OT: Fahrenheit 9/11 *Explicit Content/Cursing*

[Joe Vancil]

Well, we cannot say for sure but its better than Michael Moore just saying what he believes.

Why is that?  Personally, I think I'd get more out of an honest opinion than I would out of a politically-slanted movie, because questions can be asked about an honest opinion.  Heck, that's why I write about basketball in places like this.  I look, I evaluate, I tell you what I think.  It forces me to refine the processes by which I evaluate and come to conclusions, and I have a track record which I'll be judged by.

"More effective on those who cannot choose for themselves" would be more appropriate.

 

[rickortreat]

Spursx3, yes it's always been there.  And the more research I do into it, the worse America appears to me.

But Presidents used to not be able to start wars on their own.  Presidential power has grown at the expense of the diminishment of Congress and the Judicial branch.

I suppose you could argue that it's always been this way, and it's been getting worse as time goes on.  It's just that the current state where in is so far from our social contact, the Constitution, that on a fundamental level we've become a totalitarian, facist state.  This is diametrically oppossed to the Constitution, and the people responsible are by definition traitors.  

I never felt that way before.  I always had faith in us, and thought that our sense of what is right would eventually reestablish itself.  But we've gone too far away from what  the US is suppossed to be, and I see no way for us to get back to that.  

And considering that the current President got in on an illegal ruling by the Supreme Court voted along political lines, overrulling the State Supreme Court of Florida, and the tacit acceptance of the same by the American people, I just don't recognize who we are anymore, or why I should be loyal to a country that doesn't adhere to it's only laws and perpitrates fraud against the public.  

[Joe Vancil]

Ted why is MSNBC and Fox news channel given a pass for their bias journalism but Moore is bashed for it?

Because the legal system comes into play when MSNBC and Fox - and even The National Enquirer - lie.  Moore can hide behind First Amendment protection, saying that this is a film, loosely based on characters from public life, but not intended to portray real events.  As such, the legal system has no jurisdiction.

 

[westkoast]

Well, we cannot say for sure but its better than Michael Moore just saying what he believes.

Why is that?  Personally, I think I'd get more out of an honest opinion than I would out of a politically-slanted movie, because questions can be asked about an honest opinion.  Heck, that's why I write about basketball in places like this.  I look, I evaluate, I tell you what I think.  It forces me to refine the processes by which I evaluate and come to conclusions, and I have a track record which I'll be judged by.

"More effective on those who cannot choose for themselves" would be more appropriate.

Why is it better?  Because Michael Moore does not have his hands in on some of these things directly.  The people he interviewed and the footage he had is of people who are directly connected.  Moore interviewed an FBI member who was part of writing up the report on the terrorists plan to attack.  Who holds more weight?  Moore spouting off about what he heard from someone who heard...Or the guy who actually wrote the security report?

If any of you have seen him being interviewed recently as he was promoting his movie he explained that he is giving his opinion and thats about it.  Hes not saying its 100% true and hes not saying that he wrong.  He is leaving that up to the people to decide.

[SPURSX3]

The difference between this America and the past versions is that although there has allways been corruption and dishonesty.  Our worst agression was directed at foreigners, and sometimes for legitimate reasons.  But we were all in it together, and we all had a say in it, or at least I could feel that way.

There was no debate prior to the war in Iraq, even though the ability to declare war is suppossed to be reserved for the Congress.  A lot of Americans got sent over there to do something that was completly illegitimate.  There was no real justification for going into Iraq, we wnt because our President wanted it.

There has never been an admistration that has lied to the American people about the actual state of our own economy, the true rate of inflation, the true employment rate, the velocity of money in the country and our cumulative public and private debt.  Never mind the political dynamics that have resulted in the dismantling of American manufacturing, so a bunch of Chinese could start living in the 20th century on our backs.

There has never been such a reason to lie as today, since the truth if widely known would be politically unpalatible.  I am very afraid that our independence and freedoms are under a final assault that will send our country into the totalitarian abyss.  We are being betrayed in a more outrageous way than at any other time in our Nations history.  And, that's saying alot.

dude, i cant say i disagree with all your Mel Gibson "conspiracy theory" ideas here, but each conflict has an opposition, the diff is maybe you felt in favor of an action at a certain time.  also while congress is the body that declares "WAR", the president can send troops to anywhere basically, remember - it wasnt called the Iraq War at first - it was called a liberation - same happenned on kosovo with NATO - err US planes bombing the hell out of them - that was courtesy of your favorite - and my favorite sitcom star - Bill Clinton.  it happens in every freaking administration, and there is ALWAYS opposition - after 9/11 happenned i remember people being oppossed to us going tp war then!  i thought to myself, what the hell is wrong with those people, how could they not support kicking anyones arse that did that to us?  it's always there Rick.

The war went from removing Sadaam and his regime because they were a serious threat to the US and were planning to attack with WMD.

Then the war became all about liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator once those WMD's were no where to be found.

The first had to be the main and only reason we went over there.  Or else why werent we doing this 20 years ago?  And no desert storm was not about saving the Iraqi's from him, it was about protecting Kuwait from invasion.  Must be nice to switch up solid reasons why we are over there.

not arguing that WK, the fact that i am pointing out is congress does not have to say we are at war for a conflict to happen, even gulf war 1 was an operation... I just thiink Ricks nostalgia of "back in the day" is kind of cross...

[Joe Vancil]

Do you think that the movie Titantic portrayed the TRUE story?

Do you think Gibson's The Passion portrtayed the true story?

Do you think Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, Gettysburg, Roots, etc. portray the true story?

Titanic - no;  its purpose was to entertain.

Passion - as a Christian who believes the Biblical account, I can't say it's completely accurate, although it accurately expresses a number of the basic beliefs expressed in the Bible.  However, as a scholar, I cannot claim that it is a "true story," as much of this is taken on Christian faith.  It's what I *BELIEVE* to be mostly accurate, but I can't call it a "true story" because I do not have sufficient credible sources to verify it.

Haven't seen any of the others.

Of course, none of these could be called "documentaries," either.

 

[westkoast]

The difference between this America and the past versions is that although there has allways been corruption and dishonesty.  Our worst agression was directed at foreigners, and sometimes for legitimate reasons.  But we were all in it together, and we all had a say in it, or at least I could feel that way.

There was no debate prior to the war in Iraq, even though the ability to declare war is suppossed to be reserved for the Congress.  A lot of Americans got sent over there to do something that was completly illegitimate.  There was no real justification for going into Iraq, we wnt because our President wanted it.

There has never been an admistration that has lied to the American people about the actual state of our own economy, the true rate of inflation, the true employment rate, the velocity of money in the country and our cumulative public and private debt.  Never mind the political dynamics that have resulted in the dismantling of American manufacturing, so a bunch of Chinese could start living in the 20th century on our backs.

There has never been such a reason to lie as today, since the truth if widely known would be politically unpalatible.  I am very afraid that our independence and freedoms are under a final assault that will send our country into the totalitarian abyss.  We are being betrayed in a more outrageous way than at any other time in our Nations history.  And, that's saying alot.

dude, i cant say i disagree with all your Mel Gibson "conspiracy theory" ideas here, but each conflict has an opposition, the diff is maybe you felt in favor of an action at a certain time.  also while congress is the body that declares "WAR", the president can send troops to anywhere basically, remember - it wasnt called the Iraq War at first - it was called a liberation - same happenned on kosovo with NATO - err US planes bombing the hell out of them - that was courtesy of your favorite - and my favorite sitcom star - Bill Clinton.  it happens in every freaking administration, and there is ALWAYS opposition - after 9/11 happenned i remember people being oppossed to us going tp war then!  i thought to myself, what the hell is wrong with those people, how could they not support kicking anyones arse that did that to us?  it's always there Rick.

The war went from removing Sadaam and his regime because they were a serious threat to the US and were planning to attack with WMD.

Then the war became all about liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator once those WMD's were no where to be found.

The first had to be the main and only reason we went over there.  Or else why werent we doing this 20 years ago?  And no desert storm was not about saving the Iraqi's from him, it was about protecting Kuwait from invasion.  Must be nice to switch up solid reasons why we are over there.

not arguing that WK, the fact that i am pointing out is congress does not have to say we are at war for a conflict to happen, even gulf war 1 was an operation... I just thiink Ricks nostalgia of "back in the day" is kind of cross...

You are comparing apples and oranges IMO.  He can send people around whenever he wants, you are right.  However the reasons you used were for a complete different reason.  That was to provide assistance.  Not to start a war in the heart of a country.  Kosvo and Kuwait were about defending one weak country from being attacked by another.  This time around we are doing all the attacking and doing it unprovoaked.  In fact we are doing the exact opposite of what we were doing in Kuwait.  Sadaam wanted to take over Kuwait and put in his idea of what government is.  We stopped him.  Now fast forward a decade or so and we invaded Iraq, took out their leader, and are putting in our idea of what government is.  To me that seems like a very similar situation.

Congress stil lhas some say but Rick forgets that everyone was so mad that they were not thinking.  The backing was their regardless if he asked.

btw, this thread is one of the reasons this is my very favorite place to go on the Internet.  Love the debates.

[Ted]

Why is it better?  Because Michael Moore does not have his hands in on some of these things directly.  The people he interviewed and the footage he had is of people who are directly connected.  Moore interviewed an FBI member who was part of writing up the report on the terrorists plan to attack.  Who holds more weight?  Moore spouting off about what he heard from someone who heard...Or the guy who actually wrote the security report?

If any of you have seen him being interviewed recently as he was promoting his movie he explained that he is giving his opinion and thats about it.  Hes not saying its 100% true and hes not saying that he wrong.  He is leaving that up to the people to decide.

But WK, that's exactly why this movie is not better than opinion!! We're supposedly hearing everything from other people's mouths, but by excluding the things people said that didn't jive with what Moore wants his movie to say, WE ARE HEARING WHAT MOORE WOULD SAY if he were asked that question himself.

We don't hear from any of the soldiers he talked to who were proud of what they had done in Iraq, who said it wasn't as horrible as it appeared to be on TV. We hear from the soldiers who are against the war or against the government. We don't see members of Congress stand and say, "why my nephew is in Iraq." We see the members of Congress who sheepishly duck past him, embarrassed that they can't answer his question.

Sure, Moore showed us what other people were saying—only the people who were saying the same thing he is saying.

[Lurker]

Do you think that the movie Titantic portrayed the TRUE story?

Do you think Gibson's The Passion portrtayed the true story?

Do you think Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, Gettysburg, Roots, etc. portray the true story?

Titanic - no;  its purpose was to entertain.

Passion - as a Christian who believes the Biblical account, I can't say it's completely accurate, although it accurately expresses a number of the basic beliefs expressed in the Bible.  However, as a scholar, I cannot claim that it is a "true story," as much of this is taken on Christian faith.  It's what I *BELIEVE* to be mostly accurate, but I can't call it a "true story" because I do not have sufficient credible sources to verify it.

Haven't seen any of the others.

Of course, none of these could be called "documentaries," either.

So Titantic was to entertain but was still some director/producer's interpretation of the "facts".   The Passion again was one director/producer's interpretation of facts.  Fahrenheit's objective is to incite controversy & discussion based on one director/producer's interpretation of the facts.  So basically they are all the same....some director/producer's interpretation of the facts.  The only reason anyone should be upset is IF THEY GO TO THE MOVIE EXPECTING TO SEE UNBIASED FACTS.  Moore himself has firmly stated over & over that the movie is not unbiased.  The viewing of it IMO should be approached with the same frame of mind as seeing Titantic or any other movie "based on a true story".

And entertainment has very little to do with the reason's each was made.

Titantic....made to sell millions of tickets and make money for the director, producers & studio.

The Passion....made to advance Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Bible.  And I won't even go into all the liberties he took to make his movie more dramatic.

Fahrenheit....made to create controversy and sell millions of tickets so Moore can get rich.  And he did a very good job at it.  He DOESN'T even claim it as a documentary.

[SPURSX3]

The difference between this America and the past versions is that although there has allways been corruption and dishonesty.  Our worst agression was directed at foreigners, and sometimes for legitimate reasons.  But we were all in it together, and we all had a say in it, or at least I could feel that way.

There was no debate prior to the war in Iraq, even though the ability to declare war is suppossed to be reserved for the Congress.  A lot of Americans got sent over there to do something that was completly illegitimate.  There was no real justification for going into Iraq, we wnt because our President wanted it.

There has never been an admistration that has lied to the American people about the actual state of our own economy, the true rate of inflation, the true employment rate, the velocity of money in the country and our cumulative public and private debt.  Never mind the political dynamics that have resulted in the dismantling of American manufacturing, so a bunch of Chinese could start living in the 20th century on our backs.

There has never been such a reason to lie as today, since the truth if widely known would be politically unpalatible.  I am very afraid that our independence and freedoms are under a final assault that will send our country into the totalitarian abyss.  We are being betrayed in a more outrageous way than at any other time in our Nations history.  And, that's saying alot.

dude, i cant say i disagree with all your Mel Gibson "conspiracy theory" ideas here, but each conflict has an opposition, the diff is maybe you felt in favor of an action at a certain time.  also while congress is the body that declares "WAR", the president can send troops to anywhere basically, remember - it wasnt called the Iraq War at first - it was called a liberation - same happenned on kosovo with NATO - err US planes bombing the hell out of them - that was courtesy of your favorite - and my favorite sitcom star - Bill Clinton.  it happens in every freaking administration, and there is ALWAYS opposition - after 9/11 happenned i remember people being oppossed to us going tp war then!  i thought to myself, what the hell is wrong with those people, how could they not support kicking anyones arse that did that to us?  it's always there Rick.

The war went from removing Sadaam and his regime because they were a serious threat to the US and were planning to attack with WMD.

Then the war became all about liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator once those WMD's were no where to be found.

The first had to be the main and only reason we went over there.  Or else why werent we doing this 20 years ago?  And no desert storm was not about saving the Iraqi's from him, it was about protecting Kuwait from invasion.  Must be nice to switch up solid reasons why we are over there.

not arguing that WK, the fact that i am pointing out is congress does not have to say we are at war for a conflict to happen, even gulf war 1 was an operation... I just thiink Ricks nostalgia of "back in the day" is kind of cross...

You are comparing apples and oranges IMO.  He can send people around whenever he wants, you are right.  However the reasons you used were for a complete different reason.  That was to provide assistance.  Not to start a war in the heart of a country.  Kosvo and Kuwait were about defending one weak country from being attacked by another.  This time around we are doing all the attacking and doing it unprovoaked.  In fact we are doing the exact opposite of what we were doing in Kuwait.  Sadaam wanted to take over Kuwait and put in his idea of what government is.  We stopped him.  Now fast forward a decade or so and we invaded Iraq, took out their leader, and are putting in our idea of what government is.  To me that seems like a very similar situation.

Congress stil lhas some say but Rick forgets that everyone was so mad that they were not thinking.  The backing was their regardless if he asked.

btw, this thread is one of the reasons this is my very favorite place to go on the Internet.  Love the debates.

WK, while it is something not done before for our country, the factt is each president takes some sort of policy on how to face confilcts, that is what goes into when where and how our troops are sent out, Bush made very clear his stance would be that of proactivity, it was said to the american people on live tv so it is NOT as if he is hiding anything.  I am not saying it is right.  This IS the first time in history of our country that a president has taken THIS measure to facing world hostility, maybe it will be the last, who knows, todays world of hate doesnt make me optimistic that ANY party leader could save our face and yet still protect us from attack abroad or on homeland.

[Joe Vancil]

I don't know about you, but I think the America I grew up in has been destroyed.

If that's the case, then I want to know what destroyed it.

My faith in my government was first truly shaken by Bob Dole, in his speech at the election of Clinton in 1992.  Dole spoke of how the Republicans would get together to oppose the new President.  At that moment, I made it clear that I would NEVER, under any circumstances, vote for Bob Dole.  At that moment, he made it clear that even if the president had good ideas, it was more important to be able to claim credit for them.

However, it was Clinton denying justice to Paula Jones that finally broke my faith in my government.  For that reason alone, I was in favor of throwing the man out of office.  What I feel amounted to perjury down the road didn't help matters.

Then there was Elian Gonzalez.  "Send the boy back to Cuba" seemed to be the going call.  "Don't touch this political hot-potato."  Where was my government?  Why did it not give a darn about a 6-year-old kid who was getting torn up in a legal battle - a kid who had just lost his Mom?  People like Clinton and Janet Reno were deciding this kid's fate WITHOUT TALKING TO HIM?  That's complete garbage.

I look at my government, and I'M TICKED OFF.  These are *NOT* the ways that I would choose to be represented.  These are not the ways the people who I call my close friends would choose to be represented.  These are not the ways I see the average American citizen would choose to be represented.  These are the ways of the lazy and apathetic, and I'm not in the business of rewarding laziness and apathy.

Iraq wars and such PALE in comparison to the destruction of the dream that Reagan presented that I grew up believing in - an America that was proud, that cared, and that was a willing participant in the world - even if it sometimes wasn't the most popular because of it.


 

[westkoast]

Why is it better?  Because Michael Moore does not have his hands in on some of these things directly.  The people he interviewed and the footage he had is of people who are directly connected.  Moore interviewed an FBI member who was part of writing up the report on the terrorists plan to attack.  Who holds more weight?  Moore spouting off about what he heard from someone who heard...Or the guy who actually wrote the security report?

If any of you have seen him being interviewed recently as he was promoting his movie he explained that he is giving his opinion and thats about it.  Hes not saying its 100% true and hes not saying that he wrong.  He is leaving that up to the people to decide.

But WK, that's exactly why this movie is not better than opinion!! We're supposedly hearing everything from other people's mouths, but by excluding the things people said that didn't jive with what Moore wants his movie to say, WE ARE HEARING WHAT MOORE WOULD SAY if he were asked that question himself.

We don't hear from any of the soldiers he talked to who were proud of what they had done in Iraq, who said it wasn't as horrible as it appeared to be on TV. We hear from the soldiers who are against the war or against the government. We don't see members of Congress stand and say, "why my nephew is in Iraq." We see the members of Congress who sheepishly duck past him, embarrassed that they can't answer his question.

Sure, Moore showed us what other people were saying—only the people who were saying the same thing he is saying.

I thought the way he put the movie together gave his opinion on how he felt.   The way he shot and setup the movie was his opinion and the people who spoke in it were reinforcing his opinion.  Personally I rather hear from people who took part in all levels of this than hear Moore talk thru the whole thing like Bowling for Columbine.

Of course Moore only showed us what the people were saying who agreed with him.  Much like the media only shows what agrees with what they are trying to portray.  The movie was to give a different look on what the American people are normally fed.  Cant deny that it did that.

x3, I see exactly what you are saying.  I am agree that they all have their own policy and that they do need to be able to excerise their power.  The problem I have is that the policy seemed to be guns-out barrels a-blazin first and thinking things thru second.  We could have planned a bit better IMO.

[Lurker]

Why is it better?  Because Michael Moore does not have his hands in on some of these things directly.  The people he interviewed and the footage he had is of people who are directly connected.  Moore interviewed an FBI member who was part of writing up the report on the terrorists plan to attack.  Who holds more weight?  Moore spouting off about what he heard from someone who heard...Or the guy who actually wrote the security report?

If any of you have seen him being interviewed recently as he was promoting his movie he explained that he is giving his opinion and thats about it.  Hes not saying its 100% true and hes not saying that he wrong.  He is leaving that up to the people to decide.

But WK, that's exactly why this movie is not better than opinion!! We're supposedly hearing everything from other people's mouths, but by excluding the things people said that didn't jive with what Moore wants his movie to say, WE ARE HEARING WHAT MOORE WOULD SAY if he were asked that question himself.

We don't hear from any of the soldiers he talked to who were proud of what they had done in Iraq, who said it wasn't as horrible as it appeared to be on TV. We hear from the soldiers who are against the war or against the government. We don't see members of Congress stand and say, "why my nephew is in Iraq." We see the members of Congress who sheepishly duck past him, embarrassed that they can't answer his question.

Sure, Moore showed us what other people were saying—only the people who were saying the same thing he is saying.

I agree with Ted on this....Moore EDITED the movie to portray exactly what he wanted it to say.  This is the main reason it cannot be deemed a documentary of any form.

Now that is not to say that there is no place for this type of movie in America.  In fact in some ways it almost seems a rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union speech.  You know the one where he completely lied to Americans about why we went to Iraq using faulty data that had been deemed false by every other country on earth and even members of our own intelligence community.  Now there was a truly biased propaganda that ALL the major news outlets televised in prime time free of charge.  At least with Moore's propaganda you have to choose to pay to see it.

[Joe Vancil]

There has never been such a reason to lie as today, since the truth if widely known would be politically unpalatible. I am very afraid that our independence and freedoms are under a final assault that will send our country into the totalitarian abyss. We are being betrayed in a more outrageous way than at any other time in our Nations history. And, that's saying alot.

Whose fault is that?  We've been accepting this garbage for 12 years, from my perspective.  We keep re-electing incumbents in the House and Senate.  We know our Senate and House are rotten, but we apparently believe that "my Senators/Representatives" aren't the problem.  Get with the program, people.

The politicians have seen that they can get away with it, and have pushed the envelope.  Ross Perot had the right idea - getting rid of these guys and replacing them until we find a working group is the solution.  But because Perot's campaign failed, we've shown the politicians that we're SCARED to send that message to them.  Perot's failure showed Congress that you *CAN* push the American public around.  And they've been doing it ever since.

 

[Joe Vancil]

Id like to know where you buy American flags in Iraq.

Presumably at the same place the people who burn them buy them.