Just saw Fahrenheit 911

[t7*]

It will make you laugh, it will make you cry and it will make you angry. Anyone who has been really paying attention will not be suprised by most of the gazillion facts and figures in the movie but it's great to see it all organized in one movie. Even then, there are some suprises. Honestly, I though it actually goes easy on them, he could have done even more. For instance, there is a whole section on Haliburton (that is excellent) but doesn't touch on how they overcharged the military by millions. A great section about cutbacks on vets and military pay, including docking solider's paychecks after they get killed! There's some incredible footage from Baghdad that's amazing. There's some fantastic interviews with members of Congress that will make you see red. Best of all is just showing you Bush and his cronies shooting their mouths off repeatedly, basically lying through their teeth and incriminating themselves repeatedly over the two hours of the movie (I love Rumsfeld saying "We know EXACTLY where the weapons are....they're in Tikrit!" or Condeleeza Rice stating in July of 2001 that Hussein is absolutely incapable of and unable to make WMD's,etc). I'm not saying Michael Moore doesn't have a "slant"....it's a Michael Moore movie, what do you expect?....but that doesn't dilute the facts one iota. And anyone who comes away from that movie with anything else other than "vote this scumbag out" and "impeach impeach impeach" is in major denial.

Do me a favor, if you haven't seen the movie and you're still going to be all negative, don't respond to this post. If you're some right winger who is just going to be like "Michael Moore", "liberals", "lies lies lies", just shut up. This isn't a football game and you people need to come to terms with the fact that your boy has been an extremely poor Commander-in-Chief, to say the least. To point that out isn't treasonous, it's American. I am an American. The things he and his cabinet have been involved with ARE treasonous and I am hoping for impeachment, especially on the leaking of the CIA operative (TOTALLY treasonous! Also, that little scandal isn't in the movie) and the Haliburton conflicts of interest. Also, the Florida election is pretty fishy. And to think Clinton got impeached over a marital infidelity......meanwhile nobody says anything about how the only thing that company man ever fought for was NAFTA! 8 years of Clinton and there were MORE people without health care than when he got elected! And that was the issue he ran on!

Frankly, I have always felt that Bush let 9/11 happen so that he could execute his agenda....(this is not from the movie, this has been my gut reaction since the day of 9/11). One thing is for sure, if he wasn't on vacation for close to 43% of the time in the first 9 months of his Presidency (including the entire month of August 2001...there's some great footage of this period in the movie), perhaps life on this planet would be different.

In the movie, I could have done with less of the mother from Flint, Michigan who lost her son.....it just went on a little long and then he brings her back later.....this was my only quibble, but it's typical of all Michael Moore movies that he goes for that kind of maudlin thing (I didn't like him putting the picture of the little girl on Charlton Hestons driveway at the end of Bowling For Columbine either)....but that's Michael Moore, what do you expect? It's a very minor quibble.

[Jimblast]

But hey, I'm sure your popcorn was good, right?

Off Topic material and unsupported statements removed.

[drew70]

Let's remember, this movie is a work of fiction. It's action adventure entertainment no different from Star Wars or Independence Day. Enjoy it for what it is and no more.

[Roseblossom]

Thanks for the review, t7. I hadn't heard about some of the things you mentioned and now I'm looking forward to seeing it even more.

I imagine one will have to view it several times to take in all the information presented.

~Rose~

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by drew70
Let's remember, this movie is a work of fiction. It's action adventure entertainment no different from Star Wars or Independence Day. Enjoy it for what it is and no more.
If that's the case, Mr. Moore found some great actors to play the roles... :rolleyes:

[venray]

Moore himself is quoted as saying it is more of a comedy than a documentary. I suggest seeing it and judging for yourself how it is presented before commenting.

I for one have no desire to see it as I havent enjoyed anything by him since Roger and me.

In my opinion Moore has joined the very class he has always fought against and his view has been tainted accordingly.

See the movie or not, but do not judge it as a film until you have.


Ray

[t7*]

1st off Drew70, I also love Overnight Sensation, In the Court of the Crimson King and Dark Side! Wanted to post there but I'll do it here.

Secondly, did you see the movie?

Thirdly, please don't insult my intelligence TELLING me it is a work of fiction, as I know the difference. This movie told me little I didn't already know

Fourthly, the only fiction in the movie comes out of the mouths of the current administration's cabinet. I quoted some in my review. Why don't you respond to that? Everything that's in the movie is on the public record! If it is indeed fiction, I'd really be interested on hearing your opinion of all the raw footage in the movie, the unedited raw footage that makes up most of the movie. Please by all means, give me a scene by scene breakdown, I'd be really interested in your opinion. This I gotta hear! Go on! Defend him!

I know when I'm being given a "spin", and there is some of that in this movie. You can not serve one nation and multi-nation companies at the same time. They are not out for you and me. They are not public servants, they are greedy oilmen looking to create an enviornment where they can make a lot of money, simple as that. You know, even if Bush did win the election fair and square, it wasn't a landslide, you'd think he'd be more of a centrist....he'd get away with it all alot better! Clinton (policy wise) was no better, but at least he didn't piss off the whole world!! I mean, I can point to Clinton in Ireland or Nixon in China and say "At least the bastard did some good there"....but you absolutely cannot say that about these creeps! And why would you even want to? What have they done? Homeland security is a joke! It was a joke before 9/11 and it is definitely a joke now! 50% of the reserves are over there! What the hell? Basically they've got fools duped. Mostly people who haven't been paying attention for years and years. Now it's in their faces and they just want to keep on denyin'. Ok! Deny away! George W. is doing a great job. Let me tell you about a good wartime President....FDR. Fireside chats to calm the American people and talking to them straight and keeping their spirits up. Remember him? A real leader. Yeah, you're right, I'm just brainwashed by the liberal media.

[t7*]

Venray....thanks, you're right. I don't think Michael Moore movies as documentary in the traditional sense of the word. But it ain't fiction either. The movie JFK is fiction, disguising itself as a true story. This movie is a 2 hour op-ed piece.

And yes, it IS a comedy. Seriously. It's very very funny. I saw it in a packed stadium theatre and I can testify that it was riotous laughter through half of it. Wolfowitz using his own spit to comb his hair is particularly funny, lots of Bush stuff that's really funny (let's face it, the guy is a dufus, ok? You're going to deny that?). Some of the comedy comes from the editing and the "slant" of Michael Moore. Some of it is just raw footage. (there was also plenty of tears, gasps and angry comments yelled at the screen at different junctures).

There were a couple of other things I didn't like about the movie but I'll let someone else bring it up, I gotta run!

[drew70]

Originally posted by Haltickling
If that's the case, Mr. Moore found some great actors to play the roles... :rolleyes: Riiight. Just like the actors that played Lyndon Johnson and John F Kennedy in Forest Gump. :rolleyes:

T7, I've not seen the entire movie, just bits and pieces. I'm going to download a bootleg copy one of these days and muddle through it. I won't contribute a single dollar to such blatant left wing election propoganda.

Jimblast, your post was right on the money. Evidently the Q-man disagrees with your views and prefers a more liberal flavor to this thread.

[t7*]

"Drew70, with all due respect, "

-----------------------------------------------


How ironic that you led with that statement and then proceeded to show none of it to those you addressed.

Discontinue posting in this confrontational, abusive style or face loss of posting privileges in this forum.

I suggest you read the posted Rules thread more closely.

Thanks in advance.

Q
===================================

[Mitchell]

I need to post a comment here. This movie isnt being shown in Lancaster, PA, or in any other surrounding area near me. The closest place that there is a rumor of it showing it in Harrisburg, an hour from me. This is a very conservative Republican area, and I think that it's an outrage that the movie isnt being shown here. Agree with Moore or disagree with him, fiction or not, by this movie not being shown here, it is censorship, and against free speech and the American way. If anyone remembers "The People Vs Larry Flynt" Woody Harrelson said so truly:"If you dont like Hustler magazine, dont read it" It should be the same thing with this movie. If people dont want to see it, stay away, but it is outrageous that it's being kept out of an entire area just because of the political leanings of the representatives and certain voters in this area.
Imagine if the leaders of Lancaster, PA could set internet controls that banned residents from using the TMF or surfing to sex sites, because it represents an alternative lifestyle, and may not be what certain people call "moral". That would be a violation of the civil rights of those over 18 who wanted to visit this site. I feel it the same way with Moore's movie. I dont know if Regal cinemas, the main movie theater in this area is to blame, or the leaders. Whatever the case, controversial or not, it is wrong not to show Moore's movie here, just because it doesnt agree with the views of certain residents or area politicians.

Mitch

[Cosmo_ac]

I'm glad somebody made this post. Saves me the trouble of making it when i see the movie. :D

Anyway, i'll be seeing it this week when i get the chance. I'd be lying if i said i wasn't a fan of Michael Moore. Personally, i think a lot of people don't like him because he has a lot of truths that some people just don't want to accept. So, i'm going to be taking a slightly different approach to this movie. When i go, i'm going to bring a pad of paper and pen, and jot down any of the facts he states that might be questionable, or otherwise. Then when i get home, i'll start looking them up and see what i find.
After the more recent post on the Michael moore movie, a lot of people accused him of lying etc. So, i decided to look up some of the facts he stated in "Dude, where's my country." Guess what? So far all facts he's stated i've found to be backed up. Now, i can't vouch for him that everything he says is 100 accurate. I haven't had enough time to look everything up. Hell, the first thirty pages has more then 70 listed sources for his info. I mean, Bush said there were WMD in Iraq, and he was wrong, so anybody can be wrong, can't they?

[drew70]

Originally posted by t7*
Drew70, with all due respect, you obviously have no idea what technology was or wasn't used in the film. And you haven't seen the movie with your own eyes, how dare you even speculate on it!

Quite easily and well within my rights to, that's how I dare. I hate to bust your bubble, but I don't need your permission to express an opinion, nor am I required to meet any criteria you decide is acceptable for a response. I said what I said based upon what I'm hearing about the movie from people I know that have seen it, it's that simple. I think that qualifies me to an opinion.

I know you asked for rebuttals, T7*, but instead I think I'll just post more opinions.

Here's one from the Chicago suntimes:
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency.Here's another one from www.sotto.org:
That Mr. Moore does not like Mr. Bush will hardly come as news. "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opens in Manhattan today and in the rest of the country on Friday, is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect?Of course, there are many more opinions out there, but these two speak volumes to me.

[kurchatovium]

Whenever you corner Mr. Moore he says his movies are not documentaries but are indeed more like comedies (as venray eluded to in an earlier post). He has stated this himself. However he does also appear to like have you believe that his movies are documentaries. I have no problem with him liking to make movies of whatever sort he wishes though they are not my cup of tea. I just wish he have the guts to say exactly what it is he has made a comedy, a documentary, a dark satire or whatever.

....hey wait I thought this was the Humor Forum darn :p

[t7*]

Removed for forum violations.....

[dreamboy]

Whether a fan of Michael Moore or not, the facts brought out in the movie speak for themselves, and aren't that widely known, because not too many concerned people have taken the time to go into so much research. One fact he brings out in the movie was that the resulting Patriot Act was passed with incredibly few congress men and women even reading it before they voted. A senator in the movie actually admits it, and more. An additional fact the movie brings out early on is how Bush was told about the first WTC building being hit before he goes into the class room to read. After he's there for a while, he's told about the second building attack, and continues to sit and listen to reading for 7 more minutes, with a very perplexed look on his face. So what was he doing while, and after, our country was attacked?

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. If an opinion is to really mean something, however, and have some merit in the scheme of things, it is almost obligatory to base ones' opinion on some fact, rather than negligence or ignorance. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable forming, or stating, an opinion on, for example, the sincerity of Iran's new friendship with the U.S., without doing some actual research and learning, or gaining practical experience about the topic; whether it be book, movie, or international conflict. Solidifying an uninformed opinion says more, I think, about the person than the topic.

[kurchatovium]

The facts??? Hmmm somehow I feel I am in the humor forum again.

[Roseblossom]

From the New York Times:

After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening.
Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html]

From the Washington Post:

"Fahrenheit 9/11" sagely uses the public record, the facts, and the president's statements and on-camera performances to score its points.

With a combination of events and facts that we have already learned, and some that we haven't, Moore puts it all together. You can understand the thread of his argument, even if you disagree.

Documentaries aren't news articles; they're subjective points of view...

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2290-2004Jun24.html?g]

From the Chicago Sun/Times:

Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies.

[http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html]

[Jimblast]

I do think that the movie should be shown. I would also like to see a documentary on the left wing conspiracy in America. Maybe we could have a movie about Michael Moore's life and take the excerpts out of his works that are totally false. He clearly has an agenda. So what is this thing, a documentary, political ad, self promotion? It's not a 'movie' at all. I'm glad Disney had enough sense to get rid of it. However, I do think if a production company picks it up, it should be shown. You see, many of us that have military backgrounds have fought and many brothers in arms have died so Michael Moore can laugh at us and show his hatred for our country. Where else in the world could he do that! Michael Moore represents the Elite Hollywood and Leftist Media philosophy. Somehow they say they support our troops? I have many friends in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of them believes strongly that we are doing the right thing. Why not ask some of them if they feel 'supported' by rhetoric like this ridiculous self promotion (if you want to call it a movie, so be it). Go see the film, enjoy it....but DON'T say you support our troops, that's a joke.

[august spies]

"support the troops" is nothing more than a propaganda line. They wouldnt dare use something like "support our policy" because that would have to be debated and easily defeated.

The right wing is so pissed off about this movie that i was watching some corporate media before i went to go see it, and they spent hours just trying to discredit it. one guy even tried to say "moore would never show pictures of wounded american soliders, just iraqis" this statement for anyone who actually saw the movie is of course false. They are blantently lying now, this means they are desperate and its a good sign.

btw: troops arent monolithic, troops who hook up peoples genitals to car batteries for the fun of it, and get off it to it, and troops who kill innocent people for pleasure i do not support. However their are many troops who are incredably pissed off at bush and his policy and the war in general, and who dont want to be there and who dont enjoy killing and torturing people. those troops i support. so as you can see the question isnt "support our troops" its do you "support our policy".

[dreamboy]

Originally posted by Jimblast
Go see the film, enjoy it....but DON'T say you support our troops, that's a joke.
I do, or have done, both. I don't see how these actions conflict. Sorry.

[MrMacphisto]

Just gotta say... excellent fucking movie with Best Picture material... the best part was his analysis of the 2000 election at the beginning. Al Gore, like him or not, has way more honor and integrity than either Bush ever will. He stood up for rules that screwed him, just because he understood the importance of following the system. Try to find evidence of either Bush doing that?

[Jimblast]

Which should be characterized as a fictional comedy....I think I'll just read some of the raving over Michael Moore in this thread! Now THAT cracks me up. I've never witnessed such hatred for a president in my life! Al Gore these days seems to have some anger issues. I'm not sure that he's thinking clearly. Both Bush's have and still are excellent Presidents IN MY OPINION. I think there are certain posts in here where opinion is misconstrued as fact. I strongly suggest if one feels they are supporting their troops by paying for this propoganda....why not ask some of the troops? You might be surprised to find that the vast and I mean VAST majority don't consider seeing that film is supporting our troops. I suppose with that kind of logic, flag burning during the Viet Nam protest era was considered supporting our troops. One cannot win with the liberals! If we did absolutely nothing (as I'm sure Gore would have done) after 9/11 then the liberals would be going ballistic. Doing what we're doing now they're going ballistic.

[kurchatovium]

The problem I have with the film is with Mr. Moore himself, when confronted with others who are far more knowledagble than I, he starts whining that his film is not a documentary and only a comedy. Yet when others who are informed about all his supposed facts are absent it is suddenly a biting, griping documentary. I think in my humble opinion Mr. Moore needs to show some guts and say yes this movie is a documentary filled with corraborated facts or shut up. What I think has actually transpired is a work of half truths and misconstrued facts sort of in the "Al Franken" vein. Again you might not agree with this but this is my opinion of the movie and the man in general.

[Jimblast]

shows a LOT of guts! LOL!

[venray]

Mr. Mooore is a very happy man to the tune of 22 million $ in 3 days which is why he helped create all the contraversy to begin with...(IMO)...He is laughing all the way to the bank......


"I want to thank all the right-wing organizations out there who tried to stop the film, either from their harassment campaign that didn't work on the theater owners, or going to the FEC to get our ads removed from television, to all the things that have been said on television,'' Moore said. "It's only encouraged more people to go and see it.''


(source:The Associated Press.)

[kurchatovium]

Sorry for any puns. ;) :p

[Cosmo_ac]

I think people should get up off there asses and saying how unpatriotic the movie is, and watch it. Me, i just watched it tonight, and like i said earlier in this post, recorded any interesting statements about people and companies, and other such issues that were made.

At the end of the movie, Michael moore makes a great statement. I admit i can't remember it word for word, but it went something like, " These young men and woman are our hero's. They go and fight and die so that we don't have to. All they ask in return, is that they not sacrifice there lives unless they absolutely have to." Yeah, that sounds like a man condemming soldiers.

Also the "Support the troops" line. Have to love that. Basically, it is just another line to pull on the balls of the patriotic. It's the "Well, if you don't support this war, you don't love this country!" bullshit that we see so much in the US these days, but thankfully to a lessioning degree.

[venray]

Sorry Cosmo, while I will support the troops with or without supporting the war, what I will NOT do is support Michael Moore by spending a penny to support his "cause" or line his pockets. I really don't care what his point of view is.

I have followed him for years and seen a change in his perspective basically I feel because he realized he could make more money by slanting his views.

This movie has already taken in more in 3 days then Bowling for Columbine took in in it's entire run. Only because Moore himself made it purposefully (in my opinion from what I have seen on his website) more contraversial in order to rake in more cash, not to be the watchdog for America as he would like you to believe.

I will not give him or his "work" a penny, nor will I criticise it's content which I havent nor will not see.


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

Venray, looking at your president, and at all the reports around him, how could it not be controversial? However, i do respect the fact your not criticising it when you haven't seen it. Like i said though, i will be looking up facts stated in the movie and posting any relevence that i find. I don't follow michael moore, but i an willing to listen to what he says because i have found truth in his words. Not by simply agreeing, but by looking up what he has said. Something i think others should do.

[venray]

When you do look up the facts also look up the context from which they were taken. You might come away with a different take on things and I would be very interested in what you find.

I think you are going about it in the right way, but don't blame the others for not wanting to do the same.


Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

I'll certainly try to look up the context, however, context is not where the controversy in the movie lies. There more there for either a quick jab, or humour. the things i have jotted down are more like "Congress not reading the Patriot act bill before sigining it" and comments from people like "Colin powel saying there were no WMD in Iraq" before it started, or "Saudi investments in companies like carlyle" and such. Unfortionatly after looking at my notes, i'm going to have to take some time lol, in the dark theater i didn't write them down very neatly.

[dreamboy]

Originally posted by venray1
I will not give him or his "work" a penny, nor will I criticise it's content which I havent nor will not see.


Ray
Fair enough! Your approach is to be respected, Ray. Hats off for your dignified and balanced attitude; one can't ask for more!

[Jimblast]

...is exactly what Ray says...supporting Micheal Moore who has taken your money and laughed all the way to the bank. If he wants to 'support our troops', how about comitting a few million to the VA's around the country? Sorry, don't think he'll do that. We're sending soldiers across the world to protect all of us. That's what a soldier is sworn to do. It's a shame that it is being politicized by the left. First we heard how hard it was going to be to take out Saddaam. Next we heard from the liberal media about how the supply lines were too thin and unprotected....then we keep hearing how it isn't going to work. Is the world better off without Saddam? No weapons of mass destruction? Tell that to the Kurds. It amazes me that many liberals out there WANT us to lose this war and relish in what our troops are going through. This film does NOT help our resolve. If this works, Iran will be flanked by both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have to win this, and films like this take away from the job at hand. In NO way can anyone tell me that Michael Moore cares about our troops nor could he care about our fight against these fanatics.

[dreamboy]

Are we to assume then, Jim, that you won't be attending the national Town Meeting hosted tomorrow night by Michael Moore? :(

[venray]

Whoa..when is that DB....THAT is something I will watch...

Ray

[Jimblast]

I would rather read 'It Takes A Village' or Clinton's War and Peace biography than go to that town hall meeting! So at the end of this film....Mr. Moore calls our troops heroes? LOL! This guy's slick! Maybe I ought to make a documentary to appease the Hollywood Liberals and the Elite Media, distort the facts, call it a documentary and bash Bush all the while calling our troops heroes and profit off of it! It's so easy to snow the public! I think we're in the wrong business! It's simple, exaggerate the facts, take things out of context, reap the benefit of those who are fighting and dying to protect you...and laugh all the way to the bank! And people will call you brilliant AND give you money! Isn't this country GREAT! LOL!

[dreamboy]

Ray, people leaving the theater (at least in my town) were handed a flier inviting them to a particular large hall, hooking up with other sites across the country at 7 tonight, to rally and organize support. Other than that, the bulletin was rather vague. I guess it was one of those "You had to be there..." situations.

[intense tickler]

Ok first off I have not yet seen the movie (I plan to) but from reading most of the post here its seems to me some of the people who have seen the movie have done or are willing to do their homework and recheck some of the stated facts in the movie as I will too after I see it. But it does seem that some of these facts were checked in newspaper articles and so far have come up accurate. Yes Mr Moore may have an agenda and yes this movie will make him a very rich man. As faras him making a donation to a vets orginazation lets turn it around and find out why a veterans hospital is closing here in NYC in a time of war. Where are those caring patroits in the Bush adminstration that would allow that to happen in a time of war?
It really amazes the shit out of me the some of the more conservative members of this post still have their heads in the sand deep in denial of basic facts and that this war is a farce. Support the soldiers?yeah I support them, they are making the kind of sacrafice that our commander and chief got out of during his youth. As for supporting the war, well its only American to have the right to say its a big farce and the american tax payer is being duped to the tune of 80 billion a yr now. Oh and that is a fact I looked up.

[venray]

No one is denying the facts. It is the way in which they are presented and the others that are not presented at all which makes it an extremely one sided point of view that many dont care to view.

In my opinion from all I have seen and read about the movie it is not a see this and make up your mind documentary, it is a see this and know the truth according to Michael Moore movie, and I have seen enough of him to know it isnt worth 9 bucks out of my pocket to watch it.

I have followed his work for years and used to have a great deal of respect for it. It didnt make him a lot of money so he changed
what he stood for to make more.

In this country, that is fine.It is his right to do so. Doesnt mean he deserves my respect for it nor will he get it.

I know what he thinks. I disagree with him. I will not add to his bank account (and he wont miss it at all)

Ray

[intense tickler]

Hi Venray I respect your opinion as I do like your site to lol. but that aside and let forget about what you think about Mr Moore right now. I dont really know your views about the war or the current President but it seems to me the views Mr Moore are bringing out as alot of americans are increasingly feeling is they really dont understand why we waged a war in that region of the world in the first place and the sheer greed and curruption and corporate theft of the natural resouces. I can go on and on why this war is wrong not to mention the vast loss of human life and sure Saddam was a mad man but there are many in the world Jean Claude Duvalier (who lives in Paris now) Augusto Pinchet (lives in his country and claims he is not healthy enough to stand trial) the list goes on. Why not go after them and why this man and why now as we alienate the rest of the world and where are these weapons of mass destruction? So fair enough if you dont like Mr Moore but this is much bigger than that and the media is doing the american people mush disservice by not talking of these things frankly and just giving us commercial feel good sound bites. At least Mr Moore for the right reason or not is truly giving us somthing to think about.

[Cosmo_ac]

One sided view? Certainly. But is the Government any less guilty of such a thing? Lets face it, the only reason more truth is coming out is because people are activly searching for it, not because the govenrment is laying all their cards on the table. The government has laid down there side, now Michael moore is laying down his. Are they both one sided? Sure, but it's not Michael moore whose having people killed for his words.

[kurchatovium]

Personally I think people will die for these words. IMHO anything that gives terrorists hopes that they might have the chance to get the US to pull out or back down from its anti-terrorist stance by increasing the the death toll or hurting more innocent people increases that risk. This is why I will not watch this movie or any movie that Mr. Moore makes from now on. He has the right to make his trash but I have the right not to watch it. I plan on excercizing my right a lot.

[venray]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
Personally I think people will die for these words. IMHO anything that gives terrorists hopes that they might have the chance to get the US to pull out or back down from its anti-terrorist stance by increasing the the death toll or hurting more innocent people increases that risk. This is why I will not watch this movie or any movie that Mr. Moore makes from now on. He has the right to make his trash but I have the right not to watch it. I plan on excercizing my right a lot.

Let me just add to this that Moore has given ME personally nothing to think about by attempting to undermine the administration with
what he calls the "truth"

And it is not Moore that is bringing out those feelings it is the media and those investigating and reporting what is happening along with intelligent discussion that is making people think.

Moore is neither an investigator or one prone to discussion in my opinion judging from what I have seen and heard him say thus far.

He is merely a hollywood movie maker out to make a buck in his profession. Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by kurchatovium
Personally I think people will die for these words. IMHO anything that gives terrorists hopes that they might have the chance to get the US to pull out or back down from its anti-terrorist stance by increasing the the death toll or hurting more innocent people increases that risk. This is why I will not watch this movie or any movie that Mr. Moore makes from now on. He has the right to make his trash but I have the right not to watch it. I plan on excercizing my right a lot.

People died for the words that Bush's administration spoke when they lied about WMD. How's that for increasing the death toll or hurting more innocent people? Of course, as you said, you have the right to avoid his movies, but let's hope you don't avoid all facts that don't suit your views.

[kurchatovium]

What about the missile loaded with Sarin that was launched a few weeks ago is not that a WMD? How about the tens of thousands of atropine injectors they found? (atropine is the traditional medication to treat exposure to most nerve gases) How about the thousands of jackets loaded with C4? (Maybe not a WMD but then I don't care how a terroist kills me I just don't really want to die)
How about the plane fusilage there to train terrorists? How about the scud missiles that he had that he wasn't suppose that he launched minutes after the war started?

If you are looking for facts then I humbly suggest you can find them in better places than Mr. Moores movie. There is enough criticism you can level at Bush without going to the preposterous. Just my opinion though.

[venray]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
People died for the words that Bush's administration spoke when they lied about WMD. How's that for increasing the death toll or hurting more innocent people? Of course, as you said, you have the right to avoid his movies, but let's hope you don't avoid all facts that don't suit your views.


Fear thee not! I do not avoid the facts. Just those that twist them for their own agenda.

I use real news sources for my "facts" not a movie maker (they all tend to use poetic license a little too much for my taste)

I read several papers both liberal and conservative. I watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC broadcast, and regular network news shows,(IE Nightline)

I pay little attention to Rush, Bill O'Reilly (and Fox news in general) and find that the truth is usually found somewhere between the extreme points of view.

Using Moore as a source of the truth in political matters is in my opinion the same as using a ouija board to make an intelligent decision on the issues.

Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Guys... I only use a few things in Moore's movie as facts. For example, he points out an interesting fact about the papers that were disclosed concerning Bush's AWOL investigation. The James Bath connection was something I couldn't find anywhere else, until I saw Fahrenheit. After seeing that, I did some research of my own about this guy. The same is true about the details of Bush's history with Saudi families like the Bin Ladens. I'm not saying I believe everything in that movie, but I noticed a few facts which led me to more reputable sources....

Although, Kurch... do explain all the chemical weapons that were found in Iraq... I've yet to hear about these, so I'm curious as to where you found these things out. I know Iraq had them back in the early 90s, but did they actually have them right before we attacked?

[kurchatovium]

The Sarin was launched I believe by one of the radical shiite groups against the marines in the are. If I remember correctly no one was hurt. It was determined to be stuff left over from the last Persian Gulf war. Though it is not new material it is still material that was supposed to be destroyed.

[august spies]

no sarin was "launched" anywhere. somone stumbled across an old outdated shell that may or may not have had traces of sarin in it that could have been iranian for all we know and tried to make a bomb out of it witch of course didnt work. if we are serious about ridding the mid east of WMDs its time to start with israel.

[venray]

Could either one of you give us a link to back up your statement. I believe that August is correct about the sarin, Kurch but I would like to verify.

Ray

[august spies]

this is from the corporate media:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808

Field-test results could be in error

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and more analysis needed to be done. “We have to be careful,” he told an audience in Washington Monday afternoon.

Rumsfeld said it may take some time to determine precisely what the chemical was.

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.

Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent.


The point is we know he had them and im sure many shells were lost (as many during his decades of war turned out to be duds in battle) the other point is that this is not a threat and he was not a threat and ceratin not the threat the bush built him up to be.

again if we are worried about wmds in the middle east lets disarm israel.

[venray]

Thanks August...:D

I thought that was the way it went down but this old memory ain't what it used to be.

Ray

[kurchatovium]

The only thing I remember is I saw it on yahoo I clicked on the link but did not write any of the references down. Sorry if my memory was a bit shaky. As far as I am concerned though I am much happy that threat of Iraq is removed. Don't like them having even old weapons and I dont trust anything the UN weapons inspectors say. Old sarin, new sarin, dumb terrorists, brillant terrorists, C4 whatever. Much happier we are over there then Saddam. I thank God everyday for the brave young men and women that are risking their lives there. Many may not share that opinion but it is my view of things.

[MikeMike]

I did post Christopher Hitchens' great article on Moore's recent work, but that post was eliminated, probably for a copyright violation, I suspect. For those interested, it can be found at:

Slate
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

It's brilliantly written, and the strongest rebuttal of this film I've seen yet.

[intense tickler]

Hello again I was reading some of the later post and I just wanted to put a few things in perspective. First of all someone was pointing out sarin gas being fired and it turned out that this was somthing left over from the first gulf war which what i strongly suspected in the first place. Im sure that you are all aware that the US has had stockpiles of chemical weapons since WW 1 and though they have been reduced at quite a substancial rate, second I want to point out the deleted uranium tips on the weapons now used by the US which spread radioactive dust and may cause serious illness to the very people we are suppose to be helping as well as to american soldiers in the long run. See the administration and the military dont talk to the american public about this thus lots of us are ignorant to facts like this and just blindly play patriot. Another post mentioned somthing about terrorist commiting acts to get the US to pull out of the ware there. Well the fact is 9/11 has noting to do with the war in Iraq and the people that flew the plane into the trade ctr and pentagon were Saudis. Secondly only one post has mentioned the long business relationship between the Bush family and the Ben Ladins and the fact that Bechtel Group which was awarded a multimillion dollar contract to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq has ties to the Bin Ladins to the tune of 10 million dollars or no one has mentioned that fact that a few days after the attack here members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the United States and the Bush white house knew this.
So lets not fool ourselfs there is alot of shit the government does not want the public to know. Listen I know this is suppose to be about the movie and I did not see it yet but these are just some facts I wanted to point out that are most likely in the movie already .

[TklDuo-Ann]

OK, I've stayed out of this until I actually saw what the guy had to say. Let me preface by stating up front that I often disagree with Moore's politics. But, I've always respected his film making abilities...until now.

I just got home from seeing this movie. I was saddened and disgusted to see outright lies presented alongside true statements. Shit, Moore barely stopped short of claiming that Bush is a traitor who set this whole thing up (including the 9-11 attacks) to make money.

Now, before everyone gets all pissy on me... I do believe that things could have been handled differently in some cases. I do believe that advantage was taken in order to push through actions that needed to be "justified". But, Moore's film went too far this time and overstepped the boundaries of both common decency and honesty. I seriously doubt that I'll bother to see anything else he makes after this. :sowrong:

Ann

PS - And, just so folks know, I'm not debating this, just stating my opinion and bowing out.

[august spies]

outright "lies"? um you mean facts

[venray]

I think the lady said what she meant.
Ray

[dreamboy]

Could somebody please list the obvious and outright lies this film portrays as 'facts', and support with credible evidence? I'd like to get my mind straightened around. I need to know that George Bush
a) jumped into thought-out, immediate action upon first hearing about the WTC disaster,
b) did NOT spend 40+% of his first 8 months in office on vacation,
c) did not knowingly allow Saudis to leave the country immediately after 9/11,
d) does not have (nor does his family have) close and influential current ties to Saudi oil
...etc.

[venray]

What we need to know is what the lies were that were presented with these truths DB. No one who has seen the movie has done so as of yet.

Ray

[intense tickler]

I agree dreamboy no one the right seems to back up their statements with any hard facts :wow:

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by dreamboy
Could somebody please list the obvious and outright lies this film portrays as 'facts', and support with credible evidence? I'd like to get my mind straightened around. I need to know that George Bush
a) jumped into thought-out, immediate action upon first hearing about the WTC disaster,
b) did NOT spend 40+% of his first 8 months in office on vacation,
c) did not knowingly allow Saudis to leave the country immediately after 9/11,
d) does not have (nor does his family have) close and influential current ties to Saudi oil
...etc.

Dreamboy, to answer your question, in my opinion Chris Hitchens in the Slate article ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ ) I cited above did a magnificent job addressing many of the central tenants of this film. I could never hope to say it any better than he did.

[Cosmo_ac]

I'm curious what these outright lies are Ann. SO far i don't belive i've found anything in the way of a lie in my fact checking, though i do admit i'm sure i didn't get everything down on paper from that movie. COuld you please give an example of these lies?

[TklDuo-Ann]

Originally posted by TklDuo-Ann
PS - And, just so folks know, I'm not debating this, just stating my opinion and bowing out.

Hmmm.....I THOUGHT I remembered stating this. But, because Cos asked so nicely, I thought I'd point it back out. MikeyMike's linked article points out the majority of the stuff that I had a problem with. I'm not going to continue the discussion since most of those who don't agree won't listen anyway. Have fun without me! ;) :p

Ann

[august spies]

hitchens articles points out no lies. so if we are going to use the term lie we should use it correctly. hitchens in my opinion does a weak job at pointed out some double standards the film may or may not have. ie criticizing the war in afghanistan, but than also criticizing the lack of troops (this point can be countered but i dont feel like doing it now).. The point is dont use the term lie, unless you have a lie to prove.

[MikeMike]

Hitchens does point out non-sequitors, contradictions, and omissions of pertinent facts. Are these lies? Personally, I think they're important to note, regardless of whether they meet the dictionary definition of such.

[august spies]

fine, than lets have a discusion on the so called contradictions, but dont through lie around.

[MikeMike]

There has actually been an open challenge on this matter specifically regarding the Hitchens article on Federal Review:

http://www.federalreview.com/

"Tuesday, June 29, 2004

CELSIUS 9/11 - CAN YOU TAKE ON HITCHENS?
Christopher Hitchens, probably the only man on earth who is a fan of George W. Bush yet despises Ronald Reagan, has dropped a bunker busting MOAB on Michael Moore's propaganda piece Fahrenheit 9/11. But rather than simply attack it's artistry or point of view, Hitch goes after the substance of the film, the factual inconsistencies and outright lies that Moore uses to back up his arguments. Hitch's final conclusion - that the film simply is not a serious piece of work. Though it is being taken seriously by many on the left.

So, I challenge any left wing blogger, editorialist or even movie fan to post the entire Hitchens piece on his website, with a point by point rebuttal.

If you think that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a serious contribution to political discourse and that it "is worth seeing, debating and thinking about, regardless of your political allegiances", then you must deal with Hitchens' argument that the film is not serious.

If you think that this film "signals [Moore's] transition from political entertainer to political thinker, from propagandist to idiosyncratic journalist, from colorful gadfly to patriot", then you must dispense with Hitchens arguments.

If you think that Moore's "biggest accomplishment here is putting the factual pieces into (a frightening) perspective", then you must refute Hitchens charges of fabricated facts, lies and logical contradictions.

So, give it a shot and drop me a line to let me know and I'll make a note of it here."

[august spies]

ill do it

[MikeMike]

Be sure to ping the fellow at Federal Review and let him know that you're doing it. Of course, if you choose to post it here, I can only imagine his reaction to a debate on this matter taking place on a site generally committed to the fetish of tickling.

Give some thought as to where you want to post it. For the record, you might want to post it on Blogspot or something of that nature.

[Cosmo_ac]

heh it's funny. This morning as i read that article for the second time, i decided to air-hole it. I assure you, i will be doing just that. This article comes off more as opinion then fact.

[theshire]

I'm curious what these outright lies are Ann. SO far i don't belive i've found anything in the way of a lie in my fact checking, though i do admit i'm sure i didn't get everything down on paper from that movie. COuld you please give an example of these lies?

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'll give you some.

- Bush and the Saudi Royal family are connected. Evidence? Considering that the Saudis are aganst everything Bush has ever done, I don't think that's a very strong connection.

- 'Saddam's Iraq never hurt, killed or threatened any American.' Oh yeah? What about the assassination attempt on Bush Senior that he mentioned in his own documentary?!

And most outrageous of all:

- Iraq before the Americans came was an idyllic place with lots of happy, smiling people. Guess he forgot to show the footage of the Kurds he slaughtered, or the thousands of family men that were dragged away to his torture chambers, and the general reign of terror he imposed during his rule (which Farenheit 9/11 never mentions once).

That's just to name a few. I might post some more later. But suffice to say that Michael Moore is an evil shit, and I feel sorry for anyone who is gullible enough to be taken in by his malevolent hatred for Bush, and who believes his treacherous lies.

[Cosmo_ac]

1. The bush family and the Suadi family has a VERY strong tie. Check link as follows. http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm#3

2. When he say's "Saddams Iraq" they could be reffering to ordinary, non-miliary people, but that might be taking too far a step. One could agree though that on a large scale level, indeed Iraq never threatened America, unless we're talking about the Gulf War, though it was the US that came to them that time. As far as the Bush assasination, i admit i haven't heard about that.

3. I'm not sure where he says this in the movie, but i do remember when introducing Iraq, they certainly did have some pretty pictures of people enjoying life. Certainly, it might be misleading, depending on how you view it. It's true that Saddam was a bad guy certainly. However, his presence did create a sesne of order. Normal citicens didn't have to worry about car bombs exploding beside them or Missles being Lobbed around them. What has changed under the Coalition occupation? People are still being dragged away to torture chambers, thousands have been killed, and the count is still rising, and if you think the general populace isn't scared, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Your right though, Moore doesn't meantion Saddams Evil empire. But, if he did, he'd probably have to point out that the US was as happy as pigs in shit to support him, so long as they cold keep him on a leesh. Where do you think he got the chemical weapons he used on the kurds from? Or the choppers to distribute them?

So far, i don't see any lies. The second point could be construide as a lie, sure enough, but i suppose it depends on how you take it. I doubt Moore would suggest that in no time in the history of the world, there has never been an Iraq who has tried to hurt somebody from the US. However, as a country, Iraq has never been a threat to the US population.

[theshire]

As far as the Bush assasination, i admit i haven't heard about that.

He metioned it in the movie, vaguely. The Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder him during a visit to Kuwait. It's one thing that Moore ignored this little detail, but even he can't pretend that Bush isn't American!


Where do you think he got the chemical weapons he used on the kurds from? Or the choppers to distribute them?

This is true, and that was a big mistake on America's part, but prior to Saddam's capture, he was negotiating with the Koreans to buy missiles. There is no doubt that he had them and wanted them.



However, as a country, Iraq has never been a threat to the US population.

Did I dream it or didn't the lovely Mr. Hussain threaten to fire nuclear weapons at you? That's what this whole friggin' war's about: WMDs. Whether he actually has any now or not, he threatened to use them. If you pretend as a joke that you have a bomb in your bag at an airport, you'll get locked away for years. It should be no different with countries threatening to destroy other countries.

[Cosmo_ac]

There is a difference between charging a person for a false statement, to overthrowing a country and causing the deaths of thousands, because of a statement. And as for that statement, i don't remember ever hearing him use that threat. If we're going to start charging people for making false statements, lets start with Bushes Cabinet.

As far as the misles, if i remember right it was a Missle guidance system. Howver, i certain;y don't think he had anything in his artilerary that could be fired from Iraq and reach all the way to the US.

One other thing, I find it disapointing that so many people are trying to discredit Moore that there missing some of the facts that he does present. I don't believe that everything in Moore's movie is going to 100% bang on. He is biased, can't say he isn't. However, one shouldn't let that stop you from looking at the things he says. As stated, so far i've yet to find any lies.

[theshire]

There is a difference between charging a person for a false statement, to overthrowing a country and causing the deaths of thousands, because of a statement

No there isn't; you can't have one without the other. Bombs and bullets kill people. Fact of life. It's what they were designed for. If innocent lives have to be destroyed for the better good of the population (and the Iraqis are better off now, even if they don't know it), then that is what must be done.

People like Michael Moore are very good at whinging without presenting any solutions. If you or he can tell me an alternative to fighting against Saddam's threats (which he did make, otherwise how would we know about his WMDs?), then I'd love to hear it. Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction.

But as yet, I still don't think you've disproved any of my points.

[Cosmo_ac]

But as yet, I still don't think you've disproved any of my points.

I suggest you read my post again then. I'd say i nailed all three. Quick question about the assaination attempt. If it was during war, then i'd say it's alright. Once again, I don't beleve Iraq has ever seriously been a threat to the US, on a global scale, unless you count the gulf war, which was the US's choice to get involved in. Also, could you please post a link where Saddam threatened to use the WMD that he doesn't have on the US? Frankly i'm very curious about this comment you keep making.

[theshire]

Well, I have to admit that I can't find any links which refer to it. Oh well, let's just agree to disagree. I'll keep my opinions and you keep yours, and eventually the truth will out.

[august spies]

the truth has been out for quite some time, and shire, its not looking good for your point of view.

cosmo nailed all your other arguments but as far as michael moore claiming iraq was a great place under saddam that is just a lie on your part. Moore never did such a thing or stated anything close to that in his movie. In fact he has stated quite the opposite.

Moores choice of footage just prior to the bombing (which was only about 1min worth) was real footage, it wasnt made up. What he was doing was humanizing the iraqi people, he was showing that there actually were people in iraq living there lives, and more importantly there were children in iraq before you terrorized them with "shock and awe". Its just a flipside to the 24/7 media propaganda train of footage of saddams opression. the 1min of moore footage doesnt even come close to showing and even picture when placed up against the media.

His intention was never to whitewash the crimes of saddam (to the contrary Bush did a wonderful job of that when he was saddams ally). But just to humanize them.

[theshire]

Just think about what you're saying, though. The media are pretty open-ended (in comparison) as to what they feature in their programs. Moore is completely biased, and will take what little footage he has and twist it out of proportion to get what he wants. Remember, he has NEVER BEEN TO IRAQ!

A one minute-long film clip of some happy Iraqis (who were probably only acting like that because there was cameras on them; or they were just trying to be good-natured to get them through their tough times) is much more difficult to find than clips of wounded and dead Iraqis before the war.

Simlilarly, for every clip you see of American wives weeping over their dead husbands, you will see two or three of Iraqi women whose husbands, or even children, were murdered and tortured by Saddam.

What you people fail to realise is that these 'shiny happy people' were threatened by Saddam. Just because they were happy before the war doesn't mean he ignored them. Since that footage was shot, all those people could be dead by his hand. In wars, innocent people die, but just remember again the moment after the statue of Saddam was toppled. When I saw saw Iraqi kids waving banners written in English (which they couldn't even speak), saying Thank you, Mr. Bush, I felt proud to be part of the Coalition that had brought that much joy to people.

Of course, since then they've been ungrateful bastards, but a new Iraq has already begun, and it will be better than anything Michael Moore could manipulate you into believing.

[august spies]

First and foremost your point about corporate media, especially american, being non biased about the war is rediculous.

moore had camara crews in iraq, thats how he got most of his footage. the iraqi insurgents in iraq have certainly been to iraq, they are iraqis, do you agree with them? my point is whether or not moore has been to iraq is moot.

your opinion that iraqis were only acting in moores film is a bit obsurd and i think the burden lies on you to prove that ridiculous claim. Which reminds me of the claim people used to make that it was illegal to smile in russia.

I recognize that saddam was a threat to his people, most governments are. And more importantly i recognized he was a threat to his people when people like you were supporting his opression. But now they are being opressed by a foriegn army, they are being tortured and murdered.

If you would like to talk about stageing photos, the toppling of the saddam stature was entirely staged, and im sure those banners which you saw iraqis waving (that they couldnt read) were made by the foriegn army.

Back in reality most people liken bush to saddam, they are supporting neither saddam nor the american occupiers. Thats the way to go.

and for the record, no one manipulates me into believing anything. history and the facts on the ground speak for themselves.

[theshire]

Actually, virtually all of Moore's footage was already in the public domain.


your opinion that iraqis were only acting in moores film is a bit obsurd and i think the burden lies on you to prove that ridiculous claim.


If you would like to talk about stageing photos, the toppling of the saddam stature was entirely staged, and im sure those banners which you saw iraqis waving (that they couldnt read) were made by the foriegn army.

I would like to see your evidence for that. You've just done exactly what you accused me of doing earlier.

Hey, I never supported Saddam, man. And of course people are dying: it's a war! The ones who were 'tortured' were done so by a select few individuals, and besides, I don't really consider humiliation to be a form of torture. And humiliation is all it was. At least we're not beheading prisoners, and (in most cases) we are treating them humanely. Look at Saddam: we're giving him a trial, and we cut his hair nicely for him!


Back in reality most people liken bush to saddam, they are supporting neither saddam nor the american occupiers. Thats the way to go.

I don't really see a Bush-Saddam link. But basically what your saying is that it is better to sit on the fence and be indecisive as to your allegiances, to use inaction to destroy yourself. That is the only alternative to fighting a war, and it's a pathetic one. If you want to do that, become a Frenchman.


and for the record, no one manipulates me into believing anything. history and the facts on the ground speak for themselves.

Fair enough. Good for you.

[MikeMike]

Another excellent article by Hitchens on this film can be found at:

Jun 30 2004
The Daily Mirror
THIS FILM COULDN'T BE MOORE WRONG
WHY BUSH CONSPIRACY THEORIES DON'T ADD UP
By Christopher Hitchens

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=14378134&method=full&siteid=50143

[theshire]

^^^ Couldn't have said it better myself. The man is an evil, manipulative, lying shit - and he's grossly overweight.

[Cosmo_ac]

The ones who were 'tortured' were done so by a select few individuals, and besides, I don't really consider humiliation to be a form of torture. And humiliation is all it was. At least we're not beheading prisoners, and (in most cases) we are treating them humanely.

bullshit. I suggest you look up the Abu grah prison abuse thread in this section. But, here are a few links for your reading enjoyment.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/10/red.cross.report/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/17/afghan.indictment/index.html



Actually, virtually all of Moore's footage was already in the public domain.
What footage, and who had it? And when did they show it?


Another excellent article by Hitchens on this film
Actually, like the other one, it's mainly shit.

[august spies]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

and army report confirms:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641&printmode=true

Now that thats out of the way, all i said about moore and iraq is that he had a camera team on the ground. And of course an imperial army is much more likely to stage and propaganda event such as the one above, than the ridiculous idea that there was no such thing as smiling children in iraq before the war.

Bush or thatcher were the ones supporting saddam, any support for bushs shows support for saddam. me, supporting neither can sleep fine at night. (i think the more embarrasing thing however, is the rights support for bin laden).

torture and mistreatment of iraqis is not isolated, even the military admit that and human rights groups have known it all along. And its not just humiliation which is a form of sexual torture by all standerds (but not yours im sure for your convienence) Torture has been not only sexual but electrical, physical beating, and drowning.

And for the record opposing bush and saddam does not make you a fence sitter, the "either your with us or against us" philosophy of bush makes about as much sense as war is peace.

[theshire]

Actually, like the other one, it's mainly shit.

Mmm. Nice, that. The way the article uses facts intelligently to disprove Michael Moron's lies, and your repost is to say it's 'shit' with no backing claims. I'm not yet suggesting that this is the case, but unless you tell me why it's shit then I'll just say that you found yourself horribly defeated and needed to lash out in desperation.

And your links prove nothing. Two prisons. How many are there? You generalise your little case-studies so awfully that they virtually become caricatures of the real world.

[Cosmo_ac]

Once again fact is ignored. The links state that abuse was wide spread. Get that? Wide spread as in more then one prison and more then two prisons. Like i said, look up the other thread about the US abusing Iraqi's. As far as the article using fact. No, not really. Most of it is mearly the writers opinion and his own twist on things. You notice how there are no links to prove his own story? You basically have to take it at face value.

As for it being shit, well i'm currently shreading his other post, and to be honest i'm not going to waste my time shreading every post he makes piece by piece. I'll shred the first, which is the longer of the two, and then i'll let people choose wheather to look his comments up or not. Heres an example


Then again, in the film the most ridiculed member of the Bush administration is John Ashcroft (who may well deserve it). But it's then said that none of those who favour war are willing to send their own children. Well, John Ashcroft's son is in the US Navy and has been in the Gulf.

Well, if memory serves, Moore makes the comment of these people not sending there children to Iraq. While you could argue that Being in a boat in the gulf is in Iraq, i hardly see that as actually being on the land, fighting with the other soldiers. So, it might be safe to say, depending on how far away the boat was, that Andy, John ashcrots son, was in little to no danger. However, i can't find many links saying exactly what he did other then he served on the USS McFaul, a Navy destroyer, which was in the Persian Gulf. Nor can i find how long he served there. Perhaps it's my opinion alone, but i don't think a Destroyer would need to get to close to Iraq, and even if it did, i doubt there were any weapons the Iraq insurgents had that could actually hurt it. Also, you might notice how little of the Gulf actually touches on Iraq. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/iz/map.html


You have probably heard a good deal about Richard Clarke lately. He is the former head of counter-terrorism for the Bush administration, and he's become quite a critic of the Iraq war. Moore interviewed him at length several months ago. The film makes the breathless accusation that the White House allowed several members of the bin Laden family to leave the country in secret in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. But between the film's showing in Cannes and its general release, Mr Clarke has stated on the record that he, and he alone, cleared those flights.So either Moore, when he had the chance, didn't ask the man who knew, or he did ask him and didn't like (and didn't use) the answer. In any case, he's now caught with his enormous pants completely down

Once again, more bullshit. i do touch on this in the other post i'm going to make but why not handle it here and there?
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx
Now, is anyboyd else confused by Clarkes change of story in his testamony, because i admit i am and i'm certainly not the only one.

there are two examples. And for the record shire, i don't Lash out in desperation. I take a look at it, find the chinks in the armor and tear it to shreds. If i say something is shit, be sure to know that it is indeed shit.

[theshire]

OK. I really don't care anymore.

[august spies]

well at least you didnt totally ignore my factual rebuttel.. o wait you did, here ill post it again.

http://www.informationclearinghouse...article2842.htm

and army report confirms:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/...&printmode=true

Now that thats out of the way, all i said about moore and iraq is that he had a camera team on the ground. And of course an imperial army is much more likely to stage and propaganda event such as the one above, than the ridiculous idea that there was no such thing as smiling children in iraq before the war.

Bush or thatcher were the ones supporting saddam, any support for bushs shows support for saddam. me, supporting neither can sleep fine at night. (i think the more embarrasing thing however, is the rights support for bin laden).

torture and mistreatment of iraqis is not isolated, even the military admit that and human rights groups have known it all along. And its not just humiliation which is a form of sexual torture by all standerds (but not yours im sure for your convienence) Torture has been not only sexual but electrical, physical beating, and drowning.

And for the record opposing bush and saddam does not make you a fence sitter, the "either your with us or against us" philosophy of bush makes about as much sense as war is peace.

[theshire]

I said to myself that I was going to ignore this thread from now on, but it ain't happened. Oh well, I only come to say what I have to say. After that, say what you want and I won't try and stop you.

august spies and cosmo_ac - It's people like you that are destroying the US and the UK. I see it all the time: this 'root for the bad guys' attitude. It's people like you that give legal aid to bank robbers when they are beaten by police after a chase, and help them win.

Now here's the point that links in with: you never complained when Saddam was gassing Kurds, or committing countless other atrocities. Now you cry Blue Murder when we go in and put an end to his evil regime. We suspected he had WMDs; we had to act. What else could we do?

And why did Saddam piss about with the UN weapons inspectors for so long, eh? Why didn't he let them in the first time? He delayed, and when they eventually were allowed in, a fleet of ships simultaneously sailed out into the sea and circled there for days. No weapons were subsequently found. Now I can't use that as concrete evidence for anything, but it's just as pertinent as any of the links either of you have provided.

And I'll close with one more thing. Many people I knew at school a couple of years ago were against the invasion of Afghanistan, and later Iraq. In short, they were Lefties. They felt that they were so self-righteous and that they were lobbying for peace and the good of all. Yet those same people were the ones who picked on me because I was skinny and wore big thick glasses. See the hypocrisy?

That's what you are: hypocrites and cowards.

Peace (or war). ;)

[Cosmo_ac]

You know, personal attacks don't help you at all. Or name calling. It detracts from ones post, though i can appreciate an emotional outburst or two, so i forgive you.

august spies and cosmo_ac - It's people like you that are destroying the US and the UK. I see it all the time: this 'root for the bad guys' attitude. It's people like you that give legal aid to bank robbers when they are beaten by police after a chase, and help them win.

Ok...how am i distroying the US and UK? By pointing out facts? Or perhaps the truth is only good when it supports your side. As far as root for the bad guys, no i can't say i do. However, i am all for human rights, and the rights of the individual, not because of any political slant, but because i feel it's the right thing to do. You forget, these very rights that we give, are what makes a country like America, britan, France, Germany, Canada, and any othr country like this a great country. You take away peoples rights, and your no better then the countries you so greatly hate.


Now here's the point that links in with: you never complained when Saddam was gassing Kurds, or committing countless other atrocities. Now you cry Blue Murder when we go in and put an end to his evil regime. We suspected he had WMDs; we had to act. What else could we do?

Well,i'm curious about what point thats links in with what, but, i'll skip that for now. As far as never complaining about Sadam gassing the kurds, or his other attrocities, first off, how do you know how either me or August acted? Unless you personally know us, you can't. This board wasn't exactly up when those things were happening. If i remember right, the gulf war was during early 90's. And saddams actions were earlier thent that. Well, i was born in 81, so you'll have to forgive me for not being on the front line of the protest rallies. However considering it was the american government that gave him the gasses, and basically gave him a big thumbs up to do whatever he wanted, i find it interesting that the US can be so hypocritical. Am i happy Sadam is gone? Sure i am. I have no fondness for the guy, and yet i feel he should be given a fair an impartial trial. Why, you might ask? Because thats what Whats makes our countries so great. The strive for the ideal of fairness and equality. Perhaps some feel it should only apply when they see fit, but we can only have it one way, fair or unfair. I say fair.
Now, why i don't like Sadam, and am glad his reign was put to an end, i do dislike how it was done. On the basis of WMD that was made. However if you pay attention to the news lately, or visit the link i'm going to provide
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/09/senate.intelligence/index.html
you might notice that informantion involving the WMD, might have been wrong, by say, a lot. And as far as what else you could do, i'd say let the UN weapons inspectors do their job. If i remember right, it was the US, which cut short their time for inspecting, but please feel to correct me if i'm wrong. What i find interesting though, is that the US said they knew EXACTLY where the weapons were. Now, one would suspect that those places would be the first places the UN weapons inspectors would check. HOwever, the UN inspectors found none, so it makes you wonder.


And why did Saddam piss about with the UN weapons inspectors for so long, eh? Why didn't he let them in the first time? He delayed, and when they eventually were allowed in, a fleet of ships simultaneously sailed out into the sea and circled there for days. No weapons were subsequently found. Now I can't use that as concrete evidence for anything, but it's just as pertinent as any of the links either of you have provided.

Well, send some weapons inspectors to the US, and see if they piss about it. I don't think any dictator likes weapons inspectors in there country. Simply put, dictators rule by fear. But, when they are forced to bow down to another, it makes them look weak. Weakness can cause an invitation to strike. Now, i'm curoius about this fleet of ships you meantion. i don't remember it. However that must have been a hell of a fleet to carry, (what was it? Thousands? millions?) of tons of chemical weapons. And wouldn't these ships have been inspected?> And where did these ships go? Where would they have taken there cargo if they came back to Iraq. I have a post that deals with this question and many more. It's right on this thread, Hal coments on it, if that helps. I suggest you give it a read.
As far as it being more pertinent, since you don't have any links to back it up, like Saddams threats of using a Nuclear missle on America, i'm left with taking your word for it.


And I'll close with one more thing. Many people I knew at school a couple of years ago were against the invasion of Afghanistan, and later Iraq. In short, they were Lefties. They felt that they were so self-righteous and that they were lobbying for peace and the good of all. Yet those same people were the ones who picked on me because I was skinny and wore big thick glasses. See the hypocrisy?

Certainly, yet i fail to see how they were lefties or how that applies to me or august. I don't consider myself picking on you if thats what your implying. I'm mearly pointing out facts. It's up to you how you deal with them.




That's what you are: hypocrites and cowards.

No. It is cowards who hide from the truth and bury themselves in false facts so deep that they can't hear the truth around them. Am i wrong about my beliefs on these issues? Certainly it's possible. But, from the facts i've found through discussion and research, i have come to my views. Thats is where i stand, and that is what i say. If you disagree, fine. If you wish to prove me wrong, thats fine too. Please post your evidence, as i have done numerous times. Being wrong doesn't mean your stupid. Mearly that you've been misinformed, and with so many outlets these days it's not that hard. I don't know if you'll read this or not, it's really your choice to respond.

[theshire]

Please just stop. I admire the way you wrote your post: you didn't get angry even after I called you a hypocrite and a coward. But I'm fed up with this argument now. Neither is going to convince the other. As I said earlier, the truth will out. I'm willing to dump this thread if you are.

P.S. I wasn't accusing you of picking on me. All I'm saying is that in my experience left-wingers are often not really that nice people, despite what they profess to be. I realise that this may not apply to you or august; just understand that as a Conservative in a seemingly largely lefty community, I don't have the best of times. My dad suffers the same thing at work. Its kind of a curse, but we aren't going to let that kind of thing sway us from what we believe. Hey, if I'm wrong, I go to hell. Won't be much worse than it is now. ;)

[buggs]

Every time I see a car cut off someone else, and then that same jerk flips off the driver he just cut off who is now honking on his horn because there could have been in an accident, there is some liberal bumper sticker on that jerks bumpers. Every single time I have been stabbed in the back, it has been by a liberal. Most of the liberals I know talk a good game about peace and love, and then I see them go out an absolutely screw people over and not even have a thought about what they just did. But hey they are so enlightened. A few years back a friend and I stopped at Taco Bell for lunch. My friend had a NRA sticker on the back of his truck. We parked next to a mini van owned by your typical soccer mom. She left while we were eating. She stopped, looked at the NRA sticker, then opened the passenger side door quickly and used it to slam a dent a few times into my friends driver side door. She didn't even need to open the thing. Then she quickly got into the drivers side as my friend came out to see what her malfunction is. She quickly reversed, almost running my friend over, screamed "conservative idiot" at us, and drove off. I remembered her license plate, and when his insurance called her insurance company she denied even being there. Most of the customers that I had when I had my chimney company who were liberals where the biggest jerks. Some of them I stopped halfway through the job and said "you know what? I reserve the right to choose whom my company services and I don't want to complete your job. Keep your money and call someone else." When they bitched I would say "Well you can call my boss. But since my boss is me, I am sure I won't say anything I am not telling you right now." In fact, during the 90's all I ever heard from people I knew who were liberals were comments like this. "All the conservative right cares about is the stock market. We are the biggest country in the world and we should go into those countries that are oppressing people and stop those evil dictators." and stuff like that. So we do that, and who are the very people that complain? THE LIBERALS. Who are the very people that bring up crap like "my stocks are being affected by this war"? THE LIBERALS. I have never seen a group of people in my life who say one thing, and the do, act, and behave another way.

Since this is a thread on Michael Moore, lets talk about that liberal. If you read articles from people who have worked for the guy you will get the same picture painted every time. The guy is a royal ass, and most people left working for him because they couldn't stand being near the guy.

All I saw in the 90's was a President who got lucky to have been voted into office when the internet caused a computer boom, and vice versa. Stocks were outrageously high with no actual monetary backing for it to be that high. Companies were saying they had so much money when in reality they didn't. A lot of the companies that had such high stocks in the 90's didn't even have the money to back up their claim, and after a few years reality caught on and the market came crashing. The recession didn't start when Bush got to office. It started before it. Usually such things start to effect contractors before they effect anything else. Why, the people who are making money start seeing that things are not going to be looking so good in the future, so they start tightening their spending belts. Are they going to stop buying so much food for their family? No. Are they going to stop buying so much clothes for their kids? No. What usually happens first is that repair or that add on or pool that they want gets put on the back burner because they can either go to Home Depot to fix it themselves to save money, or ignore it till later. The add on's. Well we don't have it now so we aren't missing anything. The contractor gets effected first. And all the contractors I know, in all different aspects of the industry started noticing a deep decline in work in 1998. And that decline stayed. Like I said earlier, that B/S economy we had in the 90's under Clinton came about not became of anything he did, but because of the computer and Tech industry. I was working at Intel the day that the Judgement came down in the Microsoft anti trust case. You know how I remember it. Cause their stocks fell drastically and everyone there was screaming about their IRA's and stock options. Unfortunately Microsoft got so big that the industry was anchored to it. When it looked like it was going to be broken up, all went haywire. And that was in August of 2000, while slick Billy was still in office. Shortly thereafter the market started to react to the reality of what had been going on for years. The fact that most of those numbers that made up the stock market weren't real. We saw it before. Japan for 30 Years had such a great economy, but it was all based on loans made to them by China. It wasn't money that they had and were in the black on. it was money on paper only. It was loans. One day China called those loans back and Japan went into the shits. And the fact is that the economy started going downhill before the election. So no matter if Gore had been office we still would have had the same recession that we just went through. We were paying for the B/S economy of the 90's. We are paying for stupid website being given 40 million dollars, 10 million which was spent on a one night company launch party, and then the site only makes 40 thousand dollars. Money was being thrown around to people and companies like water, and we would eventually have to pay for such gross incompetence. When did the market pick up in the 90's? When computers and the tech industry had a boom. When did the economy go bad? When the tech. industry went bad. Ergo, what was the sole reason for what appeared to be such a good economy in the 90's? The tech market. It had nothing to do with that cigar wielding buffoon. And all of the economists who I had watched in the 90's who knew what was really going on and saying it on CNN, etc. all said the same thing. "When it finally catches up to us we will be in a recession, and probably a depression the likes that this country has never seen." And all of them, ALL OF THEM, said it would last anywhere from 10 to 15 years. And then Bush offered tax cuts and all the liberals said it favored the rich. Well one, that was a lie, because it didn't. But yes it did help the rich. The rich who owns companies who pay your paycheck. If they aren’t making money then you aren't making money because you wouldn't have a job to make a paycheck at. So if it benefits the rich, that is a good thing, because they are the ones who support the economy. And for all the humming and hawing from the left, a recession that was supposed to last for 10 to 15 years lasted 2 and half. And so what are you guys complaining liberals complaining about?

Here is another thing that I have experienced with Liberals. Every liberal that I know where I live that has personally told me they give to charity make sure they get every receipt so they can take it off on their taxes every year. All the conservatives I know where I live who give to charity never do. In fact when I ask them, they pretty much all have told me the same thing-"Well it isn't much giving if I am only doing it to get something back."

You want to fix the educational system. Make it so that you can fire teachers who aren't doing the job. Or teachers who make their kids do idiotic liberal things, as one teacher did in the mid 90's, write an apology letter to Japan for dropping the bomb on them for their homework. And when one of the students asked that teacher "Didn't we drop the bomb on Japan because we were in a war with them because they bombed Pearl Harbor?" and the teacher said "That never happened and you can't prove it." The kid went home, told her dad, who wired her up with a mini tape recorder and told his daughter to go into class tomorrow and tell your teacher that you aren't handing in your homework because it was to end a war that was started by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor and record it. The daughter did this and on tape, the teacher said again "Pearl Harbor never happened and you can't prove it." Dad took the tape into the school board and showed them that they had a teacher who was telling kids bold face lies. Guess what happened to the teacher. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Zero. Became the teachers union protects them. And who protects the Teachers Unions. The liberal party. If a teacher isn't good, or doing their job, then all they are doing is passing on false information to people and that isn't what a teacher is supposed to do. If they can't do their job, or incapable of doing their job, then they need to be replaced with someone who can. But that wont happen because the liberal party will back the Teachers union, who in turn will always back an inept teacher unless they screw one of their students, and therefore our educational system will continue on it's downward spiral.

That being said, I do have a few liberal friends. And the only reason whey they are my friends is because they are the only liberals I know who walk the walk and do what they expound on. They are no bullshit, and that is why I am friends with them. There are some who are members of this site, and they know who they are. They actually live the way they think, as a liberal, people should live. They treat other people as they as liberals say people should be treated.

[Cosmo_ac]

well, Buggs and shire, i'm sorry that you went through those things. Politics in Canada are generally much more laid back, so i've never experienced any hostility from anybody on either view. Actually, to be honest on this board is the first time i've ever been called names (by Americans, ironically enough) about possible political stances. See, most seems to assume i'm a liberal, and hey, i'll admit i voted liberal last Canadian election, but that wasn't because i'm Liberal. Simply put, the candidate who was a liberal seemed the best choice. So i chose them. If the conservative felt differently about a few things, then perhaps i would have voted for him.

However, we shouldn't use such a wide brush to coat people politically. You guys seem to have had bad experiences with Liberals. Fair enough. However, my money says there are others with just as many bad expereinces with Conservatives.

[buggs]

Hey, as I said above, I do know some great liberals who walk the talk. I am not talking acquaintances that I see once a year. I mean people I talk to all the time, or had to talk to all of the time. An Example: QBWEAVER. When I went down to San Jose we were going to get something to eat and there was a bum in the parking lot asking for change. She had him come in to the burger joint, and she bought him a meal and talked to the guy. See. That is walking the talk. She is true to her convictions. If liberals where like that I would have no problem with them. DVNC, Jobelle, and my friend Erin are great liberals, and just great people period. I wish all people were like them. I am not talking about liberals like them, who actually do and treat people the way liberal's say that they do. They are walking their talk and excellent examples of good liberal's. But I have just had a lot of horrible experiences with most of the other liberals. Here are some more things that make me mad about the bulk of the Liberals that I have personally met, or have personally seen doing stupid stuff. I am not talking all Liberals I have met, just the dumb ones.

Liberals are always saying that conservatives are trying to censor people. From what I see it is the liberals that are doing the censoring. Here is an example. Lindsay Lohan had used the slang word "retarded" 4 times to describe stupid situations she had experienced. All of the sudden the head of some retarded group, a liberal group, sends her an email trying to ban her from using the word. Don't believe me, here she is in a rolling stone interview:


Lindsay Lohan..."My little sister reads that stuff," Lohan says. "She called me up one day and was like, 'I heard you got that Pamela Anderson thing.' It's just so retar-"

Lohan stops and glances at her assistant. They smile at each other in an inside-joke sort of way. "Stupid," Lohan continues, and when I look puzzled, she says, "I have to watch myself. I guess I say 'retarded' a lot, and this group got mad at me."
From her Rolling Stone Article found here (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story?id=6388250)

Now that is being censored from free speach if I ever saw it. It is slang. She was not referring to retarded people. It seemed like every week I was hearing of some bullshit stupid liberal group censoring someone from using a common word in the English language. I remember Rush Limbaugh had gotten harassed by one of those groups because he was talking about women putting on their makeup in the car while driving. The act of putting on makeup was called "farding" and these women’s group got all upset because the word conotated women passing gas. The stupid thing is in the dictionary. I remember a teacher got in trouble because she used the word "niggardly", which means stingy or miserly by African American groups. Don't believe me. Look here (http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm294200.html). It also happened in 1999, as that article said, to an aide of Mayor Anthony Williams in Washington, D.C.. And I didn't think people with "mental retardation" were called that anymore. I thought they were no called "mentally challenged"? There is another stupid thing that Liberals did with a vengeance in the 90's is take words like "janitor" and turn them into "cleaning maintenance specialists." A clerk is now a "customer service specialist". You look through the 90's and you will see so many instances where someone said a word and some liberal group made a big deal about it. I remember I this one job I had in 1992. We where having an employee meeting and we got to the part where we had to talk about "sexual harassment". The supervisor running the meeting said the word "harassment" the way the dictionary says it is to be pronounced, and a bunch of liberals in the room got all huffy and demanded he pronounce it in a way similar to "heiress" because the way he was saying it, the correct way, sounded like "her-ass", and they took offense to that. This was a group of 20 people in a crowd of 60. It stopped the meeting for 10 minutes till I said "This is bullshit" and got up, grabbed a dictionary and showed them it is pronounced like "her ass". And even after showing them they were behaving like idiots, they sat there with their arms folded for the rest of the meeting all "offended".

There is another thing. Liberals throw around the word "offensive" like it is the only word in the English language. And they are offended at everything. Everything is offensive to them. I wonder how the hell they can get out of bed and go through daily life without offending themselves 20 times a day the way they talk. I was in training for a job where my first call I took was from someone in Japan. This person lived in an area of Japan where the address system is different from the rest of the world. The address was two address because the house was on a corner, and part of the address literally was "up the stairs". Not even the international system was not even set up for this. So when I got back to the training room I asked the trainer what to do in that situation? The trainer said "Yeah you will get that sometime." And I said "Yeah I know. I just got it. What do I do when it happens?" And he said "You'll figure it out." And I said "You are supposed to be training me so if there is an answer I would like to know it." He just went on to something else. So I said to my friend "If you ask me I think those people living in that are of Japan should change their address to match the rest of the world." I was cited for racial harassment for saying that. And then 3 years later when I was recounting that story to a friend on the street, some stupid liberal guy (He was wearing a shirt that said "I am liberal, and I am proud") overheard it and then walked up and called me a racist to Japanese. And I told the guy "Listen dumb ass. I grew up in Hawaii where most of the population is Japanese. Ever girl I dated before I moved up to the mainland was Japanese. And I wasn't making a racial comment about the Japanese. I was stating the people living in that area of Japan should change their address system to match the rest of the world." Then the idiot follows me into the store that we had been standing in front of talking, and he follows me around sticking his face into mines for 10 minutes trying to pick a fight with me because I am a racist to him. Everyone in the store is watching this lunatic yell at me. I finally told the loser "Stupid! You are a 98 pound, 6'2 weakling. You are a stick. I could mop this whole stupid ass store with you. I don't even know who the hell you are. Get the hell out of my face." I wasn’t being racist. I was just stating my point of view to a choice in an address system. Here is an example of the "offensive" stupidity from Liberals (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040806/ap_on_fe_st/scrabble_scramble)

And at that same job I had gotten written up for racial harassment again when I had gotten a call from a guy who said he was Al Quaida and "next time we are going to do more than just sly planes into your buildings. We are going to kill all of you f**king people!" After the call, I simply asked if there was a way that we can report that guys number to someone who might forward it on to the FBI. I got pulled into the office and told this (keep in mind that the supervisor who was telling me this was using her fingers as quotes): I was being racially prejudice. Al Quaida are a group of people, and as a recognized group of people, we have to let them and the Taliban live free from persecution." And then I replied (using my fingers as quotes to mock her) "You are an idiot. They flew planes into our buildings and killed people. It is my job as an American Citizen to make sure that never happens again. And all I am asking is if there is a place where I can report that call to someone who could forward it to the authorities cause this guy could be part of a cell intending to do harm in the future." I then walked out and quit.

And another things. Liberals have to make you know that they went to college because they can't talk without using big words to explain something that takes a few words. Here is an example. I was on the train one day and I heard two women talking to each other. One woman was saying: "I am extremely dissatisfied with his performance in dealing with others around the office. He never is available to multitask or interface with us when he has finished his projects. If you look at our corporate mission statement it says that we have to be diversified our ability to perform work, blah blah blah. She took 5 minutes to say "The guy is lazy. Our job description says if we are done with our job to help the others." That's it. I told the guy I was next who was on the train and listening to it with me "man, if I had to live with her for 5 minutes I would be looking at the ceiling beams to see which one would support a rope so I could hang myself." Can you imagine having to live with that 24/7. Instead of asking "What's on TV?" You would get "What is the network assigned programming for this evenings viewing pleasure that will be displayed on our televised projection device?"

And like I said above with the lady who hit my friends truck on purpose because he had a NRA bumper sticker on it, most of the liberals I know (not the cool ones but the full of shit ones) will go and do stuff to a conservatives property, or to them, be it backstabbing, or whatever and justify it because that person was a conservative. I have seen it too many times to be just a minor co-incidence. But I have head these very same people pontificate for hours on how when it had been done to a liberal it was a bad thing. But doing it to a conservative I guess is okay in the universal scheme of things to these people.

Here is another thing. I live in a state that has been run by the Democratic party for 20 years or more and this state is dying. They have chased away all business. This is the state that taxes for more things than anything. They charged a 21,000.00 business moving tax. So if you had a business and you moved across the street you had to pay 21,000.00 tax to do it. I found that out when a pizza guy wanted to move in 2000 and got taxed and made a big stink. We have a town that has the only road rage law. If someone suspected you of doing road rage to them, your car would be taken away by the police. The people who created it say it wasn't abused, but it so was. I know a guy who got dangerously cut off, so he honked his horn. The guy who cut him off followed him home, called the police in the town and the guy who rightly honked his horn had his car taken away forever. We also have a law that was passed by two Democratic senators in April of 2000 a law that stated that if a medical professional took a sample of your blood (I.e.-blood test, car accident, etc.), even if you were unconscious and did not give them permission, once your blood is taken your DNA becomes the property of the state and you no longer own it. In fact we have so many wacky laws here, started by liberals in the last 20 years that it is scary to live here. And our state is in real bad shape financially because of the liberal rule. Most of the money making business left. We have NIKE, INTEL, and the shipping industry and that is it. The shipping industry has told the city that the new boats they are using are bigger, and that the city needs to dredge the river a few feet deeper. They also told the city that if they don’t do it, then they will not come here anymore. The city has been arguing against the dredging for 6 years now because they say it will screw up the salmon spawning. I was in the building when they were having a town hall meeting talking to one of the executives of the Port Authority when he was in the hallway and I said "Why don't you do it when the salmon are not spawning?" and the guy looked at me like I had just invented air. And then the other executive, the conservative one who I talked to all the time came out and I was talking with him about it and he said "this is so ridiculous. They have done dredging in other places and the fish just swim around it." They are fish. They have been swimming to avoid obstacles for a million years. So if that goes this city will fold. You want to see what happens when liberals have controlled a place for a lot of years, just come here. They will tell you this place is running great but it isn't. In fact, in the 90's, when every other city was booming through that B/S economy, we where the only state shutting down schools, police and fire stations like every week. They didn't have money for them but they had money to spend millions on crap statues and art pieces that are all over this town. Yeah there you go. We don't need a fire station, we need another art piece that cost hundreds of thousand and looks like a guy stood across the room and trough a can or red paint at a canvas.

Going onto the line of that "offensive" thing above. There was a lady in the middle of my state who sews dresses for Barbie Dolls, and she wanted to do something nice for all of the female kids whose families where in homeless shelters in Oregon. So she got a donation going and collected the amount of dolls needed, then hand sewed custom outfits for the dolls to give to the children for Christmas. A week before Christmas she took them into the agencies that give toys to homeless kids. Some stupid women’s organization made up of overweight women came in and pitched a bitch every night that giving Barbie dolls to little girls were offensive. It's a toy. They made such a bitch that the organization told the woman who did this that they couldn't give the dolls out and they had to give them back to her. So here is a woman who went out of her way, and spent a lot of time doing a nice thing and some stupid group or liberal women who are upset because they had children and are no longer in shape denied a lot of children getting a nice gift for christmas. And they interviewed the kids in the shelter who were looking forward to getting the dolls, and the kids where upset and they didn't understand why they weren't getting the dolls now. I personally called in that stupid liberal group and told the woman "Just because you are upset that you don't have a figure you had to ruin Christmas for kids who have nothing. Who thee hell are you to do that, you dumb moron!" She took offense that I called her a moron and I told her "I called you a moron cause that is what you are!"

And about the giving charity thing I said in my post above. All of the liberals I know living here that give to charity to deduct it off of their taxes would constantly go out of their way to let you know that they give to charity. In fact I used to joke around with one that I was going to give him two skiing poles for Christmas. One would have a mannequin's hand on it so he can pat himself on the back whenever he wanted to. And the other would have a sign that said "I give to charity so bow to me!" All of the conservatives that I know that give to charity never ever said a word about it. In fact the only way I know they give to charity is because I asked them, and even then they didn't want to really tell me because it was none of my business.

I could go on and on about the stupid shit I have seen liberals that I have met do that I don't see conservatives that I have met do. No I am not saying all of the Liberals I have personally met do stupid stuff, or are full of sh*t, but I can honestly say that about 97 percent of the liberals I have personally met are full of sh*t. And I know my spelling in here is bad in this post. When I get hot about things my dyslexia kicks in. Again, I am not saying all liberals are like this, I am just saying the major bulk to the liberals I have personally met are of the stupid kind.

[august spies]

liberals liiiberallls liberralllsssss its the liberals and those liberal liberals ahhhhhh liberalllllllls liiiiiiiiberallllllllsssss (head explodes)

above is the debating tactic of the right wingers of this forum. Beings that i am not a liberal makes it even more funny. Anyone who reads it casually can look at the facts cosmo and i posted in rebuttal since apparently they are being ignored.

[buggs]

Again with that word "facts". What facts are you talking about? I don't see any facts anywhere. What I listed above where mostly personal experiences.

[MikeMike]

Great piece comparing Michael Moore to Muqtada al-Sadr:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/07/Muqtadaal-Moore.shtml

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
heh it's funny. This morning as i read that article for the second time, i decided to air-hole it. I assure you, i will be doing just that. This article comes off more as opinion then fact.

What happend, Cosmo? I thought you were going to 'air-hole' the work of Chris Hitchens? What happened, bite of more than you can chew?

[Cosmo_ac]

Hardly Mike. Thing is it's rather large, and it takes time to disprove something point by point, mainly because you have to look up information for each point. i might have it done by this weekened.

[MikeMike]

You won't have it done at all, either this weekend or any time, because he checks his facts, and covers his bases.

This wouldn't be so sad if it wasn't so funny.

[Cosmo_ac]

Mike, one thing you should have learned by now, i don't make empty promises. If you actually read through this thread, you might notice i already slashed part of Hitchens other post. I'm not sure how quickly you expect these things to get done. It might surprise you to learn that it takes time to look up accusations, varify if there right or wrong, and if found to be wrong, find a decent post to support that argument. Since Hitchens didn't make any links to support most of his thread, it takes more time.

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
Mike, one thing you should have learned by now, i don't make empty promises.

What are you talking about?


[i]If you actually read through this thread, you might notice i already slashed part of Hitchens other post. [/B]

Calling it 'opinion' and a 'piece of shit' hardly counts for slashing anything apart. But to you, it might.


[i]I'm not sure how quickly you expect these things to get done.[/B]

You seem to spend most of your time in this forum, I should think that a week would be enough for you to rebut an article that you consider so laughable.


[i]It might surprise you to learn that it takes time to look up accusations, varify if there right or wrong, and if found to be wrong, find a decent post to support that argument. [/B]

Thank you so much for the lesson on how to conduct research. I'm so impressed.

[Cosmo_ac]

I didn't realize i was under time constraints, Mike, so i was doing it at my leisure.
You obviously missed where i knock two of the points Hitchens makes. try re-reading the thread.
I'm glad you enjoyed your lession on research. Perhaps in time i'll teach you more lessions.

[buggs]

I have actually watched Christopher Hitchens numerous times on various News shows for the last 8 years or so and I have to say I really respect his opinion. The guy doesn't say anything without thoroughly investigating it. He is extremely knowledgeable, calm, and does not pay attention to the prevailing winds that the pundits seem to blow. He stays on course with the facts. I have never seen the guy in an interview say something without having backed it up with facts. I sincerely wish he ran for office (ot for president becasue constitutionally he can't) but senator or congressman.

And here is another point. If Moore was such a factual person news agencies would quote him, and the news channels would be fighting over him to be an investigative reporter for them. Do you see any of these organizations doing either? NO. You know why. Because they know he is about as truthful as Jayson Blair is. Actually I think Blair tells the truth more than Moore.

The other thing. Moore owns major stock in all the companies he attacks in his films. So that makes that missing Sea World attraction more of a hypocrite.

[august spies]

buggs the news channel societal functions are to be lapdogs for the government as they were for the war. thats the only reason hitchens is getting the attention he is now. Moore would never be chosen and it has nothing to do with facts, it has to do with point of view. If moore continues to sell out he might get a spot on tv.

[ShiningIce]

Just saw the movie. Excellent film. Moore's right on the money.

[buggs]

August, again you miss the point. If he had any credibility what-so-ever, he would be quoted as a source by reputable news firms and even the democratic party. But he isn't because they know that he makes up stuff. Okay. You have a very slanted view on everything August. The fact is he carries no credibility at all.

[august spies]

buggs i think your the one missing the big point. the news doesnt use him because of his political views it has nothing to do with how scholarly he is. There are plently of scholarly pieces regarding those issues and they get no news coverage whatsoever. The media is slanted towards the state, it always has been and always will be. period.

The democratic party wont use him because they dont agree with him, its that simple.

again you say he makes stuff up which you have yet to prove.

[buggs]

Okay, you say the meia wont use him because he isn't scholarly, and the Dems wont use him because they don't agree with him. Okay so he says he is a Democrat and they wont use him because they don't agree with him. Again, they wont use him because they don't agree with his lying and making up crap. They don't want to get sued. MSNBC gave Matt Drudge his own show after breaking the Lewinsky thing, and he isn't scholarly, but they won't give Moore a show and use him for anything because he lies. And even if they ignored ethics and gave him a show, Moore wouldn't do it cause he makes more money doing these B/s films. Never you doubt it, Moore is all about making money and that is all he is about. He is a blatant liar. They don't want another Jason Blair even before Jason Blair Because he is a big fat liar, and they don't have enough money to lose in lawsuits because of him and his lies. That is why.

[august spies]

buggs i feel like im talking to a wall here. If your not going to read my posts please let me know ahead of time and I wont bother posting to you.

I said the media does not put forth scholarly ideas, thats why you get drude or savage etc....

And i said they wont use moore because of his political point of view, scholarly or not. You have what i said entirley backwards

[buggs]

Yeah. I repeated you back because you are perfectly answering my own arguement and you don't realize it. Essentially what your saying is that he is not scholarly, so, esentially, he is a dumb ass. And because of his point of view, no news media will even offer the buy a job, or even quote from him. Meaning that his views are so totally slanted that they are wrong, and so no one will touch him. Because he lies and makes stuff up, and twists the truth to fit his views that it is no longer the truth anymore. That is why I repeated it. But for some reason you still feel the need to believe him.

And here is a primne example of what happens to people who promote Moore. This is what happened to Linda Rondstadt, as reported by the AP, on Fox's website here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126222,00.html):


Ronstadt Praises 'Fahrenheit,' Gets Booed
Tuesday, July 20, 2004

LAS VEGAS — Singer Linda Ronstadt (search) not only got booed, she got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino.

Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old rocker called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush (search).

Ronstadt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.

"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins told The Associated Press. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."

Timmins, who is British and was watching the show, decided Ronstadt had to go — for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstadt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property.

Ronstadt's antics "spoiled a wonderful evening for our guests and we had to do something about it," Timmins said.

Timmins said it was the first time he sent a performer packing.

"As long as I'm here, she's not going to play," Timmins said.

Ronstadt had been booked to play the Aladdin for only one show.

Calls to Ronstadt's manager were not immediately returned.

In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal before the show, Ronstadt said "I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back."

Looks like she got her wish.

This is what happens to people who back Moore because, out in the real world, most people know that Moore is full of sh*t.

[august spies]

the group think regarding linda rondstat just goes to show how this country is moving closer and closer to fascism.

No moore is not scholarly, that doesnt make him a dumbass or drop him to bushs level of intelligence. What im saying and ive said it a million times but for some reason its not getting through (because your not reading my posts) is that the media is not interested in scholarly points of view, its interested in non leftist points of view. Thats why moore would never have a tv show.

There are thousands of scholarly works that back up many of moores points about war and american capitalisms greed and manipulation. Take Noam Chomsky's Dettering Democracy. Its not a movie its a scholary work with much more facts and credability.

but you cant attack that, because its scholarly and your attacks are based on emotion.

[buggs]

This is how the defines The American Heritage® Dictionary word scholarly:


scholarly
SYLLABICATION: schol·ar·ly
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: sklr-l KEY
ADJECTIVE: Of, relating to, or characteristic of scholars or scholarship: scholarly pursuits; a scholarly edition with footnotes.


I do not see Moore, or his views, opinions, or his films having anything to do with this definition.

And by the way, I have read all of your posts from begining to end.

[august spies]

"No moore is not scholarly"

Yea because in my last post i tried to show just how scholarly moore was.

So there are two logical conclusions to your way of thinking

a) you havent read any of my posts
b) you cant read and or understand simple sentences

[TicklishKev]

I just want to know what Bush has done for us top make so many people love him. I rememeber watching his inaugural run on a huge bank of TV's in the middle of Costco and seeing an angry counrty. The road was filled with protestors calling him a thief. He didn't get out of his car to make the last three blocks on foot, as is tradition, for fear of an egg or two decorating his suit. The opinion polls for him were going down the toilet. However, after 9/11 every single one of us, right and left alike were inspired by him with his speeches that we'll seek justice.

But that illusion has worn thin, at least with half of the country, when we are shown no results. Invading Iraq does not count as results...even Whitehouse officials revealed that it was not related in the slightest to the activities of al Qaeda. When the war in Iraq began, I saw the amount of anti-war protestors far outweigh the ones who were pro-war. What happened? The bullshit terms "Support our troops" and "Unpatriotic" arose. Whether you are pro or against war, I have yet to see someone who doesn't support the troops in thier way and I have yet to see someone who isn't patriotic in their way. According to the right in this country, patriotism means to conform. Otherwise, why would you assuse people with a liberal opinion of being "unpatriotic?" Sorry, that's not how a democracy works. Then again, after the 2000 election fiasco I've had doubts that we live in a democracy any more.

We give excuses for attacking Iraq that accuse the naysayers of "supporting a dictator in his regime of terror." Okay, then why don't we say the same thing about Saudi Arabia? You know, the most brutal country in the Middle East? This is a country that violates human rights on a scale that rivals Afghanistan before we invaded it. Yet the Saudi's are our allies. I guess we can pick and choose when we rely on that country as the crutch to hold up our broken economy with 1.5 million barrels of it's oil daily, a trillion dollars of it's money invested in the stock market and another trillion in our banks. If 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq, what do you think the headline would be? How about "Iraq attacks America"? But 15 of the 19 hijackers were not from Iraq...they were from Saudi Arabia. So we give them the name terrorists, which we still use...a very general term, considering a hacker breaking into a computer game company to steal source code is considered a terrorist too. When congress released it's investigation into 9/11 the Bush administration censored the 28 pages that dealt with the Saudi's role in the attacks. So if we support a country that beheaded 125 people publicly in a single city (Riyadh) in 2000, degrates women on a level that rivals the Taliban and whose poverty stricken populace are on the verge of revolution because of the oppression of the royal family (close friends of the Bush administration), then why are we going after a country with that we accuse of virtually the same things? I hear right wingers talking about us crushing the terrorists. Where? We crushed the Fedayeen. Sure they were fanatics, but they were soldiers. Iraq doesn't train terrorists, or harbor them, this has been proven. Saudi does though.

I like to ask some proof from the right wing people who call Moore a liar (if you even saw the movie) and his movie 'fictional'. Sure, it's biased, then again, every news channel on American TV is biased towards the right (why don't you call Bill O'Reilly a liar every time he says "the spin stops here!"? Because he supports your opinion with his own personal bias.). Where does Moore lie? His conjecture in the movie is displayed as satire (those are the funny parts by the way). His arguements (which are still a good number of the funny parts) are based on fact. Biased fact yes, controlled fact absolutely, but FACT! Otherwise he would be facing litigation from every angle, and he hasn't yet. In fact he has barely ever faced a law suit for his stuff, save a few here and there which he won. Bowling for Columbine had one law suit against it, and that was just from James Nichols over a privacy issue when Moore described in subtitles what was happening in a room where the camera wasn't allowed to go.

Where half of the country sees a great President, I, and the other half, see a man who stole the Presidency then used that power to stop any investigation into the theft, who hasn't been impeached for faaaar creater crimes than Clinton lying about his choice of cigar holders, such as being a deserter (he was gone more than 8 months...if that's not desertion I don't know what is). If the same was said about a Democrat President, CNN (followed by the country) would have had him nailed to the wall in minutes! This isn't paranoid fantasy people, this is a truth that's before your eyes every damn day. He has turned the greatest surplus in history into the biggest deficit, and his "with me or against me" policiy aimed both domestically and at the rest of the world had made this country more hated worldwide than it has been in decades. WE are viewed as the bad guys by the global majority, folks, not as the White Knights that the right wing thinks we are. I love America and what it stands for. Bush's policies are not it...and they are BLATANTLY not it. How can people support this man and call themselves patriots when these atrocities are right in front of their faces? I SUPPORT the troops. I want them home and free from a man who is using them to safeguard a cash crop. And I know he is just a face. If we let a moron like that single-handedly run the country without help it would be in far worse shape. He is just the voice, the messneger for the guys who actually run things, namely Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft and that borderline facist motley crew lining their pockets from the poor of this country and the oil, natural gas and arms purchases from others.

You accuse Moore of laughing all the way to the bank for trying to change opinion polls. Yet you support men who laugh all the way to the bank by letting the corporations you work for (and they own) beat you down every day, the news media (which they own) give you a steady diet of controlled facts (just as Moore controls the facts, CNN and FOX News does it even worse) and fear. And you allow your brothers, sisters, husbands and wives in the military to lose their lives (900 dead as of yesterday) in a cause makes tha administration laugh even harder on that road to the bank. Support the troops, not the cause, and bring them home. Many (not all of course) of the troops that support the war and want to stay there are angry about 9/11 that have been given the opportunity to live out their post 9/11 anger fantasy: to put a bullet through the face of an Arab. This is a TRUE fact, admitted from the very mouths of soldiers who are there right now, some of whom are friends of mine. It's just something the media likes to overlook.

Like I said, I love this country, and the message it USED to stand for. The message of the Statue of Liberty, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the US. We now have a country where that message is being twisted, by the likes of the Patriot Act "detaining" people on suspicion alone, denying them liberty without due process. If you believe in America and it's freedoms, then take heed of the First Amendement, and stop calling Michael Moore a liar and traitor. Admit that throwing drinks on and defacing the posters of Linda Ronstadt in the lobby of the Aladdin casino, because she exercised her constitutional right to expression, is a FACIST act. You know, the sort of ideology you baby boomers' parents fought and died for in 1942. Don't say I'm exaggerating that point either, for I said ideology, not regime. Think of that the next time you ignorantly call a liberal a 'commie' when the two things are just as far removed from one another as capitalism and facsim. The term 'terrorist' is now thrown around like 'commie' was in the McCarthy era. The media now has people believing that a terrorist lives next door to you right now. We call revolutionaries terrorists now. You know, those people who gave us this country by saying 'no' to the establishment in power? You give them homage as patriots, yet you brand Moore a traitor by doing ther same thing...challenging the administration. What I see in half of this country are a bunch of hypocrites who pee on their own feet with every arguing statement in their defense, then dismiss the entire arguement with a rousing chorus of "Traitor" or "Unamerican!" Which is repeated until the opposition just gives up in digust.

Like the others, this my opinion. I don't want it to be my opinion, but it is, because of what this country that I love has become. I don't dare you to prove me wrong. I actually beg you to prove me wrong. I want to to be wrong. The facts state otherwise.

**
Kev

[jersey_tickler]

Screw Michael Moore and his liberal piece of crap he calls a film. Thank god that there will be a another documentary coming out that will clear up all the B.S. about President Bush. The President is a good man, and if people want things to get better, then they better vote for Bush, because he will do all that he promised he would do.

It just pisses me off that "The Passion of the Christ" got slammed so bad, and that was very well documented by Mel Gibson who showed that he was also a good historian by making the film very accurate.

Fahrenheit 911, was bascially a load of crap and that didn't get slammed so much because all of Hollywood consists of Liberals anyway. Or either they have a problem accepting the truth, which is why a lot of Jews were offended by The Passion. Not that I am a bigot, cause I'm not. But I read a lot of reviews from Jews who saw the film as offensive. Please, I am half German, and I was not offended at all by The Holocaust because it was the truth.

So if you got a problem with Bush, get over it, because Republicans do what's right and don't try to con their way into office.

[New2u]

I finally had the opportunity to watch Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" film last week since it was finally released on DVD. This film is a masterpiece in documentry film making. Most of what was said in the film I had already heard on the news before so there was nothing really new for me to hear but there were some things I had not known about before. Yes, it is true that his film definately does not put Mr. Bush into a very good light and exposes his continued "incompetence" and delusions in dealing with this war. I can see why the conservative Republicans hate this man with a passion because he is simply "telling it like it is" with no holds barred. I've read the posts calling Moore: A liar, cheat, mentally disturbed, etc, etc, etc. In attacking Moore, what are these people afraid of? I don't really think that this film is going to effect the outcome of the election anymore than the "Swift-Boat Veterans" will. Most who've made up their minds on who'll they'll vote for...will regardless of whatkind of film or group says who did what.

Jersey_tickler, Hollywood does not "totally" consist of liberals, there are conservatives there too, check out the movie "Red Dawn" for example. It's like FoxNews consist primarily of conservatives. I'm sure they have liberals around.

[theshire]

New2U - Michael Moore is a liar. Don't make me go over this again.

[Cosmo_ac]

jeeze, this again. While you can argue there are lies in Farenhiet, there are also truths. Some truths would include the long time standing business relationships the Bush and Saudies have, including Bush seniors part in the Carlyle group. Also, Bush jr.'s business Dealins with Mr.Bath. Bush sitting for several minutes afte the world trade center was destroyed. The patriot act. The fact that the government claimed Iraq had WMD and there were links to al qeada for justification to invade iraq.

I'm not going to claim this movie is 100 percent accurate, however, i will say this. Watch the movie, then make up your mind. If you see anything being said or shown that perks your interest, then look it up.

[theshire]

- Those 7 minutes when Bush was scared stiff in his chair, which turned out to be five minutes while Bush was waiting for the “all okay” from his staff to excuse himself. (After all, there was a probable assaniation attempt on his life just a few hours earlier.)

Lie

- The oil pipeline that Bush helped the Taliban build through Afghanistan, which turned out to be a natural gas pipeline and was scrapped in the planning phase during the last administration.

Lie

- The haunting scene of the Army reservist Peter Damon, who has lost both his arms and was being “left behind” by the Army, who turned out to be mad as hell for being included in Moore’s movie without his permission ,and in fact supports the President and the war, and loathes Moore. Not to mention Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, the anesthesiologist who treated Damon at the 21st Combat Support Hospital in Iraq, who stated
“I was appalled. This was Joseph Goebbels-type propaganda,”

Deception

- The revelation that Bush somehow finagled his cousin to sit at the decision desk at Fox news to call the election for him, but it turned out happened to be that his cousin was a 23 year veteran election analyst who, along with a group of others called not the election, but their announcement of the results as reported by VNS four hours after the last poll closed (they were also the last to retract Gore’s name as victor).

Lie

- That damning headline that showed Bush has lost the recount, which turned out to be a total fabrication, based on an op-ed page in an obscure newspaper.

Lie/fabrication

- Those dastardly Marine recruiters who were caught slinking away from the more affluent mall to go recruit from the other less affluent mall in the suburbs, which as it turns out was exactly the opposite.

Lie

- The scene with the Congressman who avoided Moore’s question “Why don’t you sign up you child to go fight in Iraq?”, who it turns out doesn’t even have a child.

Deception

- The revelation that Bush personally authorized the Saudi Flights while airspace was closed when it turns out that Richard Clarke admitted doing it and they actually flew out after airspace opened, which the 9-11 commission confirmed this as well.

Lie

- The revelation that the Saudi embassy gets special protection from Bush, when it turns out that any embassy gets Secret Service protection if they request it.

Misinformation

- The imagery of a jocular prewar Iraq with kids flying kites and people sipping tea in the market just before American bombs rained down on them, when it turns out that Iraq was actually torturing those men and those kids were lucky to not be in “kids prison” with their friends as a punishment to their parents.

Huge deception

- The crass statement Bush made about stopping terrorism during that montage of politicians talking about the Iraq war, and then he ended it with that “Now watch this drive” statement, when in reality that statement was made before 9-11 , and he was talking about the problems in Israel.

Deception

- The shocking revelation that not one single Congressman or Senator read the Patriot act before signing it, despite the obvious fact that Congressmen and Senators wrote the Patriot act, which was largely made up of RICO laws, with “and terrorists too” tacked on the end of each of them.

Lie

- The scene where Moore describes Bush’s Presidency as “having not been able to get anything done” before 9-11, yet in reality, he got the largest tax cut in history passed and passed the largest bi-partisan educational bill in history.

Lie

- The scene where Jeffery Tobin states that “If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election.”, despite that a recount was conducted,(no “if’s Jeffery) actually five times, and in all but one, including the one that Gore asked for, Bush won.

Lie/misinformation

- That quote from the Washington Post that incorrectly stated that Bush spent 42% of his first 7 months on office on vacation, but that time included weekends, time he spent in church, and time at Camp David with foreign leaders.

Misuse of facts

- Moore’s statement that, after becoming despondent because of his failure to pass anything, (see above) Bush spent the “rest of the month of August at his ranch in Crawford”, despite the fact that he traveled to five different states in just one week in late August.

Lie

- The fact that Moore tried to prove that the administration was trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 with this quote from Condaleeza Rice :

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

When in fact, the entire quote was:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Deception

- Was it the revelation that the Right Wing Carlyle Evil Empire hired Bush’s father as a consultant, while omitting the other Evil Right Wing investors, such as billionaire George Soros, Alice Albright, daughter of Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s former Secretary of State; Arthur Lewitt, Clinton’s former SEC head.

Lie

- That Amnesty International designated “human rights violator Saudi Arabia” ( a distinction they share with Iraq) invested 1.4 million in the BDM which was owned by Carlyle Group, where the President’s father was a consultant, despite the fact that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.

Lie

- That crass statement from Bush that Moore showed us: “Some people call you the elite, I call you my base” as he stood there among a bunch of rich folks, despite that the uncropped shot of that speech showed that Bush was sitting next to Al Gore at that fundraiser, not for a campaign, but for a children’s hospital where they raised 10 million for the charity.

Huge deception

- Moore’s revelation that Bush was closing down Veteran’s hospitals, despite the fact that the hospitals being closed down were in areas of shrinking populations and being replaced with new Veteran’s hospitals. He also increased funding for all VA hospitals.

Lie

- Moore’s revelation that a majority of the folks purged from Florida’s voter rolls before the election in 2000 were Black, despite the discovery that in fact less than half of the folks purged were Black?

Lie

- The sad footage of the Military funeral at Arlington national cemetery that Moore didn’t have permission from the family to use. The family refers to Moore as a maggot that eats off the dead.

Deception

- The footage of the goofball with the parachute escape system who didn’t give Moore permission to use his image or his name. I read he just filed a lawsiut.

Deception

- Moore’s statement that

“No President had ever witnessed such a thing on his inauguration day..."

in reference to the protests at Bush’s inauguration, despite the fact that Abraham Lincoln actually had to sneak through Baltimore after his inauguration and the city wouldn’t even provide police protection.

Lie

- The astonishing before and after transformation the Moore showed us of a happy, Patriotic Military Mum before and a emotional shell of a woman after her son was killed in Iraq, despite that the happy scenes were filmed after her son was killed also.

Deception

- The creepy blackout scene with just the sounds of the planes crashing on 9/11 that Moore blatantly stole form another documentary in his typical unimaginative fashion.

Deception (of sorts)

- Those references from Craig Unger’s Book , House of Bush , House of Saud, which was refused publishing in Britain because of our libel laws, which means you can’t publish outright lies over here without being sued? Moore uses this one book as the only source for many of his “shocking revelations”.

So we realised it was all lies.

- Those interviews with soldiers that Moore took without from George Gittoes’ movie, The Soundtrack of War which made Mr Gittoes very unhappy “because their interviews were taken out of context,” and stated “Michael got access to my stuff and assumed that I would be happy for it to be in 9/11. I would actually have been quite happy for it not to be in 9/11.” Luckily for Gittoes, Moore ended up paying him $50,000.00 a month or so after F911 came out. He soon stopped complianing about his footage being mis-used.

Deception

So what was it Moore got so right again? If his message is correct, then why all the lies and deception? If Bush is that inept and a regime change is needed then why can't Moore give decent evidence to prove it?

It's obvious why.

Because he's a liar, and if he didn't lie he wouldn't have a case.

[Cosmo_ac]

I'm very curious as to where you got the infromation here, Shire. Some links would be great. However, this in particuler


The shocking revelation that not one single Congressman or Senator read the Patriot act before signing it, despite the obvious fact that Congressmen and Senators wrote the Patriot act, which was largely made up of RICO laws, with “and terrorists too” tacked on the end of each of them.

I'm very curious about. I'd like to see where this information came from.

[theshire]

I can't find any direct links about this, but I suggest you download and skim the Patriot Act, and hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Cosmo_ac]

Do you have a link where to download the patriot act?

[theshire]

You don't have to download it; you can read it in HTML format here (www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) .

[Cosmo_ac]

Ok, so what exatly am i looking for here?

[drew70]

If I'm following this thread and TheShire's link, you should be looking at the Patriot Act. Isn't that what you asked for?

Cosmo, why would anybody want to get their truth from a man known to be a liar? TheShire has listed many of the lies in this thread. Other books and websites totally debunk the bullshit Michael Moore has presented as "fact."

Even if there are shreds of truth in Farenheit 911 as you insist, how can you possibly justify recommending people get their information from such an unreliable source?

Cosmo, if you were went to a seafood restaurant and ordered a big plate of shrimp, and it turns out that a good portion of the shrimp are bad, how would you feel if the waiter told you, "You've got to search out the good ones..."??

Clearly Michael Moore doesn't care about the truth. He never did. He figures if he can make the film controversial, and get enough people to watch it, it may sway them to vote democratic, even if they believe only half of the lies.

[Cosmo_ac]

You make good arguements Drew, however, it seems these days most people could care less about information unless it's hand fed to them. hell, 47% of American people still believe Iraq played a part in 9/11 for gods sake. However, make a movie about how they weren't and i bet you'd have a lot more people paying attention to that.

I'm not saying to believe everything, or even anything that Moore states in his movie. All i'm saying is to watch it, if you want then just watch it for entertainment alone as it's still a pretty good watch, and if you see anything in particuler that perks your interest, you should do a little research on it. I personally learned several facts i never would have known to even explore until i saw the movie.


If I'm following this thread and TheShire's link, you should be looking at the Patriot Act. Isn't that what you asked for?

The link does lead to the patriot act Drew, but i wanted to see where it shows that congressmen and senators wrote it up. And i would expect it to show many read it as well, as a bill of this magnitude should have been examined extremely closely and even had legal experts to explain certain parts to congress. From what i've heard, basically Bush and some lawyers pulled an all nighter and the bill was there in the morning for congress, where it was passed extremely quickly, not because all read and agreed to it, but more because of the whole 9/11 fear. Had this bill been presented to congress at any other time it would have been laughed out of the building. (i admit it's been a while since i've read anything on this, i'll see if i have any links about it)

[kurchatovium]

I think I prefer Farhenhype 911. :D :D

[New2u]

theshire, your reaction was what I expect from a Bush supporter. Considering all this, "liar, liar, pants on fire" schtick the Repubs keep screaming about the film is coming from Republican websites, some I'm sure set-up just for Moore. The accusations are the usual, "he lied about this, lied about that". Ok, you and other Republicans have a right to say that in order to "vent" your rage at the man. If it makes you feel better,then do it. The Repubs did their discredit Clinton at all costs back during the Clinton years but the public still liked Clinton frustrating the Repubs. All this "Moore is an unAmerican liar" crap is tiresome and one-sided. I think the man did a credible job and bought to light something that needed to be brought up. I choose not to waste my time with this silly anti-Moore nonsense. I do see the "typical" conservative reaction when one of their own is criticised of "They can Dish it out, but they can't take it in return".

[dreamboy]

theshire,

I would be very interested in checking out the links and other sources you must have used to develop your list of lies and distortions collected from Farenheit 911.

[kurchatovium]

Here is one from davekopel.org, by the way this guy is a lifelong democrat and last time voted for Nader so this guy has no interest in helping Bush out whatsoever. This guy exposes 59 lies and deceipts in Mr. Moores movie.


www.davekopel.org

[New2u]

Mr. Dave Kopel is not a "life long" Democrat, He is a "libertarian" with ties to the NRA and other conservative groups. I suspect that he has ties to the Repubican party too but has cleverly kept their name out of his website. He does have an interest in helping Bush because of some of the reading material he has are "anti-Kerry" books.

Nice try

[kurchatovium]

Hey thats what my friend told me and he doesn't lie to me. But heck believe what you want. If you wish believe Mr. Moore is the bastion of truth then be my guest. :rolleyes:

[Cosmo_ac]

I've read this before. This is actually a rather well done response to Moores movie. I personally found it rather fair, and unbiased for the most part. One thing i do love is the fact that it admits there are also truths in the movie, and it brings to light some important facts. I only have two problems with the article. First, it quote's Hitchens article, which was an extremely poorly done article that smacked of personal resentment towards Moore. Some might remember a while back i tackled it. Second, and i should meantion this is not really so much a problem as it is an observation, is that some of the arguements against moore presented are more sunbjective then others, in the sense they are slightly twisted when presented here. Now that doesn't mean there totally wrong, however, they do leave some room for personal interpritation. I believe the twisting was the authors own personal interpritation of the information presented in the movie. However, i do think this web page, like moores movie, is worth checking out.

[New2u]

Kurchatovium, what I believe is that you wanted to get the "best" of me by putting this guy out. Please be careful when you do that because I will check and verify what you give me. The information I used came from the website that you provided me. If, someday, you do get the best of me, it won't be the first time someone's done that. I don't claim to be perfect every single time, just assertive.

[kurchatovium]

I sent him an email it is possible he made a mistake. In which case I apoligize. I have known him over 20 years so I trust him a lot. Let you know what he says.

[New2u]

Your source might still might prove me wrong too.

[kurchatovium]

My friend said he actually met the guy. He also said he has him on tape saying he voted for Nader in 2000 when he was on the Al Rantel Show. A conservative radio talk show. He is not certain if he is Libertarian or not, his father was a Democratic State Senator from Colorado. There is a great deal of decension in the Libertarian party right now over the war so I doubt his party affiliation matters much. Hope that clarifies things up.

[theshire]

Originally posted by New2u
theshire, your reaction was what I expect from a Bush supporter. Considering all this, "liar, liar, pants on fire" schtick the Repubs keep screaming about the film is coming from Republican websites, some I'm sure set-up just for Moore. The accusations are the usual, "he lied about this, lied about that". Ok, you and other Republicans have a right to say that in order to "vent" your rage at the man. If it makes you feel better,then do it. The Repubs did their discredit Clinton at all costs back during the Clinton years but the public still liked Clinton frustrating the Repubs. All this "Moore is an unAmerican liar" crap is tiresome and one-sided. I think the man did a credible job and bought to light something that needed to be brought up. I choose not to waste my time with this silly anti-Moore nonsense. I do see the "typical" conservative reaction when one of their own is criticised of "They can Dish it out, but they can't take it in return".

How can you say this? How many lies was it I posted up there? About 30? Are you telling me none of these are lies? If Moore is so right about his message, then why does he need to use people's images without their permission, edit speeches, use creative cropping to change the reference of the real scene, fabricate newspaper headlines, quote from a book so dubious that it can’t even be published in Britain, use quotes out of context, change time lines, steal scenes from other movies, switch the economic demographics of malls, tell half stories, and all of the other visual tricks he uses? Why not give real evidence that supports what he says?

And going back to the Patriot Act thing, I also find it kind of weird that in the segment where he is driving around in the icecream truck reading it, he never lets us hear any of the bits he feels are so wrong. Probably because if we heard we'd know it was bullshit.

[Cosmo_ac]

And going back to the Patriot Act thing, I also find it kind of weird that in the segment where he is driving around in the icecream truck reading it, he never lets us hear any of the bits he feels are so wrong. Probably because if we heard we'd know it was bullshit.


There's splenty wrong with the patriot Act, Shire. I agree it would have been better if Moore had read some of it out, but i think Most americans are aware of at least some of the problemsd with the patriot act.

Also, i'm still waiting for the evidence to show that many of the senators had read the patriot act and had legal experts explain it to them.

[New2u]

Originally posted by theshire
...How can you say this? How many lies was it I posted up there? About 30? Are you telling me none of these are lies? If Moore is so right about his message, then why does he need to use people's images...

theshire, how many lies have the conservatives "made up" on Bill & Hillary Clinton during the past few years, what kind of false "image" were the Republicans creating of the Clintons? Accusations like: He murdered people who didn't like him (Clinton Body Count), was involved in the drug trade, took drugs, had drug parties, practiced devil worship, sold weapons to terrorists, demanded Paula Jones give him oral sex, stole millions of dollars from investors (white water), Hillary was a lesbian, Clinton was a closet soviet communist because he visited Russia as a college student, the Clintons stole items from the Whitehouse when Bill left office, etc.,etc., etc. Now, the conservatives are accusing Moore of lying about Bush. What do you think the Conservative Republicans were doing to Clinton and his wife? Like I said, when the shoe's on the other foot, goodness, how things are viewed differently.

What kind of oath does a conservative take to be a member of the G.O.P. ? The "hypocrit" oath?