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

[Joe Vancil]

Try and debate the points brought up by Moore and ignore the opinions and sarcasm in the movie, let see where that gets you punks. I would love to get you guys in a room and play "point counter point" instead of the mostly generalzing half assed dismission of points brought out by the movie. If you haven't seen the movie then shut the fuck up about the movie's merrit.

If we've not seen the movie, we're not allowed to have our opinions on the state of the country REGARDLESS of what the movie says?  That's crap.

I'm not talking about what is in the movie BECAUSE I haven't seen the movie yet.  (However, I did see "Spiderman" today, and it was good.)  

What I can say is that this movie is a piece of political propaganda - which I had better be darn well aware of before I walk in.  And if I'm not, then that's complete crap as well, because it's being misleading.  Points valid or invalid - I want to know what it is that I'm seeing.  Knowing the agenda helps to get to the real truth behind the lies - whether it's Bush's lies or Moore's lies or *MY* lies.  And I'm idealistic enough to want the *REAL* truth.

P.S. Joe V, the man you hold in high regard, Regan is a guy I remember who wouldn't fund aids research when it could have been stopped, fucked us middle class shitheads out of money so the richest 19% of americans could benefit, blamed the fat bloated gov budget problems on welfare and the niggers on it and he was also nice enough to use billions of OUR tax dollars to bluff the USSR into bankruptcy. IMO Regan was a piece of shit.

I'm not saying Reagan presented the *BEST* solution to all the problems.  His solution to AIDS was abstinence and monogamy - and as a high school student in those years, I'd like to personally laugh at that as a solution.  The "fucked us middle class shitheads" is a response about Reagan's failed "trickle down" economics, and "supply side economics."  I'm the first to admit Reagan was wrong on which side of the tax curve he thought we were on.  When it was proven that he was wrong, Bush Sr. ended up raising taxes to fix it, and he, of course, gets blasted for that.  I'm just glad Reagan TRIED something.  You try, and fail, and I'm fine with that - just like I was fine with Carter's failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran.  Welfare is a system that almost EVERYONE agrees needs reform - even to this day.  And as for the bankrupting the Soviet Union?  *GOOD*.  I'm willing to foot the bill for that.  It's better than living in fear.  In essence, the man gave us hope, and hope is something I value.

 

[spursfan101]

I'm not saying Reagan presented the *BEST* solution to all the problems. His solution to AIDS was abstinence and monogamy - and as a high school student in those years, I'd like to personally laugh at that as a solution. The "fucked us middle class shitheads" is a response about Reagan's failed "trickle down" economics, and "supply side economics." I'm the first to admit Reagan was wrong on which side of the tax curve he thought we were on. When it was proven that he was wrong, Bush Sr. ended up raising taxes to fix it, and he, of course, gets blasted for that. I'm just glad Reagan TRIED something. You try, and fail, and I'm fine with that - just like I was fine with Carter's failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran. Welfare is a system that almost EVERYONE agrees needs reform - even to this day. And as for the bankrupting the Soviet Union? *GOOD*. I'm willing to foot the bill for that. It's better than living in fear. In essence, the man gave us hope, and hope is something I value.

I've come to see that. I didn't like Reagan's policies, he made the wealthy stinking rich and the poor extremely destitute. But you are right. He was a good, honorable man. (Even though I'm sure he knew all about Iran Contra.)  Great President?  I don't think he's in the top 10.

[WayOutWest]

Stooge.

Sorry WoW, you're inability to discuss "grown up" issues without sounding like a drunken sailor kills your cred with me. Any time anyone makes a reasonable point, the best you can do is bust out your F-bomb and call people names.

The posts in this thread are not much better than "drunken sailor" talk.  Generalizations and sweeping comments about Micheal Moore and his movie are the b-ball equivalent of "Shaq is only good becuase of his size" arguement.  Trying to discuss the points about the movie would be more interesting, hence the second post Mr. Ostrich.  The first post was just in response to the BS post before hand.

No one here has said that the movie is completely without merit. All we've been saying is that a lot of the things Moore presents in his movies as facts are based upon evidence that he has sifted through.

People are not talking about any specific points about the movie so I don't understand what you're trying to say.

You've got to calm down a bit man. I seriously worry about what will happen to you if Bush gets re-elected. You're gonna bust a vein someday.

Duel citizenship is the answer to that potential dilema.  Should Bush win again I'll be sending him a bag of chips and a bucket of chicken and I'll pray to Allah.

[WayOutWest]

If we've not seen the movie, we're not allowed to have our opinions on the state of the country REGARDLESS of what the movie says?  That's crap.

Joe, I expect a higher level of reading comp from you.  Please point out where I stated you couldn't have an opinion about the state of the country?  I said you should STFU about the merrits of the movie if you haven't seen the movie.

I'm not talking about what is in the movie BECAUSE I haven't seen the movie yet.  (However, I did see "Spiderman" today, and it was good.)

Spiderman 2 ROCKED!!!!  The movie was a little slow when Peter was struggling to decide what direction to take his life in after giving up being Spiderman but I'd give this movie an A+!!!  The fight scenes between Spidy and Dr. Octapus are second to none in regards to special FX!

What I can say is that this movie is a piece of political propaganda - which I had better be darn well aware of before I walk in.  And if I'm not, then that's complete crap as well, because it's being misleading.  Points valid or invalid - I want to know what it is that I'm seeing.  Knowing the agenda helps to get to the real truth behind the lies - whether it's Bush's lies or Moore's lies or *MY* lies.  And I'm idealistic enough to want the *REAL* truth.

Joe, unless you're willing to put in some serious time researching the claims (i.e. Carlyle group financial records, flight plans and passenger manifests for the Bin Laden family exodus, Dubya Bush's former companies financial records, etc...) then you're not going to be better off in debating the merits with people who will just throw out blanket "that's political BS".  The funny thing is that Farakan presented the same arguments and points about a year and a half ago and people thought he was a nutcase.  While I'm as big a fan of Farakan as I am of David Duke, his arguments and points about the oil pipeline in Afganistan caught my attention so I searched a few other news sources to confirm some of the facts that he used to support his "conspiracy" theory.

I'm not saying Reagan presented the *BEST* solution to all the problems.  His solution to AIDS was abstinence and monogamy - and as a high school student in those years, I'd like to personally laugh at that as a solution.  The "fucked us middle class shitheads" is a response about Reagan's failed "trickle down" economics, and "supply side economics."  I'm the first to admit Reagan was wrong on which side of the tax curve he thought we were on.  When it was proven that he was wrong, Bush Sr. ended up raising taxes to fix it, and he, of course, gets blasted for that.  I'm just glad Reagan TRIED something.  You try, and fail, and I'm fine with that - just like I was fine with Carter's failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran.  Welfare is a system that almost EVERYONE agrees needs reform - even to this day.  And as for the bankrupting the Soviet Union?  *GOOD*.  I'm willing to foot the bill for that.  It's better than living in fear.  In essence, the man gave us hope, and hope is something I value.

He tried nothing, he followed the company line of ignoring the AIDS problem, make the rich richer and the poor poorer and blame budget problems on "Juwana Welfare" and her six children.  I could NOT beleive Regan made those Juwana Welfare comments in this day and age, what a moron.  Bringing down the USSR on our paychecks was not all that great.  Again our administration failed to see beyond the first checkers move of bringing down that empire.  They now can't feed their people, their states are warring with each other, they're selling their military secrets to the highest bidder, etc....  The USSR would not have risked full out war because they have something to lose and they were not as crazy as the people we are dealing with now who have nothing to lose and have god on their side.

[Joe Vancil]

I'm not calling the guy a "good, honorable man."  Such praise is reserved for people I personally know - precisesly *BECAUSE* of things like Iran/Contra.

Reagan was a good fit for the time.  The country was down, and he picked it up.  The country was mired in economic slowdown, and he got things started back up.  

I don't doubt that his policies made the rich richer and the poor poorer.  *EVERY* President's policies make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  Wealth or lack thereof is a vicious cycle, and always will be, and no human, living or dead, is going to change that while we live under capitalism.  The real question lies in interest rates.  If interest rates are high, people in debt stay in debt longer.  That's where Reagan hurt the poor - interest rates under Reagan were sky-high.  I have co-workers *STILL* trying to get out from under the credit card debt they ran up in the Reagan era.

Personally, though, I think it's still too soon to tell as to how "great" a President that Reagan was/wasn't.  Heck, it's only been 16 years since the man left office.  All I know is that we - as a country - were considerably better off when he left office than we were when he came in.  (Same thing with Clinton for internal affairs - foreign affairs is debatable.)  Plus, we've still got the debt that Reagan left us.  I personally think we should have paid it off while we were under Clinton and thriving - like Perot recommended.

I'm not going to say Reagan was good for everyone - that's for sure.  (I don't want any angry ex-air-traffic-controllers banging on my door.)  But OVERALL, I think he was good for the country.

 

[jn]

Here's some point by point on Moore's claims.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

[WayOutWest]

Here's some point by point on Moore's claims.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

Good article.

Like I've stated all along, the financial aspects of the Saudi money has been a revelation to me and that's where my questions were directed.  It will be interesting to see the response to those counter points.

[Joe Vancil]

they're selling their military secrets to the highest bidder

So why aren't we bidding on them?  We've got a grain surplus and money to burn.  We have the resources to solve the "problems" we've created, and in doing so, it only strengthens our power base.

You know what I find silly about the way our country is run?  We're run by a group of wealthy people who have no idea of how to use the wealth of the country to its benefit.  Instead, we try to save that wealth, just in case we might need it later.

The USSR would not have risked full out war because they have something to lose and they were not as crazy as the people we are dealing with now who have nothing to lose and have god on their side.

The USSR wouldn't have risked full-out war?  Perhaps.  Of course, as we've seen, there's more than one way to wage war.  Political propaganda and swaying public opinion is much more effective on the American people, because our public officials listen to polls rather than to common sense.

As for "the people we are dealing with now who have nothing to lose and have god on their side," I'm not sure we could have avoided this battle.  Even Skander and I debate the benefits and drawbacks of Christianity vs. Islam, and he and I saw this battle coming long before the events of 9-11.  The difference is that every prayer I've said for the past 8 years has included asking God to find some way to "save" him, and he used to ask his mom questions like, "What's going to happen to Joe?" and tell me the story about the man who, from Hell, asked God for various small comforts, a step at a time untill he arrived at Heaven.  From dealing with Skander, I've found a respect for Islam, although I don't agree with its teachings.  Muslims don't have to be terrorist bombers - which is how I was taught to think of them when growing up in the Bible Belt.

Radical Islam, eventually, will go the way of Radical Christianity.  We had our Crusades, and they have their 9-11's.  Conflict was inevitable because the radical teachings would have to evenutally be evaluated and discarded.
 

[Ted]

People are not talking about any specific points about the movie so I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Bull. That's complete Bull. Go back and read the posts now that you've been able to sleep of the tequila. You'll see that I actually do talk about specific points in the movie where Moore distorted the truth for his own purpose.

Seriously. You are so funny. It's like Moore is your god or something.  

[WayOutWest]

Radical Islam, eventually, will go the way of Radical Christianity.  We had our Crusades, and they have their 9-11's.  Conflict was inevitable because the radical teachings would have to evenutally be evaluated and discarded.

Hate to break it to you Joe but god is dead and money killed him.  

Allot of the problems and major conflicts are about the "have's" and the "have not's".  You'll notice that even the crusades were about sending the poor out to fight and die for some "cause" because the poor have nothing better to do.  It wasn't until Europe ran out of poor people that the "have's" went out and fought.  The saddest/funniest thing, depending on how you look at it, is that alot of the first wave of "poor" crusaders died on their way to the battle.  I think 2/3'rds of the poor crusaders died of starvation, desease and being killed by locals for things like stealing food and water.  Those poor bastards could pay their way to the battle so alot of them died on the way.  

That same tactic of having the poor people go out and kill other poor people is still going on today in Iraq.  Most people are only willing to fight as a last resort not because they are on a mission from god.  One reason so many people respect and admire people like Bin Laden and Marcos in Mexico is because they left a life of wealth and privledge and put their life on the line for their true beliefs.  We may not agree with their methods and tactics but that's the way things get done in this world, heck, this country is founded on and owes it's existance terrorism and guerilla tactics, just ask any Brit.

[WayOutWest]

People are not talking about any specific points about the movie so I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Bull. That's complete Bull. Go back and read the posts now that you've been able to sleep of the tequila. You'll see that I actually do talk about specific points in the movie where Moore distorted the truth for his own purpose.

Seriously. You are so funny. It's like Moore is your god or something.

Sorry Ted, I have this Mexican thing against fags and Moore falls into the faggy catagory so he's disqualified from diety status.

You could also substitue "god" with "easter bunny", "tooth fairy" or "chupacabra" for all I care.  

But fine Ted, you addressed two points, one of which I disagree with.  This is not the legal system so getting people to make TRUTHFUL comments under false pretences is not a problem.  They were not tortured, just tricked into giving their HONEST opinion.

[Ted]

Good article.

Like I've stated all along, the financial aspects of the Saudi money has been a revelation to me and that's where my questions were directed.  It will be interesting to see the response to those counter points.

Yeah. It'll be really interesting . . .  :crazy:

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  

[Ted]

Sorry Ted, I have this Mexican thing against fags and Moore falls into the faggy catagory so he's disqualified from diety status.

You could also substitue "god" with "easter bunny", "tooth fairy" or "chupacabra" for all I care.

What are you a homophobe? Oh sorry, I forgot, no cursing on this board.

Seriously though, I agree with you about  . . . you know . . . Moore. :wub:  :puke:

What's a chupacabra?

[Joe Vancil]

The article I just read from the post above made me even more upset at the entire government.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Is it Clinton that was crooked, dealing with these folks, or is it Bush?

Come on, folks.  It was *BOTH* of them.  Greed's about all we can count on on Capitol Hill.  If there's a buck to be made, the two sides - Democrat and Republican - will accuse the other of pocketing the whole thing, while actually pocketing $ .50 for themselves - and they got that by stealing it from each other's pockets in their attempt to get the whole thing.



 

[WayOutWest]

What are you a homophobe? Oh sorry, I forgot, no cursing on this board.

Seriously though, I agree with you about  . . . you know . . . Moore. :wub:  :puke:

What's a chupacabra?

I wouldn't consider myself a true homophobe.  I've known some all my life and they are no better or worse than any other genre of people.  IMO it's just wrong both in the nature and in the eyes of several religions.

My wife is a totally different person than I and a polar opposite to my beliefs.  She's such a nice person it sometimes makes me sick.  When I make jokes about gays she asks me what I would do if my son(s) were gay.  My answer from day one has always been the same, I would drown them.  Not just kill them or shot them or ban them or disown them, but DROWN THEM.  She gets very upset with that answer because my oldest son is a little fruity.  With his attitude he's either going to be falling into pu#%y left and right or he's going to be gay.  I'll beat him into the right direction eventually, I just need to get him away from his mom once in a while and curtail all that sensitive and respect women BS she keeps spouting.

When my wife and I argue about my views about MOST women, she always pulls the daughter card.  My daugters will not be like MOST women because of my views about women, in fact I think they will be arrogant bitches because I'm an aggogant asshole.  This weekend in a poker tourney I had a great arrogant time, I was picking on doctors and college students knowing full well they had 10X the education and experience that I had in every aspect of life but I just felt I was superior to these clowns and the fact they could NOT talk trash, nor win chips, with me was proof enough in that arena.  My wife was amused because she holds doctors in such high regard.

I really would like to get you guys in a room to go at it in a point counter point debate about anything under the sun.  I think alot of posters on this board are really sharp in allot of areas outside of basketball.  Not you of course Ted, your just a glorified spell checker, a simple feature packaged with every word processing software package.  :rofl:

EDIT: chupacabra was that creature down in Mexico that was sucking the blood out of everything.