*DAMN R6 Forum

(Mods, please move all related posts from other threads to this one)

Allow me to preface this by saying in no way am I a Michael Moore fan. I believe he misrepresents facts and statements people have made to suit his political needs/goals.

That said, I went and saw the movie friday night. And it was good. I was quite shocked.

Unlike his previous two movies, this one is pretty strait-forward and he keeps his narration to a minimum. He tends to let the people and the pictures speak for themselves (well, compared to his previous films).

The first half of the movie is concerned with showing the Bush-Saudi relationship. Moore shows the surprising extent of the connections between his family, his friends, and the saudis. Moore doesn't really make the point that this is a bad thing, other than to say that Bush might be looking out for his friends, family and his own investments more than the country. He did not provide enough evidence to convince me of this, however.

I think that it's important for the public at large to know that the president has such extensive business contracts with memebers of foreign powers, but I don't think it's neccesarily bad that such connections exist.

Another major theme of the first half was the moving of the bin laden family out of the US right after 9/11. This is another thing I think people need to know. Right after the biggest mass murder in US history, important character witnesses were given gold passes to fly out of the country. This is reprehensible at best and downright malicious at worst.

Moore also talks about the bush administration's response to 9/11 and asks why it took us so long to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Bascially Moore makes the case that the Bush Administration wasn't as interested in bin laden as it was in getting saddam. This is one area where I think he provides enough information to convince me.

The rest of the movie questions the justification of the war and asks if it was worth the cost (which is rising to this day). He does this with a combination of interviews with soldiers in the field and a mom on the homefront. This part was some of the most moving cinema I've seen in a long time. Not since "We Were Soldiers" have I been so close to crying in a movie theatre.

I would go into more depth, but this post is already too long. I will leave the floor open now for further discussion.

Haven't seen it yet, not a big Moore fan. I'm surprised he's kept out of the narration. Might make it worth seeing after all. ;D As for Bush shipping out Bin Laden's family right after 9/11, I can see why he did it. It's not some criminal conspiracy, it was to prevent a violent backlash against innocent civilians. Unless they weren't innocent, but that's a whole new can of worms. Anyhoo, maybe I'll see the movie in a few days so I can really have a discussion lol.

i just saw it. i thought the first half was excellent, but when he got into the flint stuff YET AGAIN, and interviewed that woman, i guess it all went downhill in a way.

all in all, a generally well-made film. i laughed hard quite a few times ;D didn't take it all for concrete facts, though.

The movie's good. Made me and my girlfriend cry. In sum, the film acheives what it was trying to achieve -- powerful emotions.

You can't watch this thing and not be moved.

I heard it was funny at times. I sure hope they make a movie like this about Kerry when he fucks up the presidency.

Probablly not because all republican film makers sucks. Not because of the political feelings, they just seem to have no appreciation for the art or how to make it effective.

How true that is. I will see this movie soon...ish.

That's interesting, I found the first half to be lacking and the second half to be the meatier, more powerful half. As for his facts, I have very few problems with what he states at truth in the movie. Most of it wasn't new information for me. I try very hard to keep up with what's going on in the world and I was able to back up, or at least corroborate most of what he says.

The people who really need to see this movie is the public at large. People who don't have the time to keep up with events. There is much in this movie that I am confident people in the general public don't even know exists. Wether Moore speaks the gospel truth or not is secondary, starting an open and public discussion of these events is what is most important.

Gs, $50 to not see it.

Wow, that's pretty cheap.  But really, how can I honestly expect a liberal to keep his word?[/size]   ;)

Which you can then donate to the michael moore fund or the "stop bush fund" ;)

(http://www.isophia.co.uk/images/bush.bmp)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html)


Heheh.

The hookers and whores are getting ready for the Grand Ole Party.

>>>
With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.

Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.

"We have girls from London, Seattle, California, all coming in for that week," said a madam at a Manhattan escort service. "It's the week everyone wants to work."

"It's going to be big," agreed one operator at a midtown escort service.

Charging from $300 to upwards of $1,000 for an hour of companionship and a whole lot more, escorts said they can always count on conventioneers for big business.

"It doesn't matter what party you come from," said Robyn Few, a $500-an-hour California call girl who now runs Sex Workers Outreach Project, an advocacy group. "When you want to buy sex, you will."

That's the hope among escort services expecting a windfall from randy Republicans.
<<<

Huuuuuuuuzzah!

You're a little late with that, Sixhits.  The Rush Limbaugh show reported on that last week.  Would be nice when the liberal media stops using reporting from Conservative Talk Shows for their news.[/size]

Fine GS. I'll seriously not see it in theaters for $100. I like money.

I'll resist the urge to buy it on DVD for and extra $100.

Well, that just proves another point.  When you get right down to it, even Socialist Liberal Democrat Scum like Mysterio likes CAPITALISM!  lol[/size]

I never said I didn't like money.

yeah rush limbaugh rocks.... he is such a threat to the left they even made a book about him titled "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" i just got back from bastrop today and the whole 3 hour drive i was lisening to rusha nd im here to tell ya ive never seen him caught once without something to counter-argue someone going on a verbal offensive on him. he also get alot of "seminar callers" as he has labeled them.... its democrats calling in saying thier are the purest of all republicans but they trash the rebulican party so they hope other republicans will agree with them cuz they are going under the guise as the right but thier lien thu thier teeth. quote "I'm fet up with Bush and I've been a life long demo-errrrr republican."
and about the stupid movie.... for god's sake people why do you pay to go watch a propaganda movie which when you break it down your paying to see a giant dirty politics t.v. ad..... i mean im a republican but if there was a movie about how my democrat president isnt doing a good job i still wouldnt see it because you see it on the news everyday its nothing new and its an ad

How do you know?

     Grey, when you say Rush always has a counter-argument, do you mean he actually has counter-arguments using evidence and logic, or are you referring to Republican "arguments" such as "Clinton was an immoral sinner and look where it's gotten this country", "you're an idiot", "the Liberal media twists everything", or the ever-popular "It sickens me to listen to such unpatriotic bullshit"?

Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are the same type of people: little pieces of shit that talk like blubbering vaginas. I'd love to see the two of them do a debate sometime, it'd be funny. They're too stubborn to see past their own points and admit when they're wrong. Anyhoo. Just my opinion.  :)

Mellow sometimes you prove just how deserving of your "title" you are.

lol. I can't kiss everyone's ass. or...did you mean whore? ooh. I'll hike my skirt up for you, Mysty.

Down mellow.

i walked out of this theatre feeling, so angry, so betrayed. on the up note. i heard like 3 people say "well, im not voting for him again..." just like that. its cool to hear things like that.


Liberals 1000000000000000000
Rebublicans -10000000000
GS n/a

Objection, we all know GS is Republican to the power of suck. Who has a calculator?

 Just finished watching it. Definently better than Moore's first two films. Almost all interviews/quotes, rather than Moore rambling on about his personal opinion.

He did a good job explaining how slowly things got moving after 9/11.

Up until the war in Iraq, I supported the Bush regime, and would've supported Bush over almost any democratic challenger. I supported the war in Iraq. Given the intelligence findings presented by Powell and other members of the Bush regime, I thought that it was important to take down Iraq before they had the option to damage the US.

I still supported the war until a month or so after Bush had "declared" it over. Then the facts started coming in. Bush had lied to America. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

I'm not going to say the war was completly about oil, however, that was a motive. Right before the invasion of Iraq, US Navy SEALs went in to hold oil fields in Iraq to prevent the Iraqis from lighting them on fire. Thousands of people are getting killed, and the first thing we think of is protecting the oil? Give me a break.

I enjoyed listening to Moore blast the Bush regime. It felt like a little bit of justice. However, it's nothing like what I'll feel when John Kerry becomes the next president.  

Actually, that was a good move on their part. Without the oil, Iraq would have no major source of income and therefore no future. If you want to ensure that Iraq becomes the next terrorist capital of the world, take away it's only way to support itself.

If you want to insure that Iraq doesn't become the next terrorist capital, leave the troops there for many many years to come.

First of all the US troops wont be out of iraq for like 10 years.  He says that well leave when its simmered down.  Shites gonna fuck with suines* vice versa and we wont leave

Bush and his cronies are pilles of shit.  Lotta my friends says some of the pictures dont look real, but its hard to think its bullshit when theres hours of film

Lets Hope
 ???                          ::)

well after waiting almost 30 mn in the line, i finally got my ticket to see Moore's documentary. I gotta say i'm surprised by the popularity of F9/11 in the county where i live, since its very rich and mostly republican.

Anyway, the movie was nice, but i didnt learn anything, and thats what pisses me off. Judging by the viewers reaction, i can tell most of the facts related where unknown to the americans.

I liked the interviews with the soldiers in Irak, showing 2 kinds of soldiers, those who kill people (i'm not assuming about who they kill) while listening to some hard music, kinda like a game for them, and those realizing the possibility of the loss of innocent lives.
I also liked that old lady saying she was duped.
There were some though images, the coffins, the veterans, the mother.... shows the other side of the war, the one that the gouvernment doesnt want you to be aware of.

Anyway, i'll suggest this documentary to anyone.

Edit: one thing that striked me, is when Bush is in that school, and he learns that 2 planes just crashed into the World Trade Center in NYC. And he just sits there, takes a book and starts reading.  wtf !!!

Another good article that sums up my feelings on the movie.

Moore's Public Service (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/opinion/02KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=)

>>>
Moore's Public Service
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Since it opened, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a hit in both blue and red America, even at theaters close to military bases. Last Saturday, Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his Nascar crew to see it. The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.

For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.

Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.

Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy ? not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites ? with the Saudis in particular.

Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans ? sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.

In a nation where the affluent rarely serve in the military, Mr. Moore follows Marine recruiters as they trawl the malls of depressed communities, where enlistment is the only way for young men and women to escape poverty. He shows corporate executives at a lavish conference on Iraq, nibbling on canap?s and exulting over the profit opportunities, then shows the terrible price paid by the soldiers creating those opportunities.

The movie's moral core is a harrowing portrait of a grieving mother who encouraged her children to join the military because it was the only way they could pay for their education, and who lost her son in a war whose justification she no longer understands.

Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true. For example, the film talks a lot about Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, which I doubt had much impact on the course of the Afghan war. Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Mr. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views.

But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.??
<<<<

---added the article for those without NYT accounts

since a username/pass i needed (i know, its free...) cant you paste the article ?

So one last time, yes or no if I should go to see it.

good article, it reflects my opinion on the movie, although i didnt see any conspiracy theory in the documentary.

Then yes?

yes

Then I will.

No.

first documentary to hit the 100 millions $ mark domestically.

Way to go, baby !

Paul Krugman? Just another left wing polemicist.

Give me a break people, Michael Moore lost any of his credibility he had for me when i saw him presenting (in Bowling for Columbine) a "speech" given by charelton heston in columbine right after the shootings. If you watch, he cuts out and back in to this "speech" and Heston's tie is a different color for god's sake! I highly doubt that his "documentary" is anything of the sort.

Read this - ALL of this:

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

I really hope that the public is not swallowing these disgusting lies.

Fact is extremely important for a documentary. And fact is severely lacking in this movie.

Moore's an artist not a journalist, he draws no conclusions. The point of the movie was to highlight the fact that the most powerful person in the world is a fucking fool, and I think it worked.

btw, he just felt a second time from his bike. i'm not joking !

Moore's presentation may be questionable at times but if you think that there is a twist free media on TVs, in movies, or from the mouth of your government you are mistaken. If you are so into the truth you better examine every side of the argument there is and see the truth is in the middle and/or never said by either side. Every side wants the image of perfection which isn't possible.

Let's use a little saying: Everyone has their price.

If you don't see how that applies in the ideal you shouldn't be one to examine things deeply.

I found an interesting article/interview that puts a few of Michael Moore's claims in F9/11 into the dumpster. A quick, interesting read.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1402&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040728%2F1450113065.htm&sc=1402 (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1402&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040728%2F1450113065.htm&sc=1402)

My problem with his movie is that he presents it as truth, and the sheepole swallow it whole. Yes, Bush isn't the most honest president either - but the point is that Moore claims to have created an "objective" piece of Documentarial journalism - NOT an opinon piece. And this is a lie. I understand that most journalism is tainted - but to present as fact complete fictions to the extent that moore does - and then get awards for it - is completely immoral and it disgusts me.

Just about as immoral as lying to a country to justify a war. I believe the war in Iraq was about corporate profit, not WMDs or the propagation of democracy. Our country was hijacked by a hand full of neoconservative nutjobs.

You know west. Bush presented fake evidence as FACT. I think to lead a country into war dishonestly is worse than making a movie.

Fake evidence? The EVIDENCE of the WMD programs was there (hint - look at what John F. Kerry himself said)  - just because the weapons themeselves were not does not (my opinion is that they are currently in syria - how did terrorists get ahold of enough sarin to possibly kill 40k people in jordan) taint fact any. Oh and the uranium from africa - Britain still firmly stands by their conclusions - and thus, Bush never lied.

If the Iraq war were TRULY about corporate profit spets, why the HELL are we trying to create a democracy there? Corporate "greed" works much better with statism (see Nazi Germany and Volkswagen) than with a free market with  no artifical barriers to entry.

If we only wanted Iraqs Oil, then we should be constanly rubbing all their faces in the dirt and pumping the oil as fast as possible without any of this 90 billion dollars for schools, hospitals, and the like.

well after the mess we did, it would be the least we could do !

Thomas Jefferson himself believed, that in order to survive a true democracy would have to be organic, not forcefully imposed. I think in the long run our preemptive, unilateralist foreign policy choices will cause more harm than good in the region. I also don't think we're any safer from terrorism because of the war.

The first thing our troops secured were the oil fields, I know this was to prevent Saadam from burning them all, but knowing what I do about basic human instinct, I would have to conclude that greed was also a motivating factor.  

Most of the 87 billion congress approved was for lucrative private contracts, and I'm glad the the Iraqi's are getting new schools on American tax payer dollars, but it makes you wonder when schools in some parts of the U.S. are virtually crumbling to the ground.

I think Mr. Bush is a fucking fool, liar, megalomaniac, corporate tool, religious faker and worst of all a ex-cokehead/alcholoic.

They took the less straight forward approach by choosing the leader of the country. They probably made the guy sign hundreds of oil agreements with the US. As for your idea about where WMDs may be, how did you say it:


Well there's brainwashing at it's best. The weapons do not exist. I tell you where they will find them: if Bush gets re-elected he will go into syria and find nothing, then go to Iran, then some other helpless country, then he will go to a country with WMD and invade them to say they have finally found them. At which time N. Korea's weapon development will be completed. They will be the ones who help the terrorists come up with new and creative ways to reach a target.

Once again, if you intend to reply to my post also reply to bobby's and spets's, as they are on slightly different parts of your post and ideas. And yes the evidence is fake.

westamasta, what evdience are you talking about ?

- the british report regarding Uranium: well last time i checked, everybody but british PM agreed that it was 100% forgery (the guy who signed that letter was supposed to be some kind of a current minister. He was indeed, but 10 years ago...)

- the aluminium tubes: experts have always said it could not be used for extraction coz it doesnt meet the required standards

- the mobil nuclear labs: gimme a break, where the f.. are they ? Should be pretty easy to spot with satellite technology...

- Saddam is able to launch a chemical strikes within  xx hours: yeah right, i'm not  sure he did even throw a single conventional missile on US war planes.

what evidence are you talking about ? tell me.

The only "good" thing with that war was the removal of Sadam. But it came at what cost ? Way too high if you ask me.