|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
Current rating: 0 |
by iskra
(No verified email address) |
01 Jul 2004
|
|
* |
Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat
Revolutionary Worker #1245, July 4, 2004,
posted at http://rwor.org
The RW received the following correspondence.
I went to Fahrenheit 9/11with a bunch of people who knew each
other from work--and there was some real excitement in the air. People
had been looking forward to this, talking about it, wondering what they
would see, and more: hoping that this film would really help change the
direction of things. And when we got to the theater, that feeling was
in the long lines waiting to get in. It was a real event.
As I sat down, the guy next to me said, "glad to meet you, glad to
see all of us, here, together, on this thing."
"This thing" is exposing the government--and the Bush crew that runs
it. Exposing the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the stealing of the 2000
election, the worship of the rich, the corruption in high places, and
the lies-- above all the LIES, that have now been used to
conquer countries, send young men and women to kill and die, and
cynically keep millions of people in a manipulated "state of
alert."
Fahrenheit 9/11 is hilarious, and savage, and (despite the howls of
rightwing attack dogs) overwhelmingly factual. People are sick--to
death!--of being muzzled, stifled and gagged. And in this onscreen rush
of images and sound, there is a feeling that the cork has been popped.
It's like an opening shot to this heated, politicized, dangerous and
oh-so-crucial summer.
If you saw Bowling for Columbine you know Michael Moore's
scattergun film-making technique--the video snips, the ambush
interviews with powerful people, the heart-to-heart with working people
in Flint, the sudden comic animation, and the raw satirical
juxtaposition of words and images--it is all here. And it is refreshing
to see.
Here you get Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney swearing (over and
over) that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq--and that they
know just where they are. And then you get the ugly war and
occupation.
You get soldiers describing how ugly rock anthems are piped through
their tank's CD player, hyping them to "let the muthafukka burn." And
then you get the young confused faces of soldiers saying later that
they just can't understand why they are still in Iraq, and why the
people hate them so bitterly. And then it cuts to GIs at Christmas,
kicking in doors, terrifying families in the dark, dragging off the
young men, and then gathering around an officer dressed as Santa
Claus.
In one unforgettable sequence, Moore introduces us to Lila
Lipscomb--a woman who worked her way from poverty into a stable middle
class job, who urged her son to join the army, and patriotically raised
the flag over her home every morning. And then we see her, with her
family, describing how her 26-year-old son died in Iraq, and she reads
his last letter that says: "What's wrong with Bush? He got us out here
for nothing whatsoever. I'm so furious right now, Mama." And she talks
about how she once thought anti-war protesters were insulting her and
her soldier-son, and all those who "sacrificed for their country"--and
then you see her intense agony and anger as she describes her
realization that her son, and so many others, have died in an ugly war
that has no lofty purpose.
It is a painful, revealing journey. And it is all the more powerful
because, in America today, such stories of war- time loss are rarely
being told. In fact, even photographing the arrival of soldiers'
caskets is officially forbidden.
Michael Moore has his own peculiar slant on things--I think he misses the whole
strategic reason the U.S. conquered Iraq. He views the "corporate" role very
narrowly as profit-making and corruption (and really doesn't "get" how controlling
the Persian Gulf strategically
gives empire builders a grip on the whole world.) He hints like the Bush family
may be traitors to the U.S.--because of the closeness and lucrativeness of their
intimate ties to Saudi princes--when in reality these Bushes
are the emperors, and the Saudi princes (in reality and ultimately) are
subordinate and dependent on the empire.
The Revolutionary Worker (http://rwor.org/resistance/) has
been going deeply from a revolutionary communist perspective into the
underlying motives and operations of these war makers and their whole
planet-threatening agenda. And, after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11,
millions of people are going to be debating and looking for the truth
and looking for answers to big questions, and they need to connect with
the kind of scientific and thoroughly radical worldview that has some
real answers.
Here we were, laughing together--here were OUTRAGEOUS government
actions onscreen, being called out in ways that they are far too rarely
called out. Here together millions are affirming (and reminding each
other and perhaps understanding for the first time) that this was not
"intelligence failure" but cynical, deliberate LIES and MANIPULATION
that led to an unjust war of conquest in Iraq. Here is a rare moment in
the popular culture where someone shows how this so-called "War on
Terrorism" is being dishonestly manipulated, channeled, and hyped--to
serve a calculated and sinister agenda.
But, at the same time, I had a deep sense of where I think this conversation
has to go--how we all have to grapple much more deeply with the scope
of these crimes and deceits --to
uncover the true nature of these rulers, their motives, their goals, and to
get at the reality of how deep the rot goes, and how serious this moment really
is.
Bush is, of course, the frontman for these operations--but there is
a larger agenda (a global campaign and master plan of war and
repression) that has been steamrollering all through Official U.S.
Politics (including Democratic Party politics) and stampeding over much
of the world. It has the kind of ruthlessness and momentum that only an
imperialist superpower can build up.
People came to this movie excited because they haven't been
able to see their deepest gut sentiments and political feelings
expressed on the official political canvas of this society. It is
considered extreme, unpatriotic, even lunatic to hate the "war-time
president" this much. It is considered "outside the scope of
permittable debate."
Moore supports Kerry in these elections (and he supported General Wesley Clark
in the primaries)--but the elephant sitting in a lot of living rooms is this:
While millions of people want to oppose the Iraq War and all the domestic Ashcroftian
madness, that is not what John Kerry and his campaign represents. The
promise of the Democratic ticket
(like the Bush White House) is to pursue "the mission" in Iraq to victory.
To stop this aggressive global offensive, we will all have to be
part of a great upheaval--something that challenges, defies and derails
the designs of a determined empire.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was getting at something very deep when it
showed then-Vice President Al Gore personally gaveling down Black
congresspeople who were protesting the disenfranchisement of Black
voters in Florida. You got a glimmer there of how the Democratic Party
betrays the hopes of people over and over, and how it serves the system
not the people (even if it means rallying behind the illegitimate
presidency of Bush or rubberstamping the fascist Patriot Act without
even reading it).
There is a raging offensive underway to discredit and suppress this
movie Fahrenheit 9/11. A rightwing attack group, "Citizens
United," has demanded that the federal government forbid TV commercials
advertising Moore's movie! Another rightwing front group, "Move America
Forward," is trying to pressure movie-house chains to stop screening
the movie, claiming that Moore is traitorously "profiting in his
attacks on America and our military." Some all-too-familiar rightwing
zillionaires have financed anti-Moore "documentaries" and organized a
"film festival" in Texas where their anti-Moore infomercials would get
publicity. And it is not just the rightwing forces who are out
to discredit the movie--the very mainstream media and news have been
saying (a thousand ways) that Moore is biased and untrustworthy, and
that this movie is probably only interesting to committed
"Bush-haters."
In short, Moore is accused of being a liar, a propagandist, a
traitor and character assassin. And these accusations are made by the
rightwing thugs of official politics who (day after day) fill the
airwaves and Fox News with their sleezy lies and reactionary
ranting.
There is political conflict breaking out at close quarters in the
USA--and powerful, high-placed forces truly think they should be able
to shout down or legally suppress voices that speak out against
them.
Michael Moore has found his own creative way to say "NO!" to
this Bush agenda, to its juggernaut of war and repression. He has said
it with his satirical, impish and provocateurish riffs--from his own,
social democratic point of view.
And it comes at this moment, when
millions of people need to find powerful ways to say NO!--to fight
to de-legitimize this government crew and their project, to deny their vicious
crusade a manufactured appearance of popular mandate, to reach those millions
that they are seeking to befuddle and corrupt, to rip away the ridiculous lies
that these imperialist warmakers are the "good guys" and their cause is just.
Let's take it higher. Let's dig in deeper. Let's press forward to
create a river of human resistance of more than a million in those
streets of NYC as the Republicans try to proclaim Bush as a "liberator
of Iraq," a "wartime defender of the American people," and a champion
of worldwide "freedom and democracy." And let's pursue the debate over
what we must do--now, and in the larger sense with the future of our
world and society itself.
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jul 2004
|
I wonder how many true stories about Mr. Moore like this exist...
"A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"
Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.
The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone..."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp |
|
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jul 2004
|
"About eight minutes into the film we have Michael Moore’s thumbnail look at Bush’s first eight months in office. Let’s take a look at the accuracy of his portrayal.
He couldn’t get his judges appointed.
Absolutely not true. While there was indeed some issues where Democrats obstructed some of Bush’s judicial nominees, Bush did indeed get a number of judges appointed and confirmed by Congress. This DOJ page shows the judicial confirmations that took place during the 107th Congress. Every one of these was a Bush appointee.
He had trouble getting his legislation passed.
At this point Moore shows a clip of an unfurling Greenpeace banner protesting drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. However, what Moore fails to mention is that during this time period Bush got a massive tax cut passed, the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001. Even if this was the only thing Bush accomplished during this time period (it wasn’t) it would show Moore’s assertion to be patently untrue.
And he lost Republican control of the Senate.
Here Moore shows a clip of Sen. Jim Jeffords, who defected from the GOP to become an independent who caucused with the Democrats. While this is factually accurate, it is worthwhile to note that the first election cycle after the defection saw the American people return control of the Senate to Republican hands, and Jim Jeffords making overtures to his former party to keep his committee chairmanship."
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/first8months.htm |
|
Re: Old News.... |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jul 2004
|
What's quite interesting, is that Mr. Fred Barnes, the Fred in this snippet, is complaining about an article originally published in 1988.
And, of course, here is the rebuttal from Michael Moore that NRA has conveniently left out...from May of this year.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/wackoattacko/
WACKO ATTACKO #2: FRED BARNES FLUNKS--AGAIN!
Read Michael's response to a Fred Barnes wacko attacko column in the Weekly Standard.
On January 18, 1988, I published an interview with Fred Barnes in a publication which I edited at the time, called Moore's Weekly. I interviewed Mr. Barnes about his comments on the January 2, 1988 edition of "The McLaughlin Report," in which he expressed support for then Secretary of the Education William Bennett's theory that high school curriculum should be dominated by courses in classic Greek and English literature.
I asked Fred to share his views about two well-known classics, "The Iliad" by Homer and Dante's Inferno. Barnes reiterated to me that these books are "that everybody oughta learn. They're easy to read."
In the course of my interview, I decided to give him a pop quiz. As you can see, Fred didn't do so well. (View Moore's Weekly page one and page two, and the full column on Barnes *at the link above*.)
The conservative paper, The Washington Times, liked my interview with Mr. Barnes and the paper wrote about it in their January 22, 1988 "Inside the Beltway" column (you can see it *at the link above*). The Washington Times is the kind of paper Fred Barnes probably reads before he gets out of bed in the morning.
Fred Barnes did not complain when I published the interview with him 16-years-ago. He did not complain when the Washington Times article appeared in 1988. It was not until April 2002, when Stupid White Men came out, which recounted the Mr. Barnes interview, that Fox's Brit Hume reported, "Fred Barnes told me today that he never talked to Moore in his life, and that he has read both "The Odyssey" and "The Iliad" cover to cover in college."
Now that that my movie Fahrenheit 9-11 is receiving significant attention, Mr. Barnes has seen fit to publicly deny the whole thing again, even though I last referenced the interview in a book published two years ago.
Now, the cynically-inclined might say that Mr. Barnes, who has steadily faded into obscurity as an editor of a small circulation weekly, is trying to take advantage of the moment. I prefer to give Mr. Barnes the benefit of the doubt and credit his belated complaint to a fading memory. We all forget things sometimes, Fred. No hard feelings here.
Michael Moore |
|
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
by Advocate of the Devil
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jul 2004
|
I find it a bit too predictable that the right is spending so much energy badmouthing Michael Moore, without responding in substance to his bigger assertions. I've seen some nitpicking at largely insignificant details (see NRA above, who I was about to commend for having the guts to actually go see the movie, until I realized hir comments were simply lifted from an anti-Moore website). But what about the hijacked election? the bold-faced lies about WMD and Al-Qaeda ties? the Bush-Saudi bizness connections? the no-bid contracts? the Enron, Harken, Halliburton corruption? These are just a few of the issues raised by the movie that conservatives are afraid to look at and/or unable to respond substantively to.
Their fear is understandable, as they run the risk of damaging some of their most precious myths, like the idea that our government, like a kindly grandfather, is primarily concerned with serving and protecting its citizens, that war is about morality or freedom rather than profit, or that American WASPs somehow represent the pinnacle of evolution (oops - creation), with all others being ultimately expendable. It's more comforting to believe in such false securities than to deal with the weight of living in a world of uncertainty, moral ambiguity, personal fallibility, and physical vulnerability. Who will hold my hand and tell me what to think and do? |
|
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Jul 2004
|
Advocate,
>"I find it a bit too predictable that the right is spending so much energy badmouthing Michael Moore, without responding in substance to his bigger assertions."
His assertions are that he is a very far left liberal, is willing to stretch the truth into a lie or even make stuff up in order to say what he wants to say and convince people of. So, what's to respond to?
>"I've seen some nitpicking at largely insignificant details..."
I don't think that making up a supposed interview that never really took place is an insigificant detail. If he will do that, he will do anything.
>"(see NRA above, who I was about to commend for having the guts to actually go see the movie, until I realized hir comments were simply lifted from an anti-Moore website)."
I would not walk across the street to put Moore out if he was on fire, do you REALLY think I would waste any amount of money to see his political statement? I don't care what he says in the movie, because he has already been proven to not be a trustworthy and reliable truth teller, so I cannot believe anything he says one way or the other.
>"But what about the hijacked election?"
Man, stop already with the "they stole the election" thing. It's already been proven to be a bogus claim. Thank God Al wasn't able to steal it though.
>"the bold-faced lies about WMD"
Again, not lies at all. They have found all sorts of things...here is a link to the latest,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243
>"and Al-Qaeda ties?"
Who cares, a terrorist is a terrorist and a brutal dictator is a tyrant.
>"the Bush-Saudi bizness connections?"
Spare me the stupidity.
>"the no-bid contracts?"
If true, who cares. Democrats have been giving out lucritive contracts to their cronies all over the U.S. for decades. You never seemed to worried about that.
>"the Enron, Harken, Halliburton corruption?"
Whatever, since when is the President of the United States somehow responsible for what corporations do or do not do, or even what some crooks within the corporations happen to do? It is just a non issue.
>"These are just a few of the issues raised by the movie that conservatives are afraid to look at and/or unable to respond substantively to. Their fear is understandable, as they run the risk of damaging some of their most precious myths..."
Just hold on to your horses, and someone will indeed come along and point by point show where Moore lies(most of the time apparently) and where he makes a valid point. Till then, here is some advise...don't believe everything you hear.
>"...like the idea that our government, like a kindly grandfather..."
No one in their right mind would believe such a thing. The "government" is out of control, and is not operating anything close to the vision our Founders had for it, regardless of what political party has control.
>"...is primarily concerned with serving and protecting its citizens..."
That IS what it should be doing, but the devil is in the details, and it isn't what actually happens all the time.
>"...that war is about morality or freedom rather than profit"
Yep, we are going to really "profit" from the war. Spare me.
>"...or that American WASPs somehow represent the pinnacle of evolution (oops - creation), with all others being ultimately expendable."
Please, name some other Country that is a better place to live than this Nation. Name some other Country that all the other average peoples of the world would rather come to in order to live their lives. America IS a great Nation, greater than any other Country in the world. If you hate it here so bad, why don't you move someplace else?
>"It's more comforting to believe in such false securities than to deal with the weight of living in a world of uncertainty, moral ambiguity, personal fallibility, and physical vulnerability."
I don't know about "false" securities, but America certainly is "safer" on the offense than on the defense. Take the war these people want directly to them, on their soil and in their homeland. That's what we have done, and it's what had to be done.
>"Who will hold my hand and tell me what to think and do?"
LOL!!! The liberals will, the liberals will! You know what's wrong with "freedom"? It's that while everyone is basically free to live their life as they see fit, there are always those who believe that they are smarter and know better than the people themselves what they SHOULD be thinking and doing, and they strive to place themselves in positions of power in order to do just that. Those people are called politicians. Don't trust any of them, and you will do just fine. |
|
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
by Advocate of the Devil
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jul 2004
|
Dear NRA,
Thanks for supporting my argument about the absence of substantive responses by not offering a substantive argument. You make my job easy.
>>His assertions are that he is a very far left liberal, is willing to stretch the truth into a lie or even make stuff up in order to say what he wants to say and convince people of. So, what's to respond to?
Exactly: more of the "go after the messenger, not the message" schtick.
Just for the record – and I don’t mean to scare you here – he’s not very far left, at least from the viewpoint of a radical activist or an anarchist. Nor is the information Moore presents new, or even hard to come by. Basically he has taken common knowledge (at least among those who don’t get all their info from Fox news) and some really choice footage, and presented a compelling narrative in his own creative, hilarious, and unabashedly biased way. Realistically, he’s probably won’t convince too may people on the other side of the fence. But the making "stuff up in order to…convince people", now that sounds familiar, only in the case I’m thinking of, the result was thousands of people dying, instead of a few conservatives getting their ideological undies in a bundle.
>>I don't think that making up a supposed interview that never really took place is an insigificant detail. If he will do that, he will do anything.
Actually, it is completely insignificant when compared to the points I list, and the repercussions thereof. In the case of a brief conversation that happened or didn’t happen, it’s simply one’s person’s word against another. Even if it could be proven that Moore lied about the exchange, it says nothing about the assertions made in the movie. I’d bet you’ve lied before, but I doubt you lie all the time – that would be an impressive logical feat, actually. So you still have not countered a single of the movie’s claims.
>>I would not walk across the street to put Moore out if he was on fire, do you REALLY think I would waste any amount of money to see his political statement? I don't care what he says in the movie, because he has already been proven to not be a trustworthy and reliable truth teller, so I cannot believe anything he says one way or the other.
Again, more of the same ad hominem, ad nauseum. To form an actual argument, you need to convincingly refute or disprove a point someone is making. You lose if you simply resort to calling that person a liar or even question their motives. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
>"But what about the hijacked election?"
>>Man, stop already with the "they stole the election" thing. It's already been proven to be a bogus claim. Thank God Al wasn't able to steal it though.
To my knowledge, it has indeed been proven, that Bush lost in any imaginable recount scenario. The person in charge of the recount was Bush’s own campaign manager, Karen Hughes, while Bush’s brother was the governor. And what about the many thousands of voters (almost all Democrats) who were very systematically denied their voting rights?
>"the bold-faced lies about WMD"
>>Again, not lies at all. They have found all sorts of things...here is a link to the latest,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39243
I was SO surprised to find that "World Net Daily" is a right-wing news outlet. Couldn’t find the story on BBC or even CNN. Anyway, the "all sorts of things" found will most likely be akin to the sinister aluminum canisters found before the war, not the friggin mile-high stockpile of nuclear warheads we were supposed to believe Saddam had. By the way, where did Saddam get most of his sarin gas and other bio weapons? Ooh…don’t tell me…
>"and Al-Qaeda ties?"
>>Who cares, a terrorist is a terrorist and a brutal dictator is a tyrant.
Yes, but a dictator is not a terrorist, even if brutal. Former ally Saddam did not attack the US, nor threaten to attack the US, nor did he have the capability to attack the US. Let’s not forget that the war was justified to the world on the basis of claims like these, which were known to be untrue by the CIA and MI5, at least. These were not harmless fibs, but colossal fabrications that cost the lives of hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis. Who cares? Well, me and countless people throughout the world whose lives will be forever altered by another useless war.
>"the Bush-Saudi bizness connections?"
>>Spare me the stupidity.
Oops, you reverted back to the ad hominem thing. So would you deny the connections (which are quite well documented) or deny that they might play at least some role in how the US government dealt with (or should I say didn’t deal with) the Saudis, who actually WERE (and are) actively financing terrorist organizations, and from whence came 15/19ths of the 9/11 hijackers? Either of these two arguments is untenable.
>"the no-bid contracts?"
>>If true, who cares. Democrats have been giving out lucritive contracts to their cronies all over the U.S. for decades. You never seemed to worried about that.
"If true"? Yes, it’s true as reported in just about every major news outlet, both foreign and domestic, day after day. And actually, many people care, including millions of US taxpayers, whose money has helped pay for criminally overpriced gas, undelivered food, and outright theft. And yes, corruption exists in both dumbass parties, only in this case we’re talking about a company whose most celebrated stockholder is none other than the Vice President of the US. Can you say "conflict of interest?"
>"the Enron, Harken, Halliburton corruption?"
>>Whatever, since when is the President of the United States somehow responsible for what corporations do or do not do, or even what some crooks within the corporations happen to do? It is just a non issue.
Since when? Well, since the companies I refer to all have major financial and personal ties with the pResident (and/or VP) of the United States. I KNEW you could say "conflict of interest".
>"These are just a few of the issues raised by the movie that conservatives are afraid to look at and/or unable to respond substantively to. Their fear is understandable, as they run the risk of damaging some of their most precious myths..."
>>Just hold on to your horses, and someone will indeed come along and point by point show where Moore lies(most of the time apparently) and where he makes a valid point. Till then, here is some advise...don't believe everything you hear.
I eagerly await the point by point. Actually, I’d like to see even a few points refuted by facts. And believe me, I don’t believe anything anyone tells me prima facie.
>"...like the idea that our government, like a kindly grandfather..."
No one in their right mind would believe such a thing. The "government" is out of control, and is not operating anything close to the vision our Founders had for it, regardless of what political party has control.
Hey, I agree with you here. That’s cool. But what to do about it? Agitate, educate, organize! Make art (perhaps a documentary) that challenges power and its institutions. Work for social change.
>"...is primarily concerned with serving and protecting its citizens..."
>>That IS what it should be doing, but the devil is in the details, and it isn't what actually happens all the time.
Again, I agree. Let’s go out for a beer.
>"...that war is about morality or freedom rather than profit"
>>Yep, we are going to really "profit" from the war. Spare me.
Sorry, I will not spare you. You yourself will be spared said profits (ie you will lose), unless you happen to own lots of stock in Bechtel, Halliburton, MCI/WorldCom, United Defense, and countless other corporations who are profiting handsomely, as happens in all wars.
>Please, name some other Country that is a better place to live than this Nation. Name some other Country that all the other average peoples of the world would rather come to in order to live their lives. America IS a great Nation, greater than any other Country in the world. If you hate it here so bad, why don't you move someplace else?
Thanks, I have thought about moving. Perhaps to Europe or Canada, where the standard of living is higher and I don’t have to worry about not having health insurance, or where half my tax money doesn’t get dumped into an over-bloated military that maintains an oppressive presence in almost every other country in the world, or somewhere with more than two political parties, both of which are completely beholden to corporate sponsorship and virtually identical ideologically. Yep, I’ve thought about relocating, but then I realize that despite all its problems, America is probably the best country after all, with the wonderful potential to be so much better. So I’ve decided to stay here and do what I can to make it a better place.
>"It's more comforting to believe in such false securities than to deal with the weight of living in a world of uncertainty, moral ambiguity, personal fallibility, and physical vulnerability."
>>I don't know about "false" securities, but America certainly is "safer" on the offense than on the defense. Take the war these people want directly to them, on their soil and in their homeland. That's what we have done, and it's what had to be done.
To whom does "these people" (a term which smacks of racism) refer? The Iraqis, who had absolutely no quarrel with the US before the war and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11? It seems the administration has succeeded in confusing you. As for safety, do you honestly feel safer now than before the Iraq war started? I’d find that hard to believe, given the near-constant "terror alerts" and the dramatic increase in anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and throughout the world. This administration has succeeded in spawning a whole new generation of terrorists.
>> You know what's wrong with "freedom"? It's that while everyone is basically free to live their life as they see fit, there are always those who believe that they are smarter and know better than the people themselves what they SHOULD be thinking and doing, and they strive to place themselves in positions of power in order to do just that. Those people are called politicians. Don't trust any of them, and you will do just fine.
Again I agree with you here. So why do you trust Bush and his puppeteers? |
|
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 Turns Up the Heat |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
03 Jul 2004
|
Advocate,
>"Thanks for supporting my argument about the absence of substantive responses by not offering a substantive argument. You make my job easy."
Your "job" is to try to convince people that Moores lies and half truths are valid? What's that pay an hour? You are getting the short end of the stick!
>"Just for the record – and I don’t mean to scare you here – he’s not very far left, at least from the viewpoint of a radical activist or an anarchist."
LOL! That IS "scary"! Like, you think you are the first anti social human beings or what? Yes, sometimes society suks, but the alternative is either chaos or dictatorship. Look around the world and at history...it's all been tried before, and the few working models that there were already exist. So which one do you like the best?
>"Nor is the information Moore presents new, or even hard to come by."
Face it, you know as well as I do that there is truth, and then there is spin. The spin comes from both sides of any issue, and it is meant to color the truth in a way that benefits whatever side is coloring it. An honest mans choice is ignore the spin and focus on the truth to determine if it was good or bad, period.
>"Basically he has taken common knowledge..."
You know what the problem with "common knowledge" is? In fact, I believe that's the real problem mankind has to begin with. "Common knowledge" is just that, common. It is not inspired, it does not come from the vantage point of the God this Nation was built around, and it always works against us because it is so "common" that it never can actually see beyond the rhetoric and get at the truth.
>"(at least among those who don’t get all their info from Fox news)"
You know what they say, "fair and balanced"! Seriously, Fox News is still just a little too liberal for my taste.
>"and some really choice footage, and presented a compelling narrative in his own creative, hilarious, and unabashedly biased way. Realistically, he’s probably won’t convince too may people on the other side of the fence."
Agreed.
>"But the making "stuff up in order to…convince people", now that sounds familiar, only in the case I’m thinking of, the result was thousands of people dying, instead of a few conservatives getting their ideological undies in a bundle."
You know we were going to war with Iraq regardless of who was "convinced" of what don't you? And what do you believe that the alternative truly was? The weapons inspectors thought he had hidden WMD's, so did you and so did I. I think they are for the most part still waiting to be found. But, he is no longer a threat to anyone, and that's what counts.
>"Actually, it is completely insignificant when compared to the points I list"
Only in your mind man! Because Moore making up the details of a supposed interview that never happened is frightening. Tell me, do you go around making up things and then telling all your friends those lies? I doubt it.
>"it’s simply one’s person’s word against another."
Exactly. And on one hand you have Moore, who has been already shown to be a liar, and on the other hand, you have a journalist...who has never been accused of lying except by a liar...who ya gonna believe?
>"Even if it could be proven that Moore lied about the exchange, it says nothing about the assertions made in the movie."
I think you are wrong. Truth and honesty count when you plan to make assertions for which there are two sides of the story. But since Moores side of the story more aligns with what liberals want to believe, they will do so. That's what "itching ears" do.
>"I’d bet you’ve lied before, but I doubt you lie all the time – that would be an impressive logical feat, actually. So you still have not countered a single of the movie’s claims."
But don't you see that publishing the lie is a whole other thing? You gotta admit, the man is a pretty sad example of humanity.
>"To form an actual argument, you need to convincingly refute or disprove a point someone is making. You lose if you simply resort to calling that person a liar or even question their motives."
Again, I disagree. When a liar speaks, everything he says must be carefully gone over and compared to known truth. Nothing can be taken at face value.
>"To my knowledge, it has indeed been proven, that Bush lost in any imaginable recount scenario."
Exactly the opposite is the case apparently. Florida counted the votes, Bush won. Some Florida counties then recounted votes, Bush won.
>"The person in charge of the recount was Bush’s own campaign manager, Karen Hughes, while Bush’s brother was the governor. And what about the many thousands of voters (almost all Democrats) who were very systematically denied their voting rights?"
I cannot believe you still cling to this. But you MUST actually be talking about the voters Gore tried to deny rights to...read the following for a small taste of Democrats idea of "voter rights".
"Also on November 17, Gore sued the Seminole County Canvassing Board in state court over disputed absentee ballot applications. Republicans had filled out the voter identification numbers on several hundred ballot applications, so Gore's lawyer demanded that all 15,000 absentee ballots in Seminole County by thrown out. The request was later denied by the Florida court and the Florida Supreme Court. With the overseas absentee ballots likely to increase Bush's lead, Gore's lawyers sent all 67 Florida county canvassing boards a memo outlining ways to disqualify military absentee ballots. Democratic lawyers were sent to observe the counting of overseas absentee ballots and were able to persuade the canvassing boards of all 67 Florida counties throw out a total of 39 percent of the absentee ballots received (about 1,400) primarily due to lack of postmarks. However, remaining absentee ballots resulted in Bush picking up 1,380 votes to Gore's 750, widening Bush's lead to 930 out of a total of 6 million votes cast Democratic lawyers argued that Florida election law prohibited consideration of absentee ballots that arrive without a postmark. However, the Florida law, under statute 1S, 2.01 (7), says: "With respect to the presidential preference primary and the general election, any absentee ballot cast for a federal office by an overseas elector which is postmarked or signed and dated no later than the date of the Federal election shall be counted if received no later than 10 days from the date of the Federal election as long as such absentee ballot is otherwise proper." The action by Gore angered many in the military, who pointed out that the Democrats were essentially robbing military personnel, many of them away from their families, serving overseas in undesirable places and in unpopular missions, of the opportunity to help select their next commander-in-chief."
In fact, there was just an article posted here the other day that also CLEARLY shows a Democrat for what he truly is.
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/18712/index.php
>"I was so surprised to find that "World Net Daily" is a right-wing news outlet."
Now, what were you just telling me about attacking the "messenger"? Please!
>"Couldn’t find the story on BBC or even CNN."
And that surprises you???
>"Anyway, the "all sorts of things" found will most likely be akin to the sinister aluminum canisters found before the war, not the friggin mile-high stockpile of nuclear warheads we were supposed to believe Saddam had."
Be honest, everyone knows he had them in the past, and virtually everyone believed he had them then to...where he hid them is the only question we do not know the answer to.
>"By the way, where did Saddam get most of his sarin gas and other bio weapons? Ooh…don’t tell me..."
I know you are insinuating that he got all his weapons from us, but considering how long it has been since the U.S. gave or sold him anything, I'd wager that you are wrong.
>"Yes, but a dictator is not a terrorist, even if brutal. Former ally Saddam did not attack the US, nor threaten to attack the US, nor did he have the capability to attack the US."
Come on now, he had weapons, and he had money. He was sympathetic to the cause of terrorism throughout the world, though not for religious reasons obviously. He will be tried and found to be guilty, what will be done with him remains to be seen.
>"Let’s not forget that the war was justified to the world on the basis of claims like these, which were known to be untrue by the CIA and MI5, at least. These were not harmless fibs, but colossal fabrications that cost the lives of hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis."
Again, make no mistake, we were going to war with Saddam regardless. And, you are truly claiming things that you cannot prove to be truth. You have no idea what our intelligence knew or did not know, and neither do I. And neither does the news media. We don't have access to that kind of real information. That's why we elect people, to weigh the facts and act accordingly on our behalf because we don't have access to the information we might need to decide.
>"Who cares? Well, me and countless people throughout the world whose lives will be forever altered by another useless war."
War will always happen, you know that don't you? And you do know that ignoring history makes you a fool. Man has always waged war, and always will in this age.
>"So would you deny the connections (which are quite well documented) or deny that they might play at least some role in how the US government dealt with (or should I say didn’t deal with) the Saudis, who actually WERE (and are) actively financing terrorist organizations, and from whence came 15/19ths of the 9/11 hijackers? Either of these two arguments is untenable.
The Saudis do whatever THEY need to in order to survive. You know it and I know it. They could not care less about us or anyone else in the world, but they do NOT want their Nation to turn into another Iran.
>""If true"? Yes, it’s true as reported in just about every major news outlet, both foreign and domestic, day after day. And actually, many people care, including millions of US taxpayers"
Well, I don't care. But what I DO care about is taxpayer money that goes to help kill babies and goes to propaganda that attempts to indoctrinate pointy headed school children that killing babies and other immorality is "ok". So, it's maybe just a matter of perspective.
>" whose money has helped pay for criminally overpriced gas, undelivered food, and outright theft."
You mean the UN Iraqi oil for food program I'll bet!
>"And yes, corruption exists in both dumbass parties..."
Agreed. Though I would also wager that the Demaratic party has more liars!
>"only in this case we’re talking about a company whose most celebrated stockholder is none other than the Vice President of the US. Can you say "conflict of interest?"
Again, that doesn't bother me in the least. But then, I don't happen to be someone who believes that corporations are the devil in disguise. What they are is nothing more than machines to make money, and they happen to make jobs for lots of people in the process. People then use the money they earn at those jobs to raise their families with. It works pretty well, better than any alternative anyone has ever come up with anyway.
>"I eagerly await the point by point."
Do you, really? I doubt it because by then most people will be off believing the next giant liberal lie, whatever that happens to be, and on and on and on.
>"Hey, I agree with you here. That’s cool. But what to do about it? Agitate, educate, organize! Make art (perhaps a documentary) that challenges power and its institutions. Work for social change."
It's been done by countless idealists before, and it has not changed a thing. Lots of people, especially when they are young, have a sense that they must do something for the benefit of man, so they either climb on the environmental bandwagon, or they wage their own private war against whatever they view as "society". Eventuallly, they get tired and disillusioned or they get married and discover "family" concerns outweigh the things that they previously thought were important. It is commendable when people have that thirst for change, as long as their goals are noble ones, but the truth is that the world is a great big place. And in most parts of the world, it is a much more frightening place than it is here in America. In mans quest for great civilizations, America is about "as good as it gets" if history is any indicator.
>"Again, I agree. Let’s go out for a beer."
I don't drink beer, don't like the taste much. Wine is much better, and it is good for you.
Did you know that beer is the only beverage that man is able to drink in which no other organisisms that are harmful to man can survive in?
>"Sorry, I will not spare you. You yourself will be spared said profits (ie you will lose), unless you happen to own lots of stock in Bechtel, Halliburton, MCI/WorldCom, United Defense, and countless other corporations who are profiting handsomely, as happens in all wars."
No, I meant that I do not believe the current administration sat around and said, "hey, let's start a war so defense corporations can make some profits", that's all.
>"Thanks, I have thought about moving. Perhaps to Europe or Canada, where the standard of living is higher..."
Have you ever been to Canada? You think their "standard of living" is higher? In fact, where in Europe is the "standard of living" higher than it is here in America for non independently wealthy people? Sorry, it doesn't exist, anywhere. That's why everyone wants to come here, unless they are independently wealthy of course.
>"and I don’t have to worry about not having health insurance"
LOL! All you have to worry about is getting 2nd or 3rd rate medical care, and scheduling your emergencies so they can treat you when necessary. Most people wait a long time for treatment, and you get "healed" on someone elses schedule. You wouldn't like it.
>"or where half my tax money doesn’t get dumped into an over-bloated military"
That military is the ONLY thing that keeps you from being a slave to someone else, or dead. I say give them all the money they can use, cause otherwise, we are doomed.
>"that maintains an oppressive presence in almost every other country in the world..."
Again, LOL!!! Yea, we Americans are SO "oppressive" to the peoples of the world! You know what REAL oppression is? It's in Nations all over the world where women are nothing more than property. It's in Countries like Iraq where people live in fear and terror of their government. The religion of Islam is the biggest "threat" to women and womens rights that EVER will exist, period. You must have no sense of what real opression is, and you sound foolish saying what you said.
>"or somewhere with more than two political parties, both of which are completely beholden to corporate sponsorship and virtually identical ideologically."
Like where, England!!! While I agree somewhat with the point you are making, the thought of anywhere in the world being a valid "alternative" to be used as an example is nothing but levity! But, there are other parties here, they just do not have a large enough following to stop the dominate others. The problem is that they are no real choice at all, because they are either at heart socialists, or at the other extreme their goals will produce chaos. You cannot save the world you know. It truly is doomed, and it was from the start.
>"Yep, I’ve thought about relocating, but then I realize that despite all its problems, America is probably the best country after all"
Well, that's an honest realization. I agree.
>"with the wonderful potential to be so much better."
I think your idea of better and my idea of better might not align with each other totally. I lean far more towards Constitutionalism than I do anything else. I think this Nation should be exactly what the Founding Fathers thought it should be, and their writings and literature should be scoured and be THE basis for anything and everything conceived of or defined within our borders. The main thing fat and bloated in this Country, other than Moore, is the Federal government. And the main party that today stands against almost every ideal our founding fathers had is the Democratic party. But as you said, both major political parties have been corrupted, so it is just a matter of degree.
>"So I’ve decided to stay here and do what I can to make it a better place."
So, you are devoting your life to charity work then...
>"To whom does "these people" (a term which smacks of racism) refer? The Iraqis, who had absolutely no quarrel with the US before the war and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11? It seems the administration has succeeded in confusing you."
I was refering to the Bath party in Iraq. Pure corruption and evil.
>"As for safety, do you honestly feel safer now than before the Iraq war started? I’d find that hard to believe, given the near-constant "terror alerts" and the dramatic increase in anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and throughout the world."
Cerainly I feel safer. Because I know that we as a Nation are looking at the state of our security, and doing something about it.
>"This administration has succeeded in spawning a whole new generation of terrorists."
No, that's not true. The world was manufacturing terrorists and murderers and would have done so without any help from anyone. I believe this guy spells it out well,
"Why the Arab world hates America, by Dennis Prager
Why is America hated in the Arab world?
According to leftists and to Arab and Islamic spokesmen, the reasons are: American support for non-democratic regimes in the Arab world -- such as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- and because America supports Israel.
Before positing what I believe to be the reasons, let's answer these two arguments.
The argument that America is hated by Arabs because it supports non-democratic regimes in the Arab world would be regarded as hilarious were it not believed by so many gullible people in the West.
The argument presupposes that what the Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere) who hate America want are open and free societies. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this. Is there any movement for pluralism, openness and democracy among those who hate America? Of course not. The Arab governments most opposed to America and which America therefore least influences -- Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Libya -- have less freedom than the corrupt Arab regimes that America does support. As corrupt and repressive as the Egyptian government is, Egypt is free compared to the aforementioned countries.
And if the United States ceased to pour billions of dollars a year into Egypt and the Mubarak dictatorship then fell, what would supplant it? Democracy? Openness? Pluralism? Freedom of speech?
We all know the answer. In every Arab country, a corrupt regime supported by America would be supplanted by a Taliban-type Islamic/fascist regime.
So let's call this argument what it is -- a lie.
Overwhelmingly, the Arabs who hate us don't want a free and open society; they want an Islamic totalitarian one. American influence in the Arab world prevents our haters there from imposing their vicious expression of Islam, not from establishing Jeffersonian democracy.
As for the second argument, yes, our support for Israel's security further inflames the hatred of those Arabs (and Muslims elsewhere) who hate us. But why do they hate Israel? Why are they so obsessed with a tiny state in a part of the Arab and Islamic world that they utterly ignored until Jews made a civilization there?
Because America's and Israel's haters are ethnic and religious haters on a magnitude not seen since the Nazis. They loathe everything Israel (and its American supporter) represents -- freedom, democracy, openness, individual autonomy, freedom of religion, pluralism, women's equality and sexual freedom. They want Israel dead. Gone. Exterminated. They say so publicly, and they say so in polls. Yet, the educated fools and the Israel- and America-haters of the West ignore all this and blame Israel for trying to exist and America for enabling it to do so.
If America abandoned Israel, our Arab and Muslim haters would rejoice, but they would surely not stop hating us. Not one of them. They would only conclude that their terror worked, and that America will give in when the threats are great enough. One proof? Most Muslims living in Europe, which has abandoned Israel, continue to loathe Europe. Europe's abandonment of Israel has only convinced them -- for good reason -- that Europe has lost its moral fiber and is ripe for an Islamic takeover.
Arab and other Muslims who hate America do so because America alone (and the little America in the Middle East, Israel) prevents the expansion of Islamic rule.
Because expansionist totalitarian movements, whether Soviet communism or radical Islam, always hate free societies, and America is the strongest free society.
Because America is not only strong, it is religious (as opposed to Europe, which is weak and irreligious).
Because America is not only Christian; it is Judeo-Christian, the two religions the Islamists need to overcome to expand globally.
The greatest problem confronting America is not that people who loathe freedom loathe us. Indeed, it is to America's enduring credit that it is hated by Islamists. Our great problem is that so many in our country do not understand that those who loathe liberty loathe America. For this reason, the battle for America's future is at home more than it is in Iraq or Afghanistan or in al Qaeda's caves.
We talk a great deal about winning Arabs' and Muslims' minds and hearts. Yet, we have yet to win all Americans' minds and hearts. For confirmation, just visit your local university.."
>"Again I agree with you here. So why do you trust Bush and his puppeteers?"
I didn't say I "trusted" them did I? But one thing for certain, I trust them FAR more than I trust liberals! |
|
