Michael Moore propaganda continues...

What bugs me the most is that people I see on TV issue mild compliments while tap-dancing around the issue of the movie's distortion of the truth. "Poetic truth", "thought-provoking", "interesting opinions". Give me a break.

I'm going to see it tomorrow. Hype? Propaganda? Maybe. Better to spend $7.50 on this, than say, a Beniffer movie.

I am glad to see that you read the British press Brad, you are becoming more Maxwellian by the day. This Michael Moore chap is a fat whining moron, I think it is commendable that George can warn the world about terrorist killers, and then turn around to whack out a few drives on the course. It shows how unfazed he is is by terrorism. "Now watch this drive" I believe George says after speaking to the press, absolutely splendid.

You are totally correct. Hopefully, the voters will see much of what you say. It may turn out that Moore will actually help Bush get elected. Hillary talked about the vast right wing conspiracy which I don't believe even existed. However, there does seem to be a vast left wing conspiracy composed of the media, the Hollywood elites, etc. These people are so nuts and biased that it may all backfire on them.

If the American people put some thought and intelligence into who they vote for this year, then Bush should win decisively.

Although I cannot speak to your criticism of Michael Moore and his movie, I can speak to your blatant use of propaganda - it starts in the first sentence with "name-calling" and continues throughout the article in different forms. I am conservative by nature, own
a business that does about 15 milllion a year in sales, employ about 100 people and pay HUGE amoounts of taxes. Yet, if I choose to criticize my governmnent for a foreign policy that is comparable
to that of the WWII Axis Powers, I am somehow in the "looney left wing camp" or am one of "a zillion conspiracy nuts". That is GREAT PROPAGANDA! However, it is incorrect and the authors sloppy use of propaganda throughout the article just takes away his
own credibility.

Also, to make the statement that you "don't have any ties to big oil" is wishful thinking at best. If you live in America, you have ties to big oil, whether direct or indirect. America consumes about 1/3rd of the
worlds oil, and produces about 20-25% of the worlds goods with that consumption. Start looking at the information on "Peak Oil". You may not understand how important oil is to our civilization and may feel that our wars
have nothing to do with resources, but you are wrong and uninformed. Oil IS Society in the West, and to think we wouldn't go to war for a resource as valuable as oil is just naive and almost as ideological as, say, a 23 year old lliberal.

Finally, have you asked yourself about any of the irregularities surrounding 9/11 and the events since? If looked at objectively, any rational person should be able to eaisly discern many inconsistencies with the "official story" of 9/11 and many of the events that
have taken place since. To brush these inconsistencies aside is a travesty of justice regarding the single biggest criminal event EVER. To simply look away from facts such as these would be very foolish: put options on the airlines (a clear indicator or foreknowledge), Willie Brown being warned not to fly - another
clear indicator of foreknowledge, firemen claiming there were explosions in the buildings, a kid in new york pointing to the WTC 1 week before and telling his school teacher that "those buildins won't be there next weeK", no jets scrambling to intercept, all steel from WTC melted down within
days in China or India and no metallurgical testing (for the BIGGEST CRIME EVER and no metal testing! how can that not be a red flag?). There are many more FACTS that would lead an intelligent person to believe the official story is a lie.

Criticism of Michael Moore and his movie will not make the questions about the 9/11 inconsitencies or the Federal power grabs since, go away, and it now looks like more and more people are realizing that a foreign policy based on revenge and "pre-empitve" strikes
should not be the policy of a Republic. That type of foreign policy is that of a dictator and I am disappointed with the author for his glorification of revenge - that attitude will only cause more violence and is based solely on negative emotions such as fear and anger.

Call me cynical, but after watching a few interviews Micheal Moore is looking a lot like Howard Stern to me. There is a difference between his "true self" and his popular persona, enough that I think he is a lot more into marketing than politics. I have no doubt that he is honest about his views, but I think all the nutty bull-horn crap is selling the persona, not the philosophy.

Poster #5: (anonymous guy) yes, I am quite comfortable saying that you are a left-wing loon based on what you just wrote.

Michael Moore, btw, is technically a business man too and employs hundreds of people and pays high amounts of taxes and yes, he's a left wing loon IMO.

Criticizing ones country has nothing to do with being a loon. I think Bush is a pretty mediocre President (worst President since Carter in my opinion). Criticism is fine. Wacko theories with no basis in reality is what makes somone a loon.  Combine a heavy dose of manipulation of actual facts and you have propaganda as well. 

But hey, it's apparently okay for Moore and his ilk to run around smearing Bush and co. but if you criticize Moore you are (to use the words anonymous charged me with) "that attitude will only cause more violence and is based solely on negative emotions such as fear and anger". 

Left-wing criticism is apparently patriotic. But if conservatives criticize the left, it's based soley on negative emotions such as fear and anger.  Wow. I would have used the term "amusement" more than fear or anger to describe my raction to Moorelings who spout off "Da Truth".

Draginol,

I think you don't understand where I am coning from - and you again cover it by using propaganda in the first sentence by telling me I'm a left wing loon for asking you to tone down your propaganda against those criticizing Bush.

Moore may be a "businessman", but not in the traditional, conservative, Mid-West Manufacturing sense that I was speaking of.

I don't know which "wacko theories with no basis in reality" I brought up. Which ones are they? Peak Oil certainly has basis in reality, and so does going to war for resources as is proven by history. I can give you articles from the Mainstream Media that tell about all the stories I stated it would be foolish to overlook. I am not pulling this stuff out of thin air!

Nowhere do I state that it is okay for Moore to run around "smearing" Bush. What I do state is that there are a lot of questions he is asking that should be asked. I told you in my first line that I could not speak to your criticism of Michael Moore or his movie.
You then connect my line about revenge and fear with criticizing Moore! That line was about foreign policy, not Michael Moore and you took it and used a propaganda technique to manipulate my meaning.

Nowhere do I state that "left-wing" criticism is patriotic or that any criticism is patriotic or not. That is your conclusion and does not really represent what I wrote.

Please let me know what "Da Truth" is - please let me know what facts I listed are incorrect so I do not repeat them. From what I have researched, everything I mentioned that would be foolish to not look at more closely is FACT.

look away from facts such as these would be very foolish: put options on the airlines (a clear indicator or foreknowledge), Willie Brown being warned not to fly - another clear indicator of foreknowledge, firemen claiming there were explosions in the buildings, a kid in new york pointing to the WTC 1 week before and telling his school teacher that "those buildins won't be there next weeK", no jets scrambling to intercept, all steel from WTC melted down within days in China or India and no metallurgical testing (for the BIGGEST CRIME EVER and no metal testing! how can that not be a red flag?). There are many more FACTS that would lead an intelligent person to believe the official story is a lie.

I am not going to scour the net to debunk this kind of nonsense. I am quite comfortable stating that those who believe there is some conspiracy to cover up the "real story" of 9/11 based on the things you state above are loons/kooks/whatever.

Moreover, you most definitely claimed that those who disagree with such kookiness are motivated soley by anger and fear. Give me a break. There's nothign to fear or be angry about with regards to kooks.

You go ahead and wear your tin foil hat and yell as loud as you can the "facts" that Moore wants to peddle.

Also, to make the statement that you "don't have any ties to big oil" is wishful thinking at best. If you live in America, you have ties to big oil, whether direct or indirect.

When you think about that, it means that not only those who supported the war did it for oil, but those who were against the war did it for oil as well.

The attacks of 9/11, which were planned during the Clinton years, demonstrate to clear thinking Americans that there is no foreign policy that would satisfy these maniacs.

As you no doubt remember, Osama planned the previous and unsuccessful truckbombing of the WTC in 96, for which cruise missiles were fired into various locations in the Middle East.

The foreign policy outcomes haven't changed - Bush is merely attempting to use infantry rather than missiles for any unsuccessful attacks on Osama.

It has been interesting for me to note, as a bill of rights advocate, how many people are crying about their rights being violated, then complaining that Bush did nothing before 9/11. Let's face it, before 9/11 any information was just "possible" evidence of terrorist activity, and it's pretty hard to do something before someone strikes anyway.

But let's assume that they DID know, and that all passengers scheduled to board those planes were strip searched before boarding. Can you imagine the outcry?

Along those lines, can you imagine trying to convince the world that 3000 people might have died if we hadn't dragged those Arabs of the plane, dangerously armed with carpet knives?

It is laughable. We can't convict these people now, even after 9/11, with draconian laws in place. This was the era that we were embracing people like Arafat as "diplomats", and terrorists were just criminals.

My suggestion is to ignore the conspiracy theorists. Their arguments aren't based on reason, so they won't be swayed by reason. A priori logic has its own proof built in, and you can't refute it. Paranoia is the glue that holds all these inconsequential details together.

I am willing to accept a certain exposure to terrorism as a trade-off for living in a fair and open society, personally. If you want security, move to Cuba. Nobody ever said living in an open society was safe.

I quite agree that there is little that Bush could have done to prevent 9/11, just like there is nothing more Clinton could have done to stop al-Qaeda. It, unfortunately, took a spectacular attack to get the American people behind the notion that we would need to use force again against an enemy.

However, it is also true that Bush did not take the al-Qaeda threat seriously before the tragedies in New York. It is true that Bush is, by his own admission, not an intellectually curious person. He's a "big picture" man that "doesn't do nuance." He also believes that God told him to become President, and was saying so as far back as 1998. It is facts like that which turn me off to Mr. Bush. Admittedly, I didn't vote for him in 2000, but I didn't vote for the Democrat either. I think Bush's problem is that he lacks an understanding of nuance, that he does not grasp the subtilities of the situation that we are in. He is like an elephant chasing a mouse in the china shop- he may or may not eventually get what he is after, but he's going to completely destroy everything else in the process.

Whether or not people agree with Moore, I've noticed that it's only when he (or the conservative equivalent) bashes "their guy/party) that folks get mad. We heard it with "Monicagate", and we're hearing it now. Let's face it, for most of the "peasants", what we think doesn't amount to much.

Of course it was known that there was a terrorist threat before 9/11. There are terrorist threats every day, as there are (probably) threats on the President's life every day. The problem comes in when some people get wrongly branded as terrorists, thus letting the real terrorists go free, and also when "normal" looking terrorists such as McVeigh and Nichols aren't used as a template to profile terrorists. I don't recall people stopping white males of thin or medium build with light brown hair in airports after that, yet all this money is being spent on the 'war on terror'. Here's a non-ethical solution: We simply pull either a Hitler (long term) or Truman (very short term) to get rid of the enemy. No enemy, no terrorists (for a while). Quite simple.

Of course it was known that there was a terrorist threat before 9/11. There are terrorist threats every day, as there are (probably) threats on the President's life every day. The problem comes in when some people get wrongly branded as terrorists, thus letting the real terrorists go free, and also when "normal" looking terrorists such as McVeigh and Nichols aren't used as a template to profile terrorists. I don't recall people stopping white males of thin or medium build with light brown hair in airports after that, yet all this money is being spent on the 'war on terror'. Here's a non-ethical solution: We simply pull either a Hitler (long term) or Truman (very short term) to get rid of the enemy. No enemy, no terrorists (for a while). Quite simple.

Dragonol..........i agree that bush is kind of an average president but people like moore guarantee his reelection. The wacko propaganda coming from the national media and the hollywood slime is the worst since stalins russia. and the democratic party even support these pigs. if the american people are so dumb that they would elect these kind of unfit leaders, then they will deserve exactly what they will get............AND THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TERRORISM!!!

Thanks Mr Bush for catching Bin Laden... oh..er..
Thanks Mr Bush for stopping Al Queada....oh er...
Thanks Mr Bush for going after the Saudi's instead of Iraq ...oh er...
Thanks Mr Bush for proving Iraq's involvement with 9/11... oh er...
Thanks Mr Bush for finding and destroying Iraq's WMD..oh er....
Thanks Mr Bush for catching Sadam and stopping the murder in Iraq...oh well. Half way there on that one.
Thanks Mr Bush for making the world a safer place...oh..er....
Thanks Mr Bush, for somehow fooling a lot of people into believing you are doing a good job. With that track record, who could possibly question you.

then they will deserve exactly what they will get............AND THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TERRORISM



jeez...taken out of context, that appears to be a terrorist threat

then they will deserve exactly what they will get............AND THAT WILL BE A LOT MORE TERRORISM
jeez...taken out of context, that appears to be a terrorist threat.

You see, when things like that , and " The wacko propaganda coming from the national media and the hollywood slime is the worst since stalins russia. and the democratic party even support these pigs. if the american people are so dumb that they would elect these kind of unfit leaders," is uttered by an redneck, its not terrosim,,,then its patriotism !(?)

me believes micheal mooore epitomises the capitalist monster america is- you got something incendiary, something sensational, you'll make money, you are as sensational as minime or grace jones you'll make money as talol as yao ming you'll make cheddars etc. he is a sham.

[sarcasm] Maybe just maybe Moore is part of the right wing conspiracy [/sarcasm]

I hear people say that the movie will help Kerry win the election and I also hear that it will help Bush win the election. I personally don't think it will make a bit of difference either way. I don't like either choice, but I have to chose one of them. I sure as hell not going to vote 3rd party this time.

Since when did Hollywood = left wing kooks? Isn't the Governator an republican? If people are against Hollywood, then don't go to the movies. Don't go see Spider-Man 2. And please for the sake of all that is mankind don't go see Catwoman.

I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 is about smearing Bush (well maybe it is sort of), but its more about getting people to think instead of blindly listening to the media (right or left) and the politicians. People might not agree with the "means," but he has people talking.

"Isn't the Governator an republican?"

Barely, just barely, and basically just because he says so himself...

"I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 is about smearing Bush "

Then you need to go read Moore's own statements about the movie. He has stated outright his intentions in interviews. He wan't this to be a deciding factor in Bush's defeat. Most people see it as the paranoid diatribe that it is, though. Ever paranoid geeks can be entertaining. Just because they are doesn't mean people will let them decide how to vote.

Draginol,

You have not given me or anyone else reading this any reason to not believe what I stated yesterday. I gave you one day to verify or negate what I stated since you stated you would not "scour the net to debunk this kind of nonsense" - I figured that meant right at that time. Also, I told you that I had ALL the stories I mentioned saved and that they were from mainstream media. Strangely, it is as if you did not read that part of my comment or just ignored it.

Your best response was to just name call AGAIN. Your response was not logica - first you state that you will not take time to debunk me and simply ASSUME that what I mentioned was not true. Then you make me out to be a mad man for believing what I have researched by telling me to go wear my tinfoil hat. Totally illogical - You refuse to negate my comments, but then call me crazy for believing them.

Your S.O.P. seems to go like this: If you can't dispute what someone says, just call them a tinfoil hat wearer and a wacko and a conspiracy believer and on and on... Use whatever names you can to take away the PERSONS credibility, and avoid what the person is claiming as truth. That is a good propaganda technique if employed properly, but it needs to be much more subtle and transparent than you have made it if it is going to work.

Do you call anyone who questions what you believe a tinfoil hat wearer? Is it possible that some of what you have been told may not be truth? I certainly feel that some of what I have been told may not be truth, and that is why I write comments - to see what others have to say about what we have been told is fact. Your responses do not do anything to engage others in conversation to pursue facts and logic - which should be a goal of yours if you want to win people over to your side/logic and have them vote Bush.

If I ran my business the way you run your responses, I wouldn't be able to get anyone to work for me. They would say I was closed minded. I try to listen to everyone though (and give GOOD explanations of why I agree or disagree, but not to belittle some else's thoughts by calling them names) and it has kept me in business for more than 20 years in America.

I am extremely disappointed with the level of the responses I have gotten. Draginol, I am asking you nicely to tell me which things that I stated were incorrect - which mainstream media story do you want to tell me is a lie? I am not being smug, I am asking you to help me verify what you are saying/assuming is false. What if I'm right? If Willie Brown was told not to fly on 9/11 before 9/11, then that would indiciate foreknowledge of 9/11 by at least one other government official (in the 9/11 hearings we find out it was Condi Rice that told Willie Brown not to fly! If Condi knew who else knew?). How is it logical to not pursue this line of thought?

Please give me some REAL answers Draginol and keep the propaganda out of it.