Real World Event Discussions

Well... here 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is.

POSTED BY: Quicksand
UPDATED: Thursday, March 30, 2006 17:02
VIEWED: 28615
PAGE 4 of 13

MACBAKER

Saturday, June 26, 2004 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Please111:
Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!

##LOL! It might, except that you missed the point entirely.

**No, you did! You continue to make the same assumptions over and over again.

Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate,

##Give it a rest. You are not moderate and that wasn't the point to your three page cut-n-paste.

**You should give it a rest. You don't know me, and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what my true political beliefs are! I posted a far right response to a far left movie. Neither OPINION is shared by me, as I have repreatedly stated. You are still clinging to the same flaw in your logic!

and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!

#That's not true. A true moderate is going to have a tough time in November. On which points are moderate views going to capture a majority? Domestic economic policy, global foriegn policy, women's rights, religious issues...

**Are you serious? Do you even understand what a moderate platform is? The only chance anyone running for president has, is running on a moderate platform, trying to win voters from both sides. Sure, there are degrees, but Bush ran on a right leaning moderate platform, and Gore ran on a left leaning moderate platform. Both tried to lean towards the middle to get the critical indie and undecided votes. Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich would never win a presidental election, because the represent the extremes of their party's platforms.

Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target you would like to believe I am.

##I think you are. If you're so middle of the road, then prove it. Give us your opinions on the war in Iraq. Do you support it? Was it justified? Is it about oil? Was it intended to divert attention? What about the nonexistent (or just extremely weak connection) to alcaida? What about the non existent weapons of mass destruction? What is your opinion of Richard Clarke? Is he telling the truth? Or, is he just a liberal trying to damage Bush's creditability before the election?

**My opinion of the war? We should have worked harder with the UN to resolve the problem. Saddam needed to go, but we needed the world behind us. We should have never invaded IRAQ without UN support!

**My opinion on WMDs? They were there. We gave them 6 months prior to invasion to dispose and/or hide them. Even the UN inspectors believed there were WMDs in IRAQ.

**My opion of Clarke? He's a flake, but so was Newt! They represent the worst of their own party's extremes. Like Newt did with Clinton, Clarke is headhunting, and his actions will do more harm than good to his party.

That would make it easy for you to dismiss. The truth is, I dislike Micheal Moore for the same reason that I dislike Rush Limbaugh. Both twist facts to convince small minded lemmings to follow thier cause. It takes a lot more than that to get me to follow anyone. Frankly, I pity anyone that does. If you wish to believe Moore's tripe,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MACBAKER

Saturday, June 26, 2004 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You're going to have to do better than that to convince anyone that these reviews are anything more than republican rhetoric serving to cloud the issues.

I guess you missed my reply, where I clearly agreed that the review was from the extreme right. That was the point. Both views "cloud the issues"! The truth is somewhere in the middle. I was just playing devil's advocate, by showing a contrasting opinion, but the joke seems to be lost on "even the lowliest among us" here.

BTW: Opinion pieces are called EDITORIALS, not documentarys, and they are always represented as the opinion of the commentator. Mr. Moore makes no such representations, and tries to convince his audience that his opinions are FACT. There's a big difference between an editorial piece and propaganda. Propaganda makers always claim they are giving facts, not opinions!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

CREVANREAVER

Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:34 PM

Unfairenheit 9/11

The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do

PLEASE111

Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:13 PM

I agree completely that Debbie's review is right wing, and YES it IS propaganda!!!! DUH! I bet that takes the wind out of your sails. It certainly makes your response more impotent!

##LOL! It might, except that you missed the point entirely.

**No, you did! You continue to make the same assumptions over and over again.

#### I love this, "No you did." :-)Let's clarify my assumption then, you couldn't wait for someone to take your bait so you could respond with that right-wing rethoric.

Your fatal flaw in logic, is assuming that I share her views! I just felt it was important to see things from an opposing point of view. Moore's opinions obviously come from an extreme left wing point of view. It seemed only proper to play devil's advocate,

##Give it a rest. You are not moderate and that wasn't the point to your three page cut-n-paste.

**You should give it a rest. You don't know me,

####I wouldn't want to know you, and I don't get much rest. :-)

and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what my true political beliefs are!

####Oh, I think your motives are very clear.

I posted a far right response to a far left movie. Neither OPINION is shared by me, as I have repreatedly stated. You are still clinging to the same flaw in your logic!

####Your responses have been poorly designed attempts to discredit Mike Moore to discourage people from seeing the movie. My posistion is that people should see the movie if they want, and they should make up their own *damn* minds.
:-)

and give a response from the extreme right. Both sides are wrong, and they always have been! One side believes in some mythical socialist paradise, and the other believes a facist kingdom is the cure for everyone's problems! The Democrats don't have all of the answers, and clearly, neither do the Republicans. The majority of the population tends to steer towards the middle, which is why moderate candidates (or candidates that appear moderate, like Gore and Bush both tried to convince us they were) win presidental elections! The reason the last election was so close, is because both Bush and Gore convinced enough voters that they were moderate. No candidate will win a presidental election on a true "left wing" or "right wing" platform!

#That's not true. A true moderate is going to have a tough time in November. On which points are moderate views going to capture a majority? Domestic economic policy, global foriegn policy, women's rights, religious issues...

**Are you serious?

####Very.

Do you even understand what a moderate platform is?

####I was a moderate republican for over 20 years. My voting record was not partisan. I registered as a democrat before the last primary solely because the current administration's agenda leans so far to the right in so many dangerous ways.

####I do agree that this country desparately needs some moderation (or maybe even a lot). Our government was carefully designed so that no single group could hold all of the power. These are checks and balances. One of the primary agendas of this administration has been control
all branches of the government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial). Electing Kerry is the only step in the direction of moderation.

The only chance anyone running for president has, is running on a moderate platform,

####This is factually untrue. Nobody has ever unseated and incumbent president with a completely moderate agenda.

trying to win voters from both sides. Sure, there are degrees, but Bush ran on a right leaning moderate platform, and Gore ran on a left leaning moderate platform.

####Gore won the popular vote and that's a fact.

Both tried to lean towards the middle to get the critical indie and undecided votes. Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich would never win a presidental election, because the represent the extremes of their party's platforms.

####Yeah, that compasionate conservative line was a big load crap, and ahem, Newt isn't exactly the poster boy for the moderate.

Sorry, I'm not the easy "extremst" target yo

PLEASE111

Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:32 PM

BRTICK

Sunday, June 27, 2004 2:01 AM

So, I've just seen the film.
Great stuff, as always, from Moore. It runs the full gambit of emotions. People laughed, cried, cheered (I’m personally too jaded to do any of that myself, but other people did). I was also slightly surpirsed at the crowd that turned out. some people every brought their kids.
I only disagreed with it on a couple of points ( I think people are putting too much on Bush for the “seven minutes”), but most of the film was right on.
It’s not as funny as his other films; in fact, it’s quite grim at parts. And Moore spends almost no time on the camera. Instead he serves mostly as narrator. Letting his subject matter take center stage in a way I don’t think he ever has. My only real complaint is that he tries to cover too much ground at some point.
Moore asks so many hard (some are more or less unanswerable) questions about fear, and leadership and war.
The stuff on the military is the most shocking and yet, he paints a very real picture about war and those it affects. Including those that serve in our military. He takes a hard and truthful look at the dark side of that. He lets us see the dark side and those than pins the blame square on those that put the troops there.
It’s so incredibly thought provoking. This documentary is amazing. And it is a pro-American film. This film makes us of, through and through, a the values and morals I was raised to believe were American values. people who say this isn't a documentary, apparently don't know what one really is.
GO SEE THIS FILM. Forget all the lefty vs. righty bullshit stuff you've heard. Just go see the film.

Keep Flying!

FILMCRITIC3000

Sunday, June 27, 2004 2:03 AM

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Tops $8M in First Day

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S37A218A8

It looks like this may well be the #1 movie of the weekend, with more theatres added in the coming weeks. Quite a feat considering "White Chicks" is on about 2200 screens, while "Fahrenheit 9/11" is only on 868 or so.

FilmCritic3000

"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."

- Juan Ramon Jiminez

QUICKSAND

Sunday, June 27, 2004 6:10 AM

ROFL.

If we're trying to pick a movie that hates America, shouldn't we be pointing fingers at "White Chicks" anyway?

MACBAKER

Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Please111:

####I though you just said that Newt was a moderate. Moderate like you maybe...

I'd take the trouble to refute you again, but why bother. You are so into "you're a right wing wacko" rant, that you can't even get simple facts straight! Only a complete moron would infer that I ever considered Newt Gingrich a moderate! In fact, I clearly said that he demonstates the worst (I.E. EXTREME RIGHT) aspects of his own party! If you weren't so busy assmuming, and actually took time to read my responses before going off on another baseless rant, you'd see that we actually agree on many of these issues!

Claim to dismiss me all you wish, but you still respond everytime I make a point! That fact speaks for it self!

Am I a right wing conervative? Hell no! Am I a left wing liberal? Again, hell no!

I disgree with the war in IRAQ. I believed that Saddam should go, but I did't agree with the fact that we invaded IRAQ without UN support! Now that we are commited, we need to see it through (both in Iraq and Afganistan). If we pull out and leave the citizens of these countries vunarable to the first warlord powerful enough to take power, we'll be even more hated than we already are.

I support environmental issues, but only those that make sense. Example: Electric cars seem to be much better for the environment than gas powered cars, but the reality is, that electricity is made primarily by burning coal and oil. The increased production of electricity, so that every american could drive an electric car, would end up doing as much harm to our environment as current automoblies do. Fuel cell cars have other environmental issues that haven't been solved. They just don't work yet, but hopefully that will change. I'm sure that those who live in L.A. for example, would love to live to see the day that the sky isn't filled with haze, and that you would actually see more than a handfull of stars on a reasonably clear night!

I don't believe a two party political system works. Both partys apply so much pressure on members, that they fear voting against the party line, even when they know it's the right thing to do! We need I viable third party that can swing votes away from the majority party.

I believe that we should have term limits. Too many politicians from both partys are lap dogs to special interest groups, lobbists, and corporations! Term limits won't solve the problem, but it will minimize the exposure. It will also do away with career politicians! Do we really need Ted Kennedy (D) or Kit Bond (R) to serve another term?

I believe the President should have Line Item Veto powers. Too many junk laws get attached to good bills, and end up costing tax payers millions.

I am personally against abortion (except when the mother's life might be in danger), but I don't believe the government should have any control over this issue! I believe it is an individual decision. The only area I do take issue with, is third tri-mester abortions, when development of the fetus is far enough along that there is a working mind (soul). If a woman waits that long to make a decision, I feel that it is too late to abort. Too many premature births that survive at that stage of pregnancy, prove that this is a "life" at this point!

These beliefs are not conservative or liberal, they clearly lean towards a moderate view of politics. When you take a moment to stop ranting and assuming, you might understand that! BUT, I doubt it! Have a nice day! :)

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, June 27, 2004 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Good god man, how exactly do you dispose of a battery or fuel cell properly? Go visit a landfill, you'd be stunned to see the crap there, including batteries by the truck load!

Most major urban centers have a disposel site that takes care of such things for people. Perhaps it's because you live the US that you don't have one. Or maybe you do and you just don't know it.

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
As a nation, we don't even dispose of nuclear waste properly.

This scares me more than you know.

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
You live in a fantasy world, which probably explains most of your responses to this thread.

LOL, like you're the one that knows all, eh? Or is it just that I don't see things the way you do?

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
BTW, if I was the right winger you and other small minds believed, I wouldn't be concerned with environmental issues such as this.

LOL, you seem to be assuming that I look at people in a "black and white" way. Perhaps you should look to that before making such inflamitory comments.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show