<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Jun 22 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Jun 22 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is what I'm getting at: Bashing Moore claiming he's a liar just turns you into a hypocrite. Just live with it. Left wings have their propogandists, right wings have theirs. Bashing Moore just to pretend to put you into the 'right, just, true, christian way' is laughable, since there's very little each side can produce that factually, unbiasedly proves that they're right.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Would you stop referring to the right as if were crazy religious fanatics, who love guns, and are always wrong.
I don’t' own a gun, I don't believe in god, and I'm am not always wrong(I hope <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) yet I am most certainly conservative.
This is about Moore’s movie, his current one, stop bringing up gun control or anything from his previous movies, and keep it to the current.
On another note, have any of you seen the commercial for this movie?
It seems to be everywhere, even on FOX commercial breaks.
Honestly if I have to watch that thing one more time I'm going to flip. I can't be the only one to think it's in poor taste to play rock music that just happens to say "oh yea" as a bomb goes off next to a US soldier, possibly killing him.
Maybe it's just bad timing, but it bothers me that it might be intentional, to get some sort of shock value.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I really think this discussion is pointless until after we've seen the movie. This is almost as bad as the people who post amazon reviews of games that haven't been released. There's really nothing to discuss about an article when we don't have clue about its subject matter. (also worth noting is that your "other side" link doesn't exactly have a rebuttal on it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
I'm just confused as to the "controversy" that Moore appears to focus on here. So some of the bin Laden's in the US are allowed by Bush to leave the country after 9/11 for fear of their safety? What the hell is wrong with that. None of them have any ties to the long exiled and disowned Osama bin Laden, and their very name made them a big target for passionate and ignorant Americans here.
It's kinda like how the US warns people to leave countries, like Saudi Arabia most recently for fear of their safety? It's the same idea.
Bush's link to the bin Laden's (hell Osama had like 150 immediate relatives) Saudi businesses have nothing to do with Al Quaeda AFAIK, from what I've read over the past 3 years.
There are a lot of things to criticize Bush on, esp. his handling of the economy, the Budget, etc, etc.; this doesn't appear to be one of them.
I agree with Mantrid, its propaganda. Skulkbait seemed to say "but it will be rebutted so it doesnt matter", but I beg to differ.
Propaganda is like faeces. You throw enough at a man, and no matter how much he wipes himself clean with his hands, some of it is going to stick. It will still leave a vague, negative impression on peoples minds.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right, let's turn this around before it goes too far away: All your flag-waving right-wingers, show me something that supports your point of views, any point of view, that isn't just as biased as Moore's work.
This is what I'm getting at: Bashing Moore claiming he's a liar just turns you into a hypocrite. Just live with it. Left wings have their propogandists, right wings have theirs. Bashing Moore just to pretend to put you into the 'right, just, true, christian way' is laughable, since there's very little each side can produce that factually, unbiasedly proves that they're right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait how does bashing Moore make me a hypocrite. Please elaborate. I'm not making any political commentaries and releasing them in the guise of documentaries. Heck, I'm not even in the movie business. So I'm not saying not to do something, while doing it myself. So it must be that I do not call Moore's conservative counter parts out. Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries.
I haven't seen the film, but there is a short on ifilms that will not be in the actual movie. It only helps to confirm my initial thoughts about the movie. Moore walks the street asking congress men to sign thier children up for the military(You cannot sign your children up for the military).
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 23 2004, 08:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 23 2004, 08:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Propaganda is like faeces. You throw enough at a man, and no matter how much he wipes himself clean with his hands, some of it is going to stick. It will still leave a vague, negative impression on peoples minds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and that's precisely why close to 70% of this country still thinks that there was significant cooperation between Saddam and Al Queda.
Michael Moore is hardly the first to intentionally toss garbage into the echo chamber, and as much distaste as I have for his methodology, I almost feel like he is a necessary evil in today's media circus climate.
It's as if we now have a system where-- right or left-- it's a constant battle to trick people into supporting your side for all the wrong reasons.
Edit: Ah, found something about the 'grass roots' campaign against F9/11 being led by 'Move Forward America' <a href='http://www.brandrepublic.com/mediabulletin/news_story.cfm?articleID=214417&Origin=MB22062004' target='_blank'>here</a>. I put 'grass roots' in quotes because as it turns out:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Opponents of the film, which is critical of George Bush and his administration, came under fire when liberal bloggers discovered that a website trying to keep it out of theaters, Move America Forward, was registered to a prominent Sacramento PR firm with strong GOP ties, Russo, Marsh & Rogers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks&field-keywords=bill%252520o%252527reilly&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-name=books/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl14/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>Plenty</a> of <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Hannity%2C%20Sean/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>them</a> make <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Coulter%2C%20Ann/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>books</a>, <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Savage%2C%20Michael/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>though</a>.
Should we even get into talk radio?
You place too much emphasis on the medium; focus instead on the <i>saturation</i>, <i>spin</i>, and <i>influence</i>. This is not to start a **** for tat about liberals and conservatives in the media-- it's just to point out that Michael Moore putting out one film every two years does not create some horrible conservative viewpoint vacuum.
Also: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Moore walks the street asking congress men to sign thier children up for the military(You cannot sign your children up for the military). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please watch the segment again. He asks the Congressmen to <i>get their kids to enlist</i>. Signing the clipboard would seem to be a symbolic gesture on their part signifying that they will speak to their children about it, not a binding contract for military servitude.
For reference, the clip is located <a href='http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2642193' target='_blank'>here</a>. I think this is an example of biases and prejudices-- however well earned those might be-- skewing perception.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->…and of course not a single congressman would <b>sacrifice</b> their child for the war in Iraq…<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, this was an ignorant and stupid thing to do seeing as it is hardly a parent's decision if their child wants to enlist. Even if one of those Congressmen had said yes, and I only saw him ask about 2, the rest walked away from him, it would mean nothing it's simply not up to them, and proves nothing. But I'm sure some idiots well call them hypocrites and think badly of them for what? In my books signing your child up for the military or "sacrificing" him/her, without their permission, is a bad thing.
I feel the movie is going to be extremly anti-bush. This guy is going to try to push his freedom of speech to the limit. Once he's focused on a view he won't change his mind and will do anything at almost any cost to get it heard and to get everyone to belive the views he sees are right. It seems as if it will focus on the brutal deaths of american soldiers, Every little thing Bush has done wrong but not focus on anything he has done right, (which he has done alot of things right), i have a feeling it will portay bush as a evil, "stupid" man, and will also be very Anti- American on our views and Its going to try to Jam the topic of "pulling out of iraq" into the viewers head. Its going to question our governments decisions, which I do agree is fine. But i have a feeling this movie isnt going to be "the truth as its happening" but more of "the truth, with extreme focus and dramatize it in the way he views it. Now I tell you this to you viewers before you see that movie:
Don't listen to what everyone tells you. Especially from someone who is very Anti- something, because about 90-95% of what there telling you is going to be in fact, in their favor AND there going to make the topic seem much, much bigger than it is.
For example: I read a very intelligent and strong but simple statement on the "mistreating of Iraqi Prisoners". It has a middle eastern man sitting on a grave and the man is saying the Middle Eastern countries are EXTREMELY, disgusted and angry at the mistreatment of our men. But, surrounding the grave he is in on smaller gravestones with the same writings: "Saddams Victims". With 1 tombstone saying, Oh, now theyre angry?
Basically the middle eastern people seem to forget the abuse, treatment, tortre, and cruel unhumane punishment they do to their people in the basic prison. and focus on the "evil" americans. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now thats kind of off topic but it proves a point. Don't listen to what everyone says, even me. I am not anti bush, im pro WOT and Iraqi rebuilding so my views are more "anti- hippies"
I can't stand people who stand there and haven't experienced something first hand, yet criticize a decision because in their eyes it is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks&field-keywords=bill%252520o%252527reilly&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-name=books/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl14/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>Plenty</a> of <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Hannity%2C%20Sean/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>them</a> make <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Coulter%2C%20Ann/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>books</a>, <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Savage%2C%20Michael/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>though</a>.
Should we even get into talk radio?
You place too much emphasis on the medium; focus instead on the <i>saturation</i>, <i>spin</i>, and <i>influence</i>. This is not to start a **** for tat about liberals and conservatives in the media-- it's just to point out that Michael Moore putting out one film every two years does not create some horrible conservative viewpoint vacuum.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I focus on the medium of film, as it is the topic of discussion. I'm sorry if I do not like being generalized as a hypocrite because someone does not agree with my views. If it were a discussion on books, I would be critical on botht he wacko republican writers and the wacko democrate writers. If it was a discussion on radio, I would have bashed Rush and Al Franklen for their one sidedness. I was simply pointing out that the only reason I seem to bash Moore unfairly is because he is the only one of note working in the medium of film. If there was a republican that made films that distorted facts, I would be just as upset about them.
As for the too much emphasis on the medium and not enough on the spin. I think the medium is the most important part. Film reaches a broader audience than print and radio. It is also less engaging the the average viewer, most people who watch films are not going to go home and look up stuff about the topic. So yes, the medium is important.
As for the Ifilm video I brought up. You have to assume that your audience is dumb, that said I can almost guarentee that there are quite a few people out there that do not know you cannot sign your kids up for the military. He also acts as if the congress men are ignoring his request, but they are most likely ignoring him.
well about the "media" topic and freedom of speech. You all are very well aware of the fact that Media controls the war these days now right?
Media controls the people's views on the wars--> the people control the govt. --> govt is pressured into swaying whichever way the people want.
anyhow back on topic, Mandrid basically sumed up what this guy's movie(s) are about.
He basically takes a topic, and ONLY shows one side of it, and that side is his side's views. It is more of propaganda and Anti-War, Anti-Govt and Anti-Bush most of all (seeing from the way they portray him in the first scene)
<!--QuoteBegin-Diablus+Jun 23 2004, 01:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diablus @ Jun 23 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Media controls the people's views on the wars--> the people control the govt. --> govt is pressured into swaying whichever way the people want. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually with the way Gee Dubya is running things, it's more like Media influences people's views on the war (control is too strong a word) --> people control the govt. --> govt ignores the people, the rest of the world, and their allies and does what it wants
Oh by the by, if you want a very good example of left/right wing 'bias' in two similar forms of media, pick up a copy of newsweek (right) and Time (left) and compare their articles. Time focuses more on 'George flushes us farther down the shitter' and defends John Kerry, and Newsweek focuses more on 'John Kerry is a fool' and defends George Bush. It's very interesting to read them after another.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Jun 23 2004, 06:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jun 23 2004, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the too much emphasis on the medium and not enough on the spin. I think the medium is the most important part. Film reaches a broader audience than print and radio. It is also less engaging the the average viewer, most people who watch films are not going to go home and look up stuff about the topic. So yes, the medium is important. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Film reaches a broader audience? <i>Bowling For Columbine</i> was relased in less than 250 theaters.
Its total domestic gross was in the realm of 21 million, so some quick and sloppy math applied to that says that 2-3 million tickets were sold (with the difference per price per theater, per showtime, and per age group, this is a bit tricky to nail down). This would also represent tickets sold, not unique viewers.
Now, one could argue that DVD sales/rentals/and television optioning skews this to many more eyes-- and it undoubtedly does-- however, two hours of content relased every three years in a limited distribution hardly overpowers the influence of radio, which churns out hours and hours of new content every single day.
Additionally, I disagree with your point about film being more engaging. Few people double check the facts that they're presented, regardless of where they receive them. Plus, look at how many people here have access to material where Michael Moore's points have been refuted-- and why? Because there was such a finite amount of <i>very specific</i> material presented in it.
Now, as you said, think about Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, producing dozens of hours of new radio content <i>every business day of the week</i>. Seems to me that <i>that</i> would be much harder to police for fact.
yes Bowling was in limited release, but Showtime was whoring it over and overing again the last couple months. That is where I finally saw it. F9/11 is the topic and it is getting a much much better release. Though Bowling might not have had a big impact, film has the potential to have a better impact than the other mediums.
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Jun 23 2004, 09:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jun 23 2004, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> F9/11 is the topic and it is getting a much much better release. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Relative to Bolwing, yes. Relative to any other major studio release, no.
And part of me thinks that the fact that there is no right counterpart to Michael Moore is <i>proof</i> that it's not a particularly effective medium.
Make whatever criticisms of the right I will, but I would certainly never say that they lack media savvy.
CplDavisI hunt the arctic SnonosJoin Date: 2003-01-09Member: 12097Members
To answer the thread sub title of fair, or not.
On the Iraq part. The film shows lots of civlilan casualties of the american war, but it shows little to none of the thousands more civilian dead from sadams rule, ie. gassing the kurds or the tortures and slayings of many others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mullet+Jun 24 2004, 04:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mullet @ Jun 24 2004, 04:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Michael Moore lies about so much crap its not even funny. Nevertheless, I still want to see this movie. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well bias goes both ways. Believe in Moore's lies or believe in the media's lies? There's no real way to get a real view on a subject without studying it yourself based on primary sources. Whoever gets you first and gets you more often will probably feel more convincing.
Sorry to be so bold but I think I found the answer to the subtext by the only person who can answer it: Moore. In an interview with John Stewart last night:
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'> John Stewart: Is it fair? Moore: No. No it's not fair. I have a point of view.</span>
Yes I saw that too, and I'm very glad he said that. Anyone who watches that movie and thinks it's fair should not be allowed to see movies, which is precisely why many people will be swayed by it.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited June 2004
I saw it tonight. There was a single theater in all of Cincinnati showing it. They had it on three screens and it was sold out for every single showing from 4:00 on. The crowd cheered when it started up.
As far as a movie is concerned, it had little continuity, shaky editing in places, and a lot of unneccessary scenes. There were some points I disagreed with, and a lot of implication through hypothetical questions, which I find distasteful.
There are some points that it makes well: Bush's insistence on a connection between Saddam and Al Qaida despite no evidence for and much evidence against, shady dealings with haliburton, the depth of the saudi royal family's involvement in the economy and the US government. There are some very poignant scenes with a mother of a soldier killed in the war, and a reminder that the number of deaths doesn't come close to the number of people whose lives have been permanently changed by injuries. One scene interviewing a room full of amputees was a bit unsettling.
Making snide remarks about Bush reading the rest of the children's book seemed a bit out of line. He's obviously scared shitless, and in a completely unenviable situation, but still managed to keep his composure. I think we can spare him seven minutes to get his wits together folks. If there's one time that Bush has been successful as a president, its with his public persona immediately after the attacks.
All in all it was worth seeing.
Edit: Thought I'd update. I was wrong when I said it was only showing in one theater. I had misread the paper. It was sold out all night in every theater in the city.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 26 2004, 03:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 26 2004, 03:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Making snide remarks about Bush reading the rest of the children's book seemed a bit out of line. He's obviously scared shitless, and in a completely unenviable situation, but still managed to keep his composure. I think we can spare him seven minutes to get his wits together folks. If there's one time that Bush has been successful as a president, its with his public persona immediately after the attacks.
All in all it was worth seeing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad you mentioned that, wish he wouldn't have criticized Bush for that. The main reason I started supporting Bush was for the excellent way he handled the situation publicly in the days after 9/11, and I think most people will agree with that.
However I'm quite mad about the fact that none of my local theaters are showing the film, I had planned to see it today. I really hope its showing was not barred by certain groups or some such, which seems to me to be a very underhanded way of stopping his propaganda. Criticism is fine, but blocking it from some theaters is distasteful. But I'm sure it could be any number of things.
I saw it. And it's what I expected from Moore. It's an image. He wears a t-shirt and a baseball cap while driving limos, then runs out and shoots off a bunch of questions to people. Of course, it's all edited or shown in a way to signify different things. He doesn't exactly say something happened, but he shows a picture, he shows audio with it and lets the audience make a connection.
His other stuff is pretty outrageous too. He even tries to say how peaceful and calm Bagdad was to citizens before America moved in. Now that's just stupid. He also talked about certain companies wanted to be used to put up a pipeline in Afganistan. However, that company dropped the contract a long time ago.
Also, to what a lot of people are saying, <b>Micheal Moore is media</b>. He's just on the other side of it, but that doesn't mean the other side is truthful or has good intentions.
<!--QuoteBegin-MrMojo+Jun 27 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Jun 27 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, to what a lot of people are saying, <b>Micheal Moore is media</b>. He's just on the other side of it, but that doesn't mean the other side is truthful or has good intentions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually reminds me when Sean Hannity says the media is so liberal in one of his coast-to-coast radio diatribes. Funny thing is, both accuse the exact same media of having bias, just opposite of their own point of view.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
this pretty much sums up my feelings regarding F911.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->'From Here to Eternity." Tora, Tora, Tora." "In Harm's Way." These are three films made about Pearl Harbor. There have been more than 20 films made about Pearl Harbor, and over 200 films made about World War II. These films inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them. Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the world watched American forces fight on D-Day. Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the world is watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Moore's film is the first major motion picture about Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their first impression, through the medium of film, will be a work in which the president and the government are blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer's book, "Let's Roll," or Richard Picciotto's "Last Man Down," we are presented with this fallacy. How could this happen? It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women who lived during that period? "Fahrenheit 9/11" is indicative of a nation that has become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face the enemy at the gate. America, where is your fury? On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River, watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46 a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am more than insulted by this film. I am outraged. This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness. The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary." The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush. According to the report, the president's actions before, during and after the attacks are fully justified, including the military action in Iraq. The commission did not find a direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A similar commission in the 1940s would not have found a direct link between Hitler's Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both instances, the threat was imminent; the president and the military acted decisively. Could we have been more prepared for a terrorist attack on Sept. 10, 2001? Certainly. Could we have been more prepared for an attack on Dec. 6, 1941? Most definitely. In the weeks and months following Pearl Harbor, there were reports and criticisms that the government and military should have been more prepared. The difference is that the people of the nation did not waste a lot of time pointing fingers at each other. Rather, they unified and engaged the enemy head-on. I guess that is why we call them "The Greatest Generation." How will future generations refer to us? So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations? I wonder. More than that, I wonder how I would explain this film to Nancy D., Jerome N. or Heather H. I am sure you don't know their names, but their faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain to them that a film was made accusing the president and vilifying the soldiers, the same president and soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders and protect other citizens. Moore has not only insulted the nation, he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks. During his acceptance speech at the Oscars, Moore said, "Shame on you, Mr. Bush." Well, I say, "Shame on you, Michael Moore." Shame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film. Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film. You have weakened the nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited June 2004
I'd like to know where you go that quote zig, its one of the more rediculous things I have read. Yet another buffoon esposing the "We should support our president always, just because he's the president, even at the expense of legality, morality, and sanity. Yep, that's right folks. Solidarity trumps all other concerns. Even widespread corruption and deceit."
If he can raise a single quibble about the <u>facts</u> in that film than go ahead, but disagreeing with those in power is fundamental to everything signifcant about the United States. If we lose the ability and the desire to disagree, to violently disagree, and to respect the people who do so, then there is no United States left to attack, and no terrorist attack could possibly make it any worse. Stating that we should avoid dissent because it causes "divisiveness" is the most vile traitorous thing a human being could possibly say.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
we can disagree, but to what end do people like MM pass disagreement, even VIOLENT disagreement, into defamation? even slander?
i don't disagree for a second that America was founded by disagreeing men, by complainers, and that protest is a fundamental element of our country.
but the past four years have been no different than any other four years with a president in the white house. the public outcry and uninhibited, unabashed grasping for muck, dirt, SH_T regarding our current president has been astonishing, to say the least. i saw a picture of a poster on a telephone pole in Seattle that bears a picture of US military men among flag-draped coffins. the poster says something about Joining.. the Army or something. beneath the picture it says, "replacements needed."
during the vietnam era, people protested, sure.. but we had folks like Jimi Hendrix, making music.. people were f*ing each other like crazy, the world was about peace and love..
today, we have NONE of that. the only protest you hear is "bush is a moron." that can be said about more than a few presidents and mean the same thing.
so why NOW, and not at any other time, are people so desperate to make this man look BAD? why do people hate the US military? why do people not give half a s* that so many americans died on sept. 11th? why can't people see the logic in meeting the enemy at THEIR doorstep, and not ours??
the death ratio in the united states as of 911 is USA 19, Terrorism a thousand something.
i am truly saddened that this doesn't mean a damn thing to people anymore.
America is a fighting country. we bring the fight to the enemy, ESPECIALLY if we are attacked first. when.. where.. WHO changed that? WHAT is different?
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you stop referring to the right as if were crazy religious fanatics, who love guns, and are always wrong.
I don’t' own a gun, I don't believe in god, and I'm am not always wrong(I hope <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
yet I am most certainly conservative.
This is about Moore’s movie, his current one, stop bringing up gun control or anything from his previous movies, and keep it to the current.
It seems to be everywhere, even on FOX commercial breaks.
Honestly if I have to watch that thing one more time I'm going to flip.
I can't be the only one to think it's in poor taste to play rock music that just happens to say "oh yea" as a bomb goes off next to a US soldier, possibly killing him.
Maybe it's just bad timing, but it bothers me that it might be intentional, to get some sort of shock value.
They're biased productions that take quotes out of context and show only one side of an issue. In my opinion, they're practiclly propaganda.
And before you say it, I'm a very liberal Democrat, so this is coming from someone on the far left.
It's kinda like how the US warns people to leave countries, like Saudi Arabia most recently for fear of their safety? It's the same idea.
Bush's link to the bin Laden's (hell Osama had like 150 immediate relatives) Saudi businesses have nothing to do with Al Quaeda AFAIK, from what I've read over the past 3 years.
There are a lot of things to criticize Bush on, esp. his handling of the economy, the Budget, etc, etc.; this doesn't appear to be one of them.
Propaganda is like faeces. You throw enough at a man, and no matter how much he wipes himself clean with his hands, some of it is going to stick. It will still leave a vague, negative impression on peoples minds.
This is what I'm getting at: Bashing Moore claiming he's a liar just turns you into a hypocrite. Just live with it. Left wings have their propogandists, right wings have theirs. Bashing Moore just to pretend to put you into the 'right, just, true, christian way' is laughable, since there's very little each side can produce that factually, unbiasedly proves that they're right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait how does bashing Moore make me a hypocrite. Please elaborate. I'm not making any political commentaries and releasing them in the guise of documentaries. Heck, I'm not even in the movie business. So I'm not saying not to do something, while doing it myself. So it must be that I do not call Moore's conservative counter parts out. Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries.
I haven't seen the film, but there is a short on ifilms that will not be in the actual movie. It only helps to confirm my initial thoughts about the movie. Moore walks the street asking congress men to sign thier children up for the military(You cannot sign your children up for the military).
Yes, and that's precisely why close to 70% of this country still thinks that there was significant cooperation between Saddam and Al Queda.
Michael Moore is hardly the first to intentionally toss garbage into the echo chamber, and as much distaste as I have for his methodology, I almost feel like he is a necessary evil in today's media circus climate.
It's as if we now have a system where-- right or left-- it's a constant battle to trick people into supporting your side for all the wrong reasons.
Edit: Ah, found something about the 'grass roots' campaign against F9/11 being led by 'Move Forward America' <a href='http://www.brandrepublic.com/mediabulletin/news_story.cfm?articleID=214417&Origin=MB22062004' target='_blank'>here</a>. I put 'grass roots' in quotes because as it turns out:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Opponents of the film, which is critical of George Bush and his administration, came under fire when liberal bloggers discovered that a website trying to keep it out of theaters, Move America Forward, was registered to a prominent Sacramento PR firm with strong GOP ties, Russo, Marsh & Rogers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks&field-keywords=bill%252520o%252527reilly&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-name=books/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl14/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>Plenty</a> of <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Hannity%2C%20Sean/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>them</a> make <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Coulter%2C%20Ann/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>books</a>, <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Savage%2C%20Michael/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>though</a>.
Should we even get into talk radio?
You place too much emphasis on the medium; focus instead on the <i>saturation</i>, <i>spin</i>, and <i>influence</i>. This is not to start a **** for tat about liberals and conservatives in the media-- it's just to point out that Michael Moore putting out one film every two years does not create some horrible conservative viewpoint vacuum.
Also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Moore walks the street asking congress men to sign thier children up for the military(You cannot sign your children up for the military). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please watch the segment again. He asks the Congressmen to <i>get their kids to enlist</i>. Signing the clipboard would seem to be a symbolic gesture on their part signifying that they will speak to their children about it, not a binding contract for military servitude.
For reference, the clip is located <a href='http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2642193' target='_blank'>here</a>. I think this is an example of biases and prejudices-- however well earned those might be-- skewing perception.
First off, this was an ignorant and stupid thing to do seeing as it is hardly a parent's decision if their child wants to enlist.
Even if one of those Congressmen had said yes, and I only saw him ask about 2, the rest walked away from him, it would mean nothing it's simply not up to them, and proves nothing. But I'm sure some idiots well call them hypocrites and think badly of them for what? In my books signing your child up for the military or "sacrificing" him/her, without their permission, is a bad thing.
Don't listen to what everyone tells you. Especially from someone who is very Anti- something, because about 90-95% of what there telling you is going to be in fact, in their favor AND there going to make the topic seem much, much bigger than it is.
For example: I read a very intelligent and strong but simple statement on the "mistreating of Iraqi Prisoners". It has a middle eastern man sitting on a grave and the man is saying the Middle Eastern countries are EXTREMELY, disgusted and angry at the mistreatment of our men. But, surrounding the grave he is in on smaller gravestones with the same writings: "Saddams Victims". With 1 tombstone saying, Oh, now theyre angry?
Basically the middle eastern people seem to forget the abuse, treatment, tortre, and cruel unhumane punishment they do to their people in the basic prison. and focus on the "evil" americans. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now thats kind of off topic but it proves a point. Don't listen to what everyone says, even me. I am not anti bush, im pro WOT and Iraqi rebuilding so my views are more "anti- hippies"
I can't stand people who stand there and haven't experienced something first hand, yet criticize a decision because in their eyes it is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, when I find his conservative counterpart I will criticize him. The fact is there is no conservative make deceptive films and calling them documentaries.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=stripbooks&field-keywords=bill%252520o%252527reilly&search-type=ss&bq=1&store-name=books/ref=xs_ap_l_xgl14/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>Plenty</a> of <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Hannity%2C%20Sean/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>them</a> make <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Coulter%2C%20Ann/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>books</a>, <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Savage%2C%20Michael/102-5664688-5016106' target='_blank'>though</a>.
Should we even get into talk radio?
You place too much emphasis on the medium; focus instead on the <i>saturation</i>, <i>spin</i>, and <i>influence</i>. This is not to start a **** for tat about liberals and conservatives in the media-- it's just to point out that Michael Moore putting out one film every two years does not create some horrible conservative viewpoint vacuum.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I focus on the medium of film, as it is the topic of discussion. I'm sorry if I do not like being generalized as a hypocrite because someone does not agree with my views. If it were a discussion on books, I would be critical on botht he wacko republican writers and the wacko democrate writers. If it was a discussion on radio, I would have bashed Rush and Al Franklen for their one sidedness. I was simply pointing out that the only reason I seem to bash Moore unfairly is because he is the only one of note working in the medium of film. If there was a republican that made films that distorted facts, I would be just as upset about them.
As for the too much emphasis on the medium and not enough on the spin. I think the medium is the most important part. Film reaches a broader audience than print and radio. It is also less engaging the the average viewer, most people who watch films are not going to go home and look up stuff about the topic. So yes, the medium is important.
As for the Ifilm video I brought up. You have to assume that your audience is dumb, that said I can almost guarentee that there are quite a few people out there that do not know you cannot sign your kids up for the military. He also acts as if the congress men are ignoring his request, but they are most likely ignoring him.
Media controls the people's views on the wars--> the people control the govt. --> govt is pressured into swaying whichever way the people want.
anyhow back on topic, Mandrid basically sumed up what this guy's movie(s) are about.
He basically takes a topic, and ONLY shows one side of it, and that side is his side's views. It is more of propaganda and Anti-War, Anti-Govt and Anti-Bush most of all (seeing from the way they portray him in the first scene)
Actually with the way Gee Dubya is running things, it's more like Media influences people's views on the war (control is too strong a word) --> people control the govt. --> govt ignores the people, the rest of the world, and their allies and does what it wants
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh by the by, if you want a very good example of left/right wing 'bias' in two similar forms of media, pick up a copy of newsweek (right) and Time (left) and compare their articles. Time focuses more on 'George flushes us farther down the shitter' and defends John Kerry, and Newsweek focuses more on 'John Kerry is a fool' and defends George Bush. It's very interesting to read them after another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Film reaches a broader audience? <i>Bowling For Columbine</i> was relased in less than 250 theaters.
Its total domestic gross was in the realm of 21 million, so some quick and sloppy math applied to that says that 2-3 million tickets were sold (with the difference per price per theater, per showtime, and per age group, this is a bit tricky to nail down). This would also represent tickets sold, not unique viewers.
Now, one could argue that DVD sales/rentals/and television optioning skews this to many more eyes-- and it undoubtedly does-- however, two hours of content relased every three years in a limited distribution hardly overpowers the influence of radio, which churns out hours and hours of new content every single day.
Additionally, I disagree with your point about film being more engaging. Few people double check the facts that they're presented, regardless of where they receive them. Plus, look at how many people here have access to material where Michael Moore's points have been refuted-- and why? Because there was such a finite amount of <i>very specific</i> material presented in it.
Now, as you said, think about Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, producing dozens of hours of new radio content <i>every business day of the week</i>. Seems to me that <i>that</i> would be much harder to police for fact.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Relative to Bolwing, yes. Relative to any other major studio release, no.
And part of me thinks that the fact that there is no right counterpart to Michael Moore is <i>proof</i> that it's not a particularly effective medium.
Make whatever criticisms of the right I will, but I would certainly never say that they lack media savvy.
On the Iraq part.
The film shows lots of civlilan casualties of the american war, but it shows little to none of the thousands more civilian dead from sadams rule, ie. gassing the kurds or the tortures and slayings of many others.
well bias goes both ways. Believe in Moore's lies or believe in the media's lies? There's no real way to get a real view on a subject without studying it yourself based on primary sources. Whoever gets you first and gets you more often will probably feel more convincing.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>
John Stewart: Is it fair?
Moore: No. No it's not fair. I have a point of view.</span>
Edit: BTW did anyone go see it?
As far as a movie is concerned, it had little continuity, shaky editing in places, and a lot of unneccessary scenes. There were some points I disagreed with, and a lot of implication through hypothetical questions, which I find distasteful.
There are some points that it makes well: Bush's insistence on a connection between Saddam and Al Qaida despite no evidence for and much evidence against, shady dealings with haliburton, the depth of the saudi royal family's involvement in the economy and the US government. There are some very poignant scenes with a mother of a soldier killed in the war, and a reminder that the number of deaths doesn't come close to the number of people whose lives have been permanently changed by injuries. One scene interviewing a room full of amputees was a bit unsettling.
Making snide remarks about Bush reading the rest of the children's book seemed a bit out of line. He's obviously scared shitless, and in a completely unenviable situation, but still managed to keep his composure. I think we can spare him seven minutes to get his wits together folks. If there's one time that Bush has been successful as a president, its with his public persona immediately after the attacks.
All in all it was worth seeing.
Edit: Thought I'd update. I was wrong when I said it was only showing in one theater. I had misread the paper. It was sold out all night in every theater in the city.
All in all it was worth seeing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you mentioned that, wish he wouldn't have criticized Bush for that.
The main reason I started supporting Bush was for the excellent way he handled the situation publicly in the days after 9/11, and I think most people will agree with that.
However I'm quite mad about the fact that none of my local theaters are showing the film, I had planned to see it today. I really hope its showing was not barred by certain groups or some such, which seems to me to be a very underhanded way of stopping his propaganda. Criticism is fine, but blocking it from some theaters is distasteful. But I'm sure it could be any number of things.
Just have to wait till it comes out for sale.
His other stuff is pretty outrageous too. He even tries to say how peaceful and calm Bagdad was to citizens before America moved in. Now that's just stupid. He also talked about certain companies wanted to be used to put up a pipeline in Afganistan. However, that company dropped the contract a long time ago.
It just seems really amateurish and obvious.
Actually reminds me when Sean Hannity says the media is so liberal in one of his coast-to-coast radio diatribes.
Funny thing is, both accuse the exact same media of having bias, just opposite of their own point of view.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->'From Here to Eternity." Tora, Tora, Tora." "In Harm's Way." These are three films made about Pearl Harbor. There have been more than 20 films made about Pearl Harbor, and over 200 films made about World War II. These films inspire patriotism, courage, and nationalism. They tell us about the honor and bravery of the soldiers and the nation that supported them. Two and a half years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the world watched American forces fight on D-Day. Two and a half years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the world is watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Moore's film is the first major motion picture about Sept. 11, 2001. This bears repeating. When future generations look back on the Sept. 11 massacre, their first impression, through the medium of film, will be a work in which the president and the government are blamed for the attacks, and the soldiers who are protecting this country are defamed. Instead of a film version of Lisa Beamer's book, "Let's Roll," or Richard Picciotto's "Last Man Down," we are presented with this fallacy. How could this happen?
It would be a colossal insult to insinuate that Franklin D. Roosevelt or the U.S. government were in any way responsible for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the indignation of the men and women who lived during that period?
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is indicative of a nation that has become too apathetic, ignorant or deceived to face the enemy at the gate. America, where is your fury?
On Sept. 11, 2001, I stood across the Hudson River, watching the Twin Towers burn, knowing that if the plane had struck at 9:46 a.m. instead of 8:46 a.m., I would be dead. As a survivor and witness to the attack on the World Trade Center, I am more than insulted by this film. I am outraged. This film is based on conjecture, hearsay and propaganda. At a time when this country desperately needs to rally in support of our brave soldiers and our strong leaders, Moore is content to spread discord and divisiveness. The base of his argument is that the Bush administration had strong ties with the bin Laden family. However, sound facts are conspicuously absent from this "documentary."
The 9/11 commission did not indict President Bush. According to the report, the president's actions before, during and after the attacks are fully justified, including the military action in Iraq. The commission did not find a direct link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A similar commission in the 1940s would not have found a direct link between Hitler's Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor. In both instances, the threat was imminent; the president and the military acted decisively.
Could we have been more prepared for a terrorist attack on Sept. 10, 2001? Certainly. Could we have been more prepared for an attack on Dec. 6, 1941? Most definitely. In the weeks and months following Pearl Harbor, there were reports and criticisms that the government and military should have been more prepared. The difference is that the people of the nation did not waste a lot of time pointing fingers at each other. Rather, they unified and engaged the enemy head-on. I guess that is why we call them "The Greatest Generation." How will future generations refer to us?
So, how do we explain Moore's film to future generations? I wonder. More than that, I wonder how I would explain this film to Nancy D., Jerome N. or Heather H. I am sure you don't know their names, but their faces haunt me day and night. How would I explain to them that a film was made accusing the president and vilifying the soldiers, the same president and soldiers who are attempting to avenge their murders and protect other citizens. Moore has not only insulted the nation, he has insulted the victims of the terrorist attacks.
During his acceptance speech at the Oscars, Moore said, "Shame on you, Mr. Bush." Well, I say, "Shame on you, Michael Moore." Shame on everyone who supports this travesty of a film. Shame on a society that allows this sham of a film. You have weakened the nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If he can raise a single quibble about the <u>facts</u> in that film than go ahead, but disagreeing with those in power is fundamental to everything signifcant about the United States. If we lose the ability and the desire to disagree, to violently disagree, and to respect the people who do so, then there is no United States left to attack, and no terrorist attack could possibly make it any worse. Stating that we should avoid dissent because it causes "divisiveness" is the most vile traitorous thing a human being could possibly say.
i don't disagree for a second that America was founded by disagreeing men, by complainers, and that protest is a fundamental element of our country.
but the past four years have been no different than any other four years with a president in the white house. the public outcry and uninhibited, unabashed grasping for muck, dirt, SH_T regarding our current president has been astonishing, to say the least. i saw a picture of a poster on a telephone pole in Seattle that bears a picture of US military men among flag-draped coffins. the poster says something about Joining.. the Army or something. beneath the picture it says, "replacements needed."
during the vietnam era, people protested, sure.. but we had folks like Jimi Hendrix, making music.. people were f*ing each other like crazy, the world was about peace and love..
today, we have NONE of that. the only protest you hear is "bush is a moron." that can be said about more than a few presidents and mean the same thing.
so why NOW, and not at any other time, are people so desperate to make this man look BAD? why do people hate the US military? why do people not give half a s* that so many americans died on sept. 11th? why can't people see the logic in meeting the enemy at THEIR doorstep, and not ours??
the death ratio in the united states as of 911 is USA 19, Terrorism a thousand something.
i am truly saddened that this doesn't mean a damn thing to people anymore.
America is a fighting country. we bring the fight to the enemy, ESPECIALLY if we are attacked first. when.. where.. WHO changed that? WHAT is different?