Fahrenheit 9/11 - Thoughts only if you've seen it.

[AnthonyRoundtree]

Fahrenheit 9/11 - Thoughts only if you've seen it.

Forum is strictly for those who have seen this film. If you have not seen it... please feel free to sit back and read... but please only post if you've actually seen it.

If you have seen this film... post your thoughts on it if you have any.

I'm personally just curious to hear some gamers perspectives.

That's it really.
Thanks!

[CaptainObviousXl]

its not playing in my theater, sorry i know olny post if you seen it but i just think its gay just because the owner is republican

[ZForce915]

This was a great documentary.

The message of this film was clear, down with Bush. There are tons of facts to indicate that maybe Bush went to war for his own reasons, and told us another. He let us live in fear (terror color scale anyone?), and made sure we wouldn't question him (Patriot Act).

Watch the film, and then make your own choices about our president. Mine were already set, this just helped confirm why I hate the man.

[punqsux]

i wish the film would have spent more time on the patriot act. thats a far worse threat than terrorism.

[ZForce915]

i wish the film would have spent more time on the patriot act. thats a far worse threat than terrorism.

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

[punqsux]

i wish the film would have spent more time on the patriot act. thats a far worse threat than terrorism.

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

i thought that was good and bad, at least they arnt trying to hide it or anything but its a pretty scary thing to do when making laws that affect 300,000,000 people...

[ChrisXE]

I dont care what anyonwe says Micheal Moore is Brilliant, nuff said

[ryanbph]

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

That sounds like some of the scenes in eddie murphy's movie, the Distinguished Gentleman

[Rozz]

True

[bignick]

Cant wait to download it and share it!

[punqsux]

Cant wait to download it and share it!
good i think all the people that can see it should see it ^^

i usually dont see movies, but this one i just had to go see, it was sold out on a 4:10 showing too

[pete5883]

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.

[Dead of Knight]

I luvred this movie. If there's anything that can take votes away from Bush, this will be it.

[Storamin]

Complete waste of time. I don't buy into the whole liberal bullshit. And no, I haven't seen this waste of time. If I could, I would probaly exercise my 2nd amendment and shoot his fat ass. Shoot him in the god damn head with a 22 and see if he exploded properly. I've never shot something that fat. Documentary MY ASS.

[Medium_Pimpin]

I think this is one of the most important movies ever. Great movie, even though i already knew about %75 of the material shown here.

[peteloaf]

Since when does the 2nd amendment give anyone the right to murder?

Besides, if you don't like him or what he says, turn on Fox New, Rush Limbaugh, etc. the busy tearing him apart so you'll probably be in heaven.

Why shoot a man over a difference of opinion. Do you hate America and our freedom?

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Since when does the 2nd amendment give anyone the right to murder?

Besides, if you don't like him or what he says, turn on Fox New, Rush Limbaugh, etc. the busy tearing him apart so you'll probably be in heaven.

Why shoot a man over a difference of opinion. Do you hate America and our freedom?

Yeah no shit, sorry because I haven't seen the movie but right now it seems like the 'cool' thing to do is to openly bash Michael Moore and his antics, who gives a shit if you don't agree with him, he is just trying to prove that Bush is wrong and that much I believe, so if you're a strong Bush fan then I guess you can hate him all you want but god damn, it's one man's opinion don't go blowing people's heads off over it.

[evilmregg]

Complete waste of time. I don't buy into the whole liberal bullshit. And no, I haven't seen this waste of time. If I could, I would probaly exercise my 2nd amendment and shoot his fat ass. Shoot him in the god damn head with a 22 and see if he exploded properly. I've never shot something that fat. Documentary MY ASS.

This is such a perfect representation of every right-wing nutcase's reaction that I've seen so far. "Well, I haven't seen it and I'm not going to see it because it's stupid! I like to make my opinions uninformed! Michael Moore is teh fat and should move to France and be shot because he hates America! Blah blah blah!" Give me a break.

[jmcc]

Please, people, he was obviously trolling. No one that dumb could operate a computer.

[evilmregg]

Incidentally, I've seen the movie and it's fantastic. Is Michael Moore biased? Of course he is. Unlike the Fox News channel, though, he doesn't try to pretend otherwise. The result is that he makes a very compelling argument against Bush. I'll admit that I hated Bush before the movie. Heck, I hated Bush before he even took office (and I do mean "took"). Now I just hate him even more. He is truly an evil person, and the movie really drives home what the results of his evil have been.

[fwacce]

The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

[bignick]

The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

Right on!

[spoo]

Kerry voted YES on the patriot act.

[defender]

I can almost respect fwacce now.

Since Michael Moore is a such a propaganda tool...how about we compare his fat ass to Hitler?

[ZForce915]

riiiight, because Bill O'Reily is the end all of truth telling. This is one of the biggest cases of calling the kettle black that I have seen in a while.

[bignick]

Kerry voted YES on the patriot act.

What was his excuse, for that. I cant remember. I know it was something stupid.

[punqsux]

i dont think its propoghanda because of the simple fact people are paying their own money to hear the information in this. propaghanda is spon fed and forced down peoples throats. this is information presented in an entertaining fashion that ALOT of people pay to see and hear...

micheal moore has done something amazing, he actully figured out how to get people to pay attention to something long enough to learn something. i dont care if u like him or not, but hes getting people to pay 10 bucks a pop to hear y the president sucks, and thats impressive

[Reality's Fringe]

I'd pay 10 bucks to see some guy fart on a snare drum, doesn't mean there's a point to it. Personally, Michael Moore is the Leftist Rush Limbaugh, so people who throw out that "Yeah, why don't you just go listen to Rush" don't really have much ground. I'm going to go see the movie, not because I agree or hate Bush or anything like that. It just seems interesting to me, and will help to formulate an opinion.
"Who's right, when everybody's wrong?" <<,Name that song quote....and correct it if it's wrong.

[alongx]

i dont think its propoghanda because of the simple fact people are paying their own money to hear the information in this. propaghanda is spon fed and forced down peoples throats. this is information presented in an entertaining fashion that ALOT of people pay to see and hear...

micheal moore has done something amazing, he actully figured out how to get people to pay attention to something long enough to learn something. i dont care if u like him or not, but hes getting people to pay 10 bucks a pop to hear y the president sucks, and thats impressive

I agree, this isn't propaganda. But it isn't exactly presenting whole truths to the audience. I happen to like Michael Moore's films because they are entertaining, not because they're accurate. I also really don't like Bush and plan on voting for Kerry in the Fall. That said, Moore has a quirky little habit of twisting the truth - as many have seen in Bowling for Columbine. Although he uses truths and actual stock footage for his movies, I think it's hard to call it a documentary when it's as intentionally misleading as Moore's works tend to be.

[ZForce915]

The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

In the film, Moore shows us the proof that several Saudis did indeed fly out of the US on Sep 13th.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

This is what Kenneth Turan wrote...IN CONTEXT..

It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers,” Turan added. “Anyone who is the least bit open to Moore’s theses will come away impressed.”

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Would this be the very same cut and paste editorializing you use everyday?

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

May or may not be true? I noticed you didn't bother to point out what is not true in this film...[/color]

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

You'll notice that Mr. O'Reilly doesn't really offer you anything in this article. It's an opinion, and that's just fine. But he does a poor job of making his point. He doesn't disprove any of Moore's many facts against Bush...maybe because he can't?

[dafoomie]

If you don't like the movie or disagree with Moore, first watch the movie, and second, take a specific argument that he makes and make an argument against it, or if he's lying, give specific examples of what he lied about. Don't just say that its trash. Tell me specificly why.

[starman9000]

"Who's right, when everybody's wrong?" <<,Name that song quote....and correct it if it's wrong.


I think you mean Nobody's right if everybody's wrong, and its "for what its worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

[ZForce915]

If you don't like the movie or disagree with Moore, first watch the movie, and second, take a specific argument that he makes and make an argument against it, or if he's lying, give specific examples of what he lied about. Don't just say that its trash. Tell me specificly why.

This is true, you can't bash it if you haven't seen it. And if you don't want to see it, fine. But don't pretend to know what it is about. And if you'll recall this topic is for people who have seen the film.

[dafoomie]

But don't pretend to know what it is about. And if you'll recall this topic is for people who have seen the film.


I don't know if thats directed at me or the people I'm addressing, but I've seen it..

[Squirms]

Here is the dictionary definition of propaganda.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
This movie, therefore is propaganda, regardless of if you paid for it or not. If you think about it, everything in this country is propaganda, in some form or another.

[jeffreyjrose]

The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

In the film, Moore shows us the proof that several Saudis did indeed fly out of the US on Sep 13th.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

This is what Kenneth Turan wrote...IN CONTEXT..

It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth, and too much here is taken from the record not to have a devastating effect on viewers,” Turan added. “Anyone who is the least bit open to Moore’s theses will come away impressed.”

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Would this be the very same cut and paste editorializing you use everyday?

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

May or may not be true? I noticed you didn't bother to point out what is not true in this film...[/color]

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

You'll notice that Mr. O'Reilly doesn't really offer you anything in this article. It's an opinion, and that's just fine. But he does a poor job of making his point. He doesn't disprove any of Moore's many facts against Bush...maybe because he can't?

I believe that the force is with Zforce!

[ZForce915]

But don't pretend to know what it is about. And if you'll recall this topic is for people who have seen the film.


I don't know if thats directed at me or the people I'm addressing, but I've seen it..

Sorry if I worded it wrong, but I'm on your side of this agruement.

[dafoomie]

Here is the dictionary definition of propaganda.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

So when the Bush administration systematicly propagated the myth that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks, that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, that Iraq had WMD's, and that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States, that was also propaganda?

[schultzed]

Here is the dictionary definition of propaganda.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
This movie, therefore is propaganda, regardless of if you paid for it or not. If you think about it, everything in this country is propaganda, in some form or another.


I haven't seen the film yet . . . I'm not a big Moore fan or a critic.

But this is well said . . . all media expressions are propaganda . . . even videogames.

There are much better criticisms of the industrial-military-Haliburton-Bush complex. Watch Frontline or read pieces at www.truthout.org.

Clearly, the Iraq invasion was done for reasons other than those stated and the plan was in place before 9/11 . . . is my statement propaganda?

The Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes is wrong (unAmerican in my book) but Bushites will continue their support nonetheless . . .

[MrBadExample]

I TRIED to go see it Saturday. I had to drive an hour to the closest theater showing it and they had already sold out every show for Saturday and Sunday. I'll probably go back one night this week and catch it.

[ZForce915]

I TRIED to go see it Saturday. I had to drive an hour to the closest theater showing it and they had already sold out every show for Saturday and Sunday. I'll probably go back one night this week and catch it.

It was number one at the box office over the weekend. Not bad for a documentary, eh? Go you little Moore!

[coolz481]

Now I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly or his show, but the constant labeling of Fox News as right-wing is really tiresome. I don't understand why Democrats can't tolerate a channel that employs more than one token conservative.

CNN's idea of balance is having Sens. Hagel, McCain or Collins on to represent Republicans when they all differ with Bush and the RNC on major issues involving war, tax policy and the environment. CBS's and NBC's main news personalities were all former chiefs of staff for Democratic congressmen and ABC's Sunday anchor was part of Clinton's famous 1992 'war room.'

As to Michael Moore's movie, I think it touches on some very important subjects, particularly U.S./Saudi Arabia relations. I think all citizens, Republican or Democrat, should educate themselves about the 'royal' family that has the audacity to name an entire country after themselves. I do think Bush's tactics have been mistaken, but I think the ultimate project, transforming the middle east into functioning democracies, is a worthy goal. I only hope there is some way to make a smoother transition to that goal. Maybe John Kerry has a plan to do that, but I sure haven't read it or heard about it yet.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

I found it interesting that a Fox News correspondent or reviewer gave it quite the positive review. I was just about dragged to see it this weekend, but apparently there was a situation similar to that of MrBadExample's. Oh well, I'll more than likely see it sometime this week, but I'm not paying that's for sure.

As for it being number one I don't hold as too great an accomplishment given the competion of The Notebook and White Chicks. In fact, White Chicks actually griossed the most for the week by like 6 million, that doesn't count because of the 2 day jump it had.

[ZarathosNY]

I found it interesting that a Fox News correspondent or reviewer gave it quite the positive review. I was just about dragged to see it this weekend, but apparently there was a situation similar to that of MrBadExample's. Oh well, I'll more than likely see it sometime this week, but I'm not paying that's for sure.

As for it being number one I don't hold as too great an accomplishment given the competion of The Notebook and White Chicks. In fact, White Chicks actually griossed the most for the week by like 6 million, that doesn't count because of the 2 day jump it had.

Actually it is quite an accomplishement, given that F9/11 was shown on 868 screens nationwide, while the other 2 top grossing movies were shown on over 2500.

[MrBadExample]

White chicks also had a much wider release. F9/11 was only at 868 screens. Per screen it kicked ass!

[MrBadExample]

This is from Entertainment Weekly online:

In just three days, ''Fahrenheit'' beat Moore's ''Bowling for Columbine'' to become the highest-grossing documentary ever. (''Columbine'''s total take was $21.6 million.) It's also the biggest opening for a film playing in fewer than 1,000 theaters. And ''Fahrenheit'''s $25,000-plus per-theater average is the seventh-highest in history.

[Storamin]

The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.

[jmcc]

You already did that one, Storamin. If you want to troll effectively you need to have clearly defined course you want the conversation to go in. You can't just tread water in that same spot.

[punqsux]

I TRIED to go see it Saturday. I had to drive an hour to the closest theater showing it and they had already sold out every show for Saturday and Sunday. I'll probably go back one night this week and catch it.

my friend works at an indie movie theatre and she said it was sold out, every show, friday, saturday, and sunday

[Indiana]

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their fucking job!!!

[punqsux]

i have a small penis

who are you and why are you trolling this thread, no one here cares how small your penis is ^^

[punqsux]

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their shaq-fuing job!!!

i think each member of congress should have 2 or 3 assistants to read the bills for them and give them a summary of what its about. blindly voting on any law is just idotic.

[jmcc]

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their shaq-fuing job!!!

In a postition of power you can and should delegate responsibility to your staff. There's not much room for interpretation in bills, they're legal documents. Stuff is spelled out thoroughly and so long as the people you set to interpret them for you have some legal background you're going to get a good summary from them as to what the bill is about. And their job isn't to read the bills. It's to understand the bill and determine how to vote to best benefit their constituents.

[jmcc]

I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their shaq-fuing job!!!

i think each member of congress should have 2 or 3 assistants to read the bills for them and give them a summary of what its about. blindly voting on any law is just idotic.

I think you're being too conservative with that 2 or 3 guess. I'd say 2-3 per bill.

[PsyClerk]

Now I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly or his show, but the constant labeling of Fox News as right-wing is really tiresome. I don't understand why Democrats can't tolerate a channel that employs more than one token conservative.

CNN's idea of balance is having Sens. Hagel, McCain or Collins on to represent Republicans when they all differ with Bush and the RNC on major issues involving war, tax policy and the environment. CBS's and NBC's main news personalities were all former chiefs of staff for Democratic congressmen and ABC's Sunday anchor was part of Clinton's famous 1992 'war room.'

As to Michael Moore's movie, I think it touches on some very important subjects, particularly U.S./Saudi Arabia relations. I think all citizens, Republican or Democrat, should educate themselves about the 'royal' family that has the audacity to name an entire country after themselves. I do think Bush's tactics have been mistaken, but I think the ultimate project, transforming the middle east into functioning democracies, is a worthy goal. I only hope there is some way to make a smoother transition to that goal. Maybe John Kerry has a plan to do that, but I sure haven't read it or heard about it yet.

A diplomatic, well-thought out post that acknowledges both sides.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

[ryanbph]

Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

As for fox news being right wing biased, take a look at quinipiacs report, an independant report on the media. fox was 4% away from reporting neutral, while cnn, msnb, were over 30% to the left, abc and the other broadcast shows were 15% to the left, and the newpapers varied...i admit fox has several very strong right wing personalities on some of their shows..ie hannity is a much stronger personality then combs. Oreilly is for the most part independant, I don't trust him, he was run out of boston, due to making up stories. But they do put strong liberal people on in interviews. ie sp? juan williams, moria illanson, susan estridge....and they have some former liberal people in (sp?)laurie dew, and geraldo, and greta van sustren on their network.

[ZarathosNY]

Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

As for fox news being right wing biased, take a look at quinipiacs report, an independant report on the media. fox was 4% away from reporting neutral, while cnn, msnb, were over 30% to the left, abc and the other broadcast shows were 15% to the left, and the newpapers varied...i admit fox has several very strong right wing personalities on some of their shows..ie hannity is a much stronger personality then combs. Oreilly is for the most part independant, I don't trust him, he was run out of boston, due to making up stories. But they do put strong liberal people on in interviews. ie sp? juan williams, moria illanson, susan estridge....and they have some former liberal people in (sp?)laurie dew, and geraldo, and greta van sustren on their network.


Bush and his adminstration consistantly link Iraq and 9/11 to make people believe that Sadaam was involved. There was a study done that showed that if you got most of your news from Fox, you were most likely to be misinformed about Iraq.

This is from Bush's "Mission Accomplished speech.
" The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)"

[Noonan768]

[quote="ryanbph"]Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

Watch the movie... You'll see Bush actually say this ... I can't remember what the actual quote was but yes, he did say Iraq and Saddam were tied to 9/11. I've heard this arguement before and it doesn't hold up. They said that Saddam and Al Queda were involved.
It was a few years ago, but people should still remember it.

As for the movie. I liked it. It was one sided but I can make up my own mind after seeing both sides. There are no denying the majority of facts from the movie. There is definitely a spin on some stuff, but I went in expecting that.

[PsyClerk]

This is from Bush's "Mission Accomplished speech.
" The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)"

Please tell me this is not the "Bush linked Saddam to 9-11" evidence.

After 9-11, Bush said we would attack terror 'wherever it may be.' I took this to mean everywhere. I had visions of US forces helping British forces fight the IRA (should they resort to terrorism again).

Saddam harbored terrorists. There are allegedly (someone confirm maybe?) training camps in Iraq that featured aircraft, so terrorists could find the best way to take over a plane. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That last part was made very public a while back. Saddam-terror link established. Thus Saddam was included.

I have not seen anything from Bush where he says "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11" or anything close to it. The passage above only equates 9-11 with the terrorism we are fighting. If someone can provide a source that shows Bush making Saddam out to be behind 9-11, I will gladly agree with them that Bush is wrong for doing so.

[ZarathosNY]

Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

As for fox news being right wing biased, take a look at quinipiacs report, an independant report on the media. fox was 4% away from reporting neutral, while cnn, msnb, were over 30% to the left, abc and the other broadcast shows were 15% to the left, and the newpapers varied...i admit fox has several very strong right wing personalities on some of their shows..ie hannity is a much stronger personality then combs. Oreilly is for the most part independant, I don't trust him, he was run out of boston, due to making up stories. But they do put strong liberal people on in interviews. ie sp? juan williams, moria illanson, susan estridge....and they have some former liberal people in (sp?)laurie dew, and geraldo, and greta van sustren on their network.


Actually the 9/11 said there was no collaboration between Saddam and Osama. The only "relationship" they had was in the mid-90's Osama asked for Saddam's help, and he nevered answered them. Their relationship was one of hatred for each other. Saddam would kill or throw in prison any Al-queda he came across, while Osama was calling for the people to rise up and overthrow Sadaam.

[ZarathosNY]

This is from Bush's "Mission Accomplished speech.
" The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)"

Please tell me this is not the "Bush linked Saddam to 9-11" evidence.

After 9-11, Bush said we would attack terror 'wherever it may be.' I took this to mean everywhere. I had visions of US forces helping British forces fight the IRA (should they resort to terrorism again).




Saddam harbored terrorists. There are allegedly (someone confirm maybe?) training camps in Iraq that featured aircraft, so terrorists could find the best way to take over a plane. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That last part was made very public a while back. Saddam-terror link established. Thus Saddam was included.

I have not seen anything from Bush where he says "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11" or anything close to it. The passage above only equates 9-11 with the terrorism we are fighting. If someone can provide a source that shows Bush making Saddam out to be behind 9-11, I will gladly agree with them that Bush is wrong for doing so.

The training camps were not in a part of Iraq that Sadaam controlled. Sadaam was no threat. We went in to find WMD's. Guess what. We found none. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is falling apart, which is where we should have been concentrating. The Taliban and the warlordds are regaining control, and now Afghani production of poppies is higher now than before we invaded, which is a source of terrorist funding.

What I also said was that Bush & company consistantly said 9/11 and Iraq in the same speeches to get people to link the two together in their minds. Why else in polls would 60% of ppl believe that Sadaam has something to do with 9/11?

[Noonan768]

``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Saddam during a speech before the James Madison Institute, a conservative think tank based in Florida. ``He had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.''

[Reality's Fringe]

"Who's right, when everybody's wrong?" <<,Name that song quote....and correct it if it's wrong.


I think you mean Nobody's right if everybody's wrong, and its "for what its worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

Thanks you! I've been trying to think of that damn thing for two days! I owe you a Coke(or Pepsi), good sir.

[PsyClerk]

``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Saddam during a speech before the James Madison Institute, a conservative think tank based in Florida. ``He had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.''

This is what I'm getting at. 'Ties to al-Qaeda' and 'behind 9-11' are two different things to me. Maybe in more context it's implied more forcibly, but the above statement is a very very weak implication.

BTW, as I said before, Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, so the patron of terrorism label above fits.

[defender]

I am always confused as to how people think that Bush is doing a bad job on terrorism. Name one attack on US soil since 9/11. To me that's success. I am SURE they had plans for more attacks and I am sure they are PLANNING more of them. As long as Bush is ass kicking around the globe I feel a little safer. Everyone knows that Bush will destroy your entire country if you fuck with us. Seems smart to me. It's not like we are gonna jail you..no we fucking rock your entire world. I think too many people easily forget what 9/11 was and means. I personally witnessed plane 2 hit and it's something I see in my eyes every day. There could never be enough retribution for what they did.

As far as a link between Saddam and Osama...someone clearly stated that they did meet and that Osama asked for assistance. If they really hated each other so much then why would Osama do that. And just because no proof of it has been found doesnt mean it didnt happen. Also who knows if 9/11 didnt get better respect from Saddam for Osama and he wouldnt have taken him up on an offer of an alliance. Seems like after 9/11 you couldnt take Osama as some small time terrorist. He is top mother fucker #1. Saddam is top mother fucker #2. We got #2 out of the way at the very least.

[punqsux]

Name one attack on US soil since 9/11. To me that's success.

i agree, thats a damn good thing, but do you credit this to the patroit act? to the wars we fought? or do u credit it to the hardwork of the police and cia who had forewarned of the sept 11th attacks anyways?

[PsyClerk]

Name one attack on US soil since 9/11. To me that's success.

i agree, thats a damn good thing, but do you credit this to the patroit act? to the wars we fought? or do u credit it to the hardwork of the police and cia who had forewarned of the sept 11th attacks anyways?

This is a slippery slope. We can blame the president but give credit elsewhere? The whole 'find someone to blame' game is very tiresome. Makes me think of that scene in Rising Sun. I found it almost offensive at the time. Now it makes sense.

And with that I realize I have become much too serious, and also violated my 'no serious posts in political threads ever again' rule. I recuse myself from the rest of this thread (if there's more of it) as punishment, and return to my usual smartass ways.

[MrBadExample]

Everyone knows that Bush will destroy your entire country if you shaq-fu with us.

Unless you're from Saudi Arabia like most of the 9/11 terrorists.

[punqsux]

Everyone knows that Bush will destroy your entire country if you shaq-fu with us.

Unless you're from Saudi Arabia like most of the 9/11 terrorists.

pwned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ZForce915]

The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.

Typical agruement. He calls Michael Moore a liar, without ONE piece of evidence to support that statement.

News sources? I pity you if you think you can rely on the American media for constant accurate information. They show you want they want you to see. If you want real news, try BBC.com or some other source that can report on everything without bias.

[ZForce915]

``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Saddam during a speech before the James Madison Institute, a conservative think tank based in Florida. ``He had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.''

In 2000, C.Rice, VP Cheany and D. Rumsfelt all were quoted as saying the Saddam was "no threat" and was not capable of making WMDs. I'm not sure why he suddenly became such a big threat after 9/11. Oil maybe?

[loserboy]

Defender-
I feel much less safe...name the biggest attack EVER on U.S. soil...9/11 and that was under Bush's ever so watchful eye. The people in charge do things without thinking. Bush may be a moron, but we've elected morons in the past. That's not his fault. My problem with him is his string of lies, his inability to be personally responsible for anything, his party's penchant for having a laissez faire attitude towards big business but wanting to be all hands on in our personal lives.

The biggest crime of all is how Bush has completely duped the right wing media that predominates this country. Those on the right like to pretend there's some sort of liberal media, but the truth of it is... we live in the most conservative of all modern countries. Our media is no exception. When they start talking about legalizing drugs, abolishing the death penalty and setting up government sponsored health programs for all then I'll START to listen to complaints of liberal media. Until then I will remember the way every word Clinton said was examined and held up to the light while every word Bush says is chuckled at and ignored.

What this country NEEDS is a truly liberal media to expose the numerous lies that have been propogated since bush took office.

I'll still shop at your online store, though.

[ZForce915]

Defender-
I feel much less safe...name the biggest attack EVER on U.S. soil...9/11 and that was under Bush's ever so watchful eye. The people in charge do things without thinking. Bush may be a moron, but we've elected morons in the past. That's not his fault. My problem with him is his string of lies, his inability to be personally responsible for anything, his party's penchant for having a laissez faire attitude towards big business but wanting to be all hands on in our personal lives.

The biggest crime of all is how Bush has completely duped the right wing media that predominates this country. Those on the right like to pretend there's some sort of liberal media, but the truth of it is... we live in the most conservative of all modern countries. Our media is no exception. When they start talking about legalizing drugs, abolishing the death penalty and setting up government sponsored health programs for all then I'll START to listen to complaints of liberal media. Until then I will remember the way every word Clinton said was examined and held up to the light while every word Bush says is chuckled at and ignored.

What this country NEEDS is a truly liberal media to expose the numerous lies that have been propogated since bush took office.

I'll still shop at your online store, though.

:applause: Very well said.

[Vampire Hunter D]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

[ryanbph]

The biggest crime of all is how Bush has completely duped the right wing media that predominates this country. Those on the right like to pretend there's some sort of liberal media, but the truth of it is... we live in the most conservative of all modern countries

I don't see where you get the media is right wing, as I stated earlier, the majority of the tv and print media is skewed dramatically to the left, that was an independant survey done by quinipiac. As for being the most conservative of all modern countries, I agree, that may be true, but we are also the best country to live in. I don't know of thousand of illegals, and legal residents moving to the other liberal nations of the earth. Our economy is bar far the best. If it is so bad to live in a conservative nation, then why are so many people trying to come here?

In 2000, C.Rice, VP Cheany and D. Rumsfelt all were quoted as saying the Saddam was "no threat" and was not capable of making WMDs. I'm not sure why he suddenly became such a big threat after 9/11. Oil maybe?

In 1998 President Clinton said Iraq was a threat, and stated the WMD, and potentially a nuclear threat, those were his reasons for bombing. I didn't have a problem with what he did then, nor do I have a problem with what Bush is doing..Clinton also went into Bosnia, without UN approval, in the 1990's. He claimed it was a mass genocide, and we needed to go. Well the numbers of those killed were terribly overstated, and he also said we would be their 6months, and we are still their, and yes they are still having problems...I agreed with bill clinton sending troops to bosnia.

As for attacking Iraq, and while they don't have any ties with 9/11, they did have al quida ties...if we waited 2, 3 or even 4 years without doing anything, how can you say with 100% proof, that we wouldn't be hit again as bad or worse then 9/11, with iraq having ties to it this time. No one can, and the 9/11 commision is all about why didn't we take care of this earlier, well we did take care of a potential threat earlier with iraq, and yet people still complain about it.

I have seen people talk about moores movie, and talk about how this administration instill fear in order to get what they want, ie the color coded threat system. Well if we get attacked, and the administration didn't warn us about it, their would be hell to pay, you can't please everyone I guess

[punqsux]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.

[helava]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

Really? Because last time I checked, most of the people in the armed forces don't get to decide where they go, or why. Bush sent them to Iraq, and for what reason, exactly?

Defender - when you say that we'll whoop your country's ass if you "shaq-fu" with us, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the Iraqis who were killed - the children, the women, are part of the retribution for 9/11? What did they do? Hell, what did their *country* do? Did we "shaq-fu" Saudi Arabia? I don't think we did. Did we even really go after Osama bin Laden after 9/11? It took two months to get the armed forces into Afghanistan, and even then, Bush was illegally diverting funds from the Afghanistan war into Iraq. How does that make us safer? Diverting funds from chasing the person we know was behind the attacks, to go after someone who had nothing to do with them? I feel a hell of a lot less safe.

seppo

[helava]

[size=9]As for attacking Iraq, and while they don't have any ties with 9/11, they did have al quida ties...if we waited 2, 3 or even 4 years without doing anything, how can you say with 100% proof, that we wouldn't be hit again as bad or worse then 9/11, with iraq having ties to it this time. No one can, and the 9/11 commision is all about why didn't we take care of this earlier, well we did take care of a potential threat earlier with iraq, and yet people still complain about it.


Pretty bizarre. We weren't doing *anything* to Iraq? So containment wasn't working? Ah, yes. Because he was amassing a formidable army, and weapons of mass destruction, yeah? You can't prove something hasn't happened, so you can ask that question without fear of a reasonable response. You can't prove anything. You can't prove that Saudi Arabian nationals aren't planning an even larger attack right now. You can't prove that there's not a terrorist in your hometown about to poison the water supply. But you can look at the evidence of what has happened so far.

Containment was working with Hussein. We kept him from developing into a threat through monitoring, and inspections. Inspections that were underway until Bush stopped them. Fancy, that.

The 9/11 commission isn't about why we didn't take Iraq out earlier, dumbass, it's about how we let 9/11 happen, and the communication and organizational morass that caused us to miss the signs. If ANYTHING, the point was that the major threat isn't in state-sponsored terrorism, but the more insidious, hard to root-out NON state sponsored terrorism, which doesn't give us a hard target to fire back at.

seppo

[suprsaiyanMAX]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?

[Reality's Fringe]

I don't know 'bout you guys, but I'm going to stop voting for the President whose political platform I agree most with. I'm going to start voting based on how much ass they whup and how many bitches they mack, so Kerry and Bush need to get started.

[punqsux]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?

korea? vietnam? yeah those were great, wernt they?

[ryanbph]

tty bizarre. We weren't doing *anything* to Iraq? So containment wasn't working? Ah, yes. Because he was amassing a formidable army, and weapons of mass destruction, yeah? You can't prove something hasn't happened, so you can ask that question without fear of a reasonable response. You can't prove anything. You can't prove that Saudi Arabian nationals aren't planning an even larger attack right now. You can't prove that there's not a terrorist in your hometown about to poison the water supply. But you can look at the evidence of what has happened so far.

Weren't their al quida training camps in iraq, haven't several of their top people come thru iraq, before we got their? I have no problem with taking care of saudi arabia as well, one country at a time, but every presidency, democrat or republicain, treat saudi arabai the same..

If contaiment was working, then why after signing the intent of war with iraq, did both party members talk about the threat they posed, pulosi, daschle, kerry to frist and haster all talked about something needs to be done in iraq....and iraq how consitently tossed the weapon inspectors out of the country, hans blix had never found one illegal weapon in any country he went into, including north korea, ohh and when did saddam say he would let the inspectors back in, after he was threatened with force...

I don't see why you need to revert to name calling, I never said the 9/11 commisson was made to figure out why we haven't taken out iraq, I said the 9/11 commision was formed and has brought up instances where they said why wasn't this taken care of sooner, I thought by the name of the commission being the 9/11 commission, you would be able to conclude that they were investigating why/how 9/11 happened, if you weren't able to conclude that, I am sorry for not being more descriptive for you. No we don't have a hard target to fire back at, we have to get into nations that harbor these terrorist and clean them out, yes it is a dirty and messy military operation,

[dennis_t]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

Actually, most of the poor shmoes over there right now are National Guard forces who never expected to have to wage professional war for what's going on a year plus. These are not people with U.S. Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine training. And the reason they're stuck there is because Bush (1) underestimated the number of troops he'd need to control Iraq and (2) knows it's political suicide to institute a draft to get our professional army up to the needed levels of personnel.

I love the fact that Bush ran in part on criticizing the preparedness of the military, and then proceeded to run it into the ground by fighting an unnecessary two-front war. Genius thinking.

And for all of you who are saying we needed to go into Iraq because there were terrorists there, then why aren't we invading Saudia Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, or Syria, which has known links to terror? Instead we invade Iraq, a country whose government has no terrorist connections but is led by a tinhorn dictator dumb enough to defy the U.S. of A.

And I say no terror connections because that's exactly what they've found. Saddam IGNORED bin Laden's request for help. Didn't even call back. Gave him the same response I give to a telemarketer's voice mail. And while there was an al Queda training camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Irag, guess what -- Bush had REPEATED opportunities to kill off Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the camp's leader. And he let them all slide. Why? Because he WANTED those camps there to justify the war. No camps, no war, so this guy -- who, btw, is the person who beheaded Nick Berg -- is still running loose, thanks to Bush.

Whatever Bush is in this for, it's not for protecting us.

[Storamin]

i have a small penis

who are you and why are you trolling this thread, no one here cares how small your penis is ^^

Hey m8, I thought this thread was suppose to revolve around Michael Moore & his movie. I laid my opinion down. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's an opinion. If you're going to insult me, at least insult my opinion. Why resort to stupid insults like that? Evidently your brain can't take thinking. Whatever size my penis is, I don't think it matters. Unless you can't keep your mind off it. Maybe you need a new profession, involving small children at your local church. Maybe in the future you'll get some money for yourself and realize why republicans are around. That, or you can probaly stay poor for the rest of your life.
Now that I think more about it, it doesn't even matter if you insult my opinion, I think the only one you'll impress is yourself.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?

korea? vietnam? yeah those were great, wernt they?

Somalia, Bosnia, kosovo, Lebanon...there are some more probably but those are the ones I could think of. Granted all conflicts are entered for various reasons, but you can't say that the Iraq War now is different now just because they weren't directly threatening us.

[Storamin]

The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.

Typical agruement. He calls Michael Moore a liar, without ONE piece of evidence to support that statement.

News sources? I pity you if you think you can rely on the American media for constant accurate information. They show you want they want you to see. If you want real news, try BBC.com or some other source that can report on everything without bias.

I like NPR's All Things Considered.
I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims. He's real good at that, editing out parts and then editing other parts in. Makes you think it's the truth, only it's a half-truth. Around here we call that lieing your ass off.
You're not worth any more to me than any other person I've never met, You do your job, and then you die. I just like to laugh at you. Pretty good fun so far. It's not as if the world cares if you or I like Bush or Kerry. You do your job, and then you die. Some of us do a better job than others. That's why there's Republicans. You're so much better than me and your opinion is worth so much. Oh, wait...

[punqsux]

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?

korea? vietnam? yeah those were great, wernt they?

Somalia, Bosnia, kosovo, Lebanon...there are some more probably but those are the ones I could think of. Granted all conflicts are entered for various reasons, but you can't say that the Iraq War now is different now just because they weren't directly threatening us.

i agree with you there. but we had no business being in any of them, we cant police the world, whenever we try many innocent people die and people just hate us more.

[Storamin]

Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

Actually, most of the poor shmoes over there right now are National Guard forces who never expected to have to wage professional war for what's going on a year plus. These are not people with U.S. Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine training. And the reason they're stuck there is because Bush (1) underestimated the number of troops he'd need to control Iraq and (2) knows it's political suicide to institute a draft to get our professional army up to the needed levels of personnel.


You're right, they didn't expect to get a war. All they wanted was a free ride to college. Too bad they were called up on their end of the bargain. Guess much isn't free in life, nice lesson they're learning right now.

[punqsux]

nothing

im sorry, did you say something? :lol:

[dennis_t]

Now someone's father/mother/uncle/aunt who thought they left the military behind them is going to have to go fight for Bush's mistake.....


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday.

The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries.

Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.

[suprsaiyanMAX]

i agree with you there. but we had no business being in any of them, we cant police the world, whenever we try many innocent people die and people just hate us more.

Are we the world's police force? Yeah, more or less, but we are also the most powerful force. Should the bigger guy protect the little guy? That's a matter of each person's opinion, but even trying to help someone can go very wrong and even if it doesn't someone will probably end not liking you too much. I pretty much agree with punq and don't think we should always fight others battles, but then again I know jack about foreign relations. I mean if you think about Germany never attacked us directly, though they most likely would have eventually, they went after our allies first. But we helped out basically all of Europe even though they had not striked us directly yet. We helped our allies fight a huge evil, but unfortunately conflicts and wars just don't seem to have the clear cut line of evil that WW 2 had. We have to pick and choose these world police fights today it seems and there are some conflicts I think we could've helped but didn't and others were we probably should have taken a largely diplomatic approach instead of military force. Personally I think what we did in Bosnia, kosovo, etc. was more honorable and helped more than anything else, but according to people such as Michael Moore, America only brings misery to the rest of world. I think people forget that war is not a light switch you can flip on/off, fighting will continue even after someone like us or the UN steps in, it's a harsh truth that cannot be avoided or pushed aside.

[Nogib]

I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims. He's real good at that, editing out parts and then editing other parts in. Makes you think it's the truth, only it's a half-truth. Around here we call that lieing your ass off.

Amen to that. Seriously calling this movie a "documentary" is the biggest misnomer I've heard in many years. Heck, give me a chance and I'm fairly certain that I could twist things around just enough to make the Pope appear to be a full-fledged member of the Nazi party for crying out loud.

Don't get me wrong, I've really liked some of Michael Moore's stuff in the past. But jesus-tapdancing-christ, if anyone is dumb enough to believe that everything he says is the whole truth should have their head examined. Michael Moore is not objective. Never has been, never will be. That's what makes his stuff enjoyable. It's fine to be entertained by something that is blatantly biased, but at the same time realize that there is indeed a clear and concise biased spin put on everything and take it for the piece of entertainment it is and nothing more.

[Wshakspear]

***WARNING: Post movie rambling at 12:00 A.M.***

I just got back from seeing this film. Im what i like to call "A Sane Person". I read up on what was true, what was stretched and what was pure travishmockery ( :) ).

I had already seen all of the brutal violence towards them and towards us. This, in a sense, didnt faze me...it was the mothers. The mother/relative in Iraq who's family's house apparently was bombed and asked God for help. The Mother, from a relatively local town to me, in Flint who was shown in good times and bad times, both times with faith in God.

Those 2 scenes stand out more than any "Hi, i can count to 5!" look Bush had. People who were giving thier lives, and sons, to God...whose apparent vessel is Mr. Bush himself, were losing faith on camera.

For those of you who have NOT seen this movie, i am talking about a woman who had multiple members of her family enlisted. Her son died. Rmember hearing "black hawk down" on tv and it wasnt in reference to the movie? Her son was part of that and is no longer part of this earth. His last letter asked why Bush is doing what he is doing...but still went on with his duty. He is dead. Near the end of the movie, and to me the most heart wrenching, this woman went to DC, to the white house, to try and bring just a bit of understanding to her loss.
She met a somewhat insane person who was promoting "bush bad, cause death" type feelings and mentioned peoples sons and daughters dying. Of course she said hers was one, and in complete heartlessness, another woman came over and started yelling "This is staged" and questioning when and where he died, as if she new every inch of baghdad.

This does not change my negative outlook on Bush. Does not give me more ammo, nor does it make me happier he's still around. More or less, it made me lose hope in my fellow man.

I'm sad now.
goodnight.

[helava]

"Weren't their al quida training camps in iraq, haven't several of their top people come thru iraq, before we got their?"

1.) The training camps were in northern Iraq, which was under Kurdish control, not under Saddam's control. Yet, the Kurds were our allies in the invasion of Iraq, and those camps were touted as supposed "links" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Anyone even marginally cognizant of the Iraqi political climate knew that Bush was basically lying at that point.

2.) The "top person" who came through Iraq, according to Bush & Co. was Zarqawi - the guy who beheaded Nick Berg. Now, here's the interesting bit. What BushCo said was that Iraq provided material assistance to a known member of Al Qaeda, by providing medical care to Zarqawi - medical care that supposedly consisted of amputating one of his legs, supposedly injured in combat of some sort. I don't know whether you've seen images from recent videos, or whether you've seen any recent stills of Zarqawi, but the weird thing is this: he has two legs.

So the answer to your question, is yes there were training camps in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein & the Baathists had nothing to do with them, and to the second part, I have no idea whether this particular member of Al Qaeda came through Iraq, but I can tell you that he walked out on both his legs, if he did.

seppo

[bob_the_goon]

I liked the movie, but I knew almost all the info in it. I thought it very telling when Moore is surrounded by secret service because he is near the Saudi embassy, and the secret service guy admits that the Saudi's have the only foreign embassy with a secret service squad permanently assigned to it. I thought it did a good job showing just how chummy the Bush's are with the Saudi's and how much money they have invested over here. Forget oil, think about what would happen if they pulled even half of their investments. Also, as far as editing out half of the truth to present what he wants, he sure does, but then again, you can read his books where he conveniently lists every source for almost every sentance in said book, and you can go check them yourself to see how much editing he did. Almost everything in the movie was covered in better detail in the election chapter of "Stupid White Men" and the first chapter of "Dude, Where's My Country."

[dafoomie]

Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.

You're right, they didn't expect to get a war. All they wanted was a free ride to college.

I would not call serving in the military, even in peacetime, a "free ride" to college. The only free ride is the one you probably had when your parents paid your way, if you're even old enough. Have you watched the movie? Moore makes this excellent point towards the end: "I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest, are always the first to step up to defend their country. They serve, so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives, so that we can be free. It is remarkable, their gift to us, and all they ask for in return, is that we never send them into harms way, unless its absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?" (In the following sound bytes, Condoleeza Rice is seen saying, "There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.")

A lot of these people joined the military to get into college because they could never in a million years afford it themselves. Joining the military even in peacetime, in order to educate yourself and make something better of yourself than what you were born into, is commendable. They have EVERY RIGHT to be upset that they are now fighting an unnecessary war, an optional war based on lies and falsehoods. They have every right to be upset that they may not be properly equipped, that the war is being mismanaged, and that Bush tried to cut their combat pay, health care, and benefits.

And after all of that, these people continue to serve. And you have the BALLS to get mad at them for being upset about being there? You are beyond contempt. And probably an effective troll.

I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims

Double standard much? He presents some evidence to back up his claims, whether they're right or wrong. Where's yours?

[ZForce915]

The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.

Typical agruement. He calls Michael Moore a liar, without ONE piece of evidence to support that statement.

News sources? I pity you if you think you can rely on the American media for constant accurate information. They show you want they want you to see. If you want real news, try BBC.com or some other source that can report on everything without bias.

I like NPR's All Things Considered.
I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims. He's real good at that, editing out parts and then editing other parts in. Makes you think it's the truth, only it's a half-truth. Around here we call that lieing your ass off.
You're not worth any more to me than any other person I've never met, You do your job, and then you die. I just like to laugh at you. Pretty good fun so far. It's not as if the world cares if you or I like Bush or Kerry. You do your job, and then you die. Some of us do a better job than others. That's why there's Republicans. You're so much better than me and your opinion is worth so much. Oh, wait...

Michael Moore shows proof in his film. You just pretend everything you say is the gospal truth. Around here we call making false claims about someone without anything to base that on being a jackass.

I have never been so assured before that someone's opinion adds nothing to a conversation like I am I now having read your posts. You write nothingness, attempting to back it up with nothingness and then top it off with a statement that proves your inability to add anything to this discussion.

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I'll be seeing it this weekend. I'll post afterwards for sure. I am currently reading "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips. All Bush haters, or anyone who cares about politics for that matter, should pick this up and read it. It talks about the whole family history. He is gone without a doubt.

toy soldier
Corporal USMC

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

"For those who fight for it, freedom has a taste that the protected will never know."

suck it storamin

[beguile]

Micheal Moore's film is only the tip of the iceberg. If you were to do some research yourself, you can find some interesting facts about the government. No one is perfect and you should understand that mistakes were made by the government. Why do the Middle East and other foreign countries have Anti-USA feelings? Though Micheal Moore's film might not be 100% accurate, you have to understand that's there some truth to it.

[CheapyD]

Finally saw the film this weekend.
Its pretty depressing that this is what our country has become.

I think Kerry should make a campaign ad out the clip of Bush and My Pet Goat..

They can put a tagline on the ad "This is your Commander-In-Chief in a time of crisis".
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

[Dok Diamond]

i wanna see this, bowling for columbine was good

[cruzincontrol]

I saw it this past weekend and is still resonating in my head...The whole administration and circle of Saudis that are connected with all the money (and those companies) should be gone and Bush(shit) never should've been in office in the first place.

[Quackzilla]

Complete waste of time. I don't buy into the whole liberal bullshit. And no, I haven't seen this waste of time. If I could, I would probaly exercise my 2nd amendment and shoot his fat ass. Shoot him in the god damn head with a 22 and see if he exploded properly. I've never shot something that fat. Documentary MY ASS.

^ The average Bush supporter.

[ZForce915]

Complete waste of time. I don't buy into the whole liberal bullshit. And no, I haven't seen this waste of time. If I could, I would probaly exercise my 2nd amendment and shoot his fat ass. Shoot him in the god damn head with a 22 and see if he exploded properly. I've never shot something that fat. Documentary MY ASS.

^ The average Bush supporter.

I agree. Isn't it sad that someone think the 2nd amendment gives them the right to shoot people? But I'm glad that he said that, it makes my views seem a little more justified.

[MrBadExample]

Michael Moore himself has said that this is not a documentary. He classifies it as non-fiction. And he has never claimed to present both sides of the issue. He thinks Bush needs to be voted out of office and wants everyone to know why.

[Quackzilla]

Just FYI:

2nd ammendment is the right to form militias and was put in with the intention of keeping the government in check, not giving every nutcase a gun and letting them kill people.

[-Never4ever-]

Well I haven't read pass page one (extremly lazy), so soory if this has been mentioned, but Moore's kinda famous for stretching the truth and in some cases; flat out lying, in his docs. I belive it was said somewhere that BFC was around 20% actual fact :shock:.

FH 9/11 is a bush hating piece of entertainment, viewing it as a true doc is like saying the sims is a 100% accurate representation of real life.

The movie only further fuels the bush hating flames. It's far too one sided to really do any good. It's almost as though Moore has just about given up and just made one large long rant.

EDIT: further exploration of this entire board only proves one thing: we as a cheap ass community know jack-squat about politics (I'm including myself into the mix). This will be my only post here as everything is heavly one sided and quite frankly, I make my own decisions. I don't go with flow, rather I like to hear from both sides before making a decision, seeing as all election coverage has been about bashing bush, with no real info on kerry, I've just decided to hell with it, I'm voting for the 3rd party.

[Quackzilla]

There is apparently some sort of monetary prize for anyone who can find any lies in Farenheit 9/11 (clips of Bush speaking don't count).


I doubt you have seen the movie.

[ortazel]

Kerry voted YES on the patriot act.

see http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om

[-Never4ever-]

okay, one last post here can't hurt.

There's a part in the film in which moore talks about Bush and the goverment helping to fly out saudi's right after 9/11, including members of the bin laden family. That was NOT Bush's doing, but rather a single other person (can't remember his name) made the call, without informing any key goverment member, including GW.

I'm not a bush hater, nor a supporter, I just sit on the fence and analize both sides. I learned long ago that news industry is just a giant farce, saying what ever it needs to in order to have more viewer's.

[helava]

-Never4ever- - you know, your position sounds very morally high-minded, and fair, and evenhanded and all that, to someone with say, no experience in anything. You've said basically that both sides suck, and none of us know jack, so it doesn't matter.

So, on the surface, I see the appeal. Complex issue, and it's not "partisan" to say that both sides suck. By and large, even, it's true - both sides have some pretty serious faults.

But...

Your position is fundamentally the most intellectually and morally vacant position a person can take. Apathy doesn't get you anywhere, and assuming that no one knows what they're talking about, because *you* don't know what you're talking about isn't particularly productive. I'm quite educated about the current political climate. I read a *lot* about it, because it has a tremendous fundamental impact on our lives, on a daily basis.

NOT knowing about politics is, unfortunately, consigning yourself to ignorance out of apathy, laziness, or some desire to hand over the reins of power to those that are going to bother to take them. You consign yourself into a position of submission. EXACTLY WHERE THE POLITICAL MACHINE WANTS YOU TO BE.

The less you know, the more power they have. The less you take action, the more power they have. The more ignorant you are, the more power they have. This isn't the view of a conspiracy-minded person, either - it's a simple, indisputable fact.

If you were to say that you understood and analyzed the issues based on a number of sources, and came to conclusions based on those, that left you outside the realm of either party - fine. But that's not the position you've taken, as far as I can tell. You've simply opted for the lazy moral high ground of vapid apathy.

seppo

[-Never4ever-]

You see, the problem with politics is it's a game, a complex series of mind games filled with deceit and lies. I've learned a long time ago to take nothing at face value. You're right, I am lazy, too lazy to shift through the sea of lies to find the lone drop of truth, so I say fuck it, let them handle it.

shit has a habit of working out (I can't remeber whom it was that said this).

What I said still stands: we as a community know less than nothing when it comes to true politics.