Cappy1507 Cappy1507

What is it about Michael Moore that makes you so mad?

▼

What is it about Michael Moore that makes you so mad?

Fahrenheit 9/11 - what is incorrect or misleading?

from JoeUser Forums
I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night online.

I thought the film was interesting, and I've been working on a blog about the Bush Dynasty, especially their finances. Most of what Moore talked about in that regard I have found else where on the web. I don't think there is much argument about the fact that the Bush family is into Oil, and you can't be in the Oil Business with out being tied with the Saudis. I mean really, you can't deny that the two go hand in hand.

I think it is unfortunate that the President and his family have had a long term relationship with the family of the world’s most infamous terrorist, but their relationship goes back way before bin Laden was a terrorist. I think it does put GWB in a compromising position. I'm not sure why he ran for President knowing that these types of allegations could arise. I also don't think I would seek office again if I knew by doing so I would probably have to seek out the son of a friend and business partner and kill him if it came to that. But he did and we elected him. So gods bless him and his resolve.

What I don't understand is why Michael Moore makes Republicans recoil in horror at the mention of his name. After dinner this evening I mentioned to my step dad, a republican, that I had seen the movie and that it was both interesting and a bit over the top. I think that's a very fair statement. Being a moderate independent I think I have a clearer eye than most Democrats or Republicans.

I told step dad I was looking into the Bush Family finances for a blog I was working on, and he looked at me like I just killed god. I told him about the Prescott Bush information that I had found, and he told me it was a lie. I told him the Alien Seizure vesting order 248 specifically named Prescott Bush and the Union Banking company. I told him about the New York Times article that stated the firm had been relocated to the Alien Seizure Custodian offices but buried the seizure, which was quite out of the ordinary. Again he denied it as Leftist BS. I mean it's a matter of public record. Hundreds of records are entered in the US Alien Property records in the Justice Department records. Why would this be falsified?

I told him that I had also looked into the Carlyle Group and could verify on their own web page that George Bush Senior was in fact on the board as was a bin Laden only a few years ago. But again I was waved off as some kind of nut. I don't get it. I reminded him of Neil Bush's incontrovertible link to the S&L Crisis. I pointed out that George Bush Sr, had lied repeatedly about his involvement in Iran Contra, and that this had all been made public record in the commission report, and that entries in Bushes personal diary from the time made specific mention of meetings with Ollie North and John Poindexter despite his testimony otherwise. I decided that I had pushed his blood pressure to the safe limit, and backed down before it became an all out argument. But it makes me wonder....

So for you republicans that have seen F911 what is it exactly that you refute? I just want to get a feel for the republican take on the film.

Please do not say things like Michael Moore is a liar - or he's full of crap. I want specifics of what he said, and why it is false. I'd like a non confrontational discussion so if you’re not capable of that please move along. Think of this as not an opportunity to defend President Bush, but more of a chance to enlighten me (a non combatant at least on this blog) and set the record straight.
politics
22,741 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's quite easy to tell what's a joke and what isn't in the movie. If it's been proven incorrect, then it's clearly a joke that all of Michael Moore's supporters got immediately. If not, then it isn't a joke.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I believe in one thing and try to sell you an opposite concept. I am lying.


A. No you are not lying.
B. That's not what I'm saying is going on in this scenerio.

If you say "I love chocolate ice cream."

Then I watch you order Vanilla ice cream after dinner for weeks at a time.

So I say, "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."

To which you reply, "I don't think much about chocolate, in fact since I've already eaten most of chocolates friends, Chocolate fudge, Chocolate ripple, and Chocolate chip, I'm not that worried about chocolate. Chocolate is hiding in some cave somewhere and Vanilla has WMD, and has been giving chocolate money for years. SO BITE ME I'm eating Vanilla - It's dangerous and has a bad case of Neoplotian Syndrome.

I am not lying when I said "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nothing like "good humor" to keep things lite.
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
The current dominant media is the screen, and screen communication is more entertainment-centered than logic and accuracy-centered


AP May 24, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first documentary to win Cannes’ prestigious Palme d’Or since Jacques Cousteau’s The Silent World in 1956.

Moore and Cousteau? Isn't this an apples and cumquats comparison? Isn't the REAL issue calling his film(s) a documentary? Isn't a documentary a news film without fictionlization?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #30 By: Cappy1507 - 11/16/2004 9:47:51 PM
If I believe in one thing and try to sell you an opposite concept. I am lying.


A. No you are not lying.
B. That's not what I'm saying is going on in this scenerio.

If you say "I love chocolate ice cream."

Then I watch you order Vanilla ice cream after dinner for weeks at a time.

So I say, "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."

To which you reply, "I don't think much about chocolate, in fact since I've already eaten most of chocolates friends, Chocolate fudge, Chocolate ripple, and Chocolate chip, I'm not that worried about chocolate. Chocolate is hiding in some cave somewhere and Vanilla has WMD, and has been giving chocolate money for years. SO BITE ME I'm eating Vanilla - It's dangerous and has a bad case of Neoplotian Syndrome.

I am not lying when I said "Chocolate musn't be your favorite Ice Cream if you keep ordering Vanilla."


Good try. No. Your example is completely off the mark, sorry. In your example, "you/moore" has taken no position, which is unture. I don't think that is the point of Moore's movie. His point is not about "Bush number one concern is not Osama bin Laden". He actually blame Bush for not capturing bin Laden. Blaming Bush for not capturing "an innocent man"? Have you not heard of Moore's speech? He repeatly said, "Because George Bush has decide to attack Iraq which is a country of no threat to us, we missed the chance to capture Osama bin Laden." I believe Bush has always said capturing bin Laden or not, the war on terror will continue and that capturing him alone doesn't make us safe. In fact, that is the reason why he adovates nation rebuilding, region transformation, because the cause of terriost is not one person or a group of persons but it is rooted in the governments and culture in that region. If the cause of terriosm is simply Al Qaeda, then there is no reason for region transformation. For what? Don't you even remember Bush gave a reason for rebuilding Afghanistan -- even before the Afghan invasion occured? Did you remember what reasons he stated for transforming Afhan, or you have selective memory lost? It is naive to think global terrorism equals bin Laden. The Bush adminstration has said that bin Laden is a concern, but not the only concern. That is the correct thinking. Since the Bush has never claimed bin Laden is the only concern, and that the Bush adminstration has always claimed Saddam is a concern (even before 9/11). In fact, every president since the Gulf War has. Why else do you think we had an oil sanction on Saddam during the Clinton adminstration? For fun? No, because he was considered as a threat. Remember the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act? I am unsure how Bush was inconsistent. In fact, that is one more lie that Moore made.

Imagine this, in my exmaple Moore has taken different stand at different time, which is true as he is:

I am going to arrest your girlfriend and her dog. I believe that your girlfriend has stolen something of mine and she is a major concern, but I have in the pass raised concern regarding about her dog even before I suspect your girlfriend. Now, first, I raided your grilfriend apartment and she took off. Before and during this raid, you have openly defended your girlfriend's innocent and that it is wrong for me to raid her apartment. Now I realized your girlfriend is no way near by, I went after her dog (since I do know where the dog is). Now you starting screaming the facts that "If my girlfriend is your major concern, then you shouldn't have gone after her dog." and that "Because I went after the dog, I missed my chance capturing your girlfriend."

Yeah, that is first of all, twisitng facts. Second, insincere. Third, lying. What don't you get?

Moore think war can only be fought in one front. So I guess FDR must have made a huge mistake when he decided to allocate most of the war effort toward the European Theater and not the Pacific Theater. Afterall, wasn't Japan who bombed us, and not German? Do you know why FDR has always eyeing on German even before Pearl Harbor Attack? After Pearl Harbor incident, why then we concentrate our resource on to German, way before Japan was defeated. Didn't FDR said Japan is the one attacked us? Didn't he said Japan is the reason we went to the war?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
AP May 24, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first documentary to win Cannes’ prestigious Palme d’Or since Jacques Cousteau’s The Silent World in 1956.

Moore and Cousteau? Isn't this an apples and cumquats comparison? Isn't the REAL issue calling his film(s) a documentary? Isn't a documentary a news film without fictionlization?


The defintion of being a documentary does no lie upon film judges, but upon truth. Judges can make mistake unless you assume they are not humans. I presume you are against the War on Iraq. Would I use the fact that Congress overwhelming passed the resolution as the reason to go to war? No, because that showed personal opinions and also creditabilities from these congressmen, which are important by the way, but the logistic and legitimacy of a war is not rooted from congressman. A simplier example is that the correct answer to a mathametical physical equation does not lie upon having many people agree upon an answer, but upon true physical meaning. Otherwise, relativity and quatumn mechanics cannot exist. A solid good counter example is that Bowling for Columbia was also considered as a documentary. In which, we now know Moore has cut and pasted Charlton Heston speeches. Moore cut out some of what Heston said before the Columbia incident and played it after the incident. Meanings get distorted. Were those Heston's words? Yes. His voice? Yes. Did he said that at that moment? No. I can cut and paste people's words and meaning can sound totally different. That is at best called "Taken out of context."

Moore has twisted many footage in Fahrenheit 9/11. It has shown that Bush was on a vacation after 9/11 goofing off. What it doesn't show is that Bush was with Blair just talking before and after the shootage. That is not goofing off. Bush is a personal guy, who like to make his business deal in private when he was young and make policy deal in private when he is president. His way of greeting foreign leader is to invite them to his ranch. Foreign leaders who get invited are in fact considered as honor, as being trusted by Bush. That is why Blair is probably the most invited foreigner leader to his cabinet. Putin too. The last Chinese president Jia was really glad that Bush invited him to the ranch and not White House. Foreign leader who Bush care less for, he met with them at White House. That is just his management style. It is "misleading" and "twisitng" facts to show Bush was "goofing off" with Tony Blair at his ranch.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Here is an article in which Bush was "goofing" around at his ranch with President Jiang, while talking about North Korea's nuclear weapon program.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/24/china.us/
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

What I don't like about Michael Moore is that he selectively uses "facts" to paint a very distorted picture.

For instance, the whole Bush / Saudi "connection" is so tenuous as to be laughable. But because of the way Moore presents it, it sounds very credible very compelling.  Unless people know the actual facts - the real background - they're liable to think that Bush is in the pocket of the Saudis just as people might easily forget that Iraq was not a land of happiness before the US overthrew Saddam.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraq was not a land of happiness before the US overthrew Saddam.


That is probably the most outrageous footage he showed. Seriously outraged and a flat out lie. For those who wonder why I called Moore a liar? This is by far the best reason. Do you know more Iraqis died because of the oil sanction than the invasion. I am not talking about total numbers. I am simply talking the death rate caused by oil sanction is at least one order magnitude higher than the Iraq War. 5000-6000 children under 5 years old died PER MONTH because of the oil sanction through starvation or lack of medicine. That is only children. By 1996, a million children has died, that is only up to 1996. The number is about 2 millions by 2001. If Iraq was such a happy place, why then most Iraqis see the an invasion of their country as justified. I don't think the Nazi Germans think our invasion was justified, not the Imperial Japanese in World War 2. Not even the Russians during Cold War. The Iraqis were living in such horrible condition, they prefer an invasion. Michael Moore dared to described the pre-invaded Iraq as some happy paradise?

Look at what Albright has acknowledged in 1996. The death rate is not made up. These are real. The chip of her inteview is recorded. In fact, two of most influence arguments Osama bin Laden has against America is the: 1) American one-side policy favoring Israel and 2) oil sanction starving Iraqi children. Yes, his real reasons are probably something else, but the point is that starvation is real.
http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm
http://www.childrenfirstinternational.org/article/sanction.htm
http://www.al-bushra.org/Iraq/impact.htm http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles2/aimed.html
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: ChemicalkineticsPosted: Tuesday, November 16, 2004Iraq was not a land of happiness before the US overthrew Saddam.That is probably the most outrageous footage he showed. Seriously outraged and a flat out lie. For those who wonder why I called Moore a liar? This is by far the best reason. Do you know more Iraqis died because of the oil sanction than the invasion. I am not talking about total numbers. I am simply talking the death rate caused by oil sanction is at least one order magnitude higher than the Iraq War. 5000-6000 children under 5 years old died PER MONTH because of the oil sanction through starvation or lack of medicine. That is only children. By 1996, a million children has died, that is only up to 1996. The number is about 2 millions by 2001. If Iraq was such a happy place, why then most Iraqis see the an invasion of their country as justified. I don't think the Nazi Germans think our invasion was justified, not the Imperial Japanese in World War 2. Not even the Russians during Cold War. The Iraqis were living in such horrible condition, they prefer an invasion. Michael Moore dared to described the pre-invaded Iraq as some happy paradise? Look at what Albright has acknowledged in 1996. The death rate is not made up. These are real. The chip of her inteview is recorded. In fact, two of most influence arguments Osama bin Laden has against America is the: 1) American one-side policy favoring Israel and 2) oil sanction starving Iraqi children. Yes, his real reasons are probably something else, but the point is that starvation is real.

http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htmhttp://www.childrenfirstinternational.org/article/sanction.htmhttp://www.al-bushra.org/Iraq/impact.htm http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sarticles2/aimed.html



I understand what you are saying, but the child mortality rates were grossly affected by the carnage of the first gulf war, and Saddams refusal to help his people. The sanctions prevented Saddam from rebuilding his army and profiting from oil sales. Thats it. The population of Iraq grew from 18 million to 25 million from 1990 to 2004. The median age in Iraq is 19 by comparison in America it is 35.

Honestly... I think the humanitarian community is a failure. So much more can be done, and it rarely is enough. The American people - myself included - are partially to blame. Wouldn't it have been great to see an outpouring of aid from this contry, money food, supplies going to Iraq after the war? Remember how the red cross and salvation army had to issue statements after 9-11 saying they had enough food and wate?. It's a shame we didn't react the same way to help the Iraqis. How much easier do you think things would be for the soldier, our soldier, had there been a fraction of that the relief collected for the iraqis?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Wait a minute, is it a joke? Or is it a documentary? Most documentaries I know of (and I'm no media expert) are not satirical or parodies. Did I miss something here?"

Yes obviously you did. As I said. Much media attention (at least in Australia) has focussed on Moore's ability to mix humour with a documentary style that contains a lot of editorial.

"he privately believed and actually openly said bin Laden is innocent, then is just plain illogical. I believe that is not an unimportant point, as Moore tried to claimed that Iraq War is a distraction."

I personally don't recall when Moore said bin Laden was innocent. I think he was guilty but the war was a distraction. But once again, it does not follow from your argument that Moore only speaks lies.

"I am unsure how Bush was inconsistent. In fact, that is one more lie that Moore made."

And here you demonstrate the problem with the extreme Right that wants to try to discredit Moore. This comment, like so many criticisms of Moore plays even faster and looser with the truth than Moore. I don't think Moore speaks only truth. He is very prone to hyperbole. But I take it in the way it is intended.

There are many criticisms to be made of Moore. Plenty of people on both sides have made them. But the most prominent Moore critics, such as the links provided by lw, are no more reliable than Moore.

"people might easily forget that Iraq was not a land of happiness before the US overthrew Saddam."

It ain't no land of happiness now either.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why did we spent most of our war resource on Nazi German then?


Because it was determined at the time that Hitler and Nazi Germany were a bigger threat to our security and way of life than the Japanese, who had actually attacked us.
If you ask me, this was just because Roosevelt had made his pledge to aid Britain come Hell or high water.

Hitler made it easier for him when, on 12/9/41, I think it was, he officially declared war on the United States....making us the only nation in the entire war to have earned that dubious honor.

Okay, just an aside..back to the post at hand.
Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top


Michael Moore is no different than your Fox news,CNN etc. they all just show clips of things and then put THERE spin on it.Fox is obviously a Republican channel and they report the news the way THEY want too.Its all BS!
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #41 By: boomer74 - 11/23/2004 1:49:06 AM



Michael Moore is no different than your Fox news,CNN etc. they all just show clips of things and then put THERE spin on it.Fox is obviously a Republican channel and they report the news the way THEY want too.Its all BS!


Fox news does indeed put their "spin" on it. However Michael Moore outright lies like a dog!
Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes obviously you did. As I said. Much media attention (at least in Australia) has focussed on Moore's ability to mix humour with a documentary style that contains a lot of editorial.


I'm afraid you're the one missing it. It's NOT a documentary style. It was represented as a documentary, this is pretty simple. Only when the BS in the film was proven to be what it is (propaganda) did the shift take place to "humor" and "style". Defending it is purely absurd.
Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top
Fox is obviously a Republican channel and they report the news the way THEY want too.Its all BS!


I think people mix FOX's news reporting and FOX's opinion talk pieces. When I listen to FOX's news reports (on the half hour) or read FOX's news section on FOX news.com, I don't notice too much difference in the reporting from others, in fact much is the same pieces.

But I will admit the talk portion is heavily weighted down with conservative host.

As for saying Moore and FOX talk portion is the same I thing, your dead wrong. Almost every talk show has guests from both sides of the opinion. Moore refuses to have any debate at all, he just cuts and edits to his hart’s content with not ones opinion but his own. He will not even go on a talk show without reviewing and editing the questions asked first. If all the questions are not softballs, he will refuse to do the interview.

Moore has every right to release his films labeled as Opinion editorial films or fiction films, but not as documentary films.

That's My Two Cents