Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Fahrenheit 9/11
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100689] |
Fri, 09 July 2004 21:27  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Just saw it 5 minutes ago, quite a good documentary.
The first hour and a half or so are quite lively, and Micheal Moore points out some very interesting facts, like how the Saudis have used the Carlyle Group to give the Bush family 1.4 Billion dollars.
Then the movie's viewpoiont switches to the war in iraq.
Moore uses this segment of the movie to show what war is actually like, contrary to what you see on the news of buildings exploding and everyone being happy. In fact, the movie gets QUITE gruesome at times. This is not a movie I would recommend to anyone under 15, notwithstanding the fact that I am 14 myself.
Then the movie comes back to showing how Marine recruiters prey on low-income communities and Michael Moore trying to get congressmen to talk to their children about signing up for the military.
And finally, it ends with a hilarious Bush quote that I have never seen anywhere before.
Overall, quite a well put together movie regardless of political stance that I would recommending seeing, but not to children because the Iraq scene is quite gruesome.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100711] |
Fri, 09 July 2004 23:01  |
 |
liberator
Messages: 246
Registered: May 2003
Location: Classified, Level Phi cle...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
You shouldn't have given your age out, you have effectively gutted most of you're arguments as we now know that you are too young to have any first hand experience with what you speak of. That aside however, F911 is not a documentary, it is a America Hater propaganda piece that I am basically ignoring.
There was a time when people were impressed that I have the firepower to decimate a planet in under 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100728] |
Sat, 10 July 2004 01:57 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
Yeah, because we all know there are no Democrats older than 25.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100757] |
Sat, 10 July 2004 08:13 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| liberator |
You shouldn't have given your age out, you have effectively gutted most of you're arguments as we now know that you are too young to have any first hand experience with what you speak of.
|
Which life experiences have I missed out on that everyone else has gotten in their 3 or 4 more years?
| liberator |
That aside however, F911 is not a documentary, it is a America Hater propaganda piece that I am basically ignoring.
|
How do you know that if you've been ignoring it? Also, calling something America Hater propaganda makes you sound like a moron.
| YSLMuffins |
That'll just mean you'll have time to become more conservative as you grow older.
|
Likely, but I doubt I'll ever be a Bush fan.
| NHJ BV |
Yeah, because we all know there are no Democrats older than 25.
|
Both my parents are Democrats and are in their 40s.
| Javaxc |
It's pretty important to point out that disagreeing with your government in a democratic society doesn't make you an "America-hater" or a traitor.
|
Ah yes, VERY important to point out, what with the Bush administration trying to make people feel like they are commiting wrong-doings by criticizing his actions. George Washington, I think it was, once said that the most unpatriotic thing you can do for your country is not to criticize it.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100819] |
Sat, 10 July 2004 18:33 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7430
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality.
I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100825] |
Sat, 10 July 2004 19:13 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
What was so poor about it? It was a documentary, not a 100 million dollar action movie. I doubt a 10th grade video production class could put a movie together with Micheal Moore's wit, like when he goes to get congressmen to get their children to sign up for the war in Iraq. And there's no way in hell a 10th grade video production class could have enough connections to get their hands on the stuff Moore can.
If France does hate the U.S., it's only because the U.S. hated France first.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100837] |
Sat, 10 July 2004 20:54 |
|
|
| Crimson |
I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality.
I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA.
|
The judges were AMERICANS.
It doesn't bring anything new, it misleads people, my comments on it.
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100855] |
Sat, 10 July 2004 23:55 |
|
liberator
Messages: 246
Registered: May 2003
Location: Classified, Level Phi cle...
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The question becomes are your parents active, highly Liberal Democrats? Or are they Party Voters who would vote for Hitler as long as ran Democratic?
BTW, America is a Republic governed by Law which is interpreted by Elected Representatives. Democracies are usually highly disorganized and almost impossible to maintain as they are vulnerable to both military coup and careful manipulation of Public Sentiment.
This is "The Way It Is". I'm not going to break it up by party, but by philosophical bent.
Liberals believe that the average person is incapable of making important choices themselves and want to allow the Government to become as large and powerful as neccessary to take care of everything.
Conservatives are almost dead opposite, we believe that given the opportunity people will make good choices with what to do with their lives. Government should be small and limited, so as not to interfere with people's lives too much.
That a nutshell version of the philosophy behind the two real movements in American politics.
There was a time when people were impressed that I have the firepower to decimate a planet in under 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #100871] |
Sun, 11 July 2004 04:25 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| liberator |
BTW, America is a Republic governed by Law which is interpreted by Elected Representatives. Democracies are usually highly disorganized and almost impossible to maintain as they are vulnerable to both military coup and careful manipulation of Public Sentiment.
|
What you defined here is a direct democracy, meaning everyone gathers together somewhere and votes and all kinds of decisions. Completely unworkable in any modern country. Holland, for example, is a parlementary democracy, not a republic.
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101109] |
Mon, 12 July 2004 12:32 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7430
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Aprime |
| Crimson |
I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality.
I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA.
|
The judges were AMERICANS.
It doesn't bring anything new, it misleads people, my comments on it.
|
Then they were LIBERALS. Plain and simple.
Did you even SEE the movie, SuperFlyingLiberal? This whole bit about running up to congressmen? He talked to one who said he'd take a copy of the form, another whose answer that his nephew was in the armed forces was edited out, and a third who ran away from him. I'd run away from a fat scruffy looking guy who couldn't even be assed to get a haircut before filming his movie if he started coming at me with a mike.
Besides that, what the fuck? No father or mother can "send their kids" anyway! Like my dad is going to come over to my house and say "Pack your bags, some fat fucker took a time out from eating a twinkie and convinced me to sign you up for the Army. Off you go!" No parent can make their kids join the armed forces. Sorry.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101155] |
Mon, 12 July 2004 19:17 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7430
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
His point was... if they are so in favor of the war, why won't they send their own kids? It's obvious because they can't control their kids. Especially once they are old enough to serve.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101199] |
Tue, 13 July 2004 07:28 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I thought he wanted them to talk to their kids about the war and have a recruiting officer come visit them, not necessarily get congressmen to forcibly send their kids into the armed services...
And it really is something of a problem in America where those who decide whether the country should go to war don't actually feel the impact of the war on them, except when the stock in some of their companies goes up, up, up.
Back in the 1800's era, at least in Britain, all of the governing people with important positions were considered cowardly if they did not participate in one of the country's wars. And being considered cowardly was not a good thing back then.
But now we have a system where the rich people who could actually make a profit from launching a war don't suffer from a war like the people in poor communities where military service may be the only way out of a slump. And the war in Iraq isn't just a little police action - it's the biggest loss of armed services personnel since Vietnam. And for what? Disarming the weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Oh, but what about that Saren gas artillery shell? Well, I don't think some artillery shells with Saren gas in them are going to pose much of an imminent threat to the United States, first and foremost the fact that Saddam didn't exactly have the capabilities to shoot artillery shells over the Atlantic Ocean, and once you shoot ballistic projectiles that far, who knows where they are going to end up. And the entire concept of nuclear weapons was a joke. They only had a couple rudimentary experiments going on that basically lead up to nothing.
This is a war we shouldn't be in, just like the Senate commity saying a couple days ago that the reasoning for this war was wrong, and then Bush making a public appearance where he said, "I know the cause was wrong, but it was really right." And too many people are dying for an unjust cause.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101207] |
Tue, 13 July 2004 08:25 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
| Aprime |
| Crimson |
I saw this movie (comedy) a couple days ago. Regardless of the content, it was put together very badly. I swear a 10th grade video production class could have put something together with better quality.
I am more firmly cemented in the belief that he won the Palme d'Or because France hates the USA.
|
The judges were AMERICANS.
It doesn't bring anything new, it misleads people, my comments on it.
|
Then they were LIBERALS. Plain and simple.
|
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101333] |
Wed, 14 July 2004 02:18 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
Where do you pull this shit from? WMD was one of four reasons to go to war with them.
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/29/121539.shtml
This article shows how the 9/11 commission has found that the war has definitely stymied Al Qaeda and severely limited their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide."
|
The war in Afghanistan, maybe. The war in Iraq, no. The war in Iraq only increased terrorism, especially in the long run (more hatred against US in ME).
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101381] |
Wed, 14 July 2004 08:31 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Ok. I'm almost afraid to reply to this, but my natural inclination to argue is taking over.
First off, I want to start by complementing SuperFlyingEngi. First, you claim to be 14; then you prove that you have to be at least twice that with your accurate grasp of the english language and laws of grammar. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of American government, and current events.
That being said, I feel there are a few points that should be addressed.
1. Michael Moore skews his stories ridiculously. He edits statements and takes them out of context.
2. Bush, and his PR people, skew their stories ridiculously. They edit statements and take them out of context.
What does this tell us? First, everyone lies. The political industry in America is built on shit. Lots and lots of shit.
Second, it's impossible to get the truth from just one side of any discussion. And Michael Moore makes it especially difficult. He's out to convince people, not just reveal truth. This makes me sad, as I feel that his arguments would be stronger if they were presented in a less biased way. After all, there's no denying that some things were done poorly, but how much does it help to present half truths? All that this does:
1. Liberals say, "yeah, we hate that" ... but they didn't need to be convinced in the first place, as he's attacking things done by conservatives.
2. Conservatives say, "no, look. he lied about this and messed this up" ... meanwhile they miss the main points cause they're pointing to the details.
End result? Nothing changes except people get mad. As seen here. No one makes any changes; things aren't done differently. Companies don't change how they do things, so that Michael Moore has nothing to make films about; instead they give their employees mandatory "dealing with Michael Moore" seminars. How does this help? Now they're fucking shit up, AND they're learning to lie about it better.
I do have a few ... problems? ... with people saying stuff about "people who don't send their own children to war." Mainly because these people praise Clinton (a draft dodger) as a great president. I'm not saying he was or wasn't, or that politicians do this or that ... I'm just saying it's kinda hypocritical.
now on to specifit quotes:
| Crimson |
His point was... if they are so in favor of the war, why won't they send their own kids? It's obvious because they can't control their kids.
|
No, I think SEAL was on the right track there; it's better to make a living safely rather than going to war. But if it's somethign you really believe in, if you're willing to ask others to die for it ... then shouldn't you be willing to die for it (or at least send your own kids)? And you KNOW that high-ranking politicians procure spots in the National Guard or Coast Guard for their kids. (I'm not insulting either of those Guards ... I'm just saying it's safer than being a Navy SEAL.)
| SuperFlyingEngi |
This is a war we shouldn't be in, just like the Senate commity saying a couple days ago that the reasoning for this war was wrong, and then Bush making a public appearance where he said, "I know the cause was wrong, but it was really right." And too many people are dying for an unjust cause.
|
Could you provide a link to this, please? I'm not saying he did or didn't, I just wanna read it. Preferably on cnn.com, or usnews or something (ie, not "The Onion"  ).
| NHJ BV |
The war in Afghanistan, maybe. The war in Iraq, no. The war in Iraq only increased terrorism, especially in the long run (more hatred against US in ME).
|
Please. The war in Iraq perhaps increased the hatred of Americans in NOT the Middle East, but it's doubtful that it changed how people felt about us there. Maybe more fear, but probably not hatred. People who hated us before hate us now. People who liked us (and hated those who hated us ... enemy of my enemy, and all that) still like us, and are glad we killed people they hated.
Now, I'm not saying what we did was right, but I would prefer a moral argument based on our action, not on presumptions about how what we did makes people feel about us. If a cop throws a drug dealer in jail, and the drug dealer hates the cop, does that make the cop evil? No. Now, does that mean that we (America) should act as the cops for the whole world? Again, no. We're more like the guy who sees the drug dealer, goes home, gets a shotgun, and kills the drug dealer. Then for good measure, kills all his friends. And a few members of his family. And a few innocent bystanders. Is the world better afterwards? You be the judge. Do we have a right to do it? I'll be the judge: no.
Still, what really bothers me is when people blame the shotgun. Support the troops; they're doing their duty and trying to protect us. Maybe that's not what they're accomplishing right now, because they're being pointed in the wrong direction, but you MUST respect them. They feel America is the greatest country on Earth, and are willing to give their lives for it.
Finally as for weapons of mass destrucion, I'd like to quote something Dana Carvey said:
"Well, if they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, then they were pretty stupid. All they would have had to do would have been let the weapons inspectors in. Instead, they kicked them out of the country. Now they're like, 'Oops ... I used to live in a palace ... now I live in a ditch.' "
|
|
|
|
| Fahrenheit 9/11 [message #101387] |
Wed, 14 July 2004 09:14 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| ViperFUD |
First off, I want to start by complementing SuperFlyingEngi. First, you claim to be 14; then you prove that you have to be at least twice that with your accurate grasp of the english language and laws of grammar. I'm also impressed with your knowledge of American government, and current events.
|
No, I quite literally am 14. Just because I choose the path of logical reasoning over that of borderline illiteracy doesn't mean I can't be 14. Thanks for the compliment.
| ViperFUD |
Could you provide a link to this, please? I'm not saying he did or didn't, I just wanna read it. Preferably on cnn.com, or usnews or something (ie, not "The Onion" ).
|
Hm...I saw President Bush saying this on the news, CNN I believe it was, but I can't find a transcript for it. A rough highlight of what he said about ddefending the war can be found here, http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=2ACDAB99-362C-4399-BF9053D983E2F0AC, where he defends going into Iraaq despite the Senate Intelligence Commity releasing a report the serious flaws with our pre-war intelligence.
| ViperFUD |
Please. The war in Iraq perhaps increased the hatred of Americans in NOT the Middle East, but it's doubtful that it changed how people felt about us there. Maybe more fear, but probably not hatred. People who hated us before hate us now. People who liked us (and hated those who hated us ... enemy of my enemy, and all that) still like us, and are glad we killed people they hated.
|
Attacking a country, especially in the Middle East, is going to raise resentment by the people there. If a man sees his child killed by a U.S. bomb, he's going to be quite angry, and influenced by all of the hate propaganda over there, he may feel like he needs revenge against the hateful United States. When Israel was first started and was attacked by the rest of the Middle East right after the country was established, we sent our U.S.S. North Carolina over and started shelling the Bekaa Valley with 17-inch shells that weigh as much as a Volkswagen car. That's where a whole lot of the terrorists we are currently fighting come from, but we Americans like to forget about that.
I agree with you when we say that we should always support our troops, and never become hateful towards them because of what they have been ordered to do. If they are going to die for us to live safely, no matter how just the cause, they should always be respected.
EDIT: Spelling errors.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 25 20:26:49 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01145 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
