TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - New York
-- Fahrenheit 9/11 >> Michael Moore's new movie out June 25th
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stassi Republican or not, bush is a tit, admit it already. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by partyhopper tit, as in Tranceaddict in Training? really?! where/when has GWB posted on TA? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stassi Republican or not, bush is a tit, admit it already. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PVD_S11DJ hehe as the lone Republican in the forum, I must speak up!  |
i just LOOOOVE sarcasm, n especially the way moore uses it, and the best??? like 99% of his stuff is definitly true lol... pure classic, doesnt matter which movie or book, this dude is gergous, in many ways...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider He's a tit. Now, Democrat or not, Moore is a tit, admit it already. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider He's a tit. Now, Democrat or not, Moore is a tit, admit it already. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stassi moore hasn't lied to us... yet. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stassi moore hasn't lied to us... yet. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider He practices the same misrepresentations of the facts. He's a hypocrit and ergo a tit. He's the leftist Limbaugh. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stassi i know all that must sound fancy. FACTS or stfu! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PVD_S11DJ hehe as the lone Republican in the forum, I must speak up! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Stassi i know all that must sound fancy. FACTS or stfu! |
hmmmm... you know one of the whole points of the movie is that Bush helped Bin Laden's family leave the US, but actually R. Clarke handled that. I believe it has already been established that Clarke also likes to distort reality quite a bit.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/p...RTICLE_ID=38669
So, anyway, the movie is just lies and leftist propoganda.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jellilorum So, anyway, the movie is just lies and leftist propoganda. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trunks1022 my question is have u seen it? and would u know it's lies? i'd just say go see it with an open mind /shrug |
Oh, I did not say I was not going to see it! I will just have to wait for the DVD so I can pause every few minutes and vent my disgust, LOL.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mizzuno If i told u to go see a movie by rush limbaugh would u go see it? I think not...and rightfully so, I know for a fact that the war with iraq is portrayed in a negative light, so its unbalanced, maybe he should include some video of iraqi's being fed to dobermans by saddam, but of course that would never be shown...I don't watch most movies as a general rule, 90% are garbage. Just because i didn't see it doesn't mean i don't know whether its biased, I haven't seen many things that I believe to be true... Mizzz |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jellilorum Oh, I did not say I was not going to see it! I will just have to wait for the DVD so I can pause every few minutes and vent my disgust, LOL. |
Originally posted by trunks1022
no i wouldn't be interested only because i have no interest in watching a politically charged movie regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right.[/QUOTE]
Uh so then why would you watch this movie then...
| quote: |
| so u've got me wrong on that count. and same can be said about something like passion of the christ. there's some similarities there... people saying before the movies come out that it was slanted towards anti-semitism. but after its release people of all creeds proclaimed there was no hint of anti-semitism. and gibson's supposed to be from a neo-conservative sect of catholocism and whatever. u see where i'm getting at? i'm just saying that something should be watched before any opinion should be given. might be proven wrong |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mizzuno Why would i give my money to Michael Moore, he's a weak comedian that is well know for being devisive, thats exactly what this movie was timed for, sorry, its not art its propaganda... Mizz |
on a lighter note, i might actually watch dodgeball...
Michael Moore comes out with Bowling for Columbine and bashed Charlton Heston (Pres. of the NRA) for his support of guns ...yada yada yada... but as a CARD CARRYING MEMBER of the NRA himself, never once did he tell Charlie "Here's your card back". What a crock this Stupid White Man is.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PVD_S11DJ hehe as the lone Republican in the forum, I must speak up! |
| quote: |
United States Code TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (d) Imposition of consecutive sentences A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment. AND United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor. |
| quote: |
The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation By JOHN W. DEAN ---- -more |
| quote: |
Woodward said he found that the administration quietly shifted money around to pay for early preparations for war in Iraq, without the approval of Congress. He said those preparations included building landing strips and addressing other military needs in Kuwait. The money, about $700 million, was taken in July 2002 from a budget item that had been approved for the war in Afghanistan, Woodward wrote. "Some people are going to look at that document called the Constitution, which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress," Woodward says in his CBS interview. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by mizzuno ` not lone...any type of propaganda is weak, whether left or right, it just seems that left wing propaganda is more accepted because its "cool". Its unfortunate that there are so many sheep in the world, being lazy has its privileges , you get to aimlessly follow whatever some random celebrity or comedian states(or anybody who doesn't show the whole story) as fact...unfortunately rarely what the media portrays are in fact...facts, it seems to be more fascinated with reporting on itself, its much easier that way, they don't have to get off their ass and actually do research, they just quote some other news organization...pretty sad actually Mizzuno |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MezzicanTrancEr WORD man. You're definately not alone! Aside from Moore's agenda, is it me or does this guy eat too much? hehe jk No but seriously, I live with two other roomates whom are VERY liberal and HATE Bush, (hey I described 99% of TA, hehe). Anyway, one of them has a Kerry sticker on his car. I have a Bush one but wouldn't dare put it on my brand new car for fear of being keyed! Most people don't even care anymore about what's good for the country. Many people in this country hate Bush and that's fine, but few can actually tell you why. It is these people who will see Moore's film and base a decision on who runs our country based on one man's skewed view of things. People say that Bush brings this country down with his words and actions. I personally don't believe this. However, if it is true, then how is something like Michael Moore's Film going to help us ban together as a country and get through our current situation. If many feel the answer is getting Bush out of office, FINE. But Michael Moore has no idea the damage he'll do to our country's morale with this film. I think he could have done a movie on our country's determination to get through rough times...but why? It just doesn't sound interesting enough and what's more, no one would ever PAY to see a movie like that! I too believe people in this country are too lazy to look up the facts and instead rely on Satruday Night Live, the Daily Show or dare I say Michael Moore for "the facts" about our current administration. I for one, will watch the movie because i'm not afraid of what some left wing extremist has to say...because as with any extremists, they're just that, extreme. I would like to add that it really sucks that we live in a country now where someone will get flamed for what they believe...I mention that because I know someone is going to jump on me fast and in a not so nice way. I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen. It's pretty ironic it'll be from a "open-minded liberal". :::edit::: actually i'm reading most of the posts on here and I'm pleasantly surprised...everyones being civil! hehe :::edit:::: I stress the quotations because thank goodness most TA's here are respectful. I opted out on my two cents and decided to give you about a dollar a change worth of my opinion, |
IMO it would be stupid for Moore to fabricate and distort since there will be such intense scrutiny of his film.
That's not to say his film is entirely accurate however.
Here is what a journalist who covered the 9/11 commission hearings thought of his film:
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=525560.html
| quote: |
Fact-checking Moore's political broadside Philip Shenon/NYT The New York Times Friday, June 18, 2004 Viewer finds Moore 'on firm ground' LOS ANGELES Michael Moore is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president. "And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up." The movie's indictment of Bush is nothing if not sprawling. Moore suggests that Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Osama bin Laden's family to flee the United States after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Moore and his distributors are predicting, Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he - or any other documentary filmmaker - has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it. So how will Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact? Moore and his distributors refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release on Friday; his production team said recently there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing - for clarity, they said, not accuracy. After a year spent covering the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James Bath, a financial adviser to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970s. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has been well documented. Moore charges that Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, CIA briefing that warned of terrorism within the United States. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post. The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie - like assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of America is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers, and that it will be posted on his site, www.michaelmoore.com, after the release of the documentary. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace," and that the FBI had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends, in this case the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged. "I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment." Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation. "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," Moore said. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court." Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month, said, "We have gone through every single word of this film - literally every word - and verified its accuracy." That said, Moore's fact-checkers said they did not view the film as straight reporting. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker, adding, "The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government." Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world. The New York Times |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.