Will anyone be watching this movie? It's another movie by Micheal Moore and I personally can't wait to see it. It seems so good and it might show people the real side of what's happening in the war or more information on 9/11. The only thing is, is that I'm sure some people might see this movie as propaganda.

If you haven't already seen the trailer here's the link: http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/

Documentary.... hahahahahahaha! Oh... you were serious.

Yeah, I am wanting to see it, but my husband is a huge Bush, supporter ( as am I) I still think it would be an interesting thing to go and see. I'ts supposed to be non factual, right? I have heard that it's nothing but propaganda..... :confused:

I'd go and see it just to see what other peoples opinions of some stuff are.

I wanna go see it then stand outside the theater and listen to people's reactions of it. :D

If you have the time you will find this piece on Moore's "documentary" films interesting:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp)

"I call upon all nations, to do everything they can - to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."

HAHAHA :D

I'm going to go see it today...if not today, then tomorrow or Sunday I guess (work tonight and tomorrw morning :rolleyes: )..it looks funny (some parts of course).

It's gotten pretty good reviews, I've read one that mentions, "...Fahrenheit 9/11 is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary."

:p

I didn't realize it would come to LR so early.

They have a 9:11pm showing of it tomorrow.

OMG, you can't be serious? This will not show what is happening in Iraq. it will show what Michael Moores wants you to think is happening in Iraq. Never trust a producer, director or screenwriter that has an agenda. As I said about Air America, the now cancelled liberal talk show with Al Franken, I give this money about one or two weeks max and it will not gross over 4 million dollars it's opening day. I would bet that it doesn't take in 23 million total on opening weekend or as a whole for that matter.

If I am wrong, I will change my user title to something pro democrat for one week. Deal?

tMR

OMG, you can't be serious? This will not show what is happening in Iraq. it will show what Michael Moores wants you to think is happening in Iraq. Never trust a producer, director or screenwriter that has an agenda. As I said about Air America, the now cancelled liberal talk show with Al Franken, I give this money about one or two weeks max and it will not gross over 4 million dollars it's opening day. I would bet that it doesn't take in 13 million total on opening weekend or as a whole for that matter.

If I am wrong, I will change my user title to something pro democrat for one week. Deal?

tMR

How 'bout if you're wrong, you change your avatar to the poster for the movie for a week? :)

"I call upon all nations, to do everything they can - to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."

HAHAHA :D

I'm going to go see it today...if not today, then tomorrow or Sunday I guess (work tonight and tomorrw morning :rolleyes: )..it looks funny (some parts of course).

It's gotten pretty good reviews, I've read one that mentions, "...Fahrenheit 9/11 is many things, but for pity's sake let's not call it a documentary."

:p


I always saw it categorized as a documentary...oh well.
I think part of the reason so many people will see it is just because of the controversy.

OMG, you can't be serious? This will not show what is happening in Iraq. it will show what Michael Moores wants you to think is happening in Iraq. Never trust a producer, director or screenwriter that has an agenda. As I said about Air America, the now cancelled liberal talk show with Al Franken, I give this money about one or two weeks max and it will not gross over 4 million dollars it's opening day. I would bet that it doesn't take in 13 million total on opening weekend or as a whole for that matter.

If I am wrong, I will change my user title to something pro democrat for one week. Deal?

tMR

Yup, but it's still worth seeing..:)

And deal :D although I agree with you that the movie won't gross over 4 million tomorrow or 13 million this weekend. I guess the majority will be seeing White Chicks :rolleyes:

Oh so it's 23 million now! :D

I just checked theaters and it's not opening in a lot of major theaters. For some reason I thought it would be. The biggest theater in my area won't be playing it I think (since it ain't on the showtimes list), yet the other one I live by like 5 minutes away from (which is the second or third biggest, and is actually...pretty big) has it. Weird..

How 'bout if you're wrong, you change your avatar to the poster for the movie for a week? :)

deal... send me the avator... look at the figures above. There was a type-o....

tMR

23 million divided by $8 ticket price is 2,875,000 people. You better hope that you have that many extra who vote for Kerry...

tMR

deal... send me the avator... look at the figures above. There was a type-o....

tMR

You were already quoted at $13 million. ;)

Peek-a-boo, Michael's comin' for you...

haha

If I see it... Michael Moore must agree to start an exercise program and lose some weight (sorry, couldn't resist) :D .

*looks for letter of agreement that hasn't arrived yet*

You were already quoted at $13 million. ;)

Peek-a-boo, Michael's comin' for you...

haha

I am a man of my word..
i will load the avator now for a quick peak..

watching..

tMR

I tried loading it and this came up.

The uploaded file is not a valid GIF, JPG, or PNG file. Please ensure that it is and try again.

Hey Syd come monday, you may have to change it for me..

can you do that?

tMR

I think what you got to do is right click and save it somewhere as a picture...then browse for it and choose that same picture again from your computer :D

I know that the limited areas in NYC that are showing it are breaking box office day records.

There's a little theater downtown that's been showing it round the clock and that movie alone made over $43,000 in one night.

That being said, I'd consider watching it simply because of the controversy behind it.

I think what you got to do is right click and save it somewhere as a picture...then browse for it and choose that same picture again from your computer :D


i did that... fu20 ....

I would see it(Just to see what it (doesn't) shows but I wouldn't give any amount of money to Michael Moore. Maybe if I can get in free (Friends work at the theater and they can take one person with them to a movie for free) but otherwise it may get a rental when it is out on dvd

It's either this documentary or "Super Size Me".

*flips a coin*

It's either this documentary or "Super Size Me".

*flips a coin*
Hmmm heads looks like ill be seeing both.
Seriously though, I really want to see Michael Moore ask the congressmen to send their kids to Iraq. It looked really funny in the trailer.

Ugh, yeah it isn't playing at the main theatre near me. Actually, none of them. Now I'm going to have to travel all the way to the next city? Is it really worth it? Ah. :(.

I know that the limited areas in NYC that are showing it are breaking box office day records.

There's a little theater downtown that's been showing it round the clock and that movie alone made over $43,000 in one night.

That being said, I'd consider watching it simply because of the controversy behind it.

Really? Damn..

Ugh, yeah it isn't playing at the main theatre near me. Actually, none of them. Now I'm going to have to travel all the way to the next city? Is it really worth it? Ah. :(.

Like cfw said, "I'd consider watching it simply because of the controversy behind it." I don't keep up with politics right now (although I do intend to soon), but this just looks interesting (even if it ain't "serious")..I'll give my opinion on the movie tomorrow night or something :p I'm not too into politics so. Plan on being tho (more anyways, even if it bores me), like I said earlier.

Ugh, yeah it isn't playing at the main theatre near me. Actually, none of them. Now I'm going to have to travel all the way to the next city? Is it really worth it? Ah. :(.

No its not worth it. If you're anti-Bush and a democrat, then it'll just be Michael Moore and his big agenda preaching to the choir. If you're pro-Bush it'll just piss you off and make you hate Hollywood's liberal propaganda even more. I can't see getting anything out of it. I saw bowling for columbine and I got nothing from it other than that Moore was an asshat trying to sway gullible, uninformed people.

Well, heh, I'm a democract, but not such a fan of Michael Moore.

Well, heh, I'm a democract, but not such a fan of Michael Moore.
Is that possible in this divided culture?:)

heh...Laura Ingraham keeps calling him Moore Cheeseburgers... :D :D I <3 Laura... :D

Moore is such an idiot, he doesn't even know what he believes or what the point of "9/11" is...seriously, he did an interview i think was on the Today show where, in the beginning of the interview, he called "9/11" his opinion, then later tried to say it was the"absolute truth"...

here's another site that points out all the crap he put in his first "documentary" http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Is that possible in this divided culture?:)

Very much so! My brother in law, and sister aren't either! ;)

Hmm. I seem to recall starting a thread like this only to have it immediately locked for daring to say that Mr. Moore winning an Oscar for Best Documentary was travesty. Give him an Oscar, fine but at least get the category right! Watch it if you want - it's a free country but don't have any illusions that it's actually a documentary. Like Michael Moore's previous work it's propaganda - all the "facts" carefully orchestrated to portray his point of view. (I just watched him on the John Stewart Show admit that it's not fair and isn't meant to be). And no, he's not above making some of it up (it's not an accusation, it's been pretty much documented). It's more like light comedy - you know one of those "based on a true story" type movies that plays fast and loose with the truth. Consider yourself warned.

Unfortunately I think tMR is going to end up eating his words. Too many people are going line MM's pockets just out of curiosity. A guy I work with told me he'll see it 3 times just because. I live in San Francisco what do you expect.

Hmm. I seem to recall starting a thread like this only to have it immediately locked for daring to say that Mr. Moore winning an Oscar for Best Documentary was travesty. Give him an Oscar, fine but at least get the category right! Watch it if you want - it's a free country but don't have any illusions that it's actually a documentary. Like Michael Moore's previous work it's propaganda - all the "facts" carefully orchestrated to portray his point of view. (I just watched him on the John Stewart Show admit that it's not fair and isn't meant to be). And no, he's not above making some of it up (it's not an accusation, it's been pretty much documented). It's more like light comedy - you know one of those "based on a true story" type movies that plays fast and loose with the truth. Consider yourself warned.

Unfortunately I think tMR is going to end up eating his words. Too many people are going line MM's pockets just out of curiosity. A guy I work with told me he'll see it 3 times just because. I live in San Francisco what do you expect.


Lurker, here is your original thread. (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=13526)

I'll be watching this film as soon as it comes out.

I loved Bowling for Columbine, and the book Stupid White Men.

Err... yeah VOTE FOR KERRY.. or something.

I'll be watching this film as soon as it comes out.

I loved Bowling for Columbine, and the book Stupid White Men.

Err... yeah VOTE FOR KERRY.. or something.


I'm glad your vote doesn't count. :cool:

ya i would like to see it actually. bowling for columbine was great. should be interesting
ill check ulater
heather

Bowling for Columbine discussed me sorry. I just couldnt get over the actual footage of inside the school. His point of view disturbs me. The only GOOD thing that I got out of that movie was that I might want to move to Canada. Just so I can leave my doors unlocked. :D
On that note. I'll wait for the movie to come out on Showtime or something like that. I am not giving my money to a knit wit like that. :eek:

i did that... fu20 ....

Image was too big (207 pixels high) this one should work. I'm not in any hurry to look at Michael Moore on you posts Mark, but I figure sooner you can use it as an avatar, the sooner you can take it down.

Image was too big (207 pixels high) this one should work. I'm not in any hurry to look at Michael Moore on you posts Mark, but I figure sooner you can use it as an avatar, the sooner you can take it down.

Thanks, I will see if it works... Syd said she will change it on monday once the verdict is out about tickets sales..

tMR

I think it looks good for a laugh.

My mom's taking me to see this. I come from a very political family (there are PRESIDENTS in there, trust me), so yeah, I have no choice. I'm just afraid of my dad lecturing me about Bush-flaws the whole time. He does that EVERY FREAKEN NIGHT, and has been doing that since the day I was born. Poor me...anyways, I am interested in the movie. I MUST SEE IT!

::sigh::
Michael Moore is fuckin idiot. He's also a propagandist. He's also a socialist.
This movie is full of bullshit , and if you buy into it, im sorry but your a wank.

One of the main points, or "truths" as he would have you believe is that Bush flew Saudi's and members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after 9/11. Well , the 9/11 report from the 9/11 commision totally blows this wacko theory out of the water...He also shows video of dead Iraqi children...nice.. :rolleyes:


If your not sure if you wanna see this movie, read this and save 9 bucks.

The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."

"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.

So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And what's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."

No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.

Uh-oh.

But just when Michael Moore was foundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."

Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.

But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "

So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."

I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.

Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.

So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.

Michael Moore was on the Howard Stern radio show this morning. He says that he will eat nothing but cheeseburgers until Bush is out of office. Damn, I hope he doesn't die. Eating nothing but cheeseburgers for 4 and a half years can't be good for you! I mean, hasn't he seen "Super-Size Me"?

In the new movie, Moore discusses Bush's funding sources but wouldn't discuss his own to an angry (and well-informed) caller on the show. He always has and always will twist the facts to his own liking. Oh well, too bad I love free speech.

<3 Mary

I thought that some of you might like this.

tMR


BREAKING NEWS! A new book analyzing Moore and all of his works, will be on shelf June 29 and can be pre-ordered before then through Amazon. Jason Clarke (moorelies.com) and I have spent months of research and writing to create the comprehensive response to Moore and all his works -- which is why I haven't had time to update this page over that period. It will have ten times the data available here, studying Moore's claims from the very beginning, up to a preview of Fahrenheit 911. Click here for details.

Just to show you how much of a nutjob this Moore is..He believes there are only 190 members of Al Qadea worldwide. And Bush is purposely not going after them so he can keep the war on terror ongoing...

I'm glad your vote doesn't count. :cool:


Yeah, but mine does. :cool:

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission's findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors a t the Cannes film festival. Hmmmmm believe Michael Moore or the government..... Well you can trust the government, just ask a native American.

/What, governments lie? Are you serious?

Then again, im not keen on trusting michael moore either.

Edit* Bullets are not cheap. In fact, they are a gigantic industry. I remember reading a few months ago how bullet manufacturers had increased the amount of bullets they would make next year by half a billion rounds. Keeping a steady war can pull serious profits.

190 members of Al-Quaeda worldwide? I dont think so.

But then again, wars are great for the economy. Just look at World War 2 ending the mid century depression. I remember the economic recession that we were having before 9/11. Has the Afghan war or the second gulf war helped the economy? if it has, then not by much. Point being that I don't think its below the government to provoke a war to stimulate the economy.
/knows that he's talking to himself..........

Hmmmmm believe Michaal Moore or the government..... Well you can trust the government, just ask a native American.

/What, governments lie? Are you serious?

Then again, im not keen on trusting michael moore either
I think that, at least on some of Moore's outrageous claims, the government is closer to the truth - and that is a scary thought in and of itself.

I think that, at least on some of Moore's outrageous claims, the government is closer to the truth - and that is a scary thought in and of itself. That is scary. Which claims in particular are you referring to?

The turth about Moore. I would ask any one and every one to really look into Moores first movie Roger and Me. When you really look in on it and see what really happened. Well you will then see that Moore lies. He has not been able to tell the truth in any of his works. Starting with Roger and Me. GM did not move the plants out of Flint because they wanted to. They were pushed out of there by the UAW. The plants there were paying people more then GM coudl handle. GM had to pull out because of it. The UAW made it so that unless you had a family member working at the plant you could not get a job.

There is more about what the people of MI and Flint think of GM, Ford, DC, and the UAW. Find out the turth about what people in MI really think of those places and you will find out that to believe Moore is to believe someone who lies.

That is scary. Which claims in particular are you referring to?
Just his basic premise that 9-11 was intentionally allowed.

Hmmmmm believe Michael Moore or the government..... Well you can trust the government, just ask a native American.

I get what your sayin, but the 9/11 commission was made up 5 dems and 5 republicans. If what Moore is claiming is true, the democrats would be creaming there pants as they were releasing it...

Just his basic premise that 9-11 was intentionally allowed.
And dont forget, the jews were warned ahead of time so they wouldnt be in any of the towers. :rolleyes:

i think he just likes to make contreversial films to get people's john's in a knot. i don't know why people in the film industry take him seriously or give him awards (he got one for "bowling for columbine") based on his lies and cleverly cut propaganda.

the lies of michael moore (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)

i think he just likes to make contreversial films to get people's john's in a knot. i don't know why people in the film industry take him seriously or give him awards (he got one for "bowling for columbine") based on his lies and cleverly cut propaganda.

the lies of michael moore (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)
Because he's, in effect, "preaching to the choir" with the Hollywood types. They live in a myopic world and he makes films that back up their view of the world.


And dont forget, the jews were warned ahead of time so they wouldnt be in any of the towers. :rolleyes:We live in an age where so many people lack critical thinking skills and will believe anything, simply because it is printed or spoken. I know people that you could tell them that you read on the internet that the pope can fly and they'd believe it because, "you read it." Too many live under the fallacy that simply says, "Well if they said it in print or on film it must be true because they aren't supposed to lie."

How naive, and ultimately ignorant, a society we have become. Too many just don't have the skills to think or read critically anymore.

I'm interested to see it. My husband is in the military and my father-in-law just got orders to go to Iraq. I want to know what all this crap is about because they don't even know.

Amanda

We live in an age where so many people lack critical thinking skills ...

i.e., Juror # 5

tMR

I'm not going to take part in any political debate but I thought I'd point out that all your sources claiming Moore's lunacy are as conservatively skewed as Moore's claims are liberal.

Moore is not a saint.

Bush is not a saint.

Defending either with such a vengeance that you make yourself blind to their individual faults is just...silly.

For those of you who want to call Michael Moore fat, I have two words for you:
Rush.Limbaugh

Thank you, I'll be here all zee week ;)

For those of you who want to call Michael Moore fat, I have two words for you:
Rush.Limbaugh
Not to be overly pedantic, but didn't Rush Limbaugh lose a ton of weight? (I agree with your other points, by the way)

Not to be overly pedantic, but didn't Rush Limbaugh lose a ton of weight? (I agree with your other points, by the way)
To be perfectly honest, I've not seen pictures of Limbaugh or seen him on TV in years. I just remember him being rather pudgy. If he has lost weight, good for him, long as it wasn't the drugs that did it for him.

To be perfectly honest, I've not seen pictures of Limbaugh or seen him on TV in years. I just remember him being rather pudgy. If he has lost weight, good for him, long as it wasn't the drugs that did it for him.
IIRC, he had to lose some weight after some health issues with it, though I am no "ditto head" so I am not sure.

when he was still big during the middle of the clinton administration, he got married to a fitness instructor (what specific instruction she taught, i forgot) who had been slowly weaning him away from fatty foods and the like. then he started losing the weight. he got "thinner" a few years ago and has kept the bulk of it off. i don't know if he's still married or how he lost the weight or keeps it off.

when he was still big during the middle of the clinton administration, he got married to a fitness instructor (what specific instruction she taught, i forgot) who had been slowly weaning him away from fatty foods and the like. then he started losing the weight. he got "thinner" a few years ago and has kept the bulk of it off. i don't know if he's still married or how he lost the weight or keeps it off.
I just read on cnn.com or such that he filed for divorce recently after 10 years.

We live in an age where so many people lack critical thinking skills and will believe anything, simply because it is printed or spoken. I know people that you could tell them that you read on the internet that the pope can fly and they'd believe it because, "you read it." Too many live under the fallacy that simply says, "Well if they said it in print or on film it must be true because they aren't supposed to lie."

That's true, and I think that the same rational holds true for the government. Just because they told you or an official report says so doesn't mean that things actually occured that way.

cf. inflated casualties in Vietnam.

It seems like everyone in Washington has an agenda, so I'm wary of trusting any of them, regardless.

i don't know if he's still married or how he lost the weight or keeps it off.

I think he had the Gastric Bypass surgery.

I'm glad your vote doesn't count. :cool:
Well it's not my country Bush is sending down the drain. ;)

Even though I question the official story concercing the 9/11 attacks and the War on Terror, I don't plan to look to Michael Moore for the true story. After seeing Bowling on Showtime, I'm convinced he wants only attention from the Hollywood elite.

I can't wait to see this film.

ps: I heard Bush declared the moon to be the new axis of evil.

I can't wait to see this film.

ps: I heard Bush declared the moon to be the new axis of evil.

p.s. your lame.............

Why is weight even an issue being discussed in this thread? Michael Moore's weight problem has no relevance to the discussion.

I don't agree with Moore on every issue, and I certainly don't believe the government just allowed 9/11 to happen, (could they have done more to prevent it or lessen it? Maybe, but I think it would have been hard for them to really know exactly what was going to happen on that day) but to claim that he is putting out propaganda while the conservative right isn't is very close-minded. Every side has their own propaganda; usually it doesn't change minds, it just enforces the opinions of those who already agree with them.

About the part that 9/11 was intentional..

I'm not saying Bush is evil, but I'd just like to point out that history repeats itself.

Hitler bombed an embassy himself so he could take away the people's rights and go searching house after house for the "people responsible". And whom did he arrest? The Jews and anyone opposing him. And afterwards, he never gave back those rights.

And you might want to look into Nixon and the Kennedy assassinations. Yes, plural...counting his brothers.

These are not my words, but my history teacher's, but I would really like to know if he was getting his facts a bit twisted. His quote: "The government is corrupted!!!"

Anyways, the movie, I would like to see if I get the time. If I don't get to see it, there's always the DVD/rentals. I'd just like another view on 9/11, that's all.

I didn't get to see the movie today (will later this afternoon/tonight if I'm not too tired after work or maybe on Sunday) since I woke up too late and had to go to work T_T but I read an article about it in Newsweek. It was pretty interesting and pointing out Moore's view on Bush and all. The magazine is in my car so I...refuse to get it as of right now and type out a few interesting points so blah T_T but yea if anyone's interested in reading an article on it...walk into your local store, read it while standing, then leave :p

I didn't get to see the movie today (will later this afternoon/tonight if I'm not too tired after work or maybe on Sunday) since I woke up too late and had to go to work T_T but I read an article about it in Newsweek. It was pretty interesting and pointing out Moore's view on Bush and all. The magazine is in my car so I...refuse to get it as of right now and type out a few interesting points so blah T_T but yea if anyone's interested in reading an article on it...walk into your local store, read it while standing, then leave :p

There is also an article about it in USA Today.

Oh Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrkkkk... ;)

From drudgereport.com

http://www.evboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4796&stc=1

Wow, it did pretty good.

At first I thought no one would be really interested in it until I read more about it...now everyone I know plans on seeing the movie (or wants to...eventually, with bootlegs or something), including a few who have had reserved tickets to see it tonight. If I'm not too tired tonight, I'm going to go see it if it ain't sold out...or tomorrow. Whichever...one of these days T_T

Never mind...in the 4 theaters nearby, it's all sold out for every showtime tonight. I don't feel like driving to another city so...hopefully it won't be sold out tomorrow.

I refuse to see that movie I don't like the director dude he is to anti-bush for me. but thats just my opinion

About the part that 9/11 was intentional..

I'm not saying Bush is evil, but I'd just like to point out that history repeats itself.

Hitler bombed an embassy himself so he could take away the people's rights and go searching house after house for the "people responsible". And whom did he arrest? The Jews and anyone opposing him. And afterwards, he never gave back those rights.

And you might want to look into Nixon and the Kennedy assassinations. Yes, plural...counting his brothers.

These are not my words, but my history teacher's, but I would really like to know if he was getting his facts a bit twisted. His quote: "The government is corrupted!!!"

Anyways, the movie, I would like to see if I get the time. If I don't get to see it, there's always the DVD/rentals. I'd just like another view on 9/11, that's all.

Very well said my dear, very well said.

Very well said my dear, very well said.

*bows* :D
It was only amazing that I actually remembered all that stuff while dozing off at the same time during class. Musta been because the teacher started spazzing and being overly dramatic. Seeing an old coach with an eye patch jumping all over the place kept me awake most of the time. My...talk about strategy. ;)

I cant wait to see the movie it looks great, Moore is great at what he does like with Bowling for Columbine. People who complain that the movie is propaganda need to realize that this stuff is true, and we didn’t elect this man in the first place and he has already screwed up the country. But anyways this November will be important and no matter what side of the fence sit on you should go out and vote. If only there was someone running for president who was from Arkansas cause we all agree great things come out of there.

People who complain that the movie is propaganda need to realize that this stuff is true.
See my earlier post in this thread about critical reading and thinking skills please before you make such a sweeping statement.

*bows* :D
It was only amazing that I actually remembered all that stuff while dozing off at the same time during class. Musta been because the teacher started spazzing and being overly dramatic. Seeing an old coach with an eye patch jumping all over the place kept me awake most of the time. My...talk about strategy. ;)
haha, yeah that'd keep me alert too. But, why exactly was he jumping everywhere?!?

If only there was someone running for president who was from Arkansas

Didn't we already have one of those?

cause we all agree great things come out of there.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"



sorry, I couldn't resist.

haha, yeah that'd keep me alert too. But, why exactly was he jumping everywhere?!?

He got excited.


20 characters

See my earlier post in this thread about critical reading and thinking skills please before you make such a sweeping statement.


You need to realize that while, Moore may be stretching the truth as far as it can go, there may be some actual reality in the points that he makes in this movie.

I just came back from seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I think some of you should see it not for Michael Moore (who I personally think is a little insane anyway), but for the woman whose son was killed in Iraq during the course of Moore's contact with her. In the last letter she received from her son, he told her he was furious that this war had begun.

I just came back from seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, I think some of you should see it not for Michael Moore (who I personally think is a little insane anyway), but for the woman whose son was killed in Iraq during the course of Moore's contact with her. In the last letter she received from her son, he told her he was furious that this war had begun.
Where's Moore's interviews with the families' of soldiers who send home letters about all of the good that is going on in Iraq and how the general population there is happy to have them get rid of an evil leader? Another example of Moore showing just the one side of the story he wants to be shown. Moore is bordering on becoming another "Hanoi Jane".

Is anyone else having trouble seeing this movie? It's sold out again in my area :rolleyes: the 9:50 show is open for now, so I'm about to go out and get tickets after some housework that...will take awhile to the point where I may be too late to get tickets T_T

Oh and..

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/weekendboxofficer.html

Opened at No. 1 after selling $21.8 million in the US and Canada. With NY sales from Wednesday, the total is $21.96 million :)

Where's Moore's interviews with the families' of soldiers who send home letters about all of the good that is going on in Iraq and how the general population there is happy to have them get rid of an evil leader? Another example of Moore showing just the one side of the story he wants to be shown. Moore is bordering on becoming another "Hanoi Jane".

People always say stuff like this when something is made with the purpose of informing people of the bad side to things. Why would Moore want to waste valuable minutes of his film pointing out the spliffy time people are having, or what good it's doing? He's trying to point out what's bad about it, which sounds to me like a hell of a lot.

Eh, I could be wrong.

People always say stuff like this when something is made with the purpose of informing people of the bad side to things. Why would Moore want to waste valuable minutes of his film pointing out the spliffy time people are having, or what good it's doing? He's trying to point out what's bad about it, which sounds to me like a hell of a lot.

Eh, I could be wrong.

I agree with you. There are PROS side, and the CONS side. He's just putting the CONS in the debate.

People always say stuff like this when something is made with the purpose of informing people of the bad side to things. Why would Moore want to waste valuable minutes of his film pointing out the spliffy time people are having, or what good it's doing? He's trying to point out what's bad about it, which sounds to me like a hell of a lot.

Eh, I could be wrong.
You know why people always say that? Because it is true.

And why would he spent his "valuable time"? Simple - he "claims" to make documentaries, which are supposed to present both sides equally for the viewer to make an objective decision.

i have to wait until it gets here but i´m definetly gonna see it... i liked bowling for columbine and i liked it, plus there´s a lot of spectations for this one...

peace...

Not always. If you're documenting on the problems with a war, why would you want to put across the message, "oh, but it's good that we're uniting as a country" or whatever... this particular film was made to try and inform the public of how crappy their government is handling things, most people probably know all the good sides because they're the things that get the most media coverage.

On a related note, I hate those stupid "Support Our Troops" banners, as if funding the makers of the banners will change anything. In fact, "Support" is such a dumb word to use, they make it sound like a sport. And the message is also stupid - cheer for our guys while they're told who to kill. YAY! GO YOU GUYS!!

Not always. If you're documenting on the problems with a war, why would you want to put across the message, "oh, but it's good that we're uniting as a country" or whatever... this particular film was made to try and inform the public of how crappy their government is handling things, most people probably know all the good sides because they're the things that get the most media coverage.

On a related note, I hate those stupid "Support Our Troops" banners, as if funding the makers of the banners will change anything. In fact, "Support" is such a dumb word to use, they make it sound like a sport. And the message is also stupid - cheer for our guys while they're told who to kill. YAY! GO YOU GUYS!!
On point A - a documentary presents the whole story; propaganda does what you suggest.

On point B - that's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If those soldiers ever have to protect your butt I sure hope you support them. So basically you think that if a soldier kills then he's somehow undeserving of support? Glad the allies knew that during both World Wars.:rolleyes:

On your response to point A - he is documenting... have you seen the film to know if he just points out bad points? He mainly points out what's wrong, or where things are going wrong. It's not total propoganda, I wouldn't go that far.

On your response to point B - Why is it so dumb? I just don't see why sticking "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" to your car window helps them in any way whatsoever. If they're killing people for all the right reasons, then yes, they are deserving of "support". But that isn't the case now, is it?

On your response to point A - he is documenting... have you seen the film to know if he just points out bad points? He mainly points out what's wrong, or where things are going wrong. It's not total propoganda, I wouldn't go that far.

On your response to point B - Why is it so dumb? I just don't see why sticking "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" to your car window helps them in any way whatsoever. If they're killing people for all the right reasons, then yes, they are deserving of "support". But that isn't the case now, is it?
You are wrong on point A for a simple reason - He has been proven to manufacture and edit clips in such a way to make a "point". A documentary doesn't do that.

On point B - see the response to troops during Vietnam. If you still believe that you shouldn't support the troops even if you can't support the reason then you are myopic.

On point A - a documentary presents the whole story; propaganda does what you suggest.

dude we know a very good part of the story but he´s trying to show the things that are "hidden" from us, the things that they´re not proud of, personally i think it´s a great idea that moore wants to show us that other side that they have so well hidden...


On point B - that's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. If those soldiers ever have to protect your butt I sure hope you support them. So basically you think that if a soldier kills then he's somehow undeserving of support? Glad the allies knew that during both World Wars

you know what? i actually agree with him, why should we support killing?, the war has no reason to be, and yes the terrorists did a bad thing on 9/11 but that in no way can justify invading a country and starting to kill people as if they were all guilty, that´s just not right...

peace...

yes the terrorists did a bad thing on 9/11 but that in no way can justify invading a country and starting to kill people as if they were all guilty, that´s just not right...

peace...
Oh jeez, the terrorists did a "bad thing"? Are you the queen of the understandment? If you think that all the troops are doing is going around and killing a bunch of innocent people then you are precisely the type of person to whom Moore is preaching.

So according to you, if you had a relative in the military right now you would decide not to support them because what they have been ordered to do? I can certainly see you not agreeing with the politicans who sent them there but to not support them is disappointing.

Oh jeez, the terrorists did a "bad thing"? Are you the queen of the understandment?

you have no idea of how bad i feel about the 9/11 issue (i lost a friend there, i know what it´s like to lose someone), but the fact that i put it like a bad thing doesn´t make me in any way the queen of understandment... i´m sorry is that´s your opinion of me...

If you think that all the troops are doing is going around and killing a bunch of innocent people then you are precisely the type of person to whom Moore is preaching.

no,i´m the kind of person that thinks that war is not the answer...

So according to you, if you had a relative in the military right now you would decide not to support them because what they have been ordered to do? I can certainly see you not agreeing with the politicans who sent them there but to not support them is disappointing.

again i don´t support war and i´m very sorry if you think that that´s dissapointing...

peace...

My sis saw this movie. I didn't. She said it was long but kind of funny in some parts. It was only funny because the guy kept talking bad about Bush. I don't know if I want to see it. I hate long documentaries. :/

again i don´t support war and i´m very sorry if you think that that´s dissapointing...
And you think that supporting the troops is supporting the war?

BTW - you say you don't support war; is there any situation in which you would?

By the way, it's "understatement", not "understandment".

*cracks fingers*

You are wrong on point A for a simple reason - He has been proven to manufacture and edit clips in such a way to make a "point".
Wow, imagine that!

Seriously, so he makes a few jokes about his subjects, so he makes them look like asses, does that make his point any less valid? I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to show someone the bad side to something, I don't sugarcoat it with "but what's happening here is good". What he's doing is hammering hard cold facts, producing a claim and then backing it up. It's a documentary... you can call it propoganda if you so desire... but that doesn't stop him being wrong. I honestly think the film is worth watching before going too deep into discussion, here.

So according to you, if you had a relative in the military right now you would decide not to support them because what they have been ordered to do? I can certainly see you not agreeing with the politicans who sent them there but to not support them is disappointing.

My friend is in the army right now, and considering we're British, I don't really see the need for it, but I don't tell him that because it would insult his profession, he'd likely take it personally. Why in God's name would I support what he's doing, though? It's brave, it's admirable, but it's not a "good for you" sort-of support.

If you still believe that you shouldn't support the troops even if you can't support the reason then you are myopic.
I didn't say you shouldn't support them even if you don't agree with what they're doing. My main point was about those stupid fucking banners serving no purpose. Sure, saying "we all can't wait for you to come home" IN PERSON and "you're doing a great job" is good news for them to hear, but that's just telling them what they want to hear anyway.

Im sorry, but I just dont see how anyone can say we shouldnt have gone to war with Iraq and/or the terrorists. Who can say that getting sadam out of power and progressing towards peace and a self-governing iraq is a horrible thing?

Ok I am not an American therefore I know nothing about the Bush government

but isn't this whole war in Iraq really about the OIL that is there??? And of course getting revenge for 9/11...
I know the Bush family has a lot invested in the Oil industry and Iraq has a fair share of Oil. therefore Bush goes into Iraq with this "war on terrorism" kills over 200 000 Iraqis casualities and a helluva lot of soldiars. What has he accomplished for Americans?

I loved "bowling for colombine" (sorry if the sp. is off) and i can't wait to see this new documentary. But I believe it will be one-sided (of course). We can't get the best of both worlds.

Lowercountry could answer this better than I could but...

You're right about those points, but it also has to do with Bush Jr. trying to finish what Bush Sr. was trying to do while he was in office. Which involves a certain Saddam Hussein...I wonder what happened to capturing Bin Laden (I don't keep up with news...or politics much, even tho I should)

As for the movie itself, I actually got a ticket to the 9:50 pm showing tonight. I should have said I was a student to save a few dollars instead of saying "naw" since she didn't even bother to check ID (and half the time I get checked) and seemed real cool...damn. I still have my college ID from last fall haha..

Ok so I am confused?
Bush Sr and Saddam had links or something????
Like exchange something for the oil?

http://www.rense.com/general29/oneway.htm

Bush Jr. is basically trying to finish what his dad didn't manage to do while he was in office...Bush Sr. has had beef with Saddam for a long time.

BTW - you say you don't support war; is there any situation in which you would?

not really, there are a lot of ways in which something can be resolved but war is not one of them...

im sorry, but I just dont see how anyone can say we shouldnt have gone to war with Iraq and/or the terrorists. Who can say that getting sadam out of power and progressing towards peace and a self-governing iraq is a horrible thing?

the could have done all that without having to invade irak and without having to sacrifice so many innocent lifes...


isn't this whole war in Iraq really about the OIL that is there??? And of course getting revenge for 9/11...
I know the Bush family has a lot invested in the Oil industry and Iraq has a fair share of Oil. therefore Bush goes into Iraq with this "war on terrorism" kills over 200 000 Iraqis casualities and a helluva lot of soldiars. What has he accomplished for Americans?

wow finally someone said something good, yes this is about the oil thing too, it´s just that they hide it so well behind the "free iraqui people" excuse that the rest of the world it´s just focusing on war...

acomplishment for the americans? none... i don´t see any good thing that could possibly come out of this war...huh maybe more oil for bush and the country... hey congrats mr president you´ve killed tons of people with a lame excuse of fighting terrorism and still managed to get away with it...GOOD JOB!!!

peace...

By the way, it's "understatement", not "understandment".

*cracks fingers*


Wow, imagine that!

Seriously, so he makes a few jokes about his subjects, so he makes them look like asses, does that make his point any less valid? I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to show someone the bad side to something, I don't sugarcoat it with "but what's happening here is good". What he's doing is hammering hard cold facts, producing a claim and then backing it up. It's a documentary... you can call it propoganda if you so desire... but that doesn't stop him being wrong. I honestly think the film is worth watching before going too deep into discussion, here.



My friend is in the army right now, and considering we're British, I don't really see the need for it, but I don't tell him that because it would insult his profession, he'd likely take it personally. Why in God's name would I support what he's doing, though? It's brave, it's admirable, but it's not a "good for you" sort-of support.


I didn't say you shouldn't support them even if you don't agree with what they're doing. My main point was about those stupid fucking banners serving no purpose. Sure, saying "we all can't wait for you to come home" IN PERSON and "you're doing a great job" is good news for them to hear, but that's just telling them what they want to hear anyway.
First of all that was a typo.

And you still don't get the point. If all that Moore is doing is showing the negative then it isn't wholly a documentary but rather it is a film to show what he wants you to see. Plain and simple.

And on supporting the troops you say, "...but that's just telling them what they want to hear anyway." EXACTLY! What do you think they want to hear? "I hate you and I hope you burn to death in a tank"?

hmmm this is becoming more of a debate
isn't moore trying to show the side of the Iraq war that Bush is "trying to hide"?

isn't the media playing the part of a one-sided documentary? Just like moore is doing?

hmmm this is becoming more of a debate
isn't moore trying to show the side of the Iraq war that Bush is "trying to hide"?

isn't the media playing the part of a one-sided documentary? Just like moore is doing?

He's just basically making Bush look like a fool. The movie is about his beliefs with Bush, not peoples' in general exactly.

The media, on this movie, are saying moreso that it's not a documentary. And the media on Bush in general just reports what Bush is doing...a lot of the stuff in articles discuss what Bush is hiding from us and all (the only political coverage I get really is out of Newsweek)..and if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see the movie =P

And you still don't get the point. If all that Moore is doing is showing the negative then it isn't wholly a documentary but rather it is a film to show what he wants you to see. Plain and simple.
I get you, I got it. It's still classed as a documentary, though. Ah, who cares!

And on supporting the troops you say, "...but that's just telling them what they want to hear anyway." EXACTLY! What do you think they want to hear? "I hate you and I hope you burn to death in a tank"?

No, more like what they're probably not too keen on hearing is, "what you're doing is senseless and you're just following the orders given by people who aren't out to do the right thing, just the thing that benefits them the most". Like I said, they want to hear "you're doing great", which is the RIGHT sort of support. The WRONG way to support would be "go kick some ass" (sadistic, thoughtless comments like these are thrown around way too much) or "you're doing the right thing" (basically, a lie).

One thing I can't stand to hear is "do it for America". Jesus christ, that is the least respectful thing a person could say - as if their entire country's population is willing them on and agrees with what they're doing. Then again, I despise patriotism with a passion anyways... I think people should have their own opinions rather than being one hundred percent patriotic and following/repeating everything their leader says with a simple "UH-HUH!" It'd be great if everyone woke up one day and just said, "oh, shit! What if we're NOT doing the right thing?!"

lol okay tell us how it is and your thoughts.

i mean like the media reporting on bush and what he does(not about the media reporting on moore/bush)

basically bush tells the media what to print/what to show on TV. Then the media can put a spin on it to show how Bush is saving lives/doing the right thing?

i guess i'm just a conspiracy theorist

basically bush tells the media what to print/what to show on TV. Then the media can put a spin on it to show how Bush is saving lives/doing the right thing?
Trust me that is not what is going on in America. If you watch enough media outlets you can pretty much get the whole story, assuming that you have the critical thinking skills to discern the message and the messenger.

I want to see this film simply because I am curious. I am not really all that familiar with Moore's films. I will say that sometimes things are not always as they appear to be. Our government is far from saintly. However, it seems rather bold to come right out and accuse Bush of actually helping Saudi's to escape on 9/11. I should hope the dude has at least something factual to back his claims up. :confused:
On another note, I see so many people disgusted when their political affiliations are drug through the mud, yet several people on here have no problems slinging mud at so-called Liberals such as Moore. What gives?
This is America, one of our greatest freedoms is to vote for who we want to, and watch what we want to, and say basically whatever we want to.
There are alot of people very disillusioned by this war and what our reasons are for being over there. Again, this is their right.
It does not suprise me in the least this movie is doing so well. Whether he is a liar, a doofus, or just a hell of a charlatan, it is very obvious the American people are seeking answers that still have not been provided in a satisfactory manner. If we knew everything there would be no reason for people like Micheal Moore to make such controversial films. I'm not saying Moore has any or all of the answers but do any of us really know for sure?

[Hey, this just took a while to type out so sorry if it seems a little late for the thread!]

Wow...I can't believe people are still insisting on throwing out the "blood for oil debate.

Bush is not some person sitting behind his desk in Washington touching his fingers together just antsy to blow up whatever he hits on a map of Iraq with a dart board.

I fully support what Bush doing with the war and have family in Iraq right now, and I support him, and he believes and supports his commander-in-chief, W.

There is a HUGE problem in making decisions about how you feel about the war based on Michael Moore's movies/views and just by watching the media. Just like any other decision, the most important thing to do is to look fairly at both sides of the conflict, and then make your own conclusions. If you go by Moore's movie and the papers, you're only seeing a liberal point of view that is drastically one-sided. Consequently, if you're listening to Rush Limbaugh, you fall into the same trap.

Here's the basic truth: Moore's movies are not documentaries for the simple fact that he lies. Not just fast editing, but he lies. He created facts in Columbine, and he lies and manipulates the truth in this movie as well. That doesn't make a documentary. It makes a movie.

I remember hearing a spin on the war a long time ago. It went something along the lines of if you know a neighbour who is abused, or raped, or is being harmed in some way, and you have the capability to help them, should you not do so? ie. Iraq.

Plus, if I'm Bush, I'm gonna kick al Queda's ass into the ground after what they did to my country.

And if Iraq was under a dictator that routinely created mass graves from his own people and killed his own citizens and gave no rights and oppressed women, and I'm America, I'm lending a hand too, especially if the country is a known threat. And don't fool yourself, there was WMDs there, but that's a whole other thread/story.

By the way, isn't it amazing how you haven't heard about the booming American economy from coast to coast? That liberal media...I tell ya!

And sorry if this seemed one sided. This is just how I see things.

[Hey, this just took a while to type out so sorry if it seems a little late for the thread!]

Wow...I can't believe people are still insisting on throwing out the "blood for oil debate.

Bush is not some person sitting behind his desk in Washington touching his fingers together just antsy to blow up whatever he hits on a map of Iraq with a dart board.

I fully support what Bush doing with the war and have family in Iraq right now, and I support him, and he believes and supports his commander-in-chief, W.

There is a HUGE problem in making decisions about how you feel about the war based on Michael Moore's movies/views and just by watching the media. Just like any other decision, the most important thing to do is to look fairly at both sides of the conflict, and then make your own conclusions. If you go by Moore's movie and the papers, you're only seeing a liberal point of view that is drastically one-sided. Consequently, if you're listening to Rush Limbaugh, you fall into the same trap.

Here's the basic truth: Moore's movies are not documentaries for the simple fact that he lies. Not just fast editing, but he lies. He created facts in Columbine, and he lies and manipulates the truth in this movie as well. That doesn't make a documentary. It makes a movie.

I remember hearing a spin on the war a long time ago. It went something along the lines of if you know a neighbour who is abused, or raped, or is being harmed in some way, and you have the capability to help them, should you not do so? ie. Iraq.

Plus, if I'm Bush, I'm gonna kick al Queda's ass into the ground after what they did to my country.

And if Iraq was under a dictator that routinely created mass graves from his own people and killed his own citizens and gave no rights and oppressed women, and I'm America, I'm lending a hand too, especially if the country is a known threat. And don't fool yourself, there was WMDs there, but that's a whole other thread/story.

By the way, isn't it amazing how you haven't heard about the booming American economy from coast to coast? That liberal media...I tell ya!

And sorry if this seemed one sided. This is just how I see things.

I am glad you feel so strongly about this, but again you don't have all the facts anymore than Moore does.
I applaud you for standing behind our troops. I do not agree with this war, yet understand our soldiers are there and we MUST support them.
However, by your tirades against Moore and Rush Limbaugh you are taking part in the same mud-slinging I just mentioned. What does this accomplish? Anyone who mud-slings appears to be grasping at straws. Going for a character assassination to sway someones way of thinking to their own is not cool.
Why not just say I don't care for Moore or Rush and leave it at that? ;)

Going for a character assassination to sway someones way of thinking to their own is not cool. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, henceforth known as Michael Moore.



Here's a rather strange poll I saw posted at harrisinteractive.com. Of the 8200 people polled so far, 76% presently say: "This film and its director, Michael Moore, will do more damage to their own side with their distorted propaganda."

That is far from scientific but I found it strange nonetheless.

Your Honor, I present exhibit A, henceforth known as Michael Moore.



Here's a rather strange poll I saw posted at harrisinteractive.com. Of the 8200 people polled so far, 76% presently say: "This film and its director, Michael Moore, will do more damage to their own side with their distorted propaganda."

That is far from scientific but I found it strange nonetheless.
Very interesting indeed. That mud-slinging comment was directed at all parties and peoples,btw. Sounds like he just may be the most guilty of them all. I still want to see this movie, though. ;)

Given the tickets sales for the movie this past weekend, shouldn't Tmr be sporting a new avatar Monday? :p

Given the tickets sales for the movie this past weekend, shouldn't Tmr be sporting a new avatar Monday? :p


I believe he did lose the bet.

I will see the movie, so that I can have an informed opinion of it, but I am going to wait until it is showing at the $1 theater after they pull it from the main box-offices. :cool:

I did see Mr. Moore's interview on the daily show. He was complaining about how people were trying to stop his advertising for his "movie" <- direct quote. Even he has decided to stop trying to pitch it as a documentary. He didn't back down on his anti-bush convictions though.

Given the tickets sales for the movie this past weekend, shouldn't Tmr be sporting a new avatar Monday? :p

In one hour and four minutes, I'm changing his avatar.

heh

Let's see here...

"Support Out Troops" doesn't mean to support them killing people. Its for them to get support to stay sane in Iraq. To stay in touch with their families. To still be in touch with reality after seeing all the innocent deaths. You're not supporting them physically, like "Yea! Get those Talibans!", but more like mentally. Give them a nanosecond of being at home with their wives/husbands and children, sitting in the porch swing drinking hot cocoa and telling stories. Let them know that home will always be home no matter what they are/were ordered to do.

I hope the "documentary" issue was cleared up. If it was labeled that, not really we can do now, but maybe it could teach Moore to maybe come up with a new label for his next "documentaries". Like...."Believe-it-or-don't. I-still-did-my-research." Kinda like The Da Vinci Code if you look into the outcomes with the Church and etc. You always learn from your past, mistake-laden or not.

Tell me if I'm wrong please. This is just my opinion and I deeply respect all of yours.

I just got back from seeing the movie and the whole drive home (a total of like...4 minutes) my mind was blank and simply thinking why there must be war and innocent deaths in this world.

I know why there is war but it's really just a shame that many innocent young people with bright futures are killed. Part of the movie revolved around a woman in congress who was the only one out of 525 members with a son in the army.

Now, the movie was hilarious at many parts...Moore went up to members of congress and asked them if they wanted to enlist their sons in the army. He even had tons of brochures and pamphlets and such ready to give...a lot of the congressmen just stared at him or didn't even bother to shake his hand.

There was a lot of funny moments as well as sad moments...as well as a lot of unfair parts since the movie was bashing Bush basically. It's depressing to see someone cry and lose their breath when talking about their son who was killed.

I think Moore used his hometown as an unfair advantage to make Bush look bad. There was many blacks, and they're saying a lot of minorities are forced to be in the army or something. I wouldn't say that's necessarily true, but then again I'm not fully aware of this stuff. Plus it really didn't help when two marine guys were driving around to enlist people and saw a black guy walk by their car and go, "There goes a gangster!" :rolleyes: :mad: it is sad tho that congress members will not allow their sons to be in the army to defend our country, while many minorities will step up immediately. That's how it is in general in a lot of situations anyways.

Like it's been said, the movie was very unfair to Bush, and there was a lot of humor but overall it's pretty sad what goes on, seeing childrens' bodies piled in a truck and hearing them moaning in pain with blood covering their bodies and flesh peeled off. "Part of your soul is killed when you have to murder a man." Damn.

This movie is pretty much a movie that all people should see, regardless of whether they're interested in politics or not. I could say a lot more but I'll just stop for now.

The funniest part of going in to see the movie tho was when we had to line up (to verify you're over 17 and got the right ticket stub or something), a guy walked down the line (on his way to the end) and had a Kerry for 2004 shirt on. He was yelling, "YEAH!!! KERRY!!! VOTE KERRY!!!" while everyone laughed at him, including his own friends telling him, "You know you're the only person who would dress like that, right?" :D

Also, if anyone is going to go see this movie, go ahead of time. I left about 10 minutes before the movie started and by the time I got there there was a huge line outside, and already inside, every goddamn seat was practically filled except for up front. So my neck and eyes are hurting right now, since the entire movie is pretty much bad picture quality and since I had to kind of look up to see the damn screen. I knew it'd be busy but not this damn busy, especially at 10 pm on a Sunday night.

I just got back from seeing the movie and the whole drive home (a total of like...4 minutes) my mind was blank and simply thinking why there must be war and innocent deaths in this world.

I know why there is war but it's really just a shame that many innocent young people with bright futures are killed. Part of the movie revolved around a woman in congress who was the only one out of 525 members with a son in the army.

Like it's been said, the movie was very unfair to Bush, and there was a lot of humor but overall it's pretty sad what goes on, seeing childrens' bodies piled in a truck and hearing them moaning in pain with blood covering their bodies and flesh peeled off. "Part of your soul is killed when you have to murder a man." Damn.

War is never good. Too many innocent lives are lost through something that could have been talked over, if people could just lose their selfishness for a while. *shakes head*

Wait a sec, so is F. 9/11 rated R or something? For that part where you were talking about waiting in line to see if you were 17 and older.......I'm lost...

It's rated R....you know how when popular movies come out, especially R rated ones, they usually have a special line for the movie and they check your stub to make sure you're at least 17 (or with someone of at least that age). That was the case of this movie (and if Bush said what I just said right there, everyone would be laughing :D)

There's some graphic pictures/deaths and operations in the movie, but it's just a few and very short clips. If anything, the previews were more "scary" and I didn't even budge during them. Only time I did was when this huge explosion sounded during the movie of a city being blown up, it came out of nowhere.

I forgot to mention that Britney Spears is in the movie ;)

It's rated R....you know how when popular movies come out, especially R rated ones, they usually have a special line for the movie and they check your stub to make sure you're at least 17 (or with someone of at least that age). That was the case of this movie (and if Bush said what I just said right there, everyone would be laughing :D)

There's some graphic pictures/deaths and operations in the movie, but it's just a few and very short clips. If anything, the previews were more "scary" and I didn't even budge during them. Only time I did was when this huge explosion sounded during the movie of a city being blown up, it came out of nowhere.

Well, then I'll be sure not to take a faint-hearted person with me then.

Enjoy your new avatar, Mark! :D

http://www.evboard.com/image.php?u=28204&dateline=1088399914

DAMMIT!!!

Yet again, I must spread more rep around before giving it to Syd Again...

But you get the idea ;)

Syd Rocks the life right outta me. Hell yeah.

:D

DAMMIT!!!

Yet again, I must spread more rep around before giving it to Syd Again...

But you get the idea ;)

Syd Rocks the life right outta me. Hell yeah.

:D

Well, I had to make it memorable!

And if you read the text out loud, it's kinda funny. Hee

Especially the "Boo:("

Enjoy your new avatar, Mark! :D

http://www.evboard.com/image.php?u=28204&dateline=1088399914

LOL! That was aawweeshhoommmeee.

Syd rawks! :D

doc·u·men·ta·ry

of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE <a documentary film of the war>

Hmmm.....Me thinks that this movie is a movie, not a documentary.

Okay, I haven't seen the movie yet (stupid "being broke") but I plan to soon.

Anyway, so this is how I think about it: in AP history, we do these things called Document Based Questions, where we take factual documents, formulate a thesis and prove it with the documents we're given. Isn't this essentially what Michael Moore has done with his films? And don't forget that, in order to dedicate yourself to a project this big, to make a bloody film, you have to believe that what you're saying *is* the absolute truth, otherwise, why go out and spend months and years of your life with the goal of spreading those views? Keep in mind that truth is relative, especially with subject matter such as Columbine and 9/11, and that ultimately there can never, ever be black and white with issues such as these.

So, when Moore has gone on TV and done interviews claiming that what he's saying is the truth, then yes, it is the truth. Based on *his* values and schema and the way he processes the world. All he wants to do is to attempt to broaden people's horizons about what the other points of views could be and break others out of their own states of mind to be, if nothing else, more accepting of the opinions of others. And that effort, in and of itself, is admirable to me.

So go out, see the film, and base your own opinions on it. But don't trash talk Moore for being a propagandist (oh god, it's too early and I can't spell at all right now) for making his views known to the public; if that was the case, having debates over just about anything with your friends, teachers, co-workers, could be considered inthe exact same way.

That's all from teejy. /me prepares to have rotten vegtables thrown he way

Heya, teej, long time no see! Where ya been?

As for me, I will probably not see Fahrenheit 9/11. Although I'd like to, simply for knowledge-of-the-enemy's-strategerie purposes, I will not give Michael Moore one red cent. He's an ass. And he lies. I mean, who does he think he's fooling? Oh, wait, half of America. *sighs*

I look forward to the book that's being written about him.

<3 Mary

Keep in mind that truth is relative, especially with subject matter such as Columbine and 9/11, and that ultimately there can never, ever be black and white with issues such as these.
But Moore would have you to believe that it is black and white, thus he fails in that regard.

So, when Moore has gone on TV and done interviews claiming that what he's saying is the truth, then yes, it is the truth. Based on *his* values and schema and the way he processes the world. All he wants to do is to attempt to broaden people's horizons about what the other points of views could be and break others out of their own states of mind to be, if nothing else, more accepting of the opinions of others. And that effort, in and of itself, is admirable to me.
Broaden people's horizons to HIS OWN point of view. Period. He is completely unaccepting of the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with him. That isn't admirable.

So go out, see the film, and base your own opinions on it. But don't trash talk Moore for being a propagandist (oh god, it's too early and I can't spell at all right now) for making his views known to the public; if that was the case, having debates over just about anything with your friends, teachers, co-workers, could be considered inthe exact same way.
A propagandist not only wants his views known to the public but he or she also askews the facts to sway people to his views. That is what Moore is doing. He's not simply putting out a film and saying, "This is what I think about it"; instead, he is putting the film out there as the complete and objective documented truth and it is not.

I don't have a problem at all with his message; my issue with Moore is how he sells it - as the complete and unabridged truth. Sell it for what it is Mr. Moore and let the people judge you, but don't hide behind the label of fully factual documentary.

I want to see it but its not playing anywhere near where I'm staying upstate. Playing everywhere back home on Long Island though so I'll have to wait untill next week when I go home.

But Moore would have you to believe that it is black and white, thus he fails in that regard.


Broaden people's horizons to HIS OWN point of view. Period. He is completely unaccepting of the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with him. That isn't admirable.


A propagandist not only wants his views known to the public but he or she also askews the facts to sway people to his views. That is what Moore is doing. He's not simply putting out a film and saying, "This is what I think about it"; instead, he is putting the film out there as the complete and objective documented truth and it is not.

I don't have a problem at all with his message; my issue with Moore is how he sells it - as the complete and unabridged truth. Sell it for what it is Mr. Moore and let the people judge you, but don't hide behind the label of fully factual documentary.


Anyone with a political agenda sells propaganda to an extent. Do you think that, if George W. Bush wanted to finance a documentary on the war to show the American people his reasons for believing in it, that he would show American soldiers being blown to pieces, and people from the government who think that war was the wrong option? No. So that's propaganda, pure and simple.

We are sold propaganda every day. Political ads stretch the truth and often resort to mud-slinging. To attack a filmmaker like Moore for making propaganda when government leaders make their own propaganda is stupid. Because when it comes down to it, which one is more powerful?

George W. Bush and family are not accepting of those who oppose war at all. Barbara Bush said she doesn't pay attention to the number of casualities because it has no relevance to her. Again and again, Bush has made the push for war without respecting all the protesting. If our own president feels he doesn't have to listen to the opposition, why should Michael Moore?

Michael Moore is just a filmmaker. George Bush is a (questionably) elected official.

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.




("][/url][url=")Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone (http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx), took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeerawould, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#correct) and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


[/url][/color][/font]Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only &qu