11-03-2004, 08:08 AM #1Banned
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FATNWHITE 9/11 idiot
4.5 Meg vote margin! . Largest in history. Michael Moore is the only ficticious thing in this election
and... Hey John-John, be a man and concede
EDIT: john has done so and graciously.. stand up guy for not draggin it out
Last edited by BlueCollar; 11-03-2004 at 12:32 PM.
11-03-2004, 08:09 AM #2
now thats not very nice lol
11-03-2004, 08:45 AM #3
for all of you who have seen farenheit 9/11 you should watch farenHYPE 9/11 and see how moore lied over 50 times in his "documentary"
11-03-2004, 08:49 AM #4
I wouldn't watch a Michael Moore film any more than I would watch a Hizballa or Al Qaida terrorist recruiting film.
11-03-2004, 12:09 PM #5Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 12:10 PM #6Originally Posted by dean1233
11-03-2004, 12:23 PM #7
11-03-2004, 12:59 PM #8Originally Posted by dean1233
11-03-2004, 01:03 PM #9
anybody that calls his movie fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary has no idea what a documentary is. It was clear to me 20 minutes into the movie that none of his arguments were supported by fact otherwise he would have sited the facts instead of saying things like "perhaps he was..." or "maybe he was thinking" its people who dont know anybetter than to question what they see and hear. Democrats are just as guilty of it as republicans are. Both sides have their severely biased propaganda. Its up to the people to see through it. I feel sorry for anybody who watched the movie and didnt have some insticnt that told them it was loaded with fiction.
11-03-2004, 01:06 PM #10
people in college watch it and it makes me laugh how they think it is fact. they are supposed to be the smart ones in society
11-03-2004, 03:01 PM #11
Unfortunately, some of the very important underlying messages get lost in the partisanship. He raises some very valid points that need to be addressed no matter where your affiliation lies. Why are the ppl that we are supposed to be helping, fighting us? Is the war worth it for american ppl? I think the mother in the movie shows you just a glimpse of what over a 1000 other mothers are going through, and each of us has to honestly ask if it's worth all the lives.
Is it really worth it for the Iraqi ppl? US news shows the missiles leaving but they they don't show what happens afterwards.
There really are quite a few more very good msg's in the movies and its unfortunate they aren't taken seriously. Its unfortunate that it has taken a film maker to make these points.
11-03-2004, 06:06 PM #12Originally Posted by Will Power
11-03-2004, 07:18 PM #13Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 07:50 PM #14
no they arent the whole thing about the carlile group is wrong... the "letter" in the newspaper about gore winning florida was fake... the oil pipline w/ haliburton is not true... all of his things are documented by michael moore for michael moore.
11-03-2004, 08:03 PM #15
THEY say they're not true... doesn't mean they aren't true...
You're picking to believe one side and not the other...
11-03-2004, 08:14 PM #16
the gore celebration they show after he was declared the "winner", that was actually filmed before the polls even opened.
"in his first eight months in office before september 11th, george w. bush was on vacation according to the Washington Post, 42% of the time". This figure (which the washington post reported) includes weekends, and includes time in "vacation locations", such as Camp David, where it is a fully functional presidential compound. there he had meetings with Tony Blair.
When they show Bush golfing he was talking about a terrorist attack on Israel, not the USA like they have you believe.
It has been proven numerous times that Bush had nothing to do with saudis leaving the US, AFTER air traffic was reopened to the general public.
George Soros who donated more money to michael moore than any other person invests in the Carlyle Group.
11-03-2004, 08:40 PM #17
craig unger claims that the saudis have $860 billion invested in the US. In his book house of bush, house of saud, it also gives this $860 billion number. But if you actually check his cited sources, THEY DONT SUPPORT THAT NUMBER.
Moore states: The saudi embassy recieves special protection by the US Secret Service. He failes to mention that an international treaty signed by the US requires the USA to protect ANY embassy which asks for protection.
11-03-2004, 08:42 PM #18
The absolute best -
Despite what michael moore says in the movie, he opposed the Afghanistan war, and in December of 2002 he claimed that Osama bin Laden may be innocent
11-03-2004, 08:47 PM #19Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 08:51 PM #20
no, from dave kopel who is a lifelong democrat who endorsed nader in 2000.
11-03-2004, 08:59 PM #21
(AS WRITTEN BY Dave Kopel)
Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War
Fahrenheit 9/11 attempts in every way possible to link Osama bin Laden to George Bush. Moore even claims that Bush deliberately gave bin Laden "a two month head start" by not putting sufficient forces into Afghanistan soon enough. (On HBO, Moore explicitly claimed that the U.S. is protecting bin Laden in order to please the Saudis.) However, Moore has not always been so fierce demanding that the Afghanistan War be prosecuted with maximal power in order to get bin Laden:
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.
Hitchens, Slate. That Osama, if captured and tried in an American court, would be entitled to a presumption of innocence (in the sense that the prosecution would have to prove guilt) does not mean that the U.S. should be morally foreclosed from destroying Osama's base in Afghanistan and attempting to capture or kill Osama based on facts demonstrating his guilt.
Three days after September 11, Moore demanded that no military action be taken against Afghanistan:
"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request....
But do not declare war and massacre more innocents. After bin Laden's previous act of terror, our last elected president went and bombed what he said was "bin Laden's camp" in Afghanistan -- but instead just killed civilians.
Michael Moore, "War on Whom?" AlterNet, Sept. 14, 2001.
The next day he wrote:
Trust me, they are talking politics night and day, and those discussions involve sending our kids off to fight some invisible enemy and to indiscriminately bomb Afghans or whoever they think will make us Americans feel good.
...I fear we will soon be in a war that will do NOTHING to protect us from the next terrorist attack.
"Mike's Message," Sept. 15, 2001. Although Moore vehemently opposed the Afghanistan War, Fahrenheit criticizes Bush for not putting more troops into Afghanistan sooner.
Are we any safer because the U.S. military eliminated the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, removed a government which did whatever al Qaeda wanted, and killed or captured two-thirds of the al Qaeda leadership? Fahrenheit's thesis that the Afghanistan War was solely for the pipeline and to distract attention from Saudi Arabia is inconsistent with the well-known results of the war. A sincere patriot could have opposed the Afghanistan War for a variety of reasons, such as fear that the invasion might stir up even more anti-American sentiment. But the only reason which Fahrenheit offers for opposing the war is the claim that not enough force was used in the early stages (a criticism contrary to Moore's 2001 opposition to the use of any force), and the factually indefensible claim that the results of the war did not help American security or harm terrorists.
[Moore response: none.]
11-03-2004, 09:24 PM #22
nick- There's alot of discrepancies in some of the statements you're making regarding moore, I won't take the time to go through them. Again, I believe the focus should be on some of the important messages that were raised by the movie that no one else had even begun a discussion on.
11-03-2004, 10:45 PM #23Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
Forget his movie. Michael Moore wished more of our American troops would die on his website so we could be taught a lesson. He should be hanged for treason or sedition. If this was 1941, Moore would say we should surrender to Japan immediately.
11-03-2004, 11:02 PM #24
Who care what Moore thinks?
11-04-2004, 12:43 AM #25
11-04-2004, 12:48 AM #26Originally Posted by Will Power
11-04-2004, 01:38 AM #27
Michael Moore = Rush Limbaugh.
Both sides have there vocal, shocking and extreme court jesters that exist solely as a medium of pop culture. Perhaps they do believe in what they preach, but the message is trumped by the incorporation of it to sell airtime, books and dvds. Sadly, even more so than Rush, I believe that Moore once had a very, very valid stance. I was one of his bigger fans up until I watched F 9/11 and almost crapped myself over the lengths to which he went and liberties he took to make his "point".
11-04-2004, 02:44 AM #28Originally Posted by Will Power
11-04-2004, 02:51 AM #29Originally Posted by dean1233
11-04-2004, 07:44 AM #30Originally Posted by saboudian
11-04-2004, 08:09 AM #31
Moore says congressman goss lied when he said he has an 800 number and if anyone has a question with the patriot act they can call his office. he doesnt have an 800# which is true, but moore failed to say he has a toll free 888 number to call. i guess he didnt know an 888 number can be used as a toll free number
11-04-2004, 08:19 AM #32Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-04-2004, 08:23 AM #33
the person who lost their arms said that if he had to do it again he would and was proud of his service and "wishes michael moore didnt exploit his service"
11-04-2004, 03:56 PM #34Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-04-2004, 05:05 PM #35Originally Posted by saboudian
11-04-2004, 07:06 PM #36Originally Posted by saboudian
11-04-2004, 09:05 PM #37Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-05-2004, 08:02 AM #38
they sign up for war, you dont get to pick and choose, if we want to invade England tomorrow, as a soldier you have to. Your job is to follow orders.
11-05-2004, 08:06 AM #39Originally Posted by dean1233
Sorry this makes no sense. When you enlist to serve your country you don't get to pick your conflicts. I myself served, and was fortunate to serve during peace time, but had I been called on to fight, I would have done so without hesitation.
11-05-2004, 08:10 AM #40
Special Protection for Saudi Embassy
Moore shows himself filming the movie near the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.:
Moore as narrator: Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi embassy….
Officer: That’s fine. Just wanted to get some information on what was going on.
Moore on camera: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn’t realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies.
Officer: Uh, not usually, no sir.
But in fact:
Any tourist to Washington, DC, will see plenty of Secret Service Police guarding all of the other foreign embassies which request such protection. Other than guarding the White House and some federal buildings, it’s the largest use of personnel by the Secret Service’s Uniformed Division.
Debbie Schlussel, "FAKEN-heit 9-11: Michael Moore’s Latest Fiction," June 25, 2004.
According to the Secret Service website:
Uniformed Division officers provide protection for the White House Complex, the Vice-President's residence, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions and embassies in the Washington, DC area.
So there is nothing strange about the Secret Service protecting the Saudi embassy in Washington—especially since al Qaeda attacks have taken place against Saudi Arabia. According to Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an international agreement which has been ratified by the United States, every host country (including the United States) is obliged to protect every embassy within its borders.
[Moore response: None.]
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)