my care2
make a difference

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

 
 
This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.
 Is Fahrenheit 9/11 going to change views? June 30, 2004 9:21 AM

Hi all, When Care2 staff all went to see the movie Fahrenheit 9/11, we wondered about how our members reacted to the film. Is the film really changing people's attitudes about the war in Iraq and the scrupulousness of our President, or is the movie just making people's views more extreme on both sides? What was your experience? Do you know people who have changed their minds? One experience I had with a friend who was pro-Iraq war to begin with, has become increasingly adamant about his views over time. Now, he even argued that it was acceptable to send the Saudis and Bin Laden family back home without interviewing them directly after 9/11. Yet, in contrast, he agrees that profiling people in airports and other places for security purposes based on their country of origin, or even appearance is fine (as do many people in this time of heightened security, I would guess). But it was the contradiction that was so apparent to me - I was amazed at the intricate ways in which he'd come to justify such clearly contradictory views, in what seemed to be a means of protecting his ego from thinking he was wrong in supporting the Iraq war. It's a very common thing to do, but I guess I still have hope that people might be able to take something away from new facts and actually open their mind to the possibility of a reality slightly different than the one they believed in before.  [ send green star] 		 
With all due respect June 30, 2004 9:50 AM

"Now, he even argued that it was acceptable to send the Saudis and Bin Laden family back home without interviewing them directly after 9/11. Yet, in contrast, he agrees that profiling people in airports and other places for security purposes based on their country of origin, or even appearance is fine (as do many people in this time of heightened security, I would guess). But it was the contradiction that was so apparent to me - I was amazed at the intricate ways in which he'd come to justify such clearly contradictory views, in what seemed to be a means of protecting his ego from thinking he was wrong in supporting the Iraq war." When Intelligence feels one is cleared, who is to say different? I feel if this is questionable, then are there actions today that are investigating that Intelligence? If so, why do "we" (those having different opinions) not wait to find the results of such study, before one is "convicted" for their beliefs, as being not worthy beliefs, and the rest worthy? If there is a major concern as to more planes being hijacked and used as weapons to kill and destroy a cililization (that which has already been stated by those that have already tried and succeded), are we not to check this situation out? Or, do we just take our chances, as it goes against everything America believes in? Can we not come to understanding, that not all want good for us? Can we not understand that to keep America's freedoms, there comes a point there will have to be some "give and take"? Are our feelings so hurt when we know we are innocent, though first that needs to be proven? If we are innocent, and it is for security reasons, why do we protest? Freedom is not free, is it? I don't think one's thoughts are more important than antohers, but they are just different. Contradiction in ones eyes, is right in anothers, soooooo where do we go from here? Just some thoughts :- )  [ send green star] 		 
It might June 30, 2004 9:58 AM

It probably won't affect the most ardent Bush supporters, the hardcore hawks, or other such factions. But it might influence a number of the swing voters, and more moderate Republicans. Also it might motivate some apolitical people to get out and vote.  [ send green star] 		 
Hi Amy June 30, 2004 10:15 AM

It might 06/30/04 09:58:24 It probably won't affect the most ardent Bush supporters, the hardcore hawks, or other such factions. But it might influence a number of the swing voters, and more moderate Republicans. Also it might motivate some apolitical people to get out and vote. Do you feel swing voters would take one persons hate (dislike,etc.), and go on that one person's opinion alone to make their mind up? Is this one person so "important", and so "on the money" with his opinions, that one that is so indecisive, would now have their mind made up? Could it possibly take them the other way from seeing the Movie? Does the "other side" have no say in this, to them? I feel in that situation, what will sway a person, is hard facts, not a Movie made on one mans opinion. All of our opinions count, but I feel a Movie that shows ones dislikes, will not make make for more to have the same dislikes. Everyone's agendas are not the same.  [ send green star] 		 
Naturally, June 30, 2004 10:31 AM

First, I do not think that this movie is all about hate. Granted, it is made clear that Moore dislikes George Bush, but I do not think that the entire movie is about hate. In addition, you refer to the movie as all opinion, and mention that people might prefer to base their views on fact. Have you seen this movie? It is loaded with Facts, and actual direct video footage. Of course Moore expressed his opinions based on the facts that he presents. However, so does anyone who presents facts for the "other side" as you put it. The Other Side would also use facts to present their opinions. Just because you do not agree with his particular opinions does not mean that the facts he presents are false.  [ send green star] 		 
opinion vs fact June 30, 2004 11:49 AM

I believe that the movie contained a lot of facts. What surprises me is that people on either side seem to hear these same exact facts, and then use them to increase their own opinions, rather than change them, or see things in a different light. If we were really good at separating our own beliefs from fact, we might be able to take the new facts and form different beliefs, but, as was the case with my friend, it appeared that instead, he just found ways to rationalize them and strengthen his prior views.  [ send green star] 		 
In response to Naturallynice L. June 30, 2004 11:55 AM

I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean, here, but I think you're saying that what seems like a contradiction to me, might not be to my friend. Yet, I still think that his views are pretty contradictory. On one hand, he's OK with checking even mildly suspicious folks who MIGHT fit a profile of a terrorist out to protect us against terrorists, (and does not seem too opposed to holding suspicious people without clear evidence that they are guilty) but yet thinks that it's OK for the government to send off people RELATED to the known terrorist who killed all these Americans. That to me is very hard to justify, and I used it as an example of how it seems like people don't change their views even in the face of facts that seem rather black and white. Somehow, we manage to either discredit the fact, or find a way to interpret it such that it supports our old views. And that is what I wonder about this movie - will it just make everyone even more extreme? But maybe, a few people who don't have strong opinions, will feel a bit differently about the war in Iraq and the President's agenda.  [ send green star] 		 
I think we forget. . . June 30, 2004 12:52 PM

to realize that there are a lot of progressive people out there who simply don't vote. A movie like this is valuable because it mobilizes people and inspires them to act. Movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 are needed now more then ever in this disaffected age where people don't bother voting because they don't see a significant difference between candidates. Inspire the left to vote--don't try to convince the undecided or the right! I think the level of interest shown in this movie will help push the Democratic Party into moving away from the center and more towards the left--people nowadays really do want someone who stands for something, as Howard Dean's campaign revealed(Unfortunately, the media tirelessly worked to undermine his campaign). We need a champion like Michael Moore, not a middle of the road bureaucrat. In response to the person claiming "freedom isn't free so we should forfeit some freedoms for safety," I have this to say. A government that strips us of liberty in exchange for protection isn't a democracy, it's fascism. I find the way our domestic life has become more and more militarized troubling. Who wants to live in fear all the time? Have the government's efforts made us feel safer? I sure don't feel safer. All I see is the government imprisoning innocents illegally(80% of those imprisoned in Iraq, for example), angering almost the entire international community, and oppressing those of us at home. This seems more like a strategy to foster terrorism rather than quell it. Maybe if we try to address people's grievances instead of oppressing everyone further we can achieve a level of freedom for all to enjoy, one that does not involve stripping us of our liberty. Peace, Jeff  [ send green star] 		 
Hilary said.... June 30, 2004 1:10 PM

>>On one hand, he's OK with checking even mildly suspicious folks who MIGHT fit a profile of a terrorist out to protect us against terrorists, (and does not seem too opposed to holding suspicious people without clear evidence that they are guilty) but yet thinks that it's OK for the government to send off people RELATED to the known terrorist who killed all these Americans. << Yes. The point the FBI agent made in the movie is not that the people shouldn't have been allowed to go home, but that they should have been interviewed first. That doesn't mean imprisonment, it doesn't even mean significant delay. It just means that everyone who might have information relative to a crime is normally interviewed and a statement taken. It is part of normal investigative procedure. Yet Bush saw to it that none of the bin Ladens or associates were interviewed at all. They were just sported out of the reach of FBI immediately. This has nothing to do with profiling or what goes on at airports. The question the viewer was left with is simple: Why weren't the normal steps followed when we had persons who MIGHT have provided some information? That info might just be a scrap of family history, or names of associates, or data relating to Osama's finances, or whatever. 99 percent of interview results are trash - but here and there is a tiny piece of the puzzle. And Bush prevented the FBI from looking at those pieces. Makes one wonder why. This is not proof that Bush knew anything, or did anything, it is just a little more information on which to base a voting decision. Good for MM. If the news media was doing their job of reporting everything impartially, there wouldn't be anything for Michael to make a movie about. We would have seen it all before. But we hadn't. Those who oppose Michael Moore are opposing the airing of alternate viewpoints. We need the right and the left and a zillion other points of view. We need more information, not less.  [ send green star] 		 
 June 30, 2004 1:45 PM

Moore’s movie is unlikely to increase the vote for Kerry. What we see going on is the Democratic echo chamber. Those who fervently dislike the President get excited, the noise gets ratcheted up, those same people see the excitement and mistake that for a groundswell breaking for their viewpoint, they get more excited, and soon everybody is screaming. However, all that happened is the same people made more noise. There is a reason that Democratic Presidential candidates seek the nomination from the left, and then run as fast as they can for the middle during the election: the voters in the middle, where the undecideds are, often determine the result. These people are not likely to be swayed by conspiracy theories or the excesses of Michael Moore, whose approach creates enthusiasm only for those who hate the President. The problem here is that those in the center don’t hate the President; in fact they tend to like him. That is why the Republican campaign is making so much of the “coalition of the wild-eyed”. What seems so energizing to the wild-eyed is likely to send the center running for the exits. As a Republican, I encourage people to see F911. More importantly, I hope that the Democratic Party firmly embraces Moore and his movie. And as I have said before, I eagerly await the inevitable question to Kerry: Do you really believe that the President led us to war to obscure and preserve his relations with the Saudis and enrich his friends? At that moment he will need to choose between disappointing and demotivating his wild-eyed supporters and sending the center into the arms of the Republicans. I’m OK with either scenario.  [ send green star] 		 
fahrenheit 9/11 June 30, 2004 2:32 PM

I do believe Michael Moore is so right on for as I have been reading and perusing only certain sites where I know without a doubt is the truth trying to come out. Well he did it, thanks Michael - finally somebody had the guts to put it out there. This administration has been nothing but deception since the beginning including 9/11 - and we the people should be ashamed of ourselvels for believing such outright liars and greedy mongers. It is time for Bush and his cohorts to GO and that is for sure. Hopefully we can pick up the pieces to restore our countries integrety once more, only with God's help and that is for sure. We have lost enough people onder the guise of bushism, time to remove the blight and get on with truly living. No more outsourcing, no more lies, no more cheating the public. So a big hip hip hooray for the movie.  [ send green star] 		 
Jeffrey.... June 30, 2004 2:33 PM

I think there is another segment you're not considering....the young people who typically do not vote. They do go to movies and what they see in F911 may motivate them to vote. Regardless of what they learn in F911, young people tend to vote liberal, so the bias will be toward Kerry. I wish that "inevitable question" of yours was that important. There are some inevitable questions for both sides. But they get buried under all the negative advertising (for which both sides should be equally condemned). The decision will be made on totally trivial grounds like haircuts or shifty eyes and public speaking ability of their kids, rather than subjects of substance. But again, if we can get the young set to vote I think it bodes poorly for Bush. And you gotta consider that Bush may not automatically get the military vote this time. That is a whole 'nother subject.  [ send green star] 		 
Jeffrey, For a person who is "O.K with either scenario" & now encourages people to see F9/11 June 30, 2004 4:32 PM

You sure expended alot of energy in a crackpot crusade to discredit Moore - You even went so far as to post links to extremely biased sites that have zero journalistic stature to speak of. NewsMax?! Puhleeze! It reads like a dummy "news" site detractors set up for the express purpose of attacking M.M. - which is kinda funny - Your links usually aren't quite so flakey, Jeff. You posted only part of Moore's voter registration history, which leaves out the third page showing six subsequent elections in which Moore voted that do not indicate he voted Democrat after 1992. You started that thread called "Brownshirts", in which you provide a link to the most biased possible account of an alleged opening day incident outside a Vegas theater that could easily be (duh) the disruptive work of outside agitators. You posted a link to a vicious movie review from an extremist war hawk that Connie, breathlessly, printed up in full, as is her boot licking custom. You posted wordy, smirking attacks on me & others who support the movie. And, NOW, You've switched tactics & have posted, at least 3 or 4 times, your "new and improved" angle proclaiming you are all fine and dandy with people going to see F9/11 because, Blah blah blah - It will only make the Dems look bad to connect with Moore...and, what oh what, will Kerry say, Blah blah blah....... You are beginning to make a distinct flip floppin' sound, there, old boy. I think those "Brownshirts" belong to you and have became so colored due to massive staining caused by profusive sweat you are emitting over the influence Michael Moore's film is going to have on groups of voters, undecided and otherwise. Why else would you go to such lengths to trash Moore if you didn't actually understand the concept of information having the power to change minds and hearts?  [ send green star] 		 
Darryl June 30, 2004 4:38 PM

I wouldn't expect the youth vote to make any more difference now than it did in 1972. You slander the American voter when you sneer that the will vote on "grounds like haircuts or shifty eyes and public speaking ability of their kids, rather than subjects of substance." You do far better to stop pretending you know more than the average voter.  [ send green star] 		 
Youth vote June 30, 2004 4:54 PM

According to the most revent MSNBC/GENEXT poll, voters 18-29 are evenly split between Bush and Kerry. Kerry 44% Bush 42% http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5051811/site/newsweek/  [ send green star] 		 
Lets look at this a bit deeper June 30, 2004 4:55 PM

Jeff S: "It is loaded with Facts, and actual direct video footage. Of course Moore expressed his opinions based on the facts that he presents. However, so does anyone who presents facts for the "other side" as you put it. The Other Side would also use facts to present their opinions. Just because you do not agree with his particular opinions does not mean that the facts he presents are false." Yes, I can say, there is much left out that which does not allow one to look at the issues brought to the surface, as true. To say something is a fact, is to say it happened, but if it is only part of the story, isn't it only half-of-a-fact? What is known as, half-truths. When it is partial, it is a lie in disguise. This is my main "problem" with Moore. With most of his Movies he has put out, and I have tried to look at them with the most objective eye's that I could. Hilary: I ask you to please explain how you say: "suspicious people without clear evidence that they are guilty" Well, what is suspicious to you? "but yet thinks that it's OK for the government to send off people RELATED to the known terrorist who killed all these Americans." As far as I am aware, Intelligence cleared these people, as there was no link. What evidence did we have against the Saudi family and other Bin Laden family? The knowledge I have from how Intellegence usually conducts business, is, we (meaning intelligence and other government officals), were well aware of what they were, and weren't involved in. If you think there are not Intelligence on their "tails" while in the States, I think you may not be looking at the whole picture. Because, there are. Unless one is of the belief of conspiracy theories, but I think you are too smart for that. As well, because one is related to another, does not make them guilty of a crime the other commited. Are you under the knowledge that Osama has been disenherited from the Bin Laden family YEARS ago? I believe it is almost 20 years, at least. His family that which has disenherited him, is at the front of his hate. They are in the process of building the largest Mall in the Middle East as well as Tower. Quite ironic, don't you think? They have distanced themselves from him, and do not think at all like him. Unless you know something different?? I do care to know..maybe I missed something along the line? It is possible, and I am all ears...  [ send green star] 		 
anonymous Uhmm, EVENLY split, Jeffrey? June 30, 2004 5:39 PM

You are OFF by two percent - your man is lagging behind in that poll.  [report anonymous abuse] 		 
Anonymous June 30, 2004 5:43 PM

Are you familiar the concept of margin of error? This poll has a margin of error of 5.2%. Because 2% is less than the margin of error, this is a statistical tie. I hope that difficult concept didn't hurt your head.  [ send green star] 		 
Hey there, no need to be nasty June 30, 2004 7:26 PM

Yes, it's an exciting topic, but no need to sling insults at people, Anonymous!  [ send green star] 		 
Our worrisome Mrs. Lasslaff June 30, 2004 8:11 PM

Your tenuous grasp of reality slips further. I expended practically no energy at all on F911. Rather than see the movie and bother with writing about it, I did something unusual for me: I merely linked to an article. And Christopher Hitchens is not a crackpot. Speaking of crackpots, you not only entertained us with your frantic attempt to smear Hitchens, you now make the false claim that I linked to Newsmax. Either you are hallucinating or lying. I suspect hallucinations actually. You continue to display your progressive dementia with the following: “You posted only part of Moore's voter registration history, which leaves out the third page showing six subsequent elections in which Moore voted that do not indicate he voted Democrat after 1992.” Voting records obviously don’t show who you voted for – you are aware of the secret ballot we have here, right? So how would voting records show what party’s candidate Moore voted for? Did you mean to say that Moore did not vote in a Democratic primary? If so, that fact would tell us nothing. What is undeniable is that he is a registered Democrat. Then you give us this curiosity: “You started that thread called "Brownshirts", in which you provide a link to the most biased possible account of an alleged opening day incident outside a Vegas theater that could easily be (duh) the disruptive work of outside agitators.” The link was to the site of a local CBS news outlet – not exactly the sort of organization known for right-wing propaganda. You have no basis at all for assuming the story was biased or that the incident was the result of agitators. But then, reality and truth were never that high of a priority for you. “You posted wordy, smirking attacks on me & others who support the movie.” I would characterize it more as ridiculing. But then what more appropriate response could there be to the ridiculous? “And, NOW, You've switched tactics & have posted, at least 3 or 4 times, your "new and improved" angle proclaiming you are all fine and dandy with people going to see F9/11 because, Blah blah blah - It will only make the Dems look bad to connect with Moore...and, what oh what, will Kerry say, Blah blah blah.......” No, I’ve been pretty consistent on this point. It is you whose overheated rhetoric would indicate some emotional distress. I feel just fine.  [ send green star] 		 
Hilary....No need to be nasty..... June 30, 2004 9:20 PM

Please, Hilary, as a insider on Care2, please see what you can do to get the anonymous postings eliminated. Here are the sort of thing we're subjected to: [quote] anonymous anonymii and Davida. 06/28/04 18:31:22 You are correct, anonymii You are like a stewed prune & just passed right through Davida - ahhhh, blessed relief anonymous oh, 06/28/04 18:35:34 watch out you bittyshassedastards! you forgot to wipe! anonymous Hey! 06/28/04 18:37:54 This is a great Michael Moore thread. Fat and stinky. anonymous Wadda ya mean watch out! 06/28/04 18:39:12 Get your face outta there! anonymous 06/28/04 18:39:25 yup, just like your mama problem is she is fat and i made her sticky, like my nutz sticking to your chin. anonymous Hey Davida, 06/28/04 18:46:24 get your chin off anonymii's knutz! [end quote from http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=156&pst=4641] There was an even worse one recently, also anonymous. We don't need that sort of trash, it does not contribute to the quality of discourse. It only comes from those who hide behind the anonymous identity, the others know how to disagree without being disagreeable. The supposed moderator of this thread is "earthmaven", but she hasn't shown up here since a day or two after the new format happened. (Unless maybe she is one of the anonys.) If you are waiting for this person to help us, it ain't going to happen. So we need to appeal to Care2, and I'm asking you to get this message to the proper people that the anony option should be eliminated. Thanks much!  [ send green star] 		 
Newbie June 30, 2004 10:05 PM

I'm new here, so pardon me if i'm out of line or stepping on anyone's toes, but one of the reasons I'm checking out this group is the prospect of finding a group of people who are politically motivated but open-minded, thoughtful, and polite. I don't mean always agreeing, but the ability to civilly examine our differences can enlighten us. If this group isn't being moderated I probably won't stick around too long. I'm involved in a few tech forums, and one of them has a "politics and religion" forum I frequent, but am getting tired of being a lone voice in a sea of closed-minded conservatives who think that Moore is the anti-christ while Limbaugh, O'Reilley, Hanity, and Coulter are objective journalists. I think we all need to remember that Michael Moore is a political commentator. He makes no claim of objectivity, but rather uses his art to promote his perspective. There's nothing wrtong with that, and while I haven't had the chance to see F 911 yet I have enjoyed his previous films as thought-provoking and agree with much of his viewpoint. Will this movie change people's views? Some, especially if they can remain open minded enough to hear what is being presented and seek independant verification. More importantly, though,as someone else suggested, it could motivate the large percentage of progressives who have become disillusioned with the american political process. Well, that's my 2 cents anyway.  [ send green star] 		 
Darryl July 01, 2004 5:56 AM

Are you calling for eliminating the ability to post anonymously, or for censoring responses you deem inappropriate? If the former, I join you in that request. I strongly urge, however, that we not start to censor posts from identified members. One of the unique strengths of this board is its reluctance to limit speech. That is a difficult attribute to find, and I would hate to lose it. Let people say whatever they are willing to have attributed to themselves. If it is inappropriate, we all know how to deal with it. I would also like to add my opinion that Earthmaven is by far the best host at Care2.  [ send green star] 		 
anonymous Hilary, What do have against shiney ostrich eggs, huh? July 01, 2004 7:12 AM

Jeffrey replied to my post with: ..."I hope that difficult concept didn't hurt your head." xxxxxx To which I responded: "Let's see how that poll looks in a couple weeks or so - I think those results will hurt your shiney, ostrich egg shaped head, which is a concept I'm sure you won't understand"... xxxxxx Then you jumped in with: "Hey there, no need to be nasty. Yes, it's an exciting topic, but no need to sling insults at people, Anonymous!" xxxxxx I was just responding to Jeffrey's insulting remark, Hilary - So, Why did you choose to single me out? May I respectfully ask that you refrain from the business of judging an individual's reply to another member's comments that are not directed to you? - It does looks rather biased and I don't think that is your intention. I am sure you are not saying that Jeffrey has carte blanche to insult, while others don't.  [report anonymous abuse] 		 
Jeffrey July 01, 2004 7:56 AM

I thought I made my request quite clear: "..please see what you can do to get the anonymous postings eliminated....and I'm asking you to get this message to the proper people that the anony option should be eliminated." I never suggested editing or limiting what people can say, only that they not be allowed to hide while they're saying it. GREGORY...Welcome. I need your help here!!!!  [ send green star] 		 
Darryl July 01, 2004 7:59 AM

Then we agree.  [ send green star] 		 
HOw funny July 01, 2004 9:34 AM

It is funny to me that a thread starts as something thought provoking and ends in people bickering back and forth (with the exception of a few). Just to bring it back up...I saw 911 and was not changed in my views. Of course, I was already in agreement with Moore that Bush is a snake. The movie is very one sided. But, what is wrong with that? Our American media is afraid of getting in deep, and Moore is not. I think the greatest point of this movie is that is brings up discussion. It raises issues that our media failed to. Therefore, we are talking about it, asking questions, and looking for answers. No one is walking out brainwashed, the majority of the people watching already dislike Bush anyway. They are walking out in conversation, going home and talking at the dinner table. We have been blinded by fear and intimidation for the past 4 years and we are now at a point where the mainstream group is waking up and questioning the goverment. That is incredibly patriotic and inspiring. That is the point of democracy. I'm sad it took a movie to do that, but whatever it takes. Thanks Mike. Taylor  [ send green star] 		 
Leigh B July 01, 2004 9:53 AM

My point exactly. You have experienced the Democratic echo chamber effect.  [ send green star] 		 
What did I tell you? July 01, 2004 9:56 AM

Maybe the Democrats are reading our thread. It looks like concern is setting in. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19320-2004Jun30.html http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/07/01/limbaughing_to_the_left/  [ send green star] 		 
Re: What did I tell you. July 01, 2004 9:59 AM

I realized that the Washington Post link requires free registration, which not everyone might be able to figure out, so I am posting the article. Baloney, Moore or Less By Richard Cohen Thursday, July 1, 2004; Page A23 I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and in the dark made notes before I gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. One of my notes says "John Ellis," who is a cousin of George W. Bush and the fellow who called the election for Fox News that dark and infamous night when the presidency -- or so the myth goes -- was stolen from Al Gore, delivering the nation to Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Saudi Arabia, and plunging it into war. A better synopsis of the movie you're not likely to read. Ellis appears early in the film, which is not only appropriate but inevitable. He is the personification of the Moore method, which combines guilt by association with the stunning revelation of a stunning fact that has already been revealed countless times before. If, for instance, you did a Lexis-Nexis database search for "John Ellis" and "election," you would be told: "This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 1,000 documents." The Ellis story is no secret. But more than that, what does it mean? Ellis is a Bush cousin, Moore tells us. A close cousin? We are not told. A cousin from the side of the family that did not get invited to Aunt Rivka's wedding? Could be. A cousin who has not forgiven his relative for a slight at a family gathering -- the cheap gift, the tardy entrance, the seat next to a deaf uncle? No info. And even if Ellis loved Bush truly and passionately, as a cousin should, how did he manage to change the election results? To quote the King of Siam, is a puzzlement. I go on about Moore and Ellis because the stunning box-office success of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush. The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done. The danger of that is twofold: It can send fence-sitters moving, either out of revulsion or sympathy, the other way, and it leads to an easy and facile dismissal of arguments critical of Bush. During the Vietnam War, it seemed to me that some people supported Richard Nixon not because they thought he was right but because they loathed the war protesters. Beware history repeating itself.  [ send green star] 		 
Cohen cont July 01, 2004 9:59 AM

Moore's depiction of why Bush went to war is so silly and so incomprehensible that it is easily dismissed. As far as I can tell, it is a farrago of conspiracy theories. But nothing is said about multiple U.N. resolutions violated by Iraq or the depredations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, prewar Iraq is depicted as some sort of Arab folk festival -- lots of happy, smiling, indigenous people. Was there no footage of a Kurdish village that had been gassed? This is obscenity by omission. The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless. Some of that old feeling returned while watching Moore's assault on the documentary form. It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided. For them, I recommend "Spider-Man 2."  [ send green star] 		 
Cohen afterthought July 01, 2004 10:06 AM

Perhaps I should sue for plagiarism.  [ send green star] 		 
Jeffrey and N. Nice July 01, 2004 10:09 AM

Did you go see the movie?  [ send green star] 		 
Holly - Jeffrey provided a sleazoid link so his partners in slime can pirate M.M's. film July 01, 2004 12:59 PM

Just like this Administration, Jeffrey has no moral qualms about stealing hard working American's $$$ or their Art. You know what they say: Eagles of a feather are illegal together  [ send green star] 		 
anonymous Maybe mm July 01, 2004 1:20 PM

Doesn't care he wants everybody to see it and that link jeffery sent is a micheal moore hate site I'm not sure jeffery is telling the truth.  [report anonymous abuse] 		 
anonymous oh and ps July 01, 2004 1:23 PM

If f911 could be downloaded my friend would be the 1st and maybe its okay so all the children can watch it.  [report anonymous abuse] 		 
Holly July 01, 2004 2:16 PM

You do not comprehend as well as I would wish. "Yes, I can say, there is much left out that which does not allow one to look at the issues brought to the surface, as true."  [ send green star] 		 
NN July 01, 2004 2:18 PM

You say that much more politely than I.  [ send green star] 		 
tattle tales July 01, 2004 2:19 PM

are so annoying aren't they Jeffrey? ;- ) I often watch a few neighbors kids, and they are learning that tattle taleing is disrespectful. Imagine, 6,7, and 8 years knowing the difference. If only adults could learn so well.  [ send green star] 		 
Oh...? July 01, 2004 2:20 PM

Let's see how you would say it :- )  [ send green star] 		 
Double N July 01, 2004 2:35 PM

No, I already did on another thread today. Anyway, I'm getting the impression there might not really be too many adults here.  [ send green star] 		 
anonymous, I agree that all kids should be allowed to see F9/11 July 01, 2004 3:02 PM

Sad thing is that the Powers that Be-fuddle fought to make sure the movie got an R rating for the sole purpose of putting another road block in the way of a group of potential viewers & future voters.  [ send green star] 		 
Jeffrey July 01, 2004 3:28 PM

Thanks for posting the Cohen article. I enjoyed reading it and while I don't agree with much, there is some I did. I particularly liked: >>The case against Bush is too hard and too serious to turn into some sort of joke, as Moore has done. The danger of that is twofold: It can send fence-sitters moving, either out of revulsion or sympathy, the other way, and it leads to an easy and facile dismissal of arguments critical of Bush. During the Vietnam War, it seemed to me that some people supported Richard Nixon not because they thought he was right but because they loathed the war protesters. Beware history repeating itself. << He is right, the case against Cheney and his puppet is too hard, too serious, to turn it into a joke. I'm sure the families of the nearly 900 military who have been killed, and the thousands maimed, don't think it is a joke. Neither do the many career foreign service employees who've seen their life work ruined in 3-1/2 years. As to supporting Nixon because they loath the war protesters, that has a familiar ring. In the end, the Vietnam protesters won. If those who were willing to march in the street had included the Masons and the Methodists and the Meatpackers, a lot of lives would have been spared. That loathing would never have happened. Cohen's point was that we're in a similar position today. Sure, we would be better off if someone or some group with better credentials and smoother techniques than Michael Moore would pick up the cause. But they won't - for the same reason as Vietnam. Too much timidity, too much profit, too much misplaced patriotism. So it falls to the hippies - the Michael Moores - to lead the fight. The hippies were accused of free love, Michael is accused of lousy reporting. That is unfortunate but not unexpected, the warmongers will find much to criticize no matter who rises against them. The peaceniks will always have less money than the warmongers and their techniques will be crude by comparison. But that does not diminish the rightness of their cause.  [ send green star] 		 
Tattle Tales, Naturally N....? Now, there's a "big grown-up" term July 01, 2004 3:33 PM

Yes, Let's do re-enforce the criminal "code" of er....lack of ethics in our children. Obviously, you subscribe to an old school, street thug/Jail house mentality - a (dis) "honor among thieves" system that, sadly, goes all the way to the top of our government. Besides, there is no "tattle tale" to it, N.N.- Jeffrey posted the link for all to see - so cut with the posturing, already  [ send green star] 		 
Darryl July 01, 2004 3:43 PM

It is astounding how badly you misread things.  [ send green star] 		 
OK Jeffrey... July 01, 2004 4:02 PM

You tell me, how badly? Where did I misinterpret what Cohen said?  [ send green star] 		 
Here you go, Darryl July 01, 2004 5:27 PM

Sure, glad to help. You misinterpreted right here, where you falsely stated Cohen’s point: “Cohen's point was that we're in a similar position today. Sure, we would be better off if someone or some group with better credentials and smoother techniques than Michael Moore would pick up the cause. But they won't - for the same reason as Vietnam. Too much timidity, too much profit, too much misplaced patriotism. So it falls to the hippies - the Michael Moores - to lead the fight. The hippies were accused of free love, Michael is accused of lousy reporting. That is unfortunate but not unexpected, the warmongers will find much to criticize no matter who rises against them.” Cohen’s point, in his own words, is this: “I go on about Moore and Ellis because the stunning box-office success of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not, as proclaimed, a sure sign that Bush is on his way out but is instead a warning to the Democrats to keep the loony left at a safe distance. Speaking just for myself, not only was I dismayed by how prosaic and boring the movie was -- nothing new and utterly predictable -- but I recoiled from Moore's methodology, if it can be called that. For a time, I hated his approach more than I opposed the cartoonishly portrayed Bush.” His point is exactly the same point I made last night. This movie excites the loony left (Cohen and I even used those exact same words), but its blatant dishonesty and excess will drive away the moderate vote. In contrast to you, Cohen recognizes the existence of substantial debate, and would strongly disagree that there is no alternative to letting it fall to the hippies and Michael Moore. The only difference between Cohen and me on this point is that I want the Democrats to self-destruct with a Moore embrace, while he fears that eventuality. From opposite directions, we saw the same thing. But don’t listen to me. Scream your nonsense as loudly as you can. Get you message out as broadly as possible. And never let pass an opportunity to tie your message to Kerry. Thank you.  [ send green star] 		 
I couldn't make up something this good. July 01, 2004 6:07 PM

It's a hit with Hezbollah! "Meanwhile, in the United Arab Emirates, the film is being offered the kind of support it doesn't need. According to Screen International, the UAE-based distributor Front Row Entertainment has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help." http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1240819,00.html If nothing else, it looks like you guys locked up the terrorist vote.  [ send green star] 		 
Nonsense, Jeffrey July 01, 2004 6:44 PM

I quoted the paragraph I agreed with. I quoted Cohen's words accurately and completely and without modification or distortion. Then I expounded on how and why I agreed with it. I only spoke to that paragraph. And you replied "Darryl It is astounding how badly you misread things." No, I misread nothing. You are attempting to bring in other material which I did not address. Nor will I. Again, I misread nothing. If you can find anything in that paragraph which you believe I misinterpreted, please cite it.  [ send green star] 		 
Nonsense? July 01, 2004 6:59 PM

Now you can’t even read your own posts. I am perfectly aware that you agree with the paragraph you quoted. So what? That paragraph and your agreement with it had nothing to do with the point I made. I focused on your sentence that explicitly said “Cohen's point was” and then went on to something that was not Cohen’s point at all. Cohen’s point was that Moore and the loony left posed a real threat to Kerry’s election chances, and the Democrats needed to distance themselves from the lunacy. You entirely missed the point to the article.  [ send green star] 		 
Jeffrey July 01, 2004 8:27 PM

You and I are reading different meanings into Cohen's words. You are welcome to your interpretation. Please allow me mine.  [ send green star] 		 
enough nasty talk period July 01, 2004 9:08 PM

Anonymous, you're right and I realized it after the fact. Yours was simply the most recent insult I read, and as I moved up the thread hoping to find conversation about the actual topic, I found insults by others as well. The bottom line is that if we are to actually engage people in a meaningful topic, people have got to be more respectful. A perfectly interesting conversation has been destroyed, and people who honestly came in to say interesting things about it have disappeared.  [ send green star] 		 
For the life of me.... July 01, 2004 9:10 PM

I can not understand why there is a notion that "teams" were drawn here? Was I picked and absent that day? What the heck is with that? There is not one person here that I totally agree with, matter of fact, most of the time, I do not have time to read all of a thread, so I comment on what I do have the time for. This place was surely better when the childish chatter was absent. "Anyway, I'm getting the impression there might not really be too many adults here."  [ send green star] 		 
right you are :-) July 01, 2004 9:12 PM

Thanks Hilary, nice to have another voice of reason :- )We seem to be on the same wave length, at the same time here..  [ send green star] 		 
N.Nice July 02, 2004 8:45 AM

So, did you see the movie? and exactly what do I not comprehend as much as you would like?  [ send green star] 		 
Holly July 02, 2004 12:03 PM

With much respect here, I am beginning to feel like this is an attack on me now. Firt of all, anyone that has not seen the Movie and posted their opinion's about it, and why they wish not to see it, have spoken. So, it makes common sense that if one is commenting and has not seen it, would say so. Especially when one makes a statement such as: "Yes, I can say, there is much left out that which does not allow one to look at the issues brought to the surface, as true." Now, why in the world would I speak of how so much is left out that does not allow me to see the whole picture if I have not seen the Movie? I do not know what you are up to, but pls. do not single me out, because my views do not agree with yours. That is very tiring! Thanks :- )  [ send green star] 		 
Let us look at the whole picture Holly July 02, 2004 12:11 PM

And then, I ask you to please try to read more carefully? "Yes, I can say, there is much left out that which does not allow one to look at the issues brought to the surface, as true. To say something is a fact, is to say it happened, but if it is only part of the story, isn't it only half-of-a-fact? What is known as, half-truths. When it is partial, it is a lie in disguise. This is my main "problem" with Moore. With most of his Movies he has put out, and I have tried to look at them with the most objective eye's that I could. Lets look at this particular sentence.... "WITH MOST OF HIS MOVIES HE HAS PUT OUT, AND i HAVE TRIED TO LOOK AT THEM WITH THE MOST OBJECTIVE EYE'S THAT I COULD" I have tried to look at!!! Meaning? I Have Seen His Movies I also feel as if I wasted money...but then again, that is what happens when a curiuos person is so darn curious :- )  [ send green star] 		 
Have a great Holiday Weekend July 02, 2004 12:14 PM

Happy July 4th!!!!!! See you all in September! Behave..or at least try :- )  [ send green star] 		 
thanks July 02, 2004 12:40 PM

I certainly didn't mean to imply any knid of attack. the way you wrote your response in quotes made me unsure of your answer. I have a head injury. and when I ask a simple question, that's all it is. I just wanted a simple response. most the people I have been talking to about F9/11 who object to it, haven't seen it, and tell me they won't. which is fine. I just couldn't understand how they could have an opinion of a movie they didn't even see. personnally I thought is was mild, and exaggerated in parts I would have played down. and played down in parts I would have went extreme.  [ send green star] 		 
the movie claims to be a documentary July 02, 2004 12:45 PM

but in reality, it wasnt. so the answer for me is - no!  [ send green star] 		 
You're right, Holly July 02, 2004 1:13 PM

>>I just couldn't understand how they could have an opinion of a movie they didn't even see.<< I agree. I didn't see Mel Gibson's movie about Christ. I heard some discussion and decided it wasn't something I wanted to see. But I didn't criticize Mel for making it, nor did I criticize others for attending it. My guess is that the world would be better off without another bloody Jesus movie, but no one can be sure of that. And we're certainly better off because Mel and Michael and all the others are free to make their statements.  [ send green star] 		 
Rafael..... July 02, 2004 1:25 PM

In what way wasn't F911 a documentary? The scene of a baffled blank-faced Bush sitting in the classroom not knowing what to do....do you think it did not happen? The scenes of Bush with silly expressions on his face....do you think they were created in a video lab? The inteview with the FBI agent explaining that it is normal practice to take statements in an investigation....do you think he was lying? The story of the Flint mother who was so gung-ho for the war until her own son was killed....do you think that her grief was play-acting for the camera??? How was it not a documentary? Or are you really just complaining that it didn't show the things you think a documentary should? You're right, it didn't, your viewpoint is yours alone. And if you believe that a documentary should be balanced...you just don't understand what a documentary is. Luckily, you are free to make a documentary of your own. And maybe Michael Moore won't like yours. Doesn't mean it's not a documentary.  [ send green star] 		 
Holly July 02, 2004 1:34 PM

"the way you wrote your response in quotes made me unsure of your answer" I wrote my response to you, as to what I posted in a prior post on this very thread. The quote was exactly what I said.  [ send green star] 		 
That was a documentary? July 02, 2004 1:38 PM

That is a matter of opinion.  [ send green star] 		 
Was it, or wasn't it? July 02, 2004 1:40 PM

doc•u•men•ta•ry 'da-kye-"men-te-re adj 1 : consisting of documents; also : being in writing 2 : giving a factual presentation in artistic form — documentary n Let's just say if that was a documentary, then where the heck was the rest of it? Leaving out "the rest of the story", means it is fictious. Point-blank! The End!  [ send green star] 		 
To NatN July 02, 2004 3:08 PM

>>Leaving out "the rest of the story", means it is fictious.<< That's the way many of us feel about Cheney and company. The rest of the story would have kept us out of war, kept a lot of people alive, kept the inspectors looking for WMD, kept Europe on our side, and a lot more good stuff. But we didn't get the rest of the story. And their version of the truth wasn't even CALLED a documentary!! Actually, we never get all the story no matter how hard we try. A movie showing the 3-1/2 years of Bush's actions would have to be 3-1/2 years long and nobody will sit still for that, even with popcorn. And that would be from just one viewpoint, if you tried to treat the subject in a balanced manner it would take a whole bunch of 3-1/2 year-long movies. Nobody ever gets the WHOLE story about anything. It is not possible. That does not mean that everything you experience is fictitious. Like the blind men and the elephant, you can never experience the whole thing. That does not mean that the elephant is a lie.  [ send green star] 		 
Darryl July 02, 2004 3:16 PM

i really dont know, but if its his style, he can do and portray whatever he likes. But arent documentaries supposed to be unbiased?  [ send green star] 		 
No, documentaries are not unbiased July 02, 2004 8:40 PM

....for the same reason sermons are not unbiased. The documentary is a story, a true story, but very often a one-sided story. One of the most memorable documentaries was by Edward R. Murrow, titled Harvest of Shame, about the plight of migrant farm workers. The conditions they lived and worked under, the virtual slavery that resulted from paying them less than they were charged for food and shelter, the hopeless lives that they led. As I recall, it was not about the farmers who profited from all this misery. An "unbiased" report would tell the story of both sides, explain that our food is cheaper because these people toil long hours for pennies, and all that. But the documentary is not expected to be unbiased, Murrow's story was about the meager existence of a people that most of us never see. Michael Moore's documentary is similar (although I do not place MM in the category with Edward R. Murrow), it is telling the plight of a nation suffering under this administration. Biased, yes, but not untrue.  [ send green star] 		 
suffering? July 02, 2004 10:02 PM

Our country is not suffering anymore than under any other administration within the last 20 years. Darryl, get a grip! :- ) MM is profiting from what he makes, the man that grew up in an impoverished,lower/middle class home. Not! Just another lie...his father retired from an exective position of 30 years, in his 50's. He was far from poor, and from a financially struggling home in his youth. Just another lie he puts out to sell his movies. Now, that is only one reason I do not believe 99% of what he says in his movies, though it sure is entertainment! "it is telling the plight of a nation suffering under this administration."  [ send green star] 		 
What's your source, Naturally Nxxx? July 03, 2004 2:03 AM

name it, otherwise, go change your diaper  [ send green star] 		 
to Hilary S July 14, 2004 12:40 PM

Never forget that often people's stated view points are based not so much on what they believe but what they THINK they should believe. The bay area is full of rabid liberals and Bush haters - in such an environment it's hard to hold a dissenting view. It's just a theory, but perhaps your friend has found an issue he can "bend" on. I personally believe that the media (and I included in that the not just the news, but the hollywood stars and TV/Movies) hold great sway, not in what people truly believe but in what they think they should. if you can be totally completely absolutely honest with yourself, I pose the question to the group - what do you really think of the war? for me: Should we have ousted Saddam? absolutely - as the world power we should have done it many years ago. Just like we should have ousted Hitler before he murdered so many people. Did Bush take advantage of the situtation? very likely Any dislike of Bush's manipulations/motives shouldn't sway you from the fact that stopping someone from using his power to kill and destroy. If they do.. I think you really ought to question your own morals.  [ send green star] 		 
The question has already been answered. July 14, 2004 1:02 PM

According to hundreds of testimonials pouring in to michaelmoore.com from all over your country and the world, his movie is having a huge impact on people, from their voting decision to their political beliefs. ...Unless that's all a big left wing hoax conspiracy, no doubt instigated in league with the Martians...  [ send green star] 		 
rats.. we need a way to edit posts!!! :) July 14, 2004 1:03 PM

Please read the above as: >>>Any dislike of Bush's manipulations/motives shouldn't sway you from the fact that stopping someone from using his power to kill and destroy is the right thing to do.  [ send green star] 		 
naturallynice, you must be one of the lucky ones July 15, 2004 7:22 AM

You say we are not worse off than the past 20 years...then you have not been one of the ones in the unemployment line. 3 months after Bush took over, I lost my job 2 weeks shy of 13yrs, to cut-backs. That 2 weeks cost me over 50 thousand dollars in my pension/retirement. Since then I lost my med insurance, was is a perm disabling accident, depleated my lifes savings to exist, and now am a month away from losing my home and all I have worked for, for 48 yrs. Bush has destroyed the lives of those of us not fortunate enough to have a rich daddys to pay our way. As for the movie, all the people claiming it to be lies, have not provided proof/facts to the contrary. Even though Iraq suffered under Saddam, this country was not founded on the premise that we have the right to invade and take over another country just because 'we' dont like the way it is being run. I doubt the people over there that were bombed out of their homes, and picked pieces of their loved ones out of the rubble, feel we did a good thing for them. Bush's arrogance/ego came thru in this film, and for me, that is dangerous for a leader. If Bush sent his family members over to fight, then I would at least believe, that he believed, he did the right thing. If he took some of the billions of dollars he raised to plaster his mug everywhere, and use it to help the "American" people, and dig into those deep pockets of his to pay for this campaign, then maybe the idea of him doing this for the oil, so he will get richer, would not be so easy to believe. The movie validated what I knew from day one. This is a very scary man, with the power to destroy not only a foreign country and its people, but this one and us, as well.  [ send green star] 		 
Just my experiences. July 15, 2004 7:22 AM

I attended the opening of the movie as a representative of MoveOn.org. I passed out flyers about the townhall with Mr. Moore after. Several people came up to me and asked for a flyer stating that they were Republican and thought they needed to rethink their decision to support Bush. Also there were Florida State Police outside the movie inside the ciniplex and outside where we passed out flyers. I was followed to my car and my license number was taken down by one of them. She hid behind another car while she did this, but it was quite obvious. I'm really not that scarry. We said nothing negative while passing out the flyers. Just that there was a town hall on the internet with Michael Moore. I hope everyone has a chance to see the movie and the new one comming out debunking the FOX News network. I don't think the fanatics will change but I am seeing lots of fence sitters reconsidering. Don't forget to vote. Cheers Gary  [ send green star] 		 
naturallynice, you must be one of the lucky ones July 15, 2004 7:22 AM

You say we are not worse off than the past 20 years...then you have not been one of the ones in the unemployment line. 3 months after Bush took over, I lost my job 2 weeks shy of 13yrs, to cut-backs. That 2 weeks cost me over 50 thousand dollars in my pension/retirement. Since then I lost my med insurance, was is a perm disabling accident, depleated my lifes savings to exist, and now am a month away from losing my home and all I have worked for, for 48 yrs. Bush has destroyed the lives of those of us not fortunate enough to have a rich daddys to pay our way. As for the movie, all the people claiming it to be lies, have not provided proof/facts to the contrary. Even though Iraq suffered under Saddam, this country was not founded on the premise that we have the right to invade and take over another country just because 'we' dont like the way it is being run. I doubt the people over there that were bombed out of their homes, and picked pieces of their loved ones out of the rubble, feel we did a good thing for them. Bush's arrogance/ego came thru in this film, and for me, that is dangerous for a leader. If Bush sent his family members over to fight, then I would at least believe, that he believed, he did the right thing. If he took some of the billions of dollars he raised to plaster his mug everywhere, and use it to help the "American" people, and dig into those deep pockets of his to pay for this campaign, then maybe the idea of him doing this for the oil, so he will get richer, would not be so easy to believe. The movie validated what I knew from day one. This is a very scary man, with the power to destroy not only a foreign country and its people, but this one and us, as well.  [ send green star] 		 
mike moore July 15, 2004 7:22 AM

In my humble and personal openion, I feel that mike moore is a pawn of the liberal left wing. He openly admits that he detests Our Great President Geo, W. Bush. Thank God Al [cry baby] Gore or Slick Willie were not President in our time of need. Please remember the 3600++ that were killed on Sept11. mike moore is a fat slob who is mad at the world and any thing decent. If you will remember he firsttook on G M for their problems. Here is a Bum that says G M was wrong. Why does he not investigate the "Wonderful Unions" like the one his "poor" father belonged to and how they abused their power for more and more money every 3 years. And their statements were to HELL with the rest of America. In my personal openion he is nothing but a souer little ,I did not get all I should have by being a nobody. He is a liar and a mailcontent Henry  [ send green star] 		 
Henry July 15, 2004 1:37 PM

Can you back up your claims that he is a liar with some quotes, sources, and/or links? I will be happy to provide you the same that proves the opposite. And why is it necessary to comment on the weight of Michael Moore? Are there not more important issues at hand? The war? The election? Health Care? Education? The economy? Moore's weight is about as relevant as mine is in this conversation. http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ (this is not his own backup, it is sources from various news organizations)  [ send green star] 		 
And July 15, 2004 1:37 PM

If you knew anything about Moore, you would know that he knocks both dems and republicans, that he did not vote for Gore, and that he is upset with all that is NOT decent in our society. And, if you honestly believe that our president has made us safer, then why do we still live under constant threat of an attack? Iraq is now a larger breeding ground for anti american terrorism than it was before. There is a discussion in another board about the link if you want to discuss it. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=513&e=7&u=/ap/20040714/ap_on_go_ot/britain_cia_anonymous  [ send green star] 		 
Mike Moore is a typical American July 15, 2004 1:38 PM

So I'd be careful with the 'fat slob' language. So far as being a pawn of the left, if you take the time to read his latest book 'Dude, where's my Country?', you'll see he is completely upset the pathetic weak Democrats and their winy attitude, and would like to see Oprah Winfrey as President. He's a working-class guy from Flint Michigan. He didn't ask for this. He didn't want this attention. He frequently mentions he's much to dumb to be doing this and wishes someone else would step forward and lead the charge. But nobody has. And the charge must be led. Michael loves his country, cannot stand the betrayal of your soldiers, and is trying at something he passionately believes in. He is a MAN, and he is making his stand, fearlessly. You should respect that, rather than firing pathetic insults at him.  [ send green star] 		 
It's a matter of perspective... July 15, 2004 1:38 PM

As someone who does not reside the gool ol' U.S. of A, but has been subject to a lifetime of it's one-sided media propoganda, it's refreshing to hear the voice of counter-point in the usually cryptic monologue. Understandably, Moore has marketed a "radical, hippie-left" perspective to appeal to a certain demographic and often toes this line to a point of question. But HEY, WHO CARES?! At least someone has the courage to use the current streams of media to inject a different message into mainstream society AND call it art. Film, like paint to Picasso, is Moore's medium, what he chooses to do with it is his business. I am a recent grad from a well known art school and know many few media artists who are inspired by his work and his ability to bring a message to a large demographic of people. There are a growing number of groups that are taking this pro-active approach to creative problem-solving, please check a couple out. www.adbusters.org www.moveon.org  [ send green star] 		 
Fahrenheit 911 July 15, 2004 2:37 PM

Anyone who has ever seen a Michael Moore movie knows he has a strong point of view and he is willing to bend the truth. He got a lot of flack for going after Charleton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine." However, this is a guy who yelled about taking a gun out of his "cold, dead hands." As far as F911, he's entitled to his point of view. Most documentaries have a point of view anyway. Besides,Progressives need someone like him. The crazy right wing has a whole host of people who are willing to lie or have views that put them in the crazy camp. I watched Ann Coulter tell Lou Dobbs on CNN that Joseph McCarthy was an American hero. Lou Dobbs is a pro and tried not to show his amazement but he was practically open-mouthed. I notice she's not on a lot of the programs anymore. She wasn't on Bill Maher's program last season and he has all kinds of characters on. She wrote a book accusing liberals of being traitors. That book and her love of McCarthy may have been her undoing. I don't know since I don't watch Fox. So, let Michael Moore keep on going. He's making a lot of money on this film and I'm sure greedy Michael Eisner is sorry he passed on the distribution!  [ send green star] 		 
Larraine - Bill Maher referred to Ann Coulter as the "Coultergeist" July 16, 2004 11:07 PM

Gotta love that guy!  [ send green star] 		 
LOL July 16, 2004 11:22 PM

Davida .. "coutlergeist" ......... no $hit ! and, M.T. said: "As for the movie, all the people claiming it to be lies, have not provided proof/facts to the contrary. Even though Iraq suffered under Saddam, this country was not founded on the premise that we have the right to invade and take over another country just because 'we' dont like the way it is being run. I doubt the people over there that were bombed out of their homes, and picked pieces of their loved ones out of the rubble, feel we did a good thing for them. Bush's arrogance/ego came thru in this film, and for me, that is dangerous for a leader. If Bush sent his family members over to fight, then I would at least believe, that he believed, he did the right thing. If he took some of the billions of dollars he raised to plaster his mug everywhere, and use it to help the "American" people, and dig into those deep pockets of his to pay for this campaign, then maybe the idea of him doing this for the oil, so he will get richer, would not be so easy to believe. The movie validated what I knew from day one. This is a very scary man, with the power to destroy not only a foreign country and its people, but this one and us, as well." No $hit !! You go ! Gavin: "Mike Moore is a typical American ... So I'd be careful with the 'fat slob' language." No $hit!  [ send green star] 		 
New Food For Thought July 17, 2004 9:26 AM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/farenheit911michaelmoore.html  [ send green star] 		 
J'net July 17, 2004 10:03 AM

That's quite an interesting article, and makes sense to me.  [ send green star] 		 
Jeanette, July 17, 2004 11:28 AM

Your sources for information are bit on the fanatic aren't they? Can you please provide a site that has a bit more credibility?  [ send green star] 		 
Yeah, Jeanette July 17, 2004 11:35 AM

It doesn't even credit who penned the thing. You can do better than that. I have read your other posts & you seem to be a smart cookie.  [ send green star] 		 
Hilary S. July 17, 2004 12:32 PM

While it is wishful thinking that some will see the movie and change their vote or minds, what one is essentially suggesting is that the average American voter make a decision about its leadership on the basis of one movie. I would instead advocate a more informed and objective approach to decision-making. It is my belief that minds are not changed. And while people should see Moore's movie, I do wonder why supporters and detractors are so compelled to judge and marginalise one another. Everyone has a vote and the right to it.  [ send green star] 		 
Alexandria J and Davida S July 17, 2004 1:14 PM

Jeanette, 11:28 AM Your sources for information are bit on the fanatic aren't they? Can you please provide a site that has a bit more credibility? Alexandria J.......I believe my heading simply said Foor For Thought, nothing more. I was not trying to feed you true and actual facts that would require credibility, just some idea for thought about how things could be or could have been. Just something to think about, not trying to teach you new facts. Therefore, I don't believe I need to furnish you with any sources with "a bit more credibility". Yeah, Jeanette 11:35 AM It doesn't even credit who penned the thing. You can do better than that. I have read your other posts & you seem to be a smart cookie. Davida S........Who cares who penned "the thing"? It isn't a lesson in history, it is only food for the imagination and thought processes. What is it about Food for Thought that is so difficult to understand?  [ send green star] 		 
i just saw it July 17, 2004 3:54 PM

I cried through most of it...and not just the parts where they showed the burning bodies being kicked in the streets. We obvously all have formed our own opinion on this movie. I at least hope you all have seen it before believing/discrediting it. I believe this movie is opinionated and it probabally left out facts. But don't you think our govt. does the same thing? I've listened to both sides of this issue and have formed my opinion from the two. After all, noone is completely honest and everyone is at least a little bit ignorant. Especially when there is money to be made, either via movies or politics. I was always aware of the corruption in our govt. but this movie was more than my little patriotic heart could bear.To take so much information in the eye and ear all at once (please spare me, you must believe that the whole movie was not an entire lie)is a lot. Not to say i'm not glad i saw it. i am very ashamed of our government, and myself for giving them the benifit of the doubt. (Which is trusting my govt.). i feel like brittany spears.  [ send green star] 		 
Lisa B. July 17, 2004 6:09 PM

"i am very ashamed of our government, and myself for giving them the benifit of the doubt. (Which is trusting my govt.)." Welcome to the frightening world of reality. When you are better adjusted to your new revelation, I would like to know your remedy for protecting ourselves from such corruption.  [ send green star] 		 
its not new. July 17, 2004 6:57 PM

Don't get me wrong, i'm not that blind. I come from a family of politicans. I know when i'm taking it up the butt. Sometimes we just dont want to believe it until its happening. As the movie stated, they played on our emotions in order to blind-side us. And they played a good game. I knew something was wrong with the elections, I knew it was strange that they decided to wage war on iraq instead of you know who. but to my ignorance, i thought that just maybe, there was a real reason for them to do it... maybe something they weren't telling us. With so many people in the govt. I didn't want to think that they'd let these guys get away with the shenanigans !  [ send green star] 		 
Lisa B July 17, 2004 7:34 PM

With all of the deception I have become aware of, nothing surprises me anymore about our government. I don't trust them as far as I can see.  [ send green star] 		 
check it out July 17, 2004 8:15 PM

really, do it. http://www.righteousbabe.com/ani/words.asp under the audio section, click on SELF EVIDENT.  [ send green star] 		 
Lisa B July 17, 2004 8:53 PM

Wow......that was a trip. Thank you for making me aware of that site.  [ send green star] 		 
very powerful July 18, 2004 2:22 PM

don't you think? She's an extremely political singer, although i don't agree with all of her beliefs, i can respect them. They also make really good songs!  [ send green star] 		 
Does anyone know July 18, 2004 4:21 PM

The Ani song about the death penalty? I can't remember the name, but I think it may have been on Render. it has some great lyrics.  [ send green star] 		 
Leigh B - Is the name of the Ani Difranco song you are thinking of called July 18, 2004 6:03 PM

Crime for Crime? ANI DIFRANCO LYRICS "Crime For Crime" the big day has come the bell is sounding i run my hands through my hair one last time outside the prison walls the town is gathering people are trading crime for crime everyone needs to see the prisoner they need to make it even easier they see me as a symbol, and not a human being that way they can kill me say it's not murder, it's a metaphor we are killing off our own failure and starting clean standing in the gallows everyone turned my way i hear a voice ask me if I've got any last words to say and i'm looking out over the field of familiar eyes somewhere in a woman's arms a baby cries i think guilt and innocence they are a matter of degree what might be justice to you might not be justice to me i went to far, i'm sorry i guess now i'm going home so let any amongst you cast the first stone now we've got all these complicated machines so no one person ever has to have blood on their hands we've got complex organizations and if everyone just does their job no one person has to understand you might be the wrong colour you might be too poor justice isn't something just anyone can afford you might not pull the trigger you might be out in the car and you might get a lethal injection 'cause we take a metaphor that far the big day has come the bell is sounding i run my hands through my hair one last time outside the prison walls the town has gathered people are trading crime for crime people are trading crime for crime people are still trading crime for crime  [ send green star] 		 
Thank you! July 18, 2004 7:01 PM

Davida! I haven't heard the song in over a year. Thanks again.  [ send green star] 		 
Hi Jeanette - You posted the following reply to me: July 18, 2004 8:11 PM

"Davida S........Who cares who penned "the thing"? It isn't a lesson in history, it is only food for the imagination and thought processes. What is it about Food for Thought that is so difficult to understand?" >>>>>>> Jeanette, There is absolutely nothing difficult to understand about "Food for Thought", that is, unless the "food" is laced with "arsenic" idiocy. You see - immediately prior to posting my regrettably knee jerk response to you, I had been up to my then bloodshot eyeballs in reading some extremely venomous diatribes about Michael Moore that had my head shaking in stunned disbelief over the preposterous lengths to which some people will go to vilify a concerned & conscientious American Artist & activist. I must admit I had only briefly glanced over the article you posted before blurting what I did, for which I apologize, that I attribute to my agitated state of mind which was still numb & reeling from the effects of the overdose of vile poison I had ingested earlier, online re: M.M. I revisited the article you posted, with a clearer head, scrolled down & saw that one could click onto a site which opened up an intriguing avenue of possibilities. I intend to return and examine the site more closely. I, too, believe that Michael Moore's Documentary only exposes the tip of the iceberg - However, I also believe it is humanly impossible for one man to examine it all, then somehow be expected to cram it all within the space of a two hour feature length film & still maintain sharp focus on the misdeeds of George W. Bush (& cronys) that continue to harm the American people, right here & right now. Neither can I fault Michael Moore for making tough editing decisions, as do all good film makers, which is necessary if cohesiveness & clarity of vision is the objective.  [ send green star] 		 
Davida S July 18, 2004 8:26 PM

"I must admit I had only briefly glanced over the article you posted before blurting what I did, for which I apologize, that I attribute to my agitated state of mind which was still numb & reeling from the effects of the overdose of vile poison I had ingested earlier, online re: M.M." Apology accepted, it was not a problem here to begin with. We have ALL been guilty of reading something and being too quick to respond. As an after-thought, here is some more Food for Thought on the same subject. These links, or web sites, in no way reflect my views, opinions, or beliefs, just sharing thoughts with the group is my intent. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/farenheit911michaelmoore.html  [ send green star] 		 
GOOFED AGAIN July 18, 2004 8:29 PM

Now it's my turn to goof.........I just gave you the same link as above. Sorry about that. Now I have to go surfing again to find the other one I thought I had saved and obviously didn't. Please excuse the blunder.  [ send green star] 		 
You graciously forgive me and now you expect me to forgive you? July 18, 2004 9:21 PM

Now you go too far, Jeanette! ;^) (I jest)  [ send green star] 		 
You want info? July 19, 2004 12:46 PM

Here are just a few sites that I found that have info on most everything and most have bunches of links... http://www.truthout.org/ http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm381210.html http://www.alternet.org/topstories/ http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html http://www.bushsecrecy.org/ http://actforvictory.org/ http://www.house.gov/reform/min/ http://www.commondreams.org/ http://counterspin.blogspot.com/#108627528477699618 http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=3 http://www.thousandreasons.org/ http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0455.xml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attack#2000s http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing9/index.htm http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/pdb_04-12-04.html.html  [ send green star] 		 
Appropriate Songs July 19, 2004 12:58 PM

I got 1! Black Sabbath. War Pigs. Generals gathered in their masses Just like witches at black masses Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of death construction In the fields the bodies burning As the war machine keeps turning Death and hatred to mankind Poisoning their brainwashed minds Oh Lord yeah! Politicians hide themselves away They only started the way Why don't they go out to fight? They leave that up to the poor Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait till their Judgement Day comes Now in darkness world stops turning Ashes where the bodies burning No more War Pigs have the power Hand of God has struck the hour Day of Judgement, God is calling On their knees the War Pigs crawling Begging mercy for their sins Satan laughing spreads his wings Oh Lord yeah!  [ send green star] 		 
Invite to a movie July 27, 2004 12:07 PM

"and" some popcorn? http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/27/fahrenheit.911.crawford.ap/index.html Who said "MM" was not American?  [ send green star] 		 
A very gracious invitation , indeed July 27, 2004 1:39 PM

And, Bush didn't even have the good manners to R.S.V.P! tsk tsk tsk I'll wager G Dub uttered something far worse than "shove it" in reaction to the invite  [ send green star] 		 
If he even got it... July 27, 2004 1:55 PM

How many POTUS would be carousing MM's website as opposed to trying to run the nation, or focusing on election day?  [ send green star] 		 
OH, he got the invite all right - July 27, 2004 2:57 PM

How many? As many carousers as it takes to monitor/hack MM's site. Does anyone honestly believe that MM is not on the top of THE List? Bush is too caught up campaigning for re-election to run much of anything, including his mouth. Multi-tasking is not his strong suit.  [ send green star] 		 
 July 27, 2004 3:01 PM

What you're saying then, is that if you were POTUS, you'd place monitors on MM's site, and would spend your time reading it for invitations and the like instead of concentrating on more important matters?  [ send green star] 		 
NO, EM - POTUS has a POSSE to perform the pesky tasks of this presiduncy July 27, 2004 4:07 PM

Whether or not they are looking specifically for invitations to an event, which was rather silly of you to suggest, I can not say. I suppose it would depend upon how much they are willing to admit the party they're attending is a crashing bore.  [ send green star] 		 
 July 27, 2004 4:25 PM

Monitors are someone else or other human capital. And yes, the entire premise is silly - which was my point. It unlikely any president (I don't care if it's Bush, Clinton, or Kerry) would be spending time reading MM's website for invitations or anything else at a time like this....or wasting their staff in this regard.  [ send green star] 		 
No, I don't think so. July 27, 2004 4:42 PM

Viewers will enter the theatre either believing in the film or not. I think they'll see what they want to see. Those who refuse to see the crimes of the Bush administration will call Moore a liar. Perhaps there are still a few open minds that can have their views changed but where have they been for the past three years. By the way, I reluctantly admit that I was one of those who voted for Bush in 2000. Never again! *kerry*  [ send green star] 		 
No, EM, the entire premise is not silly July 30, 2004 3:27 AM

. Only the portion of the premise you advance in your flippant response that attempts to debunk the idea that presidents do employ staff to monitor the activities of outspoken detractors, such as MM, as well as other individuals of interest. The late great (society) LBJ was a notable example of one who utilized "staff" for this purpose. In the days before the internet, there was nothing LBJ liked better than to cozy up in bed with FBI dossiers on persons of interest, provided courtesy of his good pal, J. Edgar Hoover. And, since when has "wasting" ever been a consideration that prevented Bush from lurching ahead, oblivious to the spiraling costs of his actions, at this or any other time?  [ send green star] 		 
Bush has time July 30, 2004 5:01 AM

Since Bush takes a vacation every other week, and is now on 'another' weeklong vacation, (even though we are being told there is the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack)I bet he does scan through the site. In between golf games, skeet shooting and falling off bikes........After all, He needs a vacation after all the parties and running all over the world 'visiting' with people.  [ send green star] 		 
Yes, but what you say about scanning sites assumes Bush knows how to operate a computer July 30, 2004 5:51 AM

. It is already established that the Commander in Cheese doesn't like to read, with the exception of books about pet goats. I say he gets his flunkys to do the dirty work & report back to him with their findings. :^)  [ send green star] 		 
Nothing flippant July 30, 2004 3:09 PM

except perceived or projected. I personally don't see the point where one can simply discuss. And it really is a silly premise in its specific context as tangentially expressed beyond Tom's playful post. It was to him I responded in similar tone, because I don't happen to consider the subject a serious matter or worthy of the path it has now taken. Clearly, many presidents and other politicians have followed the activities of detractors and deployed their staff for such purposes. LBJ did not live in the age of the internet, nor that of Michael Moore where every thought he possesses on subjects is readily available without such need to monitor. Some pundits have duly noted their interest in the potential effect of F/911, if any, on its potential to sway an underinformed voting public. So they should. However, to confuse this with placing hackers and monitors on MM's site as if he or his movie are the most important aspects of what is occurring in a world where many nations and issues deserve constant attention - not to mention the election itself - is simply wishful thinking. As the Olin Miller saying goes, 'we probably wouldn’t worry about what people think of us if we could know how seldom they do'. So what if MM is showing F/911 in Crawford? So what if there's an invitation to Bush on his website? And so what if Bush either doesn't see it, or hears of it and decides not to go? F/911 is quite advantageous to Kerry at the moment, but his people have distanced themselves by calling him an extremist and saying he isn't a part of the Kerry campaign. Kerry has said he hasn't seen F/911, which means little aside from the fact that he doesn't have time, either. It's yet another tempest in a teapot for those who need the drama....  [ send green star] 		 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
Hot Debates & Shocking News
736 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences


Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved