Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11 (general discussion - merged) - Page 10

I have to say that expect people to object to the recent Time Magazine cover of Moore holding a tiny folded flag . . . I find it disconcerting in a not too pleasant way . . .and, knowing what the right will say about it, I have pangs of dislike for it, quite strong pangs too, in almost agreement with that perspective

But I think that I need to think about it more first before I write it off . . .

But anyway, here is a good letter to the Times from a "trailer Park" citizen . . . a real "common [wo]man" . . .Its a good letter:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...hrenheit_x.htm

It seems this little picture show is still doing well...

I saw F911 today for the first time.

Let's just say I was so moved by it that I am reconsidering my support for Nader.

What state do you live in, Existence?

And don't forget Existence where his funding is coming from now...GOP blood money.

Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.
Its not blood money when there is no strings attached.

What is worst? To have money handed over to you for free from one of your opponents or to have money handed over to you by the buisness you have pledged to protect your voters from? We know why Nadar is handed money and is being helped from the republicans. Its obvious to everyone. It will never be open to us what the democrats have to do for their.

Why on earth won´t the democrats not bind themselves to election reforms? If they did more than half of Nadars arguments in this election will dissapear and he may even stop his campaign (and if he doesn´t the democrats can play the ego-card).

Let's just say I had the pleasure of having Bush as my governor.

The Democrats here sicken me. They are absolutely worthless wimpy Republican-lites.

Because campaign finance reform is a fine line between the first amendment and public interest. Nadar wont say that though. Nadar will only say we need reform but Nadar will never get reform if he is elected. Nadar has no way of getting the congress to support him. Any and all finance reform eventually goes to the Suprem Court, but Nadar wont say that. Nadar will use the same dried up rhetoric without lookiing at the balancing act needed. Kerry is still proposing finance reform, but Kerry also knows there is a fine line. One can't ban all contributions or political speech (as Nadar would have us do--well maybe not that extreme) without butting into the good'ol constitution.

I´m not talking about finance reforms. I´m talking about working for reforming the election process.

All the democrats have to say is "The most importent thing in this election is getting GWB out of the office. Thats what people have to vote for [this is the message already] BUT we recognise that the two party system, electoral college aso. doesn´t give us the the best democracy and we will work for reforms that allow voices other than the mainstream space in the political system"

How would you propose reform?

How I would like to reform it is not an issue even if I have very strong opinions on the matter. I´m talking about how Nadar and the democrats can meet and help eachother.

Go see the Dean/Nadar debate if you want their views on election reforms. They talk a great deal about it there.

Nader should find a more constructive method for getting his message out. Look at the destructive effect he had on the last election. He put a Republican in the Whitehouse! What would the last four years have been like with Gore at the helm?
Saw F9/11 last night. Hard to watch. Felt really betrayed by our government.
Fantasizing about strapped down my right-wing brother-in-law Clockwork Orange style and making him watch it.

It seems to me you all really don´t get it. Your agenda is not the same as Nadars. Opposition to Bush is not a single thing. Nadars agenda against Bush is also an agenda against the democrats: That the current political system doesn´t work and need to be changed. the SYSTEM won´t change by replacing Bush with Kerry (or Dean). The basic political system will continue, just under new leadership.

That two party system of yours have made it REALLY hard for some people to see that politics isn´t a one dimetional thing.

Remember that Bush was wrong when he said your either with us or against us. Not just in the war against terrorists but in all politcal questions.

Yeah, but you don't get it . . . we, who live here, might feel a little more of the sense of Necessity with regards to getting Bush out of office . . .

. . . its nice to have a multi-party systems and everything is hunky dory and one day you can play ultra lefty with a small group of cool dressing comrades, or decide to go Green for a day and change your hair color too . . . but right now, that kind of posing . . . posing with a vote and trendy 'ideological' clique, is detrimental to US and the rest of the world!

And reform is definitely not going to happen when Nadir hands the election to the thieves again!!

It will only happen at the ground level, and will take realistic work by many many individuals . . . not just people who pose and rant about absurd extreme positions that only have value as empty principles.

Four years ago I brought up the issue of swaying the vote to the Nader campaign via email. The campaign manager wrote back stating that there was no possibility of Nader hurting Gore's chances in the election. The Electoral process would protect that from happening. They just wanted to be heard and make a statement. Some statement. Nader took 2% of the popular vote in Florida, and changed the world:
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/nader.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

But the $10000 question is this: If Nador wants to run and someone wants to vote for him based on his agenda who are you to say its wrong (other than that you don´t share their ideology). There is three different ideologies in play now not two.

Those voting for him know that their votes aren´t going to the democrats. They made the decision that they want to support someone else than the democrats. It looks like two party system made everyone think that the votes not going to the party in power is for the other of the two large parties to grab.

If I could vote in US I would problably vote for the Edwards/kerry ticket but the more we discuss this the less I think Bush is the problem and Nadur has presented your countries most imminent political problem.

You decide what you vote for and you know the risk if you want to "make a statement". Gore didn´t lose because of Nadær but because he didn´t appeal to the majority.

Its so freaking easy guys. Tell the democratic party to promise to work for the same ideas. Then he has no platform and you will grab his votes. As long as they are not ready to change their policies the votes are not theirs.

Tell that Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose ticket.

Anders, it is fairly ironic you said Gore didnt appeal to the majority. If my memory serves me correctly, he had half a million more votes.

But he didn´t appeal to a majority of the electoral college and thats what count in your democracy. And that makes Nadårs message even more importent. Ironic, no?

Why don't you make your right-wing brother-in-law a deal, tell him you'll go with him to the next showing AND both of you read the critics of the film (e.g. 57 deciets)analysis prior to its showing.

In other words, offer to share both sides of the story (or even see the upcomming anti-Moore film).

Piece of advice: wait until something remotely legitimate comes out rather than citing trash like that. One would hope moore's critics would be smarter than to promote something like that, but apparently not.

Well thats the point, is it not? Each side thinks the other's points are 'trash' and not worth reviewing. I'm suggesting an open minded approach - I'm sure the self-evident factual clarity of 9/11 will shine through such 'trash'...no?

Doesn't sound too open minded to me.

The approach is open-minded, the sources are partisan. There are a lot of critics of Moore, it might be worth reading a few prior to seeing the film.

Now, if one just wants to feel 'good' about the film's message and enjoy the show, by all means don't read anything critical.

It's the point if you look at everything as black and white.

Really, there shouldn't be any 'sides' when dealing with getting down to the truth of the matter. Bowling for Columbine was deceitful. I haven't seen F911, but there is at least one deceitful part of the trailer. On the other 'side' you have a paper that is totally FOS from top to bottom.

So what side am I on? I want to see a good run-down of the facts (or lack thereof) in F911 and the only thing anyone can point to as a substantial rebuttal is a trashy article that considers simply talking about the WTC a michael moore "deceit."

The point as I see it is that "59" isn't the "side" of anything except for the lunatics that think it's worth citing as an opposing viewpoint.

Even if you already knew alot of this stuff and agree with the message?

Look I don't want to appear one sided but the way things have been with the Bush administration this isn't that difficult to swallow.

Sorry....

But it's really gotten to that point.

Well, I've niether seen the film nor read most of 50ty something (I just thought it might be good) - although I did read Newsweek's story, Isikoffs article, Hitchens article and spin sanity (oh yea, a few personal stories from the people he interviewed - one claiming he never talked to the guy).

Frankly, as I'm not into the message/entertainment mix, I don't care that much about the dustup - Moore is Moore and I'm sure I can find more reliable people who hold the same general viewpoints.

eh? just go see the movie.* Go download it with Bit torrent or something.


*instead of only reading a bunch of one-sided articles written by people that hate michael moore and want you to hate him too.

The thing I don't get is why everyone thinks they should fight moore by spewing more garbage. The Hitchens article doesn't really say anything either, and has some problems with the facts itself. I still have yet to see a clean bulleted list of the facts that moore gets wrong in the film. If moore is really so bad it should be easy to objectively demolish his case. I have yet to see that.

Just saw Far. 911 this weekend with the wife. I would be less than honest if I told you that I went in with a completely open mind however I was really impressed with most of the film. BUT the fact that the first 15-20 minutes are dedicated to the claim that Gore actually won the election ruined the rest of the film for me.

BAD:
The repeated use of footage of soldiers answering questions that made them look horribly uneducated without showing the preceeding question. The rediculous questions to the members of congress asking them to sign up their ADULT children for military service. The complete redirect of attention away from all the atrocitys that Saddam had commited. The suggestion that all of the bad things in the US are a direct result of the last 4 years of Bush's presidency. The woman who spent the entire freaking film crying HISTERICALLY in front of my wife and I (she was the only person who cried durring the film, and the whole theatre was packed) I wanted to "accidentally" spill my $8.75 barrel of coke on her.

GOOD:
I must say that Moore's research (however skewed and twisted I find it) was very good. The introduction of the woman from detroit who had kids in the military and eventually lost her son...this was extremely powerful. The research on the number of Bin Laden's faimly members being gathered and flown out of the country without being questioned after 911.

FUNNY:
Bush trying to pet his dog, which was not going well for the camera. the fact that congress passes passes bills without reading them...and Moore reading patriot act to them from an ice cream truck. 4 years of Bush's worst possible statments and absolute most humiliating responses (I think I would personally love to see a documentary on the stupid things I've said over the last 4 years, it would be 8 hours long )

I just resaw Roger and me and one of the TV Nation shows. Compared to the clips I have seen of 911 I have to say that Moore is much better as a social critic and a social satirist than as a political analyst. Or rather he is a BRILLIANT social critic and a manipulative political analyst that doesn´t ask himself the hard question "Does this really hold water?".

The description of Flint futile attempt to survive after the factory closings is fantastic. Autoworld, a new shining hotel, a big new mall and so on. All very expensive and closed down a couple of month from start. And from TV Nation there is a brilliant clip where he tries to get to talk to Bush during a fund raiser at the 2000 election. Bush yells something like "Why don´t you get yourself a job?" back to him. Next clip is Michael Moore calling his dad on a pay phone, asking him if he has a spare oil company he could run. Or perhaps a baseball team.

That's because the facts are correct.

Isn't it true that John Ashcroft didn't really run against a dead guy and lose? That he ran against the dead- guy's wife who continued the dead guy's campaign in his place? Ashcroft still lost though...

And isn't it true that Ashcroft has two kids in the military?

Can anyone verify this information? B/c if it is, then saying that Ashcroft ran against a dead guy isn't neccesarily true or false. It depends on how you say it. Manipulating words to suit your point. Everybody does it.

An unbiased source?

"In the year 2000, [John Ashcroft] was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy."_

So this is the article the above statement comes from:
_"Sen. John Ashcroft on Wednesday graciously conceded defeat in his re-election campaign against the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and urged fellow Republicans to call off any legal challenges." Eric Stern, "Ashcroft Rejects Challenge To Election; Senator Says He Hopes Carnahans Victory Will Be Of Comfort To Widow,"St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 9, 2000 .

So leave out the part the Mel Carnahan's widow took his place during the campaign. Doesn't that make it kind of misleading?

No, it's not misleading because the voters chose Mel Carnahan. Mel Carnahan was the man elected though he was dead. The voters knew Mel was dead yet they voted for him anyway. It's of little consequence who continued Mels campaign because in the end a dead guy beat an encumbent. Hell, Bugs Bunny could have carried Mels campaign to fruition and defeated Ashcroft.

Good point...

But naysayers or M.Moore haters will still say that Mel's widow was who the voters voted for. I got into a discussion about this after seeing the movie and didn't know what to think...

I say, bring back all of the troops from Iraq and send the big coirporate business executives there...if those corprorate bozo's want to make millions send them there to do it themselves..

'cause you know in the end, the Rich will get Richer and the Poor will get Poorer...

The Radiators - "Shake It Loose"
words and music by Ed Volker
http://www.rads25.com/lyrics.html