Fahrenheit 9/11
Forum
Well, now that we are faced with coming to terms with the implications of the post- 11-2 world: Frodo failed.
>>By resealable (Thursday, 18 Nov 2004 22:59)
Frodo?! Ack! Stupid little hobbitus!
To qoute:
Aragorn: Are you frightened?
Frodo: Yes.
Aragorn: Not nearly frightened enough. I know what hunts you.
>>By ~*Sisaro*~ (Sunday, 21 Nov 2004 01:31)
Michael Moore is a slob of an extremist merely filling his pockets with the money of "nightly" news watchers of whom are constant victims of the partisan media's one-sided bankrupt stories. If there were any truth to the vomit of this swine, Moore would have publicly debated Sean Hannity before the elcetion while touring college campasses using the all too familiar "draft" scare tactic. Please research these topics and make an educated decision based on facts; do not welcome parasites such as Michael Moore to distort your convictions!
>>By 8drummer8 (Thursday, 25 Nov 2004 08:05)
I have to agree with 8drummer8...A friend of mine is a police officer that dresses in plain clothes and gets on planes to make sure it is safe..(sorry i can't think of the correct term) and he was on a plane with michael moore..he said he was a rude pompus ass...and i have only seen bits and pieces of his films....not impressed..Loud mouthed pig!!!!! Sorry!!!!
>>By Sunshine8 (Saturday, 27 Nov 2004 21:48)
First, thanks to elevation for the compliment. Next I took the time to watch the movie again then I went to the website and checked the facts then i watch the movie "Farenhype 9/11" which disputes the moore film the went and check their facts. And guess what both movies "facts" were verified but they both had different points of view. Which proves my point. o say the moore film is factual correct is insufficient because facts can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to. Like the fact that Moore edited out the congressman who said they did have children serving in the military and only showed the ones who didn't. Or the fact that one scene that moore shot of children was not in Irag but was actually in palestine. Or the fact that he showed the Bush family ties with Saudis and other mideast oil people but not once bring the Clinton ties with the same people. Or the fact that the Osama Bin Ladin threat was told to Clinton while he wa president and was dismissed as minor. Or the fact that the 9/11 terrorists got into the country, prepared and learned how to fly planes all under clinton's administration. I'm not thrill with Bush as president but I believe neither Gore or Kerry would have been any better. And frankly I believe they might have made things worse. I am not thrill with the war in Iraq but i have two brothers, two cousins and a uncle all in the military and all have been in the middle east during the conflict. They tell me that the majority of Iraqis are happy to freed from Saddam and appreciate the americans and they also tell me that they are helping people over there. So if i have to choose between believing my family or Moore there is no contest. I'm sure there is resentment of America over there and maybe this is helping against terrorism or maybe it's not. But I do know there hasn't been a major terrorist attck against the US since the middleeast offensive, I know the only bin Laden could do to try to effect or election was to send us a videotape and I know about the 19 year old girl would told my cousin that a few days before the iraq invasion she was threaten with being sent to the rape rooms is safe now. Bush is corrupt and maybe have dubious reasons behind the war. No shit every president is corupt and do things for dubious reasons. But Moore isn't investigating the Clinton's lack of action during the '93 WTC bombing, or looking into his whitewater scandal or looking into how he was paid off by communist china. And since all of you are goosestepping dems you won't look into or ask yourself any questions about thost things either. No where in that movie did Moore ask what Clinton could have did differently to avoid the 9/11 disaster and no where on here have I've seen any of you ask the same question Why? Bush was president 8 months when 9/11 happen and Clinton was president for 8 years who do you think had more of a chance to stop the tragedy before it started. If Moore was really as great a person as all of you are saying he would be asking all the questions about 9/11 not just the ones that make Bush look bad. Can any of you people who are attacking me explain why he isn't asking all the questions concerning 9/11 including the ones that effect clinton and kerry. I want to see if any one has the heatr to respond.
>>By smore (Thursday, 2 Dec 2004 15:06)
OK, first, smore, I think ur a bit too obsesses with the movie, and second, I HATED the movie. Bush is freaking awesome and it was proved when he won the 2004 Election. Michael Moorse is nothing more than a sad loser who doesn;t have a life of his won. Oh, and the part in the beginging of the movie where Bush tells Michael to get a real jod, Bush was right. Paparozzi are so fraking annoying. GET YOUR OWN DAMN LIVES AND STOP PEEKING INTO OTHER PEOPLES>
>>By Dog_loving_girl (Sunday, 5 Dec 2004 05:27)
I apologize for all of my spelling errors in my last message, lol
>>By Dog_loving_girl (Monday, 6 Dec 2004 02:09)
I';m not obsessed with the movie. I'm discussing the movie which is the point of this forum.
>>By smore (Monday, 6 Dec 2004 15:54)
I agree with you, smore, Moore is a poor example of a documentary maker. I remember watching the movie and being furious during the scene where Moore speculates on why Bush, upon hearing that the nation was under attack, didn't do anything for a few minutes. Speculation does not belong in a documentary. But that doesn't change the fact that this administration has repeatedly lied to the public and manipulated the media. The purpose of the President is to serve the citizens, not his or her own interests.
As for Bush's victory, it is not the mandate one would think. Of course there were radical people who were scarily in support of Kerry or Bush, but in this election in particular, it was a question of world morality versus national security. People voted for Kerry because they believed that Bush was not the most diplomatic of leaders, they wanted someone who would try to bring the world togeather in peace, not by any means necessary. People voted for Bush because they believed that Kerry would be too weak to defend the nation against attack with any means necessary. I think that it is a much more difficult decision if you actually learn about both the candidates. I do not believe that Bush is a good President. I don't think he is a good person, but nor do I believe that Kerry would be a good leader. Bush is a strong leader, but so was Stalin.
>>By pgrmDave (Wednesday, 8 Dec 2004 09:31)
That is a great point Dave. It is sad that we are not really given good candidates to vote for. I believe it is that when nominees for elected positions are chosen for thought is given to winning and losing then principles. I believe the Kerry was clearly the wrong candidate for the Dems but the only reason he was chosen was becuase people thought he had the best chance to beat Bush. So people were put in a position to defend a man they really didn't believe in. Candiddates should be chosen on their standards and beliefs not on some popularity pools. Also call me crass but I really don't give a damn on how europe feels about American policies. They do what they want without considering how we feel so why shuld we care about them.
>>By smore (Wednesday, 8 Dec 2004 21:39)
well, I agree with you on the idea the candidates are chosen based on their chances of beating the incumbent, which is not always the best way to beat the incumbent, but I think that you miss the reason we need to care about the rest of the world. We are so much bigger and more powerful, economically, politically, and militarily, than any single other country with possible exceptions for China, India, and Japan(economically only), that our actions have far-reaching consequences. The leader of Hungary cannot have much effect on the U.S., but the United States President can. I believe that the countries that have strong anti-american feeling resent the way in which we use our power. Rather than try to help other countries find their niche, we force ourselves upon them. Whether we mean to or not, whether we mean ill or good. Our culture is the furthest reaching culture, and our economy supports much of the world. Other countries believe that with that power we have a responsibility to use it wisely. I cannot say with certainty whether we can see it clearer because we have the power, or if they can see it clearer because they don't, but when you think about it from their point of view, it makes sense to vote against Bush.
>>By sexkitten (Thursday, 9 Dec 2004 07:39)
You know, it's easy for us to point fingers at what is wrong with american politics, but does anyone have any solutions?
>>By pgrmDave (Thursday, 9 Dec 2004 16:11)
For most countries they want us to interfere if it means giving them money, backing them up militarily, or giving them and advantage in trade. But after we give them all that when we ask for something in return they freak out. And all these countries opposed to us takeing over Iraq. If Saddam had gotten a hold of some WMD and used them who would they had come complaining to?
>>By smore (Friday, 10 Dec 2004 00:41)
well, we do give a lot to these countries, but we have a lot to give. And remember, a right and a wrong dont cancel each other out. The United States tries to justify its misdoings by what it does right, but it doesn't work that way. If I give you money and then knee you in the groin, what are you going to think of me?
>>By pgrmDave (Friday, 10 Dec 2004 05:03)
I think that smore has a point, our reasoning for giving aid to countries and invading Iraq were the same, we want people everywhere to have a better life. The rest of the world may not always agree with us, but you can't say that it's okay one way and not the other.
>>By sexkitten (Friday, 10 Dec 2004 07:25)
And when it comes right down to it. We have to do what we think is best. Despite what the rest of the world thinks. I don't know if invading I raq was the best thing to do. But I would rather the US error on the side of caution then to just do what other countries want us to just to keep everyone happy. Sometimes you have to make tough unpopular choices. Some people will be angry with that but I think about that girl my cousin told me about in Iraq and frankly she's more important then the grand poobah of Spain or France or Pluto.
>>By smore (Saturday, 11 Dec 2004 17:24)
Is invading a country really erring on the side of caution? Iraq posed no direct threat to us, not nearly the threat that Iran does, and yet we invaded. Bush's argument for the war in Iraq was strange, he wanted to liberate the people, and yet at the same time we had to believe that they posed a legitimate threat to us. I do think that most of the people are better off without Saddam, but that doesn't mean that they are better off with us. And I think that what most of the world was against wasn't ousting Saddam. They recognized that he was a megalomanic, but they were rebelling against us going to war without good reason. If we could do it in Iraq, we could do it anywhere.
>>By pgrmDave (Monday, 13 Dec 2004 20:34)
Frankly, if we choose to go to war It's nobody else's business. There are on average 2 dozen wars going on everyday in the world and a lot of those country passing judgement on the US are hypocrits. Especially France and Germany. Those countries didn't object to the war on moral issues they both were recieving compensation from Saddam's corrupt oil for food program and when they saw america about to invade they saw their gravy train leaving. They are just using some moral arguement to hide thier own greedy agenda. Is bush a great guy ? Hardly. Is the war in Iraq justified? Highly doubtful. But I will stand with a US President then with a bunch of back seat drivers and second guessers any day. Especially ones who are as corrupt as the people they are accusing. America is seen as the world leader which is why the US did what they did. Everybody else just sits there doing nothing and waits for a chance to criticize and complain. When Saddam was not complying with the UN mandates all of these countries were complaining that he wasn't complying and complaining that the UN sanctions weren't working, But nobody came up with an alternative plan of action. They had 10 years to do something and they didn't ,then Bush gave them another 18 months and they still did nothing. If they didn't want Bush to do what he did then they either should've decided on an alternative plan of action or drop the whole Iraq situation all together. They did neither just sat there bitching about Saddam until the US took him out of power and then start bitching at the US for doing it. Well screw the UN the EU and every other group with some stupid initials. Either piss or get off the pot. Don't go bitching to the US to do something then complain about what was done. If you didn't like what the US had planned to do then get off your asses and do something yourself instead of always expecting the US to do it for you.
>>By smore (Tuesday, 14 Dec 2004 20:53)
Well, smore, let's not say that it's nobody's business if we go to war, it does affect them - politically and economically. But you're right about one thing. For years everybody complained that Saddam wasn't complying, but they kept giving him chance after chance. Bush gave him a chance and when Saddam didn't comply, we attacked.
>>By sexkitten (Thursday, 16 Dec 2004 04:48)
<pgrmDave> "And I think that what most of the world was against wasn't ousting Saddam. They recognized that he was a megalomanic, but they were rebelling against us going to war without good reason."
when you say "most" of the world i'm assuming you mean the UN and the reason the UN would not back our invasion is quite simple: money. the UN made over 22 billion dollars from the "oil for food" program with Saddam. don't you realize a dictator had the UN in his pocket hoping we would not interfere without consent. John Kerry like most liberals want to hand this country over to the extremely corrupt UN while claiming Geeorge W. Bush has "no foreign policy." if you ask me, exposing the UN instead of welcoming it is the best foreign policy we have ever had!
>>By 8drummer8 (Wednesday, 5 Jan 2005 20:46)
America = democracy
U.N. = democracy
America v. U.N. ?
anti-american?
>>By sexkitten (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 05:46)
So 8drummer8, what evidence do you have for John Kerry wanting to hand over the U.S. to the U.N.? Or is it more conservative crap that is used to attack liberals for no reason?
>>By pgrmDave (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 18:14)
To Dog_loving_girl, I don't want to believe that you actually think that Bush was right in telling Michael Moore to "get a real job." What do you figure Bush does?? He spent almost all his first year in office on vacation! And about "peeking into other people's lives", well...umm Bush is the President of the United States, every person on earth deserves to know what he's doing. (Just in case you don't know, the United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world) Now I can get started on the movie...I don't think Michael Moore stretched the truth, it was really great and an eye-opener...when Bush was playing golf ("Now watch this drive") I laughed hysterically for hours...
P.S. Dog_loving_girl, this wasn't an attack on you, I just really disagree with your opinions
>>By raspberry_juice (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 22:55)
Now feel free to attack me, the liberal commie.
>>By raspberry_juice (Tuesday, 11 Jan 2005 22:57)
Liberal commie?! Wow now isn't that a contradiction?! God (in a Napolean Dynamite type manner) whats wrong with you people? Caring so much about the government, when in fact, they care so little about you. These political debates are almost as bad as star-humping Brad Pitt! Bah. Okay, so GWB is our pres.. again. Yay. And Micheal Moore will make a new movie... Yay. And.. guess what... nobody fucking cares! Shit. The world is out of our control people.... so get over it!
>>By ~*Sisaro*~ (Wednesday, 12 Jan 2005 00:18)
America = democracy
U.N. = democracy
America v. U.N. ?
anti-american?
>>By sexkitten
so now i'm anti-american? twisting my words just a little are you? i only think its a bit funny conservatives are the only people interested in bringing the guilty members to justice (and there names have been reported but not released for their protection).
>>By 8drummer8 (Wednesday, 12 Jan 2005 01:30)
The only reason why the world might become out of our control is if we adopt that attitude, ~*Sisaro*~. Americans are in control of who they vote for, and since we can all vote, we are in control. We DO live in a democracy...unfortunately just a lot of stupid people live in it, too.
>>By raspberry_juice (Wednesday, 12 Jan 2005 02:49)
<raspberry_juice> I don't think Michael Moore stretched the truth, it was really great and an eye-opener...
Do you also believe Bush will reinstate the draft, or end social security, fixed two elections, suppressed black votes, responsible for the lack of our flu vaccine and keep pariplegics and quadriplegics from ever walking again? This, along with Michael Moore's puke is nothing more than simple propaganda designed to sway elections by scaring people.
>>By 8drummer8 (Thursday, 13 Jan 2005 00:45)
I'm sorry if you think that I implied that you are unamerican, 8drummer8, I merely wanted to show you that democracy, for better or worse, is the backbone of american thinking, even when you don't agree with it. It seems to me that people often fail to realize that in a perfect democracy, people must disagree. In order for democracy to work, there has to be a balance. What is bothersome is that conservatives control all three brances of the government, that can do a lot of damage, just as much as if liberals control the govenment. Liberals have a way of jumping on bandwagons and conservatives have a way of being behind the times. The government runs best when it is balanced.
>>By sexkitten (Thursday, 13 Jan 2005 17:17)
conservatives being "behind the times" strikes me as a crude stereotype. there are plenty of young conservatives in america today ready to continue moving forward while it always seems like liberals love to focus on the past therefor are lagging behind. as for republicans controlling the house and senate now, it just goes to show more people voted a straight ticket based on core beliefs. the democratic party needs to regroup before '08 and using Ted Kennedy as their spokesperson is not going get the job done. (T. Kennedy gave a speach yesterday concerning this issue, and it wasn't pretty)
>>By 8drummer8 (Thursday, 13 Jan 2005 18:45)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW MOVIES