Fahrenheit 9/11
 

Just got back and all I have to say is wow, great, great movie.

I don't care if you're republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, whatever, everyone should do themselves a favor and watch this movie.

I've never been at a movie before where the audience applauded at the end, and loudly! Some people even stood and clapped.

This movie will make you laugh and make you want to cry, sometimes both at the same time.

Anybody else see it yet? Your thoughts?

It could be as u said a great movie but I have never nor will I ever support anything Michael Moore is involved with. I mean the man makes a living off the misfortunes and hatred of others. I can think of atleast a couple dozen other ways off the top of my head to spend 2 hours of my life w/or w/o spending the 10$ required to see his "movie." I go to movies to escape how crappy and screwed up parts of the world is, not to have one side of a certain story shoved in my face no matter what amount of actual facts go into making said movie. I'm probably in the minority in this way of thinking, but why would I want to go to a movie that's gonna make me hate someone else? whether it's Moore or Bush, people r gonna come out of the movie hating one or the other and that just perpetuates(sp?) the increasing differences and difficulties between right and left wing people. a majority of people with moore's way of thinking r probably gonna see this as the god's honest truth, but everyone knows that the truth often makes a boring story/movie and thus it's spiced up/tweaked a little. if he'd made a movie that wasn't from such a one-sided view of the story, I'd probably have been atleast intrigued about the movie, but it's not and thus it hasn't. but yeah, that's my :twocents: on the subject.

I look at it like this. Most people are going to go into the movie thinking one way, maybe you're liberal minded or maybe your more conservative. Either way, you're most likely going to walk out of the movie still thinking the same way. If you're liberal the movie will only reaffirm your thinking that Bush is an idiot and the U.S. needs to get the hell out of Iraq. If you're conservative, you'll walk away cursing Moore and calling him a liar, or something along those lines.

I think the hope is that the people in the middle, the people who don't vote, who don't "care", will take a side, no matter what side that is and get out and have a voice in November.

I like the fact this movie has stirred up so much controversy. We need more healthy debate in this country, we need more people to stand up and question authority. We need more pissed off voters.

skinsfan: you think of Moore constantly published bold faced lies the Bush family wouldn't take him to court for slander in a second? They'd gladly sue him if they had a leg to stand on, unfortunatley, they don't.

Michael Moore is always seen as one sided by those who don't read his books or movies. Is he very opinionated, yes. Do you have to look through a few things, yes. However facts are facts and he uses them to his advantage. In "Stupid White Guys" he goes on for quite some length blasting Clinton and Gore for their mistakes too. He's not a hardcore Liberal, he's just completely anti-bush, which isn't an uncommon sentiment.

I haven't gotten to it yet, but I plan on going this weekend. From what I hear it shows real war footage, the dead children in the orphanages and weddings we bomb. If you don't want to see that, perhaps you shouldn't support doing it.

[QUOTE=Daseal]skinsfan: you think of Moore constantly published bold faced lies the Bush family wouldn't take him to court for slander in a second? They'd gladly sue him if they had a leg to stand on, unfortunatley, they don't.

Michael Moore is always seen as one sided by those who don't read his books or movies. Is he very opinionated, yes. Do you have to look through a few things, yes. However facts are facts and he uses them to his advantage. In "Stupid White Guys" he goes on for quite some length blasting Clinton and Gore for their mistakes too. He's not a hardcore Liberal, he's just completely anti-bush, which isn't an uncommon sentiment.

I haven't gotten to it yet, but I plan on going this weekend. From what I hear it shows real war footage, the dead children in the orphanages and weddings we bomb. If you don't want to see that, perhaps you shouldn't support doing it.[/QUOTE]

do u know what would happen if every president sued someone for slander? there'd probably be thousands of people sued each term if not each year. I probably wouldn't worry about sueing either cuz that would mean I'm stooping to their level and giving them the satisfaction that they got to me. it'd also add more hype to something that probably wouldn't be getting anywhere near the same reaction if it wasn't coming out so close to the presidential election.

I said I for one don't know what of all the things moore says r lies or the truth and none of us r ever gonna know every detail. I'm not the biggest Bush suppporter, but in my mind he was the lesser of two evils between him and Gore and now him and Kerry. Gore honest to god scared me with his robotic reactions and he and Clinton's whittling down of the military and our intelligence groups. and I believe if he'd been president during 9/11, we as a nation would have fallen into complete dissiray and as much as some people probably don't like admitting it, Bush provided a reassuring voice to help keep the nation strong. And now all I hear from the news about kerry is him talking about problems he see's with Bush as president, but yet no solutions to fix said problems. He never really seems to take a solid stand on many of the important issues. I would like to hear him talk about programs and steps he'd take to fix some of the things wrong with the country but like I said all I hear him say seems like adult versions of name calling on the playground.

and why would I want to see footage of these bombings? does he have footage of all of the mass graves found in iraq or the torture sessions? and let's not forget that the militants and terrorist groups in Iraq have been using heavily populated areas to hide in as well as using women and children as shields. is there gonna be a movie about that?

I believed in getting saddam out of there and while I'd have prefered it didn't have to come as a result of war, it did so I supported our troops. so I guess we should have let saddam keep killing and supressing his own people and hope that he suddenly comes to his senses.

I don't remember anyone talking about the intelligence russian president putin, who was against the iraq war, said that they'd gotten info that saddam's regime had made plans to attack both civilian and military targets of the US.
[url]http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/979/news/n_12787.htm[/url]

and now there is Iraqi intelligence from the mid 90's of contact between Saddam and Osama in an attempt to attack the ruling Saudi family. I realize that's almost a decade ago and plots against another country, but there r atleast some ties between the two "men" which a lot of people have strongly argued against. I'm not saying they were co-criminal masterminds/psychopaths, but there r connections people can't deny now if this evidence holds up.

[url]http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2233943,00.html[/url]


hardly anything is cut and dry no matter how much some people on either sides of various topics may wish it to be. I for one hope I stay in the middle like I am now cuz I try to see the strength and weaknesses of both sides of both the problem and the required solution/s. I'm praying for the day that there is a real candidate that isn't set towards one side of the line's mindset. and angry voters with blinders on isn't the answer. intelligent voting is. I 2 like challenging authority to right wrongs and fix problems within the system and hopefully one day there will be someone who is willing to do that from the inside.

Don't forget the US mass grave newsweek reported where we ship "prisoner" (mostly locals that haven't done anything wrong) in airtight crates and there are always a few the suffocate each trip.

Also, there were plenty of connections between the Bush's and Osama in the mid 90's. And the US even trained and supplied Osama even earlier than that. As long as he's killing Russians, we're down with terrorists, right?

The reason he'd sue Michael Moore is this is a huge movie, if he could discredit it they would do it in a second.

if you want objective reporting here: [url="http://www.thislife.org/ra/266.ram"]http://www.thislife.org/ra/266.ram[/url]
its an hour long radio program about military contractors in iraq, they talk to real people, they don't make the plot and only fill in the facts that fit their view ;)

the problem with moore is he is horribly one sided, his stance is that you agree with him or you're stupid. His movies do NOT bring debate, they bring fist shaking and name calling, but they tend to be divisive and not much more. Its like taking ann coultier at her word... its a bad idea (she's the ultra right wing nut job chick).

seriously, moore rampages into major corporate offices unannounced demanding to speak to the president/CEO within the next 5 minutes... it looks really nice on film ("oh my god, they must be hiding something"), but think about it... it makes no sense to expect anyone to accept a hostile interview that's gauranteed to edit you into a raving monster. You know why moore tries to stay out of other peoples films? it's because he's afraid they'll use the same tricks he does, and he rather not be on the receiving end.

and war sucks, people die, shit happens, maybe expectations of a zero casualty, no innocent death war should be re-examined... if you're not up for it, then don't vote for the people that thought it'd be a good idea... in the presidential election, both kerry and bush said yes to war. I personally think the world's better without saddam, but the contingency and long term planning weren't done properly, and its turned into a bigger mess than was planned. Kerry waffles, Bush lacks long term vision, no one is perfect, life sucks, deal :D

daseal, people will discredit it, and the right wingers will say, see proof!, and the left wingers will ignore it. people will believe only what they want to believe, and not that many people actually care about the truth as much as saying they're right.

I havent seen the film, and i havent looked for reviews of its accuracy, i really don't care, its a biased production (not leftwing/rightwing, but my opinion is the only one that can be right), and therefore uninteresting.

i found this much more interesting:
wmv broadband: [url]http://http.dvlabs.com/gnn/asx/gnn/redux_bbX.asx[/url]
wmv lowband: [url]http://http.dvlabs.com/gnn/asx/gnn/redux_medX.asx[/url]
qt hi: [url]http://guerrillanews.com/redux/qt_hi.html[/url]
qt low: [url]http://guerrillanews.com/redux/qt_lo.html[/url]

Of course Moore's movie is one sided, should it be anything but??

He's trying to show the other side of things, does anyone think that our mainstream media is not also one sided??

People want to say why doesn't Moore show what Saddam did to his people, the gassings, cutting off people's hands, etc. Well that's because our media has that area well covered. What our media hasn't shown us is our soldiers coming back with missing legs, soldiers in VA hospitals pissed off about the war, families having to deal with the extreme grief of losing their loved ones and over what? Our government shoving democracy down another country's throat when they clearly don't want it?

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Of course Moore's movie is one sided, should it be anything but??

He's trying to show the other side of things, does anyone think that our mainstream media is not also one sided??

People want to say why doesn't Moore show what Saddam did to his people, the gassings, cutting off people's hands, etc. Well that's because our media has that area well covered. What our media hasn't shown us is our soldiers coming back with missing legs, soldiers in VA hospitals pissed off about the war, families having to deal with the extreme grief of losing their loved ones and over what? Our government shoving democracy down another country's throat when they clearly don't want it?[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't know what news u r watching, but those seem to be the headlines almost every night. every time there is a story about the war, it's never put in a positive light and every episode of world news seems to have atleast one story or punchline with a negative viewpoint towards the current administration.

daseal: that may be the case with there being ties between Osama and Bush just like we unfortunately put saddam into power, but ties have been severed between the two just like they could have been severed between saddam and bin laden. and to be honest I never heard about those "prisoner crates" with "innocent locals" which is kinda suprising cuz I would think that there would be something about that in the news for a while.

bottom line is that sure Moore probably believes what he says in his movies, but he also knows that his movie will strongly appeal to roughly half of the country as well as european countries currently filled with not only anti-bush people but anti-american as well. So he knows he's making a buckoo amount of money retelling quite a bit of stuff that's been relatively old news. He's playing off of people's hatred and ignorance just like he has with his other movies. some may see that as being a good business man or "showman" but personally it disgusts me. like others have said it's just the fact that his story is so narrow-minded in its viewpoints of the story. if this was a movie heavily in favor of bush I'd be skeptical about it 2 cuz for the complete story u can't have all of the facts and stretched facts coming from a one-sided viewpoint.

yeah, matty... i see amputies and stories/photos of bombings and wounded iraqees everyday in the news... i've seen plenty of pissed off families complaining loudly too. I've also seen a lot of sensationalism in the news about how horrible it is or how much iraq's people hate is which don't really measure up to the people i've talked to that have been over there.

But moore's flogging a dead horse isn't he? he hates the war, he hates bush, he wants him out... does the film offer any solutions to the problem? does it pinpoint exactly what went wrong and how it could have been done properly (actual analysis, not just war sucks, say no to war or other generics)? or does it just show lots of images meant to upset people for sheer shock value?

on a side note, i'd like to thank everyone on the few political threads for not resorting to flames and name calling so far... usually that happens pretty fast for certain topics ;)

Moore is an ambulance chasing puke.

10's of thousands were out of work in the Auto Industry and what does he do? Makes a movie and makes a tone of money and fame.

2 Crazy kids in Columbine kill many kids and to motifies the community and the nation and what does Moore do? Makes a movie and makes a tone of money and fame.

3,500 plus people are killed in the Twin Towers and close to 1000 in this war and what does Moore do? You guessed it. Makes a movie and makes a tone of money and fame.

I bet he's at home wishing for another American tradagy he can capitalize on.

You think he is hoping more for a Nuclear Plant to be struck by the terrorists or maybe California to fall into the sea?

He's a man with no honor and none of my respect as a man or a human being.

But that's just my opinion.

peace to you bro
mike

AH, to live in interesting times! Man, do I miss the 90's when all we cared about was blow jobs and a blue dress...

Satirist, political pundit, self-promoting opportunist, gifted film-maker, jerk, self-hating American, all of the above, whatever you want to say about the guy, he gets people talking. He's won the Academy award, the Palm D'or, he created the biggest grossing documentary film ever, etc. Somebody out there likes him, and it's not JUST the French. I think he's preaching to the choir here, and in a rather shrill tone, but that seems to be the order of the day. Civility is out; diatribes are in. It's an election year in wartime.

Sammy fan: I kinda liked Roger and Me. Do you really think he made that one just for money and fame?

I haven't seen F 911, and I'm not sure if I will, at least in the theatre. But I read that the best part (far better than the Bush-Osama stuff) is when he's dealing with soldiers and their families. Is that true, Matty? What is that like?

Matty,

I strongly disagree with your statement that the media is one-sided. The media is one-dimensional in the sense that they sensationalize, obscure facts to make a compelling story, oversimplify everything, and generally appeal to the lowest common denominator, but they are far from one-sided.

Fox news is unquestionably conservative, but the rest of the "mainstream" TV media is very, very liberal. Bush is strongly disliked by just about everyone in the media. Just about every TV anchor and TV producer supports democrats. Op-ed pieces in the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times (arguably the three big newspapers) always endorse democratic candidates in presidential and congressional races. Talk radio is unquestionably conservative. Hollywood is very, very liberal. So, I'm not sure how you can say that the media is one sided (conservative or liberal).

As for Michael Moore, I'm going to see his latest since he's entertaining. I liked Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine, so I'll see F9/11. However, I'm going to take his film as entertainment and nothing more. He does not make bold faced lies; he makes misleading insinuations, exaggerates, cherry-picks the facts, oversimplifies the complex, and makes no effort to be objective (even if an objective approach leads him to an anti-war conclusion). In sum, he's just like President Bush.

For example, in Bowling for Columbine, do you remember the nuclear missile plant scene. HE was interviewing a man working at a missile plant and asked him where he thought Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris came about to use violence. The man, who had a missile behind him, said no. Funny stuff. But, what Moore didn't say was that the missile plant didn't produce ballistic missiles designed to deliver nukes; the missiles delivered sattelites to space.

Another example of how Moore misleads his audiences can be found in F9/11. Granted, I have not seen the movie, but I have seen interviews in which he discusses the movie. He goes to great lengths to make some insinuation that because the Bush Administratin had links to the Bin laden family. What the fuck does that mean? Is he saying that Bush wanted 9/11 to happen? Is he saying he was in cohoots with Osama? OF course not. Instead, he tries to make the audience associate Bush with Bin Laden. What he doesn't mention is that it was Dick Clarke, who Moore calls an American hero, was the man who ordered the Bin Laden family out of the country. Does Moore think Dick Clarke was "in on a conspiracy?" Then why is he an American hero after he attacks Bush? Clarke was an anti-terrorism expert. Do you think Clarke was an Al Qaeda operative?

Moreover, Moore made no mention that all 135 Saudis who were allowed to leave the country were checked to see if they were on any terrorist watchlist. Moreover 30 of the 135 Saudis were interviewed by FBI agents.

Also, Moore fails to mention how big the Bin laden family is. Osama is one of what, 40 siblings? Also, the Bin Laden family is perhaps the most influential family, outside of the royals, in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, anyone doing business in Saudi Arabia is likely to deal with the Bin Ladens, in one capacity or another, at some point. Finally, the Bin Laden family has publicly repudiated Osama's activities. Some of the "Evil" Bin Ladens the Bush administration, or actually Dick Clarke, let out of the country were respected members of the Harvard community who donated millions to the school.

Moore's funny, not politically astute, honest, or objective.

[QUOTE=That Guy]yeah, matty... i see amputies and stories/photos of bombings and wounded iraqees everyday in the news... i've seen plenty of pissed off families complaining loudly too. [/QUOTE]
you'll see plenty of stuff in this movie that you definitely do not see on TV, trust me

I find it kinda funny how quickly we turned our attention away from Bin Laden and instead went after Saddam, despite the fact we have never found any weapons of mass destruction.

The truth is we'll never find Bin Laden, why? Because we're not trying to.

So where are these weapons that Saddam had anyway? Weren't they a huge reason we went in there in the first place? So now that we can't find them (because they didn't have any to start with) we instead hear the administration write it off with excuses, 'well, the world is a safer place now that Saddam is out'. Is it really though?? Anti-american sentiment is more heated than ever. The middle east is still a war zone, americans are still being killed, beheaded, etc. 911 was this administrations' perfect excuse to invade Iraq so baby bush could seek revenge for his daddy. He wanted to go in there before 911, so this was a convenient reason to justify it.

Bush is dragging the U.S. down the crapper. I really don't understand people that can stand by and support this buffoon.

Did anyone catch it when Bush totally butchered trying to pronounce 'Abu Ghraib'??

Just embarrassing, man. Totally embarrassing that this is the leader of the free world.

Why is Moore not allowed to make money off his work? That somehow discounts what he does? Because he makes a living off it?? I've never understood that arguement.

So is he somehow worse than some rich CEO who doesn't give two shits about his employees and moves operations out of the US and deserts the community that helped make him successful?

At least Moore is out there trying to be part of the solution. I just don't understand the excuse that Moore is somehow in the wrong because he makes money.

That's always the two cracks on Moore I hear from people who are against him. They either crack on his weight or the fact he makes money from his work. Both excuses are pretty lame in my book.

Moore's profits are nothing compared to what US corperations stand to make off the rebuilding of Iraq. That's the real crime. And meanwhile we the taxpayers will be picking up the war tab for generations to come, while the corporations will profit and on top of that, not pay taxes.

I have no doubt that Bush is a poor President. However, the more the rest of the world talks about how Bush is stupid, and how Americans are dumb for supporting him, the less likely I am to vote for Kerry.

I especially hate it when Europe lectures us about how we lecture others and are too arrogant. The Europeans talk about liberty, freedom, and how they are against American Imperialism. Yeah, they are ones to talk. France has no business lecturing us about how to treat the rest of the world. France pissed on North Africa and Indochina for so long, I don't think they have the right to tell us shit. Their occupation forces were far less gentle than ours are (and ours aren't always nice).

Everytime some moron in Paris waves a Communist flag or Palestinian flag whenever Bush goes to Europe, I want to contribute some extra dollars to Bush 2004.

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]

Another example of how Moore misleads his audiences can be found in F9/11. Granted, I have not seen the movie, but I have seen interviews in which he discusses the movie. He goes to great lengths to make some insinuation that because the Bush Administratin had links to the Bin laden family. What the fuck does that mean? Is he saying that Bush wanted 9/11 to happen? Is he saying he was in cohoots with Osama? OF course not. Instead, he tries to make the audience associate Bush with Bin Laden. What he doesn't mention is that it was Dick Clarke, who Moore calls an American hero, was the man who ordered the Bin Laden family out of the country. Does Moore think Dick Clarke was "in on a conspiracy?" Then why is he an American hero after he attacks Bush? Clarke was an anti-terrorism expert. Do you think Clarke was an Al Qaeda operative?

[/QUOTE]The Bush and Bin Laden families have an undeniably strong relationship. It's been well documented in several publications. One of the better reads being here, I highly suggest this book. Moore isn't "trying" to associate Bush with the Bin Laden family, he's only pointing out the obvious.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074325337X/qid=1088291685/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-3833522-5234212"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/074325337X/qid=1088291685/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/103-3833522-5234212[/url]

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Why is Moore not allowed to make money off his work? That somehow discounts what he does? Because he makes a living off it?? I've never understood that arguement.

So is he somehow worse than some rich CEO who doesn't give two shits about his employees and moves operations out of the US and deserts the community that helped make him successful?

At least Moore is out there trying to be part of the solution. I just don't understand the excuse that Moore is somehow in the wrong because he makes money.

That's always the two cracks on Moore I hear from people who are against him. They either crack on his weight or the fact he makes money from his work. Both excuses are pretty lame in my book.

Moore's profits are nothing compared to what US corperations stand to make off the rebuilding of Iraq. That's the real crime. And meanwhile we the taxpayers will be picking up the war tab for generations to come, while the corporations will profit and on top of that, not pay taxes.[/QUOTE]

making money off the misfortunes of others is wrong no matter who's profitting from it. and how is perpetuating the rift between the two main political parties a solution?
and we turned our attention away to a degree from bin laden because saddam was more accesible. plus we don't know with a 100% certainty that bin laden is still alive.
and yes some us corperations r going to make money from the rebuilding of iraq but so will some european nations as well and allowing the iraqi people to finally control their most valuable oil exports will not only help the us but the entire world against the oil strangle hold OPEC holds over the world. people talk about Bush being a oil hungry "tyrannt" and that may be so to an extent but he's nothing compared to OPEC.
I'd like to know when it was exactly that europe as a collective started hating the us. the hatred/jealousy was there before the latest war in iraq 2. That entire continent would be under one flag if it wasn't for what our country did for them both finacelly and militarily. As u said ramseyfan the British and the french as well as the spainards have no room to preach on the etiquite of imperalism.
right now our country is seen in a bad light by the world mostly because of our current administration, but I have honestly seen or heard nothing from kerry that tells me we'll be any better under an administration lead by him.

[QUOTE] Did anyone catch it when Bush totally butchered trying to pronounce 'Abu Ghraib'??

Just embarrassing, man. Totally embarrassing that this is the leader of the free world.[/QUOTE] he should be voted out cause he stumbled on a couple words?

and war profiteering is bad no matter who does it. the corps however are doing a job that they were asked to do and needs to be done, not shoving divisive tragedy in our face at 10$ a pop. I really don't see how moore is trying to be part of the solution though... is he giving money to charity? again, did he offer any solutions at all? or just a lot of complaining that bush sucks and everything he does is wrong?

if you think corporations don't pay taxes, uhh... you're a bit wrong ;) and if you don't like outsourcing, then don't buy from walmart... the reason the jobs move overseas is cause the american public wants things cheap, and the price pressure to remain competitive is pretty high. It's cause we're victims of our own high cost of living.

and you mention how much the contractors are making... its because a few years ago people thought downsizing the military would be a good thing... so now it costs up to 10x as much to get private contractors to do the same work that the military would normally be doing. If we hadn't downsized the military, we could stay deployed for 30 more years and still be ahead at this point. At the time congress and others felt it'd be a good idea, in hindsight, its wasting a lot of money.

as far as WMD, they've found some chemical crap buried under sand, and they may have been TRYING to make nukes, but they didn't have any that i'm aware of, and i do think bush did probably have a little bit of a revenge/crusade idea going, but i doubt that was the main reason.

the bin laden family is NOT = to osama bin laden btw, that's like saying you're going to shoot up a school cause some other american did.

I'd also like to say the our first amendment and the sensationalist news America broadcasts is one of the main feeders of anti-american sentiment. I know people in germany during the whole east coast-west coast rap deal that thought it was a bloody civil war. Some others i've talked to in sweden thought that all americans were like the (scripted) ones they saw on jerry springer.

and again, having an open mind is hard, because it means that you can be wrong... that doesn't sit well with most. matty, you seem to be a bit on the defensive, just know that i'm not aiming anything at you, just airing my thoughts and seeing where they go ;)

Of course I'm on the defensive, I'm defending my views just like everyone else is doing.

I'm always open to other's opinions, as wrong as they may be. LOL

This is why I usually shy away from political discussions. It's best to just agree to disagree and leave it at that. My views aren't going to convince anyone else and vice versa.

I'd much rather discuss football anyway. Discussing politics only brings my blood to a boil.

Well, Matty, it's good that we're holding this discussion out in the "parking lot"!

I actually think this is one of the more civil discussions of F-911 I've seen. Try watching FOX! LOL

Keep it up Matty. Defense wins championships, so how bad can being on the defensive be? ;)

It seems to be conservatives get super defensive when Moore's name pops up. Maybe because he shows everything they don't want to see, and the conservatives don't have anyone on their side willing to be a propaganda machine.

I also noticed someone said earlier if we want a new President than we should vote the current one out. Problem is, a majority of Americans didn't feel he was fit for the job, but he got it anyways. Thank you Supreme Court.

The supreme court didn't have the power to decide the outcome, only oversee how the voting was carried out, by that time, there wasn't much to do. The electoral system isn't set up for a true popular vote, and you can write in to try and change that, but its not really broken (at least not enough) that anyone is going to care to fix it.

and believe it or not, moore's shown me absolutely nothing i haven't already seen (damn intarweb), sorry to disappoint ;)

[QUOTE] I'm always open to other's opinions, as wrong as they may be. LOL[/QUOTE]
and even though that may be in jest, i figure its actually pretty true of most people, cause meanful discussion take a very long time, and its just too much of a hassle for most, so everyone's content to shake fists and go their own ways ;)

I really haven't been on the defensive either, i've just been asking, how would moore FIX the problem besides bitching about them? What kind of specific solutions did F911 offer besides a generic ditch bush?
No ones bothered to respond to either of those yet though...

I think the big problem is that he completely ignores any side to the arguement except his own, and that's why he gets so much ire. He went around asking congressmen to sign their kids up for war, and besides the fact THAT YOU CANT SIGN OTHER PEOPLE UP FOR SERVICE, a few said they did have kids over in iraq (and they conviently got edited out of the movie) among other gimmicks. He doesn't actually say anything untruthful, but his selection of facts is very one sided and misleading, trying to play on people's ignorance.

If I were to quote ann coultier or rush limbaugh/O'reilly, i'm sure you'd shoot it down for the same reason, its one sided biased crap that doesn't really have anything new to say. There's also [url="http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/"]http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/[/url] which is actually a look at moore's claims and responses to them.

btw, i'm not voting for kerry or bush, i don't like either one... they both kinda suck in their own way ;) so i'll probably throw it away on mccain(R) - sen. arizona or eliot spitzer(D) AG - NY (because i believe they both care more about issues than platforms).

The solution Moore is trying to put on the table is a new President. He, and many other Americans feel that this is the best way to help ourselves, especially in the foreign policy field. Something which Bush sorely lacks.

So the movie is a political paid advertisment by the democrats.

zzz

how is kerry going to help though? his big complaint is the war is a mess, but kerry hasn't offered any answers on how to fix that (kerry was all for the war too)... and i doubt moore is asking you to vote for anyone but kerry, since he's one of only two people capable of winning. Seems odd, but i'll leave it alone ;)

RamseyFan: A 2003 Stanford/UCLA/ University of Chicago study found that Fox News is the most centrist news organization.

As for Moore, I won't watch his movie where I have to pay money in order to obtain viewing rights. Part of that money would end up in his pockets, and I don't want that to happen. So, I'll probably wait until my school's library has it on file, and then watch it.

Here's a review from a noted leftist.
[url]http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723[/url]

Great quote from that article:
"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."


lol
TrueDat Boo!

peace
mike

great find cpayne5

cpayne, Fox news may be centrist, but some shows like O'reilly, and hannity & colmes really aren't (yeah, hannity has a dem on there, but he's kind of a pushover)...

Very nice Slate piece. That guy does not like Moore (and personally, it seems), but any Moore supporter must take these sorts of factual criticisms seriously. Otherwise, what's the point?

Still, I found it interesting that he made no mention of the mother from Flint whose son dies in Iraq. Many commentators have cited this as the real power of the film, and the part most likely to stick with folks, even those who disregard the conspiracy stuff. (I haven't seen it, so I only speak about it from a distance.)

As for FOX being "centrist," I wonder if someone could please point out a conservative news source for comparison. Rupert Murdoch's papers throughout the world have very conservative editorial pages (see, eg, The New York Post); further, as noted, the commentators on Fox News are considerably more conservative in their outlook than other news channels in this country. While their presentation of news updates, etc., may well be "centrist," their spin of the facts in discussion (yes, even in the "no spin zone") is decidedly to the right. I have no problem with the claim that most news sources tend to be liberal. (I think it's because people going into journalism tend to look up to the Woodward and Bernstein, investigative hero model, rather than because of some liberal left conspiriacy. I am skeptical of conspiracies in general.) Still, why not just admit that FOX is on the right, and take that as a guide to interpreting their reporst and comments?

I advise everyone to cross check their news as often as possible. It's truly enlightening to see the same story reported from a number of different sources. That's as easy as fliping between the major news sources on TV, or clicking on the google news tab, and checking the story in a number of online sources. Check it out, and try clicking on the "and 543 related", etc., links below the lead stories. It hooks with everything from the ravings of al Jazeera to the moderate centrism of Murdoch's FOX.

[URL=http://news.google.com/]Google News[/URL]

[QUOTE] (yes, even in the "no spin zone")[/QUOTE]
uhh... especially in the no spin zone, i don't think anyone is going to argue that O'reilly clearly leans to the right ;). The slate article also does seem to spend a lot more time targetting moore than F911 specifically, but that may just be to prove a pattern (or he may just really really hate the guy)...

I get the washington post and the washington times (owned by the very right wing Mr. Moon i believe), and it is interesting to see how they headline some of the same stories.

When you're comparing Fox to NBC, CNN, CBS, etc, of course Fox is going to seem to more aligned to the right, but by saying that Fox leans heavily to the right (off center) you're not taking into consideration where those other news organizations are in relation to the center. You're looking at a part of the picture and not the whole picture by doing that.

Heh, I love how O'Reilly always calls himself independant, and talks about how he doesn't support either party. I don't know if I've ever heard him say a liberal thing during his radio program. I normally listen to it 2-3 times a week (I hate him, but a guy at work listens to it and I enjoy hearing the news from another angle.)

No spin zone, don't make me laugh. Is it possible to really have no spin when you really think about it??

I'm not a fan of O'Reilly at all, (hard to believe I know)

But I do watch him from time to time, I do appreciate his point of view and I can respect his opinions. I just wish he wasn't such a bully at times, that's usually when I flip away.