Documentary : Fahrenheit 9/11

[Glenn]

If I got on an elevator with a gun and 4 bullets, and there were 3 rattlesnakes and Michael Moore on the elevator, I'd shoot Moore 4 times.

That's just funny.

 

[senseiman]

.

Just think of who the terrorists would want you to vote for.

Then vote for the other candidate.


Thor, I'm a conservative Republican and proud of it. This is a free country, ain't it?

I believe the terrorists would want you to vote for Bush. They want to wage a holy war against the west, especially the US, and they know that Bush is the one most likely to give it to them. His ham-fisted invasion of Iraq has not only given them thousands of American targets to shoot at, it has more importantly given them a powerful recruiting tool that has allowed them to swell thier ranks, and not just in Iraq. If a sensible person had occupying the white house for the past three and a half years, he probably would have paid more attention to defeating al Quaida and wouldn't have bothered spending all his time and energy lying about the supposed threat Saddam Hussein posed in order to trick the public into supporting his pointless and costly invasion. Al Quaida is very lucky to have a man like George W. in the white house and I'm sure they appreciate that fact.

 

[Duo]

I wouldn't waste a penny on Moore's film. He should get married to Linda Ronstadt, and get so fat that he explodes.

If I got on an elevator with a gun and 4 bullets, and there were 3 rattlesnakes and Michael Moore on the elevator, I'd shoot Moore 4 times.

Just think of who the terrorists would want you to vote for.

Then vote for the other candidate.


Thor, I'm a conservative Republican and proud of it. This is a free country, ain't it?

Have you seen the movie ? If not, you can't judge it like that. Whatever view you may have of the director, that should not influence you in the worth of the movie.

Secondly, just because you are a Republican doesn't mean that you should vote for George Bush. You should vote for whomever is the best choice for your country, and that certainly is not George Bush. I'm surprised that people will take a tax cut and some evangelic morals over the good of their nation. How someone can like this guy is beyond me. It can't be expected that a guy who has never been outside of the US before he became president and doesn't even know the name of the other world leaders would make a good president.

Maybe you should really go and watch this movie instead of blinding yourself from what really goes on. Get a glimpse of the truth

 

[Brooker]

senseiman wrote....

I believe the terrorists would want you to vote for Bush. They want to wage a holy war against the west, especially the US, and they know that Bush is the one most likely to give it to them. His ham-fisted invasion of Iraq has not only given them thousands of American targets to shoot at, it has more importantly given them a powerful recruiting tool that has allowed them to swell thier ranks, and not just in Iraq. If a sensible person had occupying the white house for the past three and a half years, he probably would have paid more attention to defeating al Quaida and wouldn't have bothered spending all his time and energy lying about the supposed threat Saddam Hussein posed in order to trick the public into supporting his pointless and costly invasion. Al Quaida is very lucky to have a man like George W. in the white house and I'm sure they appreciate that fact.

I completely agree.

Duo wrote....

I'm surprised that people will take a tax cut and some evangelic morals over the good of their nation. How someone can like this guy is beyond me. It can't be expected that a guy who has never been outside of the US before he became president and doesn't even know the name of the other world leaders would make a good president.

The problem is, most people who will vote for Bush really only care about what the president will do that affects things inside the U.S. They don't care about people in other countries or America's relations with other countries, only about things that affect them directly (tax cuts, moral issues, gun laws, etc.).

 

[Glenn]

Well, I think that it is possible for a person to be a good president without being great at foreign affairs. If someone could get things straight on the inside, then not knowing much about the outside may not make that much of a difference. However, I also believe that knowing about other countries and cultures would definitely be beneficial.

Also, if someone were only good at foreign affairs, there is still the possibility that he would be a lousy president.

If someone could get our deficit reduced substantially, lower the crime rates, increase social safety nets without hurting hard-working people, etc., but didn't know anything about Lithuania, then I would consider that person to be a good president. Granted this is highly hypothetical and theoretical and would likely never happen, but I believe that the criteria should be weighed more evenly than it seems to be right now.

Also, there isn't anything wrong with people being more concerned about things that affect them. It is part of survival, after all.

 

[Duo]

That's where you are wrong. Today, it doesnt matter how much you do on the inside, but also on the outside, meaning foreign relations. Things are so inner-connected today that the alone stuff wont work anymore. For the US at least, leading world power, strong and efficent foreign policy is imperative. The US has a bad record of bad foreign policy, that's why today there so many people that dislike or even hate it.

 

[Glenn]

[At least I was right about something. ]

It is true that in this world no country can be isolationist anymore. Perhaps I went a bit overboard with my comments. I just meant to say that foreign policy is not the sole factor in determining a successful presidency.

 

[Brooker]

The president is the one single person who represents every citizen of America to the rest of the world. And I think foreign relations is the most important thing that he does because I want to be represented well in a way that will be best for everyone, not just for Americans.

 

[Rachel]

Hi, I thought you boys might like to take a look at this. It's a bit of an eye opener.
:evil:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

 

[blessed]

hmm, yes, that passage is quite scary, but it in no way changes my opinion of Bush because it honestly can not sink any further. The man is so stupid he could barely be a decent cleaner in my opinion, yet he is in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

About Moore's film: yes he is an extremist and I'm sure a few of his points are not entirely true, but with a film like this there would be so much fact checking that most false information would have been found by now.

If even 50% of it was fake and was proven to be fake, the true footage of Bush's indecision after being told about the 9/11 attacks would be enough to make this documentary worthwhile.

I honestly hope that the footage will change the minds of some Americans into voting for Kerry.

And to all Kerry critics, he will be better than Bush because as a democrat, he will not decrease government income and increase spending (try doing it yourselves, its quite fun) and will probably re-establish decent connections between the US and Europe.

 

[Golgo_13]

If I had to choose between President Bush and Michael Moore to lead the U.S. in the fight against terrorism, I would shoot Moore first and narrow down the choice to one.

 

[MeAndroo]

I love how Moore tries to tie Osama Bin Laden to his family when in fact Osama has been effectively exiled from his family for years.

I love how Moore claims Bush didn't read the breifing, when in fact there's no evidence he didn't, and fails to account for the claim that the briefing states "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" ?Umar? Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. "

I love how Moore says pre-emptive strikes/war is wrong, but if he were in power, he would have removed Osama Bin Laden before he became a threat (this was on the O'Reilly Factor interview). I'll be damned if that isn't a preemptive strike. Though I appreciate Moore for attempting to express his point of view, watching Moore bumble through that interview was almost painful. Granted, O'Reilly's a bit of a jackass, but damn.

Moore's "version of the truth" is debated on a number of websites, and in plenty of books. If you're willing to take one side to the heart without questioning it based almost purely on random footage and an inner hatred for Bush, why not at least take a look at the other side? Don't let emotions get in the way of logic and allow yourself to propel Moore to something more than he is: a writer/filmmaker who makes money from selling a product.

One of a number of sites dedicated to dispelling rumors/half truths in F911

And for the record, I can't wait until Bush is out either. I've pretty much been against the war since the beginning, and the prospect of Kerry continuing it isn't promising either. Get isolationist Pat Buchanan back up there!!...kidding of course. Moore may raise some good theoretical points, but his "evidence" can be quite suspect.

sorry for the lateness of this post, but I wanted to sound off...and seeing as how I'm a relatively late comer, I had little choice other than starting a new thread.

 

[Golgo_13]

Dalai Lama for President!

 

[pk_81]

wow.

there are some F****** idiots on this board.

I don't like getting into political discussions with those whose views differ from mine....especially on message boards.
That is mainly because it never leads to anything but people being angry/upset/etc at the other person.
The majority of people stand by what they believe in(which is a good thing). With that, there is such a SMALL chance that someone (especially someone on a message board) can change their views. So all you are doing is playing tug of war, and no one wins.

I do think everyone should vote. No matter how they chose to vote. I, myself, will NOT be voting for George W. Bush.

 

[Glenn]

Believe what you want to believe, and don't participate in political debate if you don't want to, but don't say things like:

wow.

there are some F****** idiots on this board.

There are better ways to get your point across, and personal attacks are not only not welcome here, but they are far less constructive than political debates between two people with differing views. Please keep things civil.

 

[Ghost]

Lets think here for a second:

Bush is a right-wing idiot warmonger that reminds me of a chimp.
Karry is a left-wing hippie slacker that reminds me of Cheech and Chong.
(Gore reminds me of a computer void of any feelings or emotion)
And in my living memory, i dont remember any left-wingers in office.
So the chances are as follows

Bush might go to war with North Korea and Kim Jong 2 more or less would cause a nuke war.(that is bad)

Karry might legalize drugs and booze and other hippie stuff.(that is bad, b'cuse i gots no money)

Besides we have seen what Bush is capable of doing so the most logic thing to do is vote for Karry.

 

[Glenn]

Bush might go to war with North Korea and Kim Jong 2 more or less would cause a nuke war.(that is bad)

Who is Kim Jong 2?

Karry might legalize drugs and booze and other hippie stuff.(that is bad, b'cuse i gots no money)

Booze is already legalized. How is it bad for you, having no money, when you are in Australia?

 

[Ghost]

Kim Jong 2 is the leader of North Korea i think.

And i use "booze" as the drinks that are laced with drugs.

Its bad having no money becuse i cant go back to the states(the one place thats safe for a american in this day and age, there are a lot of anti-americans here), I live in New Zealand not Australia.

 

[Glenn]

Kim Jong 2 is the leader of North Korea i think.

Alright, I can see how you would be confused from seeing it written, but it's actually Kim Jong Il (il or IL).

And i use "booze" as the drinks that are laced with drugs.

Well, I've never heard it used that way before. Also, this is how it is defined in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 2booze
Function: noun
: intoxicating drink; especially : hard liquor

Its bad having no money becuse i cant go back to the states(the one place thats safe for a american in this day and age, there are a lot of anti-americans here), I live in New Zealand not Australia.

Oops, I didn't see the stars on the side. It sure did look like an Australian flag to me. Also, I didn't realize that you were American. Sorry about that.

 

[Ghost]

""Also, I didn't realize that you were American. Sorry about that.""

Its all right, I get that a lot.