Fahrenheit 9/11

[Bond]

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/_images/about/poster/poster.jpg

Well, doesn't anyone want to talk about this movie by a fat rich white man?

[Jonbo298]

You've opened the gates of hell

*waits for Strangler to come in* :sneaky:

[DimHalo]

haha, I can already feel the tension in this thread. I've seen the commercials for it. Very controversial (that is the point right)

[manasecret]

I haven't seen it, but in Friday's USA Today, they already had a bunch of facts contradicting some of what Mr. Moore says and showing it's peccant ways.


..And I did a quick search, here's the article.

'9/11' OMITS A FEW FINER POINTS

Fahrenheit 9/11 is not intended to be objective; director Michael Moore concedes that point. But he also has said he is "presenting the truth." A look at some of the movie's controversial points:

President Bush's reaction to news of the Sept. 11 attacks

Moore uses video of the president as Bush learned that a second jet had hit the World Trade Center the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The president was in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., listening to second-graders read.

Bush sat in the classroom for seven minutes after learning of the news from his chief of staff, Andrew Card. Moore superimposes a timer on the screen to document the passage of time, then asks what was going through the president's mind. Was he, Moore wonders, regretting spending 42% of his first eight months in office on "vacation?"

Moore bases his quip on an Aug. 6, 2001, story in the Washington Post that said by the end of that month Bush would have spent 42% of his first seven months in office "at vacation spots or en route." The calculation included weekends spent at the presidential retreat in Camp David, Md., and a month-long "working vacation" at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Moore doesn't say that the "vacation" days included weekends or that Bush worked part of most of those days. He met, for example, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The other message Moore sends is that Bush was frozen, unable to do anything until he was told what to do by his aides. The independent 9/11 commission reported that Bush told its members he felt it was important to remain calm when not much was known about the attacks. Andrew Card told ABC's Good Morning America this week that Bush showed "a moment of shock, and he did stare off maybe for just a second."

The decision to let some Saudis leave the USA shortly after 9/11 and alleged connections among the Bush family, Saudi royalty and Osama bin Laden's family

Moore questions why the Bush administration allowed 142 Saudis, including members of bin Laden's family, to fly out of the USA Sept. 14 through Sept. 24, 2001. He suggests that business ties between oil-rich Saudi Arabia and the Bush family might have resulted in special treatment for some Saudi citizens — even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 were Saudis.

The implication: Saudis who might have had information about the attacks — or even been involved — slipped through the president's fingers.

But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."

An alleged connection between Bush and the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan

In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.

In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-06-24-fahrenheit-cover_x.htm (it's not the main article, by the way)

I do want to see Fahrenheit 9/11. But mostly for entertainment. :p

[Dylflon]

I saw it yesterday. Michael Moore doesn't do as much talking. He lets the events speak for themselves.

You Michael Moore haters, see the movie before you bash it.

[Null]

hehehe. it was actually quite an amusing movie/documentary.

They're all real video in it. but he just pieces them together in a way to make a big story line. some is true. some is made to sound different then it is. some is exagerations.

but i only went cuz some friends decided to go while we were out. It was good for entertainment

:)

[Crono]

I really want to go see this movie, hopefully I can make it some time this week.

[Stonecutter]

I will admit, after having read everything that I could find that was Anti-Bowling for Columbine, that Moore did do some unfair things to help make his point.

I saw F 9/11 on Friday and have looked into every single story that attempts to debunk Moore's side of the facts and I have found NOTHING wrong. The vast majority of the attacks take the form of the things that Manasecret posted. Stuff like this:


But the movie does not point out that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left the USA and that investigators say no one on board the planes has turned out to be of interest. The independent 9/11 commission has reported that "each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure."

I mean, that's ridiculous. So the FBI interviewed less than 25% of the Saudis that left and then we're supposed to feel better because it turns out after the fact that they really weren't a threat. Well golly gee, I'm so glad we got that information after they left the country.

In December 1997, a delegation of top Taliban officials visited the USA at the invitation of officials from Unocal, a California-based oil and gas company with extensive business dealings in Texas. At the time, Unocal was pursuing a deal to construct a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Moore notes that the delegation visited Texas while Bush was governor. He doesn't say the delegation met with Bush, but that is implied.

In fact, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What Moore also doesn't say is that Clinton administration officials at the State Department did sit down with the Taliban officials and that their visit was made with the Clinton administration's permission.

Paragraph 1: Saying that it was implied is implying that it was implied. How this can be construed as anything but right-wing nitpicking is beyond me. I didn't feel it was implied. Texas is an oil rich state, I'm sure some bull**** went down while they were there, if not with bushes bosom buddies than with another scummy oil corporation.

Paragraph 2: Anyone who has followed Michael Moore's career knows he's no fan of the Democratic Party, but the feeling of the vast majority of the liberals in this country is that right now anything is better than the Republican Party. For a conservative to point this out is basically conceding that very fact.

If you want to say that this movie is more a piece of propaganda than a documentary I won't argue with (to a point, all of the parts where Moore actually went and did his own interviews cannot be considered anything but documentary) but I have yet to see ANYTHING that exposes a major flaw (or even a minor flaw) in the FACTS of this movie. That wasn't the case with BfC, and Moore has learned his lesson. He hired an entire team of fact checkers and a team of lawyers to go after anyone who attempts to discredit the movie though false accusations.

If you follow the news carefully, as I do, you won't learn very much from F 9/11, but I, though a modest person, can guarantee that the vast majority of the American public does not follow the news as closely as I do and they are going to learn a lot from this movie.

4 Stars, go see it, $10 bet on the table that it gets a Best Picture nomination.

[Dylflon]

Can't get best picture. But I wonder if they'll give him best documentary again.

*Strokes chin*

If Bush is still in office he probably won't even be nominated.

[Stonecutter]

Sure it can get best picture.

It won't, but I bet it gets a nomination.

[Typhoid]

I was supposed to be watching it right this very second with Zaglar Ninja,....stupid Hockey ruins my plans...curse you.

I saw some "highlights" of it on channels, and it is apparent he does less talking and lets the events speak for themselves.


And i remember somebody ( i honestly forget who) was bashing Moore for trying to level with the "common man" and people keep making references to the fact he is rich. So what, he was common before he decided to sell everything he owned to make his first contraversial movie, money doesnt make a person change, trust me.

[Seth]

I have to travel to Vancouver if I want to watch the film(which I do).

That's about a 4 hours drive. I'd probably see it at the collossus in Langley.

I'm annoyed that none of the Landmark Cinema or Famous Players theatres are playing the film here. I don't get it?


Maybe because I'm in a conservative riding? :)

j/k

Anyway, thanks for the post stonecutter.(+ rep for the digging) I've already heard a bunch of people trying to discredit it. I happened to be watching global news (typhoid, dyne dylflon etc will know) and they completely discredited the movie. It was kind of weird. Anyway...I don't know if I'll travel the 4 miles to Vancouver from Kelowna. Normally I would in the summer but I have a full time job and such. I'll try for a kazaa or suprnova.

[The Germanator]

I saw it last night. Great movie. It really has convinced to vote for Kerry instead of Nader...We need to give someone else a shot at this presidency thing...

Anyway, I liked how Moore mostly kept himself out of the film and let the footage speak for itself. This was way more effective than some of his personal probing in Bowling For Columbine. Good movie, defintely reccomended.

[Joeiss]

I'm probably going to see it tonight or tomorrow. Looks good.

[Crash]

I hate michael moore and his loud ass mouth. i liked roger and me, but didn't like bowling for columbine too much. i know i'm going to hate this one. i'll see his movie tonight, but hate the fact he'll make money off it.

i made a picture in honor of him.

[Typhoid]

Why are you going to hate it?

He does little to no talking in comparison to BfC. And he lets the facts speak for themselves, are you that in love with the Bush administration that you can't get over the fact that Moore's points are right?

Look at almost everyone whos posted here whos seen it, they think the validity of his points are good, yet you, still not seeing through your weird compelling hatred for Moore, probably wont believe a word of it, and pass it off as heresy.

What exactly do you have wrong with Moore? What did he do that pissed you off so much? Did he kill your family, or eat a baby or something? Or did he just point out the follies of President Bush?

[Crash]

at least i'm going to watch it, there are some who say "it's all lies, i'm not going to even see it"

but all i'm saying is moore doesn't have as much credit in my book because he lied so much in his other crockumentaries.

[Neo]

Awesome movie, and the events do speak for themselves. Most of the objections are little nit-picky things like omitting the congressman who did have a couple nephews in the war. I haven't seen anything disputing the major points of the film. I'm still pissed off about the whole Florida scandal. Republican cronies purged several thousand black voters who vote 90% democratic because they "may" have committed a felony. Of course the majority of them never had. I hate that Katerine Harris bitch with a passion.

[Professor S]

I'm not going to get into this. I've pointed out what a manipulator he is over and over again on how he is simply playing on your sympathies to feed his ego and his wallet with your masturbatory adulation and hard earned money. Even the mainstream media is tearing him apart for this one, much like George Stephanpolous and Matt Lauer both did.

Those that care to listen and do the research and see him for what he is, will listen, and those that want their ideals reinforced with misinformation and one sided "documentaries" will continue to love him. By the way, there is a book coming out soon written by David T Hardy, a reknowned Moore skeptic and debunker who I've cited more than once, and here is a link to where you can go to get it once it comes out later this month:

http://www.moorelies.com/book/

I will say this one thing: For those of you that claim that Michael Moore lets the events talk for themselves, so did Leni Reifenstahl. The validity of the comments made depends on what events you care to let speak and how they are presented.

[Null]

he wants the attention from the media like he's getting with them taring him apart.
meanwhile the movie is getting WONDERFUL reviews( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649/ ) and is #1 at the boxoffice. :p


true or false, it is entertaining to watch.

[Zaglar Ninja]

thats right he is a manipulator, but at least he uses his manipulation powers for good, not for evil. He exposes the evils of corporate crime through manipulation, well no one really pays attention otherwise.

[Seth]

Well ****.

The film i got off of suprnova isn't working for me. I have no idea what codec I need and they didn't include a readme that tells me. GRRRRRRR


If someone else has it here than I'd appreciate the help. There's no way I could make it into Vancouver until the end of summer.

[Professor S]

thats right he is a manipulator, but at least he uses his manipulation powers for good, not for evil. He exposes the evils of corporate crime through manipulation, well no one really pays attention otherwise.

So if he exposes the "evils" in the world by lying about them to make them look evil, how do you know if they are really evil or just victims of a man that you admit is a master manipulator out for his own agenda and personal wealth?

[Null]

Well ****.

The film i got off of suprnova isn't working for me. I have no idea what codec I need and they didn't include a readme that tells me. GRRRRRRR


If someone else has it here than I'd appreciate the help. There's no way I could make it into Vancouver until the end of summer.


no sympathy, sorry.


:p

[Zaglar Ninja]

So if he exposes the "evils" in the world by lying about them to make them look evil, how do you know if they are really evil or just victims of a man that you admit is a master manipulator out for his own agenda and personal wealth?

since when does manipulation = lying? Politicians like to hide their wrong doings, sometimes you need to manipulate to reveal those faults, obviously you can't trust a manipulator 100% of the time, so check out his claims, see if he really did just take things out of context.

[Professor S]

since when does manipulation = lying? Politicians like to hide their wrong doings, sometimes you need to manipulate to reveal those faults, obviously you can't trust a manipulator 100% of the time, so check out his claims, see if he really did just take things out of context.

I did and have posted those finding all over this site. He lies. Constantly. No one cares because his lies and manipulated media reinforce people's predisposed beliefs and as long as his movies continue to do so no one is going to care whether or not his claims are actually accurate.

Now look whats happened. I've been drug back into another Michael Moore debate where we all know that nothing is going to get accomplished. Later.

[Typhoid]

Strangler, i think you should run for president. Seriously. The country would benefit from your one sided in your face attitude. Maybe when you become the president you can just sit there and do nothing, because you obviously see no fault in anything Bush is doing.

You say Moore lies, and have cited sites that "debunk" Moores antics, but he did have researchers for F 9/11. Researchers that research things.

And couldnt you say that a person that debunks things also manipulates people? I mean, they are manipulating you to believe the "manipulator" in question is wrong. The fact is he is right on some things, and he is wrong on some things. So what, all in all he is a guy trying to make a living. He makes entertaing documentaries, and it makes him money.

Hey, maybe when you become the president, you can exile him to Cuba or Canada or something. :p

[Professor S]

Ok, I will respond to this gibberish as it directly paints me as something I am not.

Strangler, i think you should run for president. Seriously. The country would benefit from your one sided in your face attitude. Maybe when you become the president you can just sit there and do nothing, because you obviously see no fault in anything Bush is doing.

Typhoid, exactly when have I EVER said that I find no fault in anything Bush does? In fact, I remember specifically posting on more than one occasion my myriad complaints of the Bush administration, but I suppose you decided to use your selective memory, as usual.

You say Moore lies, and have cited sites that "debunk" Moores antics, but he did have researchers for F 9/11. Researchers that research things.

The same researchers that said Bush let the Saudi's leave without being screened? The fact is that all the Saudi's that were allowed to leave were screened and over 30 of them were interviewed. This is according to the 9/11 commision. I'm not saying that more shouldn't have been done, because more should have, but the truth is never damning enough for Moore.

The same reseachers that blamed Bush for letting the Saudi Royal family leave by plane while no flights were allowed in the air? The fact is commercial air traffic was cleared when the royals left and it was in fact Richard Clarke who personnally cleared them to leave. This once again according to the 9/11 commission and personally ratified by Richard Clarke himself during the hearings.

By the way, when George Stephanopolous confronted him on these lies, Moore's excuse was that they were "preliminary findings" from the 9/11 commission. Well considering that the commission hasn't completed the document yet and all there is are preliminary findings, thats a pretty useless excuse, even if he can use it as a legal defense for his outrageous claims.

And couldnt you say that a person that debunks things also manipulates people? I mean, they are manipulating you to believe the "manipulator" in question is wrong.

Of course that could be true, but when David Hardy actually interviews the people in Columbine, who by the way all HATE Michael Moore and the families of the victims actually sued him for slander and libel, and presents actual evidence that Moore himself has recognized and dismissed (read the sites and links that I posted earlier), as well as the fact that the NEWS sources such as ABC, CNN, The Wallstreet Journal, etc. are all of impecable quality, I think we can all use our brains to see who is the true manipulator here.

The fact is he is right on some things, and he is wrong on some things. So what, all in all he is a guy trying to make a living. He makes entertaing documentaries, and it makes him money.

Way to completely miss my point. I actually agree with Michael Moore on his stance on gun control that he brought up in Bowling for Columbine, but I DESPISE his tactics and "by any means necessary" ethic of yellow journalism. He paints himself as a truth teller who actually has directions on his website of how to use his films IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS but whenever anyone confronts him on the lies he exhorts, he claims he is nothing but a comedian. He can't play both sides and pick which one he wants whenever someone calls him on his bull****, especially when this bull**** might make into schools that my kids might attend. My country is polarized to the right and left too much already as it is, I don't need Michael Moore lying his ass off to make things even worse.

Meanwhile, he rakes in all the cash in the world by exploiting those with liberal sympathies, when he has done nothing but make himself into the very corporate fat cat that he claims to hate. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

Hey, maybe when you become the president, you can exile him to Cuba or Canada or something. :p

I wouldn't exile him anywhere as he is simply excercising his right to free speech, even if he toes the line of slander and libel ( actually think his "researchers" are lawyers whose job it is to keep him from getting sued). I'm using my right to try and give the other side, which explains what a disgusting social leech he is and how he is using you to line his pockets with gold and laughing all the way to the bank.

[Zaglar Ninja]

do you agree that bush is a moron? Micheal Moore thinks so, and he does a kickass job of showing it, I know he in the past has lied, but in F 9/11 I don't think there are any lies. Most of the movie isn't him talking anyways, like Dylflon says, he lets the facts show themselves.

ugh I dont even understand why you pick on Moore so much, hes just showing what a lying moron bush is. Maybe you should stop worrying about what "lying" film makers are saying and start worrying about what lying presidents are saying.

[Bond]

I have found a very nice article from Slate.com, a liberal website, that calls Fahrenheit 9/11 counterpropaganda. If you don't believe me they're liberal, the writer of the article calls himself liberal, and the article that appears before this one reads: "Bush plays the Nazi card." Here is the article:

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that?

Back in the '80s—the era of Reagan and Bush 41, when milquetoasts Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were the ineffectual Democratic candidates and Jimmy Carter was off building houses for poor people, when Anthony Lewis was writing oh-so-temperately in the New York Times, which was then leaning neoconward under the stewardship of Abe Rosenthal, when there was an explosion of dirty Republican tricksters like Lee Atwater and trash-talking right-wingers, from Morton Downey Jr. to the fledgling Rush Limbaugh—I found myself wishing, wishing fervidly, for a blowhard whom the left could call its own. Someone who wouldn't shrink before the right's bellicosity. Someone who would bellow back, mock unashamedly, and maybe even recapture the prankster spirit of counterculture figures like Abbie Hoffman.

Yeah, I know: Be careful what you wish for.

In 20 years of writing about film, no movie has ever tied me up in knots the way Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (Lions Gate) has. It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I'm sure of only one thing: that I don't trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses. What follows might be broadly labeled as "waffling," but I hope, at least, that it is bold and decisive waffling.
Needless to say, Fahrenheit 9/11 never waffles. The liberals' The Passion of the Christ, it ascribes only the most venal motives to the other side. There is no sign in the filmmaker of an openness to other interpretations (or worldviews). This is not quite a documentary—which I define, very loosely, as a work in which the director begins by turning on the camera and allowing the reality to speak for itself, aware of its complexities, contradictions, and multitudes. You are with Moore, or you are a war criminal. The film is part prosecutorial brief and part (as A.O. Scott has noted) rabid editorial cartoon: a blend of insight, outrage, and sniggering innuendo, the whole package threaded (and tied in a bow) with cheap shots, some of them voiced by Moore, some created in the editing room by intercutting stilted images from old movies. Moore is largely off-screen (no pun intended), but as narrator he's always there, sneering and tsk-tsking.

Here are the salient points: that Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore (who, in one of the film's best scenes, must certify his opponent's election and quell a movement to stall that certification); that Bush and his family had been in bed with the Saudis, which made him less responsive to the danger of al-Qaida terrorism; that a pipeline in Afghanistan promised billions if the Taliban was on board, which was one reason that the threat of Osama Bin Laden (black sheep of a family with whom daddy did business) was swept under the rug. Better to concentrate on Iraq, the administration felt—it had unfinished Saddam business, it was rich in oil, and it was a potential goldmine for U.S. corporations.

Moore ranges far and wide: He apes Apocalypse Now (1979) with footage of bucolic Baghdad before the bombings, then cuts to soldiers explaining the way they hook their iPods to the tank speakers: "You have a good song playing in the background, it gets you really fired up." (I'm surprised he didn't go ahead and play "Ride of the Valkyries.") Then there's graphic footage of dead Iraqi women and small children killed in what the Pentagon said were surgically precise bombings. A grieving old woman shrieks curses at the United States, while U.S. soldiers with missing limbs rail at the administration. On the home front, Moore suggests that the Patriot Act was unread by the legislators who passed it and harps on its absurd applications, like the agent who infiltrated a septuagenarian cookie-baking peace collective in Fresno, Calif. Then he chases hawkish congressmen outside the Capitol. Would they send their own sons and daughters to fight in Iraq? he asks—often to their backs, as they flee.

As I watched California Congressman John T. Doolittle take off from Moore's camera, arms and legs bobbing spastically, I was troubled by the cheapness of Moore's interviewing techniques. But I laughed my ass off anyway. And I felt better about laughing when I checked the warlike congressman's Web site, which mentions his graduation from high school in 1968 but, predictably, no Vietnam service.

All right, you can make anyone into a goofball with a selection of unflattering shots and out-of-context quotations, but it is so very easy to make George W. Bush—with his near-demonic blend of smugness and vacuity—look bad. Or is this in eye of the beholder? Perhaps when Bush speaks of hunting down terrorists, then gets down to the real, golfing business—"Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive"—you see an honest, plainspoken leader unfairly ridiculed. But what can even Bush partisans make of those seven minutes in the elementary school classroom after he received the news that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center and the nation was under attack? In one of the few lapses in an otherwise virtuoso rant (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/), Christopher Hitchens argues that Moore would have made sport of a martial, Russell Crowe-like response. Nice try, but that blow wouldn't have landed, and this one does, spectacularly. It is downright spooky to watch the nominal commander in chief and "leader of the free world" behave, in a moment of crisis, like a superfluous man.

Moore is best when he doesn't stage dumb pranks (like broadcasting the Patriot Act in D.C. out of an ice-cream truck) but provokes with his mere presence. When he interviews the author of House of Bush, House of Saud in front of the Saudi embassy and the Secret Service shows up to ask what he's doing, it's a gotcha moment: What's the Secret Service doing protecting non-U.S. government officials? He has a light touch there that's missing from the rest of the Fahrenheit 9/11. In one scene, his camera homes in on a Flint, Mich., woman weeping over a son killed in Iraq, and the effect is vampirish. After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother's grief. When I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director's universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers' sons, my friend said, "When did you become a relativist?"

I'm troubled by that charge—and by the fact that we nearly came to blows by the end of the conversation. But when it comes to politics in a time of war, I think that relativism is, well, relative. Fahrenheit 9/11 must be viewed in the context of the Iraq occupation and the torrent of misleading claims that got us there. It must be viewed in the context of Rush Limbaugh repeating the charge that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered in Fort Marcy Park, or laughing off the exposure of Valerie Plame when, had this been a Democratic administration, he'd be calling every day for the traitor's head. It must be viewed in the context of Ann Coulter calling for the execution of people who disagree with her. It must be viewed in the context of another new documentary, the superb The Hunting of the President, that documents—irrefutably—the lengths to which the right went to destroy Bill Clinton. Moore might be a demagogue, but never—not even during Watergate—has a U.S. administration left itself so open to this kind of savaging.

Along with many other polite liberals, I cringed last year when Moore launched into his charmless, pugilistic acceptance speech at the Academy Awards. Oh, how vulgar, I thought—couldn't he at least have been funny? A year later, I think I might have been too hard on the fat prick. Six months before her death in 1965, the great novelist Dawn Powell wrestled in her diary with the unseemliness of political speech during an "artistic" event: "Lewis Mumford gave jolt to the occasion and I realized I had gotten as chicken as the rest of America because what he said—we had no more right in Vietnam than Russia had in Cuba—was true but I did not think he should use his position to declaim this. Later I saw the only way to accomplish anything is by 'abusing' your power." Exactly. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary for the ages, it is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force. It is, all in all, a legitimate abuse of power.

Source (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/)
Of course I don't expect anyone to read that whole article, because it's much easier to watch a movie than read an article, and that's the kind of society we are.

I still haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I plan to sometime. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and really enjoyed it and agreed with most of his points.

[Jonbo298]

I think most of the time, when Michael Moore is wrong on things, it happens. If he wanted something to be a lie, then thats his fault. But movies like Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 mainly just open people's eyes and get them thinking.

[Dylflon]

Thanks for the article Bond. Nice read.

The big problem with people who argue about Michael Moore is, while Moore does lie to make points they'll take the fact that he lied about some things to discredit everything else that's true about his movies.

Strangler, Let's say he did lie about the Saudis not being screened and about the thing with the Saudi royal family being the only plane in the air.

So, you've got two lies. Put those in your back pocket and perhaps you can bring them out and throw them at us again later.

Anyways, Taek a look at everything Moore says in the movie that isn't a lie. I'm not telling you to like Moore or even respect him. But just take a look at everything in the movie that isn't a lie. There's a lot of good stuff in there.

[Crash]

This is a movie, this is not a documentary. It is meant to be entertaining. But the problem is, too many people take everything in there to be real facts. Some is, some isn't (sounds like a New York Times article)

Of course there are faults in the presidency. There always has been from the first.

If there was one thing people would do, it should be this:

never take all your facts from one source. moore isn't all correct, strangler isnt all correct (but seems to know more than I) Rush isn't, Shawn Hannity isnt, and MSNBC isn't.

Just makes you wonder what the documentary would look like that is directed by Rush Limbough. (if he knew anything about directing)

point is, just take this movie for what it is: A MOVIE - nothing else.

[Professor S]

Thanks for the article Bond. Nice read.

The big problem with people who argue about Michael Moore is, while Moore does lie to make points they'll take the fact that he lied about some things to discredit everything else that's true about his movies.

Strangler, Let's say he did lie about the Saudis not being screened and about the thing with the Saudi royal family being the only plane in the air.

So, you've got two lies. Put those in your back pocket and perhaps you can bring them out and throw them at us again later.

Anyways, Taek a look at everything Moore says in the movie that isn't a lie. I'm not telling you to like Moore or even respect him. But just take a look at everything in the movie that isn't a lie. There's a lot of good stuff in there.

You're missing my point too. How can you distinguish what is fact and what is fiction if you know he blatantly lies? Why do I have to go out and do fact checking on a documentarian when he should be responsible for his own rediculous movies?

You even helped prove my point. When you saw the movie, could you distinguish the reality from fantasy, or are you willing to believe it all until someone showed you what was wrong? Don't you think there's a problem with that? Don't you think there is a problem with an Acadamy Award winning documentarian lying and manipulating and yet still being seen as some great truth telling muck raker?

If one thing is a lie, and another, then another... how can you trust ANY of it?

Oh, and here's another little fact I can put in my back pocket. One of the congressmen that Moore interviewed about having relatives in the military actually answered that he had a nephew in the military and another that was going to ship overseas. Moore excluded this response from the movie, and then denied it ever happened in the interview with Stephanopolous. Well thank god George has researchers becuase they actually found the raw footage and in fact the congressman does say he has family overseas in the military. Once again, the truth hurts Michael Moore.

Zaglar Ninja, do yourself a favor a leave this thread. You're only hurting yourself.

[Null]

movies like Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 mainly just open people's eyes and get them thinking.

^^

[Bond]

Zaglar Ninja, do yourself a favor a leave this thread. You're only hurting yourself.
I don't know, right now he's making Typhoid look pretty good.

[Crash]

Oh, and here's another little fact I can put in my back pocket. One of the congressmen that Moore interviewed about having relatives in the military actually answered that he had a nephew in the military and another that was going to ship overseas. Moore excluded this response from the movie, and then denied it ever happened in the interview with Stephanopolous. Well thank god George has researchers becuase they actually found the raw footage and in fact the congressman does say he has family overseas in the military. Once again, the truth hurts Michael Moore.

Zaglar Ninja, do yourself a favor a leave this thread. You're only hurting yourself.

ah, strangler is the man.... good ammunition for my girlfriend (who hates bush)

what did bush do to any of you guys, he's a lot smarter than anyone on these boards so just let him do his job.... if kerry gets elected, let him do his job... just let the president work for the love of pete!

[Null]

They meantioned 1 congressman had family in the military a number of times.
kept saying, all but 1 had no children in the army.


or are we talking about a different one?

[Bond]

Here are more articles about the fabrications of Fahrenheit 9/11:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm

And again, I don't expect anyone to read these articles, so don't feel like you have to.

And I think this is what Strangler is talking about Null:

A popular statement around MOOREWATCH from Mike’s fans is that there are no lies in F911. Tracking down all of Moore’s claims about financial dealings will take time. However, there is one easy-to-catch lie, and we all know about it already. Mike himself gave us the information needed to catch him in this lie.

In the film, Michael Moore confronts Congressional Representative Mark Kennedy and asks him to help get Congress to sign up their kids for the Army, Marine Corps, etc. Mark Kennedy looks at him funny, and there is a badly-placed jump edit right there. Moore then moves on to asking other members of Congress, who all appear to ignore him and walk away.

And then we get the voiceover:

“Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”

Look at that again. “Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”

Is that factually accurate? Let’s look at the exchange between Rep. Kennedy and Moore, which was provided by Moore himself:

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing?

MM: I’m trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist
in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me
with that?

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?

MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I’d be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq.
This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.

MM: There it is, it’s just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage
especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I
appreciate it.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.
Well, well, well. Look at that. Let’s look closely at this exchange.

MM: Is there any way you could help me
with that?

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?

MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I’d be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.

This exchange was edited out of the film entirely, and instead Kennedy’s meeting with Moore is lumped in with all the Congressmen that seemed to be ducking him. Now that could be considered a lie of omission. He made Kennedy look like all the the Congressmen who didn’t stop.

Except that Kennedy not only spoke to him, but he offered to help. He has family in the military, on who, in Kennedy’s own words, is deployed. Not just enlisted, but deployed. He did not say where, but deployed has a specific meaning that doesn’t equal “one weekend a month” in the National Guard.

Cue the voiceover: “Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”

No matter how you try to spin that, it’s a lie. Moore himself admits that there is in fact ONE member of congress with a child in Iraq.

Is it a major, life-altering, call-your-momma lie? No, but most of Moore’s blatant lies aren’t. Stack a hundred of these little lies up, and you got yourself a movie though, don’t you? A sensationalistic campaign attack ad that purports to be 100% truthful.

Well, however minor, I’ve proven here that there is indeed one rock-solid lie in F911. And Moore’s own words, and the release of the transcript with Kennedy, make the case in a way that no one can deny without looking like a fool. Moore lied. Plain and simple. Kennedy was willing to help recruit Congressional member’s children. He has a nephew that is deployed as we speak. Moore himself admits that there is one other Congressional child serving.

[Null]

k k. just makin sure. :)

[TheGame]

I listened to Michael Moore in an inverview talking about this movie... I would realy hate to give this clown my money. Just listening to him yap about how Bush should have reacted on the morning of september 11th disturbed me. He says it just exposes the truth, but from what little I have seen and heard him talk about it always sounds like he is trying to manipulate people into thinking his actions are wrong. (Or not what the president "should" do...)

Now I haven't seen the movie, and haven't read many of the other posts in this thread... but I think this is just a politicaly feuled movie that was made for the purpose of getting Bush out of office. I'm sure a film could be made to manipulate people into thinking every president we have had over the lase few decades were twisted.

I'll see the film just for the sake of knowing the content... But I doubt it will change my views coming into the next election.

I respect Michael Moore because he is a man who believes in somthing, and he is trying everything in his power to get the plublic to support him and his way of seeing things... Not many "rich people" are willing to do somthing as crazy as attack the president and make a film like this.

[Typhoid]

I don't know how people got it in their heads that Moore wants this movie to strictly and solely change peoples views on the presidential election. Unless you can find me a quote that has him saying that.

How can a movie make you change your view?

But since Moore is blatently anti-Bush, its such a big deal to all the republicans everywhere.

[TheGame]

I don't know how people got it in their heads that Moore wants this movie to strictly and solely change peoples views on the presidential election. Unless you can find me a quote that has him saying that.

How can a movie make you change your view?

But since Moore is blatently anti-Bush, its such a big deal to all the republicans everywhere.

You would have to be blind not to see that this movie's intention is to change peoples views by making the president look bad. Moore can lie all he wants, but the reason he put this on film is to convince others of his views. If he didn't want to pursuade voters, he wouldn't have wasted his time making a movie like this.

[Bond]

I don't know how people got it in their heads that Moore wants this movie to strictly and solely change peoples views on the presidential election.
Moore has said he wants this movie to change the presidential election, in favor of Kerry.

[Null]

lol! would he even of needed to say it?

come on, he's so heavily anti bush that you'd think he'd want bush to win again? of course he wants it to change peoples minds.

of course he might want bush to win so he can do a sequal :sneaky:

[Jonbo298]

You all need to remember Moore is not a democrat nor a republican since its making it sound like he is

[Professor S]

Actually he is a registered Democrat in New York and is actually registered to vote in 2 states.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0628041moore2.gif

Gee, did Michael Moore lie again? Go figure. :rolleyes:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html

[Stonecutter]

Now that is absolutely ridiculous.

Do you have any idea how many people are registered as either democrats or republicans but vote for neither?

My dad will punch republican for every election from now till the end of time but he's still a registered democrat because he believes that by voting democratic during the primaries (which is really the only place were registration matters) he can help nominate what he feels to be a "lesser" candidate.

[Professor S]

Its not rediculous at all. You and he claimed that was independent. He is not. He is a registered and ACTIVE Democrat according to the state of New York. He has never resigned from the party, which is very easy to do. In fact, its so easy I DID IT. Up until the year 2000 I was a registered Libertarian. In 2000, I switched to independent.

In conclusion. Moore said he was independent when he is an active member of the Democratic party as of his last voting in 2001, as is shown on his registration card. So he lied, and you believed him, and when it was exposed that he lied you quickly excused it because Michael Moore can do no wrong. See how that works?

BTW, anyone else think its sad that such a active political icon hasn't voted in THREE YEARS? I sure do.

[Typhoid]

BTW, anyone else think its sad that such a active political icon hasn't voted in THREE YEARS? I sure do.


I dont.

What if ( hypothetical) he voted for Bush, then he couldnt get mad at him, because he helped put him in office.

Which arises a question, if you vote for Bush, then don't like what hes doing, do you have the right to get mad at him? You helped him.

I think since he didnt vote, technically, he can get mad at whatever president he wants with no fault of "Helping them" get there.

[Professor S]

I dont.

What if ( hypothetical) he voted for Bush, then he couldnt get mad at him, because he helped put him in office.

Which arises a question, if you vote for Bush, then don't like what hes doing, do you have the right to get mad at him? You helped him.

I think since he didnt vote, technically, he can get mad at whatever president he wants with no fault of "Helping them" get there.

That may be the weakest, most son-sensical reason for not voting I've ever heard. So he doesn't vote, because it would hinder his ability to criticize people in power? The same guy who said he wanted to "see change in his lifetime" refuses to vote, which directly helps to make change, so that he can continue to feel free to criticize and make movies that make him even richer????

Oh wait, that actually sounds a whole lot like Michael Moore. Never mind, you were dead on.:D

[Stonecutter]

Its not rediculous at all. You and he claimed that was independent. He is not. He is a registered and ACTIVE Democrat according to the state of New York. He has never resigned from the party, which is very easy to do. In fact, its so easy I DID IT. Up until the year 2000 I was a registered Libertarian. In 2000, I switched to independent.

In conclusion. Moore said he was independent when he is an active member of the Democratic party as of his last voting in 2001, as is shown on his registration card. So he lied, and you believed him, and when it was exposed that he lied you quickly excused it because Michael Moore can do no wrong. See how that works?

BTW, anyone else think its sad that such a active political icon hasn't voted in THREE YEARS? I sure do.

Um, no.

First, what I said.


Paragraph 2: Anyone who has followed Michael Moore's career knows he's no fan of the Democratic Party


Secondly, in Illinois, (this may not be the case in New York.) in order to vote in the primaries, you have to register as a member of one party. If Moore wants to have a say as to which democrats are nominated, he has to be a member of the democratic party. Does this make him a de jure member of the democratic party? Yes, but de facto he's not a democrat by his word alone and, thus, it's not a lie, and I don't even thing you're anal enough to expect him to unregister and reregister before and after every single election.



If this were a matter of fact, you'd have a point. Since we can all choose our political affiliations, this isn't a matter of fact as it were, it's simply a matter of party identification. Moore doesn't identify himself as a Democrat, therefore he's not.



If you can find me a quote where Michael Moore says he is not a REGISTERD democrat, than I will conceed the point to you and crawl back into my hole, but based on the information you've provided, you're wrong.

[Dylflon]

Strangler, you're missing the point in the congressman interview scene. He doesn't care if people have nephews overseas. That congressman didn't send them there.

The point was that these people encourage other people to send their children to war but refuse to send their own.

[Zaglar Ninja]

I'm hurting myslef? ok im going to make this simple... and.... talk... really... slow.... Bush... lies... lots... more... than.... moore. get it? Listen to what moore says, take out the facts he claims, check them. Is that so hard? you take the facts that are true and you take the facts that are false and he is always going to have a stronger argument against Bush. Why is it so important to take the false points and use them against his fact points? I simply ignore what is fiction and listen to what is fact. try doing that with bush, you get like 5 minutes of listening for an hour long speech.

oops I started talking at normal speed again, well with any luck you might have been able to understand

[Professor S]

Strangler, you're missing the point in the congressman interview scene. He doesn't care if people have nephews overseas. That congressman didn't send them there.

The point was that these people encourage other people to send their children to war but refuse to send their own.

Dyflon, if Michael Moore doesn't care that the Congressman had a nephew overseas, why did he take the time to carefully edit out his full response, yet leave in his initial expression? Why not just edit it out competely, or leave it in the whole response if he was going to use it at all?

Answer, and an obvious one at that: It might actually make a republican look like he's not a completely evil member of a secret society out to destroy the world. He cared that the Congressman didn't look like a complete son of a bitch, so he edited it out, like he does with ANY response that doesn't suit his agenda. He does this in ALL of his movies and Bowling for Columbine is his most shining example.

For Michael Moore to allow anyone he does not agree with politically to be viewed as anything but stupid, or evil in his would offend his own beliefs.

He omitted it on purpose to decieve, therefore it is a lie.

And Stonecutter, you can still vote for a President when you are an independent, you just can't vote in a primary, as primaries' purpose IS FOR A POLITICAL PARTY TO CHOOSE A CANDIDATE. If Michael Moore wants to be able to choose the Democratic nominee, then he has to consider himself a member of the Democratic party. But then again, I suppose Michael Moore wants to be able to have it both ways, which is a pattern for him.

Also, considering his penchant for lying, I am not willing to "take him at his word" that he is independent. All the evidence in the world says he is a Democrat, therefore he is a Democrat. Thats how it works. In the real world its what you do and whether or not you have factual evidence that counts, not just what you say. I don't believe Mr. Moore ever got that memo.

One last thing, what do you think about Moore not voting in three years? He always said he wanted to have change in his lifetime, but he hasn't done anything in three years to directly attempt to make change. A little odd don't you think? Maybe... hypocritical?

[Bond]

Listen to what moore says, take out the facts he claims, check them. Is that so hard? you take the facts that are true and you take the facts that are false
Would you please demonstrate your magical ability to seperate facts and lies in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11?

[Professor S]

you take the facts that are false


That statement is utterly BRILLIANT:rolleyes:

[Null]

heheh. reminds me of that beer commerical with the cartoon doods.

guy 1... you take out the facts that are false!

guy 2... brilliant!

guy 1 and guy 2... BRILLIANT!!!

[Jonbo298]

One last thing, what do you think about Moore not voting in three years? He always said he wanted to have change in his lifetime, but he hasn't done anything in three years to directly attempt to make change. A little odd don't you think? Maybe... hypocritical?

What do you think seriously has been going on that Moore needs people to change in the past 3 years? If he's a registered democrat in NY, that doesn't mean he has to vote democrat. Name something in NY or elsewhere in the past 3 years that needed Moore to go across country and spread his O P I N I O N. Absolutely NOTHING basically. This year's presidential election is something he will most likely vote. It's something major alot of people do. In the 3 and a half years between presidential elections, there isnt much else to vote for. There are local elections, but turnout to them is absurdly low anyways.

I'm not trying to say no one votes in between elections, its just that people don't care much about local elections.

[Typhoid]

Strangler have you seen the movie?

Because im pretty sure i remember you saying you didn't, yet your saying things how Moore edited the congressmans response, first, if you havent seen it, how would you know. And second, if you have how would you know what his actual response was? Obviously they didnt show the response, so how do you know he didnt give just what he said.

And let me ask you this Strangler, If you have 3 kids, would you send them willingly to war? I doubt it. If oyu have kids, the last thing you want to do is send them into war, yet you would have no remorse for sending anyone elses children to war, now would you?


( You're probably in favour of the draft, arn't you?)

[Professor S]

Strangler have you seen the movie?

Nope. Not yet anyways. I'm still trying to find a source that I can download in a codec I can use. I have read much of the transcript, though.

Because im pretty sure i remember you saying you didn't, yet your saying things how Moore edited the congressmans response, first, if you havent seen it, how would you know. And second, if you have how would you know what his actual response was? Obviously they didnt show the response, so how do you know he didnt give just what he said.

I read the transcript. I watch the news. I follow current events.

And let me ask you this Strangler, If you have 3 kids, would you send them willingly to war? I doubt it. If oyu have kids, the last thing you want to do is send them into war, yet you would have no remorse for sending anyone elses children to war, now would you?

I would not send them to war, as no parent actually sends their child to war, but I would not stop them from going. This is a country where we have the freedom of choice. If my children choose to go into the military, I would not stop them from going to Iraq. The military is not the boy scouts. Its not summer camp. The military is a public service where you know when you go in there is a chance you may see fighting and you may be killed. It always makes me laugh when people act surprised that military personnel are asked to fight in defense of our nation and other free peoples. Thats what they're there for.

( You're probably in favour of the draft, arn't you?)

And no, I'm not for the draft unless absolutely 100% necessary. I don't believe this is one of those times and the only time I feel it was necessary was during WW2.

[Professor S]

What do you think seriously has been going on that Moore needs people to change in the past 3 years? If he's a registered democrat in NY, that doesn't mean he has to vote democrat. Name something in NY or elsewhere in the past 3 years that needed Moore to go across country and spread his O P I N I O N. Absolutely NOTHING basically. This year's presidential election is something he will most likely vote. It's something major alot of people do. In the 3 and a half years between presidential elections, there isnt much else to vote for. There are local elections, but turnout to them is absurdly low anyways.

I'm not trying to say no one votes in between elections, its just that people don't care much about local elections.

Michael Moore is more than just the average person. He is an opinion maker and wields great influence in politics. He is opinions and actions need to coincide if he is to be taken seriously and he has a responsiblility to do as he tells you to do. Not doing so makes him a hypocrit.

You can't tell everyone to go out and change the world, and then only follow through on your own words when you feel like it.

Well thats my opinion, anyway. And for the record, I vote on every election.

[Zaglar Ninja]

Would you please demonstrate your magical ability to seperate facts and lies in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11?

Its called reading. I use the internet, google is a very good site.

That statement is utterly BRILLIANT:rolleyes:

yes good one, take one error in my post and use it against the rest of what I say, thats what I call Brilliant, hey why don't you make fun of the fact I capitalized brilliant and you can forget that you're a failure

I'm going to try and sum this up, if you argue against Micheal Moore for good reasons then I can respect that, if you argue against him for not citing Stupid White Men, I can respect that, If you argue against his movie you havn't seen your a moron. Watch the movie or start a new thread titled "Micheal Moore is a moron up until Farinheit 9/11"

[Professor S]

Oh yes, I'm a failure because you know me so well considering you've been here about a week.:rolleyes:

Try again. This is fun.:D

Its called reading. I use the internet, google is a very good site.

I agree. Then maybe you'd like to read any of the numerous sites I've posted on here about the subject. I found them all on Google too by just typing in "Michael Moore". You know, the ones that expose Moore as a liar and a hypocrit in basically every facet of his life.

If you'd like to compare sources, I'm more than up for it.

[Zaglar Ninja]

read what I added onto my last post regarding your stupidity, now as for your sources, I personally dwell on what is fact, unless it is someone like bush that clearly lies so much that there is no point in even bothering. If you want to read something that you know isn't going to be a lie, read Dude wheres my country, he cites everything in that book.

Right now I don't feel like browsing the web searching for sites that prove me right, because I think its very well summed up in Farinheit 9/11 as I said before watch it or start a new thread.

[Professor S]

Dear Zaglar Ninja

As for books, you should check out Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Guy by David T. Hardy. It basically takes apart pretty much all of Moore's worked, including Dude, Where's My Country that you seem to treat with such high esteem. I haven't gotten my copy yet, but I've been following the works of Hardy for a while now and he pretty much owns Moore.

Here's a source for you:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and another:
http://bowlingfortruth.com

and another:
http://www.moorelies.com

and another:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

and another:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

That one's by Christopher Hitchins, who is one of the more brilliant debunkers in the world, who has gone after Reagan, Clinton and even Mother Theresa (and made some really good points against her, suprisingly enough!).

and another:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233

That one's from the Wallstreet Journal

So lets see... I challenge you to a fact finding mission about Michael Moore, and you insult me, blame everything on Bush and then cite a book by the very person I'm asking you to fact check. Grasping at straws are we?

Thanks, its been fun, now say goodnight and let the big kids talk.

Love,
The Strangler

PS - XOXOXO

[Zaglar Ninja]

unlike you I plan to read those, but after a quick skim through I saw nothing about Dude wheres my country. Dude wheres the flaws in dude wheres my country?

the second link has some stuff about dude wheres my country but their facts against it are pointless, "the Bin Ladens apparently chartered their own plane. They did not get a "free trip" as Moore tells us" Since when is that the point? they had to pay for it but the point is that they get to fly where others cant

[Professor S]

Remember the book I asked you to check out in my last post? Its in there. And I did actually read all of those sites, thanks. Why else would I have cited them? :retard:

[Zaglar Ninja]

I'm not talking about you not reading those sites, im talking about you not reading/watching anything you critisize

[Jonbo298]

Strangler, this site is right up your alley
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

can I expect a guest appearance of you in the movie?

[Zaglar Ninja]

ok I can't read any more of that stupidity, these sites should really piss you off strangler because they abundently "miss the point" Well then again you havnt seen or read most of his works so when they mention his lies, you don't seem to get it. They are making the fact that he has all these little lies that no one pays attention to, the fact is they havnt caught him on one big lie yet so the facts that people actually listen to and talk about are the real ones. Watch the movie and see if you can spot any big lies. Until then please get out of this thread.

why dont you just accept the fact that you don't really know anything about farinheit 9/11 no one is agreeing with you yet you still make all these comments about a movie you havnt seen

[Typhoid]

yet you still make all these comments about a movie you havnt seen


Sorry, but i kinda have to agree with him.

You said it yourself, you havent seen the movie, so don't just cite things trying to save your case on Moore. Wait until you see the movie, then do it.

Dont back your case on a guy that debunked Mother Teresa, the woman was technically a saint, how can you debunk a friggin' saint?!?! What are the debunkings against a saint?

" One time...she drank wine.."

The fact is they can debunk Moore all they want, but Moore is also debunking Bush.

I can understand you wanting to stand up for your beliefs, but i just think its kind of sad that you cant just even agree with other people and their opinions.

[Bond]

Its called reading. I use the internet, google is a very good site.

I asked you to demonstrate your magical ability, not talk about it.

[Zaglar Ninja]

thats amazing but I dont really know how to show you how to read over the internet.

but if you can read this I think you can pass

[Bond]

Since you are incapable of demonstrating your magical ability, could you please cite a website that has helped you filter Moore's facts from lies? And if you are incapable of doing that could you please list which of Moore's claims you have researched?

[Zaglar Ninja]

I have a better idea, read all of the sites the strangler has posted, they have all the lies.

Now you might notice how small and pathetic those lies are, and their importance is almost none.

So after reading all those sites and getting all those small lies out of the way it is safe to assume all the important things Micheal Moore says is true

[Bond]

I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel sorry for the future of Canada.

I will look forward to an intelligent discuss with Dylflon and Typhoid tomorrow. :)

[Zaglar Ninja]

I'm serious, they catch terrible lies that don't matter at all. If that doesn't convince you because I know your too lazy just to read the sites, then try Dude wheres my country, he has citations in the book.

[Crono]

I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel sorry for the future of Canada.



I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel sorry for the future of the entire planet. ; ; Hmm... I'll probably laugh.

[Joeiss]

I am not sure if anybody allready said this, because I didn't read most of this thread.... But did anybody else catch the little bit of music they played when it showed George W. Bush's military record? When they zoomed in in the paragraph speaking about him not taking the physical, they played the first couple of seconds of Eric Clapton's hit song, "Cocaine." I thought that was kind of funny.

[Bond]

I'm serious, they catch terrible lies that don't matter at all. If that doesn't convince you because I know your too lazy just to read the sites, then try Dude wheres my country, he has citations in the book.
I find it rather funny you accuse me of being "too lazy just to read the sites" considering my two previous posts in this very thread that you were obviously too lazy to read:

I have found a very nice article from Slate.com, a liberal website, that calls Fahrenheit 9/11 counterpropaganda. If you don't believe me they're liberal, the writer of the article calls himself liberal, and the article that appears before this one reads: "Bush plays the Nazi card." Here is the article:

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that?

Back in the '80s—the era of Reagan and Bush 41, when milquetoasts Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were the ineffectual Democratic candidates and Jimmy Carter was off building houses for poor people, when Anthony Lewis was writing oh-so-temperately in the New York Times, which was then leaning neoconward under the stewardship of Abe Rosenthal, when there was an explosion of dirty Republican tricksters like Lee Atwater and trash-talking right-wingers, from Morton Downey Jr. to the fledgling Rush Limbaugh—I found myself wishing, wishing fervidly, for a blowhard whom the left could call its own. Someone who wouldn't shrink before the right's bellicosity. Someone who would bellow back, mock unashamedly, and maybe even recapture the prankster spirit of counterculture figures like Abbie Hoffman.

Yeah, I know: Be careful what you wish for.

In 20 years of writing about film, no movie has ever tied me up in knots the way Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (Lions Gate) has. It delighted me; it disgusted me. I celebrate it; I lament it. I'm sure of only one thing: that I don't trust anyone—pro or con—who doesn't feel a twinge of doubt about his or her responses. What follows might be broadly labeled as "waffling," but I hope, at least, that it is bold and decisive waffling.
Needless to say, Fahrenheit 9/11 never waffles. The liberals' The Passion of the Christ, it ascribes only the most venal motives to the other side. There is no sign in the filmmaker of an openness to other interpretations (or worldviews). This is not quite a documentary—which I define, very loosely, as a work in which the director begins by turning on the camera and allowing the reality to speak for itself, aware of its complexities, contradictions, and multitudes. You are with Moore, or you are a war criminal. The film is part prosecutorial brief and part (as A.O. Scott has noted) rabid editorial cartoon: a blend of insight, outrage, and sniggering innuendo, the whole package threaded (and tied in a bow) with cheap shots, some of them voiced by Moore, some created in the editing room by intercutting stilted images from old movies. Moore is largely off-screen (no pun intended), but as narrator he's always there, sneering and tsk-tsking.

Here are the salient points: that Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore (who, in one of the film's best scenes, must certify his opponent's election and quell a movement to stall that certification); that Bush and his family had been in bed with the Saudis, which made him less responsive to the danger of al-Qaida terrorism; that a pipeline in Afghanistan promised billions if the Taliban was on board, which was one reason that the threat of Osama Bin Laden (black sheep of a family with whom daddy did business) was swept under the rug. Better to concentrate on Iraq, the administration felt—it had unfinished Saddam business, it was rich in oil, and it was a potential goldmine for U.S. corporations.

Moore ranges far and wide: He apes Apocalypse Now (1979) with footage of bucolic Baghdad before the bombings, then cuts to soldiers explaining the way they hook their iPods to the tank speakers: "You have a good song playing in the background, it gets you really fired up." (I'm surprised he didn't go ahead and play "Ride of the Valkyries.") Then there's graphic footage of dead Iraqi women and small children killed in what the Pentagon said were surgically precise bombings. A grieving old woman shrieks curses at the United States, while U.S. soldiers with missing limbs rail at the administration. On the home front, Moore suggests that the Patriot Act was unread by the legislators who passed it and harps on its absurd applications, like the agent who infiltrated a septuagenarian cookie-baking peace collective in Fresno, Calif. Then he chases hawkish congressmen outside the Capitol. Would they send their own sons and daughters to fight in Iraq? he asks—often to their backs, as they flee.

As I watched California Congressman John T. Doolittle take off from Moore's camera, arms and legs bobbing spastically, I was troubled by the cheapness of Moore's interviewing techniques. But I laughed my ass off anyway. And I felt better about laughing when I checked the warlike congressman's Web site, which mentions his graduation from high school in 1968 but, predictably, no Vietnam service.

All right, you can make anyone into a goofball with a selection of unflattering shots and out-of-context quotations, but it is so very easy to make George W. Bush—with his near-demonic blend of smugness and vacuity—look bad. Or is this in eye of the beholder? Perhaps when Bush speaks of hunting down terrorists, then gets down to the real, golfing business—"Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive"—you see an honest, plainspoken leader unfairly ridiculed. But what can even Bush partisans make of those seven minutes in the elementary school classroom after he received the news that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center and the nation was under attack? In one of the few lapses in an otherwise virtuoso rant, Christopher Hitchens argues that Moore would have made sport of a martial, Russell Crowe-like response. Nice try, but that blow wouldn't have landed, and this one does, spectacularly. It is downright spooky to watch the nominal commander in chief and "leader of the free world" behave, in a moment of crisis, like a superfluous man.

Moore is best when he doesn't stage dumb pranks (like broadcasting the Patriot Act in D.C. out of an ice-cream truck) but provokes with his mere presence. When he interviews the author of House of Bush, House of Saud in front of the Saudi embassy and the Secret Service shows up to ask what he's doing, it's a gotcha moment: What's the Secret Service doing protecting non-U.S. government officials? He has a light touch there that's missing from the rest of the Fahrenheit 9/11. In one scene, his camera homes in on a Flint, Mich., woman weeping over a son killed in Iraq, and the effect is vampirish. After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother's grief. When I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director's universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers' sons, my friend said, "When did you become a relativist?"

I'm troubled by that charge—and by the fact that we nearly came to blows by the end of the conversation. But when it comes to politics in a time of war, I think that relativism is, well, relative. Fahrenheit 9/11 must be viewed in the context of the Iraq occupation and the torrent of misleading claims that got us there. It must be viewed in the context of Rush Limbaugh repeating the charge that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered in Fort Marcy Park, or laughing off the exposure of Valerie Plame when, had this been a Democratic administration, he'd be calling every day for the traitor's head. It must be viewed in the context of Ann Coulter calling for the execution of people who disagree with her. It must be viewed in the context of another new documentary, the superb The Hunting of the President, that documents—irrefutably—the lengths to which the right went to destroy Bill Clinton. Moore might be a demagogue, but never—not even during Watergate—has a U.S. administration left itself so open to this kind of savaging.

Along with many other polite liberals, I cringed last year when Moore launched into his charmless, pugilistic acceptance speech at the Academy Awards. Oh, how vulgar, I thought—couldn't he at least have been funny? A year later, I think I might have been too hard on the fat prick. Six months before her death in 1965, the great novelist Dawn Powell wrestled in her diary with the unseemliness of political speech during an "artistic" event: "Lewis Mumford gave jolt to the occasion and I realized I had gotten as chicken as the rest of America because what he said—we had no more right in Vietnam than Russia had in Cuba—was true but I did not think he should use his position to declaim this. Later I saw the only way to accomplish anything is by 'abusing' your power." Exactly. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary for the ages, it is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force. It is, all in all, a legitimate abuse of power.

Source (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102859/)

Of course I don't expect anyone to read that whole article, because it's much easier to watch a movie than read an article, and that's the kind of society we are.

I still haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but I plan to sometime. I've seen Bowling for Columbine and really enjoyed it and agreed with most of his points.

Here are more articles about the fabrications of Fahrenheit 9/11:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/23542.htm

And again, I don't expect anyone to read these articles, so don't feel like you have to.

And I think this is what Strangler is talking about Null:

A popular statement around MOOREWATCH from Mike’s fans is that there are no lies in F911. Tracking down all of Moore’s claims about financial dealings will take time. However, there is one easy-to-catch lie, and we all know about it already. Mike himself gave us the information needed to catch him in this lie.

In the film, Michael Moore confronts Congressional Representative Mark Kennedy and asks him to help get Congress to sign up their kids for the Army, Marine Corps, etc. Mark Kennedy looks at him funny, and there is a badly-placed jump edit right there. Moore then moves on to asking other members of Congress, who all appear to ignore him and walk away.

And then we get the voiceover:

“Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”

Look at that again. “Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”

Is that factually accurate? Let’s look at the exchange between Rep. Kennedy and Moore, which was provided by Moore himself:

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing?

MM: I’m trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist
in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me
with that?

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?

MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I’d be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq.
This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.

MM: There it is, it’s just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage
especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I
appreciate it.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.
Well, well, well. Look at that. Let’s look closely at this exchange.

MM: Is there any way you could help me
with that?

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?

MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.

CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I’d be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.

This exchange was edited out of the film entirely, and instead Kennedy’s meeting with Moore is lumped in with all the Congressmen that seemed to be ducking him. Now that could be considered a lie of omission. He made Kennedy look like all the the Congressmen who didn’t stop.

Except that Kennedy not only spoke to him, but he offered to help. He has family in the military, on who, in Kennedy’s own words, is deployed. Not just enlisted, but deployed. He did not say where, but deployed has a specific meaning that doesn’t equal “one weekend a month” in the National Guard.

Cue the voiceover: “Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”

No matter how you try to spin that, it’s a lie. Moore himself admits that there is in fact ONE member of congress with a child in Iraq.

Is it a major, life-altering, call-your-momma lie? No, but most of Moore’s blatant lies aren’t. Stack a hundred of these little lies up, and you got yourself a movie though, don’t you? A sensationalistic campaign attack ad that purports to be 100% truthful.

Well, however minor, I’ve proven here that there is indeed one rock-solid lie in F911. And Moore’s own words, and the release of the transcript with Kennedy, make the case in a way that no one can deny without looking like a fool. Moore lied. Plain and simple. Kennedy was willing to help recruit Congressional member’s children. He has a nephew that is deployed as we speak. Moore himself admits that there is one other Congressional child serving.

I'll let you have the last word.

[Professor S]

Sorry, but i kinda have to agree with him.

You said it yourself, you havent seen the movie, so don't just cite things trying to save your case on Moore. Wait until you see the movie, then do it.

No, I have not seen the movie yet, as I refuse to put any money in Michael Moore's pockets. I have read the transcript and seen the multitude of arguments that cite specific examples of his lies and misinformation.

Its kind of like making judgements about history. I don't have to be there to do research on it and make judgements about it. If you do your homework that should be enough.

Dont back your case on a guy that debunked Mother Teresa, the woman was technically a saint, how can you debunk a friggin' saint?!?! What are the debunkings against a saint?

Don't dismiss someone one because they criticized someone who is technically a saint. Do you know Mother Theresa? Have you seen what she does while in these third world nations or are you just repeating majority opinion without questioning its validity?

Hitchins WAS there with Mother Theresa in those nations as she worked with the disenfranchised and tought them to not use condoms. Now Africa has the largest crisis in AIDS, Hepatitis B and other STD's in the world. Am I saying that its all her fault? No. But she sure as hell didn't help and most likely helped it happen with her rhetoric. This is all from an interview with Hitchins a few years back on Dennis Miller's HBO show.

" One time...she drank wine.."

"One time... she helped spread AIDS."

The fact is they can debunk Moore all they want, but Moore is also debunking Bush.

You debunk someone by LYING ABOUT THEM and misleading the public. Debunking is exposing TRUTH, not creating FICTION.

I can understand you wanting to stand up for your beliefs, but i just think its kind of sad that you cant just even agree with other people and their opinions.

Why would I agree with an opinion that has no evidence to back it up and constantly ignores evidence against it? That makes NO SENSE. You want me to agree with an opinion, support it with facts. I asked Zaglar Ninja to cite sources outside of Michael Moore himself that defend his actions and support his claims that he is telling the truth. He refused to even look. Why in the world would I respect that opinion, when it is based on NOTHING?

[Jonbo298]

Then download the movie. Michael Moore has said that he doesn't care if people do it. Hell, I saw on that "moorewatch" site that they posted a torrent link to the movie

[Professor S]

I tried downloading before from Moorewatch it but it won't play on my computer. I get one of the windows errors they want you to report. I'll try and find it on KaZaA

[Typhoid]

Strangler, Mother Teresa didnt give them condoms because she wanted to spread AIDS, its against her religion.



(And i dont think its on Kazaa, i tried and couldnt find it)

[Professor S]

Strangler, Mother Teresa didnt give them condoms because she wanted to spread AIDS, its against her religion.



(And i dont think its on Kazaa, i tried and couldnt find it)

Does the end result care whether or not her intentions where religious in nature? No. Plenty of horrible things in history where based on religious beliefs. The end result of her teaching is killing literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of Africans. I'm not saying she is a horrible person, just misguided and definitely NOT beyond criticism.

As for Kazaa, it doesn't matter anyway. Everytime I hit the search button the whole application shuts down. I think there's something wrong with my PC...

[Null]

using kazaa might be the reason somethings wrong with your computer. :p hehe :D

[Bond]

Strangler, Mother Teresa didnt give them condoms because she wanted to spread AIDS, its against her religion.

Good job on your Catholic theology Typhoid. I believe the official reason the Catholic church does not support condoms is because they are anti-creation. In an ideal situation the partners should be married and want children.

[Typhoid]

Does the end result care whether or not her intentions where religious in nature? No. Plenty of horrible things in history where based on religious beliefs. The end result of her teaching is killing literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of Africans. I'm not saying she is a horrible person, just misguided and definitely NOT beyond criticism.





But how can you debunk someone on their religious beliefs, I thought you can only debunk lies, not religious stances.

Shes Catholic, so she doesnt believe in birth control, now it wasnt her idea to be against birth control, its her religion.

How can you say someone is wrong based on how they were rasied?

Im sorry, im not catholic, but i cant trust any "debunker" that tried to debunk a saint.

[Dylflon]

Say Strangler, I haven't seen you give the people of Africa condoms either. So aren't you just as responsible for the spread of AIDS as Mother Teresa?

[Zaglar Ninja]

I'll admit Micheal uses manipulation, but there is no other effective way to get his point across, not many people like to listen about politics, so unless it is in an entertaining video, not many people will care.

The question is, is it wrong to use manipulation to spread facts that everyone should hear?

[Bond]

I'll admit Micheal uses manipulation, but there is no other effective way to get his point across, not many people like to listen about politics, so unless it is in an entertaining video, not many people will care.

The question is, is it wrong to use manipulation to spread facts that everyone should hear?
Thanks for ignoring my previous post directed towards you that made you look really bad, Zaglar.

And more trouble for Michael Moore, even Richard Clarke disagrees with him:

One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Source (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5C%5CSpecialReports%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200406%5C%5CSPE20040601a.html)

[Stonecutter]

On behalf of the board liberals I concede the point to Strangler and the conservatives based solely on Zaglar Ninja's stupidity.

Shut Up, you make Typhoid look like a Poli-Sci major.

[Typhoid]

On behalf of the board liberals I concede the point to Strangler and the conservatives based solely on Zaglar Ninja's stupidity.





So you are willing to concede to a person who believes Mother Teresa was a bad person?

[Professor S]

So you are willing to concede to a person who believes Mother Teresa was a bad person?

Typhoid, I believe I specifically said that I DIDN'T Mother Theresa was a bad person, just misguided, but then again I can hardly expect you to actually read my posts before making judgements on them can I? :rolleyes:

EDIT: LOL!!! I just looked and you even QUOTED me saying she wasn't a bad person. Oh wow, thats just awesome. :D

But how can you debunk someone on their religious beliefs, I thought you can only debunk lies, not religious stances.

Shes Catholic, so she doesnt believe in birth control, now it wasnt her idea to be against birth control, its her religion.

How can you say someone is wrong based on how they were rasied?

Im sorry, im not catholic, but i cant trust any "debunker" that tried to debunk a saint.

He is debunking the free pass that she gets from the international community and press. Public opinion is that she is one of the most wonderful people who has ever existed, and the truth may be quite different.

Look at your own opinion about her: She is labeled a saint by the Catholic Church and you would rather just take their word for it rather than analyze the situation further. Her teachings may have directly or indirectly caused mass deaths, but since the church named her a Saint she must be beyond reproach. You should question more than just the decisions the US government makes.

Say Strangler, I haven't seen you give the people of Africa condoms either. So aren't you just as responsible for the spread of AIDS as Mother Teresa?

I'm also not over in Africa telling people to NOT wear them. What does what I do have anything to do with Mother Theresa nd what she does? Really, that was a really weak argument Dyflon, bordering on that thin line of irrelevance, and I expect better from you by now.

[Typhoid]

The end result of her teaching is killing literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of Africans.


How exactly is she killing Africans? Not giving them condoms? Oh, i see, shes killing Africans by following her religion, it makes sense now.

And like Dylflon said, you're not giving condoms to Africans, so then arn't you contributing to their deaths as well?

The bottom line is, the woman is a f****** saint. How the hell can you seriously say anything a saint is doing is wrong, obviously she didnt do anything wrong, to get her saint status.
She believes in her religion, and how can you debunk someones beliefs?
You cant tell someone who has been raised to religion and not to believe in condoms that she is contributing to millions of African deaths.

The woman is a f****** Saint for christs sake. :p


And Strangler, it sounds like you dont like Catholocism. Youre saying what she believes in contributes to deaths. She what. Catholics dont go around killing people.

Who are you to question religious beliefs?

[Crono]

Can someone tell me what Africa, the biggest piece of **** continent there is, has anything to do with the movie Farenheit 911? Or what does Mother Teresa, or the Catholic branch of Christianity have anything to do with it?

Seriously, wtf, you guys are wasting your time in this thread. There are so many stupid political threads on this board, and neither side has "won" ever since it's started, which was like... how long ago? Neither Dylflon and his posse or Strangler/Bond (who I respect for some of the things they post) have made any kind of difference in these forums. Just my opinion anyway, I've realized that all this arguing is useless.

Talk when the U.S. elections are over.

[Professor S]

How exactly is she killing Africans? Not giving them condoms? Oh, i see, shes killing Africans by following her religion, it makes sense now.

Please point out one post I made where I said SHE is KILLING Africans... I never said it. What I said was that her teachings contributed to the deaths of many by convincing them that the use of condoms is a sin.

e Dylflon said, you're not giving condoms to Africans, so then arn't you contributing to their deaths as well?

And like I said to Dyflon, that has to be the most illogical and irrelevant argument I've ever heard. Compare action to action, not action to inaction. The fact that I have decided to go to school and be a teacher has absolutely no bearing on Africans. Mother Theresa CHOSE to go to Africa and teach Africans not to use condoms has a a LOT of bearing on Africans... see the difference?

tom line is, the woman is a f****** saint. How the hell can you seriously say anything a saint is doing is wrong, obviously she didnt do anything wrong, to get her saint status.

So since the church decided to make her a saint, and the church is controlled by humans who are inherently fallible by their own doctrine, she can't POSSIBLY do anything wrong? So by saying this you are saying that the church has never done anything wrong? Holy crap, pick up a book. Not even the Catholic Church believes that.

She believes in her religion, and how can you debunk someones beliefs?

As I pointed out before, Hitchins was not debunking her beliefs, he was debunking the public opinion and free pass she gets from the international community. Do you even pay attention to or read any of my posts, or do you just make up crap in your head that you want me to say? READ MY DAMN POSTS AND DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

You cant tell someone who has been raised to religion and not to believe in condoms that she is contributing to millions of African deaths.

But I can sure as hell tell her to keep her big fat nose out of other people's business and not help in killing tens of thousands. If you don't believe in condoms, thats fine. Don't go to poor, third world nations and ignorantly preach a doctrine that when combined with their culture creates deaths on a scale not seen since the black plague.

The woman is a f****** Saint for christs sake. :p

And saints are chosen by man and man is inherently fallible. Don't believe everything you hear. Saints can sin. If you believe otherwise you are letting yourt religious biases blind you.

And Strangler, it sounds like you dont like Catholocism. Youre saying what she believes in contributes to deaths.

No, I'm saying that what she TEACHES contributes to deaths. I have my issues with Catholicism, but out of respect of regious beliefs I usually keep out of religious debates. Ifr only Mother Theresa did the same, many lives would have been saved.

She what. Catholics dont go around killing people. 1) There are plenty of catholic murderers. 2) I never said she killed anyone, please READ MY POSTS THOROUGHLY BEFORE RESPONDING.

Who are you to question religious beliefs?

I'm not questioning religious beliefs, I'm questioning whether or not someone should go into another country and teach people to do something, or more importantly NOT do something, and not see that their actions can affect them disasterously.

Typhoid, until you start reading what I have written and not repeat yourself constantly, saying the same thing over and over again, I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. You've made your points (which is basically that she is a saint and therefore infallible :rolleyes: ) and I've countered them.

NEXT.

[Typhoid]

Youre mad im putting words in your mouth, but when did i ever say that the curch's have never done anything wrong? When did i say humans wernt infallable?

She wasnt going to africa and just saying " Dont use condoms" she was teaching them catholocism. One part just happens to be they dont believe in condoms.

And i never said she was infallable, just she never did anything wrong in the lords eyes. She had plenty of option to do things wrong, but she never did.

And what she believes in and teaches aer the same things. She belives in Catholisism, and she teaches it. Semantics.

[Seth]

Youre mad im putting words in your mouth, but when did i ever say that the curch's have never done anything wrong? When did i say humans wernt infallable?

You implied it right here:
The bottom line is, the woman is a f****** saint. How the hell can you seriously say anything a saint is doing is wrong, obviously she didnt do anything wrong, to get her saint status.





She wasnt going to africa and just saying " Dont use condoms" she was teaching them catholocism. One part just happens to be they dont believe in condoms.

What's your point? She's still teaching them not to use condoms,,,thusly resulting in many deaths.

And i never said she was infallable, just she never did anything wrong in the lords eyes. She had plenty of option to do things wrong, but she never did.
Don't be an idiot. Everyone sins. To say otherwise totally contradicts the christian(catholocism, other denominations) belief system.

And what she believes in and teaches aer the same things. She belives in Catholisism, and she teaches it. Semantics.Again, you have no defined point. Strangler whipped you up and down on this one. Sorry bud.

[Typhoid]

Ok then, name the sins Mother Teresa did.

:p




And i didnt imply it there, i think you misquoted or something...I never said HUMANS wernt infallable, i said she has done nothing wrong in the eyes of god.

[Seth]

Ok then, name the sins Mother Teresa did.

:p

Don't play stupid.

[Typhoid]

Anyways, back to the movie, cuz weve all gotten a little off topic ( except Crono, who tried to get it back)

Does anyone know where to download a copy of this movie?
Because i dont have time to go to the theatre and see it, it would be alot easier to download it. A link would be awesome.

( Its probably been said, but i dont know where)

[Seth]

Anyways, back to the movie, cuz weve all gotten a little off topic ( except Crono, who tried to get it back)

Does anyone know where to download a copy of this movie?
Because i dont have time to go to the theatre and see it, it would be alot easier to download it. A link would be awesome.

( Its probably been said, but i dont know where)

www.suprnova.org

torrent files if you don't know.

[GameMaster]

I saw this movie a couple days ago finally. I thought it was well done. Pretty shocking all the stuff I never knew about the Bush family and their ties with other people.

[Seth]

I saw it last night. It was ok.


Paramount theatre finally showed it here in Kelowna.

There really wasn't anything in it that has been said before in his books(don't read them).