I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11...
- Thread starter Monkey
- Start date
- Status
NoTime4LoveDrJ
New Member
I wouldn't call Bush intelligent, unless his typical air of ignorance is a farce, which I sincerely doubt.
Michael Moore is an extreme leftist (And I hate labels such as this, so my saying it means even more) and thus, he is biased. But honestly, the things he fights for are things every human being should want. He's against pointless wars, such as Iraq, but for wars with a point, such as Afghanistan. If you saw the movie, you would note that his complaints were with the way the administration handled Afghanistan. As quoted in the movie, Manhattan has more police officers than Afghanistan has American soldiers. Of course, that was applicable when the war first started, but isn't very probable at this point. All of his books and documentaries, even way back to "Roger & Me" had something to do with voicing the feelings of the underdog. Illustrated once again by Fahrenheit 9/11, the sons and daughters of the elite aren't the ones fighting and dying for their cause. It's the poor, the disenfranchised of our nation that are willing to put their lives on the line for someone else's agenda. Maybe because they're duped, maybe because they're bored, but mostly because they don't feel that slaving their lives away for minimum wage, just to subsist, is worth doing. You will never see Bush say his daughters are going to enlist for the war he wanted, but it's okay if your kids want to step up, by all means.
He did a great job to put this movie out when he did, right before elections. As Pokemom said, my attendance was just preaching to the choir... But every showing so far has sold out, showing that people may have finally started to wake up, since they opted to see this instead of "White Chicks". And in the full theater that I attended, at the end of the movie, it got thunderous applause, and all I could think was that if every person there, even one, went into it not knowing who to vote for, and this film helped them decide, then it was worth it. Moore has even said he wants this movie to be the thing that unseats Bush, since Kerry has no real steam, and he has no position other than, "Vote for me because I'm NOT George W. Bush."
It's really too bad, though, that people will bash others here because of their desire to see human rights maintained. Every person in this country should have healthcare, but they don't. This is the land of opportunity, and yet a good portion of the people here have no money, and they live in tiny apartments, or are simply homeless. We spend billions of dollars in "defense" to attack other countries for no real reason, because the Iraqi people are far from free, and we still haven't found those weapons of mass distraction. I support the soldiers for doing what they have to do, and in fact, a lot of them don't want to be doing it. But many of them signed up in peacetime, under Clinton. No one thought this was going to happen. But it did, and now those men and women are stuck there, in a country unrelated to September 11th, and for what?
And to all the foreigners here, Bush says that the events at Abu Ghraib aren't a reflection of America. Believe me, George W. Bush isn't a reflection of America, either. Hopefully, come November, you'll all know that.
Unlikely, though, with electronic voting machines with constant glitches and no paper trail. Sorry, didn't mean to conspiracy theorize. I'm such a liberal.
Patriarch, how does he try to make himself look big? If you saw Bowling for Columbine, this is probably what you're going by. Do you think he was just having fun when he went to K-Mart's headquarters asking to return the bullets that were still in the victim of Columbine? Or when he tried to question Charlton Heston for having NRA rallies immediately after school shootings? These are honest questions that most people will never be able to discuss with such people. He's trying to prove a point, and if the kid who got shot wasn't sickened by it, I don't see how you could be.
Michael Moore is an extreme leftist (And I hate labels such as this, so my saying it means even more) and thus, he is biased. But honestly, the things he fights for are things every human being should want. He's against pointless wars, such as Iraq, but for wars with a point, such as Afghanistan. If you saw the movie, you would note that his complaints were with the way the administration handled Afghanistan. As quoted in the movie, Manhattan has more police officers than Afghanistan has American soldiers. Of course, that was applicable when the war first started, but isn't very probable at this point. All of his books and documentaries, even way back to "Roger & Me" had something to do with voicing the feelings of the underdog. Illustrated once again by Fahrenheit 9/11, the sons and daughters of the elite aren't the ones fighting and dying for their cause. It's the poor, the disenfranchised of our nation that are willing to put their lives on the line for someone else's agenda. Maybe because they're duped, maybe because they're bored, but mostly because they don't feel that slaving their lives away for minimum wage, just to subsist, is worth doing. You will never see Bush say his daughters are going to enlist for the war he wanted, but it's okay if your kids want to step up, by all means.
He did a great job to put this movie out when he did, right before elections. As Pokemom said, my attendance was just preaching to the choir... But every showing so far has sold out, showing that people may have finally started to wake up, since they opted to see this instead of "White Chicks". And in the full theater that I attended, at the end of the movie, it got thunderous applause, and all I could think was that if every person there, even one, went into it not knowing who to vote for, and this film helped them decide, then it was worth it. Moore has even said he wants this movie to be the thing that unseats Bush, since Kerry has no real steam, and he has no position other than, "Vote for me because I'm NOT George W. Bush."
It's really too bad, though, that people will bash others here because of their desire to see human rights maintained. Every person in this country should have healthcare, but they don't. This is the land of opportunity, and yet a good portion of the people here have no money, and they live in tiny apartments, or are simply homeless. We spend billions of dollars in "defense" to attack other countries for no real reason, because the Iraqi people are far from free, and we still haven't found those weapons of mass distraction. I support the soldiers for doing what they have to do, and in fact, a lot of them don't want to be doing it. But many of them signed up in peacetime, under Clinton. No one thought this was going to happen. But it did, and now those men and women are stuck there, in a country unrelated to September 11th, and for what?
And to all the foreigners here, Bush says that the events at Abu Ghraib aren't a reflection of America. Believe me, George W. Bush isn't a reflection of America, either. Hopefully, come November, you'll all know that.
Unlikely, though, with electronic voting machines with constant glitches and no paper trail. Sorry, didn't mean to conspiracy theorize. I'm such a liberal.
Patriarch, how does he try to make himself look big? If you saw Bowling for Columbine, this is probably what you're going by. Do you think he was just having fun when he went to K-Mart's headquarters asking to return the bullets that were still in the victim of Columbine? Or when he tried to question Charlton Heston for having NRA rallies immediately after school shootings? These are honest questions that most people will never be able to discuss with such people. He's trying to prove a point, and if the kid who got shot wasn't sickened by it, I don't see how you could be.
Last edited:
Since posting a url and saying "go read this" isn't allowed on the 'Gym apparantly, I'll copy and paste it. It's a conversation in son-questioning-father fashion about Iraq. Thought about making a new thread about it, but I decided we don't need two topics going when there's already one thread loosely going about a similar topic anyways. Original link here: http://www.nerdysouth.com/index.php?artc=70&
Last edited:
TeamRocket4Life
Member
Just to clarify, i'm joining the Army Reserve once i graduate from Lawrence Tech.
And another thing. It's fine to disagree with the actions our government has taken. But there are other people (and branches of government) making a lot of decisions here besides President Bush.
And the decisions he does make rely on intel from our own agencies and that of our allies, not just what he personally knows.
Finally, I find it humorous how it seems that those (Mr. Moore included) who claim President Bush is not intelligent at all will also claim that he's the mastermind of this "conspiratorial administration". Quite contradictory.
<edit: whoa, about Iraq not using WMD's to defend against the invasion, think about it.
Using WMD's in your own country would be suicide. Not defense.
People also accuse Pres. Bush of pulling out of the Kyoto treaty. Actually, Clinton never sent that to Congress to have it ratified. Thus we never entered it.
Personally, i'd like the rule reinstated. I haven't enjoyed coming here since the DMA arguement, even tho i agreed with the majority that it shouldn't exist. I hate thinking of political ideologies when i see someone's screen name. I don't like getting angry about this, but i also don't like seeing my side go undefended. Maybe i should permanently retire from the RTC section.>
And another thing. It's fine to disagree with the actions our government has taken. But there are other people (and branches of government) making a lot of decisions here besides President Bush.
And the decisions he does make rely on intel from our own agencies and that of our allies, not just what he personally knows.
Finally, I find it humorous how it seems that those (Mr. Moore included) who claim President Bush is not intelligent at all will also claim that he's the mastermind of this "conspiratorial administration". Quite contradictory.
<edit: whoa, about Iraq not using WMD's to defend against the invasion, think about it.
Using WMD's in your own country would be suicide. Not defense.
People also accuse Pres. Bush of pulling out of the Kyoto treaty. Actually, Clinton never sent that to Congress to have it ratified. Thus we never entered it.
Personally, i'd like the rule reinstated. I haven't enjoyed coming here since the DMA arguement, even tho i agreed with the majority that it shouldn't exist. I hate thinking of political ideologies when i see someone's screen name. I don't like getting angry about this, but i also don't like seeing my side go undefended. Maybe i should permanently retire from the RTC section.>
Last edited:
annisarich
New Member
Michael Moore made his fame in a film that "made fun of GM" .
It actually painted only a grim picture on a proud town that was starting to rebuild.
His film helped destroy his home towns recovery and created a false image nationally about his home town.
The only one who benifited from that film was Moore. he is a self serving jack......
This from the Washington times.
Link included : http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
****The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.
****Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
****In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
****Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
****The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
****The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
****The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
****Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
****To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
****Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
****He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
****He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, "*'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"
It actually painted only a grim picture on a proud town that was starting to rebuild.
His film helped destroy his home towns recovery and created a false image nationally about his home town.
The only one who benifited from that film was Moore. he is a self serving jack......
This from the Washington times.
Link included : http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
****The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.
****Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
****In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
****Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
****The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
****The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
****The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
****Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
****To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
****Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
****He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
****He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, "*'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"
Knowing that the Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon's Unification 'Church', I wouldn't consider them a reliable news source...
JMHO,
'mom
JMHO,
'mom
Orange Soda
New Member
Sorta related news:
Iraqi sovereignty handed over two days early
I won't quote the whole thing, but basically the new Iraqi Government leaders decided to do this to show that they were ready for the job. Sounds like a good plan.
Iraqi sovereignty handed over two days early
I won't quote the whole thing, but basically the new Iraqi Government leaders decided to do this to show that they were ready for the job. Sounds like a good plan.
Last edited:
cattdreams
New Member
good, bad, ugly, whatever.
So how much money you think moore is making off this flick? pretty good marketing releasing it in election year.
also, anyone know when the "michael moore hates america" documentry is going to be out? I thought it was comming out around the same time but havnt seen it anywhere...
So how much money you think moore is making off this flick? pretty good marketing releasing it in election year.
also, anyone know when the "michael moore hates america" documentry is going to be out? I thought it was comming out around the same time but havnt seen it anywhere...
One thing I'm wondering about, though; what will Moore do after Bush? Say Bush loses the November election. If he does, I can't imagine him running for a later term, so it'd effectively be the end of his career. What about Moore?
Will Moore bow out as well? I find that highly unlikely. Moore is in this for the long run. I get the impression that he thrives on the sort of attention he recieves. Will he target Kerry? If Kerry turnes out to be little different, perhaps. Moore may fall back on his old standbys; social and corporate America. Neither are as glamourous as bein a high-profile political heckler. He'll have to find a new target in this case. He may just have to become a sort-of background noise to the American administration, constantly complaining about how miserable it is, sort of like an extreme American Rory Bremner (British impressionist; he's quite good but not really controversial).
Will Moore enter politics himself? There's a thought. Say he defeats his nemesis Bush. Say Kerry doesn't prove to be much different. Will Moore then enter politics as the Third Man, a sort of Ross Perot that actually does stuff? I doubt it. He's married to the media of mudslinging spectacle. Politicians cannot operate like that; it's far too divisive.
He could maybe even self-destruct. He's a foil to Bush, but Bush is also a foil to him. Without Bush, it's very hard to picture Moore at all. That F911 movie poster is more prophetic than he knows; he and Bush holding hands. Moore must retain the spotlight. He's the shock-jock of politics. It's almost an addiction. He can't join the establishment. That would be selling out, no matter how much he might plan to rock the boat once he boards it.
I can't wait to see what happens, come November. If Bush wins, we'll have at least another four years of Moore. If he loses, then things could get interesting in the Moore camp.
Will Moore bow out as well? I find that highly unlikely. Moore is in this for the long run. I get the impression that he thrives on the sort of attention he recieves. Will he target Kerry? If Kerry turnes out to be little different, perhaps. Moore may fall back on his old standbys; social and corporate America. Neither are as glamourous as bein a high-profile political heckler. He'll have to find a new target in this case. He may just have to become a sort-of background noise to the American administration, constantly complaining about how miserable it is, sort of like an extreme American Rory Bremner (British impressionist; he's quite good but not really controversial).
Will Moore enter politics himself? There's a thought. Say he defeats his nemesis Bush. Say Kerry doesn't prove to be much different. Will Moore then enter politics as the Third Man, a sort of Ross Perot that actually does stuff? I doubt it. He's married to the media of mudslinging spectacle. Politicians cannot operate like that; it's far too divisive.
He could maybe even self-destruct. He's a foil to Bush, but Bush is also a foil to him. Without Bush, it's very hard to picture Moore at all. That F911 movie poster is more prophetic than he knows; he and Bush holding hands. Moore must retain the spotlight. He's the shock-jock of politics. It's almost an addiction. He can't join the establishment. That would be selling out, no matter how much he might plan to rock the boat once he boards it.
I can't wait to see what happens, come November. If Bush wins, we'll have at least another four years of Moore. If he loses, then things could get interesting in the Moore camp.
Last edited:
Hey, Monkey,Monkey said:
We have "Roger & Me" which is Moore's documentary about the decline of Flint, MI after GM shut the plants down, and Moore's attempts to interview the CEO. LMK if you want to borrow it.
My brother is supposed to be heading out for Iraq next month, and no, he's not one of the Haliburton employees making lots of money. You know those assault vehicles that kept rolling over in the sand dunes after they put armor-plating on them as an afterthought? He's a cook attached to that unit.
:unknown-b
JasonthePwnda
New Member
Michael Moore is a n00bish *****. All he wants to do is cause controversy with fake info and misrepresented facts. Anyone can make anything sound good if they're biased. How about the million or so people who watched Gigli? Obviously, most of them thought it was good because of the biased facts.
- Status