Fahrenheit 9/11

[frshwaterfinatc]

well, wouldn't it be better if Bush proved those statements false?

Consider that just because someone lies against you you can't run to court. Slander does happen, and gets by without punishment. Personally, I'd rather have slander and be able to recognize it than to have no slander and surpress the freedom of speech. He's excercising his rights. And I'm excercising mine, telling the other side of it.

 

[frshwaterfinatc]

And I do believe the President is preoccupied with more important things than what MM says about him.

 

[frshwaterfinatc]

And while I'm still thinking of it, rubysoho, why do you say "if" these statenments by MM are false?

On a more personal level: If you have read what I posted about what Fahrenheit 9/11 says and what Misleads says, can you without hesitation tell me YOU believe what Michael Moore says to be truth?

Because as I look on at the two choices; MM or Misleads, I cannot honestly say I find any truth in Michael Moore. When I read Misleads and recall the incidents and news reports I saw as the events occurred (i.e. the election, Gore's recounts, etc) I remember them to be true.

From Moore's standpoint, if I do see any truthful portryal of those events it lies in the omnious, whiny reporting of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and the like. He hits that nail of negativity right on the head. But this does his Bush- bashing agenda no real good. Or else he'd simply rely on the newscasters in the liberal media and never have made this film.

 

[Atari]

frshwaterfinatc, you talk about Misleads as if it's a creditable independent investigation. Why would you believe it's anything more than just an opposing view? I'm not arguing, I'm actually asking because I haven't read the book, but from what you've typed from it so far I have no reason to believe otherwise.

And don't say because it provides evidence to support it's claims, because that is exactly what MM does in the movie, and we all know you can twist evidence to support your own view, right?

BTW - I would strongly urge you to actually watch this movie.. that way your arguments against it might carry a bit more weight.

How can you possibly "review" a movie based on someone elses opinions, and without actually watching it? Do you have blind faith in this book?

.... Yes I'm feeling better today, LOL

 

[ferret]

This is the last time I'm gonna bother to post. What makes Misleads undenable truth? Its easy for either person to state that "This reports says this, but he said that" .. Until I or you personally read that report, in full, who are you to say one is lying but the other isn't?

You're telling us, "MM is a complete liar, because I have a webpage that says so" ... Why should we trust that webpage? Because they post "facts"? Facts are very hard to find in politics. I'm weary of anyone or anything that claims to be entire truth or fact.

No one has said in this thread that everything Moore said was truth. All they've asked is what makes your website so much more creditable. We all know Moore twists things to reflect his agenda. He takes FACTS (Whether you want to believe it or not), and links and twists them in ways that favor the politic side he serves. The site you keep refering to does the EXACT SAME THING, but for the other side.

On one hand, you say you don't trust Moore because he uses the "liberal media" to support his claims. Then you go and said you trust Misleads because you remember the news reports about the things they say. So if the media supports Moore, they're "liberial untrustworthy media", but if they support your side, they're the truth? The media is the media. It doesn't switch the "truth" switch on and off, they show whatever will get the best ratings.

Your whole argument is "I saw this happen, therefore Moore is wrong" is based on personal opinion and point of view. You've seen what the "media" and the newspapers showed you (By your own accusations, liberal) and what Misleads has told you (Quite obviously not liberal). You don't have all the facts, you have what people have given you to further their own agenda.

I'm not saying whether or not Moore or Misleads is more truthful. I'm just trying to point out, like I've tried to point out over and over, that you do NOT have the whole story, ALL of the sites and documentries and such are out for their own AGENDA, not truth. Never rely on one source to discredit another.

If there's 10 sites supporting Moore, and 2 against, which side is right? If there's 10 sites against Moore, and 2 supporting, which side is right? Don't trust everything you read on the Internet so easily. There's hundreds of politically oriented books written each year that directly contradict each other. This is just another incident of the same, Moore (Left) vs Mislead (Right).

If you believe either is giving you (Or even HAS it to give) the entire truth, you need to do some more digging and find some more websites. There's thousands of them out there, each with their own spin and take on it. The only people that know the truth are those that were directly involved.

I'm sure that'll go across wrong, but oh well,l good day

 

[rubysoho]

hehe, I think Atari and Ferret answered my question as to why I do not take the book Misleads seriously. Can you let me know who the author is? I would like to look up this person's background. It would be interesting to see what else they have done. Actually, if you look up a lot of "unbiased" pieces or books and their background you find a completely different story and see that yes there is bias. We already know there is bias with MM, but he did have A LOT of facts in his movie, which is why I am not so quick to judge it. In fact, I remember sitting and watching the film, listening to fact after fact and I thought it would have been better if he hadn't listed so much because it was hard to remember everything he said. Plus, I have seen his other works, I understand his editing style (which is amazing from a perspective of film editing) so I can weed out his sarcasm and what he is really trying to show. Plus, I am a communication major and in ALL my classes (and it gets very repetative) we have kept up with what is going on, researched background, and then we saw the same evidence in MM. Not all of my teachers are liberal, some adore Bush, some don't like him at all, so I get to see a lot of views that people in normal every day life don't always hear. We also use a lot of outside independent sources (both liberal and conservative) because we understand and see the faults in a lot of American media. I could write a book on what I've learned, but I doubt you'd want to read it, and I have to go to class. Take care everyone!

 

[quarryshark]

Michael Moore is a meanie and I don't like him.
There, I said it!!!
Thats all I have time to post this AM.

 

[Atari]

LOL Q-man, I guess that settles it then

 

[rubysoho]

haha, nice one Quarryshark

 

[fishstixs05]

I have been reading this for a while, and decided to throw myself in...
Just wanted to say, earlier in the posts, didn’t you admit to not seeing the film, fishfinatic? You may have seen it since then, but if not, are all of these claims simply cut and pasted off an anti-Moore website? How can you say that his style is "connect the dots" when you have not seen the movie; only seen clips and read what people think about it who didn’t agree with him in the first place? All of his facts are backed up on http://www.michaelmoore.com/ with sources to each one. If you are arguing with the movie, at least see the movie, and look at how facts are portrayed, not cut up laid at your feet by a website.
As you may have guessed, I am a liberal but while I say this, I wish to know something, what do you think is a liberal? Or a conservative? I would like to see people post (without looking it up) what they feel the definition to these two words are. The definition shocked me, right out of Webster’s. Go ahead; post what you feel it means to be a conservative or liberal.

 

[fishstixs05]

BTW, to include some things said a while ago, anti-Bush IS NOT anti-american. I believe it is more patriotic to question how things are done and not just conform with everyone. that is what america is based on. [waving american flag]

 

[rubysoho]

conservative = supporter of status quo, against most change
liberal = supporting change/progression away from status quo or more tolerant of non-status quo ideas (not necessarily in all areas)

??? I'll admit it, I've never been really good at definitions, but this is how I've always known it to be. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong

 

[fishstixs05]

very good, rubysoho, here is websters

liberal
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, enlightened, flexible, free, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced

Conservative
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

bourgeois, cautious, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old-line, orthodox, quiet, red-neck, right, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread

 

[rubysoho]

hehe yay! can I get a star by my name for that one? Yes, I'm in college, and yes I still have the mentality of a 5th grader sometimes


**oops, typo had to be fixed

 

[quarryshark]

very good, rubysoho, here is websters

liberal
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, enlightened, flexible, free, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced

Conservative
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

bourgeois, cautious, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old-line, orthodox, quiet, red-neck, right, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread

I agree (like I have a choice ) with most of the definition. BTW there are some traditional values that should remain steadfast, my big one is, marriage should be between a man and a woman. This "nontraditional" (there, that shouldn't get me bleeped) marriage movement is very disturbing. That is one area that we (as a society) should shut the door on and fast. Talk about moral decay.
OK can of worms opened. 8O
My other pet peive is political correctness. What good does it really do? IMO, it allows certain groups of people from having to meet or maintain a certain level of conduct that the majority need to be accountable for. It's also dangerous in this era of our history. If we could for a moment set aside this concern of who we are offending, we could better protect out own borders. There, second can of worms opened.
I am conservative in most areas but I do have my weak spot when it comes to the environment. I am a total tuna boat chasing, greenpeace loving liberal when it comes to this. I believe we should persue alternative fuel sources (besides it would strangle the hell out of the middle east). I also believe we need to protect out parks, wildland and wildlife and especially our oceans.
I guess you could say I like animals better than society.
But please don't try to tell me what the dems have done for the enviroment. They are all talk and no action in that department.
Ok, flame away.

 

[quarryshark]

sorry, double post.

 

[fishstixs05]

I agree qs, I have seen no real action by any president to do what we should in the area of the environment. The problem is that they are trying to get the vote, and they are losing a lot of votes in jobs relating oil, logging, fishing, and other environmental areas by trying to protec wildlife. The problem is that animals cannot vote, so threrefore, most politcians do what will get them the most votes. on a little side note to the marraige issue, I believe that two people coming together in love should all have equal rights (i.e. child legality, spouse benifits) unregarding MM,MF,FF, because the only argument I have heard against it relates only to religious beliefs, which the separation of church and state should prevent. mods and advisors, please tell if this is getting "out of bounds"
Happy Fishkeeping

 

[quarryshark]

on a little side note to the marraige issue, I believe that two people coming together in love should all have equal rights (i.e. child legality, spouse benifits) unregarding MM,MF,FF, because the only argument I have heard against it relates only to religious beliefs, which the separation of church and state should prevent. mods and advisors, please tell if this is getting "out of bounds"
Happy Fishkeeping

Happy fishkeeping to you too!! But..............
I will give you another argument. What species of animal on this planet (I think we can agree that we are animals) practices lets say this kind of activity? I can't think of any, not to say there are not anomalies, but wouldn't that be the exception? No mammal can procreate this way, so therefore I propose that it is not normal behavior. In a family based society where (here comes the conservative in me) tradition family values are in decay as it is, be a potential problem for the future? What is next? I'll leave that answer up for discussion.

 

[Atari]

Don't tell Quarryshark, but I have the same views as him on everything he's mentioned on this page (page10).

Hmm.. suddenly my feet are feeling colder.. *looks down and sees ice forming on the floor*

 

[fishstixs05]

You, make a good point qs, but then, shouldnt we force all married couples to procreate? What is the difference between intergender and "normal" marraige if they booth are not "poppin' out babies"
I for one know that it inst an easy decision, and dont feel it will be concluding any time in the near future.
BTW, QS, you make great points and it is nice to have someone here to discuss topics without it turning into arguments