|
| 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 - »»| |
|
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 |
|
With Bush Administration approval. Fear is the dark room where the devil develops his negatives.
|
|
Caryn, he says that the flights started on Sep. 13th, which is true. He doesn't say "the flight ban had been lifted", because that would not be true. It was partially lifted, as per the source in post #103. But, he also does not say that the flight ban had been partially lifted. He does say that Ricky Martin couldn't fly, which is in all likelihood true. It doesn't have a detailed disclosure of what types of flights were and weren't allowed to fly, and whether or not the earliest of the Saudi flights qualified. It was reduced to the Saudis were allowed to fly, Ricky Martin wasn't. I'm not sure we want to go down the road of Michael Moore being required to exhaustively recount every related document and event so as to avoid being accused of implying something that is pretty damn blatant in the first place. "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!"
|
|
How dare they deprive the world of aerial Ricky Martin! Saving Throw vs Humanity
|
|
What does this have to do with Shadowbane? |
|
Seriously though. I don't think Bush is going to lose. Fear is the dark room where the devil develops his negatives.
|
|
Also, Caryn, more detailed information about the flight ban and the Saudi flights is on Moore's website. Perhaps this suggests that he actually doesn't mind if people know exactly what happened, perhaps it suggests he hopes they only see the movie so he can trick them into thinking Bush is corrupt. I don't know. It doesn't strike me as an unfair representation of what happened. "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!"
|
|
MattG: This is the problem with discussion Moore's work. When a person argues about the inconsistencies in the dots that he wants you to connect, it looks petty. It makes it easier for a Moore supporter to say I'm not sure we want to go down the road of Michael Moore being required to exhaustively recount every related document and event so as to avoid being accused of implying something that is pretty damn blatant in the first place. The problem is that each of these selective omissions by Moore -- what he doesn't say, or the way in which he chooses to say something -- appears small when examined alone. But when taken together, they lead the viewer to a conclusion that is built on a foundation of selective omission of very crucial details. The slight phrasing of that one detail may appear completely irrelevant, until you take the sum of all the details and slight omissions that appear irrelevant independently and put them together. The viewer or reader builds a conclusion based on a series of increasingly built-up omissions. The end result might be a conclusion that I, too, have reached even disliking Moore, but it's a disingenuine conclusion, and that is the problem I have with him. A conclusion reached like that is of the same value as one reached by a person getting their conclusions from the dots that Rush Limbaugh gives his Dittoheads to connect. This is propaganda, and I dislike Moore for blatantly engaging in it, and I dislike his supporters for believing that the conclusions arrived at via his methods are acceptable because it's the message that's important. The message IS important, but it's as important or moreso for the conclusions to have been reached in an honest and truthful way. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
MattG: Also, Caryn, more detailed information about the flight ban and the Saudi flights is on Moore's website. Perhaps this suggests that he actually doesn't mind if people know exactly what happened, perhaps it suggests he hopes they only see the movie so he can trick them into thinking Bush is corrupt. I don't know. It doesn't strike me as an unfair representation of what happened. Why couldn't he have just put more detailed info into his movie, then, in order to present a movie that would be less susceptible to attacks on its truthfulness? "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
What happened being that the Saudis left the country with haste and Bush didn't seem to mind very much. Not that Bush piloted the plane, or signed a form. But remember, he did meet privately with Saudi Prince Bandar on 9/13. "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!"
|
|
Why couldn't he have just put more detailed info into his movie, then, in order to present a movie that would be less susceptible to attacks on its truthfulness? What's the real difference between saying "the flight ban had been partially lifted" and "Saudis, relatives of Bin Laden even, were allowed to fly out of the country when a former member of Menudo couldn't even puddlejump to his next sexy Latin gig?" I don't see much of a difference. They're both adequate portrayals of the situation. The latter is more vivid, more pointed. Does it leave out an important detail? If so, what? "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!"
|
|
Jesus Christ, but Caryn is anal. Fear is the dark room where the devil develops his negatives.
|
|
MattG: The latter is more vivid, more pointed. Does it leave out an important detail? If so, what? See post #121. "See, Canadians believe Jesus walked on water. We just figure it was winter when he did." - Squeaky
|
|
OK, but what mistaken impression does a viewer get from that scene, specifically? "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 doing what the Bush administration is doing, when it comes to the whole hyper-technical parsing and selective telling of facts. There is an undeniable quid pro quo implied - just like the administration implied Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Either you think such implications are proper or you don't. Having it both ways is hypocritical. By the way, if signatures weren't for perverts, I'd totally sig this.
|
|
Also: Here is a fun article to gather reactions from. By the way, if signatures weren't for perverts, I'd totally sig this.
|
|
Agreed, bago. Now we can argue whether or not a country's lack of ethical purity is casus belli. Hint: no. "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!"
|
|
#124 Matthew Gallant What's the real difference between saying "the flight ban had been partially lifted" and "Saudis, relatives of Bin Laden even, were allowed to fly out of the country when a former member of Menudo couldn't even puddlejump to his next sexy Latin gig?" I don't see much of a difference. Picking such a trivial person like Ricky Martin really weakens the point. If Jimmy Carter were kept from flying I'd be given pause. Ricky Martin not making his next concert makes me think, "Good." |
|
Either you think such implications are proper or you don't. Having it both ways is hypocritical. I agree with your base idea here, and surely Michael Moore is guilty of slanting the evidence in order to present a certain point of view, but comparing his half-truths to Bush's is apples and oranges. Thousands of people haven't died because of Moore's slanting. He's just a filmmaker. Comment Signature
|
|
lwf: Caryn is a highly skilled political correctness troll. Sit back and admire a professional at work. |
|
#132 Your Friend Either you think such implications are proper or you don't. Having it both ways is hypocritical. I agree with your base idea here, and surely Michael Moore is guilty of slanting the evidence in order to present a certain point of view, but comparing his half-truths to Bush's is apples and oranges. Thousands of people haven't died because of Moore's slanting. He's just a filmmaker. You seem to keep missing the message vs. the messenger aspect of this debate. Probably because you're so fat you stupid whore. |
|
I'm with YF... The difference is that bush is the president - you would expect him to do the right thing for the country, the people etc. Moore is just a guy that makes movies and writes quite entertaining books (he does raise some very valid points in "dude, where's my country" - and he even states "don't believe me, but also don't believe them - do the research for yourselve"). Those who are against him are often very quick to point out his errors and faults - and they can do that as far as I'm concerned, but moore had said several times (on his site, in "dwmc" etc) that he just want people to talk, discuss and think about certain issues he raises. Mission accomplished. |
|
Picking such a trivial person like Ricky Martin really weakens the point. If Jimmy Carter were kept from flying I'd be given pause. Ricky Martin not making his next concert makes me think, "Good." What if the trivial person was Gabe (yes, you!), and your relative was dying in California and needed one of your kidneys? Are you OK with Bin Laden's family getting scooted out of the country while you have to take a thirty-hour bus trip? What if the relative was not in the country? "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!"
|
|
#136 Matthew Gallant Picking such a trivial person like Ricky Martin really weakens the point. If Jimmy Carter were kept from flying I'd be given pause. Ricky Martin not making his next concert makes me think, "Good." What if the trivial person was Gabe (yes, you!), and your relative was dying in California and needed one of your kidneys? Are you OK with Bin Laden's family getting scooted out of the country while you have to take a thirty-hour bus trip? What if the relative was not in the country? Thank you for accenting my point. Moore should have chosen that person instead of Ricky Martin. Not me, I have both of my kidneys and no relatives in need of one, but a similar situation to what you describe would have been more powerful. |
|
Wait! You mean that if I'm extremely wealthy and connected I can make things happen more easily than if I was some poor schmuck? SHOCKING! By the way, if signatures weren't for perverts, I'd totally sig this.
|
|
So your argument is that Moore doesn't make Bush look dirty enough? "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!"
|
|
#139 Matthew Gallant So your argument is that Moore doesn't make Bush look dirty enough? I guess we're done. |
|
So your argument is that people with money and connections are inherently evil? By the way, if signatures weren't for perverts, I'd totally sig this.
|
|
Well no, because Caryn says Moore is being very unfair. I mean, is he not really implying anything by making a joke about Ricky Martin instead of presenting a valid and very powerful hypothetical, or is he using propaganda tactics? Remember, Caryn says Moore is responsible for whatever conclusion you draw. And you seem to be drawing the conclusion that Moore isn't playing all that dirty. "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!"
|
|
You seem to keep missing the message vs. the messenger aspect of this debate. Probably because you're so fat you stupid whore. The cool kids say "dumb whore", not "stupid whore".... you dumb whore. Comment Signature
|
| 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 35 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2004 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|