Thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11 *spoilers*

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True, but the intent is the same. This guy was trying to show he had loved ones there, which was MM's point. Yet, MM edits it out. That was not a nice thing to do IMO. But, I know I know MM has no faults (this is sarcasm)

He asked for their children to enlist. No other family members were queried about.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Again, the Carlyle Group is not in control of Loew's as of yet. I thought I already told you that?

I know, but they will be soon and the money made today wil go to them.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know, but they will be soon and the money made today wil go to them.

As soon as they take over, they're going to pull it from every theater. As of now, they have no say. So we're supposed to fault Moore for it?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

He asked for their children to enlist. No other family members were queried about.

I know that. I am not arguing that. What I am saying is the intent of MM's question was to demonstrate that, I think, one member of Congress had a child in the armed forces and overseas. I think this guy was trying to say, while I do not have kids, I have the next best thing there so I think you need to know that as it is relevant to the point you are trying to make. I think the guy has a legitimate point. I mean if his neice or nephew dies or is injured it will hurt less than his own kid, but it will still hurt. I am also sure this guy thought about that when voting for the war, which was MM's other point. I think he should have included it and not to do so was a crummy thing to do.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

As soon as they take over, they're going to pull it from every theater. As of now, they have no say. So we're supposed to fault Moore for it?

Well, yes, if you think he actually cares that he is somewhat indireclty giving the Carlyle Group money, which I do not think he does. I think he could care a less because he wants this movie to be seen by as many people possible and the Lowe's chain, no matter who owns it, let's him achieve that goal. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, some theaters bent over backwards and opened very early in the morning to meet the demand. How is he gonna go against that

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, yes, if you think he actually cares that he is somewhat indireclty giving the Carlyle Group money, which I do not think he does. I think he could care a less because he wants this movie to be seen by as many people possible and the Lowe's chain, no matter who owns it, let's him achieve that goal. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, some theaters bent over backwards and opened very early in the morning to meet the demand. How is he gonna go against that

He can't go against it because he has no say in where his movie is distributed

And Lowe's is a money pit, I doubt they'd even see a dime from this movie. They almost had to file for Chapter 11 last year, that's why it was bought so cheaply.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that. I am not arguing that. What I am saying is the intent of MM's question was to demonstrate that, I think, one member of Congress had a child in the armed forces and overseas. I think this guy was trying to say, while I do not have kids, I have the next best thing there so I think you need to know that as it is relevant to the point you are trying to make. I think the guy has a legitimate point. I mean if his neice or nephew dies or is injured it will hurt less than his own kid, but it will still hurt. I am also sure this guy thought about that when voting for the war, which was MM's other point. I think he should have included it and not to do so was a crummy thing to do.

I don't think he should've included it because his entire point was whether or not Congress would risk their own children in fighting this war. If he thought that adding the part about this one guy with a nephew over there was going to ruin his message, why even mention that there's one with a son over there? Shouldn't he have just dropped the entire bit, then? There's no logical reason to include the fact that a guy has a nephew over there.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

_________________________________________________________________

That is some funny ****.

Honey, it's NewsMax. Even Michael Reagan ran away from that place.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, it MM does not want Carlyle money . . . . he could refuse to show it in Lowes theaters But, he is not doing that. The guy has a point but it is a silly one because MM does not care about who pays to see this flim, etc. He has no problem taking money from any patron and nor should he and the partons have to see it in some theatre. Actually, the Carlyle Group should be thanking MM for the sales

Since George Soros is a big part of Carlyle and MoveOn.org, then this is a good thing because an awful lot of Soros's money is going to unseat Bush this year.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know, but they will be soon and the money made today wil go to them.

And indirectly to MoveOn.org.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Honey, it's NewsMax. Even Michael Reagan ran away from that place.

But it's still funny as all hell. I mean, this movie is doing so much damage and the right is simply grasping at straws.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And indirectly to MoveOn.org.

Good point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I read today that the Bush campaign is thinking of putting the Kerry/Hitler ad on TV.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't think he should've included it because his entire point was whether or not Congress would risk their own children in fighting this war. If he thought that adding the part about this one guy with a nephew over there was going to ruin his message, why even mention that there's one with a son over there? Shouldn't he have just dropped the entire bit, then? There's no logical reason to include the fact that a guy has a nephew over there.

I see the purpose of the question to be broader than that. I think he asked people that question because he wanted to illustrate almost none had loved ones over there. I think that probably would include a neice or nephew. But, if you take MM at his literal word (which even he does not do ) - then yes, it should not have gone in. But, clearly the intent is the same because I am sure this guy worried about his sibling's child when he voted for the war. But, that is my opinion and I do not think it is black and white.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

True, but the intent is the same. This guy was trying to show he had loved ones there, which was MM's point. Yet, MM edits it out. That was not a nice thing to do IMO. But, I know I know MM has no faults (this is sarcasm)

Jason, here's why this is a silly point:

As an uncle, I have no power over my nephews and nieces.

As a parent, I have some power, however limited it may turn out to be, over my children.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Jason, here's why this is a silly point:

As an uncle, I have no power over my nephews and nieces.

As a parent, I have some power, however limited it may turn out to be, over my children.

I do not see what having power over your (in general) own children has to do with anything exclusive - members of Congress have power over everyone and there is nothing a parent can do about that

In any event, what I think you are talking about and certainly the main point of MM's question clearly was to imply the members of Congress have the power to send all people to war. In the exercise of that power, it would be a harder decision for them to make if they knew their own child was going to war and they may not make that decision based on that. In this case, all but I think one member of Congress had a child over there and I am unsure if he knew that child would be going when he made the decision to go to war (if he voted for the war). So, the conclusion MM draws is it was easier for Congress to send other peoples' children to war - they did not have to send their own nor are they sending their own, save one member of Congress; the decision to go to war is personally detached for them.

This member we are discussing was saying although he did not have a kid there, he had a niece or nephew. He had the power to send them there and he did. He implied that he would not have done so if he did not think it was serious, etc. Although we are unsure what he said because MM did not show it (hence my problem with this omission ), this member essentially said, look MM, your implication with your question is that I/we did this with less care and no personal attachment because my/our own child(ren) is/are not there is wrong, my siblings' children are there and that factored into my decision almost as much or as much as it would if my own child was there. That is why I think it was unfair of MM not to include it.

I think it negates his general point that members of Congress did not care as much about sending people to war because they had no personal interest in the loss of lives. How could it not? Apparently, this member of Congress thought about it if we can draw that conclusion from what he is saying. Again MM makes us draw a phantom conclusion because he omits the quote. I just do not buy MM's and apprently your point of "it only matters if it is your kids and not your siblings' children" approach - I think that is too narrow and interpretation. I think when a member of Congress is asked that question (which is a serious charge) says or implies look I agree my kids are not there, but it mattered to ME and here is why, they should be heard - they are directly addressing his general point of the decision to go to war, stay in Iarq, etc., was not a personal one, etc. But, MM knew he could not show that becuase to do so, to have that dialogue, would somewhat if not directly negates MM's implication that members of Congress knew their own children (which are the only people that matter to MM in this thought) would not be going so the hell with it, let's go anyway and stay there for awhile even if we do not have to go - it matters less to us when it is other peoples' children - we do not have to make any significant sacrifice

I think MM should have asked the member of Congress, what does it matter if you sent your niece or nephew, they are not your children. Surely, they do not matter to you as much as your own children. Didn't their mattering less to you factor in to your decision? Even though he is frank, I do not think MM would ever have asked that direct question because it would have made him seem silly and hard and given the member of Congress the chance to show a human side in the decision to go to war that MM did not want to show. So, instead of addressing that, MM omits it. I think that was wrong. He should have addressed it no matter how it made him or the memeber of Congress look.

But, if you think only the decision to send your own children to war can have any significant bearing and the decision to send your brother or sister's children is less significant and carries much less weight in the decision to go to war, stay there, etc., then you will never see my point. I think this member of Congress deserved to be heard and MM should have addressed it by making that exact point. He did not. That is what I think is bad

But and again, I think on the whole, this movie is good and it is very good at accomplishing MM's objective which he says was to show in his own way a side of the war he thinks has not been shown before and get people to think about it. he accomplished that goal and I think he did a good job doing it even if some of the connection are, as one great Ledgie recently said , dubious.