Fahrenheit 9/11

[Chasey_Lane]

Yes, I know this topic has been discussed and beaten. I watched it over the weekend - it was on one of the many movie channels. I knew full-well going into it that it would be extremely biased, but none-the-less, I wanted to give it a try. Very interesting movie, indeed.

What are your thoughts (if you have seen it)?

 

[itsbob]

I refuse to watch it as the number of people watching would be construed by the fat-ugly-bastard as support of his views. I DEFINETLY wouldn't buy it or rent it to watch it either. Bunch of fabricated crap.. I did like the one on the news where he asks a senator why his kids aren't in the military. STUPID, if they can join they are adults, ASK them... Just as I can't force my kids to join the military, neither can a Senator, and since the fat-ugly-bastard brought it up, how many years did he serve? Oh wait, he'd never make it pass the weigh in.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

I refuse to watch it as the number of people watching would be construed by the fat-ugly-bastard as support of his views. I DEFINETLY wouldn't buy it or rent it to watch it either. Bunch of fabricated crap..

I had the same thought, but changed my mind and figured I'd give it a try. It actually wasn't that bad, even though the focus is one-sided. :shrug:

 

[SamSpade]

Yes, I know this topic has been discussed and beaten. I watched it over the weekend - it was on one of the many movie channels. I knew full-well going into it that it would be extremely biased, but none-the-less, I wanted to give it a try. Very interesting movie, indeed.

What are your thoughts (if you have seen it)?

I have not seen it - but I have read a couple of his books"Stupid White Men" and "Dude, Where's My Country?"), and I saw "Roger and Me" years ago. His books have the feel of your typical conspiracy books - full of linking together of completely unrelated facts as logical "proof"; a lack of information as indication of something sinister (but unknown - this is THE litmus test for conspiracy stuff - an abundance of NON-evidence as "proof" of something really bad - and always unknown). I had to go really slowly through his books because they read to me the way it would if a scientist were to read what a non-scientist would write about something they didn't understand very well. (I use to laugh - quietly - when a preacher where I used to go to church would ridicule science and physics - because it was clear he didn't grasp the concepts).

And they also have two other characteristics of liberal books, but - to his credit - MISSING ANOTHER one of them. That missing characteristic is the substitution of insult and ridicule in the place of argument. (Franken does this, but he also backs off and says "well I'm a *comedian*, so what do you expect?"). I give him that much at least, to his *credit*. The first characteristic is presumption that all things conservative are already BAD. That corporations are already BAD. That "Big Oil" is bad (BIG Unions are of course, *good*). That they're motivated by greed, prejudice, racism and ignorance. That, to make his point, he only needs to link someone to Big Oil or to corporate interests or to conservative think tanks. It's all down hill from there, because it's BAD.

The second one is crucial - that even in lieu of a paucity of FACTS - he already knows the reasons why people do things. So-and-so DIDN'T do this - because they're bigots/ignorant/helping out their rich friends/etc. There's no analysis.

They read like gossip rags.

After two books - which I ordered unwittingly - I'm pretty sure I have his number. I have no desire to give him a third outing. I've already seen enough debunking of the "facts" of his movie, and outright denials of people whom he featured in it.

 

[dustin]

Know thy enemy as thy self.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I watched it, and bought it. I don't agree with it, but whatever.

 

[sleuth]

I watched it the other night because it was on Showtime at the hotel where I'm staying.

I refused to rent or pay to go see it, because I didn't want MM to profit from me seeing it. Since I already paid the hotel bill, I figured I might as well watch it.

I agree with Sam as far as the content goes. If I were an uninformed viewer, I'd be shocked and angry at the President over the material presented. However, since I AM an informed viewer, I'm just angry at Michael Moore over the material presented.

 

[SamSpade]

I watched it the other night because it was on Showtime at the hotel where I'm staying.

I refused to rent or pay to go see it, because I didn't want MM to profit from me seeing it. Since I already paid the hotel bill, I figured I might as well watch it.

I agree with Sam as far as the content goes. If I were an uninformed viewer, I'd be shocked and angry at the President over the material presented. However, since I AM an informed viewer, I'm just angry at Michael Moore over the material presented.

I do know that a number of acquaintances who saw it - and relatives, who think Bush is worse than Hitler - made a big deal over the few minutes he spent, continuing to read "My Pet Goat" rather than race out of the classroom in a panic. They say it's because he already knew it was happening, so there was zero sense of urgency.

That's what I mean by a lack of evidence. There's zero substantiation for such a charge - just more innuendo. I'm sure, with the same kind of idiotic "logic" I could 'prove' he was worried about missing his ballet recital. You can't PROVE something with a lack of facts, and then support your proof with innuendo. People have "proved" that crop circles were done by aliens, and that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster were real, with such logic.

It's bad logic to suggest that something is possible, and build on it as though it were true. That's a house of cards. Good logic and reasoning requires factual support, and proof that NO OTHER reasonable possibility could be the truth - such as crop circles being deliberately hoaxed.

Were I in the same situation - and I've certainly been informed by emergencies in the past - I probably would have finished what I was doing and moved straight to the task at hand. Jumping up and "reacting' in a dramatic fashion is what liberals who write this stuff seem to want - even if they ridicule it when it actually happens.

 

[sleuth]

Were I in the same situation - and I've certainly been informed by emergencies in the past - I probably would have finished what I was doing and moved straight to the task at hand. Jumping up and "reacting' in a dramatic fashion is what liberals who write this stuff seem to want - even if they ridicule it when it actually happens.

I agree. Though, seven minutes seems like a long time, I can certainly understand needing it to collect my thoughts on what to do. Certainly he knew that the Secretary of Defense or whatever chain of command was aware of the situation and were taking appropriate actions.

Seven minutes... I don't judge because I don't know what I would do. I would think that I wouldn't "jump up and react dramatically", but I would think that I'd have excused myself a little sooner.

Moore stated the first plane hit BEFORE the president entered the class room. Is that right? I thought the president was already sitting there when he was notified the first plane had hit.

 

[SamSpade]

Moore stated the first plane hit BEFORE the president entered the class room. Is that right? I thought the president was already sitting there when he was notified the first plane had hit.

Who knows? But that kind of splitting hairs over something that really doesn't matter is just what a lot of this stuff is built on.

It's like the Rather/fake memo/National Guard thing - ok, let's just ASSUME that every single bit of that was *true* - supposedly, we're voting for a guy based on whether he'd be a good President. So what I give a crap about is the *last four years*. It might have mattered four years earlier when I was trying to decide if I'd give him a chance to be Presdent the first time around - but bringing up trivial crap from thirty years ago doesn't tell me anything I don't already know about him - I've seen him BE President. So if you wanna dump on the guy, talk about his first term - because what happened before that is no longer of any relevance.

But they just went ON about it - insisting it was true even when the memo was clearly a fake, and CBS retracted their support of the piece. My thought? So what? Who cares WHEN the damned plane hit? He went to Afganistan and kicked butt. He declared war on global terrorists (this is crucial - he did NOT declare war on ALL terrorists). I think he did a great job, in that respect. Don't think so? Then vote for the other guy. The trivial things they bicker over are silly. It's like listening to a child argue over why little brother is bad - I don't CARE.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Seven minutes... I don't judge because I don't know what I would do. I would think that I wouldn't "jump up and react dramatically", but I would think that I'd have excused myself a little sooner.

But we can't gather that information, just from watching the video. What if those "7 minutes" were before the Pres. had been told?

 

[K_Jo]

Maybe we don't have the full and accurate story from either side!

 

[sleuth]

But we can't gather that information, just from watching the video. What if those "7 minutes" were before the Pres. had been told?

Only George Bush knows what George Bush was thinking during those seven minutes.

 

[vraiblonde]

I doubt I'll see it just because I'm sick of seeing this crap every single day on the news - no need to actually PAY for it.

The 7 minutes do not disturb me in the slightest. I think it says a lot about Bush that he's not a knee-jerk reactionary drama queen who throws the book aside and goes rushing out to save the world. You see in all the video - Card comes in and whispers in his ear, Bush's facial expression changes but still remains calm, he finishes the book, then excuses himself to go take care of business. Very appropriate. Besides - honestly - what difference would 7 minutes have made in the response?

 

[Bruzilla]

 

[dems4me]

I had the same thought, but changed my mind and figured I'd give it a try. It actually wasn't that bad, even though the focus is one-sided. :shrug:

 

[Tonio]

Even if I agreed with Michael Moore, I still wouldn't watch it. He's an attention whore, and he's been twisting facts to suit his agenda ever since "Roger & Me."

 

[dems4me]

Even if I agreed with Michael Moore, I still wouldn't watch it. He's an attention whore, and he's been twisting facts to suit his agenda ever since "Roger & Me."

Never heard of that one... is that about Roger Clinton??

 

[Larry Gude]

Au contraire...

The 7 minutes do not disturb me in the slightest. I think it says a lot about Bush that he's not a knee-jerk reactionary drama queen who throws the book aside and goes rushing out to save the world.

...the video shows quite the converse; that W is quite the knee jerk, running off to the nearest phone booth to don cape and mask at the mere sign of trouble. 7 minutes. How rash.

Why, if you want to know what reserve and patience is all about one need only look to our last President to see how 'patient' and deliberate action is done. Bubba is going on YEAR 13 waiting for ALL the facts before he rushes off to war.

 

[SamSpade]

Never heard of that one... is that about Roger Clinton??

You can't be serious. That's like talking about Coppola and saying you've never heard of "The Godfather", or about Spike Lee and saying you've never heard of "Do the Right Thing". It's the movie that began Moore's career.

It's about Roger Smith, then CEO of General Motors - and it was the same kind of "documentary" he's always done, which is to say, highly prejudicial.