# Pro Bush on Fahrenheit 9/11



## noreaster (Oct 17, 2004)

I was just curious if anyone here in this forum watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and was pro-Bush  before they watched the movie?  Now the next question did the movie change the way you were going to vote?

I have talked to 5 different people recently that were VERY pro-Bush before they watched Fahrenheit 9/11 within the last 2 weeks..  After watching Fahrenheit 9/11 they are now going to vote for Kerry.  Amazing!! Now I am curious and have to watch the movie to see what its all about.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 17, 2004)

You know 5 people who are easily manipulated by blatant propaganda.


----------



## noreaster (Oct 17, 2004)

First Tracks said:
			
		

> You know 5 people who are easily manipulated by blatant propaganda.


  That is the amazing part you would not think that these people are easily manipulated like that.   I was shocked when they told me this.  They all pointed out that they know the movie contains a lot of BS but there were some key points that stuck with them.  I am shocked one movie could do that.


----------



## MtnMagic (Oct 17, 2004)

A movie is simply only a movie.

But facts are facts.

It all comes out in the wash!


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 17, 2004)

MtnMagic said:
			
		

> A movie is simply only a movie.
> 
> But facts are facts.
> 
> It all comes out in the wash!



Yeah, but some movies masquerade as documentaries to communicate "facts."


----------



## ChileMass (Oct 17, 2004)

First Tracks said:
			
		

> MtnMagic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well said.......


----------



## MtnMagic (Oct 17, 2004)

And yet it does come out it the wash.

It's the way it goes!

And it went well for our group (6) of us during this last two days. In the middle of the Pemi. Rain, sleet, and snow. One fantastic adventure.

It doesn't get much better than this~!!


----------



## explorer13421 (Oct 18, 2004)

Try www.eppc.org for an article debunking Fahrenheit 911.  It is in the upper right hand corner of the webpage.


----------



## tree_skier (Oct 18, 2004)

explorer13421 said:
			
		

> Try www.eppc.org for an article debunking Fahrenheit 911.  It is in the upper right hand corner of the webpage.



The following passage (from the above article) pretty much sums up the movie.  It also can sum up alot of the democratic party.

Moore is careful—often through a lawyerly precision in word choice—to avoid the simplest lies and to steer barely clear of claims that are plainly libelous. Instead, he chops up the truth and rearranges the pieces to form a thoroughly false picture of reality that is composed of genuine video and audio clips that in reality often have little or nothing to do with the point being advanced in the film, and of facts out of context and figures misrepresented. This means that while Moore’s “facts” are not all false, essentially none of his “arguments” turns out to be true.


----------



## noreaster (Oct 18, 2004)

What is propaganda? 

Webster’s definition.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy

Questions:
-Is Rush Limbaugh talks propaganda?
-Is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth propaganda?
-Is moveon.org propaganda?
-Is most of AM Talk Radio  propaganda?
-Is Fox News when they declared George W Bush president in 2000  propaganda?
-Is the conservative owners of the Gallup Poll results propaganda?
-Is National Public Radio propaganda?

I think the beauty of a Democracy and free speech is we all have the freedom and opportunity to choose what we want to listen to or read?   
We have a great country of checks an balances.  Having one political party in power of all branches of government dilutes those checks and balances. 
 :wink:


----------



## MtnMagic (Oct 18, 2004)

Glad you posted! 

I hear you!

Well said!


----------



## tree_skier (Oct 18, 2004)

noreaster said:
			
		

> What is propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some more questions
- Is everything said by CBS news propaganda?
- Is ABC news's reporting of an undecided (who has voted the staight line democratic ticket the past 8 pesidential elections including for Gore in 2000) as being an undecided swayed towards Kerry by the last debate propaganda?
- Is anything being said by the major networks (abc,cbs,nbc) about politics not propaganda?


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 18, 2004)

noreaster said:
			
		

> Having one political party in power of all branches of government dilutes those checks and balances.
> :wink:



So, therefore, your proposed solution to ensure what you're referring to as "checks and balances" is to place a person with a 30-year track record of ineffective leadership, truth distortion, and admitting to committing wartime atrocities into the Executive Office only because he has a "-D" tacked onto the end of his name rather than "-R"?

Yeah, that makes sense to me.  :roll: 

And BTW, our system of "checks and balances" is designed around a tri-cameral government structure (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches), not a two-party system.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 18, 2004)

tree_skier said:
			
		

> Moore is careful—often through a lawyerly precision in word choice—to avoid the simplest lies and to steer barely clear of claims that are plainly libelous. Instead, he chops up the truth and rearranges the pieces to form a thoroughly false picture of reality that is composed of genuine video and audio clips that in reality often have little or nothing to do with the point being advanced in the film, and of facts out of context and figures misrepresented. This means that while Moore’s “facts” are not all false, essentially none of his “arguments” turns out to be true.



this is true of proponents of both political sides...  manipulating facts to meet their agenda.  clearly, lawyers and other fact finders and fact checkers ensured that no facts displayed or noted in the movie were lies.  but such is the nature of the medium of visual presentation that you can manipulate facts to suite your message.  this is also true of statistics.  this happens on both sides of political issues unfortunately, instead of just showing the facts and letting people judge for themselves.  however, our current american culture doesn't like people to think for themselves and rather prefers people to be spoon fed opinions.  this happens every where unfortunately.

quite frankly, the people right now that are most at fault of skewering the numbers are both presidential and vice presidential candidates.  all four of them are fudging numbers left and right as seen on the debates and else where.  a careful fact check reveals that none of them are getting the numbers or facts completely 100% right, or not manipulating them to suite their purposes, most of the time.

despite my bias towards the point of view of moore, i think he does often do himself a disservice in his presentation.  i have yet to see F911, so i can not comment on that particular movie.  but i hear it's free of usual moore antics generally known in moore films such as roger & me.  as i always like to point out, i REALLY hope no one is slandering or speaking out against this movie without having seen it.  that's an ignorent opinion in my view.  see it first, then speak out against it having viewed and digested the film instead of regurgatating the opinions of others, or worse, forming an opinion without any information other than a pre-judtged conclusion.  in these times, it's important for us all to form out own opinions by going straight to the facts and not relying on second hand sources that do sometimes tilt the facts into a political spin.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 18, 2004)

First Tracks said:
			
		

> noreaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


there was a wink after noreaster's statement about the one political party?  that comment (hopefully) seemed to be tongue in cheek in support of noreaster's political disposition towards candidates.

let's open this up a bit here: the checks and balances system was original installed in a time during which states really disagreed with one another and voted for local political issues.  often times, people within the same party highly disageed with one another about political issues.  for example the civil war split party lines geographically due to economic and moral factors.  local economics was more often an issue whereas the parties were more concerned with how much power state vs. government had and other such issues.  i am unsure if the founders of this country foresaw the advent of a two party system.  iirc, thomas jefferson specifically wrote against a two party system taking effect (will try to find the text on that in a second).  the political parties currently consolidate political discourse into largely only two points of view, whereas there are more than two ideas for how to best run a country.  regional and local politics are largely out the window and political grounds are being drawn up on largely moral grounds now on a national level.  in a system in which an entire political party agrees and works together, there may be a problem with having all three branches of government of the same party (this goes true repub or demo or third party, etc. - i'm not being biased here).

while there is no question checks and balances does not apply to party, it checks and balances judicial, executive, and legislative duties...  perhaps it is something to think about that a unified party in all three branches might be a problem in the spirit of what the constitution originally meant to design in the governmental system.  something to think about.

i think a lot of the two-party system is largely the result of third party candidates being looked at as throw away votes and their input and opinions and legitimate politics not being taken seriously.  this also causes potential alternate views to be squelched and candidates forced to join parties they don't 100% agree with the platform on in order to have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.  this is what it always comes back to for me: Instant Runoff Voting which will reduce negative campaigning, cause candidates to reach out to opposing view points not just a few "undecided" voters in battle ground states, and allow third party input into a homogenized political structure in which there really isn't much difference between the two major parties except a few moral issues.  we chooce between bad and worse.

so while the two party system surely is not a violation of checks and balances, it sure should raise some interesting questions about how our government is run and whether changes in the political and governmental landscape have caused our current system to become outdated.  that's the best thing about the constitution, is it was simply created as a framework that was meant to be altered as new conditions demanded.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 18, 2004)

> iirc, thomas jefferson specifically wrote against a two party system taking effect (will try to find the text on that in a second).


okay, slightly off on this one but rather close.  jefferson was strongly against the electoral college which he wrote against.  but was actually essentially one of the founders of the party system.  however, he opposed the system despite his being elected while on a party, just realized it was the way things were going at the time:



> Neither Jefferson nor his supporters ever acknowledged that they were founding a political party, whatever the name.  The evolution of political parties was proceeding in an environment that continued to regard the word party much like the word “democrat,” as an epithet.  “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever,” Jefferson insisted.  “Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.  If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”  It required Herculean powers of denial for Jefferson to launch America’s first political party while claiming to loathe the partisan mentality it required, but he was psychologically up tot the task.


Source


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 18, 2004)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> yadda, yadda, yadda



I'm way, way too sauced to respond to this right now.

 :beer:


----------



## rekcahza (Oct 19, 2004)

Michael Moore did nothing more than present the truth about the great evil that is George W. Bush. He is by far the worst president our great nation has ever had. He has made us hated thruout the world, caused untold misery for hundreds of thousands, while him and the rich folks he represents send their children to private schools, go sailing and golfing all summer. An utter embarassment, I cannont wait till he loses in November. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT KERRY! You will need it to straighten out the mess this imbecile left you.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 19, 2004)

rekcahza said:
			
		

> while him and the rich folks he represents send their children to private schools



Oh, to be a product of public schools such as you must be! I'd then be able to utter lovely examples of proper English grammar, such as, "While him and the rich folks he represents..."

I'm not sure which is more pathetic, your political ignorance or your grasp of the English language.


----------



## rekcahza (Oct 20, 2004)

First Tracks said:
			
		

> rekcahza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Him" or "He" - who gives a phuck, mate--
I apparently grasp things politically that YOU have no concept of.  And you are a product of private schools, and support Shrub?  No surprise there.  Ol' GW attended Andover AND Yale yet cannot pronouce "Nuclear"(It's not Nu-cu-lar you idiot, it's NU-CLEE-ERR). No worries, he will be ousted in 2 weeks.  :beer:


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 20, 2004)

Someone please explain to me why I bother to waste electrons...

 :roll:


----------



## rekcahza (Oct 20, 2004)

Nice comeback. You could have attempted to refute some of the facts presented by Mr. Moore. Instead you choose to attack a typo. Save the AZ bandwidth. And as long as YOU get to stay home and play with your on-line magazine while our guardsman are separated from family and career by Shrubs folly in Mesopotamia, everythings cool, right?  :roll:   
PS I bet you never sat the movie. Correct me if I'm wrong.
PPS - politics aside, I like your website - you may wanna check the grammar more often tho  :dunce:
EDIT: Just turned CNN on - more children in Fallujah blown to pieces - nice...


----------



## Greg (Oct 20, 2004)

Let me jump in here to try and snub any additional personal attacks. Refer to the *Forum Policies*. Please follow them.

Political debates can get ugly due to deep personal convictions. However, please try to remain respectful of each other's opinions. We are all on this forum for the same reason - the love of the Northeast's mountains.


----------



## MtnMagic (Oct 20, 2004)

For the past two days there were personnal attacks on the AMC's Mountains and Molehills b.b. Dave M. tried to warn those involved that at least the thread would be deleted. Rose (a moderator) et al decided to lock the M & M section from all future posts. It doesn't feel good there and it certainly wouldn't feel good here.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 20, 2004)

I've apologized to Greg backchannel for allowing myself to revert to personal attacks, and I'll do so publicly now...I shouldn't let someone's post get my goat like that. Rekcahza, we'll have to agree to disagree politically, but all's good when it comes to sliding. Carry on.


----------



## smitty77 (Oct 22, 2004)

rekcahza said:
			
		

> Michael Moore did nothing more than present the truth about the great evil that is George W. Bush. He is by far the worst president our great nation has ever had. He has made us hated thruout the world, caused untold misery for hundreds of thousands...[DELETED CRAP]


For the record, the United States was hated thoughout the world long before W came into office.  Did we forget the first WTC bombing, which Clinton all but ignored?  Or the Blackhawk incident in Somalia?  If Clinton got the intern out from under his desk and handled this properly in the first place, 9/11 may never have happened.  Chew on that nugget for a while...


----------



## noreaster (Oct 22, 2004)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> For the record, the United States was hated thoughout the world long before W came into office.  Did we forget the first WTC bombing, which Clinton all but ignored?  Or the Blackhawk incident in Somalia?  If Clinton got the intern out from under his desk and handled this properly in the first place, 9/11 may never have happened.  Chew on that nugget for a while...


 Smitty77  very good point. That is an excellent comment.  Makes you think.  

Also note that it has now been confirmed that president Bush was informed of the possibility of using planes as bombs and  GWB  went golfing  right after that.   This makes me think also.   

 I still can't figure out what twe are doing in Iraq except for protecting the oil.   Wouldn't it be better to to start increasing research to stop using so much of this limited valuable resource.  Although there is probably no need because China is now spending a lot of research dollars in developing  new energy effiecient technoligies for it to advance.  When it does watch out for China.


----------



## pedxing (Oct 24, 2004)

FYI:  Clinton did try to bomb Bin-Laden and kill the Al-Qeda leadership and was lambasted by the right for trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal.

Notice also that when people noticed a terror threat and tried to get Clinton's attention before the millenium celebrations, just as they later tried to get Bush's attention in 2001, the Clinton administration sounded alarms.  Terrorist plots were intercepted in the contexts of heightened alerts.  On the other hand, Bush's team didn't listen.  Richard Clarke and others couldn't get Bush's team to take any of this seriously until the second WTC attack.

Not that Clinton's responses were perfect by any stretch.  For one thing, he should have withstood the political blasts he got for his attacks on Al-Qeda in Afghanistan.  Despite spin to the contrary, they used a pretty good level of force on this initial attack - but it should have been followed up.


----------



## audas (Oct 26, 2004)

Before s/11 there were those of us who disliked Americans, too much "Freinds" and "MacDonalds" all over the world, but now everyone hates America. Thats the difference. 
The worst thing about this is so many of just dont care about hwat the rest of the world thinks, and thats really bad.


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 27, 2004)

audas said:
			
		

> Before s/11 there were those of us who disliked Americans, too much "Freinds" and "MacDonalds" all over the world, but now everyone hates America. Thats the difference.



Gee, Audas, you seem to have a very difficult time differentiating between the terms "America" and "Americans." I, along with what I guess to be an overwhelming majority of the participants on AZ, am an American. America is the government that represents Americans. Your beef is with America, not Americans, and if you have difficulty making that distinction there's no hope for you. Personally, I positively loathe the socialist French government of Chirac, but I have found many of the French people to be very warm and inviting each time I've been there. My own beef is with Chirac's government, not the French people. I don't hold the French people accountable for their government's foolishness and naïvite.  

So, let me get this straight. Wherever "you" are (I can't tell, your profile is blank), there was "too much 'Friends' and 'McDonald's'".  Why is that? Because your economy _wanted_ it. That's the beauty of a free market economy. Nobody was ramming _Friends_ or McDonald's down your throat. If there's a demand, there will be a supply to fill it. If people didn't want to sit there and watch Joey and Monica, or whatever their names are, or sit there and eat a Big Mac, neither _Friends_ nor McDonald's would be sold in your country.  TV networks in your country wouldn't buy syndicated episodes of _Friends_, and business people in your own country wouldn't buy McDonald's franchises if no one in your country wanted to sit down and eat a Big Mac and fries. Yet, you choose to blame Americans for your own consumerism?  Oh, puh-_leeze_. You seem to have mastered the regrettable American trait of blaming someone else for your own shortcomings.

Now, on to another of your statements:



			
				audas said:
			
		

> The worst thing about this is so many of just dont care about hwat the rest of the world thinks, and thats really bad.



Really? Why is that bad? When it comes to taking whatever steps are necessary to defend ourselves against pigs who fly planes into buildings filled with thousands of innocent people, why should I give a rat's hind end that Germany, Russia, France, et al. are merely trying to protect their own oil contracts by opposing our efforts? Does the name "Elf" mean anything to you? Why should I care when those countries were providing Hussein with kick-backs through a corrupt UN oil-for-food program? Should I ignore our friends and coalition partners in rooting out the Taliban and Al Qaeda evil in Afghanistan? Should I merely ignore the fact that 37 other countries joined our efforts in Iraq? Do people in your country hate Australians for joining us to take whatever steps are necessary to defend their citizens against atrocities like that which occurred in Bali? If not, that's hypocritical.

You're right, I couldn't care less about what the rest of the world thinks. When I was a kid, I didn't care what other kids in school thought of me because maybe I didn't have the coolest sneakers. Now that I'm an adult, nothing has changed -- it's still not about being popular, it's about doing what needs to be done for the greater good. A Bush stated after 9/11, "You're either with us, or you're against us." Hey, the choice is yours. But don't expect us to give up our sovereignty in order to win a popularity contest.



			
				audas said:
			
		

> but now everyone hates America.



Hate our country all you want. I couldn't be bothered wasting one second worrying about it. Just don't expect us to come running to your aid when you need us to defend you after some terrorist bomb blows up and kills thousands of _your_ civilians. And mark my words, if nothing is done to stop this situation it _will_ eventually happen on your soil. We once ignorantly believed that it could never happen to us as we watched the Palestinean-Israeli conflict, the Irish conflict, the situation in Colombia, etc. happening all around us, but the Khobar Towers bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the _U.S.S. Cole_ bombing, 9/11, Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid, etc. all proved otherwise. I'm somewhat hesitant about participating in such a discussion on Greg's forums here on AZ, but when someone makes such blatantly offensive statements regarding our country, our citizens, and our way of life here I find it hard to resist the overpowering urge to respond. I'll probably just end up apologizing to Greg via PM later, anyway, so I might as well just do it publicly now and get it over with.


----------



## tycho32 (Nov 5, 2004)

I agree with the last post I honestly could care less what the rest of the world has to think of the US.  I do think however that we will run to the aid of our "friends" around the world.  We always have and I should hope that we always will.  I contacted some friends I have in Bethlehem Israel and they are extremely happy that Bush is still in charge.  So at least some people from other parts of the world are still behind us.


----------



## noreaster (Nov 5, 2004)

tycho32 said:
			
		

> I agree with the last post I honestly could care less what the rest of the world has to think of the US.  I do think however that we will run to the aid of our "friends" around the world.  We always have and I should hope that we always will.  I contacted some friends I have in Bethlehem Israel and they are extremely happy that Bush is still in charge.  So at least some people from other parts of the world are still behind us.


Tycho32 it sure makes it a lot harder to get along with your neighbors if you as you say " honestly could care less what the rest of the world has to think"  Bush won 51% of the vote.  I would hope the republican conservatives are not saying "  I honestly could care less what the 49% that voted for Kerry think". Moderates,  liberals and conservatives all need to figure out away to live together and get along in United States.  Also, the US can not ignore the rest of the world and do what ever it wants whenever it wants.  Sorry it doesn't work that way.  The Saudis own 7% of United States.  The US needs oil and many other resources from other countries.  The countries of the world all need to play nice together or it just doesn't work.   In an environment where the all countries in the world are dependent  on each other's resources then ALL countries need care what each thinks of the other, even the United States.    

AS for Israel being happy about Bush, I am sure they are happy.  Israel will continue to be subidized billions of dollars by US tax payers.


----------



## rekcahza (Nov 13, 2004)

tycho32 said:
			
		

> I honestly could care less what the rest of the world has to think of the US.


That is the most narrow-minded and brainless thing I have read here - what planet ARE you on? The USA is just 5% of the worlds population - that sort of arrogance is what has us headed into the gutter.


----------



## Stephen (Nov 13, 2004)

rekcahza said:
			
		

> tycho32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe tycho is expressing the frustration of the fact that we bail countries out throughout history, and they hold us in contempt for it. Even countries recieving billions of dollard in aid from us spit on us regularly.

-Stephen


----------



## Peter the great (Apr 30, 2005)

*wow.......... ladies and gentlemen I give you your idiot*

god bless you rekcahza and noreaster, and here I thought there was nothing but stupidity left in the U.S. after bush got re-elected the second time. stephen and tco, I have one question for you, did your mother and father tell you that we were bailing coultrys out all over the world? cause that is bull     . I have a step-dad that thinks that it was a good thing we went into vietnam and korea and got our asses kicked to defend democracy. I am tired of  people like you who vote for a man like bush and you don't even know what the hell is going on. 
-oh and I would like to point out that unemployment was at a all time low during clintons reign as president.-


----------



## Stephen (Apr 30, 2005)

*Re: wow.......... ladies and gentlemen I give you your idiot*



			
				Peter the great said:
			
		

> stephen and tco,...
> I am tired of  people like you who vote for a man like bush and you don't even know what the hell is going on.



Two posts and insulting others already. Not too impressive.

-Stephen


----------



## pedxing (Apr 30, 2005)

*Re: wow.......... ladies and gentlemen I give you your idiot*



			
				Peter the great said:
			
		

> we were bailing coultrys out all over the world? cause that is bull



I do wonder if some regular user has created a new name in order to make inflamatory posts.  Anyhow, this forum and the viewpoints espoused are ill-served by these ill-mannered, poorly written and un-supported assertions.  The one piece of evidence you do provide (unemployment reached record lows under Clinton, seems to be a non-sequitor).

Please do keep posting Peter, but please drop the insults and build arguments based on evidence.  I'd also suggest that you contribute to some of the outdoor activity related discussions.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 30, 2005)

what pedxing said.  those who take the side of the arguement that bush is doing wrong for the country are done no favors by ill presented view points and personal attacks.


----------



## Stephen (May 1, 2005)

Nothing was said here from November to April, and the April post was a flame. As such I'm going to lock this up, and, if there is something new to add to the discussion, it can be done as a new thread.

-Stephen


----------

