Fahrenheit 9/11 - You gotta be kidding me [Archive]

Czigga

07-09-2004, 01:29 AM

Feel free to move this to debate board, as I'm pretty sure it will conjure up a serious one :)

Anyway, I posted this at another forum... but I'd like to hear your guys' response to it as well...

Ok, first lemme just say that I'm no Bush advocate, or a Republican, or even conservative for that matter. I was really hoping that Moore would have said something that really meant anything, but unfortunately he didn't. Luckily enough for him most liberal movie reviewers were all over his dick anyway, but anyone who actually stops and thinks about what he's saying is going to realize in an instant that everything he said basically proves the opposite of what he's trying to prove. Allow me to explain.

Ok so the main argument the movie basically makes is that the Bush family has connections with Saudi investors... the Carlyle (sp.) group among them. So because the Bush family has middle eastern interests, this is why he wants to go to war, to make money and please all these Saudis that he is all around.

The problem with this theory is that if Saddam were to lose power (and obviously he did), all the oil reserves that were only Iraqs will become available to the world for consumption. Saudi Arabia practically overnight gets the biggest competitor it ever had. They want nothing to do with Americans or other countries having the ability to get oil from Iraq. There are video clips on the internet of Saudis cursing the Americans on Arab land. America going into Iraq was, at least economically which is what Moore was trying to prove, not the best for Bush's Saudi business friends, but the worst.

I can come up with about three other arguments that would have made Bush look much worse than Moore did. Wtf was he thinking. All it did was make Moore look like an idiot to anyone who paid attention in their economics class. He seriously insulted his audience and showed imo that he has no respect for his viewers.

^^^^Discuss :)

Piscinex

07-09-2004, 01:40 AM

well obviously you're wrong. if saudi arabia cuts off america and its allies it loses basically all the money it's sending them. there would be absolutely no benefit to the saudis cutting off america, american is their market...

now it could drive the price of the saudi oil down, but remember that all iraq's oil was coming to the west anyway.

O P T i C S

07-09-2004, 01:44 AM

ummm im with czigga but i really do not want to have to sit here and argue with brick walls for hours.

Wheelz

07-09-2004, 03:02 AM

people either hate moore's work or love it.

there's no neutral ground... the arguments can't be settled.

but no matter what you think of the movie, you can't deny he's doing a good job of taking votes away from bush, which he openly admits is why he made the movie.

i'm a moore fan, so... i'm not even gonna step into this argument. i liked the movie. fair and balanced? no. entertaining and provocative? yes.

Massacure

07-09-2004, 10:24 AM

The entire media pretty much sucks up to Bush. It's about time someone critisize him. Personally, I think that any person with power will get too daring and bold if the eyes of the people are not kept on him. Bush has kept the media with one eye shut.

Btw Czigga, about that oil theory. Oil wells cannot be drilled into overnight. Iraq is just barely pumping the same amount of oil that they did before the war. Plus it is hard to maintain with all the sabotages going on too.

miamijc

07-09-2004, 11:21 AM

I saw the movie, thought it was funny, but agreed with maybe 10% of the "facts" Moore portrayed. I am neither a Bush supporter, nor a "Bush is the devil" type like so many people here are. The closing scene of the movie is the funniest part, with Bush trying to say "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." He says something like: "There is a saying in Tennessee, well, it's in Texas, and I'm sure it's in Tennessee too. If you fool me once...well...we won't be fooled again." The camera freezes on him, and the song "We Won't Be Fooled Again" starts playing. Made him look pretty silly.

I think Moore is giving himself a bit too much credit if he thinks he is taking many, if any, votes from W. with this movie. 99.9% of the republicans I know wouldn't even dream of seeing this movie. Most of the people who see it already hate Bush, and wouldn't vote for him anyways.

In terms of the coming election, I go back and forth. Sometimes I think Kerry will win in a close election, other times I think Bush wins easily...

Massacure

07-09-2004, 12:06 PM

99.9% of the republicans I know wouldn't even dream of seeing this movie.

Quite a few republicans have seen it. Didn't you hear about the fiasco where people would buy a ticket for another movie, but sneak into F 9/11? They didn't want to give Michael Moore their money.

Putingrad

07-09-2004, 12:53 PM

I saw the movie but I don't remember all of it, but I'll still give this a shot.

First off, the oil during Saddam's time wasn't just being consumed by Iraq you know. The entire world was getting it. Iraq was always a competitor, and besides, the world and America sure as hell aren't going to stop getting most of its oil from Saudi Arabia any time soon.

As far as I remember, Moore's stated reason in the movie for us going into Iraq wasn't because of the coziness of the Saudi investors with the Bush family. After all, Saudi Arabia strongly opposed the war, if you remember, and its not because it would even put a dent in their oil market. So if he did say that then that's a glaring flaw in the movie, but I don't remember him doing so.

Invading Iraq, however, is very good for all sorts of business firms, especially American firms. The number of civilian contractors we have in that country right now is astounding, and it still amazes me how no one seems to see the conflict of interest between a former head of Halliburton, the biggest contractor in Iraq right now, being in the office of Vice-Presidency.

I won't vehemently defend his allegations regarding Carlyle, etc. in the first part of the movie, because I don't know the facts myself. It's possible that he's wrong in those, although I do find it hard not to believe what he's saying. I can't trust a word from Republicans or conservatives any more. The second half of the movie was my favorite, the footage from Iraq, the Marine recruiters, Flint Michigan, etc. I was also very pleased that he touched on the pepetual socio/economic underclass that is kept in this country, from which we get most of our soldiers which fight most of our wars. This is an issue which gets me particularly fired up, as I've shown on this board before. :-P One part of the movie that just bowled me over was when Bush was at a fundraiser and said something to the effect, I don't remember the exact quote, "There are two types of people here, the Haves and the Have Mores. I call you my base." I felt sick after hearing that. How completely distasteful, sickening, and demeaning to the hundreds of millions of people not as fortunate as his asshole friends. And coming from our own PRESIDENT? By saying that he marginalized 1/2 of his country that he's supposed to represent as president. But good ol' Georgie was just joking, right?

PYMPTYPE

07-09-2004, 02:54 PM

Forsythe

07-09-2004, 03:28 PM

the movie also descretely implies bush at the very least knew about 9/11 beforehand.

Well that's good...because the rest of the world knew that months ago during the investigations behind 9/11.

miamijc

07-09-2004, 04:20 PM

LOL Forsy. Putin, the movie clearly says that one of the driving forces behind Bush's decision to go to war was all of the Saudi money invested in The Carlyle Group. This Company is an investment firm, which invests largely in defense-related companies (such as Haliburton). Wars = more money for these firms, which mean more money for the Saudis. I don't believe it, but that was very clearly spelled out by Moore.

Overall, unless you have blind hatred for Bush, there is nothing new/special/overly interesting about this movie. And Pymp, I think you meant to say "critically acclaimed". The major criticism of Moore isn't his politics, but the fact that he claims to make "documentaries" while there are several inaccuracies (to put it mildly) in his movies.

O P T i C S

07-09-2004, 04:20 PM

Quite a few republicans have seen it. Didn't you hear about the fiasco where people would buy a ticket for another movie, but sneak into F 9/11? They didn't want to give Michael Moore their money. this is the only way that even if i see this garbadge filled movied that i will

O P T i C S

07-09-2004, 04:23 PM

czigga you dont understnad the economic implications or even the point of the movie.

i thought the film was great and not just because i agreed with it it was actually a good film which is why its so critically appraised.

although i dont agree with miami about the movie being funny (parts of it made me tear up), i do agree that it might not have the strongest effect on bringing more votes to kerry, it may energize kerrys base. the movie was like a call to arms against bush. but howard stern will have a much larger effect on the outcome of the election.

it seems to me like pre-911 bush was the saudis bitch, now he is making them his bitch.

also about the oil iraq was about to start trading oil in euros but now that we own them they will continue trading in dollars. pretty suspicious.

the movie also descretely implies bush at the very least knew about 9/11 beforehand.

conservatives only hate moore because hes popular.

i dont even have to read your statments because ever sense i haVe joined these boards you go with every "Conspiracy theory" there is out there, i have ready plenty of the things you have said on the debate forum, Howard Stern will have more of an effect on the outcome LAUGH

ok i really did not want to get into this at all but i think Michael Moore is a complete idiot ever sense i saw Roger and Me, that movie was shit, Then i saw bowling for columbine taking advantages of famalies, false alligations, not showing the full clips, or the full truth, he is one person that actually does get me mad because he says he is fair, and he is out just to make documentaries. Last time i checked documataries showing the full picture not just one side.

my stance on Moore, is he completly manipulates facts, he edits scenes, he puts scense in his movies where tehy do not belong, he takes advantages of victims, he is the BIGGEST conspiracy theorist that there is, and is only out to make a buck, when Katie Kurick or w/e on the daily show makes him look like an ass that is fucking halarious. To whoever said the media is only behind Bush? That is complete bullshit almost every media station there is is completly liberal. I can not wait till the right starts destroying Moore with that movie some conservative prodecure is making and the book "Moore is a stupid White man" and hopefully they arent complete arrogant ass holes like Moore and give the truth from both sides, and the facts from both sides so everyone can know the full story and not the Moore story.

Kiron

07-09-2004, 04:40 PM

Alright, i saw it, i won't say all of michael moore's facts were on the money, but i'll say he did a good job on enforcing my opinion that bush is a bad president.

Wheelz

07-09-2004, 04:55 PM

no optics, moore openly admits that the movie isn't a balanced piece of journalism. in fact, i think it was on cnn where he was quoted as saying something about how it wasn't a balanced documentary, it was something he made because he wants to see george bush out of the white house.

i saw it in a magazine somewhere around here, i'll see if i can find it later...

however, you can't say that moore just makes everything he reports about up. he does have some factual evidence in his arguments. obviously he's biased to the left, but he's not just pulling this shit off the top of his head. and all the clips showing george at his finest, like the now infamous video of him in the classroom after the planes hit, and him trying to pull the "fool me twice" quote, or making faces at the camera before going live to the country on 9/11.... whether you believe the facts or not, the movie still does a good job of showing george bush as an idiot, and definitely portrays him as a man definitely not cut out to be the leader of the world's most powerful nation.

Putingrad

07-09-2004, 05:05 PM

Congratulations, Optics. You just made a complete fucking ass out of yourself with that post. Here's a gold star for effort.

And wheelz already said it, but I don't know where people are getting the idea that Moore is claiming the movie is balanced. He's said all along it's an "op-ed" piece, but it is also in many ways a documentary. There's footage from Iraq, the Oregon trooper, the mother who lost her son, etc. that are all documentaries.

Czigga

07-09-2004, 05:57 PM

I wouldn't say he's making thing up, but I think he uses the facts to 'support' theories which they don't actually support.

Here is an interesting article
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

that basically argues everything against Fahrenheit 9/11, if you were at all interested in reading something from a different perspective. It's quite a long read, but it brings up some good points. If anything it shows that the whole issue is a not a "Bush is evil" issue. I think it's a lot more grey than that.

O P T i C S

07-09-2004, 09:00 PM

blah blah blah i change my mind im not going to argue over the internet. Especially if its with a stupid american

Putingrad

07-09-2004, 11:47 PM

Yeah, you're just too cool for the internet, right? You can't just dodge my response than call me an idiot.

So go fuck yourself. thx.

Czigga

07-10-2004, 12:28 AM

Did you read that article?

And seriously you guys I hope we can have this discussion without name calling...

O P T i C S

07-10-2004, 12:59 AM

Yeah, you're just too cool for the internet, right? You can't just dodge my response than call me an idiot.

So go fuck yourself. thx.

Putin grow up you little kid, i do not even need a paragraph to explain my points i will give you a few definitions and quotes

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film

ob·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)
adj.
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.

[/b]Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:[/b] an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Michael Moores Movies are full of emotion and personal prejudices and he does call his movies a documentary so therefore he is allready full of shit because he didnt make a documentary he made a film purely for entertainment any other Movie. Putin are you going to try to say that Moore does not manipulate parts of his movies, edit out parts of scense, mislead victims in interviews, and BLATANTLY leave parts of his movies open for people to believe things that are not the truth.?

Putingrad

07-10-2004, 01:10 AM

I'm not saying it's a documentary, it's an opinionated look at the Bush administration with some parts in it that, like it or not, ARE documentaries. All I'm saying is that elements of it are a documentary, not the entire film.

And how do you know if it's garbage-filled when you haven't even seen it? I love how Republicans have all come out saying "we don't have to see any of it to know that it's compeltely false, blah blah blah". How ridiculous. At least czigga has actually watched it before bashing it.

O P T i C S

07-10-2004, 01:13 AM

i have read reviews from it from both sides, i know the stances that he takes, if you read a review of a book are you going to try to tell me you cant describe those parts? I have had many friends who have seen it listend to what they had to say etc. and i am not the one say its is a DOCUMENTARY MICHAEL MOORE DID.

and now i know there is no point in argueing with putingrad because he is a complete hypocrit he is all for gun control. but tells me

NonEntity88: the point is that conservatives including yourself need to be shot
NonEntity88: is really the point

grow up little guy plz

O P T i C S

07-10-2004, 01:43 AM

and i am done argueing with brick walls if any of you would like to have a civilized debate hit me up on msn opt1cs@hotmail.com its fun to debate with people who actually have a point, and dont just say all conservatives are idiots and should be shot.

Czigga

07-10-2004, 01:46 AM

NonEntity88: the point is that conservatives including yourself need to be shot
NonEntity88: is really the point

Lol seriously putin if you go around spouting stuff like that off how can you expect anyone to take you seriously. All your total loathing and intolerance of different opinions does is show an insecurity of your own. You make it seem like your beliefs are wholly emotional and sporadic rather than rational. You should really reconsider your discussion methods...

PYMPTYPE

07-10-2004, 10:08 AM

The major criticism of Moore isn't his politics, but the fact that he claims to make "documentaries" while there are several inaccuracies (to put it mildly) in his movies.

this is the stupidest argument i keep hearing over and over coming from everywhere. the movie is a documentary. its genre is technically an "editorial documentary." i don't know where optics got his definition but its not correct in film speak. many documentaries are opinionated. there is no other genre to classify this film. it is retarded to squabble over the meaning of a word. who cares what genre its classified as take the movie for what it is and either like it or dislike it. and i've seen lists of the supposed "inaccuracys" and most of them are trivial or simply not true. if he wants to make a film thats both informative AND entertaining he cannot make it look like a fair and balanced news report, that would be boring.

Kiron

07-10-2004, 11:11 AM

lol, optics, you need to see the movie in order to debate this shit. Reviews from the movie could be as biased as the movie itself, according to you. So go see the movie, and maybe that'll give youan arguement.

Putingrad

07-10-2004, 11:58 AM

We were talking about gun control there, I think it's pretty obvious that I was joking... way to go.

But there are times when I damn near that way. Yes my beliefs are highly emotional. Emotional to the the point where I can just fly off the handle. Because I really am tired of conservatives and the shit they pull. Highly emotional, but I do have reason to back it up. I've shown that plenty of times here. I have a tendency to flame people, sometimes I'm provoked, sometimes not. I have incredibly strong beliefs, beliefs which I know to be right regardless of what anyone else will tell me. I've not always been this way, I used to consider myself a moderate, and it's only really been in the past year or two that I've started thinking about these issues more, and have gotten more and more liberal. I'm involved in things too, I go to leftist meetings on campuses, lectures at Vanderbilt, protests, etc. because bitching about it on the internet just isn't enough for me. There are many other people like me out there, tired of knowing what conservative thinking is doing to the country and humanity as a whole. We're getting more vocal, more involved, and it's for this same reason that there's now a Michael Moore, of all people, film in thousands of theatres around the country, because there's an audience for it that's riled up and hungry for change.

Call me stubborn all you like, passing extremely bad judgment on a movie without even having seen it is quite as stubborn as well, no?

Czigga

07-10-2004, 12:45 PM

Here's some interesting facts about your "riled up audience":

These are Gallop poll results "among registered voters they deemed likely to vote in November"...

June 21-23: Presidental Race Survey results

Bush 49%
Kerry 48%
Nader 3%

June 23: Lion’s Gate Films release Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11

June 28: USA Today reports F9/11 grosses over $20 million nationwide, making it the highest grossing opening weekend for a “documentary.”

July 2-4: F9/11 grosses yet another $20 million during 4th of July weekend, eclipsing total earnings of all previous “documentaries.”

(On a side note, July 7th: Kerry shocks the political world and selects John Edwards as his VP running mate. )

July 8: After 2 stellar weeks in theaters nationwide, Gallup releases the latest poll of the Presidential race.

Bush 49%
Kerry 45%
Nader 3%

The problem with the movie is that Moore is SO biased and twists things SO much, that people took what he said with a grain of salt and decided to investigate it on the internet, watching news commentaries, etc., and if you aren't too close minded to look, you can already find tons of editorials that shoot down just about everything that Moore claims in the movie.

And you still havent commented on the article that I posted either.

Forsythe

07-10-2004, 01:17 PM

Moving this baby to House of Debate...

PYMPTYPE

07-10-2004, 01:41 PM

i've read the websites that devote all their time to finding anything wrong with F911 and i'm not impressed by the 'lies' they came up with. there was nothing grossly inaccurate about the film those guys are seriously grasping at straws.

O P T i C S

07-10-2004, 02:32 PM

Pymp well as an american you would be to stupid to be impressed by everything that is proven wrong in that page.
Kiron my whol argument in this is basically the fact that Moore does the same thing in every film he makes i do no think i have directly tried to argue anything out of this film, but i have seen Roger and Me, a pathetic film, and Bowling for Columbine, Both movies took advantages of Victims, Both movies manipulated facts, both movies edited scenes, and both movies were not documentaries.

and yes this is the definition of Documentary you want it from a few places pymp?
www.dictionary.com
4 entries found for documentary.
doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Merriam Webster, you notice they both use the word factual and objective.
Main Entry: 1doc·u·men·ta·ry
Pronunciation: "dä-ky&-'men-t&-rE, -'men-trE
Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

Pymp if you need a classification for them you can call them Extreme Liberal propaganda. which i believe as you guys have said michael moore allready admitted that the reason he made this movie is to get bush out of the white house, and oh wait twisting facts, misleading the public, editing parts of films, wouldnt that be propaganda

miamijc

07-10-2004, 07:08 PM

Ugghhh. As usual, a perfectly good discussion topic spirals into pure crap on these boards. A documentary is a movie about wildlife migration, or about the hunting paterns of abboriginies in Australia. A scripted movie with a clear purpose of presenting a political point of view is simply not a documentary. Period. I understand that you agree with Moore's message, but please at least have the clear-headedness to recognize the difference.

As far as Moore's rep for "twisting" the facts, all you have to do is read a little about him, and it becomes obvious. Listen, the guy makes movies to make money. To do so, you need to target a certain audience, and portray things the way that audience wants to see them. Sometimes that is going to involve taking some "liberties" with history, much like Rush Limbaugh does to target his conservative audience. Keep in mind that Moore, for all his left-wing politics, has made a fortune from his movies, lives in a $2 million manhattan apartment, and is getting rich and fat off of other people's misfortune. He is the Rush Limbaugh of the Left. *Wonders if he can trademark that?!?!*

A few notes about Mr. Moore:

From Roger Ebert (A HUGE Moore supporter):

""Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites."

CANNES - In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore drops any pretense that he is a documentarian to pull together from many sources an angry polemic against the president, the Bush family and the administration’s foreign policy.

Where “Roger & Me” and “Bowling for Columbine” were personal quests for truth, looking at a subject from different angles and talking to people polls apart in their points of view, Moore stays “on message” here from first shot to last. There is no debate, no analysis of facts or search for historical context. Moore simply wants to blame one man and his family for the situation in Iraq the United States now finds itself in.

Even if one agrees with all of Moore’s arguments, the film reduces decades of American foreign-policy failures to a black-and-white cartoon that lays the blame on one family. He ignores facts like the policy to arm and support Afghan rebels that began in the Carter administration. For that matter, the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after al-Qaida even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.

What Moore seems to be pioneering here is a reality film as an election-year device. The facts and arguments are no different than those one can glean from political commentary or recently published books on these subjects. Only the impact of film may prove greater than the printed word. So the real question is not how good a film is “Fahrenheit 9/11” — it is undoubtedly Moore’s weakest — but will a film help to get a president fired?

Czigga

07-10-2004, 08:55 PM

Miami didn't you read my last post!!?? :p

miamijc

07-11-2004, 07:16 AM

Yes. Why?

Czigga

07-11-2004, 01:19 PM

So the real question is not how good a film is “Fahrenheit 9/11” — it is undoubtedly Moore’s weakest — but will a film help to get a president fired?

July 8: After 2 stellar weeks in theaters nationwide, Gallup releases the latest poll of the Presidential race.

Bush 49%
Kerry 45%
Nader 3%

It seems at least initiall your question has been answered, at least at this point...

Putingrad

07-11-2004, 01:44 PM

Yeah, those numbers are without a doubt to be the result of Fahrenheit 9/11, I'm sure.... the polls go up and down every week, one week with Bush on top, another with Kerry.

You're not proving anything.

EDIT: And also, I've never said it's a documentary, but there are elements in it which very much are documentaries. The entire film itself is not one though.

Czigga

07-11-2004, 05:58 PM

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Read it yet

EDIT: And as for the polls... I'm not saying F9/11 lowered Kerry's likeability... He announced Edwards as his running mate the same week, so it probably has more to do with that. I'm only pointing out that the audience is not as 'riled up' as you think. Whether or not the polls prove anything, I'm fairly sure that you might have expected Bush's share to go down or Kerry's to go up maybe ONE POINT. But it didn't. And a 3 point drop in 2 weeks is a lot actually. Perhaps not on its own, but when you add in the fact that he chose a running mate that pretty much everyone says was a good move for him, (and it was, imo) it could be kind of a bad sign.

Anyway, read the article

O P T i C S

07-11-2004, 08:53 PM

ok i have seen this shit movie now, and i would say half the audience applauded it half booed it and one guy yelled wehre is a toilet to flushs all this shit down with. Like i thought its another manipulative conspiracy theory movie that misleads its audience. In the part where he talks about the Coalition its kinda funny how he leaves out a few not to mention England.The part where he is asking the senators to inlist their sons in the army, last time i checked its not your fathers descion on if your going to war or not, im sure if their sons were in the army they would be proud of them but its not their choice to make up their kids descions. The movie yes was a little bit entertaining i laughed a few times, but the movie as a whole was one big misleading manipulations of half truths.

Putingrad

07-12-2004, 12:35 AM

Czigga, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say/prove here. The "riled up audience" are liberals, I thought that was abundantly clear. There are still a helluva alot of conservatives out there though which keep those numbers even. I've told you once, and if you followed the polls you'd know, the polls go up and down virtually weekly. In another 1 or 2 weeks Kerry will be back up ahead of Bush a bit, then Bush will be 1 or 2 weeks after that. Besides, there are many, many different polls out there, and each one is different, and each one often coincidentally higher for the side that the newspaper, organization, etc. are notoruiously biased for. The polls don't mean much when it's this close, but they're still fun to follow. The only thing we can really determine is that it's very close.

As for the article, I'm still wondering what you're trying to prove. I've acknowledged it's not a true documentary and is biased, and that article just lays out the way things are biased, and how it is propoganda, although the word propoganda has evolved to have so many connotations associated with it that its meaning when you read is instantly negative. It doesn't really offer anything to disprove the film's theories other than basically that the language used is inflammatory and biased, and that doesn't prove anything. Do you even know who Liefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein who are mentioned near the start are? She documented the Nuremberg rallies and was a Nazi propogandist, and he documented the Bolshevik revolution and was a Soviet propogandist. That's a far cry away from what Moore is doing, is it not? The article is full of such far cry comparisons, and F9/11 has its fair share of them for sure.

It's funny how you're so quickly able to lap up what's said in that article as truth and correct, while instantly dismissing F9/11 as unsubstantiated fiction.

O P T i C S

07-12-2004, 12:59 AM

Its simple how he can believe that over the movie, the movie gives half truths, that article along with this one which is very thorough tears the movie apart, Moore has been known to twist everything around, and forget to add parts of things in his comedies.
its long but a great read.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

PYMPTYPE

07-12-2004, 03:29 AM

polls dont have anything to do with voter turnout.

also it is propaganda to say "the film is not a documentary" everybody in the film industry knows its one and the people who classify movie genres know its one i dont really care what websters says. you guys obviously havent seen very many documentaries, lots of newer ones (like post 1990) are very opinionated and many are based entirely on speculation. if you want to say its not true then fine but it is a documentary, its obviously not an action film ,drama, or comedy.

Czigga

07-12-2004, 07:02 AM

The "riled up audience" are liberals, I thought that was abundantly clear. There are still a helluva alot of conservatives out there though which keep those numbers even. I've told you once, and if you followed the polls you'd know, the polls go up and down virtually weekly. In another 1 or 2 weeks Kerry will be back up ahead of Bush a bit, then Bush will be 1 or 2 weeks after that. Besides, there are many, many different polls out there, and each one is different, and each one often coincidentally higher for the side that the newspaper, organization, etc. are notoruiously biased for.

Firstly, the Gallup polls widely considered the most accurate, and generally used by most by most TV, radio, and newspapers as their source for the polls. And you're right, polls do go up and down a lot. But do you know what causes things to go up and down? That's right! Usually to any big events that happen in the week/s before! Such as maybe a blockbuster anti-Bush movie? Or perhaps the announcement of your VP? Hmm...

And as for saying stuff that doesn't disprove theories... Explain to me how some of this doesn't disprove theories...

1. Moore specifically blames Bush for sending Bin Laden family members out of the country right after attack... implying that the bin Laden family had some type of deal or conspiracy going on with Bush and his family.

Since then, Richard Clarke, the now former head of counterterrorism has said that he, and he alone, authorized the flights out of the country; Bush had nothing to do with it. BTW Clarke was originally appointed under the Clinton administration, further disproving any conspiracy Bush may have had with Clarke. Unless Bush must have conspired with Clinton to get Clarke appointed!! That's it! Hmm, actually that would be ridiculous wouldn't it. This pretty much alone kills any argument of a Bush led conspiracy, disproving Moore, but I'll go on. If it doesn't disprove it, please explain how.

2. Moore points out one of the specific interests the US, and specifically the Bush family, has in Afghanistan... a proposed pipeline by the Unocal company. Problem is, this proposal was scrapped 2 years before Bush even got into office... 1998. Funny how Moore never mentions the year in his film... There goes that theory. If that doesn't disprove this particular accusation, please explain how it doesn't disprove it.

3. Bush is shown NUMEROUS times buddying up with his Saudi business friends, and Moore specifically says that we went into Iraq to further the business interests of these friends. Thing is, you even said yourself Putin that the Saudis despised the fact that we were in Iraq. You said if this was in fact in the move it would have been a glaring flaw. Well, watch it again. In fact, they didn't even allow troops to station there. They were forced to move to Quatar. If this fact doesn't disprove Moore's theory plz explain how.

4. Moore originally says that we should not have sent any troops to Afghanistan to begin with. He says that bin Laden is 'innocent until proven guilty'. However in his movie, he claims that Bush didn't send enough troops? Are you kidding me? As if it were up to Moore, he would have sent more troops to Afghanistan. Please. He is willing to say anything to try to make Bush look bad, even at the price of his own convictions.

Anyway Putin, I don't have any problem with your beliefs, but it seems to me like you are simply blindly following Moore because you think he's saying things that you agree with. You can still be a liberal and not like Moore and what he stands for, which is twisting facts and saying anything he (thinks he) can get away with to get a cheer out of him. Take Christopher Hitchens, the author of that article I posted for example.(which I can't help but wonder if you actually read it since you commented on nothing past the first paragraph). Hitchens is actually what you might call an ultra liberal.

Putingrad

07-12-2004, 01:54 PM

To those "points" you made:

1. Just because Clarke said only he authorized it doesn't make that true. It's that simple really. Nothing disproved.

2. Just because Unocal says it was scrapped doesn't mean that's true. We know how honest and trustworthy big business is, right? It's that simple really. Nothing disproved.

3. I've never said F9/11 is complete fact and this is one area where things are shady. It's the biggest flaw in the movie as far as I'm concerned. But there is something to be said for the coziness there, the censoring of critical state department documents, and other things Bush has been doing seemingly to protect them. Mostly disproved.

4. Makes perfect sense. You can oppose a war, but at least want your government to do it RIGHT when they eventually go in. I agreed with the war in Afghanistan, I did/do not agree with the one in Iraq. I don't think we should be in Iraq, but if they go in at least do it right. This isn't even attempting to disprove anything, I think you just wanted to get 4 points in there somehow.

I don't blindly follow anything, including Moore. But do I trust Moore more than Republicans and conservatives? Damn right I do. So I'll take his side, thank you very much. I did read the article actually, and as for Christopher Hitchens, he's known for being a leftist who publishes some controversial things every now and then, but he's started cozying up to the Neocon crap recently. I consider myself an "ultra-liberal" (socialist), and if Christopher Hitchens is what passes for an ultra-liberal these days, then damn, what does that make me?

PYMPTYPE

07-12-2004, 02:28 PM

2) uhhh thats not true at all. not sure where the plans are for the pipeline now but heres an article from 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

3) i saw the movie and i dont remember that part where moore specifically said that. even if he did doesnt mean its not true. the saudi family could be publically against the war but they still stand to gain a lot of money from the carlyle group and other investments. personally i would expect them to be against the war on iraq and i dont think we went there for them, i think we went there for bush.

Czigga

07-12-2004, 03:33 PM

L O L

1. Last time I checked, for you to just to decide to fall back on the "Just because he said it doesn't make it true" argument, lol, i can't believe you're trying to base your argument on that. If you're simply not going to believe any facts that counter what you WANT to believe, then what's the point. Can you imagine if we were discussing this somewhere in front of an audience, and I say "Well it's funny that Moore blames this on Bush, because Clarke who was originally hired under the Clinton administration, has said on record that he and he alone sent the bin Laden family out of the country. (BTW, they were actually questioned before they were sent back and no connective evidence was found.) And you're only response was "Well, just because he said it doesn't make it true." You would have been laughed out of the building.

2. See above. And last time I checked, it's kind of difficult to keep billion dollar pipeline a secret from the world. "Just because they said it doesn't mean it's true." lol.

3. I guess I'll let you slide on this one Putin, since you basically just said that Moore's movie is not fact. But we still have Pymp to address, who AGAIN uses the whole "If he said it doesn't mean it's not true." argument. I am telling you specifically that the Saudis lose more money than they gain because of the loss of their oil market stability. If you think they make money on us going into Iraq, plz explain how. And I hope you're not planning on using US defense company spending. They have so much more money invested in their oil than on US defense spending the comparison is hardly worth mentioning.

4. All I'm proving here is that Moore says he is not for 'wasting' human lives, but then he is fully ready to 'waste' more if he thinks it will hurt bush. It's not about going into a country "right". Moore says that us going to the middle east is a waste of human lives, as he so eloquently put it as he shamelessly exploited one woman's son's death. And yet, in order for us to go into Afghanistan "right", we have to 'waste' more human lives. Moore basically is saying that he would be willing to waste more lives in order to make Bush look bad.

I seriously hope that you guys have something more substantial next time than simply saying that just because they said it doesn't make it true.

And Pymp, lol, did you even read the article you posted? Lemme pull out a quote from Unocal, FROM YOUR ARTICLE:

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.

Lol, my advice to you would be that if you plan on posting an article to disprove something, the article actually disproves it.

But I guess it doesn't matter, because even though that article said it doesn't make it true.

O P T i C S

07-12-2004, 08:19 PM

Sense none of you will read the article i gave you here is the direct quote from it

"Saudi Departures from United States

Deceits 11-15

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.”

also
Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

The FBI checked a variety of databases for information on the Bin Ladin flight passengers and searched the aircraft. It is unclear whether the TIPOFF terrorist watchlist was checked. At our request, the Terrorist Screening Center has rechecked the names of individuals on the flight manifests of these six Saudi flights against the current TIPOFF watchlist. There are no matches.

The FBI has concluded that nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks, or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks. To date, we have uncovered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

Czigga

07-13-2004, 03:59 AM

That is a good article Op, here's the explanation it contains about the statement that Bush made that disgusted Putin so much from his first post:

Another Bush joke is presented as an obvious joke, although important context is missing. Near the end of the movie, Bush speaks to a tuxedoed audience. He says, “I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” The joke follows several segments in which Bush is accused of having started the Iraq war in order to enrich business. As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is speaking to some unknown group of rich people. The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.

Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent." Lampooning his promise to put Social Security in a "lock box," Gore promised that he would put "Medicare in a walk-in closet," put NASA funding in a "hermetically sealed Ziploc bag" and would "always keep lettuce in the crisper." Mary Ann Poust, "Presidential hopefuls Gore and Bush mix humor and politics at Al Smith Dinner," Catholic New York, Oct. 26, 2000. So although Fahrenheit presents the joke as epitomizing Bush's selfishness, the joke really was part of Bush helping to raise $1.6 million for medical care for the poor. Although many a truth is said in jest, Bush's joke was no more revealing than was Gore's claim to have founded the dinner in 1946, two years before he was born.

Interesting...

EDIT: and here's another interesting thing to address your conspiracy theory regarding the censoring of Bath's name in the National Guard records...

Moore makes a big point about the name of James Bath being blacked out from Bush National Guard records which were released by the White House. The blackout might appear less sinister if Moore revealed that federal law required the Alabama National Guard to black out the names any Guardsmen whose medical information was on the same pages as the records which the Alabama Guard released regarding George Bush's health records. So what Moore presents as a sinister effort to conceal the identity of James Bath was in fact the legally-required compliance with federal law.

This article is fun!

PYMPTYPE

07-13-2004, 09:22 AM

"as he so eloquently put it as he shamelessly exploited one woman's son's death."

its not exploitation if they agree with it.

czigga i think you missed the entire point. unocol was just one of the companies being considered. unocal isnt the company that planned it afghanistan (i mean cheney) is, they are just a company being considereed for construction. of course they say "we have no plans yada yada yada" and of course that doesnt' mean they really arent thinking about it and even if they arent thinking about it that doesnt mean that somebody else isnt thinking about it. there will be a pipeline there eventually, its just a matter of time.

and czigga moore never said it was "sinister effort to blackout the name" he was just showing the connections of the guy with the blacked out name. and if law required them to blacked out the name (which makes perfect sense) then its kinda weird how moore got the records without the blacked out name.

i could sit here and punch wholes in that stupid article all day but i dont feel like it. some of moores shit was clearly misleading but i still love the film and it was a documentary and everything in it was true, maybe if not the whole truth.

Putingrad

07-13-2004, 12:10 PM

Pymp beat me to it, how is it exploitation if she was doing it willingly? God forbid that some military members and military families might actually DISAGREE with Bush and co. That's simply unfathomable, isn't it?

Saying that you can't prove it is a perfectly legitimate argument, because you can't. Please tell me how it's proven just by people saying they did something. I'm curious.

Uh, it was obviously a joke, but that doesn't make it any less tasteless. How can you actually defend that statement with a clear conscience? He trivialized the plight of tens of millions in this country and he was "just joking", right? It's just totally mind-boggling the way you think. There's no hope for you people.

Czigga

07-13-2004, 01:47 PM

Lol, I'll admit that my exploitation comment is purely my opinion, and however well supported I find it, it is opinion so I'm not gonna try to prove that its exploitation.

Pymp, did you watch the movie? You're saying that Moore didn't make it seem like Bush blacked out Bath's name in order to cover up any business connection to him? I think you better watch the movie again, because that's exactly what Moore does. But you're right, perhaps I didn't quote it exactly. :rolleyes:

And lol @ your pipeline comment. I said "unocal is not doing their pipeline" you said "that's not true" and then your own article substantiated my claim and disproved yours. You guys are so ignorant of facts, just deciding to not believe something. lol. You said that Unocal was one of the companies considered? Again, no. Moore is very specific in saying that we went into Afghanistan so their pipeline deal with Unocal (specifically Unocal, not "Unocal or some other company") would go through.

And LOL @ your comment "some of moores shit was clearly misleading but i still love the film and it was a documentary and everything in it was true, maybe if not the whole truth." Whoop dee doo. "Everything was true, maybe if not the whole truth." Nice ring to it. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

And putin. Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"? That means that based on a given situation, the burden of proof is either on one party or the other. For example, Moore in his movie said that the White House authorized the bin Ladens leaving. I said that that was false, and quoted Clarke himself, because the burden of proof was on me. If you think that Clarke is false, the burden of proof is now on you. Which means it's not my job to proove what he said is true, but rather your responsibility to proove it's false, if you claim so. I challenge you to find ONE, ANY article or ANY evidence that shows that there is any reason to disbelieve Clarke.

And as for the joke that you're so offended by. For you to ignore the context is really ridiculous. Just earlier this thread you said that all conservatives should be shot. You just said that this country would be better off if half of the people here were murdered. But OMFG you were just joking right? Nothing wrong with it in context right?

Do you realize that Gore was one of the people at that event Bush was speaking to? Do you realize that Gore probably laughed at that joke? Trivializing tens of millions of people? are you kidding me? He wasn't making fun of poor people, he was making fun of people who say he was going to Afghanistan to get rich. For you to overlook that is ludicrous.

But anyway, Pymp is right, I'm just as tired of talking about this as he is. So this'll hopefully one of my lasts posts in this thread. I think we need to agree to disagree and leave it at that.