Fahrenheit 9/11 responses

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jul 04 - 11:46 AM

Well it seems a little far-fetched, but no more delusory than the Bushiote world-view, I suppose.


A

Here's a LINK TO THE ABOVE PAGE:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/et043.html

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jul 04 - 11:53 PM

Here's one perspective on military familes who have gone to the movie, and their responses to it. Highly interesting.

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jul 04 - 07:56 AM

By the DougR classification, FOX News is a major war profiteer.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 04 - 02:55 PM

FOX News is a major war profiteer.

Heck yes!!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jul 04 - 09:06 PM

I saw on the news tonight that Fahrenheit 9/11 is number 5 on the money maker chart today.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jul 04 - 09:09 PM

Well, tonight I get to go see it. Is there anything in particular I should note?

Some friends have said that they were not aware that the bush's inaugural parade had been egged and that police were beating back (paraphrasing here) the protesters. Any info on that?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jul 04 - 10:02 PM

Let us hear your thoughts Ebbie....


A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:21 AM

Clint Keller on a different thread: The scary thing about A. et al. is not that they're a conspiracy, it's that they're a consensus.

Exactly the thought I came home with last night. It reminds me of Deliverance- if the Powers are focused and cohesive, what hope is there? If we get Bush out, what then?

Oil and jobs and MONEY: The speaker first says "invasion of Iraq" and changes it, the next breath, to "liberation of Iraq". This war is totally cynical, unconscionable, hopeless…

Lila Lipscomb- much as I would like her personally, I have to wonder: What was she thinking?! She sent them off to war- did she take for granted they would return home alive? Was she concerned only for her children and by extension, the US kids and not for the carnage Iraq would suffer? What about their youngsters and grandparents and homes and soldiers?? What about Iraq's future?


Most dis-heartened I've been in awhile.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 02:54 PM

Clint: I think you might be hard-pressed to prove that all of the facts in Moore's film are, indeed, facts. Take a look at Moorelies.com for example.

Kendall: Yep, I heard (on the Fox News Network of course) that so far the war profiteer, Michael Moore, has grossed close to a hundred million dollars with his little "documentary." Got to be a LOT of profit in there somewhere. If he can't find it, I'll bet some accountant with Halliburton could show him how to! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 03:57 PM

DougR

Mr. Moore has had his film checked by experts and is daring people like you to prove that it is not factual. That may be tough for you if you have not seen the film and have no valid way to judge. Yet you are judging. How curious.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 04:06 PM

Not so curious, Jack. Why waste money seeing a film touting a point of view you do not agree with? For education? Aw, come on. Would you pay your good money to go see a movie praising George W. Bush? I kinda doubt it.

The veracity of Nr. Moore's film has been called into question by several people. I provided a website for one of them.

DougR

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 04:26 PM

If I send you the money for two tickets to the documentary, DougR, will you go?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 08:11 PM

Moore makes no bones---he is Bush Bashing But he is also not changing facts---interpretations via narratives can sure be taken in different ways. But--the facts remains.

I do believe that is strongest points in the film come when he is not narrating---merely showing Bush in his own words, Marine recruiters soliciting the unemployed and poor, soldiers with pro and con opinions of the war (the pro ones were frightening---real haters, and also his closing narrative. I do believe, to make the film more effective, he should have avoided narrating the schoolroom sequence on 9/11 and let the pictures and the time frames speak for themselves. That would have precluded criticism of his interpretation and let us judge for ourselves by looking at this lost little face of W. Unlike--say, the face of FDR after Pearl Harbor, JFK vis a vis Cuba, and, yes, Truman vis a vis MacArthur and his removal of command.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 08:17 PM

As I mentioned above, Moore told the interviewer on 60 Minutes, "I just put people on camera and they embarrass themselves!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 08:32 PM

Haven't looked at Moorlies.com yet but I will.

When I said facts I was thinking of what the filmclips themselves show. I don't think the shots of Bush and the Havemores was faked. Nor the shots of the congressmen baffled by the idea that maybe their sons should go to war, and so on.

I've got to go now but I'll give you a report on Moorelies when I get back.

clint

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 09:26 PM

As I said before, DougR, Moorelies.com is a site about anything Moore has ever said that the site's contributors don't agree with. It has little to do with the film. It's about whether he REALLY got a hug from Tom Daschle or not. Anytime anyone else's memory does not agree with Moore about anything--HE'S A LIAR!!!! LIAR!!!

But as of my last visit, they were saying very little about this film.

In other words, you provided a link to a crappy site which doesn't even criticize this film very much or very well.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 06:15 AM

The site moorelies.com has a lot about the film (reviews and comments).

And it has given me my Mudcat laugh of the week:

Doug recommending having a look at a site which prints Le Monde's commentary in the English translation. And I read the following sentences:

We have already seen the hallucinatory moment where George W. Bush sits dazed in an elementary school chair as it is announced to him that a second plane has struck the World Trade Center. But here it takes on its full force, its overwhelming impact, having been restored to its original length: a visual demonstration that this man is incapable of leading the United States. (my emphasis)

Doug, I really wouldn't have thought you'd recommend to read a site printing this about Bush. Perhaps, somewhere deep in your liberal roots, you share that sentiment? (:-)

Moorelies seems to have skipped the Le Monde commentary by now (guess why), but it still can be seen in the caches.

I'm not going to see the film when (if?) it comes over to us. I doubt there is anything new for me in that film and I hate propaganda, even if I'd share the basic sentiment.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 06:35 AM

Every word Bush spoke in this film is accurate. He spoke those words from time to time over the past three years, and none of them were faked. The man can not speak in whole sentences. Moore didn't have to make a fool of Bush, and I wish he hadn't tried. Bush Does that all by himself.
I didn't see this film as propaganda, mostly I saw it as reshowing of his idiotic statements and his incredible incompetence.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 10:39 AM

Oops. Sorry to DougR and thanks to Wolfgang. Last time I looked at Moorelies it was more or less a blog and they were talking about lies they felt he was telling outside the film.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 01:48 PM

Doug, I read "Plan of Attack" because the Bush/Cheney campaign recommended it. I was expecting to be critical of the book, but upon reading it, if find that Bush/Cheney must have been counting on people not reading it. If you are going to criticize something, get to know it. Know thy enemy, you may find more ammunition. At least you reduce the risk of looking like a fool.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 02:21 PM

Doug is no fool; he simply doesn't want to believe he's backing the wrong horse, or, horse's ass as it were.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 07:56 PM

Wolfgang: just shows you how democratic and fair I REALLY am! :>)

Ebbie: sure send the money along. The Bush/Cheney campaign can probably use it!

DougR

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 01:58 AM

Doug-

I checked it out Moorelies.com. The lead article is on Linda Ronstadt getting fired from that casino in Las Vegas. It has nothing to do with Moore lying.

Most of it is complaints about Moore himself and his opinions, not the truth of his movie but there's a piece by a 17-year-old girl that says that there are several members of congress with children in the military rather than just one. I'll try to check that... Though if it's true it doesn't change the outraged reactions of the congressmen he approached, which to me is the point of the episode. She seems to stick to facts better than most of thie writers, though there's some name -calling. But she says some other things I want to read again.

But, for instance, the downloadable anti-Moore flyer says he is 'Calling for the deaths of American soldiers: "I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."' He's not *calling for* deaths, he's *predicting* deaths. They don't read their own writing.

Well, the world's full of people who can't tell facts from opinions, &/or don't care. I don't know why it always surprises me.

more later. Or more Moore.

clint

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 04:16 PM

Seer also this report from the AP.

GOP made nervous...always a good thing.

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 11:49 AM

Jack The sailor should note that ABC,NBC and CBS do their fair share of producing slanted liberal propaganda also. Thats 3 to 1 who has the lead? Since your a Democrat I'll spell it out...... that 3 times as many!

Fools

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 01:07 PM

Sorry, GUEST, but CBS, ABC and NBC are not the liberal bastions you imagine them to be. First of all, they are owned by the giant media conglomerates that Bush's new FCC regulations were written for. So their corporate management is firmly Republican. Secondly, their newsrooms, which are mixed and have people to present both viewpoints, play by an entirely different set of rules. They use BALANCE as an actual principle (rather than an empty mantra), so they tell you both sides even when they probably shouldn't.

Using Global Warming as an example, if 95% of reputable scientists say Global Warming is a problem, and 5%, who are paid by right-wing think tanks, say Global Warming is not a problem, then the "liberal" media will say "some scientists think Global Warming will be a problem, but others are not so sure." It's a true statement, and it's "balanced" between the viewpoints, but not between the numbers or credibility of those who share the viewpoints.

Then on the networks there are some people, like John Stossel on ABC, who are simply paid huge amounts of money by giant polluting corporations; they pay him ostensibly to speak at corporate functions. He makes millions off of them, then goes on ABC and says "The scientists that I trust say Global Warming won't be a problem!"

FOX and most of the other Cable networks, on the other hand, are blatantly right wing and don't make any effort to balance. So you get the so called liberal media telling you "Global Warming might or might not be a problem," liars embedded in the "liberal" media telling you "Global Warming won't be a problem" and the cable news channels, especially FOX, saying "no credible scientists REALLY think global warming will be a problem." So how surprising is it that most Americans don't really think there's any urgency to the Global Warming issue?

On political issues it works the same way. It's a sad sight to see!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 04:23 PM

I'm not a Democrat.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Terry Allan Hall
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 04:52 PM

It fascinates me to see/hear people who not only have never seen F 9/11, but proudly state that they NEVER will, rant about what trash it is.

Bling leading the blind.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 05:41 PM

Good analysis, Nerd, and right on the button.

Then there is PBS, who might be slightly more "liberal" that the Big Three. Their "flaw" (if someone wants to think of it that way) is that they show essentially apolitical science programs like Nova and Nature, in which some episodes have done in-depth analysis of things like air and water pollution and tell it like it really is. In The Jim Lehrer News Hour, they start by giving the headlines, then do three or four in-depth reports each evening, not just sound-bites and bumper-stickers. In-depth reports tend to inform people, and we can't have that, now can we? And granted, Bill Moyers (NOW with Bill Moyers, 9:00 p.m. Friday nights, at least where I live) is an admitted liberal, but what gets the right-wing really screaming about him is that he reports stories that he thinks you ought to know, and that the right-wing would rather you not.

Liberal media? Maybe Alternative Radio on NPR--once a week.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 06:21 PM

Don

This is just my opinion for what it is worth. I find NPR and PBS, which readily acknowledge their corporate sponsors to be fairly right wing. No one, except maybe Link TV is consistanly speaking for left wing causes like workers rights etc. Left of Fox they may be if war mongering and partisan attacks are considered "right". They also go through extraordinary lengths to show both sides. I've heard the announcement of the discovery of a new fossil carbon dated at a million countered with the view of a "creation scientist" who said it couldn't possibly be older than 6,000 years.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 05:21 AM

Top Secret Clip released too late for Moore's Movie!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 02:56 AM

Doug:

As promised I tried checking the facts on Moorelies. com, but it was hard. Lots of Googling & I'm not a superb Googler. And most of their facts are opinions, as I complained about before...

So I went to Moore's own site; I hadn't looked at it before. He gives the source of every statement he made in F911 and you can look it up and check it for yourself.

I don't have a script, so he may have said some things that are not on his site, but I'll betcha he didn't; I trust the Bush supporters are diligent enough to find anything he missed.

Like the saying goes, you & Moore are both entitled to your own opinions, but neither of you are entitled to your own facts. He's documented his facts; better stick to arguing with his opinions.

clint

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,NO MOORE OF MICHAEL MOORE!
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:55 PM

Bill H - So do you go see all the movies made each year? This movie is strictly entertainment- if you can call Michael Moore's opinions entertaining - no news value. This is not a documentary, but an editorial. Thus is falls into the category of "entertainment". Why should everyone in American go see the movie? To put more money in Michael Moore's pockets so he can continue his line of fantasy books and movies. I don't know about you, but I really don't think it was necessary for everyone to go see Britney Spears movie debut to know it was a bad movie. Did I need to go see that too in order to say it wasn't worth seeing?   Why should I when I can see the highlights, know what it is about, see the reviews, the story and what was the main parts of the movie - that is enough for me to know it is crap. And when the majority of information report in this so called film you love has been proven to be false - why on earth would I want to subject myself to this film. On top of it, Michael Moore is everything I do not believe in. Until he gives me a good hour of his time- I see not need sitting for a hour listening to his crazy opininons.

This is why it is UNNESSARY for us to go see the movie - because we already know it is crap!

On top of things....maybe you are right about the woman's son being a filmmaker before he makes a film in opposition to Michael Moore. Apparently, knowing how to "Edit" and put film clips together to prove false statements is a great skill to have...it seems to have worked for Michael Moore!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 03:00 PM

Guest, you are obviously a troll.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 03:10 PM

And a badly mistaken troll, to boot. There was no fantasy in the film.

You've just been so badly suckered your head is spinning,that's all.

A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Sep 04 - 03:40 PM

Frankly, I do think that you have to see the Britany Spears movie if you wish to call it crap.    I do not intend to see it and I have no opinion about it.

I have watched Fahrenheit 9/11 twice. The first time was because I was interested in the topic, and the second time I paid close attention to his craft. I do work in the industry and I had a professional curiosity as well.

Documentaries MUST have a POV. Moore certainly has one. Moore also have evidence to back it up.   The response this brainwashed troll gave us is nothing more than a scathing attack on Michael Moore, but there is NOT ONE explanation or rebuttal for ANY of Moore's claims.   While I won't vouch for everything he puts forth, I have yet to see anyone give solid evidence that disproves his work.   They call him names in a schoolboy attempt to discredit him, but they have no evidence to have an honest rebuttal.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 09:27 PM

*I just saw his picture on the cover,*
*I hope he buys 5 copies for his mother.*
*Michael Moore's sweet smiling face,*
*On the cover of the Rolling Stone.*

Just got my most recent issue and was glad to see Michael Moore grinning like a Cheshire Cat on the front cover.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 09:06 PM

from above guest.

Jack The sailor should note that ABC,NBC and CBS do their fair share of producing slanted liberal propaganda also. Thats 3 to 1 who has the lead? Since your a Democrat I'll spell it out...... that 3 times as many!

Fools

SPELL it out?
looks like you're the halfwit on this one.

the best line of f9/11 when bush says fool me once, shame on ...you
fool me twice?... well we wont get fooled again.

on that point I agree with W.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 11:30 PM

ABC, NBC, and CBS are liberal???   Hardly!!   Having worked for NBC for 12 years I can tell you it was very hard to find a liberal in the newsroom!   The fact that none of the three networks bother to cover what Kerry's message and instead focus on Vietnam and polls shows how "liberal" they are. Clinton's blowjob became their bread and butter.   

The networks love a scandal, they do not care who offers it. The networks are just trying to scoop each other. It was fairly obvious on Election Day 2000 when all three networks fell in line to declare George Bush president after Fox did.   While there were still questions, none of the networks bothered to get to the truth.

The squarely conservative entertainers, I mean talk show hosts, can say what they want about the liberal media.   It is a smokescreen that only fools people who are not interested in forming their own opinion. You can drink the kool-aid if you like, but at least there are a few journalists that try to uncover the truth. Just because your boy is the subject does not make him a target.   If you do the crime, you do the time.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 01:53 AM

"If you do the crime, you do the time."

I wonder if this applies to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:23 PM

Probably won't see it for the same reason I haven't and won't see:

Pearl Harbor which distorts the actual sense and flavor of the US in the 40's

Gettysburg which does the same and attempts to re-write the reasons for the American Civil War

Michael's got every right to put his view out there, he can apparently distort with the best of 'em and by this I mean Oliver Stone

But the very power of those images can distort thought and I'm gonna guard my memes!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 06:49 PM

Robomatic, if you mean that some of the footage, or the facts or commentary in the movie may cause you to question what you believe is real, yes. I'd be afraid too.

There is editorializing by Moore, but he doesn't try to hide it. It was his conclusions about the facts, but the facts themselves are open to anyone's interpretation, and you can always do your own research later.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:51 AM

Good idea -- gyard those memes, give it all you've got.

The last thing you want is fresh air getting in there!! :> )


A

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 10:46 AM

I'm more concerned with lasting memories created by powerful images which are based on non-events, lies, misdirections, and bad history. Don't confuse fresh air with an ill wind.

Anyone who's sat through even a few mintues of "Weekend at Bernie's" or "Baby Geniuses" knows where I'm coming from.

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 12:58 PM

"powerful images which are based on non-events"

All images are based on events. In dramatic movies they are based on events staged by actors. In Fahrenheit 9/11 they are not. They are based on events that really happened.

So far, even among the people who disagree with Moore, I've never seen ANYONE claim he faked footage.

Sounds to me like you're just being stubborn!

Subject: RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 responses
From: GUEST,Justin
Date: 14 Sep 04 - 03:11 AM

I think you will get a kick out of this, YAFM9: Michael Moore.