 |
I know this movie came out a while ago, and a lot has changed since then, but I feel Michael Moore is "right on target" with this movie when it comes to Bush's policies. Here is a link about it for those who have never seen it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/
What does everyone else think?
In case you haven't seen it, here's another one of those movies that dares asks questions about 9/11:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...change&pl=true
I think the biggest problem with this is blaming this on one person. It was agreed upon by Congress.
Yes, it was a HORRIBLE and STUPID decision to go into Iraq... but the blame cannot be on the one person who proposed it or pushed it, but on the many - on BOTH sides - who agreed.
I have not seen that one yet, NeedKarma, but plan to.
I do agree RickJ that there is more to blame for this than just one person, there was a lot of people involved in it. I think this movie was just focusing on one person because he is SUPPOSED to be the leader of our country, and he represents us badly as a nation.
Agreed... but look at all the anti-Bush sentiment this movie generated for no good reason.
If MM were truly eager to show the truth, he'd be bashing ALL the jokers who went along with the "let's go into Iraq" plan.
... but no, he would have us thinking the one who "disagreed after he agreed" would have lead our country better.
Despite that I think Bush has SCREWED UP BIG TIME, if I had to vote again, I'd still have to vote for him. Kerry is a waffling weasle that cannot be trusted as far as you can throw him.
... please pardon this digression from my typical even tone, but this whole subject just burns me up. I'm ready to outlaw political parties altogether and go back to "may the best man win".
... of course I know that's not possible - I'm just venting a bit since you started the thread that invites venting. :(
I am not up on politics that much nor have the time to be but I do have one question. They knew about the energy crisis back in the 70's. Why didn't the presidents and the politicians try to do anything then? Also, there were a few times Clinton had his sites on Osama but couldn't have the guts to do anything about it. Or he couldn't get out of bed in time... if you know what I mean. I agree with Rick that every one is blaming one perosn for this whole mess when he is the only one to have the guts to stand up and fight.
What about that time that famous Rumsfeld handshake with Saddam?
http://www.whale.to/b/images/handshake300.jpg
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...sseinindex.htm
Support him then bomb the crap out of him - what happened in between?
When I first saw Fahrenheit 911 in the theatre, I liked it and mostly agreed with Michael Moore, but I thought he was going a bit overboard. However, as you say Cgirl a lot has happened since then, and now I agree with pretty much everything in the movie. And yeah it's not just Bush, but he does have responsibility as the president.
Sorry Michael Moore in my opinon should be called a tradior and shot, his half truths and lies made into a film is about as untrue and anti Ameican as one can get. He has been merely a trouble maker who has no agenda other than attacking others.
I think 1+1=2. So do many other people but it doesn't mean that I share their beliefs or values. And it doesn't mean that if we agree on something that we also agree on everything. I don't agree with the Bush administration but it doesn't mean that I agree with Kerry even if he agrees with some of what I believe. I would NEVER vote for bush (or Kerry for that matter) since as far as I'm concerned they are both professional liars on many fronts and they are un-American at best. Clinton was impeached for a sexual act which of course he deserved. But Bush pushed us into war on false pretenses and lies and as a result our troops are dying because of a lie, he leaks government secrets, takes away our liberties with his most unpatriotic PATRIOT ACT, listens to our conversations without court authorization, and most importantly calls our beloved Constitution "just a god damn piece of paper". Now I don't know about you, but as an Officer in the US military I'm sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. My Oath is NOT to the president and never was and I'm glad the founders of this great country had the foresight to craft an officer oath the way they did. Kudo's to all those highly respected generals for speaking out because they are the true patriots.
And let me also be clear, I don't agree with Congress either as they are just as much to blame. As far as I'm concerned they are a government for the corporations and by corporations. Almost all of them talk out of both sides of their mouths and very few actually speak the truth and fight for our rights as citizens (like Cynthia McKinney). They don't represent the average citizen.
Michael Moore made a movie, made some money off it, and if one likes one can bad mouth him. But that really doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that many of the points made in the movie are true and many points were proven over time and if you do some real digging you'd discover that MM barely scratched the surface.
9/11 of course sprouted many conspiracy theories and like always there will be a cult following to some of the most outrageous of theories http://www.planetquo.com/Loony-9-11-Conspiracy-Theories (this is really funny btw). Of course anyone that dares to question it is automatically labeled conspiracy nut and of course the real questions remain unanswered and unchallenged by the MSM. For example, why did WTC 7 collapse onto its own footprint and it wasn't even hit by a plane? A simple question that no one dares to openly address it in the MSM and if they do they're automatically ridiculed, labeled a conspiracy theorist, a nut, and baned from the media.
Cgirl you've sparked many deep feelings here. Like rickj I feel very strongly here and I do NOT intend to insult anyone on this board regardless of what they believe happened on 9/11.
Casey
There are a lot of emotions running high in this thread. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion, and that IS what this country was founded on, because that is a part of our freedom, and thank God for that! That is the one thing that they haven't quite taken away from us yet. I think there is a lot of people to blame in all of this, and I DO support our troops (just for the record I have an uncle in Iraq as we speak) but I support their lives and their well being, but not necessarily what they were sent over there to do. I do however think that is very wrong to protest at a military funeral. Those people gave their lives for this country, and it is not their fault that Bush sent us over there. May peace be with them and their families. What does everyone else think about protesting at funerals?
The nicest way to put it is that it would be "misguided". If it were a funeral to a loved one in the military then I would say that it is despicable.
I tell those protesters to leave the family alone and let them grieve in peace and if they really want to help then go protest in front of the white house, organize letter writing campaigns, call your senate/congress, vote them out.
"No good reason"?? Alerting the country that we have a president with questionable competence is not a good reason? While I agree, Moore's piece was biased and slanted, there was more than enough factual evidence to justify the airing of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickj
I also find it interesting that you would trust Bush after all the proof of his lies and obfuscation yet not trust Kerry. What proof of Kerry's weasling makes him more of a weasel than Dubya has proven to be?
I love remarks like that. They are so easy to blast a hole through. Was John Adams a traitor for protesting the greed of King George? Who is more anti-american? Moore who exercised his right of free speech to expose the incompetence of our president or Chuck who would deny him that right by branding him a traitor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I agree that Moore's piece was slanted and biased. What it did was present the facts and his conclusions based on those facts. Clearly (to me) his conclusions go a bit overboard. But the facts themselves are damning enough.
That church group that has been protesting at funerals should have their religious status taken away from them. I am all for religious freedom, but their actions have NOTHING to do with religion. Their actions are totally political. To protest a war (even though it needs protesting) by attacking the victims of that war is reprehensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgirl
I agree with you, ScottGem!
Sorry about my previous answer. I confused the film you mention with another one.
In any case, I have noticed that many Americans feel that Bush blundered in relation to his war on Terrorism.
I typically stay out of American related threads as I don't always keep up with current US issues.
That being said, I do wish to comment on Fahrenheit 9/11 and specifically, Michael Moore.
Personally, I think Michael Moore is an arrogant jerk.
Why?
Many reasons:
1) This film is so biased. If he wanted to make a real documentary, fine, but not just one that is so one sided and full of propaganda. I don't much care for Bush and his policies, but I don't care for someone making such a huge propaganda piece against him either.
2) He gives backwards insults to Canada. Not in this one, but in another film documentary he made. He came up to Canada and perpetuated American stereotypes of Canadians. I found the rude and insulting.
3) In the 2004 US Election, I think he was in Massatuses, he thought he found a voting irregularity and that they weren't' following proper procedure, so he went running to the cameras and said “They are following procedures! ” And he seemed so gitty about it. Then it was proven they were and he had stuck his foot in his mouth. By this point, I didn't even like him.
I am sorry that Michael Moore insulted Canada, that is not right, however, I don't necessarily support ALL of his ideas, but I did agree with A LOT of the opinions in his "documentary" I do however think it should not have been labeled this, that probably is a little misleading as it was mostly opinions, not facts. I do think he is more right then wrong however.
Don't normally get involved with this sort of thing,being a Brit,but read cajalat's post about WTC7 not being hit by a plane,as a conspiracy theory? I remember seeing the news coverage via CNN,Fox,BBC,and from a UK TV team for Channel 4.CNN had live coverage as the second plane "hit".If the trade center mentioned was "demolished",by "other means",what sort of maniac in National government would/could authorise such an act?
Tonight on UK TV news channel BBC News 24,they showed a clip of Oliver Stone's forth coming movie,about the Twin Towers.Apparently,it is not finished yet,but is due for general release in August.It had,apparently,twenty minutes of "in-the-can" shown to critics at Cannes (where the Da Vinci Code was first shown).What the public will also make of this movie will be interesting,for all the wrong reasons.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM. |