Moore: Go ahead, pirate my movie

The only way I'd watch his bullshit is bootleg, but I'm glad he's not against it. You know he's not in it for the money, he just wants people to see his propoganda.

as opposed to the bullshit bush tries to market as the truth! hahaha

c'mon, give Moore a break, that took balls what he said, and just think, if everybody in Iraq and Afghanistan had pc's and were filesharing, hell, there'd be no more conflict! "hey Abu, we're going over to Assan's to behead some infidel bastards, wanna come? -F.U., I'm dl'ing!" emule=world peace? someday, maybe!

Be this as it may, he's still a lying jerk in my opinion

what did Moore lie about? Give some evidence

It is clear that Michael Moore offers mostly his opinion, sometimes his FACTS are a bit self serving. But it was about time somebody did to the Right what the Right has been doing for several years now: spewing lies and half truths about anybody they do not like. The FOX news channel has made the term 'fair and balanced' a totally ridiculous and farcical statement. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, to name but a few...where is the equivalent on the left? Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite? Now that there is Michael Moore - ONE single voice in the crowd - they are all already gunning after him. Believe me, it's only just beginning. They will drag him in the mud for being unpatriotic, greedy, power-hungry, etc. Freedom of Speech will be taken away from him, damn the constitution! You can even tell who is blinded by the Right in this forum. You will be able to recognize some by their choice of words('lying jerk'). Other demeaning and insulting words to follow, language is not the Right's strong point...shouting and spitting is...

You say he's not in it for the money,it's always about the benjimins,I havent seen him give any money to the families that were destroyed by the actions or lack of actions of 911.

Really? How much have YOU donated, you fucking hypocrite? I guess you're pretty generous with other people's money. How sad.

There you go, he's already accused of being greedy because he isn't giving any of his money to the families of 9/11. Well, bbamx68 hasn't SEEN him giving any money to them. And he is the treasurer... Michael Moore is just another guy out there. He is no saint. He enjoys celebrity like a lot of us would. He enjoys making money. He makes some arguments that don't hold water. BUT, his opponents have been doing the same or worse for a long, long time. And they are going to resent him to no end. His 'propaganda' will probably get buried under an avalanche of pseudo-patriotic vitriol that will make his 'propaganda' look like beginners luck.

I love when people call Moore a "liar", then seem to feel that they don't need to justify that point any further, as if calling him a liar actually makes him one. Do these people know that Moore hired three separate teams of lawyers AND a 12 member fact-checking group who spent 2 weeks dissecting his movie word for word looking for any misstatements or factual errors? Guess what, there were none. If these people were to actually see the movie they're criticizing they would understand that Moore presents both facts and opinions. He's very clear about which is which. If he were in fact a "liar", he'd be sued left and right for libel and slander, yet in all his years of making films and TV shows, he's only been sued once for a segment on TV Nation, and he won in court. I urge everyone to see this movie and think for themselves. Exercise your freedoms while you still have them. And please vote in November.

More Michael Moore! I agree with siber (and others) it's nice to see alternative propaganada... and look at the efforts that have to made to get this alternate information across! it would be nice if this perspective was more readily available. I recently read Moore's 'Stupid White Men' and whilst, even as a nobody, I was able to see flaws in it (evidence: critising AOLs Messenger monopoly, I don't think you're FORCED to use it), a lot of the information seemed bona fide and for some reason(?!) these facts are hardly mentioned in the mainstream media. If you listen to news 24/7 it's funny how some stories disappear from the headlines... if you research them you find they are true but taken off air. (Anyone recall the group from a non-muslim religous faction that were reported laughing and joking and VIDEOING the Twin Towers as they were hit? turns out they were swiftly deported to their, er, historical homeland on 'visa irregularities'). Stories like this disappearing from the news agenda play into the consiracy theorists hands. Back to Moore: The current popularity he is receiving is a refreshing change to the armogeddonist and narrow-minded propaganda that perpetuates the the political agenda. I suppose the mainstream media and politicians need to have something to huff-n-puff about to avoid the real issues. And with the collapse of the Cold War they need some other FEAR to keep us scared and subjugated. Back to the article that started this thread: it's good for Moore to condone a practice he can't actually stop. Very magnanimous.

There are always haters. And there always will be.

"propoganda".....just another of Karl Rove's talking points. God Bless Michael Moore

How can you people suck in the bulls--- that comes out of that liars mouth. I think people who absorb his phoney lines mixed with 1/8 truths need to find a way to retrieve their common sense if they ever had any or at least realize that hating Bush doesn't make that lardbutt truthful.

You are a very naive, ignorant person, the kind of people the Bush administration thrives on.

Fahrenheit 9/11 just passed $60 million dollars in two weeks. How can that be? Drug Limbaugh keeps assuring his wide-eyed, smooth-lobed listeners that no one is going to see this film, that all this attention is media spin. The only spinning this film will power is the wheels of the moving van leaving the White House next January.

o.k., definitely a little too early for the world peace thing I mentioned...

Re-defeat Bush in 2004

alconjohn, your ranting (lardbutt??) keeps proving my theory that 'the Right' is very good at foulmouthed language but very poor at substance. They have had a lot of practice. pathoslad, your use of the expression 'Drug Limbaugh' proves that there are some problems with unnecessary name-calling on both sides.

Dear Right-Wing Conservatives, I greatly enjoy receiving your private little notes, profane though they are. I find them highly entertaining. I only ask that future notes adhere to the following basic guidelines, and I will be happy to debate with you: 1) Spelling and Grammar. Blaming your lack of each to "bad typing skills" is a red herring. Whether you type with two fingers or ten, your subject and verb must agree in number. As for spelling... try www.dictionary.com. It's free. 2) Calling Michael Moore "fat" tells me more about you than it does about him. (Your point is well taken, Siber.) 3) Don't tell me that Fahrenheit 9/11 is "full of lies." List specific instances of the film that you believe to be false. This may entail your actually having to see the film, but life isn't always fair. 4) I know there are radical Islam extremists out there. At the moment, I'm a bit more worried about the radical Conservative extremists who have their greedy hands of the steering wheel of my country. One crisis at a time, thank you. 5) I can be nice as long as you can, and for ten seconds longer. Address me as you would like to be addressed... did you learn nothing from "The Passion of the Christ"? 6) I reiterate, you might actually have to watch this film before you start typing on your little keypad. Download it... Moore won't mind!

I admittedly lean toward the right. I dislike extremes wether they be left or right. If you discount the two parties most extreme believers, you will find that both parties are well intentioned and not that far apart. The majority in the middle just doesn't make good press.

What we must keep in mind is that this thread is about Michael Moore's opinion that it is OK to download his movie and watch it. He said: 'I think information, art and ideas should be shared'. He believes it should be OK to make a copy of something you bought/own and share it with friends, etc. FORGET his political opinions. Those are NOT what we should be discussing here. As long as you make a copy, download a free program, share with friends and you don't make it a business or you charge for it, you should be allowed to do whatever you want. This is not supposed to be a communist, fascist or a capitalist state but a state that has as its first priority the respect for personal freedom above ALL else.

erjl, I do respect your opinion. Do tell me though,... who can you quote as extreme LEFTIST individuals in 'The News Media' who use insulting language and demagoguery on a regular basis? I agree, over time, most people have been more centrist. I am worried that presently the sides are separating rapidly. Polarization is developing. I am afraid the Right is the more 'rabid' party and will be held responsible for the consequences...

Siber: Did you meen besides Al Frankin, James Carville, Paul Begalla and Howard Stern. Not to mention celebrities like Jenene Garafallo, Barbra Striesand and Alec Baldwin. The latter of which promised to move out of the country if Bush won.

Common sense is where I go, not Right or Left. The truth is I didn't see a single lie from Moore after watching the flick 2 times, but it took me only 2 seconds to realize someone's lying when Bush suddenly named Iraq as the next target. Now still no practical WMD found (2 rockets with safrin) and it's known that Bush, Dick and Paul had plan for invasion of Iraq even before coming to the White House. Iraq might become a legitimate tartget eventually for the sake of bringing peace to the MidEast via resolving Israel-Palestinian conflict, but nor urgently. That speaks loud and clear when not a single House member has relatives in the Arme Force over Iraq (same for the Senate except for McCain). As part of the storyline, that son wrote to his Mom expressed his frusration at Bush before his BlackHawk was downed. He was there and saw how futile and pointless the war was, at least not to the degree Bush et al claiming the legitimate reason at home. The dad embodied the sentiment when he said simply, "I wouldn't mind sacrificing my son, but at least I should know it was for the right reason". Troops moral would hardly have been that low had our soldiers felt the legitimacy of their duties, Abu Graibe aside for a moment.

pathoslad: watch the flaming or you're a goner. :)

I think ill just wait for this movie to come out on hbo

Yes, besides those. I mean: folks who have a forum or a standing and who hurl accusations, throw around information that can be purposely inaccurate, etc. Al Franken is a comic for SNL, Howard Stern really doesn't qualify as a leftist commentator, Carville and Begalla are hired by the networks to offer opposing views anytime that is thought necessary. Your celebrities are just regular folks when it comes to politics. I am not going to use Charlton Heston or Dennis Miller either... Praetor, what did pathoslad do?? Where you joking??

If you need some proof of Michael's "Mooreality", check out this site: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ Cheers, VB

id rather download it than fork over $9.50 to moore to see his left wing propaganda.

Quoting: "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery". Christopher Hitchins. Very well written by a definite master of the English language. This sentence took some time and effort to put down 'on paper'. Nevertheless, it is still just one more example of a meaningless flood of words. It accuses but doesn't make any point. Hitchins then goes on in describing various inconsistencies and "lies" in the movie. As there are many inaccuracies and self-serving twists in Michael Moore's movie, Hutchins has a field day. Unfortunately, that is not what is important about this movie. What is important, is that the 'left' is finally doing what the 'right' is doing and has been doing for years... The Right has been 'dishonest and demagogic', they have specialised in making 'pieces of crap' and 'exercises in moral frivolity' for a long time. So what if they are getting a little bit of their own medicine? What a waste of inspired prose by a good writer.

What is important, is that the 'left' is finally doing what the 'right' is doing and has been doing for years... The Right has been 'dishonest and demagogic', they have specialised in making 'pieces of crap' and 'exercises in moral frivolity' for a long time. So what if they are getting a little bit of their own medicine? If the "Right" has been so successful, why did we end up with 8 years of Clinton? Joseph Goebbels would be proud of Michael Moore (TC throws gasoline on fire instead of water) It all depends on what you definition of "is" is. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, to name but a few...where is the equivalent on the left? Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite? Walter Cronkite was "The man" back during the Vietnam days. Don't remember much of what he said, did like seeing the kill ratio in the side bar tho. Made me proud to be an American. 10 to 1 ratio~ if I remember right. Hmmmm, how many radio stations is "Air America" on these days? If their message was so effective, why have they been booted off so many stations? Oh yeah, they forgot to pay their bills & staff. Want to know who "Hannitized" me? Bill Clinton! Or was it Hillary??? Oh, know I remember, it was Nakita. Does anyone think I could make money by offering a service to "un-wad shorts"??????? Ya'll take a deep breath & try to get a good nights sleep. TC

Every post board I've ever been to has turned political, here this one goes. Look, basically, I've seen one of Michael Moore's films, The Big One, and it was interesting, however, I watched it in economics, and my teacher pointed out all the lies. I've been a conservative as long as I can remember. I would never pay to see Michael Moore's bull. He's very funny, but he is very wrong. He thinks socialism is the 'Christian' way. He thinks all people are hard workrs for being born. I'm glad he's not a dick about sharing his product, but he just wants to get his message out. He has an agenda. He hates our President. Seriously the shit he puts out is just an embarrassment to our country. These f&^%ing savages overseas are able to se our weaknesses in this. Michael Moore's films are good examples of how stupid and lazy America is. We believe everything we see. What another poster said about him being in it for the money-he was. Now he has all he'll need. Someone called the poster a hypocrite, and they can't even predict their actions. Shit like this breeds hate. It's not Moore's fault. Think of it like a drug-You're given a drug by a drug dealer being told its the greatest substance on earth. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. If you take it, it's still you're fault. No matter what happens. Society is to blame for absorbing his shit. If we just say, "No PAL, you're wrong. Don't micturate on our American Dream," then Moore would cut the political shit, and do what he should have done all along, stuck to stand up. I don't blame him for screwing with some heads in this nation, but I blame those who accept it. Smarten up and realize that if its worked for 3000 years, and failed when not applied, that maybe changing our country drastically isn't the answer to our problems. I really wish our forefathers were here today to flip Kerry the bird. Seriously, if you don't like the american way, then leave and go to a country where your ideas have been applied, and failed.

As an outsider (from Australia) I find it hard to believe that the land of free speech (USA)has so many people thinking that Michael Moore can`t have his say,maybe he should leave there, he would be welcome here

Quote:"As there are many inaccuracies and self-serving twists in Michael Moore's movie, Hutchins has a field day. Unfortunately, that is not what is important about this movie." Not important??!!! Hmmmm... I agree with you; Christopher Hitchens is a good writer, but to dismiss that as "having a field day" at Moore's expense..I believe the article says more about the inacurracies we are given (be it from the right or left)being passed off as fact, than most of Moore's proponents would care to admit or believe. I would think, that anyone spouting "inaccuracies," to support their agenda, would be reason to suspect the credibility of the so called facts in the rest of the film. This is supposed to be a documentary. Moore has been responding to his critics by calling his works "comedy." Don't you think it's time for both sides to stop the "moral frivolity," stop the inacurracies, lest we become a people of the truly uninformed? Here are more sites that give "evidence" of this mans agenda. The twisting of the facts serves not to educate, but divide. http://www.mooreexposed.com/ http://www.moorewatch.com/ Cheers, v

ausgum. of course moore has the right to make whatever movie he wants. but we have the right to call him on it. we also have the right to freedom of speech just like him. he can make whatever movie he wants- but we dont have to like it, and we have the right to tell others why we dont like it. freedom of speech is a two way street. if i walked down the street and sai "F U!" to someone, thats my freedom, but the other person has the right to call me something back.

Michael Moore is displaying what he sees. Some of what he's telling you may be far reaching. I think his goal is to just get a discusion going, get people to talk about what's been happening in this administration. See the movie. Check your own facts and maybe you'll come up with your own views before the film and it's issues are dicounted as "crap" and "lies". To simply ignore all of these issues and let wrongs continue that would be a "good examples of how stupid and lazy America is." To blindly set back and take the word of any leadership and believe what they tell you is right but not to listen or research other ideas that's lazy and stupid. Don't be lazy or stay ignorant to the issues. Research and talk about it. Fight for and help bring your issues to light. This is the American way.

In order to have a meaningful dialogue about the issues raised by Moore, the opposing views need to be a little more specific with their criticisms. It's always "he lies" or "he distorts" well, what did he lie about? What is he distorting? Does anyone dispute that Saudi royals and Bin Laden family members were rounded up and flown out of the country in the days following 9/11 without much questioning? Does anyone disagree that Bush and Bush Sr. were on the board of the Carlyle group along with members of the Bin Laden family, and that the Carlyle group made a LOT of money from it's United Defense contracts with the US Government for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is Moore lying about the fact that in 2000, Katherine Harris (head of Florida elections, and now a member of Bush's cabinet) hired a company called Choicepoint DBT to remove felons from the Florida voter rolls, then remove anyone whose Social Security number matched a known felon's by 80%, and THEN removed anyone whose NAME was similar to a felon's (ie felon Thomas Clarence would knock off the vote of Clarence Thomas, middle initials were skipped as well as suffixes Jr. & Sr.)resulting in over 90,000 people, mostly black and hispanic and DEMOCRAT, wrongly stripped of their voting rights and thus ensuring that Bush would defeat Gore in Florida. Of course Moore raises many more issues than just these, but I think this is a good starting point. So now do Moore's critics want to bring a counterpoint to these arguments? Or are these just "lies"? Let's hear some real discussion please. Thank you.

uh i do believe locknload showed a link to an essay that rebuted the movie point for point.

about the voting thing- gore got 5,000 votes from dead people- end of discussion

senperfi: Of course he's displaying what *he* sees. That's the point! That's when it stops being a documentary, and starts to become biased with extreme prejudice! If you think his goal is to get a discussion going you're naive. His goal, his only goal here...too unseat Bush, period! I have checked my facts, read countless articles both pro & con, and come to a conclusion. Michael Moore has an agenda, as does the left & right, and to think other wise is folly. He does stretch the facts, but does so to the point of incredulous behavior. I will continue to take your advice and not be lazy or stupid, thus, uniformed and ignorant. Cheers, v

pcshateme: "about the voting thing- gore got 5,000 votes from dead people" LOL Now that's funny!! I guess Jesus came back just in time for the elections! Cheers, v

Quote:Does anyone dispute that Saudi royals and Bin Laden family members were rounded up and flown out of the country in the days following 9/11 without much questioning? No they haven't disputed it. In fact, Clarke admitted he, and he alone made the decission to allow them egress at the request of the Saudi gov't! Moore new this when he made the film, but choose to leave it out, and you may also remember that Moore supported Clarke for president. Quote: "Does anyone disagree that Bush and Bush Sr. were on the board of the Carlyle group along with members of the Bin Laden family, and that the Carlyle group made a LOT of money from it's United Defense contracts with the US Government for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?" Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family—principally through *Bush’s father’s* relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family—who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms—had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group “gained” from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is *not mentioned* in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration. Moore claims that refusing to mention the Crusader cancellation was alright because the cancellation came after the United Defense IPO. But the cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on Carlyle, since Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense. Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn’t tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not after it). There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, “The Ex-Presidents’ Club,” The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory. Moore alleges that the Saudis have given 1.4 billion dollars to the Bushes and their associates. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud.” Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush. ...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—"five months after" Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. Your numbers on the purge of voters in just pure fantasy! 90,000 people??!!! Show me the proof!! What actually happened was: The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Palm Beach Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties. When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger. (On the other hand, John Lott's study of the Florida fiasco suggests that Republicans and Democrats were purged in approximately equal numbers, with Black Republicans being disproportionately impacted.) It seems to me that even if we presume that the 1,100 wrongly purged Florida voters would have voted Democratic at the same rate that felons do (even though some of these voters were non-felons who were the victim of mistaken identity), the net result of the 2000 purge fiasco harmed Bush: the number of votes which Gore gained as a result of 20 counties refusing to conduct the felon purge far outnumbered how many votes that Gore lost as the result of the overbroad purges in other counties. How's that for some real discussion?? Cheers, v

thank you

At least now were discussing the issues, and I appreciate that. "No they haven't disputed it. In fact, Clarke admitted he, and he alone made the decission to allow them egress at the request of the Saudi gov't! Moore new this when he made the film, but choose to leave it out, and you may also remember that Moore supported Clarke for president." Actually, the Clark who made this statement was Richard Clark who was head of the anti-terrorism team for the White House (he was a holdover from the Clinton administration). The Clark Moore was supporting for president was retired general Wesley Clark. As for his admission that "he alone" made this decision, it raises another question of why Bush would let that happen. The first thing that should have been done was to ask the family questions about their knowlege of Osama Bin Laden. That seems to just be common sense. If Bush is our "leader" and all air traffic was grounded after 9/11, then how could that have happened without his knowledge and if Bush didn't know, then what else doesn't he know? As for 90,000 disenfranchised voters, that number was taken from the book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". It details how the election was stolen from Gore in Florida. The book is full of copies of memos from the Florida Election Commitee showing the 2 versions of what happened (memos prior to the investigation showing their intent to keep poor minorities from voting, then memos after the investigation trying to make it look like they weren't) I'm at work right now so I don't have the book in front of me, but I can give you more details about it later. "Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group" While this is true, Moore does make the point that Bush continued as senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian board for 2 years following September 11th. The fact that a former president and the father of the current president would continue business relations with the family of a wanted terrorist, and the ruling family of a country where 14 of the 19 hijackers came from, while perhaps not technically illegal, seems somewhat suspect, and is a point that I'd like them to address. Locknload, I wish I had more time to reply to your other points right now. Like I said, I'm at work and I can't speak articulately about some of your information without refreshing my memory. But I'm glad you took the time to at least present a real counterpoint, something that has been missing in a lot of these dialogues. Peace

Sorry about the Clark misspeak. Actually, as I understand it... If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the movie you’ll find he’s got his facts right. He and others in the film state that 140 something Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after Sept. 13. The date—Sept. 13—is crucial because that is when a national ban on air traffic, for security purposes, was eased But nonetheless,viewers probably leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. A false impression is created by Moore’s failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then. The false impression is further pushed when Moore shows the singer Ricky Martin walking around an airport and says, “Not even Ricky Martin would fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one. Except the bin Ladens.” The movie fails to mention that the FBI interviewed about 30 of the Saudis before they left. And the independent 9/11 commission has reported that “each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.” We could go on, continue quoting different sources all day. I guess it comes down to, whom do you believe. Each has their own agenda and both sides feel they are correct, especially some of the impassioned posts I've read here and elsewhere on the web. I suppose it will be left up to us to descern what is the truth, and what is not. snuffmull, thanks for the banter. Cheers,v

oooh, conspiracy theory: are locknload and pcshateme the same person? and does (s)he work for the CIA? Only joking... obviously. Interesting, just did a search to check locknload's info and found: http://www.fuckfrance.com/read.html?postid=709648&replies=30&page=1 The attitude of the website says more than the newsweek article posted. :>0 Compare that site to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1900244#1900261 (hope the links work...) All I can assume is that the anti-Moore lobby are far more active, vocal and belligerent than the anti-Bush lobby. To move closer to the article that started this thread: How does Bush feel about file-sharing? if they're going to bust their own citizens for it, will the Republican Peace-mongers (that's irony, that is) invade China next... ooh I don't think so, China DOES have weapons of mass destruction. Darn! moved off topic again, so might as well ask "why weren't the bin Ladens sent to Guantanamo Bay for a year or two?" - just to check what they knew. It's good enough treatment for those (so far un-charged) poor suckers picked up in Afganistan. I'll get me coat...

You know what Locknload, I think you're absolutely right. We're going to have to agree to disagree and that's totally fine. I'm just glad we finally had a chance to talk about the real issues Moore raises in the film, and not just a "he lies" "no, he doesn't" kind of meaningless discussion. You can dislike Michael Moore for a number of reasons, but I think the fact that he's got people like you and I talking about stuff is definitely a good thing. And I have more respect for someone who HAS an opinion (even if it's different than mine)than for someone who has no opinion at all. Thanks.

I wish there were more people like us on some of these forums. I just went to the site posted by jimboco....... Holy bloodpressure Batman!!! The passion over there is frekin' scary!!!! Thanks again suffmull. V

while i was watching fox news there was a story about the terrorist group hamas distributing copies of F-9/11 as propaganda. I also saw this story on CNN headline news but it was only about 30 seconds long compared to the fox story that was about 3 minutes long.

good job moore, ya got the terrorists thinking, i bet al zarqawui gives it three severed heads up.

Message from the UK for you American dudes....you have two political parties. One is far right, one is moderate right. You don't HAVE a left wing. (Neither do we any more under Bliar's 'leadership'.) Also bear in mind that anyone who takes the time to make a political movie such as 9/11, or set up a website such as those mentioned above, has an agenda to fill, a perspective to push onto the masses. To believe that any media, whether it be national news or some dude blogging from his room, is without spin or bias is to show a shocking naivety and lack of understanding about how these things work. If you fancy a c/f on that, go search for Bill Hicks and Waco. The news never reported the fire-spurting tanks, strange that. With regard to the 5000 votes from dead people claims etc etc (there's stacks more), is there proof? Word of mouth isn't worth a damn thing unless it's backed up with evidence. Cheers Steve

Although I do appreciate the quality of the majority of the posts (much more thoughtful, much less yelling and cursing than expected), it has become obvious that this thread has become a political one and it has stopped being relevent to its headline. Of course, it does show that 'videoheads' do have political fire in the belly...

What I find equally intriguing is the agitprop as a growing political medium. The financial and controversial buzz created by Moore's film has not gone unnoticed by either party. Because these films are by and large designed as rhetoric, designed to persuade, those who create them (like the pamphleteers before them) will (like Moore) encourage the online P2P distribution of their films. After all, what good is either "Fahrenheit 9/11" or the right's "Michael Moore Hates America" if nobody sees it? Film distributers will continue to take a hard-line against such sharing even as the directors of these agitprops continue to offer them... and once the gates are open, with the instant access of broadband and p2p access, we might be witnessing a paradigm shift. If Moore's film affects the election (and I personally hope it does) it will lead to a host of such films at the tip of every election, successful or not. Suddenly the documentary film maker, once considered the nerd of Hollywood, becomes a powerplayer.

The agitprop as a tool for either side seems to cause even more dissension, and quite possibly create more fanaticism by those that accept these ideas as truth. Agitprop, disguised as a documentory, as a means of disseminating ideas, does not seem to serve us well. Rather, as you pointed out,it may lead us to a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. That kind of propaganda, having that kind of influence; that scares the bjesus out of me! You are correct in saying "it is intriguing." I just hope it's not detrimental to our reasoning or common sense. Cheers,v

hey locknload i totaly agree that micheal moore is just spreading propaganda... and for that brititsh fellow, most people in america think that there is only a moderate left and a totaly socialst left... George Bush is about as liberal as democrats in the 60's... He actually reminds me alot of kenedy, So believe in your opinion.. "I invented the internet" Al Gore

Harryford, you are just too much... Which Bush and which 'Kenedy' are you referring to?

Harryford, now that i think of it, bush reminds me of jfk or rfk (minus the sex scandals). democrats 40 years ago would roll in there graves if they saw what there brethren are doing today. JFK, JFK Jr. and RFK could have done alot of good for this country- why the hell were we left with a fat, drunken, socialist murderer? (ted)

Geoarge W. Bush and JFK... political stances are similair.

pcshateme: if you attack people with insults... "Fat",...OK I'll grant you that one but by using that term you are insulting 40% of the US population, "Drunken", ...do we really know if Ted has more of a history of drinking than George?, "Socialist", many people would consider that more a compliment than an insult but never mind..., "Murderer", please, explain. Present proof and evidence, record of conviction. etc. If you do, I will not counter by raising issues about George being responsible for more deaths than Ted. You would make a much better case for your point or conviction if you would not be such a loose cannon. Harryford, this theory, whereby JFK and George Bush have similar views(stances), is news to me. Can you give a little more detail about this?

Both are against abortion, both believe in a strong military... JFk failed at bay of pigs where George succeded in Afganistan. Both are strong believers in the christian faith. Both were not afraid to backdown and appear weak, Jfk in the cuban missle chrisis and bush in Iraq. Both set goals on space, while kennedys in my opinion was alot better and more straight forward but none the less Bush set a goal on mars. Just a few

Fairly good points...Just a couple of addenda: JFK did have the ability to recognize when he made a mistake. George has 'never made a mistake'. A bit scary... George has 'succeeded' in Afghanistan. That remains to be seen. He 'succeeded' in the opening round...may be more accurate. They were both 'strong believers in the Christian faith'...Well, JFK was 'Christian' - like just about every US President. I don't think you will find any kind of evidence that he ever invoked his Christianity in his political views the way George is doing that now. I don't quite understand your statement about "Both were not afraid to backdown and appear weak".

"Fat, drunken, socialist, murderer"!! Come on, tell us how ya really feel, and don't hold back. LOL Look guys, the point that pathoslad made about the agitprop as a growing political medium is one to be taken seriously. Our very ideas can be manipulated to the point of extreme ignorance of the facts, except those proposed by the film maker, author, editor..etc... Unless one can descern the difference between truth and personal agenda, we shall fail miserably as a free nation. Rather, we will become a people who use vitriolic rehtoric to shove our opinions down someone elses throat! This serves absolutely no constructive purpose, and history is replete with examples of this. The oligarchy has been tried many times and has failed because of the few, trying to tell the many, how we should think. Of course, I could be wrong. Nah! Cheers,v

I was referring to Jfks handling of the soviet union and George Bushs handling of iraq, even though many people and countries did not want the evil dictator gone he did what was right.

locknload: Your right calling F9/11 a documentary is far reaching. No doubt,It is a biased film. Just try to get a biased anything (news, movies, reviews) very difficult if not improbable. I'm just glad theres something that is getting the discussions going. Can't wait to see the right documentarys that this film will help spur. I'm sure Moore has more in mind than opening up discussions, but these discussions have resulted and it's well needed. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

siber: ted was driving drunk with his girlfriend and ran off a bridge, he swam to safety without tring to rescue his girlfriend- she died- that is manslaugter and reckless endangerment, he got away with it because he is a kennedy.

locknload: Your right calling F9/11 a documentary is far reaching. No doubt,It is a biased film. Just try to get a Unbiased anything (news, movies, reviews) very difficult if not improbable. I'm just glad theres something that is getting the discussions going. Can't wait to see the rights documentarys that this film will help spur. I'm sure Moore has more in mind than opening up discussions, but these discussions have resulted and it's well needed. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

pcshateme: I thought that was Stan. No wait, that was Eminem. Damn.

???

sorry pcshateme, there's an Eminem track about an obsessive fan, drioe his car of a bridge <cool sample from Dido>. Your Ted Kennedy post reminded me... just trying to lighten the mood.

IF they really don`t care if people do get it by P2P, then why don`t then offer it free to watch on a website? That would be great, offer it in low quality so no one could rip it to DVD but could watch it if they really wanted. Help get the message to all.

Here's an interesting article about WMD's. http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/let_the_eat_yellowcake/ Cheers, v

It seems that some of the French don't particularly care for MM's piece of drivel. French Flock to'Fahrenheit'; Critics Balk The daily newspaper Le Monde wrote: "To affirm ... that it was crowned (in Cannes) for its cinemagraphic qualities is either proof of incompetence, a pure lie or a cynical joke." Le Monde said the film more closely resembles propaganda, and it carried a separate article to separate "truths" from "errors" in the film. Moore, in an interview with Liberation, said the movie "presents my own version of the facts." Even less kind was France's superstar philosopher, Bernard-Henri Levy, who dismissed "Fahrenheit 9/11" as dishonest. "When Michael Moore describes Iraq, before the American intervention, as a sort of oasis of peace and happiness, where people flew kites .... there wasn't only that," Levy said on RTL radio. Levy noted that he opposed the war and considers Bush a "catastrophe for America." But, he added: "Saddam Hussein was also a horrible dictator. And that is not in the film of Michael Moore." For 20-year-old student Adrien Bloch, it was much simpler. "It's very important, this movie," he said. "We don't like Bush and this movie is anti-Bush ... It reflects our thinking." I guess there are some decerning crtics after all. Cheers, v

Fahrenheit 9/11. Very little, if any, truth in the movie. No, I have not seen it. Never plan on seeing it. And I hope I never have to view another picture of Michael Moore. Unless it is of one of "save the Whales" trying to drag his butt back into the ocean while he is sun bathing on the ocean front. Why would Michael Moore encourage something that is reviled by his industry. Pirating. He wants his propoganda distributed as widely as possible. Remember the words of Adolph Hitler's propogandist? He has publically stated (as has George Soros) that he wants GW Bush out of office. That is his/their goal. TC

Buik: very disappointing. You have not seen the movie but you know 'there is very little, if any, truth in the movie'. Who is influenced by propaganda here? Voting GW Bush out of office may not be what you want. If Soros and Moore say that they want him out of office, that is no different from Limbaugh wanting Clinton out of office. As long as the opinions are expressed in a civilized manner, that's democracy...

Buik, G.W. Bush was not truthful with the American people that is fact not propaganda. Still haven't found those WMD's and won't find them. It was said that Saddam Hussien had a hand in 9/11 not true. The 9/11 commission has said no ties to Hussien and 9/11 exist.The truth is the Bush Administration wanted to gain control of Iraq's oil fields. Yes Hussien is a nut case but, I don't think it was America's place to go invade another country because they think their leader(dictator) is not to their liking.Do you think it would be right for another country to invade the United States because they don't like G.W.Bush? There are enough domestic issues here that need to be addressed.We did not need to go outside of our own country to meddle in others affairs especially against the advice and without U.N. support. He just created a HUGE TAX BILL for us and our children to pay for many years to come. WE need jobs,better wages,affordable housing,affordable healthcare for every citzen(not just the wealthy)Funny how Haliburton (V.P.Chaney) had been awarded contracts to rebuild Iraq even before the U.S. invaded.These are not rumors but facts!Bush won't be re-elected in November unless he cheats again.If that happens again then the citizens of this country better start looking at who's an evil dictator. I have not yet viewed Mr. Moore's film yet but plan to soon.It has definately stirred up alot of controversy which is a good thing it makes people THINK hopefully for themselves at least if nothing else get them to READ a newspaper & watch what's going on in this country,the future for us and our children depend on us paying close attention to what is going on now. Get out and VOTE!it is your right exercise it. If you don't vote you have no right to gripe about any of the goings on in this goverment.This is just my humble opinon.

Facts! What facts? So far I've read statements with emotional conntent, but no facts. v

FACT- the cia investigation (bipartisan) has found that the bush administration DID NOT pressure anyone in there findings. the cia, russian, german, and french intellegence reports all said the same thing. "saddam hussien is an IMMINENT threat and we believe him to be aquiring the materials needed to make a nuclear device." that is from the report released monday. now why would the 3 countries that wouldnt go to war with us give us the REASON to go to war? we were set up.

excuse me, NO WMDS!?!?!?! what about in 88 when he GASSED his own people, or what about the recent find of cyclosarin nerve agents in rockets,BTW it a hell of alot deadlier than anthrax. So americans did not find them but polidh soldiers did. BTW saddam gassing the kurds http://hnn.us/articles/862.html, WMD's found http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/07/02/522924-ap.html

just a few facts as of iraqs wmds as of 1995 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm how would he get rid of 100's of tons of chemical weapons, we will never find it all. He could of put it anywhere in the desert, that place is f@#king huge!

clinton gave him 8 years to hide it, it might not even be in iraq right now. he had more than enough time to shuffle it somewhere. even IF there were no wmd (which i HIGHLY doubt) iraq broke 17 UN RESOLUTIONS- the UN was REQUIRED to step in but they didnt because Koffi Anon was getting rich off the oil for food scandal like france, germany, and russia.

friend's father is over there right now and like he says "the us invading iraq was an act of law enforcement"

Hey guys, Wow, talk about Groupthink. coachop94 has it just the way I see it. True enough no WMDs. Since the rest of us are really only speculating because we've all been lied to for so long we can't tell the truth, how about this scenario: Saddam Hussein has hidden his WMDs. Long before the war started he had given them over to the direct control of Osama Ben Laden's men. Ben Laden has them well hidden in the Sudan perhaps. He waits for the perfect moment-a moment when we least expect it. If we haven't found the WMDs and we haven't found Osama. Then maybe, just maybe, both "targets" are in the same location. (Is that scary enough for you?) Because I'm too scared to even care! We need a new president. The Bush family has brought us two wars! I think that's quite enough for one family, don't you?

pchateme: no offence to your friend's father but "the us invading iraq was an act of law enforcement" - well I didn't know America was so crime-free already. As for the WMDs (Mass Distruction, yeh, like a small amount of destruction is okay), sure Hussein had them, I believe the Americans sold them to him to use on Iran, the Americans certainly didn't seem too concerned when he actually did USE them. As for finding them, if they remain, well from the speech Colin Powell gave to the UN with his blurry photos and vial of anthrax (did he get it from that AMERICAN bloke that was sending it through the post a while back?), he seemed to be trying to give the impression that the American government knew exactly what Hussein was up to (with the resulting tacit admition that the last ten years or so of embargoes and occasional bombing had failed in underming any weapons programme) it leaves the world with the worrying fact that they could be ANYWHERE. At risk of coming across as unpatriotic - didn't the Americans drop not one, but two WMD on Japan in WW2? where people are still dying from 'fallout' related issues? I suppose dropping them on a deserted area as a way of showing the power wasn't an option? Didn't America commit an act of near genocide on the native Indians? didn't America use terrorist acts to win their independence (or did they swap one bunch of criminals for another... just think if you were still a colony you'd have a national health service, free for anybody that needed it). This sort of behaviour has been going on since history began, hijacking planes isn't new, crashing them isn't new... The question really has to be asked why the multi-billion dollar intelligence agencies weren't ready for the atrocious act that occurred on 9/11 - for which Hussein was not responsible. At the end of the day, sure Hussein was a 'nutcase' (possibly American inspired if you believe those rumours) but why was it neccassary to flatten a country's infrastructure and kill 10 of 1000's of people to remove one man?? As for disobeying UN resolutions, isn't that something that Isreal does on a regular basis? the ones that America weren't able to veto for them. I for one felt that the Iraq action was precipated through lies and deception and that the motive was money, not 'freedom', not 'peace' and not 'democracy' for which their is no historical pretext in Iraq. If America wants world peace maybe America (and Britain) should stop supplying WGD (weapons of general distruction). But they won't. Why?. Money. The question to ask when you have the rare chance to vote is do you agree with this behaviour or would you like to vote for something different? Sorry I haven't backed my statements up with 'evidence' (proper evidence - not intelligence report) but I believe the facts are true, and the opinions are only my own.

I'm sure Mr. Moore would be extremely pleased if he were to see the discussion he has managed to spark. But then again that was probably his intention all along.

harryford, did you read the articles that you gave links for in your earlier posts?

Jimboco, good points all. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan has somehow been forgotten. I've always found it tragically ironic that the only country to ever use WMDs against another (USA) would, several decades later, serve as the one country publicly denying WMDs to the rest. Add to that the fact (yes-FACT) that the same country to have ever used WMDs against another privately sells WMDs, and is also one of the largest arms dealers in the world. What are the consequences of such policy? How can a country sell lethal weapons with the left hand and attack other countries for having them with the right? Terrorism begins right then and there and it lives within that tragic contradiction. Question: If Bush did not lie, then why is British PM Blair also being accused of lying by his citizenry. Didn't both Bush and Blair share pre-war intelligence? I guess it's just a coincidence...NOT!

Quote:

---

I've always found it tragically ironic that the only country to ever use WMDs against another (USA) would, several decades later, serve as the one country publicly denying WMDs to the rest.

---

Harryford, I believe Siber asked you if you had read your weblinks in an earlier post. You really should respond. As for me, I treasure my naivete, my friend. It keeps me young at heart. You miss the point. Germany in WWI is not Germany today, is it. They are hardly the World Power that USA is now. The new European Union is changing that. As for Saddam's fight against Iran- It would not have amounted to much without US aid and arms! Gas Attack, Chemical Agents are hardly Nuclear bombs! Chemicals and Gas versus Atomic bombs - You do the math. BTW- How old are you? I mean what's up with "Japs". Sounds racist to me. Are you trapped in a time warp?

Well as for the Japanese bombs, if America really wished to unleash their WMD, it would have been better to have dropped one on one of the many small islands, or in a less populated area of Japan. And why was it neccessary drop a second bomb?. I would also like to point out that if America had sent serious military support to Britain as soon as we needed it, with the intentions of the Nazis being well known (Chaplins film 'The Great Dictator was made in 1940, America didn't take action until after Pearl Harbour in December 1941) the war in Europe would have ended sooner, saved millions of lives and Pearl Harbour may never have happened. Was it to allow countries such as Britain to virtually bankrupt themselves stopping the Nazi expansion and allowing Uncle Sam to become a world superpower (and therefore very rich - for some anyway)? - still that's another story. And I've already mentioned American inaction over Husseins use of WMD against Iran. And I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that America was actually arming both sides (wasn't there that Oliver North thing). Great way to keep the peace, or was America trying to watch countries destroy each other and than step in and clean up? (again). Harryford: as you accuse Yaucano of being 'naive' can I ask if, using your logic, we should kill everybody on the entire planet because it would stop people dying in the future? By the way, when I say America I mean the people that really run the show. Not the American voters.

ive seen countless specials on the droping of the bombs, and all say the same thing- even the bbc video- that dropping the bombs saved tens of millions. think of how many would have died had we had to invade japan? wed have lost millions and the japanese millions more. why did we use 2? becuase they didnt surrender after the fist did they? why didnt we use them on a less populated area? gee yeah it would realy scare them if we blew up a desolate forest wouldnt it. (sarcasm) anyway yeah japan seems real pissed off at us for bombing them (there now one of our best friends)- (sarcasm) the reson we can have wmd and not areas like iran or other mid east area is because they (lets face it) are CRAZY and would actualy use them! our nukes are just bluffing tools left over from the cold war, were never gonna use them.

jimboco- that would have been a PREEMPTIVE WAR- iraq is a PREEMPTIVE war as well so i guess you support it.

Anyone care to place a bet on whether or not our fire bombing raids over Japan killed more during a single raid? Those raids did not bring Japan to its knees. They did not know what hit them with the first bomb. After all, there was only the one "recon" plane in the air. The second one let them know that if every B-29 came in with one of those..... well, you get the picture.

to those of you who say iraq is a preemptive war and we shouldnt have done it- why should we have gone into germany? they didnt attack us, it was japan that attacked us- wasnt it preemptive to go and LIBERATE the people of europe- my o my, when we liberate you its all well and dandy but when we liberate someone else its different- right? selfish antiwar eurpoeans

Pre-emptive war? It was more like a resumption of hostilities since Hussein continually refused to abide by the ceasefire agreement and multiple UN resolutions. Any one remember a few weeks back about Vladimir Putin saying that Russian Intellegence had given info to the USA that Saddam was planning attacks on the US and our interests worldwide?

tsk tsk, pchateme: Do you work for American Intelligence? because your 'guess' is wrong. I think you'll find Germany was in the process of committing atrocities. Unlike the 'historic' atrocities of Hussein, which as has been pointed out were facilitated and then ignored by America at the time - when an invasion may have been justified. Britain also acted on the German invasion of Poland with whom they had a treaty, again if America had followed through with freeing Kuwait and actually supported the small rebellion against Hussein, then an invasion may have been justified. As you claim America's nukes are 'bluffing' tools I don't think you are in a position to say they will never get used, but I suppose there would be little 'profit' in it, unless America continues to develope 'battlefield nuclear weapons' (although IMHO there are bigger dangers out there in these modern times. Another Chaplin film, oddly enough :) You are claiming that other countries can't be trusted, do you include the russians, the chinese, the british, the FRENCH and whomever else? and how did India and Pakistan reach the point of testing nuclear weapons whilst America held an unjustified preOCCUPATION (pun intended) with Iraq? India and Pakistan?? now there's a flashpoint (no pun intended). I'm not against war as such, a bit of killin' turns boy into a man (or get's him shot for cowardice). But this current situation stinks. p.s. I guess the Japanese are a very forgiving people.

pchateme: just caught up with your latest post and notice a semantic issue quote: 'when we liberate you' World War 2 was about stopping a Nazi Germany dominating the globe, Britain was never occupied by Germany. One of the points is that Hussein was almost probably not a world-wide threat, and certainly not the biggest threat.

pcshateme, I have made this statement before. You are assuming that anybody who argues against your point must - by definition - be one of those ungrateful Europeans. That we should remain grateful forever and ever about having been saved by the Americans from the jaws of German calamity remains one of your favorite arguments. Believe me, Europeans - as a whole - remain very grateful to what your GRANDPARENTS and GREAT-GRANDPARENTS did in Europe and Asia against the Axis forces. They even remain grateful for the post-war Marshall Plan of economic reconstruction. They just DON'T CARE for the grandchildren of these heroes blabbering, bragging and shouting all over the world about how right America always is in everything it has done ever since. The heroism of your grandparents does not justify the blind acceptance of the actions and proposed actions of todays generation of Americans. George Bush and Dick Cheney are no Eisenhower and Patton. The French have long ago abandoned taking credit for Lafayette's actions during the American war of Independence. And so they should. They also don't mind you changing your habit of 'French-kissing' to the more patriotic 'Freedom-kissing'...

hey- germany was NOT an imminent threat to the united states. the united states liberated england, FRANCE, and all of europe had no problem with that, but when the united states liberated another country from a fascist regime that was begining to threaten surrounding nations (much the way hitler did) the united states is made out to be the bad guy? think. jimboco i made sure not to use "we" or "you" especialy for you. if the only arguement you can make is someones tenses, than you my friend have lost the arguement.

Silly argument: "the reson we can have wmd and not areas like iran or other mid east area is because they (lets face it) are CRAZY and would actualy use them! our nukes are just bluffing tools left over from the cold war, were never gonna use them." What does that say about USA? They actually did use them! Buik is right. Its not a preemptive war but a resumptive war (if there is such a thing) Big Bush started it and Little Bush finished it. Siber- Good for you. As an American I am also sick of this cockamamy ""inherited heroism" that so many Americans fall back on. It's elitist and doesn't fly in the real world. Jimboco, I agreewith you but killing is ugly. Being a soldier is one thing, but watching someone die is something else altogether. A man is more than just a killing machine, don't you think?

Just a few points: Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the 'united states'. Also, England was never occuppied by Germany. You say 'all of Europe had no problem with that' well, I think the Germans did. Do you realise that Europe is a continent and not a nation of states? Hitler did more than threaten, he invaded, much like Hussein and Kuwait (I've referred to that previously). Hussein's fascist regime was installed and supported by America. The point about semantics was that you obviously had an image and attitude in mind when you wrote it, and I thought was just something else that you needed correcting on. And the word 'you' is a pronoun not a 'tense', and that's called grammar. But now i guess I'm being picky. pcshatme: Do you actually read the full posts? Argument? I thought we were having a discussion on the issues, the facts, and differing point views. You only seem to excel in the latter. Ho-hum, I guess we might as well agree to disagree. Agreed?

Yaucano Tx for quoting me on the resumption. However, you leave the impression that Daddy Bush struck Iraq, unprovoked, and little bush is just finishing up the job. "Buik is right. Its not a preemptive war but a resumptive war (if there is such a thing) Big Bush started it and Little Bush finished it." Uhm, who invaded Kuwait. Was not that the basis for Gulf War One? Why did Big Bush not take it all the way? Because he was abiding by a UN resolution "to only remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait". Shows how shortsighted that great debating body can be. And, I guess it was only a co-alition back then because the French & Germans were involved. How many countries declared war on each other during World War Two (US terminology) but never actually sent troops into battle?

"Do you realise that Europe is a continent and not a nation of states?" now thats just funny. europe is becomeing more and more like a nation of states- you all share the same currency, and the same constitution. face it- europe is now a nation and all of the "countries" are now states.

pcshateme, You are digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole. I'm going to bed and I'll check with the debth of the hole in the morning. Don't take offense. We have to remember that we are not really in charge of solving the problems of the world here, I consider this all just good fun...'Night.

i dont care you- maybe youll impose UN sanctions on me- that'll stop me. :)

i did read the links, ill give it to you that they only found traces but you cant have traces without a precurser, as for the "japs" remarks I dont want to spell put Jappanese or whatever, Everything is racist with these people. As for pcshateme you really need to stop talking about stuff you just heard on the radio and not knowing wut you are talking about.. ENGLAND WAS NEVER INVADED!!! WE DID NOT LIBERATE THEM!!! Where are the Germans, They should be the ones bithing, The firebombing of dresdin killed more people than at hiroshima.

Wow! I been away too long. Ya know I've read here that England was never invaded, and that Germany did not attack us, and was some how not an imminent threat. Now that may be true as far as ground forces, but the Luftwaffe had at them for months until Goering gave up. England was able to resist these attacks with the help of US supplies, even though we hadn't declared war yet, we were involved. They were our allies, just as England was Poland's. The fire bombing in Tokyo did kill more than one A-bomb, but the Nippon Empire was not about to surrender. There was a military coup in progress to kill the emperor, to stop him from accepting the US terms of surrender. To them, surrender was unforgivable,and I believe Truman made the appropriate choice in dropping the bombs. The world had been at war for six years. The country and the world were sick of war, and these bombs would ultimately end hostilities and save countless lives. The idea was discussed by the US to show Japan the power of the A-bomb rather than dropping it, but the US decided not to take the chance of a misfire. As for still being a colony with national health care. Well, their health care sucks. You have to wait for months to get any serious care. And now, England has voted to take away a persons ability to defend themselves and families. No guns allowed! Their crime rate has jumped dramatically as it has Australia since it implimented these same laws. I guess that free health care will come in handy. I think it would be fair to say that Hussein was not a nice man. Now, with that in mind, along with his beligerance against , not only the US, but the world, it is better to be rid of him than have him in power. You can say what you will, but the UN has lacked testicular fortitude for some time now, and if this man were left in power to continually harass the region, and to some, the world, I feel that at some time in the future, all our lives would be more misserable. The UN has become too weak for someone like Hussein to take seriously. After all, he threw their inspectors out of the country, continually disobeyed their resolutions, and probably gave refuge to those that would do the US and the world more harm. As the only super power left in the world, I believe it to be an obligation of sorts to help rid the world of such tyrants. As far as the way we've gone about it, that is going to be something for the historians and the Iraqi to decide. Has the US made mistakes?? Sure. Have we been told everything? Probably not..but if some would rather be ruled by a UN proposed world gov't...uh, uh!!! I think, now, more than ever, we have to be ever more vigilant in what out gov't does, and if we do not like it....vote the suckers out of office. Too many Americans do not exercise this right, but if what is going on here is any indication, I'll bet they'll be a very large turn out this year. And although I don't agree with how Michael Moore presnts his politics, he certainly has fired us up. And maybe that was his ponit all along. I bet alot more of us will be at the polls this year. Cheers, v

Welcome back locknload. My point about delayed action by the US, was that the US could have helped end Nazi atrocities and expansion very early on, not that American aid wasn't appreciated (obviously) but that just emphasisis the worthiness of Britains efforts at the time to contain a threat about which there was NO speculation. RE: guns for all I'm going to throw some dubious figures into the ring, but I believe the US has around 10x the number of murders and only 5x the population of Britain... although I'm sure that will even out eventually, you need a thriving crime industry to keep those lawyers off the street. As for Britains health service, it's apparent ineffiencey is down to the politicians that control it, but the principal is sound and it's an achievement that it works at all. I don't understand your comment... quote: along with his beligerance against , not only the US, but the world Is there any evidence of this? surely he (Hussein) was only belligerent against Iran, Kuwait and his own people. Not the US or the rest of the world? if you're looking for belligerence against the rest of the world I don't think America has a clean conscience, America's idea of international policing seems to be to close it's eyes to atrocities as long as the perpetrators support American Business. Disobeying UN resolutions cannot be used as an arguement to invade a country and terrorise it's population. Unless Israel is the next target for America. As for throwing out inspectors, that's not too disimlar to Israel refusing to allow UN observors in at all. It would be interesting to see America's reaction to having weapons inspectors check what they're up to. (And who they're selling to). It doesn't help the UN's authority that America acts without it's approval but then refers back to it when things didn't go quite as smoothly as America would like to have us believe. It's good that we all seem to agree that Hussein was a bad, bad, man. But it does appear that American activity over the last couple of decades has caused a great deal of prolonged suffering to the Iraqi people, and after all that time still ended up with an American invasion, as I've said previously, to get rid of ONE man (to whom America was friendly when he WAS a major war criminal). Has the world become a safer place? time will tell, but if it does... isn't that bad news for those that make money out of war and turmoil? and as they seem to have control in America I don't think world peace is seriously on the agenda. It is great that Michael Moore can create such discussion, at the very least he does a lot to dispel ignorance.

It's good to be back jimboco. If I'm not mistaken, the US, at the time WW II began, pretty much wanted an isolationist stance & wanted to stay out of the war in Europe. They were definately weary of the Japanese, and believed that French & British could handle things with our support. So much for the French! You're correct about the population difference, although I'm not convinced that making more anti gun laws will reduce the violence. Rather, the laws that are in effect now (to the tune of 20,000) should be enforced. The principal of their health care is sound, but can you just imagine the US gov't running health care. LOL. The beligerance Saddam showed was evident in his forces taking pot shots at our fighters as they flew overhead, despite his knowing there would be a response. His beligerance against the world body of the UN was further evidence of this. America, and the world for that matter is playing on a different field, and the rules have been changed. The line seems to have been drawn, but someone keeps moving the little sucker. Pushing the boundries to see what one can get away with is the new course of things, and I don't believe the UN can handle it anymore. As far as American companies making money while at war..we are first and formost a capitalist country. I can't say I disagree with you about how selective the US is when it comes to picking and choosing whom we support and for what reason. It's not perfect, but it's what we got, and it has served us so well so far. Don't get my wrong , America has it's problems, but it didn't get to where it is by being weak. Israel never has and never will allow the UN to inspect, and as far as what America's reaction would be...trust me, Israel could give a rats ass about what we think when it comes to defending itself. They will always do what they feel is necessary, like taking out that nuclear reactor in the 90's. I doubt that America was the cause of the suffering in Iraq. Saddam, as you pointed out, was a major war criminal, and he is now being tried as such by his own people. Ya know, what you said about America making money out of war and turmoil, has been said forever, especially by those who know that your the guy with the biggest stick, but unless and until the world is a safer place to be, I'd rather be the one with the biggest stick. I would love to take that money used for war, and educate more of our population. I somewhat agree with Moore when he says that Americans are not so smart. I see it everyday. When people use vitriolic rehtoric to espouse their views, rather that presenting an ordered and passionate discourse, it plays right into Moore's assertions. And that my friend, is truly scary. Has emotion completely overtaken reason. Are we so easily cajoled by the agitprop, that we are not able to think for ourselves? Instead, we wrap ourselves up in anothers idea of what is truth. And you my friend, certainly are one who knows how to think and speak for himself. I do apperciate it. Cheers, v

locknload, welcome back. You know, the US Government does run some very efficient programs. It runs the IRS, the Military, the Social Security Administration and a National Health Program called Medicare for the entire 'over 65 ' crowd. I would dare to say that the government's health program is run a lot better and more efficiently than the programs run by private insurers ( Blue Cross, etc..). All National Health Insurance would entail would be to make the same programs available to the remainder of the population...The main issue is NOT incompetence of the government but the inevitable COST factors.

Sibar, the US government runs efficient programs?? What government in the world runs efficient programs? I don't feel like writing a book on why "The bigger the Government agency/corporation the better the efficiency and productivity. Absolute central control and having a monopoly are not good things. TC

I have to ask the question, why was this posted as a news item in the first place? Was it because "Pirating" the movie over the internet was encouraged by the producer/director and tacitly approved by the distributor? Did most of us react simply because it contained "Michael Moore" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" Let me throw a conspiracy theory out there. Could this be a collaboration between Michael Moore, Lions Gate Films, the MPAA and the RIAA to somehow harvest info for more lawsuits? TC

Yes, buik, the programs I mentioned are being run quite efficiently. The Medicare Program - Socialized Medicine for people over 65 - IS run much better than any private insurer out there. Before you discard the possibility that such a thing could actually be true, do you really think that 'Private Enterprise' is the answer to everything? Greed is too strong a human instinct for us to trust a completely unregulated world. I belong to a traditionally 'greedy' profession that deals with Medicare on a daily basis. In this instance, I do know what I am talking about. If greed was not the universal problem it is, we could all safely be Republicans.

I'm getting into this kind of late, But I don't understand the statement that Germany was not an imminent threat to the U.S. I believe that right after the attack on Pearl Harbor Germany declared war on the U.S. That sounds like an imminent threat to me. Also, I believe the biggest reason that an Atomic bomb was not used as a demonstration for the Japanese was that two were all there was. If there had been a demo bomb and the next one wasn't enough, an invasion of japan would have occured with much greater loss of life. Just my $.02.

Siber has it right. I know of several elderly people who benefit from Social Security. It seems to be working. Thank God. Now if we could only get proper healthcare before we reach our golden years. Without it costing an arm and a leg. I mean, after all, some of us may never reach those years. This is a form of Socialized Medicine that many Americans aren't even aware of. I think they are wary of acknowledging that it even exists. Maybe because it sounds a little like Socialism, which rhymes with Communism, which rhymes with - oh well, you know what I mean.

Hello siber. I don't want to rain on your parade, but my mom worked for the social security administration for 35+ years, and would come home day after day pulling her hair out because of the lack of efficiency. I guess that's why she retired 4 years early. The stories she would tell were scary. While I belive your participation with parts of the Federal gov't run well, I can't help but wonder if there is a grain of truth in the news media, when they report how wastefull the gov't can be. I just how they have enough money for me when I retire. Cheers, v

Hey buik, interesting thought!! Are you suggesting that Moore and the RIAA are in bed together with the idea to harvest info, then, sue people further down the line for profit?? Now that's what I would call a conspiracy theory! And what would that imply about MM?? Cheers, v

Locknload, "While I belive your participation with parts of the Federal gov't run well, I can't help but wonder if there is a grain of truth in the news media, when they report how wastefull the gov't can be." I don't think it is wasteful for retired folk to get money that is rightfully theirs. Money they worked for all their lives. Privatising everything is not the answer. It only breeds greedy CEOs who feel entitled to more than their share of wealth. Communication is a Language Game. The rules of the game are that each party must agree to understand what the other is saying before any response is made. If not then each party spouts gibberish - meaningless drivel.

Yaucano, thanks for quoting me!?????? Ya know.. to repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source... And, while I agree with your saying.. "I don't think it is wasteful for retired folk to get money that is rightfully theirs"....which is to regurgitate what you've seen on the news lately.. I believe most of us here don't approve of the CEO's requisitioning all the retirement funds, or the imbalance of the haves and have nots! I really want to take back those funds they embezzled; those greedy CEO's used to build a golf course in their back yard! I would have strung them up by their balls!!! I don't recall ever having said, we should privatize anything. And just so I can get you up to speed about the "communications game," or, as you put it... "The rules of the game are that each party must agree to understand what the other is saying before any response is made".....That seems redundant, or, needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases. Let me give you another definition about communication.. The greatest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place! Look, I appreciate your input, but if you've read and understood my earlier posts about how gov't funding should be allocated, you'd have understood one of the most paramount things I said.... " I would love to take that money used for war, and educate more of our population." This, to me, is of most importance!!!! I really fear, uneducated, ignorant people, might some day be taking care of ..how did you put it..?? "Retired Folks" There are enough people in power spouting gibberish, and meaningless drivel. Let us all get together on this.. Vote the s**theads out of office!! Remember, uneducated garbage in, uneducated garbage out. These are our elected officials people. Those in office now, are "MY AGE"!!!!!!!! That should scare the bjesus out of you for the next generation of leaders coming up!!! If it doesn't, maybe Moore was right about Americans! Sorry for the rant, but sometimes..I feel it necessary. Cheers,v

Cool - Understood. Not a redundant student paper but a proven linguistics maxim. Your "definition" is but a statement of a problem that exists in the practice of Communication, and that only in theory. It is not a clear definition. There is no illusion if both parties have understood each others points beforehand. It seems redundant but you'd be surprised at how quickly some people confound one thing with another. Many people approach discussions feigning attentiveness when in fact they are really only waiting to speak! There must be an unspoken agreement to understand before any attempt to understand is made. Do you understand? And yes Language Games have many problems. On the other hand - I would have to disagree. All existence is an illusion. The illusion that Communication has taken place is indeed its strength! Without that illusion there would be no Communication at all, only Chaos and Anarchy. Illusion is what this whole world is made of. Agreed on voting some bigheads out.

Yaucano, .....you state.. "Your "definition" is but a statement of a problem that exists in the practice of Communication, and that only in theory. It is not a clear definition. Really... then, how could you say.... " how quickly some people confound one thing with another. Is that real commuication??? " There must be an unspoken agreement to understand before any attempt to understand is made. Do you understand"? Yeah, I understand! You're talking about mind reading now!!! "On the other hand - I would have to disagree. All existence is an illusion." Then if existence is an illusion, how the hell do you expect people to communicate. After all, nothing is real! We're all full of s**t! "The illusion that Communication has taken place is indeed its strength"! Its strenght???? Yeah, for those who would embrace that logic, and would want to perpetuate a falsehood! If it's an """"""illusion"""""", it HAS NOT taken place!!!! It's an illusion!!! What is so hard to understand?????? "Illusion is what this whole world is made of. The illusion that Communication has taken place is indeed its strength! To me, that's a LIE!! Cheeers,v

Ho Hum. You two (locknload & Yaucano) are freakin' me out. forkndave: thank you for giving me a reasonable explanation about 'nuking' Japanese civilians.

Whew, Are Bill Clinton and Michael Moore posting onto this thread under aliases? locknload, Are you a Royal or US? We've been all over the spectrum. Now, let us examine why Michael Moore says it's OK to pirate his movie. But not for profit. Forget the conspiracy theory. This site is a devoted advocate of the principle of fair use. But not Piracy. Where is the outrage from the MPAA & RIAA for his remarks. I'm would think that his latest production is covered by a copyright and any legally produced disc has CSS protection. Heaven forbid that Michael Moore is not being truthful with us peons. TC

jimboco, sorry about freakin' ya out. I do tend to explore what is being offered here. I'm glad you have a resonable explanation about "nuking japanese civilians" buik, I think you ask a valid question about the MPAA/RIAA. Your observation: is Michael Moore not being truthful with us peons? He certainly has attracted enough trained minions to his cause. I'm sure his work is copytright protected, and if that's the case, maybe your point is valid about harvesting more info for lawsuits. If that is the case, what do you beleive will be the purpose of this action?? Could it be a left wing conspiracy?? Are MM, the RIAA/MPAA in cahoots?? v

Aw heck, if there is a vast right wing conspiracy, then there can also be a vast left wing one. Yin & Yang. Why would Michael Moore encourage the violation of any law and not be criticized? I have not seen anything from the MPAA condemning what he said (while in another country). GW Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said we wanted to prevent Iraq from becoming one. A recuring theme I see is "why don't we invade every other country"??? Well, we did'nt invade the USSR. Where is the USSR now? We did not invade Libya (and they gave up their stuff after seeing what we would do. Everyone wants to shout "why haven't we invaded "North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran......"Oh yes, China also". Well, we are a super power, we could turn many parts of the world into reflective surfaces. But we are capitalist. Can't sell a damn thing to someone you just incinerated. tc

jimboco: I'm not sure if your "Thank you" was sarcasm or not, but I don't think that nuking anyone is reasonable. Sometimes the practicalities of war are very cruel. I have heard that two bombs were all that existed at the time. I guess getting a sufficient quantity of weapons grade uranium or plutonium was pretty difficult then. It hadn't even been a month since the first device was detonated in New Mexico. Since there was no surrender after the first bomb, then I guess it took two. I am only quoting things that I have heard on the History Channel. I was alive back then, but I sure can't remember very much about the war personally. I was four when it ended.

Sorry Guys, Didn't mean to send anyone off an a deconstructive ontological debate. Silly ole me! But locknloads footnote just set me off. When I write "illusion' I am proceeding under the realisation that noone on this Earth really has it all figured out. But in the case of locknload I guess he does. At the risk of being on the outs in this "discussion" I don't think there is any real "reasonable explanation about 'nuking' Japanese civilians." Forkndave: There were more than 2 bombs. On July 13, 1945, in the stark New Mexico desert of Alma Gordo, the first ever atom bomb was detonated by American scientists. Upon viewing the terrifying, awesome end-result of his team's frenzied research, Dr. Oppenheimer quoted a line from the sacred Hindu text, the Bhaggavad Gita: "I am become death." Others present for the show just laughed and said: "She shore blowed up real good, din'she?!?" Right-Wing Cospiracy, Left-Wing Conspiracy, Moore in cohoots with RIAA? Ho-Hum, indeed. Forkndave- just read your post Glad that you don't believe it reasonable either.

From what I saw on the History Channel and I believe on a few other programs throughout my life there were only two bombs that were usable at the time. The New Mexico blast was not a bomb. It was a device that could not be used as a bomb because of its size. I believe it was largely assembled at the tower site. They weren't absolutely certain if the bomb would even work, since the New Mexico device was a plutonium device and the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb. The second bomb was a plutonium bomb. I have heard that they didn't know what they were going to do if the Japanese didn't surrender after the second bomb because that's all there were. I've heard it would have taken several more months to produce enough enriched uranium or plutonium to create more bombs. I guess it doesn't really matter how many bombs they had. They used two, and if I had been in Harry Truman's shoes, I probably would have done the same thing. Boy, this thread has sure veered off topic, whatever that was.

Yes, we careened. Not over the cliff tho. It has been interesting tho. I think i learned a few things. It still has not led me to understand why Mikhail Moore advocates "Piracy" of his movie. TC

I think Moore is putting his money where his mouth is. It's perfectly consistent with his belief in Free Speech. It's brilliant to see a filmmamaker who is willing to use his money for something other than breaking boxoffice records. A note on the content of the film: There is mention of a secret society of Skull and Bones. Most wealthy politicians and statesmen lawyers and bankers belong to this order. Whenever they are asked about it they decline to answer saying, "I can't talk about it. It's a secret." Their goal is to put as many of their kind in power as they can. Skull and Bones is a Yale fraternity. If that's not scary enough for you how about this - Both Bush and Kerry are Skull and Bonesmen. What kind of a choice do we really have here!? Check it out: http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/ skullbones.htm or google Skull and Bones

A note on the content of the film: There is mention of a secret society of Skull and Bones. Most wealthy politicians and statesmen lawyers and bankers belong to this order. Whenever they are asked about it they decline to answer saying, "I can't talk about it. It's a secret." Their goal is to put as many of their kind in power as they can. Skull and Bones is a Yale fraternity. I'm sure I have read or seen something similar regarding the "Free Masons". TC

I believe that many of the founders of our country were Free Masons. The dollar bill has many Free Mason symbols on it. I don't think it matters too much. Many politicians are Moose and Elk also.

Then the "Secret Society" point, is a moot point then? Glad you brought that up. TC

True enough - lots of fraternities around. FreeMasons are something else altogether. Check it out. The only other fraternity that comes close in power is Scrolland Key (also from Yale). Skulland Bones, though has been in power since the Spanish-American War (1890's). Some scholars even link them with the JFK assassination (admittedly everyone can be linked with JFK killing- haha)and the push to war in Vietnam. They see themselves as a WASP warrior aristocracy. The skulland bones motif is akin to the skullandbones image on the cliched Pirate's flag. It symbolises their modus operandi - the DoubleCross. Meaning that they consider it ethical to lie and cheat to attain power. They consider those not part of their circle as inferior and therefore they deserve to be lied to. Their height of power was reached in the 1950's. Ever since Vietnam, though, they have been on a prolonged decline. The middleeast situation is seen as their latest Great War for a New World Order (another one of their missions). They believe that the secret to holding power is to manipulate the masses through the deliberate spread of misinformation. The fact that they are no longer a secret is a sign of their decline. They made their money from the Chinese Opium Trade. They were founded (1840's) by scholars with direct ties to the British East India Company (which intitiated the Opium Trade). If you want specifics read the link. Google SkullandBones.

lets just get one thing straight about moore, his a publicity whore. he will say what ever it takes to get him on the air for 30 seconds. the more ppl talk about him the more other ppl get curious and buy his crap. its a hype game, same as with that crap movie the passion of the christ. all these rumors got started about how anti Semitic it was and all the other "good" and "bad rumors" and the movie did well despite the lack of advertising. These A-holes realize the 6o-clock news is a free 30 second commercial for their crap. As for moores ran tings and "news" stories, moore wanted to be a journalist but there was a single flaw...he need 3 collaborating sources for all his stories.....its tuff enough to find 1. when you write books and make movies you need no sources. Say what you want about bush or kerry I don't care. hell I hope they both loose and Mickey mouse wins by write in, at least we know how fake he is. but just remember moore will say what ever gets the media on him at that time. he will spew his lies just to get you to adopt his agenda of the week. He would tell you he has photos of bea aurther screwing a goat with G. bush watching if he tought it would get you o vote for kerry. your talking about a man who claimed his book was only out sold by harry potter.....well I don't know about you but I don't even know anyone who owns his trash book and it certainly wasn't the second best selling book on any list.......although harry potter and his book are both in the FICTION category :) just remeber when some jack ass has a buch of stories that should be on the news if they are real but he seems to be the only one who knows about them........he is probibly michael moore talking out his "moore" hole