Moore: pirate my film, no problem (farenheit 9/11)
The biggest win for propaganda was convincing the general public that it didn't exist. . . That said, I think it's important people watch this film, as they have been bombarded by the current administration's propaganda.
The biggest win for propaganda was convincing the general public that it didn't exist...
That said, I think it's important people watch this film, as they have been bombarded by the current administration's propaganda.
That said, I think it's important people watch this film, as they have been bombarded by the current administration's propaganda.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
personally i dont like moore or his films and ill just leave it at that.
but here is a couple of sites i thought might go along with the disscussion.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
and another.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
also im not republican or democrat,im registered independent
but here is a couple of sites i thought might go along with the disscussion.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
and another.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
http://www.hillnews.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
also im not republican or democrat,im registered independent
i agree with you on the outsourcing,im afraid that when i get out of school im going to have to move to india just to get a job.
i posted the links to just play a little "devil's advocate" so to speak.
im not happy with bush as a whole and i voted for him.
i also dont think the economy is as bad as all that either,my fiance,who works for a large development company just got a bonus,and a friend of mine that works for a web hosting company is doing excellent as well,hell even my ex-wife just got a raise lol.
to play D.A again heres one more site:
http://www.bea.doc.gov/
and i also agree on the electoral college complete bullshit,we vote,and popular vote should win.
i posted the links to just play a little "devil's advocate" so to speak.
im not happy with bush as a whole and i voted for him.
i also dont think the economy is as bad as all that either,my fiance,who works for a large development company just got a bonus,and a friend of mine that works for a web hosting company is doing excellent as well,hell even my ex-wife just got a raise lol.
to play D.A again heres one more site:
http://www.bea.doc.gov/
and i also agree on the electoral college complete bullshit,we vote,and popular vote should win.
With Haliburton: It was in Cheney's contract that they'd pay him even after he left the company. Why? Well he pulled the company out of a downward spiral. They are more than happy to pay him even after he left because he saved the company.
You seem to forget about Al Gore's side of things where they were trying to make our armed forces overseas votes not count, and how it was shown that people were altering the ballots to favor Gore.
I think GWB isn't all that great. If it wasn't for 9/11 he'd have a pretty dull presidency and nothing really defining. I don't really care for Bush, and I'm even less thrilled about Kerry. In fact, I'm not voting for either one, since neither seem to remember this little document we know as the Constitution.
You seem to forget about Al Gore's side of things where they were trying to make our armed forces overseas votes not count, and how it was shown that people were altering the ballots to favor Gore.
I think GWB isn't all that great. If it wasn't for 9/11 he'd have a pretty dull presidency and nothing really defining. I don't really care for Bush, and I'm even less thrilled about Kerry. In fact, I'm not voting for either one, since neither seem to remember this little document we know as the Constitution.
But it was in a Contract for Cheney to recieve the money from Haliburton, even after he left. Can you provide legal basis to show how this was wrong? Why is it that all large corporations are apparently evil because some people are rich?
I'm not sure about Jimmy Carter, but that's his perogative.
About the contract in Iraq: there are other corporations that have the resources to do this, but as I understand it, Haliburton is the only US company with these requirements. With all the griping about Bush sending jobs overseas (a valid argument, although the tax reasons were the same under past presidents), why not give a large company the contract? Would that not keep American jobs, and possibly create new ones.
Clinton: really didn't do much except toward the end (and even Michael Moore has said this in his book, "Stupid White Men"). Looking back, the Lewinsky scandal was pretty weak, and if Clinton had an 'R' after his name, you'd see the Republicans defending him and the Dems attacking.
I tend to disagree with what the president's role is. He, and the rest of the government need to stay out of the economy as much as possible. Less government is better, but I'm not in favor of total . I do not believe it's the government role to mitigate every little bit of the enconomy. If left alone, the economy will repair itself. The recession had started before GWB took office, so he can't be blamed for this. If you want to blame someone, Clinton would be it. But I doubt even he could've done anything about it.
I disagree with Michael Moore. I think he's a left-wing socalist who is an extremist. Having said that, based on the Constitution, he has the right to put this out. I'm not against questioning the government (like why the hell do we have so many programs?), but I still don't have to agree with them. The folks trying to block Farenheit 9/11 probably achieved the opposite effect. It was controversial before it ever came out, and trying to block the release was pretty much free advertisement.
I'm not sure about Jimmy Carter, but that's his perogative.
About the contract in Iraq: there are other corporations that have the resources to do this, but as I understand it, Haliburton is the only US company with these requirements. With all the griping about Bush sending jobs overseas (a valid argument, although the tax reasons were the same under past presidents), why not give a large company the contract? Would that not keep American jobs, and possibly create new ones.
Clinton: really didn't do much except toward the end (and even Michael Moore has said this in his book, "Stupid White Men"). Looking back, the Lewinsky scandal was pretty weak, and if Clinton had an 'R' after his name, you'd see the Republicans defending him and the Dems attacking.
I tend to disagree with what the president's role is. He, and the rest of the government need to stay out of the economy as much as possible. Less government is better, but I'm not in favor of total . I do not believe it's the government role to mitigate every little bit of the enconomy. If left alone, the economy will repair itself. The recession had started before GWB took office, so he can't be blamed for this. If you want to blame someone, Clinton would be it. But I doubt even he could've done anything about it.
I disagree with Michael Moore. I think he's a left-wing socalist who is an extremist. Having said that, based on the Constitution, he has the right to put this out. I'm not against questioning the government (like why the hell do we have so many programs?), but I still don't have to agree with them. The folks trying to block Farenheit 9/11 probably achieved the opposite effect. It was controversial before it ever came out, and trying to block the release was pretty much free advertisement.
For gas, it's not just Bush and the executive branch that should be looked upon for the high gas prices. By design, the house and senate must approve all laws, and they have approved tax hikes. Also, if Bush (or any other president) veto's a bill, it can still become law if there are enough votes in Congress.
"I mean, charging the armed forces as they did TWICE over what they should have for barrels of gas as was done is right? You tell me! You & I pay for that you know... & I for one, do NOT like being robbed!"
This was also the army that paid, huge dollar amounts for a screw (like a few hundred) a few years back? They spent the money so that the budget wouldn't be cut back. It's possible they gave the money up so as to make sure they don't get the budget cut. Just a theory.
It sounds like George Tenet told Bush a few lies to go into Iraq. However, the 9/11 commission said that Bush was not resposible for the failure here. Actually, the whole world seem to be asleep at the wheel here, according to the report.
The thing that probably infuriates me the most is how those against Bush seem to be saying that whatever he and his administration does is wrong. But, you know if they did it, it'd be okay. It's politics, and many upper level politicians seem to forget about the people they represent.
While I don't really like what's gone on during the current administration, I do question people that are just bashing Bush for everything. I recall that Kerry had gone so far as to indirectly blame Bush for a drive-by. C'mon. I haven't really seen what Kerry is gonna do for us. It's like "Bush didn't do this...", not "I will do..."
Actually, I agree with almost all of the positions of the Libertarian party, and will be voting that way this year. Sure, we can do better, but I don't feel Kerry is the way to go.
"I mean, charging the armed forces as they did TWICE over what they should have for barrels of gas as was done is right? You tell me! You & I pay for that you know... & I for one, do NOT like being robbed!"
This was also the army that paid, huge dollar amounts for a screw (like a few hundred) a few years back? They spent the money so that the budget wouldn't be cut back. It's possible they gave the money up so as to make sure they don't get the budget cut. Just a theory.
It sounds like George Tenet told Bush a few lies to go into Iraq. However, the 9/11 commission said that Bush was not resposible for the failure here. Actually, the whole world seem to be asleep at the wheel here, according to the report.
The thing that probably infuriates me the most is how those against Bush seem to be saying that whatever he and his administration does is wrong. But, you know if they did it, it'd be okay. It's politics, and many upper level politicians seem to forget about the people they represent.
While I don't really like what's gone on during the current administration, I do question people that are just bashing Bush for everything. I recall that Kerry had gone so far as to indirectly blame Bush for a drive-by. C'mon. I haven't really seen what Kerry is gonna do for us. It's like "Bush didn't do this...", not "I will do..."
Actually, I agree with almost all of the positions of the Libertarian party, and will be voting that way this year. Sure, we can do better, but I don't feel Kerry is the way to go.
WHile this film may make light of some inmportant questions, it is mostly filled with unsported innuendo and outright partisanship
Why pay $8.50, not including the hotdog and coke I usally buy, when I can watch Kerry ads for free all day long on CNN
With that said, It amazes me how so many, what I refer to as party whores, scream how thier side is the best.
I don't agree with the way Bush has handled Iraq, and I may not vote for him, but when the CIA, FBI, RUSSIA, UK, ISREAL all tell him Saddam had WMD and may use or sell them, WTF was he supposed to do?
Hold him to task for how he has handled Iraq, not going to war itself.
After 9/11 you had the 4 top intilligence agencies in the world telling him Saddam was a threat and may be trying to get nukes.
Most other presidents would have done the same.
Why pay $8.50, not including the hotdog and coke I usally buy, when I can watch Kerry ads for free all day long on CNN
With that said, It amazes me how so many, what I refer to as party whores, scream how thier side is the best.
I don't agree with the way Bush has handled Iraq, and I may not vote for him, but when the CIA, FBI, RUSSIA, UK, ISREAL all tell him Saddam had WMD and may use or sell them, WTF was he supposed to do?
Hold him to task for how he has handled Iraq, not going to war itself.
After 9/11 you had the 4 top intilligence agencies in the world telling him Saddam was a threat and may be trying to get nukes.
Most other presidents would have done the same.
Maybe I'm misinterperting you, but it seems like your holding Bush resposible for information given to him that was incorrect. You realize that Bush cannot lead this nation and keep tabs on everyone under him at once? The evedience was at least portrayed in a way that made Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government under him appear as a very possible threat. If that's the case, the rest of the world was lying to us, and possibly Colin Powell and others presenting the information. Additionally, Congress granted Bush the right to go to war. They too saw the evidence and decided that there was enough reason to start a military operation. Or would you rather Bush not do anything and just wait for another 9/11 to happen? No, we did not have undeniable proof, but what was shown appeared to be a genuine threat.
You seem to want Bush to go out and double check every little bit of info before making a descision. That's impossible, and he's one man. He would be out of office long before he'd finished his research. All the evidence that was given to him and the American people showed Saddam and Iraq as a threat. Do you want Bush to wait until another major city gets hit before doing anything? Is that what you want to wait for?
Bush followed protocol for going to war, and Congress gave him that.
Even Clinton is saying going into Iraq was the right thing to do, although he does disagree on the specifics.
You seem to want Bush to go out and double check every little bit of info before making a descision. That's impossible, and he's one man. He would be out of office long before he'd finished his research. All the evidence that was given to him and the American people showed Saddam and Iraq as a threat. Do you want Bush to wait until another major city gets hit before doing anything? Is that what you want to wait for?
Bush followed protocol for going to war, and Congress gave him that.
Even Clinton is saying going into Iraq was the right thing to do, although he does disagree on the specifics.
Brian, You may as well give it up. I've been arguing with another group of idiots in another forum. The democrats are after blood and they will use anything, truth or not, to slander our President. Mr. Moore's crapumentary was filled with half truths and flat out lies about Mr. Bush. Everything that man claimes can be proven wrong if checked on. The democrats are not going to do that because they want to believe all of the garbage.
And as far as the CIA goes. Our President has no choice but to rely on what he is told by our intelligence community. It would be suicide to not act on a warning from the CIA and FBI that states this country is in danger. And Mr. Bush didn't just go right to war with the first warning either. He met with leaders from other countries, two of which are obvious, Mr. Putin and Mr. Blair, and they confirmed that their own intelligence showed that Saddam has plans to attack the united states via terror networks.
Now it is just plain ignorant to excuse the fact that Saddam is a danger to the free world and peace loving people. He has proven that time and time again. He was financing terror attacks on Israel. So since he hates America too, don't you think it wise to believe he would finance attacks elsewhere. It is just common sense people.
Now why don't you lay your political party aside and use the god given gift you are supposed to have called a brain. Now, I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am fed up with it.
And as far as the CIA goes. Our President has no choice but to rely on what he is told by our intelligence community. It would be suicide to not act on a warning from the CIA and FBI that states this country is in danger. And Mr. Bush didn't just go right to war with the first warning either. He met with leaders from other countries, two of which are obvious, Mr. Putin and Mr. Blair, and they confirmed that their own intelligence showed that Saddam has plans to attack the united states via terror networks.
Now it is just plain ignorant to excuse the fact that Saddam is a danger to the free world and peace loving people. He has proven that time and time again. He was financing terror attacks on Israel. So since he hates America too, don't you think it wise to believe he would finance attacks elsewhere. It is just common sense people.
Now why don't you lay your political party aside and use the god given gift you are supposed to have called a brain. Now, I am sorry to be so blunt, but I am fed up with it.
Originally posted by PTS:
Quote:The democrats are after blood and they will use anything, truth or not, to slander our President. Mr. Moore's crapumentary was filled with half truths and flat out lies about Mr. Bush. Everything that man claimes can be proven wrong if checked on. The democrats are not going to do that because they want to believe all of the garbage.
First, I am a registered Republican. Second, I am sure our "President" didn't legitimately win the election. Third, you state that everything can be disproven if checked on, but according to what sources? Can you, without ANY doubts, completely trust the propaganda that the government has inundated the american public with? I can't.
Finally, I'll do my best to ensure that Mr. Bush doesn't get elected this term. Note that I didn't say re-elected.
And I do realize that arguing about politics on forums is about as useless as anything else, but maybe, just maybe, I can get someone to open their eyes to all the BS.
Quote:The democrats are after blood and they will use anything, truth or not, to slander our President. Mr. Moore's crapumentary was filled with half truths and flat out lies about Mr. Bush. Everything that man claimes can be proven wrong if checked on. The democrats are not going to do that because they want to believe all of the garbage.
First, I am a registered Republican. Second, I am sure our "President" didn't legitimately win the election. Third, you state that everything can be disproven if checked on, but according to what sources? Can you, without ANY doubts, completely trust the propaganda that the government has inundated the american public with? I can't.
Finally, I'll do my best to ensure that Mr. Bush doesn't get elected this term. Note that I didn't say re-elected.
And I do realize that arguing about politics on forums is about as useless as anything else, but maybe, just maybe, I can get someone to open their eyes to all the BS.
Here's the issue I take with Micheal Moore's film
Asking him to do a "documentary" on Bush is like asking the Aryan nation to do a special on Black History month.
We have lost the ability to think objectively.
Kerry and Edwards saw he same intiligence and voted for war.
So if Kerry would have been president he would have been against it?
So we get a choice this November
2 oil cronies
or a Billionare, and a Millionare Trial lawyer.
Somehow I don't think the average person will be served well by either.
Asking him to do a "documentary" on Bush is like asking the Aryan nation to do a special on Black History month.
We have lost the ability to think objectively.
Kerry and Edwards saw he same intiligence and voted for war.
So if Kerry would have been president he would have been against it?
So we get a choice this November
2 oil cronies
or a Billionare, and a Millionare Trial lawyer.
Somehow I don't think the average person will be served well by either.
Originally posted by sapiens74:
Quote:We have lost the ability to think objectively.
I totally agree, that as a majority of US citizens, we have lost the ability to think objectively.
This has ripple effects that are never-ending, for example, Congress is pretty much a bunch of sheep catering to big businesses only, not caring in the least for the communities that they are supposed to be representing. They are no longer for the people, as you (and I) were taught. America is becoming less and less of a democracy. Our rights are being lost daily, and those who appose are being silenced by either lawsuits or legal threats (think RIAA/MPAA, etc.). What happened to the Constitution? What happened to the Bill of Rights?
It seems that politicians need a reminder. Their job is to serve us, it's not our job to serve them.
Quote:We have lost the ability to think objectively.
I totally agree, that as a majority of US citizens, we have lost the ability to think objectively.
This has ripple effects that are never-ending, for example, Congress is pretty much a bunch of sheep catering to big businesses only, not caring in the least for the communities that they are supposed to be representing. They are no longer for the people, as you (and I) were taught. America is becoming less and less of a democracy. Our rights are being lost daily, and those who appose are being silenced by either lawsuits or legal threats (think RIAA/MPAA, etc.). What happened to the Constitution? What happened to the Bill of Rights?
It seems that politicians need a reminder. Their job is to serve us, it's not our job to serve them.
