I guess you feel the message is more effective when delivered in white tails to the haves?
Printable View
I guess you feel the message is more effective when delivered in white tails to the haves?
You may be off "base" with that comment...Quote:
Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
I guess you feel the message is more effective when delivered in white tails to the haves?
Hey
Watch this shot!!
|>
|
O @---------------------------------------------------
Pardon the typo. I meant April 4, 2001, not 2004. My fingers got hit with the typovirus.
Bush has never said that the Geneva convention does not apply to US Troops or the US Government as a whole. The only case in which the administration has made the case that the US does not have to follow the Geneva convention is in the case of non-uniformed personell on the battlefield, who are technically illegal combatants. The Geneva convention applies to uniformed soldiers on the battlefield, not terrorists.
Lady's Human and RICHARD, have you seen the movie yet?
Quote:
Originally posted by Soledad
Lady's Human and RICHARD, have you seen the movie yet?
Does it count when it's a bootleg copy?
I have to make a comment, and I warn you it has nothing to do with MM or the "Film" well it does in a round about way but...
I find it funny that people are getting this riled up over a film. My opinion is any media (Including the news) is truth spun to convey the messages of whomever or whatever as the case sometimes is produced it. So why get POed when someone says it sucks. The film maker presented his opinion in hopes that people agree with him. If you do, he has done his job. Anyone who doesn't like it he couldn't care less if they paid him to. Spirited debate and discussion is fine but leave the mudslinging to the politicians.
They've had formal training and know all the proper safety rules.
I take everything I see and hear in the media with a truckload of salt. The truth is out there, its just hiding most of the time.
Watch/read things that quite obviously divert from your beliefs. Watch/read EVERYTHING you can.
And don't believe 99.9% of it :D
Stress is bad for you.
Ok I'm done.
The basic premise of this film is to get people to react in a 'knee jerk' fashion.
One thing about MM is the fact that he interjects himself into the story and uses his 'comedic talents' to distract the audience from the 'facts'
he leaves out.
There are areas that can be contested about the info contained in this film. I understand why people would come out of this film stunned and willing to make a change in our gov't.
For one thing, watching interviews of people leaving the theater scare the poop out of me..
Instead of hearing people say that they are going to 'look into the issues' before making a judgement about the movie, you have people who are convinced that every word in the movie is gospel.
It's good to have a film open up communcation about the issues, but the anger against the opposition is sad and rather childish.
Here in the southland a group of republican volunteers set up a table to sign up people who were coming out of the theater to vote....Not a real smart move if you ask me.
Well, it turns into a shouting match and someone spits on the guy at the table...
I have yet to figure out why anyone would want to go to jail over politics.
The guy in the movie that is visited by the FBI because of his arguement against the war was another thing that struck me as strange....
When the topic gets vicious it's time to back away or change the subject...We only have HIS point of view. We don't know if it was the pro-war people who were being jerks or if he had a 'jerk' attack
during the conversation.
Obviously, someone was agitated enough to call the FBI. Someone shot their mouth off, THAT was the reason why this guy was visited by the Feds...
That part of the film is a wash...everyone will lie to make it look like it was the other guy's fault.
It would make sense to take a few days to check out the facts in this movie....but then again, why
bother if MM is such a reliable, honest individual????
Nither have I, especially when there are way more fun reasons to go to jail!Quote:
Originally posted by RICHARD
I have yet to figure out why anyone would want to go to jail over politics.
I started reading this thread out of interest in people's reactions to the movie. No, I have not seen the movie, however, I felt I had to interject when I saw the myth/lie (pick your noun) about the US using Napalm in the current conflict, and again when the statement was made that the President has stated that the geneva convention does not apply to the US.
Moore's "documentaries" include so much bias from the director of the movie and his claims on film have been debunked so frequently and thoroughly that I see no need to view the film, especially when my purchasing a ticket would just serve to enrich Mr. Moore. I would no more watch a Michael Moore documentary than I would one by Rush Limbaugh or Geraldo Rivera.
Anyone who taints their work so completely with their political bias as Moore has on a consistent basis does not deserve to have their work fall under the documentary category.
This is what I wrote.....based on recent front page stories that the attorneys for this adminstration had written a paper (brief perhaps) saying that torture of prisoners in the Iraq conflict was not forbidden under the Geneva conventions.Quote:
I thought Bush's attorneys had determined the Geneva
Conventions don't apply to the U.S????:
This...is not what I said!Quote:
when the statement was made that the President has stated that the geneva convention does not apply to the US.
and Richard....I am surprised how in agreement you and MM are! one of the major points of the movies (and one of the scariest to me)was how easily the government was able to convince so many people of the imminent threat posed by Iraq --without facts to back it up!
You mean like Rumsfeld...."we know they have wmd and we know where they are! Or Cheney perhaps????Quote:
if MM is such a reliable, honest individual
Why is it any different if I believe their version of the truth?
The WMD claim was made by almost every democrat in the senate when they were trying to prod President Clinton into doing something about Saddam. It amuses me when the same claim made by people from the other side of the aisle, based on the same intelligence data, is called a fabrication by the same Senators who were using that data to try to get the US to go to war.
I started this thread for those to talk about the movie they had seen. If you haven't seen it, I'd appreciate you staying out of it. You can't have a discussion about a movie when you haven't even seen it. Keep the quibbling about specifics in the other F9-11 thread.
I do take exception to the statement the MM and ME are in agreement. First of all, I am better looking than he is-Quote:
Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
and Richard....I am surprised how in agreement you and MM are! one of the major points of the movies (and one of the scariest to me)was how easily the government was able to convince so many people of the imminent threat posed by Iraq --without facts to back it up!
Why is it any different if I believe their version of the truth?
How's about the fact that millions of dollars were spent by people who are fooled by a fast edit, fade, voice overs and some facts that are skewed beyond belief....
What do I believe?????
Well, I can admit that maybe my beliefs are wrong, or I support a war thatmay not have been on the up and up or that maybe going in and deposing a dictator was wrong..
But I do believe that we should finish what we started.. I do have faith that things will work out in Iraq.
Some of the people in America DO NOT HAVE THE STOMACH for the war we are in....BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU, the same people who oppose the war
will be running around criticizing the government when we get a dirty bomb blown up in our back yard....
Don't worry, you'll be far away from the fallout.
Terrorists love big cities.
Make up your mind, I have.
Funny
You are correct, you didn't say it, you typed it.Quote:
Originally posted by Edwina's Secretary
I thought Bush's attorneys had determined the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the U.S????:roll eyes:
So I'm hazy on which of our chemical weapons turns a person's face into a barely recognizable mass of liquified flesh?
As to what you believe....
I have no control over what you believe.
I have no problem conceding a point when I am wrong...
The thing that entertains me is when I have a conversation with my pals and they bring up a subject like chemical weapon that we are accused of using in Iraq, I'll ask them for some kind of verification...
Let's make this a factual thread.
Prove to me (I'll only ask for two articles) that we have used chemweps in Iraq.
And while we are at it let's acknowledge that Richard Clarke signed to get the bin Ladens out of the USA.
The part that troubles me about farenhoot 9/11 is the visceral effect that it has had on the audiences.......
Even in the worst arguements about politics, I have no desire to spit on someone.
Of course, that only happens when you run out of arguements and have no self control.
To return to the subject....would you use the word visceral to describe the woman in the film who verbally assaults the sobbing mother of a recently killed soldier and and a protester?
And if only big cities are targets....what was the deal with that small Virginia town?
Richard, sorry but you have not seen the movie?
The point of the movie is not to get into quibbles about whether or not we used napalm (you think the government would want that to be published?) or whether or not Iraq had WMDs, or whether or not etc. etc. etc.....
There are two main points in the movie:
1. The Bush family has a secretive relationship with the Bin Laden family and with top Saudi Arabian officials, which is why they avoided REALLY going after those behind 9/11, and also why they flew the Bin Laden family & other Saudi royals out of the US on September 13th, a fact confirmed by the airline. I went to college in Lexington, KY and some of my sorority sisters saw these people at Bluegrass Airport on their way out of the country on 9/13/2001. I remember how I felt that day, how horrified I was at what had happened, and how scared I was. It makes me sick to think that these people were barely even questioned before leaving the US. What if they knew something?? Like Moore says, if two days after the Oklahoma City bombings, Timothy McVeigh's entire extended family was quickly hustled out of the country with no questioning as to what they knew about McVeigh's plans to bomb a federal building first, how would you react to that?
2. American soldiers are dying - the current death toll is 857 Americans as of 6/29/04 - that the Bush administration told us needed to be fought to stop Saddam Hussein from using his WMDs, which of course he never had. Iraq was our scapegoat for 9/11, and young soliders are suffering the consequences. 857 families who are changed forever. How many more have to die? When the death toll hits 1,000 I will be sad but not surprised - will you be? Go see the movie, go witness that poor woman (Lila's) life now and try to put yourself in her shoes, and then justify this war to me. You can't, nothing can.
Go to http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/f911facts/ and read his rebuttals to point that have been disputed in the movie. He backs everything up. Or go to fahrenheit911.com and read about the movie. Educate yourself, believe what you want to. This is what I believe: the Bush administration is filled with criminals and John Kerry will easily become our next president.
PS Even with memos titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US," George W. was on vacation 42% of the time between his inauguration and 9/11. Can you defend that? Or has Fox News scared you into submission?