liberals....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Damn it, now I have nothing to respond to. I guess I'll just have to make fun of your frequent use of the lawyerly term "moreover."

Furthermore, In Addition, Also, blah blah blah

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I never said you voted for Bush, I said that you being associated with us "ridiculous liberals" was far worse than voting for him.

And Moore isn't a god, he's a patriot.

But there in is my point - the far right thinks Hannity is a Patriot because he uses similar tools to convey his message In the end, I like MM's product - I think this film is good. It does make, to quote Carne, dubious associations to wit - so what if the Saudis got put on a plane and taken out of the US. MM IMO is trying to use that to link the govt.'s actions with supporting OBL on the day we got attacked. Those people had nothing to do with OBL and his attack Yet, MM does not say that. He knows that the use of the SA name and the bin Laden (there are hundreds in that immedicate family) will cause people to somehow in their heads think W aided OBL. Intererstingly, W did this same technique with linking OBL with Iraq. While there were mostly minor and insignificant connections (except for the medical treatment issue) - W knew that most Americans will view all Middle Easterners the same. They will not be able to separate in thier heads the fact that not everyone wearing a turban is OBL. So, MM does this with the BL name. How many people in America know that OBL is disowned by his family and he is one of hundreds of BL's - many of which do not even know him or have seen him in years :shurg: Does MM say that? No. He just uses the visual to make the connection. Interestingly, Richard Clark has said he bears the responsibility for allowing the Saudis to leave.

Also, how many parents who are proud that their children served and died in Iraq did MM show. Certainly they exist.

In the end, the film, by his own admission, is one sided and is propoganda. I do not fault him for it. I just feel the need to point that out whenever you all seemingly take it for the be all and end all of the unbiased truth, which it is not and was never intended to be, which MM readily admits.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But there in is my point - the far right thinks Hannity is a Patriot because he uses similar tools to convey his message In the end, I like MM's product - I think this film is good. It does make, to quote Carne, dubious associations to wit - so what if the Saudis got put on a plane and taken out of the US. MM IMO is trying to use that to link the govt.'s actions with supporting OBL on the day we got attacked. Those people had nothing to do with OBL and his attack Yet, MM does not say that. He knows that the use of the SA name and the bin Laden (there are hundreds in that immedicate family) will cause people to somehow in their heads think W aided OBL. Intererstingly, W did this same technique with linking OBL with Iraq. While there were mostly minor and insignificant connections (except for the medical treatment issue) - W knew that most Americans will view all Middle Easterners the same. They will not be able to separate in thier heads the fact that not everyone wearing a turban is OBL. So, MM does this with the BL name. How many people in America know that OBL is disowned by his family and he is one of hundreds of BL's - many of which do not even know him or have seen him in years :shurg: Does MM say that? No. He just uses the visual to make the connection. Interestingly, Richard Clark has said he bears the responsibility for allowing the Saudis to leave.

Also, how many parents who are proud that their children served and died in Iraq did MM show. Certainly they exist.

In the end, the film, by his own admission, is one sided and is propoganda. I do not fault him for it. I just feel the need to point that out whenever you all seemingly take it for the be all and end all of the unbiased truth, which it is not and was never intended to be, which MM readily admits.

No, Hannity is an ass because he maliciously lies and misleads his audience, all the while claiming it is fact. Michael Moore does not do that. Point me to one instance in his film where he lies. I submit you cannot. The pundits were all up in arms over his "claims" that the bin Laden's and Saudi's were allowed to leave while commercial airspace was shut down, yet he NEVER made that claim in the film. He explicitly stated that they were allowed to leave after September 13th, then proceeded to show the audience the flight lists. He is not trying to link Bush to OBL, he's showing the audience the links between the Bush's, the bin Laden's, and the Saudi's. And he provided concrete evidence that they all were involved in a moneymaking relationship. It can't be refuted. And OBL has not been disowned by his family; do an internet search and you will see that they've had many personal encounters over the years.

And Moore has never said his film is propaganda. He said it's one-sided and anti-Bush, but propaganda is not the right word for it. Again, show me a documentary that isn't biased.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

How many people in America know that OBL is disowned by his family and he is one of hundreds of BL's - many of which do not even know him or have seen him in years :shurg: Does MM say that?

This has been widely reported. From about Sept. 12, when Osama's name became a household word, it was reported again and again that he was the black sheep of the bin Ladin family.

Besides, I do believe that Moore does mention that the family disowned him. But Moore also points out that some of the family remains in contact with him and, in fact, some of them went to Osama's son's wedding in Afghanistan. That's in the movie.

Interestingly, Richard Clark has said he bears the responsibility for allowing the Saudis to leave.

Interestingly, and this is what I hoped our friend Rob67, who has scurried back to his hole after being challenged on his assertion about mistruths in the movie, would touch on for us. Because as of the release of the 9/11 commission report, these flights have come into question. Evidently the report says the flights took place after the airports reopened.

Let's say Moore got this wrong. Whose fault is that? These flights taking place during the shutdown of US airspace have been reported for at least a year. I believe even the Times and Washington Post reported them. If the 9/11 commission debunks this as a myth after the movie has already been made, whose fault is it? After all, the flights had been accepted as fact until then. And why didn't the commission release its report earlier? Didn't the administration have something to do with the delays?

Having said all that, I am still skeptical about the story of these flights. If Clarke says, in the context of the flights taking place during the shutdown of the airspace, that he approved them, not the White House, but the commission says they took place after the airspace was reopened, who is right? If the commission has taken Clarke's testimony and made it part of its findings in some things but has chosen to differ with him on this, then I must ask why. Am I missing something?

In the end, the film, by his own admission, is one sided and is propoganda.

"By his own admission" being the key phrase. Are you somehow, afraid that everybody doesn't know that?

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by dissention

The pundits were all up in arms over his "claims" that the bin Laden's and Saudi's were allowed to leave while commercial airspace was shut down, yet he NEVER made that claim in the film.

Interesting point.

[strandinthewind]

I agree it is biased. If MM was not trying to link W to OBL, then why is the allowing of the Saudis to leave such a big deal. I am sure many Middle Eastern dignitaries left then as well. Why point out these?

BTW - I agree hannity lies. I am not talking about that. I am talking about his technique of yelling, etc. I think MM employs a similar technique to make his point. He, like Hannity, does not just factually say something. He and Hannity are smarter than that. So is Randi Rhodes (sp.?) - they all know that using emotion (humor, yelling, etc.) will get them noticed. I do not blame them for it. I just recognize they all do it. Yet, the far left will NEVER admit MM uses it and that makes him similar to every other pundit who does it as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

"By his own admission" being the key phrase. Are you somehow, afraid that everybody doesn't know that?

I do not assume anything with you people

Seriously, I was just using his own words to make my point - nothing more. Yet, when that point is made, the far left goes beserk - it is almost like making that point takes away from the credibility of the point of the movie.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Rob67

not by liberals (they have a hard time with sarcasm and irony)

Yeah, right... the liberals around here have always had a hard time with sarcasm and irony.....

Originally Posted by dissention

But it does feel good to know that, if you indeed did see it, you put money in the pockets of the very liberals you hate.

Hey Dissention- as Rob has stated sooo many times, he doesn't hate liberals. How's that for sarcasm??

Originally Posted by Rob67

It’s a shame that he uses his talents to present half-truths and unproven hypotheses. The by-partisan 9/11 commission has debunked many of his claims.

Michael Moore has stated repeatedly that the movie is an op-ed piece, and should mainly be viewed as his personal opinion. I looked at most of his conjecture as just that. However, the facts presented are very, very powerful and very, very true. My favorite is when Powell and Rice both state unequivocally that Iraq did not possess WMD's, had no viable military power and basically was not a threat to other nations.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, some of the humor used in it is ridiculous like when he used an ice cream truck to broadcast the Patriot Act to the people in Congress when everyone knows no member of Congress read all Acts they sign because there is not enough time to do that Yet, MM makes a mockery of them for it and does this to sell the film.

I am not saying he has no right to do this and that his use is not effective - he does and it is. I am just saying I think some of takes away from the journalistic integrity of the film, but he readily admits he was not going for journalistic integrity. So, even though my point is academic, it does not negate the fact that some of the film is ridiculous in that it uses xany humor to ridicule.

I am just commenting on his style.

Of course, the idea that members of congress read everything they vote on is ridiculous. However, the Patriot Act radically changed the powers of government. You would think congress would have deliberated all the various items in the bill for a LEAST a week or two, if not months. Moore's over-the-top style was definitely needed, considering congress's complete idiocy with regard to the Patriot Act (jeez, I hate the name of that bill- nothing could be further from the truth!)

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

How interesting. You think using an ice cream truck to read the Patriot Act to congressmen is ridiculous. But you don't think a system in which a law that contradicts the Bill of Rights passed by people who didn't read what they were voting on is ridiculous. Yes, Jason, I know that these guys can't possibly read everything. But a law that annuls some of what's in the Bill of Righs? Surely you're not that forgiving.

Exactly!

Originally Posted by dissention

Sorry, I'm hundreds of miles from Pittsburgh, so I can't hear it going off.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree it is biased. If MM was not trying to link W to OBL, then why is the allowing of the Saudis to leave such a big deal. I am sure many Middle Eastern dignitaries left then as well. Why point out these?

Jason, the answer is in the film. What happens when you do an investigation? You interrogate anyone and everyone who might possibly have information that blows the case open. Interrogating does not mean accusing.

Surely you can see why it is problematic to allow the Saudis, including the bin Ladin clan, to leave while detaining scores of Pakistanis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Iranians and assorted other Middle Eastern and North African folks? Considering most of the terrorists were Saudis, and considering that there are plenty of provable links between the Saudi "government" and the al Qaida, this strikes me as deriliction of duty. You don't see that way?

But then again, we did attack Iraq when we should have attacked Saudi Arabia...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree it is biased. If MM was not trying to link W to OBL, then why is the allowing of the Saudis to leave such a big deal. I am sure many Middle Eastern dignitaries left then as well. Why point out these?

To show that the bin Laden's and the Bush's had a monetary relationship, just like the Buish's and the Saudi internationals did. Why escort them out of the country? Also for interrogation reasons.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BTW - I agree hannity lies. I am not talking about that. I am talking about his technique of yelling, etc. I think MM employs a similar technique to make his point. He, like Hannity, does not just factually say something. He and Hannity are smarter than that. So is Randi Rhodes (sp.?) - they all know that using emotion (humor, yelling, etc.) will get them noticed. I do not blame them for it. I just recognize they all do it. Yet, the far left will NEVER admit MM uses it and that makes him similar to every other pundit who does it as well.

Michael Moore yells? I've never seen the guy yell to make a point and I'm a big fan of his. Examples, please.

I readily admit that Moore uses techniques to get butts in the seats, don't say that I "never admit that." He has to in order to get his message out. More power to him.

[strandinthewind]

I did not way MM yells. I said he, like all other pundits, uses histrionics to sell his story. Again, I, and apparently, you have no problem with that.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I did not way MM yells. I said he, like all other pundits, uses histrionics to sell his story. Again, I, and apparently, you have no problem with that.

No, I have no problem with it. I would if the story was all lies, but Moore uses his histrionics to sell true and factually based stories; that's the difference between he and Randi and that ass Hannity. Understand?

[Sugar]

I did not walk away from this film thinking Bush aided OBL.

I walked away from this film thinking that Bush had long-lasting financial relationships with the bin Ladens and that he let that color his reaction to 9/11. He didn't push where he should have pushed and he didn't demand when he should have demanded. He is weak, easily led, and not intellectually up to the role of President of the US. I have no doubt that Bush did these things at the behest, or at least the encouragement of others. I think the look on his face during those seven minutes in the classroom could characterize much of Bush's administration.

I think the invasion of Iraq was personally motivated, and AT BEST I think he thought it would be an easy victory that he could wave in front of the Americans when he realized OBL wasn't standing in the middle of the Afgan desert flipping the bird at every American plane that passed overhead.

As I said in the other post the other thing that resonates with me is the weakness of our Democratic leaders in all of this, and if someone would have stood up before now, there wouldn't be a F9/11.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Interestingly, and this is what I hoped our friend Rob67, who has scurried back to his hole after being challenged on his assertion about mistruths in the movie, would touch on for us. Because as of the release of the 9/11 commission report, these flights have come into question. Evidently the report says the flights took place after the airports reopened.

Mr. Carne,

I like most people have this thing we call a "life." This "life" requires things like a job and attention to loved ones to keep it sustained. It is true that I have “scurried away.” Some of us have to actually work to survive. Unfortunately, I look at work as a time to be productive and to earn a paycheck. It is hard for me to justify spending time addressing attacks from liberals who get offended when someone disagrees with them. There is money to be made and taxes, which you wonderful liberals love so much, to be paid. More power to you if you have all the time in the world to post all day, every day. I wish I could have that kind of free time.

I will post in due time, but not until I take care of the important things in life, like my job and my family.

Peace out!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Jason, the answer is in the film. What happens when you do an investigation? You interrogate anyone and everyone who might possibly have information that blows the case open. Interrogating does not mean accusing.

Surely you can see why it is problematic to allow the Saudis, including the bin Ladin clan, to leave while detaining scores of Pakistanis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Iranians and assorted other Middle Eastern and North African folks? Considering most of the terrorists were Saudis, and considering that there are plenty of provable links between the Saudi "government" and the al Qaida, this strikes me as deriliction of duty. You don't see that way?

But then again, we did attack Iraq when we should have attacked Saudi Arabia...

I agree. But, I think MM was performing a very Karl Rove-esq move there. Do you really think people can disassociate OBL from all turban wearing Middle Easterners. I think they cannot. Look at Iraq. All W had to do was mention them in the same sentence and most people with the mob mentality said they were the same. They did not nase this conclusion of any overt evidence. They made it by innuendo. I think MM is doing the same. To my knowledge, the US did not stop any Middle Eastern dignitaries from leaving the US after 9/11. So, I get that on the surface MM was trying to point out that W was in bed with the Saudis. But, the point is not completely made IMO. The Saudis have been in bed with every other administration since the 60's and maybe even before that. Yet, that is not brought out. Why? Well, I think that is because it would lessen in people's heads the any link that may exist between the Saudis, the BL's, and W.