NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok last night i saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and after leaving the cinema after leaving with another English and two spanish friends all we could think of is "I am glad i am not american"

Now i please dont leave a message back saying Michael Moore hates america without a substanciated Argument. Also by saying you should trust the president no-matter how corrupt and incompetent he appears to be.

Summary of the "facts" according to Michael Moore that i can remember

-Bush directed serveral firms which all went under
- The Bin ladens invested in these firms
- The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)
- Saudi Arabia owns 6% of America
- Bush had an obsession with Iraq
- The Bush family has links with many defence contractors which would all benifit from the war.
- The war in afganistan was not sufficently well planned (not enough troops sent in for peacekeeping duties).
- Troops were sent from Afganistan to Iraq making Afganistan more stable
- The bush family profited from the war in Afganistan
- Iraq didnt really have any real substancial amount of WMDs
- Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
- Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
- The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from accross the pond.
- Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
- It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
- Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
- Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
-

-without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)

if anyone can add to this list but please tell me what is wrong and most importantly why

People will refuse to believe things that they don't like hearing, regardless of truth.

People will refuse to believe things that they don't like hearing, regardless of truth.
People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of truth.

Ok last night i saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and after leaving the cinema after leaving with another English and two spanish friends all we could think of is "I am glad i am not american"

Now i please dont leave a message back saying Michael Moore hates america without a substanciated Argument. Also by saying you should trust the president no-matter how corrupt and incompetent he appears to be.

Summary of the "facts" according to Michael Moore that i can remember

1. -Bush directed serveral firms which all went under
2. - The Bin ladens invested in these firms
3. - The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)
4. - Saudi Arabia owns 6% of America
5. - Bush had an obsession with Iraq
6. - The Bush family has links with many defence contractors which would all benifit from the war.
7. - The war in afganistan was not sufficently well planned (not enough troops sent in for peacekeeping duties).
8. - Troops were sent from Afganistan to Iraq making Afganistan more stable
9. - The bush family profited from the war in Afganistan
10. - Iraq didnt really have any real substancial amount of WMDs
11. - Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
12. - Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
13. - The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from accross the pond.
14. - Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
15. - It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
16. - Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
17. - Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
-

18. -without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)

if anyone can add to this list but please tell me what is wrong and most importantly why

1. Being a good businessman is NOT a requirement for being president. Some were alcoholics...they are all human.

2. So, they made a bad investment and lost money too.

3. Not true and has been debunked. Richard Clarke ordered them to be allowed to leave.

4. The netherlands owns 17%. "Owns" is an incorrect word, they INVEST in America.

5. So did Clinton....12 years of "No-Fly" zones was enough.

6. So do I...I own shares of many of them. Your point?

7. Yet the Taliban were defeated. Moore forgets that it was the Northern Alliance that did the fighting...US forces were a support role only.

8. Is that a problem?

9. So did I...so what?

10. Yet to be determined. They buried their air force...they well could have buried their WMD's too.

11. Better to have them there fighting US troops than here killing US civilians...shortsighted people won't see this.

12. Yet they were successful still. The numbers sent were the numbers requested by the General in charge...if he needed more he would have gotten them.

13. False.

14. Who started it?

15. For many it is the only way to pay for college. You give them 4 years, they give you college. That a war might break out is a gamble you take. However, it is an all VOLUNTEER force and noone HAS to join.

16. FALSE!! There have been NO cutbacks on pensions OR healthcare. I know...I receive both.

17. Where would you go to recruit?

18. Legitimacy? You need to learn how the US president is elected...it is NOT by the popular vote and NEVER has been.

Nearly each of Moore's claims have been proven to be twisted truths or outright lies. The only folks who believe him are the ones who wanted to to begin with - much like the religious fanatics who don't question their dogma.

His prior movies were also full of twisted propoganda - Moore is an opportunist entertainer (acceptable) but NOT a doccumentary author.

- Bush directed serveral firms which all went under
To bad. Doesn't mean to much though.

- The Bin ladens invested in these firms
These people have done no wrong and are entitled to

- The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)
Innocent till proven guilty

- Saudi Arabia owns 6% of America
Ok, good for them. Can't balme Bush though, this happened before Bush

- Bush had an obsession with Iraq
Moore has an obsession with Bush

- The Bush family has links with many defence contractors which would all benifit from the war.
That's probably so, and so does my home country Norway. Norway has invested in a lot of different businesses around the world. (We have a so called oil fund.)

- The war in afganistan was not sufficently well planned (not enough troops sent in for peacekeeping duties).
A matter of oppinion

- Troops were sent from Afganistan to Iraq making Afganistan more stable
????

- The bush family profited from the war in Afganistan
With stocks in the right place, of course they did.

- Iraq didnt really have any real substancial amount of WMDs
Iraq had weapons and have used weapons. These weapons have never been accounted for.

- Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
When fighting the terrorists, the terrorists fight back.

- Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
Why didn't UN help then? Did they vote for Saddam to win? (We know France and Germany would benefit greatly if he did)

- The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from accross the pond.
So has the Bush critics, twisting the words of Bush, claiming he says things he didn't say (Like Saddam was connected to Al-Qaida. Bush administration never claimed that.)

- Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
That's why the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan had to be stopped. And also the violence in Sudan! Why isn't the UN acting to stop this violence? Why is Bush critisized for acting to stop the violence?

- It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
Ok. Bush cannot be blaimed for that.

- Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
Ok.

- Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
Ok. I hardly think Bush is to balme for this

-without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)
???

4. The netherlands owns 17%. "Owns" is an incorrect word, they INVEST in America.

WE *PWN* YOU :p

Ballotonia, Dutch guy

WE *PWN* YOU :p

Ballotonia, Dutch guy

Yeah....LOL But try taking it home...

It is in the Grocery stores that the Dutch have invested. Now WHY would anyone invest in anything if they did not think it would be successful?

Ok last night i saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and after leaving the cinema after leaving with another English and two spanish friends all we could think of is "I am glad i am not american"

Now i please dont leave a message back saying Michael Moore hates america without a substanciated Argument. Also by saying you should trust the president no-matter how corrupt and incompetent he appears to be.

Summary of the "facts" according to Michael Moore that i can remember

-Bush directed serveral firms which all went under
- The Bin ladens invested in these firms
- The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)
- Saudi Arabia owns 6% of America
- Bush had an obsession with Iraq
- The Bush family has links with many defence contractors which would all benifit from the war.
- The war in afganistan was not sufficently well planned (not enough troops sent in for peacekeeping duties).
- Troops were sent from Afganistan to Iraq making Afganistan more stable
- The bush family profited from the war in Afganistan
- Iraq didnt really have any real substancial amount of WMDs
- Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
- Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
- The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from accross the pond.
- Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
- It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
- Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
- Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
-

-without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)

if anyone can add to this list but please tell me what is wrong and most importantly why


Ah, this old chestnut again. Do a search for the other threads concerning Mr.Moore...I can't be bothered arguing this topic for the 10th time.

5. So did Clinton....12 years of "No-Fly" zones was enough..

Would you people please get over Clinton, it's not a valid argument, the guy can never be president again, what he did, for better or for worse is history, shouldn't we stick to what is happening now? Perhaps Clinton made mistakes, does this in any way excuse the current administration or ones to come from their actions? I think not.. and you know it too.

Would you people please get over Clinton, it's not a valid argument, the guy can never be president again, what he did, for better or for worse is history, shouldn't we stick to what is happening now? Perhaps Clinton made mistakes, does this in any way excuse the current administration or ones to come from their actions? I think not.. and you know it too.


but..but...but..but Clinton causes cancer@1!!

but..but...but..but Clinton causes cancer@1!!

Maybe, but I heard he was the leading cause of Heart Disease...

Look Mr. Moore may not get the facts right all the time but he make a valid argument Bush had a unheathly intrest in war form the start of his presidency. Bush is a stupid red neck and the rest of the world see's this the only people who dont are the Americans. i hope one day they look back on bush with contempt.

I just like how noone ever talks about the looming energy crisis and the Iraq wars. Go to PeakOil.org and see what I mean. The whole thing will be seen as maneouvering for a control of a region where most of the world's remaining oil reserves are. Bush also pushed through legislation to assist US energy firms to gain access to Iraqi oil.

The Bush family owned two of their own energy firms or something ffs. Who mainly backs their campaigns anyways? Oil is even piped through the main pipeline in the region, which runs straight through Afghanistan.

Also the biggest recession after the Great Depression was the recession in the early 70's when OPEC put up prices. They are higher than that now. Increased oil price means extra costs generally for infrastructure and that means shrinking economies. Hey, if only there was a substitute that met all those chemical, agricultural, transport, plastics, manufacturing, electricity, pesticide needs.

And demand continues to increase.

Look Mr. Moore may not get the facts right all the time but he make a valid argument Bush had a unheathly intrest in war form the start of his presidency. Bush is a stupid red neck and the rest of the world see's this the only people who dont are the Americans. i hope one day they look back on bush with contempt.

this particular american is of the opinion a dead cow could run a country better than george bush

Having finally seen the film I can't believe so much fuss is being made over something of such little substance. It contained nothing new and half of it was taken up with that staple of the media, the 'human interest story'. I'll stick with Chomsky, cheers. (And if any viewer really does see it as a documentry despite the blatant and overt editoralising, then it says something about their previous viewing habits).

Micheal Moore is so far left i cant tell where Lenin ends and he begins.

Micheal Moore is so far left i cant tell where Lenin ends and he begins.Enlighten us mate. Let's see your historical and political parallels between the two.

[QUOTE=Buggard]- Bush directed serveral firms which all went under
To bad. Doesn't mean to much though.

- The Bin ladens invested in these firms
These people have done no wrong and are entitled to they have done no wrong but they seem to have bought political influence

- The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)

Innocent till proven guilty how can someone be found guilty without rudimentary questioning the point on Saudis economic importance to the US and there close realationship with the bush famil means they had preferential treatment

- Saudi Arabia owns 6% of America
Ok, good for them. Can't balme Bush though, this happened before Bush

- Bush had an obsession with Iraq
Moore has an obsession with Bush



- The Bush family has links with many defence contractors which would all benifit from the war.
That's probably so, and so does my home country Norway. Norway has invested in a lot of different businesses around the world. (We have a so called oil fund.)


- The war in afganistan was not sufficently well planned (not enough troops sent in for peacekeeping duties).
A matter of oppinion



- Troops were sent from Afganistan to Iraq making Afganistan more stable
????
typo less stable i think its obvious that country is not stable or improving the lives of its citizens

- The bush family profited from the war in Afganistan
With stocks in the right place, of course they did.
can it be assumed that someone woth avid buisness is biased and in certain situations cannot be trusted in making the corrrect decisions for the country

- Iraq didnt really have any real substancial amount of WMDs
Iraq had weapons and have used weapons. These weapons have never been accounted for. Well we do know because Rumsfeld sold them to Iraq since both the british and american goverments are moving away from this issue i think we can belive they did nit
- Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
When fighting the terrorists, the terrorists fight back. Surprisingly enough

- Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
Why didn't UN help then? Did they vote for Saddam to win? (We know France and Germany would benefit greatly if he did)

Still there was a great deal of illigality with the war as with any war of aggression. Bush and his cohorts stood to gain money personally from the war so at least france and Germany dont have blood on their hands

- The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from accross the pond.
So has the Bush critics, twisting the words of Bush, claiming he says things he didn't say (Like Saddam was connected to Al-Qaida. Bush administration never claimed that.)
They stood up in the UN and claimed a link

- Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
That's why the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan had to be stopped. And also the violence in Sudan! Why isn't the UN acting to stop this violence? Why is Bush critisized for acting to stop the violence?

Bush is not trying to stop the violence hes created more violence with his wars. In order to stop the violence you have to address the underlying route causes

- It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
Ok. Bush cannot be blaimed for that.
Actually the european ideal is to give eveyone a oppertunity for an education regardless of background. Me and many of my friends have the oppertunity to go to university (some of the finest in the world) even though we are from modestly poor backgrounds) we have an out and thats thanks to our politicans making the right decisions for the people and not just the people who can afford it.

- Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
Ok.

- Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
Ok. I hardly think Bush is to balme for this. His economic record isnt excactly brilliant hasnt he created a deficit from a surplus when

-without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)
African americans have a tendency to vote democrat. A variety of African americans In Florida are denied the oppertunity to vote due to their criminal pasts ok if this is the law. but other law abiding citizens are also being denied this oppertunity. This is opposed to other ethnic groups who dont seem to have this problem. Who instigates this scandal none other than george bushes brother whilst is displayed on the film i have heard this from a completly independent source (the bbc).[
?

As for the blacks being denied the vote...not ONE has come forward to say they were when asked...not ONE. That issue had been put to bed BEFORE the film came out. Yes, I live here in Florida and saw the whole thing happen. Moore tried to make a mountain out of a molehill and I see he managed to get the Europeans to see things his way...regardless of the truthfulness of his position. If I said I was surprised I would be lying....

Having finally seen the film I can't believe so much fuss is being made over something of such little substance. It contained nothing new and half of it was taken up with that staple of the media, the 'human interest story'. I'll stick with Chomsky, cheers. (And if any viewer really does see it as a documentry despite the blatant and overt editoralising, then it says something about their previous viewing habits).

I agree.

3. Not true and has been debunked. Richard Clarke ordered them to be allowed to leave.

5. So did Clinton....12 years of "No-Fly" zones was enough.

6. So do I...I own shares of many of them. Your point?

9. So did I...so what?

10. Yet to be determined. They buried their air force...they well could have buried their WMD's too.

12. Yet they were successful still. The numbers sent were the numbers requested by the General in charge...if he needed more he would have gotten them.

16. FALSE!! There have been NO cutbacks on pensions OR healthcare. I know...I receive both.

18. Legitimacy? You need to learn how the US president is elected...it is NOT by the popular vote and NEVER has been.
3. Richard Clarke or George Bush? It doesn't matter who ordered it, it still happened. I'm not saying that the Bin Ladens should have been jailed, but they should have all been questioned.

5. That does not constitute an obsession. He never invaded Iraq... and don't think he didn't have the chance!

6. OK so you admit that this one's true.

9. OK so you admit that this one's true.

10. They "could have had them"... certainly a step back from the early 2003 "Iraq definitely has them!!! We have proof!" I don't these non-existent nuclear doo-whackeys were ever spotted by the numerous US spy satellites. And if Saddam was desparately trying to stop invading forces in March 2003, wouldn't he have used WMDs if he had them? Also, over here there has been a storm of controversy over the fact the the British government's claims of "WMDs within 45 mins!" have been conclusively proven to be lies.

12. They toppled Saddam's regime, but failed miserably, and continue to fail to pacify Iraq.

16. Maybe not in your pension.

18. Well, of course you don't mind if the winner has less support than the loser.... as long as the winner is the guy you support, right?! I'm sure if Al Gore had won the election without majority popular support like Bush did, you would be among the loudest crying "unfair!"

- The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)
Innocent till proven guilty

- Bush had an obsession with Iraq
Moore has an obsession with Bush

- Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
When fighting the terrorists, the terrorists fight back.

- Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
Why didn't UN help then? Did they vote for Saddam to win? (We know France and Germany would benefit greatly if he did)

- The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from across the pond.
So has the Bush critics, twisting the words of Bush, claiming he says things he didn't say (Like Saddam was connected to Al-Qaida. Bush administration never claimed that.)

- Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
That's why the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan had to be stopped. And also the violence in Sudan! Why isn't the UN acting to stop this violence? Why is Bush critisized for acting to stop the violence?

- It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
Ok. Bush cannot be blaimed for that.

- Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
Ok.

- Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
Ok. I hardly think Bush is to balme for this

-without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)
???
1. He's not saying they should be jailed. He's saying that they should have been questioned to get information on Osama.

2. No, Moore is not obsessed with Bush. Moore has been around for a long time, and was a vocal critic of the administrations of Reagan, Bush #1 and Clinton.

3. The war in Iraq was not a part of the war on terror.

4. Because the UN realised it was a pointless war?

5. I don't see how you can "twist" direct quotes. I distinctly remember Bush and Blair making links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

6. Bush isn't acting to stop the violence in Sudan.

7. I don't think Moore was seeking to blame Bush for that. He was pointing out an injustice in US society that is bigger than George Bush.

8. The economic policies of Clinton and Bush caused many companies to export their jobs away from Flint.

9. Thousands of (mostly) black voters were taken of the eligible list because their names or birthdays were similar to those of criminals.

Micheal Moore is so far left i cant tell where Lenin ends and he begins.
Do you even know what "left-wing" means?

Do you even know what "left-wing" means?

Do you?

Do you?I could do with a laugh. Give us your defination then, old chap.

Elderana was basically pointing out that Moore is a very far left-wing he is so biased to his views, it's not even funny. Also he pointed out in a matter of speaking that the left-wing spectrum is usually associated with the socialism. Communism and anarchism are considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics as well, thats why he was comparing Lenin and Moore together.

Fascism is generally included in "the right", despite important differences from other rightists. If you want more of a general idea of the ideal in a bigger picture than the more radical versions of the ideals, let me know.

Look Mr. Moore may not get the facts right all the time but he make a valid argument Bush had a unheathly intrest in war form the start of his presidency. Bush is a stupid red neck and the rest of the world see's this the only people who dont are the Americans. i hope one day they look back on bush with contempt.

That stupid redneck got degrees from both Harvard, and Yale. Where did you get yours?

[QUOTE=Buggard]- Bush directed serveral firms which all went under
To bad. Doesn't mean to much though.

- The Bin ladens invested in these firms
These people have done no wrong and are entitled to they have done no wrong but they seem to have bought political influence
What did they get?

- The Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without rudimentary questioning (not saying they are implicated but it would be logical)

Innocent till proven guilty how can someone be found guilty without rudimentary questioning the point on Saudis economic importance to the US and there close realationship with the bush famil means they had preferential treatment
The FBI were offered the chance to interview them but declined.

- Saudi Arabia owns 6% of America
Ok, good for them. Can't balme Bush though, this happened before Bush

- Bush had an obsession with Iraq
Moore has an obsession with Bush



- The Bush family has links with many defence contractors which would all benifit from the war.
That's probably so, and so does my home country Norway. Norway has invested in a lot of different businesses around the world. (We have a so called oil fund.)


- The war in afganistan was not sufficently well planned (not enough troops sent in for peacekeeping duties).
A matter of oppinion



- Troops were sent from Afganistan to Iraq making Afganistan more stable
????
typo less stable i think its obvious that country is not stable or improving the lives of its citizens

Anything is an improvment over the Taliban.

- The bush family profited from the war in Afganistan
With stocks in the right place, of course they did.
can it be assumed that someone woth avid buisness is biased and in certain situations cannot be trusted in making the corrrect decisions for the country

Show me an American president that didn't have investments that were not affected by his decissions.

- Iraq didnt really have any real substancial amount of WMDs
Iraq had weapons and have used weapons. These weapons have never been accounted for. Well we do know because Rumsfeld sold them to Iraq

As did the Germans.

- Iraq now has a strong Al qaeda and terroist presence when it previously didnt have one
When fighting the terrorists, the terrorists fight back. Surprisingly enough

So do we, remember 9/11?

- Not enough troops were sent into Iraq (three times would be required)
Why didn't UN help then? Did they vote for Saddam to win? (We know France and Germany would benefit greatly if he did)

Still there was a great deal of illigality with the war as with any war of aggression. Bush and his cohorts stood to gain money personally from the war so at least france and Germany dont have blood on their hands

No France, and Germany just have the blood from dead Iraqi civilians for supplying Saddam in violation of UN sanctions.

- The bush administration have kept a high level of uncertanity and tried to create an aura of fear in order to manipulate the american people to be honest it does seem like it from accross the pond.
So has the Bush critics, twisting the words of Bush, claiming he says things he didn't say (Like Saddam was connected to Al-Qaida. Bush administration never claimed that.)
They stood up in the UN and claimed a link

The 9/11 comision claimed there was a link. Just not a substantial one.

- Violence breeds more violence (very very true)
That's why the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan had to be stopped. And also the violence in Sudan! Why isn't the UN acting to stop this violence? Why is Bush critisized for acting to stop the violence?

Bush is not trying to stop the violence hes created more violence with his wars. In order to stop the violence you have to address the underlying route causes

Let me guess, poverty, lack of an education? The people that flew those planes into our buildings where upper middle class. and educated in European Universities.

- It is manily poor america which joins up to the army
Ok. Bush cannot be blaimed for that.
Actually the european ideal is to give eveyone a oppertunity for an education regardless of background. Me and many of my friends have the oppertunity to go to university (some of the finest in the world) even though we are from modestly poor backgrounds) we have an out and thats thanks to our politicans making the right decisions for the people and not just the people who can afford it.

shouldn't that be--Many of my freinds and I have had-- Oh and thank you for educating the same terrorist that later killed over 1,000 people here.

- Cutbacks to army pensions/healthcare ect
Ok.

- Some cities (Flint Michigan)in america have unemplyment rates of 17% belived to be actually more around 50%. And this is where the army targets for reqruitment.
Ok. I hardly think Bush is to balme for this. His economic record isnt excactly brilliant hasnt he created a deficit from a surplus when

That depends on how you Figured the budget when he came in to office. Creating a government surpluse by incressing taxes just means that you are taking more money away from the people that actually earn it.

-without mentioning the legitimacy of the election (we dont want blacks to vote)
African americans have a tendency to vote democrat. A variety of African americans In Florida are denied the oppertunity to vote due to their criminal pasts ok if this is the law. but other law abiding citizens are also being denied this oppertunity. This is opposed to other ethnic groups who dont seem to have this problem. Who instigates this scandal none other than george bushes brother whilst is displayed on the film i have heard this from a completly independent source (the bbc).[
?

Did the BBC also point out that Al Gore tried to have thousands of military votes disqualified? The military votes overwelmingly Republican.

Would you people please get over Clinton, it's not a valid argument, the guy can never be president again, what he did, for better or for worse is history, shouldn't we stick to what is happening now? Perhaps Clinton made mistakes, does this in any way excuse the current administration or ones to come from their actions? I think not.. and you know it too.

Oh good... I guess that means you'll shut up with your rantings about Bush and the members of the current administration after they are unelected? I mean, after all, once Bush is no longer President, he'll be 'history'.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Elderana was basically pointing out that Moore is a very far left-wing he is so biased to his views, it's not even funny. But Moore isn't far left.Also he pointed out in a matter of speaking that the left-wing spectrum is usually associated with the socialism. Communism and anarchism are considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics as well, thats why he was comparing Lenin and Moore together.Moore is neither a Leninist nor an anarchist. While he is on the left of the liberal ideology, liberalism itself is centreist, so it is illogical to talk about "far left" liberals.

Fascism is generally included in "the right", despite important differences from other rightists. If you want more of a general idea of the ideal in a bigger picture than the more radical versions of the ideals, let me know.But by Elderana's argument (that he cannot tell the difference between Moore and Lenin) it also follows that it is impossible to tell the difference between fascism and other right ideologies.

http://www.moorewatch.com

http://www.moorewatch.com

This is crap: Cause you're afraid Moore is telling the truth you don't wanna hear, you just start discrediting him.
UNVALID ARGUMENTS IN A VALID DISCUSSION

PS Didn't see Fahrenheit yet, but I did see Bowling for Columbine (which is kinda anti-bush too, but mainly anti-guns/killing.

PPS Do you all know how much trouble Moore had getting Fahrenheit produced? Miramax (part of Disney, tada: large corporation) was supposed to, but then Disney told Miramax they couldn't proceed. Only AFTER Moore won the Best-film award (or something like that) in Cannes American film companies wanted his film (badly). No other country in the world made any problems... just the US... where Bush is president... curious ej?

This is crap: Cause you're afraid Moore is telling the truth you don't wanna hear, you just start discrediting him.
UNVALID ARGUMENTS IN A VALID DISCUSSION

This is crap: Cause you're afraid Moore is lying you don't wanna hear, you just start discrediting the website. :p

Oh good... I guess that means you'll shut up with your rantings about Bush and the members of the current administration after they are unelected? I mean, after all, once Bush is no longer President, he'll be 'history'.Fair point. I'd say that Clinton's policy record is still fair game. His Oval Office blowjob isn't relevant. And the insistence on certain Republicans (to be fair the more intelligent ones like PJ O'Rourke don't do this) on constantly harping on about it merely makes them look like they have serious psychological hangups about sex.

Isn't it weird how much the American Media likes Micheal Moore now considering in Bowling for Columbine he blamed them for turning the american population into paranoid gun freaks?

This is crap: Cause you're afraid Moore is lying you don't wanna hear, you just start discrediting the website. :p

it's crap because it's off topic; Create a new topic called Moore is a Bastard (based on the website), but it has nothing to do with him being right or wrong.

it's crap because it's off topic; Create a new topic called Moore is a Bastard (based on the website), but it has nothing to do with him being right or wrong.

Not off topic at all! From the original post:

if anyone can add to this list but please tell me what is wrong and most importantly why
*emphasis mine

So, someone posts a link that states what is wrong and why. On topic if you ask me.

but that's just the whole point... the website at the end of the link *doesn't* state at all what is wrong and why. It's just a whole page full of character attacks lined by ads for republican campaign t-shirts and merchandise.

but that's just the whole point... the website at the end of the link *doesn't* state at all what is wrong and why. It's just a whole page full of character attacks lined by ads for republican campaign t-shirts and merchandise.

Well then, may I suggest this:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

For instance, here is a quote taken from that website:

"I find it interesting that Moore and his ilk accuse the president of continuing to “read” the book “to” the children. All I saw in F9/11 was President Bush sitting there with the book in his lap, with a scowl of rage across his face. Not even Mikey himself showed so much as aframe of him continuing to interact with the kids after he was told of the attack. At any rate, this incident shows just how petty this presidential race has become."


Need we say more? Clearly this proves that the entire rest of the movie is garbage from beginning to end. :rolleyes:

Meaatopia, at least try to make a half-assed effort...

While Moore certainly gave a lot of opinion in his movie, his facts are another matter.

In fact he hired the fact checker from (the New York Post I think) who could not find a SINGLE factual error in the movie.

Well then, may I suggest this:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
I've read the whole thing now and it isn't exactly very earth-shattering. On the whole, many of the points brought up can only be called deceits if we assume the contradictory opinions or evidence (e.g. the findings of the 9/11 commission) to be the absolute truth - isn't this the sort of blind trust that we're trying to prevent in the first place?


and a lot of the other points are simply answerable, e.g:

47. A humorous sequence making fun of tiny countries in the Coalition does not even mention the major countries such as the UK, Australia, Italy and Japan.
(Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the sequence, which was to show that the "major" countries are far in the minority, and to highlight the absurdity of this situation?)


and a lot more almost don't even need any comment:

51. Moore claims Bush proposed cutting soldiers' pay by 1/3, but their pay and benefits is over $27,000 per year.
(And this is somehow a counter-argument? This doesn't change that Bush proposed the 1/3 pay cut despite them being in the midst of a bloody conflict that he helped drum up support for.)

52. Moore omits the fact that Bush sought and won a 3.7% military pay raise in 2003.
(last I checked, +3% - 33% = -30%)

I've read the whole thing now and it isn't exactly very earth-shattering. On the whole, many of the points brought up can only be called deceits if we assume the contradictory opinions or evidence (e.g. the findings of the 9/11 commission) to be the absolute truth - isn't this the sort of blind trust that we're trying to prevent in the first place?


and a lot of the other points are simply answerable, e.g:


(Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the sequence, which was to show that the "major" countries are far in the minority, and to highlight the absurdity of this situation?)


and a lot more almost don't even need any comment:


(And this is somehow a counter-argument? This doesn't change that Bush proposed the 1/3 pay cut despite them being in the midst of a bloody conflict that he helped drum up support for.)


(last I checked, +3% - 33% = -30%)


Did you bother to follow the links to the articles that covered the events referred to when they occurred? Deceiving someone into believing an event occurred in a certain way when it in fact did not occur that way makes what he says false or haven't you worked that out yet?
I am not blindly believing this website, I was merely pointing out to the OP that his blind faith in Moore as presenter of fact is mislaid. Moore deceives by editing and omitting information that does not fit his conclusion.

In fact, you selective quoting of the website is very Moore-esque!!

But as an example of Invader Nation's selective editing, here is the full explanation of Deceits 50-52 covering a couple he particularly brushed off:

Support for Soldiers and Veterans

Deceits 50-52



Bush "supported closing veterans hospitals" says Moore. The Bush Department of Veterans Affairs did propose closing seven hospitals in areas with declining populations where the hospitals were underutilized, and whose veterans could be served by other hospitals. Moore does not say that the Department also proposed building new hospitals in areas where needs were growing, and also building blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. (For more, see the Final Report of the independent commission on veterans hospitals, which agrees with some of the Bush proposals, and with some of the objections raised by critics.)



According to Moore, Bush "tried to double the prescription drug costs for veterans." What Bush proposed was raising the prescription co-pay from $7 to $15, for veterans with incomes of over $24,000 a year. Prescription costs would have remained very heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Some, not all, veterans would have faced a doubling of their prescription co-pay, but only to a level which is common for many people with prescription insurance, and hardly a large enough increase to make a great difference in most cases.



Bush, announces Moore, "proposed cutting combat soldiers’ pay by 33%." Not exactly. In addition to regular military salaries, soldiers in certain areas (not just combat zones) receive an "imminent danger" bonus of $150 a month. In April 2003, Congress retroactively enacted a special increase of $75, for the fiscal year of Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003. At first, the Bush administration did not support renewing the special bonus, but then changed its position.



Likewise, Congress had passed a special one-year increase in the family separation allowance (for service personnel stationed in places where their families cannot join them) from $100 to $250. Bush's initial opposition to extending the special increase was presented by Moore as "cutting assistance to their families by 60%." (Edward Epstein, "Pentagon reverses course, won’t cut troops’ pay," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15, 2003.)



Even if one characterizes not renewing a special bonus as a "cut," Fahrenheit misleads the viewer into thinking that the cuts applied to total compensation, rather than only to pay supplements which constitute only a small percentage of a soldier’s income. An enlisted man with four months of experience receives an annual salary more than $27,000. (Rod Powers, "What the Recruiter Never Told You: Military Pay." The figure includes the value of health care, housing, and so on.) So allowing the $75 per month supplemental bonus to expire would have amounted to a "cut" of only about 3 percent of total compensation, even at the lowest levels. So Moore claim of a "33%" cut is a ten-fold exaggeration.



Although Moore presents Bush as cutting military pay, Bush did the opposite: in 2003, Congress enacted a Bush administration proposal to raise all military salaries by 3.7%, with extra "targeted" pay increases for non-commissioned officers. NCOs are lower-ranking officers who typically join the military with lower levels of education than commissioned officers. (Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, "Defense Department Targets Military Pay Increases for 2004," American Forces Press Service.)



(Deceits: 1. Closing veterans hospitals without mentioning of opening of veterans hospitals, 2. Cutting combat soldiers' small bonus as if it were a cut in total salary, 3. Omission of Bush pay increase for military. Prescription drugs not counted as deceit, although important context is missing.)



(Moore response: Quotes the movie as referring to "combat soldiers' bonus pay." The theatrical movie I have seen does not include the word "bonus." On other matters, Moore provides citations which are consistent with my explanation of the facts, and does not attempt to explain or justify the deceits or omissions.)

I admit that I've just realized I made a big mistake when I posted that reply, because I'd mistakenly read the summary flyer (the one in PDF) and not the full document. Because the flyer is just a summary, I mistook this to be the full argument and thought the argument was this simplistic; and all my quotes are taken from that flyer, not the actual webpage.

So, apologies if it seems that I've maliciously oversimplified the argument and the quotes in order to make it easier to refute, and I can understand how it looks this way.

to follow up this topic, I am posting a poll

Thank you for acknowledging that Invader Nation.