PDA

View Full Version : Fahrenheit 9/11



Muck
06-27-2004, 07:14 PM
I just got back from seeing this film. And I gotta say it's one of the best I've seen this year. I'm not Pro or Anti-Georgie. I'm just a middle-of-the-road, joe average guy who gives everybody a fair shake. Anyway, I must say that this movie has something for everybody. It's funny, intelligent, and tugs at your heartstrings all in the same two hours. I was even fighting back tears a few times.

I'm not a guy who's overly political. And I usually don't like to be political in public or on this forum. But after seeing this film, I won't be voting Bush. That's for sure.

I was totally against what Michael Moore did at the Oscars(?) last year. I felt that it was selfish and inappropriate. But I feel like he's vidicated himself with the release of this documentary. I knew he felt strongly about this issue. But he sure backed it up today.

Question: We've all heard rumors about elections being influenced/fixed/whathaveyou (Kennedy=mob, Bush=chads, etc). It's always happened behind closed doors so to speak. But this is right out there in everyone's face. If both men were running dead even (though I think I heard that Kerry was up 10%), it looks like one man, Michael Moore, could throw this thing overwhelmingly towards Kerry.

Anyway, have you seen this film yet?? What are your thoughts?? If you haven't yet, I really recommend seeing Fahrenheit 9/11.

burton87
06-27-2004, 07:19 PM
I'm going to see it.
I don't support micheal moore's evidence though, since most of it isn't true, or altered in some kind of way.

But he is a great movie-maker, and that why I'm going to see it. :D

Muck
06-27-2004, 07:25 PM
That's exactly why I went to see it. He's great at what he does.

Still, it's gonna be tough for George to explain himself after this one. Some things are obviously open to interperatation. But unless all those people were actors, the damage is irrepairable in my book. As a man, I can't vote for him.

t2thejz
06-27-2004, 08:00 PM
I havnt seen it..but let me say. A lot of the movie is propaganda and I dont know how much because I havnt seen it but Im sure there are a lot of lies in it. On another note you could make a documentary on any president making him look bad and there are always going to be people who dont support Bush, who have lost loved ones and easily blame it on Bush. This isnt some huge achievment by Moore. I could make a movie easily on people who support Bush 110 percent. Including people who have lost loved ones in the war and 9 11. I just dont understand why people are going to see this. Its such an anti american film. Support the President or not its typical that a socialist liberal make a fillm like that. I say keep that **** in Europe

P4E
06-27-2004, 08:02 PM
Hey, Muck!:)

We disagree about Michael Moore, so I guess we have a stand-off of the FH staff here.:) That's fun, funny and cool as far as I'm concerned, though. And I know there are other contributors and staff who would agree with you.

It happens that I am a Republican. It also happens that I have never much liked George Bush. Didn't support him in the GOP primary 4 years ago and sat out the general. And because I'm sure you've observed what a genealogical geek I happen to be, I have to tell you that I have chosen not to support him despite the fact that he is a distant, distant cousin. We share DNA, but not much of a common political perspective.

That said, I find a raging Massachusetts liberal like Kerry and the policy-makers he would surround himself with completely abhorrent, and the fact that he is the only realistic alternative to Bush is enough to compel me to get out and support Bush's re-election. Either way, Canada looks pretty inviting these days... except for their candy-assed liberalism.;)

Few aspects of politics these days bother me as much as Michael Moore and the people fawning over him. The man smugly and knowingly lowers the standards for truth in public discourse, and renders words like "documentary" devoid of meaning. He is in the political arena... and merrily, arrogantly and willfully manipulates words and images to present a biased and inaccurate depiction of reality. He brings deceit into the arena in this way, and much of the media hypocritically bends over backwards to excuse his excesses.

There is a great deal of discussion in the political forum regarding Moore and his films. You've got to read the two main threads, Muck, -- I think you'll enjoy them. Generally speaking, though, I would just call your attention to this article by someone well to the left of center himself, but unwilling to accept Moore's distortions and deceit:

http://slate.msn.com//id/2102723/

Let me know what you think about the article and the discussions in Political/War Forum.

Best regards as always,

P4E

btw... what was with that thread the past two days where everyone was sucking up to you? I was really confused.;)

Muck
06-27-2004, 08:14 PM
I havnt seen it..but let me say. A lot of the movie is propaganda and I dont know how much because I havnt seen it but Im sure there are a lot of lies in it. On another note you could make a documentary on any president making him look bad and there are always going to be people who dont support Bush, who have lost loved ones and easily blame it on Bush. This isnt some huge achievment by Moore. I could make a movie easily on people who support Bush 110 percent. Including people who have lost loved ones in the war and 9 11. I just dont understand why people are going to see this. Its such an anti american film. Support the President or not its typical that a socialist liberal make a fillm like that. I say keep that **** in Europe

Dude, you just sat there and said you don't understand why people are going to see this movie. And yet you admit you haven't seen it either. That's like a virgin telling everyone else what sex is like.

You haven't even seen the film and yet you're picking it apart and proclaiming it un-American. I've actually SEEN the film and I don't feel it to be un-American. Sure he makes fun of the president. So does everyone else on TV. But the guy goes after him because he doesn't like what he's doing and how he's running the country. If he's lying or fabricating evidence, well....this makes for a great opportunity for the White House to call public enemy #1 on it. And make no mistake, they consider Moore a threat.

If the movie makes you think for yourself, then it's a good thing. I for one and glad I saw it because I'm not overly political. But this movie has made me want to pay attention more and be more active. That can't possibly be a bad thing.

Muck
06-27-2004, 08:20 PM
Dude, I don't know. I guess everyone loves me. My mother WAS right. :tongue:

As for Moore, sure.....he takes those soundbites and pictures makes people look like idiots with them. That's obvious. And some people probably can't discern that. And you can feel some definite partisanship at times in the film.

I'm not saying I'm simply following everything Moore says in his film. But he did raise enough questions to push me over the limit. Doesn't mean I'll vote for Kerry either (really haven't focused TOO much on him like I should). But I won't vote for Bush. Just like I didn't vote for Bush or Gore in the last election. Wasted vote or not, I vote with my conscience. :)

I'll check out your link.

Muck
06-27-2004, 08:53 PM
I read the link you provided. And the guy does bring up some very good points.

Still, there are holes to be poked in his article too. And he's a little too black and white at times. It isn't enough to change my mind at this point. But hey, there's five months left till we vote. So who knows. :) Still, it was a good read and gave me a lot of very good facts/knowledge that I wasn't aware of before I read it.

Gonzo
06-27-2004, 09:07 PM
I haven't seen it yet, so I will hold my judgement until afterwards. But, too be honest, I am skeptical because I typically despise the radical left and right wingers such as Moore and Rush. It does look entertaining though, especially the last part of the trailer :roflmao: . I also doubt it will change my views much on Bush since he has already lost my vote. This election year blows. I'm glad I won't be here for the first year of the "winner's" term.

Muck
06-27-2004, 09:35 PM
BTW Michael, there's no way you'll get me to post in Political. You guys are far too informed (and intelligent) for me. Call me when you start making pee pee jokes or getting kicked in the nuts. :tongue:

iceblizzard69
06-27-2004, 10:27 PM
I'm wondering if the movie should have been R-rated or not. I'm probably not going to see it and if I do I will just sneak in but I'm wondering if the government gave it an R-rating to try to get people to not see it or if it deserved the rating it got.

Muck
06-27-2004, 10:47 PM
There isn't much bad language. But there are some gruesome images. And some of the content is just "heavy" for lack of a better word.

Probably got the R-rating to keep people out.

ThunderCane
06-27-2004, 10:52 PM
I am going to see this coming weekend.

And all these people talking about the moive being propaganda. What the hell has the government been feeding us? TRUTHS?!:roflmao:

dean_siu
06-28-2004, 12:03 AM
I just saw this movie tonite and am absolutely apalled with all the discretions George Bush gets away with....his connections to the Saudi's are clear as can be and there is definitely a case to link him with Al Quada.

Letting Bin Laden's family leave the country without questioning them is just irresponsible and I can't believe that the government would allow this to happen overall without presidential influence.

I've always felt this war was unjust, uncalled for, and a catastrophe for this country. Iraq citizens don't want us there, the soldiers don't think there is a reason to be there, and the reasons the government gave for our actions never turned out to be true.

Before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought that Bush could not get out of office soon enough...now I think that impeachment proceedings should take place and his discretions against this country are far worse (and much costlier) than anything Bill Clinton ever did.

BigFinFan
06-28-2004, 12:13 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm...

...


I wonder why Moore did not make a movie about Former Presiden tBill Clinton?

t2thejz
06-28-2004, 12:14 PM
I just saw this movie tonite and am absolutely apalled with all the discretions George Bush gets away with....his connections to the Saudi's are clear as can be and there is definitely a case to link him with Al Quada.

Letting Bin Laden's family leave the country without questioning them is just irresponsible and I can't believe that the government would allow this to happen overall without presidential influence.

I've always felt this war was unjust, uncalled for, and a catastrophe for this country. Iraq citizens don't want us there, the soldiers don't think there is a reason to be there, and the reasons the government gave for our actions never turned out to be true.

Before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought that Bush could not get out of office soon enough...now I think that impeachment proceedings should take place and his discretions against this country are far worse (and much costlier) than anything Bill Clinton ever did.What?Most of the soldiers dont want to be there because no one wants to be in a war but most of the soldiers know they are fighting for a just cause.Ohh lets have impeachment proceedings right away because you saw a movie and it made the president look bad. **** I could make a movie that makes the pope look bad.

LIQUID24
06-28-2004, 12:16 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm...

...


I wonder why Moore did not make a movie about Former Presiden tBill Clinton?
Maybe he didn't think he was a bad President.

Phinzone
06-28-2004, 12:28 PM
I just saw this movie tonite and am absolutely apalled with all the discretions George Bush gets away with....his connections to the Saudi's are clear as can be and there is definitely a case to link him with Al Quada.

Letting Bin Laden's family leave the country without questioning them is just irresponsible and I can't believe that the government would allow this to happen overall without presidential influence.

I've always felt this war was unjust, uncalled for, and a catastrophe for this country. Iraq citizens don't want us there, the soldiers don't think there is a reason to be there, and the reasons the government gave for our actions never turned out to be true.

Before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought that Bush could not get out of office soon enough...now I think that impeachment proceedings should take place and his discretions against this country are far worse (and much costlier) than anything Bill Clinton ever did.

Bush responded to 9/11, Clinton sold nuclear technology to China, and blew up factories to save his *** on the even of impeachment hearings.

If your are really taking this guy serious and go to him for your news I will lose all faith of you as a human being. How can anyone sit here and watch a slant like this and take it SERIOUSLY? Do you think your a bad guy? I bet I could spend millions of dollars to make a movie that would make you look like the second coming of Hitler. Or anyone on the face of the earth for that matter. This should be taken as it is. Michael moore doesn't so much as deserve a shred of integrity, nor should his films. His slant is obvious to even the deaf and blind. Tell yourself you saw a good movie. Then regain your sanity and realize he stretched and created "facts" for his film. Just like Columbine. You can view it as a good movie, but in the end it's just a fat man's bull****.

dean_siu
06-28-2004, 01:09 PM
What?Most of the soldiers dont want to be there because no one wants to be in a war but most of the soldiers know they are fighting for a just cause.Ohh lets have impeachment proceedings right away because you saw a movie and it made the president look bad. **** I could make a movie that makes the pope look bad.

I don't believe most soldiers "know they are fighting for a just cause" at all. I think they have begun to realize (like most Americans) that this war is a big business deal (and an ego trip) for Bush....and that we have no business whatsoever being in Iraq.

If you watched the movie, you'd see 2 clear cases of this....

1) A military member who was over in Iraq stating that he would never go back...even at the risk of imprisonment. He felt this war was not justified and he couldn't go about killing anymore innocent civilians with a clear consciounce.

2) The mother reading the last letter from his son (written just before he was killed) where he says we have no business being there and he resents Bush for taking this action.

For every member of the military that speaks out, I know there are many others who don't go public for fear of retribution.

As the justifications for this war continue to be proven wrong (no WMD's and no link to Al Quada), it would make anyone risking their life in Iraq seriously begin to wonder why they are being placed in that position.

Prime Time
06-28-2004, 01:17 PM
Honestly, If all of you were the president and NYC had been attacked? What would you do? Say "Alright they got us."? Bush took action...like it or not. If he had done nothing, I bet people would still be bashing him.

The plot of this movie is stupid as hell. I may go see it one day but not until 2 more weeks or something. The plot is so wack. Anyone with millions and millions of dollars and no job can do what Moore did. Crap, If I had the money and time, I would make a movie flaming Kerry, showing all the negatives he does and has. I am like Muck, I am not Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush BUT, I could make a movie on any single one of us on this site If I had the money and time to do the research and make you look like a monster so to speak.

dean_siu
06-28-2004, 01:18 PM
Bush responded to 9/11, Clinton sold nuclear technology to China, and blew up factories to save his *** on the even of impeachment hearings.

If your are really taking this guy serious and go to him for your news I will lose all faith of you as a human being. How can anyone sit here and watch a slant like this and take it SERIOUSLY? Do you think your a bad guy? I bet I could spend millions of dollars to make a movie that would make you look like the second coming of Hitler. Or anyone on the face of the earth for that matter. This should be taken as it is. Michael moore doesn't so much as deserve a shred of integrity, nor should his films. His slant is obvious to even the deaf and blind. Tell yourself you saw a good movie. Then regain your sanity and realize he stretched and created "facts" for his film. Just like Columbine. You can view it as a good movie, but in the end it's just a fat man's bull****.

Bush didn't respond to 9/11 at all....thats the biggest lie of his whole regime. Iraq (and Saddam) had nothing to do with this attack there has not been one shred of evidence proven to this point that legitimizes the attack.

I agree that Michael Moore did this movie with an agenda....but Bush is the one that gave him the agenda to base it on. How can the president approve sending members of Bin Ladens family out of the country right after the event without taking them in for questioning? Why does the White House release documents on Bush's background which black out a name that has links to Al Quada? Why were terrorists reports that stated Bin Laden had members of his organization in the country attending flight schools ignored prior to 9/11?

I think Moore deserves props for educating the American public about how misguided this president is and that Bush is the one that doesn't deserve a shred of dignity anymore.

t2thejz
06-28-2004, 05:23 PM
Actuelly most of the soldiers do support Bush's decision. Maybe those TWO people didnt but the majority do. It just doesnt make the news.

CUBANBADGUY
06-28-2004, 05:40 PM
BTW Michael, there's no way you'll get me to post in Political. You guys are far too informed (and intelligent) for me. Call me when you start making pee pee jokes or getting kicked in the nuts. :tongue:


:lol: :roflmao: :lol: :roflmao: :lol: :roflmao: :lol: :roflmao: :lol:

Phinzone
06-28-2004, 05:47 PM
Bush didn't respond to 9/11 at all....thats the biggest lie of his whole regime. Iraq (and Saddam) had nothing to do with this attack there has not been one shred of evidence proven to this point that legitimizes the attack.

I agree that Michael Moore did this movie with an agenda....but Bush is the one that gave him the agenda to base it on. How can the president approve sending members of Bin Ladens family out of the country right after the event without taking them in for questioning? Why does the White House release documents on Bush's background which black out a name that has links to Al Quada? Why were terrorists reports that stated Bin Laden had members of his organization in the country attending flight schools ignored prior to 9/11?

I think Moore deserves props for educating the American public about how misguided this president is and that Bush is the one that doesn't deserve a shred of dignity anymore.

Buddy.....9/11 was a terrorist act. Thus the war on TERRORISM. Liberal's keep spewing "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 why are we there?". Because saddam supported TERRORISM.

Bush never said this was the war to avenge 9/11! Here's a news flash

Saddam OPENLY supporter Terrorism. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks he PRAISED the attacks on america and called on all muslims to fight america as well. He supports TERRORISM. He had WMD, the UN who is extremely anti-Iraq war even admitted this. How the hell can people condone sitting on our hands when we have a leader openly supporting terrorists that has WMD? Hell, if you want to get literal he paid the families of Pakistani suicide bombers $4k for their attacks on Israel. THAT is supporting Terorrism.

It doesn't take a genius to KNOW Saddam hates the US and supports terrorism. There are a handful of crazy radicals with power in the United States.

When Bush came in Bin Laden was one of them. He attacked us, so bush responded.

Another one is SADDAM HUSSEIN. Woudl you rather we waited for him to attack us?

Liberals like Moore are so quick to point out the smoking guns that pointed to 9/11. The intelligence, the history of hate, the ATTACKS against US interests by Bin Laden. Liberals are fingering bush as stupid for missing the signs and letting 9/11 happen.

The EXACT same thing can be said about Saddam! He's anti-american, supports terrorism, has WMD, is obviously crazy etc. etc. etc.

Bush had a choice...

1. Attack Iraq and nip it in the butt. In return he'd be called a cowboy, yadda yadda yadda

or

2. Sit on his hands until Saddam unleashed his weapons. At which time he'd once again be called the "idiot" because he missed the "obvious" smoking guns.

"Oh, Bin Laden was a smoking gun! So was Saddam, but he didn't attack us, therefore Bush is the bad guy! I mean, we could at least wait until he blows up nukes on american soil first!"

So which is it? Is he a lieing cowboy for attacking Iraq? Or is he an idiot for missing the signs pointing to 9/11? You can pick one or the other, but don't be a hypocrite and pick both.

Scrap
06-28-2004, 06:29 PM
Buddy.....9/11 was a terrorist act. Thus the war on TERRORISM. Liberal's keep spewing "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 why are we there?". Because saddam supported TERRORISM.

Bush never said this was the war to avenge 9/11! Here's a news flash

Saddam OPENLY supporter Terrorism. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks he PRAISED the attacks on america and called on all muslims to fight america as well. He supports TERRORISM. He had WMD, the UN who is extremely anti-Iraq war even admitted this. How the hell can people condone sitting on our hands when we have a leader openly supporting terrorists that has WMD? Hell, if you want to get literal he paid the families of Pakistani suicide bombers $4k for their attacks on Israel. THAT is supporting Terorrism.

It doesn't take a genius to KNOW Saddam hates the US and supports terrorism. There are a handful of crazy radicals with power in the United States.

When Bush came in Bin Laden was one of them. He attacked us, so bush responded.

Another one is SADDAM HUSSEIN. Woudl you rather we waited for him to attack us?

Liberals like Moore are so quick to point out the smoking guns that pointed to 9/11. The intelligence, the history of hate, the ATTACKS against US interests by Bin Laden. Liberals are fingering bush as stupid for missing the signs and letting 9/11 happen.

The EXACT same thing can be said about Saddam! He's anti-american, supports terrorism, has WMD, is obviously crazy etc. etc. etc.

Bush had a choice...

1. Attack Iraq and nip it in the butt. In return he'd be called a cowboy, yadda yadda yadda

or

2. Sit on his hands until Saddam unleashed his weapons. At which time he'd once again be called the "idiot" because he missed the "obvious" smoking guns.

"Oh, Bin Laden was a smoking gun! So was Saddam, but he didn't attack us, therefore Bush is the bad guy! I mean, we could at least wait until he blows up nukes on american soil first!"

So which is it? Is he a lieing cowboy for attacking Iraq? Or is he an idiot for missing the signs pointing to 9/11? You can pick one or the other, but don't be a hypocrite and pick both. :up: :woot: :mdfin: :hail: :beerbang: :thewave:

BigFinFan
06-28-2004, 06:57 PM
Those of you that visit the Political Forum knew it wouldn't be long before I spoke up!!!

First things first:


"I've always felt this war was unjust, uncalled for, and a catastrophe for this country. Iraq citizens don't want us there, the soldiers don't think there is a reason to be there, and the reasons the government gave for our actions never turned out to be true."

Have you interviewed any Soldiers, Sailors, or Marines? Until you have, do not make a stupid assumption like that. The Soldiers, Sailors and Marines that are there serving (and have served) are doing so becasue we have a reason to be there. Hell, war is not fun. Nobody wants to go to war, but we do. We go to war so that America can remain Free and Safe.

Secondly:


Bush didn't respond to 9/11 at all....thats the biggest lie of his whole regime. Iraq (and Saddam) had nothing to do with this attack there has not been one shred of evidence proven to this point that legitimizes the attack.

Why did we deploy troops to Afghanastan?

You are confusing the War on Terrorism with the War on Iraq. We did not invade/attack Iraq solely because of terrorism. It does however play a part in why we are there. Sadaam Hussein did not comply with UN Sanctions. He continued to produce WMD's even after sanctions were put forth against him.

Former President Clinton did not have the balls to get the job done against Iraq. President Bush did! He (GW) said the hell with the UN and took action into his own hands. I applaud him for his stance against Terrorism, Iraq and the UN. Former President Ronald Reagan was the only other President in the past 30 years that had a set of balls and was willing to use force to get the job done. President Bush has those balls too!

Do you honestly think that Moore would spin a positive view on Bush, The War on Terrorism, or the War on Iraq?

Prime Time
06-28-2004, 07:09 PM
Do you honestly think that Moore would spin a positive view on Bush, The War on Terrorism, or the War on Iraq?

No, Moore is a moron. I do not understand how morons get sooo rich. :shakeno:

BTW, even though I only quoted the last part of your post, it was all good :up:

DallasDolfan
06-28-2004, 08:16 PM
Before seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought that Bush could not get out of office soon enough...now I think that impeachment proceedings should take place and his discretions against this country are far worse (and much costlier) than anything Bill Clinton ever did.Please....give us a break. You believe all the propaganda you read and hear from the left?

dean_siu
06-28-2004, 09:30 PM
Those of you that visit the Political Forum knew it wouldn't be long before I spoke up!!!

First things first:



Have you interviewed any Soldiers, Sailors, or Marines? Until you have, do not make a stupid assumption like that. The Soldiers, Sailors and Marines that are there serving (and have served) are doing so becasue we have a reason to be there. Hell, war is not fun. Nobody wants to go to war, but we do. We go to war so that America can remain Free and Safe.

Secondly:



Why did we deploy troops to Afghanastan?

You are confusing the War on Terrorism with the War on Iraq. We did not invade/attack Iraq solely because of terrorism. It does however play a part in why we are there. Sadaam Hussein did not comply with UN Sanctions. He continued to produce WMD's even after sanctions were put forth against him.

Former President Clinton did not have the balls to get the job done against Iraq. President Bush did! He (GW) said the hell with the UN and took action into his own hands. I applaud him for his stance against Terrorism, Iraq and the UN. Former President Ronald Reagan was the only other President in the past 30 years that had a set of balls and was willing to use force to get the job done. President Bush has those balls too!

Do you honestly think that Moore would spin a positive view on Bush, The War on Terrorism, or the War on Iraq?


I have talked with military who have been over in Iraq and most of them are sickened by the ordeal. Most of them will not go public with this viewpoint though, for fear of what the military and this political regime will do to them.

As for the "invasion" of Afghanastan....this was purely a front before we went into Iraq. President Bush and his Saudi friends had their eyes on Iraq way before 9/11....they just found this the ideal reason to rationalize it.

If Saddam was producing all these WMD's....than where are they? The UN investigators couldn't find any before the attack....and our forces have yet to find them either.

President Bush also alledged that Saddam was affiliated with Al Quada and the independent investigation has proven this to be false as well. How many lies does Bush have to say in order to rationalize the personal gains sought by both him and his business acquaintances?

Moore didn't have to spin anything at all....Bush gave him all the ammunition that was needed for this film and served it up on a platter. It's the mainstream media that lacks the "balls" and needs to start telling the American public the full and honest story.

It's a shame that it takes an independent film maker to expose the most crooked president this country has ever seen....but at least America can thank God that Michael Moore is there to deliver the truth.

iceblizzard69
06-28-2004, 09:31 PM
Please....give us a break. You believe all the propaganda you read and hear from the left?

There is a lot of right-wing propaganda too.....

And as for what military members feel about the war, I only know one person who is in the Army (well, he was, he isn't active now but he was sent over to the Middle East after 9/11) and he won't be voting for Bush this fall. Of course, that is only one person, but there are definitely people in the military who want Bush gone, and some who would like to see him stay.

Muck
06-28-2004, 11:17 PM
If Saddam was producing all these WMD's....than where are they? The UN investigators couldn't find any before the attack....and our forces have yet to find them either.

I think there are a few reasons why. One being that he's had plenty of time to hide them. Another being that he has PLENTY of places TO hide them. My family is of Arab descent. And I remember my grandfather always telling me about the staggering amount of underground tunnels in the region.

I think he had WMDs. Heck, he used them on his own people. And I think he hid them. But I also believe the powers that be did poorly in the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. And I think our administration dropped the ball on terrorism prior to 9/11.

Phinzone
06-28-2004, 11:18 PM
I have talked with military who have been over in Iraq and most of them are sickened by the ordeal. Most of them will not go public with this viewpoint though, for fear of what the military and this political regime will do to them.

As for the "invasion" of Afghanastan....this was purely a front before we went into Iraq. President Bush and his Saudi friends had their eyes on Iraq way before 9/11....they just found this the ideal reason to rationalize it.

If Saddam was producing all these WMD's....than where are they? The UN investigators couldn't find any before the attack....and our forces have yet to find them either.

President Bush also alledged that Saddam was affiliated with Al Quada and the independent investigation has proven this to be false as well. How many lies does Bush have to say in order to rationalize the personal gains sought by both him and his business acquaintances?

Moore didn't have to spin anything at all....Bush gave him all the ammunition that was needed for this film and served it up on a platter. It's the mainstream media that lacks the "balls" and needs to start telling the American public the full and honest story.

It's a shame that it takes an independent film maker to expose the most crooked president this country has ever seen....but at least America can thank God that Michael Moore is there to deliver the truth.

I'm going to be honest here. I share workspace with ROTC 7 days a week. MANY of who have served, are serving, or have relatives that serve in Iraq. I've heard ONE not support the war in Iraq. All others agree with it. Their stance is, war Sucks (duh) but it's just and needs to be done. Their ready to go if their called on, or are proud that they did their duty well. That is ONE out of hundreds.

And FYI The UN ADMITTED that Iraq MOVED WMD PRIOR to our attacks. That report is a whopping week old. Look it up, he DID have WMD, no one is disputing that other than the radical Liberals who's sole intent is to discredit the president. We haven't caught Bin Laden yet so does he exist? Probably not, the US created a whole radical leader :shakeno: .Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. You at this point are the only one saying they didn't have them. How's it feel to be totally oblivious to the facts?

The Mainstream Media that doesn't have the "balls" to stand up to the story is slanted like hell towards the liberal side as well. A blind def mute could see this. more than 70 articles concerning the employment rate have been written by major news syndicates, of those only 8 didn't criticize the president. In comparison, only 20 some were written during Clinton's presidency, and only THREE criticized the unemployment rate. And the real kicker.....The untold fact...the lowest employment rates were the SAME for both presidents. If that's not a liberal slant I don't know what is.

In another light all you see is the estimated 10% of Iraqi citizens bitching and moaning about the otherthe american's when the 90% or so of Iraqi citizens who are very happy we're there (every account I've heard from people on hand say 9/10 people hold no ill will against us) are conspiceously absent.....hmmmm.....Let's only report the negatives, and never the positives of a Republican war.

your making a HUGE mistake by going to Moore for your news. He's a FILM MAKER! I don't go to a Jets fan for Football advice, I don't go to gay bar to meet women, so why in the hell do people go to the most slanted fat man in the film industry for NEWS?

The crap he spews is really astounding. I'm a Libertarian, but if I could get rid of one political party it would be the democrats in a heart beat. Sometimes I wish the Republicans would make a damn stand. Democrats point fingers at bush for 9/11. Hey liberals! wasn't it your president that single handedly tore apart our information network? Wasn't it Bill that let Bin Laden attack us TWICE and didn't retaliate? Wasn't it Bill that let Saddam break UN sanctions (Hint it sure as hell wasn't a bush!), wasn't it Bill that blew up an innocent factory to save his *** the night before his impeachment hearings? Wasn't it bill that sold Nuclear information to the fricking Chinese? Wasn't it Bill who made our Airforce go from 90% readiness to 60% readiness?!
What Bill? We have spy satellites that can read license plates from space? WOW! THat would really help IF WE WERE LOOKING FOR LICENSE PLATES! But we're looking for PEOPLE *** HOLE!

*sigh* and no matter how many times the information is refuted, people will still continue to spew hate filled Liberal crap to discredit a party. WHy can't people just look the **** up once in awhile?

TerryTate
06-28-2004, 11:20 PM
how about not providing spoilers muckaroo ;) I still want to see this movie...

Muck
06-28-2004, 11:45 PM
What spoilers?? :)

1972
06-29-2004, 11:08 AM
I was totally against what Michael Moore did at the Oscars(?) last year. I felt that it was selfish and inappropriate. But I feel like he's vidicated himself with the release of this documentary. I knew he felt strongly about this issue. But he sure backed it up today.

Even Moore freely admits this film is NOT a documentary.

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 11:55 AM
It saddens me that people would actually allow their thoughts to be swayed by something which was produced by a man so UTTERLY biased. It's as bad as if someone said, "well, I just got done listening to RUsh and NOW I think Kerry sucks". When did people start checking their brains at the door? Oh, and one other thing, as much as Bush may have allowed people to believe that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq, at least there was a link between Iraq and terrorists. Trying to link Bush to Al Quida because his family knows the Bin Laden family is the worst stretch of illogic I've ever heard. Heck, I guess that means that Israel will be petitioning for the extradition of Arnold Schwartzeneger now because his father was a German soldier during WWII. That means that Arnold was involved in the Hollocaust doesn't it? I mean, that IS the logic we're going by now isn't it?

DeDolfan
06-29-2004, 11:58 AM
I just got back from seeing this film. And I gotta say it's one of the best I've seen this year. I'm not Pro or Anti-Georgie. I'm just a middle-of-the-road, joe average guy who gives everybody a fair shake. Anyway, I must say that this movie has something for everybody. It's funny, intelligent, and tugs at your heartstrings all in the same two hours. I was even fighting back tears a few times.

I'm not a guy who's overly political. And I usually don't like to be political in public or on this forum. But after seeing this film, I won't be voting Bush. That's for sure.

I was totally against what Michael Moore did at the Oscars(?) last year. I felt that it was selfish and inappropriate. But I feel like he's vidicated himself with the release of this documentary. I knew he felt strongly about this issue. But he sure backed it up today.

Question: We've all heard rumors about elections being influenced/fixed/whathaveyou (Kennedy=mob, Bush=chads, etc). It's always happened behind closed doors so to speak. But this is right out there in everyone's face. If both men were running dead even (though I think I heard that Kerry was up 10%), it looks like one man, Michael Moore, could throw this thing overwhelmingly towards Kerry.

Anyway, have you seen this film yet?? What are your thoughts?? If you haven't yet, I really recommend seeing Fahrenheit 9/11.

I'll go see it sometime soon.
but the key to this movie is that it IS a documentary tho, correct??

ltfinfan
06-29-2004, 12:02 PM
I have talked with military who have been over in Iraq and most of them are sickened by the ordeal. Most of them will not go public with this viewpoint though, for fear of what the military and this political regime will do to them.

As for the "invasion" of Afghanastan....this was purely a front before we went into Iraq. President Bush and his Saudi friends had their eyes on Iraq way before 9/11....they just found this the ideal reason to rationalize it.

If Saddam was producing all these WMD's....than where are they? The UN investigators couldn't find any before the attack....and our forces have yet to find them either.

President Bush also alledged that Saddam was affiliated with Al Quada and the independent investigation has proven this to be false as well. How many lies does Bush have to say in order to rationalize the personal gains sought by both him and his business acquaintances?

Moore didn't have to spin anything at all....Bush gave him all the ammunition that was needed for this film and served it up on a platter. It's the mainstream media that lacks the "balls" and needs to start telling the American public the full and honest story.

It's a shame that it takes an independent film maker to expose the most crooked president this country has ever seen....but at least America can thank God that Michael Moore is there to deliver the truth.


wow talk about drinking the coolaid

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 12:05 PM
I'll go see it sometime soon.
but the key to this movie is that it IS a documentary tho, correct??

Not if you go by the accepted definition of a documentary. A documentary is not suppossed to be screamingly one sided. You might as well call the Nazi glorification films of Leni Riefenstahl "documentaries". She presented "facts", just the facts that told the "correct" story. If Moore had any intentions of making a documentary he would have made SOME effort to present both sides. You would have seen a mother reading a letter from her son talking about how proud he was to be helping the Iraqi people. You would have seen a soldier who had just reenlisted saying the same thing. A one sided documentary is no such thing...it's propaganda. That's why I can't believe anyone would allow their opinion to be swayed by this film. Honestly that thought depresses the crap out of me.

DeDolfan
06-29-2004, 12:12 PM
The plot of this movie is stupid as hell. I may go see it one day but not until 2 more weeks or something. The plot is so wack.

:confused:
Doesn't make sense how anyone can make a statment like this and tHEN say they MAY go see it. How would you know that it's stupid, if you've not seen it?

DeDolfan
06-29-2004, 12:15 PM
Actuelly most of the soldiers do support Bush's decision. Maybe those TWO people didnt but the majority do. It just doesnt make the news.

I'm just curious as to how you would know that.

DeDolfan
06-29-2004, 12:39 PM
Not if you go by the accepted definition of a documentary. A documentary is not suppossed to be screamingly one sided. You might as well call the Nazi glorification films of Leni Riefenstahl "documentaries". She presented "facts", just the facts that told the "correct" story. If Moore had any intentions of making a documentary he would have made SOME effort to present both sides. You would have seen a mother reading a letter from her son talking about how proud he was to be helping the Iraqi people. You would have seen a soldier who had just reenlisted saying the same thing. A one sided documentary is no such thing...it's propaganda. That's why I can't believe anyone would allow their opinion to be swayed by this film. Honestly that thought depresses the crap out of me.

i've heard it both ways, that is is or is not a documentary however mostly that it is. With that said, if it IS a documentery then by definition, everything in it should be verified in writing or certified in some way. in other words, by definition, it would HAVE to be true and genuine events. IMO, if it is billed as a documentary, then it would have to be true, otherwise it would leave alot open for litigation. If it is in fact fiction, then i would even find it pretty sad for ANYone to base their opinion on the president or anyone else for that matter, based on a ficticious movie. IMO, it wouldn't matter a bit which "side" one was on.

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 01:30 PM
i've heard it both ways, that is is or is not a documentary however mostly that it is. With that said, if it IS a documentery then by definition, everything in it should be verified in writing or certified in some way. in other words, by definition, it would HAVE to be true and genuine events. IMO, if it is billed as a documentary, then it would have to be true, otherwise it would leave alot open for litigation. If it is in fact fiction, then i would even find it pretty sad for ANYone to base their opinion on the president or anyone else for that matter, based on a ficticious movie. IMO, it wouldn't matter a bit which "side" one was on.


Here's the definition of Documentary...

"doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. "

Need I say more? Lol...actually, need you ever say MOORE in the same sentence as Documentary ever again?

DeDolfan
06-29-2004, 01:40 PM
Here's the definition of Documentary...

"doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film. "

Need I say more? Lol...actually, need you ever say MOORE in the same sentence as Documentary ever again?

I guess the next thing is to determine if this movie is a true documentary or fiction.

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 01:49 PM
I guess the next thing is to determine if this movie is a true documentary or fiction.


Sigh...it doesn't need to be a work of fiction. If it only presents one side of the story, and INTENDED to present one side of the story, than it is editorialized. It's not presenting THE facts, it's presenting SOME facts. If only one side is represented, than it isn't a documentary, it's propaganda.

Section126
06-29-2004, 02:23 PM
The Bin Laden family leaving canard.......Richard Clarke authorized it and for good reason....THEY WERE INTERVIEWED AND HAD DISOWNED OBL 15 years prior.

The Military not liking Bush......Before the 2000 election, the military was polled as to there preference and Bush got 71% in favor of him. On election day GWB got 84% of the military vote. Republicans got 87% of the military vote in 2002. Current polls of Veterans show that Veterans favor Bush over Kerry 67% to 31%.

This film is pure propaganda, and a total lie. It is a shame that anybody with a brain would actually put some stock in a piece of crap like this.

The American Left: The NEW Nazi's, using propaganda and spewing the same lies over and over as to make them true.

BigFinFan
06-29-2004, 02:48 PM
I could make a documentary on taking a poop and make it out to be the best film ever. Moore only presents his side of the story - the way he wants America to see things.

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 03:03 PM
I could make a documentary on taking a poop and make it out to be the best film ever. Moore only presents his side of the story - the way he wants America to see things.

Um...as an American I don't want to see the side of you taking a poop...sorry man...much love otherwise though!! :D

BigFinFan
06-29-2004, 03:12 PM
Note to self:

Upon successful completion of the documentary film "Poop for Profit", ensure the PhinPhan1227 does got get a free ticket to the preview!

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 03:23 PM
Note to self:

Upon successful completion of the documentary film "Poop for Profit", ensure the PhinPhan1227 does got get a free ticket to the preview!


Gracias!!! :D

Muck
06-29-2004, 10:11 PM
Even Moore freely admits this film is NOT a documentary.

Semantics. I thought people would ***** if I said "movie".

BigFinFan
06-29-2004, 10:12 PM
We all know what you are talking about Muck....just don't be swayed by the lies in the movie!

Muck
06-29-2004, 10:26 PM
I just think it's kinda interesting how some just dismiss the entire movie. As if nothing in it makes you raise your eyebrows towards the current administration.

I admit, it's a helluva time to be president. This era is pretty crazy. And the film was partisan. But I still think this administration dropped the ball prior to 9/11 and underestimated the Iraq situation.

Fin_Fanatic
06-29-2004, 10:34 PM
i went and saw the movie the day it opened because my friend was a huge bowling for columbine fan. i havent read all four pages but i wanted to give my review.......THE MOVIE BLOWS!!! its a perfect example of how moore cuts and pastes his footage to make GWB either look stupid (which i admit isnt all that hard) or like he doesnt care. i got quite a few evil looks because i voiced my disapproval to my friend next to me out loud, but they were so obvious that i felt like i had to say something. like when he tells about our allies with the war on terror, he only brings up the smaller countries that have smaller armies. he conveniently leaves out great britain, japan, and few others. he even tries to make the troops look bad because they listen to music like "let the bodies hit the floor" while they are fighting..... is that even remotely important? they are trying to help themselves through a tough time. just like he makes the soldiers look bad cause they are laughing about a dead iraqi having a hard on. they are just relieving stress by laughing, nothing wrong with that. after all this negativity shown towards the troops he tries to say later that he respects all they do over there..... BS!!!! he also tries to use his hometown of FLint to show how jobs and the economy force kids into the military.... i wonder how much of the money he is making of this film is going back to his hometown. i'd bet little to none. the last thing i'm going to talk about is the "ties to saudis." while there are some ties between the elder bush and the saudi govt. most of the stuff moore brings up is far fetched at best. if i know somebody that is saudi arabian, and he once met a relative of bin laden, does that make me a bad person??? no..... well now i'm all pissed off so i'm going to play Madden or something:fire: :fire:

Fin_Fanatic
06-29-2004, 10:39 PM
I just think it's kinda interesting how some just dismiss the entire movie. As if nothing in it makes you raise your eyebrows towards the current administration.

I admit, it's a helluva time to be president. This era is pretty crazy. And the film was partisan. But I still think this administration dropped the ball prior to 9/11 and underestimated the Iraq situation.
clinton is just as much to blame for 9/11

iceblizzard69
06-29-2004, 10:41 PM
We all know what you are talking about Muck....just don't be swayed by the lies in the movie!

You know that the movie is a bunch of lies because you have seen it, right?

I'm not going to criticize Fahrenheit 9/11 because I haven't seen it. The only way to know if the movie is truthful or not is to go see it.

ohall
06-29-2004, 10:47 PM
I just think it's kinda interesting how some just dismiss the entire movie. As if nothing in it makes you raise your eyebrows towards the current administration.

I admit, it's a helluva time to be president. This era is pretty crazy. And the film was partisan. But I still think this administration dropped the ball prior to 9/11 and underestimated the Iraq situation.

It's easy to brush it off. Any truth in there is spun to push Moore's anti-American and anti-war agenda. Once someone understands that it becomes very clear why Moore has to lie so much to make his point.

Even the video of when Bush says watch this (golf) drive Moore implies he was talking about al-Qaeda and the war on terrorism. The reality is Bush was talking about a homicide bombing that took place that day in Israel that killed innocent women and children on 8.04.02. Moore takes the truth and leaves valuable vital parts of the total truth that totally destroys his spin if ppl got the whole truth.

Why didn't Moore make a movie about Clinton and all his failings on the war on terror? After all he says he just wants the truth to come out. I think he means he wants his truth to come out, and the turth is he is anti-American as they come. The guy is so anti-American he should move to France like Johnny Depp.

Oliver...

Fin_Fanatic
06-29-2004, 10:52 PM
yeah i hate johnny depp now too..... him and moore would have a fantastic time with those french sissies:fire:

burton87
06-29-2004, 11:16 PM
I just saw it...

You could make a movie like this about any president and make them look just as stupid and idiotic.

Keep in mind it's just one dudes opinion.

but what do i know, i watch espn, not cspan :D

DeDolfan
06-30-2004, 11:51 AM
Sigh...it doesn't need to be a work of fiction. If it only presents one side of the story, and INTENDED to present one side of the story, than it is editorialized. It's not presenting THE facts, it's presenting SOME facts. If only one side is represented, than it isn't a documentary, it's propaganda.

Have you seen it??

DeDolfan
06-30-2004, 11:53 AM
The Bin Laden family leaving canard.......Richard Clarke authorized it and for good reason....THEY WERE INTERVIEWED AND HAD DISOWNED OBL 15 years prior.

The Military not liking Bush......Before the 2000 election, the military was polled as to there preference and Bush got 71% in favor of him. On election day GWB got 84% of the military vote. Republicans got 87% of the military vote in 2002. Current polls of Veterans show that Veterans favor Bush over Kerry 67% to 31%.

This film is pure propaganda, and a total lie. It is a shame that anybody with a brain would actually put some stock in a piece of crap like this.

The American Left: The NEW Nazi's, using propaganda and spewing the same lies over and over as to make them true.

If it is an outright lie, then we should expect some kind of litigation, right?

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 11:57 AM
Have you seen it??


No...but I've seen Moores other works, and I've seen his interviews. I know enough from THAT to know that he did NOT approach this work with a balanced mindset. Or are you ACTUALLY going to try to assert that this film presents both sides?

DeDolfan
06-30-2004, 12:16 PM
No...but I've seen Moores other works, and I've seen his interviews. I know enough from THAT to know that he did NOT approach this work with a balanced mindset. Or are you ACTUALLY going to try to assert that this film presents both sides?


Well excuse then but if you've not seen it then you can not know how this movie is. Previous works does not mean that present works are the same. You are merely jumping to conclusions. Are you and the others that have not seen this simply afraid of any possible truths? Granted it is apparently an anti-Bush movie and that was well known while it was in the making. Is it a propaganda film? Probably so but that in itself doesn't make it a bunch of lies or untruths tho. I plan to see it soon and it shouldn't take long to figure out just what kind of film it is. If I think it just "sucks", then I'll get up and leave. But i can not sit here with a closed mind on it until I've seen it and i don't see how anybody else can either that hasn't seen it, especially when so many have pretty much demanded an "open mind" when discussing anything at all about this presidency. I may very well think the movie to be a big crock, but just because that is what I think means that it is a lie either.

t2thejz
06-30-2004, 01:00 PM
Well excuse then but if you've not seen it then you can not know how this movie is. Previous works does not mean that present works are the same. You are merely jumping to conclusions. Are you and the others that have not seen this simply afraid of any possible truths? Granted it is apparently an anti-Bush movie and that was well known while it was in the making. Is it a propaganda film? Probably so but that in itself doesn't make it a bunch of lies or untruths tho. I plan to see it soon and it shouldn't take long to figure out just what kind of film it is. If I think it just "sucks", then I'll get up and leave. But i can not sit here with a closed mind on it until I've seen it and i don't see how anybody else can either that hasn't seen it, especially when so many have pretty much demanded an "open mind" when discussing anything at all about this presidency. I may very well think the movie to be a big crock, but just because that is what I think means that it is a lie either. :shakeno: I dont understand some people. Open your eyes

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 01:19 PM
Well excuse then but if you've not seen it then you can not know how this movie is. Previous works does not mean that present works are the same. You are merely jumping to conclusions. Are you and the others that have not seen this simply afraid of any possible truths? Granted it is apparently an anti-Bush movie and that was well known while it was in the making. Is it a propaganda film? Probably so but that in itself doesn't make it a bunch of lies or untruths tho. I plan to see it soon and it shouldn't take long to figure out just what kind of film it is. If I think it just "sucks", then I'll get up and leave. But i can not sit here with a closed mind on it until I've seen it and i don't see how anybody else can either that hasn't seen it, especially when so many have pretty much demanded an "open mind" when discussing anything at all about this presidency. I may very well think the movie to be a big crock, but just because that is what I think means that it is a lie either.


Look...if they gave a free screening, I'd see the film. If someone else rents it, I'll see the film. But before I give one freaking PENNY to Michael Moore he'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers. I NEVER SAID IT WAS FULL OF LIES OR UNTRUTHS. Get that through your head and read my damned posts before you say I did. What I said was that it was propaganda. It is full of HALF truths, which are no better than outright lies, and in many ways are worse because they are more insidious. I KNOW that it is full of half truths, because I know from MOORES OWN STATEMENTS that no effort was made to present the other side. And whether a film was made by the far Right, or the far Left, I have no interest in seeing a one sided presentation where no opportunity for rebutal was given. Again, if I wanted to see that, there are hundreds of old Nazi propaganda films I can view. Bottom line, I wouldn't go see a movie made by Pat Roberton about John Kerry, and I have no interest in seeing a film by Michael Moore about George Bush. I have heard BOTH their opinions on the matter, I am VERY clear on what those opinions are...I don't NEED to hear any more from either of them. NOT on issues in which they have ZERO expertese. If Michael Moore is giving a class on film making, fine...he probably has something usefull to contribute. But I will not spend money to learn anything about subjects in which Moore has ZERO training or experience, and especially not when Moore is coming at it from such a screaming bias.

Section126
06-30-2004, 01:34 PM
If it is an outright lie, then we should expect some kind of litigation, right?


Public figures cannot sue over anything.

You can say that Hillary Clinton is a man and then put out a movie saying that she is a man and guess what? She cannot sue.

Please tell me that you knew this.....PLEASE!

This is common knowledge.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 01:43 PM
Public figures cannot sue over anything.

You can say that Hillary Clinton is a man and then put out a movie saying that she is a man and guess what? She cannot sue.

Please tell me that you knew this.....PLEASE!

This is common knowledge.


Um...Section...yeah, she can. The only thing she as a public figure has to prove is that you KNEW you were lying. Joe Average only has to prove that the info was wrong. The only other caveat is that the person who says she is a man can claim that he was making a parody of a public figure...but then the proof falls back on him.

BigFinFan
06-30-2004, 02:32 PM
Wow, thanks for posting the Iraq Time Line - AGAIN

ThunderCane
06-30-2004, 02:33 PM
Your quite welcome...did not want you to forget.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 03:35 PM
Your quite welcome...did not want you to forget.


Thunder, you are INCREDIBLY well named. Thunder is merely the expansion of air after being superheated by lightening. In essence...Hot Air. And you just keep rolling and rolling and rolling....

DeDolfan
06-30-2004, 05:49 PM
:shakeno: I dont understand some people. Open your eyes

So....what's your problem??

Section126
06-30-2004, 06:59 PM
Um...Section...yeah, she can. The only thing she as a public figure has to prove is that you KNEW you were lying. Joe Average only has to prove that the info was wrong. The only other caveat is that the person who says she is a man can claim that he was making a parody of a public figure...but then the proof falls back on him.


I don't think so........The DNC itself put out stuff on Jeb Bush having an affair with Katherine Harris, and there were two books that accused the Clintons of ordering murders of political opponents.

Till date....No lawsuits.

I think you can say what ever you want about a public figure.

DolFan31
06-30-2004, 07:12 PM
http://www.iraqtimeline.com/
:cooldude: :tongue:

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:31 PM
That site that keeps getting posted is the final nail in the credibility of Thundercane.

There is a guy on that site that does an editorial where he says that he "HATES" GWB about 47 times in the same article.

That site is a RIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:roflmao:

Damn...The looney left is kinda funny....isn't it?

DolFan31
06-30-2004, 07:33 PM
That site that keeps getting posted is the final nail in the credibility of Thundercane.

There is a guy on that site that does an editorial where he says that he "HATES" GWB about 47 times in the same article.

That site is a RIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:roflmao:

Damn...The looney left is kinda funny....isn't it?

Im sure there's conservative writers who say they hate Bush or at least hint it.

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:35 PM
Im sure there's conservative writers who say they hate Bush or at least hint it.

Conservative writers that hate Bush?

Name one.

DolFan31
06-30-2004, 07:40 PM
Conservative writers that hate Bush?

Name one.

I didnt say there were, I was just guessing.

Chill out. :rolleyes:

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:49 PM
I didnt say there were, I was just guessing.

Chill out. :rolleyes:


You made a plaintiff statement. :tongue:

DolFan31
06-30-2004, 07:55 PM
You made a plaintiff statement. :tongue:

Its one of those "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is' is."

:roflmao: :jk:

Mr.Murder
07-01-2004, 12:38 AM
Loving GWB would be a tougher hit on your credibility than hating him would be with what he has done.

The radical right continues to push their wrong agenda. The latest terror report proves terror is at a high mark. Despite the lie initally put out that COlin Powell said was "a mistake".

They have put out wrong number lies per issue and got called out per item.

Bush has a credibility deficit.

P4E
07-01-2004, 04:34 AM
Conservative writers that hate Bush?

Name one.
There is one. Kevin Phillips. He wrote "The Emerging Republican Majority" 30 years ago and wrote "The Bush Dynasty" a year ago. Solid R credentials as a populist; despises Bush family aspirations.

DolFan31
07-01-2004, 08:11 AM
There is one. Kevin Phillips. He wrote "The Emerging Republican Majority" 30 years ago and wrote "The Bush Dynasty" a year ago. Solid R credentials as a populist; despises Bush family aspirations.

:cool: thank you.

Section126
07-01-2004, 10:50 AM
There is one. Kevin Phillips. He wrote "The Emerging Republican Majority" 30 years ago and wrote "The Bush Dynasty" a year ago. Solid R credentials as a populist; despises Bush family aspirations.

Must have an axe to grind.

PhinPhan1227
07-01-2004, 11:21 AM
I don't think so........The DNC itself put out stuff on Jeb Bush having an affair with Katherine Harris, and there were two books that accused the Clintons of ordering murders of political opponents.

Till date....No lawsuits.

I think you can say what ever you want about a public figure.


Depends on how it's presented. You can say things like "sources told me", "it's been rumored that", "I believe", etc. Those are not the same as a declarative statement of fact. If you doubt this just look at all the lawsuits won by public figures against the tabloids.

P4E
07-01-2004, 01:09 PM
Must have an axe to grind.Phillips is a populist Republican who sees elite families having a tradition of public service as modeled after European family dynasties and monarchies. He HATES this, and is very oriented toward the citizen-legislator ideal. I was disappointed in the book, though, in that he rehashes every negative ever ascribed to the Bush family without really offering a hell of a lot more documentation or evidence than the typical Mr. Murder stream-of-limited-consciousness diatribe. I agree with Phillips, though, that I'd have much preferred John McCain. Heck, -- I'd have even preferred Jeb Bush. But I'd put Bo Derek in the White House before I'd vote for John Kerry. She'd do far less damage.

Mr.Murder
07-01-2004, 08:52 PM
Well Phillips book was screened by the Bush regime before it was released.

Good to mention him, he is a good ethical republican. Want to hear more of his ideas and policies there are some good ideas under Nixon that were overlooked in the war push and the scandals and were somewhat populist as you say.

He deserved better treament than he recieved from Bush in this term. The neocons ran him out!

DeDolfan
07-02-2004, 03:34 PM
Look...if they gave a free screening, I'd see the film. If someone else rents it, I'll see the film. But before I give one freaking PENNY to Michael Moore he'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers. I NEVER SAID IT WAS FULL OF LIES OR UNTRUTHS. Get that through your head and read my damned posts before you say I did. What I said was that it was propaganda. It is full of HALF truths, which are no better than outright lies, and in many ways are worse because they are more insidious. I KNOW that it is full of half truths, because I know from MOORES OWN STATEMENTS that no effort was made to present the other side. And whether a film was made by the far Right, or the far Left, I have no interest in seeing a one sided presentation where no opportunity for rebutal was given. Again, if I wanted to see that, there are hundreds of old Nazi propaganda films I can view. Bottom line, I wouldn't go see a movie made by Pat Roberton about John Kerry, and I have no interest in seeing a film by Michael Moore about George Bush. I have heard BOTH their opinions on the matter, I am VERY clear on what those opinions are...I don't NEED to hear any more from either of them. NOT on issues in which they have ZERO expertese. If Michael Moore is giving a class on film making, fine...he probably has something usefull to contribute. But I will not spend money to learn anything about subjects in which Moore has ZERO training or experience, and especially not when Moore is coming at it from such a screaming bias.

Well, i never actually said that you did say that. But you just did right there in this post.


It is full of HALF truths, which are no better than outright lies

To which again I'll ask, how do you know this if you've not seen it?

DeDolfan
07-02-2004, 03:44 PM
[QUOTE=Section126] Current polls of Veterans show that Veterans favor Bush over Kerry 67% to 31%.
QUOTE]

this one shows differently (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/04/opinion/polls/main621136.shtml) but it may not be as current as your's but it is the most currnet that i could find right off the bat tho.

DeDolfan
07-02-2004, 03:45 PM
Public figures cannot sue over anything.

You can say that Hillary Clinton is a man and then put out a movie saying that she is a man and guess what? She cannot sue.

Please tell me that you knew this.....PLEASE!

This is common knowledge.

I didn't mean that Bush himself would sue.

DeDolfan
07-02-2004, 04:46 PM
for whatever it is worth, i saw the movie yesterday. IMO, it clearly is not a total true documentary. It is in fact very biased but then again, I think everyone already figured as much. There was several humerous things woven into it that were entertaining. yes, it was intended to show Bush in his absolute form in how he was basically financed by Jim bath in his earlier days and how his father's influence helped him along thru out onto his slow reaction timing during the 9/11 disater, etc, etc. i'll not go into any more details since alot of folks haven't seen it yet. I can understand how the "Bush kain't do no wrong" ppl are terribly upset by it and probably for good reason. This guy pretty much made Bush look like an idiot and there's no doubt in my mind that it's sole purpose is to help defeat Bush in November. Personally, I don't think there were any "lies" as such since pretty much everything was in fact documented and nothing was "made up" other than the weaving in of the humor parts tho. I will admit that it is not a particularly good thing that this film can actually change some ppls minds and it is an obvious advantage for Kerry no doubt but it does actually sadden me how ppl can be swayed like this. if it was an unbiased film showing his good points as well, then it would be different. IMO, the vast majority of folks should already have their minds made up before now who they'll be voting for, barring some 11th hour major developements of some sort, say, like, we find out around halloween that John kerry bankrolled it or som'n screwy like that!!

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2004, 07:17 PM
Well, i never actually said that you did say that. But you just did right there in this post.



To which again I'll ask, how do you know this if you've not seen it?


I can attest that it is full of half truths because only one side is represented. If I tell you I have a "documentary" made by a Nazi about Jews, would you feel safe in making the assumption that it is only presenting one side?

Section126
07-02-2004, 09:04 PM
I can attest that it is full of half truths because only one side is represented. If I tell you I have a "documentary" made by a Nazi about Jews, would you feel safe in making the assumption that it is only presenting one side?

If he agrees with the Nazi..he has no problem with it. That's the problem with the lefty today.

If Adolph Hitler himself ran for president against Bush, they would vote for Adolph if he was the democratic nominee. That is just the sad truth.

Mr.Murder
07-02-2004, 09:27 PM
Adolph was appointed to office. He was not voted in. he used the excuse as a mandate to stack the courts with hardline sympathizers. Nice of you to realize how much he has in common with Bush 126 aside from his grandfather prescott bankrolling the nazi pig iron, steel, and explosives industries...

PhinPhan1227
07-03-2004, 11:07 AM
Adolph was appointed to office. He was not voted in. he used the excuse as a mandate to stack the courts with hardline sympathizers. Nice of you to realize how much he has in common with Bush 126 aside from his grandfather prescott bankrolling the nazi pig iron, steel, and explosives industries...

I find it hysterical that a "liberal" has so little regard for the Constitution that he would deny it over and over the way you have.

Mr.Murder
07-03-2004, 06:32 PM
Name one such incident and site within the Constitution how it is an example the 1227...

PhinPhan1227
07-03-2004, 11:59 PM
Name one such incident and site within the Constitution how it is an example the 1227...


Simple...you declare over and over that Bush was not elected. Yet Bush was elected in EXACT accordance with the Constitution. To the LETTER of the Constitution, he is our elected President. Your denial of that fact is a denial of the US Constitution.

DeDolfan
07-05-2004, 02:22 PM
I can attest that it is full of half truths because only one side is represented. If I tell you I have a "documentary" made by a Nazi about Jews, would you feel safe in making the assumption that it is only presenting one side?

I know what you're getting at and i'm cool with it.
But so would it be if Moor had made a movie about Bill Clinton !! I'd be first in line !! :D :D :D :D I just wonder if he'd have all of THOSE clips !!

:roflmao:

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2004, 02:54 PM
I know what you're getting at and i'm cool with it.
But so would it be if Moor had made a movie about Bill Clinton !! I'd be first in line !! :D :D :D :D I just wonder if he'd have all of THOSE clips !!

:roflmao:

Moore could have made the same film about Clinton but chose not to. Pat Robertson could have made the film about Clinton but I wouldn't have bothered to see that either.