Slashdot Mirror
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
xerid writes "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the theatre was packed & sold out for each showing. Today, I read on Michael Moore.com about the movie breaking records. However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot, about the movie's opening day." I saw the film on friday and was really impressed. But while it speaks much truth, and has many funny parts as well as truly heartbreaking ones, I don't know how many votes it will sway. But since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!
Seriously, although I saw this movie and liked it, this is not the place to discuss it. This site is supposed to be about technology I thought. The only really interesting technical tidbit of this film was that it was, IIRC, entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro....
Let's get back to discussing robots and porn tech!
Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth. Good luck!
Please don't confuse entertainment with truth.
I saw the movie and think it is important to discuss it in every venue possible. It raises questions that should be answered.
Enough said
Michael Moore is an extremist. Extreme left-wing in this case, if I recall correctly. I saw Bowling for Columbine and it was a a good movie, but always, ALWAYS remember that's just ONE side of the spectrum. I'm not much at home at US politics, but I believe that Michael Moore is to left-wing/democrats what Ann Coulter is to the ring-wing/republicans. Except one is a small fat guy with beard and the other... isn't. Don't copy other people's opinions; listen to both sides of the story and make your own.
That said, I still would like to see that movie for fun. I'm no american, so american political views be damned; I just want to see the guy piss over several people!
Hate me!
The guy's not really a liar, he's just very, very out there in terms of his views. Which isn't to say he isn't right a lot of a time. He's got his head on a lot straighter than a lot of radicals, like say, the REAL liar, the subject of the film... Fill in initials of world leader here. Not the place to discuss it? EVERYONE should be discussing the deceit and warmongering of our supremely selected self-declared messenger of God.
I haven't seen it yet, but I intend to. I'm sure there are exaggerations and perhaps outright lies in the movie but regardless of if you agree with Moore's views or not I think it's important to see it because it represents so much that is not shown much in mainstream US media. Watch the primetime news on US TV and you get one side of the story. Watch news from other countries and you get a fuller picture. See it as a way of broadening your experience regardless of your political affiliation.
/. is not really the place to discuss this :-)
That said,
However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot... since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!
/. Of course I'm trying to remember why folks don't like it when incendiary discussions are posted...
*checks upperlefthand corner of webpage, notices the banner still says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."*
I can't see how this comes even close to News for Nerds, especially the tight way it is defined on the FP of
But while it speaks much truth
There you go. Statements like that. The sort that start 400 reply flamewars and do little but pump up the ad counts on a slow Sunday. I think I'd rather have a forty count of goatse ascii art. Its understandable a reader would submit such a thing (since he considers it "interesting"). It's sad that an Editor would think this is something apropo to this site.
What is music when you despise all sound?
This movie really runs the range of emotions from anger to laughter to sadness. I just wish more republicans would go see it. Unfortunatelky they see it as an attack to their party rather than an attack to a small group of people that happen to be republican. I know a lot of people won't go see it because they don't want to put money in Michael Moore's pocket. I urge everyone to go see it. If you can still vote for Bush after watching it, I would love to hear your rationalization.
Lies are completely unnecessary to convince the uninformed.
I was introduced to this absolutely astonishing documentary called "The truths and lies about September 11th". It's basically a video recording of a seminar held in the University of Portland by this guy called Mike Ruppert. I was sceptical to begin with, since i was expecting this to be just another conspiracy theory but i was proven wrong. He runs a website http://www.copvcia.com I suggest you check it out. As for the documentary that i saw - its an incredibly well-structured presentation, with ample proof for everything that is said during its course. No speculations, just plain evidence.
Its an entertaining movie that makes a decent case but also makes many jumps in logic and infers things without real evidence. However, he also makes a few points with infallable evidence - such as businesses influence in gov't and how Saudis are evil. It really hasn't changed my opinion at all.
I was very upset when I read that a conservative group tried to pressure theater owners into not showing Moore's film. We have a free market of ideas in this country - if Moore's film is so bad, why not make their own film, or post anti-Moore blogs or buy airtime to put their views out? I don't care for Moore - I think he's a pseudo-populist, a self-aggrandizer, a non-documentarian (his films don't explore issues as much as bolster his point of view). He exploits his subjects (tasteless interview with Charlton Heston, harasses security guards and receptionists in an attempt to talk to the "big cheese," not to mention what he did with those crippled kids at K-Mart.) Not exactly the first person I'd choose to fight for the "little guy" vs. corporate and government power, but dammit, he has the right to say what he is saying.
If this film contains none of the above elements, then it doesn't belong on Slashdot-- try FARK for a better venue.
/. then many many many of us will bail, and /. will devolve quickly.
The second we start letting political rants have their portion of the stage in
davejenkins.com |
I saw this movie two days ago at 11 am, and I was floored by it for the rest of today, the following today, today, and probably will be for a good while. This movie really shouldn't be seen just as a "we hate bush move" although many will interpret it as that. Rather its more along the lines of here is _all_ the corruption ( on the oil side of the equation... no mention of drug money) that goes on in our lovely government, even under other admins ( yes iirc clinton's admin wasn't made to look very good either). I must add that while everything is the movie has been checked, I found it interesting that he really didn't try to make the democrats look all that much better then the republicans.. the feel i got was that republicans and saudi(es) are evil and the democrats are clueless-- and not there when you need them.. in the best case senario. This move is not for the light hearted, but everyone should see it (as it will be the source of much controversy). I can see why this movie was a winner of the canies award. Regardless of if one thinks that Michael Moore is a crackpot or not, the actual footage speeks for itsself ( and in some cases quiet amusingly (if that's a word) so).
Think about it... you could easily convince some computer-illiterate person of the superiority of Windows over Linux, or vice versa, without telling a single lie. It's all about withholding the right info, and presenting it in the desired light.
yah Ive seen some stuff about this movie....this is where Michael Moore ate all those "supersized" hamburgers from McDonalds for 4 years straight... god its disgusting what he did to himself, he looks like he probably sweats when he reads.
I've seen the first few negative comments about the movie not being truthful. The movie *is* truthful, and if you think otherwise, please state specific claims.
This movie is right on. If you scratch your head and wonder why progressives and the world are against the war, watch the movie and see the other point of view. Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.
Don't brainwash yourself and say Michael Moore is this or that. Watch the movie and think for yourself.
I have not seen it yet but I know Moore has a tendancy to bend the truth by making things seem to imply one thing when it is not really what happened. He just edits things so they seem to say what he wants it to say.
"Most interesting how often you humans seem to obtain that which you do not want" -Spock
A really good article about some of the things the Moore missed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Yes I know I'm AC, but seriously, check it out.
Before the number of comments goes through the roof, I'd like to comment on this topic from a non-political perspective.
I first studied Michael Moore in college, in a film class, when the only major work he had done was Roger and Me. This was at it's nature a political film, but the political venom was many notches below his last two movies (Columbine and 9/11).
The prime point that EVERYONE should remember is that Michael Moore can be used as a case study of why to be wary of 'documentaries'. His style as a director is textbook in the art of time manipulation for the purpose of making a point where one would not have existed before.
I will provide an example: In Roger and Me, he had a clip where Ronald Reagan visited Flint Michigan, promising to bring economic properity that did not exist during the end of the 1970s. The film then explained that GM immediately closed a plant and laid off thousands of workers.
This example implies that one led to another directly. In fact, there was a gap of 7 years between the two events; one when Reagan was a candidate in 1979...the other in 1986 when the cuts were announced.
Just remember: he is manipulating to make a point, but to say it is true would be untrue.
This is just one example; I'm surprised no one has written a book on Michael Moore, because there is a lot of evidence that could be covered.
Personally, it's entertainment. If you are spending your hard earned money looking for truth or fact, please look elsewhere.
Michael Moore will not get another dollar from me after that one-sided tripe "Roger & Me".
Worst front page slashdot post ever.
s chlussel_014.htm
News for nerds?
Oh well.
Whatever your opinion of the Iraq war, Moore isn't the most reliable source of information:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/
If anyone cares to read some REAL research and analysis from an anti-war perspective, why not try the Cato Institute? http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html
Taking Michael Moore seriously is like getting all your news from Kurt Loder and that "Sway" guy on MTV.
I do believe that Slashdot's slogan is "News for Nerds, stuff that matters."
/.ers will as well...I'd wager this thread will get about 1200 posts...any takers?)
Now, if you consider every single news flash regarding, oh say, SCO, more important than a movie that I believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, the fine, avoid this thread. But personally, I think nerds should be just as educated about how their country is run politically as well as technologically.
And besides, one of the greatest lessons to be learned from this movie (though I would have thought it would have been learned much earlier than this) is as follows: Never try and forcefully hide information from the public. The more you try and supress it, the more intreaguing it becomes and the more demand there is for it. If you really do want to hide something, try to be as discrete about it as possible.
But as soon as Disney tried to put the movie away because of benefits they've received from the Bush family, the press pounced, and Moore had a documentary that was "scandalous", and just like Clinton has proved himself, people love a scandal (and I'm sure
Please state first whether you've actually seen the movie or not, OK?
I haven't, BTW.
According to this press release it won't be available in Germany until July 29th. What the hell is taking so long? Maybe some of the more "arty" cinemas will be able to get a copy before that. Ich möchte sehr gern den Film sehen. I hope they don't suck it up by dubbing the film, but just stick subtitles on it instead.
--Residential Interior Design
I didn't see Farenheit 9/11 but I did see Dodgeball. It was pretty funny. Something about people getting hit in the face with stuff that cracks me up. I give it 3 and a half stars
I saw the movie last night and I enjoyed it very much. I cannot see why Americans would vote for Bush especially after seeing this flick. What I disagree with is Michael Moore's decision to tell Canadians who to vote for in the upcoming election on Monday. It's none of his business and nor is it Ralph Nader's. I'd feel the same if Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and said "Don't vote for those corrupt Liberls in Canada". The Canadian government system is much different than the American system and a dictatorship is much less probable. Besides, the Conservative Party in Canada seems a whole lot more left wing than George Bush and dare I say John Kerry. American's shouldn't get involved in Candian politics just like Canadians shouldn't get involved in theirs. Let us decide who can run our own country.
Thanks for listening...
You may find more truth here.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Moore is really preaching to the choir with this movie. If you agree with what he says you are unlikely to vote Bush regardless and Bush supporters will most likely view it as fabricated propaganda regardless of its accuracy or failings.
What might make a difference is how the rest of the world feels about it given the closed and inaccessible nature of the current US administration.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Huh. Some of the places where I've been hanging around, Moore would be considered annoyingly centrist.
Still planning on seeing the movie, though.
From the article
Michael Moore is a dumb [expletive], that's what I think," Bradbury told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter during a phone interview from Los Angeles.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Well, I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight and I thought it was pretty good.
I got the tickets earlier today and I'm glad I did. When I got to the theater there was a line down the block for people waiting to get in. The last time I had to wait in a line outside the theater to get into a movie was when I saw Return of the Jedi in '83. So that part of it was pretty cool.
There really isn't that much new information in the movie, unless all you watch for news is the local news at 11 pm or something. There certainly wasn't any out and out lies. Some of the ways he spliced the footage together was pretty funny, but I wouldn't call it deceptive. There was nothing in the narration that was false though.
There was some stuff in the beginning about the 2000 election that was news to me, and painted Democrats in a pretty pathetic light. Plus there were some pretty extreme cases of the government going overboard in the name of homeland security, but again they were more comical than anything.
There was also some pretty surprising information about how much of our economy the Saudis are in control off. I had never seen that before either. Pretty amazing stuff.
As far as the movies rating, I can see why it would be R, but there's nothing in there that a teenager couldn't handle. I'd have no problem bringing 14 year olds and up to the movie. Anybody out there now who's thinking of enlisting might want to go see the movie. There's some footage of solders talking about there experience that's pretty sobering.
All in all I think it was one of Moore's better films. A lot better than Bowling for Columbine. It is an attack on the President. So if you're one of those types who think that we shouldn't be critical of the President during war, you'll hate it. Otherwise though, I think people will enjoy the film.
9/11 was NOT stopped so bush and his israeli cronies (handlers?) could start a war of conquest in the middle east and grab their oil, because the U.S's oil is running out fast.
all SERIOUS investigation into 9/11 has been thouroughly stonewalled by the bush administration?
Pentagon plane? NO PLANE WRECKAGE
CIA translators? GAGGED
Bin laden family? FLOWN OUT ON 9/12
WTC7? COMPLETERLY SYMMETRIC COLLAPSE
"dancing israelis"? CLASSIFIED
Bush'd reaction? GOAT STORIES
What the HELL is going on here?
So, a vote for anyone other then John Kerry is a vote for Bush, and not voting is a vote for Bush.
Let us just hope that John Kerry doesn't have any ulterior motives or wild political ideas if he is to be the next president. Otherwise, we may all be wondering "Would another 4 years of Bush been that bad?"
There is another person in the US that is really really out there with his views.... unfortunately it is our current President, George W Bush. I don't exactly agree with Michael Moore's politics, opinions, or tatics 100%, but he does raise interesing questions and make you aware of things and angles that you might not be. George W Bush on the other hand just wants to force feed you his religious view on everything, and give you an unintelligent retort to any boarding question to his methods or tatics that he might not approve of. I dont really think that John Kerry is the BEST choice for our next president, but he sure is the lesser of 2 evils, and any vote not for Kerry is one for Bush.... and if we the peope put him back in office for another 4 years, help us all.
But I did read Stupid White Men.
Michael Moore does make some good points, but he also fails to check his facts, and if often so innacurate that his honesty becomes questionable, and misses the point a number of times.
For example, he claims that the US government gave permission only to Bin Ladens family out of the US after the September 11th attacks. Further checking of facts will reveal that it was the Saudi government that arranged for all of its citizens to return home should they so desire. And while flights were limited at the time, there were a number permitted for important reasons.
Then there's the complaints that certain politicians want to outlaw abortions "even in cases of rape". That's because some people consider it murder! Now, whether you agree with them or not in this respect, I don't think you can criticise them for not wanting to kill a child because his father was a rapist.
Then there's his "Cold hard statistics". He talks about how the richest 1 percent saw their wages go up by 147%, whereas the poorest 20 percent are earning $100 less (adjusted for inflation). Those are two totally different statistics!
And my final complaint - He seems totally unable to comprehend how any black person could possibly be oopposed to Affermative Action.
In his show bullshit on the Showtime Network, the topic was the overblown emphasis on safety and terrorism in our world today. It was something to the effect of:
"There will always violence and suffering in the world, and Michael Moore will always be there to make a buck off of it."
I liked Michael Moore's work in "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" made some good points at times. I just do not agree with him on most of his views and I think his personal political conduct has been reprehensible lately. For one, he canceled an interview with Fox News at the last minute. The station is certainly conservative, but shouldn't that mean he should be big enough to stand up and take his case to the other side? Of course he couldn't use any slick editing and he wouldn't be the only one talking, so that might hurt him.
Bush is bad. Bad enough to be impeachable, IMO.
Moore is bad. Bad enough to warrant genetic cleansing.
I wonder which one has more people fooled. GW with the far right loonies thinking he is a divine appointment or Moore with the far left loonies thinking he actually has something intellectually worthwhile to discuss. (While I don't doubt that devoting an entire movie to slagging GW is worthwhile, I do not consider it intellectually worthwhile. GW has a lot to answer for. I don't think this is really a point of contention. This little revelation doesn't need to come from a rhetoric spewing attention whore, though. Some reasonably center-line criticism from a logical point of view may actually be helpful. It's just too bad Moore doesn't offer anything like that.)
Of course it presents a specific point of view. It is made by a person taking into account his audience.
He uses a specific set of fact patterns. Other people use other sets of fact patterns. Be an intelligent person and try to get a wide variety of fact patterns before you decide what you will consider the most likely truth. If anyone believe that any single source is going to use an objective set of fact patterns, then that person is naive beyond any help.
And please, don't confuse the office of the President with the person holding the office. Confusing the two, and inducing confusion of the two, is the first step to a dictatorship. The former is an institution. The later is a person who was elected to guard that institution. The former is something that must be protected. The later is someone who should be willing to give his reputation and life to protect and serve. This means that criticizing the person is not treason. Sometimes that person needs to be criticized. Sometimes that person is a liar. Sometimes that person is sex addict. Sometimes, for example, that person is drug addict, and we know the TV has told us that drug addicts support terrorists.
So, no hitting below the belt. No calling people traitors for exercising constitutionally protected free speech. As we used to say, if you don't like it, go to Russia. Or, in other words, if you can't take the heat, get you wussy ass out of the kitchen. So no invoking war scenarios for a war that congress never declared. And remember, all sides are torturing humans, and everyone loves their kids equally.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
sorry, never post before being awake(corrected text): My wife and I saw this movie two days ago at 11 am, and I was floored by it for the rest of that day, the following day, today, and probably will be for a good while. This movie really shouldn't be seen just as a "we hate bush movie" although many will interpret it as that. Rather it's more along the lines of here is _all_ the corruption ( on the oil side of the equation... no mention of drug money) that goes on in our lovely government, even under other admins ( yes iirc clinton's admin wasn't made to look very good either...though to be fair, wasn't demonized like the bushes (and shouldn't be for that matter) ). I must add that while everything is the movie has been checked, I found it interesting that he really didn't try to make the democrats look all that much better then the republicans.. the feel I got was that republicans and saudi(es) are evil and the democrats are clueless-- and not there when you need them... in the best case senario. This move is not for the light hearted, but everyone should see it (as it will be the source of much controversy). I can see why this movie was a winner of the canies award. Regardless of if one thinks that Michael Moore is a crackpot or not, the actual footage speeks for its self ( and in some cases quiet amusingly (if that's a word) so).
A friend of mine recently started a discussion forum to cover this movie specifically - perhaps for more long-term debate, y'all would visit http://www.fh911.com/".
creation science book
Lets just not forget that this is still a movie, not a documentary. I'd rather not see another fiasco at the Oscars again.
The fact is, things like how long it took for US fighters to both scramble, and be ready to shootdown civilian airlines (something unprecedented) is hardly surprising. It was in peace time after all. And if they had been up there in time to shoot them down, they may well have refused orders to gun down a plane full of civilians - stranger things have happened. But for Moore this becomes "proof" of an absurd consipracy theory, where the US government is made out to be somehow behind the attack - essentially a blood libel.
The fact is, had Micheal Moore been on the political right instead of the left, someone with his views would be rightly accused of having neo-Nazi sympahies. But becuase all this conspiracy stuff comes from a left wing journallist, people seem to things he must have a point.
The situation is far worse than Michael Moore says:
Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
Slashdotted? Try:
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm
Michael Moore for president!
Not a republican, for that matter not a democrat either. Not going to pay for MM's latest.
I have never seen anything that MM did that I liked. He is intellectually dishonest and he sells this drivel as truth, when he is in the entertainment business. It is kind of like op-ed in a newspaper. But op-ed has its own page, not to be confused with real journalism and news reporting.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Give Bradbury his title back!
Before you start flinging the term around, look it up - The idea that by posting a story on this film, or discussing the impact of this film, is somehow supporting a radical viewpoint and a narrow way of thinking is frankly, ludicrous. The simple fact of the matter is that fundamentalists are the ones in power - Religious zealots, money-hungry politicians, all melding together in one devestatingly machiavellian clusterfuck. Let's not forget that the true criminal - Bush's new Crusade which is needlessly killing our devoted troops in misguided campaigns of ignorant misappropriation - is as tunnel-visioned as they come. So much ire over one more thing on a mountain of things that identify the REAL American Traitor.
If you'll recall, there was a /. article about this earlier in the week, in which a house rep was furious over the use of his image in the movie because the way Moore clipped the video to suit his own needs. While I do think that we need to be aware of the actions of our leadership, this movie amounts to nothing more than propoganda to drive Moore's vendetta. Not to say it doesn't have a few valid points, but it's the media equivalent of cutting letters from a magazine for a ransom note.
http://www.redherring.com/vc/2002/0111/947.html
However that article is now pulled from the redherring.com site. Luckily i was able to restaurate that article :
http://crashrecovery.org/carlyle_group.pdf
Robert
Extremists are necissary in a complex society. Unfair arguments WORK. Would it be logical for a political party to choose to not use unfair arguments?
:^)
That's why true freedom of speech on all levels - even when it comes to one-sided or unfair arguments is also necissary for any level of political freedom.
Why? Because innevitably, any form of censorship about non-violence-inciting words will be enforced selectively by the side that controls the enforcement arm. French censorship is not going to arrest people who use words against the non-French, but will use censorship against someone saying something sufficiently controversial about the current leadership, if the issue is a sore one, ESPECIALLY if the statement may be true, but in dispute.
Unfair arguments usually come in the form of someone presuming something, then picking and choosing facts and observations based on how they can "prove" their point. They are used with almost all subjects, in all cultures. For instance, believers in alien abductions surround themselves with many levels of unverifiable and unfair arguments about how people should believe in aliens who choose to abduct people.
Many forms of humor are entirely composed of people making unfair arguments, with a glint in their eye. It's often very surprising and amusing the way different people can connect the things they see, and how that can show the biases they have.
If the audience is small, then unfair arguments can usually be effectively countered by showing WHY the argument is unfair from other perspectives - but even then, many people will still staunchly believe in the validity of known unfair arguments, and will dismiss all other perspectives as "leaving unknowns" - implying that only the unfair argument can fill in the blanks.
When the audience is larger, unfair arguments will be just a part of the environment. Jokes and tenative arguments will form in conversations, and there will not be a chance to counter all of them all the time. Unfortunately, those with the best unfair arguments can usually pull out win on a topic by sheer weight of their unfair arguments. That's why Rush Limbaugh can change the outcome of elections, why every company has their sneaky gossip, etc. Logic alone cannot change this about our cultures.
That's part of why I'm glad that the left in America is finally fighting back. Not because I like their unfair arguments - but I do like the humor, and I realise that it IS necissary. Lead by commedians, the left is unmasking their rhetoric - and they are loosing unfair arguments because there really are not any other ways to combat them anymore.
And it's definetly fun watching both sides try to hoodwink eachother with sneaky arguments. It's like watching a pickpocketing competition between two skilled theives and one rich man with a monacle. Funny and more funny at every step.
Usually, the political parties have thier muckracking organizations separate from their party at large. But now, unfair arguments are so effective and needed by both sides, that the distinction is gone.
And for those of you who are "disgusted" with the left's arguments now - welcome to the world that Rush created. The genie ain't going back. Hopefully the media itself will learn to distinguish fair and unfair arugments better than the CNN/Fox News split we have now, and we'll have a better arguing environment after everything. Until then, get used to the administration being called the equivanent of baby-killers using their own words.
In other words - thanks, Michael!
Ryan Fenton
That was that other documentary aboiut eating McDonalds.
Its just coincidence that it looks like he ate at McDonalds for the last 4 years.
If you want to track how distribution channels sacrifice profits to distort culture, a good way of approximating it is to track the weekly box office divided by the number of screens squared. This is sort of like the "acceleration" a movie is placing on the distribution channels. Although the previously-linked site is updated only when the weekly numbers are available, the daily numbers as of today (June 27) show "Fahrenheit 9/11" with a metric of $8,200,000/(868 theaters)^2 or 10.9 whereas the next highest daily gross ("White Chicks") comes in at 0.9 -- a factor of ten lower.
Seastead this.
No matter how you feel about Michael Moore one thing is certain. He's very good at what he does. I have yet to see the movie, but when I do I'll be going in with open mind well aware that it's going to lean to the left(a lot). You don't listen to Rush Limbaugh expecting to hear him calling for a cut back in military spending. Face it both the extreme left and right are going to "bend" things to fit their point of view. Last I saw though Rush hasn't produced a film worthy of winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes. When he does, I'll go see it.
Regardless of what's in this movie, people will find truth in it to support their preexisting beliefs. If you look hard enough you can find facts to support any ill conceived notion, no matter how off the wall. People have 'proof' Elvis is still alive! The media edits video clips to make things look worse than they actually are, it's sensationalism! It increases ratings! What makes you so sure Michael Moore doesn't edit video clips to make things look the way he wants them to look? It's the 21st century; the truth can be fabricated as easily as fiction.
Are not News for Nerds either. Star Wars might be about space and aliens, but it's not really about technology. It's just something that nerds want to talk about from a nerd perspective.
/. were not about technology, nor was the Columbine aftermath. But /. still talked about it.
/. is not just about technology but a place for nerds to talk to other nerds about things that concern them. If you want pure technology, go read Tom's Hardware. This is a community where occasionally people talk about things that are not directly related to technology.
For that matter, on 9/11 all the stories on
Please consider that
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I always hear the same argument. Moore's document are not truthful. They're pure crap with only purpose to mock people in power.
If that is the case. Why haven't Moore been sued? In the great country of USA, there are more lawyers in percentages than anywhere else in the whole world. If Moore wasn't telling the truth, wouldn't it be quite easy to sue him? Unless ofcourse he was telling the truth or even part of it. Nobody would like to see skeletons in their closets investigated any further.
This movie has been getting a lot of hype, but I don't know about records. According to the box office numbers it is not even on the charts: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.ph p
Yet, this movie that I have never heard of is #13: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/SuperSizeMe-113227 2/reviews.php
Is it time to put on our tinfoil hats, and start yelling, "Conspiracy! Cover-up!"
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
Does anyone know where to get some music from the movie?
"Back up this statement with facts, Coward. Or better yet: make a movie about it, and distribute worldwide. :-)"
It's his opinion, he doesn't need to back it up. Moore certainly doesn't back up most of what he says, and the film in question is an opinion piece as much as that was an opinion post.
Moore is certainly not my favorite outlet for opinions, even though in this case I coincidentally agree with the overall message of the film. Appaently the most convincing and telling parts of the film are from footage that's already been publically circulated. The one clip of the film I've seen, where he ambushes politicians and asks if they want to "sign their kids up to go to Iraq." This just struck me as dishonest and showy. No one can sign other people up for anything, and I heard that one particular politician answered that he had two nephews in Iraq, but was left out of the film.
Moore's film is an opinion piece, and it doesn't pretend to give the other side a fair due, but I think that the issue deserves a film that tries to present a balanced and thoughtful opinion.
Yup...
"this is not the place to discuss it"
The film is classified as a documentary. Who sees documentaries, kids? No. Nerds do.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
Since neoconservatives are now at the lead of the new American socialism they have completely forgotten their support for free markets and free speech. They are right-wing populists and no longer advocates for less legislation and smaller government. The right has just become the latest screeming-mimi victim class. It should be no surprise that conservatives act this way in response to Moore's film
allright. that was funny. if i had some mderator points right now. you would get them.
I think it's important to view that this film does have a lot to do with technology, however you consider it. The serious cutbacks Moore mentions to several administrative organizations, the obvious kickbacks to Halliburton while neglecting alternative energy are some important things to consider.
Another thing to think about is that while Clinton (whom Moore dislikes just as much as he did Bush) presided over the greatest technology growth in our history, W. seems indifferent to fostering the industry as all of those jobs we used to have float to India.
Just some food for fodder.
--- There is a man in a smiling bag.
My problem with Moore's films is not the content, but the way he presents it. He uses sound-bites out of context, he engages in "creative" editing giving the impression that two totally unrelated things are, in fact, related. He uses heart-string tugging musical scores, his comical quick-cuts are all too often offensively misleading, etc., etc.
These are not documentary film-making techniques; they are propaganda tricks.
What's most distressing is that viewers of his films invariably end up saying things like, "You should see this movie, so you can think for yourself." or "Moore's movie really puts everything in perspective."
A.) I don't need to see a movie to be capable of thinking for myself. Mainly because I can read.
B.) The movie, in fact, intentionally presents a skewed perspective.
The thing about Michael Moore is that he lives here in America, yet hates everything about it. If he hates it so much, I personally would be honored to buy him a first class one way ticket to anyone on Earth as long as he doesn't come back. There has been a person in my family in every single war since the American Revolution, and they want what I want, Freedom, which I believe we are currently protecting with our actions in the middle east. I live an hour fromt he Mexico border where thousands cross over illegally to come here to FREEDOM and PROSPERITY. These people are willing to risk their lives everyday to come here, so obviously there must be some good here in America so God Bless it.
I don't know what I'm going to do in November, but I won't be using this film as part of my decision-making process. I'm quite aware of what's been going on, and I don't need a propaganda piece to tell me all the reasons I shouldn't vote for G.W. I'm sure that there will be some ignorant Americans who think the film represents the whole truth.
I have posted it before and will probably post it again. I am really getting tired of the whole lefty political slant of Slashdot. I really just started reading it for tech news that was more than just personal computer based journalism. /. has had news about just about every aspect of science and computing--I love the site for it. But this whole political bullshit thing is making me not want to even visit the site anymore. I can read CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Christian Science Monitor, Drudge, or Washington Post if I want political stuff. Most of the readers of this site are political ideologues anyway. What really annoys me is that /. posts politically slanted or baiting in the first place. I am tired of it.
This will take my karma from neutral to negative.
This Is Taco's site, so he gets to post whatever spins his prop.
To the "more experienced" sd crowd: humor the Cdr Taco, he is still young, still rebelling from his "tramatic" middle class childhood, and still recovering from having to perform manual labor. See http://cmdrtaco.net/ for his heart-wrenching story.
After the passage of years, the Taco may realize that agendized extremists differ only by the vehicle of their extremism (e.g., religious fundies, socialist unionists); and that all extremists want is to gain control and profit.
Now to address the Taco post. Moore is another blow-hard idiot that has mastered the Half-truth. Moore is the same class of vermin as Rush Limbaugh.
The Republican Party has figured out that they can buy votes from the uneducated. After the last election, Bush handed out $300 Treasury checks left and right after telling people throughout the campaign that it was their money due (to the budget surplus). He never discussed the national debt or the fact that over 25% of all federal taxes collected pay interest on that debt. He never suggested paying down that debt first and then cutting taxes after it was paid down.
The economy is doing well and taxes are pouring in? That means you need a tax cut because "it's your money."
The economy is in the dumps and tax revenue is way down? That, too, means that you need a tax cut to "stimulate" the economy. (Apparently, "stimulating" the economy also involves giving tax incentives to large corporations to outsource good jobs to third world countries.)
What else has Bush done? Drasticially increased the size of government. Waged horribly expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I see the dumb rednecks driving around with bumper stickers that say "I support the war in Iraq" and I think to myself, "yes you do -- to the tune of about $1000 for every man, woman, and child in your household."
And lets not forget the campaign donations. Bush has done everything he could to turn over public lands to oil companies for drilling. So when Exxon, Shell, et al, make billions despoiling the wilderness, how much money will you and I get? None. But our gas prices will be lower? Nope. The oil market is worldwide. If Shell can make more money selling the oil to China, then that's where it goes. Then there is Halliburton. Not only have they donated a ton to the Bush campaign, but with their ex-CEO in office, they have it made. They've received over $2.26billion in "no-bid" contracts in Iraq. That means that other firms weren't even allowed to compete. The way that Bush/Cheney are giving your tax dollars to Halliburtion is disgusting. I could go on and on, but Slashdot doesn't have the hard drive space to document all of the corruption in the Bush/Cheney White House.
To try to keep the record budget deficit (how much more the goverment has to borrow) to less than $500 billion dollars, Bush has cut many programs that provided federal tax dollars to the states for various programs. This has driven many states to the edge of bankruptcy. He's cut federal funding for any overseas aid organization which mentions abortion as an option (yeah, we don't want some woman with AIDS in sub-saharan Africa to have an abortion!). He's cut funding to the EPA repeatedly while increasing funding to the military to pay for his war against Iraq -- waged because of their Weapons of... scratch that... ties to terr... er, no... leader that Bush disliked.
That's exactly what Moore does. Moore has edited out parts of clips he's used in his movie that go against the agenda he's trying to promote. He takes out the one sentence, the one quote that proves what he's trying to say, but cuts the rest out (which would destroy his arguement if he left it in.) Most of Moore's "facts" have been proven WRONG by the 9-11 commission, and anyone else with half a brain should see he's full of it. To go into this movie and think it's full of facts and that it's a real "documentary" are as pea brained as Moore is. Moore is a lie spewing jackass. There isn't an ounce of truth in what he's putting out there. It's slander, plain and simple.
As far as why he hasn't been sued, people are looking into pursuing action against him now with this being an election year (something about the rules of presidential campaigns). He's stepping over the line and WILL be held accountable for his lies.
Michael Moore doesn't.
He routinely bashes AMERICANS not just our current leadership.Not to mention...Osama bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty....Iraqi and foreign terrorists operating in Iraq are revolutionary freedom fighters etc.
Oh and for you anti-corporate types Michael thinks Corporations are morally superior to small business because corporations support both parties equally while small business favors Republicans.
Has the revolution finally occurred at Slashdot or is this an attempt to be a cheap click whore?
;)
I like a heated political debate with the un-informed-and-ignorant-left as well as the next bright-well-informed person...
But Slashdot is not really the place for this.
Slashdot is turning me off more and more these days. I find myself drifting towards fewer and fewer articles and it seems the quality and usefulness or postings is dropping.
Don't encourage this departure from Slashdot's original focus. There are plenty of forums for the uninformed to blather at each other... please don't make this one.
This article should be pulled and someone should start rethinking the editorial policies.
www.bannination.com Two things float to the top he
I'll watch this movie on July 4th and ecourage my friends to see it on that day too to show that hating Bush _is_ patriotic contrary to what the right-wing propaganda is try to make the people believe.
...and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it, for whatever reason they choose. It's the same right that allows a newspaper editor not to run a story no matter who wrote it, or allows a newscaster not to air an interview or clip no matter what was said or who said it.
Bias exists in many shapes and forms. Twisting ideas into idealogical talking points is just one, but the most popular (and most people don't even realize it) is leaving out any thing that's true that supports the opposite claim. For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. Meanwhile, there are supposedly "intelligent" people in this forum posting comments about how "true" the movie is when they obviously have little to know real knowledge of what comes across the desks and goes through the minds of either Moore or the president.
It doesn't matter which side of the fence any of these people are on. What makes me sick is their incessant whining about rights and truths when neither group understands what they are.
There's a fundamental problem in US politics. It's that there are only 2 parties.
Everything and anything is always black or white.
There is never anything that even remotely resembles honest exchange of ideas on the Senate or House floors, never mind the White House, because things are run through majority politics.
If Republicans rule, they steamroll their ideology down everyone's throat at all costs. If democrats rule, they'll do the same.
The same polarity on political issues is so prelevant on all mass media that you just can not get any independent research on any issues from any source, foreign sources excluded (BBC tends to be kinda ok, most of the time).
While we are on this subject, I find it extremely dishonest of George W. Bush to have claimed in his election campaign that he would unite the American people. The damn fool has done no such thing. Americans are more divided now than ever.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Michael Moore
Or maybe all those cries of "Censorhip" were just PR ploys? Ya think?
***Spoilers Ahead***
There is a scene were Dubya personally interviews Saddam. Saddam replies to Bush: "George, I am your father". Bush: "Noooooooo!" And then a light saber battle ensues.
Its interesting that so many people study MMoores films and how people should be weary of these 'documentories' yet they ignore a much higher level of image/story manipulation every day on the news.
Now F9-11 is out, maybe you can see it and counter the opinion you have already formed on it!!
The Opinion I've already formed is that it won't get near "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" by (EX- narcotics cop (LA)) Mike Ruppert.... not that anyone will care in a month.
From reading the posts here it now looks like those that have seen it like it or respect it, those that haven't, well a lot of gas is blowing out the wrong end...
This one needs to be watched carefully. It's claimed the ads are valid because the movie is a documentary. They're going to have to be careful how they define documentary. Otherwise advertizements about a 2 minute documentary about some people watching a policial ad can be used as a loophole on political advertising. I think criteria, such as Miramax has to distribute your documentary and it has to be shown in theaters, needs to be set.
+Infinity insightful.
There is a pretty good response to this article here. Not sure if Moore himself has responded yet.
and theater owners have the right not to show it on their screens.
But at the same time, there's plenty of evidence to be found on the net, that shows he twisted quite a few facts in "Columbine". So please give the parent poster some credit for putting a question mark behind Mr.Moore's integrity, okay?
It's kind of sad, because Moore has got some good points, and there exist more than enough facts, to stick it to the public. No need to twist the facts.
BTW: Can anyone give a view on how much truth-twisting is done in "Fahrenheit"?
Between 1996 and 2002 every person in the Senate, HoR and Presidnet has been up for vote. It seems Americans are quite happy with the job most of them do with over 80% being re-elected(except for POTUS).
America gets exactly the government it deserves.
I would have liked to learn from Fox News that the Saudis have bankrolled W. from the beginning, but I didn't.
I would have liked for CNN to show me footage of W. reading 'My Pet Goat' instead of leaping up to deal with Sept. 11th, but I didn't.
I would prefer for the media to lay bare the backroom dealings of this administration, but they aren't.
In short, Moore is the only ones asking difficult questions of power in this age of craven, obsequious journalism. And I submit to you that doing so is the defining quality of the true patriot.
If you object to what Moore is saying, then ask yourself if you object because what he is saying is incorrect, or if you simply resent him pointing it out. If it's the latter, then perhaps you should take a long, hard look at yourself, my friend.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Well, ok, there's inaccuracies in the movie. But I wouldn't lean too heavily on Christopher Hitchens to sort it all out for you. I don't think he has any coherent political philosophy. He's still a leftie (I guess) but he's spent a huge amount of time and energy lately arguing against other lefties that the Bush wars were really ok.
You can make an argument that the Afghan invasion had some rationale behind it. But Iraq is a different story. We didn't need to go there. We either had bad intel or we had leaders who didn't care what the intel was, as long as they got to take out Saddam. The results are gruesome, and I'm not just talking about the war. The consequences are that we've hardly got any friends left in the world. And we've got millions of Muslims with new reasons to hate us. Hitchens backing this war just tells me how confused he is he.
George the kettle is calling the Democrates hitler. Now that is funny. That basterd has taken our rights, invaded a country and ruined our economy. He is an elitist moron and WILL be fired in November.
The reason the US of A has prospered is its freedom. Freedom is necessary for innovation. If freedom is lost, the economy will go down the tubes. The Bush government has brought us the Patriot act and DMCA, both of which are poison to freedom. If you think outsourcing is bad now, wait until we can't out-innovate the Indians and Chinese. It is important to all nerds (This is 'news for nerds', right.) to get their heads out of the sand and understand what Bush and his cronies are doing to us.
Just because your details are largely factually correct does not make the whole true.
Just leave out relevant facts,take things out of context and contiuosly draw an opinion not supporeted by the facts you have presented.
Well, ok, there's inaccuracies in the movie. But I wouldn't lean too heavily on Christopher Hitchens to sort it all out for you. I don't think he has any coherent political philosophy. He's still a leftie (I guess) but he's spent a huge amount of time and energy lately arguing against other lefties that the Bush wars were really ok.
You can make an argument that the Afghan invasion had some rationale behind it. But Iraq is a different story. We didn't need to go there. We either had bad intel or we had leaders who didn't care what the intel was, as long as they got to take out Saddam. The results are gruesome, and I'm not just talking about the war. The consequences are that we've hardly got any friends left in the world. And we've got millions of Muslims with new reasons to hate us. Hitchens backing this war just tells me how confused he is.
33.333% of the comments will be outraged right wingers going on about how Michael Moore is an evil phoney because they saw him, a supposed "working class hero" poncing about in an upmarket store in New York. OK, so it was a guy who looked slightly like Michael Moore...well, if you ignore that he was slim, blonde and wore a T-shirt saying "Bush Cheney '04"...and if...
Another 33.333% of the comments will be paranoid, if technically correct, rantings about Bush trying to set up a New World Order involving the Project for a New American Century and the lizard people of planet Glllaaargahwat. They will also profess to thinking Michael Moore is a phoney, for not giving enough time, credence or attention towards their perfectly believable and not insane at all Glllaaargahwat lizard theory.
The final 33.333% of the comments will be trolls of both left and right wing persuasions arguing about whether it's Bush's right to claim to be guided by God, to kill Iraqi people (both combatants and non-combatants) and to ignore international rules and boundaries which he wants other countries to respect. Both the left and the right will play on Bush and Moore's links to lizards respectively.
And the last 0.001% of the comments will be sane, rational debating with other Slashdotters.
God, I love Slashdot when politics rears its head.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Same thing as Rush Limbaugh, just a different side of the political spectrum.
Your contention that the film "speaks much truth" is as absurd as claiming Fox News is fair and balanced.
You can read some of Moore's distortions from here
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
And by the way Chris Hitchens is *anything* but a right winger.
I agree that theaters shouldn't be pressured into showing his film. However, it doesn't seem as if Moore agrees with free speech all that much:
From Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court." From http://slate.msn.com/id/2102725/
Also from the Slate article: "The Times also reported that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation," and that he's established a "war room" to monitor attacks on the film. Lest anybody miss his threat, the filmmaker repeated it the same day on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, and will probably whistle the same libel tune all week long in publicity interviews for the film, which opens Friday."
So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!
And its not as if Moore hasn't been "fact-challenged" before. Roger Ebert, reciently wrote a great article in the Chicago Sun-Times about Moore's "fact-challenged" previous work "Bowling for Columbine". Mr. Ebert writes:
"Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine."
From http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr- moore18.html
Brian EllenbergerP.S. While Disney got rocked from the left for claims of "censorship" for not releasing Moore's movie, would the left had reacted the same if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler? Or would the left have villified Disney as "corporate-propaganda". What makes a left-wing corporate-propaganda film wonderful and thought-provoking and a right-wing corporate-propaganda film evil? Nothing, they are both corporate-propaganda.
And isn't it dangerous in this age of campaign finance reform to invite corporations into the political process through "documentaries"? What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries. The left has no room to complain. From there it only gets worse...
"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
#include "coucou.h"
From the http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/s chlussel_014.htm link:
See How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine". He addresses the above criticism about half-way down:first off the film is incredible. the theatre here showing it was selling out every showing, including the matinees, something ive never seen. at the end the audience gave some nice loud applause.
its always odd as an "outsider" to watch americans. anyone that speaks out about the government is branded a radical, an extremist. round here in canada this is absolutely normal, the evening news has all sorts of people saying all sorts of critiques about the government and its not odd for people to talk about it on the street. and its not a group of people that do, EVERYONE does. no one looks at you funny, no one says you are anti-canadian. a term that is not used at all, either is unpatriotic. this is a states thing, its used to shut you up, make you feel bad. its wrong. moore isnt an extremist, he is a hero. exposing truths is patriotic. dont listen to the shills that call you names. the amount of brainwashing you poor people get is also astounding. i dont claim to live in some perfect society but its night and day with some things and i hope this movie wakes up many people to reality.
That should be "...little to no real knowledge..." :-)
I've read several reviews, and they all contain 2 points that give me pause. The first is that this film is a "documentary" and the second is that it's very, very biased with only one point of view provided. Take the recent CNN, or NYT reviews for example.
According to webster a documenary is "factual and objective". How can this film be considered a "documentary" when even the most favorable reviewer(CNN in our example) comments that it's not even close to fair or balanced?
Considering Michaels last error and bias filled "documentary" aren't Michael Moores movies more "commentary" or propoganda? Why do people insist in calling obviously biased (ie not objective) and factually inaccurate movies "documentaries"? With so much questionable content - can these films even be called good movies? Remember the first amendment protects false speech just as much as it protects truthful speech.
http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
Whats even sadder is that many people will simply ignore the facts if they don't agree with their opinion. With that fact in play, perhaps an objective documentary is dead. After all - a clear and objective presentation would require a great deal of thought on a complicated issue with no easy answers.
Instead of honest debate we get comments like "The arabs aren't ready for democracy". At one time, blacks weren't ready to sit at the front of the bus, women weren't ready to vote and latino's weren't ready for white schools. The pundits that made the aforementioned comments were wrong and bigotted. Some things never change.
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I used to like moore until he became a self-serving messiah of the wackos....
www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
www.moorewatch.com
---- suck it trebek
Ch's review misstates and lies. CH Is a repub hack, so, of course he lies to support Bushit. And, of course, CH ignores the point of the movie, and drags out every red herring and hot word he can, to distract us away from this point, and the point is this: Bushco started a war based upon ideology, religious fanaticsm and lies. The movie clearly shows Bush being unable to do anything without being told, and certainly unable to lead: the seven minutes reading a kid's book, and the "watch this drive" clip, underscore this. But what do you expect from a wealthy slilver spooned frat boy who has a long record of being handed businesses and running them in the ground? This is not a pro- Democrat movie, but a movie that shows how the current leadership has ruined the U.S.'s international reputation. It is a movie that shows what happens when people with no leadership skills whose first motivation is to line to pockets of their corporate backers, try to runs things- something we have all witnessed with PHBs. It is a movie that shows how Busco has ignored the US Bill of Rights and Constitution, and has bent the rules to fit their agenda, and ignored the advice of wiser men when it gets in the way of their plans, and led the US into calamity. It is a movie that shows how Buscho ignored the real enemy (bin Laden) and attacked a toothless blowhard tyrant (Saddam) in an oil grab, and, instead of destroying terrorism, actualy has magnified it. It is a movie that shows the war built on lies, and lies on top of lies, and denials on top of lies. And it is a movie that shows the effect of war on real American, not those who, because of money and position, will never have to sacrifice a thing. To call the movie untruthful is nothing but a propananda lie in itself. The most damning clips are public, and Buscho condemns itself with little help from Moore. What amazed me is the look on Bush's face as he is told about the WTC attacks- a total blank, a deer in the headlights- no one home. that look convinced me that this clown shouldn't be a dog catcher - send him back to his country club wher he can play canasta, golf, and drink away from the commoners, and where he can do no harm. I will see the movie a few times. To those outside of the US, take heart. This movie will bring together those who want to put the US back on the principles it was founded on, and restore America as a worthy leader of the world, a leader who sees the need for the world to work together. And this movie will awaken the sheeple who had a nagging idea that they were being fed a line of crap. Oh yes, and this moving will reveal, like CH, the desperation of the Repubs and neocons to keep the truth from getting out. Watch them get more bizarre as the movie spreads.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
F9/11 is a very factual film with an obvious anti-administration editorial spin.
Michael Moore is awesome!
The first thing I ever saw of his was "The Big One" a couple of years back on the one of them artsy channels on the satellite. I'm a movie junkie whore and would've watched anything, but when I started watching this documentary about this badly dressed putze walking into big ass corporations and asking why they where downsizing and firing thousands of workers while they were reporting profits - I was thunderstruck!
I starting googling up this Michael Moore guy and found out he was making another movie at that time called...ahhh...let me think...oh yeah "Bowling for Columbine"! I'm sure I actually a handful of people that was actually waiting for the release of that movie to hit the theatres. Then when it finally did I disappointed to find out it was only playing in one theatre that was like 2-3 hours away from me. Oh well, I eventually saw it as obviously many did; as well as his first movie "Roger and Me"; went on a fan rant with all my friends and family about how incredible he was; read "Stupid White Men"; and now in complete anticipation for my days off to go see "Fahrenheit 9/11".
I'm actually surprised many people, other than ranting right-wingers, despise the guy including people I once held in such high respect for such as Dennis Miller. What I really liked about Michael Moore after watching "The Big One" is that despite the fact he's pretty much a sloppy nobody, he makes people accountable. It really is something to see the reaction on a PR or HR personnel's face of some big-ass corporation trying to explain why they laid off thousands of people for no reason other than to save a bit of money upon their already ridiculous profit margin. Without people like Moore being a thorn some of these high powers (no need to mention) could go on doing whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want, b/c no-one is challenging them or bringing it to the attention of others.
The flaming right-winging ACs' will no doubt rebuttal from their tiny world.
Some aim to please, I aim to tease.
Hitchens discloses many of the Movie's errors quite effectively.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Get that, you fucking twits! "No connection" between Al Qaida and Saddam my ass.
by David T. Hardy, Jason Clarke
Currently number 22 on Amazon.com's best selling books.
Having not read the book, I have to gauge it by its title. "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man". Well, 3 of those things are obvious, so why did they waste the space in writing that he is "Big", "Fat", and "White"? In Moore's book of a not to dissimilar title "Stupid White Men", the title implies that the book will be about stupid white men, it is not directly in reference to anyone in particular solely based on the title.
I think that these authors are just attempting to capitalize on the success of Moore's book, while trying to get their views out there.
Personaly, I like titles that do not jump the gun and are attacks directly at certain persons.
... the public is already severely polarized with *VERY* few undecided's.
How many Bush supporters will be willing to spend a movie ticket to go see something they believe is a pack of lies that lambasts their hero?
The real problem in America is that no opinions are ever changed anymore -- the divisions just get wider and deeper.
But when the movie is released on DVD before the election, I'll bet there will be a new tradition of Halloween gift-giving started this year -- I know I'm making a list of Bush-lovers I'm sending a copy to...
If you can't beat 'em, be sure to piss 'em off !!
Or our CIA will fix your little red snowmobile.
It's not just the fact that Michael Eisner of Disney did not want Disney to distribute the film. Fahrenheit 9/11 won the highest prize, the Palm D'Or, at the recent Cannes competition! It is only the second documentary in history to do so. The film received the longest standing ovation in the history of the Cannes festival!
This story in Fahrenheit 9/11 is relevant to Slashdot because the situation is far worse than Michael Moore says. I put together links to 2 other movies and 35 books that say there is an extremely serious problem: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Slashdotted? Try:
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm. Michael Moore is reporting things EVERY Slashdot reader and every person in the world needs to know. It they get their way, you WILL become poorer.
People like the movie because they like the movie! Fahrenheit 9/11 is selling out everywhere. Today in the Sports [!] section of the Kansas City Star is an example. The writer, Jason Whitlock, says:
"Fahrenheit is the most powerful movie I've ever seen. Not even Moore's heavy-handed, pro-Democrat slant could undermine his indictment of Bush's reaction to 9/11. The movie appears to have struck a chord with American moviegoers. I spent all Friday afternoon and evening driving from North Carolina theater to North Carolina theater trying to see the movie. The showings were all sold out. I snagged one of the last tickets to a mid-day Saturday showing."
Judging from the stories, other reactions in the U.S. are even more enthusiastic than this. A theater with 10 screens in Portland, Oregon scheduled 18 showings for today, Sunday, June 27, 2004, in reaction to the movie's popularity on Friday and Saturday.
(Reading the Kansas City Star commentary, 'Fahrenheit' powerful, persuasive, requires free registration. Be wary, the company says it will send you email, so you might give a trash email address, or use a free trash email address at Mailinator.com or DodgeIt.com. Judging from the registration information, if you give a real postal mail address, they may send you unwanted mail, also.)
The movie is breaking all-time theater records all over the United States.
TRUTH is a non-biased, exhaustive analysis of a topic. What moore did in F911 was nothing resembling that. The worst part about the movie is the fact that he touts it as a 'completely factual documentary', yet makes NO attempt at presenting a fair and balanced look at the terrorist situation and the war in iraq. Sure, everything in the movie was accurate. But if you go see the movie, and now consider yourself educated on the subject because it was entirely 'truthful', then you're lying to yourself. There is a lot more to 'truth' than simply not saying anything false.
On top of that fact, many of moore's positions against the Bush administration's stance on terrorism and the war in iraq are based on his eyes shut view of the situation. Just because he has a video camera and too much free time doesnt mean he's any more well informed than anyone else. Take everything he says with a huge anti-conservative grain of salt, and you MIGHT be able to glean something meaningful from his work.
I'm not even going to get into the reasons the movie is a steaming load, for that I turn you to this piece which does a good job of slanting everything moore presents, in the completely opposite direction. Put them together, and you might just find some balance. And for anyone who wants to argue with me, i have no political preferences, all i have is a chip on my shoulder for anyone who wants to spread truth by only telling one horribly narrow side of a story. Please flame accordingly.
If you don't think that a government that is 'of the people, by the people, for the people" that is none of the above anymore, That throw away the constitution rights of the people for a little temporary safety, that use and lie to the populous for personal gains is STUFF THAT MATTERS - what does matter to you? A new computer chip being released?
*DrugCheese rants*
Heh, my views on Moore are more or less alongside your views, it seems. The guy has some good points that are worth considering, but Moore's misrepresenting of himself as the "final truth" is more than a little annoying, it's downright dangerous. As a Canadian with American dual citizenship, I often find myself arguing (in class, at least) with other Canadians over the Canadian identity, and since Bowling for Columbine, many more people have been willing to argue, at least so long as they can use Moore's arguments that Canada is a place of peace, vastly different from the United States. Just pick up a copy of the Toronto Star, and you'll find reports of murders and the like. And, of course, if you visit any high school you'll find failing stoners who are helping all the other students in their remedial classes.
Sadly, the only major "anti-Moore" information sites (that I know of, such as Bowling for Truth) are run by people on the far right hand of the political spectrum, so Leftists can't take the poor fellows seriously.
As a result, we have a very real "Bias left wing media" phenomenon that has sprung up around Moore. I don't like Bush or the current state of American politics anymore than I suspect the rest of you do, but I REALLY don't want to see people like Moore affect the elections. As someone who has a leftist leaning on moral and humanitarian grounds, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, to defeat the great liar with simply more lies and broken truths.
Amid all the bad things that can and have been said about the USA, there is at least one good thing about them: they allow this type of clearly anti-government material to be published.
Now I wonder why the established media have been very much pro-government (at least until the war in Iraq turned sour), even though the US' tactics were almost universally disputed in the rest of the world.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
From Roger and Me on, Moore does nothing more than spew his version of how we should live our lives all over the screen. His movies are not news, nor are they documentaries. They differ with those two formats because Moore clearly has an agenda for every movie. There is no such thing as fair and balanced reporting. He has NO allies in any of his movies; it's just Moore against the world. Even when K-mart actually conceeded on several of his rants in Bowling for Columbine he never GAVE THEM CREDIT. It is clear to me that while Moore wasn't as center stage in 911 as he is in other movies, his ego and blind ambition still shine through.
Hitchens discloses many of the Movie's errors quite effectively.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Maybe Moore will cancel out Limbaugh? Sort of like a proton, anti-proton thing.
Extremism sucks in all its forms.
you sir are a moron. free speech ends when you defame the character of another person when your speech is not true.
arguing Michael Moore on issues reminds me of what Munger says, "Don't wrestle with pigs. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will have fun."
Oooh, cut-n-paste ranting about the movie. Next time pick something that doesn't start with flaming about politics, it kind of sets the reader up to expect that it's not actually about the movie (which 90% of this rant is not).
Fahrenheit 9/11: A Conservative Critique
by William Norman Grigg
I just returned from viewing Fahrenheit 9/11 here in Appleton, WI. I went to the 1:30 PM showing, which was - astonishingly - sold out. The crowd was overwhelmingly white and middle-class (this IS Wisconsin, remember), ranging in age from early teens to retirees. The people were polite, friendly, well-mannered (something we shouldn't take for granted on the part of contemporary theater crowds). There was tumultuous applause at the end, punctuated by a moment of reflective silence as we read the dedication card invoking those murdered by terrorists on 9/11, and those murdered through state terrorism in the aftermath.
The film itself very much reflects its creator: It's shaggy, flabby, occasionally witty, and frequently infuriating. It will have a HUGE impact because Moore - his facile leftist economics notwithstanding - has nailed his case against the Bush regime flush to the plank. It will be all but impossible for anybody who sits still and watches this film to view Bush the Lesser as anything other than a petty, spiteful, dim-witted, bloody-handed little fool - and the figurehead of a murderous power elite. This explains why the Bu'ushists are threatening to go Abu Ghraib on Moore: They're busted.
The most powerful moments in the film are those that humanize U.S. troops, several of whom are shown on-screen criticizing the regime. A major arc of the film is devoted to a Flint, Michigan housewife from a military family whose son, just prior to being killed in Iraq, wrote a letter condemning "George 'I wanna be like my Daddy' Bush" for staging this useless, unjust war. Moore himself, who narrates the film (and makes himself too much a part of the story, incidentally) observes that the largest immorality of this entire enterprise is the actions of a dishonest president lying our country into war and forcing decent young men (and women) to do immoral things.
It should be pointed out as well that the film - despite being lambasted as an exercise in unalloyed Bush-bashing - doesn't spare Democrats who acquiesced in Bush the Lesser's power grabs and his criminal war against Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle comes off particularly poorly, which in his case merely requires a recording device of some kind.
An interesting encounter immediately after seeing the film underscores its fundamentally non-partisan nature. Some poor schlep had positioned himself outside the theater with a clipboard soliciting signatures on a nominating position for a would-be Democrat congressional candidate. A couple of people seized the petition and started to sign. Impertinent sort that I am, I asked, "What's this fellow's position on the war?"
The scribbling stopped, and several sets of eyes focused intently on the hapless volunteer. "Well, um, ah, he thinks we should do something," he began, stammeringly. "Ah, he just thinks we should be more careful." On hearing this, a lady looked at her husband, who had signed the petition, and snapped, "Scratch off your name." I told the volunteer that I'm what most people would regard as an "ultra-conservative - not just a `conservative' - but if your guy came out against the war I'd vote for him, and knock on doors." "Well, I can't really address all the details of his positions," the increasingly flustered guy responded. "Just let him know what I said," I suggested, telling him that there are a lot of people who have the same point of view.
I chatted with several other people as they left the theater, all of them roughly my age (early 40s) and of similar economic and cultural background. Each of them indicated that he or she would urge friends to see the film - which means that it will have "legs" even if the GOP and FEC were to choke off advertising somehow.
There were no screaming Bolsheviks (one viewer had an anti-animal rights T-shirt) or marijuana-scented bohemians in the crowd. This wasn't the sort of crowd you'd see at a Phish concert, or storming McDonald's at an an
Ron Paul
No matter what your political leaning, we should all be disturbed by one thing. Michael Moore knows one truth, and knows it well, and exploits it to advantage with this film:
A great many people simply don't have the intellectual capacity to view any film (or TV show, or newspaper article) with an adequate amount of skepticism. Consequently, they accept anything presented to them in such a medium as authoritative, and therefore truth.
Does this advance the quality of political debate?
>A very, very important demographic: those who are unable, or unwilling, to peer behind the curtain
... where Cato Institute will not.
You are aware, of course, that the Cato Institute is the think tank associated with the Libertarian Party, whose mission is to do research to support Libertarian public policy. Their audience isn't the common man; their audience is Washington insiders who decide public policy.
>Michael Moore [sic] will get to the common man
For partisan politics that are aimed at the 'common man', try the Soft Money sponsored MoveOn.org. It is backed by Democrat supporters, but is backed by soft money so they don't have to disclose their true nature. I'm sure the Republicans also have their soft money puppets, but the fact that I can't recall one makes me think that they are not effective. Perhaps the NRA might be the closest, but the NRA was for gun nuts ^H^H^H^H enthusiats before they got involved with politics.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
When it comes right down to it, people with political ambitions are there because they crave power. That mindset attracts a very unsavory lot. Even though they may differ over relatively minor issues over how and what to actively govern, the basic premise is accumulating power, keeping it, and then using it to your advantage while you have it.
Politicians in general, with a few notable accidents over the years, tend to be examples of the worst aspects of human nature. Much like religious wars, they often defy the very principles they claim to hold so dear in the interests of "the greater good" and retention of power.
There must be a better way. The fact that someone wants political power, in my mind, indicates that they'll probably misuse that power once they have it.
People should stop attacking this media excerpt from Michael Moore's mind as an opinionated, 100-minute political attack ad.
They should begin to form a cogent and socially-acceptable response to the questions he raises during the course of the film.
I watched "Bowling For Columbine" yesterday and was impressed with Moore's production values. Near the end of the movie, where he converses with Charlton Heston of the NRA, is particularly illustrative of the point of his work. He asks Heston why he defends gun ownership when six year-old child can enter a classroom and gun down another six year-old child. Heston walked away at that point and I believe I know why.
Michael Moore's film was only illustrative of negative consequences of the Freedoms this country gives to it's citizens (2nd Amendment in this case). Those freedoms exist because they were chosen by the Founders of this country. Negative events sometimes occur with the freedoms we enjoy but we cannot be mired in the past. As a country we must accept the bad with the good if we are to remain free. Bush does not see this and is blinded by money and power.
What Moore presenting in this current movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11", is only information about how our basic freedoms are being curtailed by people in Power. These people also have suspicious connections to the the events of September 11, 2001. No matter your opinion on the issues he raises, ask yourself one question. Can you objectively answer the questions he raises and not resort to ad hominem attacks or questioning of his information?
Michael Moore is a film-maker. If you find yourself with only question after seeing this movie, he has made a good film.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
What the heck does this crap have to do with tech? more like "News for Socialists Stuff that Doesn't Matter". Every place on the Net seems to have a mod that tries to sway me to some political POV or another. I'm sick of it and both major parties suck so there. Now get back to the lame'o Linux posts and other tech stuff.
The people complain about this movie being one-sided are probably the same people that get their news from one of the less than 10 giant media corporations. And you think when a right-wing republican owns one of these corporations he's going to like it when one of the places he owns has very left-wing views of current events? So what if this movie is one-sided..it's the side most americans never see.
As for its factual accuracy...I'm SURE there are mistakes. But then I'm willing to assert no documentary, article or book written didn't contain SOME mistake. To look only to and for the errors is to miss the forest for the trees.
In any event, anyone seeing the movie will be most moved or swayed by the direct interviews of real people. If you, as an Iraqi, saw your 4 year old's face blown off, could you ever accept that America was your liberator? Or would your anger lead you directly into the arms of the radical anti-American insurrgents/terrorists.? I supported AND support the war in Iraq. (Saddam was evil). For me, however, the documentary emphasized the true price paid by American soldiers, their families and innocent Iraqi's- a price seriously underplayed by mainstream media. I hope history will justify the price.
Now watch this golf shot.
I sincerely hope that someone challenges Moore on the evidence he presents with clear, concise and truthful rebuttal. If not, we Americans should be outraged at how we have been manipulated, misled and lied to.
documentary adj. 1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents. 2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Notice the word objectively. By definition this film is not a documetary. It is leftist election year propaganda that panders to people who don't pay attention to real news sources. The worst part is the majority of viewers will accept this all as pure fact; not the product of a skilled spin-doctor pushing his agenda. I am not against others voicing their opinions and sharing their views, even if I do not agree with them. What I do have a problem with is blatantly biased material presented as a documentary.
worst sig ever. . .
I was surprised to see how he showed the beautiful coastline of oregon, and pointed out all the people protecting that open space from terrorists sneaking in: 1 lone state policeman, part-time.
It would have been even better if he went down to southern california, arizona and new mexico and showed the nearly 1 million illegal aliens who sneak into the US each year, and the tons and tons of dope that come in.
excellent security down there - no terrorists smuggled in, most definitely. no small 2 pound sacks of anthrax smuggled within the tons of dope, enough to kill tens of thousands of people.
it just shows how homeland security is a sham, just meant to keep an eye on every move the middle class makes, and keep them scared, and not give a real damn about reality
So when a culture commits evil acts like murdering anyone who is an "infidel" by sawing his head off with an old butter knife, Hitchens has no qualms about judging such a culture evil and supporting the extirpation of such a culture. Just like FDR or JFK would have done, and did do. Who did FDR "consult" with when he started Lend-Lease to keep the Brits and Russians fighting against the Nazis? Who did JFK "consult" with when he tried to overthrow the totalitarianism- and poverty-spreading regime of Castro? No one .
Yet we're now supposed to go to the United Nations in order to defend the US from maniacs who have publicly vowed to kill Americans and all those who support them in any way? We're supposed to go to the United-Fucking-Nations!?!?! Where the same Communist Chinese who rolled over their own people with tanks have the same say as the US does? Where Iran has the same weight as Ireland? Where Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe is as important as Italy? Where North Korea has more influence than Brazil?
Fuck that.
That's where Hitchens is coming from.
I'm no Bush fan and I think a lot of outrageous stuff is being done in the name of the "war on terror". But that said, I can't figure out why anyone would pay good money to see this kind of garbage. Moore isn't any kind of artist; all the guy does is make trendy propaganda films that are even more biased than Fox News coverage. Apparently the novelty of seeing a propaganda film made by a disgusting slob rather than a corrupt government propels this to such box office heights?
Please. You're dreaming if you think the world loved us to begin with, and you're comatose if you think that the free people of the world can just turn a blind eye to evil and sleep well at night after handing over world security to the impotent and corrupt UN. Have you forgotten that many of the security council members who opposed invading Iraq are the same ones who likely profited in the billions from oil-for-food scams?
For the past 50 years or more, people all over the world have always been jealous of the freedom and prosperity that Americans enjoy, and yes, this jealousy often manifests itself in a self-proclaimed "hatred" of the US. You know what, though? It's the same jealous fucks who line up by the millions to try and emigrate to the US because deep in their hating hearts, they know the truth. I think the last question in ANY poll measuring world opinion of the US should be "But seriously, you'd move there in a heartbeat if you had the chance, right?"
If he doesn't like it here ( which he does as he can produce such garbage and make money on it here.. try that anywhere else in the world he'd be silenced ) he can get the hell out.
( expecting to be moderated down, since most here don't believe in our constitutional rights and freedoms )
By the off chance, are you a Republican?
A spokesman for Lions Gate Films said the company debuted the movie in the two theaters to help build good word-of-mouth -- friend telling friend --
Are Americans really that stupid as to need an explanation for what the term "Word-of-Mouth" means?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
there are supposedly "intelligent" people in this forum posting comments about how "true" the movie is when they obviously have little to know real knowledge of what comes across the desks and goes through the minds of either Moore or the president.
you are right. so please explain the things that NPR is talking about and the congressional investigation findings about 9/11 that also back up things we all have been hearing.
I suggest you stop living with your blinders on and realize that A- michael Moore DOES NOT LIE in his films.. I will bet you $1000.00 that you are unable to find one lie.
B- our president has and does lie to us every day. and they have been for decades.
Who do you trust? a habitual liar or a over the top filmmaker?
just because he is president does not mean he get's any more respect or is any more credible than a homeless person on the street.
in fact in light of the previous 4 presidents... I trust the random homeless guy more.
The movie *is* truthful, and if you think otherwise, please state specific claims.
I thought that Christoper Hitchens did a pretty good job at answering your challenge. Luckily for us, an anonymous coward posted Hichens's entire article here.
It contains many specific claims and much more intelligent commentary than the propagandistic (and, incidentally, popular among extreme right-wing Christians) "This is TRUTH!!!!" assertion that you seem to prefer.
If you scratch your head and wonder why progressives and the world are against the war,
You mean socialists, not progressives. Your ilk have gotten away with calling your 1950s-era class-war statism "progress" for far too long.
Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.
And while you demand that your enemies pony up evidence, you do not seem to hold yourself to the same standard of bevahior. What is the evidence that the media's coverage of the war has been one-sided? Are you including the New York Times in the "media"? My impression is that Left-leaning media sources spin the war in a negative light, while right-wing media sources spin the war in a positive light. This type of behavior is hardly surprising considering we've been gunning up toward an election year, and the public's view of the war (which is directly affected by the "news" they read about it) has a direct effect on George Bush's ability to be elected.
Don't brainwash yourself and say Michael Moore is this or that. Watch the movie and think for yourself.
Folks on the Left and the Right exhibit this behavior. "If you don't agree with me, then you're not thinking for yourself." I've had Christians tell me several times, "Don't just adopt other people's opinions, read the Bible for yoruself and make your own opinion!" Propagandistic words from superstitious people; the main difference between you and them is the differences in the supersitions that you adhere to.
I really am not interested in seeing Michael Moore's film becuase he works from premises that I reject. All of his points are going to be built on these premises. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I listen to his points of view? Let's debate his premises instead, and seeing the movie does not serve that purpose.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Hitch is a hack. That review is full of non-sequiturs and ad hominem fallacies. Hitch has become a laughing-stock to all except people like Dennis Miller and other new conservatives. Hell Hitch was essentially blowing Chalabi for the last four years. On that basis alone (like Judy Miller at NYT) he should homeless. What a schmuck.
For a good clearheaded review see Denby's in the New Yorker. Hitch just specializes in drunken intemperate screeds and hatchet-jobs.
BTW: Can anyone give a view on how much truth-twisting is done in "Fahrenheit"?
You're implicitly stating that there exists an untwisted truth.
Star Trek is loaded with anti capitalist/USA propaganda too but we all like that nerdy shit.
I'm not picking on you by any means, because you are NOT the first one to do this, but have you noticed how whenever something happens they have to pick out why it was "first" or really damn important? But then they fail miserably?
You'll be listening to the news, "this was the FIRST blah blah blah in 2 years! Isn't that amazing?!". Where blah blah is something that happens every year anyway, it just happened to be better than the year before, but not the year before that. It's like a hook, to try to get you interested in the story. I'm sure there's a word for it in reporting/writing circles, but since they do it on EVERY damn story, it just gets drowned out.
Perform an experiment next time you listen/read the news. See how many times they do that. Once you start to notice it, it gets really annoying.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Oh come on. How can you try to insinuate that the press is somehow coddling "Bush's" war aims. That is absolutely absurd. If anything, the press has historically been a constant thorn in the side of conservatives and has winked at lefty foibles.
Personally, I wouldn't consider myself on either "side." But I couldn't let the statement above go unchallenged as it is so utterly absurd.
I am disgusted by the hypocritical way that both Moore and this site treat members of the United States military.
/. :
A goood "for instance.." is the QOTD I saw recently on
"The Marines. The few, the proud, the dead on the beach."
Yeah, what a classy site.
Yes, you are right. However, those who want corruption have been very successful at keeping their efforts out of the news by using a huge number of small abuses, rather than a few big abuses.
Media writers do not want to risk losing their jobs, or losing access to officials, by seeming to be against someone in government, especially when they are reporting a story that is fairly small in itself. Also, when there are many small abuses, most of them don't have the time or space in their publications to report the full story.
Until Iraq came along Moore thought we never should have invaded Afghanistan. Now that Iraq is here, the fighting in Iraq is now a "distraction" from the important fighing in Afghanistan.
Go ahead - mod this down. Censor any thoughts that don't spout the pro-Moore, anti-Bush mantra. That won't hide the fact that Moore is an oppurtinistic, hypocritical rabble-rouser and propagandist, not a documentary film maker.
I'm against the war in Iraq too, but after he passed off Bowling for Columbine as a documentary, yet blatantly falsified a significant portion of the content, I have no interest in seeing Farenheit 9/11 and supporting this boob.
Frankly, I think you leftists would do your cause better justice to tout someone a bit more reputable than Michael Moore. He's the leftist equivilant of Rush Limbaugh. The fact that he's against Bush makes me question my own contempt for Bush.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
another "documentary" from a liberal with a poltical agenda. About as bad as Bill Clinton's book, nothing but lies and/or a slanted view.
Michael Moore film appeals to terrorists 'Fahrenheit 9/11' gets thumbs-up from Hezbollah http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39012
Had this film been made in the 50's Michael Moore would have been arrested for treason.
Someone mod this up --- I wrote that. Nice to see someone picke up on it. Michael Moore and Christopher Hitchens are incredibly annoying people.
But somehow endless discussions about Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Anime, etc. are irreproachably "on topic"?
Puh-leaze!
Pull your heads out of your asses and smell the U.S. burning.
Check out their links page for plenty of sites by people working to track down inaccuracies in Moore's works and an article about how Ray Bradbury is annoyed that Moore stole the title from his similarly titled book without asking and without returning his calls to Moore.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
They call me CmdrTaco because I fuck Mexican boys in the ass. I am the taco commander!
Truth? It's kind of hard to fake actual recorded video. This film is pure propoganda, but that doesn't mean it is in any way untrue. The mother crying for her dead son is the realest thing I've ever seen in a theater.
Showing a child flying a kite, and then cutting to the military preparation for the "shock and awe" campaign, that is satire. It is an absurdity that underscores a deeper truth about the human costs of war. (It might also be a parody of that anti-Goldwater commercial).
His only falsifiable claims have to do with the fact that the Bush family has a cosy relationship with the Saud / Bin Laden family, and that the Bush family and their associates have profited or stand to profit from both wars. Where is the rebuttal to that? Why aren't they pointing out the lies?
Halliburton is just another Beltway Bandit, just like the hundreds of other companies that milk the Federal government on a daily basis.
But they are not "just like" those other companies in that they still have Dick Cheney on the payroll. When the VP is the former CEO and still on the payroll ("deferred compensation"), then the company should not be getting any "no-bid" contracts. The entire contract process should be in the open and available for public scrutiny. One must be careful about an appearance of impropriety and you can't just pretend that Halliburton is just another company.
Unfortunately, far too many of the people seeing the movie are clearly taking the entire movie at face value. This whole weekend--in forums, on the news, in blogs, at a picnic I went to yesterday--I've had to endure people convulsing with Mooregasms (a phrase I just coined, so Paypal me a buck if you want to use it..haha) over how powerful the whole movie is, how evil my country's leaders are, how worthy of the world's hate my country is, and how stupid we are as Americans. Bollocks...
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
that America needs a documentary film shoving down its throat to wake up. A functioning free democracy
requires that you take more of an interest than watching the occasional film to bring you up to date. All of what Moore is talking about is already history, it already happened. Why is the outrage so muted and so late, and why does it take a film to make you believe it finally?
It must really frost your ass that Bush is right!
TIA
Support my ass!
who think there is no way to support our troops yet bash their mission or their command in chief:
If a person has to support the troops' mission no matter what...were the citizens of Germany just supposed to support Hitler no matter what? Were they supposed to be "patriotic" and support the troops as they rounded up the Jews?
Now I'm not exactly comparing Bush to Hitler here...but what I'm trying to say is that a person can "not want to see our troops come in harms way" and yet not support the mission they are on. For an intelligent person, what the mission is has to figure into if they support the mission or not. To do otherwise, is a blind flag-waving patriotism that is actually dangerous. A true patriot would ask if the war was a just war and if the war was constitutional. If it is not those things, then it is not unpatriotic to not support it, it is true patriotism.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Or even the speach codes at universities.
Ignore the argument, attack the man, sweep it all under the rug.
Noam Chomsky would be proud.
And Kerry is the anti-Christ who bathes in the blood of the children and drinks out of the skulls of poor Ethiopian women he kidnaps off the street.
Hell, if I repeat it enough, people might start to believe me!
Unfair arguments WORK.
What is an "unfair" argument? My guess is that you mean an argument that isn't "playing by the rules."
Well, what rules are arguments supposed to play by? My answer to that would be, they must play by logic, reason, and evidence, rather than by emotion, deceit, and superstition.
So when you write "unfair arguments", do you actually mean:
1. arguments based in emotion
2. arguments based in lies
3. arguments based in superstition
4. something else?
I think calling an argument "unfair" is an attempt to hide what the real crime is. "Not playing by the rules" seems so much more innocuous than "arguing a point based on completely fabricated bullshit", doesn't it?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Wasn't there a topic a loong while back abouta series (I believe it was '24') that showed the 'Good Guys' using macs and the 'Bad Guys' using Windows...?
;)
I feel it is somehow relevant here
The Awful Truth
"There was also some pretty surprising information about how much of our economy the Saudis are in control off. I had never seen that before either. Pretty amazing stuff. "
---
Want a real eye opener? Look into Israeli control of the US economy (direct and indirect). Consider how much that postage stamp of a country influences the American political process, using it as a big stick to achieve its own aims in the middle east.
But of course, nobody wants to make a movie about that because they would be labelled an anti-semite. And it certainly wouldn't get any traction in Hollywood (draw your own conclusions there).
I have no idea what kind of 'artist' you are. But Politics and Religion have been at the heart of Art
since cavemen were painting their walls.
Art is an expression of Mans inner and outer landscapes. Both are dominated by Religion and Politics. What you say is patently absurd, or you have no grasp of Art at all.
Uh, libel isn't protected by the First Amendment and isn't free speech. If someone can truthfully say something bad about the film or Moore, there's little he can do about that.
However, if someone's going to go out and say that Moore made up the camcorder version of the kids' reading in Florida, or that it happened on another day and Moore spliced it in under lies, that's what I believe Moore is saying is reason for a lawsuit.
Remember, slander and libel are *NOT* protected free speech in America.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Support my penis!
From all of these anti-moore arguments, I like most about this "gun from the bank" argument. People are defending that the event is staged, and you need to deposit $5K to get the gun.
The fact still remains, they are GIVING the guns.
I've a suggestion for driving schools: give away uzis for those who take the lessons in your school...
I saw a 10:30PM show friday; particularly because the 7:40PM (and all previous) shows were sold out. And you know what I noticed?
Nearly everyone in the theater was aged 18-30, from all walks of life. The exact demographic that the issues in f9/11 affected.
I was impressed.
does the same things everyday on his show. Conservatives seem absolutely apoplectic about this movie, but I don't understand why. You CAN'T be upset with the things that are said. You MUST be upset with the approach to "news"; the approach is to carefully select issues and facts that may border on truth and then construct them into an argument while leaving out all mention of the other side. If you want to complain about Michael Moore... fine, but complain equally loudly about Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly (O'Reilly doesn't even belong in this group because he came from Hard Copy and he has been busted by many sources for out right lies). Complain about the approach, complain about the system, but DO NOT complain about the tactics just because someone does not agree with you.
/. discussion.... A few months ago I read a lot of political book from both sides of the fence. Many of the authors claimed their opposite was simply lying and then "proved" it. I began to do some checking into what kind of information/technology was available for me to examine the any available facts and derive an opinion independent of the talking heads. Most of the online research services and transcript companies that can provide original documents (facts) cost thousands of dollars per month. My conclusion... It is IMPOSSIBLE for a common individual to be properly informed about issues that they must vote on. This is a very sad conclusion because our system of government is founded on the principal that the voting public is educated about the issues.
To add a note of technology to this
So what can open source do to correct the strangle hold that talking heads have on primary information sources?
The legal team is there for two reasons: 1) confirm everything in the film is factual; 2) sue anyone who commits slander or libel disputing the accuracy of the film. In fact, Moore himself invited all the right-wing groups creating all the controversy to continue doing so, on the Daily Show. Explain to me how that discourages free debate of this film?
Someone should let the CATO Institute in on that vast right wing conspiracy and what they're supposed to do because they've been very vocally opposed to the war. But don't let that stop your assumptions about it being unfair and unbalanced because of some of its funding and old relationships. (I guess people should assume I'm a liberal because I went to college and read /. - I'm independent.) They've been lobbying heavily against the war and predicted horrible things for the US because of the war. I'm not making the assumption that they're fair and balanced just because they opposed the war; most of their predictions have come to pass or will probably soon come true. That suggests to me that they've based their analysis on facts rather than ideology (whereas Moore views slivers of facts through a big lense of ideology).
And since it's apparent that you don't RTFA's, just consider the titles of their articles:
"Faulty Justifications for War with Iraq"
"War on Terror Does Not Require a War Machine"
"Iraq: Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong War"
"Bush Doctrine Rings Hollow"
"President Bush's Case for Attack on Iraq Is Weak"
"U.S. Should Refrain from Attacking Iraq"
"WMD: Intelligence Without Brains"
"Iraq: Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong War"
"Poised for War but Unprepared for Terrorism"
Oh what, he got money from that uber-corporation Disney. He's evil too.
Neo-cons already have a giant proaganda machine. It's called "Hollywood".
Support my anus!
Anyone asking about what facts Moore has ever twisted or lied about should check out www.mooreexposed.com. Interesting site--particularly about bowling for columbine.
I haven't seen it yet. I'm not sure if I will, because one sided things make me feel really uncomfortable. I remember Bowling for Columbine; it was a good film, but it just wasn't fair, and was too preachy for me. One crazy example is the connection between the NRA and the KKK: just because the KKK was banned the same year the NRA started, Moore connected them! That's ridiculous! I'm afraid this movie might be like that too.
To suggest this movie speaks the truth is called being gullible. I haven't watched it and likely never will, but every review of the film has mentionned that Moore is working a fine line between a few lies and one big one.
I was hoping that slashdotters would display a grain a common sense at least when it comes to this movie. I've always viewed the majority of us as being a little too excited about half-baked conspiracy theories, but the high hopes I had about the reaction to this movie have been utterly blasted. All I'm seeing are a series of posts saying things like, "Oh, this movie is the truth, and you are just a puppet of the Right-Wing Conspiracy for saying otherwise!" and "Moore has a 'fact checking team,' so what he's saying must be true!" etc.
Folks, just because something criticizes someone we don't like, be it Microsoft, SCO, or Bush, doesn't mean it's accurate or good.
This movie has been lambasted from one coast to the other by both conservatives and liberals. (google for it.) It's a complete joke. If you insist on making Moore even more filthy rich, by all means go and see this movie. But don't pretend like it's true, or that its lies haven't already been repeatedly refuted and its basic contradictions exposed.
It seems that both sides...the left and the right seem to have gravitated to the view that the ends justifies the means. If you have lie, cheat, steal, misinform, omit, denigrate, insult amd some say..murder...its OK because your cause is a right and just one.
I have no doubt that both democrats and republicans both think they have the country's best interest in mind. It seems though, that neither trusts the other enough to sit down at a table to try an understand WHY their opposites think the way they do.
Instead each side assumes that the other side will do anything it can to undermine them and so...they do the same.
The result is people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh that would not even consider sitting down with each other because each refuses to believe they would get fair treatment from each other.
Although many would laugh at me for saying this, but this type of atmosphere can lead over time (decades) to an environment that leads to civil war. NO...that's not going to happen in the U.S. today, but if people are not willing to talk to one another and listen to each other's concerns without the insults, it will eventually.
Cato? Not now....
aha, so the bush administration shoves loads of hogwash down the throat of the ameriacan public about WMD, torture policy, Iraq/al-qaida links and that is quite alright! this documentary has several flaws, but its not about the documentary. its about the subject of it... why cant anyone talk about that? Is he supposed to put orange alerts for parts that are meant to be satirical as opposed to being serious? gosh.
Fighting For Our Freedom?
One of the things that keeps coming up since our troops have gone into harm's way is that they are fighting for our freedom. If a war supporter is asked about the protesters, invariably, the response is that our soldiers are fighting so that the protesters have the freedom to protest.
Could this be true? Is it possible that Saddam's six or seven Scud missiles -- which we can't even agree on as to if they were the "permitted" Scuds or the "illegal" Scuds -- could have affected our freedom here in America? To hear it from anyone in the military, every war we have ever fought was for our freedom here in the US.
Well, was Desert Storm to preserve our freedom? If Saddam had continued to occupy Kuwait after we gave him the green light to take it, would anyone here in America have lost any freedom whatsoever? Well, we might have ended up paying higher prices for gas or -- oh the horror -- been forced to employ Americans to work here in America to pump up American oil.
Does anyone remember the economy in Texas when oil was a booming industry here? I do, and it was nice. Having jobs to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head...with enough left over to save up for the future or send your kids off to college, that sounds like freedom; and instead of keeping that here in America, we closed down entire towns and exported the jobs to the OPEC nations...the very nations that openly despise us.
So if Desert Storm wasn't for our freedom, what was it for? When Saddam originally invaded Kuwait, President Bush, Sr., turned to the United Nations, not the U.S. Constitution to which he'd sworn a solemn oath, for authorization for his military moves. He then began to state his goals -- over and over again:
So here it is painfully obvious that just because we went to war, it wasn't to preserve our freedom here in America, but to empower the United Nations. In fact, not only did Desert Storm not have anything to do with our freedom but in all actuality was more so to enslave us than to free us (those employing the term "New World Order" have sought socialism (economic control) and world government (political control) over mankind. This was also the goal of Bush Sr. for our nation and for the world).
So it is possible for our troops to be in harm's way and it not be for our freedom. And if it is not for our freedom in general but specifically for the "right to protest," legislation is being proposed in Oregon that could make protesting an act of terroris
Ron Paul
Support Nick Berg's head!
I will not donate $1 let alone $9 (for ticket) to the party of hate. MM is one fat pile of hatred and anger. How can a hatemonger be good for America? MM and the democratic left have absolutely no positive plan for the future. All they have is anger and the desire to rip Bush apart and rip Republicans apart. They are not leaders, but rather sniveling children unfairly picking on some innocent kid on the playground for their advantage. When I have the choice to between fat, leftist anger for Bush, and Bush's consistent principled leadership, I'll chose Bush. How can hate help America? I don't mind liberal points of view, if they are discussed with the betterment of my nation as the common value. But nothing positive will come of the debate when the left's common value is hate and power grabbing at all costs.
If I had to choose a 'label' ( which I don't ) I could be referred to as a traditional federalist.
In reality I don't follow the rhetoric of ANY political party..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In the theater where I saw it, the audience was cheering, jeering, and applauding wildly on key with the points that Moore was trying to make.
I found this slightly startling as some of the cheers came in points that, after listening to the entire 9/11 report, I am confident that the 9/11 report findings contradicted what Moore was saying.
For me, several points like this counteracted the entire persuasive success of this film to change my opinions. If I can't trust the accuracy of information that I can collaberate, how can I trust the information that I can't easily collaberate?
What did strike me, something that hadn't sunk in for me before, is how emotional and deep the divide is between the extreeme right and extreeme left. I suspect that I would have been mobbed if I had stood up after the movie and yelled "This movie contained lies and I am still voting Republican." (btw, I am not voting Republican, and I am not voting Democrat, but I am voting)
Read, listen, think for yourself, discuss it with people you know, make up your own mind and gain some more understanding of others.
From the movie a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in a television interview:
."
"We know where the weapons are . .
Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there.
A quote from Condi Rice also in the movie from a briefing:
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
These are facts. Aren't you upset that we have been misled?
I started edonkey and searched for Fahrenheit 911 - one File (Hash A7F9819AD4889478ACD6C7BD7B4CA456) has 2800(!) visible sources from here. Have you ever seen anything like that?
I am not a conservative, liberal, democrat or republican. In fact, I willingly defy labelling. I think all politicians are corrupt and evil (tongue in cheek on that one people) by nature.
This movie is useless for anything other than entertainment, anyone that finds themselves "edjumakated" by it really should try to think for themselves once in a great while. This is the crux of the problem in our country today, people are TOO easilly told what to think by their pastor, priest, local politician, etc.
Personally, I think Bush has done an ok job with what he has to work with. The economy is looking up from MY perspective. Anyone who thinks we should have capitulated with those bastards from 9/11 are sad. I think the Bush response was completely the right thing, you dont just keep taking a beating from a bully. Eventually you kick his ass and make him go screw with someone else. There is NO excuse for terrorism, willfully killing civilians, women, children, etc is just absolutely horrific and evil (no tongue in cheek this time). The ONLY reasonable response to this kind of act is to absolutely destroy them. Notice I said willfully, as I know some of you may say that we are terrorists ourselves, but I refuse to believe our government would target civilians just to get a response from some other party.
Don't support high school failures!
Christopher Hitchens admits he's a little bit Michael Moore
Sorry for not explaining clearly in the first post.
A barf bag would be more appropriate.
Moore also refers to the passengers of the planes involved in 9/11 as stupid white men for not fight back like as he says "black men would have" thus showing how racist he is, and stupid since one plane's passengers did fight back
...in many of the Slashdotian's JEs. Check my coments out at the link below. Slashdot JEs seem to be where this kind of discussion happens more and more these days. However, I will say; Thank you CmdrTaco for submitting this on the front page. While it might be a little "preaching to the choir", I'm sure there are people on the fence about the movie and Bush. Let's make sure that they know that their friends are on the Michael Moore side of the fence and not the O'Reilly, Coulter, Fox News side. The American public has been lied to long enough.
Un-news
> ...and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it
An argument for censorship is an argument for fascism. Because of the unique relationship with theatre owners and their public audience, they should not have the right to refuse to show something only because they disagree with the content, morally. Film and art are open to speculation, and consideration from both sides of any debate. Whenever groups try to stop a media event, they only show the darkest side of democracy, the side that is afraid of people thinking for themselves, which is in turn an argument for fascism, not democracy.
Now if theatre owners truly have the right to block a film from being shown in their theatre, I'm okay with that, but I would never return to their cinema if they blocked a film that I wanted to see and I knew about it. That could be an argument for capitalism, so I guess I'm okay with that. Plus, the competitor could get a blocked film, and make all kinds of money showing it instead, which again helps the Darwinian aspects of business.
It would be stupid for theatres to block Moore's films because they are major cash generators. This latest film, I can't see until Wednesday because I live in Canada, but I am sooo looking forward to seeing it. I'll likely see it more than once. Oh, and I'll buy the DVD too.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Well, I essentially mean any argument that isn't based on a well-tested set of observations that is not biased to one side or another - arguments not completely based on the scientific method, that don't freely change based on evidence and counter-arguments. Of course, many arguments are more or less 'unfair' along those lines. It's a very high bar, almost unreacheable to be completley fair in your arguments!
There's just too many forms of these arguments to bring them all up in a Slashdot post. We all have to make these sorts of arguments as a part of life. The idea is that when more and more faith and power is put behind such arguments, the more the arguments SHOULD be made to go towards the ideals of a "fair" argument in most people's minds.
We all bullshit. We all shape our evidence and language to prevent counter-argument. It's when we see groups being snubbed on the basis of such unfair arguments that our ire grows.
But we also have to realise that we can't always meet the ideals of a 'fair' argument. We have to accept that our side is going to misuse their facts to their own benefit every once in a while - that's politics, that's how you have to get things done. We SHOULD regard it as a bad thing when we do it too - but in a highly charged political environment, a side expecting to win can't hide their rhetoric anymore.
So, shame the rhetoric as you will, and call a lie a lie - but don't claim any side is completely corrupt just for playing the game. THAT is an unfair argument in this environment.
Ryan Fenton
Dear Arabs,
I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future.
I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 9/11. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs.
I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the "leaders" of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few.
I am also sorry that these governments intentionally breed hate for the U.S. in their religious schools while American schools do the exact opposite.
I am sorry that Yasir Arafat has been kicked out of every Arab country and has attached his name to the Palestinian "cause." I am also sorry that no other Arab country will offer nearly as much support to Arafat as we offer to them.
I am sorry that the U.S. has continued to serve as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arab nations while wealthy Arab leaders blame the U.S. for all of their problems.
I am sorry that left-wing media elites would Rather (pun intended) not talk about any of this, thereby perpetuating your anger towards us. It's probably really bad for your blood pressure. I am also sorry that most of you lack the medical resources to measure your blood pressure. And, of course, I'm sorry that few of you have indoor plumbing. That's bad for your health, too.
I am sorry that the U.N. cheated so many poor people in Iraq out of their "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the tortured, raped, and poverty-stricken citizens of Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers after their children are blown to pieces in pursuit of Arafat's "cause."
I am sorry that these homicide bombers have as little regard for babies as the local office of Planned Parenthood.
I am sorry that so many people are unable to differentiate between the gang rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the conditions of Abu Ghraib on the other.
I am sorry that our prison guards do not show the same restraint that Arabs show when their brothers in arms are killed. By the way, you shouldn't be sorry about that.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we have not yet dropped at least 100 Daisy cutters on Fallujah in order to stop that effort.
I am also sorry that cleaning up the mess in Iraq is taking so long. It only took Saddam Hussein about 30 years to accomplish all he did in the realm of human rights. Come to think of it, that's about ten years less than the duration of our War on Poverty in the U.S. Come to think of it, I'm sorry we haven't sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah.
I am sorry that every time the terrorists hide, it just happens to be inside a "Holy Site."
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry that we have not taken a portion of the diet of Michael Moore and shipped it to one of your starving villages in the Middle East. You need it Moore (pun intended) than he does.
I am sorry that your only supporters are professors, journalists, and other assorted Leftists who also support homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, partial birth abortion, and everything that you abhor in this world. I am sorry that everyone else in America is against you.
Finally, I am sorry that I am going to have to end this apology by asking you to kiss the right side of my conservative butt. I'm probably just having a bad day.
For that I am truly sorry.
His fault, too. Right?
Several articles in newspaper indicating that Moore is preaching to the choir. All attendees interviewed in Tampa, FL indicated that they were democrats. Ditto for an article in today's paper regarding attendees in a town in Indiana. Moore has an agenda and cannot be considered unbiased. View his movie with a jaundiced eye and take everything he has to say with a grain of salt.
Taliban Kill 16 Afghans Carrying Voter Cards
By REUTERS 2004-06-27
KABUL -- Taliban guerrillas kidnapped and then killed 16 people in an Afghan province after finding them with voter registration cards for the country's September elections, a district official said Sunday.
The guerrillas stopped a bus carrying 17 civilians through the district Friday, said Haji Obaidullah, chief of Khas Uruzgan district in the central province of Uruzgan.
The guerrillas took the passengers to the neighboring province of Zabul and killed all but one of them when they found they were carrying voter cards, he quoted the lone survivor as saying.
``They were apparently killed because they were carrying the registration cards,'' he said.
Mike Moore has a brain, and compassion. See,
.evidently Wolfowitz is a real conservative's conservative-carrying his emergency extra protein as parasites.
Moore interviewed American contractor Nicholas Berg, who was later kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in Iraq, but removed the interview from the final cut. He said that the interview would not be released to the media and dealt privately with Berg's family.
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/trivia
That Rove & Bush are involved (terms of the investigation...not mine) in the Valerie Plame matter (and, Bush has hired outside criminal defense counsel! See, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html ) says that Moore will not harm the innocent - he attacks the public figures who put themselves into the mix unlike Bush who attacks anything in "his" way.
Speaking of public figures:
I really like Moore's clip of Paul Wolfowitz's grooming and eating the nits. I always assumed that grooming pattern was limited to the Great Apes. .
If a conservative group were pressuring Congress to ban Michael Moore's film, then I'd drive into D.C. and stand with you, holding a sign of protest. I'd work phone banks, hand out fliers, and do anything in my power to fight that violation of Mr. Moore's rights.
You, however, are not defending his rights. No one is threatening his rights. You are defending his privilege -- the privilege to have his movie shown on hundreds of screens in theaters across the country.
It's certainly your prerogative to defend Mr. Moore's privilege. But don't get all huffy about it.
Who needs a documentary when this very message is broadcast 24x7 on Fox News (and to a slightly lesser extent CNN)?
And based on what evidence have you concluded that Moore's film is "left wing corporate propoganda"? Sorry, but linking to a review which says there some "inaccuracies" in one of his films doesn't exactly mean something is propaganda.
Michael Moore is bringing to the big screen things that all American news sources ignored while the rest of the world knew perfectly well about it. If anything Moore is showing Americans that they have been duped by the US media. The facts he brings out were commonly seen in the rest of the world except the US. I'm talking about the staged elections, the blacks not being allowed to vote, the false "intelligence", the lacking weapons of mass desctruction, etc...
If anything Moore balances out the very biased news sources you guys have in the states with a refreshing bit of reality. This war was for oil and weapons money and Ben Laden has more chances of being unearth by France than by the US.
I don't know the validity of the message below but it is certainly interesting. Personally, I'm not a huge Michael Moore fan but I would go see this movie if it came out! -- Usurper_ii
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Folks,
I don't know whether you heard, but Michael Moore is planning to expose
the medical establishment next. I can hardly wait!
But I get the feeling he doesn't know more than the tip of the iceberg
(the mistakes they themselves own up to, like syringes misplaced inside
surgery victims, "wrong" drugs and drug doses, "unnecessary" surgeries,
and so on).
I proposed to my newbie raw friend in S. Diego that some of us should try
to educated him further about this subject before he makes that movie.
She decided to pick up the ball and roll with it!
At his website (www.michaelmoore.com), his email address is listed as
mike@michaelmoore.com. It says that he tries to read them all, but
doesn't have time to answer most of them. If you have something to tell
him about Natural Hygiene, here is your chance to have an impact on him
personally and maybe millions if he becomes convinced!
This is what she wrote:
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Susan"
Here's what I sent MM---tag! Your turn now.
http://educate-yourself.org/fc/drugstory.shtml
Dear Michael,
I hear you may be doing an expose on the medical mafia. I strongly urge
you to read the article on the link above. I have a copy of the book, now
out of print, called "The Drug Story." If you want I can send you a
photocopy of it. It creates a paradigm shift in one's way of thinking
about modern so-called medicine (really toxic). The best and true way is
to get the body to heal itself through fasting and a pure diet, which I
have done! Ralph Moss is also an excellent author on cancer industry
expose.
Let me know if I can send you the book. It is mind-boggling. I really
hope you expose the entire fraud of how modern medicine is held hostage
by the pharmaceutical company and their bogus medicines that only cover
up symptoms but make the body more toxic than ever. (EX: chemo kills 6
billion healthy cells for each cancer cell.) As the article and book
point out, Rockefeller created drugs for profit, created the American
Medical Assoc. to discredit any natural healer, bought out the media to
censor/discredit articles on natural healing and also formed the
insurance to pay for his products. He also funded only medical schools
that taught his drug use. He made all doctors go from healers and knowers
of natural remedies to profesional, legalized drug pushers just to build
up his kingdom. The pharmaceutical cartel is responsible for more deaths
than anyone when you consider how they have covered up the truth about
how the body can heal itself of cancer and other maladies quite easily.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Susan
Ron Paul
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "documentary" as A work...presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration. Further, it restricts the presentation to "facts" that are presented " objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter , as in a book or film."
According to this definition and Michael Moore's admitting that a significant portion of the documentary is not meant to be taken seriously -- it's only partly true and the rest is meant to be satire, not to mention the lack of objectivity -- then Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary; it is a mockumentary, little more than entertainment with some basis in facts deeply buried beneath the surface of the film (although you wouldn't know it by Moore's presentation) and should be treated as such.
For reasonably objective, reasonably centered reviews from well-respected news organizations (as well as some considered by many to be "left-wing" publications), click the following links:FYI, I have only read the opening paragraphs to each of these reviews, so I have little to no knowledge of any potential direction they may follow. Click at your whim.
While the Iraq war definitely deserves a film that presents balanced arguments, the simple reality is that the culture in America doesn't exist to make a film like this possible. Moore is one of the few people that understands traditional documentaries don't work in America anymore. They have to be sensational, biased, and overall, entertaining. As such, he has made the perfect vehicle for his point of view which is not only being eaten up by the public but has managed to create debate on both sides. For those of us who really want to get to the meat of things and know all the facts before making a decision, there's not much we can do but complain to the minority of others who respect the same. Unfortunately, for the 99% remaining, this is the new "documentary". With the feedback between the media, politics, money and the movies becoming a tighter link every day, we're heading towards a grand new era of unchecked propaganda.
SPECIAL REPORT/CLINTON'S CRISES MARCH 2, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8
Why We Didn't Remove Saddam
By GEORGE BUSH AND BRENT SCOWCROFT
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose. We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.
As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despi
As for those who feel that there are no lies, and want facts to back them up, I only hope I am posting this soon enough for people to read. First off, the movie asserts that Bush invaded Afghanistan for oil and natural gas pipelines, however, I point the the Unocol, the US company of the group that had planned to build a pipeline: Withdrawl Notice
Unocal notes that they do not want to have anything to do with afghanistan, and determined that it is not in their best interest to develop a pipeline. While Afghanistan has different ideas Unocal still is staying away.
Michael Moore also asserts that the White House was responsible for the Saudi and Bin Laden families getting out of the United States. Richard Clarke, however, who has been critical of the White House and had been endorsed by Moore had this to say: "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again." FBI and Clarke Respond
And as for Moore's filmmaking style, I felt particularly horrified at the blacked out screen and sounds of the attack on 9/11 the first time, when I viewed a film called 11'09''01 - September 11 by Alejandro Inarritu. As Picasso said, good artists copy, great artists steal.
And as for lounging around at the school afterwards being an 'idiot' and not acting presidential, I leave you with a letter, offered by a guidance councilor from the school about that day: Emma E. Booker - Lee Martello
I agree, people have rights to make movies, however how did such simple things get past Moore's fact checking? That he even avoided implicating his buddy Richard Clarke in his movie in favor of lying and slandering the President? I don't agree with the President on a lot of things, but I do hate Michael Moore. I would hate him if he was Conservative too. I don't believe in propaganda, I believe strongly in the written truth. I do believe that Saddam Hussein killed people, and i highly doubt he had a Kennel of kittens and puppies that he played with on a daily basis (not seen in the movie, but not proven false, either). The fact that he hung people from meat hooks, used chemical weapons on his own people, and funded suicide bombers and harbored the murderer from the Achille Lauro terrorist incident should not be forgotten.
I offer this as a voice against those who have watched this movie and have taken it at face value. Do your research, look around the news, "use some critical thinking" as my Professors often say. Dig deeper into this movie than just being fanboys. You'll find that, just like in Bownling for Columbine, he has lied about things, many things, and while it is his perogative to, that he does have the right to, just because you have the right, doesn't mean its right.
-Gamma
Ok, who modded this down all the way from 5 to -1, Redundant? How can this possibly be redundant? There is no mention of Hitchens or his rebuttal before this post. Was it modded down only because it provided a half-decent rebuttal of Moore's movie? Was it modded down by the same people who cried out (and rightly so) when Republican morons attempted to pressure movie managers into not playing this movie? Seems a bit hypocritical to me...
Anyways, here's a link to the full article rebutting Moore's movie. I'm curious whether this post will be modded down as well... after all, dissenting viewpoints are dangerous...
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Michael Moore is now the Democrat's Leni Riefenstahl.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The first part of this movie had a BIG piece of interest to anyone on this site - Electronic voting systems. A network / NOC / idunnowhatintheblazeshewreallydoes administrator friend of mine and me were drinking beer after watching this movie and I figured between the two of us we could design and administrate a system that would both be secure and be able to handle the 400-600 million hits over four days of voting. (the more I think about that, the more lies it becomes, but still the technical problem is important) If I trusted anyone to build it, it would be the guys here, and I'm wondering whether the pitfalls mentioned in Moore's movie are avoidable, etc...
My little site.
Yes and if the theatre owners happen to
receive death threats from concerned citizens,
then what of it? It's still there choice not to run it, correct?
Of course people can also choose to boycott the movie - but that doesn't seem to be happening. Quite the opposite, in fact.
What follows is a copy of his resignation speech in the House of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented Commons scenes.
I haven's seen it yet, but I suspect it will be as entertaining as Bowling for Columbine, and with the same number of lies and distortions.
I saw a bit yesterday when he asked that congressman if he'd be willing to let his kids sign up to go to war (the point being that those in power don't mind sacrificing the lives of other peoples' children). The congressman declined and that made it into the movie. However, in an interview with someone else, the congressman stated that Moore cut off the part of the interview where he said his nephew just got shipped off to Afghanistan.
Take a Moore film as good entertainment, but do not treat it as a documentary, do not believe everything you see in it.
I saw the film on the first day it came out.
I laughed, I cried, I was disgusted, I cheered.
It was a brilliantly executed piece, and made
me happy that one individual, albiet backed by
a few film distributors, would put his neck on
the line to express an opinion that will go against
the grain of this nations patriotic president puppets.
However, the first thought I had after leaving the theater was... "That was a great film, but it won't change anything".
I'm voting for Kerry, because he's not Bush.
But the powers that be, that continue wars for oil, and allow terrorist acts to occur globally,
are bigger than a seat in the whitehouse, or a guy swinging a club on a golf course.
The President's cabinet has been deep in the woodwork of our system since the 70's - 80's, and one switch of power won't clean out the system.
My opinion. Your miles may very.
...but you're not the first person to say that about Bush/Cheney.
Are you a fucking moron? Libel is not a protected form of free speech, hence why there are laws about it which say it's bad. It's the same concept as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater... you're not legally, by our Constitutional definition of Free Speech, allowed to do it. Hypocrisy my ass... and the fact you got modded up makes me wonder about the idiots with the mod points, but this won't be because it's anonymous.
NYT today has a Frank Rich article comparing Moore to John Ashcroft. Clearly, Ashcroft wins at being the new Goebbels. Every criticism of Moore leveled in this thread (dishonesty, self-aggrandizing, polarizing) can be more accurately aimed at Ashcroft.
The only difference between Moore and Ashcroft? YOU PAY ASHCROFT'S SALARY! He does NOTHING but promote himself as your savior, and he does it ON YOUR NICKEL! At least Moore doesn't suck my blood to pay for his editorial campaign!
Even if all the politicians said they would send
their firstborn to die for a lie, what would that mean? Just because they would be so stupid and blind doesn't mean anyone elase should follow their misguided example. I havent't seen the film btw, so I'm guessing they all said they would NOT send their children to fight. My point is though.. aren't we reaching the dystopian stage where we dont give a shit what these people think or not, their lives and agendas are so removed from our own.
I don't think we should even consider this movie a documentary.
t ills.shtml
It should be classed as a propaganda film, and even Michael Moore has admitted publicly this intention more or less.
A good comparison for what Moore did in Fahrenheit 9/11 is the infamous Nazi (yes, I know it'll end up invoking Godwin's Law =) ) propaganda film Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew), produced under close supervision of Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels and released in 1940 in German theaters. Der ewige Jude uses a lot of hot button images to manipulate the audience into support the Nazi progrom against the Jews, which of course led to six million Jews being killed in the Holocaust. You really have to wonder did Moore watch Der ewige Jude when he produced Fahrenheit 9/11.
You can see an excellent summary and still images of Der ewige Jude from this web page:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/s
If Moore had stated right from the start this movie was intended as propaganda and not as a documentary, the movie wouldn't be so reviled by everyone outside of the hard Left-leaning political crowd.
(getting off soapbox)
This story in Fahrenheit 9/11 is relevant to Slashdot because the situation is far worse than Michael Moore says.
Funny - you don't mention any of the blatant half-truths and outright lies that Moore uses in this film - hell, you probably followed him into believing that guns kill people and people don't kill people (Bowling for Columbine).
I just hope he's too stupid to advertise DVD sales or the movie after 7/31 thus breaking the campaign laws (since he depicts an in-office politician)...would be great to see he and the film company lose lots of money for doing it. Hell, technically he's already breaking the campaign finance laws as the film company that is distributing it is Canadian as I understand...something about foreign money getting into politics...but no, no one bothers having a problem with that...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ - check that out - read a real review with rebuttals to a lot of the BS Moore puts forth...
M
It is basically saying to everyone in power:
"Be dishonest and try to do something sleazy to the American people. I DARE YOU!"
I am an American citizen, and I am ashamed of my government.
I think that most Americans have been ashamed of their government since the JFK assassination. Ever since then, the country has gone downhill.
What we need now is a President that doesn't try to make peace by killing people. We need a President who understands that we are NOT the policemen of the world, mostly because we were never ASKED TO BE! We need to get our asses out of other country's business and let them do what they are going to do to themselves... and if we're ever asked to come in and help, we'll direct the request to the U.N. It's there for a reason, and that reason is not just to be ignored, as the US has done in this unjust, cold blooded war.
And for those that don't agree with me, let me make one more point before you fire up your flamethrowers:
Iraq was a country where a cold blooded dictator tortured and killed thousands of his people.
Now Iraq is a country where a cold blooded president is ordering the torture and killing of thousands of Iraq people.
What's the difference? Intent?
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
The Lowes theater chain has just been acquired by Bain Capital, Spectrum Equity... and the Carlyle Group, which has rather extensive ties to the Bush Family/Administration and the Bin Ladens, and plays a rather prominent role in Farenheit 9/11 if I understand correctly.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I've seen the film, and I've also (like most of us) had full exposure to US Government
produced media events, press conferences and speeches. Plus the daily feed from Fox, NBC/ABC/CBS, Rush...
I've visited the pro and con blog sites, and read quite a few books that present the current view of the left and the right.
I've read most of the comments posted in this thread so far.
There's one clear point of commonality that runs through all of this:
The US is a nation of morons. Shallow, greedy, bullshit artists or duplicitous sheep.
How else can you explain how the current president got elected?
King of the morons. We found the dumbest guy we could to represent us and
tell ourselves that ignorance is his charm and virtue.
We can't even be honest with ourselves. If we want to take over another country
to take it's resources and strengthen our power base, then just say it! Don't wrap
it all in ideological bullshit. Don't say it's because the imaginary guy in the sky
told us to do it. Don't call ourselves liberators. We're bloodthirsty invaders that
worship big cars that go fast, cheap shiny toys, hot sex, big bombs, the winning team,
and pity anyone that gets in our way.
Bush will get another four years. Good. We deserve it.
Maybe after that, we'll at least learn to be honest with ourselves about who we really are.
Are you so quick to believe all those facts? Newsweek said that the 9/11 panel found that the Bin Laden family flew out AFTER flights had resumed.
Makes you wonder about some of the others.
My motto is - never trust outright propoganda, from anyone - right or left or center.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is a typical trick of the left. when they know they are lieing or twisting facts to an extreme they launch a preemptive "I'm a victim" or "I'm going to sue anyone who claims I am lieing" process.
Sorry, but if anyone believes the tripe that is in this film needs to have their heads examined. Some very well know liberals and Bush haters think very little of this film.
The best article on SLATE
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
His own film contradicts itself many times. He has to go out of his way to make the President look like a bufoon to make it stick. When his story gets really stupid he just goes faster hoping no one pays enough attention.
Sway voters? No, he will put off more voters than he gains. You do not gain voters by spewing ludicrous hate like MM.
MM is a marketing genius, but he never ever let a fact get in his way of making a buck.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
she actually named her book "Treason", implying that anyone not supporting the Bush administration or any one of the wars our president starts is a traitor and should be killed.
I believe that the title "Treason" refers to a number of people within the U.S. government who were working for the Soviets back during the big communist scare. Many of those accused were proven to be guilty in later years with the release of intercepted Soviet cable traffic.
Your reading of the title was quite a stretch. Did you read the book?
Evil is the money of root.
At the time many thought this 26 MARCH 2003 article from The Onion was a joke
Looking back at the article today, it's not funny , just very very sad.VOTE!
Conservative spin: Moore is lying, the airspace was re-opened on 9/13.
Truth: The airspace was opened on 9/13. No airlines were able to get regularly scheduled flights into service that day because they were all grounded in "the wrong places". That day was spent shuffling empty planes back and forth between airports to get ready to start back up. That process took a few days. On 9/14 most flights were still canceled (I had a flight canceled that day too). The U.S. government most likely assisted the Saudis to charter planes to get them out the moment airspace was opened, and could have been the subject of that meeting Bush had with the Saudi ambassador that day, but that's just speculation.
Moore didn't lie, but he could be accused of deceiving trying to make people think the Saudis were in the air when airspace was closed. The conservative response deceives as well, trying to paint a picture that everything was back to normal on 9/13. It wasn't.
People need to learn to read between the lines and think for themselves. If you're conservative and you think only liberals spin to deceive and not conservatives, you're a fool -- and visa-versa.
While I would agree that it is very wise to note when Moore does and when he does not supply sources, dates for footage, where he got tanslations for speech in other languages, and the like, I completely disagree with your conclusion. It is not entertainment. It is not, in any fair sense, a documentary. There are, despite how people have been pushing to categorize Moore's film, more categories that his films can fall into. Moore maks arguments. Period.
In order to make his argument, Moore draws on facts--appropriately picked out as the strongest ones that fit his case. Moore is often vague in order to make a stroger point than the straight facts will give him (example: in 9/11, Moore is discussing the Saudi presence in American markets with [I'm not sure who]. The man tells Moore that in his estimation, the Saudis control between 6 and 7 percent of the nation's economy, in terms of investments. Moore goes on to say, (paraphrased), "well, if these guys control seven percent..." in his next voice-over.
Moore also employs powerfully emotional footage (Roger and Me, Columbine, and 9/11 all have parts that make me cry) in order to work up the people he's arguing to, thus supplimenting his factual argument.
9/11 is, in essene, an argument for people to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Fundamentally, that is what Moore wants and what he is using his film to say. Simplifying it down to "entertainment" because it is not a classical documentary does both the film an inustice and also severely impairs your ability to think about the film or the film-maker with any consequence.
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
Because some folks have similar offers.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Moore goes on about democracy. The USA is a repulic. It is not a democracy. The only votes that counted last election were those of the supreme court.
What makes you think this election's going to be any different?
Some extreme emergency will arise and we'll finally put an end to all this foolish talk. And don't criticise, there's worse to come...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
All you have to do is listen to Moore, or have watched other films he's made, to make that assumption. It's just that simple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Which amounts to two questions.
1. What are you smoking?
2. Where can I obtain said stash?
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't agree with your opinion that Fox News is "certainly conservative" -- at best, the opinion is debatable; at worst, it's wrong.
No doubt, it is more conservative (at certain times of the day) than other networks, but that's only because they actually report the news stories that support the president's administration while all the other networks nearly always refuse to run them. But Fox News criticizes the administration and other Republican interests when events warrant it.
As for Fox News personalities: Bill O'Reilly is certainly not conservative (he's all over the place), Alan Colmes is certainly liberal, and Sean Hannity is certainly conservative -- the political leanings of most other hosts are ambiguous at best. Brit Hume and Tony Snow appear to be conservative some days, but their professionalism disguises it well enough that I still can't make a judgment. I don't watch Greta van Susteren, John Gibson, Neal Cavuto, or Shepard Smith, so I have nothing on them.
The biggest problem I have with Fox News is Oliver North's "War Stories", which would be better on the History channel. But that's still better than hearing Dan Rather complain on the air about a Republican unexpectedly being declared the winner of an election.
Well, I'd like to go and see the movie, but there isn't a theater within 50 miles of where I live that will show it.
:/
Sucks living in the buckle of the bible belt.
* The list of the "coalition of the willing" mentioned only tiny, irrelvant countries, and skipped over really important ones
I suspect this was done more for comedic effect than anything else. As you yourself admit, the United States is doing 90%+ of the fighting in Iraq; Moore is simply reminding us of this.
* The story of the man who mentioned to guys in a gym that he considered Bush a terrorist and found himself speaking to the FBI the following day rang false.
It might ring false to you, but I've read a few articles on this guy, and his story is the same as the way Moore presents it -- make anti-Bush comments in public, get CIA on your doorstep. Short of hooking up the guy to a lie detector and grilling him, how can you accuse him of lying just because you didn't get an honest vibe?
* A man's name was blacked out on one of Bush's army papers. The implication was that this was covering up something evil. But it doesn't appear that the relationship between this man and Bush was a secret, and the paper doesn't imply that they did anything sinister except skip out on their service.
See the movie again. Moore's point is not that Bath was dangerous and his name needed to be covered -- his name was uncovered without incident in the pre-9/11 version of the document Moore got from the government -- but that, after 9/11, the White House was actively burying all links between Bush and the Saudis.
The other nasty bits of the relationship between this guy and Bush, like the cozy foreign investments, are irrelevant to this document.
Given that the movie does make a point over the heavy ties between the Sauds and the US, I think this is a relevant topic.
* The bin Laden family claims to have cut off contact with Osama, which makes the Bush family's cozy relationship with the Saudis far less relevant than Moore implies. His refutation in the movie consisted only of a single wedding of Osama's son, and doesn't even state that Osama was in attendance: Osama has many sons if I recall correctly, and being on the run he might not go to the wedding of each one.
Again, go see the movie and pay attention. The point was that Osama had a son who was getting married, Osama was there (see the video), and at least one of Osama's own brothers were there, despite the whole "black sheep" claims from the Bin Laden family. You can also find examples of numerous other active ties between Osama and the Bin Laden clan in House of Bush, House of Saud, so Moore isn't talking out of his ass here.
* His before-the-war footage of Iraq showed happy, smiling children on playgrounds. It skips the grinding poverty, caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with international orders and his skimming of oil profits. It skips the horrific crimes of which his sons stood accused. It skips the thousands of Kurds, dead from the sort of weapons from which Bush claimed we were protecting ourselves. The weapons do not appear to have existed, and the US should not be in the habit of invading every country whose policies we don't like, but to imply that all was sweetness and light in Iraq before we showed up is dishonest.
I think Moore's point here was simply that pre-war Iraq was not a menace to the United States, despite Bush's attempt to paint it as such. There was no need to talk about Iraq's internal problems; Bush has already done that for the last 3.5 years anyway. And showing happy Iraqis living their regular lives was IMO a necessary counterbalance to all the evil-Iraqi-imminent-threat bullshit we've been getting from the White House. Those bombs we dropped didn't fall only on Saddam's head, y'know.
The film is designed to preach to the converted, not to make a case to the neutral or the opposition.
I think it does make a case for the undecided. And the whole point of all documentaries is to convince the viewer to a particular POV, so Moore is hardly doing anything unort
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Everyone wants someone else to do it. And then say how bad society is if no-one does it. Perhaps if everyone stopped wanting someone else to do it, it would get done? Naaawh. That can't work :P
Well, I essentially mean any argument that isn't based on a well-tested set of observations that is not biased to one side or another - arguments not completely based on the scientific method, that don't freely change based on evidence and counter-arguments.
In other words, arguments that are not based on reason, logic, or evidence. Do you agree that the scientific method is gathering evidence that we observe, and then using logic and reason to draw conclusions based on the evidence?
Of course, many arguments are more or less 'unfair' along those lines. It's a very high bar, almost unreacheable to be completley fair in your arguments!
Whether or not any argument is "unfair", by this criteria, is testable. All we need to is ask, 1. Is there evidence which supports your agument, and 2. is your logic/reason sound? These tests should be applied to all arguments.
We all have to make these sorts of arguments as a part of life.
We have to make these sorts of arguments? I don't buy it.
We all bullshit.
But some do more than others, correct? And the ones who do should be called on it, correct? Or should we just allow bullshit arguments to stand becase "we all do it"?
We SHOULD regard it as a bad thing when we do it too - but in a highly charged political environment, a side expecting to win can't hide their rhetoric anymore.
I think it has much more to do with wanting to win than expecting to win. Do gay activists honestly expect that they're going to win in the gay marraige issue? No doubt they want to, and want to very, very badly. It comes down to some people feeling very strongly for their particular position, and logic and evidence be damned if they get in the way of what they want.
but don't claim any side is completely corrupt just for playing the game.
Pardon me, but how can anyone be anything but "completely corrupt" after you've claimed that "we all bullshit"? Is it something other than corruption that makes us all so equally and inherently deceitful in your view? (By the way, I reject this "humans are inherently evil" view, if that's what you believe.)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I agree. I look to the future of a new president taking the helm.
That's what I'm getting when I multiply 250M americans by 1000$...
"he's just very, very out there in terms of his views."
Bush lost the popular vote last time. That's not "out there".
The feeling that this war in Iraq was a bad idea and that it will create problems for 20 years is not "out there"
The view that Bush is pretty dumb is not really "out there"
The view that Cheney is stealing from us via Haliburton is hardly "out there"
What seems to be "out there" for people is that instead of little snippets of info, Moore lays it all out. Its not a conpiracy by any means, but lets be real. Bush has done a bad job.
Bush should be fired if for no other reason than two words:
John Ashcroft
Probably the worst thing to happen to this country in 50 years. He's a guy that the voters said "We could either vote for a rotting corpe or Ashcroft"
People voted for rotting corpes rather than let ashcroft represent them. If that doesn't speak volumes about you, then you're not thinking at all.
Bush has to go because he's a bad president who makes bad decisions. That's not an "out there" opinion, that's MAINSTREAM opinion.
And yes, I'm a lifelong republican. Never voted for a democrat (for president) before this. This time, a thinking person cannot vote for Bush. Oh, unless you profit from his "handiwork".
He's got to go.
Hitchins gets bitchslapped.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
I really like Brabury as a writer, but you can't copyright a title.
Besides, the title is very apropos.
Yes, that's obvious. The problem is that so many liberals are failing to do that; they're simply praising the film as truth (which is what I said in my last post) despite that Moore has admitted that it is not all true.
Also, when Moore says the film is a documentary and it is not, and when he makes it clear that his intention with this mockumentary is to hurt the president's chance of re-election, then what he has done by disguising his own biased opinions and even some intentionally hidden satirical mistruths in the film is, as you say, a disgusting concept.
I'm from Canada. I hate President Bush. I agreed with everything Moore was saying. First half of the movie was really informative and well done. He lost all focus midway through and struggled to find anything except bush bashing. Ive seen high school documentaries with better film making. A shame really, was hoping for something wonderful.
Moore commented Friday during an interview with the syndicated program Good Day Live that he may include the undedited video from that classroom event as an extra on the DVD version.
It's a debatable issue whether the president should have cut his visit to the classroom short when he was told that a second plane had hit the second tower. The principal of the school says that Bush did the right thing because running out of the classroom would have scared the kids... however those kids would eventually be told to stand quietly in the backround as the president made his first comments to the world about the 9/11 events. Moore claims that the president put those kids at risk because the president could have been a target in such a crisis, but he was a moving target and the hijackers only went after stationary ones.
This is a propaganda movie worthy of the third riech. Screw Michael Moore.
However, it doesn't seem as if Moore agrees with free speech all that much: From Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."
So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!
It would be hypocritical only if he was himself guilty of libel, instead of being guilty of showing people in their worst light.
Free speech is not a free ticket to tell all the lies you want. That is why the libel suits exist. There are limits to free speech, and they aren't "disagreeing with the Leader when the Leader has declared war", they are: telling outright lies about people, hate speech, stuff like that.
"Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker."
See, he didn't sue, he said he didn't expect people who agree with him to be so critical of him.
Maybe he expected people who agree with his message to give him a break on the quality of the format his message was in. I'm pretty glad that fellow did his job and called it like he saw it.
if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler?
If? Its called "ABC News", from 2001 to 2003.
What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries.
Again, watch the war time coverage from Fox News and CNN, and pay attention this time!
Seriously, be amazed as you see U.S. soldiers looting conquered palaces as a commentator refers to them "taking souvenirs"! Marvel at the positive spin "to keep up morale" on everything the "good guys" do!
Can't believe you need to be told all this...
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm not sure why Nerds should be excited about an attempt at mass mind control through propaganda. I guess it's a good experiment in psychology.
Much better to to let go of the wheel and let the ship drift.
I wish I could see it, but it is not playing anywhere near where I live, in Jacksonville, FL, USA. Its distribution seems to be limited, because it is not even playing in Washingon DC.
Does anyone know of a good site showing where it will be released? I know of Fandango, but I am hoping for something that gives a broader geographical view.
If I had the funds to drop everything and do it, I would gladly dedicate my life to it. I don't. Maybe one day.
Tilda Swinton? I'd like to include her in anything...
French Film Festival. Hot Grits Festival.
She's one yummy mummy.
It does mean the movie is not a documentary. A documentary is meant to report facts- a subset of all facts which supports your view, perhaps, but if this movie does not do that then it is not a documentary. It's a getBushoutofofficumentary.
SCO knows, but they signed an NDA...
-- My Sig is a P228.
"Do your homework."
The problem is, is that the game is fixed. There is no way anyone can "do their homework."
If a person was really going to "do their homework" they would be required to read mountains of documents each day to be sure that these political bastards aren't up to something. They pass acts that have nice sound bite names that mislead the public. They enact good programs and then simply don't fund them. They make back room, special interest deals and tack them onto unrelated legislation. The effort required to scrutinize this group of clowns is enormous. Don't believe that for a second that these guys don't know it. They know that no one has the time to work a full time job AND do the research it would take to really know what these fuck wits are really doing.
So what is a person to do? Well we listen to other people who are suppose to do the resarch for us. The problem with that is that one cannot tell who is giving the fruits of good research and who is giving slanted, self serving facts. So if you want to keep the population in the dark, you make the system too complex for anyone to be able to "do their homework" without giving up their day job. Then you hire a bunch of yo-yos to disseminate misinformation so that the good research of honest people just becomes part of the background noise. No one will be able to tell fact from spin.
The fix is in...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Christopher Hitchens, a long time liberal and very respected writer, has a excellent critique of the movie here
Before you make a knee-jerk reaction and moderate - read the entire post and following the links. You will might learn something you didn't know before.
Michael Moore does not just disagree with Bush Administration policies, he hates America and Americans generally. He actually thinks America's enemies are the good guys and Americans are the bad guys (or at best, Americans are idiots). Michael Moore has gone so far as to say that the terrorists who are car-bombing civilians and cutting off civilians' heads in Iraq are the moral equivalent of America's Founding Fathers. (See David Brooks' June 26 column in the NY Times )
There is a difference between government disagreeing with policies and treasonous behavior (i.e. working for a foreign enemy, adhering to them, and trying to advance their war aims). As noted in Reason (a libertarian and generally anti-war magazine) some Americans are gloating over the deaths of American soldiers because it discredits Bush. That is disgusting. Gloating over the deaths of your own country's soldiers to win political points is outrageous. Michael Moore has actually written on his own web-site that he wants more Americans to die as punishment. He said "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.". It you think that is taken out of context , then read the whole message yourself and decide.
Moore goes beyond "loyal opposition" against failed polies. Disagreeing with Bush is *NOT* disloyal. Hoping that your own country's soldiers die, working to make your country loose a war by undermining morale, and overtly supporting its enemies *IS* disloyal and *IS* treason. Michael Moore is not a legitimate dissenting voice against the Bush Administration, he is a traitor against America.
I myself think that Bush & company have bungled the entire Iraq mess. But I'll never cross the line to hoping my own countrymen get butchered by our enemies.
Um, the cannes thing was mostly voted by americans. Not many french there.
Sure, mod it flamebait. I am merely pointing out what was IN THE FILM and basing my opinon on it which is what this WHOLE thead was about in the first place.
Just a shot in the dark but I am going to guess the moderator that did that is a Bush supporter. Just a guess.
I see people keep saying 'our' country. I'm not from the USA and I've never been there and neither have many other /.'ers , but this I can say, whatever happens there with regards to mass political moves there does affect us in smaller countrys.
Many of the problems we could face tomorrow would be a direct result of Bush and friends. They tend to have 'something' agaist other races/cultures.
Politics does cross over to 'geekland' when it starts passing laws on patents/privacy and other arb laws that effect us on the other side of the pond.
The USA != The known world.
Why should I trust either? Neither is wholly reliable.
in fact in light of the previous 4 presidents... I trust the random homeless guy more.
Let's look at them:
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
I can't beleive no one's mentioned this. Moore's movies remind me exactly of the kind of stuff you see on the Daily Show.
:)
They take real things, real people, and somewhat real interviews and just totally twist the heck out of it to make it sound ludicrous.
I don't have anything against Michael Moore, I think he's really funny, like Bill Maher, but I'm certainly not going to base my 'politics' on anything he says.
Haven't seen this movie yet. Just the trailer. Saw a bunch of underhanded jabs, like coming to interview the President when he's playing golf, and then making fun of him for playing golf? Excuse me, he was there first.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the movie...as long as no one takes it seriously.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
Good to see a quick overview of the theft of the presidency in 2000. This stuff is all common knowledge in the UK and the rest of the civilised world, but in the US it got virtually zero coverage, so the story needed to be told. I thought that it could have used a bit more detail like the voting fraud, the purging of innocent people from the electoral rolls etc. but he had a lot of stuff to cover in the film, so it was understandable that a lot of this was either skimmed over or left out.
The handling of the actual terrorist attacks was very powerful. Sensibly, there was no need to show the planes slamming into the buildings or the buildings collapsing. Instead, the screen was black but we heard the sounds of the jets crashing, the exploding jet-fuel, the rubble falling, the people screaming and the emergency services rushing to the scene. When the screen brightens up, we still don't see the buildings, but we see the people looking up in horror and the expressions on their faces as they watch people leap to their deaths before their very eyes.
Bush's response to the attacks (or lack thereof) is portrayed in a rather distrubing manner. I never knew that he had already been informed of the first plane hitting the WTC when he went ahead with his photo op at the elementary school. When he was informed of the second plane hitting, I thought that he had immediately closed the book and left. But no, he just sat there almost in a trance, and with nobody there to tell him what to do next, he looked completely lost. He seemed to be waiting for someone to come along and whisk him away and put a script in front of him.
Into the nitty-gritty, there's a comprehensive list of photos of extremely cordial meetings, primary sources and official documents that pass before our eyes to back up the story that there is something very troubling about the links between the House of Bush, the House of Saud, and the Bin Laden family business ventures. The overwhelming connections with the Saudis is explored in a lot of depth, including the fact that Bush Senior, who still invokes a seldom-used right of ex-presidents to access classified CIA information, still acts almost as if he were an official ambassador to the Saudi dictatorship but in his capacity of a representative of the Carlyle group. (There's a graphic portrayal of Saudi justice by the way, a public beheading. Brrrrrr.) Even Bush senior himself was prevented from flying on 9/11, but the Bin Laden family, by special request from the Saudi royal family and on the orders of Bush jnr, were picked up and flown out of the country. Moore asks what would have happened if Clinton had flown Timothy McVeigh's family out of the country after the Oklahoma City bombing. A very good question.
Then we get into the changing of the government's tune, showing the comments from Powell and Rice denying any WMD capability in Iraq, only to be seen again several months later trying to talk UP the capability of the Iraqi regime and Powell's performance at the UN that flatly contradicts what he himself and many in the administration had said before. Once the war gets underway, we get to see graphic pictures of Iraqi civilians (what's left of them) after American 'precision' bombing raids. Don't watch this on a full stomach.
The Halliburton connection and other business interests in profiting from the war are explored in depth, and then a considerable amount of time towards the end is devoted to a mother whose son went to Iraq. I'll leave you to see that for yourself, for there's no way I could do it justice here. There is one particular incident when she goes to Washington that just makes your hair stand on end and your blood boil. A lot of time is devoted to hearing from actual troops, their friends and family, and how it affects them.
Despite the powerful subject matter, Moore sprinkles in a profusion of comic relief (usually at the ex
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Moore's movies are always entertaining, but I always get the same feeling listening to him as I get after listening to an hour of Rush Limbaugh. Moore and Limbaugh both distill reality into convincing soundbites, and many find truth in both sides of the debate. What worries me about America's embrace of rhetoric is that we are losing sight of the real problems and facts which we face - AIDS in Africa, the continuing conflict in Chechnya, how to strengthen cultural ties between China and Europe. How do we help Africa, how do we address third world issues, how do we (as a world community) cooperate on health issues, scientific research, sustainability planning.
Moore's movies and Rush's ranting are partisan blame games. I could care less if Bin Laden's family flew out of the country after the attacks, Osama has been estranged from his family for some time. Blaming Bush for not doing enough to protect the WTC after-the-fact seems strange, would Moore have wanted Bush to preemptively invade Afhanistan in August 2001.
I get pissed off when Moore uses 9/11, the same way I get pissed off when Limbuagh uses 9/11. Or when, Cameron Diaz recently told us (on Oprah) that the "paparazzi" are the real terrorists. Partisan whores want to distill complex issues into little sound bites, boths sides struggling to the November elections saying, "I told you so."
This from a guy whose sig states "I do not believe in HIV or AIDS. Find out why: http://www.virusmyth.net/"
You probably think Pasteur stole the germ theory idea from Bechamp too, right? And that it's wrong anyway? Stop eating fruit, your body will become too acidic and create sickness...
I forgot to include this link for an article that I mentioned "Right or Wrong? Obscene gloating over US failures in Iraq" By Cathy Young
I just said it makes you question some other things. And even video can be taken out of context - though the particular part you mention is probably true.
The disturbing thing to me is how many Slashdot readers seem to just rabidly accept the whole thing as truth, and will brook no argument against it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Didn't he say or imply that bin Laden family members left the US while all flights were grounded and without interviews, when in fact they left after flights resumed and they were made available for interviews, with some interviewed and some not? (The fact that some weren't is not good, but Moore's "facts" are wrong.)
Didn't he say Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation, when in fact Bush spent 42% of his time not at the White House (including weekends), but often working those days? Many of these days included meetings with foreign dignitaries, etc, but the meetings occurred in Crawford or at Camp David.
Let's see, did he not imply that the Taliban visited Bush in Texas while he was governer, when in fact Bush did not meet with them and they were in the country at the invitation of the Clinton administration?
Didn't he say that the Secret Service only guards the Saudi embassy, when in fact it's uniformed division guards many embassies?
Didn't he make a big deal of Bush et al getting hair/makeup care before public appearances, making them appear vain and shallow? If that's legitimate, I guess nearly all public figures and most women qualify. Sheesh, what a misuse of "facts"!
We could go on, but the fact is Moore is vociferous and entertaining, but not terribly talented nor concerned with the truth. If you think this is a documentary with a "whole fact-checking team" behind it, you are naive indeed. I edit videos for a living and know it's trivial to edit things together to make anyone look like a fool or villan. Heck, If I had three hours of Moore footage, I could make him look worse than anyone he's slashed.
Most people here in Europe think that Americans only worry about themselves and are unaware of what happens outside their country. I'm not telling that is true or false, but that is the image people have from them.
There has been a _lot_ of censorship on the American media in this second Iraq war. This has been criticized very much around here, but I don't know if Americans are aware of that, and if they access uncensored information by reading international press or simply blogs.
Unfortunately, anti-americanism is growing up all over the world, not only in muslim countries, and this is very worrying. I think you (and us, of course) should try to see things from the different points of view that people have outside the US.
I'll go see this movie when either there is a Fnord Filter available, or someone releases an UnFnorded version.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Is there a bittorrent available? Or is there a thorough summary available?
I'd like to see what he has to say but I don't want a penny of mine going into Michael Moore's pocket.
In high school film class we watched Roger an Me, and I enjoyed it. I, also, "fell" for it, as we had a group of 6 or so students visit from Flint, Michigan within a month of watching it. Their visit was in no way related, but I talked to a few of them about Flint, and the film. They all knew about the film, and very much resented Moore, and quite openly called him a liar. Their view seemed very bitter..
Since then, I've read critiques of Bowling, but won't see it, and won't see 9/11. I'm a libertarian, and think both our majority parties are so bad for us Americans, and our freedoms. I can't stand Bush, and Kerry doesn't look to promising either.
I'm not sure what we should do for our international policies. I think freeing the people of Iraq is a noble goal, I'm not sure that was why we were there, but there's no doubt in my mind that anyone that gasses large portions of populations like Saddam did to the Kurds could be justifiably removed from power violently.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
No knee jerk here.
You obviously have not seen the movie, and obviously don't know anything real about Moore.
The left has at no place at, at no time has gloated over the deaths of soldiers or civilians.
I think the majority of Americans are finally catching on the the endless stream of lies from immoral right.
And here's a rebuttal of Hardylaw on Kuro5hin.
Personally, I don't like either of them, but until Rush disappears, I'm glad Moore's there.
Even Newspeak can be wrong
is that Mr. Moore attempts to infer that the FBI never got to question Bin Laden family members that were whisked out of the country. To me, that is simply misleading. He first is implying that the Bin Laden family members (most of which hadn't met him before his saudi citizenship was revoked) would have had anything to do with 9/11. Only one Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.
second, he is implying that Bush went over the FBI to protect friends. that too is misleading.
I usually turn to snopes for my fact-checking. I hate dishonesty, even in urban legends.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
Did flights take bin Laden family members out of the U.S. over the objections of the FBI?
It's hard to make the case that flights of Saudis departed from the U.S. over the objections of the FBI when, according to former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the FBI itself gave the go-ahead:
"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country," he told Vanity Fair magazine.
Mr Clarke said he checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead. "So I said, 'Fine, let it happen'."6
And, as noted, the FBI was directly involved in the process of collecting bin Laden family members and ferrying them to departure points from which they could leave the country:
The young members of the bin Laden clan were driven or flown under F.B.I. supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas.3
Was the FBI denied the chance to question departing bin Laden family members?
Again, it's hard to make the case that the FBI was denied any opportunity to question bin Laden family members given that they were directly involved in the process of rounding them up and gave the go-ahead for the flights to leave. Moreover, news accounts indicate that the FBI was not only "all over" the departing flights (grounding some of them temporarily), but had the opportunity to question passengers, and in at least some cases actually did:
All of those who took up the Saudi government's offer to fly home were reportedly questioned by the FBI before being allowed to board the flights. A source at Logan said that the FBI was "all over these planes" prior to takeoff.4
[P]rivate planes carrying the kingdom's deputy defense minister and the governor of Mecca, both members of the royal family, were grounded and initially caught up in the F.B.I. dragnet.3
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Yes, there's a bias in the news in any given country (it tends to be less in open, democratic countries than youre example of Uzbekistan) but if you watch news from several countries as the original poster said s/he does, then one can easily filter out local bias. (Now if the several countries were closely aligned, there might be a uniform bias too, but at least the specific local ones would be gone.)
I loved the movie. It's moved into the spotlight a subject that has been hidden from the public by the majority of the news media. In fact, if you wanted to get the OTHER side of the "fox news" tainted media, you have very few outlets. One that is very good is http://www.airamericaradio.com. In fact, my personal favorite show is Randi Rhodes between 3-7 p.m. ET. it is syndicated as well as streamed over the Internet. No, I do not work and am not affiliated with AAR, however, I am very THANKFUL they're around. Randi is extremely different talk radio host than those on the right in that she won't go off on ANYTHING until she (or her team) does the research and has the facts (documents, links to articles, etc) which you can usually find on her own website.
Back to the movie... I dragged my father and some of my friends who are on the right (who I've been discussing many of these issues with for quite some time now but to no avail. It can be very difficult to get some people to do the research and go beyond just what they get on the news on TV or what they want to believe).. I must admit that a picture certainly helps a bunch. I've at least opened their eyes (for the moment).. My Dad is finally opening his eyes to some of what I've been telling him for over a year now.. It's a start.. I couldn't do it prior to this..
I'd recommend that anyone going to see this movie attempt to drag a few friends/family along with them who don't necessarily share their views. Not that everyone will be swayed, but hopefully it will give a few something more to think about. I'm certainly not taking Michael Moore's POV as fact that shouldn't be investigated further. In fact, more investigation into what is presented by the movie should be encouraged. I'd imagine Michael Moore would feel proud if his movie inspires a few more people to do their own research beyond the major media outlets right-wing twist..
You probably think Pasteur stole the germ theory idea from Bechamp too, right? And that it's wrong anyway? Stop eating fruit, your body will become too acidic and create sickness...
Your response is pure ad hominem and is typical of those who are offended. And it makes sense: "I don't believe you" is the most offensive statement in the English language. I suppose you could have asked, "Why don't you believe it?" But questions like that just get in the way of your hate and outrage.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Remember, slander and libel are *NOT* protected free speech in America.
Since the standards for libel and slander are higher for someone who is considered a "public figure," I'd have to say that libel and slander *are* protected free speech in America. Ie, something that would be considered libel if you wrote it about your next door neighbor might not be libel if you wrote it about the president. What a country!
And always remember the cardinal rule of journalism: You cannot libel a dead person. Now that Reagan's dead, you can say whatever you like about him and it doesn't matter if it's true! So let 'er rip!
So here it is (left-to-right):
George Galloway/Respect, Green, Liberal Democrats, New Labour, Conservative (Tories), UKIP (United Kingdom Independance Party - want out of the EU), BNP (British National Party - want "foreigners" out of UK).
I'd say (without knowing anything about US politics :-) perhaps the Democrats are equivalent to the Conservatives, and the Republicans range from UKIP (Bush) to the BNP (Buchanan).
Please do not get me wrong. I saw the film on opening day and I thought it was a fantastic film. I plan to vote against Bush in November.
However, I have been disgusted with the deterioration of the quality of moderation on this site.
The job of a moderator is to help make sure that messages posted to Slashdot are on topic, polite, and not intentionally incendiary.
Instead the moderators are rewarding messages that agree with their biases and marking down/rejecting messages that offend their personal prejudices without regard to the other criteria for moderating messages.
I mean no offense to anyone but I see doing that as immature and narrow minded.
It also threatens the quality of the content on Slashdot, which if the current trend in moderation continues will only be marginally better then quality of the content in usenet.
No offense to anyone
Steve
For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously,
Could you provide a link to an interview that supports this statement?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
In most countries, the head of state and the executive leader are two different people. The President or Monarch is the one who gets your loyality and respect, but he's just a figurehead with relatively little influence over the day to day running of the country.
The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is the one with all the power, but who doesn't feel entitled to any loyalty or automatic respect on account of his position. In fact, the Prime Minister has to withstand a barrage of criticism on a constant basis from the opposition. This is very healthy since it keeps the government on its toes.
Can you imagine G W Bush having to go through a weekly American equivalent of Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons? That would be entertaining!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
...reality. It may be time to give the American people a bigger dose of it.
No matter how you feel about this film or politically, charred bodies are sure to provoke a reaction - I would hope against those who did it.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I saw the movie. But it doesn't change my opinion one way or the other. You see, I don't let things like documentaries with bleating leftists influence my thinking anymore than I let the bleating right-wing media think for me. The anti-Bush movement has been marketed to death just as much as the "War On Terror (tm)" has, and much of the country has been influenced by the bombardment of crap from both sides.
People really need to learn to check facts and think for themselves. Yeah, I may appear to sound a bit arrogant, but I learned years ago to think for myself. If that makes me a "contrarian" and "not part of the mainstream", so be it. The emotional spew designed to make me feel guilty has no effect on me.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
I hope it works, because if that dog gets re-elected, one of you Yanks has to step up and put the rabbid bastard down, finally.
I haven't seen F9/11 yet, but I will surely see it and try to look for rethorics/uncorroborated evidence/spinning etc.
What I think is : how many people will do the same for Rush "druggie down the river" Limbaugh drug abuser , Bill "No spin, Shutup !!" O'Reilly and other so called "right wing" spindoctors ? How many people know how to do a rigorous analysis of statement, without paying too much attention to the person making the statement, but concentrating on the statement seeking for truth ? Too few, I think.
The majority of comments in many blogs/forums I have seen in the last two years follow a partisan logic of disproving the statement of others or cast doubt on the subject credibility (a.k.a character assasination) so that the listener/viewer is distracted, in a way that his/her attention is moved from the topic of discussion to the persons making the discussion.
From all the discussion that will hopefully follow F911, I hope that at least some people will learn how to deal with people using rethorics, no matter if they come from left, right or from mars.
In other words, I urge interested slashdotters to study rethorics and logical fallacies, so that they will learn to discriminate between O'Reilly-likes and Moore-likes. This requires a great deal of intellectual honesty and ability to analyze without regard for the outcome (that could be positive or negative for your belief, but that could also shatter your beliefs and faith as well as give them solid foundations)
On a tangent: people would already know how to analyze noticed I've embedded two statements about O'Reilly and Limbaugh (not caring to hide them better). Both statements were made to suggest two strong shortcomings of these two commentators. Check why I did by yourself as an exercise, see if their "moral" stances are compatible with their behavior and statements. But don't stop at "googling for facts" and don't stop only at O'Reilly and Moore..learn how to spot inconsistencies without googling or without reading your favourite partisan blog.
Nice troll. Would you cough up the cash if I pointed out to you an established Michael Moore on-film lie?
Probably not.
A little research would be sufficient for you to establish that whatever moore's intended ends, his means are not justified.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
Open your eyes.
http://xkcd.com/386/
I saw the film yesterday too, but it wasnt sold out. In fact, the only film sold out at the multiplex was "Stepford Wives". All three showings for the rest of the day were sold out. I guess you must live in a more progressive/politically minded area! Looking at the crowd for the 9/11 film, it seemed to be a lot of students, those not from the US (listening to the accents in the theatre) and interestingly enough quite a few interracial couples (unusual for this neck of the woods). In short, I suppose every liberal (myself included) within a 100 mile radius was there, but alas it was still not enough to sell out the show.
Christopher Hitchens of Slate magazine who is by no means a Bush supporter let alone a republican has a great critique of the film. http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
It very telling that Moore will not appear on any show that may have either a guest or a host that has an opposing POV.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, David Kay's replacement in Iraq.
If they haven't found WMD, then those shells do not exist. Also the UN Security Council has been briefed on the WMD that were shipped out of Iraq before and during the Iraqi War.
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
So Commission Member Democrat Lee Hamilton is lying?
"There were connections between al- Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree on that." -- Lee Hamilton
These are facts. Aren't you upset that we have been misled?
No you had Democratic talking points, you were misled. I would ask Micahael Moore for your money back, you let him turn you into a public fool.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Everything in this documentary is ....well, DOCUMENTED. I dare you to go see it.
You can argue with his style, but you can not argue with the facts in the movie it's self. Anything you doubt the validity of can be proven with traditional sources.
Bush handed out $300 Treasury checks left and right after telling people throughout the campaign that it was their money due (to the budget surplus).
This piece of legislation was proposed by Joe Liebermann. Of course, the difference between Joe Liebermann and any Republican is about the width of the aisle separating the GOP from the Dems in the Senate.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
And yet, no one has yet to find a single cinematic documentary that didn't espouse a particular view.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
It is amazing to me to see how blindly Slashdot readers follow this pathetic money grubbing twit. He has taken the left by selling them what they want to hear/see and the more money he pulls out of their pockets the better cause you ain't gonna see it used used for anything but to make Moore richer.
Sheep, sheep, sheep is what you call the average America, "blind" to Bush's "EVIL WAYS" yet it seems you'll swallow this grap and not even question it.
Moore lies by selecting what truths and in what order he tells them. You or I have done the same thing in our lives with or parents, girlfriends, bosses. We just haven't been give those once in a life time chances to bullshit the world.
Have you even seen the movie? I'll bet not. Yes Moores has a point of view as do all documentary makers.
Go see it and then tell me again how it is not truthful.
From the post you are replying to:
I was very upset when I read that a conservative group tried to pressure theater owners into not showing Moore's film.
And you say:
We have a free market of ideas in this country and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it
Talk about missing the point. What if the theatre managers want to show it and are being pressured not to? Yeah, that's a real "free market of ideas".
"What happens is that people go and say "you said this, it isn't true!" when in fact he technically only implied it."
Sort of like WMD in Iraq and the bush administration. They never actually said they were there, they only implied it.
context in which he shows this true footage he implies other things. What happens is that people go and say "you said this, it isn't true!" when in fact he technically only implied it.
And of course, this is the perfect way to counter the exact same method being used by BushCo. The most notable example, of course, is conspicuously inserting 9-11 and Al Qaida into every pre-war discussion of Iraq. They never directly said "Iraq was involved in 9-11", but somehow 2/3rds of US citizens came to believe it.
Slate article in which Christopher Hitchens goes after Moore's biggest whoppers.
Blog entry that goes through the film segment by segment, noting omissions and distortions.
What is great about the film are all the clips of Bush making a total ass of himself. Moore doesn't even need to say a word. It is so funny and then you realize that the idiot Bush is the president of the US. Then you realize how fucked we all are that we can have idiots like that running the country.
The press often talks about someone's actions being presidential. And yet they never show the idiotic ramblings of the current president. It is clear that the media is keeping the truth from the public. People may have issues with the things Michael Moore says in the movie, but what can they say about the clips of Bush being himself?
One thing that irritated me back in 2001 after 9/11 happened was that the press refused to seriously ask why did this happen? They never went back and began a discussion about US activities in the Middle East. For decades the US has been fucking around with Middle Eastern countries, overturning governments and trying to force US policies down their throats. At one time the US was a big supporter of Saddam and even helped him gas Iranians. When I saw those planes hit those buildings, my first thoughts were, it's payback time. But right away the media starting aping the "It's because they hate freedom" argument which is just bullshit. You can't go dropping bombs all over the world for decades and not expect to get bombed in return. If you thought 9/11 was bad, wait until we get paid back for what we are doing now.
"This example implies that one led to another directly"
No, Moore was showing irony in this case.
Kind of when Bush went to a factory in Ohio to show the results of his economic "miracle". The plant just closed.
Its ironic that this happened, but Bush had nothing to do with it.
Did you make the observation, or did someone else make it for you?
Unfarenheight 911 - The Lies of Michael Moore -Red
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
Yes, you're right. I was just trying to make the original poster and other people realize that if it these things where going on in another country, that the same thing might happen.
Of note... on the NIH site, "Derivations" is the number of lines the organization has available. "Available Lines" is the number of lines available under Bush's policy. The lie comes in that Bush said one thing, "more than 60...", yet wrote policy so that fewer than half of these are actually available.
If someone can truthfully say something bad about the film or Moore, there's little he can do about that.
Except sue you anyway. SLAPP lawsuits anyone? Chilling effects? What is your average blogger going to do if he questions a point Moore makes and gets sued by multi-millionare Moore and (potentially) Miramax. Not much. Ever think maybe Moore is playing the lawyer card early so that average people will be afraid to rip up the inaccuracies in this film like they did with his previous film?
If this wasn't left-wing, there would be a much bigger outcry. Can you imaging if Rush or Hannity or Coulter said "I have an army of lawyers waiting if you dare libel me". Heck Al Franken wrote a book with the title "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot"!
More hypocrisy from the left. Its gone from defending the free speech of KKK to threating libel actions....
Did anyone see the massive protests against Bush in Ireland on his recent visit? While I'm not saying that Ireland represents the rest of the world, people in countries in Europe and a number of other places really despise Bush. This is obviously not good for the reputation of America on the world stage. Many of these people are willing to give America the benefit of the doubt for electing Bush the first time, but if he gets elected again...
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?fea
Marketing, that is what it's generally called.
Geez,
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
seems unlikely that the FBI had no oppourtunity to question the family members when, indeed, the FBI was involved in retriveing the family members from their homes, flying them to central locations, and flying them out of the country. FBI agents were all over the planes. if they wanted to question them, they could. and they did.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
There are those among us that wring their hands with glee at each and every death and misfortune in Iraq, just because the see them as helpful to their socialist/fascist agenda. Leftists are The Enemy Within. (Some liberals are have honest intentions, but just aren't deep thinkers.)
The political compass will plot your viewpoints on a two dimensional scale and let you compare your ideas with past and present world leaders.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
One drop of Sarin can kill a man. A shell contains several thousand drops. Three Sarin rounds can kill more people than died on 9/11. That's pretty "mass" if you ask me. If you think Mustard Gas is a walk in the park, read up on WWI.
Now we have to figure out what your version of "Mass" is. Mine comes from UN Resolution 1441. Why does it seem that now we are finding WMD in Iraq, that the anti-war is changing the argument? It's gone from "Saddam had no WMD!!!" to "Saddam didn't have the right amount of WMD!!!".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
a humorist. He made funny pokes at interal US issues and put out hilarious DVDs. He once drove around Harlem in a cab and refused to drive white people, only black people. (this was when there was a NYT article claiming that cab drivers don't stop for black people. he did his own thing where a former white felon and a upstanding black citizen were trying to get a cab, and the white guy got it every time). So I watched his DVDs, and I knew that I didn't have to take the thing seriously because he made it a point to express his ideas as ridiculous.
Now, where he's being taken seriously as a journalist (whether you want to be or not, if you produce a movie like this, you're no longer just a humorist), his inconsistencies and inferences are bothering the fuck out of me. He doesn't lie, but he puts facts in such positions as to make people draw conclusions that just aren't true. Bin Laden family members were rushed out of the coutnry, therefore , the conclusion drawn is that the FBI never got to question them and had no hand in the process. which isn't true.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
You miss the distinction though. Limbaugh and Moore are media personalities. They are not the actual politicians. It is good that we have media personalities that explore the extreme reaches of our culture.
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
Oh, yes, I'm going to buy comments about logic from a guy who thinks there's a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth about HIV and AIDS. SURE I am.
All Saturday shows were "sold out". Yet my wife and I saw the 7:30 p.m. show with about 3-4 dozen people in a theater that could easily hold 10 times that many. I kid you not. Nobody -- not ONE person -- in the ten rows in front of us. 5 p.m. B-movie matinee time for an opening Saturday night.
Conspiracy theorists, choose your weapons, fire at 20 paces. Either:
1. Supporters bought up all the tickets so it would get good PR and broader distribution. They'll actually see it in a couple weeks when the crowds thin.
or:
2. Republicans are so insanely terrorized of this movie that they are stemming the bleeding of opening weekend by buying up blocks of showings so the Monday morning water cooler talk isn't going to hit like a sledge hammer across the country.
I haven't decided which I believe yet -- so go for it!
Just how expensive is the crack you're smoking?
The flight out of the country was on September 20th, for one thing-- not on September 13th. The grounding that you're talking about was partially lifted on 9/13, and passenger flights resumed on 9/14. The first flight of Saudi nationals OUT of the country was on 9/18. So they were NOT given special chartered flights out of the country on 9/13 "while all other flights were grounded". Even Moore stops short of saying that bin Laden's family flew out when the flights were grounded-- it's all about innuendo and implication.
(Side note: it's exactly this sort of thing that pisses me off about Moore. He's like that one kid we all knew in school, who always thought he was so clever for using "weasel language". You know, the kid who would say, "I'm not going to *say* that Jimmy sleeps with a teddy bear and a nightlight, 'cause that would get me in trouble. No, I'm not going to say that at all, even if there is a REALLY GOOD CHANCE that it's true!". Then, when Jimmy gets pissed off and beats the shit out of him, the kid screams, "But I didn't SAY you slept with a teddy bear and a nightlight! I said that I wasn't GOING to say that! Waaaahhh! That's unprovoked! Boo-hoo!". He disgusted me back then, and he disgusts me today-- Palm D'Or award or no.)
As for the impropriety of such actions: the 9/11 commission has said that there was nothing wrong with the flights that were arranged for approximately 140 Saudi Arabians to ferry them from the United States-- including, yes, some members of the bin Laden family.
Furthermore, the passenger list of each of the flights was reviewed by the FBI prior to departure. And of the ~140 people ferried out of the country, 30 were questioned by the FBI. Furthermore, none of the passengers have turned out to be of interest in the 9/11 probe.
Besides all of that, according to the 9/11 commission, "each of the flights... was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner...".
So there was FBI oversight and investigation.
And if you still want to scream conspiracy, you should know that the decision was not made by Bush. It was made by former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who consulted with the FBI prior to authorizing the flights. He says that it was his decision to let them leave-- not Bush's.
You'll have to excuse me for not dealing with your other "VERY disturbing pieces of information", but I'm tired, and I don't suffer idiots gladly.
They are just like the New York Times. They cherry-pick the most extreme left wing media to review. Then they ignore anything else that comes out with a counter point (Dick Morris' Re-writing history, Michael Savages "The Enemy Within", Mel Gibsons "The Passion", etc). Fucking Gerbels would be proud. This is faggotry.!
here is _all_ the corruption ( on the oil side of the equation... ...)
Are you really sure about that?
I haven't seen the film yet, but I doubt that Moore managed to find everything. I'm sure there's more that's hidden away.
*I'm not saying whether I'm a liberal or conservative.
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
From what I've seen of it (and from what I know of Michael Moore), this is less of an issue based intelligent discussion than a hate based rant against Bush. The former I might be interested in seeing, the latter, well I think I'll keep my $9.
I love a good debate, thats one of the main reasons I keep coming here. Scrolling through the comments that have been made already today I saw a bunch of people making fun of Fox News for being conservative propaganda. Well, guess what? Fox News has actual debates. Yes, they may be often made with the conservative view acting as the 'home team' if you will, but you still see an intelligent analysis of the opinions of both sides. The other day I say a debate between Juan Williams and Fred Barnes, two intelligent people of very different political persuasions. As a consequence, by hearing both sides (and on any controversial issue there are always at least two sides) my viewpoint on the issues they discussed has grown.
A one-sided rant does not do this. It does not matter if all Moore's facts are strictly true, such a film does not illuminate truth, it only clouds it. Anyone who has studied logical fallacies knows this. Using nothing but strictly true facts I could argue just about anything. The thing that illuminates truth is not such a rant, but rather intelligent debates which (from what I have seen) Moore's film lacks.
I don't really mind such rants as long as they are billed as entertainment. I enjoy watching South Park which often has such rants. I enjoy late night comedians who will often make political jokes. And I even liked Moore's earlier film "Canadian Bacon" which I found quite funny. But in this case, the stated goal of the film is persuasion, not entertainment. Thus it is a miserable failure.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The one thing you can say about Bush is that he loves to vacation. Check this Slate article: The Out-of-Towner (slate.msn.com/id/2098861). And for this we pay him $400,000 a year? If I was going to pay someone $400,000 a year, I would want to get someone who knew what he was doing and knew how to work.
They are just like the New York Times. They cherry-pick the most extreme left wing media to review. Then they ignore anything else that comes out with a counter point (Dick Morris' Re-writing history, Michael Savages "The Enemy Within", Mel Gibsons "The Passion", etc). Fucking Gerbels would be proud. This is faggotry...
Spin it back the other way and all you can assume is that 170+ people who should by all accounts would have at least had some ties or info, were allowed to leave when average American could not get on a plane.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
To paraphrase: "I am not an American, but I saw every piece of US news sources and can positively claim that they ignored everything Michael Moore says."
I *AM* an American and everything Michael Moore points out WAS reported by American News Sources. Down to the Bin Laden's being allowed to fly out of the country after 9/11.
"Ah, so this just proves that American citizens are ignorant of their country"
No. It just shows your ignorance. The news was reported over a FOUR YEAR PERIOD. Even Moore says nothing more about the Bin Laden's being allowed to fly out of the country than what was said immediately after 9/11. Because Moore didn't find any new information.
What you also fail to grasp is that LOCAL news doesn't always get picked up by national news services. I have relatives that live in Florida, I go to visit them. When I'm there, I read the papers. EVERYBODY IN FLORIDA KNOWS that some people were mistakenly labeled as felons and kicked off the voting rolls and are watching to make sure that it doesn't happen again this election. What you probably don't know is that you can get a voting WAIVER at that polling place when you contest yourself being purged. Some people are even trying to get passage of a law in Florida (and in the nation) that says that reformed felons get the right to vote again. (In the US, it's ILLEGAL for persons convicted of a felony (a high crime like murder, rape, etc) to vote.. Thus it's COMMON for the government to regularly check the voting rolls for those recently convicted of a crime. But because we do NOT have a national ID system here in the US, sometimes mistakes get made.
Blacks not being allowed to vote. All registered voters are allowed to vote. There are allegations in several Florida counties that black people were denied the right to vote because the roads to voting places in predominately black neighborhoods were allegedley blocked by police cars. Well in some more reporting (that I'm sure you read about) it was pointed out that the police cars were blocking the roads because of ROAD CONSTRUCTION. But ok, let's assume that there was an intentional attempt to prevent the black vote. I'm sure that you're aware of the outrage of "whites" not being allowed to vote? In the last election in Indiana, paper ballots sent to some predominately white (and Republican) voting places (in hotly contested campaigns) were significantly less than the number of voters registered to vote there. (In simpler language, people were denied the right to vote because there weren't enough ballots). Where's the outrage for that? Everybody in Indiana KNOWS about it and is seriously pissed. Is this part of Bush' coup de etat too?
no I am not sure that all the corruption was mentioned directly in the movie, but the movie exposes enough dirt to find the parts that he did not have time to talk about
this mess is not going to end in our lifetimes. or during the lifetimes of our children.
booga-booga terror scares, perpetual war, ID cards and all the trappings of the "war on terrrrr" have only one conclusion: total supression of the population.
Christ almighty, Bush is SO HATED, he has to travel with a contingent of 2000 military personnel whenever he steps out of his country.
in a few years when you're sat at the check point waiting for the homeland security operative to grant you clearance to drive out of your own street in order to go to work, remember me saying "told you so, but you didn't listen"
bush has to go, and all his little israeli cronies with him. this is not what we wanted for the 21st century. this world has had enough war.
PS: arabs don't hate you because they're "jealous of your freedom", they hate you because you've interfered in their affairs for 5 decades and treated them like they're nothing but oil-producing cattle.
Ya know. I'm sick and tired of the "leaving information out" argument against Michael Moore. When is the last time *you* made an argument and you brought mentioned every last possible fact that could harm your argument? When a person makes anargument, it *is not their responsibility to make the counter argument*. It is the responsibility of the opposing party in the argument. Arguments have always been constructed with the set of facts that support your hypothesis - you have aproblem with moore, you are always free to produce facts that undermine his argument - something you can't do with outright liars.
Beyond that, look at the right. Ann Coulier clearly and repeatedly lies outright in her books. In many casses her attributions are ourtight fabrications. Yet no one says a damn thing about her. Look at Rush. The man also lies on a repeated and regular basis. The chorus of silence criticizing him is deafening. The same goes for almost all of the crackpot commentators on the right like Michael Savage and even Bill O'Reilly. These people have a political agenda, and have no concern for the truth whatsoever.
Compare this to Michael Moore who at least has facts to back up his claims. Does he make the counterargument against himself? No. Is that his job? No.
I'm just sick of the hipocracy in this country that hold the left to a *much much* higher standard then the right. Progressives can't make tiny mistakes without being torn apart by the wolves, yet the right gets free reign to do and say anythign they want and essentially recieve no accountability for their actions.
All you have to look at to see this is a man who has suggested life imprisonment for drug offenders, and I believe at least once executions who turned out to be a drug abuser himself - and *nothing* happened to him. Rush Limbaugh.
SO if you are going to throw your stones at the left, you might want to watch out for your conservative glass house first.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Jesus fucking christ, what the fuck is your goddam problem. How about an article on a conservative production? Mel Gibsons "The Passion", Dick Morris' "Re-writing history", Michael Savages "The enemy within". You people are bowing down to those who would tax the internet. Those who would eliminate NASA for more welfare. Those who would install political correctness and hate speech monitoring. Most geeks ascend to a higher plane than the propaganda... its hilarious to see that slashdots own editors failed this most basic step. Now they are part of the propaganda machine! Fucking GIMPS!
mod up.
will no doubt appear at spinsanity.org, where you will find criticisms of Moore's work, including BfC. Read the criticisms of Novak and other conservatives there also, and you will see they are truly unbiased.
The latest Slashdot meme.
So, I bought a ticket, and then proceeded to enter the theater. I dropped these home made devices, which when stepped on, break a glass vial containing something MOST VILE. Potent, pungent, stinky rotten eggs is all that was smelled for miles. The devices were quite simple to make, and I have the materials for dozens MOORE. After seeing this posted to /., its obvious I have not done nearly enough. I need to see this film a few more times!
What amuses me is people who think that voting for Party B will make any difference in how the candidate acts after the election. You don't pick your candidates, people. The parties do. And the parties are a bunch of political inbreds who have their own agendas and don't really care what you think. They know each other, they live with each other, and you're some faraway 1/5,000,000 vote share.
Once you get an electorate past a certain size, there's no way a large group of people can have any real control over the elected, or for that matter understanding of. The highly motivated insider has the information, the spare time, and the resources to manipulate events, and frankly, you don't.
And neither does Mickey Moore. Or Alex Jones. Or anybody else who stands outside and says "Oooooh! Oooooh! Look at the corruption!" Just about everyone has more important fish to fry in their own lives, which means they can't spend all their waking hours on politics, which means the politicians (and the movers and shakers behind them) can do pretty much whatever they want.
As to voting for Party B, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The only difference is Party B seems to pass more domestic legislation than Party A, so while the world stage may improve slightly (or not) the local stage will stink.
Ultimately, the only answer is political decentralization, but even if you did achieve that, the first master manipulator to come along could wreck it in a month. Other than that, don't know what to do.
But hey, don't listen to me, I'm neither an establishment player or a media darling. By a long shot.
This article uses one of the logical fallicies (read: the right's play book) of building up a straw man to tear it down. He does not summarise the movie well. You'll have to go see it your self to know what it says.
Some points he missed:
- Ashcroft told the FBI not to talk to him about terrorism anymore in the summer of 2001, despite significant intellegence.
- Bush sat on his ass for seven minutes after he had been told our nation was under attack.
- The U.S. is killing innocent civilians in Iraq.
- The U.S. is arresting people in Iraq in a martial law type fashon.
- The U.S. armed forces prefferentially recruit in low income neighborhoods, where the armed forces may be the only way for a kid to go to college.Really, the only other option to a life of poverty.
- George Bush is pushing for reductions and more reductions in veterans benifits.
Sorry, but I don't have all day.How important is it that they stuffed lots of people into two theaters for one day? Not to comment on whether or not I agree with the politics of his movie, but this lead paragraph reminds me that Moore is often inclined to twist and spin the truth to suit his point of view, which, at least for me, weakens his message.
You should probably have said "bit of information presented as fact" instead of just "fact". It's quite hard to disprove facts; that's why they're facts!
I don't really see the parallel between a film critical of authority and state-sponsored propaganda. If you really want a modern example of a government distorting truth to gain support for immoral policies, I think you know exactly where to look.
Think for a moment about the comparison you have made. Condsider what might have happened if people like Moore had spoken out in Germany while the Third Reich was taking power. It is disgraceful that many people will eat up anything the Bush administration says as gospel truth but can't even let a guy with an opposing viewpoint call his film a documentary.
Condoleeza Rice is nice, But I prefer "-A-Roni" That man on the TV who speaks to the dead You know that man's a phony. Everybody move to Canada, smoke lotsa pot Everybody move to Canada right now Here's how we do it.... Bum rush the borderguard before He or his dog ever knew it! Streets on fire THE MOB GOES WILD Streets on fire THE MOB GOES WILD!
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
A damn shame, huh? It's a good thing we conservatives do naught *but* tell the truth! And if, for some wild reason, we don't always stick to the facts (unheard of!), we always make sure to point out where our lies are.
Thank God for the Bible! It's kept GWB II the most honest guy there is, even after the White House was tainted with the evil liberal lies of the previous 8 years! Imagine all of the lies that W could be telling- but we can be sure he never does thanks to that little black Book.
Praise Jesus!
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
This entire country is owned predominantly by jews. And you know what that means? That means that you will attack whatever god damn raghead country they'll tell you to attack no matter the cost. They'll pay out of your own pocket.
I've talked to folks about the move. Some of them didnt' give a shit. Some of them already knew what the movie would say, so they went and saw Shrek 2. Some of them saw Bowling for Columbine, and afterword learned about how slanted, distorted, and basically wrong it all was, felt betrayed and cheated, and swore to never pay attention to Michael Moore again (even though they are ardent Bush-haters and selfproclaimed Liberals...or "Progressives" since liberal is now a bad word).
/. is covering this, they damn well cover MMHA
I have one question. Slashdot is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Other than michael and his ad-hoc wing-nut anti-American activism, why are we even looking at this submission? If
It's a debatable issue whether the president should have cut his visit to the classroom short when he was told that a second plane had hit the second tower. The principal of the school says that Bush did the right thing because running out of the classroom would have scared the kids...
And what makes that principal so accurate on what was the best thing to do for the president of the united states while the country was under attack?
There is no debatability, he is commander in chief, the moment the words "we are under attack" reached him he should have gotten up and commanded. He didn't. That should be all you need to know.
What is debatable is whether or not he should have gone into the classroom in the first place after having been informed of the first attack and having seen the memos al qaeda was planning on attacking the world trade center, and was planning on hijacking airplanes.
to contort the truth
I think you mean "distort."
So the basic lesson to learn here is that someone like Moore can't be trusted to tell the truth any more than the government itself.
So the basic lesson to learn here is that someone like X can't be trusted to tell the truth any more than the government itself.
Think about what you just said. Can you even trust yourself?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
You can call Moore a liar, call Franken a liar, Coulter a liar, Limbaugh a big fat liar, and it won't make any difference. The same publishing companies will run both books from both points of view, make big bucks, and leave our country seeking conflict before compromise.
Oh, and their news divisions will cover the aftermath :).
www.lonseidman.com
If this is for real, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
I cannot describe this topic in any other way. This is so Gerbels. i.e. repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth. Ask yourself, why are we talking about this on a site that supposedly purportes to be news for nerds? Nerds I guess cannot and do not like Sean Hannitys books or Mel Gibsons movies. You see, once the slashdot gained a moderate following, the natural laws of socialism took over... The oligarcy of editors became power hungry and decided to use the site to further their own twisted anti-american agenda. That is a corporate fag manuever, not unlike the RIAA.
I've followed this story quite closely, and I have NEVER seen any person from Disney say such a thing. So please provide a link or direct quote with a source for it. I do not believe this is accurate, but if it is, I'd like to know it.
You SEEM to be parroting the party line of the Michael Moore crowd on this issue. I tend to think it's more of an effort by Disney not to be involved in something that was going to be highly controversial and potentially spawn new calls from conservative to boycott the company. Think about it. If he had wanted to KILL the film, he could have. Disney owned the piece. It could have been stuck in a vault for no one to see. He simply didn't want Disney involved in the distrubution, for legitimate business reasons.
Just for the record, I don't like the Bush administration, but I also don't like Michael Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, either. This seems to be a case in which his supporters are alleging something with no basis in fact, just as Moore has shown a repeated tendency to do in his films. Even if you agree with Moore's conclusions about things, his arguments are greatly weakened by his willingness to lie and mislead his audience about details.
"There is a big difference between liberals and conservatives. We're not talking apples and oranges, folks, but apples and orgies. In her latest book, "Treason", Ann Coulter puts it clearly:
"Conservatives believe man was created in God's image, while liberals believe they are gods. All of the behavioral tics of the liberals proceed from their godless belief that they can murder the unborn because they, the liberals, are themselves gods. They try to forcibly create 'equality' through affirmative action and wealth redistribution because they are gods. They flat-out lie, with no higher power to constrain them, because they are gods. They adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods. They revere the U.N. and not the U.S. because they aren't Americans--they are gods."
It-s hard for salt of the earth, hard working, hard playing pro-American types to wrap their minds around why their liberal neighbors hate the U.S. so much. But liberals do, and it's a staple of their worldview's diet. They reflexively root for that which will undo our great land.
As far as the liberals are concerned, the battle is joined
Concerned citizens of our amazing country need to be aware of the fear and loathing of the liberals and meet them head on at the polls, through the media and in the public square.
--- Every day I am forced to add another to the list of people who can kiss my ass...
If you'll see the film, you'll be able to pick some out easily. It's only super neo-cons who are so blinded by their anger that they assume that this liberal rabblerouser means every word he says. It makes it easier to hate him that way.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Media personalities, politians, regular citizens...it does not matter, ALL need to be able to sit down and talk things through without vitriolic hate and WITH respect for another's views even if they differ.
This is absolutely for real. I did this in Bellevue washington and I re-iterate, as long as this fucking nonsensical topic continues on slashdot, I will raid them again and again. It tells me my countrymen have been infected, like a Terran corrupted by the Zerg. Its pathetic. And I will slap some sense into the lefts sheeple by using force, fear, and the anti-fag weapons of truth.
I suggest if anyone sees Moore's film they also see what is considered to be one of the greatest documentaries ever. It might make you sick, but you'll see how movies can be used a a political tool. We have to be aware of the message of what we see, and question it. I'm not saying he's a nazi, but he is making a similar film for a similar motive.
Please someone point / counter point this.
"and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it, for whatever reason they choose."
I entirely agree that the theater management does have a right to show or not show films. But its an entirely different thing when politically motivated groups, especially one backing or backed by the party in power, organizes a campaign to PRESSURE theatre managers to not show films that they might well want to show. It is an extremely dangerous path to follow. If it works they can keep doing it and you reach a point that the only point of view that will survive is the one of the party in power. They already succeeded in their campaign against the Reagan bio which was pushed off CBS in to the weeds by this same kind of campaign.
If this continues you will reach a point you may as well stop pretending you are in a democracy and admit you are in a totalitarian state because they also thrive on allowing only one point of view to be expressed. Though I'm not saying the U.S. had reached that point yet certainly.
The party in power, whether it be Democrat or Republican, has no problem getting their view out in this country, since they do press conferences from the White House, Pentagon and State Department every day with press coverage and get nightly news coverage.
Its very important this country nurture viewpoints that oppose that of those in power to keep them on their toes and honest, instead of letting opinionated groups drive them in to the shadows and let the party in power do things that are not in the public interest.
I'm hoping Twirlip will show up soon. He thrives on insisting there is only one point of view, his, that is correct and is allowed to be expressed on Slashdot or anywhere else.
@de_machina
The bin Laden extended family and other Saudis were allowed to fly within the United States on chartered planes when all other planes were grounded. These charter flights gathered them together from around the country in Texas and Washington, D.C.
The bin Laden extended family and other Saudis were allowed to leave the U.S. on the first day that the airspace was generally opened, and they left over the next week in several charter planes. At least one flight may have departed the U.S. before the airspace was generally opened, but most of the flights leaving the U.S. took place after the airspace was open.
This is no longer in dispute -- there are eyewitness accounts and flight plans and takeoff/landing records from airports and FOIA records that all support these facts, especially the intra-U.S. flights during the no-fly period. The FBI was substantially involved in organizing and providing protection for these people.
The bin Laden family received special treatment from the U.S. government, approval for which came from quite high up (it's not completely clear where; Richard Clarke said he takes responsibility for the decision, but never said he made it himself).
Many conservative commentators have attempted to confuse the issue by changing this claim to "All the Saudis were flown out of the country while the no-fly was still in effect", then refuting this claim, and declaring their work done and the claim to be entirely false. That's not the claim, and it's not false, and Moore, although he presented an abbreviated version of the claim in his movie, didn't say anything false about the claim at all.
These people have a political agenda, and have no concern for the truth whatsoever.
That's because most people in the US are intelligent enough to know that most of those people are full of bull. And those that listen to these people agree with anything they say, regardless of how factual it is. There is a small minority- made of masochistic liberals who read this crap [1] and more intelligent conservatives that want the case for conservatism made on a foundation of actual facts and sound logic.
Then there are some who are simply amused that folks with charisma- but few facts- can haul so many people. Kind of reminds them of Hitler, watching Nazi propaganda films, but without feeling so dirty over it.
[1] masochistic because it causes frustration with no pay off. No matter what, the people you mention and the folks who listen to them in ernest will never be swayed with any sort of logical argument. It is an exercise in futility.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
First off, I want to say that if Michael Moore had information about Abu Ghraib before it came out on the news, it was his civic duty to bring it out to the public. No, Michael Moore did not do that because HE IS OUT TO MAKE MONEY! He will put anything on screen, even if it's an out and out lie, just so he can make money. See the article on slate:
Slate
Also, it is said the Mr. Moore says that the Bush government is so in bed with the Saudi's....well if that was so, how come we had to move our headquarters to Doha, Qatar?? It definitely was not a decision the miltary would have made! Why reestablish airbases in Qatar when you had everything all setup in Saudi? Also, if your opposed to the war, why talk about not having enough troops? Did you not say moments before the war you want them to NOT send troops? Also, it is INSULTING to the American soldiers he so dedicates the movie to that he had this video of the happeings at Abu Ghraib and did not bring it out in the proper way. The WHOLE army was not involved at Abu Ghraib. It was simply a few bad apples who overstepped their authority. It has been said that Hezbollah, one of the biggest terrorist and ANTI American (left or right) groups out there are willing to put up their own money to get this movie shown in the UAE!
Farenheit 9/11 a hit with Hezbollah
If Mr. Moore so cares about our troops, then why is he painting our whole military in a extremely bad light. Does he have any idea what this would do to undermine our efforts? How this movie may so inflame the terrorists??
Read this World Net Daily article...theatures are saying no to this film in droves.....todate only 417 theaters are showing Fahrenheit 9/11.
Thaters say no
Also, about his previous movie, Bowling for Columbine, he suggests in that movie that gun problems in schools are rampant yet he misses the facts. The facts have pointed out before Columbine, school violence is going DOWN not UP! It's just reprehensible what he's doing here. I support his freedom to say what he wants, but what he's said in this movie and others he's made has been SLANDER!
Gorkman
It was only playing in five theaters in Cleveland. There are over 40 theaters around here, so it playing at an eighth of them says something.
;)
Ohio a swing state? Sure.
Like the critics said, if this movie was showing in Europe and they were voting for US president than perhaps this would make a difference. There's a reason many film studios turned down this production, and it's not because Holywood is a whole bunch of Republicans
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
I wish Moore would add these bonus features when it comes out on DVD:
The First Twins going wild! Their arrests & fighting footage would convey to viewers, the Bush's parenting skills. And have Moore correlate it to Bush's leadership.
Other great features would include members of his cabinet. Bush alone cannot be treated as a scapegoat. The 9/11 Hearings with D. Rumsfeld! Another great demonstration. of leadership.
This is a point that I am tired of correcting people on. This did not happen as you are lead to believe in the movie. On September 13th commercial flights had already resumed, but private flights were still restricted. Permission came, not from the President, but from Richard Clarke who was a hold-over from the Clinton White House and not a Bush puppet. 22 of the 26 people that were on that flight WERE, in fact, interviewed and cleared by the FBI prior to leaving.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m12 82/is_18_55/ai_109411350
The funniest thing about this, is that everyone who watches the movie leaves with the same wrong impression: that while all other airplanes are stuck on the ground, the bin Ladins are give special permission from the President to be the only plane flying. The fact is, that this is a clear case of spin-doctoring. It is common in politics. This is a way of saying TRUE things, but leading people to specific conclusion that may not be accurate. Moore is a master of this kind of work.
Don't get me wrong, I like Moore's work, but at respect him as an Artist... not as a champion of truth.
Bush may have a relationship with the bin Ladin family, but when you are lead to believe that the bin Ladins were given special treatment because of that relationship, it can piss people off. However, this never happened. It is clear that Bush cannot be blamed for the bin Ladin family and Saudi nationals leaving the country... if you know the facts, it just cannot be substantiated; but Moore, knowing the facts, misleads his film-goers.
I'm not saying don't see the movie. I think everyone should see the movie. Moore has crafted a relevant, entertaining movie. But it IS a commercial movie, and commercial movies are made in order to make money. So, go out an enjoy the film, just don't trust everything you think you hear. Double-check the facts before assuming that your conclusions are correct.
- just my $0.02
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
How about just a few "twists" of the truth to start?
President Bush's reaction to news of the Sept. 11 attacks
Moore uses video of the president as Bush learned that a second jet had hit the World Trade Center the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The president was in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., listening to second-graders read.
Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after learning of the news from his chief of staff, Andrew Card. Moore superimposes a timer on the screen to document the passage of time, then asks what was going through the president's mind. Was he, Moore wonders, regretting spending 42% of his first eight months in office on "vacation?"
Moore bases his quip on an Aug. 6, 2001, story in the Washington Post that said by the end of that month Bush would have spent 42% of his first seven months in office "at vacation spots or en route." The calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., and a month-long "working vacation" at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the "vacation" days included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The other message Moore sends is that Bush was frozen, unable to do anything until he was told what to do by his aides. The independent 9/11 commission reported that Bush told its members he felt it was important to remain calm when not much was known about the attacks. Andrew Card told ABC's Good Morning America this week that Bush showed "a moment of shock, and he did stare off maybe for just a second."
The decision to let some Saudis leave the USA shortly after 9/11 and alleged connections among the Bush family, Saudi royalty and Osama bin Laden's family
Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of bin Laden's family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens -- even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis.
The implication: Saudis who might have had information about the attacks -- or even been involved -- slipped through the president's fingers.
But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."
An alleged connection between Bush and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan
In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.
In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.
Your claims about Moore's movie are not true. Here's Moore's reply to the accusation you make, taken from michaelmoore.com:
June 20th, 2004
What Fahrenheit 9/11 Says About the Saudi Flights Out of the Country After September 11
WHAT THE FILM SAYS:
Sen. Byron Dorgan: We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Narration: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
Additionally, in an interview with author Craig Unger, the film makes reference to the fact that these individuals were briefly interviewed before they were allowed to leave.
WHY WE SAY IT:
1. THE FLIGHTS - WHO GOT OUT WHEN
The facts stated in Fahrenheit 9/11 are well documented and are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12
Unfortunately, some news organizations have misinterpreted what the film says. Some have said Fahrenheit 9/11 alleges that these flights out of the country took place when commercial airplanes were still grounded. The film does not say this. The film states clearly that these flights left after September 13 (the day the FAA began to slowly lift the ban on air traffic).
2. WHO APPROVED THESE FLIGHTS AND WHY
We really do not know why it was so necessary for the White House to allow the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.
We do know who asked for help in getting Saudis out of the country - the Saudi government. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12 The film also includes a television interview with Saudi Prince Bandar, confirming this as well.
Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
3. DID THESE INDIVIDUALS GET SPECIAL TREATMENT BY LAW ENFOCEMENT?
Yes, according to Jack Cloonan, a former senior agent on the joint FBI-CIA Al-Qaeda task force, who is interviewed in Fahrenheit 9/11. Cloonan raises questions about the type of investigation to which these individuals were subjected, finding it highly unusual that in light of the seriousness of the attack on 9/11, bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the country and escape without anyone getting their statements on record in any kind of formal proceeding, and with little more than a brief interview.
Most Saudis who left were not interviewed at all by the FBI. In fact, of the 142 Saudis on these flights, only 30 were interviewed. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12
The film puts this
I've seen Columbine too...and think Moore would have a ton of credibility if he stuck purely to the facts, but as someone said, "editorial spin".
My personal favorite (in Columbine) was that he explained how people were singling out Marilyn Manson for being the sole reason for what happened at Columbine, which I agree is a bunch of bull. But then he goes to Heston's house and singles him out, which is exactly what he said was a problem earlier. Hypocrisy that blatant sorta kills your credibility big time.
You do not gain voters by spewing ludicrous hate like MM.
I don't see why not. You've gained plenty of voters by spewing ludicrous hate like Rush Limbaugh and BIll O'Reilly.
=Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
Bush II - maybe he really believes what he says. One of the worst 3 presidents in US history.
From what I've read, he really does believe what he says. The Rich are better, and he's on a Mission from God. Folks in the White House call him and Ashcroft the "Blues Brothers," because they are both convinced they have been sent on a mission from God to clense the US of A.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I was thinking the same thing...Hey buddy, there are guys in the world who will give you AIDS if you don't believe it.
Nothing in Moore's own defense contradicts the criticisms and the facts he avers to bely his arguments. Moore is intelligent and knows how to make an obfuscated argument with the partial truth. He implies that the bank has guns on the premises without directly stating it because that would be an outright lie (something he's not afraid of doing in any case). Moore is great at editing footage from various times and contexts to tell his 'truth'. You have to look at the components to see what he has done.
There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there.
Yes, the bank was giving out guns but they didn't hand the actual guns out themselves. The bank gave certificates redeemable for a gun with an affiliated gun store where the guns were kept if you bought one of several types of CD's and passed a federal background check.
The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD.
Funny, Ebert writes for the times.
Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.
That's true but it's not the whole truth. That employee has since revealed that Moore asked him to say that.
The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
You need a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to transfer ownership of the gun; you don't actually have the gun itself. Moore doesn't say that the bank has guns on its premises, only that it is legal for them to. As noted earlier, the bank didn't hand out actual guns.
Moore harangues an employee of the bank about it being dangerous and odd for a bank to give out guns in his earlier film Bowling for Columbine. On its face, a gun promotional by a bank is absurd but given all the facts and context it's not as absurd. (With all those militias in Michigan, it's not a bad promotional.) You have to go through a background check and deposit at least a thousand dollars to get a certificate for a gun. But even if they did hand you a gun, they don't give you any ammo; you've already ID'ed yourself by going through that background check; and given up a good chunk of money. Not even the stupidest bankrobber would rob a bank that way.
You can't say that Moore lies outright about the bank promotional in his film or those defenses. He makes use of partial truths to make a point but also lies outright when even partial truths don't support his position. He defends himself by saying that he's making a mockumentary but most people don't know that.
This article, by ex-leftie Christopher Hitchens, makes a far better response to this than I ever could.
D
This discussion leads me to believe that Slashdot has been completely compromised by people who have an interest in controlling what others think. Clever job fellas. It's all about Moore's personality and bickering between the left and right. Pathetic.
he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue.
In the free market of ideas, there's truth to counter untruths. Apart from sweeping blanket denials by the Bush administration and family, I've not yet seen any counterpoint from conservatives about Moore's assertions in this film.
If you believe you know where Moore's lying or fictionalizing, then tell us the truth.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
This is a very interesting social comment you have unwittingly made against yourself. You have not yet seen, you imply, any "clear, concise, and truthful rebuttal" to Moore's film. You hope someone makes one soon. However, you have already decided we are being "manipulated, misled, and lied to."
That's really interesting to me. In the absence of evidence against Moore's film, you assume it is misleading and untruthful. That's just not rational.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.comi es.com
h ttp://www.moorewatch.com
http://www.moorel
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
Calling Michael Moore a documentary film maker is like calling professional wrestling a sport.
Regarding "Bowling for Columbine", but still relevant:
DOBBS: I was amazed. Salon.com just took you to task on this book, pointing out glaring inaccuracies, which -- what in the world...
MOORE: Some of these, I think they found some guy named Dan was named Dave, and there was another thing. But you know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know.
DOBBS: Glaring inaccuracies?
MOORE: No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know.
"A quote from Condi Rice also in the movie from a briefing:
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
"How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none."
How interesting that you seem to completely ignore what the Commission said after this STAFF report was released. According to Senator Bob Kerrey (D), the commissioners "do not get involved in staff reports". Instead, Philip Zelikow, the Commissions head staff aide, released the interim report. Consult Google, plenty of actual content on this matter is available.
HAHA this means bush will LOSE!#~ :<
<everyday people> why's that?
<liberals> why, didn't you see FAHRENHEIT 9/11??!
<everyday people> no, why would I?
<liberals>
Michael Moore is an advocate for Socaliasm. He believes that Democracy breeds fascism and not freedom. He believes there is no such thing as too much freedom, and everyone - except those whom he hires - are insubordinate to him.
Moore's Fantasy: In his movie he makes the claim that f-14 fighter jets did not rise until after the second plane hit the World Trade Center.
Reality - Planes were flying overhead immediately following the first plane but were avoiding commercial airspace as it was not known how to respond - who is the target? Since the first plane already crashed and burned, who are we looking for next? A missle? A fighter jet? Bombs? Another plane? If we are looking for another plane, are we authorized to shoot it down?
Moore wants to blame Bush for 9/11, claiming that somehow he knew it was going to happen, let it happen, so he could get re-elected, and you're just going to sit there and let this cynicism engulf your brains?
We are a country. We need to defend ourselves. There are men being beheaded overseas, on tape, you guys are worried about some prison humiliation here, claiming a breach of human rights. Fools. These are SOLDIERS in the AL QAEDA murder group who want to kill all Americans. The innocent lives that were taken thus far were NOT SOLDIERS - they were HUMANITARIAN WORKERS - SOFT TARGETS. Why doesn't Michael Moore do a documentary on the clitoris cutting going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria? Why doesn't Michael Moore do a documentary on China and how Chewing Gum is illegal? Why does Michael Moore hate America?
He's fat and rich and somehow isn't satisfied with life. What a poor bastard.
The only true value this movie WOULD have is if it were released on November 9th 2004 instead of a few months before an election. Moveon.org is handing out free tickets - so what you are basically getting is an infomercial rather than a documentary. This film would have been much more valued 12 months ago or 5 months from now.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
considering how he's a wealthy, arrogant, fat, loud, obnoxious, bore. Moore is the quintessential American stereotype but the French love him. Go figure. :)
No distortion of facts there, except for that done by those who claim Moore's film is saying something that it is not.
thank you for waiting to comment on the film until you've seen it. unlike many of the posters here who are happy to regurgitate whatever right-wing blogness they've been reading this morning, you've chosen to withold judgement until you know what the hell you're talking about.
h eit.911.CAM-POT(1).torrent
as a thank you, i offer a torrent:
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2031/Fahren
could believe the complete ignorance shown by so many people here.
Moore is a skillful manipulator and you have to have been interested in the news in great detail to see through his arguments.
He contradicts himself left and right (no pun intended) in his arguments. He paints with a broad brush and ignores facts which contravene his arguments.
Great propaganda and so many of you have bought it.
Think, people Think!
It would be interesting to see how many people contributing to this post are from the CA Bay Area - my bet...the great majority.
The Statue of Liberty is crying right now as many Americans confuse up from down.
If your IQ was really that high, you'd realize that IQ is the most meaningless thing you can toss into a forum debate.
okay imagine for a second that YOU were the one who was accused of pulling off a huge terrorist attack killing thousands of americans.
do you think the FBI & CIA would sit idly by while all your friends & relatives left the country? Do you think that the FAA would give special permission for those flights?
in general, when youre conducting a murder investigation, the first thing you do is interview friends & family (unless the suspect himself is available)
wether or not the airports were closed is moot compared to this larger question. Why has there been no honest investigations into 911?
There is no debatability, he is commander in chief, the moment the words "we are under attack" reached him he should have gotten up and commanded. He didn't. That should be all you need to know.
And what would you have had him do in those 5 minutes? Assuming that he didn't need to stay there while the secret service cleared an exit? Would you have liked him to get on the phone and call Washington and tell them.... what? To figure out what the hell is going on? To wake up all the generals? To figure out if more are comming? What would have happened differently had the man jumped up out of his seat screamed out "HOLY SHIT KIDS, WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE!" and then run out of the room? Beleive it or not, the government can operate mostly without a president. Furthermore, there was nothing for him to command, because everything he could have ordered was already being done.
What is debatable is whether or not he should have gone into the classroom in the first place after having been informed of the first attack and having seen the memos al qaeda was planning on attacking the world trade center, and was planning on hijacking airplanes.
1) The memo never said they were planning on attacking the WTC.
2) In the past, Hijackings have been used as hostage situations for political purposes. Something like this was a very remote possibility.
3) After the 1st plane hit, no body knew what had happened, and most people thought it was an accident. Planes have hit the WTC before, and it's not a terrorist attack. No one knew what to think of it until the second one hit.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
No, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. As is Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the rest.
Talk about your evolutionally degenerates. Not to mention all the mindless right-wing "ditto-heads" who refuse to think for themselves, and just regurgitate what right-wing talking heads tell them to say...
Heh, nicely coined word... I guess it all goes to show how powerful visual media is as a way to alter people's thinking. I'd argue that these "Mooregasms" (check's in the mail
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
"...entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro..."
I wonder if a warning appeared after clicking Export that said "The President of the United States of America, and all his millions of supporters, are going to be very angry with you if you continue. Are you sure you want to continue?"
Wow. The parent post managed to mangle two different definitions and mislead folks in the same way it condemns.
the parent post takes the separate "adjective" definition and splices in words into the "noun" definition while implying that it's all part of the "noun" definition of "documentary".
Here is the real dictionary.com link.
The noun version (the parent post did start with the words "A work...") in its entirey is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."
The parent post spliced in words from the second definition of the adjective version of the word, and the adjective mentions the "objectively without editorializing", and even in that case it is only one of multiple valid definitions. The parent post purposely ignored the first definition of the adjective "Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents." (Yup, that's the first definition listed in its entirety).
And thus the parent post use of "Further, it restricts the presentation..." is highly misleading since it certainly does not make a firm restriction or preclude its use in other ways.
And the ONLY other NOUN definition on that page is "a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event". And certainly that describes F911 just darn fine.
Don't believe me? Here are the facts. You decide.
In light of looking through many of these coments, the one thing that seems to come from them, is that there are inuendos throughout the movie with no real way to prove much of it.
I might behove the other candidates to publicly state that they will revoke the presidential order that allows previous presidents to hide information.
Also, the FOIA is pretty much gutted at this point and should be brought back to what it was. Now adays, you have to prove that information has no security risk to get it, but that means that you have to have it to prove it.
It would be interesting to see how accurate the implications really are
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In the interests of dialog, I'll try to respond to this when I get back (I have a wedding to go to), but I believe this article is deeply flawed. An example I can whip out real quickly: The person who wrote the article states that the 9/11 commission found that the bin ladens left the country after the airspace had been re-opened. This is a VERY deceptive statement. on September 13th, the air space had been re-opened, but no passengers were allowed to fly until sept 14th. Sept 13th was used to reshuffle the airplanes back to where they should be so that flights could resume the 14th.
No passengers were allowed, *except* for these special charter flights that took the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royalists out of the country.
Hitchens then states that Clark allowed these flights - and thus Moore is a liar.
Well, these saudis were allowed to fly befor anyone else, were not questioned, and were allowed to do so by a member of the Bush administration (Clark was indeed a member of the bush administration, or do you dispute that fact as well). Not one iota of this contradicts Moore and Ferenheit 9/11.
Once again, Moore uses facts, while the talking heads on the right jsut say wheever they want to, so long as it's consistant with their idology - facts be damned.
I'll try to reply more to it when I get back from the wedding.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
I think that is a good documentary.
MM says that President Bush arranged special flights to bet the bin Laden family out of America. He did not.
Let me know if you were LYING about sending me the $1000.
I thought it was a great movie. As an American, I still discovered a lot of information that I was unaware of. I expected this, since the mainstream media isn't covering a lot of important news (CNN yesterday talked half the day about one of the Olson twins' having annorexia, and MSNBC couldn't stop harping about Brittney Spears marriage).
I read a lot of independent news online and have a subscription to London's Financial Times and still, there were lots of revealing info in the movie that took me by surprise.
Everyone, especially in America, regardless of political affilliation, should see this movie.
Farenheit is a rip off of a real documentary.
http://www.infowars.com/alamo_flyer.htm
You want the whole story?
http://www.infowars.com/tyranny.htm
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
"The mother crying for her dead son is the realest thing I've ever seen in a theater."
Really? Even if that son was killed by terrorists instead of US agents?
"Facts are useless! You can use facts to prove almost anything that's even remotely true. Facts schmacts."
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Michael Moore has stated publicly on several occasions that he was glad that the World Trade Center was blown up. What did those people who died on 9/11 do which made Moore wish them dead? He hates America and ordinary Americans.
Having been a 9-11 activist for the last two years I was impressed by the film. Though it doesn't go into great detail about government complicity in making 9-11 happen I felt it was a movie that can actually reach the mainstream because of the quality of the production.
In my group's online discussion I posted the following about my impressions:
First of all I saw Fahrenheit 9-11 in Oakland last night. I felt it was a
very powerful movie that could easily reach the mainstream and have what
our group would consider a positive effect. Personally I don't worry
about a limited hangout re Fahrenheit 9-11 (though I'm sure that would be
food for discussion among this group).
Secondly, I'm trying to assess reaction to the movie. Two nights ago on
mass media (possibly Fox news, I don't remember) the were commenting on
it. They used the term "agitprop", a term I didn't know. They also
showed some clips that were rather damning to Congress and the Bush
administration.
So I looked up agitprop on dictionary.com:
Political propaganda, especially favoring communism and disseminated
through literature, drama, art, or music: "It also is a conspiracy movie,
agitprop against today's targets, big government and big business" (George
F. Will).
[Russian, short for otdel agitatsii i propagandy, incitement and
propaganda section (of the central and local committees of the Russian
Communist party); name changed in 1934.]
n : a person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause or
some government [syn: propagandist]
I then tried a google search for "Fahrenheit 9-11 agitprop"
The search results actually mostly showed stories that were in agreement
with our perspectives. However I did find this link:
http://fim.ondragonswing.com/archives/006272.html
who's home page is:
http://fim.ondragonswing.com/
which linked to a critique from Slate:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle
These sources give a good perspective of some of the more competent
criticism we may face.
Unfairenheit 9/11 -- The lies of Michael Moore
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Analysis for those who are interested in truth and fairness -- not the rantings of Michael Moore -- the left wing version of Rush Limbaugh.
I think the parent meant logical fallacies. Still, I wouldn't characterise them as unfair, just mistaken.
See Michael Moore expose himself.
See how much Michael Moore lied about.
Watch a movie more closely based on reality than any of Michael Moore's films.
Even the Internet Video Pirates refuse to watch and record his film, does that tell you something?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Moore claims that the president put those kids at risk because the president could have been a target in such a crisis, but he was a moving target and the hijackers only went after stationary ones.
When does he claim this?
The point of the segment as I interpreted it was pretty much just to show Bush's increasingly uncomfortable facial expression... but, whatever.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
How many of you who criticize the film are willing to sign up with the military (for a low salary, which, according to the movie, Bush lowered) and fight in Iraq? Or even do highly-paid contract sysadmin work there?
I think it's fair if people say the pipeline issue in Afghanistan is irrelevant (I'm sure there were business opportunities in occupied Japan and West Germany, but that's not why we fought WWII), that the Bin Laden family's exodus from the U.S. was conducted in a way which did not compromise national security (maybe), etc. I think these issues are worthy of debate, though, so it's also fair for Moore to bring them up. But for me the core issue of the movie is whether this war in Iraq is worth the sacrifice. I think Moore brings this point home masterfully.
I didn't come out of the movie hating Bush - I never liked him much, anyway. I came out sad for all the tragic loss that was caused in my name with my tax dollars and (because up until the torture photos came out I was in favor of the war) feeling a bit like one of the Congressman who lost interest in talking to Moore when Moore asked him if he wanted to sign his children up for military service in Iraq.
The movie is powerful, because it makes you feel and think differently. My reaction has been to donate some money to the USO for care packages for the troops and to Fisher House to help facilitate family visits for wounded U.S. soldiers. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction. If everyone who sees the movie feels motivated to take a step, then things will get better.
Michael Moore is so fat:
1. It would take al Qaeda all of Ramadan to cut his head off.
2. He has to use a French bidet to wipe his ass.
3. He puts a hole in the ozone layer everytime he farts.
the Internet Video Pirates did steal the movie, only to rip-off Michael Moore. A link to the Bit Torrent appears to exist on the Moore Watch web site? Boggle!
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"Ya know. I'm sick and tired of the "leaving information out" argument against Michael Moore. When is the last time *you* made an argument and you brought mentioned every last possible fact that could harm your argument? When a person makes anargument, it *is not their responsibility to make the counter argument*. It is the responsibility of the opposing party in the argument."
Whether you're writing an assay or creating a movie, you can do whichever you want: present one side of the story or both. However, when I see a movie that is clearly presenting only one side of an issue, the alarm bells go off: Clearly the writer/director is not interested in giving me the whole story. Therefore I disregard that source of information. As should you. Convincing arguments need to present both sides of an issue (or appear to do so) while still making their point. The biggest problem with this movie is that many people WANT to believe what it says and therefore do not analyze it closely.
>I haven't seen the Bush Administration's movie in my local theaters, so I can't comment on that.
Well, you can pick up the Bush Administration's TV series on Fox "News"...
Excellent description. Someone like you should host a centrist news show where they dig through the crap that conservative and liberal media spew out and somehow pull the truth from it.
Go google on images from Vietnam, that were played on the six o'clock news. Try the famous picture of the girl on fire with napalm, that was plastered everywhere.
This is what war *IS*. Blood and death and shattered bodies: this is the real world, not some video game or "action movie". You are, as the citizen of a democracy, *SUPPOSED* to vote on things - and I refer to Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al, as "things" - that affect the real world. If you voted for them, you voted for *this*.
Too real for you? Want to live in a fantasy, and keep your kids in a fantasy?
My kids have to live in the real world, as I do.
No 'R' rating.
mark
Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there
We've found weapons in Iraq; we've found weapons that were shipped out of Iraq; we have extensive documentation of massive amounts of weapons that were in Iraq; and we have Iraq itself claiming to have the weapons. What more do you want?
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
And then you have the president, vice president, etc, all making numerous statements that Iraq wasn't definitely connected to 9/11. That Rice misspoke once (or whatever) is surely not representative of the administration when the rest of it was repeating the oposite over and over.
The 9/11 commission's report was in full agreement with what the administration had been saying.
Oh God, that slate article is painful. It's so full of bile and straw men it makes Michael Moore look like.. um.. I'd put the name of a really good journalist here but I can't think of any.
The point at which I basically lost faith in anything that one article has to say is the bit where he's talking about Afghanistan. He has a list of six points from the film, and the sixth one is:
"6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)"
Wait, what? The film doesn't say Afghanistan was a waste at all, anywhere, in any way. The film says the opposite, that our response to Afghanistan was underpowered and late, and is pretty clear about this.
After this bullet point, the Slate article lambasts Moore for being contradictory in saying that our response to Afghanistan was simultaneously "a waste" and that we didn't send enough men... despite the fact that... ummm... Moore never calls Afghanistan a waste, only the "didn't send enough men" thing.
If you have to insert words into your enemy's mouth in order to argue against things they didn't say...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Is it just me or did you write that review in LISP?
I am not a very big fan of Bush. And now I have had a chance to see several of Mr. Moores' movies. Each one is very well done. But people must remember that Mr. Moore is not making a documentary. These movies are less about emotionless facts, and more about getting the viewer emotional about something. When people feel emotional, they tend to do something about it. Take Nazi Germany. Many thousands of people participated in Kristallnacht. Why? Because they were emotionaly charged. I find Mr. Moores' movies to be very well scripted and very thought provoking, but we must remember that when the movie is over we need to ask more questions. What did he leave out that did not fit HIS picture of the world?
Textbook definitions include:
"A non-fiction text using 'actuality' footage, which may include the live recording of events and relevant research materials (i.e. interviews, statistics, etc.). This kind of text is uually informed by a particular point of view, and seeks to address a particular social issue which is related to and potentially affects the audience."
--Paul Wells, "The Documentary Form: Personal and Social 'Realities,'" An Introduction to Film Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Jill Nelmes, 212.
"A term with a wide latitude of meaning, basically used to refer to any film or program not wholly fictional in nature."
--James Monaco, The Dictionary of New Media, 94.
"A nonfiction film that organizes and presents factual materials to make a point."
--Gerald Mast and Bruce F. Kawin, A Short History of the Movies, 7th ed., 646.
(Source: DocFTV.com)
Facts can be true. But truth is made up of full context. Documentaries (and even news stories) are the results of editing decisions, so truth cannot be achieved. However, that doesn't mean the facts are lies.
-- SYS 64738 --
The weekend estimates for F 9/11 has it number 1 with $21.8 mil for an average of $25k per screen. Compare that to White Chicks that brought in $19 mil but on 2,726 screens for an average per screen of only $7.19k. By limiting to less than 1 third the number of screens Moore almost guarantees that mosts of the shows will be sold out and there will be line ups to buy tickets. This makes news that is free advertising for the movie. An interesting tactic. It reminds me of when Churchill was explaining why he had the British Parliment renovated with less seats than the total number of members. He said that when everyone attended to vote on an important bill some would have to stand at the back and sit in the aisles. This would lend a sense of importance and urgency to the bill and increase the drama of the event. Maybe 868 was the only number of screens available at short notice but in this case it is turning out as a shrewd tactics as the records fall.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
2 cases: if the theatre is older, the file is on some number of reels, 6 or so I guess. When the first reel is done at the first screen, they carry it to the next projection room and start it there while 2nd reel is playing in first theatre. Thus with staggered starting times it can be shown in several theatres simultaneously.
In newer theatres, which are completely automated, the film is one long reel that sits horizontally, that can take off film from the center while adding to the outer edge. The file travels through one projector, then literally to another projection room, (again with a slightly later starting time), and maybe others projection booths, which in these multiplexes are pretty close together, before returing to the reel, for the next show.
Entire posting is a flamebait. Anyone who sees it will only like/dislike it based on political views. Since people who hate Bush are more likely to see it, reviews will continue to run positive, but all know that it is nothing but propaganda created by a skilled movie director. Anyone who says otherwise is letting their emotion cloud their thought, or lack thereof.
In addition to that, this site (also has a link to the .torrent of the movie) is dedicated to uncovering the truth behind moore's claims. I find it interesting to read about how his editing distorts things so much.
In Bowling the speech given by NRA pres. Heston was actually snippets from two different speeches spliced together in numerous places. If you watch it, you'll see that Heston is even wearing different clothes during the clip of what is supposed to be one continual flow of speech.
There are many more things in Moore's movies that are so misleading that I have no desire to sit through one of his movies. I will watch it, but only to see what kind of claims he makes and whether they actually carry any validity.
what?
On the off chance you're telling the truth, I brought these posts to the attention of KING 5 News and Michael Moore and/or his people via e-mail.
Your actions could cause a panic in a crowded theater-- leading to injuries and/or death of innocent people-- and surely they fall under some antiterrorism law somewhere, since you're releasing chemicals into public spaces for nefarious purposes.
No matter what you think of Michael Moore, what you claim to be doing in an attempt to squelch his right to free speech makes you much worse than him.
blahblahblahblahblah http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feat ure=1150
...just watch the fox network and the o'reilly factor instead. Bill will tell you the truth in a fair and balanced manner...just ask him.
I watched this movie, and while I do not always agree with Moore's politics he most certainly does not hate America. He's clearly advocating that America should be stronger, better.
The primary accusations that Moore makes in his film:
- Bush has received millions of dollars from the Saud family, this has resulted in unprecendented access.
- In August of 2001, Bush took a vacation when the threat was building.
- The morning of 9/11, Bush made a photo-op appearance at a school. There is footage showing Bush sitting in shock with a stupid look on his face after he is notified of the attacks.
- There is a very moving interview with a mother from Flint, Michigan... She talks about opportunities, Flint, America... then later she talks about her feelings following the death of her son in Iraq.
So what Moore is saying... Bush doesn't give a shit about Americans, and he's a uncertain leader in a time of crisis.
The accuastions Moore's critics make is nit picking about some petty details. But not once do they ever address the substance of Moore's claims. That video showing Bush is pretty damning, and maybe that's why they want you to avoid looking at it.
Yeah right. Factual from the man that had pictures of the prison abuse and CHOSE not to bring that forward. Please.
And here is a link to a rebuttal of Hitchen's article.
Did you call 911 also? hmmm.... I've never seen anyone panic over the smell of shit. They usually just groan and clutch their stomachs. But don't worry, I am taking the necessary precautions. Obvoiously, I'm posting to /. through an anonymous web proxy at 12.130.90.11. Also, I was sure to use gloves in carefully constructing and deploying my devices so as not to leave finger prints. Anyway, thanks for alerting the media, for some reason they tried to ignore my operations to date!
this makes a good counterpoint to everything hitchens says...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
We also desperately need to re-think our relationship with Israel. For too long we have been fed with large servings of Israeli propaganda. We need to see the other side of the story. I would hope that one-day he tackles that taboo subject. We don't need another "Exodus".
If you agree with what he says you are unlikely to vote Bush regardless and Bush supporters will most likely view it as fabricated propaganda regardless of its accuracy or failings.
What I interpreted the movie's point as was trying not to convince Republicans to vote Democrat, but to convince Democrats to vote.
The Democrat party is currently grappling with stunning apathy among its voter base. This is probably because the voter base is horrified at the degree to which the Democrat party has taken them for granted. But, that said, in 2000 the Democrat's party wasn't having problems with support. Their problem was simply getting out the vote, among a voter base who solidly believed at the time Gore would be no better than Bush.
Bush just happened to have proved them wrong.
Bush wouldn't have won if all the left-wingers who'd voted Nader had voted Gore. If Moore can convince people not to vote third party this election because now isn't the best time, or convince people to go out and vote who might not have otherwise, that's a HUGE victory.
This said, I am totally unable to concieve, if this movie was "preaching to the choir", how one makes a movie about a political figure that isn't preaching to the choir. The "choir" is apparently 50% of america's voting public.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
you're leaving in a banana's republic...
Now, you tell me if that connection is "close and convoluted":
Here's background (including flight manifest) that clarifies "Flight of Fantacy" errors of "bitchslapped" & Moore.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
No need to bring Hitler into it... if bashing the commander in chief means you don't support the troops, does that mean the conservatives abandoned our soldiers in Serbia during the Clinton adminstration? Interesting how all these little rules only get applied to the "other side"...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Unfortunately, far too many of the people seeing the movie are clearly taking the entire movie at face value.
What's your point?
If "too many" people can't think for themselves, too bad for them. Is that a reason to not show the whole movie? Face it, we live in a world where much of what hits our senses is unjust, untrue, disgusting, whatever. It is each of our jobs to use our crap filter and not take everything as gospel. The world has always been like this, I believe, and is unlikely to ever change.
I have really had it with this site. The libs have taken over.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
here
It's worth noting that he was killed just a few days before re-election in the Senate. He was going to run for a third term and was considered a shoe-in.
Details can be found here. Under the heading: "Wellstone Death Complicates Senate Battle".
Interestingly, the Republicans own the Senate right now. We all know that a Republican Senate virtually a REQUIREMENT for any President hoping to wage a war [unilaterally]?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I wonder why people get so upset about two hour left-wing propaganda film that will be seen by less people than listen to Rush Limbaugh each week. Seriously, we have 24/7 right-wing propaganda with Fox News. Rush is on what?, three hours a day, five days a week? Not to mention Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, etc.
Why isn't the rest of the news media questioning the bias, innuendo and fabrications of these sources the way they are going after Michael Moore? Why is a two hour film so much more dangerous and worthy of great debate while round-the-clock right-wing propaganda goes mostly unchallenged?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Michael Moore has stated publicly on several occasions that he was glad that the World Trade Center was blown up.
An unsubstanitated bald faced LIE.
For God's sake look for the truth.
There is no point to spreading lies and character assination of one man, or any group in the name of proping up a series of bad decisions made by inept and self serving politicians and businessmen.
In Oviedo, FL at Regal Oviedo Marketplace 22 on Friday night's 7:20pm show the film "broke" right when the Senators were being asked about their son's joining the Marines.
We entered the theater and saw no police, but when we left, seconds after the film broke, there were six police officers waiting outside the door to the theater, almost like they were called just before the breaking of the film!
There have been reports lately of democratic strategists insisting that dems lie in order to sway conservative opinion.
Are these reports coming from Ann Coulter?
Claim that he has broken ties with your views without giving real examples and while relying on sketchy facts at best.
You know what, why don't you check out the American Conservative magazine sometime...
http://www.amconmag.com/
Go back through some of the past issues and articles that our online. The magazine is published by Pat Buchanan(former Nixon/Reagan speech writer) and Taki Theodoracopulos.
They despise President Bush.
Like this particular article from early June, comparing President Bush to an Edsel... "brilliant presentation followed by total failure" is what Taki says.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_07/taki.html
Its hard to trust a party that advises its members to lie in order to win elections.
I've been watching politics for 20 years. I've seen Democrats lie, cheat and steal. I've seen Republicans lie, cheat and steal. But the only part which has institionalized the way by which you lie, cheat and steal in order to win elections is the Republican party.
My father told me several weeks ago. "I realized something the other day. I'm a conservative. That's why I can't vote for President Bush, because he's no conservative."
You should read what Pat and Taki have to say. Like Moore, I don't always agree with their politics, but in many cases I can see the substance of their complaints and understand their thinking.
This movie is the most outrageous display of propoganda. And the movie is on the verge of being the target of a laible suite. The movie is so full of half truths, I suggest that anyone even considering to take this movie at face value make a list of the top 3 things that outraged themselves and go do research on the issues. Michael Moore is like Howard Stern with a video camera, he just put whatever opn the screen for shock value using selective editing and the premice of content control to state his particular message. Since Michael Moore does not believe in private property i believe that his movie should make its way onto the internet as a free download.
Yes, We need to tell the world about this. They need to know that the Israelis shower while the Palestinians stink and wear the same rags all day. The Israelis send their children to school while the Palestinians strap bombs to their kids. Praise be to Allah for all of the self hating Jews on /. for we will kill them last after we rape their women and piss on their children. Take a shit on a bucket of Ben and Jerry's. Allah Fagbar!! Allah Fagbar!! Allah Fagbar!!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president ... is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
What does the bible have to do with GWB II's lies?
You guys are serious morons.
Everyone thought Coleman's campaign was over after Wellstone died. In fact, it was until the heavily politicized Wellstone memorial that turned off the Minnesota public.
You see, it is impossible to campaign against a dead man when you have only a week to campaign.
is that, even though he has some good points, he's overly fanatical, and doesnt look like someone who should be taken seriously, and he isnt good at getting the point across.
he needs a spokesman.
also, he didnt make matters good for himslf with the movie title, because bradbury is pissed because he didnt ask for permission, bradbury prolly woulda said yes, but he's pissed that moore didnt even TRY to even ask him about it. that's the prob right there, moore is too much of a reactionary, if he thinks "HEY! I CAN DO THIS!" he does. he's a bit arrogant in that respect.
however, I still would like to go see this film and see what it's about.
Wait, don't tell me. I'm really good at this. You're on the left, aren't you?
I bet I nailed it.
I saw it, and I liked it. The imagery is quite shocking in a few places. Despite what some other people have said, I would recommend against letting your kids in to see this one, at least in the theater - wait for the DVD (due out in October). It's certainly not a film that provides a lot of entertainment value (especially when compared with 'Bowling for Columbine'), but the subject matter is serious enough that it warrants a viewing. The film is strictly anti-Bush, there are no Kerry clips or anything else. If you are anti-Bush yourself, then this film is right up your alley. If you are pro-Bush, then you should probably see it to know the charges you'll be defending him against. And if you're undecided, this film will definitely turn your to the anti-Bush camp.
So, Moore fails to initiate real reflection about what really matters.
First, this is really a petrolum war. Given past posts on /. about the gas crisis and the growing dependancy of America and the Western world on the Persian Gulf oil (25% today to 50% in about 5 years for USA).
It fails to present the real issue to us: The oil embargo on Iraq cannot just continue as it was before the war. Not only Iraqii were penalized by it, but also Western world was penalized since oil dependancy is shifting swiftly to the Persian Gulf. So, would you remove the embargo on Iraqian oil with a guy like Saddam Hussein at the commands of the country?
Since the embargo program was a failure because some corruption exists within the UN administrators of the program (and this is under investigation by UN itself right now, but don't count on Moore to let you know more about this) and Saddam was able to manage to sell more oil than he was supposed to and keep the money instead of buying food for the Iraqis, he was able to stay at the commands of the nation with the help of some UN insiders. It is not impossible at all that some opposing countries were just trying to get a commercial advantage on Iraq oil with the cooperation of Saddam Hussein knowing how much they can sell back this oil to the America.
On his side, bin Laden is just trying to control oil exportation from Persian Gulf countries using the Al-Qaeda terrorism organization. So, he is just trying to break the distribution channels everywhere in the Persian Gulf countries. Democracy is surely his number one ennemy. It is much more easier to make an agreement with half a dozen dictators or war lords than with a democratic country.
At my sense, Michael Moore is just a clown with his so-called documentary movie Farenheit 9/11.
BTW, since some of you have raised the issue about the other Palme d'or winner documentary from Jacques-Yves Cousteau, just keep in mind at the time Slient World was produced it was a real technical advance in the cinematography art to be able to produce an underwater movie. This, itself, justify the Palme d'or. Nothing like that in Moore's movie.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Honestly, I do not think it has much chance of swaying people -- because those who went to see it (for the most part) agreed with it. Those who "need" to see it probably won't go.
As a side note, we had to buy tickets two days in advance.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
US politics does not work that way, they don't go around killing each other when its much easier, more effective, and legal, to dump money into mud-slinging adds.
If you think Wellstone was killed by Republicans you are a fool.
Your point is well taken, and I like your approach, but you didn't quote Moore accurately to begin with. What he said in the film is that the bin Ladens were flown out of the U.S. "from 9/13", not "on 9/13." In other words, beginning on 9/13, and then continuing in the days that followed, they were flown out of the country. It began at at time when airline flights were under restrictions, and continued after the restrictions were lifted. That is true. No spin there.
For what it's worth, Fahrenheit 9/11 received a 14A rating in Canada... and we tend to be a little stricter in terms of such things. For example, an R rating in Canada means if you're under 18, you don't get in at all, even if accompanied by an adult/parent.
Return of the King had a PG-13 rating in the US, and that included a scene with several heads being chucked over a wall via catapult.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All the interviews tool place after his death
"Lipscomb became involved in the project after receiving a call from Moore's company. Staffers had read a magazine article that mentioned her son's death. She met with Moore, a Davison native, at her house. "
Please see my comments regarding quotes from Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice. They ARE misleading. It isn't a guess or a hunch or an irrational bending of logic. Well hell, just for giggles I will put them here:
."
"We know where the weapons are . .
--Donald Rumsfeld (where are they then?)
"There is a definite link between Iraq and 9/11."
--Condi Rice (commission just said the opposite. Iraq was not involved in 9/11.)
There are other things in the film I want to know how valid they are. I don't accept them at face value. But when you hear the words coming out of the horse's mouth, it is hard to refute.
The New York Times: Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?
By PHILIP SHENON / The New York Times
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/ind ex.php?id=25
some quotes follow, please see the link for the full article...
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).
Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.
"We have gone through every single word of this film; literally every word; and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations."
That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."
Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.
Yes, even so. Her son is just as dead, and her grief is just as real. Her son would be alive today if he hadn't been sent to Baghdad.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
He said that specifically on Friday's broadcast of the syndicated program Good Day Live when discussing that segment in the movie.
We are living in a country that had its president appointed by the supreme court. The president america voted for was Al Gore. He however did not have the same connections as bush. And the public is content with that.
Moving on, our current president is quite possibly the worst president we have ever had. His constant religious beliefs and expressions alienate americans. Why? Well america is made up of hundred of religions, wiccans, atheist, catholics etc etc... And lets not forget the evil doers are also sons of god but you don't hear bush saying that do you? Also the bible teaches to reject and disregard worldly leaders. We dont need some fanatic in office starting holy wars.
Bush's patriot acts are stripping away american freedom and privacy. The war on terror is a purposeful ambiguous war meant to wage for the decades to come.
Ok, in general... The two party system is a sham. The majority of the politicians are corrupt and have been for years. This country is ruled by megacorporations and not the people. Voting is effectively pointless. If its slightly close the candididate with more power can simply have himself appointed president.
I don't like Bush or Kerry in the next election. Personally I wish perot would run, or someone would give Nader a real shot at running. I will vote for kerry in the next election out of neccesity to get bush out of office.
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (which we've known about for decades) and they were simply hidden/moved before we invaded? Come on guys be logical here. A nutjob dictator who gases his own people most certainly had something nasty to throw around. Maybe our government wasn't lying, maybe those were conjectures and they just turned out to be wrong. However, I'm still leaning more towards the weapons just being moved.
this site has way too many libertarians and non-americans to make any relevant political statement about US politics. Micheal Moore's biggest thing to sell is himself. He probably believes what he espouses. Hmm didn't he finanace this surepticiously using money he hid from Disney.
So if he lied to get the money to make a movie, why wounldn't he lie and slant the truth to support his own ends??
IMO the movie was very good. However, I was a little bummed out at what wasn't in the movie. From my perspective, there were two, major issues why the war was wrong, or at least at the wrong time.
The first, which I think the movie covers very well, is that the real focus post 9/11 should have been on capturing Bin Laden & Co. instead of using 9/11 as an excuse to overturn and occupy Iraq.
The second issue, however, was virtually absent from the film. Namely, it seems reasonable to me that if a major undertaking as the Iraq war is going to unfold, then a large majority of people should support the effort. After all, if one of the supposed objectives is to bring democracy to Iraq, then shouldn't we have democracy in the US, Spain, the UK, Poland, and all the other countries who sent people to die? And, not only should a majority of people support this decision, but that the majority should be a large one and not a hair-splitting, edge of the seat vote? And, given the global nature of the undertaking, shouldn't the vast majority of people in the world believe the action to be just? Yes, yes, and more yes. I think had the movie focused on this huge hole in the Bush justification, it would have added even more evidence to the idea that the war was not about any of the stated objectives, but rather about corporate and elite control of resources.
Dude, where's the democracy? The fact stands that the **VAST** majority of the world's population was against the war at the time it was launched. Even within the US, the majority was fickle and thin. So much for "proportional response".
I missed
proof
It could be that even more than average fell into this demographic for this movie, but I'd like to see some real evidence before I believe that, but otherwise this doesn't look any different than the null hypothesis to me.
You should really learn to read what someone is saying before making a fool of yourself. I certainly understand why you would post as an AC. I'm not spinning things to the right, mainly because I'm NOT a conservative. I'm a libertarian. I'm opposed to both Bush AND Moore. I'm opposed to the Iraq war, so I would tend to agree with some of Moore's statements about Bush. However, that doesn't change the fact that the man has a track record of lying and misleading, both in his films and other public statements, and those track record undercuts whatever he says.
Ok, it might be flamebait. But the quotes are straight from on camera comments by both. I feel the Bush supporters out en force to try to mod down comments like this.
True but a very specific kind of opinion, it's a big long campaign advertisement. Is this the first time people will actually pay to watch such a thing?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The poster to which I replied made the following claim: "Michael Eisner is quoted in the press as saying that he didn't want to risk having certain tax benefit revoked...." I challenged the truth of that statement. None of the replies to me so far have even remotely supported the poster's original statement, and none of the links you provided have any link from Eisner saying any such thing, so what you're saying is not responsive to what I said.
I love how its perfectly fine for Bush's side to have bastard mouth-pieces like Rush Limbaugh
...
... and makes a movie about it, suddenly all hell breaks out, we must stop him! woooo! ... suddenly freedom of speech is only allowed for the murderous oil family supporters.
--- who twist facts, lie, treat you like some dumbass that wont see through the lies, sit there doing drugs while saying that druggies should take the most severe punishments
Yet for some reason, when an opposing voice that takes direct quotes, real video clips, and facts that just happen to all show what a dumbass Bush is
i recently read that McCain-Feingold's restrictions on political advertisements prior to an election could be interpreted as applying to this movie. Once someone starts restricting political speech one steps on a slippery slope. if a 3rd-party corporation buys advertising unflattering to a political candidate it should not matter whether that corporation is the NRA or Lion's Gate (mr. moore's film distributor).
what's to prevent the Vast Right Wing conspiracy from putting together films that says 'Kerry sucks' then blanketing the airwaves with ads for these "movies?" Coming soon to a TV near you: ads for "Kerry Hates Guns" by the NRA, "Kerry hates babies" by Right To Life, "Kerry hates mustard" by the Republican Catsup Attack Machine.
has George Soros purchased slashdot while I wasn't looking?
If you are spending your hard earned money looking for truth or fact, please look elsewhere.
Hmm. The documentary is chuck full of facts.
Just as a White House Press Conference is chuck full of facts.
What they both lack is truth. They are both facades, they are facts presented in a way to make an argument. The White House wants you to believe that the President is self-assured, and competent. Michael Moore wants to show you the other side... the vacant look on his face when he learns of the atacks, how he is very chummy with the House of Saud and oil companies.
Or are you claiming that Moore's movie lacks facts? That these things never happened? That the footage he has is also computer generated? That's a pretty bold claim.
If you ever took a course on philosophy, you'd know that the truth isn't so easy to find. It is up to the viewer to take the argument that Moore has composed, and place it in contrast to the facade that the White House Press Office puts forth, and decide... which one is closer to the truth.
I remember Roger & Me, and you're nit picking. Whether the plant closing took place 7 years later, or 1 year later, the fact is that Flint, Michigan was ignored. That's all Moore was trying to point out in that film.
Why do people think that a documentary must be a completely objective, facts only movie?
This is why. Note definition 2 states "objectively without editorializing." That's what a documentary is. Regardless of which way the slant or opinion is, if it's there, the film is no longer a documentary, but a commentary. That's not to say commentaries don't have merit, but to try to pass it as a documentary is incorrect and misleading.
Let me tell you, I like my Adam Smith. Even before this movie I was determined to vote against Bush.
If you like Adam Smith, then Mr. Bush is not your candidate. First, he is a protectionist with his steel tariffs and farming subsidies. Second, he has a strong connection to business and it was Mr. Smith who urged suspicious attention to any proposed new law or regulation that comes from businessmen, because they have "generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public".
I suggest that anyone even considering to take this movie at face value make a list of the top 3 things that outraged themselves and go do research on the issues
I can't agree more. The problem is that people will listen and not think for themselves.
One of the obvious things that got me was the SS protection of the Saudi embassy after 9/11. I think it is a responsible thing to have additional security protect ANY embassy that might be the victim of crime.
As for a large US corporation having meetings with Saudis. Assume for a second that the Saudis control 6-7% of the US economy, at that rate it is pretty likely that almost any US based company is going to have interactions with a Saudi influenced company. There is no conspiricy required.
As for Saudi investing in Texas oil companies this makes sense. They get their money from oil, why not use this to get involved in oil and energy worldwide. This way no matter what happens to their Saudi oil, they benefit.
If there is a massive uprising in Saudi Arabia, they get money from oil in other countries. They're just hedging their bets.
"We know where the weapons are . . ."
Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there.
Where do you get your news? Probably not from here.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
Yes it is very pro American.
Democracy needs criticism and choice. If this movie can make people think, it will have made a difference.
Likely people will just jump on the bandwagon of Moores second rate conspiracy theory until a better one comes along.
The point is that *BSD is dying. There is no use supporting
marginalized software that won't be around in a year or two.
And who funded the hijackers?
Was it the Saudi government, the population at large or individuals in the country?
Don't confuse the government, the citizens, and the group of individuals.
Christopher Hitchens has a strong record for high quality attacks on major government figures, notably producing the article/book/movie "The Trial of Henry Kissinger". He's around twice as smart than Michael Moore, and a hundred times more honest, he's also personally debated Moore in the past.
I'm just going to post the excerpts posted by winds of change. But as they say, read the whole thing.
Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro
Your kidding right. Yeah he lists his sources and uses parts of them. The trick is to the "parts of them" that he uses. He is at good at editing the truth and getting people to believe his innuendos and half-truths as the Nazi propagandist were. For example: Moore rushes a Senator unexpectedly and starts asking him questions about his family contributing its kids for the war. The Senator replies that he has two nephews in the military and one is about to be deployed to the Middle East. Him asking the question is in the movie. The Senators response is not though, leading those people watching the movie to beleive in a LIE. This is what Moore is good at. Distorting the truth so much and so well, that his followers eventually think that it is the truth. Moore is so full of BS he could fertilize the world into farming land.
I stumbled onto these and i thought they were interesting: Michael Moore: Patriot or Treasoness and a rebuttle: Reaction to Michael Moore: Patriot or Treasoness
Honestly, what insanity has befallen the United States when people refuse to see a movie because it is biased? What sort of way to behave is that? By this self-censoring of the political spectrum, people become more and more convinced that their side is the "right" side--and that it has the more potent quantity of the "truth", compared to their opponents. Well folks, I've got some news for you. Consider this: the reason more than one opinion in politics exists is because there is no true, or right answer. Despite the fact that the USA Patriot Act is a Civil Rights-limiting document, the average US citizen still holds more freedom in the palm of their hand than do the majority of the people in this world. By refusing to even acknowledge the existence of another opinion on matters you are simply wasting your precious, beautiful freedom. It is an absolute neccesity that not only do you see this movie, that you expound upon, or at least THINK about why you do or do not agree with it. Don't turn to FoxNews or CNN to spit out some sort of trash debate in the name of "balanced and fair news," because by deciding what should be presented, versus what is not presented, they skew the news. Everyone in this nation is in such a hurry to be balanced, never to express an opinion, never creating a new idea, eager to align themselves with current majority trends and, unfortunately, to be normal. I absolutely applaud those individuals who do not fear striking out against the norm to present a side of things that is unique, and well researched. See the movie.
Why do people moderate a post as a Troll just because they disagree? Oh, I forgot, because everybody on slashdot is supposed to think alike.
I haven't seen this particular film (and don't have any interest in it, based on what I think of Moore). I already oppose both George Bush and the war in Iraq, so I don't see a lot of value in it, to be honest.
However, I'll give one example in Bowling which I think demonstrates Moore's dishonesty. Do you remember the scene in which he goes to a bank in Michigan to make a point that a bank was handing out rifles at the bank? The whole scene was staged, and Moore misled the bank about what he was doing when he filmed the scene. Moore had complied with the bank's requirements to receive a free rifle a couple of month's prior to that and the bank participated in staging what is seen on film because Moore presented himself as someone praising the program. He makes the viewer believe that he (or anyone) can just walk into a bank and fill out a few pieces of paper and be handed a gun in the bank lobby. In reality, actual customers go to a gun dealer after an FBI background check is done to receive their weapons. If you'll recall, Moore asks the woman he's been dealing with whether she doesn't think it's dangerous to hand out guns in a bank (or words that that effect). He clearly wants people to believe this is the way the bank's program operates.
You can reasonably argue about whether or not a bank is smart to participate in such a program, but the scene is quite clearly deceptive. There are numerous other scenes in the movie with problems. I think his tendency to mislead viewers (and subjects) undercuts his credibility, because it makes me wonder what ELSE he's leaving out.
I have no problem with being biased, because a documentary MUST come from a point of view. As an ex-journalist (and as someone who is making a short film right now to enter into film festivals), I know that every film (fiction or non-fiction) has a bias, BUT criticising deception isn't the same thing as complaining about bias.
Focus. The reason Bush said we just had to attack Iraq was of their current stockpiles that after a year of occupation haven't been found. Dont' take my word for it, here is straight from whitehouse.gov:
.inspectors . . . concluded that Iraq . . . produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
/ 20 021007-8.html
In 1995 . . . the regime was forced to admit . . . it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents . .
. . . surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10
Dated October 2002.
After all of that hoopla, a few shells and some stuff in a sink was found? Yeah, that sounds like they really are on to something there.
Not one shred of evidence o
The movie just came out. I don't know about you but Moore responded to valid criticisms of his movie with "Have you seen it? No? Then you can't talk about it." even though much of the content of the movie has been public for weeks.
Furethermore, since Moore has consistently been misleading and untruthful in the past, what's to assume he'd change his tune.
Even if I didn't think Moore was a big, fat, pathetic loser who takes out his own depression on everyone around him with his non-stop torrent of hate speech, I'd still have a hard time believing anyone who was so full of himself that he must weigh 300 pounds. What else could explain that he so detests the very country where someone like him could become so rich and famous?
There is no doubt in my mind that he is using his "satire" and "mockumentaries" to blur the lines between truth and his warped anti-American political views in order to to sway the ignorant, or more commonly these days, people too angry to bother with facts or reason. Any legitimate points he might make (however few) are far outweighed by his gross manipulation and distortion of facts.
I have one suggestion to Bush's critics: If Bush is so bad, what would you do better? Even his opponent in the presidential race can't answer that question. Stop hating so much and start coming up with answers of your own. I'm so sick of hearing what's wrong with the USA and the current administration with no reasonable alternatives being offered except "Hate the rich!" and "Kowtow to the U.N.!"
Let's hear some ideas for a change.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Sure he hates what America is doing right now.
But he is doing the duty of EVERY patriotic American. He is pushing his ideas on how to make a better America. Every citizen of every country has the same duty.
Rather then blindly sitting by he is trying to promote change in the behaviour of the people.
He has not given any aid the the enemy, he is only trying to stop a war.
I've had people say "the time to argue is over, don't try to change things, this is the way it is".
If that was the way democracy was blacks wouldn't be people, and women wouldn't have the vote.
I don't know Eisner's specific reasons for not wanting to distribute the film, but none of what you're saying is responsive to what I questioned. The poster to which I responded claimed that Eisner had been quoted as saying that he was afraid of losing tax breaks. I find it unlikely that was the reason, but even if it WERE true, I'd like to see where Eisner has been quoted saying anything similar.
As for the other things, a company the size of Disney has to decide what it can get away with in the face of public opinion. Disney's various outlets have routinely distributed content which either the left OR the right don't like, but it seems pretty clear to me that the company decided this one was TOO controversial to handle. I don't see it as being especially noteworthy. There was never any real question about whether the film was going to be released, but rather whether Disney's name would be connected to it and on what financial terms it would be released to Disney to Harvey and Co.
Yes it must be understood that the Bush Administration has not kept everything above board as they should have. It must also be understood that Teddy Kennedy is a slim and trim upright, 100% patriotic, 100% pro-democracy American that has absolutely no ties to organized crime what so ever. Yeah right.
Michael Moore's film is a laughable and blatant attempt to discredit the current administration and push the Democrats Socialist agenda. He calls it a Documentary. Like the rest of his work, that is a statement based on falehoods and twisting of words.
He has a very clever film editor. If you notice in the movie, all the clips are Bush bashing, soldier bashing and America bashing. This man is so full of hate it is near terrifying. Anyway, I am tired of typing about a traitorous idiot, so I will leave you with a true fact. The definition of Documentary.
From The New Webster's Dictionary
Document 1.n. An official paper that gives information or supplies evidence
2. To support or supply with documents Documentary
3. set down in writing
Documentaries n 4. a documentary film
So he has supposedly created an official film to provide information and evidence. IE It should be based on truth from BOTH sides and present ALL the facts to be considered a documentary. What Moore has created is a patently political, incredibly biased, piece of garbage, propaganda film. Nuff said.
Your actions in life will determine your children's future.
As of 3pm this afternoon, the comments on this article exceed 1500. The comments from ALL OTHER articles on the main page sum to only 1493.
I'd say this clear "matters" to many people.
He's just pissed because Alexander Cockburn drank all the fucking Bushmill's. He's such a notorious crank that he wrote a book calling out MOTHER TERESA!
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
You're right that the publicity has been great for Moore and will generate crowds that would have smaller otherwise. The only thing I will add is to note the irony of the fact that campaign finance reform might end up derailing advertising for this movie after the end of July. Such rules have been a bedrock issue for most liberal groups for years, which makes it funny when they now howl in protest when the new rules they've pushed start to bite one of their own. Such hypocrisy abounds in politics. This just happens to be one example.
I believe Moore was looking for enlisted soldiers in Iraq.
Politicians sons are likely going to be officers, so they wouldn't apply to Moorse skewed statistic.
That being said you can be sure Moore had more then a few hours of film on the cutting room floor.
Does it just make you comfortable to see a bunch of pages of footnotes? An author can have tons of references and footnotes, yet still be just as misleading. I've working both as a journalist and a political consultant, so I've seen it done (both well and poorly) many times.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/
The Fifth Estats, a Canadian investigative show on CBC, had already done a documentary on 9/11 and literally EVERYTHING Moore says in his film is backed up by this episode (see link). In fact they had even MORE DAMAGING evidence which Moore does not include in his film to which I can only assume he HELD BACK that information in fear of a complete backlash from the American public.
It's very frightening what the Americans are ignoring about Bush. They have been so completely duped that even in the face of truth they can't come to grips with the fact the the Bush family is simply not out for the good of the American people.
I'm so happy to be Canadian, and proud to not have gone to war to line the pockets of your president and vice president.
PLEASE follow the link above and read everything you can from the online report (originally a tv documentary). PLEASE keep an open mind on the subject.
Any number of respondents have posted that the Governor of Florida is GWB's brother (duh), and thus a potential channel through which influence can flow.
But still, not a single person has even suggested a specific instance of favoritism actually exercised on Disney's behalf.
So are all of you just saying that Eisner is just hedging his bets to secure *future* favoritism, or do you believe that something has actually transpired?
The parent is a troll.
Why do you insist on going against the status quo?
Majority rules, except when it disagrees with you huh?
B.) The vast majority of criticism here has been leveled at Mr. Moore, not the film specifically. Certainly we're all aware of Mr. Moore's politics and practices. I don't need to see the movie to understand that its point is anti-Bush, and I don't need to cite scenes from any movie to poke holes in Mr. Moore.
actually no - not a single member of the bin laden or any other saudi or anyone left the country during the three day lockdown. only after the national airspace was opened again did they leave. now - the airspace was opened for commericial traffic and not chartered aircraft like they took, but moore implies they left while the airspace was closed. it wasn't, places were up an about. and the saudi/bin laden planes weren't the only chartered aircraft to fly then too. some celeb's were allowed to fly on chartered aircraft, as well as some politicians.
For all you know, Michael Moore's site could be full of propaganda. Better to check a site that normally tracks movies and see what they are saying.
Also, compare the number of theatres showing this movie to the number of theatres showing the other movies. What's going on here?
[o]_O
Haha. North Korea had two political modes with Clinton, brinksmanship (which they are the kooky masters of), and essentially extortion. If we pay them to keep at least their army from starving to death, and freezing to death and look the other way, they'll tone down or even eliminate the saber ratteling which destabilizes Asia, and encourages other countries to adopt nuclear arms, among other things. The Republicans in congress objected to this, and were quite invested in pursuing this course, despite the fact it was probably the quickest route to the greatest good. Since such a course might in turn foster more quicker broader economic ties with South Korea and a greater freer flow of information, which is what would really destroy the North Korea government. Bush with his moronic foriegn policy actually STRENGTHENED that boufant sporting midget. Can they make or do they have an atomic weapon? Maybe. Will it work? Maybe. Can they get it to Seoul. Yes. Can they get it to Japan? That's starting to get pretty iffy. Can they get it to the US? No way in hell. They have to get a warhead to their facilities where they assemble and launch their goofey three stage ICBM's which have never worked right, and then move those to the fixed facility their launched from. The boomer off the coast will irradiate everything between the Yalu river and 48th parallel before that happens. The North Korean leadership knows this is an absolute fact and will never try, because they have comparitively good lives while their people go the way of the Donner Party.
The North Koreans are so totally squirrly. Their fearless leader introduced himself to Madaline Albright as a "pile of rat droppings." They do things like shorten the chairs of people their negotiating with. They are just nuts. And some of them have resorted to cannibalism. North Korea isn't dangerous to anyone who isn't living in South Korea. (And quite frankly if it wasn't bad for my Euro-Pacific fund, I'd wish them all the luck in the world raping and pillaging those ungreatful fucks. South Korea is the France of the Pacific rim.)
But look at the good news, after his bull ran through the China shop, Bush wants to pick up, and put the evil plan of the more evil Clinton back into play. But this time it's blessed by God, so it's ok.
> What would have happened differently had the man jumped
> up out of his seat screamed out "HOLY SHIT KIDS, WE'RE
> GOING TO FUCKING DIE!" and then run out of the room?
I love how some people would like to believe that Bush had only two options: sit there are read "My Pet Goat" or get up screaming his head off that everyone was going to die.
The fact is before the event started, Bush was told that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Bush, not 6 weeks earlier had been given a briefing called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States". Bin Laden had also tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Bush also knew by this time that Bin Laden was behind the U.S.S. Cole attack. I would hope that the man who is in charge of protecting our country would have thought, "I'm going to delay this photo op, since this might be serious." But, hey, maybe that's too much to ask.
So Bush sits down. Kids start reading. Bush is told a second plane crashes. At this point, a leader would tell the kids, "Keep up the good work reading. Thank you for inviting me today, but I'm being called away -- 'president stuff'," and he would have walked out.
There is absolutely every reason to believe that Bush was needed at the beginning of this. Bush is the only person who could give the order to scramble military jets to shoot down civilian aircraft if necessary. It was later determined that Cheney gave this order and no proof could be made that Cheney checked with Bush first, although he claimed the order came from Bush.
What does Bush do instead? He sits there. Eyes looking around. Then he picks up the "My Pet Goat" book. He reads the damn thing. He sits there for close to 10 minutes. I read his reaction as Bush waiting for someone to tell him what to do.
I hope the book was worth it.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I can see where you are coming from and you are not alone in your views.
Many people do subscribe to the notion that the best way to have a discussion is to line up one group of people on one side of the road and have them start shouting "It's WHITE!" and have another group of people on the other side shouting "It's BLACK!".
This is in effect what Moore and Limbaugh do (while laughing all the way to the bank over the ill-informed multitudes who subscribe to their black and white approach.)
But you should recognize that there are others of us who view it differently, who see political discourse as a way to try and understand the multitude of people and views surrounding an issue, who see it as a way to try to bring different people to together so they can understand each other and work together for common solutions; people who do *not* view politics as a "I am right, you are wrong!" screaming match.
Maybe one day you will change. But I think not. You are having to much fun wallowing in the mudpit of prejudices that the two fat Pied Pipers of American politics have created.
I is possible to have a near dictatorship in the Canadian Parlimentary system.
Just look at the Ontario Liberals, it is possible that they might keep 1 of their election promises (they've broken two hundred of them so far). They've also rewritten and changed laws to make their behaviour legal.
I think any democracy can be perverted into a dictatorship if the governing powers wish it.
They may have oversold another theater and had to run it in an additional theater at the last minute.
Why the heck is it posted here? CmdrTaco's personal blog?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The problem is that so many liberals are failing to do that; they're simply praising the film as truth (which is what I said in my last post) despite that Moore has admitted that it is not all true.
Because it's not 100% pure, that there is 1% that we now find out was wrong.
We must condemn the whole film?
Do you apply the same standards to conservatives? Just curious.
Also, when Moore says the film is a documentary and it is not,
How is it not a documentary? Because he makes it entertaining? He should be bland and boring like those guys on PBS?
It sounds to me like you don't really have any complaints on substance you are resorting to nit picking it to death. Now that's typical of todays so-called "conservatives".
The tobacco industry ones are pretty good, of course it helps that some of them are even true.
The JFK assasination has some good ones, well thought out and logical.
Now stuff like the faked moon landings I'd consider a third rate conspiracy. The disappearing crosshairs is the funniest one. If I was to fake a moon landing, I'd use a camera with crosshairs, and not edit them in.
The point is that some people believe it to be the same crime as killing a live human being. Would you permit the murder of a child if he had been forced upon the mother in a violent act?
There's an old thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Johnson that goes like this...
"But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous..."
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Beautiful, instead of you criticising the film on it's merits, you make fun of Moore because he's fat.
Unfortunately, it's too common a reaction for may conservatives.
Check out Christopher Hitchens' article about the film. Hitchens is a liberal but the article is very fair and very balanced.
7 43 25337X/103-1867105-0707807?v=glance
http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/
I was also watching the history channel today and they had the author of a book critical of the bushes.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0
Craig Ungers, House of Bush, House of Saud. He mentioned that the Bin Laden family are heavily invested in many US corporations, the biggest being Snapple and Disney. Seems that part of Mikes movie is brought to you by the Bin Ladens.
There were LONG segments of both. A woman named Lipscomb in the US, and an unidentified woman in Iraq. Both were heartwrenching. The point about whether or not the sons deserved to die wasn't the point. THe point was for the audience to actually be confronted by the grief of war.
The biggest issue isn't whether or not they were allowed to fly when no one else could, is that they were allowed to fly out of the country at all. Fifteen of the hijackers were Saudis. According to the 9/11 Commission (Staff Statement No. 10), of the 142 Saudis that flew out of the country, only 30 were interviewed by the FBI. And how extensive do you think those interviews were?
Now, I'm not saying that all Saudis were suspects or that they should never have been allowed to leave the country. But why the rush? Especially given that we know there were ties between the terrorists and the Saudi government, ties that our government is doing its best to cover up (remember those 25 or so blacked out pages?). Why do the Saudi government any favors?
As a bush hater, I enjoyed the film's attacks on him, but I doubt they'll sway anyone who loves him, or even anyone who has a neutral opinion of him.
:). But it was great. People all laughed, or gasped at the same time :). Most of the reactions were to the admen's words themselves.
On the other hand, the film did a wonderful job capturing the emotion of the people and the families affected by the Iraq war.
That said, one of the most interesting things about the movie were the crowd reactions. It was the first time I've ever seen an audience applause after a film (doesn't really happen around here. We know there's no one to hear
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I love this!
... by the way, BUSH IS A MILLIONAIRE why do you trust him?
.. THE HAVE's and THE HAVE MORE's
Simple simmian! you're great!
you are the perfect example of what is so damn wrong with your people!
You don't like someone's opinion, so you make fun of his appearance!
I love it when you Dubya lovers make yourselves look so stupid!
You must have at least seen the commercials for the movie, where bush himself jokes about being with his own kind of people
Ya it was a joke he was making, but his choice of humour so blatantly tells us how he really feels about things.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Why is it that some people feel that the only way to argue is to build strawman arguments that can be easily torn down? Had Bush ran out of the school yelling "HOLY SHIT! WE'VE BEEN FUCKED!" waving his hands in the air. You bet, that would have terrified the children.
Had he instead said "I'm sorry kids, but some important Presidential business has come up and I have to go talk to people in Washington. I appreciate you allowing me to be here, and I hope you understand my sorrow at having to leave you so soon", he could have left and it would not have scared the kids. Rather, I think, it would have impressed the kids.
Moore's point in showing that footage is to contrast Bush's clear shock with the public persona of him being an able and sure leader.
Guilliani in New York didn't wave his arms around and yell "HOLY SHIT!!!!". I honestly don't know what he said, but chances are it was something like "Take me down there." Because he was on the scene with police and fire fighters when the buildings collapsed.
If the thread doesn't interest you, don't read it.
Slashdot's apolitical stance makes the few political threads really interesting. It's one of the few places you can find smart people from both sides.
I mean, assuming there are any smart people who support bush left. (I know that bush had a lot of vociferous, intelligent defenders on fark.com, but they either gave up on fark, or gave up on bush a long time ago. The only ones left can barely spell.)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...everyone should know about Michael Moore's record for twisting facts.
Hardylaw's famous Bowling For Columbine critique.
Not to mention the fact that Moore started accusing Disney of "censoring" him days before Cannes, even though Disney told him LAST YEAR that they wouldn't be distributing the movie. Suddenly it became an issue right before Cannes...pretty convenient timing.
I agree that he is great at directing and editing an interesting picture. He even seems to make attempts at being independent (he voted for Nader in 2000). But even this time around he's not pretending it's a "documentary" anymore--just his opinion, a political pamphlet for Democrats that won't be changing anybody's minds. In other words, preaching to the choir. Hell, he thinks Kerry isn't left-wing ENOUGH. The guy is the Ann Coulter of the extreme left. For some reason, liberals have become completely radicalized since the 2000 election, and it's turning people off.
Disney just didn't want to be associated with something so partisan. The Weinstein's knew this all along, but waited until the film was about ready to do anything about it. Why? Huge publicity for the film. I half expected Disney to "cave" at the last minutes and reap millions from their own attempts at censorship.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I have to disagree - that a DOCUMENTARY
Fahrenheit 9/11, according to Michael Moore himself, is not a documentary. It's an opinion piece on the last four years of Bush's administration.
Now, see, this is what pisses people off about Moore, or his fans, rather. They accept his movies as "documentaries," which implies an objective truth. Moore himself says they're not documentaries. He even gave back his Oscar for Bowling For Columbine--few people seem to know about that (the liberal media didn't seem very interested in letting people know...).
I don't know where this "documentary" thing came from, but Moore doesn't make that type of film, and he is freely open about that in all his interviews.
This is NOT a Troll.
The grandparent just posted a bunch of links discussing that had nothing to do with the great grandparent.
Hey buddy, you're own government gave Hussein the chemical weapon's technology back in the 80's to us against Iran.
... and just maybe you will find that you've created less threats to your country!
Your own government trained, supported, and armed Osama Bin Laden to fight against the Soviets when they were occupying Afghanistan.
You stomp around the world like a bull in a chinashop, breaking everything you touch and then are somehow surprised when the enemies you have created come back and bite you?
Treat the world with some respect! Accept that other peoples, other countries have just as much right to be on this planet as you do
Oh, and by posting your political statement, then complaining how such statements shouldnt be on slashdot, you've made yourself a typical american hypocrite. you can't have it both ways!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Read Ann Coulter's book Treason, where she accuses people like me, Independants who vote prncipally democrat but have something of a nationalistic America First bent of betraying america. She's saying I've failed my country and countrymen in a way so egregious I should be hung. Well that's her opinion and outragious hyperbole. But I'd still like to see that suspiciously masculine women with implants shot in her horse face.
Or Sean Hannity. So quick to spend the lives of people less privledged but far better and richer than himself for fruitless aims. And he'll wrap himself in the flag so sell his shit too. On the radio, in a book, everyday on Australian TV. He doesn't care, because it costs him nothing to parrot the party line. Notice you don't hear him calling for the resumption of above ground nuclear weapons testing throughout the Muslim world. That message would play brilliantly throughout much of America. I can't say I wouldn't want to see a 30 mile fireball live on CNN if I knew a bunch of towel wearing ass-clowns were making their final pilgrimage at the business end of it.
What about Limbaugh? Everyone who does or deals drugs should rot in jail, that is unless they're hypocrite bitches who have too much money and free time for their own good. Yes, and if they're white guy with a radio show or a relative of the Bush family then justice applied blindly is a "witchhunt." But aside from their personal problems. How exactly is lying about a blow job unrealated to a failed land deal twenty years in the past much worse than lying about why 200,000 americans were sent into harms way to kill and to risk being one of the thousand or so who won't be coming back to their families? Or lying about the nations energy policy to help a bunch of friends of friends loot billions from the western states? Or just not complying with congressional information requests and refusing to cite any law or even reasonable practice in explaination?
The fact is, Micheal Moore is the Republican practices coming home to roost, on a bigger soapbox. It is a new age of bullshit, we're all going to suffer. The right wing bitches who feel the need to pathologically lie about everything should give themselves a big pat on the back for making it happen. Look at Bush's ads, he is a sophist. Yeah Kerry voted against body armor for the troops specifically, he didn't vote against the appropriations bill for the war, they voting against the war in the current warped interpretation of our Constitution. No, he actually wanted more American soldiers to die. That must have been why the Bush administration cut funding to schools serving military bases just after the soldiers left for war. Because then they'd be so pissed off, they'd be motivated to win quickly and come back. What a brilliant leader, Patton had nothing on Bush.
.. for Americans to show their effort for justice, peace, democracy, andallthatothercrap...:
Make your president available to the International Criminal Court for questioning and punishment.
While they're are conservatives on ABC, The Television network is actually much more liberal then CNN (and obviously FOX). This is the station that read names of dead Soldiers for a whole episode of nightline (subsequently banned by some affiliates). ABC is the quintessential "Liberal Media"
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I see what you are saying.
Really we don't need a President.
Man that would sure save the Government a lot of money!
> then it is not a documentary. It's a getBushoutofofficumentary.
/. kids just ask yourself if you would be less inclined to see a movie at a theatre that was unabashedly conservative? Well isn't it reasonable to assume us conservatives are equally less likely to patronize an out of the closet pinko chain? Doesn't that spell lower attendance for both sides, especially here in flyover country where most towns only have one major theatre showing first run movies?
Exactly. As Moore has been bloviating every time a fawning press has stuck a microphone near his fat head. It is about "getting Bush out of office."
I hope Hollywood understands the implications of this movie. It means their end if they aren't careful. Think about it. This is the first feature film written, produced and released with the expressed purpose of influencing an election. It is so blatent that the FEC is probably going to restrict the TV ads after Jul 31 as political ads. (Which only means the DVD release will get spamvertised on the evening news and Larry King, just means Lions Gate won't have to actually spend ad money but anyway...) But this movie making a profit will only open a floodgate of copycats, and the Hollywood system being what it is almost all will be liberal. Liberal news bias was always something they could argue doesn't really exist. NOBODY is willing to take the position that Moore isn't outright political and all Deaniac/nutjob, including Moore himself. F911 is ALL about Moore's ego and grandstanding. In other words it is Hollywood.
But the backlash will be sure and swift. Theatre chains will have to become like newspapers and choose sides, of course most will be leftist and give prime screen space to the leftist pictures over profitable entertainment. This will cause an even further decline in attendence, especially out here in flyover country where you will be hard pressed to find a screen that averages $100/day over this Moore flick's run.
All you
Democrat delenda est
There are no voters under 17 in this nation, and kids are free to see R-rated movies with their parents (or at some theaters, parents can sign a form letting their kids see any R rated movie). If you want your kids to see the film, take them. Or get it on DVD when it comes out.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
how evil my country's leaders are
They are.
how worthy of the world's hate my country is
It's not.
how stupid we are as Americans
Some are, although I'd say some are ignorant of the damage being inflicted to the US by Bush.
You are confusing the fact that the US is a country founded on the Constitution guaranteeing freedom and justice for all with select people. The US population is certainly as diverse as anything in the world. That also means there are many opinions out there, ranging from extreme left to extreme right. That makes your country as a whole unworthy of hate. In fact, there is much to be admired of the US. However, your leader is certainly a lying hateful corrupt person and a puppet to the neo-cons. Take it personally if you want, but I don't see the fluke of an election is the result of the "stupidity" of the Americans and worthy of being offended by it. What would be stupid is to re-elect the guy who supports the destruction of the environment (for $$), puts the country in deeper debt than any presidents in the US history (for $$), jeopardizes the education for children (for $$), supports the export of jobs outside the US for ($$) etc. etc.. Hey, that is your country... if you hate it so much, by all means, re-elect Bush.
At the same time, neoliberals make sure that Hollywood pushes anti-Bush films in a polarized election year and call it "historic" that such a "documentary" opens in such wide release. Hello--it's Hollywood. Do you think a pro-Bush movie or an anti-Kerry movie would get that sort of support from the media and from a studio? Liberal Hollywood loves Michael Moore, even if most of the nation doesn't.
How people can point out bias on one side and ignore their own amazes me. Liberals have resorted to becoming incredibly radicalized since 2000, rallying behind people like Al Franken who cite innacurate news reports just to smear people they don't like (O'Reilly was even forced to show the deed to his house on his show, just to prove that he grew up in Levittown--Al Franken still doesn't believe it...he had cited an inaccurate newspaper article and that was enough for him).
But, hey, sorry to get off-topic. Let's get back to Moore--who actually said on the Daily Show that it's a "liberal nation" and vaguely cited unnamed polls as evidence. Meanwhile, actual polls show otherwise. If liberal policy was put up for public vote, it would be knocked down, which is why they resort to judges, lawyers, celebrities, and lawsuits to force their views across. As well as putting out propaganda films (Michael Moore himself has said it is a propaganda film) and rallying behind people like Al Franken who hosts Air America, the liberal radio network, for no salary because they're doing so poorly financially. Look at Comedy Central--they run a Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial EVERY THREE ADS. It's clear where people are trying to get their views across. I should note that this is the part where someone tells me FoxNews is biased, without citing an actual example. As a matter of fact, the head of FoxNews, when he ran a paper in Australia, was considered "socialist liberal" simply because he aired liberal viewpoints nobody else would air. Personally I believe liberals hate FoxNews because it actually airs both the "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints and lets them debate with each other on air. On CNN, all you get is the liberal viewpoint, and it's never labelled as liberal--but on the occasion a conservative is on, you better believe they'll be labeled as such.
Me? I'm voting for Nader again. I think political parties are like two organized religions. You all have your loopy messengers (Ann Coulter, Michael Moore) who don't give a shit about truth but about saying "I told you so!" to the opposite group on the playground. Meanwhile, independents are left out in the water and accused of "giving the election to Bush" by frustrated neoliberals who think the point of an election is to choose between two major controlling parties instead of VOTING FOR WHO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.
Wait. Are you saying that all replies to ACs should be AC? Are you saying all ACs are Trolls? I don't really post around here a lot, though from a fair amount of reading, I thought I had a pretty good grasp.
I just happen to agree with the AC, and thought it was honest of me to say so in my own voice.
Nope... I'm a Libertarian who's sick of people on both sides trampling on the first and second amendments.
I don't know whether the woman still works at North Country Bank and Trust or not, but the name of the woman who is shown in the film is Jan Jacobson. I read an interview with her in which she accused Moore of being repeatedly deceptive about the process and explaining how the actual process works for normal customers. I don't have a link, but you can call the bank and ask her about it if she still works there.
Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.
SECTION FROM WASHINGTON'S FAREWALL ADDRESS:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
The reason the war turned sour was not the cost of American lives.
It was Abu Ghraib.
Abu Ghraib negated the Bush reason for going to war, that we were better than Hussein. Without that reason, we were back to the immediate risk of WMDs, of which there has been no evidence.
From there the cost in blood and treasure weighed in. Had we been able to occupy Iraq without loss of American life, and had the costs been say $5-10 billion. We would have never noticed it. It'd be the forgotten conflict, like Kosovo.
Why did we go to war in World War II? If we had just sat it out, would we have lost any freedom?
Yes.
This page is the stuff Michael Moore has yet to address.
I've love to see him justify splicing two Heston speeches an entire year apart so that they seem like one speech happening right after the Littleton shootings. His suit even changes midway through!
Or how about how he claims the factory was making weapons of mass destruction, when really it was producing rockets for TV satellites? It's almost silly enough to make you think he was doing it on purpose.
If a conservative did that sort of truth-twisting in his "documentary," the media would be all over it, and it wouldn't have won an Oscar. Just something to think about.
New Democratic Party: They are very mainstream. They are hovering around 20% or popular vote. They have provincially elected majority governments, including my province, Manitoba. They are set to make big gains in this election. PRO CHOICE. PRO GAY RIGHTS. Pro social spending. Pro Health Care. Pro CBC. Pro environment. Pro most things that canadians care about. Leader: the charismatic Jack Layton.
Liberals: basically canadian 'Clinton Democrats', @ around 33%. Leader: businessman, Paul Martin.
Conservatives: (aka reform party, aka canadian alliance) very much canadian neo conservatives, @ around 31%. Extreme right. Anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti gay rights, anti pretty much everything that's not white with blonde hair blue eyes and rich. Very scary leader, the nazi-ish Stephen Harper.
Bloc Quebecois: very similar platform to the NDP, except special interest to the predominantly francophone province of Québec. @ about 10%. Leader: seperatist Gilles Duceppe.
Green Party: a conservative party which is 'green' because it wants to tax polluting industries. It's leader is a former "Progressive-Conservative". The Progressive-Conservatives of a few years ago are about equal to the current Liberals. right-center. @ about 4% Leader: Jim Harris
The extreme left would be the Communist and Marijuana parties, which are running in most urban ridings.
It appears Canada is headed for a minority government led by the Liberal Party, in cooperation with the New Democratic Party. It will be a fairly left-center government. Fairly hefty spending to social programs, taxes will probably stay about the same. Probably very little military spending. Expect Canada to distance itself from Bush policy. Expect us to say no to Star Wars. It will be a government ideologically similar to Pierre Elliot Trudeau's minority Liberal/NDP government of 30 years ago.
OK I'll be honest, this is a biased post, it's not only what I expect to happen, it's what I'm hoping happens!
hehe
Won't work, you've exposed yourself and will hopefully feel the wraith of the mods.
Every quote about the tax breaks seems to trace back to Moore or his agent. It seems that they have repeated it enough that many people assume it to be true -- so much so that the person to whom I originally responded claimed that Michael Eisner of Disney said it.
:-)
Every online debate has to eventually mention Nazis, so I'll comply with the rule by mentioning that the Third Reich's propaganda chief believed that a lie repeated long enough was accepted as truth.
I hate to say it, but if you're basing your facts on the world from a very obviously one sided movie, then you're way too small minded to be worth consideration. Do some of your own research, don't let mass media tell you what to think.
Satire is all about pointing out the truth by bending it a little. Not lying - that's what Bush does. No matter how much the Unliberals claim he doesn't.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Ok, it might be flamebait. But the quotes are straight from on camera comments by both. I feel the Bush supporters out en force to try to mod down comments like this.
No shit. There are going to be a lot of people RTBLd from moderating after the meta-moderators get through with this thread. Seems a lot of neo-cons got mod points today. Hell, I'll probably be modded off-topic and troll on this post right now, but who really cares... Burn, karma, burn...
My only question is? What happens when neo-cons meta-moderate the bad moderations as fair? Who moderates the meta-moderators?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Whatever, G.
No one has mentioned the PNAC in any of this. Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. Read their manifesto, it states in plain english that in order for a one world government (read the US) to happen the American people would have to be shocked into it, with someling like a 'new Pearl Harbor'. Look at some of the names of people belonging to this organization(terrorist group).
This is real.
*DrugCheese rants*
It is one of the most common names in the English speaking world. Learn to spell it, cock-breath.
How about the mothers whose sons would be dead if Uday Hussein were still in charge of Iraq's political prisons?
Moore defends this argument on his website. He says they have formed a war room to defend against the backlash.
flight info
Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. A fat and a once-fat pair of narcissistic, self-promoting, idiots. Michael Moore's movie touches on a lot of points worth exploring but is not worthy of the celluloid that it is printed on where he willfully selectively edits information. Hey, fatass, if you want us to *really* question Bush and the war in Iraq, which we should, then stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves. I don't need your opinion filter cause I have no use for your opinion!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
And don't give me that shit that nobody put a gun to their head - we all know that nail-toe clippers are deadly weapons.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Ahh, but the Bushministration doesn't make a documentary, but politics. They don't have to tell the truth.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Yes, I have followed with some interest Mr. Hitchens awakening. He isn't all the way there yet but I think he will end up in the reformed socialists camp with Horowitz.[sp]
The reaction of the left to 9/11 is what seems to have catylized the reaction for him. In the end I think he decided he would like to see the West survive Islam's assault and he observed that among his leftist friends just the opposite view held.
Democrat delenda est
Whoever you are, it's amazing you can operate a computer. The story you've posted doesn't respond in any way to the statement I challenged. Where is the quote from Eisner? Quoting Michael Moore's agent as making the claim that Eisner said something has zero credibility to anyone who's being intellectually honest.
Or did bush invade a third nation while I was sleeping. One of the points in F9/11 was that we didn't do enough in Afghanistan to stop bin-ladin.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The New York Times, on May 5th, 2004. It was a 2nd-hand quote, via Michael Moore's business agent, who was dealing with Disney and Mirimax on the film.
If you think that people do not rail against Ann Coulter and company the same way that people rail against Michael Moore, then you are either blind or are burying your head in the sand.
I for one, do not like blowhards, regardless which side they are on .
Why did ExxonMobil give even $30,000 to the CATO Institute?
You seem to be distracting from that question.
"Cato is what it says it is, and nothing more. I would challenge you to dispute that."
Are you claiming they are not biased?
Richard Clark had said that Saudis (including bin-ladens) left the country while the flight ban was still in effect. However, the 9/11 commission has said that the flight ban was lifted when the Saudi's left. (apparently by 9/13 it had been lifted?).
Still, ferrying those people out of the nation so soon after the attacks was probably bad form on the administration's part, at least according to Moore. Moore's admitted that the section is incorrect, but I guess he didn't have time to change the film after the 9/11th commission came out with their report.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This film demonstrates just how desperate the loony left have become in this country. It is sheer propaganda and nothing more. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but then this movies isn't really about Bush. This movie is a weapon of propaganda in the ongoing ideological war being fought between leftists and conservatives. The leftists have been losing badly for some time now and this movie is the result of their desperation.
The far left has forsaken even the appearance of having anything reasonable to say. They have replaced honest interpretation of the facts with vitriol and attempts at emotional manipulation.
This is not the end for them, but it is the beginning of the end. The more loud and desperate they become, the more you can be certain they feel public opinion turning against them. The Soviet Union is gone and the remnants of its 5th column in this country are on their way out as well.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Moore is a troll. A successful one.
With how much most-of-the-world hates the US right now because of their bullying, killing and superiority complex, if Americans re-elect George W. Bush, the message they'll convey to the world is: "we agree with the actions of our President Bush in torturing prisoners, bombing and shooting innocents, lying to anyone, while at the same time being immune to prosecution because we're the world's only remaining superpower. We also agree to unilaterally attack and make war with anyone who disagrees with us unless that entity has nuclear weapons (like North korea)--then we might back down."
This then sends a signal to all countries in the world to start a nuclear race (i.e., get hold of a nuclear weapon) to be safe from American domination and imperialism).
With this view, Americans can be assured that most of the world will grow to hate you and your kind. So vote wisely in November. And if you don't vote, that means you agree with your idiot-president by default.
For those who have no time to go to the movies. Here is the torrent.
-------
1. Enjoy your job
2. Make lots of money
3. Work within the law
Choose any two.
> Any theatre refusing to run it is engaging in censorship and is therefore fascist? Riight.
:-)
Yeah but you didn't really read what I was saying. I didn't say they were fascist. I said censorship is facist, and the theatres run the risk of *looking* fascist if they don't show Moore's film. In the business, it likely doesn't matter what they look like, but the appearance of impropriety can be dangerous for future business, when there is heavy competition.
I don't believe the theatres should be forced to show anything they don't want to. I think they should think before quickly reacting.
> Vince Foster was killed by Bill Clinton conspiracy theory
Yeah but it's different when you have an Oscar winning director. Once a director wins and Oscar, you kinda have to tow the line and show their stuff... until their popularity hits the toilet, or you're kinda going against the Academy, which is really bad in terms of a number of reasons.
The studios control who can make movies, based on their numbers. The theatres should not have that power. If the studios put out a film, the theatres should simply put it up. I'm sure they could negotiate better contracts if they don't really want to show it for long. Y'know?
Personally, I think if an Oscar calibre director had made a movie about anything, it should be shown. Even if it was pure lies and videotape. People will always think for themselves, and any kind of censorship is wrong, really. The nubmers are what means future work... so if Moore doesn't hit the numbers, he will find himself in a rough spot to find funding for future films.
> hell White Chicks will probably be #2
Yeah, but for what reason? It's the dumbest movie I have seen a preview for since Scary Movie 3. Oh wait...
> You Deaniacs made it #1 this weekend by all turning out for opening weekend. But who will be going next week? Nobody.
Well, I am going to see it on Wednesday. It hasn't opened in Canada yet....
> Theaters should do the smart thing and reject overly political films. Leave left wing conspiracy 'documentaries' where they belong. PBS.
Wrong. If you win an Oscar, you should be able to do any movie you want. Even blockbuster Porn with A list stars.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
First of all, I'd like to confess that I'm somewhat of a Michael Moore fan. I've enjoyed his books and movies ever since Roger and Me, I've went to a booksigning of his just to meet him and get a signed book, and I made it a point to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on the first day it was out.
That said, I tend to look at most things, Moore's movies included, with a critical eye. The biggest problems I have with this movie are not with its content, but the way the content will be recieved. Moore has created an extremely powerful movie, but will it meet its goal of persuading people to change their minds about Bush or the war against terrorism? I really don't think so, and I'll explain why.
The crowd at the theater had already made up their minds about Bush. The movies main points - Bush was elected unfairly, Bush is an idiot who didn't know what to do for seven minutes after the second plane hit the tower, Bush diverted attention to creating a war against Iraq as soon as possible, and that he lied to the American people - were all applauded loudly by the crowd inside. Moore used an extreme amount of artistic licence and left out many facts to make his point, and the audience lapped up his viewpoint without question. This was not an audience that needed any additional persuading not to vote for Bush. Perhaps conservatives are seeing the movie in other theaters or waiting until the lines die down. But I didn't see them or hear any of them at the showing I attended.
The thing is, people who are still on the fence about who to vote for this November are likely to be those who need to understand both sides of the story. This movie deliberately sidesteps anything that could be used to question its points of view. Anyone who needs to see a different viewpoint about the things in Moore's movie will have to look elsewhere. When they do, it will become immediately apparent how Moore deliberately avoided lots of obvious things to make the points he did.
For instance, the movie states that with any possible recount, Gore would have been re-elected. That's a rather narrow viewpoint, because with both the recount the Supreme Court stopped and with the recount Gore wanted, Gore still would have lost. What Moore meant, but didn't say was that with any possible statewide recount with a certain arbitrary standard applied uniformly, Gore would have come out ahead. But we are made to believe that the Supreme Court stopped a process that would have resulted in a Gore presidency. Not true.
Richard Clarke appears in this movie where he states the Bush administration too quickly focused on Iraq, which weakened our war with Al-Qaeda. The movie also makes you believe that Bush was behind getting the Bin Laden's family out of the U.S. before the general ban on flight was lifted. What it doesn't say is that the flights didn't begin until the ban was lifted - and the authorization to get the Bin Ladens out of the country was made by Clarke himself.
Anyone wanting to dig a little will have no problem finding out that Moore was against taking action against Afghanistan when we did. But one of this movie's main points was that we didn't go after Osama hard enough and fast enough.
Moore portrays Iraq before we bombed it as an idyllic place, with children playing in the streets and happy citizens going about their business. This at the very least ignores the basic facts about Sadaam's murderous regime. For someone who really wanted to examine the facts, they could easily find out that more people were killed and maimed each year under Sadaam's regime than under the occupation. But this is opposite of the impression we get from this movie.
That's not to say this movie didn't score any points with this skeptical viewer. The scene of the contractors convention designed to teach people how to profit from the war turned my stomach. Watching the blank stare on Bush's face after he was told about the second plane made me seriously wonder about his competence. And I hadn't realized the extent the
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
The statement I challenged was that Eisner has been quoted in the press as saying something. A news story in which Moore's agent claims that Eisner said it isn't even vaguely the same as the press quoting Eisner saying something. That's called hearsay. Moore's camp has consistently made this charge, but there is NO evidence (which I can find) of Eisner saying it other than the agent's contention.
Why I hate Michael Moore, by Down8:
He makes up "controversy".
He pretends his movies are 'documentaries', and lets them be promoted as such, but when confronted, he'll tell you, "oh, by the way, they are just my opinion" (on the most recent Daily Show).
He fakes his films - such as cutting together 2 week apart film to make it look as if you could walk into a bank and walk out with a gun, when, in fact, he arranged to have the gun delievered there, after his 2 week waiting period.
And more than anything, his 'need to be heard'. That smacks of a fat, lonely bastard, with a need to be the center of attention, and I hate that kind of person. He needs to go back to writing a weblog like a normal, attention-starved 14yr old girl.
This has nothing to do with his politics. Point of fact, I can't stand to sit thru any of his garbage for the way it's presented, so I don't know much about his politics. He's a poseur, in the worst sense of the term, and he should not be listened to by anyone with a useful brain cell.
But that's just me, and I prefer to think for myself,
-bZj
.sig
Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue.
Only one peice of information in the film is untrue (that saudis left while the flight embargo was in place. The 9/11 comission determined that wasn't the case, but it was too late to edit the film around it. And the main point of the segment was that they should at least have been interviewed).
It's definetly true that parts of the movie are meant to be funny, and are. (for example, interviewing britney spears), but even the humourous moments are grounded in truth.
Why don't you watch the movie and see for yourself.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You said most of the world already hates US. Then you said we should act differently so the rest of the world won't grow to hate US. We're already hated, so no need to worry about making it worse.
Hey, I wish the prez would take some drastic, unexpected, not very popular, yet effective action, and NOT care whether he gets re-elected, nor what anyone else thinks.
At least, the bush administration has been labeling anyone who fights against the US. There was a clip of an upset Iraqi woman who had her whole family killed and her house destroyed, but most likely, the parent poster was talking about the American woman, who's son had been killed fighting in Iraq.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Pretending they didn't die is not?
For a while now I suspected that delusion was the essence of conservatism. One more datum supporting that conclusion.
Limbaugh is under investigation for his drug use. He may get convicted and sent to jail. Maybe it would turn some conservatives against the drug war.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This is also the exact generation that didn't experience the cold war. During that time we herd all sorts of 'facts' as to why the USSR was a 'better system' and the US was just a pushy tyrant, and why our leaders that promoted US interests were so evil. But if you ignored all the crap and believed that political liberty was an end in itself (and not social guarantees coerced at other peoples expense) Then which system was better wasn't even a question.
Well the same is true today. If you see geopolitical liberty as an end in itself, then it becomes clear that it is the best way to fight terrorisim, and the war in Iraq makes alot of sense. If not, it probalby makes no sense at all. Either way, all the other accusations are just crap, it's the big picture that is the issue.
Thanks for taking the time to post that. I'm going to keep an eye on his site from now on. It's hard to know what to believe from all the rhetoric going on.
It's pretty fucking hard to actually win a libel/slander suit if you're a public figure. IIRC you would have to prove that the person acted maliciously to damage you, and anyone with half a brain can make that nearly impossible.
O'Reilly is beyond biased, to the point of being warped. Yet he bills himself as the master of the no spin zone. Horseshit.
Rush actually claims to be infallible, when he's a fucking liar. He is also a coward: he pioneered "unguested" confrontation. He will NEVER present a credible, well-spoken opponent on his show. It's all sycophants and patsies.
"Liberals" actually debate things. Franken has a well-spoken conservative on regularly. It's not totally level, but he doesn't turn off the mike when he's losing the argument, like O'Reilly. He is far more interested in debate than Coulter, et. al. They duck him.
Conservatives are blind. The most prominent ones are sick.
Moore is definitely biased, but at least he admits his bias, and gives you his supporting evidence up front. Which is more than the Bush Administration has done vis-a-vis Iraq.
Everyone knows this film is biased but since when is that a bad thing? When you go see a Moore film you know the bias to expect. The same is true when you read the editorials in The Wall Street Journal. I would much rather learn news that was presented with a bias that involves some investigative reporting than to not learn something at all. The concept of investigative reporting has been flushed down the toilet in this country in favor for corporate earnings. ABC won't report on Disney looking to block distribution of the film as Disney owns ABC. Even if ABC does report on the story it's 95% a rehash of the Disney press release.
The point is, Americans need to encourage and seek out investigative reporting even, perhaps especially, if there's a bias. We also need to seek out information from more than once source and start coming to our own conclusions. Since it seems news organizations aren't doing it for us, we need to start doing it ourselves.
First of all, I'm not a conservative. I'm a centrist who hates bush. And how is reading the names of the war dead 'pretending they didn't die'?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
So really they aren't lies.
I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but my understanding is that the film tries to highlight the gun culture that has grown up in America.
Moore's point that a Bank is giving away guns appears to be substantiated through the links you provide. In fact the original complaint made of Moore is not that his statement is wrong, it is that he didn't properly show how one obtained the gun.
But that criticism doesn't address Moore's original complaint of the gun-culture and how much gun's are promoted in this country. So you really haven't proved a lie, or discredited Moore in any way.
I'm largely ambivalent towards gun-control. I don't think it's possible, because I figure if people 100 years ago could make a decent bolt action rifle using steam engines and other crude machinery. I can probably do something similar with precision machining tools that I can buy myself and utilize in my garage.
That being said, I also note that Moore's point is gaining ground. Last year I went to ToysR'Us looking for a squirt gun. I couldn't find one because it was fall and they were "out of season".
On the other hand I noticed looking around the whole store... I couldn't find any guns at all.
When I was a kid it was pretty easy to find cap guns in toy stores.
Best. Slashdot. Post. Ever.
In a battle of wits, using a fallacy to prove a point is like drawing a knife in a fist fight.
I wouldn't characterize them as mistaken. The people who most effectively use them know them for what they are. I mean the people who can't tell a knife from a fist are probably going to try to punch people with their knife.
Fallacious arguments are only truely strong if the person making them knows them for what they are.
Moore didn't lie, but he could be accused of deceiving trying to make people think the Saudis were in the air when airspace was closed.
Michael Moore made his rounds on the late night talk shows (Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, etc) the night or two before Farenheit 9/11 opening. When he was on one of those two shows, I remember him specifically saying that the Saudis were the first group of people allowed to fly when the airspace reopened with their private jets. I don't remember him ever saying that they flew out of the country while the airspace was still closed, but he did say they were the first up in the air (even before any commercial airlines). Maybe this is just implied in his movie, maybe not, but he sure didn't make it sound that way when he was being interviewed. I remember him saying this, because he compared it to a "what if" scenario such as if Libyan government had family members in the US who wanted to leave, would they ever be allowed to in that situation, especially one as severe as Sept. 11th?
Can we discuss one fact from the movie for a second?
Is it true that for 7 minutes after Bush was told that the second plane hit the WTC, he continued to read to elementary schoolkids?
This came one month after he had received a briefing entitled "Bin Ladin determined to attack in US" which described how Al Qaeda operatives were in the US planning to hijack planes, and 8 years after an earlier attack on the WTC.
It would seem that the President, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, would not want to waste 7 minutes before taking steps to organize defenses (such as issuing orders to defend against other airliner attacks, which were the sole responsibility of the president under rules in place at the time).
Has GW ever gone on the record explaining what he was doing for those 7 minutes? Did the 9/11 commission ask him about it?
I had never heard about that fact before this film. My first impression was that it made GW look like a clueless moron who had no idea what to do. It's as if he can't think on his feet, he needs someone to tell him what to do.
Just use"Eisner Moore 911 tax"
the best link I saw, and it took only 20 seconds to find, tops:
http://www.stargeek.com/item/118189.html
"Where is the quote from Eisner?"
So, Dumbass, how fucking lazy are you?
Moore never says Bush is connected to Osama.
He highlights the bin Laden and Saud connections to show that Bush panders to Saudi Arabia. the criticism being that majority of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia, that the leader is a family member of friends of Bush's.
And so when we went to go after terrorists, we hit Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11... instead of putting pressure on Saudi Arabia.
Now had we gone after Saudi Arabia, would Moore have found a way to criticize Bush... probably. But regardless, I think there is some serious questions regarding our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Those questions have been raised by a number of people educated on the region including a CIA station chief who will have a book coming out next month.
Instead of claiming Moore is biased, why don't you dispute the facts and tell us how Bush receiving money from foreignors is not a bad thing.
Republicans seemed very willing to criticize Clinton and Gore for far less. Why are you so unwilling now to criticize Bush?
I think they were.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Moore is just as dangerous or more than Bush. At least Bush lets you know up front that he's an idiot. Moore tries to portray this innocent little (fat) man of the people, for the people, when anyone with half a brain can see that he's only in it for himself. Ok, I'll give him that he's smart enough to see injustices and want to to do something about them but his attitude is one of "You're wrong, I'm right and my (our) way is the only way" which is *exactly* what we need to get away from. I personally don't think he's helping matters at all (except his pocket book)
What would you have him do? How about his job.
Perhaps you have forgotten, but there were other planes in the air, that might have had to have been shot down. I believe that is a decision that only the president should make. That would have required him to be in his limo on a secure phone with up to date intelligence.
Instead he chose to sit there with that classic "Dear in the headlights" look on his face, and do nothing. And when he felt particularly anxiety ridden he picked up some book and pretended to read from it.
It was very clear that he had NO idea what to do, and was terrified.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
I live in Central Texas, about fifteen minutes from the Crawford Ranch that Bush stays in so often. It was very interesting here because all two of the local theatres refused to show the film (yes, they do show all the usual "opening everywhere" films on time), and I've heard nothing on the local news about F 9/11. The first time most people around here heard of Fahrenheit 9/11, or even Michael Moore were when the national commercials came on. Mind you, these aren't political dumbasses, most of them knew more than the average person about politics and candidates.
There are actually individuals and organizations who believe in being as objective as possible. Doubtless nobody achieves that goal 100%, but surely those for whom it is a goal come closer than those for whom it is not.
I also believe there have been eras in which objectivity was more highly valued that it is today. Granted, in a post-modern era where language is regularly manipulated for convenience or agenda, the possibility of objective journalism, or even conversation, may seem remote. But I don't think we should so quickly surrender to the cynical belief that "everyone always does it". That lets the more dishonest "off the hook" and tempts the more honest to become less so since there's no credibility to be lost.
Bush sucks but Kerry is the preferred choice of "foreign leaders" such as Kim jong Ill ,Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro.
In all honesty, I haven't read anything on censorship.
True, american media tends to focus on a number of things with greater or lesser weight than other countries, but this isn't censorship.
Point of fact, I've yet to see a a world politics headline in a forigen paper that isn't mirrored in an american one.
Can you back up your statement?
Quoting Moore's agent as making a claim is NOT the same thing as providing a quote from Eisner. Not even close.
Hitchens is a liberal claims the parent post
Liberal compared to whom? Tom DeLay? The late Francisco Franco?
Hitchens likes to think of himself as a modern George Orwell. A man who has turned away from misguided leftist views toward more informed right wing views.
After seeing communism and various other forms of leftism during the civil war in Spain (where Orwell was almost killed by Soviet NKVD assassins), Orwell turned against some of his leftist views. Out of this came is masterpiece 1984, which was inspired by Stalin's Soviet Union.
But there are a few things that "Hitch" misses in his alcoholic fog as he compares himself to Orwell:
Rather than being a modern Orwell, as Hitchens would like to believe himself to be, he is more like David Horowitz, someone who went from shallow left wing views to equally shallow right wing views. Hitchens is a second rate writer seeking a profitable gig.
Micheal Moore speaks from his point of view in all his movies. IMHO, his point of view is extremely liberal, and you have to take that into account. His movies are food for thought and great for generating discussion. However, I do believe Moore can be just as manipulative and decieving as he claims Bush is in his movies. I cannot blaim Moore for arguing his opinion as best he can but I do believe alot of the public believes all he says is objective. I myself thought so when I saw Bowling for Columbine but my friend pointed me to this link, Bowling for Truth, that disputes Moore's claims. What Moore has done with his movie and generating discussion is great for America but take what he says with a grain of salt.
Who said I like Bush? I think he is a tool. Did you notice how Bush is so monkery like in his looks?
Who should trust any one with millions? They all have an agenda and it's not make ing the world a better place were every person has a living wage job? Moore is one of them regardless what he says or what movies he puts out. He is a tool too.
Yes he is a fat ass.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
"Dude," nobody's denying that Disney refused to distribute the film. But guess what? Disney told Moore they wouldn't distribute it as far back as last year.
NONE of your links showed Eisner or anybody from Disney stating that the reason they refused distribution was for tax breaks, which was what the guy was asking for. Guess who first brought up this claim? Michael Moore, stirring up more self-promotional controversy days before Cannes.
Guess when Moore suddenly decided to start whining about Disney's refusal in press releases, a whole year after being told the fact? Days before the Cannes film festival.
Yawn.
Would you have preferred that he acted rashly without all the information available? Fact is we did not know immediately that it was Bin Laden. There are other dangerous terrorist groups other than Al Qaeda. I remember initially there was speculation that it could have been someone avenging the execution of McVeigh (I think the first plane hit almost exactly something like 3 months after his execution). There were already orders in place to defend against additional attacks. Taking a few minutes to think things over is not a sign of weakness. If you disagree, I sure am glad you are not in charge of our national security.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Bradbury himself appropriated titles wholesale, without even changing them around.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
it's 1904 comments now. What is the record?
It's amusing you quote from FAIR, a well-known liberal-slanting group. This seems to be the standard tactic these days. A prominent liberal makes a claim, the subsidiary liberal groups list their "evidence" so the main guy can cite them as evidence, and so on.
I mean, come on:
Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all his work:
This is bullshit. Stossel has even stated this. He used to go after companies all the time, and he was heralded by liberals. But when he was running out of companies to go after, he said he went looking for the worst examples of waste and corruption. Guess where he found it? In the government. So when he started going after shitty government programs that were wasting money when meanwhile the private equivalents were doing exceedingly well, suddenly he's labeled by the liberal media as a "conversative." I mean, he's citing actual examples and facts here, but still he gets accused of being partisan instead of just being factual.
It's silly.
(which is more than I can say for Dubya and Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney)
As opposed to John "that son of a bitch knocked me down" Kerry?
Both the candidates this year suck. Just like in 2000. You goofy liberals and insane conservatives have ruined our nation. There's no room to be independent anymore. Moore is part of the problem, and it doesn't surprise me Slashdot posted this article to get his film more attention.
Hoop Dreams. The kids ambitions are documented and we just follow along. The documenters don't see fit to insert themselves in any of it, because they don't have to. If you want to know what a documentary is, watch Hoop Dreams.
unnecessary division. Technology is pretty neutral. If Slashdot consistantly had political news items then this story would be appropriate. Slashot is not a political news site.
All this story is going to do is alianate people that would otherwise be completely indifferent to any minor political slant this site may have.
Anyone viewing this story is going to see a very steep slant in one very obvious direction. And the fact that it's moderated into that slant leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
between admiting your bias and having a really really biased propaganda film, and admiting your bias, and having a reasonably fair explanation of both sides, but for each point explaining why your side is better.
If you've written essays for social science classes, you usually have some kind of point you're trying to prove, unless it's a literature review or research paper. So you have to be pushing your view. But it's considered good academics to be fair to the other side, and not twist the facts too far. I think social documentaries should work like that.
What could be more obvious and unsubtle than rolling up to KMart with disabled kids; or in his crude (and funny) juxtapositions. It seems to me that his technique itself is deliberately satirical: he is adopting the editing and rhetorical techniques of advertising and marketing with his tongue in his cheek.
People who think that Moore is a *slick* film-maker must be missing an awful lot of the ideological content of other visual media. Moore isn't slick, he's deliberately *clumsy* (which even extends to his deliberate shambling screen persona).
...about america
And judging from some photos ive seen of an iraki giving head to a marine, i think they are right....on both fucking accounts.
NO SIG
After 1991 we had a situation where there were elements of an armed truce, along with daily combat air patrols mostly by US pilots and a massive military presence in Saudi Arabia to keep Saddam bottled up like a monster.
... CLINTON.
Bush I, Clinton, and early Bush II all liked to "pretend" we were not at war, but I don't know what the hell you call daily combat air patrols, and monthly air strikes against Iraqi radar stations that "locked on" to US fighters. Not to mention the truly MASSIVE bombing campaigns after Saddam's attempted assasination of Bush I, and kicking out the weapons inspectors, both ordered by
Fact is both Republican and Democratic presidents alike have kept us in a state of continual war with Iraq; the only difference was intensity.
We had three choices in Iraq; all bad. Leave and encourage MORE terrorist attacks because we are perceived as "weak" as Bin Laden cited after our withdrawal in Somalia post Blackhawk down AND watch Saddam roll over Saudi and the Gulf states, control the world price of oil if not the supply. Stay and continue a cause for terrorism (the embargo on Iraq and US soldiers on "holy" Saudi soil), paying a continual price for a non-stop airwar. Get rid of Saddam by boots on the ground (coups were tried and failed).
Europeans and the Arabs preferred choice #2 the status quo, since they were free riders on US military spending; they get Saddam in a box (and their lucrative Saddam deals) without Saddam being a threat, while the US is tied down in endless low-level combat in Iraq's southern and northern skies (playing "dodge that SAM").
All of our choices were BAD; and the outcome of any one of them would have likely SUCKED as choice #3 obviously did. But lets not pretend we were not already at war because we were.
Bush's rationale for invading Iraq was BS, but everyone really knew what his play was a huge bet that he could sweep Saddam out and then bail quickly. It was a stupid bet, particularly the way he played it (very thin on troops) but what do you expect from the man? Not long on smarts.
Reading through all these comments, I have come to the following observations:
1. People on both sides of the aisle put so much stock in FACTS yet they always conveniently forget about the CONTEXT. Facts are cold and hard, context gives them warmth. Translate that however you like.
2. I am struck constantly as of late as to how arrogant, self-righteous and self-absorbed some of the Left is in the country. Several commentors have made an effort to come across as fair and balanced, but instead have given off a scent of arrogance, especially when talking of the unwashed masses of the very stupid and caveman-ish American public. It is convenient to believe that people who don't believe what you believe are cretons, much easier to just right them off I suppose. I used to believe the same, but I no longer do. People _ARE_ smarter than you think, perhaps you need to try harder to explain your case. And to the Right, you aren't innocent here either, a lot of the same criticisms apply.
3. The Right has nothing to fear from this film. Moore will make a lot of money, some will see confirmation of their views in his film, others will see the opposite. In the end, though, Moore is still a ghoulish opportunist who is more interested in fanning the flames of discontent than anything else, especially if it enhances his standing as spokesperson of the Left and it makes money.
4. Fishbowls are a dangerous place to be. For all those who may visit a website, see a lot of people who agree with you, and then assume that that must be so across the board: big mistake!
5. What is with all the anti-Christianity stuff? For a group who proclaims to be all about acceptance, understanding, loving your fellow man, diversity, there is a lot of intolerance here, an uncomfortable amount.
6. Those on the Left with a seething hatred for Bush. Stop it, it makes you look foolish and petty and turns off those who are in the middle. You want the moderate vote, so don't alienate them. You are in big enough trouble already by having Kerry, don't make it worse.
tekan - somewhere in the middle
My opinion about Farenheit 9/11 plus some
I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
That is what Moore is calling his fellow Americans, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet...". And judging by the bunch that has swallowed his male bovine feces hook, line, and sinker here; I have to agree with him.
c tid=13583626_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-TH E-AWKWARD-CONSCIENCE-OF-A-NATION-name_page.html
Ref: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_obje
You *ARE* Mat Marini.
Is it true that for 7 minutes after Bush was told that the second plane hit the WTC, he continued to read to elementary schoolkids?
According to the Memory Hole, is is.
May we live long and die out
I'm waiting for this movie to get released since it does the same thing to Moore that Moore does in his Mockumentaries.
Watch the trailers to see Moore on the defensive.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Sorry, but [i]Hoop Dreams[/i] promotes the opinion that playing professional basketball is a worthwhile goal for people to aspire to. Why wasn't there a look at the benefits of playing pro basketball vs. becoming a successful entrepreneur, or scientist, or teacher?
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
It used to be that people of differing opinions could agree to disagree. People could talk about the issues of day with civility and with respect for those with whom they were arguing. Now, the rules seemed to have changed. No longer is there room for intelligent and informed discussion, but only left-wing venom and right-wing drivel. The political landscape of the US is now extemely polarized and the sides keep getting more and more polarized as they fend off the parries of the other.
It seems that this polarization has been steadily increasing since Reagan left office. And now it has reached a point where the country is nearly evenly divided between conservative and liberal. The liberals who I know have become very much more liberal and the conseravtives much more conservative and each side believes that the other is idiotoic, distorts the facts, lies, and spews venom and vile for political gain. With these views being held by both sides, it's now impossible to even simply debate the issues. It's sad that we have reached such a point where "we" are right and "they" are wrong. I fear where our politcs are heading when there is unwillingness to listen to and a hatred of those with different views.
Bush, flames, burning....
Butthead: "Isn't this a sign or something, Beavis?"
Beavis: "Yeah, burning Bush! Burn! Burn! Burn mother f--ker, burn!"
Butthead: "uhhhh...huh-uh...that song was in the movie dude....and you said BUSH."
Beavis: "Oh, yeah...huh-ha. BUSHhhhhh!"
Butthead: "..uhhhh...bush is pretty cool."
Beavis: "Yeeah, he's a pretty good guy."
Butthead: "Not that 'bush' you dumbass. President Bush is stupid."
Beavis: "No way! He's cool. Michael Moore is stupid."
DO WHILE 1 = 1
- Butthead: "Bush is stupid."
LOOPBeavis: "Moore is stupid."
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Yeah I'm tired of all those Holocaust doco's that don't give the Nazi's a fair shake for committing genocide. Surely, we should approach the subject matter with an open mind on genocide, right? um... right? ah... anyone.... hello...
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
"Film of the Fascist Liberal" is a must read. The is the kind of honest review and writing that could go a long way to helping people on both sides of this issue "get it."
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I think a lot of people generally miss the point of Michael Moore's movies. True they might be propaganda, and they might be full of lies, but I don't think making accurate documentaries is what Michael Moore wants to do. His main aim is to get people to think! The fact that a post about F911 on a nerds news site generates 1000+ comments shows that he's succeeded brilliantly in this goal. That's what he deserves an oscar for and all the other awards.
I find it funny that in a country as big as America, there's only ONE person - ONLY ONE - that's got enough courage to produce something different from the mainstream! Americans always talk about freedom of speech and being able to say what you want, but when someone like Michael Moore comes along and does just that, he's pulled through the dirt instantly. No matter how many lies are in his movies, I think he may be one of the greates patriots around at the moment. He sees problems with his country and attempts to make people aware of these problems to improve things.
Even the biggest Michael Moore hater must admit that something's wrong when billions (trillions?) of dollars are spent on a war in Iraq, when people in your own country are dying in the streets because they don't have access to health care, food, education and shelter. I'll just talk about one of the facts that struck me as horrible from Bowling for Columbine (I'm not sure if this fact is true, but if it is it's just absolutely horrible!). The fact I'm refering to is that welfare is being privatized! How can this possibly work?! There's nothing to be gained for a private organisation from running a welfare system for the general public. As a result that welfare system will of course suffer greatly. How can a government allow something like this to happen?!
These procedures need to be activated by the people in charge. The possibility of hijackers flying aircraft into various targets within the U.S was a known threat and there are most likely scenarios in place to handle such situations. First and formost would be to get our own military aircraft in the air and to designated locations where they can act quickly to intercept threats. 7 minutes is a long time to have the commander and chief finishing up the The Little Catapiller that Could to a bunch of school kids while 3 hijacked aircraft are apeeding off desiganted courses to their tagets.
The point is that while it's good to not act rashly you should at least _act_. You need to engage with the information, not just sit on your butt and wait for something _else_ to happen before you decide to do _anything_. Jesus. I remember quite clearly how incompitent and scared GWB looked during the crisis. I also remeber his attitude after taking office. He acted like a pompus privilaged prick, on vacation as much as he was in office. He was more concerned with discrediting the exiting clinton staff with sophmoric frat boy pranks than actually listening to them state the Bin Laden would accupy the majority of their counter terrorism efforts. They just took office and went on vacation. 911 made GWB, or I should say 911 created something with which GWB could be made.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Combat Air missions every day enforcing "no fly" in Southern and Northern Iraq.
Bush bet that finally removing Saddam would clear out a huge drain on resources and let us use that force for other things, make folks in that area that they could be "next" if they didn't shape up which would have been a good thing for US interests.
Saddam didn't direct 9/11 but he made a lot of trouble for us in other ways, like harboring the 1993 World Trade Center mastermind Ramzi Yousef, low-level co-operation with Bin Laden (they weren't buddies, but both hated the US so this sort of low-level assistance shouldn't surprise anyone. Hitler-Stalin pact anyone?).
A successful, relatively painless removal of Saddam would have given Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and even the Saudis pause to ponder both their relative military weakness and a true picture of US military strength, given weight to those who wished like some in the Taliban to avoid provoking a US military response.
Sadly now the debacle in Iraq is only going to encourage another massive casualty attack on a major US city, because the US is perceived as weak and responsive to terror.
It's funny to see right wingers across the nation use every forum available in a desperate attempt to discredit Moore while at the same time saying "This isn't a movie that's actually going to change anyone's mind, after all." I wonder why they don't just ignore it, then?
I'm a hardcore democrat, and I agree.
If I were in his shoes, I'd have expected to be immediately informed. Once someone said: a second plane has hit WTC, I would have said "Aggressively monitor EVERY PLANE WE CAN, scramble anti-aircraft capabilities at every population center (jets, guns, whatever) and get me some solid damn information about all this in the next 5 minutes. Now, I'm going to finish this story book. I wanna know what happens to the hippo."
(insert alternate ending: Now, let me get back to these schoolkids. WTC notwithstanding, we wouldn't want an international financial market panic because these kids sensed a crisis severe enough that I wouldn't finish Curious George.")
(insert alternate ending: Damn, I wish I'd stayed at a holiday inn last night...)
(insert alternate ending: Crisis in NYC? Damn, I really wanted to hang out in a cornfield for a few hours. I want a plausible way out of the NYC trip in the next 5 minutes or heads will roll.)
Ok, his reaction is a bit absurd. Wussy. Then again, most democrats think Bush/Cheney is exactly the sort of power structure we'd have gotten with Dan Quayle as president: an underqualified figurehead being shepherded around by Mayberry Machiavellis. I also respect that we elected such a person. Democracies and Republics should be able to withstand this. My problem with Bush/Cheney has been their secretive, anti-freedom, we're-above-the-law, pugilistic, divisive mindset.
I can tolerate average joe's. Just not evil ones.
Bush has gone on record as saying that it'd be irrational for him to lose composure when so little was known of the attack at that point.
I'd like to outline my simple argument against Bush. I haven't heard any strong counter-argument.
1. Establish that Saddam Hussein never directly threatened the US.
2. Establish that Saddam Hussain has never killed an American on US soil.
3. Ask if they know that bin Laden organized and carried out the murder of 3,000 people on US soil.
4. Ask why 20,000 US troops and 6,000 NATO troops are looking for bin Laden, and 120,000 are in Iraq.
5. Ask how many terrorist attacks are still being carried out by Al Queda.
If we follow the Bush doctrine to the letter, every one of us will come to know war first-hand.
Michael Moore is the Leni Riefenstahl of the 21st century.
> One of the worst 3 presidents in US history.
At least he stuck around longer than William Henry Harrison.
Actually, that's not really a plus point, is it?
Fahrenheit 9/11 opened as the highest-grossing movie in the country, something no documentary has ever done before. And if you follow that link you'll see that it did it with approximately one-third the number of screens as any of the other movies in the list. This means that all showings, no matter what time, must be sold out. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? I haven't.
Even in Bush strongholds in the South, this movie has people lined up around the block waiting to see it.
Keep on saying the movie is doing "pretty darn poorly" and that it won't be around in another three weeks if it makes you feel better. Come September 1st, when it's released on DVD, Bushies are going to feel even worse.
"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "
It isn't satire. If anything it's sophistry and equivocality at its finest.
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
I don't know about disgussing, but I certainly find it disgusting. Moore's intent is not to be satirical, but rather to influence weak-minded individuals with his home-grown dose of intellectual buggery. The sad thing is that the things portrayed in Moore's film are pretty much the whole of John Kerry's presidential campaign. Bush is a liar, Bush is evil, Bush is a moron, blah, blah, blah.
If puerile name calling is the best platform the liberals can come up with to lead this country, then heaven help us should Kerry win.
No, Leni Riefenstahl's 1930's work has a visual impact that made her famous. It wasn't just the propaganda that made her notable. Her work is considered art even though the NAZI system it served was totally depraved and wrong. Moore isn't even in the same class in any respect.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Gee, this is the second post I've seen in this thread in the last few minutes saying that Moore is the left-wing version of Ann Coulter. Was this one of Rush's talking points yesterday or something?
Moore is sensational at times but he takes more care with the truth than pretty much any celebrity journalist you see on the air these days, particularly those of the "fair and balanced" variety on Fox.
Moore's critics tend to focus on minutiae while conceding that his larger points are correct. For example, many complained about the scene in Bowling for Columbine where he was given a rifle for opening up a new account. Some say he could not have picked up the gun from the bank immediately, he would have had to wait for it to be delivered. Moore might have got that point wrong, or he might not have, I haven't been convinced either way, but no one disputes that the bank really was giving away guns for opening new accounts. Most of Moore's critics "smoking guns" are of this caliber.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has never been caught saying anything that remotely resembles the truth. She's made a living out of appearing regularly on all major political TV shows while complaining that the overwhelming liberal bias of American media prevents conservatives from being heard. She also says liberals can't argue from policy, that all they do is ad hominem attacks, while in the same breath she labels everyone to the left of Joe McCarthy a traitor.
Really, the only reason she was ever featured on TV was because of her looks. Happily, judging from the recent pictures I've seen of her, this is no longer a factor and hopefully her period of undeserved fame is just about finished.
Yahoo reports around $21 million. IIRC Spiderman made around $110 million in the opening weekend.
... DODGEBALL THE MOVIE. Yep Ben Stiller AGAIN with Vince Vaughn (who was in Starsky and Hutch) did more than Moore's movie.
... and JEWISH. And again the film points out that ... the guy is icky in personal habits and ... JEWISH. And that Bush, like a lot of conservative evangelicals, likes Israel. And has a lot of JEWISH national security advisors (againg the film harps on this). The Film borders on straight out Anti-Semitism, which shouldn't surprise anyone, is HUGE in France (one French Minister wrote a book suggesting 9/11 was a "plot" by the CIA and "the JEWS"). Anti Semitism is a disease largely of the left and Europe now (sadly) and Moore treads fairly close to it though not overtly over the line.
Heck Moore's film did a little bit south of
I'm not a fan of Bush's Iraq policy, execution in Iraq has been clueless and criminal, with GI's writing home for ammo and food cause the Army can't supply them with either (true, and criminal). No armored personnel carriers, and the useless in urban combat Humvees which were designed to be a behind the battlefield light truck. Not to mention soldiers still lacking vests, and handcuffed in fighting by political rules from incomptent commaders (snipers in mosques are off limits, in WWII guys in churches were blown out by artillery).
The French gave the film the Palm D'Or because they hate America and Americans and especially George W. Bush. Largely because American culture, economy, and military power makes them irrelevant (their vaunted "soft power" means essentially graft ridden deals with third world dicators). George W. Bush doesn't even PRETEND that the French are relevant (unlike his predecessors) so the French hate him most of all.
Given that the French made Sylvester Stallone a Knight Commander or Arts and Letters, and LOVE Mickey Rourke and Jerry Lewis, I'd be hesitant to view their judgement about anything American as relevant and important (I'm sure they have the best hiding places scoped out though).
The Film itself loses me. Yeah I know Paul Wolfowitz (a key Bush adviser) is icky looking
The film is also factually WRONG in one instance. Moore states on camera that the US Government allowed Bin Laden relatives to fly out of the US in private jets when all other air traffic was still grounded. This is FALSE.
The FBI interviewed his relatives here in the US; then the Saudi government flew them out AFTER air traffic was released. It's true we could have held them, but we would have created an international incident. The FBI had already concluded they had no involvement with the plot; and they weren't in violation of any US law. We had the physical power to hold them but lacked a legal or investigatory basis to do so. To hold them we would have had to throw out our own laws. A judgement call. I would have been in favor of holding them, and taking the international heat. Regardless.
But those guys flew out when air traffic was released to fly. Not before. Moore blew this big time and given his staging of stuff in his other films it's hard for me to take him seriously. Bush has done enough bad things without making things up.
Many posters were complaining why this news had to be posted on slashdot.. At over 2000 post, some of them even insightful, they can spare their karma for something else. F9/11 *is* stuff that matters!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
And the staged bit was the "pets or meat" rabbits.
Moore admitted he had the woman act stupid on purpose and made up the sign.
What did he do with those crippled kids at Walmart, besides give them a national spotlight to discuss an issue deeply and personally important to them? Both of those kids were exactly where they wanted to be, doing exactly what they wanted to do. When K-Mart responded by ceasing to sell handgun ammunition, they got a result in excess of what they orginally asked for. Quite a thrill for them if you ask me. Where's the exploitation?
> Aren't all those social programs simply ways to buy votes?
No - they're a reflection of the idea that we're civilized enough that we don't want to leave the poor to starve and die on our streets, and we're rich enough that we can afford to feed them.
We don't feed poor children in our cities because we want their votes; we feed them because we're not heartless bastards.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
It almost makes me think that Moore is so stupid that it must be a right wing conspiracy to make the left wing media look idiotic.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
He goes to a bank that is giving away vouchers for a hunting rifle (it's in rural South Dakota I think) at a nearby gun store if you open a checking account with a minimum balance.
Moore persuades the Bank Manager to let him stage being "given" a rifle and runs out with it; and says that customers are just handed guns. Which was false. He also purposely made the ordinary guy and gal who were manager and teller respectively look like low-class morons after persuading them to say certain things for "drama" and promising them they'd look "good on camera." Which is part and parcel of his continual contempt for working class people.
If you're gonna STAGE things then you're no different from National Enquirer, Rush Limbaugh, and US Magazine, all of whom Moore resembles.
You just can't take him seriously.
...because they don't want to give any of their money to a liar. Moore is notorious for his "artistic license". Lets face it, he either doesn't check his facts or he doesn't care. Either way its irresponsible to call any of his movies journalism. Does the man even own a press pass?
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
It's OK! Mikey likes file sharing for fun (but not for profit)
Here's the torrent link to the movie:
F911 Torrent Link
For an explanation of the link, and why it's available, see:
This blog post with Moore's views on file-sharing
The problem with Michael Moore is not really the veracity of what he states, it is that he omits anything that would contradict his point. I am not going to go over any examples. I think that Christopher Hitchens does a fine job outlining some. The shocking thing is that people who I would otherwise consider critical thinkers (on both sides of the aisle) can be taken in by such garbage. Even the most liberal op ed journalists suggest that this movie (not documentary) be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone who actually thinks about this for more than a nano second realize that this movie's conclusions are completely unsupported. In science, you formulate theories and then try and disprove them. The same is true for social science. In Moore's movie, he formulated an oppinion and then taylored what evidence to use to best support the thesis while ommiting anything that is unhelpful.
The crowd that seems likely to find this movie believable are as paranoid as those who are convinced that Clinton had Vince Foster killed. Please read Hitchens for a good retort. BTW for those who are unfamiliar with Cristopher Hitchens, he is a conservative, brilliant writer who is no great fan of Bush.
The same talking heads that like to label all criticism of the president as "extremist" and "anti-American" are the people that made their bones trashing Clinton every day, whether we had troops in the field or not. They have no shame or honesty.
Unfortunately, for most Americans, they are the only source of information. People like Greg Pelast, who was writing exposes about the corruption of the 2000 election right after it happened, had to go to other countries to get published.
The American press won't print anything that goes against the business or political interests of the leaders of the handful of corporation that control all American media. And this is the real crisis, one that will last long after the Chimp-in-Chief has left the stage.
People on the net have been discussing that for years. Same with the lie he told about seeing the first plane hit. Or the lie that Cheney told that there was a credible threat to Air Force 1, which is why Brave Brave Sir George had to spend the day hiding.
You could apply this reasoning to George Bush. He only cited evidence supporting the claim that there were WMDs in Iraq, and that there were ties between Iraq and 9/11 terrorists. He left out the little bits about those claims being from dubious sources and the timelines not quite matching up. So by your reasoning, Bush did no wrong?
People, especially documentary filmmakers (which Moore does not claim to be, but which ironically gets left out in most press reports), should take a page from science. In science, when you do a study and it seems to support one hypothesis, one of the things you do is list all the possible alternative hypotheses you can think of.
Laying out both sides of the argument as you see it is what people do when they're trying to get at the truth.
Laying out just your side of the argument is what you do when you're trying to trick people into believing you (and I'm referring to both Bush and Moore when I say that). There's a name for people who do that - Con Men.
When people don't have a wide information feed, they turn into crackpots. Their point of view is shaped by ignorance. Members of the Taliban are examples.
So to keep from turning into crackpots ourselves, and as voters, dangerous ones, Americans should seek out a wide range of information sources. Certainly any American can understand BBC coverage, or that by The Economist magazine. It's interesting how much more critical of America it is than that of our mainstream press. And these are our allies, and in the case of The Economist, conservatives! Regarding diversity of information sources, keep in mind that there's a difference in legitimacy, in terms of fact checking, between news coverage and radio-show opinion that is spontaneously generated in response to a caller on the phone.
In the US, the neo-con right is rejecting the most accessible sources of information by dismissing the media as "liberal", and slowly turning into ignorant crackpots. And ignorant crackpots *inside* the US are even more dangerous that ignorant crackpots *outside*. Just look at who they elected to see what I mean -- one of their own.
BTW, how do you think the press got to be so "liberal"? Do you suppose researching the suffering of other people opened the eyes and hearts of one journalist after another? Maybe the essence of liberalism is "wanting to help those not your own". Or "making everyone your own". I can see how covering the news would do that to a person.
The guys had been screened by FBI interviews.
The Saudi government was pressing for them to be released (some where Royal family relatives).
We could have HELD them, but had no legal basis to do so, not even intelligence sources saying these guys were linked to the attack.
If you oppose the Bush policy of detention indefinitely if you are labelled a "foreign agent" for people you LIKE (a lawyer in Oregon comes to mind) then you have to also oppose it for people you DON'T like (Saudi Bin Laden relatives, "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, guys picked up in the Afghan battlefields and held at Gitmo).
THAT'S what civil liberties ARE. They apply to everyone even including people you don't like.
Bush could have held these guys "just because" and done a "nicer" version of the Iran Hostage crisis, and surprise surprise he didn't and let political influence from a foreign government hold sway. He made the choice for the wrong reasons but it was the right choice in the end.
Fahrenheit 9/11 suggests that at least part of the motivation of the attack on Afghanistan was to lay a natural gas pipeline.
The entire film portrays Bush as a businessman, more interested in money than anything else, and draws ties between the gas pipeline and Bush's own business interests.
Are you sure we saw the same film?
The film also pointed out the Bin Laden family members flown out of the USA despite the FAA's grounding of flights in the days that followed 9/11. Oh and let's not forget how much time was allowed for Osama himself to escape Afghanistan before any bombs were dropped. Smoked out of his cave, indeed.
I find it interesting that someone sums up your views for you. Can't you make up your own mind about the film? Am I wrong in assuming that you haven't even SEEN the movie yet?
I have heard so many opinions from people who haven't seen the movie, but only regurgitate what they read about it. That's cowardice. If you don't want to support Michael Moore finacially, then.. fine... buy a ticket to "White Chicks" and sneak into Michael's movie and create an opinion of your own.
There is an easy way to tell when Moore is lying (or at least distorting the truth). It's whenever he's talking or behind a camera. Bowling for Columbine was a such a propaganda piece I bet it could have taught Pravda a lesson. Not only is much of Bowling for Columbine lies, Moore knows they are becuase he was told his info was inaccurate WHILE he was filming. Please check http://www.bowlingfortruth.com . Moore has ABSOLUTLY NO CREDIABILITY.
Now that you've (hopefully) read that site, lets apply what we know about Moore to his new movie. First, he's a rabid anti-republican. How many of you would pay any attention to a movie about democrats that was filmed by Rush Limbaugh? Hopefully none. It's stupid, it'd be like asking a satanist to tell you about christianity.
Finally, check http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ . This page is written by a fairly left-wing guy, and he tears apart this piece of crap that Moore has shat out.
I don't like Bush. I'm a libertarian, and a limited-government guy. Bush certainly doesn't appeal to me, but Moore has taken a que from Big Brother about dis-information. To him IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH and lies are truth.
Check your facts. From Dictionary.com's definition of documentary :
n : a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event
Just because there's more than one way to describe the facts doesn't mean you need to ignore the format. Documentaries are used to show one thing and one thing only: facts. When Moore uses footage of himself harassing Congressmen to sign their kids up for the military, it's not documentary fare, and it's certainly not recounting any facts. It's sensationalism, plain and simple.
I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 , nor do I plan on seeing it, as all of Moore's films I see show me that his attempt to shove his own propaganda down my throat is no worse than the "evils" he tries to fight. If Moore ever decides to create a film that actually doesn't reflect his personal opinion (and doesn't involve politics), then I might be intrigued enough to see it.
UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
Thats all it was. I actually saw the movie last night and thats what it was all about. Do I like Bush? No. Do I think that Bush was responsible for all the stuff Moore said he had the ability to partake in? No. One though he did use factual events and brought to light front and centre the corrupt in the US gov. Maybe it was Bush but I chose to belive that Bush is an iddiot and a puppet that was hand picked to take the fall of descisions of others. I don't even think that Bush can tie his shoes with out giving him self 10 minuites of practice each morning. But then again it was a good film and I found very thought provoking and for once worth the money I paid for it.
It's probably is just me but a movie or display like this that challenges the gov. that it does is a welcome change and I hope to see more movies like it. Not necessarily from Moore but anyone who has an opinion so we may have the chance to make our own.
$0.02
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Was pretty bad.
People lived in CONSTANT fear of being informed upon rightly or wrongly as being anti-Saddam due to score settling.
In Baghdad itself, Uday and Quasay roamed at will abducting women off the streets for rape, torture, and murder. Saddam himself presided over tortures and murders, mutiliations at Abu Graib prison and videotaped FOR HIS OWN PLEASURE people's hands and feet being cut off. That awful footage is there on the internet if you want to find it; too gruesome for me.
After 1991 Saddam adopted a more Islamicized policy, restricting opportunities for women and imposing the Sharia, including veils and islamic dress. The Middle Class largely disappeared after 1991 as you can find out for yourself by searching various news sites; nearly ALL jobs were state run and the Iraqi economy absent Saddam's weapons and palaces was VERY bad indeed, with gas scarce and rationed (in a major oil producing country). Education was a joke (and had been even BEFORE 1991) and the infrastructure had been severely damaged in the war and never repaired (Saddam wasn't interested). Sewage treatment was lacking for most major cities and electric power ran for only a few hours a day if that.
Life in Iraq during Saddam: constant fear of being tortured cause a neighbor or workplace rival wants a score settled; no pay for months on end from the state (and no recourse either); no goods available except the pricey black market; no opportunities cause Saddam runs EVERYTHING (Baath Party is BASED on the Nazi party); and the best hope is Qusay (marginally less sadistic and crazy) takes over instead of Uday.
Just as a footnote that probably no will see since there are 2000+ comments on this topic already:
WMDS HAVE been found in Iraq. 12 artillary shells containing sarin gas were found just last week. These shells have the capability to kill 100,000 people. If thats not a weapon of mass distruction, I don't know what is.
I don't support Bush. As far as foriegn relations goes he has done worse than any other president since the world was griping about manifest destiny. However, the world is a better place without Saddam. The Iraqi people are certainly better off without him. Saddam definatly supported terriorists, be they AL-Q. or others. If he had the chance he would have done every thing in his power to kill Americans. We're Bush's reasons for Iraq flakey and based on bad intelligence? Definatly. Am I glad we did it any way. Yes.
The Baath Party and Saddam's regime was based on the Nazi Party and ran the country on the same basis of constant fear and total control. The only way out of the grinding poverty that reduced the small middle class starting with the 80's Iran-Iraq war was through military service.
All you need to do is see the pictures out of Iraq. Tobacco Road mixed with his palaces tells you what went on there.
Should have guessed it after he posted one the following stories:
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Many posters don't think that Farenheit 911 should be posted here. For them, it's not "nerdy" og technical enough.
:-)
However, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS! As we speak there have been about 2000 posts! Thus, I'm forced to draw the following conclusion (in a little tabloid way):
The Farenheit 911 post is PERFECT for Slashdot!
free speech also requires that its audience is critical of what it is being told, otherwise, it is just propaganda, regardless of the message. so, i won't rave about 9/11 without asking a few questions. and even then, i probably won't rave about it. moore put together an interesting piece, but i really didn't need this movie to figure out bush was an idiot. what i do ask is that we don't call this a documentary, since there is no room left for objectivity once moore was done riding around capitol hill in an ice-cream truck. there is probably much truth within this movie, but the message is so heavily slanted, it's tough to get beyond the guy with the megaphone. /. readers have already critiqued this thread to death, but i will raise this one question:
moore was so quick to make fun of the "coalition", which, in fairness, wasn't much of a coalition at all ... however there was still one huge omission .. he never mentioned the UK, or blair's solidarity behind the US and its president.
moore has an agenda, just like bush, it just happens to be going in a different direction. take in his message, but don't make it gospel.
-- i'm not paranoid. who told you that???
Moore claims that the president put those kids at risk because the president could have been a target in such a crisis, but he was a moving target and the hijackers only went after stationary ones.
I think any reasonable person would have to consider an airplane a "moving target". There were several of those destroyed on 9/11.
It's a debatable issue whether the president should have cut his visit to the classroom short when he was told that a second plane had hit the second tower. The principal of the school says that Bush did the right thing because running out of the classroom would have scared the kids...
Not really. Every hear the phrase "the buck stops here". The second he heard about anything THAT important, he should have AT LEAST checked to make sure SOMEBODY was on top of it.
If he wanted to delegate that to someone else for a while while he talks to a few kids, that's fine, but sitting there and not making ANY decision is not cool, especially when there are lives on the line.
Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38 AM. That means Bush had a whole 1/2 hour to say "Shoot down any aircraft you need to."
If that was a fire chief in that classroom, do you really think he would have sat there "so the kids don't get worried"? He would have ran off to do his job.
He would have said "Sorry, gotta run!" and been out of there. If would be absolutely stupid for him to sit there and let a house burn because his leaving the room might upset of few kids.
Life is too short to proofread.
Insugents seek Saddam's chemical weapons. -- CIA has found chemical weapons in Iraq.
Story 1 about bin Laden and a possible Saddam connection, Story 2
Al-Qaeda and Iraq, Atta and Iraq, Sarin and Mustard gas in Iraq.
As well as the fact that Saddam killed a million of his own people, plus the number of UN resolutions he was in violation of.
The best part of being in a debate with currently over 1400 posts is that you can mock the mods without fear of getting knocked down. After all, no one is going to read it.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
People don't seem to be able to understand that you can mislead people while telling the truth. Innuendo, leading questions, quotes used out of context, inconvenient details left out, statistical games, etc. are all methods of misdirection and FUD. Saying that "all the claims are factual" doesn't mean much. And it doesn't mean that the conclusions are factual, or even well supported.
We have politically and Moore seems a big part of it.
... yoked to a monstrous dicator with no respite in sight and a possibly WORSE one (Uday) to succeed him.
... resumes and war heroics don't cut it otherwise real life war heroes Bob Dole and George McGovern would have creamed Clinton and Nixon.
Come November we'll choose between Tweedledumb and Tweedlephony.
Moore pretending that Saddam's Iraq was smiley/happy is like pretending that Idi Amin except for his cannibal problem was an OK guy. ANYONE including Bush-hating journalists who went to Iraq during Saddam's days could see the grinding misery, fear, poverty, corruption, and hopelessness of Iraqi's
I don't hate Bush and don't think he's a monster. I think he made an idiot's bet in Iraq thinking he could sweep out Saddam quickly and leave even quicker. The first was a given, the second pretty unlikely even with perfect execution which isn't his strong suit.
But we didn't have a lot of good choices in Iraq BEFORE. Stay the course and fly low level air combat missions for the next forty years while Osama stirs up everyone in Saudi about "infidels" on sacred Muslim soil. Meanwhile Saddam needs constant watching, WILL get a NUKE eventually and use it to try and threaten us out of the Gulf, and we spend money and lives while the rest of the world rides on our back for free.
Leave, look even weaker (and invite MORE 9/11s) and have Saddam roll right back into Kuwait and Saudi too this time, control the world price of oil at least.
Get rid of Saddam. And use that to make people afraid of what we will do next (and clean up their acts).
Elections won't be won by making Saddam look like your favorite but eccentric uncle, Moore plays right into Bush's hands. This isn't Spain or France and Americans want to kick ass and take names, not run away or surrender.
Bush is vulnerable in tying the hands of GIs in combat, preventing them from firing on snipers in mosques and "holy shrines." He's vulnerable for not replacing commanders and Rumsfeld who cant' get ammo and hot food to GIs. He's vulnerable for not putting the country on a true war footing, for not increasing the size of the military (one of the few policies Kerry got right) and not calling for national unity and sacrifice to WIN over Iraqi guerillas.
Right now the election is close. I'm afraid Moore and the people around him seem to most Americans to be calling for GIs to be defeated and pro-Saddam. That's a formula for a Democratic rout come November and explains to me Kerry's "me too except dumber positions" sans increasing the military. He's afraid to alienate his Michael Moore base by saying what he'd do to actually WIN in Iraq while doing just enough to seem not blatantly anti-American. The Boston convention could be a disaster if Moore gets in front of a microphone and acts like a Democrat Pat Buchanon.
Kerry needs policies designed to WIN the Iraq insurgency FAST (not saying the French will like him better)
His viewpoints and world outlook were thouroughly destroyed by Nome Chomsky when they publicly exchanged retorts after 9/11. Hitchens spends his time attacking people who can form their own opinions based on non-trivial facts because he appariantly finds it difficult to understand the world for himself.
He has become a right wing attack dog at worst and a lazy armchair critic at best.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
The reality of Washington is that big business is taking over more and more to the point that it is becoming the fourth branch of power. Unfortunately bigbusiness an unchecked branch and one that has very few "guidelines" as to how it operates. The corporate world lacks checks and balances, and is not elected. It controls or seriously influences most elections now through cash. Without some serious changes to the election system, their control will continue to strengthen over time. Bush has too much dirt on him to be a viable President in the next election. If he had actually contributed some far reaching advances to the people of our country (besides the wealthiest few), or somehow actually executed Iraq with political skill, he might have had enough political clout here and abroad to be a viable contender. If he does get elected this time, then our country will have a huge uphill battle globally (except for the richest few people). Realistically, voting for Bush is a vote for Microsoft's illegal business practices, greater amounts of pollution in the atmosphere (and in our children, e.g. lead, arsenic and others), a widening economic gap between the top few percent and everyone else and more unregulated business can do what it wants, consequences be damned.
The choices are simple. You may think you have something to gain, but what about your children and your grandchildren. IMO, if you do not care, that says enough about you anyway. If you do care about their future, Bush has to go. If you do not care about the children, any one of a number of excuses might apply for you. Since (if you do not care to value them first), you are unwilling to invest in their future, how about you do not get any of the benefit of their future tax base outside of what you put in for them (less than $2000 per year per child in the US IIRC). Try no Social Security or Health benefits for you as you get older, no economic benefits from stocks you own that their purchases/employment benefit, no future paved roads for you to ride on... Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, you may not have been the one to bring them into this world, but they will be the ones paying for your tax burdens, driving the economy you live off of with their spending and providing care to you in your old age (unless you plan to off yourself at some point soon.)
It is just plain and simple, Bush and his right wing are not Pro-Family. That would mean being pro-child and that would mean the children come before the big business. They almost never vote that way (none to a few votes arguably that I am aware of) and I do not expect them to suddenly change. Anti-Abortion does not mean pro-family. It just means that women do not have a choice on abortion. Pro-church is definitely not pro-child or pro-family. It is only pro-church. I have seen numerous things from the current group and many in the same team who are pro-church, pro-life and pro-business, but I have seen next to nothing from this group that is pro-family, pro-child or pro-citizen in a long time.
BTW, if anyone knows, is it a joke that Guiness is considering putting GW's plan to pardon the illegal immigrants in the US as the largest pardon in history or is it real?
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Read what Billmon has to say. He is one of the most insightful humans I have the pleasure to read on a daily basis.
My uncle sailed around the world over the last seven years. He recently re-entered the US in San Diego, after stopping in Mexico. He was expecting Customs agents, but was instead stopped by the Department of Homeland Security. (Keep in mind, he had spent large parts of the previous seven years in middle-eastern countries the US wants nothing to do with): DHS Dude: "Welcome to San Diego. Did you bring anything back from Mexico?" My Uncle: "Uhh... just some toys and things, you know..." DD: "That's fine. No alcohol or drugs or anything?" MU: "No, none of that. But don't you want to see our..." DD: "OK, move along then." MU: "... passports?" No passport check, which would have revealed the presence of middle-eastern visas up the wazoo, no verification of citizenship, didn't even bother to inspect the boat. Makes you feel very Secure in your Homeland, doesn't it?
You do know that richer people pay more in taxes than others, right? Doesn't the richest 10% pay about 50% of the total annual tax revenue?
When did they ever work? Ever read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? It's sensational, biased, and entertaining, with not a shred of verifiable data in it. Yet people call it a "documentary". Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" fall into the same box.
Well it's nothing new really. I have been recommending Fog of War to all my friends as it really is a good moral argumentation on just (as in fair) war. It seems GWB and the hawks should also see Fog of War in order to learn something, before it's too late.
And get beat up like like this guy? I used to respect MoveOn.Org but some of it's members and supporters are out of control. This is Brown Shirts stuff.
Yet anothr reason for me to vote Nader.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
The reason the oil jobs were "exported to the OPEC nations" was because the oil supplies in the US peaked in 1970 , which is why there was a crisis in '73 when OPEC put the squeeze on the supply.
Now the US under "president" Bush has used the excuse of the "war on terror" to invade and take control of a country which has an estimated 25+ years until it's oil production will peak.
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
Moore holds up Clark as a hero, and blames Bush for letting bin Laden's family out of the country.
Clark says he was the sole decision-maker.
Therefore, Moore is either misinformed, or a liar.
Given that he is already a proven liar, I'll lean towards the latter.
...we use Celcius you insensitive clod!
But seriously, the film is apparently scheduled for release at the end of July here, so I haven't seen it... yet.
<plug>Also, for an Australian perspective on the lead-up to the Iraq war, I recommend Andrew Wilkie's new book, Axis of Deceit, in bookstores now. </plug>
/agree Regardless of party, people on the left and the right more or less want to control your life. After all, it's part of their platform.
Quentin TARANTINO, USA
Enjoyed the scenes of carnage, but thought it would benefit from some colourful language and some dialogue lifted from the original Shaft.
Kathleen TURNER, USA
Told Moore it needed Danny DeVito to lighten things up a bit.
Tsui HARK, Vietnam
Thought it would have been better if Michael Moore had an indentical twin who was a martial arts expert. Hijinks ensue as Cheney can't tell one from the other in the final battle at an automated Mitsubishi production line.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Let's say ideological group X produced a 1.5 hour movie, entirely on its own, with the purpose of getting people to sympathise with its opinions.
Would people who watched this movie sympathise with its opinions?
I am not in any way surprised that people sympathise with the message in this movie after watching it, much that I would not be surprised if people sympathised with a movie carrying exactly the opposite view created by exactly the opposite ideological agenda after watching it.
Hell, let the Old Communists in China create a 1.5 hour video about its glories, and people would sympathise.
The "free" press in the USA has basically given
...
GW Bush a free ride since 9-11-2001. If you
consider all of the "mini-scandals" that erupted
into the news, and stayed in the news, during
the Clinton era, Bush has wrapped himself in a
teflon-coated American flag. (Wonder just how big
an impact that the anthrax-laced letters sent to
the liberal press and liberal political opposition
has to do with the timidity of the press.)
If the info filtering out of the White House as
staff leaves (and memos released under the FOIA)
are to be believed, Bush & Cheney had a hard-on
for invading Saddam's Iraq since January 2001
(or at least since Cheney's Energy Commission).
WMD was the original reason given for going,
and then the fight against world terrorism, and
then finally "bringing democracy to Iraq". The
real reason is OIL, period. Which is why GW
quickly lost interest in Afghanistan (they don't
have any), and why nothing has been done with
North Korea over the last 3 years. (And also
why there is continued Bush interest in the
overthrow of a left of center democratically
elected government in Venezuela, an OIL-rich
neighbor to the south of our borders.)
Close ties between Bush & Cheney family and
commercial interests and the Saudi government
AND the bin Laden family have never been properly
investigated in the American press. And while
all US commercial aircraft were grounded after
9-11, the Saudi government managed to fly jets
around the USA to "evacuate" Saudis and other
foreign nationals. The Saudi embassy got caught
(along with Riggs Bank) in huge CASH transfers
totaling more that $20M USD. That went where?
I don't think that the embassy chauffuer withdrew
that money to handle the embassy's monthy utility
bills. (Perhaps to pay off that large "VISA
Express" program Bush started at the State Dept?)
The Bush administration has made very effective
use of patriotism, indignation, and the flag
to forward his political agenda for the last
3 years. Enough so that I would place a bet
that if Bush's poll numbers don't look so good
leading up to the election in November, that there
WILL be another major terrorist attack in the
USA (that will boost his numbers). The ground-
work has already been prepared by Ashcroft &
Tenet & Ridge in their statements that another
major attack isn't just possible, but likely.
BTW: Anyone that wants to contribute time or
money to the construction of my bomb
shelter will get a guaranteed space
Emphasis on Mental. I make valid points, and I'm modded down as a "troll", when the fact of the matter is that the parent article is completely off topic for the entire site.
Nevertheless, "why" the movie was sold out may have to do with ticket sales policies. Theaters pay for movies on a per-seat basis. A big money maker like Star Wars Episode III, the theater owner might bid up all 900 seats an a room. But a 'documentary' like this is note expected to be a draw. The bean counters might have only bid up a hundred of those seats to hedge their losses. So if they bid up 100 seats, and sell 100 seats, they can claim "sold out" even though the theater never hit capacity. Most theaters rarely sell a ticket for every seat, or even plan on doing it. They make their money on concessions, not on ticket sales. Up to 20 seats may be held in "reserve", also known as "elbow room refunds".
Then again, it might be because MoveOn.org bought all the seats up, which is what they said they'd do in last Thursdays Action Alert e-mail. Oh yeah baby...I subscribe to the left wing attack machine's e-mails. It's called "intelligence" gathering, oddly enough.
I'd like to pick your cherry.
Slash dot is the wrong forum for Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda 's personal political views. "News for Nerds" has been steadily leaning left for a long time now which is why it is no longer my home page.
As far as Moore's attempt at manipulating our political system, he should go back to Canada and loose some weight. I voted for Clinton, I voted for and support Bush. That doesn't make me a Republican or a Democrat. It makes me an American, something he will never understand or be.
Chyllaxyn
I have to admit, my favorite musical moment was the inclusion of the theme to "The Greatest American Hero." How appropriate was:
Look at what's happened to me,
I can't believe it myself.
Suddenly I'm up on top of the world,
It should've been somebody else.
Wouldn't that then be fascism?
I thought Moore had rebutted all of that.
"In Dude where's my country" on which Fareinheit 911 is based. Moore is particularly scrupulous about giving evidence & references. Yes he does make a "story" out of what he is trying to say. Yes he is selective. But no more so than mainstream news channels who neglect to tell the people of America that their President is in bed with the Bin Laden family.
I am personnally more scandalised that the only private planes flying in America in mid September 2001 contained the people best able to give leads on the location of the main culpret.
If it was a Democrat president doing this he would be crucified by the press.
What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
I wish I had mod points left. That link is one of the most on topic points I've see here in a while.
While most people don't see the paralels, you have to admit, that page shows some very disturbing comparisons.
The truth only hurts the ignorant.
Who's right and who is wrong? It's very, very difficult.
... There are probably more points to adress, but these are the ones who are most important to me.
A few things I want to say though:
1) There is hardly any free press in the U.S.
I am not all to familiar with the US, as I do not live there, so please excuse me if I am wrong. As I see it there are only 5 national tv stations in America. As far as I know none of them is really independent. CNN is related to AOL/Time Warner; FOX or ABC also have relations with GE and so on
2) Americans are very patriotic
Note that this does not have to be a bad thing, but IMHO I find that if I were to be an American, it would be very hard for me criticise the President. From what I know that sort of thing is just not done. Being patriotic is good, but IMO criticism is the basis for a good democracy. Lack of criticism from journalist or sociaty is _not_ a good thing
Jasper
This movie will ultimately lead to more thoughtful, responsible, accountable government in the future.
Like the populist propaganda that led to the big rallies in Munich?
resigned
...the film will be released with the title Celsius 488.3, or perhaps Kelvin 761.32 -- The [SI] Temperature at which Freedom Burns.
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
And if you read some of the information regarding that "photo-op" he deliberately stayed so as to present a strong front.
h -911.htm
Wow, that's major spin. Bill O'Reilly would be proud!
You watch that video yourself...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bus
And you tell me that vacant look shows a strong front.
This photo-op was then followed up by Air Force One running around the south countryside like a chicken with it's head cut off.
That also made no sense. I would think that standard operating procedure would be to get AF1 off the ground, provide a fighter escort and shit tail for Offutt AFB in Nebraska where US Strategic Command is based, or some other safe haven.
What I find interesting is that the Anti-Moore crowd are so quick to point out how many distortions, misrepresentations, biases, twisting of facts and such Moore uses in a 2 hour film, yet when it comes to the very people Moore's films examine in real life (in this case, BUSH) they don't point out any such things. Gee, how could that be? Bush has been in office for over 25632 hours - and they can't find any mis-doings?
If they gave 10% the effort into focusing on Bush than they do Moore they'd find a whole lot more relevent and important distortions with much greater consequences to freedom and security than any 2 hour film could ever hope to generate.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Ann Coulier clearly and repeatedly lies outright in her books. In many casses her attributions are ourtight fabrications. Yet no one says a damn thing about her.
Huh? There are people whose bodily fluids spray down their leg as they fume and rant publicly about Ann Coulter's books.
resigned
Parent probably trolling. Quotes from article that he linked to: ... the flight."
"That's a little different than saying, 'I claim sole responsibility for it now,'" Roemer said yesterday.
"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the -- at the time -- No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved
Any one else have another decent source ? And please RTFA.
Great film, in many senses.
Was some of the footage take from Jon Pilger's "Breaking the Silence" (circa 2001) or did Jon and Michael just search the same archives?
which causes the 'deaths' of dozens of viable fetuses for the one that is implanted, so he is just USING the religious issue for his own political gain. If he really did give 2 cents for the lives of fetuses, he would be against in-vitro too.
From this, it is abundantly clear he is a blatant hypocrite.
The statement about not wanting to scare the kids is patent politicized distraction.
When someone mentions it, ask them what they think the kids felt about the two armed secret service agents dangling in the cieling space over their heads.
"trust no one" the goals of each political party are to win, not to tell the truth. with more and more seemingly at stake in this upcoming election, there are only versions of the truth. it all comes down to who is more persuasive in convincing you their version is right. 9/11 is a version, just like the versions we hear from the bush campaign party. nothing more, nothing less.
"Alternatively, you're suggesting that you don't need to see/hear/read opinion pieces. That given the facts, you can accurately judge the material. Well, congratulations, but some people (including myself) realise that I don't possess perfect judgements and find it enlightening to look at things from someone else's perspective."
But you need to pay attention to WHOSE perspective. I prefer someone who will present a well-reasoned perspective, rather than a Michael Moore or a Bill O'Reilly... both of whom commit the same sins, though at different ends of the political spectrum.
I'm sorry. I don't understand this. .
Somebody you voted for has turned out to be a liar and psychopath, but you still support him because you're an 'American'. . ?
Sounds to me like you are suffering from a combination of things in greater and lesser degrees; 1. Ignorance, 2. Programming, 3. The Total Lack of the Backbone required to admit when You've Been Duped.
Newsflash: Pretending that you haven't been duped when you have, or worse, sticking by a liar and a criminal when you know him to be a liar and a criminal is STUPID. It's not noble. It's not cool. It's STUPID. --And it's certainly not "American", unless Americans are by default a bunch of lemming imbeciles.
Perhaps you should watch the film before complaining about 'leftists'.
-FL
Who the hell cares that some members of the bin Laden family got shuttled out of the country? This whole brouhaha is, to use a quaint term, a nothingburger.
The bin Laden family is a HUGE family. From what I understand the family patriarch had 54 children, not counting the hundreds of cousins. Osama was the black sheep of the family. He was disowned kicked out of his home country. This is strike one against Mr. Moore, because any ties between Bush and the bin Laden family are completely irrelevant to anything Osama did.
It's not a big deal that bin Ladens attending university in the US were flown out of the country. This was for their protection. If non-Arab sikhs were killed (one was killed in my hometown a week after 9/11) just because they wore turbans, how much more danger would people be if they were named "bin Laden"?
Michael Moore found a tiny molehill in the flight of some bin Laden family members out of the country. It doesn't surprise me that he managed to make an entire 90 minute propaganda film out of this molehill. What is truly amazing are the hordes of people who think this is significant.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Bill O'reilly has invited Moore on his program publicly. Moore has declined the invitation.
Yet Moore lies in the LA Times saying he is not allowed back on Bill's program. Even though weekly Bill invites Moore onto the program.
Moore simply cannot tell the truth.
The fact of the matter is that there HAVE been productions which support the Bush side of the 'argument'. They're called Network Television and Print Journalism. And THAT, kiddo, is a far more appropriate comparison to your half-baked 'Communist China' remark.
-FL
It seems no one has posted a real summary of the movie here, so I will do it. I'm not going to do it annonymously to avoid karma-whoring, cause I paid to see the movie, and I deserve some karma, damnit :P
It is in roughly chronological order, and if I missed anything, let me know.
The movie starts with some footage from the 2000 elections.
1) Overview of 2000 election, with a focus on FLorida.
Claims:
- Most news shows called Florida for Gore early on.
- Fox News then called Florida for Bush, and other networks follow their lead, apologizing for their "mistake" in calling FL for Gore.
- The man who made the call for Bush winning FL that night was a Bush cousin working for Fox News.
- Katherine Harris, who was the Bush campaign chair for FL was also the FL official responsible for vote-counting. She had also disenfranchised a lot of people, which Moore implies was based on race.
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush.
- The Dems, notably Tom Daschle, did not raise enough fuss, and caved in too easily.
- No Senator was willing to sign a letter to protest the inauguration, even though many Democrats, esp. African-Americans, wanted to officially protest.
2) Bush's vacation - with "everything going wrong" in the first months of his presidency, Bush goes on vacation. Many funny shots of his antics.
Claims:
- Bush spent over 40% of his time on vacation during the time before the 9/11 attacks.
3) The attack happens on 9/11. No footage of the attack itself, Moore only plays sounds of the attack, and the faces of the New Yorkers reacting. Cut to Bush, who was on his way to a FL school when the first plane hit, and was informed of it. Bush is then shown going on with his photo op with the class. He is informed of the second plane hitting, but does nothing for several minutes, even starting to read a book to the kids.
Claims:
- Moore speculates about what was going on in the President's head, shows Pres. Bush wondering "which of them betrayed me", and shows past ties he and his cabinet or family had with Saddam, the Taliban, and the Saudis.
- Bush did nothing for about seven minutes, seeming to be waiting for advice or orders.
3) The immediate aftermaths of the attack and the responses are shown.
Claims:
- The Bin Laden family is whisked away out of the country, supposedly for their safety, while air traffic is still banned. None of them are interviewed by FBI or police.
- Despite claims that they've disowned him, some of the Bin Laden family have maintained relations with Osama, meeting him for a family wedding in Afghanistan in 2000.
- Moore claims that it was reckless to not interview Osama's family members in the U.S., noting that Clinton did not give such treatment to Tim McVeigh's family.
4) The Bin Laden family is profiled, and connections between them and the Bushes are made.
Claims:
- GW Bush and the Bin Laden family shared a financial advisor, who Bush met while in the Texas Air National Guard.
- The Bin Ladens funded the younger Bush's early oil businesses, so that they could gain political access to Bush Sr., who was head of the CIA, later vice president and president of the U.S.
- Moore does not claim that Osama himself was involved in this.
- Bush Jr. worked as basically a lobbyist for the Bin Laden family in the 80's, when he was the executive of an oil company. Bush Sr. now works as a PR rep for Saudi oil interests.
- Other financial ties are listed, which I can't recall offhand.
Shoot, I'm not even halfway through the movie, and I have to go do some chores. Will finish later, but if anyone else wants to add to this, feel free to do so.
Truth? It's kind of hard to fake actual recorded video.
I know that by saying this I'm self-identifying as a massive geek, but you need to watch the episode of Babylon5 where a news crew follows the captain around on a "typical day." The first 30 minutes of the show we get to see what the news crew sees, the second 30 minutes of the show we get to see the program put together from the recorded footage rhat the news crew shot. The difference between the two half-hours is incredible -- the spin takes the reality of first 30 minutes and makes the produced show tell a story that is 180 degrees out of sync with "the truth."
That episode of Babylon5 is probably the best, most easily grasped, demonstration of how a camera can lie.
Not that I'm saying Moore lied or not, haven't seen the movie and won't see it until I buy it on DVD. My point is just that your original comment is not a sound basis for belief of any subject.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Out of curiosity: what's the anti-Goldwater commercial you're referring to?
Carousel is a lie!
Let's face it. Michael Moore made this movie to tell a story and to make a point. He took all of the research and interviews, screened them for useful pieces, and then assembled them in order to make his statement. The moive is a collage of pieces designed to turn people against the Iraqi war and to call for the Persident's head at election time. When/if you see the movie keep this in mind: He always supports the Democrat no matter who's on the ticket. He blindly pulls the Dems' party line and never questions it. He has not problem living a lavish Hollywood lifestyle while at the same time calling for higher taxes on the common man. Then ask yourself: Are these the values that I want represented in Washington? Could I afford the lifestyle that I have now if my payroll taxes were 50% higher then they are now? If Saddam isn't a threat to the US, then why didn't the last President pull US troops home? Flame on!
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
Don't forget that his military service was VOLUNTARY. He knew the dangers when he signed up. Its no surprise that when you sign up to be a soldier, you could be killed in the line of duty. This is why we have a military folks. This is a perfect example of someone who wants something but isn't willing to pay the price for it. I'm sorry for this woman's loss but her 180 degee flip on the issue shows she is a self-serving individual. If her son wasn't killed she would still be for the war. She is only thinking of her situation and is failing to realize there are 6+ billion other people on this planet too.
Scott
--The best one I ever ran across was another shit-spouting fool whose actual, real-life last name was, 'Papernick'.
He was the biggest plagiarist I ever met! No joke!
The Universe, I find, nearly always puts clear signposts on all of its energies. If you know how to read the signs, the world becomes much less confusing!
-FL
What does the bible have to do with GWB II's lies?
There are two ways to answer that question.
1. Read what I said in my post- I said GWB ][ was kept honest by the bible. Anyone who has any experience with Judeo-Christian traditions should know that lying is a sin. The irony in this would be that most folks who follow some Judeo-Christian tradition lie on occasion, some quite a bit.
2. Or: GWB ][ may lie intentionally, but feel he's justified. GWB ][ feels that he is on a mission from God, so his lies are in the best interest of himself, his party, his country, etc etc- or so he believes.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Your argument that spin happens on both sides of the opinion divide is pleasant, but doesn't take into account the crux of Moore's unanswered question: Why was it so important for these people to leave the country so quickly, when common sense dictates that they should have been kept here for an investigation?
Clearly strings were pulled to have them flying so soon, on chartered flights no less. Don't forget to read the lines before you go looking between them!
QAExpress: Solid bug tracking for you. Graphs and reports for your PHB.
In the united states, we have a thing called incremental tax brackets. the "average family of four" does not pay 800 dollars per person. People in the top 2% of wealth pay over 90% of taxes. Their family will pay much more than 800/head, but that's little more than pocket change (i'm not saying i advocate this robin hood method, in fact my family is greatly detremented by it).
The "average family" will pay what is to them pocket change.
68.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I'm a Canadian, and I've found the same thing. I know plenty of Yankees (and a few South'ners) and almost uniformly, they've been interesting and worthwhile people. Whereas I don't agree with all of them on all things (some are tea-totallers, which I as a Canadian find bizarre, some are profoundly religious right (but in a quiet non-proselytizing way), some are very much of the 'America right or wrong' crowd...), but they've usually been able to have a sensible discussion of right and wrong and take into account the right of Canada and Canadians to differ with them. And while doing so, none of them have said unpleasant or belittling things about us.
Contrast this with how many of my allegedly university educated (and college educated) friends look at the Americans - often times the reactions are vitriolic, uncharitable, and reflect only a superficial interface with *actual* Americans, as opposed to some sort of caricature seen on TV or presented in Canadian (opinionated, spin-doctoring, discontent-formenting) media.
If they're all so smart and well educated, they should be able to 'walk a mile in the other guys shoes' and should know better than to form opinions of a whole body of people by the outliers. And they should know that it makes little sense to form opinions with little data. But this paucity of data seems to lead to very nasty and very mean-spirited opinions.
Whether we as Canadians should or should not have joined the war in Iraq, whether we should support the war on terror, whether we have serious border issues ourselves with our own intelligence and police agencies reporting fairly significant terrorist planning and fundraising activities within our borders, etc. - all of these things are things that should be calmly discussed and upon which differing points of view can be coped-with. We should still be able to maintain a civil relationships with our US neighbours.
It is no mark of distinction, no badge of honour, no sign of integrity or eductation to blindly bash those you've never met, to categorize them blankly based on a few noisy mouthpieces, nor to show your own small-hearted nature by vilifying people who have (for the most part) very similar aspirations, lives, and motivations...
To my mind, this kind of behaviour (especially given the way we open our arms to people the rest of the world over) is just pathetic. We should have our own opinions, but we shouldn't be obnoxious buttheads when it comes to our neighbours in the south.
Many of my American friends have apologized for the kind of stereo-typical American tourista that you sometimes encounter ("Those are the kind of people that we even wince about... they make us all look bad.") I feel very much that way about Canadians that can't disagree with their American counterparts without resorting to unthoughtful and unflattering epithets, errant classifications, and bilious polemic. This kind of conduct is unjustified and makes me want to disown these boorish clowns... or at least makes me embarassed to admit to being from the same country, which is sad, because I love the place and I took and Oath to defend it... I just wish some of the people would act a bit more like polite, rational adults and less like petulant, self-absorbed, egocentric children....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
In the meantime, Al Qaeda expanded its base (no pun intended) twentyfold without doing anything.
The invasion of Iraq has been a $80 billion recruitment drive for Al queda.
Terrorists kill 3000 innocent US civilians and that gave the US the license to attack terrorist bases.
US attacks Iraq and 10000 innocent civilians die. How many people have taken those deaths as a mandate to attack the US ? Ok, so Saddam killed many of his own people...but can you use that argument against 16-30 yr olds whose mom was blown up by an unseen enemy ?
What are these young men going to do ? Join Al queda. And therefore the US will spend more money and resources for "anti-terrorism".
But with the major sponsers of terrorism, that is Al queda and Iraq have their backs broken according to Bush, shouldnt the money spent be going down ?
And shouldnt terrorist attacks be going down ?
Good job bush.
Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue.
Why could the satire parts be when Moore is the voice inside GWB's head? Now there's a concept! Nah, that couldn't be it. It must be the 2000 footage of the administration saying that Sadaam wasn't a threat. Yeah. That must be it.
Honestly, I've seen more whole cloth lies about this film spouted by rightwingers that haven't seen the film.
First there was the lies that Moore faked the Disney contriversy. Then there was the lies that Moore says "Bush is worse than Bin Laden". (He doesn't, he tells the story of an old man who said that, and then got a visit from the FBI because of it.) My personal favorite is when the media, in an effort to be unbiased, say his facts are correct, but opinions aren't necessarily accurate. Umm. Opions aren't factual arguments to the begin with. You're supposed to learn that in 3rd grade reading.
I am just testing to see if any mods actually saw this post, lost in the oblivion of this whole topic so lets see if it i can get +5 interesting, or bust!
The events of that day were shocking, unprecedented and went against all experience with terrorist hijacking attempts.
NOBODY knew what was going on.
NOBODY claimed responsibility for the attacks.
NOBODY knew if it was accidental or intentional. Granted the second plane seriously reduced the possibility of accident and the Pentagon clinched it. But Don't forget somewhere in there a plane crashed in a field as well and nobody was real sure what had happend there. As clear as it all has become now, it was confusing as hell when it happend.
I was just listening to the mp3s of his show on 9/11. Let me check:
One minute after the first plane hit bababooey says "I hope this wasn't one of those terrorist kamakzee attacks".
Immediately after news of the second plane Howard says, "So its a terrorist attack isn't it? Its gotta be."
A few minutes later, "Where's OB bin Ladin?... if we can't get bin laden there's something wrong with this world".
I wouldn't say the left is 100% truthful, but the right is no better (worse, in my opinion). They have Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, for example.
Anyway, if someone says you are lying and you're not, it's libel and you have every right to sue. I think Moore mentions his willingness to sue because he wants to mitigate the illegitimate attacks on his work, which he knows is highly controversial.
Sorry, but if anyone believes the tripe that is in this film needs to have their heads examined. Some very well know liberals and Bush haters think very little of this film.
Who? If they're so well known, maybe you have some names? Most of the liberals I know thought this film was anywhere from entertaining to amazing.
The best article on SLATE http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
So this guy definitely has a good vocabulary (or thesaurus). And he raises some good points; clearly the movie doesn't cover both sides equally. But for the most part, I fail to see anything of great significance in the article. Some of the previous repliers pointed out the rebuttal http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/feature.php?feat ure=1150
He has to go out of his way to make the President look like a bufoon to make it stick. When his story gets really stupid he just goes faster hoping no one pays enough attention.
Yeah, he goes out of his way to make the movie entertaining. But there seems to be plenty of footage of Bush making a fool of himself
Sway voters? No, he will put off more voters than he gains. You do not gain voters by spewing ludicrous hate like MM.
I disagree. I think that this film will motivate those who already are against Bush, sway some who are indifferent or ignorant, and enrage loyal Bush supporters.
--If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
I dare you to find ANY SINGLE EXAMPLE of Rush caught in a lie. Just one. If you can find an example, I'll buy you lunch.
The man may be biased, but a liar he is not. The reason why he's risen to the top of talk radio is his amazing fact-checking team. They have access to things you do not. Rush is successful because he doesn't say something until he's sure about it.
Perhaps the person in charge of deciding when a movie was sold out lied to keep addendance down.
You are dealing with 2 party US of A here.... rationality it out of the question
Also, don't make stupid assumptions about my political leanings. I didn't attack Moore. I didn't defend Bush. I've never voted for a Republican in a presidential election. I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
(This would have been in the previous reply, but I just noticed your last line.)
That's fair, and my last line is uncalled for. Please accept my appology.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
>For some reason, liberals have become completely radicalized since the 2000 election
For *SOME REASON*?
Might that reason be that the treasonous democracy-hating warmonger complete fucktard in the White House and all of his cronies on the hill have abandoned even *their own* twisted platform in favor of ass-raping the country?
Or did you have some *other* reason in mind?
Ok, please give me a day. Finding actual verfiable evidence of something like that *does* take time.
I'll try to post something in the next 24 hours if I can.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Even if I didn't think Moore was a big, fat, pathetic loser who takes out his own depression on everyone around him with his non-stop torrent of hate speech, I'd still have a hard time believing anyone who was so full of himself that he must weigh 300 pounds. What else could explain that he so detests the very country where someone like him could become so rich and famous?
Wow. Listen to talk radio much? That paragraph is as loaded with ad hominem and strawmen as the best that Rush, Savage and the rest of the crew have ever done. You should consider a job, maybe as guest knee-jerk-geek commentator on a show or two. You've got the rap down pat.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
How is this hate speech? It's free speech.
What else could explain that he so detests the very country where someone like him could become so rich and famous?
Moore consistently says that he loves America, a country where he can make a film that aims to get the current president out of office. Just because he doesn't think the US is perfect doesn't mean he detests the country.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is using his "satire" and "mockumentaries" to blur the lines between truth and his warped anti-American political views in order to to sway the ignorant, or more commonly these days, people too angry to bother with facts or reason.
Anti-Bush != Anti-American. Liberals can be patriotic, too. Furthermore, I think this movie is great for the ignorant. It exposes them to a wide variety of political issues they may not be aware of. The press (both positive and negative) that the movie has been getting, I believe, is one step towards curing America's political apathy and ignorance.
I have one suggestion to Bush's critics: If Bush is so bad, what would you do better?
Well, I think the critics generally say what they think would be a better option. From the movie, for example, not going to war with Iraq, not taking record amounts of vacation time, not distorting facts about Iraq's WMD, etc.
--If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
The 9/11 commission just declared that there is a connection. The news media jumped the gun when they took an interim report from a very low-ranking official of the commission and took it badly out of context. They have refused to report that the commission has indeed proven the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, instead taking a line from the report -- that the collaboration between Saddam and bin Laden was probable, but "innocent until proven guilty", and there still is no proof -- and turning it into "Iraq never linked with al-Qaeda".
Even Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been quite a thorn in Bush's side in the Iraq effort, has supported and reiterated just this week that "officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military".
Also, they have found dozens of WMDs in Iraq, and the commission has backed it up. Sarin gas, mustard gas, and botullinum toxin have all been found as well as the components of devices used to deliver them. They have also proven that Saddam was moving the stuff out of the country just before the inspectors arrived (so nice of them to announce their visit ahead of time).
The news media, on the other hand, has reported none of this, because they have their own agenda. The media doesn't care that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not initiated in response to 9-11, but to prevent another 9-11. The president explained that Saddam, "was a threat because he had terrorist connections- not only al-Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations". The media only seem to care that Americans think that was the case.
Why don't you actually get your news from the commission rather than the (mostly left wing) press?
Actually, I completly agree with you. The problem is, as a liberal, allowing one side to stand on a pulpit and defame my views essentially unchallanged has lead to a position where democrats no have totally lsot any control in washington.
I fully believe taht alloing talking heads like Rush and Savage to continue their very partisan and constant attacks from the right without answering them and fireing back is a major reason why the we lsot both houses of congress and the white house. I think that partisan talk bickering like this, that is also consistantly getting louder is inherantly damaging to the country - but I think one party controlling everything is *far* more damaging. Our government works best when the middle runs things instead of the fringe zealots.
SO, In order to balance things again, teh left needs to grow a spine, roll up it's sleeves, and start fighting the conservatives at their own level - if nothing else it will restore balance so the people in the middle can start talking again some day.
I don't disagree with you, but unless I want to live in a country where liberalism is dead, and conservativism runs everything, I don't see a choice.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Which makes me wonder. .
Is the herding influence pushing for a Kerry government, (less likely to turn the tables on the Israelis, as Kerry has Jewish blood), or is it a method of paving the way to American civil revolt, and the ensuing Judo-flip Machiavellian Military smack-down?
Only time will tell.
But I must say. . . Bush is a stupid, greedy, evil man without the ability to empathize. An actual psychopathic killer. Moore is just a film- maker who has indulged in his bias, (he's not nearly so bad as you make him out to be.) --But the point is that he clearly does NOT support the murder of civilians, or anybody else. I don't see how you can "detest" Moore but only "dislike" Bush, by whose actions thousands of people have met horrible ends, up to and including those who died on 9-11.
Sounds like you've got some fairly major blockages due to obsession. You would advantage by spending more time exploring reality than by spitting, fuming and constructing half-assed denial structures.
-FL
Search google. This guy from the future claimed that a civil war would happen in the US around 2007.
"Journalists" in the USA are just reporters, who just paraphrase and quote press releases.
Sadly, Moore provides some a little balance to what is in the media. It should not be such a big deal.
I don't see infotainment going away in the USA. But I think it could be more balanced, and that is all I ask for; a free media market.
Moore's infotainment is not much different in its lack of journalism than the so-called news we have now. (just 2 hours long & no ads)
People who focus on the ego; who are bothered by big egos so much, are "killing the messenger" which is a fallacy! His ego is not relevant to the message.
Unfortunately, his reputation gives him a reasonable level credibility with most people around the world, and people believe him based on THAT and not solely on the merit of the message itself.
EVERYONE has a right to speech. If you get famous, will you give up your rights?
oh, they do, the difference is this:
When michael moore is attacked, it's all over the news papers, and very visible. When Coulter is attacked, it's in the back pages (if it's in the paper at all), or more likely, it's on Salon.
Big media refuses to even consider questioning conservative icons.
You would never find an article tearking Coulter apart in something like the NY Times, but I'm certain you can find an article critical of Moore.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...find me evidence and I'll recant that.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
> wow, so you voted for Bush, right?
Actually yes. But in 2000 it wasn't really a committed vote, much like my votes for Dole and Bush the Elder. More a NO to Gore and the ecofreaks he would have installed throughout the government. This time it is going to be a no hesitation YES for Mr. Bush. And I have already backed it up with cash once and plan to give more, both to Bush Cheney 2004 and the Party. And if we can get a viable Senate candidate (Louisiana politics can be 'interesting'.) this season I'll toss money their way also. Playing politics with national security seriously pisses me off in case I haven't made it plain yet.
Rooting for Usama and Saddam to score points in an election is beyond the pale and it is now clear that the fastest way to win this war the Islamists have declared on us is to end the Democratic party as we have known it. Usama and his scraggly band of misfits wouldn't last ten minutes against an America that was firmly united against them. They know their only hope of victory is a Vietnam style political win in Washington; Deny them that hope and their movement collapses. The whole kill people and blow up shit strategy in Iraq is all about giving their Democratic allies (enemy of my enemy sort of ally, not actually friends) in DC the ammo they need to get us to pull out. So EACH AND EVERY CASUALTY WE HAVE SUFFERED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS can be fairly laid at John Kerry and Terry McCaulif's feet.
Even Klingons know not to fight in a burning house, shame Dean, Kerry and that father of all idiots Moore can't figure that one out.
Democrat delenda est
Those people don't get a shred of time from the media. The media can't bend over backwards far enough to please people who want to attack Moore.
So I'll alter my statement "Yet the media won't say a damn thing about her"
What normal people say and feel and what actually gets media attention are two totally different things.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
His reputation gives him credibility? I don't think so. His reputation is for disinformation, lies, and bending the truth and interviews to suit his needs. Anyone that is informed about Moore knows better than to truth anything he says.
The leftist liberals don't care whether or not anything he says is accurate, they're just thrilled to see someone attacking Bush since they've been pretty ineffective doing it themselves.
My concern is for the uninformed, mindless middle people. The ones that don't have much of an opinion, don't know that Moore has a history of lying and bending the truth, and are going to walk out of F-9/11 believing conclusions that they really need to investigate for themselves.
Bowling for Columbine was subsequently thoroughly trashed and discredited after the fact. I'm sure the same will happen again on F-9/11. But it is entirely possible that the damage will already be done since those that are going to be affected by this (the uninformed, mindless and undecided masses in the middle) are not going to be subsequently informed that what they saw in the theater was subsequently thoroughly proven to be dung.
First off, the film does not idolize him - you clearly have not seen it - yet you clearly *are* reading from the talking points of conservatives who are attacking the film. I have seen it, and it does no such thing.
e ws/f911f acts/
Now, from michael moor's website, he has a response to this criticism as well: (if you go to the link, look at the bottom for more on the airplane thing)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestn
What does the film say about the Saudi and bin laden family flights out of the country after 9/11?
For a complete analysis of this topic, go here. One thing the film does NOT say, is that these flights left the county while other flights were grounded. Rather, the film says these flights left the country after September 13. These facts are based on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12.
Some critics have said that the film hides the fact that former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Is this criticism valid?
Absolutely not. If the film were trying to hide Clarke's involvement, we would not have included a visual reproduction of the actual New York Times article about the White House decision to approve the flights that prominently mentions Clarke's name. Clarke has testified, "Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.
Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he would approve these flights again. Doesn't this undermine the film's point?
Absolutely not. The main question raised by the film, which neither Richard Clarke nor anyone at the White House has ever answered, is why? Why did this happen? What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history? Why did these Saudi Royals and bin laden family members receive such special treatment, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis? Imagine if the hijackers were North Koreans. It is inconceivable that a group of North Koreans, let alone relatives of the individual who had mastermind the attack, would have been given a one-way ticket out of the country with the cooperation of the White House as soon as airspace was open. Or Imagine President Clinton facilitating the exit of members of the McVeigh out of the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. The bottom line is that we really do not know why it was necessary for the White House to approve the quick exodus of these Saudi and bin Ladens out of the country, and "the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged," according to a June 20, 2004, article by Phil Shenon in the New York Times.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Yeah, and?
Oh, that's right. I'm a liberal in america, and accorting to Coulter I'm a traitor anyway, so you probably should dismiss my view point....coming from a traitor and all.
Cause only Conservatives are real red blooded Americans. All liberals hate freedom, and hate America.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Yes. Much of the content has been public but those are the verifiable facts that the media has come out with. However, there are other parts of the movie, such as specific interviews and some of Moore's conclusions that need to be seen for there to be an informed discussion. For example, recently the media has let everyone know that these flights were able to leave on 9/13. People who have not seen the movie may have come to the conclusion that Moore is mad that we made an exception for these people, however that is not the case; he is mad that bin Laden's family was allowed to leave without being questioned like what happens in murder cases where the accused and their families don't have connections. Almost all people can learn someting new from this movie, whether they agree or not, so you do have to see it to be able to criticize it.
Considering that almost all the arguments against Bowling for Columbine have been nitpicky, at best, I would hope Moore would be especially careful to get the facts as true as possible this time and leave no room for the nitpickers. If there are any glaring misleading facts or flat out untruths, watch the movie, find the evidence to the contrary, and get back to us later.
Just because he's fat doesn't mean he's lying. His physical appearance has nothing to do with whether the facts in this documentary are untrue or misleading.
If he hated this country, he would simply move to Amsterdam or Canada and spark up a fat doobie. Instead, he cares enough about this country to show a darker side of our government that everyone should see. The drive to make our government better and oust the shitty is much more patriotic than being in denial and allowing it to continue.
See above about true patriotism and seeing the movie before you can dispute what is presented.
Here's some wacko liberal ideas; we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place and we probably wouldn't have gone to war if the Bush administration hadn't managed to weave such a huge web of lies. Liberals may seem to have no ideas this time, but we do; peace. War can only result from someone's idea to go to war. People and entire countries can stay at peace without anyone saying "Hey, we sure could use some more peace." I am not saying that we should quit fighting terrori
We really don't. Perhaps you should read the constitution, it's written to give the president a very minimal role.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I haven't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" yet. But I have no doubt that Michael Moore combines selective presentation of the truth with innuendo and implication to deceive viewers and drag Bush through the muck. Reprehensible, sure.
But while we're on the subject, who does Moore remind you of? Let's make a little list. On the left wing, you might say Al Franken, though I don't believe he's nearly as much of a muck-raker as Moore; Franken's books mostly expose the dirty tricks of the muck-rakers on the right wing. Now we'll add those muck-rakers to our list: Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage (I'll exclude Matt Drudge because he only claims to be 80% truthful).
We all know that we're going to hear a load of high dudgeon from the punditry about Michael Moore, but how many of these pundits have ever taken a real honest stand against the year-in year-out deceptions of Coulter, Hannity, Ingraham, et al.? (from now on I'll abbreviate them as CHILOS.)
According to http://www.kmbz.com/schedule.asp, Limbaugh and Savage broadcast 15 hours per week; O'Reilly and Ingraham 10. That's on radio. On TV O'Reilly and Hannity have five hours each per week; Coulter probably guests an hour a month. Moore's average is closer to a few hours per year. And you have to pay nine bucks to see Moore's film. Why all the fuss amongst pundits? Is Moore really that much more dangerous than CHILOS?
I think the real danger Moore presents is that any pundit with any pretensions of honesty will no longer be able to remain silent about CHILOS. It's starting to happen already: P. J. O'Rourke's recent Atlantic article "I Agree with Me" looks like a pre-emptive house cleaning so he can attack Moore with a clearer conscience. All of a sudden, O'Rourke discovers what's been going on in talk radio for the last decade, and he doesn't like it. Doesn't have the guts to call it lies, but something about it rubs P. J. the wrong way. Well, it's a start.
But being honest about CHILOS a few years too late is tantamount to admitting that you've been dishonest about them and their corrosive effect on the national discourse up until now. Are CHILOS liars? Is Moore a liar? Well, technically, Moore decieves with the truth, and we have a long and hallowed history of allowing that kind of deception. And Moore has a serious fact checking team to back up every word in his film. How about CHILOS? In their relatively unexamined state, and with all the hours of airtime they must fill, they get away with many more lies; especially Limbaugh.
Sidebar: Is there really a distinction between "intentionally deceiving with the truth" and "lying"? Gadzooks! If we don't draw that distinction, we'll throw out 90% of the art of modern American politics. Political campaigns consist mostly of attempts to decieve, using selective truth. What in the world would we do with ourselves if "intentionally deceiving with the truth" were held in the same contempt as "lying"? Do we dare to contemplate it?
And then there are the troubling questions: why are these corroders of our public discourse, these professional slimers and character assassinators, these right-wing equivalents of Michael Moore, always so on-message with the RNC? Of course it's because the RNC sends them the latest oppo research and talking points. Horrors; it's almost as if the RNC doesn't give a damn about the truth except as a weapon of mass deception. Pundit, do you dare to go there? Of course, you can argue that the DNC distributes oppo research too, but in the last 3 election cycles a whole lot more RNC oppo found its way into the news shows and newspapers. So Let's make Michael Moore a litmus test. I think you'll find the left wing a whole lot more willing to be honest about Moore and his methods than the right wing has been about CHILOS
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
FYI, I used the hardcopy dictionary, and I merely linked to the site that I knew referenced the AHD. In my dictionary, the entire definition is separated by semi-colons, there are no numbers, and the last part you mentioned isn't even listed. But thanks for clarifying that.
Would you have preferred that he acted rashly without all the information available?
Yes. Definitely preferable to doing nothing.
Fact is we did not know immediately that it was Bin Laden.
Well, no, he has gone on record saying he knew itwas an attack at that point.
Taking a few minutes to think things over is not a sign of weakness.
No, "taking a few minutes to think things" over is a sign of indecisiveness. Taking seven minutes to read "My Pet Goat" while thousands die needlessly is most definitely a sign of weakness, however. Mentally, Bush is weak. There's no denying that, bub.
Of course, I did that on purpose, because I've found it's no less effective that pointing out real facts, i.e., if you agree with Moore, nothing I could say would change your mind.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Clarke asked the FBI to investigate the people on the list. After they gave the go-ahead, he gave the order his rubber seal. But to quote the article,
And more harrowingly,
In other words, Clarke followed procedure and talked to the FBI. Somebody at the FBI who didn't have authority talked to ____?____ (I don't know, apparently nobody does) and passed that information back to Clarke. Clarke and the Saudi minister of Information say the person was in the top levels of our government. Moore uses this as more evidence that something is rotten in Denmark. Sounds right on to me.
Finally, the planes WERE flying when others were not. The flights commenced on 9/13, which is when airspace was opened, but as has been mentioned frequently, nobody was actually flying on that day. Except Saudis.
See Moore's site (OK, a google cache, the original is 404'ing... )
and the St. Petersburg Times for reference.
QAExpress: Solid bug tracking for you. Graphs and reports for your PHB.
I agree that Michael Moore has his limitations as a film maker. What can we expect from a blue-collar, self-taught guy? He's not perfect, he's just the best we have right now.
But we should not be discussing Moore. We should be discussing the immense body of information about U.S. government corruption from which he has drawn.
I found TWO OTHER movies equally as convincing, and 35 books full of information about the corruption. In case you didn't see the link in the grandparent post, here it is again: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm if the other is slashdotted.
You said above, "Yahoo reports around $21 million. IIRC Spiderman made around $110 million in the opening weekend." First, the weekend is not over! I think Spiderman opened in as many as 4,000 theaters, Fahrenheit 9/11 in 858? The arithmetic is shocking, if it holds true. A documentary about politics and government corruption doing as well as Spiderman????? In a country where 50% don't vote????
I'm amazed that people get upset about slight inaccuracies in Moore's presentation, and ignore the HUGE corruption that is the point of his presentation. It doesn't matter when the Saudis actually flew, and it is not possible to determine. The book House of Bush, House of Saud says 140 Saudis flew inside the U.S. during a time when no one else was flying. The REAL point is that the Bush administration holds the rich Saudis, including brothers of the guy who bombed the U.S., in higher esteem than almost anyone else, definitely including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Why? Because they are in the oil and weapons business together. That's corruption.
I missed when Noam Chomsky voted for Bush.
Anyone with a with with video camera and 2 years of time could spin any situation.
All Moore did was represent his opinion as fact. He's no different than the big time career politician when it comes to telling the truth. He has his idea what the truth is, and tries to sell it.
He'll bring up valid points, and he'll get you thinking, but when it comes to the big picture,he's never realistic.
This is a bit off topic, but I think Moore is an idealist and an alarmist. He is a smart, funny and entertaining but his ideals are in no way compatible with reality. He is trapped in his own ideals and will never relate to the world as it really is. Because of this, he'll never make an impact on the vast majority.
I'm no fan of Bush either. I didn't vote for him....but at the same time, I wouldn't vote for some pie-in-the-sky idealist either.
http://loudcity.net - Keeping Internet Radio Legal, Afford
sigh. you liberals are so forgetful.
- 3401r.htm
Really? Why haven't they found [the wmd's] after more than a YEAR of being there.
good question. perhaps you should ask al gore who said in september, *2002*, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
according to the washington times, bill clinton himself said there is a connection between iraq and al-qaeda. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921
These are facts. Aren't you upset that we have been misled?
these, too, are facts. are *you* upset at having been misled?
Life is short; think quickly.
People have been vicious as long as they have been people. Your romanticism for the past is a common trap. The mindset of us versus them is old. Complaining about slightly newer, probably somewhere between a few minutes and a few days newer.
Discourse is available to many people although it may be hard to find. Seek new media and new friends.
Then why even bother posting in the first place, since obviously you aren't trying to say anything that will make an iota of difference?
PS - That's the exact same reasoning I hear from heads-down proprietary coders who think open source is a dead end. They have zero interest in actually learning anything beyond their feeble understanding of the topic and they assume that everyone else is exactly as close-minded as they are and thus any argument that one might make is immediately deflected with "I don't want to hear that, I've made up my mind, you've made up your mind and so why bother thinking?" Great way to run your life, much less the country.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Hmm, that's unusual. It's tough to find people who actually bother to be nice about it. In that case, I take back the "stupid" part. Just try to be more careful about those assumptions in the future. It's too easy to misinterpret would someone else is saying, so just assume they mean exactly what they say and nothing more...
Implication is a sign of your own bias, not necessarily theirs.
I have one suggestion to Bush's critics: If Bush is so bad, what would you do better? Even his opponent in the presidential race can't answer that question. Stop hating so much and start coming up with answers of your own. I'm so sick of hearing what's wrong with the USA and the current administration with no reasonable alternatives being offered except "Hate the rich!" and "Kowtow to the U.N.!"
I'm not saying I like every thing about John Kerry, and I wish he could be more articulate, but he has definitely presented some reasonable alternatives to Bush's policies. Just read his website and you will see his vision:
"We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Brooklyn. America's homeland security needs to take steps as big as the threats we face - and give our front lines the resources they need."
"Our nation needs a leader who has the courage to take on the big insurance and drug companies to make that same health care plan affordable for every American." (Bush's tax cuts have hurt most people more than they helped, because the money they saved on taxes was more than offset by increases in health care costs in the same period.)
"John Kerry has proposed a Military Family Bill of Rights that will provide our military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training, and the best possible weaponry, armor, and state-of-the-art equipment." (Meanwhile Bush has cut military pay and veteran's benefits while he's been in office.)
What GWB did and and what the revisionists claim he did on 9/11,
Well, I didn't particularly want to go anonymous, but I still can't figure out why Opera sometimes punts my login status in a new Window...
/. for technical information, not politics. Even though I'm very much in the 45% of /.ers who hate the incumbent, I think it would have been better handled as a poll or something.
Anyway, I'll say that I basically read
Having said that, I think this is the kind of thing that should go to the newsgroups. However, since there is no real chance for dialog between the two sides, I think the "fans" belong in the new alt.fan.michael-moore, and the "flamers" should go elsewhere, probably alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, and never the twain should meet. Dubya's aggressive polarization of the political debate is one of the things I most dislike about him. (To me it doesn't matter if it's just him or his supporters, it's BushCo's responsibility, NOT Clinton's.)
Yea I can have it both ways. If I was the moderator I would have never posted the stupid story to begin with as it has nothing to do with the content of slashdot. However, since some moderator felt it necessary, I can respond to the story. Your a typical person that has no clue whats going on in the "real world."
Come on, now. Bush just barely won the White House. If Gore hadn't been such a crappy campaigner we'd have a Democrat in the White House. And what's the ratio in Congress?
House: 229 R 205 D
Senate 51 R 48 D 1 Ind
Not exactly lopsided. Liberalism is alive and well thankfully, all without the help of Michael Moore.
I remember being so incensed with the treatment of Clinton. It was outrageous. So do we really have to go down this same road? That's not the answer Hunter, and I think you know it.
I would like to think that democracy works, that people aren't stupid, that if the intellectuals and the press in this country were to treat the public with respect and intelligence, the people could form intelligent opinions about events. In my heart of hearts, I do believe this.
But people like Moore so polarize the atmosphere that it becomes impossible to have even a semblence of reasoned debate.
Think about Hunter. You have just told me that you looked across the street and saw all the junping, blithering idiots, and decided the best way to deal with it was to turn your side into a bunch of blitering idiots also. Is this really what you are proposing? Is this really the best you can do?
Again, I can't understand this. You admit that Moore is dishonest (not as dishonest as you view Limbaugh, but you have to admit he's dishonest). You say that most of Moore's movie is honest, yet biased. But biased is not honest.
That's why an oath in court is to tell "the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth". Anything less is not the truth. An incomplete, biased story is misleading and is not true, nor does it serve the truth.
And to sum it up, you say Moore's movie is a "far cry" from what you would do, which presuming you're a well-reasoned and honest person reflects extremely poorly on Moore and his work.
Me thinks that the bottom line is you hate Bush enough that you're willing to put up with a pretty shoddy, very biased (i.e. misleading, untruthful) movie as long as it reaches conclusions similar to your own and possibly accomplishes goals similar to yours.
The enemy of your enemy is your friend, perhaps? In being glad that Moore created such a movie that you have to so severely cavaet, I would suggest you've compromised your integrity for the sake of a tactical advantage.
I'd suggest reading quotes of the kinds of things Moore has said about you and me (assuming you're American) to overseas audiences. He is no friend of ours and I doubt that if he achieves his immediate ends that he will work for your or my good in the long run, but he will be perceived as enormously more powerful and he's not a man to not have that go to his large head.
Umm, he didn't say that was a bad thing. Just that all documentaries do have a particular point of view.
There is little merit to what Moore has to say. I don't say that because of the content of what he says, but how he presents it: in a one-sided, sensationalist, Fox News fashion. By appealing to people's 'sensitivities' he creates a hot topic, just as major news outlets have with the endless war-related topics, etc.
My views are more aligned than opposed to what Moore has to say, and I still wish he'd shut up. He's a logically-terminant fool, with no insight other than the party line: he's the liberal Rush Limbaugh.
I don't trust Moore any more than I do Fox News. He's skirted nearly every 'unavoidable' question about his motives with strawman questions (ie, "What is your motivation for making this film? Is it to be in the lime light?" answer: "Do I look like the kind of person that would make a good impression on a stage?" - or some proximity). If he can't answer a question directed to him in an honest manner, he can't be trusted to answer questions of his own chosing.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
That's beside the point. I'm willing to grant you that Rush has never outright lied on his program. I can even grant you that Moore did not tell a single lie in Farhenheit 9/11.
They are both equally crappy because they leave out important information, necessary information, information that when neglected cause people to arrive at the wrong conclusion. They do this on purpose.
Moore consistently says that he loves America
/. I quickly figured out that almost everyone here just spou
Well, that's misleading. The America he loves is some twisted socialist version of the country we live in. Why else would he recently tell Canada that becoming more like America is like "pissing all over yourself."? I find it hard to see the love in that comment.
There's a certain contingent in this country that flat out HATES Bush. Not just disagrees with him, but hates him. The same was true when Clinton was in office, and it was just as pathetic then. Moore is clever enough to realize that he can capitalize on all these spittle-spewing folks to line his pockets (and I bet he doesn't contribute most of his income to the government even though he thinks it should take most of our income) while trying to affect national politics toward his end. Smart. Cynical, but smart.
By the way, "not going to with Iraq" is not a solution to a problem, it's just putting it off. The problem with Iraq was not going to go away on its own, and I can't believe the incredible short-sightedness and naivete of people who think that "not going to war" answers anything. It's just a pat non-answer, much like most rhetoric (from both sides). I don't know about you, but 3 years ago, everyone was worried about WMD's. I've seen transcripts of Kerry and Kennedy warning about the problem and taking the existence of WMD's as given. What happened to change the waffle meister's and America's favorite swimming instructor's minds? That Bush acted on that information, and Republican == wrong? Bush simply chose to act before the problem became worse. Maybe the timing wasn't optimal but everyone else in the world was happy to wait for something that made 9/11 look like a tea party. The problem wasn't going to just go away... not after Saddam kicked out the inspectors in '98 and then took 5 years to do whatever he pleased before they came back in. Clinton wasn't wagging the dog when he lobbed a few missiles over there for various reasons, in fact, he should have done much more. If the U.S. had shown Iraq the spine the U.N. lacks in '98, things might have gone a lot better, but if the public didn't like the idea in 2003 if would have been far more against it in 1998.
WRT "vacation time"... do you know what the President does on vacation? I bet he works more "on vacation" than you or I do during "crunch time". This argument is specious at best. Kerry's been on vacation throughout all of 2004 missing something like 86% of his votes, while he galavants around making those painfully monotonous speeches of his with all the charisma of a schlogg of sea foam (and almost as much content). I don't know what he's getting paid for, but it sure doesn't seem like he's being paid to be a Senator.
WRT "distorting the facts", Bush didn't distort the facts any more than the two Senators from Massachusetts did regarding the same subject in 1998, or France or Germany or Russia (remember Putin warned Bush repeatedly about Saddam planning terrorism in the U.S.) or even the U.N. The only difference of opinion was that Bush decided that meaningless U.N. Resolutions (now available on convenient cardboard rolls for easy dispensing) were compromising the security of the U.S. and its allies. You should read the letter by the interim leader of Iraq, who takes power in a couple of days. He was thanking the coalition for allowing him and other Iraqi patriots to work towards joining the free and modern world, and doing things _their_ way, not the U.S.'s. I was proud of the contribution of my country to bring that letter about. Heck, now that the hard work is done, even France admits it's nice to have a potential friend in the middle east (well, a different friend in their case... and let's not even get into the U.N. Oil for Food scandal, where we find out who was _really_ in it for the oil).
But I'm not going to change the minds of anyone here. After the last political discussion on
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The one which shows a little girl picking flowers and then cuts to a mushroom cloud. It was a brilliant work of propoganda, and justifiable too, as Goldwater was definately a person who had no business anywhere near The Button. Of course, that probably makes Moore's piece more an homage than a parody.
This story just passed Space Shuttle Columbia Breaks Up Over Texas in the Slashdot Hall of Fame but it still hasn't shown up there.
slash works in mysterious ways.
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
Moore spin: Highest levels of government made arrangements to get the Saudis out of the country on 9/13 when no other regularly scheduled flights were in the air.
Conservative spin: Moore is lying, the airspace was re-opened on 9/13.
Liberal response: you missed the whole point. The point is that the U.S. government should have detained and interviewed these people to learn as much as possible about Osama bin Laden. But someone very high up owed these people a favor, and though it to be more important to make them happy than to get to the bottom of the 9/11 terror attacks. So they got to board flights out of the country long before many other important people did, not to mention regular travelers.
If "saying all sort of critiques about the government" means the United States government, you are damned dead on. Of course nobody calls you anti-Canadian because you're discussing the government of the USA, and there is little more Canadian (hockey... maybe) than droning on about the upper Mexicans.
What else do you people do up there besides have opinions?
What fraction of Candian opinions are based on lies about "no one," "anyone," "everyone" and "people?"
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Not only did he sit there for 7 minutes, he posed for pictures and answered questions for another 20 minutes after that. But that part wasn't video taped. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90]
Didn't it occur to anyone that Bush was a possible target and that he should get way from all those kids?
I keep hearing about Moore lying and bending the truth. It certainly is politically loaded. But lying and bending the truth? Could you point me to some lies and evidence of them, that have either not been publically refuted or that have been, but ineffictively?
Just to keep you from getting on the defensive before things start, I actually would love some ammo against the man, he pisses me off. But the sad truth is that most of the posts I've seen in this thread are either like yours (accusing him of being a liar, but not providing evidence) or linking to a list of inaccuracies that have been duly refuted, publically, with evidence, by Moore himself. An example of the latter would be the assertion that his getting a gun at a bank in BFC was staged.
He's definitely manipulative and slimy, though. He presents facts in an obviously biased way with the intention of manipulating the non-thinking idiot into his worldview. But so far, I (at least) have been unable to catch him in an outright lie. And that upsets me. It upsets me because when my liberal friends point out inconsistancies in say, Bill O'Reilly's presentation of the facts, I pretty much can only stand there and drool. That guy is an idiot, granted, but unfortunately we don't have someone who really dots his i's and crosses his t's on the conservative side, and we badly need someone to counteract Moore's ridiculous claims.
So please, evidence of lies. I really, really want to make those folks going on about how Moore is the greatest thing since sliced bread eat humble pie.
And FWIW, no, I hadn't dismissed your opinion. -- At least not until your irrational reply to my previous post.
Trying to defend this particular fact seems incomprehensible.
It was almost as if he didn't think it was a big deal...
The crazy thing is, coupling this "inaction" with his speech later in the day mentioning seeing video of the *first plane* hitting - when said video wasn't available until the 12th - which was repeated over and over in subsequent speeches (say it enough, and it becomes true?) - egads, something seems very amiss.
I have read that reporters who were with him at the time (because his reading to the kids was supposed to be *the news of the day* - I think it had to do with the "no child left behind" act or something), prior to entering the school, had already heard while with him that a plane had hit the trade center, and they had asked him if he knew anything.
Meanwhile, as he was "sitting speechless" (ie, reading) - the VP was being bodily carried to an underground bunker by the Secret Service. Yet Bush stayed on the ground...
Why?
It has also been speculated that there was an attempted assasination plot for GWB while in FL - but that was never followed up on.
It makes me wonder (conspiracy theory mode here) if some kind of "coup" was trying to be taken place (perhaps by the NSA or Secret Service?) to replace Bush with Cheney?
Read some of the sites/internet timelines as other have noted about. At first, they seem like rants and raves, a bunch of looney stuff - some sites are, I think. But the others - the ones with the "real" timelines - back their timelines up with many, many links to sources (they go out of their way to allow you to check up on the facts and news as reported by other sources).
The picture that is painted is one that makes me livid - that what happenned might have had little to nothing to do with terrorism, and might have been orchestrated by members of our own government. Needless to say, little to none of this is being questioned by mainstream media - I tend to wonder if we will ever know the truth of what and why 9/11 happenned...
Posting AC for a reason...
No, it didn't. Please actualy read the report.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Yeah, he uses emotional arguments, but you cannot counter emotion with logic, and these are emotional issues.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
What DID happen to the hippo? LOL
Read this, and then argue your preconcieved notions (or parrot the party line).
I am voting for Bush in 2004. I hope you will too.
I saw the movie openight night in Edmonton, and I can tell you that the theatre was packed, and the audience was very eager to see the show; there was a palpable feeling of excitement, the kind of feeling you get (too rarely) when the ENTIRE audience is anticipating a Really Good Movie. The last time I felt that kind of energy was at LOTR.
Anyways, the audience really got into the spirit of the movie, laughing, clapping, hissing at all the appropriate moments... a lot of pent up anti-Bush energy was being released, and it was fun! As for myself, I was quite entertained, though Moore's CHIEF critisisms against Bush do not align 100% with my own (I think he missed a lot of material). Nevertheless, it's was nice to see the tables turned against Bush, since the little twerp so richly deserves it.
Finally, I find it ironic that anyone would get upset at Moore being a "propagandist"... I mean, can anything that helps discredit the institutionalized Bush propaganda count as propaganda? At the worst, it's an inevitable reaction of equal magnitude in the opposite direction.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
I was sarcastically illustrating the point, not opposing the view.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
For those who care about reality and other people, read the accounts at http://indict.org.uk/
Unless you are one of the people who find 3000 nude people in Cleveland high art ( http://www.spencertunick.com/ ), but feel 5 terrorist prisoners held naked by a renegade private is systematic torture by an oppressive regime.
Did we mention that Vladimir Putin reports Russian Intelligence verified Sadaam's initiatives to committ terror on US soil?
Moore has said that F/911 is a political satire.
But he hasn't said it on the film. The film itself presents itself as gospel truth.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I have seen a lot of critical remarks over Moore's credibility, research, and overall character. This really misses the point of the movie.
Deconstructing the movie into the core themes there are some very important and simple ethical statements:
1. War is bad for humanity, people die. (Think of your reactions to the Iraqi woman having to go to 5 funerals, and the US Soldiers in the hospital or if you were in a similar situation)
2. Privacy is a valuable thing for us civilians. ( average Joe's such as ourselves being detained or worse due to the Patriot Act)
3. Power over other human beings should be used responsibly to ensure they maintain their rights to life and happiness.
I could show this movie to a three year old and they would understand these points.
But after four straight years of absorbing American media, it is understandable that people would want to focus on whether Michael Moore's 2 hours of alternative perspective is op-ed or documentary.
Remember that people are dying as you talk about documentaries vs. op-ed pieces.
Whats the point of having this discussion? Everyone knows Moore is a liar, he basically fabricated all of Bowling for Columbine. He's the craziest of the crazies. We know Bush is a dumbass and has screwed up the country. We know Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. We know he couldn't have gotten them here. We know most likely they were smuggled into Syria. We know he could have given them to any terrorist group out there (thus creating an interect link to Bin Laden). We know that the war is costing this and that and that innocent people are dying for no reason. We know the media filters EVERYTHING we hear so you can't believe a word of it. It's just pointless yelling back and forth. Might as well go back to arguing why Linux is better then Windows.
Sorry, feeling a little under fire :)
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
What makes the US the great country that is espouses to be is freedom of speech, and thought. It seems like you miss living in a strict totalitarian dictatorship, Perhaps the USSR under Stalin? or China under Mao? Or how about Iraq under Saddam? Or you would like to turn the US into one of the aformentioned states (as what GWB said on camera "I'd live to be a dictator" (don't have the excat wuote...but that is as close as I can remember)
Mod this one up!
The poster provides an extremely informative link with an exhaustive timeline of Bush's actions or lack thereof on 9/11.
I'm not a big fan of Moore's work. I think incorporates humor to the extent that it allows for critics to berate his techniques. However...
This is a great film for Americans to see simply for the fact that it packages information on the Bush Administration and it's complete incompetence in a way that the average American can digest. Hell, there are still around 50% of us who think Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks (down from a high at over 70% at one time). And, the Bush administration is STILL trying to perpetuate this BS.
The people you hear picking over the details of this film and screaming about the lies are the same ones who don't have a problem with Bush and Cheney lying about Iraq.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Why a thread for this piece of garbage and none for The Passion of The Christ?
No one here has shown ANY statement which has been credibly shown to be from Eisner or any other Disney rep making the statement which was alleged. You don't seem to understand the difference between a person making a statement and having his enemy allege that he made a statement.
Because Richard Clarke approved the flights. Obviously, he felt that it would be prudent to get those people out of the country, given that they are related to the chief suspect, but known to be estranged from him.
If Moore is so concerned, why doesn't he ask Mr. Clarke?
And the "conservative talking points" attack was really, really weak. Why not respond to the fact that Bowling for Columbine was shown to be factually inaccurate on many points?
Moore is basically a propagandist. He's also basically a communist, who can't decide which he hates more: big business or small business. But, hey...if that's what toots your horn...go watch his bilge over and over.
crashnbur claims:
WRONG! Moore has hired top-notch fact checkers and is ready to sue anyone who slanders/libels, for example by claiming that he is lying. See this article. An excerpt:
I dont' see how you could call that a rebuttal. I freely admit I did not read the entire article but the two-thirds I DID get through were almost entirely fact-free. Anyone can jump on a soapbox and shout "Micheal Moore is a liar, thief and a big weenie" but, given the absence of a defense of that position, only a credulous or desperate man would accept those assertions. Mr. Hitchens is certainly entitled to his opinion. My opinion is that it should have remained on a third-rate blog where the particular brand of knee-jerk republican who he is writing to can use it to validate their world view as required to maintain sanity.
Specifically...
As a character assasination of Mr. Moore it is moderately effective. As a rebuttal to the MOVIE, however, it is utterly pathetic. Basically the article calls Mr. Moore names, presents a number of facts from the movie, throws some text on the page that looks sort of like logic until you read it, then goes back to playground insults. Almost every sentence of "proof" in the article provides a nice specific example of a logical fallacy. For example in the paragraph immediately following the facts presented form the film (which, given the general tone of the article can be said to represent an error of Accent):
"It must be evident...": Prejudicial Language. I can say "It must be evident to anyone that the sky is green" but that doesn't make it so.
"Either the Saudis run U.S. policy...or they do not." Non-sequitur and/or False Dilemma depending on how you read it.
"As allies..." Ditto.
etc.
Ok, fair point - But I look back at the clinton years, and at what has happened since then, and ignoring the hopping idiots got us to a position where the right *does* control teh federal government - albeit weakly, but still completly. When the only tool one side has is a filibuster, that's not alive and well, that's the virge of losing one's grip totally.
I would like to believe as you do in my heart of hearts that we can rise above tit for tat, but I just don't see the proof. Yes, Democracy is self correcting, and eventually it will balance out, but consider that perhaps getting the people hopping mad such that some step out and make movies like this is perhaps *how* democracy is self correcting.
I think it's clear that giving in all the time, and letting the conservatives walk all over us, and trash talk us all they want was *not* working. Maybe this is not the right solution, but at least it is a new approach from the left, and it's better then just being a punching bag that takes all the swings the right has to offer.
That being said, I'm open to other ideas.
- The unexamined life is not worth leading -
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood.
America went to war because it believed Iraq had WMDs. It claimed to know where the WMDs were depsite the UN not being able to find any. It's been 1 year and no WMDs have been found. Logical conclusion, there were no WMDs.
Saying Iraq was a problem and it had to be taken care of is beside the point. America went to war because of WMDs that don't exist. When America started the war, the WMDs were the reason used. Nothing else. You can't say afterwards we went to war for other reasons.
LOL dishonest moderation something I hope I am not guilty of. I have gone from a "troll" to "flamebait" after startign out "insightful." The left is out of touch it's obvious. Don't upset their opinions.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
link
I have a website. It's about Macs.
He knew the dangers when he signed up.
That's arguably not true, depending on when he signed up. Signing up to defend our country is one thing. Signing up to fight elective wars for delusional nutcases who lie every time they try to explain why we should be there is, well, something else.
Have you actually seen the picture? If not, here it is. Does that look like the face of someone that is thinking it's not a big deal. Like other people have said, when you are the president of a world power, running out of the classroom with kids isn't the best course of action. I read somewhere that secret service agents didn't really see a need to rush the president to safety. They knew that planes have been flown into buildings and were poised to respond if a plane was on the way.
Plus, few people say this, but profiles of these terrorists say they strike non-moving targets. Al-Qaeda terrorists have been reported as taking as much time as they need to carry out a plan, plans that last years. They also target non-moving things like buildings that will be there indefinitely. The terrorists don't have the planning and strategy to bomb a school where the president will only be at for a short time during one day.
I'll let everyone else disect everything else you said.
Amen! This so much needed to be said.
Find for me the statement telling the president that they planned to use hijacked planes for use as missiles.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
You talk about running around destroying any threat to the US as if you somehow have the right to destabilize the world for everyone, ignorant that you've created the enemies you are presently fighting ... and think that I am out of touch.
DAMN no wonder you're stuck with such a dumbass president, there wasn't anyone with a 3rd braincell down there that could out do him.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
There are actually a few rebuttals to what is nothing more than a hatchet job by Hitchens. Check them out.
n/a
jaz
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Double or nothing it goes over 2500!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Oh, really? Which points? So far I haven't seen a single point that hasn't been adequately refuted. Were you thinking about Charleton Heston's tie, maybe? Honestly, reading right-wing criticism about something and then not even giving the accused a chance to respond to the claims doesn't really suggest your undying devotion to the truth, does it?
This is a fact that all too few people realize. Sure we're allegedly handing over control to a new Iraqi government. That doesn't mean our boys and girls are coming home. That doesn't mean they'll be in any less danger while they're there. This really doesn't change much of anything. For most people June 30 means our troops are coming home and all will be well. Few realize that we're still reading Chatper 2 in thie sordid novel. This is a 12 chapter book with a cliff-hanger for many sequels to follow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Question: What is the difference between lying about sex in the Oval Office and lying about Weapons of Mass Distruction?
Answer: 15,000 dead people.
My biggest complaint about Farenheit 9/11 is that it did not tell the magnitude of the tragedy to Iraq. Moore alluded to it with the images of children's corpses and the tears and curses of the Iraqi woman. He also alluded to it with the comments by the US soldiers about killing civilians.
Best as I have been able to find out, there have been between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqis killed in this war. That's before the Iraqis started killing each other. That may not include the military casualties.
I would argue that 800 dead Americans is too high a price to pay to remove Sadaam Hussein. I cannot imagine justifying 15,000 dead Iraqis to Iraq.
BTW, if someone has pointers to more accurate figures for Iraqi casualties, I would be appreciative.
- user name soon to be mardigras
Or you could end up being spat upon and beaten up by the Goon Squads outside the theatres.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
My one question: Why the hell is this even on Slashdot?!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nobody has the time to do the research and sift through all the half truths. Instead people walk away with (at best) one half of the story. And since neither of them have actually 'lied' there is nothing concrete to call them on.
They are truly the worst kind of lies.
That said, the film certainly shouldn't be censored.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps woill be emboldened tommorrow." - President Bill Clinton 1998
,br> "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." - Senator Tom Dashle, 1998
"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Secretary of State Madeline Albright, 1998
"There is no doubt that...Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of allicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Senator Bob Graham, December 2001
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Former Vice President Al Gore, 2002
"I share this administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." - Richard Gephardt, September 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." - Senator Edward Kennedy, September 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Fomrer Vice President Al Gore, September 2002 br> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members, though there is apparently no evidence in his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadlt arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senator John Kerry, October 2003
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build his chemical and biological warfare capability. intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." Senator Robert Byrd, October, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He already used them against his neighbors and his own people and is trying to build more. We know that he
June 23rd, 2004 Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11 This link off the main Michael Moore wesite gives me a 404 Error. Target URL is: isikoff.php. Could anyone scrounge up some content from this web location? I'm curious to see what was said on that webpage, and why it might be taken down at the moment. -Silas
> It seems like you miss living in a strict totalitarian dictatorship,
Huh? Just because I don't want to see flagrant politics infect one of the last places it has yet to reach, the moviehouse? Sorry, but if four major television news organizations, all five major print publishing houses and almost every college campus isn't enough to push liberalism down our throats; do you really think the reason you guys have failed to make a socialist dystopia out of America is because the theaters are still showing mindless entertainment instead of propaganda?
Just fuck you and anyone who looks like you.
Democrat delenda est
Hmmm. Yup, now I can see why Cheney said it, it DOES feel good to just tell a waste of protoplasm off. I wonder what would happen if the whole Republican Party did it at once, no more being conservative and preserving the tradition of nicety after all these years of you morons calling us fascists and nazis for daring to disagree.
Democrat delenda est
It wasn't just Saudis, it was members of Osama bin Laden's FAMILY, and they weren't QUESTIONED AT ALL. If you didn't get that part of the movie, you must have been asleep or something.
That feeling is Cognitive Dissonance, ever wanted to know what denial feels like? Try and take a note next time that happens. You can't not believe someone because it just suits you, if they are telling the truth you have to face that, regardless of how you feel about them all the truth.
You've got to be kidding. Look at the very page you linked to, willya? A documentary that was made for $6 million, marketed for $10 million, released to a relatively small 868 screens nationwide and has already drawn in $21 million DOMESTIC in box office receipts, selling out many showings, making it NUMBER 1 for the weekend, and you call that 'poor'?
Evidence, evidence, even more evidence.Even if it isn't in a "theater after a couple or three weeks" as you wisely predict, that would be just fine as going by those numbers he'll have broken the $100 million dollar mark handily. It hasn't even gone into wide-release yet.
Oh yes, and to be clear, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RATED-R DOCUMENTARY, NOT LORD OF THE RINGS. Let's put that into even more relevant perspective. Bowling for Columbine, Moore's previous documentary, Oscar winner (where Moore delivered his first shot across the bow of the current US administration), took in $21.6 million in its ENTIRE domestic run.
n/a
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why would anyone trust this guy? It's clear that he's as much a fanatic as Limbaugh, and any rationale Constitution-loving moderate knows that fanatics are dangerous scumbugs, the face of dull-minded, moronic evil, folks you never, ever turn your back on.
Of course, it could just be that Moore and Limbaugh are both con artists, milking their respective audiences for everything they're worth and laughing all the way to the bank. The hot air that both trade in is the sort of stuff that appeals to the vapidly stupid.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I don't see him plead for power to the proletariat, abolition of democracy and private property etc etc. He's no more a left wing extremist than Rush Limbaugh is a right wing extremist.
If you see his file 'Roger and Me' you get an idea where his anti corporate views come from. It was a film about his home town Flint, Michigan, after a plant closed and was moved to a low wage country, making a large chunk of the population unemployed.
He also has a personal grudge against the Bush dynasty, about which he wrote in his otherwise not very impressive book 'Stupid white men'.
Unlike his books, his films are pretty good, and funny, just keep in mind that it's not meant as objective news reporting, but as political commentary packed up in an entertaining film.
Although this story has 2619 comments, I believe it is out of place on Slashdot. This story is not "News for Nerds".
This stirring up controversy and fanning the flame is fitting if the subject is Linux vs Microsoft, Free vs Java, paper-trail vs Diebold, vi vs emacs, etc. It is not fitting when the subject is hate-the-president vs love-the-president.
Maybe someone should start a "News for Freedom Fighters" or "News for Foolproof Voters" site. Maybe someone already has.
Jeff Jarvis, a well-respected and popular blogger, has put together the best review of Fahrenheit 9/11 I have seen so far.
Back a few months ago, I had written a couple of personal thoughts about Michael Moore and his rhetoric.
The executive summary of all my nonsensical ranting is that I've always believed the Iraq situation is far from being the black and white portrait Moore attempts to paint with his rhetoric. While blaming everything on Bush would make things a whole lot easier, and has been serving Moore's book and movie sales very well, I believe this approach oversimplifies a set of very convoluted problems and sets us up for future failures in our foreign policies.
While it is important to acknowledge and reflect on Bush's failures, it is equally as important to look beyond the conspiracy theories, acknowledge the fact that regardless of what party you're looking at, regardless of which country, under-the-table deals and corporate interests always have and always will be a part of the picture, attempt to find what the right course of action is, pursue it and limit casualties on all sides.
The fact that the official democratic candidate, John Kerry, was one of the few to vote for the military intervention, should at least get people to think that maybe, just maybe, there were good reasons for it, even if the ones invoked by this administration (immediate threat, WMD) appear to have been wrong.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
Imagine how receptive of an audience this film will find in the Middle East. They tend to be very un-critical about anti-US propaganda, since they have been indoctrinated into hating Westerners since the day they were born. I wonder how many young and foolish Muslims Moore will push over into taking up the cause of terrorism with his "satirical" film? Thousands? Well, I'm sure he won't give a crap about that while he is counting all of the millions of dollars he will be making from that region.
If you want to find a truly disgusting individual, you need look no further than Moore himself. What's this, he hasn't agreed to donate all of his profits to charity? He isn't going to fund an anti-terrorism education campaign to try to mitigate the damage of the "satirical portions" of his movie? No, he'll just laugh all the way to the bank. Wonder if he'll come out with an anti-captialism film next.
"Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue."
Right. Because it's just *so difficult* to tell that George Bush, his Cabinet, and Tony Blair were never the stars of Bonanza...
Hichens is being a bit disengenous and smarmy (which he does often). What moore has done is comperable to what rush limbaugh and bill o'reilly do every day. Hitchens is just pissed the democrats are doing to the republicans what republicans have been doing to democrats for a decade.
Apparently he can dish it out but he can't take it.
evil is as evil does
That's really interesting to me. In the absence of evidence against Moore's film, you assume it is misleading and untruthful. That's just not rational.
Perhaps he has seen some of Moore's previous work.
So will Moore do a movie about him and he do another about Moore.... until we have a nothing but scraps of hair and film left?
But, seriously as Moore is not American... isn't this just another attack on all Americans our institutions and everything in America? Wouldn't it be much more honest if he was an American instead of the product of a foreign culture that hates America's?
Who would send their child to war in Iraq? Nobody in their right mind. But since the legislative people don't have their kids in danger, it is ok to go to war.
Maybe thinsg would be different if the US had mandatory military service for everyone, and in case of war deployment the people in service would be sent for some piece of action... Maybe mommy and daddy would think twice about voting for war.
This weekend we've seen a new flurry of releases and discussion of links between Saddam and Osama et al. These links are said to prove that they were working together to terrorize the planet.
On the other hand, we have also seen a lot of statements that Moore's supposed connections between Bush and all sort of other things are not proof of any connection or cooperation.
Hmmm, Saddam and Osama and representative meet or exchange messages and that proves that they were working together.
Bush meets with and exchanges messages with Saudis and other parties but that is absolutely not proof their is any cooperation.
Cheney has links between Haliburton, et al, but that is absolutely not proof of any cooperation.
The Republicans, neocons, Fox, et al, can't have it both ways and meet the basic logic test.
In fact, if Clinton were in office and everything else were the same, the same people claiming no link between Bush and the Saudis and Cheney and Haliburton would be arguing that Clinton conspired with the Saudis on 911 and was personally profiting from the Haliburton contracts.
He explained to the 9-11 commission that his staying with the children in the classroom was to project a sense of "strength and calm". Make of that what you will, especially when you actually see the footage of him staying there. Strength and calm is not what I see on his face.
Here's something else most of us, unfortunately with hindsight blinding us, have forgotten about those crucial minutes after the second plane hit:
No one knew at the time that the ATTACK was over.
There could've been six other planes (ten planes was the original plan) getting ready to line up their sights with various targets around the country (including the very school Bush was having a photo-op that morning). Hell, there could've been all sorts of other terrorist acts, never mind airplane crashes, that would've been all tied to occur as close to 9AM Eastern that morning of Sept. 11. In those seven minutes, Bush could've been doing many many many things to set things in motion as a response.
He could've done all those things in as frantic a manner as possible; I don't care if he scared the entire classroom and left the children there crying scared out of their minds, but instead what we witness, as captured on videotape, is of a person that has absolutely no clue as to what to do.
Hell, I've gotten phone calls of my son throwing up in school, and even if I'm in a very important client meeting I don't wait seven minutes, let alone two, before I've excused myself and checked in on what's happening. Is it so preposterous to expect our president to do the same for the nation? Giuliani projected strength and calm while my city was under attack, yet you can bet he wasn't sitting stoned-face in order to do so.
n/a
Somehow I don't think any theater owners are shaking in their boots. The republitards have been supposedly boycotting everything from french fries to heinz ketchup and god knows what else for the last few years. I didn't see any repurcussions.
Go ahead republicans. Keep your kids out of the movie theaters. It's good for them. Movied only make you want to covet and consume and rot your brain (I mean that seriously). Just make sure they get their daily dose of god and limbaugh though lest they learn to think for themselves or turn into liberals.
evil is as evil does
Hitchens has dedicated his latest book to Ahmed Chalabi, you know, the Iraqi crook whom the Pentagon wanted as President... So I don't trust any of his words on Iraq, even if he handled well other subjects.
"It is more complicated than you think" (The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925)
Who knew that Osama was responsible for these attacks that soon after they happened? How come they didn't tell the country till much later.
evil is as evil does
Just fuck you and anyone who looks like you.
hmm...I definitely pray that I don't look like you, since I would be embarassed if any one ever mistook me for you (or vise-versa). However, since I have no Idea what your face might look like, I'll offer the following bit of gentle advice to save yourself from "f*@#ing" yourself as per your own dictum: do consider changing "looks" to "thinks". In which case I am certain there will be no ambiguities.
Have a nice day.
cheers- raga
(yes, that's a handle not a name, not that it makes a difference to a racist redneck)
Oh, I think Ray is aware of this... I Sing The Body Electric was the exact title of a Walt Whitman poem before he appropriated it for his story.
Off the top of my head, Something Wicked This Way Comes is a Shakespeare quote, while The Golden Apples Of The Sun is a Yeats quote.
I'm sure there are others, but that should suffice to show that Bradbury knows damn well that it's permissible to reference another's work in a title.
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
So I'm Libertarian, slightly left.
I sometimes describe my politics as being Green-Libertarian, or Conservative Anarchist, because I feel that will piss off the most people. And what's the point in talking about politics if you aren't going to piss people off?
Well, that's actually the problem with the people that identify as "left" or "right." A lot of people identify as one, and refuse to listen to anyone that identifies as the other. So instead they just get into shouting matches. It's not true of everyone but reminds me of Sturgeon's Law.
I want to write more about this but maybe later.
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
Michael Moore found a tiny molehill in the flight of some bin Laden family members out of the country. It doesn't surprise me that he managed to make an entire 90 minute propaganda film out of this molehill. What is truly amazing are the hordes of people who think this is significant.
WTFM please...the flight issue is but one example of the Bush/Saudi relationship, which is but one point of the film. The only people making mountains out of molehills are conservatives, because IT'S THE ONLY POINT THEY CAN DISPUTE.
"We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn motherfucker, burn!" is probably what did it, though it is absolutely necessary to show this in order to show how soldiers are psyching themselves up for the battle. Personally I believe it helped the soldiers far more than it hurt them, but it does merit raising an eyebrow.
It's relevant and it's not obscene. Vulgar, certainly, but not obscene. The R rating probably does have some political element to it, but it's hard to say how much. Rating aside, I still think American youth would benefit far more from seeing THIS in history class rather than some grainy videotapes of WWII footage.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
An interesting, but significant irony, is that despite evidence to the contrary the Bush re-election campaign has used Dubya's air national guard duty during the Vietnam war to partially counter Kerry's impressive war record.
One of the primary things Bush would (should) have learned during his distinguished duty is that when planes make U-turns in the sky and turn off their transcievers interceptors are to be scrambled IMMEDIATELY. Over 20 minutes passed between the time air traffic controllers were aware of the highjacking and the first crash in new york. F-16's dispatched from the closest base could have closed the distance in about 3 minutes. It's not entirely his fault that communications were spotty and the chain of command was frayed at best, but you might expect the man responsible for defending our country from attack would have insisted on ensuring NORAD and the FAA were active and on the same page at the first whiff of a threat
It is also a strange coincidence that the interim director of the FAA and the man responsible for the North Eastern Air Defense division (not sure of official title right now) both started their new jobs on Sept 11. And the reason you have not heard an explanation about his actions is that he and Cheney refused to testify under oath claiming executive priveledge. This is unprecedented, but then again, neither Ashcroft's Justice Dept, the courts, or the media will call him out on it.
Sonny, as of this summer, I am a happily retired individual, who (I'll wager) has invested more in this country's economy and well being than you can even dream of. I guess that makes me "a waste of protoplasm".
Ah yes......the hallowed bastion of nicety that you have preserved for humanity all these years. Future generations will thank you.
Stop censorship..
Unless you are the one doing it, right?
cheers- raga
The brouhaha is that when many folks of mid-eastern origin where being rounded up for questioning, not one of the bin Ladens was questioned by the CIA before they were spirited off. That was the point made by a CIA agent in the movie. MM (rather sarcastically) also made the point (with clips from Dragnet) that even in a simple murder case, it is just good detective work to at least inteview the prime suspect's family members. Yeah, they may have disowned him publically, but by most reports, are still funding him. A whole bunch of them even went to his son's wedding in Afganistan.
There is another point to be argued against the movie re. the Saudi/bin Laden connection, but it's not your point (no, I'm not tellin' :). I'd suggest you see the movie. It will help you critique it better.
My first impression was that it made GW look like a clueless moron who had no idea what to do. It's as if he can't think on his feet, he needs someone to tell him what to do.
This surprises you?
The U.S.'s own weapons inspectors don't agree with you and insisted that not only could no WMD be found, but that all evidence indicated that no WMD had existed in the first place. Our weapons inspectors are highly trained professionals, quite capable of detecting the traces of WMD storage, their means of production, and evidence of the presence of materials required to support weapons programs in general. The inspectors also enjoyed the benefits of an impending threat of U.S. military action should any doors be closed to them. If you are also a trained weapons inspector with similar resources and access to Iraq, or if you have an informed analysis to offer on the weapons inspectors' findings, I would be interested to hear what you have to say on the matter. However, I suspect you are not an expert on the logistical intricacies of producing and transporting WMD while "hiding" their chemical, biological or radioactive indicators "somewhere in the desert", so I'll stick with the official conclusions if you don't mind.
You refer to the actions of a "Head of State", meaning Saddam Hussein, as justification for the war on Iraq. Specifically, which actions are you talking about? Any and all claims made by the Bush administration that Iraq posed a threat (immediate or otherwise) to the United States have been thoroughly debunked by subsequent uncovering and investigation of the facts. There were no WMD. There were no significant Iraqi ties to Al-Queda (Our "friend" Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, not only tolerates their presence but promotes their extreme religious views in the national education system and refuses to disrupt their funding). If there remains any justifaction for spending further U.S. blood and treasure on this tragic misadventure, please let me in on the secret. I would like to believe that our boys (one of whom is my recently enlisted nephew) are not dying in vain.
Regarding the nature of documentaries: Moore's films are unusual in the sense that, unlike many documentaries, they are mostly outright position pieces. However, that fact does not weaken nor even speak to the content of the film. The term "documentary", as a film genre, means nothing more than "non-fiction", as opposed to fiction or drama. After all, people refer to Errol Morris' films as documentaries without being challenged on that choice of label. Yet Morris' films are hardly of the classic, journalistic, "objective" style. In fact, he employs many of the same cinematic techniques used in main-stream Hollywood pictures but, because his subjects are real people and events rather than actors and fictional screenplays, the result is easily accepted as "documentary", just as Moore's films are. To call something "propoganda" (not that you used the term, this is merely a "preemptive strike", you understand), you have to address its content and show it be in large part untrue. If you can provide some kind of precedent or professional opinion which supports your narrow definition of "documentary" as a work that must provide a counterpoint in addition to a point, I invite you to do so.
You link to an article on typepad.com which claims that John Kerry lied to get one of his three Purple Hearts and that some of his old "buddies" from Vietnam, the Swift Boat Vets for Truth think he's unfit to be President. The SBVFT was formed in May, 2004 and "leadership and guidance were provided by Republican activists and presidential friends from Texas -- notably Houston attorney John E. O'Neill and corporate media consultant Merrie Spaeth", according to Joe Conason of Salon.com. Dr. Louis Letson is the sole source for the Purple Heart story, but he was not the attending physician for the wound in question, according to the Navy's medical records. These are the only sources mentioned in the typepad.com article and both have been thoroughly discredited.
not even going to try.
Here's my 2c worth.
Not going to see it.
Michael Moore offends me and I will not give him a dollar.
I think I've said all I should say.
You are very correct that Moore is better than his conservative counterparts. O'Reily's "no spin zone" makes me laugh my ass off, because he is probably the most biased man on the news. I don't think most conservative media personalities recieve that much criticism simply because no one who disagrees can stand listening long enough to pick what they say apart, and expose it for the biased garbage most of it is. Moore at least admits he is biased. Limbaugh does too, which gives me a heck of a lot more respect for him then O'Reily. That man makes my blood boil.
As T.S. Eliot put it in 'The Love-Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' and where do I begin.
The above and each of the non-points it tries to make is interesting but only for its flaws. First off, the statement that Moore or anyone else who came from humble origins loses something by leaving them behind is pretty much insane, isn't it? You can't test the statement for truth because there is no objective truth in any 'should' proposition, but you can test it against reality. One equivalent to the statement is to be found in a scenario where a poor boy from a trailor-park who grew up on scut-jobs and welfare invents something and uses his money and position (say, ten million dollar's worth) to buy a trailor and move into the park next to the one he grew up in. You can't prove the insanity of the scenario syllogistically, but it seems so counterintuitive as to be laughable.
In other words, in order to be 'virtuous,' or 'genuine,' in the poster's eyes, he expects every black basketball, baseball and football star in their respective sports leagues to move out of their mansions or condominiums and take up residence in the worst corner of the nearest ghetto. This is, at best, a strange redefinition of the American Dream.
Next!!
The statement pertaining to "Limousine Liberals" used as a slur is a strangely American, and strangely dumb phenomenon that makes you think of George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. The statement, 'well they do it, it too,' is a classic fallacy since it has nothing to do with your own (bad) actions, but when you consider Moore or anyone else as a 'Limousine Liberal,' you are essentially stating that the recipient of your contempt is a wealthy man who uses his wealth and position to enhance the interests of those who have less in the way of wealth and position.
In the old days, this was called 'christian charity,' or 'tithing,' perhaps. Nowadays, it's used as a term of invective in a way that seems absolutely insane except to a conservative who quacks it out on some forum. Unless you can resolve the immorality and idiocy of a, 'man or woman of wealth and status who seeks to relieve the poverty and sooth the pain of the masses,' the use of the term, 'Limousine Liberal,' in any context is more slogan than sense and thus, irremediably and unctiously cretinous--worthy only of the Rush Limbaugh's and Anne Coulter's of the world.
Next!!
Speaking of 'Limousine Liberals,' if we examine their opposite numbers, the conservatives currently in power, we see at their head, a man of so little talent that, given every educational advantage that money can buy, and then given connections that reached to the capital of the world's richest country (his daddy was president at the time) and that tapped into an international network for information and funding (Middle-Eastern funds that staved off bankruptcy) who managed to fail to find and sell something that everyone uses.
In other words, no one with the sense god gave a dog would let the current President run a gas station for him.
Now, instead of being just another obscure and useless rich person, the man with little talent is the President of the United States and his choice of policy initiatives in the wake of an attack on our nation has led to our armed forces being bogged-down in a useless military adventure that, to date, has killed over eight-hundred of our citizen-soldiers without punishing the attackers whose actions ground three-thousand of my neighbors into dog-food on a fine summer's day.
If limousine liberals who are to be appeased are the opposite of this kind of government, then I will: a. Vote Kerry. b. Set up a shrine to Ted Kennedy, and c. do whatever it takes to appease the current regime out of office.
Have a nice day.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
What would you rather he did? Leapt to his feet, in front of a class of small children, and started issuing orders to shoot down commercial airliners?
Even Bush's enemies, when they're being rational, allow that he's not stupid. Maybe he'd issued his orders when he heard about the first plane. Maybe he'd actually read the intelligence briefing, and knew that there were likely to be an unpredictable number of further attacks.
So news of the second plane hitting, while appalling, wouldn't be all that surprising. There was nothing he could do, at that precise moment, about the attacks. What he *could* do was follow through his obligation to a bunch of schoolkids.
And I for one respect him for that. If there's one thing that really annoys me, it's seeing people attacked for the wrong reasons. If bad people get the message that they can do no right, where's their incentive to improve?
despite that Moore has admitted that it is not all true.
Er, no. He hasn't admitted that. Saying something is satirical is pretty far from saying its a lie. An audience older that eight should be able to work out that suggeting bowling was responsible for Columbine was satire. That doesn't change that it's likely not liberal gun laws, media violence, or Marilyn Manson that caused the children to start shooting their classmates.
Ha-ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"...
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
It seemed to me that while F911 had volumes of facts and evidence which is probably nearly all true, for the most part Moore didn't use them in structured arguments to actually prove his points. The film went sort of like this:
1. Facts
2. ???
3. Conclusion!!!
That 2+2=4 does not prove Fermat's last theorem, and that Bush has a tendency to make a fool of himself on television does not prove that he is a bad president.
In the 70's, 80's and 90's Saddam Hussein used to harshly prosecute, and outhright murder islamists.
The theocratic Iran was his enemy, and he was a secular dictator.
This is largely why he enjoyed US support for more than a decade.
A link between Al Quaida and Iraq would mean that both (notoriously vindictive) sides were willing to forgive decades of incredibly dirty and bloody conflict.
It doesn't ring true to me.
Saddam tried to flirt with religion (for example by changing the iraqi flag to a more pious one) after his defeat in the first gulf war to consolidate his power, but it's no secret that most radical islamists hate and despises him.
Saddam might have been pragmatic enough to change his standpoint, but to the religious fanaticts he is a heretic infidel that have killed more than a million muslims in a war against the islamic state Iran.
Al Quaida and their ilk would never forgive him that. As far as they are concerned he is the devil, every bit as much as GWB is.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
--Thomas Paine
-- hjw http://puzl.info/
well first my statment was mearly showing how someone could be from humble beguinning and end up like the people he chooses to hate while still trying to act like the person he once was. Moore in my mind, doesn't respect the lwer class of people, he will pay lip service to them but will not have to go far from his path to make a bad comment about them. He has some serious cr editability problems too. His works that I have seen and read, seem to be more of a point making scheme then the documentry/entertainment that they are billed as.
Now the 'Limousine Liberals', as i understand it, are despised by the other liberals themselves. It isn't a republican-democrate thing, it is a inter social liberal thing. Some liberal are as you describe, some are even better then you describe, The 'Limousine Liberals' as I also understand is a person that claims to be a liberal concerned about the poor and even pays lipservice because it is the popular or hip thing to do but never offers anythign to help the poor. They are basically riding on the coat tails of the liberal movment for whatever political/financial/social gain they can aquire from it. They are basicaly the equivilent of the corperate-jet conservatives (another slure from withing the movement but the conservative movement instead).
As for you rambling about the military and 800 dead soldiers, you are missing some news somewere, they have punished some of them, not all the ones they wanted but it is an effort that is under way and it will probably happen. I don't think i need to go any deeper into this that i already have, the current events and happening after the situation you refered to says enough.
If you think "anythign to get bush out" is the way to go, then you are saddly in a world of hurt. I would agree that it might be beeter if bush was gone but not at the expense of the country. There is no viable replacement running that will be as good if not better then Bush. This is one thing that puzzles me. Nobody really liked gore, he wasn't exactly leadership material, thats why it was so easy for bush to compete with him. It would have made more sence to have him run as vice president again for lieberman instead.
There are plenty of people that i'm sure would do a far better job in office then Bush. some on the republican side of the scale and some on the democrate side, while still others on the independant side. The problem is that they aren't running for office. There is no one running that is as good or better then bush. I don't know if this is a result of clinton presidency of if they all are hiding somethign that they do not want in the open. Needless to say, if Kerry is elected, I predict the country going back to the carter days in economics and perhaps with the mishadling of foreign and demestic affairs too. I honestly think that kerry will do more harm for the country then bush is capable of doing. The only reason he is the democratic canidate is because he is seen as electable, not better. Nothing comming from his campain is indecating otherwise either. So go and vote for him because you don't like bush, screw the country and have a good day.. IT will all be over in another 4 years. Then maybe by the time my little ones start voting, we will get off this petty hate bullshit and start looking at what is right for the country. There hasn't been one president that didn't do somethign to upset someone.. Most of us concentrate on what they do good for the country and hope it is enough.
ha.. dunno how this is flaimbait..maybe because it looks honest, it must have hit a nerve with some one.. OH :)
--peace and rock on
What would you rather he did? Leapt to his feet, in front of a class of small children, and started issuing orders to shoot down commercial airliners?
Yes, and I'm not a liberal.
Who cares about how a class full of kids would react at that moment? Who cares how it looked for the cameras there filming. He is the president. When the shit hits the fan you get your ass in gear and take care of business.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Yep we are "a bunch of obnoxious idiots" kinda like the guy in your sig huh?(Mark Twain)
Creative Demolition
Back on topic, assuming that Michael Moore is actually on-topic for /., apparently Moore is only interested in softballs from liberal media like CNN, since ducked every attempt by Fox News to interview him, including O'Reilly. He even made up a story about not having the time to do Fox during his satellite press junket over the weekend. However, while Fox producers watched his live satellite feed, Moore just sat there on his plump behind, for like a half an hour, doing nothing. No time huh? No time for debate and tough questions, more like.
And Fox News (including O'Reilly) has libs on all the time - at least the brave ones. Fox presents both sides, unlike CNN or ABC News. How strange that Moore only ducked FNC. They must be doing something right!
And maybe next time you could make your point without calling names. Disagree with a lib, you're called a liar or a coward or blind. Nice argument. You must have learned that from Franken.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You don't think gathering information about the ongoing attacks, assessing the threat and preparing an appropriate response would warrant just a little higher priority than reading to a bunch of school kids?
You really don't think he should have excusing himself and left to, you know, do his job as commander in chief.?
Well I'll tell you what I think.
I am not a US citizen, but if the commander in chief of my country was irrefutably proved to have spent critical time during an ongoing attack just sitting there with a vacant stare on his face, I would be demanding his head on a platter!
It's simply inexcusable for a commander in chief.
Isn't your country worth better than that to you?
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Have you seen the "Anyone but Bush" shirts? I think "Anyone but Howard" T-shirts are a bit extreme, but that seems to be what you're getting at, and it's how a lot of people feel.
We've never had anyone quite like Latham, and although Labor will probably want to steer clear of saying we "have to have" things... we have to have a change.
"What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos"
you're 100% right ... such a disgusting TRUTH
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Michael Moore's anti-bush film "Fahrenhiet 9/11" isn't even original. Two years ago, "9/11: The Road to Tyranny," a real documentary by Alex Jones, had most of the "facts" Moore uses in his scatter-shot diatribe. Jones, who is less interested in making money than the self-aggandizing Moore. released his film for free on his Web site www.infowars.com, where it drew legions of new fans, including producer Curt Johnson, who is hiring Jones as a consultant on a political thriller titled "Wake Up."
-- New York Post, May 20, 2004
Hey All; First let me say that the United States of America was built on the premise that you can say/write/publish freely. Does that not look like it is slowly dissappearing? Ever since Sept 11, 2001 people like MM ( as well as a few others) have been snubbed by the media. I will admit that some of Micheal's information has some half-truths to it. For example, the whole bitch-session about his film not being released because the execs "didn't like it". Well, it turns out he knew that months ago. Publicity stunt extrordinare. Anyway, I have not yet seen the film, but I look forward to it. I always like to look at both sides of the story. I want to be objective and listen to facts. I , too , grew up across the border in Canada and had a negative view of Americans. I have lived here for about 9 years now and it is just like any other country I have visited ( I have visited several) . It seems that there are assholes, fascists and bigots here too. However, there are also some very considerate and intelligent folks too. Just so you know, Canada has dickheads and nice folk too. I think that there are less of them in Canada than the US, because the population of Canada is about 1/10th that of the US. So, I guess it really evens itself out, don't you think? So, I have spoken my 2 cents Peace. Zaphod
> As we used to say, if you don't like it, go to Russia.
It's amusing to see this phrase now being used against people who DO want freedom in America, in discussions about DECSS, the DMCA, the American attack on Iraq etc.
Human beings are political animals.
If you don't want to have anything to do with politics find a cave, get in, put a big stone and hope nobody finds you.
As for "liberals" pushing their ideology down your throat, I did not know bondage was legal in your place, what I do when I get bullshit "conservative" (i.e. retrograde nonsense) political stuff, I turn off my radio, TV what have you and I never buy the magazines or newspapers that with the pass of time have shown no to represent my view of the world.
What is stopping you to do the same? O soory, did not realize you are disabled and have not got hands.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What a shame you have got no batlinks at least to document that.
I guess the Penguin ate them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think Bush oversold us on the WMD's because there was a (IMO) more important reasons to go over, reasons that were clearly stated before the war. He talked about this, but since it is less concrete (although far more important), I don't think he felt the public would buy in the way we would for WMD's.
That reason is: "To change the face of the Middle East." I'm sure you've heard that phrase. By taking out regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that were clearly in bed and supportive of terrorists (at the _very_ least Saddam was very openly and publically financing Palestinian suicide attackers, but let's no forget what Putin was saying, or the fact that they tried to assassinate a former president of ours), and replacing them with democracies that are at least not openly hostile to the West, Bush is addressing number 2 in the "Axis of Evil", Iran. Iran is a huge source for terrorism and other bad things that from extreme Islamo-nutcases. However, the people of Iran are in a much better position to actually do something about it. Being sandwiched between two countries that no longer look like Herbert's "Dosadi Experiment" is going to put a lot of pressure on Iran to join the modern world, much of it from its own citizens. There is a much bigger picture here than most people seem to be aware of.
Now if he would only put pressure on Saudi Arabia to pick a side and stop trying to ride the fence between the good guys (i.e., the rest of the world) and the Wahabists, who are a huge source of bad news (9/11, etc), we'd be even better off. I do have a criticism of Bush in that he's too cozy with the Saudis who do not really act like our friends.
p.s. As to the third piece of the Axis of Evil, I believe the U.S. is going to work with China to keep Kim Jung Il in check and let China take the credit for helping to maintain stability in the region. The last thing China wants is the U.S. coming around, and we know and appreciate that. I believe they will help us in this problem.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
No, it just evens the playing field.
I think you are right, BTW. I love Moore's films, not because I believe in them wholeheartedly, but I enjoy finding the parts that he embellishes. No other movies make me give a crap. When I see something on the news I know is false, I don't try to find some truth in it. But when I see something that is so compelling, it makes me want to learn more. THAT is what Moore is good at with his films. He makes you question things, and to me that is always a good thing. I still feel the effects from Bowling For Columbine. What Marilyn Manson said in that film still sticks with me. That smarmy newscaster pretending to be somber when the camera was on still sticks with me. The light he shone on the news media being blood-thirsty scumbags still sticks with me. The rest of the movie has kind of faded into my memory.
I haven't seen his new movie yet. I don't know if I am up to it yet. I am not so worried about questions Moore brings up, I already have those. I am more concerned with the facts he presents. Not that I don't probably know most of those already as well, but just that I will have to come to terms with how embarassing it is to be an American sometimes. And if you are never embarassed, then you are a blind sheep. It amazes me how we can be the greatest country in the world and one of the most despicable at the same time.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Crackpot!
"Nobody really liked gore, he wasn't exactly leadership material, thats why it was so easy for bush to compete with him. It would have made more sence to have him run as vice president again for lieberman instead."
You must be joking, I guess you missed the fact that Gore actully won!
There is nothing wrong with mocking your origins or people whom you were exposed to who are stupid, lazy or simply unlucky. If there were, no comedy act would last for more than thirty seconds. You have no point here except to hold Moore up to an unattainable and (quite probably) undesirable standard of virtue.
Before you talk about accuracy, please consider the accuracy of an Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. I cannot mind a little demagoguery on the part of Liberals, the competition makes me think, 'God, why not?'
Who is despised by whom does nothing whatsoever to invalidate the quality of what they actually say. I could be loathed by multitudes and still have (true) things to say.
You don't really seem to grasp 9/11.
I live and work in New York City: I got to spend weeks smelling the bodies of my neighbors from several miles from what became ludicrously known as 'ground zero', first burning and then rotting in the cold thin rain that followed the event. At that point, the only thing that mattered in the whole world was revenge. As far as I was concerned, the only function of the U.S. government was to provide me and my fellow New Yorkers with a long, loving photographic exploration of Osama bin Laden's head on a spike on the President's desk in the oval office. Had Curious George provided me with that in a timely fashion, in a set of military actions that ranged across half of Asia, demonstrating to the terrorists in the process that an attack on the United States was very like calling down the wrath of God, I would be holding back my vomit with respect to everything else about the Bush administration and *ACTIVELY WORKING* for the Bush reelection campaign.
Instead of this, as witness after witness has shown, the current administration has engaged in a military adventure with a coherence of thought and purpose ordinarily reserved for an acid trip: he has invaded a country other than the one that harbored and still harbors our enemies (probably Pakistan). By invading Iraq, he has actively demonstrated the limits of U.S. Military power in a way that he should have left alone, by making clear an obscure truth: with the weapons available to our military, we could withdraw every U.S. serviceperson and turn Iraq into a radioactive desert in a single afternoon, but we cannot make everyone in Iraq do what we want them to. In other words, the current administration has missed what was patently obvious: we cannot turn Iraq into a secular democracy in a timetable measurable in anything short of decades, if ever.
To put it another way, we've spent tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to accomplish less than nothi
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
What makes you think our troups won't be there en mass a year from now? Do you honestly think the war will be over within a week?
The detailed critiques of "Bowling" that I've seen make it very clear that this so-called "documetary" was anything but in many ways. Moore is an expert at taking things out of context and manipulating the facts so that they appear much worse than they really are. He is driven by ideology and fits the facts into his predrawn conclusions. The only thing he truthfully documents is his own notions of how things should be. Is it Free Speech? Sure, and it should be, but I don't give it any more weight than my own silly rants above.
/. before, I don't like Sean Hannity even though I almost always agree with him. As it is with all things, the voices that are the loudest are usually the ones you shouldn't be listening to. And I think Michael Moore fits that perfectly, and I get a little steamed about him because he's so contemptuous and ego-inflated himself.
p.s. I don't run my life that way, and I try to be informed too. I _don't_ listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage for the exact reasons you state. As I've stated on
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Nobody in the American popular media calls for a dictator, a king or a communist state. I think the press build rather small differences into big ones. The common lament of extreme polarity is a result. Being pushed toward constant indoctrination from one camp or the other is not the only effect. The fact that you feel so strongly about division is another.
Years ago, people were run out of towns over party affiliation. Many American small towns still have newspapers called the Democrat or the Republican. The term "yellow dog Democrat" is old, not new.
What seems to you is a result of bias more than anything else. Your perception of how things used to be is based on flawed information. It is possible to argue that the past was much more divided. Anybody who knows any American history remembers the time that a presidential election led to the very real division of the country into two separate countries. Is it going to happen this time? I hope not because it was a four year disaster. It is possible to look at other periods, FDR's long presidency, and see the country as more united. The fact is that interpretation leads us to see history as especially unified or divided. One might as well ask, "Are you a romantic or a skeptic?" The answer to that question is the same as the answer to how one sees the past.
I never would argue that the world should be less civil. I do take issue, however, that an increase in civility would be a return to some idyllic past. If you want to push for civility, do it based on positive consequences, on how much better it would be. Do not rely on references to a past that may have not existed to make your arguments.
Islam is assaulting nobody.
Some nutcases calling themselves Muslims are dreaming they could make the West crumble.
Thanks to their soulmates, teocratists in the West (yes, those that pray in the Whitehouse at the drop of a feather), they may actually have some success (everybody is becomming guilty until proven innocent)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yes, I see the word "parent". In the sentence you refer to the parent, using a construct that clearly reveals that you believe that parent contained the "direct quote". Either you don't know how to formulate a coherent sentence, or you simply can't be bothered to read the item you're referring to.
I suspect the latter, because you also claim that I've jumped to conclusions regarding the issues in Moore's film. Go back through the thread, and point to one single instance where I said "Moore is wrong" or "Moore is right" regarding any specific issue.
You won't be able to do this, because there aren't any -- the farthest I went is to say that Moore has a bad track record. YOU have preconceived notions of what my beliefs are, and are viewing my writing through that lens.
Sheesh
pay closer attention to the Bonanza theme
Most of his responses I've seen don't seem very belieaveable to me. Many are as much as, "Oh, I didn't mean to make it look like it was that easy to get a gun at a bank" when that's about the only impression a normal person is going to get from the scene.
Same for the Heston "speech" which was severely edited to take a few choice sentences out of context to make him look an in-your-face devil (kind of like Moore), and then prefacing it with a shot from another speech entirely. Maybe Moore claims he didn't mean to take Heston out of context, but the reality is that he did and that's what a normal person is going to get from that scene.
And another is the Flint, MI issue, where it is implied that the NRA/Heston came to Flint right after another shooting, "like in Littleton." Well, he went to Flint 8 months later and it was for an election rally, nothing related to guns. But that's not the impression you get when you see the movie.
Moore's apologies or excuses do not mean the criticisms leveled at his work have been adequately answered. You can't just accept his "that's not the way I meant it to be understood" claim and ignore the reality that 90% of the viewers are going to interpret it that way.
Yes, all relatives of Ted Bundy should be horrified and not mention the family connection. Did you know Hitler's last surving heir (nephew) is in New York and named his kid with middle name of Adolf (obviously they changed the Hilter part). I was very disappointed that Moore didn't tackle more important questions, like:
(a) if most of the terrorists are Saudis, if Osama is a Saudi, if the royal family is still supporting him, why did no one ever mention going to Saudi Arabia? (In truth, the answer besides being Bush family friends, is Mecca and Medina)
(b) The head of Pak's ISI was FOUND TO HAVE wired $100,000 to Atta. This man had regular meetings with Bush's cabinet and was in the White House a few month before 9-11
(c) Explain to me why Cheney was "carried" off by secret service after the first plane (definately after the 2nd plane)... But here's Bush sitting with his Curious George book in a publicly known appearance location (AP report the night before).. and NO ONE makes him leave. One of the hijacked planes could have been headed for the school. How the hell did the secret service leave him there?
(d) How did NORAD get away with NOT following SOP?? There is a reason for standard operating procedures and launching interceptor jets in a certain time window
(e) At the G8 summit a few months before, they restricted air-space, put anti-aircraft guns on the top of buildings, on the threat of airplanes being crashed into the summit. How does the administration get away with claiming that no one could foresee an attack like this.
I keep hearing all kinds of curses, rants and shoutings about this movie (no, it hasn't opened in Europe yet).
Mainly, I keep hearing about 'lies'. Ladies and Gentlemen, you may assume that he does not lie. That he has a lawyer very carefully check every single fact (as he did in his last film and his books).
Because if he didn't, he would be sued.
He's not being sued, despite meeting a lot of hate. Thus he is not lying.
The rest of his movie is debatable - I can't join in until I've seen it.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
I support some sort of Mandatory Military Service, where every American would be required to serve one year in the military at age 18, or immediately after high school. It would provide *extremely useful* on-the-job training, and would completely change our attitude towards war. Not to mention that Americans would pay closer attention to all things military.
Miramax paid for the production of the film. Disney merely exercised it's rights over the subsidiary to refuse distribution.
A few points: Disney has done this with SEVERAL Miramax films. This just means that another company needs to handle the costs and benefits of distribution. (Disney forewent a lot of potential profit by refusing to distribute the film.)
Additionally, Disney had informed Miramax of this decision at least a year ago. Moore must have "forgotten" that fact when he went crying conspiracy to the press. Note how they still have the "the film the government doesn't want you to see" BS in the trailers.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If a person has to support the troops' mission no matter what...were the citizens of Germany just supposed to support Hitler no matter what? Were they supposed to be "patriotic" and support the troops as they rounded up the Jews?
Right? By that logic if GW Bush sent the marines out to slaughter every newborn male and you didn't think that was right you are a seditious traitor.
Iraq wasn't unique in the annals of foriegn policy in being based on a pack of lies to disguise the real intents but I do believe it has to go down in history as one of the most cynical and the one which showed the most contempt for the intelligence of the American people in it's outrageous, open, mendacity.
some one suggested everybody who watched it saved the movie stub, mail it to GWB, with "I know what you did last summer".
Isn't that because Michael Moore has a movie coming out? Additionally, Michael Moore works much harder to stoke the flames of contraversy. Generally the right wing blow hards are satisified to just get their audience to sit down and watch fox news.
When Ann Coulter's Slander book came out, there were tons of op-eds in the NY times (which I cannot get at, not being a paid customer). Granted, they were not as visible as the Moore stuff is today, but thats because Michael Moore's marketing tactics are different.
Micheal Moore's film is entertaining, sensational, contains snippets of facts taken out of context that are artfully woven together to provoke an emotional response, convincing people of a position by means other than careful, rational analysis.
That is to say, his approach is the same abominable approach use by the right wring ideologues that dominate so much of popular media (talk radio, Newscorp).
I sympathisize with Moore's position, but decry the use of those tactics in his film. It is good that he will provoke debate; but it is bad that opponents, while mixing jibes about his weight problem and how he looks like a homeless person, will have an opportunity to counter his film by logical analysis.
If you want to see a more compelling and credible advocate than Micheal Moore, then I suggest you consider the Nobel laureates concerns about science policy of the current administration and the group of former ambassadors and high-ranking military officers (from both parties) concerns about what the current foreign policies are doing to the United States interests abroad, and not see F9/11. (Unless you won't take it seriously and consider rather as entertainment in the same vein as listening to Rush Limbaugh is entertaining).
"Provided by the management for your protection."
As for Saudi investing in Texas oil companies this makes sense. They get their money from oil, why not use this to get involved in oil and energy worldwide. This way no matter what happens to their Saudi oil, they benefit.
If there is a massive uprising in Saudi Arabia, they get money from oil in other countries. They're just hedging their bets.
You are totally missing the point. Arbusto never dug anything but dry holes. It was a money pit. What the Saudi's were getting for their money was the fact that Bush's daddy was the president and they could call in favors. There are plenty of people who they could have invested in that can actually find oil in Texas but only one that pays political dividends.
Slap in the wrist me thinks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you are advocating the enlightened path of sels censorship, in which you are always afraid of saying something in the name of the "greater good" (which surely will be defined for us by helpful persons in positions of authority.
That is so comforting.
Bring me my Soma, and two rations of Soylen with that please.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Your point is quite correct. I think this has a lot to do with people confusing their culture or religion with the government of the US. This country has already been through one Civil War, so saying that it can't happen again is irrational.
Just about every analysis of conflicts talks about how violence started when the opposing sides quit talking. I agree that we need to be civil in our disagreements with one another. However, if you look at the issues that lead to people taking extremist points of view, you will see a pattern where they believe they are fighting for a cause greater than themselves and that the other side opposes that cause.
Look at gay marriage. Some people feel that this is counter to their culture and religion. They believe that it is therefore against their country. I had a great time this weekend talking to some people who were voting for Bush over gay-marriage and abortion. I pointed out that when their kids go to school with Muslims or Jews, they don't come home converted, so why would they come home converted to believe that gay-marriage was morally defensable. They thought that gay-marriage meant their church would have to let gay folks get married there. I asked them how many Buhddist weddings their church was forced to perform by the state. They also thought that legal gay-marriage would make it impossible for them to still believe that homosexuality was a sin. I pointed out that the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party legally exist and are only prosecuted when they deny other citizens their rights. I think the irony was completely lost on these folks, but they did get the point. I also pointed out the futility of supporting Bush for this reason since his only solution has been rhetoric and a constitutional amendment which no sane person believes will pass. I mean, Dick "go F yourself" Cheney's daughter is openly gay. There's even a grassroots petition to get her to come out against the gay-marriage amendment.
After explaining why I believed in seperation of church and state and why it was important for them to protect it, in order to protect their own culture and beliefs, I think I got them to at least think about the issue more rationally.
It takes this kind of hard work and effort to stop a civil war from ever becoming a possiblity. We should keep that danger in the back of our minds though. For instance, I watched the nomination speach for the Constitutional Party (God, Family, Republic), if those people ever come to political power in this country, there will be a civil war. I feel that organizations like this are in direct opposition to the principles and law that this country was founded upon. If they were to actually begin to get their agenda to become law in this country, I would be willing to oppose them by any means necessary.
By continuing to talk to people and treat them with respect, no matter how looney they are, we will marginalize the true looneys and allow the rest of the country to progress, ultimately using the tools of reason. You can't fight a culture, but you can get along with one pretty easily if you come to a mutual understanding, even if you agree to disagree.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
If the multi-billion dollar media with tens of thousands of hours of programming is supposedly freakishly liberal...
In my opinion, the media has been negligent (almost extreme in it's support of the conservative administration) in under-reporting news like the commentary in Fahrenheit 9/11 about Bush trying to cut combat wages for soldiers, benefits for soldiers, funding for V.A. hospitals.
And here's my gripe - where the hell is the Democratic party? Is it consider "uncool" to point out that Bush is a hypocrite if he blames people for not supporting the troops, and then turns around and stabs the troops in the back?
It was an interesting movie. I wouldn't recommend it for any conservatives (duh) specifically because of the first 20-40 minutes. I think the last hour of the movie is pretty amazing, and right-on-target, and would be appreciated by most viewers who are sympathetic to the pain caused by war. But those first 20 minutes are just re-capping Florida, and I can honestly acknowledge that the topic is too partisan and charged to be at all fair to Republicans. I personally agree with Moore's interpretation, and was awed and saddened watching the footage of Gore presiding over the session where no senator (not even Democrats!) would back members of Congress who wished to contest the election results, and speak about disenfranchisement.
Anyway - yeah - simple question: if the multi-billion dollar media is so biased, why can the rightists spend all of this time railing against a low-budget movie? Don't they have bigger fish to fry? *
(*Answer: because they don't. There is no liberal media bias.)
Education is the silver bullet.
From what I've heard of this movie so far, it clearly looks like a piece of propaganda. The problem with propaganda is that it often's make bold statements that can't old just in order to appeal to more people.
The same thing was done in WW2 when people were demonizing Hitler and germans and saying we had to go there and kill germans in order to stop the war. Was it too much? Yes. Was it too strong to say such things to say? Yes.
But in the end, was it worth saying all these things, even if they were a bit over the top? Yes, because we had to do anything to make sure this war ended.
Just like we need Bush out of presidency.
umm.. you can't really be holding onto that asumption after even all the academic recounts proved he lost can you? When is it a big surprise that the voting system works the way it does and has in the last-since it was concieved. Oh well i guess thats just one more example of the public education system we have today..
Any ways the fact that some looser idiot, as he is often refered to, was able to come so close in an election should be proof enough that he wasn't really liked. For most people it was a party line vote if it even pulled them out to the polls in the first place. If gore was anythiign like his predicessor he would have won b y a margin, not loose so narrowly and have to "invent" votes and ways to get votes counted in his favor.
BTW gore won the popular vote by a verry small margin, unfortunatly even after all the recounting and attempts to squash service mens absente votes, he lost florida and that was the area needed. fortunately for us, the electorial coledge did it's job and didn't let the will of a few large states dictate the leadership of the rest. Any one still holding onto the GORE REALY WON at this state is seriously uninformed. They may even have some fanboy complex or somethign, the point is that there is a problem with them or they havn't read the news following the elections.
There is a profound difference between ability to wield power and motives. Hitler had one of the greatest abilities to wield power over a people of any leader in the 20th century, and he used it for all the wrong reasons. As the linked article points out, Bush also shares many aspects of that leadership ability. Whether you think his motives are better than Hitler's.. well that depends on your political slant.
Plagiarism, omission and opinion are one thing. Lying is another. The movie got by Moore's fact checkers because all the statements of fact in the movie are correct. Not that they should have bothered, because there are obviously people willing to accuse him of lying anyway.
--
E_NOSIG
Where unions as you know them are a state guaranteed right and hold 50%-1 vote on every company board.
Good! Just what I need to try to keep my company from going under: A bunch of high school dropouts who make $35/hr doing work that any chimpanzee could do, telling me how I need to run my car company so that I can compete with cheap labor in third-world shitholes like Korea, China and France.
Buzz Hargrove (leader of Canadian Auto Workers union) once described a business plan for Chrysler by analogy to an episode of Cheers. Yes, that's right, he's using sitcoms to describe (and probably understand) economics. As a shareholder in DaimlerChrysler, it galls me to no end that idiots like that are allowed to have any voice whatsoever.
Screw the unions: If they don't like their jobs on the assembly line, I would invite them to quit and find work elsewhere. Nothing pays them what they perceive to be enough? Then they can go back to school so that they have some actual marketable skills or paper evidence of their work ethic.
I'd fire them all in a heartbeat.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
hmmm?
no god is good
Not sure. No Child Left Behind is kind of an odd-ball. It's chuck full of unfunded mandates and a belief that the Federal govt knows better than local municipalities how to best spend their money. The goal, of course, is because it's for the children. So I guess you could call this classic bad-liberalism. But I think Republicans had an ulterior motive, that is they intend to destroy the public school system.
There's no Medicare Reform out there that I'm aware of. There is the prescription drug coverage add-on. That one isn't really a social program, it's just bad government.
Seniors could have gotten the same discounts had the Feds put together a bill pushing for collective bargaining power. Roughly 10-15%. Instead what we got is the Republicans offering to give US Tax dollars to the drug companies to pay for that 10-15% off.
It's pure redistribution of wealth, not in a liberal sense, but in a sense of taking it out of the back pockets of Americans and giving it to wealthy corporations.
I feel that it's the usual partisan politics
I often see this when people are trying to ignore arguments.
There's a reason why I'm partisan. It's cause the Republican party is the party of Bad Ideas.
The cost of the movie ticket was worth it to see the juxtaposition of the senseless loss of lives of U.S. soldiers, and President Bush saying about attacks in Iraq:
There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.
Let me finish. There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.
"Bring them on," he said. Attack U.S. troops. And liberals are accused of being traitors for questioning the motives for the war in the first place?
Here's the President of the United States of America telling angry Iraqi armed forces to do their worst, and take as many American lives as possible.
I only wish that the Democratic candidate was worth voting for.
Education is the silver bullet.
"You must be joking, I guess you missed the fact that Gore actully won!"
Can we stop this fiction? While Gore DID win the popular vote, the popular vote does not decide the election - the electoral vote on a state-by-state basis does.
Didn't Bush use the Supreme Court to steal Forida's electoral vote? No. The Supreme Court ruled that Florida's partial recount was uncostitutional (recount all or recount none). They also ruled that there was no way, under law, for a proper recount to be made in the time allowed (ruling was made Dec. 12, which was also when the final count had to be completed, although some justices felt that allowing to Dec. 18 should have been allowed). All the legal issues and procedural questions became moot when Congress accepted Florida's electoral delegation.
Interstingly enough, a recount by US news media organizations using the procedures requested by Gore showed that Bush would still have won, had the Supreme Court not stepped in. Also, the Statisctical Abstract Census in 2003 in Florida also indicated Bush won.
Source: wikipedia
Well that pretty much answered my question from this post...6 3&cid=954 8638
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1125
I can't believe you are stupid enough to try to defend Rush Limbaugh's "honesty". Rush calls his program entertainment. He's not trying to be at all factual, he's trying to be entertaining.
Give me any given daily transcript from Limbaugh, and I'll point out a lie in it.
And to think you attack liberals for defending Michael Moore... Sheesh.
If "too many" people can't think for themselves, too bad for them.
No, too bad for you and me, if we live in a democracy where the non-thinkers have equal rights to vote.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I do not support Bush. But if there were ever any reason that I would use to justify support for Bush, it would be the fact that a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 is released while he is in office!!! If Bush were the evil tyrant so many liberals say he is, that movie would have been squashed.
"I'm not a right-winger and I'm not a left-winger. I consider the right and left both to represent the same thing -- government control." -- Paul Pope
If you think revenge is the answer you totally missed the point of why the attacked the two towers. Maybe you should take a hard look at your culture and try and examine it from the point of view of their culture. They are not just 'terrorists' as your media would leave you to believe. They are trying to preserve their culture and other cultures as well, from the very real threat of american culture. They are in fact, fighting for their lives, and actually trying to make americans aware of what it is that they are doing. I think TOO many people missed this. Remember they are humans as well, and tend to have reasons for their actions. Their reasons are culturally defined, just like the US reasons are culturally defined as well.
I will admit that I am far left (on most issues). I watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX; I also listen to NPR and the BBC all on a regular basis.
To insist that Fox is balanced is idiotic. They do have liberals come on, but then they do not let them talk (Hannity is particularly offensive in this regard, but O'Rielly is pretty bad too). Also the 'liberal media' has conservatives on all the time, and they are actually permitted to exprese coheirant thoughts on camera.
Perhaps that is the reason Moore will not go on fox. He has seen what it meens to be a liberal guest on fox, it means sitting there being critizised with no opportunity for rebuttle.
O'Reilly being anti-death penalty doesn't make him any less conservative than my opposition to affirmative action and abortion makes me not a liberal. And RFK? That is ancient history in terms of political affiliation, Strom Thurmand was a democrat in his youth.
Lastly, calling mainstream media liberal only indicates a lack of familiarity with real left wing media. Go listen to democracy now and tell me cnn and npr are liberal. This even ignores the fact that CNN (with the US as a whole) is downright conservative by international standards.
Watch news for facts, then form your own opinion, and if you think you can get all of your facts from one side of the spectrum, you are sadly mistaken...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Well, once Bill C-250 gets passed, that'll no longer be the case. It adds 'sexual orientation' to the hate speech law, which means any public criticism of homosexuality will be a crime in Canada.
Or maybe it's not so free already, even before that law passes:
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.
A British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.
Even reporters aren't safe in Canada:
TORONTO -- Officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have raided the home and newspaper office of a reporter for The Ottawa Citizen in an effort to learn how she obtained secret documents concerning a Syrian-born immigrant who was arrested in the United States as a suspected terrorist.
The incident Wednesday immediately became the biggest constitutional challenge to freedom of the press in Canada in decades, with the reporter, Juliet O'Neill, now facing possible criminal charges for violating Section 4 of the Security of Information Act, one of several sweeping measures passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
No one is mentioning this, not even Michael Moore (he only cares about what he can get on video).
Half an hour is plenty of time for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to initiate useful action. For comparison, that's WAY more than the time needed to get nuclear missiles ordered, targeted & launched at enemy targets.
Bush is supposedly an experienced military pilot, right? He should have politely excused himself and IMMEDIATELY scrambled fighters into the air over every major city. He should picked one of our command centers (Cheyenne Mountain? White House sub-basement?) to coordinate with civil authorities and get all of the facts in one place so someone might see the patterns.
Maybe it wouldn't have helped the Pentagon, or Flight 93. We'll never know, because he did NOTHING.
Uh huh. And you, Mr. 'Anonymous', would be one of those subscribers? Forgive me, but somehow I tend to think a subscriber would know how to spell and use proper grammatical sentence construction. But what do I know? I'm not a subscriber.
Listen, kid. The post total is now over 2800. This is the largest number of posts I have ever seen on Slashdot. This means that the topic is something a LOT of people want to discuss and that Slashdot is a center able to provide that discussion. This seems to 'offend' you, in the same way that Creationists are 'offended' by arguments which make them look like blithering idiots.
Grow the hell up, or take your 'subscription' money and go sign up with a forum where your delicate ears will not have to suffer the harsh abuse of reality.
-FL
Interesting. I thought the moral message was "your dreams of making it big in the NBA are nuts. These kids were the 2 best players in Chicago, and they still didn't make it".
Of course, I'm not an inner city black kid.
Cite a factual error or gross oversimplification of the facts in 9/11. Cite how the Peace Prize and UN have been perverted by politics anymore than the GOP or the corporate dominated media.
Richard Clarke, who can hardly be labelled as a Bush supporter at this point, has come out recently and publically said that he was responsible for getting the bin Laden family out of the US after 9/11, and that no one above him ordered it or even knew about it.
Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
Next!
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
The difference between those two is not for the military personnel to decide. They sign up to fight under the commander-in-chief, whoever they might be, or however they might feel about him, or however they might feel about what he's asked them to fight for.
Engineering and the Ultimate
> He always supports the Democrat no matter who's on the ticket.
Except when he's not.
> He blindly pulls the Dems' party line and never questions it.
Moore is much more liberal than the "Democratic" party and its presidential candidates. The dem party is shifted right because the country has been a polyarchy for a while, and as such, the "parties" are just different degrees of the right wing.
> He has not problem living a lavish Hollywood lifestyle while at the same time
> calling for higher taxes on the common man.
What is Moore worth? What kind of digs does he have? Cars? What proof is there to substantiate the claim that he is living like P Diddy?
> Are these the values that I want represented in Washington?
Some of them: vigorous scrutiny of government, basic moral principles applied in foreign policy (what's wrong for them is wrong for me), de-coupling industry from government, de-militarizing the economy, retreat from the Bush doctrine, opposition to Patriot Act.
> Could I afford the lifestyle that I have now if my payroll taxes were 50%
> higher then they are now?
Whatever the rate, I'd rather that 51% of my tax money were not spent on offensive weaponry (to call it defense is a laughable euphemism).
> If Saddam isn't a threat to the US, then why didn't the last President pull
> US troops home?
Because there was a policy of containment.
I just find it hilarious how so many people have their panties in a wad about how Bush stayed with his planned event with the kids a whole seven minutes after the 2nd plane hit, but don't have a word to say about how Bill Clinton let terrorism fester for 8 years in the Oval Office while he was busy getting head from an intern.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
When I got to the theater there was a line down the block for people waiting to get in. The last time I had to wait in a line outside the theater to get into a movie was when I saw Return of the Jedi in '83.
You must not see many movies. I was in a hugely long line just over a year ago to see _Matrix Reloaded_.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Hitchens is a liberal--he would be in favour of a Democratic version of Limbaugh or O'Reilly. Moore's not that, though, nor is Franken.
Homework? This one was easier than a slow pitch down the middle to Barry Bonds.
Zarqawi: The Americans just came and drove us out of Afghanistan. Can I set up shop here in Iraq?
Hussein: Sure!
If that's not good enough for you, perhaps I could quote you the connections that Bill Clinton made between al-Qaeda and Iraq when he was in office.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
I've seen this done before. He's good at what he does, leading the angry masses. No hard facts, no other view, just propaganda. I have no love for current administration, but I do not stand for lies, half-truths and brain washing! Simply pisses me off. We deserve what we get if we so blindly follow. BTW, with regard to all the terrorist attack warnings that are coming out of Washington. Before 9/11 Washington said nothing, and we were pissed about that and demanded to know. Now they tell us everything, and we are still pissed because we don't want to know. What people really want is some one to hang for this whole thing and forget about it, so we decide to hang our own because it is easier and more convenient. I see more compassion for terrorists then our own leaders. Not that simple, is it now. In Soviet Russia, propaganda has YOU! Been there done that, will not stand for it here.
Free speech is getting expensive...
So what you're saying is that Clinton made a bad moral judgement and lied about it...
Bill Clinton lied under oath, which is a felony named perjury. Doesn't matter what he lied about, lying under oath is still perjury.
Not even the most extreme anti-Bush types can show any credible evidence that Bush has done the same.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Do you even remember the events of the weeks of 9/11? The administration might not have announced proof positive that the Taliban was behind this, but anti-Arab prejudices were running amok among the populace
But what difference does it make? Only a nut thinks that flying some foreign college kids out of the country equals conspiracy.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The problem with 'limousine liberals' and similar ilk on both sides of the policital and social spectrum, is that well meaning rich people are automatically, and by definition, disconnected from reality. However well-meaning their motivations may be, they are always outside the scope of their actions' effects, especially the negative ones (unintended consequences, whether short or long term).
Raise taxes and increase welfare spending? Sure, what's a few more thousand out of a pile of millions! Besides, my kids won't have to worry about the mess afterwards either! Bonus points!
Send dozens of thousands of men into combat to free Iraq (protect oil/whatever)? Sure, go right ahead, none of my kids are enlisted!
(Speaking of rich kids going off to war... ever wonder how Moore missed ambushing John Kerry on his tour for F9/11 footage?)
Republicans and doubters, If you haven't seen the movie and don't know what was discussed there, why are you posting here? You Republicans are better at changing the subject and dodging specific questions by trashing the subject than any organized group known to man. This quote by the Press Secretary of the White House sums up the type of behaviour I have been seeing very well: "I don't have to see the movie to know that it is full of invalid facts..." How is anything in America ever going to change with such closed minded thinkers and the sheep that follow them? I challenge the doubters to: a) actually see the movie b) understand what is being claimed c) actually do some research on what is being claimed. Finally, if you think you can discuss the movie's claims without seeing it, here's your quiz: 1)Who is "The Carlyle Group", who are/were the members, and what is their link to the war in Iraq? If you think you are open minded, watch the movie at this site to find out - first 37 seconds are in Dutch 2) Have you researched the pipeline in Afganistan? Who and what companies were behind it? Who did Hamid Karzai (Afgan Interim President)work for? How were the Taliban involved? 3) How many Bush cabinet members are tied to the energy and oil business (its easier to ask who isn't)? What large oil/gas company did Condleeza Rice work for? After you've researched these questions and viewed the video above, come back and discuss the facts that are at hand here. Thank You, Mike
I've heard this point made countless times, so I'm not ragging on you specifically for this: turns out this is so very not true.
From Russian President Vladimir Putin:
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
5th in the Hall of Fame.
Read this if you want to try seeing a different side of the issue, or continue bathing in your own infallible magnificience
Slashdot talks about more things than just technology. It talks about things that geeks talk about. It covered the school shootings around the country and it also had great coverage of the 9/11 attacks.
A movie that is a hotbed of controversy is fair game as well.
I shouldn't jump into this because it's a flame war; but which one is the liar and pyschopath? The one who has an open marriage even though his wife doesn't really know that? The one who socializes with a boatload of criminals; regardless of how they claim "Oh, he was ~never~ involved in any of our criminal dealings and I was forced to tell lies about him just because I wanted to spend less time with the lesbians in prison"? Pyschopath - "A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse." Adultery isn't amoral behavior? Perjury isn't criminal behavior? What he did with a cigar isn't perverted? Or were you lumping up a decision-maker who acted on the counsel of his staff members and military; and intelligence reports, innacurate or not, from his own and other countries? I guess no one else has done that before.
More talking to his source in front of the Saudi embassy, asking how much Saudi's have invested in us. The guy says, "I've heard figures as high as 870 billion". Moore what part is that of our stock market, and the guy quotes about 6-7%. In the next footage more narrates, "These people own 7% of the country..." Now does anyone see a problem here? This is classical brain washing. First the initial figure is hear say, "I've heard" is not a fact, no matter how much you dislike Bush. Then he quotes 6-7% of the stock market is Saudi! BULLSHIT! Look it up, even Yahoo will tell you this one. But now he says that they own 7% of our economy! Economy!=Stock Market! Also, I thought it was 6-7%, not just 7%! It's a classical 'raze the stakes' while no one is paying attention. Amazing bullshit. He should run for office!
Half-Truth=Half Lie!
Free speech is getting expensive...
To those who don't get this, parent is referring to the Nazi's rallies, not just in Munich but all over 30's Germany. "Populist" is basically a fancy way of saying that somebody is advocating an alternative to an entrenched, established government by using rhetoric that has broad appeal. George Bush ran using populist rhetoric, since he was challenging an extension to a 2-term Democratic administration. Eg lowering taxes, reducing government, bringing dignity back to the office of the presidency, etc. These are all things people don't neccessarily disagree with, prima facie. Currently, he also uses it to maintain popular support for his policies - e.g. fighting terror, spreading democracy, destroying evil, etc. These are all popular notions.
Populism becomes demagoguery when the rhetoric is based on lies or the absence of fact. If someone thinks Moore is an outright demagogue, they can always critique him and make citations, debunk his claims, etc. instead of making vague implications.
Incidentally, aren't you being a tad alarmist? Assuming Moore's movie is pure propaganda, does it have the potential to cause an liberal or even anarchist revolution? I doubt it. The tenor of US government politics is still anchored in the waters of the right. This movie doesn't have the power to change that. It's more like group therapy for anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-government, or anti-Bush folks.
RTFA. The opening paragraph alone, it states: It tells me that the site is heavily biased (they even describe themselves as "opinionated", and that they "tell you what we really think and believe about what's happening in the world"), and therefore NOT "news". (Yes, by this standard, I would also probably discount FoxNews.) Do you have other sources, or is this the best you can come up with?
You refer to the actions of a "Head of State", meaning Saddam Hussein, as justification for the war on Iraq.
For starters, it's not "as justification", because it's not that simple. As one of many reasons, yes.
Specifically, which actions are you talking about?
Where shall I begin? How about allowing his sons to torture Iraqi citizens? How about re-routing rivers, to punish villages that spawned political enemies? How about using chemical weapons on Kurdish people in the north? If you think for a moment that allowing such actions to go on unchecked is none of our business, then you're more of an animal than the worst Bush-basher thinks of Bush and the rest of his administration. There are, of course, other reasons involved, but if you need me to tell you what they are, then you haven't bothered to pay attention for the last ten years, and I don't have that kind of time.
I would like to believe that our boys (one of whom is my recently enlisted nephew) are not dying in vain.
Don't you think that people joining the military over the last year have a clue what the risks are, or do you think it's something that's forced on them? I would hope that your nephew is a smart man, quite able to reason through the risks of joining a military at war, before he signs the contracts and raises his right hand. For you (or anyone else for that matter) to imply otherwise is insulting to him, to me, and to anyone else that has served in the US Armed Forces.
Everyone going into the military knows that they may be called to put their life on the line whenever their commander-in-chief calls them to do so. People that don't understand that fact shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a recruiting station. Hearing people whine so much about that reminds me of my days in the US Navy, when some people complained about not wanting to be stationed on a ship. Puh-leeez! If they wanted to stay on land, they should have joined the Army.
Point taken. Perhaps I have lived a sheltered life, as far as "documentaries" go; I have thought of them as non-fictional, attempting (to some extent) to give both sides to an issue, and it is from that perspective I disputed the status of Moore's film. I would have taken the same approach, if the film were so zealosly in favor of Bush. I have no idea who this Morris guy is you speak of.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
No!!!!
Only shiny-metal assed troops deserve to come home first!
Can you imagine, there are 135,000 troops and nobody caters beer? They're blatently sober! Support our shiny-metal assed troops first; bring them home first!
Pssst: don't forget that Rush Limbaugh also was on welfare, and isn't too kind of that topic, either.
Education is the silver bullet.
You obviously haven't seen the movie.
His assertion is that they should have been questioned, especially since Osama is not the "black sheep" who has been completely ostracized: members of his family were with him together at a wedding in Afghanistan.
For one, the movie is 112 minutes long, and for another the bin Laden exodus from the U.S. on 9/13 is only one tiny part of the movie.
Again, it is significant, because relatives of a terrorist were not questioned while they were granted special rights that normal citizens of this country did not have. And for what - their protection? Maybe we should have started by protecting U.S. citizens first. Say, maybe, by questioning relatives of known terrorists?
Education is the silver bullet.
But, as soon as you're talking about a public figure, it all gets a little bit muddled. And then you bring in satire and, as Al Franken puts it, "satire is protected by the First Ammendment, even if the target of the satire doesn't get it."
I agree with you, Moore should be able to defend himself from outright lies, but it won't be easy.
Education is the silver bullet.
The events were not unprecedented: the World Trade Center had in fact been bombed before, and President Bush had been informed of the possibility of Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil. The primary military lesson from Pearl Harbor was that a quick response to information could have prevented most of the casualties.
NOBODY knew if it was accidental or intentional.
Chief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
At that point, President Bush knew that it was intentional.
But Don't forget somewhere in there a plane crashed in a field as well and nobody was real sure what had happend there
Flight 93 did not crash in a field until some time later, so that wasn't on President Bush's mind.
Given the complete unreal nature of the whole event...
The whole event was as real as they come. We elect Presidents to lead us in good times and in bad, and quickly coping with reality is one of the best attributes of a leader. Look at Mayor Giuliani for an example of leadership under pressure.
It was not a claimed terrorist action.
President Bush knew full well that it was a terrorist action.
What would those 10 minutes have bought?
It is not a question of what could those 10 minutes (actually, it was about 27 minutes from the time that he was informed of the first impact, until the time he left the building) could have bought. It's a question of what those 27 minutes could have cost. He should have gone into immediate damage control and information gathering, not a photo-op and an uninformed press conference.
What would his leaving have done besides save his skin anyway ?
Preserved the continuation of the American system of government? That's not nothing. Heck, the financial impact on the world economy of even an attempt on the life of the President of the United States is staggering.
If President Bush was confused after hearing the message "America is under attack," then we definitely need a new President.
Education is the silver bullet.
What would you rather he did? Leapt to his feet, in front of a class of small children, and started issuing orders to shoot down commercial airliners?
How about asking if anyone has claimed responsibility? How about declaring it a federal holiday and evacuating the White House, the Pentagon, and other likely targets? How about checking on the MO and seeing if there were any other planes that turned off their transponders and changed course toward a major city?
Just because there exists some action that would be bad does not mean that all action would have been bad. But then, you must use such logical fallacies to defend the gross inaction of that day.
Learn to love Alaska
And I bet you think irregardless is a word too.
...and that includes the right not to have a film shown if the theatre managers don't want to show it, for whatever reason they choose.
You are right. They have that right. However you missed the point. Someone petitioning against someone exercising free speech does not understand or support Free Speech. They only like people speaking when they agree with what they believe. Those are dangerous people that lead to fascist states.
It isn't about just supporting the rights of the people you agree with to speak, but the rights of the people you don't agree with. If you want Rush Limbaugh off the air or Michael Moore out of the theaters, then you don't support Free Speech. If you disagree with one (or both), but will defend their right to present their views (or entertainment), then you understand Free Speech, and it isn't petitioning to get them banned so others can't experience them.
Learn to love Alaska
How about this interview with David Kay or this overview of his final report or CNN's coverage, or this detailed report that discusses some of the reasoning behind David Kay's findings. I would have gladly linked to Fox News as well, as these official findings are virtually "unspinnable", but I can't find any Fox News coverage of Kay's final report (it may exist, I'm just saying I couldn't find it with Google - please point it out if you come across it). If you'll recall, Kay's initial, interim report also found no evidence of the type of WMD stockpiles or activities that Bush and Powell claimed we would certainly find in Iraq. However, Kay expressed great optimism that the alleged WMD would indeed be found (this was well covered and emphasized on Fox News) and attributed his lack of evidence to, in essence, timing, as there was still much work ahead at that point. Kay later stated that his initial optimism was based on the same erroneous, disproven "intelligence" that was eventually presented as justification for the invasion of Iraq. David Kay was not the only weapons inspector to carry out the task of finding Iraqi WMD. Remember Hans Blix? I've heard quite a bit of typical, hateful, conservative vitriol spewed in his direction, but I have yet to hear a factual criticism of his professional credentials or a substantive accusation of bias against him. Here is a summary of his findings within the rather enlightening context of current events. There are also the findings of Scott Ritter to consider. Even more despised than Hans Blix, the factual content of his work in Iraq and, again, his professional credentials, have not been effectively challenged. Here is an article he wrote in which he mentions his findings on Iraqi WMD among other topics and an interview in Time magazine in which they ask him some of the "tough" questions (i.e. weak and unsupported personal attacks, as is the Republican habit) his critics have raised. If you want more detailed sources on the findings of any of these weapons inspectors, Google is your friend. I challenge - no, I *defy* you to produce even one credible source (judging from your comment about Fox News, I think we more or less agree on the meaning of "credible") that contradicts the findings of these weapons inspectors. If you can't produce such a counterpoint, you are left with no rational conclusion but to accept that the Bush administration either incompetently or willfully misled the American people and the entire world by claiming that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States when, in fact, he literally had no capability to attack us.
The fact that the man is incapable of presenting the truth suffices.
You are arguing with vague, unspecific babble, exactly the point in my post about the far right. Care to challenge any specifics? Did you actually see the movie? Did you actually do any research....I am betting not. I just read your other posts...not very informative either. This is the vibe I am getting from you: "I'm young, I think I am a computer god...I really don't know squat, but I like to hear myself talk". Thanks for the informative and intriguing post.
He is a controversial schizo critic(and a drunk from what I hear) from Vanity Fair magazine...not where I like gather my political advice from. Check out some of his book titles and some of the things he has written about and what he stands for...Google it up for yourself and then tell me if you want to stand behind his opinion here. Don't be afraid of the truth. If you don't know the facts yourself, start doing some research. Don't trust Michael Moore, Rush or whomever at face value. Do the research for yourself and then see who is telling or twisting the truth.
In regard to Roosevelt's foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, could you point me at some reading on the subject (or the names of some of these younger historians)? My impression was that it was a fringe theory, predicated on either anti-semitism or an effort by neoconservative to smear the patron saint of the modern Democratic party (not an exact quote, but I've been unable to locate the source).
There's definitely something to be said for going to primary sources without preconceptions. I was privileged to have access to the original diaries of John Wilkes (circa 1765) and the original correspondence of Sen. Robert LaFolette (in the Library of Congress) in the course of earning a history degree. One must also be aware of the limitations of such sources, however. Despite being in the historical period of interest, they are hardly omniscient. And it is frequently incorrect to attribute motives, or even modes of action/response, from one time period to actors in another.
Your evaluation of Aljazeera does not mesh with what I have read (primarily Internet articles; the US press seems fairly useless if one is looking for good information on this subject). My impression is that actual hate for them is confined pretty much to authoritarian regimes, where an uncontrolled media voice stands to upset the applecart. Among the bulk of the populace, feelings range from identification with it as an Arab viewpoint to indifference to impatience (that is, not radical enough). I'd be interested in reading your source on this.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
I certainly don't appreciate being called "Stupid" by a pinko leftist socialist dimwit. I am an American . I do believe in God. I did vote for Bush. I support Bush 100% I support the war on terror. I support kicking Sadam's ass. I do so because I believe it was the RIGHT thing to do not because I blindly follow anyone. Especially a fat-ass commie malcontent like Moore! Tell you what I will do , if YOU want to life in a socialist country I will buy you a first class ticket as long as you sign away your citizenship and vow never to return. PS: see what Ray Brabury say's about Moore ripping him off.
Actually, I do think that revenge is the answer and I haven't missed the point. I've seen the point. I've read some of Chomsky's very cogent analysis of terrorism in the modern world as a response to the powerlessness of the oppressed against modern military equipment and techniques.
Chomsky makes points. You, dear friend, bleat.
My culture is fat, greedy and stupid. But the culture you admire is a breeding ground for the most vile cowardice in the defense of sickening ignorance. You can judge an action not just by its success but by its ultimate projected result, and, using that standard to examine the 9/11 terrorists and others, one thing is glaringly true: they have the courage to sacrifice their lives for a cause that isn't worth toilet paper. If the United States and the whole of Europe decided to capitulate to what they dream of, to give followers of Wahhabi Islam everything they wanted--up to and including half of modern Spain--the net result would be the great glory of Islam in the Middle Ages dragging its slack ass across a better world than it had ever dreamt of. In essence, the grand final success of what you praise if it were possible would be a backwards-looking Islam turning the cultures that have actually accomplished something over the last thousand years or so and transforming them into a cultural mirror of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Of course, when you talk about the 9/11 hijackers and suicide bombers, you've gone through the best of the breed: the rest of the bottom feeders who support your cause are only brave under select circumstances. That is, your jihadi brethren are just hell on wheels but only when the odds are right, by which we have seen, it is when >they are armed and their opponents (preferably >women and children) are unarmed, outnumbered, bound, kneeling and blindfolded.
You don't like our culture? Take a good look at what you want to replace it with. At least the women here are taught to read.
Really, honestly, if you don't like western culture and its intrusion on your little bubble of fantasy, your course of action is both obvious and simple: throw your damned computer out the nearest window, hop the next plane out of England and never let anyone hear from you again.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
(1) I haven't attacked liberals.
(2) Why don't you pick any transcript you want and bring back a lie spoken by Limbaugh for me. That gives you the entire spectrum. If you can do it on any day, then take one from any day and do it. I'll wait right here.
(3) I never said I agreed with Rush's point of view. I just said the man has some killer fact-checkers.
I agree. Rush's bias is as much right-wing Moore's is left-wing, and to this point I can't say that I have directly caught Moore in a lie. However, I have heard a couple lines from the film that would either be direct lies or gross mistakes. I am watching it either Tuesday or Wednesday, and I'll mouth off on it if I find any direct contradictions of fact.
Hitchens is not a liberal. He has never been one. He will never be one. He HATES liberals, he especially hates bill clinton but he tends to pour most of his vitriol towards moore whom he always calls fat and smelly.
He is also pro war, he said oil was an excellent reason to wage war and invade and occupy iraq. To him all the worlds resources belong to the US. We have the right to take over any natural resource if we need it bad enough.
evil is as evil does
Hardly collage students, hardly any old people. The Bin Ladens and the bushes have always enjoyed a close relationship. Just google for it.
evil is as evil does
However, the problem is that the only perception we get of each others culture is through a very controlled and some would say stifled medium. The internet is a new, pursuasive force but it certainly hasn't convinced a large majority of people of it's virtues. Perhaps if you would like both countries to get to know another, and therefore make sounder judgements of each other then you would encourage everyone you know to get on the Internet. Wire them up, show them how. ;)
Polluting the Internet since 2003...
http://percep
RTFA. The opening paragraph alone, it states: ... Do you have other sources, or is this the best you can come up with?
Jebus Timex where have you been? Do you not remember the congressional hearings on Dr. Kay's summation. We've vetted the place and found nothing.
I'd like to add as an aside that in a Charlie Rose interview with Morris and McNamara, McNamara repeatedly declined to give his opinion on the war with Iraq out of political deference (i.e. he lives a "post public" life now). His silence was so steadfast, principled, and honest that it became obvious he doesn't support this war.
Debate the morality of homosexuality-
...keep in mind that several big universities, Northwestern, Cornell, U of Chicago have done extensive studies showing massive left-bias of the media. U of Chicago (a VERY liberal University) just did a brilliant study which found that FOX's Special Report is the most politically CENTERED-- ie. closest to the real political center of modern Americans-- news show on television.
There is no moral componant to homosexuality. Homosexuality can not be good or bad as it doesn't effect anyone who is not homosexual unless that person makes a concious decision to allow it to effect them.
Debate the war-
We had no valid reasons to attack Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to the United States. I happen to agree with the stance president Bush took during his campaign for president: It is not our business to be going around the world telling people how is it going to be. (paraphrased)
Debate socialism-
This all depends on the economic thoeries you believe. Do you believe Keynes, or the chicago school of economists? Based on my reading of history, social programs have been extremely sucessful in this country, and Reaganomics was a compairative failure. Wether or not to support social programs also depends on what your economic goals are. Would you prefer the maximum GDP, or the highest mean standard of living among the population? I would choose the later. Social programs like those contained in the new deal are largly responsible for the creation of the middle class. This is in keeping with the predictions of Keynes. During the times that Reaganomics was in full force, the rich were getting richer, and the GDP was rising, but the benifits of this were not being seen by most participating in the economy. Lastly social programs promote entrepreneurship, the force that drives inovation, and ultimatly the economy. People are more likly to take the financial risk accosiated with starting their own business, if they know that failure in busness doesn't mean that their family will not eat.
Liberals haven't been able to hold their own in a debate since JFK because there is no defensible argument for their positions.
Cheney was the one who resorted to telling Leahy to go fuck himself.
U of Chicago? Liberal? Cornell is liberal, but Chicago is far from it. U of Chicago is the birthplace of supply side economics.
Special Report is actually decent in my opinion, and by far the most centered show on FOX.
If someone is successful or wealthy, they knock him down just to see him destroyed
No. I think that those few who are fortunate enough to be sucessful have a responsibility to help those who are not. I include myself in that list of the fortunate, while I am not rich, I do make substantially more than the average american family. And to think I could make more than the average american without the masses is simply ignorant. I went to college at a top engineering institution, with the tax payers of Illinois footing most of the bill. I am currently working on the tax payers dime as well, I get payed from grants from the NSF and NASA. Without the NSF and NASA supporting basic research, do you think our technology would be anywhere near where it is today? I can tell you with absolute certainty that my previous employer (Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines) was terified of the investments required to do basic research, and it simply wouldn't have happened without NASA, NSF and the DoD. I know I am where I am because of taxes (I suspect taxes played a greater role in you getting where you are than you know), and I will gladly pay for it, I would like the others that have benifited greatly to pay as well.
Liberals produce nothing. They contribute nothing. They have no original ideas.
hmmm. I have been involved deaply in the production of many techonoligies that will be employed in the next generation of gas turbine aircraft engine. Are
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
And Michael Moore is certainly grotesquely fat. Never having met the 'man,' I cannot say whether or not he is literally malodorous--but considering his generally dishevelled look, I wouldn't wager any great sum on his personal hygiene. Certainly his politics stink; why not his person?
It is his website, the rules are clear, if you want "objective" reporting, well, you let us know when you find it.
After that we need to find the holly grail as well, so go sonny, go and find us objective reporting.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do you own the site?
Nope.
Did you know the rules?
Obviously nope (hint: the owner, Mr Taco, can do pretty much what he wants. I read it, did you fail a reading proficienfy test or what?).
Were you or the poor, defenseless "alienated people" forced to click on the damned link?
Nope.
But you had to complain. Give me a fscking brake.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I will not direct you to read your own Congress report, it would be a futile exercise to try to embed in your craneum that Hussein did not have anything to do with 9-11.
Having money in the bank does not make you a dnager agains the US.
Hamas is not intent in destorying the US, and if they don't particularly love that country it is because it is firmly entrenched in the side of Hamas' opossition entity. The US finances with billions the killing, quasi apartheid machine (slef dfence, yeah, sure) of Israel. When do you want a foreign impossed regime change then?
I may (I don't) hate the US (I don't hate America, the Argentinians and Canadians are quite nice people), but that would not make me a threat to them.
So all your rethoric frankly has the wight of a ballon of very hot air.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Mr Moore has been recognized in boths sides of the Atlantic as a film maker and has won two of the most important prizes (Oscar and Palm d'Or).
You can level whatever criticism you want at Mr Moore, but that say he is not a filmaker is frankly childish.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You clearly do not understand what it meant for this man to shake hands with an Israeli Prime Minister.
Your parochiality is showing in all its true flying colours.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Moore states, quite plainly, that school violence is nothing new. The movie is about the american culture of fear, and the increased coverage of violence in recent years, all of the sensationalism.
Please, try to watch things before critisizing them.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
As energetic about this issue as I (and others) get, I don't think I am biased enough to refuse any reasonable information. I will certainly take your posts into consideration. (By the way... You do notice the date lines on your sources before you post them, right? I noticed just now that one link of yours to USA Today is from March, before the UN found anything in Jordan. Although this does not necessarily discredit this information, it may have been superceeded by other information. Of course, having read it, I wonder: if Iraq did not have WMDs, what did they do with their work into the matter? Surely, one doesn't spend the time and money into researching this sort of weaponry, just to stop and say, "Yeah. That was interesting. What's next on our plate?")
You asked about Rwanda. All I can say is that this happened under Bill Clinton, and (according to one of your articles that I am reading now) he realized his mistake. Should something have been done? Certainly. All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try, so I won't go into that here.
For Sudan, I think that the UN needs to get off their duff and do something about the problem there, before it's too late. From the article at the SundayTimes (that you quoted):
Personally, the thing that makes the UN seem like such a joke to me is that they like to TALK about working together, promoting world peace, but when it comes time to actually ENFORCE the treaties that the signatories have signed, they all hum and haw about who's going to do anything, and when. By the time they finally decide to do anything, it's too late; events have already played themselves out, leaving the UN able to do nothing but "clean-up".
If you "don't have that kind of time," then I hope you'll excuse me if I interpret that statement to mean that you can't *think of*, much less support, any "other reasons" for invading Iraq.
Here are a couple things that I think justify the invasion of Iraq (in no particular order):
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Thanks for the kind words.
I'm sure you'll be interested to know that McNamara's views on Iraq are actually on the record in a well-known Canadian paper, the Globe and Mail. He was asked about and confirmed the G&M interview when he gave a speech UC Berkeley. Salon.com picked up the story, and of course sites like disinfopedia.org, bushwatch.com, etc., mentioned and/or linked to the G&M interview - but the mainstream press was suspiciously quiet about it even though no one refutes that the interview or subsequent comments at Berkeley took place.
Please show me where there was any press at all about any intelligence agency/group/whatever saying that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks on the US post-9/11 before the war started.
I gave my reference. I'm not going to believe you one iota until you give yours.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
actually, according to the findings of the 9/11 commission, those planes containing bin ladin's relatives did not leave the country while all commercial aircraft was grounded; they left after sept. 13. also, evidence would suggest that bush had no knowledge of these planes leaving so it really wouldn't be fair to blame him. but yes it probably would have been smart to question them before flying them out
also, i'm not sure a democrat president would be "crucified by the press" in a similar situation given that most of the television media at least is slanted to the left (with the exception of Fox news which is slanted to the right).
Seriously. . ? Moore is using archival footage taken by news agencies but which was never broadcast. Whereas, Bush is directing the public without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. --Or worse, with evidence which has been determined later to be falsified.
So who is worse, exactly? The man leading or the man asking where we are being led?
Moore's film is not really what I would call propaganda. Propaganda is typically paid for by the state. I'd put Moore's film in a category similar to where I place political cartoons and such. --Television and Print news media, however, which is indeed owned by big business with ties to wealthy war mongers and government secret agencies, both here and in Israel. --These are the ones spreading fear and falsehoods which lead nations into dropping bombs on civilians.
The New York Times even apologized for propagating the lies with regard to Saddam's Weapons of Mass Vapor-Ware. (Though, I suspect that this is a move to regain false confidence and better position Kerry, who is just as dangerous as Bush, while being more sympathetic to Zionist Israel, having Jewish blood and all. .
Honestly. Who has more money and CIA/Mossad plants with which to spread the word? Moore or the American media?
-FL
But among those who have been following the minutia and details have concluded that Zionist Israel and the Mossad in conjunction with the American Secret Government orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. Bush is nothing more than a puppet show with a limited shelf-life.
Moore didn't implicate Israel at all. He is pointing at a corrupt U.S. government and Saudi Arabia.
So what will be the result? There are two options, and both lead to the same target.
1. John F. Kerry is made president, people believe in him and will follow him with renewed energy. He has Jewish blood lines, and Zionist support, and so can be counted on to continue support to Israel. Moore has lowered the boom on Saudi Arabia, so Kerry, with renewed support from the American public, can aim the U.S. war machine at Saudi Arabia and get away with it. Israel succeeds in wiping out more of their enemies at U.S. expense.
2. Bush, with flagging support, is forced to up the ante by staging an October Surprise in the form of another shocking terrorist attack, a capture of Bin Laden or being around in time to respond to the horrible "Iranian Nuclear Threat". People will be dazed into following him, which will mean a widening of the conflict in the Middle East. This will succeed in wiping out more enemies of Israel at U.S. expense.
Moore's film will either put Kerry in the driver's seat, or propel Bush into making a shock-move, and both choices benefit Israel.
And THAT is why Moore was allowed to distribute his little film.
-FL
Nobody is forcing anybody to click on the, 'Read more' link.
And frankly, this sort of story is very nerdy! It involves bomb making, deceptive legal policy, media workings, good versus evil, and Moore is a first rate, sleep-deprived nerd himself; Heck, F-9/11, using scavenged film clippings from media archives and do-it-yourself-on-a-budget film making is virtually the case-mod of journalism! But that's all neither here nor there. If so much of the regular readership of Slashdot wants to talk about this stuff, then OBVIOUSLY, it is 'News for Nerds'. Nerds are enthusiastically reading and discussing it. Do the math!
But we all know that. And here's something we also all know. .
Everybody so far who is complaining about whether or not this discussion should be 'allowed' on Slashdot, is doing so because they feel threatened by the subject matter rather than any concerns for the esthetic value of the actual headline itself. Duh.
That is, everybody who is complaining seems to be a supporter of the 'War on Terror' bullshit parade and is angry with Moore for asking them think and question their comfy realities.
Typical, text-book denial.
-FL
It's no coincidence that the Left tends to have so much animosity for Halliburton. Consider the industry.
What does Halliburton do? They provide technology & manpower for getting oil out of the earth, and to the pipelines, tankers, refineries, etc. In this industry, there are really only 2 competitors to Halliburton, which has something like 5% of the market. The other company is ITEC or something like that, with around 1%, based elsewhere. So the one company with ~94% of the market is who? Schlumberger. And where are they based? France.
Yes, the one American company (Houston, to be exact--oh, those evil conservative Texans!) in this industry is Halliburton.
Now that is food for thought.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
the US is a country founded on the Constitution guaranteeing freedom and justice for all
"Promising" might be more accurate.
These days I wonder if, as Ben said, we can keep it.
gewg_
Yes, it would be nice to see a film that balances out the way the American media seems to always take the Palestinian's side...
...your vapid attempts at appearing high-minded simply prove nothing more than your lack of common sense. I watched "Roger and Me". I watched "Bowling for Columbine". I read "Stupid White Men". I've watched Moore on talk shows and interviews. I've been to his website. I don't need to see F911 to know that it is nothing more than the same hack wannabe demagoguery and villification of his political targets that he's always engaged in. Moore is a pathetic populist who managed to cultivate his reputation beyond a mere cult abnormality by feeding on the seething irrational hatred of Bush coming from the fringe left.
But then, irrationality and seething hatred is what people like you are about. You spend three posts talking about the need to be objective, but then you go on this pedantic rant about the "vibe" you're getting from me, and proceed to make unfounded and baseless assertions about who I am.
In short...you're a fucking idiot...and a Moore groupy...which really is just me being redundant.
umm, a little emotionally charged aren't you? BTW, that isn't my culture and i don't live in england.
I was raised as a shaman, closest thing would probably be bahai.
Again, you should take a look at your culture and the way it has shaped you. You seem to have the standard attitude of 'you disagree with me, therefore you are the enemy'. Something i believe the puppet that you call president echoes frequently
I'm just sick of the hipocracy in this country that hold the left to a *much much* higher standard then the right.
I am convinced that this is what is holding the left back. What else can you call it besides zealotry and stupidity when Michael Savage talks the way he does and people listen and nod in agreement? I used to think that the left lacked zealots. It seems instead that we are simply too smart to listen to them.
"May have been superceeded"? No, the findings of weapons inspectors in Iraq have not been superseded. The SA-2 rocket parts discovered as scrap metal in Jordan weren't exactly a big surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. I haven't yet heard anyone make the case that this finding contradicts the massive and detailed 13+ years of evidence assembled by weapons inspectors in Iraq. If you are trying to make that case, then you'll have to be quite a bit more specific than the vague statement "Although this does not necessarily discredit this information, it may have been superceeded by other information (what other information?)." Personally, I look to the Bush administration to make this case as it is their integrity which is on the line. I haven't heard them even attempt to do so, have you?
Regarding your second point about Iraq researching WMD and voluntarily ceasing such activity, please point out where I or any of the numerous sources I have linked to ever made such a claim. The point made by David Kay and the other weapons inspectors was that the inspection program had worked and was continuing to work - not that Iraq voluntarily gave up the pursuit of WMD. Let me be frank, do you think the weapons inspectors are complete idiots? Do you believe that your observation that Saddam wouldn't voluntarily decide to give up the pursuit of WMD represents the kind of original thinking of which U.N. weapons inspectors, or anyone with a high school diploma for that matter, are incapable? There's a word for that type of broadside attack on the critical thinking abilities of "everyone else", it's hubris.
Well, you did "go into it" and managed to weaken your position by betraying a highly partisan opinion (e.g. "All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try" - gee, maybe he was getting a blow job, or busy being the victim of a Republican witch hunt, or just an evil, Godless man. Your "subtle" inference is blindingly clear). I could play the same game by saying that the U.N. should have done something about Rwanda while Bush is solely to blame for doing nothing in Sudan. But I'm not saying that or even suggesting it - just making a broader point. I brought up Rwanda and Sudan to support the fact that there exists no clear precedent for declaring war based on the prevention of human rights abuses. By contrast, the concept of preemptive war, as expressed by Bush, is a rational one IMO. The problem is that a preemptive war (this is according to the definition I'm familiar with and is in contrast to "preventive" war which entails embarking on military conflict just because you think something might happen - other people reverse the definitions, I have no idea which is "correct") is launched in response t
Emotionally charged?
Okay, now I can only guess that you are some sort of weird jerk out to bait people for some odd pleasure. I personally would suggest that you take up prolonged masturbation sessions, it's cleaner, it's a better use of the net, and it's a better use of your time. If you expect anyone to experience 9/11 in the city where it happened and not be upset, I put to you that there is something strangely missing in your emotional make up. To put it another way: you are not like the others in ways you really, really should be.
As far as being a "shaman" in a religion close to baha'i is concerned, please put that one back in the dark, moist cavity where you found it. One of your last notes points to your stating that you are in Canada, and considering the nature of the Baha'i faith and the persecution, murder and second-class citizen status of members of your religion in Iran following the 1979 revolution, your choice of positions to support is at best odd and at worst psychotic.
Your stated position regarding 9/11 calls forth this statement: "the Ayatollahs in Iran have to protect themselves from Baha'i and all it's expression, the torture and murder is justified and good."
As far as my attitudes are concerned, you should sharpen the accuracy of your reading. I have nothing against any faith that I am willing to do anything about. You can practice Islam, Baha'i, Christianity or Buddhism and, so long as this faith reflects your actual chosen beliefs and it not imposed on you from without I will hold my nose and recommend to any who listen that you should be left in peace.
9/11 was not anything like a polite expression of cultural difference but an act of overt warfare by one culture against another and if you believe otherwise--if you believe my anger is groundless due to some state of airy, nebulous abstraction on your part--then we have to return to the comment above about your being psychotic.
We're done. You've won the flame war you wanted. You're not worth the energy except to say that you've enlightened me: before, I believed that there was and would always be only one Canadian I disliked, now there are definitely two.
Good thing you're not in the states: you're the only person I've ever heard of whom I'd rat out to the Ashcroft crew.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
I think today I'm better equipped to answer the question when someone ponders aloud "Why do they hate us???"...saw the movie today and was in tears at least twice. Once when the Iraqi woman was mourning her family's loss and once when Lisa was doing the same...
The pain of losing a loved one is the same in any language or culture, and Moore's movie showed the human side of the war.
A must-see!
"He's written for the Nation since '82"
Since when does that make him an automatic liberal?
"And Michael Moore is certainly grotesquely fat."
Which has nothing to do with anything he says, the books he writes, or the movies he makes. Hitchens doesn't seem to know how to attack his ideas so he attacks his weight.
BTW I don't know if there is anything more grotesque then hitchens sweaty pockmarked face. The man is Butt Ugly.
evil is as evil does
will he get an award for best actor?
You are confusing the fact that the US is a country founded on the Constitution guaranteeing freedom and justice for all with select people.
The Constitution of the US intends to guarantee freedom, justice, free speech and other great ideas, but laws are powerless by themselves. Their application depends on the will, the skill, the honesty of those who are responsible to defend those good laws, citizens, judges and politicians, policemen, journalists.
Democracy is fragile, however wonderful the texts are.
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
michael moore rocks!
I looked at the reviews of the book. I decided not to include it, for now, because I haven't read it yet.
Well, you did "go into it" and managed to weaken your position by betraying a highly partisan opinion (e.g. "All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try" - gee, maybe he was getting a blow job, or busy being the victim of a Republican witch hunt, or just an evil, Godless man. Your "subtle" inference is blindingly clear).
There was nothing subtle intended nor implied. I wasn't there when Clinton made the decision not to do anything in Rwanda, and even if I were, I can't read people's minds. Because of those two reasons alone, I could only guess why he didn't do anything.
I brought up Rwanda and Sudan to support the fact that there exists no clear precedent for declaring war based on the prevention of human rights abuses.
So what? Precedence has to start somewhere. The US Supreme Court had absolutely no precedence when they decided that prayer didn't belong in school in 1963 (in fact, for a hundred years, the Supremes were on record stating that the Bible should be taught in school). Just because there's no precedence for something doesn't mean it's not right to do it.
The human rights issues you continue to cite as justification are not the case that was presented to the American people and the world and never have been the primary justification for any U.S. or U.N. military action.
You asked how -I- justify Bush's actions. It doesn't really matter what Bush said to justify his actions, since you don't believe him anyway. If I were to get a book from Dub-yuh explaining the whole line of reasoning he had in invading Iraq and present it to you with a pretty ribbon on it, I seriously doubt that you'd look at it as anything more than fire fodder. It's kind of like the way I see Moore's movie: it's just a movie, and as such, it shouldn't be taken very seriously. The boy cried wolf too many times in the past. Why should I believe him now?
What about China?
Think about what you're suggesting. China has enough soldiers in their army so that if the world were to try to go against her, they could surrender and STILL have people left over to fight, if one assumes one soldier could guard 500 prisoners of war. Trying anything (conventional) against China, for any reason, is folly.
I wasn't aware that Palestinian suicide bombers were a threat to the U.S., directly or indirectly
There are US citizens in Israel all the time. When the suicide bombers kill (or "just" injure) innocents, sometimes some of the victims are American. That makes it a threat to the US. Violence does not need to occur directly on American soil to be deemed a threat to our security.
It's not left-wing spin to point out the fact that almost all of the Al-Queda terrorists were Saudi and none of them were Iraqi.
This just came out on Yahoo!/UK, and I thought it was interesting (albeit marginally relevant to the point). As for the tie I was referring to, I set out to get a name (I'm thinking about someone that was about four levels down on the chain of command). I didn't find that name, unfortunately, but I did find this, which I think you might appreciate. It's got a lot of information that seems to support what you've been telling me, and I'm going to read through this. It may not shift me completely to your side, but (judging from what I've glossed over) it might bring me a bit closer.
I supported the idea of threatening Hussein with military action to get the inspections program back on track.
So what's the problem? Saddam balked on his responsibilities to his people with regard to the terms of the end of Desert Storm. The threat was there, and the UN was sitting around doing nothing. A few members of the UN (US, UK, Australia, to name a few) decided to do something about
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Thats being said, I think we are walking down two seperate paths here. I don't think for a minute more has to live like those he claimes he is for, i don't think there is any problems pocking fun at them either, were my disagrement is, that he is only pretenting to be a liberal to ride the coat tails of the movment for his own personal gain. It is apearant in his works, his actions, his speaches and about anythign else i see him doing. Maybe we just arent comunicating along the saem lines or i am just reading too much into your comments here. perhaps i'm not expresing myself the way i desire either.
Now onto the jucy parts.. I understand your feelings about 9/11 and what has happened since then. I also understand how some of this might have changed in the recent months. I lost some family in the same place but i didn't have to stay near it for months on end.
As for Iraq? I'm not sure why that is even on your radar? Only the press and bush bashers have tried to make the tie between 9/11 and iraq. Bush only stated that they had ties to terrorism and alquida the same as clinton and gore said in the 90's. Even rusia's Vladimir Putin says there were links and sadam had unacounted for his WMD's.
Well yes i like the tax cut and NO they are not hurting the cities and states. The governemt was never designed for the states to be funnded by the federal taxes. It always was and is still supposed to be the state and cities funnding themselves. The tax dollar is spent more efficiently this way and you the taxpayer has more control over what it is being spent on. The federal government shoudl not be in a psoition to take money from the states unless the states agreed to it in the first place. There is nothign stopping the states from taxing the people in anyway shape or form to achive what it's goals are. Thats the way it should be and is supposed to be. Besides, i don't believe that the tax cuts enacted by bush are actually hurting the states. Hell only 30% of the cut are actually actiuve at this point in time, the rest are supposed to come in over a period of time.
No i don't think there is a problem with organizing a religous group in the workplace if, it is not done on work time, and the employer sin't expected to give them a place to meet. None of that is going on, the rule stops employers from firing people because theya re asociated witha religous group that might have others in the workplace. BTW it is and was ileagle to discriminate based on religion in the first place so were is the beef unnless you ar e one of those that can't stand someone because they found god and it made them happy enough you noticed.
hmm.. prosecuting medical marijuana is practicing the rule of law. You can't have it both ways with the governemt giving the states all thier money and then complaining about sta
No kidding. What did people expect him to do? It's not like there was anything he could have done *at that very moment*. Why not just finish wrapping up some time with the children.
The Bin Ladens and the bushes have always enjoyed a close relationship.
But the point is... how the fsck cares? This isn't evidence of a conspiracy. This isn't evidence of malfeasance. This isn't evidence of shenanigans.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It's highly unusual. It sticks out like a sore thumb and demands a second look.
If it was nothing nobody would be curious about it.
With this administration you don't need to go far to find malfeasance or shenanigans. 9/11 was the biggest failure of intelligence in the history of our country and not one person was found responsible nor did one person lose their jobs because of it. If that's not malfeasance I don't know what is.
evil is as evil does
ah...if you noticed in the film, he didn't even pick up the kids book until after he was told the 2nd plane hit the building.
lacking anyone to tell him what to do...he took comfort in a kids book for 7 minutes.
But the best part was that he had cut funding for counter-terrorism a month prior. duh!
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
You said: I don't need to see F911 to know that it is nothing more than the same hack wannabe demagoguery and villification of his political targets that he's always engaged in.
This is a F911 discussion. Why are you even posting? You must get all your news from Fox and probably listen to Rush every day. No, I shouldn't jump to conclusions about your character, age etc, but close minded people are ruining this country and most don't even realize what they are voting for. The same people listening to Rush are slamming Moore as too far left. This is a joke!
Are you familiar with "Neo-conservatism" and their agenda (even before Sept 11), do a search on that word and look at what you find. This documentary on PBS is a must see It talks about what really happened after the first Gulf war and how GW Bush was hand picked to run for president to implement and press forward the Neocon agenda. The agenda would not be supported by the American people if it wern't for Sept 11. Many of my friends and I have been talking about the Neocon agenda ever since GW Bush ran for office. The word "Neocon" used to only be mentioned in the underground and by folks on the far left. But now, the word is starting to be used by all types of individuals who understand who is behind this administration and what they really stand for. I consider myself as as Independent that swings democratic because I believe in their social values and the clean separation of church and state.
I found that F911 is only the top layer on what many sources have been saying for years. Michael Moore just bundled some shock and humor around the story. The Bush Administration is really hating this movie because it presents the information in an easy "connect the dots" type of fashion where normally the dots were hard to connect from merely watching the news media every night. When some leftist folks take the theories too deep and start to speculate, this is where they start to twist the facts and the information becomes suspect. For me, I don't have to take it much deeper after I understood all the connections and the real high-level agenda of the Neocons. Again, I'll be the first one to agree that this is a partisan movie, but the information given is simply overwhelming to all people who see it, no matter what party they come from. I want to see the Republicans and the Bush Administration refute the facts of the movie with specific, intelligent answers...not just an attack on Michael Moore's character....he is not running for president. If the facts he gives cannot be discredited with intelligent rebuttal, and so far they have not, then who cares who or where they came from?
It simply amazes me how many conservative/religious folks follow Bush based on one topic; he claims to be a born-again Christian and he is an anti-abortionist. I like to quickly point out that his policies and his actions on the World stage are anything but pro-life and conservative. I firmly believe that Jesus would not agree with this administration's actions. We just can't go forward any longer openly announcing to the World that we are the "chosen people" and using words in public speeches like "Crusade". Jesus taught us to love and accept others, not to divide, label, or try to convert them. This is my main problem with organized religion....Using Christianity as an example, Jesus forged the thinking and ideas that make up the foundation of Christianity. But, humans made up all the rules from there, changed them to control the masses and/or their political agenda, and really skewed what Jesus originally stood for. This is the position held by most modern historians. This skewing and intolerance for other religions and races is responsible for the loss of more lives than anything else throughout the history of man (whether the intolerance comes from Christianity or any religion for that matter).
If you don't want to argue any of the specific facts in F911 then you a
OK, then to restate my point, I'm sure you won't read anything into it if I say that I can only guess why Bush is making the decision not to do anything about the genocidal atrocities being suffered by thousands upon thousands of Sudanese as we speak.
I think that's a bad example.
You're talking about either Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which banned official, teacher-led, prayer in school or Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963 which held that students could not be forced to recite the Ten Commandments before school. Now I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but these rulings were based pretty squarely on the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.") and were limited to banning state-sponsored religious practice (i.e. every student is and always has been free to pray in school as long as it is their choice rather than the government's). This is not an instance of precedence starting "out of nowhere" - it's a Constitutional interpretation. Your parenthetical statement about the Bible tries to argue that a contradictory precedent had been established. However, prayer is a religious practice, normally demonstrating an endorsement of a specific religion (I think you're splitting hairs if you want to get into defining "non-denominational prayer" and whether it relates to an "establishment of religion"). Studying the Bible in school can clearly be defended as a worthwhile educational exercise. Even as an atheist, I commonly turn to the New Testament - and even quote it from time to time - as a unique source of profound wisdom and guidance on ethical, moral and philosophical matters. I believe this is essentially what at least one of the Justices you have in mind was talking about. The Bible is also an important source of historical information. Prayer is none of these things. It's the acting out of religious conviction. Therefore, I would argue that previous rulings on the role of the Bible in school have nothing to do with coerced prayer in school.
Having said all that, yes, of course precedence does have to start somewhere. It sounds like you're not arguing with the view that Bush has established new precedent with the invasion of Iraq. I'm trying to figure out exactly what that precedent is and what logic it's based on. Many if not most of the key points (WMD stockpiles, ties to Al-Queda, imminent threat to U.S., etc.) presented by Bush as justification have turned out to be false or, at the very least, highly and irresponsibly exaggerated. When our government effects a major shift in war-making policy (i.e. ignores or significantly deviates from the precedent of going to war only to defend the country), it's our duty as well as our right to ask hard questions and demand justification. This is war we're talking about after all, not a tax cut. War, due to the unique sacrifices and suffering it entails, always demands justification.
And I thoroughly responsed to each of your justifications, which you are not continuing to defend. Then I moved on to talk about how Bush himself justified the invasion. That's hardly an illogical or misleading "leap" on my part, and it's most definitely not irrelevant.
Video showing a great quote from Bush:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the eleventh"
now you know.
That was an asinine use of a mod point.
How classic. Demanding a decent wage and first world standard of living is evidence of lazyness. There is no doubt in my mind that it is your economic privilage affords you this attitude, rather than worldly experiance in a factory or third world nation - such as France.
Because you could afford to go to school, or had the smarts to work some sort of job that affords you stocks, you have the gall to classify yourself as the epitomy of work ethic.
Is that why you're posting on slashdot at 11:53am on a monday morning?
Pukes like you make me aboslutly sick. Thinking you have the right to exist an exploit whatever resource you can due to your economic influence - including people. There's no use explaining the idea that the company's right to exist is founded just as much in its role as a provider as to it's own self interest, because your too narrow minded to see past your own self interest.
Really, I'm astounded that in this day and age, this sort of arrogant social classism is allowed to exist at all. You think one particular career path has the monopoly on work ethic? Or that just because somewhere in the world some impoverished bengledeshi will be willing to do it for a dirt cracker that means it's lazyness and communism to provide the working class with good living conditions?
You deserve to sew T-shirts in guatamala for a few weeks. See if you can even keep up with them - then come back here and make those claims again. I'm sure they'd fire you too.
I pooped my pants.
Political expediency.
Some scapegoat had to be bombed, some hapless schmuck had to be nailed to a cross, and the Afghans were the best candidate: they were incapable of effectively fighting back, they were incapable of withstanding invasion, and they were harboring a known terrorist who was believed to be (and in fact actually was) connected with the 9/11 atrocities.
If you think about it, these three things (especially that last one) are valid reasons for invasion. Only one of these reasons can be applied to Iraq, obviously - that they were incapable of resisting invasion.
Hmmmm.... I didn't sleep through the buildup, unlike "Rice, Powell, Rummy, and friends" as you put it; I was aware of the threat from bin Laden because Bill Clinton had already warned me about him, and I was aware of the goings-on in Afghanistan because I was already helping Afghani orphans more than a decade ago.
I was worried when Reagan sold the Saudis cruise missiles, too; in fact I didn't particularly like a having a bunch of djellaba-clad wahhabists in my control room during solid rocket motor tests.
But apparently these foreign policy geniuses you mentioned are still trying to figure out why Islamic fundamentalists are targeting the major funder of Zionism, and still unable to come up with any useful response other than stripping Americans of traditional freedoms.
Zionist Israel and the Mossad in conjunction with the American Secret Government orchestrated the 9-11 attacks.
John F. Kerry is made president, people believe in him and will follow him with renewed energy. He has Jewish blood lines, and Zionist support, and so can be counted on to continue support to Israel.
Is it just me, or is this guy talking like he wants to fire up Auschwitz?
Absolutely not!
But I cannot say the same for the Rothschilde-financed Zionist creation called Israel, which is effectively putting all the 'eggs' into one basket for later termination.
Israel is being led by the Zionist agenda into deliberately turning world opinion against the Jews. When the time comes, it will be very hard to stop Israel from being wiped off the map despite the many Jews who are deeply opposed to the Sharon government and its murderous, Zionist agenda.
One of the goals of the Powers That Be is to destroy all with semitic blood, both Moslem and Jew. The current ploy is to turn everybody against their brother through false-flag operations, like 9-11, and a vast portion of the 'terrorist' attacks and suicide bombings happening around the globe. --You'll notice that in virtually every each case, suicide bombings derail peace processes just when they are threatening to go somewhere, and only serve to worsen world opinion of the groups which are supposedly attacking. --Which is, of course, the real goal; to keep the fear of terrorism alive and well so that control over the human race can continue to clamp into place.
When you want to wipe out a whole race of people, peace and civility are not desirable. --Amazingly, everybody falls for such simple tactics, despite the simplicity and historically proven methods of such secret operations. For some reason the thought of one's own government bombing its own people is considered 'beneath' anybody. (Despite the fact that Bush and Sharon and their kind obviously don't care about scruples or morality; why would they stop short of such incredibly effective tactics?)
Another tried and true tactic to keep people from looking at the obvious is the oft-invoked, "One Must Never Criticize the Jews!" line. The Mossad is one of the most prolific and powerful secret organizations on the planet. Do some investigation into this, and you'll quickly begin to understand how it all works.
-FL
Where is the conservative mantra "let the market decide," now that the Fahrenheit 9/11 has broken commercial records? The market has decided in favor of this movie and against mainstream corporate propaganda. The right-wing shibboleth of market logic--if it has the moral force conservatives insist that it has--stands as a stunning refutation of attempts to suppress this film and to deny its credibility.
Another point: if the war in Iraq really is a war to liberate the Iraqi's from an oppressive regime, or a war on terrorism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with oil, then why not pass a law prohibiting U.S. concerns from profiting from the oil in the region? In addition to a separation of church and state, there should be a separation of corporations and state. The pursuit of freedom, democracy and justice must not be tainted with corporate interest.
The Man Who Knew.
The irony of the situation is that this FBI agent suspected that Al Queda would attack the WTC again and when he quit the FBI he got a job as the Chief of Security at the WTC.
One of his friends asked him the night before 9/11 (and I'm paraphrasing) "John, when are they going to attack?" he replied. "I don't know when but soon."
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
You can have all the pieces of the puzzle and still not know what you're looking at. Furthermore, just because he knew, doesn't mean everyone that needed to know knew. We have a horribly inefficient buraucratic law enforcement system designed to slow down and stop the spread of information at every turn. And it's this way by design and the demand of the american people. Just because he "knew" doesn't mean shit. Crack pot theorists "know" that aliens are in roswell, and that a hollogram really hit the trade centers. His job was to study Al Queda, so you can be damn sure he thought he "knew" everything. But that doesn't mean the people at the top saw his knowledge as the most valuble.
Besides, I can tell you right now that tomorrow I will attack a public building in NYC, and I could tell you that it would be sometime during the 10 AM hour. I would bet my life that even with that knowledge, you still couldn't stop me.
Knowing that something will happen, and knowing when where how and who are two very very different things.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
"That's only PART of the problem. I really love the way you liberal anti-Bush folk love to over-simplify.
;-)
If we tried to park a satellite over a country we wanted to watch, it would last about as long as it took for that country to (1) realize it was there and (2) shoot the thing out of the sky. That would be a tremendous waste of time and resources, and it really doesn't solve anything."
*cough*
Good thing you said it about the over-simplifying!
Otherwise, one would expect you to do a prime example of it, considering that even a superpower would have trouble just shooting a geo-stationary satellite out of space.
Dude... you must be joking. Iraq didn't and doesn't have the possibility to do that, not by a long shot (no pun intended). they weren't even able to send anything in low earth orbit before the war and the sanctions, let alone afterwards.
But, hey, keep out an eye for those people that over-simplify!!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---