quite knowing what to expect. I was aware of much of the information in the film but a lot of the actual footage was new to me. I'm still trying to sort out how coherent Moore's thesis is but there are certain scenes that really stuck out. The scene from the floor of Congress after the 2000 election: minority Representative after minority Representative coming up to protest what happened in Florida in regards to disenfranchisement of African-American voters and being told by Al Gore, acting President of that session, that there was nothing that could be done because they could not find one Senator to co-sign. It was just surreal. The scenes from Flint: lines at the welfare office, rundown abandoned houses, huge unemployment numbers. Those scenes I got. I understood the point he was trying to make and felt he used the medium well.
Areas where I think he didn't do too good a job were the whole document blacking out part and the chaining of the people from Bush, to the Bin Ladens, to the Saudi Royals, to the Taliban. It was either too much exposition on a point that was easily made (Bush's let's-skip-our-flight-physical buddy) or too many different people in too short a period of time where I couldn't keep track of the players without a scorecard. That was the one area of the movie where I felt it bogged down a bit, just from a flow point of view.
I'll have to reflect more on the cognitive side of things. My immediate reaction is more based on how emotionally charged the movie is. In that, Moore did a good job - he really does know how to lead you through an emotional roller coaster.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!
Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate, and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!
Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target you would like to believe I am. That would make it easy for you to dismiss. The truth is, I dislike Micheal Moore for the same reason that I dislike Rush Limbaugh. Both twist facts to convince small minded lemmings to follow thier cause. It takes a lot more than that to get me to follow anyone. Frankly, I pity anyone that does. If you wish to believe Moore's tripe, you have my pity!!!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, this is why Political Threads (including political threads disgused as movie reviews) shouldn't be posted on forums of this kind. It never goes well.
I'm more than willing to agree to disagree, and let this lame thread die the quick pathetic death it deserves!
Opinions are like a$$h*les, and EVERYONE (including me) that posted in this thread is an A$$H*LE! BUT, the biggest A$$H*LE is the person that started this thread in the first place. What did you expect! Peace and harmony??? LMAO!
So. now that we know that anyone posting in this thread is just another A$$H*LE, post away!!!!!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!
##LOL! It might, except that you missed the point entirely.
Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate,
##Give it a rest. You are not moderate and that wasn't the point to your three page cut-n-paste.
and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!
#That's not true. A true moderate is going to have a tough time in November. On which points are moderate views going to capture a majority? Domestic economic policy, global foriegn policy, women's rights, religious issues...
Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target you would like to believe I am.
##I think you are. If you're so middle of the road, then prove it. Give us your opinions on the war in Iraq. Do you support it? Was it justified? Is it about oil? Was it intended to divert attention? What about the nonexistent (or just extremely weak connection) to alcaida? What about the non existent weapons of mass destruction? What is your opinion of Richard Clarke? Is he telling the truth? Or, is he just a liberal trying to damage Bush's creditability before the election?
That would make it easy for you to dismiss. The truth is, I dislike Micheal Moore for the same reason that I dislike Rush Limbaugh. Both twist facts to convince small minded lemmings to follow thier cause. It takes a lot more than that to get me to follow anyone. Frankly, I pity anyone that does. If you wish to believe Moore's tripe, you have my pity!!!
##You're plenty easy to dimiss. :-) And, I think for myself.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm more interested in what fireflyfans thought of the movie, not reviewers who fireflyfans happened to read.
Good deal, SoupCatcher. I'm interested in that too. I saw it tonight with my son and husband, and it was definitely something I would recommend to others. It's hard to describe. It's not the kind of movie you come home from and say "Gee, what an awesome movie!" because it wasn't the typical movie-going experience, that's for sure. But I think that everyone should see it just for the different perspective it offers. I kept wondering "Why haven't I seen this footage before?" I'm not talking about the parts that Moore put together for it, but the footage of the various public officials and the happenings in Iraq.
The scenes that chilled me the most had to do with the military recruitment tactics -- something I had no clue I'd be seeing based on previews, reviews, etc. I know that for a lot of people that might be a side note, but I sat and watched this movie sitting next to my 15-year-old son. He started high school this year, and he has been absolutely bombarded by military recruiters at his school. They are there all the time, and of course they hand out the coolest pins, calendars, folders, pens, lanyards, etc. I've seen the brochures they give him at least once a month, and I have to say that I've found it very chilling that they are so aggressive and paint such a rosy picture at a time when they know so many kids are dying in Iraq (and in Afghanistan). I don't want to sound like I'm knocking the military here and I don't mean any disrespect to those who are serving or who wish to serve. But I do think that selling this choice to freshman as the equivalent of a real-life video game is irresponsible, and I admit that I've been worried my son would get swept up in the romance that they are trying to sell without considering the reality of what this choice would mean. It's sort of like selling teenage motherhood to a 15-year-old girl as "hey, it'll be like having a live doll you can dress" without mentioning the responsibility of being a parent. But watching those recruiters in action, targeting poor neighborhoods, telling teenagers that the Marines could help them with their music careers (!!??!!), etc. really put things in perspective for my son (while scaring the
out of me as a parent -- but don't tell him I said that -- you know how 15-year-olds are ). I think the strongest points to the movie had to do with the weak link between Iraq and the war on terrorism and also the manipulation of the public. Of course Saddam was a horrible dictator -- being against the war in Iraq doesn't mean that you liked Saddam, for goodness sakes! But to see the footage of Powell and Rice mere months before 9/11 saying that Iraq had no WMD and then seeing us go to war with them on the basis of WMD really sends a shiver down the spine. I do believe Richard Clarke -- I mean, how many of us have brought issues to management only to have them ignore us completely because our findings didn't mesh with their focused goal?
I've watched this progression in horror myself: Ok, we're going to war for WMD cuz if we don't Saddam will destroy us all. Oh no, wait! There aren't any WMD. Ok then, um, er, let's make this a war against Saddam-as-Al Qaida-darling. No wait! He rejected involvement with Al Qaida (guess secular dictators don't much care for religious extremists that would strip them of their booze and luxurious amenities). OK, so then, um...I know...we'll make this a war for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Yay!!! Except that if we really just wanted to liberate the Iraqi people, then why did we base the war on bogus WMD and Al Qaida theories? Sigh. Do we all have attention deficit disorder? I think the movie did a great job at re-capping this progression. We're all so busy these days that we have the attention spans of nervous gnats, and it was good to see the re-cap of just how this great fleec
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
3000 people died on September 11th 2001. Because of that, we fought back. We were attacked, and we fought and are still fighting back.
Even if Bush's motives are less than pure, even if Halliburton makes a fortune, the question is not what their motives are, but what they accomplish.
So far, Afghanistan and Iraq have both been liberated from brutal tyrannies. (Something the left is supposed to care more about than we on the right.) There have been no follow on attacks here, yet.
Yet because it was done by someone other than themselves, or for some imagined alterior motive, it is somehow wrong to defend yourself and liberate brutalized folks around the world.
It is an Us versus Them world. Not by our choice, but by the design and choice of the terrorists. The more I see the kinds of excesses that is widely accepted as gospel by the political left, I am left with the only rational conclusion available. They are simply on the other side. Whether I want to or not, I am forced to question their patriotism, their intelligence and their sanity. Simply because I see no evidence of any of them.
The scatter shot approach that Moore has adopted is contradictory within itself. He makes a whole list of charges against Bush, half of which contradict the other half. The only constant in the whole thing is that Moore hates Bush, which I already knew.
And considering that Richard Clarke, no friend of Bush, has taken responsibility for sending the bin Ladan's home, and that more recent reports does show a relationship between Saddam and Usama, the recent discoveries of Sarin and mustard gas shells, I can't honestly trust Moore anyway.
I really think this is going to backfire badly on Kerry, unfortunately. I don't think he deserves it, but when his own national party chairman comes out in support of this film, a lot of people are going to associate the Democratic party with the lunatic fringes of the political left, and see them more as supporters of conspiracy theories and the enemy, rather than this country. It makes that party look like the tin foil hat crowd, if not treasonous turncoats.
I don't think most people will want to be associated with such a party, and will avoid voting for it in November. They may not vote for Bush, but even staying home is a vote. So enjoy the show while it lasts.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Those surrounding me were literally the "Great Unwashed." They smelled as if they hadn’t taken a shower in weeks, not because they couldn’t afford running water, but because it’s cool to be dirty and nasty in the far-left. Not for any good reason, but just because they can. With their awful stench wafting universal, they want to make the rest of us as miserable and skanky as the Hate-America crowd.
It’s emblematic of the filmmaker and his fake-umentary. Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9-11" stink.
LOL -- Sorry to disappoint you, sir, but I showered between getting home from work and seeing the movie. And the only things I smelled in the theatre were popcorn and someone's Vanilla-scented perfume (which kinda made me want a chocolate chip cookie). Not sure where you saw the movie, but it was a lot of hygenic, family-type folks where I saw it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1st and last thing I'll say about this MOCKumentary. Moore is a lying pig. That much is indisputable. I can see NOTHING positive coming from this movie OR discussion of it here on this board.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just for future reference:
threads of this nature should go to the
:Real World Event Discussions:
bin
Having that bin was a big agonizing
discussion and we should take advantage
of Haken's graciousness to create a
new bin for that sort of stuff.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
someone said it right:
GREAT MOVIE, DEPRESSING AS HELL.
i didnt need this movie to make me not vote for bush. bush himself made me not vote for bush. my mind was made up a long ago.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Ooookay! If his films aren't Documentarys, and they aren't Propaganda films, then what exactly are they?
Facts and "public record" are not exclusive to each other. The headlines "Dewey Wins!" are a part of public record, but last time I checked, Truman actually won that election.
They are opinion pieces, period. The problem is that documentary is the closest category that fits his movie style. He takes the *facts* and paints a picture. As he says, if you want to look them up then go ahead. And as I've stated before, if he uses points of public record that are not true, then he gets sued (especially in this case). You are free not to like the picture he paints though.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Read the reviews above, they expose the "propaganda" style fact twisting that Michael Moore is infamous for. He's like P.T. Barnam. He's a showman, but he's no docmentary filmmaker. IMHO
You mean things like "let alone the 2001 attackers" referring to 9/11. Sorry bud, but that little tid bit has been long debunked. You're going to have to do better than that to convince anyone that these reviews are anything more than republican rhetoric serving to cloud the issues.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
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.
That's why you dispose of them properly. You don't throw out your batteries in the garbage, so, why would you toss your fuel cell there. Good god man!
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Please111:
macbaker,
Give me a break. How long have you been waiting to pounce on someone with that load of crap? Tink is absolutely right, and Tink's comment was not partisan at all. But, you took it as opportunity to ram your extremist politics down our collective throats.
It's propaganda when it comes from the left, but god forbid I call Debbie's piece propaganda. It starts with the usual attack/comparison of Bill Clinton. For all the effort that these typical right wing diatribes put into smearing Clinton, they are always heavily biased with little or no substance. I love how she opens up her essay with the response of a 6 year old, "Clinton took vacations too." Vacations aren't the issue. The issue is the amount of vacation time that Bush took when we *really* needed him to be president and not shirking his responsibility.
The minute that this movie was released, the right wing fanatics started blogging on any and every forum on the web to discredit any opinion that differed from their own. If Michael Moore is such a crack pot, what are you/they so afraid of? This country was founded on free speech and debate, but that seems to be something that the right cannot tolerate from anyone with an opposing or different view. If I disagree with Ann Coulter (and I often do), does that mean that I should stop calling her a columnist/pundit and start calling her a propaganda machine? No, because, for good or bad, she has a right to her opinions. I could write for a week continuously about the nonsense that woman spews. But to dismiss anyone completely is to kill free debate -- something this polarized country desparately needs right now.
I completely agree. Even the lowliest among us has a divine revelation from time to time.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
So far, Afghanistan and Iraq have both been liberated from brutal tyrannies. (Something the left is supposed to care more about than we on the right.) There have been no follow on attacks here, yet.
LOL, I stopped reading after I read this because the rest is probably as deluded as this is. Perhaps you should go and read a news paper from time to time. Afghanistan's country side is teaming with terrorists and its recommended that people don't go there. Hell, even the military won't drive, they fly. The only save zones are about a klick from the cities where the forces are, nothing more. They are losing it over there and people are starting to make plans to do something about it. But, one thing is sure, the brutal tyranny that was in is Afghanistan is still very much alive.
I won't even comment on your Iraq delusion. Sheesh, read a paper.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
1st and last thing I'll say about this MOCKumentary. Moore is a lying pig. That much is indisputable. I can see NOTHING positive coming from this movie OR discussion of it here on this board.
\begin{dripping sarcasm}
Wow, I'm convinced!
\end{dripping sarcasm}
Perhaps you should back your comments is you want them to carry any weight.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Just for future reference:
threads of this nature should go to the
:Real World Event Discussions:
bin
Having that bin was a big agonizing
discussion and we should take advantage
of Haken's graciousness to create a
new bin for that sort of stuff.
Just sent a message to Haken requesting the move. I don't want to re-live that debate.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
That's why you dispose of them properly. You don't throw out your batteries in the garbage, so, why would you toss your fuel cell there. Good god man!
Good god man, how exactly do you dispose of a battery or fuel cell properly? Go visit a landfill, you'd be stunned to see the crap there, including batteries by the truck load!
As a nation, we don't even dispose of nuclear waste properly. Then we spend millions of dollars cleaning up the problem. You live in a fantasy world, which probably explains most of your responses to this thread.
BTW, if I was the right winger you and other small minds believed, I wouldn't be concerned with environmental issues such as this.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Please111:Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!
##LOL! It might, except that you missed the point entirely.
**No, you did! You continue to make the same assumptions over and over again.
Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate,
##Give it a rest. You are not moderate and that wasn't the point to your three page cut-n-paste.
**You should give it a rest. You don't know me, and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what my true political beliefs are! I posted a far right response to a far left movie. Neither OPINION is shared by me, as I have repreatedly stated. You are still clinging to the same flaw in your logic!
and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!
#That's not true. A true moderate is going to have a tough time in November. On which points are moderate views going to capture a majority? Domestic economic policy, global foriegn policy, women's rights, religious issues...
**Are you serious? Do you even understand what a moderate platform is? The only chance anyone running for president has, is running on a moderate platform, trying to win voters from both sides. Sure, there are degrees, but Bush ran on a right leaning moderate platform, and Gore ran on a left leaning moderate platform. Both tried to lean towards the middle to get the critical indie and undecided votes. Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich would never win a presidental election, because the represent the extremes of their party's platforms.
Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target you would like to believe I am.
##I think you are. If you're so middle of the road, then prove it. Give us your opinions on the war in Iraq. Do you support it? Was it justified? Is it about oil? Was it intended to divert attention? What about the nonexistent (or just extremely weak connection) to alcaida? What about the non existent weapons of mass destruction? What is your opinion of Richard Clarke? Is he telling the truth? Or, is he just a liberal trying to damage Bush's creditability before the election?
**My opinion of the war? We should have worked harder with the UN to resolve the problem. Saddam needed to go, but we needed the world behind us. We should have never invaded IRAQ without UN support!
**My opinion on WMDs? They were there. We gave them 6 months prior to invasion to dispose and/or hide them. Even the UN inspectors believed there were WMDs in IRAQ.
**My opion of Clarke? He's a flake, but so was Newt! They represent the worst of their own party's extremes. Like Newt did with Clinton, Clarke is headhunting, and his actions will do more harm than good to his party.
That would make it easy for you to dismiss. The truth is, I dislike Micheal Moore for the same reason that I dislike Rush Limbaugh. Both twist facts to convince small minded lemmings to follow thier cause. It takes a lot more than that to get me to follow anyone. Frankly, I pity anyone that does. If you wish to believe Moore's tripe,NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You're going to have to do better than that to convince anyone that these reviews are anything more than republican rhetoric serving to cloud the issues.
I guess you missed my reply, where I clearly agreed that the review was from the extreme right. That was the point. Both views "cloud the issues"! The truth is somewhere in the middle. I was just playing devil's advocate, by showing a contrasting opinion, but the joke seems to be lost on "even the lowliest among us" here.
BTW: Opinion pieces are called EDITORIALS, not documentarys, and they are always represented as the opinion of the commentator. Mr. Moore makes no such representations, and tries to convince his audience that his opinions are FACT. There's a big difference between an editorial piece and propaganda. Propaganda makers always claim they are giving facts, not opinions!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With 
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!
##LOL! It might, except that you missed the point entirely.
**No, you did! You continue to make the same assumptions over and over again.
#### I love this, "No you did." :-)Let's clarify my assumption then, you couldn't wait for someone to take your bait so you could respond with that right-wing rethoric.
Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate,
##Give it a rest. You are not moderate and that wasn't the point to your three page cut-n-paste.
**You should give it a rest. You don't know me,
####I wouldn't want to know you, and I don't get much rest. :-)
and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what my true political beliefs are!
####Oh, I think your motives are very clear.
I posted a far right response to a far left movie. Neither OPINION is shared by me, as I have repreatedly stated. You are still clinging to the same flaw in your logic!
####Your responses have been poorly designed attempts to discredit Mike Moore to discourage people from seeing the movie. My posistion is that people should see the movie if they want, and they should make up their own *damn* minds.
:-)
and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!
#That's not true. A true moderate is going to have a tough time in November. On which points are moderate views going to capture a majority? Domestic economic policy, global foriegn policy, women's rights, religious issues...
**Are you serious?
####Very.
Do you even understand what a moderate platform is?
####I was a moderate republican for over 20 years. My voting record was not partisan. I registered as a democrat before the last primary solely because the current administration's agenda leans so far to the right in so many dangerous ways.
####I do agree that this country desparately needs some moderation (or maybe even a lot). Our government was carefully designed so that no single group could hold all of the power. These are checks and balances. One of the primary agendas of this administration has been control
all branches of the government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). Electing Kerry is the only step in the direction of moderation.
The only chance anyone running for president has, is running on a moderate platform,
####This is factually untrue. Nobody has ever unseated and incumbent president with a completely moderate agenda.
trying to win voters from both sides. Sure, there are degrees, but Bush ran on a right leaning moderate platform, and Gore ran on a left leaning moderate platform.
####Gore won the popular vote and that's a fact.
Both tried to lean towards the middle to get the critical indie and undecided votes. Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich would never win a presidental election, because the represent the extremes of their party's platforms.
####Yeah, that compasionate conservative line was a big load crap, and ahem, Newt isn't exactly the poster boy for the moderate.
Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target yo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!
##LOL! It might, except that you missed the point entirely.
**No, you did! You continue to make the same assumptions over and over again.
#### I love this, "No you did." :-)Let's clarify my assumption then, you couldn't wait for someone to take your bait so you could respond with that right-wing rethoric.
Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate,
##Give it a rest. You are not moderate and that wasn't the point to your three page cut-n-paste.
**You should give it a rest. You don't know me,
####I wouldn't want to know you, and I don't get much rest. :-)
and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what my true political beliefs are!
####Oh, I think your motives are very clear.
I posted a far right response to a far left movie. Neither OPINION is shared by me, as I have repreatedly stated. You are still clinging to the same flaw in your logic!
####Your responses have been poorly designed attempts to discredit Mike Moore to discourage people from seeing the movie. My posistion is that people should see the movie if they want, and they should make up their own *damn* minds.
:-)
and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!
#That's not true. A true moderate is going to have a tough time in November. On which points are moderate views going to capture a majority? Domestic economic policy, global foriegn policy, women's rights, religious issues...
**Are you serious?
####Very.
Do you even understand what a moderate platform is?
####I was a moderate republican for over 20 years. My voting record was not partisan. I registered as a democrat before the last primary solely because the current administration's agenda leans so far to the right in so many dangerous ways.
####I do agree that this country desparately needs some moderation (or maybe even a lot). Our government was carefully designed so that no single group could hold all of the power. These are checks and balances. One of the primary agendas of this administration has been control
all branches of the government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). Electing Kerry is the only step in the direction of moderation.
The only chance anyone running for president has, is running on a moderate platform,
####This is factually untrue. Nobody has ever unseated and incumbent president with a completely moderate agenda.
trying to win voters from both sides. Sure, there are degrees, but Bush ran on a right leaning moderate platform, and Gore ran on a left leaning moderate platform.
####Gore won the popular vote and that's a fact.
Both tried to lean towards the middle to get the critical indie and undecided votes. Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich would never win a presidental election, because the represent the extremes of their party's platforms.
####Yeah, that compasionate conservative line was a big load crap, and ahem, Newt isn't exactly the poster boy for the moderate.
Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target yo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I've just seen the film.
Great stuff, as always, from Moore. It runs the full gambit of emotions. People laughed, cried, cheered (I’m personally too jaded to do any of that myself, but other people did). I was also slightly surpirsed at the crowd that turned out. some people every brought their kids.
I only disagreed with it on a couple of points ( I think people are putting too much on Bush for the “seven minutes”), but most of the film was right on.
It’s not as funny as his other films; in fact, it’s quite grim at parts. And Moore spends almost no time on the camera. Instead he serves mostly as narrator. Letting his subject matter take center stage in a way I don’t think he ever has. My only real complaint is that he tries to cover too much ground at some point.
Moore asks so many hard (some are more or less unanswerable) questions about fear, and leadership and war.
The stuff on the military is the most shocking and yet, he paints a very real picture about war and those it affects. Including those that serve in our military. He takes a hard and truthful look at the dark side of that. He lets us see the dark side and those than pins the blame square on those that put the troops there.
It’s so incredibly thought provoking. This documentary is amazing. And it is a pro-American film. This film makes us of, through and through, a the values and morals I was raised to believe were American values. people who say this isn't a documentary, apparently don't know what one really is.
GO SEE THIS FILM. Forget all the lefty vs. righty bullshit stuff you've heard. Just go see the film.
Keep Flying!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops $8M in First Day
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S37A218A8
It looks like this may well be the #1 movie of the weekend, with more theatres added in the coming weeks. Quite a feat considering "White Chicks" is on about 2200 screens, while "Fahrenheit 9/11" is only on 868 or so.
FilmCritic3000
"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."
- Juan Ramon Jiminez
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ROFL.
If we're trying to pick a movie that hates America, shouldn't we be pointing fingers at "White Chicks" anyway?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Please111:
####I though you just said that Newt was a moderate. Moderate like you maybe...
I'd take the trouble to refute you again, but why bother. You are so into "you're a right wing wacko" rant, that you can't even get simple facts straight! Only a complete moron would infer that I ever considered Newt Gingrich a moderate! In fact, I clearly said that he demonstates the worst (I.E. EXTREME RIGHT) aspects of his own party! If you weren't so busy assmuming, and actually took time to read my responses before going off on another baseless rant, you'd see that we actually agree on many of these issues!
Claim to dismiss me all you wish, but you still respond everytime I make a point! That fact speaks for it self!
Am I a right wing conervative? Hell no! Am I a left wing liberal? Again, hell no!
I disgree with the war in IRAQ. I believed that Saddam should go, but I did't agree with the fact that we invaded IRAQ without UN support! Now that we are commited, we need to see it through (both in Iraq and Afganistan). If we pull out and leave the citizens of these countries vunarable to the first warlord powerful enough to take power, we'll be even more hated than we already are.
I support environmental issues, but only those that make sense. Example: Electric cars seem to be much better for the environment than gas powered cars, but the reality is, that electricity is made primarily by burning coal and oil. The increased production of electricity, so that every american could drive an electric car, would end up doing as much harm to our environment as current automoblies do. Fuel cell cars have other environmental issues that haven't been solved. They just don't work yet, but hopefully that will change. I'm sure that those who live in L.A. for example, would love to live to see the day that the sky isn't filled with haze, and that you would actually see more than a handfull of stars on a reasonably clear night!
I don't believe a two party political system works. Both partys apply so much pressure on members, that they fear voting against the party line, even when they know it's the right thing to do! We need I viable third party that can swing votes away from the majority party.
I believe that we should have term limits. Too many politicians from both partys are lap dogs to special interest groups, lobbists, and corporations! Term limits won't solve the problem, but it will minimize the exposure. It will also do away with career politicians! Do we really need Ted Kennedy (D) or Kit Bond (R) to serve another term?
I believe the President should have Line Item Veto powers. Too many junk laws get attached to good bills, and end up costing tax payers millions.
I am personally against abortion (except when the mother's life might be in danger), but I don't believe the government should have any control over this issue! I believe it is an individual decision. The only area I do take issue with, is third tri-mester abortions, when development of the fetus is far enough along that there is a working mind (soul). If a woman waits that long to make a decision, I feel that it is too late to abort. Too many premature births that survive at that stage of pregnancy, prove that this is a "life" at this point!
These beliefs are not conservative or liberal, they clearly lean towards a moderate view of politics. When you take a moment to stop ranting and assuming, you might understand that! BUT, I doubt it! Have a nice day! :)
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Good god man, how exactly do you dispose of a battery or fuel cell properly? Go visit a landfill, you'd be stunned to see the crap there, including batteries by the truck load!
Most major urban centers have a disposel site that takes care of such things for people. Perhaps it's because you live the US that you don't have one. Or maybe you do and you just don't know it.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
As a nation, we don't even dispose of nuclear waste properly.
This scares me more than you know.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
You live in a fantasy world, which probably explains most of your responses to this thread.
LOL, like you're the one that knows all, eh? Or is it just that I don't see things the way you do?
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
BTW, if I was the right winger you and other small minds believed, I wouldn't be concerned with environmental issues such as this.
LOL, you seem to be assuming that I look at people in a "black and white" way. Perhaps you should look to that before making such inflamitory comments.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
The truth is somewhere in the middle. I was just playing devil's advocate, by showing a contrasting opinion, but the joke seems to be lost on "even the lowliest among us" here.
Huh? Where's the contrasting view? You seem to be (are) going off on the right. Perhaps you should be more careful when typing next time. And what's the "joke"? Are you off your meds?
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
BTW: Opinion pieces are called EDITORIALS, not documentarys, and they are always represented as the opinion of the commentator. Mr. Moore makes no such representations, and tries to convince his audience that his opinions are FACT. There's a big difference between an editorial piece and propaganda. Propaganda makers always claim they are giving facts, not opinions!
1) he does use facts, period, that is unless all that news archive footage doesn't count. That is unless all that public documentation doesn't count.
2) he states his opinions and the difference is explicit
3) he stated this *in an interview that I saw*
4) if people can't tell the very explicit difference they have more problems than they know
5) I would like you to direct me to the editorial section of the movie rental store please
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Most major urban centers have a disposel site that takes care of such things for people. Perhaps it's because you live the US that you don't have one. Or maybe you do and you just don't know it.
*** Most CARS end up in junk yards, where they are stripped of any useful parts. An expended fuel cell isn't considered use full. The remaining "husk" of the car is then crushed, and moved to a land fill.
*** Most urban centers DO have disposal and recylce centers for such things, but MOST people don't use them!Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
As a nation, we don't even dispose of nuclear waste properly.
This scares me more than you know.
***Good, we agree on that point!Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
You live in a fantasy world, which probably explains most of your responses to this thread.
LOL, like you're the one that knows all, eh? Or is it just that I don't see things the way you do?
***Actually, as you fail to see, again and again, we do agree on several points. The problem lies in your assumptions. Example: In you fantasy world where all individuals and corporations properly dispose of toxic waste, such as batteriesQuote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
BTW, if I was the right winger you and other small minds believed, I wouldn't be concerned with environmental issues such as this.
LOL, you seem to be assuming that I look at people in a "black and white" way. Perhaps you should look to that before making such inflamitory comments.
*** No, it's fairly clear that I see the greys just fine. You are making the assumptions! LOL
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Crevanreaver, thanks for the posting. That's a great review. Where's the URL link for the article online?
CREVANREAVER posted:
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 20
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was brought up earlier. Mike Wilson's film
should be the film to watch. It promotes the real truth and asking the questions truthfully. It asks it audience to think for themselves with the facts presented as themselves in its own truth form.
I think the link is worthwhile to be brought up again for reference.
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/trailer_sm.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
The truth is somewhere in the middle. I was just playing devil's advocate, by showing a contrasting opinion, but the joke seems to be lost on "even the lowliest among us" here.
Huh? Where's the contrasting view? You seem to be (are) going off on the right. Perhaps you should be more careful when typing next time. And what's the "joke"? Are you off your meds?
*** Let's see if I can make this simple enough for you to comprehend. Moore's movie comes from the extreme left wing (something he easily admits), the review I posted came from the extreme right wing. What could possibly be more contrasting, than a response from someone with completely opposite views from Mr. Moore's. Maybe you don't undertand what the word "contrasting" means. Look it up!Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
BTW: Opinion pieces are called EDITORIALS, not documentarys, and they are always represented as the opinion of the commentator. Mr. Moore makes no such representations, and tries to convince his audience that his opinions are FACT. There's a big difference between an editorial piece and propaganda. Propaganda makers always claim they are giving facts, not opinions!
1) he does use facts, period, that is unless all that news archive footage doesn't count. That is unless all that public documentation doesn't count.
2) he states his opinions and the difference is explicit
3) he stated this *in an interview that I saw*
4) if people can't tell the very explicit difference they have more problems than they know
5) I would like you to direct me to the editorial section of the movie rental store please
*** 1) Which facts are those? The ones where he uses Clarke as his poster boy, or the ones he leaves out, where Clarke has publicly amitted that it wasn't Bush who approved the Bin Laden family flights out of the country, but Clarke himself approved such flights? Or the one where Moore mistakes a summit picture of Bush and Tony Blair, with a vacation? Those "facts"? It's so easy to take things out of context. Many of these so called facts are being contested by political experts all over the country, and many of these experts have no love for the current administration!
*** 2) and 3) Yes, he does state his opinions, but there is no such warning during his movie. You have to get that from other sources, such as this ABC interview.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Random House defines "propaganda" as information, rumors, et cetera, deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, et cetera. By that definition, Fahrenheit 911 is propaganda, isn't it?
MOORE: Well, it's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism, even though those who use the words "fair and balanced" often aren't that, but—
Critics of the movie charge that Moore's filmmaking style is deliberately misleading. Stephanopoulos raised two separate issues about the film's accuracy — the first regarding Moore's assertions about the movement of the bin Laden family in the week following 9/11.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Take the issue of the Saudi planes. You make a big issue, a big chunk in the film about this issue where a few days after Sept. 11, many members of the Osama bin Laden family, Saudi nationals, were taken out of the country. It was helped, arranged by the White House. You suggest it was done when the airspace was closed. You suggest that these people were not screened. And you also [suggest] there's a whole sinister subtext there that this was because of the Bush family ties to the bin Laden family. But the 9/11 commission report found that they didn't fly until the airspace was open, that they were screened by the FBI. In fact—
MOORE: That's not true. That's not true. And in fact … there's an FBI agent who was on the al Qaeda task force who's in my movie, who says qNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Mike Wilson's film should be the film to watch. It promotes the real truth and asking the questions truthfully.
Jason, you sound brainwashed. Michael Moore doesn't hate America. This is the real truth? Yeah right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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!"
MacBaker, Jasonzz, Crevanreaver- GO SEE THE FILM. I don't want to hear your "second-hand" opinions!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Mike Wilson's film should be the film to watch. It promotes the real truth and asking the questions truthfully.
Jason, you sound brainwashed. Michael Moore doesn't hate America. This is the real truth? Yeah right.
Hi Suck-a-Tash:
thanks for calling me a name. But since you sound like an ass - it must be ok. Here's another person's opinion. But this might indeed look very entertaining since I believe that it will use the same tactics that MM uses but in a different way. I think if you contrast that with what MM has/had to offer, it will clearly delineat the what and how these methods are employed to skew an op-ed into a "mock/documentary".
Just agreeing with someone who spouts things that you want to hear makes you a fool - regardless of what false pretense, what manipulative tools, or what deceptive tactics they used. It saids that you are easily manipulated. Find out how he is doing it and whether he really is speaking/skewing/slanting the truth or outright lying. It doesn't matter if they have sweetened it with honey, it's still poison that they are pouring into your ear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
MacBaker- not only are YOU spouting propaganda, you're a coward as well.
MOST of the reviews if MM's film were very positive. You just "happened" to pick the negative ones. So, when you talk about "selective" presentations, just go look in the mirror.
And then you have the gall to say... "Well I didn't say it, s/he did!"
What a load of cr*p. I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue a viewpoint, don't hide behine someone else.
heh, you asked where the contrasting views are. He gave you some and now you accost him for it. Sheesh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Help me out - What name did I call you?
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Mike Wilson's film should be the film to watch. It promotes the real truth and asking the questions truthfully.
Jason, you sound brainwashed. Michael Moore doesn't hate America. This is the real truth? Yeah right.
Hi Suck-a-Tash:
thanks for calling me a name. But since you sound like an ass - it must be ok. Here's another person's opinion. But this might indeed look very entertaining since I believe that it will use the same tactics that MM uses but in a different way. I think if you contrast that with what MM has/had to offer, it will clearly delineat the what and how these methods are employed to skew an op-ed into a "mock/documentary".
Just agreeing with someone who spouts things that you want to hear makes you a fool - regardless of what false pretense, what manipulative tools, or what deceptive tactics they used. It saids that you are easily manipulated. Find out how he is doing it and whether he really is speaking/skewing/slanting the truth or outright lying. It doesn't matter if they have sweetened it with honey, it's still poison that they are pouring into your ear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's something else that's funny...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 pos
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 mo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um, Michael Moore, isn't canadian... he's from Flint, Michigan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He is an *honorary* Canadian though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jason, you are not making any sense. Can you please calm down and take a deep breath?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 wit
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:Quote: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.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:Quote: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.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:Quote: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.
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Speak to the issue...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME