Fahrenheit 9/11 (SPOILERS)

[Za_Ha_Dum]

Jade Jaguar, you showed very good points. I agree. Kyoto, perhaps is not the best elaborated treaty, I really cannot judge. Actually, ANY agreement, treaty, statement, have their mistakes. But the most important thing on the Kyoto Treaty is THE INVITATION to CHANGE humankind way of dealing with nature. It is a MUST, otherwise we are jeopardising future generation survival.

But something nothing to do with that called my attention. You said " Perhaps instead of buying soon-to-be-obsolete DVDplayers ". Please, if you have information about it could you let us know, since I am buying all B5 box set seasons? Thanks

Decal, it is really long your message. As future recommendation try to break apart your messages.

 

[Decal]

GKarsEyes Sorry about Hurting Gkars' eye's (sorry bad pun). I had just wrote it all last night after viewing the movie and was too tired to go thru all the format work was pain enough puting the url links in. I went back thru and edited for format readability, and a few of the glaring gramatical and spelling errors i caught though i am sure there is others. And noted the mistake on my bush family and binladen ties when it was 1.4 Billion not 250.

Za ha Dum sorry about the length I probably should of removed the kyoto stuff from it but in the end felt all that needed to be together my feelings about the movie and how Moore displays his points is inherently manipulative. Then also had to include the comment about jms comments and my own feelings on the war so gain a better understanding of where I coming from instead of being pidgeon hole as a right wing nut , which probably an't too far from the truth but i still don't quite fit that square hole.

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

Decal,

After your long e-mail you deserve and answer in your multiple issues.

You are saying that Michael Moore is twisting the truth. I understand that he is concern about it, and therefore you should visit his web page www.michaelmoore.com and go to "The facts in Fahrenheit 9/11". There you will find answers to your doubt about Moore´s credibility.

In "The facts in Fahrenheit 9/11" you will find accurate datas regarding the Fox announcement of Bush victory. He even published day, time and each TV Network. Sources are from CNN. Probably Michael Moore is counter attacking because many people (including you) are questioning credibility from his documentary to reduce mistakes of GWBush.

Now my question. Are you going to believe in your source or CNN/Michael Moore´s source? If you will not reconsider your point of view after reading these new datas, then the only thing I can tell you is. Watch the chapter "BELIEVERS" of B5. When it comes to faith, there is no wrong or right.

Now, only to laugh a little, the following text can be seen in Michael Moore´s web page:

Letterman's Top Ten List: Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

 

[A_Ranger]

Those aren't right wing websites. They're science organizations with REAL scientists. There are hundreds of articles from many serious scientists across to the board, most of which show that many of the pro-global warming reports were either flat out wrong our innacurate because of false assumptions. It's politics and interests groups that have taken the issue out of control and misused scientist's data. NO serious scientist would call this a fact, because the real fact is that there is insufficient data and things we simply just don't understand about the climate.

BTW, I actually provided multiple sources for my argument. Where are yours?

 

[GKarsEye]

I would point out that a group of our most prominent scientists have come out to condemn the Bush administration's misuse of science.

 

[PsionTen]

Not only that, these two potheads I know have come out to condemn his misuse of the English language. Can it get any worse when stoners think you're murdering the English language?

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

It's politics and interests groups that have taken the issue out of control and misused scientist's data. NO serious scientist would call this a fact, because the real fact is that there is insufficient data and things we simply just don't understand about the climate.

So, in case you are correct, than, since we simply don´t understand about climate, it is another STRONG reason to not be FOOLING AROUND and dealing with something we do not understand, cannot control, cannot negotiate. We better play using PRECAUTION and not looking for "thoughtless" PROFITS.

NATURE is something we MUST preserve. Unless you are careless about future generations. In this case I hope you better not have any children.

 

[Decal]

Sorry za ha dum Been there done that. I had supplied a link to moore fact checking expeditions . And what i say still stands he tries to portray it as fox news had turned over the election and make it look like those channels all said gore then a few mins later fox said it was bush when the fox announcement was approx 6 hours afterwards and after they announced it for gore. But moore own sites supports my bit about the calling of florida early in the own time stamps but just take it from Mike own source

7:48 p.m.: NBC becomes the first network to project Gore the winner in
Florida.
7:50 p.m.: CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida. The CNN
call is authorized by political director Tom Hannon and executive producer Sid........
7:52 p.m.: VNS calls Florida for Gore.
8:00 p.m.: Polls close in Florida panhandle.

So cnn nbc and cbs call it for Gore 12-10 mins before the polls actuaclly close, and 2-4 mins before VNS declares it. And the only station that waits till the polls finish is ABC.

In the end we don't determine who is president cause some media group says so, the goverment actuaclly count the votes, the early calls by the media is by using exit polls and its mearly guess/assumption. If the media caused any dammage to the election it would be the early call before the polls had closed.

It was jsut a example i was going from the begining how bout the strains at links of the oil pipelin and the taliban to govenor bush. And I said bush had mistakes before. There is tons of evidence but to use some of it as a cheap shot against Foxnews and Bush is irrelevent. And fox was one of the last ones to retract Gore winning, as note by moore CNN source.

Now my question. Are you going to believe in your source or CNN/Michael Moore´s source? If you will not reconsider your point of view after reading these new datas, then the only thing I can tell you is. Watch the chapter "BELIEVERS" of B5. When it comes to faith, there is no wrong or right.

What source , nearly everything i said was supported by that cnn source. except the fox call didn't have the VNC first but they were still interpting data from them. And the first call for gore was 2-4 mins before vnc called it too.
But in moores movie its all the other networks called it for gore then we see fox calls it for Bush so the rest follow suit. When its not that simple, and in the end what dose this have to do with anything, its a throw away fact that Moore puts in before the introduction. And most of moores "Facts" are the same kind throw aways , or with stuff connected or closer than they actuaclly are so you can draw conclusion moore wants to be drawn. He a master of the art.

I seen David Lettermans things before . Oh well can't find but saw a humoress photoshop edit of the Bush and Moore holding hands photoshop pic .

 

[GKarsEye]

I watched Bowling For Columbine last night and I liked it much better than F 9/11. Granted, I know and am concerned less about the issue (my family was always gun-free, fortunately), so I'm sure I was watching less critically, but I found it a little more even-handed.

I'm not sure how I feel about Moore ambushing Heston like that. On the one hand, it's unfair that he implied the interview would be sympathetic; on the other, Heston is an old angry stupid goat out of touch with reality, so to hell with him.

 

[hypatia]

I am a Michael Moore fan, and hope to rent "Roger and Me" sometime in the near future. But yea, that's the part of "Bowling" that bothered me, too. Also a bit what he and two of the injured but surviving Columbine students did to KMart.

But, on the other hand, didn't Heston find it inappropriate to have an NRA rally so quickly after the Columbine shootings? Was what Moore did any less tasteful than what Heston did?

And is Heston so out of touch he had no idea what kind of views Michael Moore expresses in his films?

So on the one hand, the tactic made me uncomfortable. On the other, if Heston and the NRA feel they have the right to do what they have done (and in more town than just this one, they have a habit it seems of having rallies after gun tragedies) then they'd better be able to take it as well as they dish it out, right?

I admit: I refuse to believe there are no Canadian slums, though. Perhaps someone here from Canada or who frequently visits Canada can answer that question for me.

 

[GKarsEye]

I'm sure there are Canadian slums. Economic gaps between neighborhoods are a natural part of big cities. Remember that in F9/11, Moore's portrayal of Iraq before the war only involved smiles, sunshine, happy children, and kites.
However, a couple of the Canadian residents in the film did imply that homelessness was not a real problem (even though unemployment was higher). Suffice it to say that the Canadian comparisons were tenuous.

Yes, the NRA rallies were reprehensible. Though Heston was obviously made president for PR and image purposes, he still is their president and has a duty to answer for what they do (Moore got a lot of flack for "picking on an old man"). That's why I slammed him in my last post.

I would like a reasonable explanation to defend the ethics of holding pro-gun rallies at Columbine and Flint shortly after the killings. The excuse "we didn't know" is bullshit, everyone knew; same goes for "well, we already booked it before it happened"- things are postponed and canceled all the time in the event of unforseeable tragedies.

No, those events were staged deliberately at those locations at those times because they were afraid that the anti-gun hysteria following the killings would threaten what their group is about. Conceding this is a reasonable concern, I would like to think that well-meaning, reasonable people can acknowledge and practice limits on what they do for their cause, and this is fucking low.

Another aspect of it is racial: while the cartoon in BFC was funny, it's a display of Moore's rampant racial self-hatred and kow-towing to minorities. For instance, he will never acknowledge that minorities do proportionally commit more violent crime. His point that the media shows a disproportionate amount of street violence is still valid, however.

But then with Heston (and one of the girls on the street he asked the same question to) providing "mixed ethnicity" as a reason for gun violence in this country is cynical, disgusting, FALSE, and supports Moore's focus on race (even if he does exaggerate it). I mean, really, do people believe that mixing races will lead to violence? How sad. And untrue- most violence committed by blacks is towards other blacks. I mean, that kind of thinging leads to only one solution to decrease violence, and segragation sucks ass.

 

[PsionTen]

I mean, really, do people believe that mixing races will lead to violence?

Welcome to the South.

The place where many honest, god-fearing, Christian white people seriously believe that God cursed black people with black skin so that white people would know to be separate from them.

The place where people hoard guns waiting for the day when the Race Wars start.

The place where Rebel flags fly more prominently and more frequently than US flags.

The place where you can't bring up that "slavery crap," but you can talk about white heritage all you want.

The place where the NAACP is seen as just another hate group.

And so on and so on.

I mean, that kind of thinging leads to only one solution to decrease violence, and segragation sucks ass.

A lot of people would disagree with you, both white and black ... my father for one. He swears up and down that things were better for blacks during segregation than they are now, go figure.

 

[Decal]

Ah couple things
The Denver Rally was scheudle a year in advance or more, and by law they had to have a meeting every year. And think in the speech that heston gave Moore cut it out but think Heston did say all activities were canceled and they were just holding that meeting cause it said so by the law (them being a (non profit charter out of new york)

The other Rally is Clearly a Campign get out the vote Rally. In the video you can see the dam signs about voting. Not really pro gun and was 6 months after the shooting. Now valid question is did they really need to bring Heston.


Canadian Slums well I fairly sure the canada has a bigger better welfare state than we do, they already pay enough in taxes. So canadian slum is basicly a project building , but sure their are run down parts too.

Then the Point about Heston trying to make . Well think a part is just trying to go to the mixing pot that was america. America history has had a lot of violence on Raced /nation based lines that add to the regular violence. In the past their was violence against the Irish, Chinise, Blacks. Irish vs Italians and so on. Heston was talking about that, while if you go to some place like Japan with some of the lowest crime their nearly all Japanesse.

 

[hypatia]

Ah, so you think the mixing of different people from different countries leads to by FAR the highest handgun violent death in the world?

Wow. Does that mean that the country with the second-highest mixing of people from different countries should have the second-highest handgun death rate? Do countries with very little mixing have almost no handgun deaths?

Aren't you basically just making a guess here, or do you have some kind of information you haven't mentioned. I also believe in the movie itself Heston said on camera that if he'd known, or if they had known (I don't remember) they WOULD have cancelled the rally.

He pointedly did NOT say they went because they legally had to. I find that reason to question your argument.

 

[Decal]

hypatia,
Firstly why are you focusing on hand gun deaths, any murder is bad hand gun knife, or car. OR dose some reason a Hand gun just make it that much worse? And the countrys that seem to have the most conformity tend to have lower violence. The diffrence is one of the causes of violence their are many others. The soulution to it isn't segegration either that would jsut reafirm the diffrence and caused it to be worse. Need to accept the diffrence and rely that we are all Americans.

Aren't you basically just making a guess here, or do you have some kind of information you haven't mentioned. I also believe in the movie itself Heston said on camera that if he'd known, or if they had known (I don't remember) they WOULD have cancelled the rally.

He pointedly did NOT say they went because they legally had to. I find that reason to question your argument.

Ah firstly this is moore movie and if Heston said that wouldn't you think Moore would of edited it out since it sort blows apart a big part of the movie?
Also He is a old man suffering from Altimers excuse him if he dosen't remember everything from 1-3 years ago. And I think the comments you refering to was actuaclly refering to the Flint Rally and even then Heston memory of it isn't very good. Espicaly considering moore came in preperared and Heston was off the cuff.

Now about the meeting why don't you read this

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

But of course moore leaves this tidbit of law out and also part of Heston's Denver speech that refers to all the activities being canceled. Maybe Hypatia you should go download Heston speech from that day and compare it to what moore gives you it maybe quite enlightening.

 

[Decal]

OH wait something else just occured to me you also said gun deaths , so dose that also include suicides yes I think so.
Looking at these stats specificly page 3. The United states is 1st in Total gun Deaths but 4th in Gun homocides 1st in gun suicides. Though Homocides an't much diffrent we are still 4th, though i have seen some with some diffrent numbers but I wouldn't quite trust them. But we are 4th in homocides by guns though are first for the "upper class" nations.

The #1 in sucides by gun , I will assoicate with just it easier to do by gun, and often precive notion that a suicide by gunis quicker and more painless than other methods. But we arn't even #1 in total Suicides so can't say guns cause more suicides.

Now the other matter why don't you read the results of this study. Which states the americas is 1st in firearm mortaility rates, ocenia 2nd europe 3rd and aisa a very distant 4th. It most be something in the water in the americas.

Or is it the fact that america is a settle land with people from diffrent parts coming together and sometimes the diffrences cause acts of violence. Then taking a further look the high income high homecide rates are in order from United states, Northern Irland, Finland, ITaly, scotland, canada, Austrailia, Taiwan , Singapore, new Zealand, isreal. Most of those countrys i just listed are high imigrated to countrys such as United states, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand, and would include israel in that. Other Countrys had large influence/inflow of people from other countrys namly Britain Being, Taiwan, Singapore, Northern Irland. Dunno where I put Scotland though think scotland has alot of none scottis settlers from Britain(btw England itself has some of the lowest homicide rates). Now leaves Finland , Italy to places that dosen't fit my preposition, though I don't know enough about the history or the people of either.

I should say I am also leaving out Brazil, Mexico, Estonia, since they are lower income nations, And I know in the case of Brazil their are other factors, than racial diffrences. Brazil being one of the countrys with the highest diffrentaration from upper class and lower class. That literally Brazil's upper class takes helicoptors everywhere since it wouldn't be safe on the ground.

Though will say the one disturbing thing is we are leading all the High income nations in uninteitional Fire arm deaths by at least double. So say we need to make more responsible Fire arm owners and so on.

 

[Decal]

Oppse mistake Taiwan from what i seen , think has less Britian Influence than I first thought, thought it was some what like Hong Kong, but After looking in the Cia Factbook think I am mistaken. Though is generaly a place of a bit of unrest with the mainland Chinise moving there after the rest of china goes communist.

 

[SwiftBiscuit]

Northen Ireland should be taken out of the list since it's been having a quiet (read: poorly reported) civil war for the past few decades and so doesn't really compare fairly to the others in that table. The popularity of guns is a side issue anyway, the fact is that America is simply a violent country. There are other countries with similar levels of gun ownership (like Canada and Norway) without the high levels of homocide. Lots of guns simply help the murderous US citizens become more effective at wiping each other out.


The Kyoto protocol was a biased proposal based on fudged science whose only redeeming feature was that it had good intentions. It did a lot of harm to the very issue it was striving to help and could never have been sucessful in its goal - to get significant momentum behind Green issues. It took a lot of political goodwill just to get it to the agreement stage and further progress could only have come from the Kyoto treaty delivering on its promises. Thanks to the asinine structuring of the treaty and the bad science it was based on it could never have produced clear results and so never got significant numbers of people behind the Green bandwaggon.

The earlier assertion that the Spanish, Italian and UK governments got into the Iraqi war simply for oil and cash is just plain wrong. Sorry and all that but it shows a clear failure to understand both world politics and the internal workings of those three countries.

I've yet to see F9/11, maybe tomorrow night. I think I saw today on E! that it's #4 in the charts so that has to be a good thing.

 

[PsionTen]

....the fact is that America is simply a violent country.

We are indeed, which is what Moore was getting at in BFC.

I find it almost sad that conservatives, parents and religious groups complain nonstop about the levels of sexuality that our children are exposed via mass media, but are mostly passive when it comes to violence and violent images. I would much rather have an 8-year-old see a bare breast than a gunfight, but that's just me I suppose.

But, as Moore concluded, its not just violence and violent images, it's also fear. I don't know how things work in other countries, but our media is fueled by fear, even more than money, sex or violence. People may not care about who's sleeping with who, or who got hurt somewhere faraway, but they'll definitely give a damn when you say: "IS A SILENT KILLER THREATENING YOUR FAMILY?" "ARE YOU A TARGET FOR CRIMINALS?" "DOES A CHILD MOLESTER LIVE NEAR YOU?"

In the whole scheme of things, I don't know how plausible Moore's explanation is, but it makes more sense than the whole "ethnic mixing" explanation, which doesn't explain why other countries with different ethnic groups don't have our levels of violence.

 

[Za_Ha_Dum]

I would much rather have an 8-year-old see a bare breast than a gunfight, but that's just me I suppose.

No. You are not alone. I think exactly as you do. So do many people I know.

I agree that too much open sex is something that estimulates curiosity to young girls and boys that are not prepared to face this situation with responsibility. Let´s not lie to each other. Sex is great, and too young can turn them addicted and they will not measure consequences. However, WRESTLING, for instance, I believe should be PROHIBITED. It is a cult of violence. Guns should be PROHIBITED as well. Only police and military could have them.

I believe Bolling in Columbine shows the best theory. It is the feeling of fear exposed by the media/government that estimulates people to be armed.

Same way that the media/government of my country estimulates people to associate Brasil with a free sex, easy sex, hot sex, country. We do have sex, as any other country, but it is not the way media try to "sell" the image of sex paradise........

Sex paradise does not depend on country, just depend how much money you have to spend with a chick. If you have a red Ferrari, a gorgeous outfit, great accesories (such as a fancy watch), and a thick wallet, you can get almost whatever you want EVERYWHERE (except, perhaps places such as TIBET, where they do not care about money).