Fox News recommends seeing 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

fangtl said:
Michael Moore is a genius filmmaker, and if you choose to not watch of his films because your have personal beef against him then you are missing out on a potentially great movie. Judging by his past "movies," I cannot refer to Moore as an historical documentarian, but as an filmmaker, he's top notch.

BTW, the U.S. government does not and has never operated a democracy, it has always been a republic. A lot of people throw the word "democracy" around without fully understanding what it truly means. If they understood it, they would realize that they're probably not advocates of its purest form--a plattform where every matter is decided by a majority vote.

Other than your spelling of platform, I agree with everything you have said. :D

Some malign him because he has been financially successful? That makes no sense to me. We live in a modern world where everything is branded and to live in the world means to use corporate products and services, and money is the mark of quality. Is he supposed to give all of his money away to charity for his films to have merit?

I don't think Michael Moore pretends to be the saint some you are trying to tear down. He is passionate about his beliefs. I think he has a lot of powerful things to say, and I must say this:

Is there any particular reason all of the debate about this film focus on the righteousness of the creator and not the subject matter?

I realize the film is not out yet, but everyone who is chiming in on the subject should be aware of the basic subject matter, no?

I ask those who say the film and director are crap if they are denying the Bush administration allowed planes to fly on 9-11 to pick up the Bin Laden family and whisk them out of the country, against the protest of the FBI and CIA who wanted to interview them? I have heard this from a few sources. I could not testify to it. It could be incorrect, but my point is I don't see anyone acknowledging it, let alone denying it.

And if that is true, what do you think about that and the other ties to the Bin-Laden family. I don't hear anyone denying that either.

(Here is where it becomes a serious rant, sorry)

Can you not understand the outrage when we think of all the other non-Bin-Laden relatives who find themselves detained without the ability to find out what they are charged with or confront the evidence against them?

Would you sit in a cell quietly while your government told you that it could keep you forever and tell you nothing?

Even if they are guilty, and most of them probably are, how can we sit here and preach about our honor and heritage if we deny them what we demand for ourselves?

I would love to subscribe to the view of America that some say we inhabit, but my America can be cruel and ignorant sometimes. Most of the time it is the best place in the world, but if we are going to believe that we have to try to make it reality.It because I love her that I say this, because I can't stand to see what is happening.

It is a completely understandable thing to react to an attack, but we are starting to lose our way. There is no end game here. We are going to be in the Middle East for the next 30 years if we don't destroy the world first. Talk of the draft is already starting.

Sorry for the rant, but I am looking forward to seeing the film and I liked all of his previous films.

Even if you hate Michael Moore, you have to love Roger & Me.

Pets or Meat? :p
 
Even if you hate Michael Moore, you have to love Roger & Me.

Uhhh....no you don't.
 
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2055

Moore is, in short, a documentary filmmaker who makes fictional documentaries. That’s right, fictional documentaries; it’s a pretty well-established genre, with some especially good work done by Dziga Vertov in the Soviet Union and Leni Reifenstahl in Germany. Granted, it might be saying something that they were working under Stalin and Hitler, respectively, but I digress. Moore, from his initial film, Roger and Me, to his most recent, Bowling for Columbine, has repeatedly misrepresented events and chronologies, baldly edited speeches and conversations to produce his desired effect, lied pathologically in his narrations, and, at times, has outright staged scenes for better cinematic effect.
 
http://www.whatever-dude.com/posts/327.shtml

Shame on You, Michael Moore
posted by Matthew on 3/24/03


michaelmoore002.jpg


Just Make It Singular and You Have an Autobiography


Perhaps the most serene irony to be found in Hollywood is that the most phony, disingenuous person in the whole town is the avowed outsider, the self-righteous everyman. It’s impressive to see one man be so heroically ridiculous, a man who manages to be

1. A radical socialist who lives in a palatial New York apartment and sends his daughter to one of the most expensive private schools in the country.

2. A blowhard who pretends to advocate the views of the average American despite holding opinions that the majority of Americans find absurd.

3. A polemicist against President Bush for manufacturing “fictitious elections” who makes fictitious “documentaries,” lies pathologically in his writing and interviews, and actively doctors his past statements to avoid looking silly.

all at once? It’s remarkable that Michael Moore manages to be just as full of shit as his corpulent frame indicates. He’s trulyan inspiration to Don King, Vince McMahon, television psychics, televangelists, and the rest of the world’s assorted hucksters, shysters, conmen, charlatans, posers, attention whores, and dilettantish thinkers.

It’s doubtful that anyone is unfamiliar with Moore after his unearthly acceptance speech at the Oscars, in which Moore, who was bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Penguin as played by Danny Devito, delivered a spittle-flinging parody of dignified, informed dissent, a hysterical tirade bereft of any intelligent commentary whatsoever. It’s not like George W. Bush isn’t a hilariously easy target to begin with or there isn’t actual coherent criticisms of this war, after all. But you wouldn’t gather that from Moore’s farcical demagoguery; all blustery invective and no sober thought.

I’m with Hannah Arendt in advocating the maximum amount of public dialogue on the issues and feel that anyone in a pluralist democratic society with an informed, passionate opinion has not only a right but a duty to share it with his fellow man. The idea that people should withhold their opinions now that the war has started or that anti-war opinions shouldn’t be expressed at certain public events is, to me, asinine and will only lead to intellectual, if not political, totalitarianism. So, I’m not attacking Moore for speaking out against the war or even doing an obnoxiously awful job of it. I’m attacking Moore for having the balls to criticize George W. Bush for fictionalizing the 2000 election and his reasons for the Iraqi war when Moore’s entire career and public persona has been a laundry list of lies, misrepresentations, and fantasy.

Moore is, in short, a documentary filmmaker who makes fictional documentaries. That’s right, fictional documentaries; it’s a pretty well-established genre, with some especially good work done by Dziga Vertov in the Soviet Union and Leni Reifenstahl in Germany. Granted, it might be saying something that they were working under Stalin and Hitler, respectively, but I digress. Moore, from his initial film, Roger and Me, to his most recent, Bowling for Columbine, has repeatedly misrepresented events and chronologies, baldly edited speeches and conversations to produce his desired effect, lied pathologically in his narrations, and, at times, has outright staged scenes for better cinematic effect. Since Bowling for Columbine won an Oscar this year for best documentary, let’s take a quick look at some of his more vagrantly disgraceful documentary techniques with which Moore uses to gleefully piss on the memories of those shot on that day:


moore.jpg


Get Ready to Be Appalled

1. There’s a wonderful scene where Moore goes into a bank with an “Open an account, get a free gun” deal, opens an account, and is summarily awarded his new firearm. Sound too absurd to be true? Of course, it was staged. Not only would Moore have had to open up a long-term CD account with a considerable minimum deposit to get the supposedly “free” gun, but there would have been a long waiting period where the bank would have performed background checks both on Moore’s financial history and his legal right to own the gun. Moore, only then, could get his gun, but he still would have had to pick it up at a local gun store, not the bank. None of this is portrayed in the film; Moore simply thought it would be more convenient and cinematic for the bank to have a stockpile of firearms in the back that they hand out indiscriminately, so that’s what he invented.

2. Moore repeatedly attacks the United States in his narration for giving aid money to the Taliban. The unfortunate part was that the $245,000,000 given was administered through the United Nations and non-governmental agencies and, most importantly, consisted of food. Michael Mood is such a dishonest, amoral twit that he would intentionally lie about humanitarian aid to make the US look bad. Wouldn’t a true man of the people, a defender of the downtrodden, give the United States credit for helping the less fortunate instead of exploiting the Afghani people to slander the US?

3. Moore claims that weapons of mass destruction are made by Lockheed Martin in Littleton and that it might have a connection with the Columbine massacre. Far be it from Moore to insult the memory of those slaughtered at Columbine, but the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton makes rockets for TV satellites. Then again, nukes sounds much cooler, doesn’t it?

4. The murderers at Columbine didn’t go bowling that morning. That report has been discredited for years. But, what the hell, Michael Moore sees no reason to lose out on a cool title for his movie, even if it debases the memory of those slain at Columbine.

5. Moore blatantly doctors a 1988 George Bush campaign ad, inserting a picture and caption of his creation about criminal Willie Horton in such a way as to obviously convince movie-goers that it was in the original.

And all of this is nothing to laugh about. The kids murdered at Columbine deserved better than this, and for Michael Moore to deliver a film in their name that is so ruthlessly dishonest, immoral, and meretricious is a disgrace, an insult. Columbine is nothing more than an ad slogan, a marketing non sequitur entirely divorced from any sense of dignity, empathy, or love for the people that died on that day. Moore took that horrendous massacre and cooked up a way to get his face planted all over movie screens and newspapers, irregardless of the gross dishonor done to the slaughtered. Shame on you, Michael Moore, you money-grubbing, lying, soulless bloat of empty slogans.


1022506126603.jpg


A Perfectly Repugnant Face for a Perfectly Repugnant Man

Nonchalant exploitation of murdered teenagers aside, Moore’s film also fails as an intellectual statement. Its views are unsupported (or fallaciously supported), its conclusions either vague or asinine. The reason America has such a massive murder rate isn’t because a lack of gun control or because of urban poverty tied up with a rampant, feverishly competitive and lucrative drug trade or the media or the proliferation of handguns, but rather because Americans are just a really scared group of people. Am I the only one a little underwhelmed, let alone incredulous? He supports his spectacularly dumb idea by comparing the U.S. to Canada, saying basically that Canada has similar statistics in regards to gun ownership and doesn’t have as big of a murder rate. Of course, he claims that the US has 67.4 times the number of gun murders than Canada, which is ludicrous; the American murder rate is actually 3.2 times the Canadian. Considering we’re dealing with Michael Moore, I guess 67.4 times vs. 3.2 times isn’t a big deal, right? He also wilfully ignores the fact that Americans 3.3 times the number of guns per capita than Canada and 7.1 times the number of handguns, more or less because it contradicts his argument.

This is to completely ignore the incredible bravery it took to confront that intellectual giant Charlton Heston, the figurehead president of the N.R.A. who just happens to be rather senile, instead of actually confronting the actual leader, Wayne LaPierre, the man who actually handles the organization’s media appearances, or at least the media appearances that aren’t staged attacks on an unwitting possible Alzheimer patient. Moore wasn’t interested in an intelligent dialogue or the truth; he was interested instead in massaging his ego.

As bad as Moore’s ethics and journalistic skills are in the movies, one cannot really apprehend his monumental incompetence (or is it willful deception?) unless you confront his newest bestselling book, Stupid White Men. According to Moore, the book has been kind of a grassroots success, the populace spontaneously supporting his nonsense. He claimed in an interview with Australian newspaper, Good Weekend, that “There has been a blackout on me since September 11. I've only been on two (American) TV shows, 90 per cent of the papers have not reviewed the book –– yet I've sold more copies than any other non-fiction book in America this year.” Unfortunately, Moore has appeared on, at least, six national television shows promoting the book, and at least twenty-one major national network shows have had features on the book. In fact, Moore may be one of the most actively represented writers in the United States in regards to television publicity. But, at this point in the article, I guess it’s cliche to show that Michael Moore lies. That said, it might be educational to show the true magnitude of his lies.

In Stupid White Men, there is one grotesquerie that better sums up Michael Moore than any of his other crimes against sanity and credibility, a lie so monumental, so preposterous, that it alone should sink the credibility of any supposed “thinker.” I offer this prologue to the following information only because I feel the need to prepare my reader for the mind-blowing scope of Moore’s mendacity.

Michael Moore claims that 5/6th of the U.S. defense budget goes to the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a space-age fighter jet. Not only is this wrong, it’s so astoundingly absurd that it begs the question of how anyone can trust a person so dumb as to believe the claim in the first place (or so immoral as to intentionally propagate such misformation), let alone publish it internationally. In fact, by my calculations, the Joint Strike Fighter’s budget, which is 250 billion for the entire multi-year plan, represents around 100 billion dollars less than 1/6th of the annual Defense budget from 2001 to 2005 of 1.6 trillion dollars, and that’s assuming that the JSF budget is confined to only those years, which it’s not. In other words, Michael Moore miscalculated by well over 1 TRILLION dollars. This is possibly the most fantastic inaccuracy in the history of well-reviewed journalism; Moore’s off, by the most conservative estimate, by more than the gross national product of India in 1996.

To present one last piece of, admittedly anticlimactic, evidence against Moore, I’ll turn to the internet, where Moore’s homepage (you can guess the URL) is home to the fabulous ravings of a delusional, discredited man. One of the more entertaining rants was published on November 5, 2002, in which Moore railed against the Bush presidency and promised that the coming congressional elections would see the Republicans dramatically defeated, the day forever being known as one of “payback.” After the Republicans near total victory on election day, Moore’s rant curiously disappeared, all traces of it erased from the site. Terribly Nixonian of him, don’t you think?

Moore is the P.T. Barnum of political and social commentary, an embarrassing loudmouth with a penchant for exploiting the murder and penury of his subjects and turning them into a geek show for the furthering of his political agenda and career. He is a blabbering idiot with no intellectual depth, no journalistic integrity, no concern for the truth, and no ethical limits in regards to how far he’ll go in order to cultivate his popularity. He’ll shock you, he might make you laugh, but he is a tumor that adds nothing to the national discourse outside of sensationalism, sophistry, and divisiveness. I only hope that my article has helped the cause of making all Americans recognize him as the pathetic nonentity that he is.

Cheers,
Matthew

(Thanks to Ben Fritz at Spinsanity.org, Joshua Galun at galun.com, and Dan Lyons of Forbes.com for information used in this piece.)
 
and Moore is pretty good with cut and paste fiction too.

:D
 
Viper Driver said:
Get Ready to Be Appalled
A few quick comments...

Moore have had to open up a long-term CD account with a considerable minimum deposit to get the supposedly “free” gun, but there would have been a long waiting period where the bank would have performed background checks both on Moore’s financial history and his legal right to own the gun.
It was only $1000 for a 20-year CD. It does not take very long to open up such an account. The background check took 10 minutes. Shortly afterwards, he was handed the gun. Moore did call ahead to get permission to bring in the camera and crew. That’s it as far as the “staging” of the event.

he still would have had to pick it up at a local gun store, not the bank.
The bank was a licensed firearms dealer, so they were able to give him the gun, which they stock in the bank.

Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton makes rockets for TV satellites. Then again, nukes sounds much cooler, doesn’t it?
This still frame is from the movie, the part where he is interviewing the Lockheed spokesman. Notice “US AIR FORCE” on the rocket. Based on what I’ve read, I don’t think it’s just rockets for TV satellites at Littleton.

EDIT: Grammar.
 
Last edited:
Viper Driver said:
The reason America has such a massive murder rate isn’t because a lack of gun control or because of urban poverty tied up with a rampant, feverishly competitive and lucrative drug trade or the media or the proliferation of handguns, but rather because Americans are just a really scared group of people.

I found this rather funny. Americans kill other Americans because they are a scared group of people??? hahaha

So then what is your solution to lower the murder rate to, let's say, the rate of that in Sweden or Finland, or maybe Australia or New Zealand, or even China? The murder rate in this country is unacceptable, but maybe you think murder is fine and just a normal part of life, just like war for example. Killing of human beings is not fine and not normal -- it is an indication of a problem which needs to be completely (100%) eliminated from society.

If you look at the murder rate within the US, the highest rates come from the inner cities with the most poverty & the largest drug problems. That is no coincidence. Also, you will notice that socialist countries have the lowest murder rates, because of lack of poverty. Countries like China, Cuba, Sweden, Finland, etc.

Another thing you will notice is whenever we have a major war, shortly afterwards, the murder rate increases. It happened after WWII, after Korea, after Vietnam, and after the Gulf War. Then through the 1990s the murder rate went down nationwide. But get prepared for it to go up again in the next 5 years.

The problem is that you cannot teach people to kill and then expect them not to do it. So if they are no longer in war, some of them will do it anyway.

The reason we have such a high murder rate is because apparently Americans think there is nothing wrong with killing people. We see it on TV all the time. We watch our leaders invade other countries and do it. And even our justice system kills the bad criminals. It has become an accepted part of our culture and most people do not think there is anything wrong with it. I'm sure you are no exception.
 
Viper Driver said:
A Perfectly Repugnant Face for a Perfectly Repugnant Man
This article is laughable. Does the author think he is really discrediting Moore’s statistics?

Of course, he claims that the US has 67.4 times the number of gun murders than Canada, which is ludicrous
Moore claimed US had 11127 deaths due to firearms, 67.4 time that of Canada, 165. I am aware the US figure includes certain scenerios the Canadian figure does not (possibly due to the sources of figures); however, even when the figures are normalized, there is still a drastic difference between US and Canada (or any other country for that matter).

the American murder rate is actually 3.2 times the Canadian.
This is correct, the murder rate in Canada is 1.8/100000. US is 5.7/100000. So, the US per capita murder rate is 3.2 times that of Canada. However...

I guess 67.4 times vs. 3.2 times isn’t a big deal, right?
1) It makes little sense to compare the difference in a total number of an occurance to the difference in a rate of an occurance.
2) Murders not the same as deaths from firearms.

He also wilfully ignores the fact that Americans 3.3 times the number of guns per capita than Canada and 7.1 times the number of handguns, more or less because it contradicts his argument.
I’m not sure how he “ignored” this fact. I don’t recall where he claimed US had fewer guns. By the way, I think the 7.1 figure is incorrect (too low).
 
Last edited:
I live in Canada...I can confirm firearm deaths are few and far between.

From 2001 numbers in Canada:

Canada has about 550 murders per year, a number that is steadily decreasing. This is equivalent to numbers in most of the western world, except the U.S. which has triple the number per capita. The main methods of murder in Canada are shootings (30%), stabbings (30%), and beatings (22%).

550*.3 = 165

Anyway 11127 firearm deaths is 3.97/100000 for the USA

165 gun murders in canada is .515/100000

Per capita, that's about 6 times as many. You can say the canadian figures don't include this or that but how many can it really be..it's a startling figure no matter what.
 
Some other interesting stuff:

Gun murders per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

Gun Murders - Total
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir


1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)


this stat narrows gun 'murders' to over 8000. Still the countries it shares company with are startling :p It totally drops off after mexico
 
Wow. You guys are filled with interesting facts and figures. Back to topic. Do some Jethro guzinta's on this: Moore's take from his film will be short by no less than the revenue generated from the sale of one ticket. :p
 
satan_srv said:
Some other interesting stuff:

Gun murders per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

Gun Murders - Total
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir


1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)


this stat narrows gun 'murders' to over 8000. Still the countries it shares company with are startling :p It totally drops off after mexico


The stats seem a little strange. Brazil has a terrible gun violence problem but it is not even listed.

http://www.sundayherald.com/36875
 
KGP said:
Wow. You guys are filled with interesting facts and figures. Back to topic. Do some Jethro guzinta's on this: Moore's take from his film will be short by no less than the revenue generated from the sale of one ticket. :p

:p He can have my money for now, better than the $10 I spent on Man on Fire a couple weeks ago.

I'll try to be critical of the film though, I don't just take what I see at face value, but like I mentioned before much of the film speaks for itself, it isn't as much Moore being a dumbass and causing trouble and setting up scenes
 
satan_srv said:
I just found that link I posted above it appears they didn't have data for brazil to report. Probably all that gun violence...killing all the census people :D

lol :D
 
Jimbo said:
...it’s a pretty well-established genre, with some especially good work done by Dziga Vertov in the Soviet Union and Leni Reifenstahl in Germany. Granted, it might be saying something that they were working under Stalin and Hitler, respectively, but I digress.
That quote alone kills any credibility this author might have had.

To insinuate that what propaganda machines, under some of the most savage dictatorships ever, produced, with no dissenting views available to counterbalance, is in any way comparable to a filmmaker in a free society, voicing his opinions, is pathetic, and clearly shows he has an ax to grind with Michael Moore.
 
Viper Driver said:
http://www.whatever-dude.com/posts/327.shtml
Shame on You, Michael Moore
posted by Matthew on 3/24/03
Viper Driver,
I'm not sure what the purpose was of posting an article by someone who obviously has an intense dislike for Michael Moore. You are trying to use this as proof that Moore lies or bends the truth, but how credible is this source? Why is Matthew any more credible than Moore?

In fact, based on Ojas' post, it looks like Matthew has no problem twisting the truth himself for his own agenda.

I'm not a Michael Moore fan. I think he is quite pompous and self-righteous, but he brings up many valid points about what is wrong with society. Does he omit facts that would hurt his argument, and play up facts that strengthen it? Absolutely! So, what? You don't think everyone in the media does that? Have you watched the news recently? If I were to believe what I see every day, I could conclude that anarchy is reigning, there is a conspiracy around every corner, and big corporations are out to kill me. Or are they just emphasizing some things to make a story?

I advocate listening to all sides, and then using common sense to figure out what is true. If you refuse to listen to someone because they are too liberal or too conservative, or they just don't agree with your point of view, then you are limiting your information stream.
 
nkb said:
To insinuate that what propaganda machines, under some of the most savage dictatorships ever, produced, with no dissenting views available to counterbalance, is in any way comparable to a filmmaker in a free society, voicing his opinions, is pathetic, and clearly shows he has an ax to grind with Michael Moore.

I think Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably an excellent film, but I totally disagree with your statement here, for this main reason:

The people in those two countries thought that they did live in a free society. For example, Hitler was loved by his people and the Nazis were elected to power under a democratic system. The Nazis did indeed control perhaps the most effective propoganda machine ever assembled. Most of the German public had no idea what was going on outside of Germany, let alone inside their own country. Hitler justified his invasions of other countries much the way George Bush has justified the invasion of Iraq -- he told them they were in danger and demonized the leaders of the other countries. For example, most Germans thought the invasion of Austria in 1938 was done to help free the Austrian people from their terrible oppressive government. German media portrayed the French dancing in the streets of Paris as the Nazis "liberated" them from their terrible government.

In truth, a good propoganda machine can convince the masses of anything. People could live in the most oppressive system and think they are as free as could be. And Germany was perhaps the most educated public in the world at that particular time, so they were not some third world country where the people were illiterate and uneducated.

So why do you think you live in a free society where there are dissenting views? Because you have been told so?

In truth, Michael Moore's movie is one of the few dissenting views that will be available to the masses. And if we are not careful, it could be the last.
 
the Nazis were elected to power under a democratic system. The Nazis did indeed control perhaps the most effective propoganda machine ever assembled.

You make it sound like all that happened was propoganda. You fail to mention that the Weimar Constiution was not what we have for a constitution, and that Hitler never received more than 37 percent of the popular vote in honest elections. Furthermore, German leaders had a weak devotion to democracy, and that some were plotting an overthrow. The reason Hitler came to power was from back room deals. While his rise to power might have been considered legal under their democracy, it would have not been considered the same under a better working democracy. You also don't mention any conditions present when he and his party came to power.
In truth, Michael Moore's movie is one of the few dissenting views that will be available to the masses. And if we are not careful, it could be the last.
Ha!

Edit: spelling
 
Last edited:
Eric5273 said:

Also, you will notice that socialist countries have the lowest murder rates, because of lack of poverty. Countries like China, Cuba, Sweden, Finland, etc.

There's no poverty in China and Cuba? Wow, now I'll never understand why so many people risk their lives to escape Castro's socialist paradise.

Eric5273 said:

So why do you think you live in a free society where there are dissenting views? Because you have been told so?

No. Because you are giving me a dissenting view right now, and there are no government agents breaking down your door.


In truth, Michael Moore's movie is one of the few dissenting views that will be available to the masses. And if we are not careful, it could be the last.

Thanks to the internet there are now more differeing viewpoints easily available to read than ever before in history. The government will have to start censoring the internet to reverse that trend. I don't see it happening.
 
Originally posted by Eric5273
The people in those two countries thought that they did live in a free society.
You are totally incorrect. What are you basing that statement on?
Originally posted by Eric5273
For example, Hitler was loved by his people and the Nazis were elected to power under a democratic system.
That's quite a misrepresentation. It was a free society at the time of Hitler's rise, but with a half-assed democracy that didn't have a chance in hell, because the country was drowning in a depression (in large part due to the after-effects of WWI and the Versailles Treaty, which choked Germany financially). For a lot of Germans, Hitler appeared to be the only answer. He promised that the country would return to greatness, people would have jobs, and everyone's national pride would be restored. This, in combination with serious thug tactics that the Weimar Republic government had no answers to, which compelled them to appease Hitler (which KGP alluded to earlier) allowed him to be elected.

When he had sufficient power, he banned all opposing parties, and that was the end of "democracy".

So, are you telling me that Germans thought living in a free society involved being beaten up by Hitler's goons, where people were arrested, tortured and/or killed for speaking out against the Nazis?
Originally posted by Eric5273
The Nazis did indeed control perhaps the most effective propoganda machine ever assembled.
Yes, but a good propaganda machine is useless if dissenting opinions are heard. The only way propaganda works is if all other information sources are squashed.
Originally posted by Eric5273
In truth, a good propoganda machine can convince the masses of anything. People could live in the most oppressive system and think they are as free as could be.
I absolutely disagree. Propaganda is useful for many forms of disinformation, but it's very tough to convince people they lead a free life when they are being violently oppressed. When you fear for your well-being or life if you speak up, no amount of propaganda can convince you that you live in a free society. Give me a break.
Originally posted by Eric5273
So why do you think you live in a free society where there are dissenting views? Because you have been told so?
Thank you very much for your condescending question. Are you somehow implying that you have superior intelligence, and can see the "truth" more easily than I?

I know I live in a free society because I have the ability to study other societies (Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR for example), and compare them to the ones I am personally familiar with. I can speak out in a variety of forums (including this one) without fear of censorship by the government. I do not have to fear for my livelihood, health or life when I openly disagree with my government. Sounds free to me.
Originally posted by Eric5273
In truth, Michael Moore's movie is one of the few dissenting views that will be available to the masses. And if we are not careful, it could be the last.
While I agree with you that we need to be careful about losing personal freedoms, as seems to be the case recently in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism, you are painting a far bleaker picture than warranted.
The reason there aren't more Michael Moore-type movies is that it is not a very popular genre, and money talks. If people flocked to the theaters for documentaries like they do for Lord of the Rings, you can bet your left testicle there would be an abundance of similar movies.
 
This, in combination with serious thug tactics that the Weimar Republic government had no answers to, which compelled them to appease Hitler (which KGP alluded to earlier) allowed him to be elected.

Yes, you hit a nail on the head, but I wanted to see what the revisionist historian would come back with. There were a few more dynamics, all of which could not have played out in current times with the communication and press coverage at hand, not to mention other dynamics involved, not the least of which was the democracy they were governed by. For example, the Reichstag fire and how Hitler played on the fear of that being a sign of a communistic takeover.

nkb, I couldn't, and wouldn't, have said it better than you. I care not to debate with people who paint a picture that we should look up to countries like Cuba because of lack of poverty. Hell, if these people are that unhappy, I'll personally pay for their exodus if in return they would renounce their citizenship. I suspect I will have no takers, but i am willing. ;)

Three cheers for nkb. Thanks for the historical facts. I think I have heard the word history here before...
 
Tickets refused

BTW, I was in my 8 passanger diesel chugging SUV today going to get an early lunch. I was tuned into the local AM radio station, and it happened that they were giving away tickets to the Moore film. Hehehe, some guy was the lucky call-in winner, but he turned the tickets down.
 
Since nobody has responded to my initial query, I guess I should ask the question in a different way.

This is not about Michael Moore, but rather the events that form the basis for his film.

A little searching found the following information:

This page should be read for what it is: an analysis of some of the commonly-circulated claims about a complex issue (many of which are factually correct or misleading), not a denial of the larger arc of the story. Clearly bin Laden family members were allowed to leave the U.S. shortly after the September 11 attacks, and this was effected with the approval and assistance of the American government. Yet not all the Saudis flew out during the ban, nor was the FBI denied access to them while they were here or prevented from knowing who was going to be on those flights. In preparation for the exodus, a number of Saudis were ferried to central locations where those outbound jets would eventually leave from, which means they were allowed to violate the ban on air travel within the U.S. Was it right that fear for their safety and/or favors owed abroad should have prompted their being treated as special circumstance exceptions to the ban? That question lies outside the scope of this page, but rest assured it will be hotly debated around many a dinner table.

(the above paragraph is from the below link)

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

I think this is a fairly reliable source, and if it is to be believed the truth is more complex and uncertain than a simple yes or no.

The information below I have the utmost confidence in and believe it is beyond reproach:

Records obtained from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seem to indicate that one flight carrying approximately 46 Saudi citizens may have left the U.S. from New York as early as September 13, before the general ban on air travel was lifted. The records do not identify who these passengers may have been — bin Laden relatives, royal family members, or other Saudi nationals. (The "Class of Admission" column in the document lists the departing passengers as a mixture of foreign government officials and their employees and temporary visitors to the U.S. for either business or pleasure.)

(This paragraph is also from the snopes link above)

Here is the official document from Homeland Security they are talking about:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/homelandsecurity.pdf

So, how do people feel about this?
 
Back
Top