M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I would like to advise everyone that political discussions are nothing but trouble on a message board. Avoid them at all costs!
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

12,000? Where did you get that number? Even places like thenation.com and antiwar.com have the civilian casualties at between 5,000 and 7,000. And most reports are more around similar numbers to those who died on 9/11, which is still horrible and devestating. The question is, who killed whom and what were the intentions? Did US soldiers (collectively) go in the country to murder and rape civilians, or to liberate them from murderers? Will Iraq be better off (more freedom and life and less bloodshed) in the future? Time will tell.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Yes, political topics are dangerous. But free speech is cool. Just think, soon we'll have DVXUser members in Iraq spewing off about how they love the latest Michael Moore movie. Unless, of course, the US doesn't finish what it started because of people like Michael Moore.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=30#37 date=06/28/04 at 16:16:33]Here's some information about Bowling.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html[/quote]

Plenty of hardylaw's points, like those of Hitchens, have been refuted. Although to be fair, Hitchens wasn't really disputing fact more than he was criticizing Moore's interpretation of the facts.

Who you believe is largely based on your politics. If you're a right-winger, you're going to believe hardylaw. If you're a left-winger, you're going to give Moore the benefit of the doubt.

This takes me back to why the truth and context is so important. If we don't try to promote the truth, we get statements of people around the world saying stuff like, "Powell lies at the UN/Ruumsfeld order the tortures." And intelligent conversation goes out the window.
Click to expand...

Again, if the unvarnished truth is so important, then why do you still support Bush? Are you honestly going to tell me that Bush has never ever distorted the truth, misled the public, or lied EVER in order to promote his own political agenda? Is that REALLY your position?
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Michael_Lieberman link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=30#32 date=06/28/04 at 14:48:29]I'm not defending Moore at all (even if I am as left as him), but this myth that documentaries are solidified in unbridled truth is bogus. Documentary is another genre of filmmaking, and fiction does blend in when everyone's idea of "truth" varies, i.e. look at interviews in documentaries where one person's testimony varies to the next. Truth is subjective, history is subjective.[/quote]

What tends to happen is these critics literally INVENT principles in order to attack Moore. Documentaries are suddenly supposed to be completely objective or they can't be considered documentaries. That is, of course, absurd. There's no such thing as a truly objective documentary. Nor does a documentary require that the filmmaker present "both sides."

Super Size Me is a great documentary, and it's decidedly one-sided. In fact, McDonald's in Australia is trying to get the film shut down there because they claim it distorts the truth and only presents one side. Gee, that sounds familiar. But I don't remember thread after thread after thread calling Spurlock a liar or propagandist.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Regarding the term "documentary" and how it applies to Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11...

I was kind of stunned that "Bowling For Columbine" won the award for "best documentary". Moore's work, while perhaps entertaining and based (to whatever degree) in fact, certainly doesn't fall in the category that I would consider the norm for a documentary. But, hey, they're the Academy and I'm not...

For his own part, I've heard Moore term F/911 as "an op-ed piece", and not as a documentary.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=30#41 date=06/28/04 at 17:03:02]12,000? Where did you get that number? Even places like thenation.com and antiwar.com have the civilian casualties at between 5,000 and 7,000. And most reports are more around similar numbers to those who died on 9/11, which is still horrible and devestating. The question is, who killed whom and what were the intentions? Did US soldiers (collectively) go in the country to murder and rape civilians, or to liberate them from murderers? Will Iraq be better off (more freedom and life and less bloodshed) in the future? Time will tell.[/quote]
Actually, http://iraqbodycount.com has the count below 12000, but I've heard figures higher than that on the news. There will never be an official body count because the US doesn't do body counts.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Plenty of hardylaw's points, like those of Hitchens, have been refuted. Although to be fair, Hitchens wasn't really disputing fact more than he was criticizing Moore's interpretation of the facts.
Click to expand...

Please show me where these points are refuted. I'm not afraid of study. Even Moore himself has substantiated many of Hardylaw's claims. And most of them are well documented and obviously factual. Seriously, I would be happy to read these valid refutations that you're talking about. I try to read all sides of an issue.

Again, if the unvarnished truth is so important, then why do you still support Bush?
Click to expand...

I still support Bush because I believe he tells the truth and isn't afraid to make difficult decisions to support this country and the cause of freedom. I don't believe he is perfect, but I honestly do not see an honesty problem with him, certainly not anything as well-documented as the honesty problem of Michael Moore. And, yes, I hold Bush up to a higher standard than I do Michael Moore.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#48 date=06/28/04 at 21:38:04]Please show me where these points are refuted. I'm not afraid of study. [/quote]

Here's one site that refutes many of them (and it's hardly a leftist polemic):

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

If a couple of factual errors make someone "fraudulent" as hardylaw, and probably you, contend, then hardylaw is as fraudulent and guilty of distortion as he claims Moore is. Certainly Hitchens is as guilty, if not more so.

Does that stop you from believing them? Nope. Because as I said before, this isn't really about honesty or truth. Unless maybe you define "truth" as anything with which you agree. Because it's important to be able to distinguish between the two and obviously not everyone can (ahem).

I try to read all sides of an issue.
Click to expand...

Well, you haven't seen BFC and you not only refuse to see F911 but you apparently take issue with anyone ELSE seeing F911 or any of us encouraging them to do so.

So at least with Moore you're not terribly interested in "all sides" of the issue. And I suspect that's not the only one.

I don't believe he is perfect, but I honestly do not see an honesty problem with him, certainly not anything as well-documented as the honesty problem of Michael Moore. And, yes, I hold Bush up to a higher standard than I do Michael Moore.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do. Because the lies and distortions of Bush have been far better documented, and not just on right-wing or left-wing attack sites (although we do find them conveniently collected there). I'm not sure if you're aware of a little report that came out by the 9/11 Commission, but it directly contradicts many statements made by Bush and members of his adminstration. And that's just one document.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I still support Bush because I believe he tells the truth and isn't afraid to make difficult decisions to support this country and the cause of freedom. I don't believe he is perfect, but I honestly do not see an honesty problem with him, certainly not anything as well-documented as the honesty problem of Michael Moore.
Click to expand...

Supporting Bush because you agree with his politics and policies, I can understand (though I disagree). But whoa, supporting him because he's honest? If he's so honest and has nothing to hide, why is he so terrified to give press conferences, to make himself accountible to the public? I believe the man has lied repeatedly to the American people. John McCain--there's a guy I believe is honest, even if I disagree with him much of the time. W? Honest? Don't think so.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#49 date=06/29/04 at 02:13:59]
 I'm not sure if you're aware of a little report that came out by the 9/11 Commission, but it directly contradicts many statements made by Bush and members of his adminstration.  And that's just one document.[/quote]

Ummm . . . I think you should probably read that document, because it doesn't say quite what you think it does.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Josh_Boelter link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#50 date=06/29/04 at 04:52:13]

Supporting Bush because you agree with his politics and policies, I can understand (though I disagree). But whoa, supporting him because he's honest? If he's so honest and has nothing to hide, why is he so terrified to give press conferences, to make himself accountible to the public? I believe the man has lied repeatedly to the American people. John McCain--there's a guy I believe is honest, even if I disagree with him much of the time. W? Honest? Don't think so.[/quote]
Why is it so hard for people to believe that President Bush may actually be telling the truth?  Did you even consider that maybe Bush is not comfortable speaking behind a podium?  Of course not, that’s too easy an answer.  Clearly, he must be hiding something from us.  <Sarcasm off>

Not everyone is gifted with the art of public speaking.  That’s just not his strong suit.  It doesn’t necessarily mean he is trying to avoid being accountable to the public (unlike some other former US President).  

You say you believe that he lied repeatedly to the American people.  Okay, elaborate please.  I’m so tired of this ****.  All I’ve read on this forum and many others like it is the same BS speculation, accusations, and conspiracy theories that repeatedly fail under the scrutiny of close examination.  I'm not saying the man is an angel without fault, but on the flipside I don't recall any circumstances where the President intentionally lied.

I swear, when it comes to reasoning with those on the left, principles like “Ockham’s Razor” goes flying right out the window and in its place comes convoluted logic.

So, if the anti-Bush league is prepared to discuss this subject logically without imbecile comments like he’s an idiot, or “grassy knoll” theories, then I’m ready to discuss and share ideas.  I may be conservative, but I’m more than receptive to reasoned arguments and different points of view.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Not everyone is gifted with the art of public speaking. That’s just not his strong suit. It doesn’t necessarily mean he is trying to avoid being accountable to the public (unlike some other former US President).
Click to expand...

Whether or not he's gifted with the art of public speaking is irrelevant. It's part of his job to answer questions. A big part. And actually, he seems comfortable behind the podium. He gives plenty of pre-written speeches, but yet he's given fewer press conferences than any president in modern history. And on the rare occasion he takes the time to hear questions, he hems and haws and double-speaks his way around it. I wouldn't want to do those press conferences either. But I'm not the president. He is. Also, I never claimed our former president was honest. He used the same kind of double-speak during his press conferences. I'm just not naive enough to believe W is any more honest than Bill.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Here's one site that refutes many of them (and it's hardly a leftist polemic):

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607
Click to expand...

That site hardly refutes very many points against Moore, although it refutes some. It mostly provides a lot of exuses for Moore's blatant manipulations of footage and audio, which a fairminded person would say actually substantiates the criticism against BFC.

I'll give Moore the benefit of the doubt. A couple of those claims against Moore are probably too much. However, that doesn't explain away Moore's intentional deceptions, some of those deceptions substantiated by this site that defends him.

Because as I said before, this isn't really about honesty or truth.  Unless maybe you define "truth" as anything with which you agree.
Click to expand...

I define truth as what actually happened. And a truthful person says what is known. Why do you have such a hard time with this actually being about truth? Perhaps you should study epistemology, the philosophy of science. It would give you a good foundation on how we perceive knowledge (through either authoritarian, empirical, pragmatic, and intuitive means). We can actually have pretty good perceptions of events. And once again, our perceptions may be somewhat relative, but that doesn't mean the truth is relative.

If Moore presents something as being an advertisement produced by the Republican party, but it's really an ad mocked up intentionally by Moore to make Republicans look bad, that is lying. If Moore says he's not liberal or conservative, not Democrat or Republican, but he's regististered as a Democrat and he leans strongly to the left, he is lying. If he says, "Disney is blackballing my movie," just to get some publicity when he knows Disney was never going to act as a distributor, he is lying. Do you need more?

I'm not sure if you're aware of a little report that came out by the 9/11 Commission, but it directly contradicts many statements made by Bush and members of his adminstration.  And that's just one document.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am aware of that report. And I'm aware of what the administration has been saying. And I'm aware of many claims on "hate bush" sites.

If you start with the premise that truth actually matters, you'll find that Bush is a truthful person. If you buy into the lies that Bush lied about weapons of mass destrestruction, Bush lied about 911, Bush stole the presidency, then you are either being deceived or you don't believe that truth matters. Perhaps you are one of those people who believe that there is no truth and if I have an opinion that Bush lied then my opinion is my truth. But if you believe that truth matters, then simply read the historical record of events and you will find that those accusations about Bush are lies. You will have to show me actual quotes, in context, to convince me otherwise.

Regarding 911, Read the report by the commission and you'll discover that (even though some of the broadcasts of hearings became a political platform to bash the administration) the commission actually finds that the administration was open and upfront and acted with integrity. It recommends changes, and thank goodness we have a president who has the guts to push broad changes and to help keep something like 911 from happening again. (I know you think he's making changes just to boost the profits of the baby formula industry, but maybe that's because you've been watching too much television or too many Michael Moore movies.)

This is my final point. I'll certainly read any replies, but I don't have time to write anything more about this.

It's a little bit hard for me to understand some people. The same people who say Clinton is an honest man (in his autobiography Clinton claims to have lied by mistake) say that Bush lied about WMD and Bush lied about 911, when all the evidence shows differently. I'm not saying that anyone here has been defending Clinton's honesty, but I don't quite understand why it is so hard to believe that Bush is an honest man. It's almost as if we have come to the point where to some charisma equals honesty, and a stammering, southern accent is proof of dishonesty.

But let's get back to Moore since that is what this topic is about. The main defense for Moore's lies seems to be, "Well, Bush lies too so it's not really about honesty; it's about opinion." In other words, are the defenders of Moore saying that if more than one person is doing something wrong it suddenly becomes right? Or is a more sinister ethical justification at play here, that the ends (getting Bush out of office) justify any means?
 
M. Moore's F. 9/11

M. Moore's F. 9/11

I did not see the film yet, but with all the review I read from the one who had seen the film, I'm gona go for sure.

Never saw as many user reviews from one movie until now and saying; "Go see it and hope all Americans will see it"
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#54 date=06/29/04 at 10:27:20]

I define truth as what actually happened.

If you start with the premise that truth actually matters, you'll find that Bush is a truthful person. If you buy into the lies that Bush lied about weapons of mass destrestruction, Bush lied about 911, Bush stole the presidency, then you are either being deceived or you don't believe that truth matters. But if you believe that truth matters, then simply read the historical record of events and you will find that those accusations about Bush are lies. [/quote]

Oh really? So there were WMD's in Iraq just as Bush repeatedly claimed there were as his first justification for invading Iraq? Or did we go there because Iraq had some connection to Al Qaeda (which it did not)? Do you realize that the U.S. had more of a relationship with Hussein, Bin Laden, and the Taliban than Hussein ever had with any Islamic fundamentalists? Or do you perhaps buy Bush's later claims that we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people?

Do you agree with spending over $87 billion for the war and rebuilding of Iraq when that money is needed far more domestically to solve problems like homelessness, overcrowded schools, unemployment, and lack of medical insurance for millions. I think it's far more likely that I'll need affordable health insurance than it is that I'll die in a terrorist attack, but apparently W. thinks so much of the citizens of his own country, he'd rather pump billions into Iraq, and send thousands of soldiers over there to die for no good reason.

How exactly are the U.S. and the world safer than we were a year ago? Do you feel safer knowing Bush attacked and destabilized a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the U.S.? Do you feel safer now that Bush has alienated the world? Would you still support Bush and his war if you had to go fight and potentially lose your life?

I'm confounded by people who support this liar, especially people who aren't heads of megacorporations that benefit financially from having Bush and his neocon cronies in the White House. Why would someone so staunchly defend Bush in the face of his incompetence, his deceptiveness, his eroding of the very freedoms he claims to be fighting to protect? What exactly do you like about this guy?

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#54 date=06/29/04 at 10:27:20]

It's a little bit hard for me to understand some people. The same people who say Clinton is an honest man (in his autobiography Clinton claims to have lied by mistake) say that Bush lied about WMD and Bush lied about 911, when all the evidence shows differently. [/quote]

What are you talking about? What evidence? There are no WMD'S. How can you even question this? (And had there been WMD's, would that have justified invading a country that had never attacked us? Should we attack any country that has WMD's, consequences be damned?)

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#54 date=06/29/04 at 10:27:20]

I'm not saying that anyone here has been defending Clinton's honesty, but I don't quite understand why it is so hard to believe that Bush is an honest man. It's almost as if we have come to the point where to some charisma equals honesty, and a stammering, southern accent is proof of dishonesty. [/quote]

Clinton had a southern accent too. Do you honestly believe that Clinton's lying about a sexual indiscretion is the same as Bush's lying to justify a war that's resulted in thousands of American and foreign deaths and injuries?

[quote author=Everdene link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#54 date=06/29/04 at 10:27:20]

But let's get back to Moore since that is what this topic is about. The main defense for Moore's lies seems to be, "Well, Bush lies too so it's not really about honesty; it's about opinion." In other words, are the defenders of Moore saying that if more than one person is doing something wrong it suddenly becomes right?[/quote]

Regardless of whether you believe Moore's film is 100% factually accurate, any ostensible lies or untruths perpetuated by Moore have not resulted in American and foreign deaths. Bush's have. And I'm sure since you're such an ardent Bush supporter, the instant you're done reading these posts, you'll dash off down to your local Armed Forces recruitment office and sign up for duty in Iraq.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Is Moore a liar? Almost unquestionably, the answer must be yes. The whole "Disney is blocking my film" thing was simply an untruth. And I documented a few of the glaring omissions in the F9/11 picture that were egregious to see, and clearly designed to mislead. Intentionally misleading someone (by factual omission) is a form of lying.

But does that mean everything in the picture is a lie? Let us remember this: even with the boy who cried wolf, eventually there was a wolf, and it did eat the sheep, and it killed the boy too. But the townspeople felt justified in ignoring his cries because he had lied in the past. But whether he was a liar or not, there was a wolf.

So to anyone who chooses to watch the picture, certainly understand that it is unquestionably propaganda, there are definitely known facts that are just plain left out, and there are surprisingly bold distortions of the truth (or what we generally accept as the truth... such as his portrayal of Iraq as a happy-go-lucky nation with not a problem in the world, prior to the American invasion).

However -- does that mean that everything in the picture is a lie? Do we then ignore the other sources (such as Richard Clarke, or many of the others that he quotes, or the quotes given by Condoleeza Rice and others, that directly contradict themselves)? There is a lot of stuff in that picture that should be answered, and answered factually (not "Moore is a liar, so ignore everything he says"... there may indeed be a wolf out there. Someone may want to find out.)

As for Clinton -- Clinton was not impeached because he "lied about sex". He was impeached because there was evidence to show that he had used the Office of the President to coerce others into perjuring themselves to protect him, trying to obstruct justice. That would be a grievous federal crime, well worthy of impeachment. You can lie to your wife, or to the public, without being impeached from office -- but if you obstruct a law enforcement investigation and use the weight of office to influence others to lie under oath... well, that's a whole 'nother thing.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

I don't really support Clinton, but why is it that if you are not a Bush supporter (which I can't say that, for a second, I ever have been) you must be on the side of bubba? Clinton's second term was indeed quite awful, despite the success of the economy and the .com industry before the bubble bursted.

I don't have to mention this horrendous misstep in foreign policy to state why I despise Bush so much. Look no further that adding a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT banning gay marriage!

Here are other reasons why I hate him:
- He's inarticulate, unread, uncultured, and a terrible Reagan impersonator.
- Has plans such as the "Clear Skies Initiative" and "No Child Left Behind" when the skies are 500% more polluted with mercury and school funding has dropped significantly.
- His inability to speak to the American public when times are tough, most notably in Iraq. With the exception of A press conference this past April, where the man said he couldn't think of a single mistake he made, he hides when trouble is abound, economic or in Iraq, and speaks when there's a burst of sunshine on his side.

And the idea that Bush is a truth-teller is what I find most alarming. All politicians are liars in the very nature of their job, which is to protect themselves. Gone are the days of the people being properly represented by officials elected by the public. Bush is no different, and in fact, possibily much worse. There have been such contradictory statements by Bush et all (Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Ashcroft, and of course, Rumsfeld) in the past year that it is very difficult to pinpoint where the truth ends and lies begin. By looking at the progression of public statements by this administration, from when they took office, through 9/11, to the Iraq war, to now, the ideology has shifted from such polar extremes that the compelling evidence of what are lies and what are truths have meshed together in their very nature. Seeing these shifts, without sufficient and thoughtful apologies by this administration, not only proves that (unless the evidence was that bad, despite our funding of the CIA/FBI/Military Intelligence) we were duped, but they have contempt for the American people.
 
Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

Re:  M. Moore's F. 9/11

[quote author=Michael_Lieberman link=board=movies;num=1087240827;start=45#58 date=06/30/04 at 09:18:37]
Here are other reasons why I hate him:
- He's inarticulate, unread, uncultured, and a terrible Reagan impersonator.
- Has plans such as the "Clear Skies Initiative" and "No Child Left Behind" when the skies are 500% more polluted with mercury and school funding has dropped significantly.
- His inability to speak to the American public when times are tough, most notably in Iraq. With the exception of A press conference this past April, where the man said he couldn't think of a single mistake he made, he hides when trouble is abound, economic or in Iraq, and speaks when there's a burst of sunshine on his side.
[/quote]

See, here's a problem, and here's why guys like Moore do so well.

The above statements are simply inaccurate, and they reflect a soundbite-only review of the facts.

The skies are NOT "500% more polluted with mercury" than the were before; mercury is a heavy metal doesn't hang in the sky.  But then, suppose it is – “500% more” would be the difference between 1 part per TRILLION and 6 parts per TRILLION. Is it “500% more”? Yes. Is it a crisis? No. Will you ever notice or be affected by it? No. Is it political hay made for its own sake? Yes. Is it put in those alarmist terms to elicit exactly the type of reaction you’re giving it? Yes.

Mercury levels in the waters are no higher than they were before; the hubbub was over Bush's teams' holding off on a stricter standard (which was already stricter).

Bush was not asked if he had made *any* mistakes; he was asked what he considered his *one* biggest mistake to be, and he had to think about it -- as would you, as would I.

"Hiding"?  When?  That's quite a charge and needs to be backed up.

The rest of it is opinion and not a little snobbery.

But, this being the atmosphere we live in, Moore's style is ripe for the times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top