Just Saw Fahrenheit 9/11

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:

Let me ask (at least) the three of you this: is any point that is made in Farenheit 9/11 worth noting? Worth considering? Is it completely crap? Is there nothing that is truly worth raising your eyebrows at, doubting Bush or the Administration at all? [/quote]

Nothing in the movie. I have plenty of problems with the Bush administration - particularly in the area of fiscal policy - but none were highlighted by Mr. Moore. I have questions concerning Iraq and Afghanistan - particularly with respect to whether the military campaign was conducted in a manner to make the occupation easier and whether enough forces were allocated - but they are not covered in Fahrenheit 9/11. Generally, it is crap.

Now, as to issues with society in general that the movie points out, I think the old Marxist idea of the poor fighting the wars of the rich is interesting enough to deserve thought and debate. If I were going to give Mr. Moore the maximum amount of credit, I would say that the issue of whether Saudi Arabia is doing enough to stem Wahhabism and control its citizens in the terror war is worthy of discussion. Can’t think of anything else though.

82

[quote]randman wrote:
Why is everyone surpised that the movie theaters are packed? Every dripping, french-loving liberal out there is going to that movie and masterbate in glee over its anti-war/anti-Bush messages.[/quote]

What’s wrong with loving the French? Or masturbation?

83

Saw the movie last night. Looked like a lot of young guys from Ft. Carson were in the audience. Didn’t see to many corporate types though. It received a standing ovation! I thought it was pretty powerful and pretty damn funny in parts!

84

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Don’t forget, Hitler was a socialist.

Just food for thought.
[/quote]

Hitler was a National Socialist. Any basic textbook about the period will explain the difference to you.

85

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Couldn’t agree more, and I’d update that line to say ‘average person coming out of a Fahrenheit 9-11 showing’.
[/quote]

What you have at the moment in the States is much closer to a plutocracy than a democracy, so have a try at democracy proper before you knock it!

86

[quote]Mago wrote:

What you have at the moment in the States is much closer to a plutocracy than a democracy, so have a try at democracy proper before you knock it![/quote]

Technically we have a constitutional republic, although sometimes it seems we have an oligarchy of the judiciary. I can’t think of anywhere off the top of my head that has democracy.

87

BB,

My sentiments exactly.

Mago,

Who has the kind of democracy we should try? Give me an example.

88


I have attached these pictures so all of you liberals here can praise you’re new GOD. Rejoice!

89


And another! Hail Moore, you are my savior!

90

200×565 67.3 KB

And another! All hail Moore!

91

Bostonj Barrister said
“However, it is also problematic in film editing. By taking the quote out of the context of the event, which was basically a send-up with lots of joking, and making it look serious, the meaning is completely changed. If you disagree, you’re basically saying that you can take a joke, represent it as serious, and not misrepresent the meaning.”

You phony!

First of all you haven’t seen the movie, so why do you insist on reviewing it in such detail?

Secondly, even the commercials for F-911 show that the “you’re my base/ haves and have mores” comments are JOKES. Bush is smiling and the crowd starts laughing after he says it.

Boy, how hypocritical can you be, to criticize a movie for being false and misleading, and back up your opinion with false statements?

92

Okay lets recap some of the accusations:

  1. Playing to our fears, and hyping up the conspiracy angle. Demonizing the other side.

  2. Taking facts out of context, not presenting an alternative viewpoint, leaving out key facts.

  3. Adding up 2 + 2 and telling us it equals 5. Exaggerating the evidence. Overstating an opinion by calling it a fact.

But I’m not talking about Michael Moore, I’m talking about Team Bush and the way they justified invading Iraq for being an “imminent threat”.

Everyone knows it’s an outrage when a documentary film distorts the facts, but when the President of the United States does it, that is “strong leadership” and good for America.

93

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Bostonj Barrister said
“However, it is also problematic in film editing. By taking the quote out of the context of the event, which was basically a send-up with lots of joking, and making it look serious, the meaning is completely changed. If you disagree, you’re basically saying that you can take a joke, represent it as serious, and not misrepresent the meaning.”

You phony!

First of all you haven’t seen the movie, so why do you insist on reviewing it in such detail?

Secondly, even the commercials for F-911 show that the “you’re my base/ haves and have mores” comments are JOKES. Bush is smiling and the crowd starts laughing after he says it.

Boy, how hypocritical can you be, to criticize a movie for being false and misleading, and back up your opinion with false statements?[/quote]

Lumpy, I really am starting to believe you’re a moron – or just really, really lazy. I wasn’t critiquing the movie per se – I was responding to RSU [this was obvious given I quoted his statement, and you could follow it up the thread if you so chose], who was claiming Bush was making a serious statement.

94

Lumpy:

We can always count on you to repeat whatever has been put forth in the Democratic echo chambers of the day. Thanks for summarizing the main point of Paul Krugman’s column today.

However, at least Krugman had the decency to give the caveat that Moore’s movie is disingenuous, while throwing out unsubstantiated allegations against Bush. True to form, you just throw out the accusations.

As to what you said, I am still stunned that you can’t seem to tell the difference between a lie and a mistake of fact. You’re beyond help, but at least in responding I can clear the air.

95

BostonBarrister
It’s purely a coincidence. I didn’t read Paul Krugman’s column. I don’t read the NY Times often, certainly not every day.

Maybe Paul Krugman and I were both coincidentally stating the obvious? That it is hypocritical to nitpick over Michael Moore’s handling of the facts, while at the same time giving Team Bush a free pass over the way THEY handled the facts? If I was just aping whatever Paul Krugman thought, I’d just copy and paste his column. I know more people would take his opinion seriously than they do “Lumpy’s” opinion.

Again… Do you really equate the importance of holding a documentary filmmaker to the same standards of accuracy and truth that you hold the President of the United States? Gee, I’d think you’d expect the Prez to adhere to a higher standard.

When ya gonna see the movie BB? I’d be interested in seeing some POST-MOVIE reviews, not PRE-MOVIE reviews. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be, to review a movie you haven’t seen yet?

Hey, the dope that runs that anti-Moore website has made the movie available for download off the web for free.

Gee, do you think that move will be counter-productive? I thought the Bushies were trying to get people NOT to watch the movie, not spread it around among as many people as possible.

Putting the movie online for download may hit Moore in the pocketbook… I doubt he cares. I bet he’s glad that even more people will see F-911 this way.

96

Lumpy:

Whether or not you read Krugman, it only reinforces my “echo chamber” comment – criticisms of Moore had been front and center for weeks, and all of a sudden every liberal I know is mouthing the same lame comparison. Nothing wrong with latching on to something seemingly convenient I guess - kind of like a drowning man to a life preserver - but it’s amusing to me that the intellectual sheep all started bleating the same thing at the same time.

To answer you specifically: No, a documentary filmmaker is not on the same level of importance as the President, although he would definitely like to think he was. However, your analogy is flawed in that there is a difference between purposefully misleading people while claiming to be providing something factual, which is what Moore did, and presenting facts that turn out to be mistaken but which were believed at the time, which is what Bush did. Note the Congressional committee conclusion of worldwide intelligence failure concerning WMD that came out yesterday – I’d find you the link, but I need to get out of here and catch a plane.

Basically, your point (and Krugman’s, and all my other liberal friends’) is an apples-to-oranges comparison that doesn’t hold water.

Didn’t know about the movie being made available for free. To the extent Moore gives his permission, I’ll download it and watch it. I actually respect property rights, and disagree with the person to whom you’re referring (I have no idea who it is) putting someone else’s work up there like that.

While Moore doesn’t particularly respect the principles of capitalism, I do. I’ll see the movie when none of my money goes to Micheal Moore for my choosing to see it – which means, most likely, when it comes on Showtime or HBO. BTW, as an aside, I don’t think “the Bushies” care whether anyone sees the movie; the problem is whether people take it seriously or as fact, when intellectually it’s a bunch of blather (at least as far as its reasoning and arguments go).

As to the intellectual honesty involved in “reviewing” the movie, please see my reasoning posted above when you were whining before, and try not to repeat yourself if you haven’t dealt with the reasons already given.

I’m off to catch a plane – enjoy your Independence Day Weekend.

97

I think moore is very biased and out to villify Bush. I haven’t seen the movie, I’ll wait till I can download it for free. I have seen interviews with Moore however where he makes ridiculous points. For example Bush took a long vacaction the month before 9-11, which begs the question how was Bush to know what was going to happen a month later? Or he let an uncle of Bin Laden who is on a terrorist watch list leave the country right after 9-11, then moore says the uncle was put on the list in 2003. The best one I saw on scarborough country the other night where moore said that it’s not right that we should be trying to kill Bin Laden that we should only be trying to arrest him so we can give him a trial because Bin Laden is innocent till proven guilty. I personally think binladen taking credit for 9-11 is an admission of guilt and the notion that we can arrest him shows a complete lack of understanding of what we are up against. In short I think Mike moore is a fat bitch who tries to put his own personal slant on everything and has not maintained the objectivity neccessary to be a journalist or documentarian. When I do see this film it will most certainly be a bootleg version as I won’t give that punk a penny.

98

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I think moore is very biased and out to villify Bush. [/quote]
Yes, Moore admits this openly.

I think a better question is “Why is the President taking a month-long vacation, with less than 9 months in office?”

Do you the think the President of the United States should be a lazy sack who spends long weeks at a time on vacation?

When Bush was shown the brief “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within United States” on August 6th, did he get on an airplane and rush back to Washington DC? Did he get on the phone for a conference call with the heads of the FBI and CIA? Did he order a full scale review of suspected Al Qaeda operatives already in the USA?

No, Dubya poured himself another tall glass of lemonade and went back to playing videogames in the rec room.

Do you feel safe knowing that the President of the United States is a lazy underachiever?

99

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I think moore is very biased and out to villify Bush.
Yes, Moore admits this openly.

I have seen interviews with Moore however where he makes ridiculous points. For example Bush took a long vacaction the month before 9-11, which begs the question how was Bush to know what was going to happen a month later?

I think a better question is “Why is the President taking a month-long vacation, with less than 9 months in office?”

Do you the think the President of the United States should be a lazy sack who spends long weeks at a time on vacation?

When Bush was shown the brief “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within United States” on August 6th, did he get on an airplane and rush back to Washington DC? Did he get on the phone for a conference call with the heads of the FBI and CIA? Did he order a full scale review of suspected Al Qaeda operatives already in the USA?

No, Dubya poured himself another tall glass of lemonade and went back to playing videogames in the rec room.

Do you feel safe knowing that the President of the United States is a lazy underachiever?[/quote]

Nice post Lumpster. How CAN the vacation be defended?

100

I must admit that I’ve not seen the movie, and I won’t, because the title carries an implication that I find a bit offensive.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is obviously a takeoff of the title of Ray Bradbury’s 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451. This is a dystopian novel along the lines of 1984 and Brave New World in which a totalitarian government suppresses the free exchange of ideas, in part by sending the Firemen to burn books that the government considers subversive.

Because of the title Mr. Moore chose, I take him to imply that the President has used 9/11 as an excuse to make our government more repressive and to launch an invasion of Iraq. This is dreadfully cynical, and unfair to W. Very few people in this world are so terrible, and the odds of one landing in the White House are miniscule.

And instead of examining Bush’s motives for going to Iraq, perhaps people should debate whether it was the right thing to do.