Farenheit 911 [Archive]

R75_7

06-30-2004, 12:22 PM

If the things in the movie were untrue, don't you think Pres. Bush would boe all over the news attacking Mr. Moore and proving himself right? All the politicians do that, they even lie to make the other person look like they are wrong. For an example I will use a Democrat to show my point. The Republicans side said that John Kerry Threw his Vietnam medals away at a freedom march in D.C. John Kerry replied that wasn't true. Those weren't medals, they were just ribbons. Talk about semantics and half truths. Pres. Bush does this all the time as well as probably every other President in history. But if Michael Moore was slanderous wouldn't they sue him for being so. I saw the movie. I fought in The Gulf War part 1. I know the land and the people of Iraq. I know Saddam was a badguy and am glad he's no longer in power. But I think I'm more afraid of our Government then theirs. It's the why's and how's that I don't like. And Bin Laden lives.

1flyer

06-30-2004, 12:40 PM

The 911 commission has pretty much cleared the Saudi citizen flight as being done after the rest of the US was cleared for air operations. The airlines had planes and crews all over the place when the ban was lifted and it took several days for them to get organized enough to re-start service. The private and charter aircraft flights could schedule more quickly than the airlines so it is very possible that they were in the air before the airlines were, hence the belief they were allowed to fly before anyone else was. You can read the commission report or listen to the numerous rebuttals some news media have to "events" depicted in the movie.

I haven't watched it but any possible truth there might be in it has long since been overshadowed by the venom and hatred expressed by the people involved with the “documentary”. Anyone that antagonistic against someone has to be blind to anything but their own position. I think being that much against something causes you to support your position any way you can, even if it is with lies, innuendo, and half-truths. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories make good box office for people that won’t/can’t think for themselves. Mark F’s comment is correct and to the point. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Bush is doing but some of the comments from the people that are lining up behind this film as “the truth” scare me to death.

In the last couple of years I’ve never heard anyone say “Gee, I sure wish Al Core would have been president”.

R75_7

06-30-2004, 12:56 PM

Wow! A LOT of comments against this movie from people who have not even seen the darn thing. Now that's an educated, balanced opinion. I agree with people may blind themselves to outside sources trying to prove their own point, do you? Gee, I wish Al Gore were President! I don't know how well he would've reacted to 911. Nobody does! But, I "think" he would have beenbetter for the "people" who live here. Bush had an opportunity to really do something great for the world. But he blew it. By being side tracked by his own personal agenda. Just my opinion. Hey I think the opium poppies are blooming this time of year. What a pretty site. For those bad guys to fund their hate machine. We spend Billions with a "B" to fight the war on drugs"marajuana and coke from the south" but we don't destroy every opium field and keep those fields from producing money for the biggest grower in the world. Bin Laden Lives.

That was post 100! Finally, I didn't think I'd ever make it. I love this Forum!

MarkF

06-30-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by username
im waiting to find the person who says, 'i hate bush, im voting for kerry, and that farenheit 9/11 is just awful any way you look at it.' im searching for a decoupling of political fervor and movie review, or at least a dissonant opinion.

Local Connecticut Radio Guy who is very liberal and very anti-Bush did just that. Said that the style Moore uses and the way he draws his conclusions makes the movie not so good.

MarkF

username

06-30-2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by MarkF
Local Connecticut Radio Guy who is very liberal and very anti-Bush did just that. Said that the style Moore uses and the way he draws his conclusions makes the movie not so good.

MarkF

cool. i often agree with the basic premise that moore starts with, but i end up wincing at the film. but he doesnt represent himself as being 'fair and balanced' ;) so i think it's ok that his work is so over the top biased.

hey 1flyer, i wish al gore had been president. i think he's dopey, and i'll bet he wouldve made mistakes, but i'd prefer his f*ckups to bush's anytime.

Rich

06-30-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by username
i wish al gore had been president. i think he's dopey, and i'll bet he wouldve made mistakes, but i'd prefer his f*ckups to bush's anytime.

Not I. Nor Kerry, he is even scarier, to me anyway. But hey, I respect your opinion. Me, I'm a Bush fan, and I will be voting for him again. And I wholeheartedly agree with Gambrinus, it isn't a documentary. It's another form of entertainment, made for the theatres, how much of it do you wanna believe??

R75_7

06-30-2004, 08:40 PM

Gambrinus did not say it was another form of entertainment. He said it as a video editorial. In reality, as mcuh of it that I can comprehend, all media is entertainment. But, I think you were implying that it was comparible to entertainment in a fake sort of way. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ironhorsecowboy

06-30-2004, 09:47 PM

Having not been to the movie and not going either, I will say that Moore is from all I've seen of him on TV news is nothing but an extreme left-wing liberal who can't stand President Bush. Of the few clips shown about his video editorial he definately has no respect for the president and any one who doesn't believe as he does. I personally will not contribute one dollar to see this Moron profit!

As far as Gore being better for the people and our country---well let me say as a Tennessean that we folks in Tennessee had enough of his stupidity and double talk that we voted him out of our politics to rid our state of his flip=flopping on the issues.

If Gore had carried his own state he would have won the election! then we wouldn't have had to hear about those dangling chads!:doh

jgr451

06-30-2004, 09:58 PM

I have asked myself what is the significance of the title?Heinlein wrote Fahrenheit 451.I am kind of attached to the gallows humour of it.That is the temperature at which paper burns.They were in the business of burning books.

What is this film about?Don't know yet,not having seen it.Saw Bowling for Columbine and how Moore tried to humiliate Charlton Heston.It seems to me that he has points to make but he seems quite a bit over the top in making them.At that point,it does become humour/comedy/entertainment.That is what I am expecting,anyway.

R75_7

07-01-2004, 12:15 AM

I would agree that Michael Moore is over the top(extremely). I'd even say he was a rabble rowser. But not a liar. If he had lied don't you think somebody would've burned him by now. And Charleton Heston made a racist remark all on his own without any cutting or editing of the film.

TheSlashFiveTourer

07-01-2004, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by jgr451
.....Heinlein wrote Fahrenheit 451. That is the temperature at which paper burns.They were in the business of burning books.

[WorldNetDaily] Posted: June 3, 2004

RAY BRADBURY RIPS MICHAEL MOORE

'Fahrenheit 451' author Ray Bradbury says filmmaker Moore stole his title for Bush-bash:

Author Ray Bradbury has ripped into filmmaker Michael Moore for using the title "Fahrenheit 9/11" for his new Bush-bashing movie, an obvious takeoff on the 84-year old's science-fiction classic "FAHRENHEIT 451." "Michael Moore is a screwed a--hole, that is what I think about that case," Bradbury said according to an English translation of the story. "He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission."
Continued the author: "[Moore] is a horrible human being – horrible human!"
When asked if he agrees with Moore's political positions, Bradbury replied, "That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title; that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions."
According to the Swedish daily, Bradbury said he had tried to discuss the issue with Moore several months ago, but that the director avoided him.
"I called his publisher. They promised he would call me the same afternoon, but he didn't," Bradbury is quoted as saying.
:jawdrop

oldcarkook

07-01-2004, 07:06 AM

Michael Moore is in the business of creating controversy.

A review of his biography clearly shows that he is not an original thinker, is not a documentary film maker, and he gets his fame (and followers) by bashing politicians and Corporate America. He rose to power on his Detroit/General Motors film which he presented as a documentary, but was nothing more than a series of clips arranged in such a way as to lead you to false conclusions, pretty much what the critics are saying about this film.

Ray Bradbury is just another victim in Michael Moore's long and well documented history of theft of other people's ideas and statements. I think that Ray Bradbury is not going to take this lying down and he may have the last laugh in this as his claims of copyright and trademark infrigement progress and Mr. Moore and his intellectual property attorneys will have some splainin' to do in court.

While I personally find Mr. Moore to be objectionable as a human being, I have no idea about the quality of his new film. I have no intention of seeing it. I only know that it is purported (by the media and all the movie critics that I've seen) to be a poorly constructed series of sound bites arranged with images that he wants to associate in such a way as to lead the viewers to false conclusions, and shots of him chasing politicians down the street who don't want to talk to him (or any other person who's chasing them with a camera and clipboard). I think that any one of us that was approached on our walk to work by bright lights, video cameras, and Michael Moore with a clipboard would likely prefer to meet with him under more scheduled and formal circumstances than on the street with a microphone and surprise attack of leading question like "Hey Kook! Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

I wish Mr. Moore continued success in France, Iran, and Saudi Arabia with his future efforts to be controversial.

kbasa

07-01-2004, 09:13 AM

The man knows how to get a conversation started, that's for sure.

I'm kind of to the left (Bush has to go, sorry, the Patriot Act is a travesty) but I'd like to see the movie and make my mind up. Until they've seen the movie, I don't know that anyone here can really discuss it.

Should such a movie have been made? Absolutely. This is a country founded on civil disobedience and questioning of the leadership.

Does endorsing such a movie make someone non patriotic? It's healthy and expected that the populace question their government. The Constitution is written to encourage just such activity.

So, I'll go see it. It'll make me think. I think our responsibility as citizens here is to gather as many viewpoints as we can. I read Atlantic Monthly, poke around on the Boston Globe web site and even read New Republic once in a while. After all, self analysis of one's opinions doesn't mean you're flip flopping, maybe it means you're getting a clearer understanding of what's really going on.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

username

07-01-2004, 09:42 AM

well said.

i think the most important and wonderful point is that he made the film, and a big corporation shied from distributing it. it still got released. since there is still a slight semblance of media diversity left in america, another corporation picked it up and distributed it. now we're all free to see it, and blab about our own little opinions.

that my friends is america at its essence - challenging the government and each other. this is a great example of why it's good to live here.

remember, our constitution was forged with a strong distrust toward a strong central government. as an american, youre not supposed to take anything lying down - youre supposed to think about it, form an opinion as best you can, and then have at it.

it's patriotic to think for yourself and risk that you may reach a different conclusion than our government.

R75_7

07-01-2004, 10:22 AM

Oldcarkook,
I think television is full of reality shows because most of America is climbing over itself to be on TV. "Hey Oldcarkook have you sto beating your wife today?" That's way different then "Hey oldcarkook what do you think about signing your son or daughter up for the Military?" Because if you would have SEEN the movie BEFORE makng any comment you would already know that. You know serve your country, that's a reasonable question? I remember when 60 Minutes were that aggressive and would blow the cover off of the things and people loved it(except those who were caught). What about David Horowitz and Fight Back? The show that would test products and see if they would do what their advertisers would claim that they could do. Even in our most prestiges Military they teach you to question leadership,(not everytime in every situation). You've got to. Otherwise how will you know why or how things are done. Our supposed journalists don't even ask all of the important questions anymore. Look at how many times people are getting caught lying. Remember when reading something in the newspaper meant that was the truth? Of course you do. If these "attacks" were untrue, then why hasn't anybody said so, and sued his pants off?

QUESTION THOSE THAT CONTROL YOUR FUTURE

jgr451

07-01-2004, 12:34 PM

Thanks for the correction /5. When I wrote that it was Heinlein I had a twinge of doubt but Bradbury did not come to mind so I did not research it.

A powerful book by a very bright man.

Visian

07-01-2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by R75/7
Oldcarkook,

... snip... If these "attacks" were untrue, then why hasn't anybody said so, and sued his pants off?

Because Mr. Moore is making his statements about public figures. (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Personal_Injury/defamation.html#3)

Ian

username

07-01-2004, 02:28 PM

i think michael moore, and most people that create and use the media, the govt included, are very skilled at avoiding telling the truth, avoiding telling lies, and avoiding libel, but still speaking a lot. ive had to use this technique to survive in meetings at work before, and it is very handy. :D it's also how tabloids operate. you see a lot of weird stuff in them, but there is not much legal activity. that's because they couch the language just right.

so moore may not have said anything that is actionable from a legal standpoint. also, when having a media fight, sometimes it's better to just let it peter out, and i think thats the approach the administration is taking. the bigger a fuss they make about it, the more people go to see it, and they watch their president read to second graders while terrorists fly planes into buildings. the imagery is very powerful. it isnt going to win many votes for bush. the best thing the administration can hope for is that current bush supporters close their mind to the film and avoid it.

we live in interesting times. that this movie has touched off the discussion that it has, (i hear people discussing it everywhere) is very telling. i look forward to reading the history books' version of the late 90's and early 00's and comparing it to how i remember events occuring.

Visian

07-01-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by username

... snip

we live in interesting times. that this movie has touched off the discussion that it has, (i hear people discussing it everywhere) is very telling. i look forward to reading the history books' version of the late 90's and early 00's and comparing it to how i remember events occuring.

Well put.

Michael Moore takes a few "words" of what various people say (or do) and edits them into a "sentence" with the purpose of proving his point. When one attempts to reverse engineer all the quotes to illustrate how he shades the truth you wind up with a mental mish-mosh that confuses everyone.

His work is in no way a documentary.

Butt....

His right to do this would be defended to the death by any true patriot. All bull**** aside, this is what the fight is really about.

E Pluribus Unum.

Ian

Cliffy777

07-01-2004, 02:59 PM

watched his Bowling for Columbine and the other one about GM. He makes some good points, but I don't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Let's see - whom in the media do I trust????? What a joke. No one reports the news anymore (maybe they never did?), everyone is working an angle or spin. Everyone is pissed at Fox News, but at least they are up front and announce "Hi, this is the news reported with a conservative spin." That is preferable to those who put their spin on while maintaining the guise of non-partisan reporting. Am I a fan of FOX - nope, I find it somewhat hypocritical that the same network who brings us "conservative" news goes to the opposite extreme in their programming.

Hardly Big News that his film (what he does is not a documentary by my understanding of the word) grossed so much the opening week-end. All those other poor schmucks making movies have to PAY for advertising while Mr M gets the benefit of untold millions of dollars worth of free advertising. ohh well.
Thanks kids for letting me vent.

Tinboatcapt

07-01-2004, 03:22 PM

This thread has spent a great many words on how accurate the movie may be, the relative honesty of politicians and journalists, and personal "feelings" about one or another public figure.

Isn't the important question: "What is the best course of action to preserve our freedom and way of life?" And perhaps: "how does the opinion expressed in this movie form into, or contribute to a policy?"

The most significant reason for a Federal Government is national security. And with respect to security we, the voters, should watch carefully what incumbents do, and candidate's promise. But what is the appropriate forum for a discussion of this magnitude? Is it the "big screen"? Should the administration begin filming a rebuttal?

This movie and a few other movies like it have the feel of one shrill voice shouting down all the others in a room. It has the ring of a personal attack. Like the attacks that have been a trademark of politics and political discussion these past three decades (that I have been politically aware). They do not serve the purpose defining or refining policy.

I won't see the movie simply because of Michael Moore's reputation for tabloid journalism. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

Jim

jdiaz

07-01-2004, 03:52 PM

Where's your trip report Visian? I've almost recovered from last weekend's food coma. :bliss

oldcarkook

07-01-2004, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Visian
His right to do this would be defended to the death by any true patriot. All bull**** aside, this is what the fight is really about.

E Pluribus Unum.

:thumb

kbasa

07-01-2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by tinboatcapt
This movie and a few other movies like it have the feel of one shrill voice shouting down all the others in a room. It has the ring of a personal attack. Like the attacks that have been a trademark of politics and political discussion these past three decades (that I have been politically aware). They do not serve the purpose defining or refining policy.

:rofl

That's almost exactly what I say about Savage Nation, Rush and the rest of the neocon radio empire.

Different viewpoints create different opinions and that's what makes our political process worthwhile.

MarkF

07-01-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Visian
His right to do this would be defended to the death by any true patriot. All bull**** aside, this is what the fight is really about.

E Pluribus Unum.

Ian

I agree, but I also think that if I or a group of people I associate with chose to use our own money to place ads in papers, on the radio and on TV to endorse any candidate or platform we should be free to do so. That right has already been taken away. So when a man uses a movie to influence the public discussion but another cannot use an advertisement there is a problem. Is Moore's movie an editorial or one big advertisement?

MarkF

kbasa

07-01-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by MarkF
Is Moore's movie an editorial or one big advertisement?

MarkF

I dunno. I'm gonna go see it and make up my own mind.

How do you feel about conservative talk radio?

username

07-01-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by jdiaz
Where's your trip report Visian? I've almost recovered from last weekend's food coma. :bliss

whats a food coma? now i want to read this report more than see the movie...

MarkF

07-02-2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by KBasa

How do you feel about conservative talk radio?

I agree with the views more often than not but don't find it as intersting to listen to as I do the liberal talk shows or the ones with one of each. It's like going to church, after a few decades it's the same gospel. I think radio and TV should be able to put on the most successful shows, regardless of the polital impact.

I guess you could describe me as a fiscal conservative with a strong defense but more of an isolationist and a social libertarian with christain beliefs. Got that figured out?

MarkF

Visian

07-02-2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by username
whats a food coma? now i want to read this report more than see the movie...

Here you go! (http://bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=27667)

Ian

Visian

07-02-2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by MarkF
I agree, but I also think that if I or a group of people I associate with chose to use our own money to place ads in papers, on the radio and on TV to endorse any candidate or platform we should be free to do so.

There are many good reasons for this law. (http://www.commoncause.org/issue_agenda/glossary.htm) Not that I agree with them all, but they are good reasons.

But yours is a really good question, and AFAIK, one that can't be answered always the same way.

Guess that's where the phrase "money talks and BS walks" comes from.

Wish it weren't true, but it is.

Ian

R75_7

07-02-2004, 12:12 PM

Sounds to me like the best Government money can buy. So much for the saying; for the people by the people.

Visian

07-02-2004, 12:59 PM

For me, this kind of stuff gets put in the "why government should be small" category... gives the watchdogs less to chew on.

:burnout

Hodag

07-03-2004, 02:19 PM

I haven't seen the movie yet, but will see it in the future. I've been a fan of Moore since "Roger and Me". I don't agree with everything the he does or says. Its the alternative viewpoint that I enjoy. I actually met and spoke with Mike many years ago when he was complaining about Clinton.
Bush's politics really bother me, and his assault on our basic freedoms. I'm a liberal in the same sort of mind that our founding fathers were liberals. "taxation without reperesention" "Freedom of speech" etc. But then again I'm young and jaded from being raised during the Reagan years.
I've heard Disney is coming out with a patriotic movie to counter Moore's movie. Why don't they just remake "Triumph Of the Will" with Bush as lead character.

Mark

Visian

07-04-2004, 08:36 PM

Interesting Reading (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

Ian

Rich

07-04-2004, 09:33 PM

This is pretty much what I was alluding to, it is entertainment. How much of it do you wanna believe? I'm not paying one cent to see this movie.

RebeccaV

07-04-2004, 10:43 PM

I’d been avoiding reading this thread because I was afraid that it would degenerate into a shouting match. Glad that it hasn’t.

First - I would strongly encourage you all to see this movie for yourselves rather than rely on the media or any other second hand information.

I saw the movie, and was surprised at how editorial it was. I’m a huge documentary fan and I think that it is a bit unfair to the genre that this movie is categorized as one. That being said though, I think that Moore has made a film that is worth seeing – he weaves a story very well. I saw ‘Bowling for Columbine’ and this movie is considerably more sophisticated. He has really learned to use his audio and music well. I like how he uses humor in this film too – sometimes it diffuses and sometimes it intensifies scenes that are hard to watch. The movie really dragged at the end for me though.

Moore may very well be a ‘left-wing anti-Bush liberal,’ but he is also consistently harsh to the Democrats throughout the film. I may actually have to see the film again because it was SO much information it was hard to take it all in and digest it. Whatever you think of Bush, and whether or not all of the info in the movie is true, the issues raised in the movie are worth serious consideration.

PS: C’mon username – I have a hard time believing that a ‘food coma’ exists only in the Midwest!

Imprudently gorging on chili-lime corn chips with chipotle salsa in Milwaukee…

Visian

07-05-2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by boxergrrlie
... the issues raised in the movie are worth serious consideration.

rant

Boxergrrlie... I agree with you, but paying to see a film created by someone who is so cynical and hateful just don't seem right.

Ripping off a cracked copy somehow seems more appropriate. :brow

I will pay money to see Michael Moore Hates America. (http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com) At least that movie is actually a documentary.

The gestalt that Michael more creates with his film reminds me of my personal experiences in the late 60's and early 70s. I was a film runner at the Democratic National Convention in Miami... riding my Honda 100 back and forth from the convention center to the airport so that film could be shipped back to NYC, developed and put in the papers. (no digicams or Internet way back when...)

At the ripe old age of 18, I got an up close and personal look at the anti-war protesters as they castigated the evil Nixon and worshipped the wonderful McGovern.

Then each night I would ride back home and go hang out with my next-door neighbor Keith, who I had idolized as a kid, because, well... he was so cool and was everything that I ever wanted to be.

No, Keith was not the tie-died flower child that teenagers of the day aspired to be... he was a doctor, and the big brother I never had. As we grew up, Keith taught me how to play football (he was a high-school and college star) taught me how to set up tents and tie knots (he was an Eagle Scout) and taught me how to respect life and the people in it for what they thought, not what they owned or what they looked like.

So I'd return from a day of running back and forth between the airport and the Nixon-haters, and tell Keith about my day and what I saw. I could tell that Keith would have really liked to go down there to see for himself... but he couldn't.

You see, Keith lost his legs in Vietnam. He was one of the people who was sent there very early... as a medic... and he lost his legs while extracting a comrade from a firefight, well before the war became a daily scene in our living rooms, and before radical chic became the order of the day.

I tell you this not to justify the Vietnam war, or to say that Nixon was a great guy, or to say that flowerchildren were misguided, or to make a point that the anti-war/Bush content of today is bad or wrong.

Instead, my point is that there is truth in this world and Michael Moore, as he stands in Cannes and accepts the Palm d'Or from the assembled heads of the film industry, is not telling it.

That truth is: there are millions of people in this world being abused by their governments and you don't hear Michael Moore saying anything about it. Heck, you don't even hear Michael Moore offer up even *one* idea on how he'd solve the problems that he identifies in his movie. Because, simply enough, that won't make him any money.

Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of Keiths in the world today that are risking everything to make sure that Michael Moore can make his movie, show it freely, and earn himself millions of dollars in the process.

And they're proud to do it. These people live in the United States. They live in England. They live in Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan... countries that know what oppression and occupation *really* are.

Yet somehow it has become fashionable once again (and yes, I saw first-hand in the 60's how fashionable it was to be anti-war, anti-government) to hate the government and our leaders. And Michael Moore is marketing to that trend.

So, as Mr. Moore makes millions of dollars by taking snips of this and quotes of that and weaving it into proof of his point that George Bush is bad, let's all remember that the people of North Korea are being starved by their government as it builds nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them. That the Iranian government is building nuclear facilities in hardened underground bunkers while denying their people basic human rights. That the government of the Sudan is supporting the Janjaweed Militia as they raid, rape and pillage the nomadic peoples in the Darfur region .

And that there are precious few people in the world willing to put their lives on the line to keep it from happening... and to make it possible for Michael Moore to tell us why we're doing it all wrong.

Thank God we live in a free country... and if it means having to live with people like Michael Moore, well.... it's worth it! :)

Ian

/rant

edited for typos.... doh!

frazz

07-05-2004, 08:36 AM

here...here:beer

oldcarkook

07-05-2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Byrd
here...here:beer I second that emotion!:thumb
Visian has hit the nail squarely on the head.

kbasa

07-05-2004, 12:34 PM

Don't confuse questioning one's government with not respecting the folks who have given so much for us all.

We are, in every way possible, a country founded on civil disobedience and a certain requirement that we think for ourselves. If you don't feed more information into your head, you may not have a complete set of perspectives to base your decisions on.

As a point of fact, I read in today's SF Chronicle, that Mr. Moore is encouraging people to see cracked copies of the movie. More information pumped out to people is good. If they see a movie like this and dont' like what they see, at least they have an understanding of what other folks viewpoints are. As a fairly liberal person, I get plenty of opportunity to see what the neocons are shoving down the throat of the public.

And I don't care for it. I don't care for the Patriot Act that kept a friend of mine locked in a US Customs jail for 12 days because the government lost his immigration records from 1957. I don't care for an administration that goes to Iraq in a fairly straightforward unilateral action and then expects the UN to help clean up the mess we've made. I don't care for the arrogance of an administration that calls the UN "irrelevant".

Does this mean I don't love my country? Does it mean my heart doesn't go out to the folks that have given so much so I can live in relative safety?

Not at all. I love my country. Tina has lost family fighting the wars that have kept us free. But I've arrived at these viewpoints after reading as much as I possibly can about all the issues. To not do so is to limit yourself and your perspectives.

FWIW, I voted for Bush last time.

Visian

07-05-2004, 01:25 PM

Well.... (as Reagan used to start good answers to hard questions...) there is more to the story.

I met Keith when I was 7 years old. He went away when I was 11. He came home with no legs when I was 12... and told me about things that happened in Vietnam that you didn't hear on the nightly news.

He told me about the brutality of the communists. And about the foolhardiness of the "police action" approach that our government was taking to the conflict. Really sad, but Keith's conclusion was that we had the right idea (protecting people's freedom) but were doing it the wrong way.

So along comes 1968 and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. And... closer to home, many of my friends doing the whole babykiller headtrip about our troops and advocating violent overthrow of the government.

At 14 years old and quite impressionable, I was very conflicted. Here was my idol Keith telling me about the value of preventing unspeakable brutality and the meaning of the word SNAFU. My friends and the images I saw on in the media said that, to be cool, you had to be against the establishment and what our government was doing in Viet Nam... what was the right thing to think?

So I grew my hair long and got interested in international business & politics... IOW, straddled the fence. I became a conservative hippie. :P

Why do I tell you all this? Well, pursuant to Mr. Moore and his headlong rush to prove President Bush an idiot... you hear very little discussion these days about other potential causes of the terrorist conflict and alternative solutions.

One thing I learned in my studies about international relations was the implications surrounding President Nixon's decision to delink the dollar from the gold standard. (http://www.fact-index.com/g/go/gold_standard.html#Definition) As the 70s progressed, OPEC emerged and the energy crisis created the petrodollar, (http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/mm_rs_03.htm) which lent an interesting dimension to geopolitics. This is all great fodder to the conspiracy theorists who love to talk about the New World Order. (http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/)

I mean, this stuff is at least as believable as the point made in Michael Moore's movie!

Other learnings involved the mistakes we made fighting communism by putting the Shah of Iran in power, (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/mohammad_rezashah.php) what is really going on in Syria (http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr70/fsyria1970b.htm), and the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict. (http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Kapitan.htm)

If Michael Moore was really interested in the direction our country is taking, the causes of the current situation in the Middle East, terrorism sponsored by fundamentalist Islamic states, and the solutions to these problems, he would mention this stuff in his movie.

But that would not make anywhere near as much money, or attract as much attention to himself as the approach he chose in making Farenheit 9/11.

+++ edited addition +++

Dave -- I don't feel that I am confusing questions about our government with a lack of respect for our military. I am saying that if people *really* want to know about the situation we find ourselves in today, they would do themselves well to look further than sources such as Michael Moore because all he is doing is marketing to the current fashion for the purpose of making millions of dollars.

Ian

username

07-05-2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by KBasa

FWIW, I voted for Bush last time.

[covers ears and hums]

TMI! TMI!

;)

username

07-05-2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by boxergrrlie

PS: C’mon username – I have a hard time believing that a ‘food coma’ exists only in the Midwest!

Imprudently gorging on chili-lime corn chips with chipotle salsa in Milwaukee…

seriously, i never heard the term. and be careful - chipotles in *milwaukee?* look at them closely, are there really chipotles in it? they might just be old bell peppers. :D

Visian

07-05-2004, 07:50 PM

I hadn't heard the term either, but knew exactly what Jon meant.

It was partly his fault. He cooked the steaks.

Food coma must be onna those midwestern things like pop for soda, and squads for the cops.

Eh?

:P

R75_7

07-06-2004, 02:34 AM

4 pages of gobbledeegook and only 2 people that actually SAW the movie THEN remarked. 1, Gambrinus, didn't really say much about the movie only how to better understand AND THEN comment. 2, Boxergrrlie, on seeing the movie and sharing her OPINION. Go Boxergrrlie! When I started this thread I certainly was not hoping for a shouting match either. So, thank you for that. But, I would have to agree with Kbasa 100%! Only to absorb as much information as possible to weed through all of the crap and to better make your own decision. Visian, I though you bailed on us. I'm glad your back(in a BIG way)! I've always enjoyed your points of view. But, this time, you kinda let me down. Because you shut your mind and opened your mouth(keyboard). I work in the film industry as my day to day grind. That's why all my posts are soo late. ALL MOVIES are someones point of view, agenda, opinion, thoughts, or expressions. A few, or less, people make the decision of what makes it on the screen. Even on Documentaries. Someone would not pour their time, energy, and money into something they did not feel passionate about. No one tries to make a bad movie. So when you say that Michael Moore's views are slanted. You are right! Because their his! And he wants to share them with you and he makes no bones about it. Remember all the anti-communist B.S. that went down in the film industry a while back. I was reading an article that included more then one writer from that era that was blacklisted and moved to another country and wrote under suedonyms. Big writers from big movies. And they admitted to putting in propaganda in their movies. Am I saying that what went down with blacklisting and the hearings was right or good? Hell no! But it still was happening, they lied back then. At least he's honest in the fact that he speaks for himself. I can respect that. He is hardcore. Just like some of you that have replied without seeing the movie first. The only difference is that of your points of view. Nobody really knows all the truth except for those people involved in it first hand. And even then who knows? I will see all of the movies. Even the bad ones.
P.S. Visian, I was just reading the good karma thread and realized what I said might upset you. It was not intended to do so.

Visian

07-06-2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by R75/7
Visian, I though you bailed on us. I'm glad your back (in a BIG way)! I've always enjoyed your points of view. But, this time, you kinda let me down. Because you shut your mind and opened your mouth(keyboard).

/7 -- sorry you see it that way. In no way did I shut my mind. What I said (in so many words) was that I don't want to pay to see the movie because it is merely a message that is aimed at a current trend in the market. If you read his web site, it's quite clear what his view is, and that he is passionate about it, so why pay $10 just to confirm that he hates President Bush?

Just like in the 60s and 70s, it is now fashionable to hate the president and hate the government and Michael Moore is making millions off of it. He could care less about presenting the truth, or even useful information.

ALL MOVIES are someones point of view, agenda, opinion, thoughts, or expressions. A few, or less, people make the decision of what makes it on the screen. Even on Documentaries. Someone would not pour their time, energy, and money into something they did not feel passionate about. No one tries to make a bad movie. So when you say that Michael Moore's views are slanted. You are right!

Hmmm... I can't find anything that I said that chastises Moore for being slanted. What I am saying is that he is ignoring the truth... which makes whatever information he is offering not worth my ten bucks. I said:

... my point is that there is truth in this world and Michael Moore, as he stands in Cannes and accepts the Palm d'Or from the assembled heads of the film industry, is not telling it.

That truth is: there are millions of people in this world being abused by their governments and you don't hear Michael Moore saying anything about it. Heck, you don't even hear Michael Moore offer up even *one* idea on how he'd solve the problems that he identifies in his movie. Because, simply enough, that won't make him any money.

Maybe you missed that in all my "gobbledeygook."

In fewer words: While Michael Moore makes millions of dollars by counting how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, the true dangers in the world are being ignored.

P.S. Visian, I was just reading the good karma thread and realized what I said might upset you. It was not intended to do so.

Hmmm... not sure what you're saying here. Words rarely upset me. Actions, on the other hand, can be very revealing. :)

Ian

ps => hopefully you read some of the information presented in links in my other posts on this subject. This one is particularly useful in understanding the current situation in the Middle East. (http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Kapitan.htm)

username

07-06-2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Visian

In fewer words: While Michael Moore makes millions of dollars by counting how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin, the true dangers in the world are being ignored.

URL]

replace 'michael moore' with 'dick cheney' and 'angels' with 'contractors' and 'pin' with 'iraqi.'

a very flexible sentence structure!

visian, you make excellent arguments, and im not trying to rile you, but i couldnt resist this one. :D

Visian

07-06-2004, 09:19 AM

Thanks, username.

Hopefully ya'll notice that I am not coming out as a big Bushie here, or even a Republican... I am trying to focus on facts, and the fact is that too much government can be a dangerous thing.

Ian

R75_7

07-06-2004, 12:41 PM

Okay,
What about the connections between the Bush Family(to include his business partners) with the Saudi's and the Bin Ladens. And what about the direct link they have with all of the profits to be made from "winning hearts and minds". I believe they call that a conflict of interest. I believe Michael Moore told the truth. I also believe Bush and the rest of his Cronies have been knowingly lying to us. They are constantly playing with words and semantics and out and out lying. How many time have you heard them say; "We never said that". When review of the tapes shows that in fact they "Definitely" said those things, many times.

username

07-06-2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by R75/7

[snip]

They are constantly playing with words and semantics and out and out lying. How many time have you heard them say; "We never said that". When review of the tapes shows that in fact they "Definitely" said those things, many times.

interesting point. other folks out there think there is some conscious lying or misleading going on so youre not alone. i'll let you guys examine the website linked below, which has the following preface:

"I am a patriot. I do not hate this country. I support our troops. I pay taxes. I vote.

...I also pay attention.

The content within this site (select the images up top) is taken from U.S. Representative Henry Waxman's lengthy report to the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. A database containing each of these misleading, often untruthful statements is also posted at the official House of Representatives website (http://www.house.gov/).

"To announce 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 treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

I love this country, and I want it back."

check it out. it's quite a long list of quotes that while i dont think all are *lies,* are worded in a way that the average, and below average thinker can draw crappy conclusions.

you are smart. be a skeptic. absorb data from both sides. expect the issues to fail to be black and white. form your own opinion. defend it.

http://www.heybulldog.com/lies/

Visian

07-06-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by R75/7
Okay,
What about the connections between the Bush Family(to include his business partners) with the Saudi's and the Bin Ladens. And what about the direct link they have with all of the profits to be made from "winning hearts and minds". ... snip

Well, gosh... I wonder if any of the Top 10 Arab conspriacy theories (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stalinsky200405060835.asp) hold any water? Those guys have it all pegged on the Bush-Zionist connection.

Man, those Bush guys really get around! :p

Me? :idea I think this is all clearly an evil American plot to preserve Dollar Hegemony. (http://middleeastinfo.org/article4398.html)

Ian

Visian

07-06-2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by username
absorb data from both sides.

Username -- I'd like to submit that there are way more than two sides here. Sure, this is an election year, so in this country, it's red or blue (my GOD I wish the Libertarians could get it together...) But if we want to get at what's really going on here it would serve us all well to consider as many facets as possible. For instance, read the Aljazeera web site (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/967715B8-276C-4708-AC08-7FD102E13BA7.htm) for quite an eye opener on the need for Arab reform.

I say that we should consider as many facets as possible because there is a *lot* we don't know. Most of the evidence about Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/Rice lies in the link you provided start out by saying "This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda...."

I sincerely doubt that the person who wrote these proofs can prove that Iraq didn't support Al Queda, or other terrorist organizations. But there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein paid about USD$25K per homicide bomber in Israel. And given that terrorist trarining camps were found in Iraq, (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1854928) if I were the guy making the call, I'd want to err on the safe side.

Ditto on the other judgement calls, AFAIC. But vote your conscience.

expect the issues to fail to be black and white.

Bingo. They never are. However one thing that I clearly remember President Bush saying early in the game: "This fight is going to be very hard. It is going to take a long time. You're going to be sick of this and tired of me pushing it forward, but this is what it is going to take."

Guess what? When you read the Arab press... they see this as a gut check. They're convinced that we don't got 'em. Show Michael Moore's movie to a kid over in Iraq that is rebuilding a school or installing a generator. Ask him or her.... do we have the guts?

I don't know about you, but I am scared s***less by the prospect of nuclear "research facilities" being built in hardened underground bunkers for the purpose of generating electricity in an Islamic fundamentalist state that is floating on oil and natural gas. You know, the one that the French and Russians are selling their know-how to.

So, yes... I am following your advice and learning as much about this as I possibly can (without wasting $10 and 2 hours to confirm that Michael Moore hates President Bush), and know that the fog of politics, especially when aided by billions of dollars worth of Hollywood special effects, are going to make it really hard to get anywhere close to a completely clear picture.

Ian

Visian

07-06-2004, 07:38 PM

BTW... here is what happens to the Michael Moores of Iran. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/iran/)

Dang, I am going out to ride the /2.... this gets depressing after a while, and ya just gotta go do something simple.

Ian

http://www.visian.nu/images/67r69s.jpg

Hodag

07-06-2004, 08:44 PM

I'm amazed at the civility during this thread. While most of us agree to disagree on many things. There is no flaming, name calling, and other childish behavior. I'm impressed with how we treat each other, both on the web and in person.
What a group of people.....
Mark

kbasa

07-06-2004, 09:11 PM

In my abundant spare time (:rolleyes) I moderate a forum that is somewhat less civil.

But they're making progress.....:evil

username

07-07-2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by KBasa
In my abundant spare time (:rolleyes) I moderate a forum that is somewhat less civil.

But they're making progress.....:evil

i usually go to that forum and call all the people over here terrible names. you wouldnt believe some of the things ive said, i should be ashamed of myself.

:D

BMWRider

07-07-2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by KBasa
In my abundant spare time (:rolleyes) I moderate a forum that is somewhat less civil.

But they're making progress.....:evil

Gee, I wonder where that would be ...?

:dunno :D

R75_7

07-08-2004, 03:04 AM

Visian,
I've looked at all of the sites I could get to, of the ones you recomended. If that info is true, then why isn't the Pres. and all of his colleagues saying showing and any other way of commuting this info repeatedly so the public can put it all together, or at least see it more clearly? It hard to believe what the Bush Clanis saying anymore because of the constant lies that are being exposed by lots of different areas. Not just Michael Moore. How about The Daily Show with John Stewart? Or there own sources of media? It feels a lot like wag the dog. I want to just say; "I don't know and I don't_care". But I do. Because , I feel like I'm being dragged around without any control of my own. And it just doesn't feel right in my heart of hearts.

Visian

07-08-2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by R75/7
Visian,
I've looked at all of the sites I could get to, of the ones you recomended. If that info is true, then why isn't the Pres. and all of his colleagues saying showing and any other way of commuting this info repeatedly so the public can put it all together, or at least see it more clearly?

It might have something to do with their day jobs. Perhaps they're too busy to waste time trying to change the minds of people who believe whatever they see in the movies without any deep critical thought? ;)

Seriously, you get X amount of time in front of the camera. Are you going to spend it talking about the other guy's accusations or are tell people your ideas for fixing problems and protecting us from future attacks?

Michael Moore himself admits that he is not objective. Many people would call this telling lies.

For instance: one of the main claims in his film states that President Bush allowed Saudis to fly home when everyone else was grounded. In fact, Richard Clarke admitted that he alone was responsible for this decision. (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx)

So... is Michael Moore lying?

It hard to believe what the Bush Clanis saying anymore because of the constant lies that are being exposed by lots of different areas. Not just Michael Moore. How about The Daily Show with John Stewart?

Michael... no offense intended, but you may need to look a little further than the box office or your TV dial for accurate sources of information. Maybe a *lot* further.

It feels a lot like wag the dog. I want to just say; "I don't know and I don't_care". But I do. Because , I feel like I'm being dragged around without any control of my own. And it just doesn't feel right in my heart of hearts.

You watch too many movies!!! :D

Michael, recently I heard a news analyst state an opinion that I felt was pretty accurate: "no one going to see Farenheit 9/11 is going to change their vote."

So, my point is: while many people spend their time hunting for proof of lies, the Iranians are building hardened underground nuclear research facilities while torturing political dissenters in their prisons, the North Koreans are building nuclear weapons and delivery systems while starving their people, and on and on....

Personally, I would rather our leaders focus on these issues instead of spinning their wheels in the mud that Michael Moore is selling to the people who want to buy mud.

You and I may never agree, but facts are facts. These things are really happening in this world and *someone* has to do something about it. Or the next thing we know, it will be happening right here in our country.

Hey... wait a minute. It already is! :cry

Thank you for your thoughts.

Ian

ps => here is some more information (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) to help you with your search for the truth.

oldcarkook

07-08-2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by KBasa
...As a point of fact, I read in today's SF Chronicle, that Mr. Moore is encouraging people to see cracked copies of the movie....
I wonder how his producers and backers feel about that? Would be interesting if Mr. Moore were relegated to distribution exclusively by cracked copies off his VCR.

Somehow, Mr. Moore encourgaing copyright violations on his own work does not surprise me. I can only hope that everyone views only a ripped copy and Mr. Moore is saddled with financing the whole enchilada himself.

His efforts to simply raise controversy continue to hit new highs. As he flies around to the Cannes festival with the money he's made on this film and others like it, and spends his earnings, let's all remember that the SF Chronicle stated that he encourages copyright abuse of his work. I for one will do all that I can to support this aspect of his beliefs! Give him what he wants.

Let's encourage everyone to support him in the way he desires and see his work only on free copies ripped off the net. Why support those big corporate heathens in the movie business anyway? Yea...thats the ticket.:dunno

username

07-08-2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by oldcarkook
I wonder how his producers and backers feel about that? Would be interesting if Mr. Moore were relegated to distribution exclusively by cracked copies off his VCR.

Somehow, Mr. Moore encourgaing copyright violations on his own work does not surprise me. I can only hope that everyone views only a ripped copy and Mr. Moore is saddled with financing the whole enchilada himself.

His efforts to simply raise controversy continue to hit new highs. As he flies around to the Cannes festival with the money he's made on this film and others like it, and spends his earnings, let's all remember that the SF Chronicle stated that he encourages copyright abuse of his work. I for one will do all that I can to support this aspect of his beliefs! Give him what he wants.

Let's encourage everyone to support him in the way he desires and see his work only on free copies ripped off the net. Why support those big corporate heathens in the movie business anyway? Yea...thats the ticket.:dunno

kook, i think he's already made his money off this film. he doesnt need any more, he realizes that, and he wants to proliferate his ideas. you arent hurting him by downloading his film off kazaa, youre playing right into his hands. next he'll be on larry king and say, 'my film has been downloaded 10,000,000 times WORLDWIDE!' if youre a true 'merican, this should concern you deeply. unpredictable foreigners [gasp] (who will not be able to turn into fox news later that day to 'get their mind right') will be watching it all over the world, and without the excellent critical thinking skills of red-blooded 'mericans :huh these folks are likely to walk out thinking, "wow, bush *is* a lousy -----" so it would be better for all the right-wingers if he chased after the copyright violators, and he knows that. lots more people will see this film now in countries where it isnt distributed in theaters. hooray! ideas spread according to the wishes of the people, not the governments, not the corporations, and not the men who hold the official power. [cough] democracy [cough]

on a more serious note, im more concerned about the people who went to see *garfield.* who the heck are *these* people? that scares me more than any republican/liveral activity. HFS, it's in 2500 theaters! *that's* what's wrong with america. they should be rounding these people up and putting them in guatanamo until we decide what to do with them. these are probably the same people that went to pauly shore's movie! :D

knary

07-08-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Visian
For instance: one of the main claims in his film states that President Bush allowed Saudis to fly home when everyone else was grounded. In fact, Richard Clarke admitted that he alone was responsible for this decision. (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx)

So... is Michael Moore lying?

Moore doesn't claim that they were allowed to fly when eveyone else was grounded. He claims that they were not appropriately screened by the FBI before being allowed to leave the country - after planes were again allowed to take to the air. This "fact" about Moore's lying has been misreported again and again.

R75_7

07-08-2004, 02:00 PM

Garfield made $64,000,000 in 25 days. Probably a lot of spoiled children dragging their whipped parents who work to much for money and feel guilty so they let their kids do whatever, regardless.
Visian,
I have looked at other sources of info. Such as the newspaper, Newsweek, and other publications. I trust the media a little(very little) more then the internet. Because, I think the news outlets must answer for what they say(I hope). But, as far as I know, you could be writing those articles on those websites. With your talents you could have created the whole site? Anyway, My intention of this thread was to get people responses and thoughts of how the movie played out. I should of known better.

Visian

07-08-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by knary
This "fact" about Moore's lying has been misreported again and again.

Scott -- you're right.

Here is what another person said about the same issue:

Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.

If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.”

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

So... is deception by intentional omission lying? In my book it is. And it sure sells a lot of movie tickets, too.

Thanks for pointing this out. It caused me to look even closer. :)

Ian

Visian

07-08-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by R75/7

I trust the media a little(very little) more then the internet.

Michael -- the Internet is a part of the media. Much of the information that appears there also appears in print and video. Now that information is digital, many publishers have found it to be quite simple to publish in all media using essentially the same content.

My intention of this thread was to get people responses and thoughts of how the movie played out. I should of known better.

You have my deepest respect for posting this thread, and I think the ensuing discussion has been inordinately useful. Michale Moore's movie is still playing out and even if I don't agree with it, I think it is a valid voice in the concept of E Pluribus Unum.

So is the discussion in this thread. You are to be commended for posting it. :)

Ian

knary

07-08-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Scott -- you're right.

Here is what another person said about the same issue:

Moore is guilty of a classic game of saying one thing and implying another when he describes how members of the Saudi elite were flown out of the United States shortly after 9/11.

If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13.

The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.”

But the movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.”

So... is deception by intentional omission lying? In my book it is. And it sure sells a lot of movie tickets, too.

Thanks for pointing this out. It caused me to look even closer. :)

Ian

So what's your view of this administration pretending to not know how so many americans thought Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Visian

07-08-2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by knary
So what's your view of this administration pretending to not know how so many americans thought Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Scott -- could you provide a specific reference or some facts please?

Ian

knary

07-08-2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Scott -- could you provide a specific reference or some facts please?

Ian

not right this second. too much work to do. :D

I'll do some digging. The brief sum up is that the white house did everything they could to put "9/11" and "Iraq" together in every speech and comment. Some months back their response to the lack of evidence suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with it was "What are you talking about? we never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. We don't know why americans think Iraq was."

Visian

07-08-2004, 06:40 PM

I'm busy, too. but here it is... from no less an unbiased source than the LA Times (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918proof.htm)

"Though Bush and his top aides did not say directly that Hussein took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, they often combined the two subjects in speeches and interviews leading up to the war. In a key speech in Cincinnati in October, the president said: "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." After Hussein's regime was toppled, Bush reinforced the perception of a link between the two in his May 1 speech aboard an aircraft carrier off San Diego, saying, "We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda."

So... from what I can see here, this writer contends that President Bush and Vice President Cheney did exactly the same thing as Michael Moore does in his film!

Which proves the need to find things out for yourself.

And further prove's Nilsson's point: you see what they want to see, and hear what you want to hear, you dig?

"The Pointed Man"

Finally the two travelers reached what appeared to be the entrance to the Pointless Forest. There was a huge, thorny barrier with a small sign at its base which read, "This Way." Once on the other side of the barrier Oblio and Arrow had their first encounter with the Pointless Man or the Pointed Man depending upon your point of view. You see the Pointless Man did have a point; in fact, he had hundreds of them, all pointing in different directions. But as he so quickly pointed out, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all." Speaking of points, I don't know if you've ever been to a pointless forest, but a forest is a forest, and one of the first things Oblio and Arrow noticed about the Pointless Forest was that all the leaves on all the trees had points, and all the trees had points. In fact, even the branches of all the trees pointed in different directions, which seemed a little strange for a pointless forest. When the Pointed Man disappeared, Oblio and Arrow were left standing alone wondering what to do next when suddenly they were aware of a strange sound coming in from the North. When they looked up, there was a giant swarm of bees headed straight for them. So to seek cover, they jumped inside a hollow log. But when the bees attacked, the log was jarred loose, and it tumbled down a steep hill, and it careened and crashed finally into the base of the most unusual rock pile--in fact, the Rock Man.

And the Rock Man said, "Say, what's happening with you boys. You look like you pretty shook up. You been goofin' with the bees?" And Oblio told the Rock Man that they were banished and asked him whether or not this was the Pointless Forest.

The Rock Man said, "Say, babe, there ain't nothing pointless about this gig. The thing is you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. You dig? Did you ever see Paris?"

"No."

"Did you ever see New Deli?"

"No."

"Well, that's it. You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear." And with that the Rock Man fell soundly asleep, leaving Oblio and Arrow once again all alone.

So they continued on through the Pointless Forest until, suddenly, Arrow, who had been running a few yards ahead of Oblio, disappeared in to a hole--the Point of No Return.

=================================

Scary, eh? :dunno

Ian

knary

07-08-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Scary, eh? :dunno

Ian

Very. We must be diligent in our search for the truth, hunting like truffle hungry pigs in the fetid forest.

Of course, Moore is just a movie maker, a spreader of opinion (or manure depending on your POV) and a maker of entertainment. If you don't like his opinions and product, don't pay to see the movie. No one will die if his deceptions succeed. :cry

Visian

07-08-2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by knary
Very. We must be diligent in our search for the truth, hunting like truffle hungry pigs in the fetid forest.

Well said.

Of course, Moore is just a movie maker, a spreader of opinion (or manure depending on your POV) and a maker of entertainment. If you don't like his opinions and product, don't pay to see the movie. No one will die if his deceptions succeed. :cry

They say the same thing about all propagandists! :lol

Ian

knary

07-08-2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Visian

They say the same thing about all propagandists! :lol

Ian

Hah. :D

Simply put, when Bush deceives us, there can be massive and long lasting repercussions that could affect nearly everyone on the planet. When Moore lies, we call him a fat bastard.

Visian

07-08-2004, 07:37 PM

And when Al Queda bombs trains in Spain, a scared populace changes their vote. :(

Wonder if Michael Moore has any ideas on how to fix that?

Ian

knary

07-08-2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Visian
And when Al Queda bombs trains in Spain, a scared populace changes their vote.

Wonder if Michael Moore has any ideas on how to fix that?

Ian

As you know, that's a gross over simplification of what happened in Spain. Besides, is it wrong for the people to say that the policies of an administration cost too much? This isn't a clear question of right or wrong. The people's voice was heard at the polls.

Visian

07-08-2004, 08:04 PM

... everytime someone does the same thing that Michael Moore does, it's a bad thing. I was led to believe that he is telling the truth. :confused:

What happened in Spain is about as simple as it gets.

No, it's not wrong to criticize the government. It's healthy.

But when it comes to counting up the costs, it's wise to know the value of things.

Personally, I place a higher value on ideas that seek to bring about freedom for as many people as possible than I do those that simply point out what we're doing wrong.

But it's worthwhile listening to both. Just not $10 in this instance! :D

Ian

username

07-09-2004, 10:03 AM

spain is indeed very simple.

1. democracy in action. the people spoke. the government was changed and did what the people wanted. sorry america didnt like it. america is a champion of democracy, so on a meta-level, all true americans should be pleased as punch about what happened in spain.

2. the common spanish view is, 'al quaeda is america's problem.' i think most folks in the world feel this way. why? because al quaeda makes it clear that they dont like america. and they tell people, 'look, this is between us and america. step away and you wont be messed up.' there are obvious parallels between hitler's behavior leading up to wwII, but there is a less visceral reaction on the part of europeans because OBL is not seizing territory, he is an idealogue.

look, OBL, and the wahibis, and a number of the 'arab street' *WANT* to be isolationists. they dont want westerners in their countries. it is as you say, very simple. they dont hate freedom per se, they hate non-radical islam. but they do think the american way of life is decadent and violates the basic principles of their religion. right or wrong, that's how they feel about it. so why dont we just get the hell out of the middle east? that's simple too. oil. and the only reason we give a crap about israel is that it's a great beach head to the rest of the middle east.

i think youre right - it's very simple. one, we use too much foreign oil. two, our battle is against radical islam as an ideology, not terrorism. having a war against terrorism is like having a war against screwdrivers. terrorism is a tool. the real fight is to defeat the ideas behind the terrorists. if you just kill terrorists, you dont kill ideas.

so the real discussion is two pronged, how do we use less oil and make the middle east less important, and how do we defeat radical islam?

Visian

07-09-2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by username
spain is indeed very simple.

1. democracy in action. the people spoke. the government was changed and did what the people wanted. sorry america didnt like it. america is a champion of democracy, so on a meta-level, all true americans should be pleased as punch about what happened in spain.

Sorry.... terrorism in action. Polls showed a close election with the liberal minority gaining. Spain's government was aware of potential action by domestic terrorists ETA. Bombs killed 200 people. Spaniards took the easy way out by burying their heads in the sand and hoping the bad guys would look the other way, just as the rest of Europe has done in the majority of conflicts over the past 100 years.

2. the common spanish view is, 'al quaeda is america's problem.' i think most folks in the world feel this way. why? because al quaeda makes it clear that they dont like america. and they tell people, 'look, this is between us and america. step away and you wont be messed up.' there are obvious parallels between hitler's behavior leading up to wwII, but there is a less visceral reaction on the part of europeans because OBL is not seizing territory, he is an idealogue.

You are correct. Much of Europe is guilty of wishful thinking. The Europeans that I speak with feel the way they do because the threat of terror is much closer to home.... not because they think Al Queda is America's problem. Terror has been a way of life for them much longer than it has been for us. They're afraid of it and have been hoping that it will somehow go away if they just appeased the states that support it. (Upcoming revelations in the UN oil-for-food program will bear witness to this)

look, OBL, and the wahibis, and a number of the 'arab street' *WANT* to be isolationists. they dont want westerners in their countries. it is as you say, very simple. they dont hate freedom per se, they hate non-radical islam.

Agree 100%. They also hate democracy and don't want to lose control of their societies, especially their women. That is even simpler.

...but they do think the american way of life is decadent and violates the basic principles of their religion. right or wrong, that's how they feel about it.

They're right. We are decadent. But that doesn't give them the right to fly airplanes into buildings.

so why dont we just get the hell out of the middle east? that's simple too. oil. and the only reason we give a crap about israel is that it's a great beach head to the rest of the middle east.

Now we are really starting to agree. And I would like to add that the USA needs to start being more even-handed with the Palestinians. If you study the recent history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (the last 100 years) you will learn that the Israelis, especially the Zionist faction, enabled by the British and other Europeans, have treated the Palestinians much like early american settlers treated the native americans.

i think youre right - it's very simple. one, we use too much foreign oil.

And yet we *still* won't explore for oil more agressively, or invest more intesively in alternative sources of energy. One is a government/electorate issue. The other is a free market issue. And they are intrinsically intertwined.

two, our battle is against radical islam as an ideology, not terrorism. having a war against terrorism is like having a war against screwdrivers. terrorism is a tool. the real fight is to defeat the ideas behind the terrorists. if you just kill terrorists, you dont kill ideas.

Terrorists perverted the Islamic faith -- its tradition of a male-dominated society and its perceptions regarding Zionists -- creating a situation that totalitarian leaders in Islamic states could leverage by using terrorists as surrogates to attack us and prevent the loss of control that freedom represents.

We are not fighting islam. We are fighting totalitarian leaders of states that either support or appease terrorists in an effort to maintain their positions of power. Witness: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

so the real discussion is two pronged, how do we use less oil and make the middle east less important, and how do we defeat radical islam?

I'm with ya on point A, point B misses the point, IMO.

Thanks for your thoughts, username. What's your real name?

Ian

Visian

07-09-2004, 12:24 PM

Username: so the real discussion is two pronged, how do we use less oil and make the middle east less important, and how do we defeat radical islam?

Ian: I'm with ya on point A, point B misses the point, IMO.

Thinking a bit more, we agree about the radical part. Radical anything is rarely good. Especially if religion is the issue.

Radical beemerism rocks, tho. :D

Ian

username

07-09-2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Thinking a bit more, we agree about the radical part. Radical anything is rarely good. Especially if religion is the issue.

Radical beemerism rocks, tho. :D

Ian

thats what i was going to point out - the problem is radical islam, not islam itself. thanks for adding your own clarification.

i think we can agree to disagree - im going to maintain the spain thing was democracy in action. right or wrong, the people spoke, the regime changed and policy changed with it. that's how it's supposed to work. (let's hope it works this november here at home.) i dont have a problem with democratic countries disagreeing with us. (shoot, *i* dont agree with us, so im not even us.) the US started the iraq war on its own, and without significant international support. i dont begrudge any country that isnt willing to send it's citizens to die for the US. in fact, i respect them for forming their own opinion and having the guts to stick to it. iraq is the US's problem.

and we do violently agree on the energy usage thing. that's key and that's what this is all really about. imagine if bush asked for and congress approved $87B for R&D on alternative energy. wow, that'd be nice! and then we set some audacious goal. instead of old george the dipwad suggesting that we go to mars, how about we set a goal to reduce our oil consumption as a nation by 50% in ten years? would anyone disagree with this? (other than the oil companies, auto companies, and their lobbyists?)

Visian

07-09-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by username
imagine if bush asked for and congress approved $87B for R&D on alternative energy. wow, that'd be nice! and then we set some audacious goal. instead of old george the dipwad suggesting that we go to mars, how about we set a goal to reduce our oil consumption as a nation by 50% in ten years? would anyone disagree with this? (other than the oil companies, auto companies, and their lobbyists?)

Now, now, now...

JFK set the goal of reaching the moon in 10 years, and look what came out of it.

Velcro (R)... and a ton of other good technologies! :p

Who's to say that a dramatic breakthrough in fuel cell technology for spacecraft won't make the technology more affordable right here on the ground? (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/fuelcellcars.html)

Ian

lorazepam

07-09-2004, 11:16 PM

I have to agree, Visian. Propulsion to and from, and while there has to be compact and powerful. I have no doubt we will all see the benefits of the Mars project. It will provide jobs for people in technical fields, and in production facilities. Construction to build/remodel facilities.

The electronics on the modern BMW are more complex than those on the Lunar Module. I can't wait to see what would come out of planning for such a mission.

The best thing I have seen to come out of the movie is this thread. It has been thought provoking, and enjoyable.

Thanks, guys

lorazepam

07-09-2004, 11:26 PM

I would like to see Michael Moore do an in depth story on the violence in the inner cities. There are way more guns out in the country, but the rate of people dying by gun violence in the inner cities is getting out of control. Fifty people will be out in the street when someone gets shot, and the police will get no leads.

Having a community like that in this country needs to be addressed. Responsible people should not have to lock themselves into a house with bars on the windows.

I wonder what his take would be on it?

R75_7

07-10-2004, 01:40 AM

Earlier on in this thread someone asked if there were any other movies of this nature coming out soon. Yes there is and sme have already been released with much less fanfaire. Here are some; "Control Room", "The Hunting of a President: The Ten Year Campaign to Destroy President Clinton", "Uncovered: The War On Iraq", "Unprecedented: The 2004 Election", "Capturing The Freedmans", "Tying The Knot", "Spellbound", "Liberty Bound", "The Fog Of War: Eleven Lessons From The Life of Robert S. McNamara", "Americas Heart & Soul", and of course "Super Size Me". If you have not seen Super Size Me, check it out. It's good laughs with a little bit of knowledge.

Visian

07-10-2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by lorazepam
I would like to see Michael Moore do an in depth story on the violence in the inner cities.

I would like to see Michael Moore focus his efforts on communicating an alternative solution instead of pointing out what's wrong with who is working to solve the problem.

THAT would be worth my $10.

Ian

kbasa

07-10-2004, 09:09 AM

I don't know that that's ever going to happen.

I agree with lorazepam, though. Moore is from Flint, MI, which has had its share of gun violence issues, I'm sure, as has the entire metro Detroit issue. I think he went down that road pretty well in Bowling for Columbine, but I think the interview with Charlton Heston was pretty painful to see.

Wade Ogle

07-12-2004, 01:26 AM

My wife & I saw the film. It is very intense & emotional. We both laughed, cried and felt anger during the film. I visit a handful of forums & newsgroups and have noticed the majority of people cyring foul have not even seen the film...but they certainly sound like passionate experts on it's contents. I urged my best friend (conservative republican) to go see it. He replied that he would not want to put one dime in MM's pocket and even offered a few "counter-facts" to MM's "lies". I let it go but we both knew it was a weak excuse. He doesn't want to have his...what would you say..."political belief system" challenged. The movie is NOT a cheap-shot, 2-hour paraody of Bush. I'd urge everyone to see it. You won't turn into a MM worshipping zombie. You will want this Iraq business over NOW! By the way, I listen to Rush & O'Reilly everyday (work)...so, I hear the otherside. I still think they're two of the biggest liars I've ever heard.;) -Wade PS. If money really is the issue for you, my son tells me MM is going to put the film on his site for downloading...free of charge. You've got nothing to lose.

R75_7

07-12-2004, 01:58 AM

Wade,
Thanks for seeing the film first then replying. It's neat to have an educated opinion about a subject after knowng what the subject is. Nice post. Glad you enjoyed the film. I saw Riding Giants this weekend. It's a surf documentary about riding the biggest waves. awesome is the best word to describe it.

Wade Ogle

07-12-2004, 03:21 PM

No problem. It's powerful stuff...I'll likely see it again as it was a lot to wrap your head around in one viewing. I've enjoyed MM's movies (minus the ambush of Charlton Heston) for the most part but this one is definitely a step-up. Also, I saw Errol Morris' "Fog Of War". The Robert McNamara film. That was an EYE OPENER. People may slam MM but NO ONE slams Errol Morris. There are some (formerly classified) memos and phone conversations that they play that are pretty unsettling. All I can say is that Edwin Starr was right when he grunted "War huh What is it good for? Aaahhbsolutely Nuthin' Say it again!" ;) -Wade

web3

07-12-2004, 08:06 PM

I finally went to see the movie today to see what all of the hype is about. I'm an independent and like to look at both sides of any argument before making a decision. The film was very enlightening. It was funny and sad in places and brought up several questions that need to be answered. Bandar Bush and the Saudi connnection is very disturbing. I think that the greatest threat to the country today is not terriorism but the take over of the government by business. President Eisenhower warned of a militery industrial complex. The line between business and goverment has disappeared and they appear to have merged. Instead of government by the people for the people it seems to be government buy business for business.

Visian

07-13-2004, 09:20 AM

... businesses are run by people, shareholders are people, and customers are people.

Do a stint as a government employee sometime and then ask yourself if there are more efficient and cost-effective alternative approaches.

Ian

Visian

07-13-2004, 06:30 PM

Well... as stated in my earlier posts, I was expecting to watch 2+ hours of why George Bush sucks.

I was wrong. It was 2+ hours of why America sucks.

At this point, all I can say is that I am proud to live in a country where Michael Moore can make this kind of movie.

E Pluribus Unum.

Ian

Visian

07-13-2004, 06:48 PM

If you haven't already, you really need to read this information. (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

Hey... I paid to see the movie because I respect the opinions of the people on this forum.

You can read the facts for free! :)

Ian

knary

07-13-2004, 06:57 PM

'Fact' is a pretty loose term these days. :D That article often does little more than quote other articles which have already been shown to have sometimes gross errors in them.

in the end, my carefactor is starting to approach zero. The urgency with which some point at Moore as a liar seems proportional to their need to ignore the far more dangerous deceptions of this administration.

back to the fun stuff...
I can NOT wait to get out of here. I've got nearly 2 weeks on the bike starting this thursday (ok a couple days of work in the middle).

Visian

07-13-2004, 07:46 PM

Wish I were going to the rally, but can't because of work.

So it's Vintage Days for me... I will try to post a few pics.

Can't wait to see pics from Spokane! :)

Wish I was riding the Lolo Motorway (http://www.lewisandclarkidaho.com/lolo_motorway.htm) as I had planned. :cry

Ian

Emoto

07-14-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by R75/7
I would agree that Michael Moore is over the top(extremely). I'd even say he was a rabble rowser. But not a liar. If he had lied don't you think somebody would've burned him by now. And Charleton Heston made a racist remark all on his own without any cutting or editing of the film.

BS.

Moore is a swine.

www.bowlingfortruth.com

knary

07-14-2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Emoto
BS.

Moore is a swine.

www.bowlingfortruth.com

Am I the only one that didn't see bowling for columbine as Anti-gun so much as Anti-hyperbole?

jgr451

07-14-2004, 01:52 PM

Thanks for posting that Emoto.I had a long browse through the critiques . I saw BFC and I did not recall Charlton Heston's so called racist remarks mentioned by R75/7 in the quote on your post.I see now how that was contrived; and it confirms my reaction when I saw the segment, that Moore had very deliberately,cunningly,and cruelly set Charlton Heston up to make him look foolish.

He did succeed to a degree,but Moore ends up looking like a schmuck,abusing the hospitality Heston had extended,and Heston regained his dignity when he finally realized how Moore was tricking him.

I am not afraid to go see 911 for fear my liberal Canadian moral outrage will be engaged,nor that my consevative,old fashioned respect and affection for America and her desire to actually help make the world a better place will take a beating...no,I just live in a small town where there is only one theatre and they probably won't be able to afford the film for 6 months...

Emoto

07-14-2004, 02:02 PM

My pleasure. The only reason I won't go see it is to keep my money out of Mooron's pockets. I enjoy a skillfully crafted peiece of propaganda as much as the next man, though. The only thing that really irks me about this is that he is calling it a documentary when it is not, which to me shows a deliberate intent to mislead the public.

Visian

07-14-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by knary
Am I the only one that didn't see bowling for columbine as Anti-gun so much as Anti-hyperbole?

Scott... we really need to get together for a beer sometime!

I saw Bowling for Columbine as another example of Michael Moore leveraging the hyperbole over Columbine in a blatant exercise in money making.

What continues to amaze me is how someone so cynical can pull the wool over folks who are so idealistic (that'd be the liberals...).

Maybe that's it...

Now here's some humor that's more balanced. (http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html) I can relate to stuff like this.

But one-sided diatribes with little-to-no-accuracy... it's easy to see right through stuff like that.

Ian

knary

07-14-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Scott... we really need to get together for a beer sometime!

I saw Bowling for Columbine as another example of Michael Moore leveraging the hyperbole over Columbine in a blatant exercise in money making.

What continues to amaze me is how someone so cynical can pull the wool over folks who are so idealistic (that'd be the liberals...).

Maybe that's it...

Now here's some humor that's more balanced. (http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html) I can relate to stuff like this.

But one-sided diatribes with little-to-no-accuracy... it's easy to see right through stuff like that.

Ian

I am not attempting to paint Moore as a speaker of truth. He is a sometimes entertaining, sometimes annoying windbag. I do find his movies provacative. I do not look to them for an all encompassing point of view. He is but one man and the movies reflect his point of view - just as every book and every movie and every essay and every TV show reflect the perspective of the author(s). I recently read a well respected history book (who's name I suddenly can't recall). It was very informative and enlightening, but never did I doubt that there are other perspectives that would disagree with its conclusions. Moore's failing is that he never disguises the fact that his movies are from a very specific POV.

Having said that, Bowling for Columbine was more critical of our culture than of gun owners and ownership. Yet it is the commentary on guns that drew the most fire. I'd rather we talked about the very legitimate question he asks - why are we such a violent society? Note that he did not say it was because of guns.

R75_7

07-18-2004, 05:11 PM

Charleton Heston said something to the effect of;"as my WHITE four fathers would have wanted it". Of course our political leaders wher white, because of racism"slavery". He didn't need to overstate it. And, it was said all in one cut, no editing.

Visian

07-19-2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by knary
I'd rather we talked about the very legitimate question he asks - why are we such a violent society?

Amen, bro.

And I wouldn't limit it to "we"... as in America.

Like it or not, the cold hard reality is that the world is a very brutal place and there are some people in it who are terminally cold. As in *really* bad. (personal note: spent part of the weekend talking with a recently retired member of the CIA. While he couldn't give as many specifics as I would have liked, what he did say was *extremely* scary. We are facing some tough times ahead, very tough. :cry)

Like you, Scott and others, I very much wish that this were not the case, and instead, that it was more possible for us to love one another (the message of Jesus as so clearly presented in Mel Gibson's movie)...

My personal belief is that we will most likely achieve this through communication, which is why I chose this industry for my career. I believe that through open, accurate and complete communication we will achieve a mutual understanding and respect that will bring an end to peoples' need to dominate each other, to preserve their control and privilege.

The primary problem I have with Michael Moore's work is that he perverts the true purpose of communications, which is to create understanding, not to create revenues.

Hopefully, the military actions in Iraq and the reality it created -- the Iraqis getting the chance to determine their own destiny -- will communicate clearly to the people in the world who do not currently have that freedom.

Hopefully this communication will create in their societies the belief that pluralism is possible, indeed preferrable, and does not represent the destruction of their personal morals and/or belief systems.

Ian

lorazepam

07-19-2004, 03:32 PM

As soon as humans are no longer territorial predators, I think all the violence will stop. I believe that will happen about the same time as the end of humanity itself. Everyone wants to think that we have gotten beyond our instinctive ways, and have become too "civilized" for violence, but the ones who think that, are the ones who are subjected to most of the violence perpetrated. Turn your swords into plowshares, and you will grow food for those who didn't.

Mudbug

07-20-2004, 02:53 AM

I saw the movie. I did not care for the gory parts. Do I believe everything I saw in the movie? No. I don't believe everything I read in the papers or see on TV either.

It is great that someone, anyone expresses a different point of view other than what our elected officials would like us to see and read. Michael Moore's movie did not bother me. What bothers me is the people who try to stop us, the American public, from seeing a different point of view, other than the official press release, no matter how objectionable it is.

"Mindless goose step" to one point of view is far more dangerous and far more objectionable than anything Michael Moore can produce.

Besides a free society needs some to turn on the lights and make the cockroaches run for cover.

basketcase

07-20-2004, 08:22 AM

The latest bruhaha over Moore's "documentary" is the outrage in Vegas over comments by singer Linda Ronstadt.

Ronstadt Booted in Vegas for Praising Michael Moore (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040719/ap_on_en_mu/people_ronstadt)

Seeing her as a representative of the liberal establishment, I think we can conclude that the liberals don't "get it."

The widespread liberal befuddlement kind of reminds me of the comment made by a woman whose third husband had just left her. "This is my third marriage about to fail -- some of this has got to be me."

Duh!

It was the first time she had personally acknowledged any responsibility for her circumstances.

But all things being equal, it puts her light years ahead of the liberals in terms of moving forward productively.

"Denial." When we know things are some way other than how we present them, but we maintain the facade to save face.

"Delusion." When we actually believe things are the way we say they are, but in reality they are not anything like what we believe.

The most obvious clue to denial operating in the psyche is when steps are taken to avoid the truth.

10 years ago in my state (in the face of HIV constituting the greatest health crisis in modern history), the all wise fathers of government culled the mandatory blood test before marriage. How many people are dying today because they hooked up with someone in marriage who "hooked up" with someone HIV postive before marriage?

Thinking back a few years, Jimmy Carter "returned" the Canal Zone to the Panamanians, who promptly farmed out the operation and maintanance of said canal to the Chinese. Contrary to any political hypobole one might hear, the Chinese are not our friends.

I have come to accept that most liberals will wake up to reality only after their own blood test comes back HIV positive, and the Chinese are pouring into our hemisphere and up the Mexican countryside killing and looting on the way. But at that point, it is too late to substantively impact the inevitable result.

The best part of the outrage to me over Moore & Co and their ilk is that it gives me hope there are clear thinking, reality based people still out there in America.

Do I support the radical left's right to speak. Certainly. But do I want them to come to power and further ruin the country? Most certainly not.

magwa

07-21-2004, 05:04 PM

I feel that finding common ground is the beginning of realizing an actual solution to any problem.

Often it is necessary to foster heated discussion in order to find that mid-point.

In that course, people will first growl and scream what they were taught by their fathers.

Some will then stir up the pot with a stick made of any number of nasty substances. Some will throw up fences and minister to members of their own tribes for comfort.

Then, if the goal is still defined, and if the emotional defenses are penetrated, problem solvers will retreat to think about a way to maintain, and make "mainstream", their personal values.

A pat, although appropriate, example is the U.S. Constitution. A continuing work in progress.

We are in trying times, Friends. The forces that are at work out there seem to revel in the weakness our polarization supplies.

Mr. Moore has created a storm of discussion.

Regardless of our personal preferences, our disdain for any other's value systems, rich or poor, right, left or center, long or short hair, military minded or peacenick, we should be the better for intellectual interchange.

If any result of Moore's catalyst divirts us from working toward a higher purpose, it is our own faults and not his.

GeoffMiller

07-21-2004, 11:56 PM

Ya know, I actually got out my wallet and saw the movie. If you haven't, do it, or stfu.

Visian

07-22-2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Geoff Miller
Ya know, I actually got out my wallet and saw the movie. If you haven't, do it, or stfu.

Here's a shot that Michael Moore missed, or perhaps edited when he was making his point.

http://www.visian.nu/images/bush_army.jpg

And here is the story behind the image.

>>>>

Above is a picture of Mike McNaughton of Denham Springs, LA. He stepped on a land mine in Afghanistan Christmas 2002. President Bush came to visit the wounded in the hospital. He told Mike that when he could run a mile that they would go on a run together. True to his word, he called Mike every month or so to see how he was doing. Well, last week they went on the run, 1 mile with the president. Not something you'll see in the news, but seeing the president taking the time to say thank you to the wounded and to give hope to one of my best friends was one of the greatest/best things I have seen in my life.

Justin
CPT Justin P. Dodge, MD
Flight Surgeon, 1-2 AVN RGT
Medical Corps, U.S. Army

<<<<<<

Ian

R75_7

07-23-2004, 01:48 AM

Do you think on there run they discussed the deep cuts in military benefits the Pres. has planned?

lorazepam

07-23-2004, 05:17 AM

I don't think not raising the benefits counts as deep cuts. Unless you are Michael Mooreon

R75_7

07-23-2004, 10:24 PM

Lorazepam,
You must have not served your country. Or you would know what little the men and women get for risking their lives so we can "chat" on these forums while drinking cheap beer. Cheers.

Visian

07-24-2004, 09:43 AM

Michael -- I think what lorazepam was saying is that a lower increase in benefits does not amount to a cut. There are more facts about this argument on the links I've referenced earlier.

But maybe more importantly, nowhere does lorazepam say that the military is over-compensated for what they do.

This leads to the point of my post. One of the most coldly cynical points in Michael Moore's movie is that President Bush put our military in harm's way to further his personal business interests.

Man, does anyone really believe that?

The people who are currently serving don't. The majority of those who have served in the past don't either. And Michael Moore neglected to mention that. Because it doesn't support his point.

Ian

ps => Life is too short to drink cheap beer. While I didn't serve our county, you can count on the fact that I appreciate those who did to the last fiber of my being.

lorazepam

07-24-2004, 11:13 AM

Would serving 5 years as a volunteer firefighter/emt, 4 years in the Air Force, and 5 years as an LEO count as serving my country?

Just because I stated that not increasing the benefits is different than cutting them is in no way any reason to question my judgement of the military in any way.

Statements like that never serve to increase understanding or help to solve problems.

I have seen and done many things in the "service" of my country and neighbors that I would never wish upon anyone. I respect the job that these people do, and remember them and say thank you whenever I can, not when it is the thing to do.

When is the last time you made some baked goods and taken them and a case of sports drinks to your local firehouse?

I made a statement that cleared up a falsehood (one of many) that the Moron made in his film. Please don't read into that statement what kind of person I am.

R75_7

07-25-2004, 01:09 AM

Lorazepam,
Did you just say that the words that come from your mouth do not represent who you are? And that my snide remarks and poor sense of humor do not further understanding and solve problems? But your statements always further understanding and solve problems? Are you kidding yourself? Because I'm not fooled. I am passionate about the military because I've served and my best friend is in Iraq right now. So I would say that giving the humans in the Army(not the machines) less support or money is terribly wrong. Because it's those humans that are not replaceable. I have not brought the firefighters milk and cookies. But I always think toward their best interest when it's time to vote. Meaning that I like to put more money in their pockets and more medical support for them and their families. If you don't support the humans getting more then I question you and your support of the military.

lorazepam

07-25-2004, 12:30 PM

Once again, you have predetermined what my stance is on the issue, when I have not made that stance known. I have not claimed that what I say always fosters understanding or works to solve the problems we discuss.

What I was saying is that prejudging someones opinions from a general statement made does nothing but make those that are pre judged become defensive.

Up until this point, I have not said a word about weather I agreed with not increasing the benefits and pay of our military or not.

I made less than 300 a month while serving, and felt it was not enough. However, when I signed the papers to enlist, I knew what I was going to make and chose that path. Sacrifices are made when one does something noble, and serving your country is certainly a noble cause.

I would like to see those who serve at least be able to make ends meet without public assistance, and I would like to see those that have come home with problems developed while serving taken care of as well.

We have the best trained and best paid military on earth. Military service is mandatory in many countries, with pay that doesn't even come close to what our men and women make.

Because they are the best paid does not in any way mean they do not deserve more than they currently make.

Taking a plate of brownies and a case of gatorade to my local firehouse, along with a visit of an hour or so a couple time a year dies make me feel better.

I get to know my neighbors who choose to defend my property and life a bit better, and it allows me the opportunity to thank them in person for what they do.

This also allows them to get to know me, and my background. If a local emergency arises (tornado) and volunteers are needed to assist, They will know who I am and can use me as needed.

If you have proof that the president is planning deep cuts, please provide the proof. Until then, don't tell me that is what is happening, based on what a narrow minded fat assed moron claimed in his movie.

lorazepam

07-28-2004, 03:56 PM

This was written by medal of honor winners. I believe them.

click here (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040717-043458-6068r.htm)

Visian

08-12-2004, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by R75/7
... I would say that giving the humans in the Army(not the machines) less support or money is terribly wrong.

Sorta sorry to open up an old thread, but there is a new documentary film (http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv) that folks might enjoy.

Ian

(ps - video requires broadband, don't even think about it if you're dial-up...)

kbasa

08-12-2004, 11:14 AM

:rolleyes

I can't see that someone who sees new information and changes their mind is a bad thing.

If there's one thing that will get you in trouble, it's sticking with a strategy in the face of evidence that refutes your belief. Look what it did for W.

knary

08-12-2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
:rolleyes

I can't see that someone who sees new information and changes their mind is a bad thing.

If there's one thing that will get you in trouble, it's sticking with a strategy in the face of evidence that refutes your belief. Look what it did for W.

Don't you mean, "Look what it's doing to W."?

username

08-12-2004, 01:01 PM

kbasa/knary, apparently you guys just dont get it. maybe it's the weird k in front of your names, and yet you ride R bikes. i dunno. let me try to explain it to you:

expanding one's knowledge at the risk of having to change your mind, have your values challenged, or find out that you are wrong is called "liberal waffling." it's a very bad thing, second ONLY to terrorism.

sticking to one's mindset resolutely regardless of a growing body of empirical evidence is called "leadership."

;)

knary

08-12-2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by username
kbasa/knary, apparently you guys just dont get it. maybe it's the weird k in front of your names, and yet you ride R bikes. i dunno. let me try to explain it to you:

expanding one's knowledge at the risk of having to change your mind, have your values challenged, or find out that you are wrong is called "liberal waffling." it's a very bad thing, second ONLY to terrorism.

sticking to one's mindset resolutely regardless of a growing body of empirical evidence is called "leadership."

;)

:lol

What do you call blindly following a blind leader?

Visian

08-12-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by knary
:lol

What do you call blindly following a blind leader?

A Michael Moore fan? :)

Ian

Visian

08-12-2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
:rolleyes

I can't see that someone who sees new information and changes their mind is a bad thing.

Yes. It's being on both sides of an issue that makes one wonder.

Ian

knary

08-12-2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Yes. It's being on both sides of an issue that makes one wonder.

Ian

That's the spin from those out at the sides. You're for invading Iraq or you're not? That's a clumsy choice.

Visian

08-12-2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by knary
That's the spin from those out at the sides.

:confused:

username

08-12-2004, 02:51 PM

[whitehouse mode = on]

come on, this is simple. it's black and white. do what youre told. trust me. really, it'll be fine. youre tiring yourself out with all the thinking and debating, you should be out shopping like a good patriot.

are you with us or with the terrorists? it's really that simple. also, consider how damaging a seditious discussion like this for the troops in iraq. youre practically killing them with your own hands by exercising your freedom. cut it out. get in line.

[whitehouse mode = off]

wow, that was scary.

Visian

08-12-2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by knary
You're for invading Iraq or you're not?

That's what you're asking John Kerry after watching this video, right? ;)

Propaganda is spin, doesn't matter which side it comes from.

Ian

Visian

08-12-2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by username
[whitehouse mode = on]

you should be out shopping like a good patriot.

[whitehouse mode = off]

LOL!

Can I use your credit card?

kbasa

08-12-2004, 02:57 PM

The funny thing is that his words almost exactly mirrored my thoughts at the time. As I learned new things, I changed my mind. It's like diagnosing your bike. You see new clues, you change your diagnostic direction.

That's what I took away from the Kerry video. He's able to change his mind. As a manager, I've learned that you need to be able to reassess the "battlefield" and make decisions about actions that are most appropriate at the time, based on the information you have. If you can't do that, you're screwed. If folks want to call that 'waffling', so be it.

Thanks for sending it along, Ian.

Visian

08-12-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
He's able to change his mind.

Yes... I'd say that is his greatest strength.

Or is it being on both sides of an issue and sounding good while doing it? :wow

Just shows to go ya that spin from either direction gets filtered by the person on the receiving end. Just like the Rock Man said, ya dig?

Ian

matthew517

10-13-2004, 07:30 PM

I think the movie is doing what mike Moore wanted it to do.
#1. It is dividing our country with a bunch of misinformation.
#2. Making our government and democratic way of live a joke to the rest of the world.
#3. Being used my terrorists to recruit terrorists to wage war against our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mike Moore in my opinion should be held account for the damage he is and has caused.

knary

10-13-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by matthew517
I think the movie is doing what mike Moore wanted it to do.
#1. It is dividing our country with a bunch of misinformation.
#2. Making our government and democratic way of live a joke to the rest of the world.
#3. Being used my terrorists to recruit terrorists to wage war against our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mike Moore in my opinion should be held account for the damage he is and has caused.

You're kidding, right? You do know that it's only a movie, right?

Mudbug

10-13-2004, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by matthew517
I think the movie is doing what mike Moore wanted it to do.
#1. It is dividing our country with a bunch of misinformation.

Mike Moore in my opinion should be held account for the damage he is and has caused.

Fact: President Bush is responsible for invading Irag under false pretenses. He lied, ordered the invasion of Irag and our soldiers and fellow citizens are dying because of that lie.

Opinion: President Bush is the liar and his actions are what is dividing our country and he should be held accountable.

Michael Moore is reporting his opinion as he has a right to do. So am I.

magwa

10-13-2004, 10:59 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mudbug wrote:

Fact: President Bush is responsible for invading Irag under false pretenses. He lied, ordered the invasion of Irag and our soldiers and fellow citizens are dying because of that lie.

Opinion: President Bush is the liar and his actions are what is dividing our country and he should be held accountable.

Michael Moore is reporting his opinion as he has a right to do. So am I.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I quoted the whole post purposely.
Worth repeating.
Very nicely said.

knary

10-13-2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by magwa
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mudbug wrote:

Fact: President Bush is responsible for invading Irag under false pretenses. He lied, ordered the invasion of Irag and our soldiers and fellow citizens are dying because of that lie.

Opinion: President Bush is the liar and his actions are what is dividing our country and he should be held accountable.

Michael Moore is reporting his opinion as he has a right to do. So am I.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I quoted the whole post purposely.
Worth repeating.
Very nicely said.

Long live Magwa. :clap

The riding must be perfect for you and Lescoulie right about now. The RV's have thinned, but the snow hasn't quite arrived.

matthew517

10-14-2004, 06:53 AM

Iraq facts

#1. At the end of the Gulf war they signed a truce, which they violated. Time and time again they targeted and fired on our planes patrolling a no fly zone that was set up by the UN security counsel.
#2. Saddam targeted a US president to be assassinated.
#3. The whole world intelligence agencies all believed he had weapons of mass destruction. France and Russia who armed Iraq were included.
#4. Saddam interfered and blocked UN inspectors from doing their jobs only as the US was building up it troops to enforce the UN security counsel resolutions did he back down sort of. He still hampered them.
#5. The oil for food program made Saddam stronger and richer than he ever was before.
Prior to the oil for food program Bin Loden’s terror network was basically none existent. Shortly after it started several associates of Bin Loden met with Iraqi officials and then a few intelligence agents met with Bin Loden in Afghanistan. A Yemen company with ties to the Islamic brotherhoods founding leader was doing business with iraq under the food for oil program. Bin Loden’s number two person helped establish the Islamic brother hood. Shortly after the money was flowing to Bin Loden the embassies in Africa were attacked. And then the US Cole was attacked. This Yemen company made did billions in trade under the oil for food program. France made well over 80 billion and Russia over 60 billion. Also during this time Saddam bought weapons. New jets from France which he buried in the sand. Then there is the fact that we found new stock piles of chemical suits and antidote for chemical weapons when we invaded Iraq. What and why did He have them? Where we going to use WMD on Iraq? He had them because he had WMD. Just because we haven’t found them yet doesn’t mean they weren’t there. There were convoys of trucks leaving Iraq through Syria prior to our invasion going into Lebanon. We will one day see this weapons used on Israel if they are in fact there.

"Just because some one repeats a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth. " Look at the facts for your selves. Look at the facts of the Oil for food scandle.

Visian

10-14-2004, 08:29 AM

#6 - Mass Graves. (http://massgraves.info/)
#7 - Nuclear Weapons Research (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1227547/posts)
#8 - $25000 Rewards to homicide bombers. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1309)
#9 - Attempts to purchase North Korean missile technology. (http://www.iht.com/articles/119699.html)
#10 - Iranian nuclear intentions (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html)
#11 - Syrian complicity. (http://www.meib.org/articles/0304_s2.htm)
#12 - WMD in Syria (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33216)
#13 - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101004I.shtml)
#14 - Foiled chemical attack in Jordan. (http://english.people.com.cn/200404/27/eng20040427_141597.shtml)

Ian

kbasa

10-14-2004, 11:20 AM

kbasa

10-14-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Visian
#6 - Mass Graves. (http://massgraves.info/)
#7 - Nuclear Weapons Research (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1227547/posts)
#8 - $25000 Rewards to homicide bombers. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1309)
#9 - Attempts to purchase North Korean missile technology. (http://www.iht.com/articles/119699.html)
#10 - Iranian nuclear intentions (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html)
#11 - Syrian complicity. (http://www.meib.org/articles/0304_s2.htm)
#12 - WMD in Syria (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33216)
#13 - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101004I.shtml)
#14 - Foiled chemical attack in Jordan. (http://english.people.com.cn/200404/27/eng20040427_141597.shtml)

Ian

Show me the part where they had WMD or a link to AlQaeda and I'll stop complainign about the 1000 dead kids and 200 Billion dollars.

The rest of that stuff is horrific, no doubt, but is it our place to determine what kind of government the rest of the world should have? Do we have a moral obligation to spread democracy? I call that practice "empire building" and so does the rest of the world.

I think we had Saddam pretty well locked down in his little box and screwing with him has been a giant diversion from job #1 - Osama. On that front, we haven't made a bit of progress that I can see.

YMMV, of course.

knary

10-14-2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
Show me the part where they had WMD or a link to AlQaeda and I'll stop complainign about the 1000 dead kids and 200 Billion dollars.

The rest of that stuff is horrific, no doubt, but is it our place to determine what kind of government the rest of the world should have? Do we have a moral obligation to spread democracy? I call that practice "empire building" and so does the rest of the world.

I think we had Saddam pretty well locked down in his little box and screwing with him has been a giant diversion from job #1 - Osama. On that front, we haven't made a bit of progress that I can see.

YMMV, of course.

Why stop counting at 1000 dead today and the 200 billion ear marked to be spent through the end of the year. It's not as though we'll be pulling out any time soon.

Facts:
1. no WMD have been found or are now expected to be found.
2. those facilities and equipment for WMD and nuclear production that did exist were known, shut down, and watched. Some of that equipment is now missing.
3. those mass graves recently found date to the 1980's....when Saddam was our ally. We knew about such acts, but thought it better to support him.
4. there is no end in sight to this occupation.
5. Saddam was a bad man who did bad things. but he was no threat to us or his neighbors (note how many supported the invasion as opposed to supported the first gulf war).

Most odd to me is the argument that because UN sanctions were violated, an invasion was the only answer. Isn't the UN that international body that this administration has openly disdained at every turn? If Saddam was such a danger to the region and world, why don't more of Iraq's neighbors support the invasion? They supported and helped pay for the first Gulf War.

Visian

10-14-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
...but is it our place to determine what kind of government the rest of the world should have? Do we have a moral obligation to spread democracy? I call that practice "empire building" and so does the rest of the world.

OK... you have placed your finger right on the point of the entire issue. This may have escaped many people's notice, but our country is not a democracy, it is a republic. (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Republic.html)

We are not "spreading democracy"... and we are not making the Iraqi people become a democracy. We are letting the Iraqi people freely choose their form of government for themselves. This will be a multi-year, multi-vote process and it seems like a much better process than tyranny or civil war (which is what is at risk).

We are giving those people the freedom to choose for themselves, as opposed to letting a tyrant make that choice for them at the point of a gun (or a chemical or nuclear weapon). What other reason could there be for the people that were formerly in power (the Baathist minority, which treated the Shiite majority and the Kurds like third-class citizens) to be resisting the will of the people so much? Because freedom means the end of their position of power and privilege.

You may see it differently than me, Dave, but I think our country *does* have the moral obligation, by dint of our position and the most powerful nation on earth, to use our forces to help people have the freedom to choose how they want to live. Certainly the people in North Korea would choose to eat three square meals a day than to have another addition to their nuclear arsenal.

That said, we should not always do this at the point of a gun. And we should not always do this outside of partnership with our "allies." One need only study the politics of Iran to learn that the majority of the people it that country are young, and really don't want a theocratic society. They have satellite TV, they want rock and roll and american blue jeans (to borrow a phrase from the Blues Brothers). And it would be enlightening to learn what our "allies" are doing to enable Iran's nuclear ambitions (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10562) against the will of the majority of their people.

I wonder what the Iranian kids think when they see on Al Jazeera how the Iraqis are getting opportunity to choose their own form of government?

I think we had Saddam pretty well locked down in his little box and screwing with him has been a giant diversion from job #1 - Osama. On that front, we haven't made a bit of progress that I can see.

The first thing we all need to do is stop putting the problem in discrete little boxes. This is a global problem and there is a high degree of correlation between the forces that employ terror as a tactic for fighting the emergence of free societies.

We have made tons of progress in the War on Terror. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/full.html) There is a long way to go.

The whole diversion from OBL argument is a diversionary piece of rhetoric in itself. Sure, it would be great if we captured him, but that' s just one part of the total picture. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=5125)

The real battle is to get this world to the point where terror as a tactic just doesn't make any sense to anyone any more.

YMMV, of course.

Yep. :)

Ian

Visian

10-14-2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by knary
5. Saddam was a bad man who did bad things. but he was no threat to us or his neighbors

http://massgraves.info/13.jpg

And... the use of Tabun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun) against the Iranians, who sued German companies (http://www.netiran.com/?fn=artd(1585)) as a result.

matthew517

10-14-2004, 01:12 PM

You liberals are right. Saddam was no threat to the world. He never had WMD. He lived in a gingerbread house and used his money to promote world peace. He never had contacts with Bin Loden nor had terroist trainig camps in iraq. He never invaded another country. His loyal troops were taking a vacation in kawait. His people used to gather and hold hands with him and sing peace songs. Those silly kurds gased themselves by accident. Someone left the pita oven on with the pilot light off.

It's not like when JFK sent troops to east asia at the cost of 60000 us lives. But oh my gosh I'd better not talk about camelot.

Visian

10-14-2004, 01:42 PM

Mudbug:

Michael Moore is reporting his opinion as he has a right to do.

I was under the impression that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary.

Ian

knary

10-14-2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Visian
And... the use of Tabun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun) against the Iranians, who sued German companies (http://www.netiran.com/?fn=artd(1585)) as a result.

Nice spin complete with heart wrenching image bound to evoke emotion and override reason! :thumb
Do you really need me to spell it out? He was no threat to his neighbors SINCE THE FIRST GULF WAR OF 1991.

But funny that you bring up the Iraq-Iraq war. So what was the U.S. position on Iraq at the time? :brow

knary

10-14-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Visian
I was under the impression that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary.

Ian
:lol

Somehow I doubt that.

kbasa

10-14-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by matthew517
You liberals are right. Saddam was no threat to the world. He never had WMD. He lived in a gingerbread house and used his money to promote world peace. He never had contacts with Bin Loden nor had terroist trainig camps in iraq. He never invaded another country. His loyal troops were taking a vacation in kawait. His people used to gather and hold hands with him and sing peace songs. Those silly kurds gased themselves by accident. Someone left the pita oven on with the pilot light off.

It's not like when JFK sent troops to east asia at the cost of 60000 us lives. But oh my gosh I'd better not talk about camelot.

Iraq = Vietnam.

A full generation of our young people are going to serve there and, at the end of it all, we're going to get expelled in much the same way. Start the countdown for the draft. I have nephews that are 11 and I fully expect both of them to get drafted and serve in Iraq.

When will we learn that it is not our place to dictate the way other country's live and govern themselves, particularly when they're a tinpot dicator like Saddam? Is Sudan next? N. Korea? Where do we draw the line?

Visian

10-14-2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by knary
But funny that you bring up the Iraq-Iraq war. So what was the U.S. position on Iraq at the time? :brow

Excellent question.

The wrong one. The one that supported a dictator for matters of political expediency, which can also be said about our support for the Shah of Iran. According to a great show done by NYT Television, called the Roots of 9/11, these sorts of things caused the muslims to lose their dignity and was a major reason for the terror attack.

There is no doubt that this country has done a lot of wrong things in the past.

And there is no doubt that we're doing now has the majority of Iraqis expecting they will be better off (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-29-iraq-poll_x.htm) in five years.

But they are running out of patience (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)... and who can blame them?

From the article > "But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus."

So it's time to hold elections, reduce our presence and GTF outta there.

But clearly the Iraqi people think that taking out Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

And something tells me that once they get the remnants of the bad guys outta there, the numbers will be even better.

Ian

knary

10-14-2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Excellent question.

The wrong one. The one that supported a dictator for matters of political expediency, which can also be said about our support for the Shah of Iran. According to a great show done by NYT Television, called the Roots of 9/11, these sorts of things caused the muslims to lose their dignity and was a major reason for the terror attack.

There is no doubt that this country has done a lot of wrong things in the past.

And there is no doubt that we're doing now has the majority of Iraqis expecting they will be better off (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-29-iraq-poll_x.htm) in five years.

But they are running out of patience (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)... and who can blame them?

From the article > "But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus."

So it's time to hold elections, reduce our presence and GTF outta there.

But clearly the Iraqi people think that taking out Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

And something tells me that once they get the remnants of the bad guys outta there, the numbers will be even better.

Ian

My simple and obvious point: with too many of the same people that supported Iraq in the 1980's in this current administration, there is a gaping chasm of credibility on our part. Forgive me if I don't believe this administration wanted this invasion for anything but arrogant political reasons that have nothing to do with the long term stability of the region - and the safety of our interests. Nothing in their track record suggests otherwise. IOW, if they helped produce the original mess and created a new one now, why should I trust that they will find a solution tomorrow?

I still have yet to hear an argument from you as to why we should have invaded. UN sanctions? BS. "Save the children"? BS (see above comments). For the stability of the region? BS. WMD? obviously BS. To fight terrorists? BS.

WHY are we there? And, more importantly, why did we go with no plan for after the initial military victory? The incompetence of this administration is staggering.

kbasa

10-14-2004, 04:27 PM

Take a read through The Atlantic this month. It's a non partisan publication that looks at things in a fairly objective light. PJ O'Rourke, a pretty conservative pundit, is a regular writer there, so bias isn't part of the package.

They discuss, in great detail, Bush's Lost Year; how we had an opportunity to catch OBL and frittered it away. Their contention is that we entered Afghanistan with a severely undermanned force because they were already making plans to invade Iraq.

It's down at the local newsstand or online if you're a subscriber.

That piece really made me reconsider our effectiveness in dealing with the real problem in our world, OBL. From what I've read (and I seek out information that flows from the entire political spectrum), we had a chance to deal with OBL and blew it. The diversion in Iraq has taken us away from dealing with the guy that attacked us.

Iraq, in my opinion, is like getting punched by a sneaky guy and then seeking out someone you know you can beat up and having it out with him. The bad guy's still at large, laughing at us.

Saddam's a bad guy, no doubt. But the guy we really want is still out there while we try to build an empire in the middle east. If you wanted to find a way to foment hatred of the US in the region, we've finally found the best way to do it.

username

10-14-2004, 05:13 PM

kbasa, youre losing your focus. kerry is the enemy, not OBL. have you heard any mention of OBL by the administration lately? no, therefore everything is fine. right now youre supposed to be scared of kerry.

and in case you forgot, you arent supposed to be thinking or debating, you should be out SHOPPING.

;)

Visian

10-14-2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by knary
I still have yet to hear an argument from you as to why we should have invaded.

12 years of violating the agreements made to end the 1991 Gulf War.

There must be consequences, or soon they'll be partying in Portland and then you'll be crying "why didn't anyone do anything about this?"

Ian

knary

10-14-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Visian
12 years of violating the agreements made to end the 1991 Gulf War.

There must be consequences, or soon they'll be partying in Portland and then you'll be crying "why didn't anyone do anything about this?"

Ian

And the only possible consequence was invasion? :brow

BTW, nice attempt to paint me as a left coast liberal. Since your arguments are failing, I suppose I shouldn't expect any better.

Visian

10-14-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
Take a read through The Atlantic this month. It's a non partisan publication that looks at things in a fairly objective light. PJ O'Rourke, a pretty conservative pundit, is a regular writer there, so bias isn't part of the package.

Haven't read it, but I will. I like PJ O'Rourke even though I rarely agree with him (too cynical). Except all that rioutous stuff he wrote for the National Lampoon.

That piece really made me reconsider our effectiveness in dealing with the real problem in our world, OBL.

The real problem is the hijiacking of the Islamic faith. (http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/one_hijack_victim_islam.htm)

Here is a simple explanation. (http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/forte/01/islam.html)

Catching OBL will actually accomplish very little past some good press.

Aljazeera.net actually offers a perspectives of mulims themselves (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C4632242-5158-49EF-B156-90F217C5E651.htm) regarding the way forward for their society. And they don't view Iraq as a separate issue. Of course, they're *big fans* of President Bush.

Ian

Visian

10-14-2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by knary

And the only possible consequence was invasion?

No... umpteen UN sanctions/resolutions and a hopelessly corrupt oil-for-food program. (Better than oil for Saddam's swiss bank account program...)

BTW, nice attempt to paint me as a left coast liberal. Since your arguments are failing, I suppose I shouldn't expect any better.

There you go, Scott... putting words into my mouth again.

Ian

matthew517

10-14-2004, 06:05 PM

"The real problem is the hijiacking of the Islamic faith. "

Clearly you do not know Islam. It is a religion based upon fear. The koran says that Allah is not capable of loving sinners and all are sinners. Whose objective is to take over the world. That all either convert or are to be killed. They are doing this all over the world. This is not a religion of peace in anyway.

We need to get out of the middle east. Stop using their oil. Stop doing business with them and dry up their cash flows. Saudi has invested 80 billion dollors in spreading Islam here in the US. They are buying villages in Africa at an alarming rate. Those villages that don't convert or sell themselves are being slaughtered in some countries.

The war is against islam welcome to ww3. Islam declared war on all non muslem people.

The only way there will be a draft is if the dems get control of the house and senate and white house. They tried to pass a bill this past week that was slammed hard by republicans.

Visian

10-14-2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
If you wanted to find a way to foment hatred of the US in the region, we've finally found the best way to do it.

I sure hope we can get together for a ride and a beer at a good campground someday, Dave, because you give some good counterpoints. Again, you have put your finger squarely on the point of contention.

Near-term, you may be right, because change is painful. I feel that history will judge differently because we're doing it differently than we ever have before. Instead of, for the purpose of political expediency, propping up dictators that don't reflect the values of freedom, we're giving people the opportunity to determine their own destinies... something they haven't had for thousands of years.

Now all we need is the guts to see it through. And this is is exactly what the whole deal is about.

The guts to stick it out vs. the willingness to look the other way while innocent people suffer under threat of death.

Ian

btw => I have had the privilege to speak with a number of people in the military who know first-hand about the situation on the ground. While the opinion is nowhere near unanimous (shoot, anything to do with government is hopelessly FUBAR), they're not saying what PJ O'Rourke is saying.

knary

10-14-2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Visian
No... umpteen UN sanctions/resolutions and a hopelessly corrupt oil-for-food program. (Better than oil for Saddam's swiss bank account program...)

So...we tried some things that didn't work that well and the only recourse left was an invasion? :brow

Before you answer, here's a better question. What was the purpose of the agreement that ended the gulf war? Rather than nit over the particulars of the agreement, was the purpose being fulfilled?

There you go, Scott... putting words into my mouth again.

Ian

So why did you mention Portland?

AZgman

10-14-2004, 07:08 PM

Gee, I wish Al Gore would be president :o

Visian

10-14-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by knary
So...we tried some things that didn't work that well and the only recourse left was an invasion?

Some? Some? C'mon, Scott, we bent over backwards while jumping through hoops, patting our heads and spitting nickels.

Before you answer, here's a better question. What was the purpose of the agreement that ended the gulf war? Rather than nit over the particulars of the agreement, was the purpose being fulfilled?

Depends on whether you are a hawk (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/fal01/garrard.html) or a dove. (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_4/1.htm)

Right after the conflict, I did some interactive videowall work for Lockheed, promoting the effectiveness of the JSTARS (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jstars/) system. I saw pictures of the Republican Guard all bottled up at the last bridge standing over the Tigris river, after abandoning mile after mile of stolen Mercedes, Rolls Royces, tractors, trucks... anything with wheels that would get them the heck out of Kuwait. We could have fixed the problem right then and there.

So why did you mention Portland?

Because, my friend, this stuff is getting really close to home. Your home. My home. And the sooner we stop pretending this is none of our business, the better. Someone needs to do the hard thing. And it ain't gonna be the UN. They're too busy collecting bribes.

Ian

knary

10-14-2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Some? Some? C'mon, Scott, we bent over backwards while jumping through hoops, patting our heads and spitting nickels.

That we had to jump through some hoops is hardly, IMHO, a case for war. The goal, IMHO, was to keep Iraq contained and from threatening its neighbors. That goal was met. Was it more difficult than we would have liked? Yes. But was it so difficult that we should have committed our future to an occupation of Iraq? IMHO, no. We've stuck our hand into the hornet's nest and we are and will continue to be stung for years to come.

Depends on whether you are a hawk (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/fal01/garrard.html) or a dove. (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_4/1.htm)
See comments above.

I believe deeply that we should not be independently involved in "nation building". If we, and the rest of the world and, at least, the neighboring nations, felt it was absolutely necessary, then we should do it as part of the larger world community. Otherwise the only way to justify this kind of action is a clear and present danger to our country. Clearly Iraq was not. They were without question a thorn in our paw, but not a real danger to our citizens.

Because, my friend, this stuff is getting really close to home. Your home. My home. And the sooner we stop pretending this is none of our business, the better. Someone needs to do the hard thing. And it ain't gonna be the UN. They're too busy collecting bribes.

Ian

So we don't care about the UN...but we went in because they violated UN sanctions...huh?

While it may be our business, you are assuming that this was the correct course of action. I, as you know, don't believe it was.

Visian

10-14-2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by knary
... the only way to justify this kind of action is a clear and present danger to our country.

If you wait for that, you've waited too long.

Ian

kbasa

10-14-2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by BMWPhreak
Gee, I wish Al Gore would be president :o

Strange as it may seem, I actually voted for W. But, after what I've seen, he needs to go.

1000 dead so far, all time record deficit after starting with a huge surplus, No Child Left Behind is underfunded, Social Security is going to be broke, and we've given a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. He thinks Roe v. Wade is a set of options for getting across a stream.

Not terribly effective, IMHO.

knary

10-14-2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Visian
If you wait for that, you've waited too long.

Ian

No, you haven't. You've operated within the great principles of our nation. Just as we don't arrest individuals that might be inclined to criminal behavior before they've committed a crime, we do not wage preemptive wars. We do not operate on "maybe if someday in a decade or two they might be able to or want to hurt us" when employing our massive military might. Or, at least, we never did before.

There are clear dangers to our country today. Iraq was not one of them.

Visian

10-14-2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by knary
There are clear dangers to our country today. Iraq was not one of them.

Well, Scott... I cannot agree with you. (http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol2.pdf)

Ian

Ironhorsecowboy

10-14-2004, 09:11 PM

We are fortunate Gore wasn't president on 9-11. Being from his home state (which he lost in 2000) I know exactly what kind of a mess we would now be in. Yes, Bush has made some errors in some decisions but not everything he's done is all wrong. I hate to hear about the lives lost in Iraq and feel for those families whose loved one has given the ultimate sacrifice. What will John Kerry do if elected? Will he quickly try to get our troops out and turn over the problems facing Iraq to the Terrorists or the UN. Will it pass the GLOBAL TEST? The UN is an organization that could care less about America and I am leary of most of that bodies actions especially when it comes to our protection.

Odd thing the mention of Roe vs Wade.
1000+ soldiers dead but no outcry about the countless murders of the unborn! Doesn't make sense- killing is killing

The surplus mentioned was at the expense of the largest tax hike in American history. I felt the chunk of change as it left my paycheck--Thank you bill

I am not wealthy but I do recall getting about $2000 dollars of my hard earned money back because of Bushes tax cut. Thank you W

I do believe that the refund was just enough to put down on my PURCHASE OF MY NEW BMW MOTORCYCLE! :heh

Our country is divided almost exactly in half politically as from the 2000 election results and so it is the same again this time around.I don't think any of us on this forum will be the ones to decide this election. We've probably already made up our minds. It's those who hardly ever come out to vote that will decide the winner.

Regardless whoever wins I just wish that person could help America to be better in the end.

knary

10-14-2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Ironhorsecowboy
We are fortunate Gore wasn't president on 9-11. Being from his home state (which he lost in 2000) I know exactly what kind of a mess we would now be in. Yes, Bush has made some errors in some decisions but not everything he's done is all wrong. I hate to hear about the lives lost in Iraq and feel for those families whose loved one has given the ultimate sacrifice. What will John Kerry do if elected? Will he quickly try to get our troops out and turn over the problems facing Iraq to the Terrorists or the UN. Will it pass the GLOBAL TEST? The UN is an organization that could care less about America and I am leary of most of that bodies actions especially when it comes to our protection.

Odd thing the mention of Roe vs Wade.
1000+ soldiers dead but no outcry about the countless murders of the unborn! Doesn't make sense- killing is killing

The surplus mentioned was at the expense of the largest tax hike in American history. I felt the chunk of change as it left my paycheck--Thank you bill

I am not wealthy but I do recall getting about $2000 dollars of my hard earned money back because of Bushes tax cut. Thank you W

I do believe that the refund was just enough to put down on my PURCHASE OF MY NEW BMW MOTORCYCLE! :heh

Our country is divided almost exactly in half politically as from the 2000 election results and so it is the same again this time around.I don't think any of us on this forum will be the ones to decide this election. We've probably already made up our minds. It's those who hardly ever come out to vote that will decide the winner.

Regardless whoever wins I just wish that person could help America to be better in the end.

I have a simple dream: that the president of our country try to lead from the middle, not simply on the support of the 25% that elected him/her.

knary

10-14-2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Visian
Well, Scott... I cannot agree with you. (http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol2.pdf)

Ian

So how much work do you put into these post? You're the king of links these days. I thought you said work was keeping you busy. :D

back to the topic at hand...

You must have read that report differently than I and seemingly everyone outside of the White House has. The report states that the WMD programs were destroyed in the first gulf war and that while Iraq wanted WMD, they had no means of producing them. They wanted to build an arsenal, but, under UN sanctions and the watchful eye of inspectors, they couldn't.

In all of this, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Iraq's desire to rebuild their military, and much of their bluster in regards to weapons inspections, was in an effort to thwart potential Iranian aggression.

Ironhorsecowboy

10-14-2004, 09:34 PM

It is a dream. Bush got 50% and Gore got 50%. The electorial votes decide--then and now.

Kerry isn't anywhere near the middle. If he was I'd vote for him. He is the most liberal in the whole senate. It is once again the choice of the lesser of two evils.

My choice is Bush! Like yours is Kerry!

I believe if there were independant candidates who were in the middle you would never see another Republican or Democrat get elected.

We may have more in common than you think.

knary

10-14-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Ironhorsecowboy
It is a dream. Bush got 50% and Gore got 50%. The electorial votes decide--then and now.

Kerry isn't anywhere near the middle. If he was I'd vote for him. He is the most liberal in the whole senate. It is once again the choice of the lesser of two evils.

My choice is Bush! Like yours is Kerry!

I believe if there were independant candidates who were in the middle you would never see another Republican or Democrat get elected.

We may have more in common than you think.

I tend to see Kerry and Bush as equidistant from the middle. Personally, I'd describe myself as socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Bush is neither by a long shot. Kerry is the former and has shown himself to be more of the latter than Bush (though Kerry is still very willing to spend our money). So the choice, for me, is clear.

IF I were to make one immediate change to our system, it would be to divvy up electoral votes by the percentage cast in each state. If there are 10 electoral votes in a state and a candidate gets 40% of the vote, they get 4 electoral votes. This would preserve the extra weight a smaller state gets, but would help better represent the will of the people.

Example (of our current system):
four states, each with 10 electoral votes and an equal population.
State A: 80% vote for candidate #1, 20% for #2
State B: 47% vote #1, 53% vote #2
State C: 48% vote #1, 52% vote #2
State D: 45% vote #1, 55% vote #2

Candidate #1 received 53% of the total vote
Candidate #2 received 47% of the total vote
Candidate #1 won 10 electoral votes and lost the election.
Candidate #2 won 30 electoral votes and won the election.

This doesn't make sense to me.
(it also gives rise to the stupid "red" vs "blue" state maps)

Visian

10-15-2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by knary
So how much work do you put into these post? You're the king of links these days. I thought you said work was keeping you busy. :D

You and I are in the same biz, Scott... and over the last quarter our little shop has pumped out over $1.5 mil in billings. Business is definitely picking up. :bliss

That said, I've read much of the Duelfer report... here are a few salient points, in case you didn't find the time:

"Keep nuclear scientists together at IAEC
in order to pool their skills and have
them available when needed" -- Saddam Hussein

"Dr. Huwaysh recalled that in 2001 and 2002 the
frequency of meetings between Saddam and Iraqi
nuclear scientists increased. During the same time
frame, Saddam also issued a Presidential Order to
the President of the IAEC, Dr. Fadil Al-Janabi, that
he should keep nuclear scientists together at the
IAEC in order to pool their skills and have them
available when needed for starting numerous new
projects. Dr. Huwaysh did not know the specific
details of any of these projects."

"The former MIC Minister recalled the budget of
the IAEC increasing in 2001/2002 and that Saddam
overruled the Finance Minister’s opposition to the
budget increase. The MIC Minister did not know by
how much the budget increased."

"New computer numerically controlled (CNC)
machine tools sought for IAEC’s Tuwaitha workshop
in what has come to be known as the Modernization
Project were not subject to nuclear
export controls and were reported as required by
the UN’s Ongoing Monitoring and Verification
(OMV) Regime. In 2001/2002, following meetings
with Saddam, Al-Janabi and Dr. Khalid Ibrahim
Sa’id embarked on a plan to improve the machine
tools workshop at Tuwaitha and supply it with new
machines—an activity that was not completed before
the war."

This is just a very small sample of evidence that Saddam Hussein was waiting for the UN sanctions to be lifted so that he could openly re-engage his program to develop nuclear weapons. The part about the advanced delivery systems for WMD that *were* found... hard evidence of a clear and present danger, btw... that were in clear violation of the sanctions... is particularly interesting.

So... if you're the guy who is responsible for our safety, and you knew our "allies" were being bribed to put up a smokescreen in the agency that is tasked with monitoring all this (while simultaneously selling Iraq through the back door all the technologies needed to create and deliver WMDs), and the required reporting on materiels that *were* covered under the UN agreements were not being provided as their inspectors were running around in the desert playing a shell game, what would you do?

back to the topic at hand...

In all of this, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Iraq's desire to rebuild their military, and much of their bluster in regards to weapons inspections, was in an effort to thwart potential Iranian aggression.

Yep. Maybe. Who knows. The required reporting was not being provided, while at the same time our "no-fly" zone enforcers were being engaged on a daily basis by advanced aircraft and anti-aircraft systems sold to Iraq by our "allies" in return for oil vouchers that paid for their mega-yachts floating in the Mediterranean. (You know... France's wealthiest 1%).

Would you want to take that chance after SCUD missiles were pulled from underground bunkers and fired at Israel just a bit over 10 years ago? Especially after the agreement that was signed *specifically* committing to open/full disclosure was being brazenly flaunted while our "allies" were giving assurance that they'd block any action by the body responsible for assuring adherence to the agreement?

Just a few questions for you to chew on over breakfast. I've got deadlines to meet!

Ian

Keith

10-15-2004, 10:11 AM

Looks like this thread was originally about Farenheit 911...

FYI, there's a new one out on video called Farenhype 911... gonna have to see it sometime. Anyone have a report on it? :brow

Visian

10-15-2004, 10:54 AM

... but did order the Celsius 41.11 DVD. (http://www.citizensunited-interactive.org/c41.11/)

Fair and balanced, don't ya know? ;)

Ian

merrittgene

10-15-2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by username
one of the claims is that saudi citizens were allowed to leave the US via airplane
<<snip>>
what frustrates me is that i dont know how to find out the truth by myself. do any of you?

Check out www.snopes.com and www.factcheck.org.

I know snopes had an article about the Saudi plane episode, including many others about 9/11 rumors.

trmptrmrk

10-15-2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
Take a read through The Atlantic this month. It's a non partisan publication that looks at things in a fairly objective light. PJ O'Rourke, a pretty conservative pundit, is a regular writer there, so bias isn't part of the package.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

I guess the same could be claimed about Rolling Stone, then!

O'Rourke has stated many times that he prefers to work for liberal publications. Many people, even here (gasp), are guilty of only seeking "news" from slanted sources... whether that's Fox, CBS, Rush Limbaugh, or the Atlantic. PJ writes conservative articles for liberal publications so that a few people might take a moment to consider the other side.

matthew517

10-15-2004, 05:44 PM

Back in the 60’s there was a man from Massachusetts whom won the Presidency. He was a good catholic and strong in his faith. Heck He had the power to raise the dead in Illinois so they could vote for him. And boy did they in record numbers.

He saw intelligence on possible threats to the US. He didn’t gather a collation to address this threat. He chose to confront the threat. He unilaterally made the decision to impose a blockade of this sovereign nation island. Heck he even threatened another country that they would be attacked with nuclear weapons if the US was attacked by this little island.

This man put every man women and child in the world at risk.

Let’s compare him to our current president.

Our current president saw a threat and went to congress, the UN and NATO. Worked within the international community and gathered a coalition of 30 nations. He obtained the authority to act from the congress, the UN security counsel and the NATO. Once he obtained he acted to protect our country.

basketcase

10-15-2004, 06:26 PM

But Matt, you raise an interesting point, given that John Kerry has repeatedly invoked the name of John Kennedy saying, "I will defend this nation in the same manner as ... et. al."

Hmm.

Anyway, to get us back on the question -- Michael Moore is an idiot.

IMHO, which I greatly respect. :brow

AZgman

10-15-2004, 08:34 PM

I don't see how you can compare the Cuban missile crisis to Iraq. Nukes 90 miles from the US vs an ******* in the sand 5000 miles away...

matthew517

10-15-2004, 09:09 PM

Nukes based upon CIA intelligence. WMD based upon CIA intelligence. 90 miles to Florida via missile launch technology. Verses a nuke in a shipping container sent to NY or LA. The distance is not relevant. The soviets had missiles aimed at us and never launched. We had missiles closer to Russia than that so did they, Submarines right off our shores. Also JFK sent troops to Vietnam what threat was the VC to the US?

George W did what a President should do act on a threat before it does harm on the US.
Not allow embassies to be blown up, US warships attacked, buildings attacked, and plots to bomb airports and the only response a few cruise missiles. Saddam used WMD on his own and neighbors. Castro didn’t.

Mike moore is a idiot and so are all who blindly follow his load of crap. Kerry talks of adding two more corps to the military. How does he plan to do that I’ll tell you how the same way they did before draft. They can’t fill that many slots without it.

Hodag

10-15-2004, 10:57 PM

George W did what a President should do act on a threat before it does harm on the US.

He ignored the warnings??????

Iraq wasn't the real threat, Herr Diktator Bush is. You've lost more freedoms under Bush than you can imagine. Oh it doesn't effect you?? just wait. Just the name "The Patriot Act" sends shivers down my spine. Generations from now will study this time and wonder WTF!!

Oh and by the way why is it always "that FAT ass Moore" what does a physical characteristic have to do with ones political beliefs? So the brother has a weight problem. I don't care much for that Spartan hat he's always wearing.

Mark

matthew517

10-16-2004, 03:57 PM

What freedoms have I lost? I am still able to own a gun. Under commrad clinton I was limited severly. I can still vote. I can still voice my opinion. I can still assemble with other people.
I can worship my God. The only ones whose freedoms that were restricted are those committing crimes. I don't have anything to hide nor am I doing anything that I should be ashamed of.

The real enemy of freedom is the court. They have acted outside of their authority and restricted freedoms.
#1 prayer in school and or sporting events.
#2.Christain symbols from being displayed in public.

knary

10-16-2004, 04:08 PM

Hodag

10-16-2004, 09:50 PM

I am still able to own a gun.

The basis by which all freedoms are judged.

Under commrad clinton I was limited severly.

How? My collection grew considerably?

I can still vote.
I can still voice my opinion.
I can still assemble with other people.
I can worship my God.

Luckily they can now get records of you doing all of the above. Just to be sure.

The only ones whose freedoms that were restricted are those committing crimes. I don't have anything to hide nor am I doing anything that I should be ashamed of.

Are you sure? Maybe you need a genetic test just to be sure.

Its called a slippery slope, the same reasoning the NRA used about cop killer bullets.

Mark

lorazepam

10-17-2004, 09:17 AM

I know I promised to stay out of the political discussions, but I have to reply to this one.
I agree with both Matthew and Knary on this topic.

I am alarmed with the Patriot Act, whit it allow our government to do without our consent and knowledge. It is a major erosion of our rights and freedoms.
One of the major issues confronting our founding fathers was unreasonable search and seizure. Look closely at what the Patriot Act allows in regard to eroding this basic protection we have had.

I do feel that judges have overstepped their bounds in rulings that have come down in the last couple of years. To overturn what the general population has approved, and not becaue of the constitutionality of the law, but personal opinion is dangerous.

Remember Matthew, that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion as well.
There is a school district not far from where I live that spent a major amount of time and money to keep a stone ten commandments in the front of a high school.
If you put that list which includes "thou shalt have no other gods but me" in a public building, you are saying the same thing the King did when enforcing his rules on founding fathers.
If you feel the need to have the ten commandments in front of your school, then build you own school with your own money and put whatever you like in the fron lawn.
You can pray any tme you wish, just dont make me bow my head and pray because you feel the need to do so.

Secret ballots have never existed as long as I have voted. I sign a paper to get my ballot which is numbered, and the number is recorded with my name. I always questioned this, and was told it was to stop voter fraud. It also allows those in power to see how I voted.
I tried to kill this thread a while back, and maybe this will do the trick.

matthew517

10-17-2004, 09:21 AM

How?

Under commrad clinton he passed the assualt weapons band violation our right to bear arms. When my ancestors and other founding fathers put in the right to own arms they were talking about owning weapons to defend ourselves from a government tyrant. One can not defend himself with a 22 single shot.
Also the price of a FFL went up to several thousand dollars from the couple hundred it was. He shortened the time period also that the FFL was good for.

I'm sorry if the patriot act is limiting illegal activities you might be involved in. Or the detention of illegal people in our country.

Hodag

10-17-2004, 11:01 AM

Since you never break any laws...
what if the goverment wanted to place a camera in your house to watch you, just to be sure your safe? Or if they wanted to put a Satellite surveillance system on your vehicles to be sure you are ok, and to make sure you never speed, etc? You would have no problem with that, after all speeding is an illegal act, and you NEVER commit illegal acts?

"When you sacrifice freedom for security, you give up both."
Ben Franklin
Founding father, drug smuggler, tax evader, and all around good guy

Mark

knary

10-17-2004, 12:22 PM

Hodag

10-17-2004, 08:19 PM

check out this website. one-stop shopping for sam's, howitzer's, tanks, anything a start up army needs.
http://www.angelfire.com/biz7/troopgear/specials1.html

if only clinton wouldn't have taken away my right to own a used tank, one cannot defend themselves with a .223 50 round semi-auto we need heavy arty

Mark

matthew517

10-18-2004, 05:26 AM

When the constitution was enacted private citizens owned canons and state of the art kentucky rifles. This is what made up our armed forces to fight the tyrant king george. Had private citizens not had these weapons we would not have been able to match the british. Although under british law these weapons were banned. Once we became free the founding fathers made sure that private citizens could own weapons to ensure freedom against tyrants. It wasn't until after the civil war did the Northern states pass laws restricting freedoms of individuals from owning artillery and heavy arms to ensure that states could not leave the union thus violating the constitution and the agreements between the southern colonies and the northern colonies prior to signing the declaration of independance.

The founding fathers knew history and knew that freedom was ensured by private citizens having the means to raise and army to fight tyrants. Oliver Cromwell rose up an army and fought against a tyrant.

Our freedom was limited by northern political liberals. True freedom is the ability to defend oneselves against tyrants.

kbasa

10-18-2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by trmptrmrk
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

I guess the same could be claimed about Rolling Stone, then!

O'Rourke has stated many times that he prefers to work for liberal publications. Many people, even here (gasp), are guilty of only seeking "news" from slanted sources... whether that's Fox, CBS, Rush Limbaugh, or the Atlantic. PJ writes conservative articles for liberal publications so that a few people might take a moment to consider the other side.

That's why I like reading the Atlantic. They present both sides of a story. Their articles on Bush and Kerry and how they think, what they've experienced and what their values are have been illuminating.

kbasa

10-18-2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by matthew517

George W did what a President should do act on a threat before it does harm on the US.
Not allow embassies to be blown up, US warships attacked, buildings attacked, and plots to bomb airports and the only response a few cruise missiles. Saddam used WMD on his own and neighbors. Castro didn’t.

So, when are we going to get going on N. Korea?

kbasa

10-18-2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by matthew517
What freedoms have I lost? I am still able to own a gun. Under commrad clinton I was limited severly. I can still vote. I can still voice my opinion. I can still assemble with other people.
I can worship my God. The only ones whose freedoms that were restricted are those committing crimes. I don't have anything to hide nor am I doing anything that I should be ashamed of.

The real enemy of freedom is the court. They have acted outside of their authority and restricted freedoms.
#1 prayer in school and or sporting events.
#2.Christain symbols from being displayed in public.

OK, let's talk about the Patriot Act.

Do you feel comfortable with a government that can subpoena library records and browse through them to see who's been checking which books out?

Are you comfortable with a government that can bypass most of the rules of due process that were defined in the Constitution? Think about a government that can come to your house after listening to your phone conversations without a warrant, lock you up without charges, put you in a jail and not release your location to your family, can deny you your Constitutional described right to counsel and can then hold you as long as they want without charges?

Is this the America you want?

Freedom in this country means being free from meddling in our rights by our government.

Let's take a hypothetical instance -

You have two kids that are assigned classes in their schools or college. One is taking a comparative religions course, so he buys books about the Koran, AlQaeda and other books about Islam. He uses your credit card because he's in college. Meanwhile, your daughter is taking a class about political activism and is asked to read The Anarchist's Cookbook, a book about civil disobedience that includes details about how to make molotov cocktails. Around the same time, you send an email to your brother asking him about the AK he's assembling from a kit and whether he's having trouble with it. In your email, you reference an online source that helps people put their gun kits together.

All of these items bear a common thread - you.

The government, in their periodic checks of who has bought books and who has checked them out, sees you with books about the Koran and bombs. They decide to poke around in your email cuz they don't need a warrant anymore and find the notes about your brother's AK.

They come to your house and throw you in jail as a suspected "enemy combatant" based on those three items. They hold you, without right to counsel in a jail where your family can't find you. You are subjected to a secret trial and thrown in a jail, again without representation or counsel and leave you there.

Does this sound like the America you want to live in? The Patriot Act is bad law and it directly attacks the freedoms this country was founded on. The right to conduct your business without undue inspection or investigation by the government without probably cause. If one is accused, one has the right to speedy trial, counsel and other rights, all of which are eliminated under the Patriot Act.

You can claim that it will only happen to folks that have something to worry about. I say that no American should be subjected to illegal searches, nor should we all operate under a cloud of suspicion.

PA and PAII are two of the biggest reasons I have for voting Bush out. There has never, in the 225 years of this country's existence, been a stronger assault on the basic values of the Constitution. The really frightening part is that it's being launched from within our own government.

Don't confuse the right to worship in the way one sees fit as being slighted by restrictions on where that prayer can take place. While we have many Christians in this country, it is not the state religion. To that end, governmental agencies, including schools and the like, have no right to endorse those values. This was an intentional design by the founding fathers. They came from a place where people were forced to observe the political beliefs of a government. They strived to create a country where religion and government were two separate entities and the government would not endorse a particular religion.

So, while you may be Christian, there are many that are not. Should we, in fairness, allow them to show their religious beliefs as part of the government? Or, should we observe the founding father's wishes and keep the government religion neutral.

And finally, to address the gun issues, as they relate to assault weapons, bear in mind that the laws you fight against that restrict use of assault weapons are coming from the folks that are assigned to keep you safe - police departments around the country.

knary

10-18-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by KBasa
So, when are we going to get going on N. Korea?

shhh....Iraq might have maybe become a threat in a decade or more. We don't have time to deal with today's threats.

Visian

10-18-2004, 01:02 PM

Dave -- please start this as a new thread.

Ian

kbasa

10-18-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by matthew517
Our freedom was limited by northern political liberals. True freedom is the ability to defend oneselves against tyrants.

Does the Patriot Act restrict your rights to defend oneself against tyrants? Does the Patriot Act sound much like the laws a tyranny would enact?

What should be the practical upper limit for arms ownership? Should you be allowed to own a .50 cal sniper rifle? Should you be allowed to own a vehicle mounted .50 cal machine gun?

Should you be allowed to purchase weapons like those without restrictions?

Does not owning a .50 cal vehicle mounted machine gun abridge your rights?

The Supreme Court has looked at this and here's what they say:

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

Now, I like guns as much as the next guy. I come from a family that hunts, my dad keeps a few weapons and lots of my friends shoot. The point to take from the decision above is that there are guns that are part of the normal possession experience. Assault weapons, which we all know do functionally differ from hunting or target shooting weapons, I don't believe can be considered a typical ownership weapon.

YMMV,

dave

username

10-18-2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by matthew517

The only way there will be a draft is if the dems get control of the house and senate and white house. They tried to pass a bill this past week that was slammed hard by republicans.

dude this bill was proposed in april, and tabled by the republican controlled congress. then the republican controlled congress brought it out for a vote. it's not like the evil democrats are running around proposing reckless legislation - the republicans control the legislatures - at the committee level - very tightly.

lay off the rush limbaugh pal.

username

10-18-2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by matthew517

Mike moore is a idiot and so are all who blindly follow his load of crap. Kerry talks of adding two more corps to the military. How does he plan to do that I’ll tell you how the same way they did before draft. They can’t fill that many slots without it.

ok, if the US needs any law, it should be that if someone says someone else is "a idiot" instead of "an idiot" then their opinion is stricken from the record.

(and if they dont use caps and apostrophes, they should be made fun of mercilessly.)

username

10-18-2004, 02:02 PM

knary

10-18-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by username
you my friend, are what scares the holy living crap out of me.

Two quotes come to mind from the wisdom of the supreme court.

Justice Black in 1962 in the case, Engel v. Vitale: "When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."

Justice Robert Jackson in 1943 in the case, Virginia Board Of Education v. Barnett: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."

username

10-18-2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by matthew517
How?

Under commrad clinton he passed the assualt weapons band violation our right to bear arms. When my ancestors and other founding fathers put in the right to own arms they were talking about owning weapons to defend ourselves from a government tyrant. One can not defend himself with a 22 single shot.
Also the price of a FFL went up to several thousand dollars from the couple hundred it was. He shortened the time period also that the FFL was good for.

I'm sorry if the patriot act is limiting illegal activities you might be involved in. Or the detention of illegal people in our country.

ok, last one. i could've done all this in one post, but i wanted to get my count up. ;) to quote a great philosopher of our time, "help me jeebus!"

matt - are you a real person? or are you a troll? im taking your bait, because i live in texas, and i've run into others who not only agree with what youre saying, but are able to say it aloud, and with a straight face. so i'll assume you're real. also, i'll bet you're a nice guy, and you and i could enjoy a beer, and maybe talk motorcycles, (remember those?) but man oh man we are from different worlds. so allow me...

look matt, you cant defend yourself from your government any better with a super duper machine gun with 100 armor piercing bullets in it, than you can with a .22 rifle. youre only going to get ONE chance to "defend" yourself, and then you might shoot a couple of law enforcement officers, defending yourself against your country. at which point you will have committed grievous crimes against the state, terrorists acts, etc etc. and all this legislation that didn't apply to you, because you were off praying in school, or educating people on how mike moore is a idiot, or whatever *legal* activities you are off doing in your spare time, will come crashing down on your head. your ass, as they say, will be grass.

the only difference here is that you folks get mopped up after the real fight is over.

your government, which clearly failed to teach you world history, among other things, is coming for you mike. you think youre innocent, but youre not, and when they come for you, there wont be anyone left to help you.

btw, i've decided i've been overly harsh, and that english is likely your second language. i apologize if i have offended you by picking on your grammar and spelling, that isn't nice. plus, i type like this, have tons of typoes, and all that, so i'll back off on that.

Visian

10-18-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by username
matt - are you a real person?

Username (note the use of shift key) --

Are you a real person?

Just curious, because you never sign your name.

Ian

username

10-18-2004, 03:02 PM

[pokes self] i feel real. [sniff armpit] i sure smell real. [screams at top of lungs. other employee rushes over to see whats wrong.] others can hear me. i'm guessing i'm real.

you bring up the name thing often enough that it's turning into a game for me not to sign it. :D

anyway, i've signed it before, you just may have missed the post. if you go look at all my posts, you'll find it.

in my ever so humble yet boldly stated opinion, shift keys and capital letters are overrated. definitely more overrated than proper spelling, and far more overrated than critical thought. now if i stopped using periods and other punctuation i could see how it might be difficult to parse my comments and effectively decide if you think im real or not butitwouldbealotworseifistoppedusingthespacebarand ispeltalthewerdsfunny. you may think of me as a fledgling ee cummings if it helps you relax, with a spanish flair. kind of like el ee cummings. this description of me should cause a number of folks around here to smile wryly.

i need to stop reading this thread. i rode my motorycle all weekend, all over the place, and i had such a good time, and that's why i'm here. all this political stuff is so tedious in here, and not what i'm really here for, and it's not terribly useful. i haven't seen anyone change their opinion - our minds are made up. the liberla in here are inept at educating the conservatives, and vice versa. i'm amazed at how divisive a topic this is. we should all shake hands and agree to STFU about all this us/them democrat/republican liberal/conservative baloney and get back to doing what we all have in common; riding our machines, breaking our machines, fixing our machines, and talking about our machines. i'll take my own medicide and put this thread on ignore.