Very good F911 site

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

and you think we're getting the story in its "entirety and fullness" from the white house?? Moore told what Bush didn't.

No, I don't. Why do you turn this to the other 1/2 when I'm trying to say nobody's telling the whole story? Sheesh.

Michael Moore's just the latest in purposely bashing. And this thread started in talking about -him-, not the "other guys".

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Nightingale 0]

so, the white house isn't telling the whole story... Moore's not telling the whole story... the big difference here is that one is a filmmaker with no obligation to tell the whole story, and the other is...well...our government.

It seems like you're saying that we shouldn't criticize our government because it might make the terrorists think we're divided and they might maybe attack us again because they could possibly think we're weak. Part of what makes the US what it is is that we're free to speak our minds. When we lose the right to speak out against the government if they're doing things we don't like, that really doesn't make us "free" anymore, does it?

[beowulf 1]

Why would anyone think that the Gov. is obligated to tell the whole truth when that has never happened?

[ltdiver 3]

Who do the bullies at school terrorize? Those who are perceived to be weak.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Nightingale 0]

so, how would you propose we keep our freedom to speak out against what we perceive as wrongful actions by our government, and not appear "weak" in the process?

[billvon 3,120]

>Most people are inherently lazy. Unlike us, they don't pick up the paper to
>do more than read the comics and the sports scores (sad, really, but
>that's the truth).

Agreed. But whether they listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, afterwards they are better informed, not worse. They may hear a one-sided version, but at least they are getting more than the comics. Heck, it may even lead them to ask questions, and that's the beginning of understanding.

>Michael Moore brought his self-serving, one-sided message to those
>people....and they don't take the time to see the entire picture. Thus he is
>breeding a following of basicly uneducated people.

So's Rush, and O'Reilly, and Al Franken, and Howard Stern. Even Jay Leno - a recent poll showed something like 25% of the people in LA got most of their political information from the Tonight Show. I think we are better off as a country that all those people are free to air their views. Their freedom to do so makes us stronger, not weaker. And their audiences are better, rather than worse, informed for their efforts. Sure, if you were to listen only to Rush you'd get a very one sided view of things. But he does make an occasional good point (as does Moore) and if you listen to both, you might just see enough contradictions to go out and find out for yourself.

"Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy... if that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments they are welcome to it.. because the maintenance of the right to criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a good deal more good than it will do the enemy." - Senator Robert A. Taft, shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Are you saying that a film of this nature should have been censored or suppressed because it is uncomfortable to the President?

I'm not sure that is what you meant, but it is the way I'm (mis)reading your point...

Criticism of Moron's movie is not censorship. Even saying that it is anti-American is not censorship, it is criticism. One should expect it for making such a movie.

Like when our representatives reduce funding for the Endowment for the Arts because of their support for awful projects. This is called censorship by liberals, and I say it is not even close.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

So's Rush, and O'Reilly, and Al Franken, and Howard Stern. Even Jay Leno - a recent poll showed something like 25% of the people in LA got most of their political information from the Tonight Show.

I agree that differing opinions leads to some people searching for the truth. Yet, 2 truths still catch in my craw and need answering.

1) Those mentioned above are not inciting the terrorists to their cause. Micheal Moore's F911 -is-. Where do we draw the line? Remember Hanoi Jane?

2) If Moore is given free speech, then how do you justify his jagged time-line in the movie? Jumping back and forth. He puts forth that his story is linear when it is anything but. People react because they are lead to believe there is a 'cause and affect' when there was no such thing in the way Michael presented it. This isn't truth (in the -way- he is telling it), it is deceit.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[quade 4]

Quote

1) Those mentioned above are not inciting the terrorists to their cause. Micheal Moore's F911 -is-. Where do we draw the line? Remember Hanoi Jane?

The difference would be if he were to seek out their approval.

To my knowledge, he has not.

Quote

2) If Moore is given free speech, then how do you justify his jagged time-line in the movie? Jumping back and forth. He puts forth that his story is linear when it is anything but. People react because they are lead to believe there is a 'cause and affect' when there was no such thing in the way Michael presented it. This isn't truth (in the -way- he is telling it), it is deceit.

Sometimes hopping around in a timeline makes things more clear. I believe that is the case here. There is nothing inherently deceitful in doing so. If you read the entries in the dictionary backward or even randomly, they all still mean the same thing, just in a different order. In fact, the dictionary is a pretty good example since the words don't all logically fall into any order anyway.

Following that analogy, what Moore has done by hopping around in the time line is to define for us what a prefix and suffix is and then attached them to several roots -- the meanings of the wholes are then more clear.

Another example might be the Book of Revelations. Clearly for that to work correctly, there had to be a certain amount of hopping about the timeline -- eh?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

1) Those mentioned above are not inciting the terrorists to their cause. Micheal Moore's F911 -is-. Where do we draw the line? Remember Hanoi Jane?

The difference would be if he were to seek out their approval.

To my knowledge, he has not.

It really doesn't matter if he did or not, he should have been smart enough to see ahead and realize that it would. Not that hard.

Quote

Another example might be the Book of Revelations. Clearly for that to work correctly, there had to be a certain amount of hopping about the timeline -- eh?

You really don't have a good grasp of that book, do you?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Nightingale 0]

so we shouldn't exercise our freedom of speech because some terrorist might be encouraged by it?

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Criticism of Moron's movie is not censorship. Even saying that it is anti-American is not censorship, it is criticism. One should expect it for making such a movie."

Agreed, I now don't think Lori was advocating censorship (after a few PMs between ourselves), however I still disagree that questioning the actions of our leaders actually aids terrorists.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

so we shouldn't exercise our freedom of speech because some terrorist might be encouraged by it?

How many friends at the Twin Towers did you know?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Nightingale 0]

you're avoiding my question.

How would you suggest we continue to be able to exercise our freedom of speech, which is one of our fundamental rights that makes us American, without looking "weak" to the terrorists?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

you're avoiding my question.

How would you suggest we continue to be able to exercise our freedom of speech, which is one of our fundamental rights that makes us American, without looking "weak" to the terrorists?

It's actually amazing to me that this is even a question. I would say that answer should come from within your own sense of values. Ask yourself if your criticism is coming from a true concern that a policy may be wrong or that doing something a different way might produce a better end result or if your criticism comes from spite and hate.

[Nightingale 0]

Seems like Michael Moore's motivation came from policy issues with the Bush administration.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Seems like Michael Moore's motivation came from policy issues with the Bush administration.

If that were true, why did he find it necessary to lie and distort facts?

[Nightingale 0]

what, specifically, did he lie about?

[freeflydrew 0]

he's going to quote a website since he hasn't seen the movie...

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

he's going to quote a website since he hasn't seen the movie...

Actually, he doesn't have to; Michael Moore specifically stated (in an interview I was watching) that he distorts the facts (his words) in his movie because (and I am paraphrasing here; I don't remember his exact words) it is a response to the way the right distorts the facts, so he has to balance it out.

Of course, I am sure now we will debate what he meant by "distort"...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

he's going to quote a website since he hasn't seen the movie...

I don't need to see "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to know what it's about. If you want to spend your $10.00 to subject yourself to lies and propoganda, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that it's lies and propoganda.

[billvon 3,120]

>Those mentioned above are not inciting the terrorists to their cause.

I believe that people like Rush Limbaugh, by pushing for wars that create fertile grounds for terrorist recruters, ARE helping the terrorists recruit people. You agreed that the Iraq war was great for Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts; people who strongly support the war (as Rush did) helped Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts.

However, he should still be allowed to voice his opinion, even if doing so might help terrorists get more recruits.

>Where do we draw the line? Remember Hanoi Jane?

If Michael Moore went to Zarquai and told him where to find some american servicemen to behead, then we should arrest him for aiding the enemy (which is what should have been done with Jane Fonda.)

>If Moore is given free speech, then how do you justify his jagged time-
>line in the movie? Jumping back and forth.

Because part of free speech is presenting the issues how you want. Whatever you believe about the information that led up to this war, it is clear now that even tenuous facts that supported an invasion of Iraq were pushed heavily while any intelligence that showed Saddam did NOT have WMD's, or was not in collusion with Al Qaeda to pull off 9/11, were suppressed. We were, in other words, fed a one-sided, biased set of 'facts' to garner public support for a war.

Now Moore is doing the opposite. He's cherry-picking his info to present a different view on the Iraq war. I would not hold someone who is exercising their right to free speech to a higher standard than I would hold our government.

>People react because they are lead to believe there is a 'cause and
>affect' when there was no such thing in the way Michael presented it.

I saw the movie and I think I missed the "cause and effect" thing you're talking about. To what are you referring?

[billvon 3,120]

>If you want to spend your $10.00 to subject yourself to lies and
> propoganda, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that it's lies and
>propoganda.

But it does make you a little less than qualified to describe its contents.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

what, specifically, did he lie about?

Look here

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

> but after reading it felt it was very good and extremely factual . . .

I just read it. A very funny site! Some choice quotes:

"Like several of the other deceits identified in this report, the September 11 deceit is not part of the film itself." (He counts many things as "lies" that WERE NOT IN THE FILM!)

"Bush is quoted as saying, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." What Moore fails to note, though, is that the quote, from July 26, 2001, is a facetious joke." (Yes, that's actually counted as a lie! I suppose we'd need a "ha ha" dubbed in to give it enough spin to make it conservative reality.)

"Jennings is shown delivering a broadcast in which he says, “Iraqi opposition has faded in the face of American power.” But Jennings was simply stating an undeniable fact . . " (That's right, Moore is condemned for using Jennings' statements of facts.)

On the other hand, he does make a few good points. But I'll take a page from Moore's critics, and decide that if there are any absurd, misleading or incorrect passages in what Kopel says, the whole thing is rubbish.