Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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, 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

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.

Originally Posted by Bond

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

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

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/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.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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.

Originally Posted by 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)

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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

Originally Posted by The Strangler

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

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

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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

Originally Posted by The Strangler

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

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Ok then, name the sins Mother Teresa did.

:p

Originally Posted by 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)