|
| T O P I C | |
|
Movie of the moment PC discussion thread - Fahrenheit 9/11
June 30th 2004, 01:09 MSD by Trunks Discuss damnit! |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Movie of the moment PC discussion thread - Fahrenheit 9/11
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
Matthew Gallant: But you'd actually rather go along with the right and dismiss him completely instead of thinking for yourselves about the things he presents, some of which you probably haven't seen. This is always the argument that people seem to put forth against those who disagree about them on Moore: "if you don't like him, you must be towing the Right's party line." If you believe the hype, that he's the left's version of Rush Limbaugh, you probably just don't care enough to know any better. Or maybe you've heard him say something you don't agree with, so now your fingers are in your ears. Like anybody who's so politically active could possibly share each and every viewpoint you hold. Or maybe you've even accepted some of the lies made about this movie as truth. Whatever, but keep your poorly-informed opinions to yourselves, thanks. Or maybe some people have researched it and find that they still disagree with Moore and the methods he uses to get his message out. Nothing irritates me more than someone who dismisses a person's opinion as being uninformed when they haven't bothered to find out if the person is actually uninformed. Moore's spin, when it actually is spin and not trumped-up by his opponents, is always overshadowed by the overall incontrovertible facts and insight. This is absolutely what the Right always says about their versions of Moore. There are many more people than not that I have come across who feel the same way I do: we're pretty much as liberal as Moore, but we still feel that he's a poor representative for the cause because of the things he chooses to leave out of his films, or the assumptions he wants his viewers/readers to walk away with and the methods he uses to get those assumptions from people after seeing his work. He's a propagandist, and I say that after having been an initial champion of his work. Once I did some research into the things he said publicly and the things he claimed were facts (such as the Bushes flying the bin Laden family out of the country), I felt betrayed as a viewer by Moore. My opinion about him doesn't come from some right-wing brainwashing. It doesn't come from being a sheep and listening to the masses. It comes from having listened to Moore himself. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
OK, maybe he does care about his nephew. His nephew is "on his way to Afghanistan". It's still not one of his own kids, and it's not Iraq, and he hasn't said who he talked to in Congress about who's making the real sacrifices in Iraq. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
Moore is cool. Caryn is a neocon. EOD. Comment Signature
|
|
and the things he claimed were facts (such as the Bushes flying the bin Laden family out of the country) The movie never claimed this, so maybe your research was a bit flawed. Approval for the flights came from the White House, that's all that's said in the movie. And that's true. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
Or maybe you've even accepted some of the lies made about this movie as truth. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
Is that like a neopet? Saving Throw vs Humanity
|
|
Caryn's research is flawed, just like Rush Limbaugh's. She's buying into the right-wing hype and she don't even know it. Comment Signature
|
|
It's a disadvantage to liking Keanu Reeves. |
|
i heard from a reliable source that Moore makes about 3 movies per year but we never hear about them because he eats the footage before they reach the editing stage true fact: in bowling for columbine, there were originally 4 kids that were supposed to go to K-Mart's H.O. with him but you only see two of them because he had the other two for breakfast |
|
I always meant to check out Neocron, but then I heard it sucked, and now it is basically dead. |
|
Trolling aside, Matt is right and Caryn is wrong. The movie never says Bush was directly responsible for the flights. She caught onto one of the little memes the Right is throwing out there (like the al-Queda/Iraq one) and then blaming Moore for doing something he didn't even do. Comment Signature
|
|
I can't wait for the next canadian election 2 months from now. Fear is the dark room where the devil develops his negatives.
|
|
Give me a fucking break. Of course Moore is blaming Bush. He sets things up and leaves you with only one way to go. It's a convenient escape clause to then say, "Oh, I didn't say that exactly!" |
|
MattG: The movie never claimed this, so maybe your research was a bit flawed. Approval for the flights came from the White House, that's all that's said in the movie. And that's true. I never got it from his movies. Moore appeared on a late night talk show to promote his book "Dude, Where's My Country?" He went on for several detailed minutes about the fact that the Bush Administration flew the bin Ladens out of the country -- that was how he phrased it -- and about how they did that when no other flights were going on. He went on and on about this. I was appalled to learn this. I had no idea. Then I learned that what he said wasn't exactly true. Then I did some more Moore reading, and some more research, and learned that that happens a lot with Moore. And thus, I think Moore is a propagandist despite sharing almost identical political views with him. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
And I know right now somebody is typing a post about how a clear implication is made that the flights were authorized by Bush. My answer is: well, duh. That the implication can be made, that you can connect those two dots, is because of the weak ethical standing that the administration has is the entire point. It comes not only from the prior business relationships with Saudis but also from many other actions taken pre- and post- 9/11 besides the 9/13 flights. Was Richard Clarke reprimanded for approving something which by all accounts was the right thing to do, but not a satisfactory way to do it? Did the administration ever speak candidly about the whole thing? Hell no. That's the funny business that you should be concerned about. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
With all these fat jokes, you'd think Fahrenheit 9/11 was made by Broussard. *cue DNF jokes* |
|
She caught onto one of the little memes the Right is throwing out there (like the al-Queda/Iraq one) and then blaming Moore for doing something he didn't even do. Try again, YF. What I reacted to in this specific instance were words coming directly from Moore's mouth, unless I was watching a Moore clone on television. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
I love it when people who accuse the Right of labeling detractors without any thought put into the discussion immediately do exactly the same thing when they label Moore detractors as automaton neocons. LOVE IT. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
it could have been a bearded whale, caryn |
|
You're gonna have to link that interview, Caryn. No realmedia. Fear is the dark room where the devil develops his negatives.
|
|
That the implication can be made, that you can connect those two dots, is because of the weak ethical standing that the administration has is the entire point. It's pretty easy to make any implication you want when you are in control of the editing process. |
|
What I also love is that people can't separate Moore's message from Moore. Nowhere have I said that I think what Moore is trying to get across is wrong, or a liberal plot. I agree with it, in fact. In every possible sense, I totally, absolutely, fundamentally agree with what Moore wants politically in this coming election. I just think he's a propagandist who uses tactics similar to what neocons use to get their own points across. So I agree with the message, but dislike the messenger. But you guys have fun firing at the wrong target anyway. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
The film could have used more midgets. |
|
YF HEY DUMBDEEDUMB, LINUX DOESN'T HAVE STABLE NTFS WRITE SUPPORT, SO HOW THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO HELP HIM RECOVER??? I was going to respond to this, but then I remembered the words of the late, great Warren Marshall: What? MP3 of the week: Moloko - The Time Is Now.mp3
|
|
He went on for several detailed minutes about the fact that the Bush Administration What he said is correct, the Bush ADMINISTRATION did plan to have the Saudis escorted out. In what way is what he said not true? Yeah that's what I thought, neocon! Comment Signature
|
|
This is just like that one time when all those stupid Americans were making gross generalisations about me making gross generalisations about how stupid Americans were. It all feeds into several of my theories. 1. m0nty's International Theory of Geopolitics, a.k.a. Evil Versus Evil. 2. Everyone is a troll. 3. Everything said has been said before. |
|
#78 Caryn He went on for several detailed minutes about the fact that the Bush Administration flew the bin Ladens out of the country -- that was how he phrased it -- and about how they did that when no other flights were going on. I don't attach any significance to whether or not other flights were going on at the time. The key issue is that all these potential witnesses were removed from U.S. soil before they could be questioned/interrogated. Whether it happened on 9/12 or 9/13 doesn't seem to be of any importance to me, and I fail to see why this one detail incenses you so. You generate your moods yourself, and then you generate your excuse for having them.
|
|
#91 jafd this one detail incenses you so. Sorry, that's the wrong word there. I don't know what I was thinking. Replace as you like. You generate your moods yourself, and then you generate your excuse for having them.
|
|
I would like to know what was discussed at President Bush's meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar on 9/13-- if the status of Saudis in the U.S. was or was not discussed. Something tells me I'll never know, though, even though Bush obviously has nothing to hide. Caryn, I haven't read Dude, Where's My Country, nor do I recall exactly what he said on the interview I saw from when he was doing publicity for the book, so I will have to get back to you on that. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
jafd, they were questioned. A little, by the FBI. And Clarke has said that they weren't interested in them because they didn't believe they had reason to be, intelligence-wise. Though I would say given the sometimes flawed nature of intelligence, perhaps a little more circumspection would have satisfied the families of the dead. But hey, it didn't go down that way. And Bush is certainly all right with anyone not caring about that. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
jafd: I don't attach any significance to whether or not other flights were going on at the time. The key issue is that all these potential witnesses were removed from U.S. soil before they could be questioned/interrogated. Whether it happened on 9/12 or 9/13 doesn't seem to be of any importance to me, and I fail to see why this one detail incenses you so. The FBI has said that it did indeed question the family members before they were allowed to leave the country. 50 of them, last I read. (Don't have the stat link handy, sorry.) So he'd be not completely right on that account, either. He also conveniently leaves out, in his latest film, the fact that the flights happened after the travel ban lifted. And he also adds in the "even Ricky Martin couldn't fly" scene, from what I've heard. So that's a pretty big goddamn omission. When he leaves out facts like this, he WANTS the audience to walk away with the belief that you say he does not directly say, that the Bush's actively helped them leave the country. So you're saying that it's okay for him to put the blame of his omissions and the assumptions the viewers walk away with on the viewers and NOT Moore, because when he's found to be slightly wrong on something, or people assume that the connection they've made from his film is that the Bush's flew them out of the country and made special dispensations to do so, he can just say, "hey, I never said that." Because so far, EVERY person -- both MattG and YF here and others -- has contradicted themselves. You've all said, "Moore's fundamental assertions are absolutely correct!" And then in the next breath you're saying, "Moore never said that, so you're the one who's wrong because you came away with the wrong implication." So which is it, folks? Does Moore get off scott-free when the masses come away with assumptions that are slightly off-kilter because Moore chooses to leave out small but extremely important details? Assumptions that are intially small but all connect up into much larger assumptions that lead to larger political views all based on a foundation of incredibly strong bias? At this point, I'm assuming this discussion will degrade into a "my source is less biased than your source" debate, which is stupid and pointless. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
Also, the lowest grade I ever received in my academic history was a course in International Relations. In the interests of full disclosure. "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
Degrees celsius 11/9? I have a crocodile down my pants.
|
|
MattG: I would like to know what was discussed at President Bush's meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar on 9/13-- if the status of Saudis in the U.S. was or was not discussed. Something tells me I'll never know, though, even though Bush obviously has nothing to hide. This is a point that you and I can both agree on, and it's a very small but very important detail from the movie (which again, I admit I have no seen). If in the movie Moore presents the facts to us that they dined with the Saudis...and that was it, then I'm fine with that presentation. What I dislike is that we don't know, and Moore doesn't know, what was discussed there. IF Moore is making heavy implications that they joked and had pleasant tea over dinner, and these implications are more slanted than what a documentary and not an op-ed piece would have (and Moore has called this a documentary), then I dislike it. For all you and I know, Bush grilled them on 9/11. I don't know if he did, and neither does Moore, I'm betting. And I'm not willing to say that Bush grilled them, or that he had a nice pleasant and fun dinner with them. What I want is for Moore to say and for the public to believe, "we don't know." And I want them to consider what might have gone on and not buy what either Moore or Limbaugh is telling people happened or didn't happen without thinking about it. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
Oh! Now I understand your point of view Caryn. Thanks. However... #95 Caryn The FBI has said that it did indeed question the family members before they were allowed to leave the country. I guess it makes sense that the ex-FBI agent that Moore put in the film has a different perspective on the issue than the FBI agents who still have jobs. You generate your moods yourself, and then you generate your excuse for having them.
|
|
You all need more history and political science classes. |
|
The ex-FBI agent that Moore put in the movie probably has a different perspective on the issue from the ex-FBI agents that Moore cut from the movie. |
|
what does any of this have to do with the canadian election? |
|
Again, Caryn, the point is that there are many ethically questionable relationships that members of the Bush Administration hold. That is the source of any and all implications, not Moore. Blaming him for it is extremely misguided. And you're wrong about the film leaving out that the flights left after the flight ban was lifted. It says explicitly that the first flight was on September 13th. The ban began to lift that day, but not all flights were allowed. "The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." SOURCE (2nd to last paragraph) "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
can we get back on topic please? |
|
"The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity." SOURCE (Page 12, third paragraph) "All I've ever wanted to be is a monkey of moderate intelligence that wears a suit. That's why I'm transferring to business school!"
|
|
Caryn, why do you reference "the latest film" but admit to not having seen it? "The Square who is not Cool with the double dipping pecker!"
|
|
MattG: Again, Caryn, the point is that there are many ethically questionable relationships that members of the Bush Administration hold. That is the source of any and all implications, not Moore. Blaming him for it is extremely misguided. No, that is painting the issue far more simplistically than you can do. Moore presents these ethically questionable relationships, and he presents them in such a way as to lead the viewer/reader down a path toward a conclusion that he wants you to get, assuming you walk into the movie with a blank slate willing to absorb what the movie gives you. But every single person I've had this discussion with does the same thing: they bible-thump the conclusions that Moore leads them to draw in the movie, and then when people dispute some parts of these conclusions, they say, "he never said that, you inferred that incorrectly." Moore is conveniently giving you enough data and enough lines to connect the dots yourself, but when you question some of the foundational points on which you connect these dots, Moore is suddenly absolved of any responsibility in having given you this information. He can't have it both ways. He's either fully responsible for all the conclusions his viewers/readers draw based solely in the reference frame of the movie, or he's not responsible for any of them, and is therefore not the political lightbearer that his supports hold him up to be. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
Dethstryk: I figured it was because this topic was about this film. Also, it's about Moore, who I've read, read about, and seen speaking. So again, am I not allowed to discuss the messenger here? I thought that's what we were discussing. For the record, though, I'll likely see the movie. If only because MattG says that he does explicitly say that the flight ban was lifted before the Saudis flew, when every other source I've read, from across a wide variety of political bases, say otherwise. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
Caryn - I'm specifically talking about where you reference a specific point in the movie, not the movie in general. (Leaving out that flights were starting back up.) "The Square who is not Cool with the double dipping pecker!"
|
|
I'm specifically specificied. "The Square who is not Cool with the double dipping pecker!"
|
|
Deth: Because as I said in a last post, this scene has been discussed ad naseum all over the place. So I've admitted I'm arguing from that basis, and not from the basis of having seen the movie. And yes, I understand that that's a gaping hole in my end of the discussion that damages any points I'm trying to make here. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
Michael Moore is the new Gabe Newell. FAT! |
|
You all need more history and political science classes. What's with the superiority complex? The Columbia grads not letting you use kneepads anymore? |
|
michael moore, gabe newell and george broussard collectively account for 37% of all cheeseburgers purchased in america today |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Movie of the moment PC discussion thread - Fahrenheit 9/11
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 37 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2004 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|