NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a poll for purely statistical purposes, primarily to satisfy my own curiosity. Go ahead and discuss it in the thread if you like, but I don't guarantee that I'll be reading your response (I am secure in my own answer, which is probably as obvious to me as your own will be to you).

This is actually a poll with two questions. The three options are intended to cover the answers to both these questions, excepting self-contradictory answers:
-> Given the alleged deceits apparent throughout the film, would it have been better if the film Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore had not been made?
-> Is the Fahrenheit 9/11 worth watching?

Yes, it is worth watching. Its slanted, yes we know. But its still worth it.

I believe it is worth watching, if only to find out what everyone else is talking about.

I believe it's worth watching because a) I do like Michael Moore and b) if you don't watch it, you can't debate it with other people (without them thinking you're an idiot, anyway).

I've already got my copy on reserve for when it comes out on DVD. :)

Yay ... yet ANOTHER loaded poll. "Alleged" deceits? *sigh*

Invader Nation started this poll after being shown Moore's deceits in another thread. I guess he is trying to find people who choose to ignore such deceits so as to have a pro-Moore conversation without dealing with the trivialities of truth and honesty.

I saw F911 on a pirated copy as I didn't want to put my money in his pocket. That being said I'm glad I saw it so I could see just how insane Moore is. I think F911 was worse then BFC.

Yes, just because it's so funny!

I refuse to go see it, simply because I don't want the guy to get my money. I might rent it when it comes out on DVD, to see if it's as bad as it's supposed to be, but from what I've heard, the reviews, and what I know about the guy, I'd say no.

I refuse to go see it, simply because I don't want the guy to get my money. I might rent it when it comes out on DVD, to see if it's as bad as it's supposed to be, but from what I've heard, the reviews, and what I know about the guy, I'd say no.

Apparently he doesn't mind his stuff being pirated.

Either way, I've not seen it myself but heard it's like all Moore stuff; good to watch for the comedy but not to be taken seriously.
This is also the same for anything Bush says.

I saw F911 on a pirated copy as I didn't want to put my money in his pocket. That being said I'm glad I saw it so I could see just how insane Moore is. I think F911 was worse then BFC.
Isn't it likely that the pirated copy was edited or changed to put deciet into it?

Isn't it likely that the pirated copy was edited or changed to put deciet into it?

you are an idiot

*edit (to achually answer the question)*

sure, better to know and hate than be ignorant

I can't praise or trash the film, because I haven't seen it. I've heard mixed things about it. I'll probably see it eventually, as long as I don't have to pay to see it.

you are an idiot

*edit (to achually answer the question)*

sure, better to know and hate than be ignorant
Because I question how good comouters have become? YOu can add stuff to computers with pirated copies after all, its not the real thing, you can't take it and ask for a refund. Its already illegal!

It was great! I can only say: "It's funny, because its true"
Everything in F9/11 is true, and Michael Moore has made F9/11 really sad and funny story at the same time.
I Feel sorry for the poor bastard who gets elected after Bush, but I am really sorry for U.S.A and whole world, if Americans repeat their mistake.

I've seen it and I suggest that the people who haven't seen it get a pirated copy (Moore doesn't mind anyways) and watch it. Even if you don't believe the the movie it's a good idea to watch it, not just so you can listen to Moore's opinions but so you can understand what the people who actually believe him are thinking.

Isn't it likely that the pirated copy was edited or changed to put deciet into it?
I've seen the movie theater version and the pirated version and both are the same. I've also seen another pirated version with commentary written by an anti-Micheal Moore person, which wasn't really informative, but it was funny. (If you seriously think it's easy to add deceit to a movie just because it's pirated...you're also pretty mistaken....)

To anyone who hasn't seen it yet keep in mind that it's an editorial, not a documentary--Moore said so. He's not claiming that everything in the movie is fact, so you'd have to do a lot of fact-checking yourself.

The only way it'd be worth seeing is if I could see it free. It would be a nice bonus if I could see it without actually wasting two hours of my life, but that's just wishful thinking.

Movies were designed to be entertaining. I would rank this movie below that of the Passion of the Christ. But since they were both pretty much somebody bashing another person he probably could have just named the movie, the Passion of the Bush...


Wait a second. That sounds more like it could be the title of a porn movie. I’d bet the porn version would be a thousand times more entertaining though.

It's worth seeing even if you think Moore is full of shit (he isn't). Even if you disagree with the conclusions Moore draws, the film is excellent at pulling together footage from media outlets and showing just how poor a job the mainstream media did in examining the administration's case in the run up to the war in Iraq. Much as this film is an indictment of the Bush administration, I think it's even tougher on the news media.

It's probably worth your while to see it.

If you agree with Moore, than hey, you won't be disappointed.

If you don't, you'll have new material to prove wrong.

Like him or not, Moore is a talented film-maker.

Yeah, it's worth seeing. Moore raises many valid questions and issues in the film.

And afterwards, if you don't believe it, you could go do a bit of factchecking yourself.

Michael Moore = Hippocrit
(and not just because of his resemblance in shape to a hippo)

BastardSword said: "Isn't it likely that the pirated copy was edited or changed to put deciet into it?"

If you had seen it, you would be aware that Michael Moore doesn't need anyone's help to tell half-truths or outright lie. His so-called "documentary" is garbage, just as he is.

If you had seen it, you would be aware that Michael Moore doesn't need anyone's help to tell half-truths or outright lie. His so-called "documentary" is garbage, just as he is.

Booyah!!! Right on!

I wouldn't bother personally. Nothing to do with how mean he's being to poor ickle Bush as the right wingers are claiming, it's just not a very good film.

Specific criticisms:

There's nothing new in it. It's essentially a less developed version of his "Dude, where's my country?"

He jumps from subject to subject, so doesen't cover anything in real depth.

Half the film's taken up with a "human interest" story. I don't want to sound heartless, I'm sorry the women lost her son and all, but five minutes would have been fine.

Use the money to rent Citizen Kane on video, and look here for a indepth analysis of the issues that the film is supposed to cover: www.-the-movement.com/menu/osama_bin_laden.htm/

No matter which side of the debate you're on, it's worth watching.

Even the most ardent Bush supporter should see the movie, so they can refute the facts firsthand instead of relying on someone else to do their work for them.

Interesting that (ATM) more have voted for "should never have been made" than just plain old "no": pro-censorship much? ;)

P.S. IMHO, one of the more entertaining opinion pieces/documentaries I've watched...

In all fairness, Holy Word, there's only nothing new in F9/11 if you've been going at the media with hammer and tongs for the last 3 years--I knew almost everything that Moore presented already, but I was one of the few in comparison to the number of people that saw the film. But then again, I'm a junkie. Like I said above, the film is as much an indictment of the news media as it is of the Bush administration.

In all fairness, Holy Word, there's only nothing new in F9/11 if you've been going at the media with hammer and tongs for the last 3 years--I knew almost everything that Moore presented already, but I was one of the few in comparison to the number of people that saw the film. But then again, I'm a junkie. I suppose the question is who is the film aimed at. Are those people who know nothing at all about the underlying issues (which seem to be the film's target audience) going to go see a political film in the first place? Like I said above, the film is as much an indictment of the news media as it is of the Bush administration.
I can understand that's probably the case for you more, then it is for me as a UK citizen. But I think the film falls into the same trap as the news media. Overconcentration on personalitys instead of issues. Assuming it's viewers have a five second attention span. Spending to much time on mawkish human interest stories.

I think part of the problem is that I watched the film with my expectations raised far to high. We were promised a focused and passionate attack on Bush and I don't think we got that.

"Waaahhh!!!! It's not a documentary, it's a salad fork!!!"

"Waaaaahhhhh!!!! It's emotionally manipulative, let me wrap myself in a flag and look longingly at my photo of Bush on rubble with a bull horn...."

"Waaaahhhhhh!!!!! Moore has an opinion and an agenda. No one has ever used media to get a message across!!!!"

"Waaaaaahhhh!!!!!! It criticizes the president!!!!!! Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! (Coincedently, if Kerry reacts to criticism, he's whining, but when Bush is criticized, 'WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!')"

"Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!! Moore is fat!!!!!! Fat people's opinions are invalid!!!!!!"

"Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!! Moore used editing!!!!! He (and D.W Griffith and Eisenstien who, shockingly enough, invented modern editing close to 100 years ago......) is a villian!!!!! Films should be a succession of uninterupted long takes!!!!!!!!! Nevermind that news uses even shorter clips!!!!!! WAAAAAHHH!!!!!"

"Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!! He has a different opinion on how america could be a better place, he mus HATE america....."

"Waaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! The opinion shows on the NEWS channel FOX are can express personal views, but a personality driven film should somehow be devoid of opinion!!!!!!!"

"Waaaaahhhh!!!! Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! Waaaaaaahhhh!!!!!!"

shake it off. I'm tired of all the bitchin'. Prove he's a good president. Get off your ass or shut the hell up.

I think F911 is worth watching, it shows EXACTLY HOW STUPID BUSH IS!

Invader Nation started this poll after being shown Moore's deceits in another thread. I guess he is trying to find people who choose to ignore such deceits so as to have a pro-Moore conversation without dealing with the trivialities of truth and honesty.

No. I am not interested in conversation, only the poll results.

*bump*

No. I am not interested in conversation, only the poll results.

*bump*
Have you seen the film yet, or is this poll going to help you decide whether or not to see it?

Yes, Farenheit 911 is worth watching.

Yes, Ann Coulter is worth reading.


Every political point of view - no matter how extreme - is worth looking into. Just take the time to do your own research too. If all you can do is parrot what your one favorite media outlet or personality says, then you are not an educated person on current events.

Yay ... yet ANOTHER loaded poll. "Alleged" deceits? *sigh*

The word "alleged" is generally used so as to take a neutral position with regards to the truth of an... allegation. It neither calls an allegation a fact, nor a falsehood. So it is indeed not a loaded question.

No matter which side of the debate you're on, it's worth watching.

Even the most ardent Bush supporter should see the movie, so they can refute the facts firsthand instead of relying on someone else to do their work for them.

Interesting that (ATM) more have voted for "should never have been made" than just plain old "no": pro-censorship much? ;)

P.S. IMHO, one of the more entertaining opinion pieces/documentaries I've watched...

Just because I am of the opinion that it should have never been made, does not mean that I want to censor it. Too many people are unable to separate what is their personal opinion from that which is lawful and just, but I am not one of them. Even though I don't like Moore or his film, I would never begrudge him the right to make a film (even though I might be saddened by the number of people who take it seriously).

And why should I have to go see the movie in order to have an argument about it? If someone wants to have an argument about the issues they don't need to use an editorial as a piece of evidence. It is fine if liberals goto the movie and come out with new issues to argue about, that doesn't bother me. But do *not* try to use that movie to prove anything. Liberals shouldn't *have* to if their point is as valid as they think it is. And, likewise, I shouldn't have to goto the movie to disprove their ideas. The movie just gives liberals a (flawed in my opinion) script from which to read, which can only cow the unprepared opponent, and therefore give a false sense of superiority.

Sure, go see the movie, but don't think that it makes you more intellectual; it just turns you into a puppet parroting Moore.

I'm voting for Kerry.
F9/11 is not worth watching if you have to pay for it.

You should add an "It was so-so" option to the poles.

"Waaahhh!!!! It's not a documentary, it's a salad fork!!!"

"Waaaaahhhhh!!!! It's emotionally manipulative, let me wrap myself in a flag and look longingly at my photo of Bush on rubble with a bull horn...."

"Waaaahhhhhh!!!!! Moore has an opinion and an agenda. No one has ever used media to get a message across!!!!"

"Waaaaaahhhh!!!!!! It criticizes the president!!!!!! Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! (Coincedently, if Kerry reacts to criticism, he's whining, but when Bush is criticized, 'WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!')"

"Waaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!! Moore is fat!!!!!! Fat people's opinions are invalid!!!!!!"

"Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!! Moore used editing!!!!! He (and D.W Griffith and Eisenstien who, shockingly enough, invented modern editing close to 100 years ago......) is a villian!!!!! Films should be a succession of uninterupted long takes!!!!!!!!! Nevermind that news uses even shorter clips!!!!!! WAAAAAHHH!!!!!"

"Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!! He has a different opinion on how america could be a better place, he mus HATE america....."

"Waaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! The opinion shows on the NEWS channel FOX are can express personal views, but a personality driven film should somehow be devoid of opinion!!!!!!!"

"Waaaaahhhh!!!! Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! Waaaaaaahhhh!!!!!!"

shake it off. I'm tired of all the bitchin'. Prove he's a good president. Get off your ass or shut the hell up.

*Laughs*
-Very nice

Oh yeah, and I think F9/11 is worth seeing

Hmm.....of course it's worth watching, whether or not you're one of those people who have to have everything their way (this applies to both conservatives and liberals.) I myself am a moderate with leftist leanings. Besides, how can you form an opinion of something if you yourself have never seen it?

Hmm.....of course it's worth watching, whether or not you're one of those people who have to have everything their way (this applies to both conservatives and liberals.) I myself am a moderate with leftist leanings. Besides, how can you form an opinion of something if you yourself have never seen it?

Lots of people form opinions about things they've never seen. That shouldn't really be a problem as long as you are informed about what it is you haven't seen.

I am of the sort that doesn't want to pay someone in order to see a movie that I won't enjoy. If it is supposed to be entertainment, then why should I go see it if I won't be entertained? In effect I'm paying Michael Moore to bore me and so that I can argue with someone about a movie that they agree with but I don't. I don't care if someone else likes the movie. What kind of a discussion revolves around whether or not you agree with a MOVIE, anyway???? Sounds pretty pointless to me.

The thing with alot of the people that haven't seen it ( and this is especially true of my local town in Kansas) is that they first heard about the movie from people who are more inclined to call him 'the devil' than give the guy a break. (they really, really tried to keep us here in Kansas from even learning about the movie. No one told us when it was coming out. The original screening was actually cancelled after some local church group nearly assaulted the theatre.)

The thing with alot of the people that haven't seen it ( and this is especially true of my local town in Kansas) is that they first heard about the movie from people who are more inclined to call him 'the devil' than give the guy a break. (they really, really tried to keep us here in Kansas from even learning about the movie. No one told us when it was coming out. The original screening was actually cancelled after some local church group nearly assaulted the theatre.)

I don't live in Kansas and I have a liberal family, I read the newspaper, have numerous subscriptions to various magazines liberal, moderate, or conservative, and I'm a very slightly left of center moderate. I only appear conservative because the liberals have gone so far left I can't agree with them anymore. Welcome to the centrist nightmare: choosing between liberals and conservatives. I'm still a Democrat, but it gets harder every year to justify voting for a party in which I only respect a few individuals.

I would have thought that any film that has generated so much controversy has to be worth watching. I happen to think Bush is an unmitigated disaster for America and a nightmare for the rest of us but he's your prez and any film that knocks him should be watched and considered.

Do not watch this pointless movie. It is simply a collection of ILLEGALLY gathered video clips slapped together to help fund John Kerry's campaign and to try to get more people to vote for John Kerry.

Apparently he doesn't mind his stuff being pirated.

Either way, I've not seen it myself but heard it's like all Moore stuff; good to watch for the comedy but not to be taken seriously.
This is also the same for anything Bush says.

Exactly. I believe all politicians and assholes are much the same, in that they cannot be taken at their word. Well said, good job, and don't waste your time on that movie. You might actually start to believe some of it.

I say it's worth watching. But as a part of watching it people should actually go out and get the facts. In the movie Moore did put in alot of material that is taken out of context to change the meaning (Moore loves to do this), and in many places he deliberatly misleads the viewer. It really skewers the truth.

Just because I am of the opinion that it should have never been made, does not mean that I want to censor it. Too many people are unable to separate what is their personal opinion from that which is lawful and just, but I am not one of them. Even though I don't like Moore or his film, I would never begrudge him the right to make a film (even though I might be saddened by the number of people who take it seriously).

And why should I have to go see the movie in order to have an argument about it? If someone wants to have an argument about the issues they don't need to use an editorial as a piece of evidence. It is fine if liberals goto the movie and come out with new issues to argue about, that doesn't bother me. But do *not* try to use that movie to prove anything. Liberals shouldn't *have* to if their point is as valid as they think it is. And, likewise, I shouldn't have to goto the movie to disprove their ideas. The movie just gives liberals a (flawed in my opinion) script from which to read, which can only cow the unprepared opponent, and therefore give a false sense of superiority.

Sure, go see the movie, but don't think that it makes you more intellectual; it just turns you into a puppet parroting Moore.

Just curious - how can you question the validity of something you've never seen firsthand? Just because "Billy Bob" from "Right Wing Times" (ficticious names) summarizes the facts for your convenience, doesn't mean his presentation of the "facts" is any less biased than Moore's - for all you know, he could be inventing things that are not even mentioned in the film...

I don't believe I ever claimed that the movie made people more intellectual - I just don't get how people can bitch and moan about the innacuracy of something the have only heard "hearsay" evidence about...

"Know thine enemy" - wise words, IMHO...

liberals have gone so far left
You really think that American liberals are left-wing?

Do not watch this pointless movie. It is simply a collection of ILLEGALLY gathered video clips slapped together to help fund John Kerry's campaign and to try to get more people to vote for John Kerry.
Not that it even mentions Kerry.

Farenheit 9/11 shows that American Politics has entered a new stage entirely. This process started on September 11, 2001. Intelligent debate is dead, all that remains is rampant emotion and lies, deceit, and manipulation.

All the flag-waving bush lovers have bought into it since 9/11, calling anything nonbush anti-american, and the latest revolting development of the executive office releasing the notice that said terrorists might do something to influence the election. Bush has put Kerry on the side of the terrorists.

All of the Mooreite dipwads who buy into anything a walking cheeseburger says are no better. They accept half-truths, are swayed to vote by a woman crying, and will rally for something they don't know about in half a second. Moore showed the carnage in Iraq, and has put Bush on the side of the terrorists.

The terrorists are all but dead, by the bipartisan bickering and powermongering is giving them more power than they could have possibly imagined. Moore and Bush are on the side of the terrorists.

Kerry is simply stupid.

EDIT: Farenheit 9/11 is the Left's response to FOX news, and Coulter, O'Reilly, and Moore would be better off dead

Just curious - how can you question the validity of something you've never seen firsthand? Just because "Billy Bob" from "Right Wing Times" (ficticious names) summarizes the facts for your convenience, doesn't mean his presentation of the "facts" is any less biased than Moore's - for all you know, he could be inventing things that are not even mentioned in the film...

I don't believe I ever claimed that the movie made people more intellectual - I just don't get how people can bitch and moan about the innacuracy of something the have only heard "hearsay" evidence about...

"Know thine enemy" - wise words, IMHO...

Don't be an imbecile, please. Attacking me personally has gained you nothing, and has lost you some respect. Your first mistake was in assuming that I am a conservative. I am a moderate, and I despise both conservatives and liberals for the way they act and the way they will do anything or say anything to get what they want, no matter how innacurate it may be.

You seek to generalize my behavior as being one-sided because I will not see a movie for various political and moral reasons, but frankly you know nothing about my life. The only newspapers that I read are my local paper (some call it liberal, but I don't think it leans far towards either side) and the New York Times (though only when I'm at college because then I get it free). So much for your Right Wing Times, eh dimwit?

Farenheit 9/11 shows that American Politics has entered a new stage entirely. This process started on September 11, 2001. Intelligent debate is dead, all that remains is rampant emotion and lies, deceit, and manipulation.

All the flag-waving bush lovers have bought into it since 9/11, calling anything nonbush anti-american, and the latest revolting development of the executive office releasing the notice that said terrorists might do something to influence the election. Bush has put Kerry on the side of the terrorists.

All of the Mooreite dipwads who buy into anything a walking cheeseburger says are no better. They accept half-truths, are swayed to vote by a woman crying, and will rally for something they don't know about in half a second. Moore showed the carnage in Iraq, and has put Bush on the side of the terrorists.

The terrorists are all but dead, by the bipartisan bickering and powermongering is giving them more power than they could have possibly imagined. Moore and Bush are on the side of the terrorists.

Kerry is simply stupid.

EDIT: Farenheit 9/11 is the Left's response to FOX news, and Coulter, O'Reilly, and Moore would be better off dead:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

What? Either stupid or very quiet. I haven't heard him take a stance on anything.

What? Either stupid or very quiet. I haven't heard him take a stance on anything.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Here--I've got a little project for you. Go to John Kerry's issues page (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) and then to George W. Bush's issues page (http://georgewbush.com/Agenda) and compare the level of detail provided for each point of discussion.

I'll even get you started--Kerry's list is longer, and it's far more detailed.

Its worth watching because it will save America from the tyrant hands of Bush.

I enjoyed it and found it an excellent movie.

Was it partisan? Yes. Was it biased? Certainly.

But! The bias was very apparent and most of the places where there were logical jumps, were easy to pick out.

Compare this to, say... Fox News, a source mentioned on a discussion board earlier today. Fox News is easily just as biased, but claims to be "fair and balanced". Which is worse, a source that is biased and the bias is apparent or one that is biased and claims not to be?

Also, I think it is a bias that has been seen less in the media than should be and so balances the discussion well.


My ultimate point though: Yes, it's biased, but we know it is and so can filter it.

I wouldn't bother personally. Nothing to do with how mean he's being to poor ickle Bush as the right wingers are claiming, it's just not a very good film.

Specific criticisms:

There's nothing new in it. It's essentially a less developed version of his "Dude, where's my country?"

He jumps from subject to subject, so doesen't cover anything in real depth.

Half the film's taken up with a "human interest" story. I don't want to sound heartless, I'm sorry the women lost her son and all, but five minutes would have been fine.

Use the money to rent Citizen Kane on video, and look here for a indepth analysis of the issues that the film is supposed to cover: www.-the-movement.com/menu/osama_bin_laden.htm/
Heres the real question...did you even see the movie?

It was great! I can only say: "It's funny, because its true"
Everything in F9/11 is true, and Michael Moore has made F9/11 really sad and funny story at the same time.
I Feel sorry for the poor bastard who gets elected after Bush, but I am really sorry for U.S.A and whole world, if Americans repeat their mistake.

It's not true. In fact, the whole movie revolves around a false accusation that the president lied to us about weapons of mass destruction. It's pretty much been proven that he didn't now, but how could you ever think he did in the first place? Why would anyone lie about such a thing. There was nothing he could've gained from lying and people would find out about the lie eventually anyway.

Also, the mistake was not only made by Americans. British and Russian intelligence also said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Due to the latest story about Saddam trafficing illegal items over the border right before the war, it's possible that nobody made a mistake.

Compare this to, say... Fox News, a source mentioned on a discussion board earlier today. Fox News is easily just as biased, but claims to be "fair and balanced". Which is worse, a source that is biased and the bias is apparent or one that is biased and claims not to be?

Fox News is not biased. Certain shows have people who are supposed to discuss their opinion, but the actual news when it is reported is done without spin. I don't know what you have found that makes them biased.

People try to compare Bill O'Reilly to Michael Moore by saying they're both extreme on different sides, but the difference is that Bill O'Reilly uses only truth and displays both sides of the story. If he ever relays untruthful information, it's because his sources gave him the wrong information. He's not s far to the right as people think either. O'Reilly is a traditionalist, but he looks out for everyone and makes sense.

Don't be an imbecile, please. Attacking me personally has gained you nothing, and has lost you some respect. Your first mistake was in assuming that I am a conservative. I am a moderate, and I despise both conservatives and liberals for the way they act and the way they will do anything or say anything to get what they want, no matter how innacurate it may be.

You seek to generalize my behavior as being one-sided because I will not see a movie for various political and moral reasons, but frankly you know nothing about my life. The only newspapers that I read are my local paper (some call it liberal, but I don't think it leans far towards either side) and the New York Times (though only when I'm at college because then I get it free). So much for your Right Wing Times, eh dimwit?

LOL - call me an imbecile and a dimwit, and then complain that I am personally attacking you. :) Outstanding work, sir! :p

Please, do point out where I attack you personally... The "you" was aimed at everyone, not at you personally - sorry if it was worded poorly.

Have a wonderful day, won't you - from one dimwitted imbecile to another LOL ;)

LOL - call me an imbecile and a dimwit, and then complain that I am personally attacking you. :) Outstanding work, sir! :p

Please, do point out where I attack you personally... The "you" was aimed at everyone, not at you personally - sorry if it was worded poorly.

Have a wonderful day, won't you - from one dimwitted imbecile to another LOL ;)

I apologize if you didn't attack me, but your post put me in a bad mood, and frankly while I realized that I was attacking you while I was posting it, I considered it only fair since you had done the same to me without provocation. It didn't make me a hypocrite to respond in kind, it just made me a vindictive person.

...have a liberal family, numerous subscriptions to various magazines liberal, moderate, or conservative, and I'm a very slightly left of center moderate. I only appear conservative because the liberals have gone so far left I can't agree with them anymore.

Welcome to the centrist nightmare: choosing between liberals and conservatives...Your first mistake was in assuming that I am a conservative.

I am a moderate, and I despise both conservatives and liberals for the way they act and the way they will do anything or say anything to get what they want, no matter how innacurate it may be.

(quote has been rearranged)

As somebody living outside the USA (or wherever else where this wording is common): What?

Somebody please define "liberal", "conservative", "center moderate" etc? And what is this scale of left and right supposed to be?

i mean, what the hell... :confused:

I thought it was funny, I like Bush, I hate Kerry he should be shot. But anyways, I like the soldiers who play "The Roof Is On Fire" in their tanks as they blow those Iraqi scum away. I have a best friend over there, so Moore can go screw himself.

I thought it was funny, I like Bush, I hate Kerry he should be shot. But anyways, I like the soldiers who play "The Roof Is On Fire" in their tanks as they blow those Iraqi scum away. I have a best friend over there, so Moore can go screw himself.

Your post came really close to being somewhat understandable and intellegent. But you fell short. Better luck next time!

I think it is worth watching, but not for the normal reasons.

I think it is worth watching, but only so you can see that it is not only Bush that lies in an attempt to get his way, but those who would love to see him out of power deceive as much, if not more than Bush.

After seeing 9/11, and if you know the real facts, you will see Michael Moore is far worse of a person than Bush, as he is a hypocrite on top of deceptive.

Lies should not be allowed to be broadcasted across the media like that (this applies to everyone, not just Moore)

I apologize if you didn't attack me, but your post put me in a bad mood, and frankly while I realized that I was attacking you while I was posting it, I considered it only fair since you had done the same to me without provocation. It didn't make me a hypocrite to respond in kind, it just made me a vindictive person.

No hard feelings - I believe there was a mutual misunderstanding. I sometimes have a tendency to word things poorly or in an inflammatory way. ;)

Micheal Moore is an asshole. A huge asshole. But if he wasn't, he wouldn't have gotten his point across. I'm not going to say that I like Moore. I can't stand him. He's egotistical and arrogant. But he makes his point.

The movie is worth seeing. Even if you love bush and hate Moore, some of the images make you think about what Bush has done, and how our world is going to hell. Seeing young soldiers listen to death metal to get a adrenaline(sp?) high so they can shoot anything that move infront of the tank, and enjoying it...If you don't find something wrong with that, its sad. Seeing politicians who are gung-ho about the war but think it's absurd to even ask if their children would go over to help fight, while mothers lose sons and daughters becuase the armed forces was their best option. Our country is on a one way ticket to hell.

We need a president that can get us out of this mess. I'm not saying that Kerry is the answer. I can't stand that uptight liar. But Bush has had his chance, and he's killed our economy, killed thousands of people, and won't admit that anything is really wrong. Something in this country needs to change.

You should simply listen to whatever nameless people on the internet say and let them make up your mind for you.

Or..


You could actually watch the film for yourself and make up your own mind as to what you should believe....

I thought it was funny, I like Bush, I hate Kerry he should be shot. But anyways, I like the soldiers who play "The Roof Is On Fire" in their tanks as they blow those Iraqi scum away. I have a best friend over there, so Moore can go screw himself.
Yeah, those scum like that three-ish-year-old boy who had half his arm missing. That kid had it coming. For sure.
The "soundtrack" part of the movie really made me sad and concerned to live among people with that sort of mindset.

That portion of the film only showed the bad things in Iraq. It didn't show most citizens who are now free and happier.

That portion of the film only showed the bad things in Iraq. It didn't show most citizens who are now free and happier.


How many could there possibly be?

The very first act the new government did when it was installed, was to declare martial law!
How much "free" are they?

Are they still getting tortured? Yes.

Is there still voilence in the streets? Yes.

Does America still have soldiers occupying Iraqi soil? Yes.

Do they still hate us? Yes.

Or maybe......THIS is what Moore is trying to address.
BECUASE.......you dont hear about this kind of thing on the news.

That portion of the film only showed the bad things in Iraq. It didn't show most citizens who are now free and happier.
Firstly, the film was made before the handover to the <cough> Iraqi <cough> interim government, and secondly, the Iraqi people are not "free", because the US still occupies the country and operates under Bremer's Orders.

Lastly, how do you know if the people are "happier"?

That portion of the film only showed the bad things in Iraq. It didn't show most citizens who are now free and happier.Yeah--where are those people? Because I don't see them on the news either, not even on Fox? (In case you can't tell, I'm mocking you.)

Let me put it simply--Iraq is a clusterfuck right now, and while it's possible that in the long run, it'll be better off for our interference, that's still far from certain, especially since we've installed as prime minister a guy who looks to have the potential to be another Hussein.

I think it is worth watching, but not for the normal reasons.

I think it is worth watching, but only so you can see that it is not only Bush that lies in an attempt to get his way.......

At least I can agree with you up to this part of your quote. :eek:

That portion of the film only showed the bad things in Iraq. It didn't show most citizens who are now free and happier.


But it did show the pain, chaos, and distruction that we caused. It showed that we leveled towns and cities. "Well, they had it coming.". We bitched and moaned and blew up Afghanistan becuase we had 2 building knocked down, one with some damage that was fixed, and a giant pothole out in the middle of the country. A teeny, tiny ammount of people died here. If we're playing the "You hit us, so we'll hit you even harder" game, we're screwed. We've probably killed the same ammount of women and children Iraq as we lost total on 9/11. Sure, we freed them, but when your afraid to go out becuase of militia attacks and bloodshed happening all around your country, can you really call yourself free?

But it did show the pain, chaos, and distruction that we caused. It showed that we leveled towns and cities. "Well, they had it coming.". We bitched and moaned and blew up Afghanistan becuase we had 2 building knocked down, one with some damage that was fixed, and a giant pothole out in the middle of the country. A teeny, tiny ammount of people died here. If we're playing the "You hit us, so we'll hit you even harder" game, we're screwed. We've probably killed the same ammount of women and children Iraq as we lost total on 9/11. Sure, we freed them, but when your afraid to go out becuase of militia attacks and bloodshed happening all around your country, can you really call yourself free?
The problem here is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. :rolleyes:

The problem here is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. :rolleyes:


Are you denying the attempts by the Bush administration to link the two even before we invaded Iraq?

Fox News still makes the connection.

The problem here is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. :rolleyes:


Was that saying that my arguement was crap, or agreeing that we've dug ourself into a nasty hole?

Was that saying that my arguement was crap, or agreeing that we've dug ourself into a nasty hole?
I was not trying to degrade your post at all, only thing I didn't agree on was any kind of link between 9/11 and Iraq. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

The rest of your post was right on the money!! :)

Are you denying the attempts by the Bush administration to link the two even before we invaded Iraq?

Fox News still makes the connection.
I can't comment on Fox News because we don't get it here in Canada but if they are continually trying to push that Iraq had any complicity in 9/11, then they are not reporting the news, just passing opinion.

I was not trying to degrade your post at all, only thing I didn't agree on was any kind of link between 9/11 and Iraq. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

The rest of your post was right on the money!! :)


Well, sorry about that....I guess I had always heard that the real reason we were going to war was because Iraq had WMD, and could/would/already had sold them to bin Laden or possibly thought about using them on us. Atleast thats what my Fox News buff friend always told me when i said it was probably becuase Bushy wanted revenge becuase they tried to kill his Daddy.

it's definately a piece of crap film based on skewed facts and half-truths, but as opposition to whom it preaches to, I had to figure out my enemies ideas and presentation, makes it easier for debate when I can debunk their lies on at a time. :eek: :mp5:

Well, sorry about that....I guess I had always heard that the real reason we were going to war was because Iraq had WMD, and could/would/already had sold them to bin Laden or possibly thought about using them on us. Atleast thats what my Fox News buff friend always told me when i said it was probably becuase Bushy wanted revenge becuase they tried to kill his Daddy.Faux News strikes again! To the barricades!!!!

Well, sorry about that....I guess I had always heard that the real reason we were going to war was because Iraq had WMD, and could/would/already had sold them to bin Laden or possibly thought about using them on us. Atleast thats what my Fox News buff friend always told me when i said it was probably becuase Bushy wanted revenge becuase they tried to kill his Daddy.
Well as a matter of fact, 15 of the 19? terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and even some funds came from there, yet not one bomb was dropped on that country.

Bush wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11 happened, and you can tell that to your Fox News buddy?

it's definately a piece of crap film based on skewed facts and half-truths, but as opposition to whom it preaches to, I had to figure out my enemies ideas and presentation, makes it easier for debate when I can debunk their lies on at a time. :eek: :mp5:
You probably didn't even see the film, so you could only offer us 1/4 truths for debate?

So bring it on!!!

I can't comment on Fox News because we don't get it here in Canada but if they are continually trying to push that Iraq had any complicity in 9/11, then they are not reporting the news, just passing opinion.


Thats becuase thats what they do.

Bush certainly has done so since the very beginning, and still occasionally mentions it.

You probably didn't even see the film, so you could only offer us 1/4 truths for debate?

So bring it on!!!

No I payed my $7.50 and was pissed off for having paid for it. I watched the movie and took notes.

If you want to talk half-truths lets talk about Moore attempting to place Fox as the one who "gave" the election to Bush, funny how he never mentioned that Fox originally called Florida for Gore! And then at 2am, approximately 1-2 minutes before CNN, Fox called it for Bush, cause finally all votes had been counted.

Or maybe you'd like how he used about a 1/4 of what Condoleeza said? So many inconsistencies and contortions to his facts it's not funny.

No I payed my $7.50 and was pissed off for having paid for it. I watched the movie and took notes.

If you want to talk half-truths lets talk about Moore attempting to place Fox as the one who "gave" the election to Bush, funny how he never mentioned that Fox originally called Florida for Gore! And then at 2am, approximately 1-2 minutes before CNN, Fox called it for Bush, cause finally all votes had been counted.

Or maybe you'd like how he used about a 1/4 of what Condoleeza said? So many inconsistencies and contortions to his facts it's not funny.

and yet, that still doesnt change the fact that the man who made the decision to announce Bush the winner, was none other than Bush's first cousin.

Only after Fox did so, did ABC, NBC, change thier minds....becuase Fox did.

and yet, that still doesnt change the fact that the man who made the decision to announce Bush the winner, was none other than Bush's first cousin.

Only after Fox did so, did ABC, NBC, change thier minds....becuase Fox did.

That's very foolish to think so. Bush's cousin was not the only analyst on the Fox team!

Second: It was called at 2am after Polls had closed

Third: The call by Fox had such a short time between it's calling and the next calling that it's so highly unlikely that it "influenced" the bigger news corporations in any way. Bush won Florida, move on from it already. :headbang:

Saudi Arabia has been a little bit more friendly and cooperative towards us in the fight against terrorism than Iraq and Afghanistan ever were. Bin Ladin was hiding in the hills of Afghanistan back in September 2001, and that's why we bombed that country. The Taliban government wasn't doing a thing to catch him, and was even harboring him, and that's why we bombed Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are helping us now and are taking measures to stop terrorists that are in their borders.

As for Iraq, do you so easily forget that a good majority believed there were WMDs there? Even the UN passed a resolution saying that measures should be taken against Iraq if they didn't dissarm. The truth is that no one really knew for sure whether or not there was anything there. Weapons inspectors had been kicked out years before, so no one had accurate information. A good deal of current Bush opponents believed then that there were good reasons for going to war, including the man running against him for president. Plus, when the war started there were more countries in the coalition against Iraq than in the coalition against it in the first Gulf war.

As for the film, I don't think it's worth seeing. Not for the $9.50 or so it currently costs. You could have just tuned in to the DNC and gotten pretty much every argument he posed for free, though I do admit seeing Moore chase politicians around to sign up their sons was pretty funny.

Saudi Arabia has been a little bit more friendly and cooperative towards us in the fight against terrorism than Iraq and Afghanistan ever were. Bin Ladin was hiding in the hills of Afghanistan back in September 2001, and that's why we bombed that country. The Taliban government wasn't doing a thing to catch him, and was even harboring him, and that's why we bombed Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are helping us now and are taking measures to stop terrorists that are in their borders.

As for Iraq, do you so easily forget that a good majority believed there were WMDs there? Even the UN passed a resolution saying that measures should be taken against Iraq if they didn't dissarm. The truth is that no one really knew for sure whether or not there was anything there. Weapons inspectors had been kicked out years before, so no one had accurate information. A good deal of current Bush opponents believed then that there were good reasons for going to war, including the man running against him for president. Plus, when the war started there were more countries in the coalition against Iraq than in the coalition against it in the first Gulf war.

As for the film, I don't think it's worth seeing. Not for the $9.50 or so it currently costs. You could have just tuned in to the DNC and gotten pretty much every argument he posed for free, though I do admit seeing Moore chase politicians around to sign up their sons was pretty funny.


Shhh, don't speak the truth, it pisses people off :headbang:

Shhh, don't speak the truth, it pisses people off :headbang:


Hah, no...let him. Thats what this country really needs. Get rid of all this bull that has everyone hating each other. The media feeds us mind rot, and half the time, nobody has a clear picture of what is really going on. We bombed Iraq becuase they didn't comply with the UN and never turned over the weapons. But now, where are the weapons? Our inspectors never found them, and after a year and a half of war (sure, we "ended" the war back in..what, March?...but aslong as we're over there, and people are getting killed, we're at war), we still haven't found these WMD. Maybe Saddam was telling the truth....

Hah. Watch the flames come rolling in from that last line....

Why is everyone so hung over the WMD thing....

All the anti-war people say that the reason they oppose the war on Iraq was because there were no WMD found there....

Is the humanitarian "crisis" (a crisis is open to interpretation, but IMO I would consider it as such), the fact that someone like Saddam Hussein was still in control of a nation (should have been removed years and years ago) not enough?

The fact there was oil there (even though the U.S hasn't taken any of it) under the control of a less-than-friendly nation to the U.S, and the fact there MIGHT have been WMD are also good added points, although they would qualify as secondary.

So, rather than going on and on about "Bush lied about WMD!" How about you refute other reasons for invading said country?

Why is everyone so hung over the WMD thing....

All the anti-war people say that the reason they oppose the war on Iraq was because there were no WMD found there....

Is the humanitarian "crisis" (a crisis is open to interpretation, but IMO I would consider it as such), the fact that someone like Saddam Hussein was still in control of a nation (should have been removed years and years ago) not enough?

The fact there was oil there (even though the U.S hasn't taken any of it) under the control of a less-than-friendly nation to the U.S, and the fact there MIGHT have been WMD are also good added points, although they would qualify as secondary.

So, rather than going on and on about "Bush lied about WMD!" How about you refute other reasons for invading said country?


Did you ever stop to think that the reason that so many people still bring up the WMDs thing, is becuase thats the reason Bush said he went in the first place?

Did you ever stop to think that the reason that so many people still bring up the WMDs thing, is becuase thats the reason Bush said he went in the first place?

Going on the same information that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Russia, Germany, France, Britain....shall I continue on the list of people and countries who were saying the same thing and believed it?

Bush did not lie about it, you act as if he was the one gathering the information and then making the decisions all by himself. There's still a great deal of intelligence gathering going into the truckloads of shipments being delivered into Syria weeks prior to the invasion...guess you don't hear that in the news.

Is the humanitarian "crisis" (a crisis is open to interpretation, but IMO I would consider it as such), the fact that someone like Saddam Hussein was still in control of a nation (should have been removed years and years ago) not enough?

Actually no, it isn't. We are not the world's police. We are not attacking any part of Africa, in which things much worst are being done. So no, I'm so very sorry, but you're so very wrong.

The Saudis are helping us now and are taking measures to stop terrorists that are in their borders.
There has been 3 terrorist bombing incidents against the US in Saudi Arabia SINCE the Iraq War started. There certainly was and is more potential for anti-US terrorism in Saudi Arabia, despite how much the Bush's and the Royal Sauds love each other. I will repeat....15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. Not 1 Iraqi!!!

As for Iraq, do you so easily forget that a good majority believed there were WMDs there?
Many of the US's traditional allies were not so sure and wanted to give the UN inspectors more time. Russia and China were also against any US invasion.

Even the UN passed a resolution saying that measures should be taken against Iraq if they didn't dissarm. The truth is that no one really knew for sure whether or not there was anything there. Weapons inspectors had been kicked out years before, so no one had accurate information.
The TRUTH is that there were over 300 UN inspectors in Iraq, and they were not finding ANY WMD, when the US declared that she was going to attack anyways. So the UN inspectors were ordered out.

A good deal of current Bush opponents believed then that there were good reasons for going to war, including the man running against him for president.
The reason that Bush got support for the war against Iraq was due to faulty intelligence, and very weak intelligence indeed. Bush had a desire to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 even happened.

Plus, when the war started there were more countries in the coalition against Iraq than in the coalition against it in the first Gulf war.
The Gulf War was authorized by the UN Security Council in the use of "all means necessary" to eject Iraq from Kuwait.

There was NO UN Security Council "authorization" for the 2nd war on Iraq, hence notably absentees such as France, Germany, and Canada.

Going on the same information that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Russia, Germany, France, Britain....shall I continue on the list of people and countries who were saying the same thing and believed it?

Bush did not lie about it, you act as if he was the one gathering the information and then making the decisions all by himself. There's still a great deal of intelligence gathering going into the truckloads of shipments being delivered into Syria weeks prior to the invasion...guess you don't hear that in the news.

Yes, I did actually.
The shipments turned out to be scrap metal.
Thats why the news networks didnt jump all over it.

As for the information that Bush had, then perhaps you can tell me why Clinton didnt choose to invade Iraq, since he had the same information about Iraq that Bush did?

Heres the real question...did you even see the movie?Yes.