Fahrenheit 9/11

[Matt]

Also I dislike people who throw their opinion onto other people while being so blatantly rude. It is alright to criticize somebody’s work but not the person!

Bush is an idiot! We need to get this stupid person out of the white house

(I paraphrase)

I really didn't think this film was that biased,

He didn't need to say many words. Michael Moore looked through all the things that Bush has done and chose images that would make him appear to be a bad president, and slap them together in a movie. Why didn't he show Saddam getting captured by American troops? Why didn't he show any speeches where Bush didn't look like an idiot? One can argue that it is composed of all facts, but it is only the facts that support Moore's opinion, therefore making it a biased movie.

[420FootBager]

Facts can be stated differently in a documentary but when you take facts and make assumptions to make someone look bad that is slanderous and wrong.

Saying Bush was hiding because he went on vacation is ridicules. Making assumptions is one thing but making negative assumptions and stating them as facts is slander.

[420FootBager]

good point Matt

[Shaun]

Opens up here on Friday, I might go see it along with Spider Man two.

[sPinko-Mania]

Michal Moore is a moron he makes no real solid points ever and he NEVER debates ANYONE......

As the other guy already mentioned, calling him a moron helps no-one, especially yourself. Yay for partisanship, he makes some points man, some of them are solid some are not. He's not the reincarnation of Christ come to rid ourselves of the warmonger Bush, nor he is a commie who hates America and just wants to see Americans dead. The inability of people to get away from gross polarities when dealing with Moore and other political pundits astounds me.

he truly must hate our country...... R any of you aware that if John Kerry wins our country will become a member of the U.N. officially and u YES YOU could be sent across sea's to face an international court for a big crime????

Haha, you are already a member of the UN and have been since its conception. YOU would only be held accountable to an international court if you committed some international crimes I would assume, it's not like all the citizens whose country support international courts are being tried there all the time, they have domestic legal systems for normal crimes. Oh, and accountability is not a bad thing - it would be nice if America could be held accountable for what is happening at Guantanamo for instance.

Kerry is a socialist..... plain and simple.

I'm not quite sure you understand what that word really means since you used it like that, it's very much not plain nor simple. Basically every politician (except some out there Libertarians, have socialist tendencies). Everytime you use a service provided by the state (yes this includes simple things like roads) this is a OMGEVIL socialist service basically, the degree of this tendency of state ownership and administration decides if you are a 'socialist' or not. I assure you, that Kerry (hell, anyone that is going to be president in the states in the next 100+ years I'd wager) is not a socialist, in relation to current global political climate or historically speaking.

This statement is also ridiculous considering how Bush is the biggest of big government Republicans as it turns out.


You are right about Moore being deceptive, though you could have used more damning examples; there are plenty about BFC around that I assume you've seen. Basically the documentary was very shadey. I thought that Roger and Me was pretty good though, and enjoyed The Awful Truth the most out his work. I plan to see this, it sounds a lot better than BFC.

In regard to if these are docos or not: I don't think that Moore's work is so far out of line as to merit a new genre. His films are based on documents. Moore's interpretation of them is biased, but this movie by the sounds of it is entirely based on documentary material. A film can be propaganda and a documentary at the same time, and you can be a bias documentarian the concepts are not mutually exclusive. Also, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would like to have a word with you

"To accounce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally reasonable to the American public'" - Teddy Roosevelt, 1918

[HighDemonslayer]

What's wrong with people objecting to contributing to the wealth of a man who travels the world telling anyone who'll listen what idiots WE are?

I don't want to contribute to the profiteering from footage of weeping 911 victim family members. Are those family members going to get a cut from the movie? Don't hold your breath.

Would iyou be choosing ignorance if you don't go and pay to see an upcoming movie about Moore's arrogance, hypocracy, and elitism.

Some people buy tickets to a different movie, and then slip into to see "Fahrenheit...."

-n

[HighDemonslayer]

Here's one of Tsiangkun's posts from this thread, "documented" by me in the style of Michael Moore:

---------------------------------------
Moore show(s) Bush , a traditionally good leader, leading his country. He portrays Bush as a leader who can handle the pressure of his job when the going gets rough. The facts are facts.

You may feel that Bush is a great leader , many people do . . . Moore is just presenting his interpretation of his opinion. It's an opinion of satire. The facts are still facts, you might agree with his interpretation of the debate.

I really think this film was biased, moore says maybe 1000 words in the 120 minutes . . . it's all other peoples words put together into a story that often times requires leaps of faith. Not correct, his opinion.


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


Who knew Tsiangkun was such an ardent Bush supporter?


That was fun. I should make "documentaries" for a living.

-n

[bigdirtyfoot]

Wow. Okay ... let's see. IF there was a movie about Moore's opinion, or any pro-Bush movie, that would be educational, regardless of possible bias, of COURSE I'd go see it... I'm not about to become ignorant about issues just because of my misplaced pride. No one on this board should either. Of course, it's still your choice to see the movie or not, and I'd totally respect you if you didn't want to see it, but to say that you don't want to see it because you don't want to give any money to Moore, seems highly immature and insensible. Now, if you want to, go ahead and sneak right into the theater and see the movie. I can't stop you from doing that... that's your choice.

Why should the family members get a cut of the profit of the movie? It's Moore's movie. He's making a documentary, so he's using real people. They're not crew members or actors; they don't get a paycheck.

Now dude, I'm not saying that Moore is all that great or anything, but I respect the guy because he has an opinion and he chooses to do something about it, regardless of how biased it may seem... at least he's doing something.

[MegaFighter_X]

Also, somewhat on topic, Bush is using 9-11 as a campaigning tool. Shouldn't the family's get money from that? If Moore has to give money to them, then Bush should too. Then those families would have some insane royalties and join the rich like Moore AND Bush.

I've yet to see the movie, and I will eveuntally see it. What I do know, however, is that President Bush is a flat out fucking liar. He lied about why we went into Iraq. He lied about the economy. He lied about giving funds to schools. When all is said and done, there is no possible way he could be good for our country. Ever. He attempted trickle down economics... That didn't work out so well in the 30's, didn't work 20-30 years ago, and it's still not working now. But before I go into a big spat about the economy based solely on my opinion, I'm going to cut this paragraph o-

Moore doesn't debate anyone possible because he has no need to. He's not the politician running for office. And his way of attacking those against him is not unlike the president and his administraton. Perhaps a little less personal. If you want proof, what about that CIA dude who's wife's name they "accidently" slipped. If you belive that was an actual accident, How about after Paul O'Niel released his book, The Price of Loyalty? Same thing with Richard Clarke. He produced a book against Bush, and he starts getting attacked. I see parallels between Bush and Moore in this case.

This isn't going to change my want to get Bush out of office. Moore's movie was meant to be a shit stirrer. And well.. he got what he wanted, didn't he? He roused opinions. Weither or not you want to support him by seeing the movie or sneak in or kill a democrat or republican or a bug or what not, you have to admit that he created some dissenting opinions. And that is what Americans need to do: stop going with the flow and get their own fuckin' opinion.

[HighDemonslayer]

I heard there is lots of blatant close-ups and excessive hovering of their weeping in the movie. Is this true?

My slam was on Moore, for profiting from their grief.

I am not trying to say that the victim's families deserve money from Moore.

I think they deserved nothing in compensation from the taxpayers.

The airline should have been sued (out of existence if necessary).

You shouldn't have it both ways. If you are not willing to be sued for pulling suspect middle-easterners from flights, then you should be sued for what your politically-correct policies allow.

--------------------------------------
I could be wrong about this, but I've heard that it was an airline attorney who forced suspicious airport security officers to allow the hijackers on that plane.

All the red flags went up.
-No luggage
-Possibly no identification
-One-way tickets purchased with cash, the day of the flight (purchases that are supposed to be illegal)


Security had no intention of allowing them to get on the plane. Officers pleaded with the attorney to keep them off the plane.
But the heroic lawyer stood up and made sure they were allowed on.

If this part is true. wouldn't you be curious to know the name of that specific attorney or attorneys, so we can 'look them up" sometime.

Or maybe they should be congratulated, for fighting the good fight againt racial profiling. Because after all, 3000 lives are worth nothing if you had to racially profile.

-n

[sPinko-Mania]

What's wrong with people objecting to contributing to the wealth of a man who travels the world telling anyone who'll listen what idiots WE are?

Show me when he says this and I will agree with you. Moore, like most political speakers, is identifying problems with the current way of doing things and sometimes suggesting we do something else. If you are unable to take this criticism, then you are worse off than someone who can take it. If you disagree with the criticism, then explain why. But saying:

Would iyou be choosing ignorance if you don't go and pay to see an upcoming movie about Moore's arrogance, hypocracy, and elitism.

Is choosing ignorance. Because you won't know if its hypocritical or not unless you see it. If you don't want to see it that's fine, but you are unable to make judgements about this movie if you have not seen it, it's that simple.

PS - This just in, CNN made some dough from the 9/11 attacks, infact every disaster that they cover makes them money, and they don't give that money back to the victims or their families. More at 11 as the story develops.

[HighDemonslayer]

That's a good point MegaX, but Bush doesn't make money from commercials that show the burning towers. And his commercials don't show close-ups of weeping families. And the taxpayers already paid millions of dollars to the undeserving families.


That CIA chick who was outed is still an unfinished story.

If an intellegence officer's husband is a rabid president-basher, wouldn't that be reason enough to pull her clearance or fire her? Could his zealous Bush-hatred compromise important intellegence that she has a history of exposing?

Did she expose her undercover status to him on their second date, before they were married?

Sounds like a careless security risk to me.

I'm suprised the intel. communty didn't make both of them "disappear".

We still don't know who leaked the information. Robert Novak knows. The truth is unimportant, as long as the administration can be blamed.


Let's not forget the last administration,.
O'neill and Clarke would have ended up dead or in prison for such disloyalty.
-----------------------

Pinko: I am looking for overseas Moore quotes right now.

-n

[HighDemonslayer]

Here's a link to a PDF file from the guys over at moorewatch.com

http://www.moorewatch.com/f911flyer.pdf




The part about bin Laden's family flight were interesting. Isn't Richard Clarke a hero?

[420FootBager]

First off the U.S. is not a full member of the U.N. we are involved and a contributer but not a member. We are a member of NATO however.

Kerry is a socialist in the modern sense of the word he belives in socialized medicine and many other ideals like it. I do not want to pay for people to lazy to work.

To say that using roads is socialist while it is a true statement is off topic and you know it. Socialism as with everything else is not just a definition it can not be taken at face value and must change with the times. In my opinion Kerry is a modern day socialist.

And no, if I am in America and commit a international crime of some kind I will remain in the U.S. unless our corrupt government sees fit to turn me over to forign governments. Please learn facts before you make statements like that.



People please remain open minded.... I am not saying you should not go see the movie. I will see it myself. You must be informed to have a ligitament opinion on anything.

[Matt]

but I respect the guy because he has an opinion and he chooses to do something about it, regardless of how biased it may seem... at least he's doing something.

A guy brought up a good point at jazz camp - Isn't it scary that Kerry has not made it clear at all of what he is going to do and change if he becomes president. Isn't a leader with no direction worse than Bush at least has an opinion and a plan and acts on it? It's relatable to jazz, It's better to play loud and with passion, even if you play wrong notes, than to play timidly and always "in".


Moore shows all the images of dead children in Iraq and people saying how much they hate the war, but not of the people thanking us for getting saddam out of power and freeing the country.

[bigdirtyfoot]

I DO agree with that in a way, Matt. Kerry's plan should be noted somewhere easy for the public to find (Watch someone show me or something). But I DON'T think that that makes Bush's "case" any better at all. Nice Jazz reference though . I don't trust Kerry much at all... I'm going to probably be voting for neither Bush OR Kerry this year... which is cool, because it'll be my first chance to vote . Sad that I know the outcome is going to suck either way.

[Tsiangkun]

Actually, Moore wouldn't bastardize my post like that. He uses the real words of other people, and interprets them. He doesn't change the words to say what he wants, He shows the words and explains how he hears them. *Big Difference*

But Moore isn't giving a speach or a comedy show, it's a movie, so it comes across as he twisted facts because he presents them so you can feel the anger he feels, and see the world as he see it. If you go in expecting facts to be twisted, your missing an opportunity to actually gain an insight into how the otherside thinks. It's not twisted facts, it is how it is for a significant portion of the people you share this country with. If there was a liberal bias in the media, then there would be no way for a liberal documentary to be the number 1 movie in a country. A majority of the population is feeling starved for information by the most secretive administration the USA has had, and apparently this film is giving us something that our nation media failed to deliver.

[sPinko-Mania]

First off the U.S. is not a full member of the U.N. we are involved and a contributer but not a member. We are a member of NATO however.

Last time I looked the US was not only a member, but a permanent member of the security council. It appears this is still the case

Kerry is a socialist in the modern sense of the word he belives in socialized medicine and many other ideals like it. I do not want to pay for people to lazy to work.

Does that make Canada a socialist state? Considering the healthcare there. My point is at what degree you call someone a socialist? The US also has some limited form of welfare, so socialist tendencies != socialist.

To say that using roads is socialist while it is a true statement is off topic and you know it. Socialism as with everything else is not just a definition it can not be taken at face value and must change with the times. In my opinion Kerry is a modern day socialist.

It was very much on topic, I thought I had explained why. The line where you can label someone a socialist is obviously blurry and you are right in that it changes with the times. My point was that politicians who should be fairly labelled as economic centrists or flat out right wing capitalists, very often want the state to run certain things like post offices, power, national parks, roads and so on. Now, does this mean that anacho-capitalists and far right libertarians who don't support these things can call these people socialists? Of course not.

So here you have Kerry, not advocating for a widespread state ownership of the means of production by any stretch of the imagination. He is just subsidising things a bit more than the other guy, but nowhere near as much as socialist parties would want.

In the West, the level of subsidisation that Kerry seems to be calling for in healthcare for instance is not that left leaning. This is why I laugh at the idea of Kerry being called a socialist. If he came into the political spectrum here, he'd be right wing, and I think the same is probably true for much of Europe. It's just the American politics between the Big Two, are concentrated to a small area of the right of the spectrum so the labels of left and right, socialist and capitalist gets all disjointed.

And no, if I am in America and commit a international crime of some kind I will remain in the U.S. unless our corrupt government sees fit to turn me over to forign governments. Please learn facts before you make statements like that.

The point of discussion was if you were a member of the UN you would have face international courts. It's not that you're not in the UN, it's just that you don't accept the rulings of the International Court of Justice anymore. See you did, until it ruled against the US, when the US got slammed for funding terrorist Contras to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua. See: Iran Contra affair.

So yes, if the US did accept the rulings of the international court (which it did before the early 80s) you would have to the Hague to stand trial. You would be 'turned over' to a coalition of governments including the US, and a US judge would always be one of the many present.

[ShredNJ]

I think everyone has forgotten who attacked us and why. It's to bad that none of us really knows anything. Half of us are over come by fear and the other half are to closed minded to see that we are not superior and that we should pay for crimes that we commit.

[ShredNJ]

But than again, what do i know.