Fahrenheit 911 comes out today, and I am encourageing everyone to go and see it. To get a different view on politics and the way the country is run. Also if you do get to go see it post what you thought about it. I would really like to know other peoples opinon on the movie and the subjects in involves. :thumb:
I was browsing www.somethingawful.com but I think this is great… I think it depects the attitude of the troops…
Whoa!
Took me a while to read through everything… So far I’ve seen fallacious arguments gallore. I have seen this movie 3, yes 3, times. No, not because I think Michael Moore is a prophet, only because I had to see it with different groups of friends, and once with my father. SOOOO after 3 times of seeing it, I am pretty familiar with the movie, and all the splices and what not. Let me say this, SPLICES ARE USED TO EMPHASIZE POINTS… THAT’S WHAT JUXTAPOSITION IS FOR! The argument that Michael Moore splices and thus the film is somehow diminished in its worth is ridiculous. Splices don’t change the fact that 11,000 troops were sent to Afghanistan and 120,000 to Iraq (or somewhere around that) and Afghanistan was clearly the country with Bin Laden, Iraq was clearly the country with NO weapons of mass destruction… though it did have Saddam, and we must remember “this is the guy who tried to kill my dad” as Bush said. Obviously he’s a bigger threat than Bin Laden. Splices also don’t change the fact that the Bush Admin first stated that Iraq was not producing weapons, and then changed their mind later. It also doesn’t change that the person who started the trend of reversing the decision on Florida for Bush was his first cousin working for Fox news, that the person incharge of polling was on Bush’s campaign team, or that NONE of the 100 Senators would sign one of the complaints put forth by members of congress. Splices don’t change any of these things…
Kirupa, how can you say that Moore makes sensastional statements and such, when you yourself said "The entire military and intelligence agencies were unaware of what was going on, so I’m not sure Pres. Bush knew about it either. Richard Clarke did not know about it either."
HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT CLAIM!!! That’s just as bad as putting thoughts into Bush’s head as he sat in the Florida classroom… ANd everyone knows what Moore is doing, and he’s not putting it forward as fact when he voices over Bush sitting there, he’s using it as a way to advance the movie, and move on to his next topic. Of course we don’t know what Bush was actually thinking!
ANd Kirupa you also said that presidents receive hundreds of warnings everyday. Even if that is so, (which of course, you can not really say factually, as you are only assuming), Bush has chosen to act on some, as you would know if you saw the movie… Such as warning Tappahannock (spelling). The fact that the gov recieves all these threats hasn’t stopped them from raising the terrorist threat meter repeatedly. So if they can take these actions, why could they not respond to the threat they recieved about Bin Laden hi-jacking planes and striking the U.S.?
Quite frankly the arguments put forth against the movie are disgraceful. Fallacies, and irrelevant statements that distract from what is the issue here. The Bush administration has obviously lied, manipulated and coerced in order to gain profits for themselves and their friends, including the Saudi’s… I think it’s safe to say that the administration had many many reasons for going into Iraq, but fighting terrorism was not one of them, ridding weapons of mass destruction was not one of them, “liberating” the Iraqi people was probably not one of them, and if it was, it’s been a horrible failure. Sure power was handed over, but what does that mean? We handed over power in Afghanistan too, but now that country is just controlled by a bunch of warlords.
Michael Moore obviously has opinions, and he was obviously creating this movie because he feels strongly about something, but facts are facts are facts, whether or not they’ve been spliced. There’s no way to include all the facts, and certainly facts were omitted, but the facts that are there remain, and remain to expose Bush as an ineffective, counterproductive, and lying president.
Look foward to the responses.
wow! that was said well… and I can’t believe how much I agree with you, do you want to be my representative in all political debates :thumb: 
though I agree with the pianoman… Moore is somewhat too caricatural, and that lack of nuances makes the whole thing wobbly. Sure, there are no WMDs, sure, the Bush Adm. has lied many times over, sure, the Bush family has benefited from dealing with the Carlyle group and the Sauds.
BUT…
The US being in Afganistan because they wanted to run a gazline without going through Russia to the benefit of Dick “I’m my own name” Cheney? Laughable at the very least…
The BinLadens being the only people allowed to fly during the US airspace shutdown? They flew when the airspace was opened again. Not before.
Irak being a great country before the war, with happy and shiny people all over? Come on, you’d really have to have your head in a geopolitical black hole to think that…
So, I agree with Moore’s point, generally speaking, but it lacks accuracy and paints that lack up with fallacies… And that’s a shame, cause it gives openings to anyone disagreeing with Moore’s ideas…
I think we should give the Anti-American Moore a gun and a uniform and send him to Iraq.
But then again, that is just my opinion. Dirty scum bag.
Thanks BP, lol, where ever there is debate, forces draw me near.
As for the appleman (By the way, i call you that in the most endearing way)
I agree with you that Moore can be easy to critisize, but I’m not sure about all your points there. I don’t think Michael Moore suggested that the United States invaded Afghanistan for the good of Dick Cheney. Moore pointed out that Bush and Unocal had been trying for this agreement from before the war, and merely stated that Karzai was a former Unocal advisor, and that when he got power one of the first things he did was sign the agreement for the pipeline. He’s just putting that out there, each of us can decide how much conspiracy we want to connect to that. Conspiracy or not, it’s obvious that big corporations have a lot of power in the United States’ gov.
EDIT:About the Bin Laden’s, Moore never states that they flew while the ban was still on. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/index.php?id=35
He explains about what he said.
I do encourage everyone to visit michaelmoore.com because he defends his facts, and tells where he got them etc… So if you are doubting something, you should check there as well as a neo-conservative website.
And of course Iraq was not all happy before, but they were a functioning society with infrastructure and police, and it was not a war zone. I also heard a very interesting interview with a lawyer on CBC (Canadian radio) today. The lawyer was putting forward a whole case defending Saddam… and it was quite compelling. The gasing of the Kurds has not been linked directly to Saddam, and it’s possible that it was the Iranians. And Saddam got the chemical weapons from Rumsfeld… and all the talk about squashing uprisings, well every leader in the world takes drastic steps to stop any uprising. Anyway, he argued it a lot more eloquently, and a lot more detailed than that… It was quite interesting.
Anywho. I also thought of something else I forgot to mention in my other post. The thing about how Moore cut out the rest of the convo with congressman (was it Kennedy?) about sending children of the members of congress to Iraq. I don’t think it is relevant that it wasn’t included. Moore’s point of including that section was not to make congressmen look evil, or unconcerned… his point was “Not one congressman wanted to send their child over to fight in Iraq… AND CAN YOU BLAME THEM?” His point is, no body wants to send their children to die for this war! So the fact that he didn’t include what the congressman said doesn’t really matter, that wasn’t the point.
EDIT: forgot something. Telekenisis, I don’t understand your opinion. I’ve never understood why someone who critisizes a leader is considered anti the whole country. Michael Moore is arguing against sending American’s to die in a war that he thinks was unjustified… I don’t think you can get more pro-American than that… He’s trying to protect American’s, whether or not you agree with him, you must at least accept that!
Michael Moore is arguing against sending American’s to die in a war that he thinks was unjustified… I don’t think you can get more pro-American than that… He’s trying to protect American’s, whether or not you agree with him, you must at least accept that!
Amen!
Richard Clarke says so in his own book and even during his 9/11 testimony (he even apologized for failing to take action/know about it). He was the Chief Counterterrorism guy for the Clinton and Bush administrations, and if he didn’t know it, there was no way other members in either the Clinton or Bush adminstrations would have known about it either (unless the FBI/CIA bypassed Clarke). Continuing on, the (former?) FBI director says that his agency did not have any credible info before 9/11. The former CIA director George Tenet says the same thing.
That’s how I can make that claim. Far be it for me to contradict what Clarke, Tenet, Freeh, and others have said from their own words and speeches 
The intelligence agencies did not know what happened. There are various credible articles and books such as Richard Clarke’s book, “Against all Enemies”, where he himself states that he was not aware of this. I’m sure you know that he doesn’t like the current adminstration’s handling of the war. The 9/11 Commission showed that the CIA and FBI did not have a definite time period for this attack either. The intelligence agencies were more interested in preventing US Embassy bombings, and that was a more credible threat because al qaeda had destroyed various embassy buildings such as those in Africa and the Middle East.
With the exception of a few memos in the 1990’s at various FBI field offices, nobody entertained the idea of looking into planes ramming into buildings as a serious threat.
Also, the President does not have hundreds of thousands of threats brought to his attention. He has about 10 compiled daily by the FBI to address. The Gov’t and the Pres. are not exactly the same people 
The Gov’t agencies receive many threats. Only a few are filtered down to the top officials in any adminstration such as the Prez.
yeah, they just didn’t know! come on people, you can’t expect them to look into every tip we get from other countries’ intelligence agencies… i mean, it’s not like it’s their job to protect us… ::rolls eyes::
John O’Neill (not to be confused with Paul O’Neill) certainly knew how much of a threat that Usama might be… too bad he was blocked from his investigation… He was so frustrated, that he quit his job with the FBI as one of the lead counter-terrorism investigators, and in a strange twist of fate, ended up as the head of security for the World Trade Center Buildings in New York. His life was lost on 9-11.
Well in the end Majeye’s footer says it all.
Like the Predator vs Aliens movie.
“Whoever wins…we lose!”
Like the Predator vs Aliens movie.
“Whoever wins…we lose!”
You know, when i saw that phrase on the movie theatre poster, i couldn’t help but think of AWOL(snbBush), and FLIP-FLOP(snbKerry)…
maybe there’s nothing important about SnB. It might just be a chess club for all I know?? You really think they’re like pinky and the brain. (what do we do tonight brain? the same thing we do everynight pinky. Try to take over the world!). Come on… It sounds like a masonic club, secret society crap. And though they have relations in many places, just like the “Franc-Maçonnerie”, I don’t think they both have the same goals for America and the rest of the world…
It might just be a chess club for all I know??
Yeah, the SKULL AND BONES chess-club… uh huh… :sigh: And maybe they plant flowers, and sing songs at convelescant homes, too…
Both support TWOT… (the war on terrorism)
Both support the Patriot Act
Both support the invasion and occupation of Iraq (though Kerry voted against the 84 million)
According to Ancestry.com, they are distant relatives (8th cousins), and of royal bloodline.
While it may be left to argue whether them originating from the same college fraternal society is an issue, the fact remains that they do both swear allegiance to this secret order.
Wow, I just sat here reading through all the posts for something like an hour, and it has been a great hour at that. I think that Moore’s movie’s greatest feat was to allow for a thread on a design site like kirupa to have all these people talking about what is happening, and what this country is doing. Agree or disagree, I feel that it has pushed conversation on current events in every situation - with friends, family, or even on a design forum. I was not surprized to see someone asking for help on building a forum in flash… haha. But I’m digressing.
I do not agree with everything Moore presented, and I think he obviously paints a picture with clips cut the right way to make his point. But then again, that’s what you do when you make a movie. I have seen all his other films, and read all his books, and his views are so liberal that it allows for you to have a full spectrum of opinions (keeping in mind how conservative everything around us is at the moment). How can you make up your opinion without having every possible angle? However, I think it is great he is making a point at all, and people can agree or disagree and debate over it.
I was born and raised in another country, and I have to say that I was taken back a lot at the lack of world news you can find on regular television here, and at the constant state of fear driven by television. I think that Moore’s point on keeping the nation under constant fear was valid, and everyone can see it differently. However, I see that people all around me are ussually afraid to talk to one another (I do live in NYC, that might have a lot to do with it as well.), and are afraid to voice their opinions. (that is not always the case in nyc)
What I am glad of is that the film showed a lot of things that would never otherwise be shown on our corporate tv channels. It made people think. That’s what this nation needs - more people to care about what goes on in the rest of the world, and in our own nation.
Personally, I found I disliked Bush just as much before I saw the movie. However, the movie sparked great conversations with my friends who supported Bush.
All colleges have secret fraternities (I think I said too much :P). They both went to Yale, so their political beliefs are largely molded by their environment there. I don’t quite see what the point that them having been in SnB and having similar views has any correlation to their jobs as Senator or President.
Also, why would they not swear allegiance to their frat organization when asked about it? They were both a part of it, and just like anybody else who happens to be in a frat or sorority, they are probably proud of that fact and would not deny any knowledge of being in one when asked.
they are probably proud of that fact and would not deny any knowledge of being in one when asked.
Click my footer to go to a link that has videos of both admitting to being Bonesmen, and then quickly changing the subject…
Im not questioning their loyalty… There is no doubt that they remain loyal to their secret societies… my whole point is this: “Shouldn’t we have a choice between two different candidates, who actually have opposing viewpoints, on the issues that really matter??”
Ah - I see what you mean. They have differing issues on some choices, but the only way Kerry can win is if he makes himself more like Bush on these national security issues. I mean, how can you argue against wiretapping terrorists 
I mean, how can you argue against wiretapping terrorists
i can’t… who can?? better yet, who is?? I’ve never said that terrorists deserve the right to private phone conversations, and to my knowledge, they’ve never had that right… My arguement is against the wiretapping and warrentless searches against American citizens…
The FBI and CIA, have always had the means to get wiretaps, to monitor supsected terrorists. When they find someone that they suspect, they present their evidence to a judge, and the judge, based on the credability of their evidence, issues a warrant, allowing the wiretap… One of the things that the Patriot Act did, was to circumvent the checks and balances that were in place to prevent the missuses of such a power…
Why can’t people see that the Government is using it’s own incompetance as an excuse to gain more control, and roll-back civil liberties??? All it takes is for Bush to label you an “enemy combatent” and then you are stripped of your rights… Why would any of this be necessary if they could proove any of their claims legally, in a court of law??
anyway, i’ll try to stop posting my opinions so much, as it feels as if i am up against a brick wall of indifference… hopefully this thread can get back on topic… (feel free to get the last word in, if you’d like…)
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.” Benjamin Franklin
I am indifferent towards wiretappings, hence I placed my view in a sarcasm tag. It would be political suicide for Kerry to go against that. Would people be willing to give up another portion of society’s freedoms in order for the belief that everybody will be safe? Whether the wiretaps actually help or not, people have the belief that it does help.
A lot of polls show Kerry as being “soft” on terrorism, and him going against the Patriot Act would just bolster the case of the Bush campaign ads.